Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed

291 replies

Wondermoomin · 05/05/2025 17:36

Welcome to part 2. The quote I’ve added in the title is actually a generic quote about MNHQ not specifically about product recommendations, but it’s very eloquent and quotable.

Here is part one: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5326652-mn-have-used-my-quote-to-promote-a-product-ive-never-bought

And here’s a brief summary so far:

  • MN were caught out, allegedly acting in breach of ASA guidelines among other things
  • The thread was temporarily hidden
  • MN then provided a few explanation posts saying that this was a one-off cock-up and sorry that we MNers were confused
  • Then we were told that in 99% of cases, the quotes refer to the specific products being featured; in a tiny minority, they are referring to a generic product category and will make that clearer
  • Several users easily discovered multiple other examples, suggesting that it wasn’t just 1% of cases, or a one-off cock-up
  • MN went on an editing spree of their swears by/recommendations sections (editing about 64 out of 75 things), also suggesting it’s not just 1% or an isolated cock-up
  • The thread largely disappeared from active and trending, suggesting it’s been suppressed
  • MN says it hasn’t been suppressed, threads appear in active based on popularity and how new they are
  • Another MN source shows that they do sometimes remove threads from active to give them a chance to “calm down”

Please feel free to use this thread to capture any other examples you find, to update on anything you hear back from ASA, to provide your own professional or common sense input.

If you don’t agree, it’s probably not the thread for you so please feel free to pass on by! An issue doesn’t have to be the most pressing matter of our times to be important, and I think it’s important that trusted brands don’t mislead consumers.

MN have used my quote to promote a product I’ve never bought 🤔 | Mumsnet

AIBU to expect MN recommendations, where they quote a poster/member, to be genuine? I like being able to rely on recommendations in MN swears by...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5326652-mn-have-used-my-quote-to-promote-a-product-ive-never-bought

OP posts:
Thread gallery
24
Zonder · 29/05/2025 22:32

So it continues! Nothing has changed, has it?

Wondermoomin · 29/05/2025 20:54

In other “news”, ASA are considering my complaint. I’m sure others are getting the same emails on roughly the same timing that I am.

OP posts:
Wondermoomin · 29/05/2025 20:53

Oh Mumsnet 🤦🏻‍♀️

Instead of taking a product with multiple mentions on that thread, they’ve taken one that says “Elizabeth Arden” and presumed that the poster must have meant Estee Lauder advanced repair serum.

It probably was meant to be Estée Lauder, but Elizabeth Arden have a product with “advanced… renewal” in the name so it’s not certain. I wonder why they didn’t use the more frequently mentioned Nivea example from the thread. 🤔 💰

Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed
OP posts:
Shynapple · 25/05/2025 22:09

Idioticwoman · 25/05/2025 21:50

Apparently this week mumsnetters have been buying these shoes according to the newsletter I’ve just received

https://www.clarks.com/en-gb/Martine-Rose-Heel-Womens/26183327-p?source=aw&cm_mmc=AFLT--awin--78888-_-na1&utm_source=awin&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=Skimlinks&utm_id=78888&utm_content=Skimlinks&sv1=affiliate&sv_campaign_id=78888&awc=2515_1748205910_49e72a2175c949b4d5340e0e9258a7c8

actually there was a thread on style and beauty where 99% of posters said these shoes were god awful ugly
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5336839-clarks-wtaf

Are they taking the piss ?
Are they just scraping for what’s getting maximum clicks on the site?!

This is unbelievable!

I just checked the email and the shoes appear under the heading "What Mumsnetters have been buying" when in order to be accurate it would make more sense to use "What Mumsnetters have been ridiculing"

Don't think anything else will shock me at this point.

Tryingtokeepgoing · 25/05/2025 22:07

It definitely has to be worth letting Clark’s know that they’re being dragged into this…

Hamandpineapplepizza · 25/05/2025 21:58

Yeah I think they are trolling us now Grin

Noone could actually like those unless they were being paid to

TURNYOURCAPSLOCKOFF · 22/05/2025 18:31

Flicitytricity · 22/05/2025 17:07

I know it's a separate issue, but THREE posts, one after the other on my feed of Mumsnet promoting Haven as the best thing ever!
Wonder how much of Havens advertising budget went on that😏
I'm cynical by nature anyway, but this recent episode has disgusted me.

It's funny, because it's usually Butlins that MNers like.

Flicitytricity · 22/05/2025 17:07

I know it's a separate issue, but THREE posts, one after the other on my feed of Mumsnet promoting Haven as the best thing ever!
Wonder how much of Havens advertising budget went on that😏
I'm cynical by nature anyway, but this recent episode has disgusted me.

Hamandpineapplepizza · 22/05/2025 09:05

I feel like a fool because I remember being asked in surveys by MN whether I trusted the "swears by" brand and saying I "strongly agreed". I expect their survey answers would be very different now

deeahgwitch · 22/05/2025 08:51

I too will never bother with Mumsnet Recommends.

Zippedydodah · 22/05/2025 08:06

I think @JustineMumsnet is hoping everyone will put up and shut up so it will all go back to being rosy 🙄
I will never use Mumsnet Recomends.

Catchame · 22/05/2025 00:37

I haven't clicked on a single 'recommendation' of any kind since this debacle, nor will I going forward.

I've clicked through links and bought stuff via MN for almost 18 years - no more. I'm appalled at MN's conduct here, and the trust is completely gone.

Hamandpineapplepizza · 21/05/2025 07:26

TURNYOURCAPSLOCKOFF · 21/05/2025 07:00

Because those companies haven't asked to be promoted for a fee.

Quite.

TURNYOURCAPSLOCKOFF · 21/05/2025 07:00

Hamandpineapplepizza · 20/05/2025 21:53

Oh @JustineMumsnet that's a poor effort isn't it! It's the same dubious concept just slightly watered down.

The weird thing is, there are heaps of products that mumsnetters do rave about on threads. Why not focus on those?

Because those companies haven't asked to be promoted for a fee.

Tryingtokeepgoing · 20/05/2025 21:58

Hamandpineapplepizza · 20/05/2025 21:53

Oh @JustineMumsnet that's a poor effort isn't it! It's the same dubious concept just slightly watered down.

The weird thing is, there are heaps of products that mumsnetters do rave about on threads. Why not focus on those?

Because the makers of products that people actually rave about sell based on genuine reviews from actual users of the product or service on trust pilot/amazon/google or whatever platform, and don’t need to advertise ;)

Hamandpineapplepizza · 20/05/2025 21:53

financialmuddle · 20/05/2025 18:51

So MN are having a fresh stab at this:

Mumsnet picks: what we're loving in May

The original quote that opened up this can of world was eight years old, would you expect them still to be diving back four years to provide MNer quotes for ads? See the Aspinall Mayfair bag ad, attached.

And a very tenuous 'recommendation' for a DM sandal.

https://www.mumsnet.com/articles/mumsnet-picks-may

Edited

Oh @JustineMumsnet that's a poor effort isn't it! It's the same dubious concept just slightly watered down.

The weird thing is, there are heaps of products that mumsnetters do rave about on threads. Why not focus on those?

Tryingtokeepgoing · 20/05/2025 21:49

I have had the same reply now as well, within the 28 days I was advised it might take to respond.

And helpfully MNHQ is providing fresh evidence for us to attach to our complaints. It also occurs to me that the advertisers might like a link to this and the earlier thread…as I’m not sure they’ll be happy they are spending money on made up reviews of their products. Perhaps they’ll take their legal obligations more seriously than MN and hit them where it will really hurt…their pockets ☺️

financialmuddle · 20/05/2025 21:18

MNPopcornMonitor · 20/05/2025 21:12

They have learned to fudge the concept, so that these “picks” are either things that MNers are loving or things that MN Towers are loving. So that when you point out that nobody has raved about whatever-it-is on these boards for years, they can say “oh but we were just spontaneously gushing about it over the Kentish Town water-cooler this morning!”.

And who is to say that they are not all totally thrilled by the idea of a comfy-but-clumpy sandal for summer 2025? Thank goodness for that lukewarm recommendation from a Mumsnetter.

Edited

They have fudged it, but they've also gone further than that, as can be seen with the Aspinall handbag.

Serriadh · 20/05/2025 21:17

Maybe Justine meant their governance/compliance is lax and rushed? Perhaps “an intern” came up with the ideal of falsifying adverts and whoever signed off on it only gave it a glance, saw £££, and thought yeah that’ll do, the silly cows who read this s(h)ite will never notice.

MNPopcornMonitor · 20/05/2025 21:12

They have learned to fudge the concept, so that these “picks” are either things that MNers are loving or things that MN Towers are loving. So that when you point out that nobody has raved about whatever-it-is on these boards for years, they can say “oh but we were just spontaneously gushing about it over the Kentish Town water-cooler this morning!”.

And who is to say that they are not all totally thrilled by the idea of a comfy-but-clumpy sandal for summer 2025? Thank goodness for that lukewarm recommendation from a Mumsnetter.

financialmuddle · 20/05/2025 20:34

Spies · 20/05/2025 19:25

So they've learnt very little it seems?

At the mo clearly has a different meaning at MN towers...

Yes. As does “this summer”. They really don’t give a flying fuck.

Spies · 20/05/2025 19:25

financialmuddle · 20/05/2025 18:51

So MN are having a fresh stab at this:

Mumsnet picks: what we're loving in May

The original quote that opened up this can of world was eight years old, would you expect them still to be diving back four years to provide MNer quotes for ads? See the Aspinall Mayfair bag ad, attached.

And a very tenuous 'recommendation' for a DM sandal.

https://www.mumsnet.com/articles/mumsnet-picks-may

Edited

So they've learnt very little it seems?

At the mo clearly has a different meaning at MN towers...

financialmuddle · 20/05/2025 19:14

Typo: May 2021.

financialmuddle · 20/05/2025 19:06

It very much seems to be MN finding quotes to fit an advertising request, rather than being inspired by what members are actually recommending this month. The claim “we've found a few new favourites we feel are worth sharing” isn’t quite accurate.

‘Aspinal of London are asking "Which Mayfair is yours?" at the mo…’
[my emphasis]

“What we’re loving in May”, but it’s May 2001.

Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed
Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed