Page 7 | Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed

Wondermoomin · 2025-05-05T16:36:02+00:00

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 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.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 06/05/2025 22:45

RockyRogue1001 · 06/05/2025 22:11

That's a lovely post @JustineMumsnet
Will you consider my request to put the original post into classics? In order that other and future mners might be aware of this?
I'd also like this thread to be nominated for classics, please

Show quote history

I don't think of it as a classic if I'm honest RockyRogue.

FattyBumBumNoMore · 06/05/2025 22:29

JustineMumsnet · 06/05/2025 22:00

Hi all,

Thanks to everyone who raised concerns about the use of quotes in our recommendation emails and on-site content. You were right to question it, and I want to reiterate unequivocally: I’m sorry this happened. It’s clear that our editorial standards haven't been high enough.

Our intention has always been to offer genuine, helpful recommendations that we believe Mumsnet users will love. I don’t believe there was ever a deliberate intent to mislead - we’ve always linked user quotes to their original threads and haven’t hidden the context. But, having now reviewed this thoroughly, it’s clear that in some cases we’ve been both lax and rushed in how we've used quotes to support recommendations.

Initially, I thought these were isolated incidents. I was wrong. Your feedback — and our internal review — shows this has happened more than a few times. That’s not acceptable, and we’re taking it seriously.

We’ve already started a full audit of all editorial content — including every Swears By and product review article (over 600 in total) — to ensure that every user quote is directly relevant to the product being recommended. Where quotes don’t meet that bar, they’ll be removed. If a quote is still helpful — say, it relates to a brand’s overall reliability or a feature common across a category — we’ll make sure it’s clearly marked as such.

For transparency: we do earn affiliate commission on most of the products we recommend (typically somewhere between 5–10% across a category), but no brand can buy an editorial recommendation. Sponsored content is clearly labelled, and our Mumsnet Reviews are based on weeks of hands-on, independent testing by our in-house team.

Trust has always been at the heart of Mumsnet. We can’t undo these mistakes, but we can fix them and do better. Thank you again for pointing it out - it’s been more than a bit humbling but incredibly helpful.

Please provide @Wondermoomin with a personal apology. I was trying to imagine how I would feel in her shoes. The least I’d expect was someone at MN approaching me directly. Just common courtesy. Knowing she’s not had anyone contact her doesn’t sit right with me.

RockyRogue1001 · 06/05/2025 22:11

JustineMumsnet · 06/05/2025 22:00

Hi all,

Thanks to everyone who raised concerns about the use of quotes in our recommendation emails and on-site content. You were right to question it, and I want to reiterate unequivocally: I’m sorry this happened. It’s clear that our editorial standards haven't been high enough.

Our intention has always been to offer genuine, helpful recommendations that we believe Mumsnet users will love. I don’t believe there was ever a deliberate intent to mislead - we’ve always linked user quotes to their original threads and haven’t hidden the context. But, having now reviewed this thoroughly, it’s clear that in some cases we’ve been both lax and rushed in how we've used quotes to support recommendations.

Initially, I thought these were isolated incidents. I was wrong. Your feedback — and our internal review — shows this has happened more than a few times. That’s not acceptable, and we’re taking it seriously.

We’ve already started a full audit of all editorial content — including every Swears By and product review article (over 600 in total) — to ensure that every user quote is directly relevant to the product being recommended. Where quotes don’t meet that bar, they’ll be removed. If a quote is still helpful — say, it relates to a brand’s overall reliability or a feature common across a category — we’ll make sure it’s clearly marked as such.

For transparency: we do earn affiliate commission on most of the products we recommend (typically somewhere between 5–10% across a category), but no brand can buy an editorial recommendation. Sponsored content is clearly labelled, and our Mumsnet Reviews are based on weeks of hands-on, independent testing by our in-house team.

Trust has always been at the heart of Mumsnet. We can’t undo these mistakes, but we can fix them and do better. Thank you again for pointing it out - it’s been more than a bit humbling but incredibly helpful.

That's a lovely post @JustineMumsnet
Will you consider my request to put the original post into classics? In order that other and future mners might be aware of this?
I'd also like this thread to be nominated for classics, please

OdeToBarney · 06/05/2025 22:05

RockyRogue1001 · 06/05/2025 22:01

Horrible to be let down, isn't it@

There is form for mnhq banning, sadly

Show quote history

I know none of us have a right to be here, but it's just so shitty isn't it. And no way to run a business. Ugh

RockyRogue1001 · 06/05/2025 22:01

OdeToBarney · 06/05/2025 21:52

What would be the point in banning OP? Are they going to ban every other user that's caught them out too? The cat is well and truly out of the bag.

First they fail to protect their users from being exposed to child sexual abuse images and now they're caught out lying and manipulating users. Wtf happened MN?

Horrible to be let down, isn't it@

There is form for mnhq banning, sadly

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 06/05/2025 22:00

Hi all,

Thanks to everyone who raised concerns about the use of quotes in our recommendation emails and on-site content. You were right to question it, and I want to reiterate unequivocally: I’m sorry this happened. It’s clear that our editorial standards haven't been high enough.

Our intention has always been to offer genuine, helpful recommendations that we believe Mumsnet users will love. I don’t believe there was ever a deliberate intent to mislead - we’ve always linked user quotes to their original threads and haven’t hidden the context. But, having now reviewed this thoroughly, it’s clear that in some cases we’ve been both lax and rushed in how we've used quotes to support recommendations.

Initially, I thought these were isolated incidents. I was wrong. Your feedback — and our internal review — shows this has happened more than a few times. That’s not acceptable, and we’re taking it seriously.

We’ve already started a full audit of all editorial content — including every Swears By and product review article (over 600 in total) — to ensure that every user quote is directly relevant to the product being recommended. Where quotes don’t meet that bar, they’ll be removed. If a quote is still helpful — say, it relates to a brand’s overall reliability or a feature common across a category — we’ll make sure it’s clearly marked as such.

For transparency: we do earn affiliate commission on most of the products we recommend (typically somewhere between 5–10% across a category), but no brand can buy an editorial recommendation. Sponsored content is clearly labelled, and our Mumsnet Reviews are based on weeks of hands-on, independent testing by our in-house team.

Trust has always been at the heart of Mumsnet. We can’t undo these mistakes, but we can fix them and do better. Thank you again for pointing it out - it’s been more than a bit humbling but incredibly helpful.

Original poster

Wondermoomin · 06/05/2025 21:56

RockyRogue1001 · 06/05/2025 21:34

@Wondermoomin may I pm you?

Sure

OP posts:

OdeToBarney · 06/05/2025 21:52

What would be the point in banning OP? Are they going to ban every other user that's caught them out too? The cat is well and truly out of the bag.

First they fail to protect their users from being exposed to child sexual abuse images and now they're caught out lying and manipulating users. Wtf happened MN?

RockyRogue1001 · 06/05/2025 21:34

@Wondermoomin may I pm you?

RockyRogue1001 · 06/05/2025 21:33

Totally agree.

You're awesome btw ❤️💪💪💪

I REALLY hope they don't ban you (as a pp suggested)
That would be sooooo shoddy

Original poster

Wondermoomin · 06/05/2025 21:03

I think it’s good that Justine got involved and that she replied to a few of the questions.

Had it been true that it was a one-off or just 1% of cases, it could have been the end of the matter… but because the explanation doesn’t hold up, it’s not resolved.

Yes the editing spree might mean there’s nothing misleading still live on the site (good) - but what about MN’s integrity and trying to restore trust?

It’s impossible to do that while at the same time pretending it was just a single mistake, and then ignoring all the other “mistakes”.

I’m still hopeful that we’ll get a more considered response and an apology that doesn’t sound like “sorry you’re confused”.

OP posts:

RockyRogue1001 · 06/05/2025 20:10

I was actually quite impressed with justine on the first thread.
She apologised quite sincerely, and spent some time engaging with @Wondermoomin, answering her questions, etc.

Sadly, it quickly became evident she was massively minimising

Since them (5pm ish on a BH weekend) the silence has been deafening.
And that is very disappointing.

I am wondering if the usual mnhq responders (Becky, Hebe, et al) have been told NOT to comment because Justine's on it.
But she's since been MIA.

I also wonder as a couple of pp's have suggested, that they're hastily getting legal advice.
It does seem they've acted Illegally. Again from posters who say they work in legal or marketing

Zonder · 06/05/2025 20:01

Very true. But at least previously Justine and someone else did respond, as unsatisfactory as that was.

RockyRogue1001 · 06/05/2025 20:00

Zonder · 06/05/2025 19:57

So we have had a whole day since the bank holiday and absolutely no response from MN? I'm pretty surprised at that.

I wish I was, but looking at the summaries @Wondermoomin and others have put up on this thread and the last, there is a pattern of behaviour

Zonder · 06/05/2025 19:57

So we have had a whole day since the bank holiday and absolutely no response from MN? I'm pretty surprised at that.

RockyRogue1001 · 06/05/2025 18:20

claudiawinklemansfringetrimmer · 06/05/2025 15:42

It’s a shame because the concept of Mumsnet recommends seems like a win/win/win really- compile things that have been recommended on threads, bung them in an email with some affiliate links and a few quotes. Mumsnet makes money and we buy stuff that has a valid review behind it. I don’t get why you’d go to the bother of finding scarcely related reviews of similar items from 13 years ago unless there was a significant payoff from the company whose product you’re advertising

I suspect you've answered your own question there...

unless there was a significant payoff from the company whose product you’re advertising

Deckings · 06/05/2025 17:11

Good to know not to ever click on their recommendations again.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

HaveAGoWhyNot · 06/05/2025 17:06

MN gets v high ratings on Trustpilot. They actively encourage people to post positive stuff there. Must be important to them.

JaneJeffer · 06/05/2025 16:36

Catchame · 06/05/2025 16:10

Yes, this.

I guess MNHQ is hoping it will just blow over, or they have so little regard or respect for their members that they cannot be bothered to even acknowledge the concerns. Maybe a bit of both.

I've been on MN for the best part of 2 decades, and feel genuinely saddened by the dawning realisation that MN isn't any different than any other social-type media these days: grifty, shifty and hard-nosed.

Show quote history

I think that a lot of us who have been here for a long time have come to realise for one reason or another that we count for nothing as far as MN is concerned.

BrianaBlessed · 06/05/2025 16:35

This is shocking. As someone who works in marketing we all KNOW the rules. A company as big as this KNOW. This was purposeful deception

MNPopcornMonitor · 06/05/2025 16:22

While we're waiting - those who've complained to the ASA might wish to consider copying those complaints to the Competition and Markets Authority, as the regulator for the Digital Markets legislative regime.

www.gov.uk/guidance/tell-the-cma-about-a-competition-or-market-problem

AutumnFroglets · 06/05/2025 16:12

ANightwatcher · 06/05/2025 02:19

I just noticed a comment on the other thread about NW either not being identifiable or that anyone could claim to be a NWer

You can tell the real ones by the blue background we have when posting 😄

WOOT WOOT!!! You've finally got some colour to you! Congratulations

MNSupremeDeity · 06/05/2025 16:11

Even if MN ignores the thread, surely the ASA are going to be looking into this and that's a train that MNHQ can't stop? Or am I being naive to think that?

Catchame · 06/05/2025 16:10

Spies · 06/05/2025 15:53

To be honest even if they are getting legal advice it's pretty poor to not even come on and say we're aware of the situation and looking into it behind the scenes. The complete silence on the issue is pretty unforgivable.

Show quote history

Yes, this.

I guess MNHQ is hoping it will just blow over, or they have so little regard or respect for their members that they cannot be bothered to even acknowledge the concerns. Maybe a bit of both.

I've been on MN for the best part of 2 decades, and feel genuinely saddened by the dawning realisation that MN isn't any different than any other social-type media these days: grifty, shifty and hard-nosed.

MNPopcornMonitor · 06/05/2025 16:10

I agree @Spies. At least say: "we're listening, reading every post, and regret our hasty and inadequate response last week. We're investigating now and taking advice so that we can give this important issue the serious and considered response you all deserve".

Incidentally, I found the submission MN put in on the 2021 Government consultation which informed the 2024 Digital Markets legislation.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/39118/pdf/

It raised a lot of good points, especially around internet regulation not being so prescriptive that it shuts down valid discussion on controversial topics. I did notice, however, that in declaring MN to be a responsible host for user-generated content it focused on the manner in which MN polices us, its users.

Perhaps in future more care will be taken within MNHQ to self-police, to ensure that the rights and powers they claim from us under the Talk Guidelines are not abused, and above all to uphold legal, moral and ethical standards.