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

On the last thread people were reporting the opening post to get Mumsnet’s attention, but I don’t know if we should do that again, I think that one of the reasons they gave for the thread being taken down to be looked at was because of the high numbers of reports and that in turn meant that when it came back up it was blocked from Active.

What do we do if they continue to ignore the thread? I don’t want to de-register because that leaves all my posts up for them to use and I would have no way to keep on top of or engage with this here.

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.

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'm not sure i believe she'll not have been doing whatever she'd already planned for the bank holiday. Sadly, I distrust them (her) enough to suspect this is barely on the radar at all, and she'll be surprised to see "these people" still talking about it today.

I know what you mean betters (can’t believe the user name!) but I’m not feeling good about providing them with any more content until this is cleared up.

It’s really shocking, and I hope they can’t just cover this up. Standards and guidelines are there for a reason. Consumers must be protected

I hope nobody gets fired for following orders

We wouldn't believe anything they say at this point.

Justine must have had a shit weekend,and someone's hopefully getting fired...

Whatever MNHQ come back with, the reality is that they have been manipulating reviews for years in order to mislead MN members and profit from that model.

We understand the need to monetise on a site like this one, but to do it in such an underhand way, in a cost of living crisis, with families unable to make ends meet, on the very website where women gather for support and solidarity is truly unethical.

Then to come onto the previous thread and STILL fail to be candid and honest at that stage? Is it really too much to expect a bit of integrity these days?

My hope is that they are getting some robust legal advice and also doing some soul searching. Because irrespective of the legalities (and I expect this was not legal, or if they find a loophole then the law needs bolstering) there is a clear moral failing here.

The lack of response just cements this for me.

I will carry on using mumsnet because it’s light relief but I will completely ignore any and ALL recommendations, promotions or campaigns (no matter how earnest) associated with Mumsnet.

Still no response then. Hmmm.

I’m still waiting for a reply to an email I sent last December so maybe give them a year or so

🤩

<peers in for MNHQ update>
<closes door quietly>
<searches MN recommendations for shovels, cement and patio>

Of course online reviews are for the most part useless. I think its very clear that none of us are pillocks and have been on the internet longer than last week. But I have never before had reason to suspect that the content I provided had been extracted, edited and misappropriated deliberately for the financial gain of the host. That’s where this has crossed the line.

No, that’s not the case.

On the one hand: Mumsnet user says “I recommend this specific item” and Mumsnet uses those words in a Swears By article endorsing that specific item. in this scenario we accept MN is entitled to use our words, it’s part of the Terms of Service, we accept that they monetise our words for any affiliate link, advertising revenue etc

On the other hand: @Wondermoomin says in 2017 that she has a pop up gazebo (no brand specified) and it is good. In 2025 MN uses that quote to advertise a specific gazebo, falsely implying that the Moomin recommends that specific gazebo in breach of ASA rules about misleading advertising. MN apologises but says this sort of thing is an isolated incident. Turns out it is not an isolated incident and has been done on countless occasions. MN then hides the Moomin’s thread by “taking it down to have a look at it”, then reinstates it but hides it from Active, and meanwhile goes on a massive editing spree of more than a hundred Swears By articles (including ones relating to Black Friday 2024, where there would seem to be no reason to edit those unless it was to remove evidence that they have misused quotes from users repeatedly in the past).

Can you see the difference between those two scenarios?

The business of online reviews is so shady in general and I'm surprised to see that Mumsnet has stooped to that level. Clearly I'm just naive, one more reason to never take any online recommendations into account, they are all doctored.

I wonder how many Classics nominations it will receive 🤔 don't hold your breath I'd say!

I nominated the previous thread for classics.

This is the response I've had today:-

We will certainly pass on your nomination, thanks!
Best,
Hope
MNHQ

I won't hold my breath 🤣

There are now two substantial threads - if you read them you will see that this is not about us being sold, but rather us being both the instrument and the target of misselling. The misrepresentation of MNers’ words to induce other MNers to make purchasing decisions is not something any of us would reasonably expect.

Really surprised there's been no response from MNHQ yet.

Surely none of this should come as a surprise, don't we all know that we are the product being sold?!

Commenting to keep it trending/active