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
GasperyJacquesRoberts · 07/05/2025 09:13

Who among us hasn't made a potentially illegal mistake while being rushed and lax? And then made exactly the same "mistake" again and again and again over years to the extent that a casual observer may very well conclude it was absolutely deliberate and routine?

Abject amateurism and outright greed. Not a good combination in a business.

MNSupremeDeity · 07/05/2025 08:49

Stubtoe · 07/05/2025 08:48

Can you screenshot because not once have I seen it

I see it in active, near the top

Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed
Stubtoe · 07/05/2025 08:48

Seeline · 07/05/2025 08:47

I found it in Active yesterday, and it's still appearing this morning for me.

Can you screenshot because not once have I seen it

Seeline · 07/05/2025 08:47

I found it in Active yesterday, and it's still appearing this morning for me.

AnneKipankitoo · 07/05/2025 08:43

Not RTFT .
I thought MN had jumped the shark before but jeez it is Shark Hurdles World Record position that has just been broken.

kittensinthekitchen · 07/05/2025 08:39

Yes, it appears so 🙄

kittensinthekitchen · 07/05/2025 08:39

Is this thread now by hidden from Active?

Ridingthespringwave · 07/05/2025 08:28

NamechangeforLCJ · 07/05/2025 08:23

Who can tell, but I got this ad over the weekend. Rodial, with a MN specific offer code.

Well, exactly. Which utterly blurs any line that might exist in anyone’s mind between outright advertising and ‘editorial’ MN Swears By. We can’t know now how often MN had ads running at the same time as random brands were ‘recommended’ but it really does beggar belief to suggest that there is no financial incentive to select these products for editorial recommendation.

Unless I’m confused over Justine’s use of editorial here.

TURNYOURCAPSLOCKOFF · 07/05/2025 08:24

violetqueen6 · 07/05/2025 08:11

I'm glad this is in Active.
But we shouldn't be surprised , as said by others MN is not 3 mums sitting round the kitchen table and asking their teenage offspring for tech. support.
Or perhaps it is !!

Lol, it's definitely a £multi million company!

NamechangeforLCJ · 07/05/2025 08:23

Ridingthespringwave · 07/05/2025 08:04

This is what I can’t work out from what Justine’s statements have said. Take the Rodial. It’s not a new product, nor is it one that any MNetters have said anything about for years. Why suddenly decide to run something about it this week unless approached by the company?

Who can tell, but I got this ad over the weekend. Rodial, with a MN specific offer code.

Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed
Stubtoe · 07/05/2025 08:16

violetqueen6 · 07/05/2025 08:11

I'm glad this is in Active.
But we shouldn't be surprised , as said by others MN is not 3 mums sitting round the kitchen table and asking their teenage offspring for tech. support.
Or perhaps it is !!

It has not once appeared on actives as far as I can tell

violetqueen6 · 07/05/2025 08:11

I'm glad this is in Active.
But we shouldn't be surprised , as said by others MN is not 3 mums sitting round the kitchen table and asking their teenage offspring for tech. support.
Or perhaps it is !!

Newbutoldfather · 07/05/2025 08:09

I think Justine’s latest message was carefully crafted after having taken advice from a professional PR agency. It is good as far as it goes but:

1/ What will be the process used in the future for MN Swearsby?

2/ How are you going to compensate people who bought products which were missold?

3/ Have you reported yourselves to the relevant regulatory organisation, offered to pay a fine and work with them going forward?

4/ Will you submit a press release apologising for your site’s misselling or, at the very least, have a message pinned at the top of ‘active’ with an apology to the members of your site?

So far, the reply, albeit more conciliatory and better written, is not in any sense making up for the damage done. You have profited by misselling; that is not a trivial misdemeanour.

Stubtoe · 07/05/2025 08:09

user1471538275 · 07/05/2025 08:03

Give it a rest will you. Classics my left nipple.

Out of interest, what drew you to the thread? Was it on actives?

Hamandpineapplepizza · 07/05/2025 08:07

user1471538275 · 07/05/2025 08:03

Give it a rest will you. Classics my left nipple.

Morning Justine Grin

Ridingthespringwave · 07/05/2025 08:04

TURNYOURCAPSLOCKOFF · 07/05/2025 07:49

Hmm, so how are SWEARS BY products selected?

MNHQ claim the companies "never pay" for this, (except they actually do, in the form of commission...)

So what is the process?

MN: Find a product and go "oh hey GazeboKing, we fancy promoting you, will give us 10% of sales though our link?"
GK: sure thing!!!
MN: great... We'll find a random comment of the product, oh...wait not a single person has ever mentioned GazeboKing... let's find a similar product and put their comments in "I love this gazebo from Homebase it's so handy, light and brilliant".
MNer: ooooh... That's good, I've been after a gazebo, and looks like other MNers swear by it, they think it's great too... Soend spend spend....!

GK: oh wow MN, thanks!! We got a bazillion gazebos sold, here's your commission...

MN: mwhahahahhaah

Or is ir actually...
GazeboKing emails MN Swears By team, going heeeyyyyy, will you promote the GazeboMaster 9000? We'll give you 20% commission...
Which rather actually is a company paying for their place in Swears By (as is the other method...)

I can't see how any method is then not paying for a place I. swears by.

Edited

This is what I can’t work out from what Justine’s statements have said. Take the Rodial. It’s not a new product, nor is it one that any MNetters have said anything about for years. Why suddenly decide to run something about it this week unless approached by the company?

Stubtoe · 07/05/2025 08:04

user1471538275 · 07/05/2025 08:03

Give it a rest will you. Classics my left nipple.

🤢

user1471538275 · 07/05/2025 08:03

Give it a rest will you. Classics my left nipple.

Stubtoe · 07/05/2025 08:01

I wonder if any of the advertisers involved in this… are aware of this thread?

PolarQueen · 07/05/2025 07:58

I think we all know what was happening and how, not only illegal (as far as the Advertising Standards go) but also massively letting down every single person who believed and trusted MN. That trust I think sadly, and I genuinely mean sadly, has now gone.

I don't think she was ever going to admit what they did as any admission of guilt would lead all sorts of sanctions and so she has to waffle around it hoping to provide as much damage limitation was possible.

Trust these days, particularly online, is such a rare commodity and really sadly MN has destroyed theirs to, what seems like a large number of people.

Stubtoe · 07/05/2025 07:58

Because this has been ongoing for many years… that would have involved a number of staff, who have handed over to newbies and explained the deceit.

This will be a top down approved, actually encouraged, strategy

Hamandpineapplepizza · 07/05/2025 07:57

PsychoHotSauce · 07/05/2025 06:46

Posted the pics again for comparison. I haven't even been following the thread that closely, but this one shocked me. If MN seriously thinks this is okay, where's the line? You can effectively take my very post I'm writing now and change it to say whatever you like, and present your edited version so it looks like the original post - the same format and layout and everything. You're not just being creative with text quotes within an article. This is manipulated to look like a screenshot of a raw post. It's unacceptable.

Wow, yes, they have removed a word that alters the meaning fundamentally , but then made it look like a screenshot.

That's not rushed or lax that's deliberate and painstaking

Stubtoe · 07/05/2025 07:55

For “lax and rushed”

I see

“intentional and methodical” in our deceit

WhingeInTheWillows · 07/05/2025 07:55

The odd mistake over a long period of time could be lax and rushed. Many mistakes over a short period of time would seem deliberate.

Hamandpineapplepizza · 07/05/2025 07:54

wandawaves · 07/05/2025 01:46

"...we’ve been both lax and rushed..."

Actually @JustineMumsnet , wouldn't you say it's the opposite? Searching the site for vaguely relevant quotes, searching back for years, then editing a quote to make it sound like something that it's not.... that actually sounds like a rather purposeful action, don't you think?

Exactly! Surely this takes a lot longer than the process implied by the "swears by" tag?

To me, swears by suggests Mumsnet spot that a product is being recommended by lots of mumsnetters, decide to give it a "swears by " label and then contact the company to discuss commission...

Whereas it seems to have happened the other way round, a company approaches and asks for the swears by slot, and then lots of creative hunting around (sometimes going back years) happens and then some creative editing if they still can't find a mumsnetter post that endorses the relevant product