McDonalds Ads - tell us how do you feel about them folks?

I see we've gone up to a million members again, according to the blurb about Justine, in that page linked by Eleison.

that should read "what has changed" ....

In that case, why the statement regarding Nestle, McDonalds and cosmetic surgery on your "About us" page? What had changed?

Thanks Justine for coming back and giving us a bit more background on the decision making process you are going through.

For what it is worth I think it is that 2-way conversation and not holding scientifically-representative survey that makes for a good consultation.

Talking this issue over on the forum is perfectly in keeping with how MN'ers interact, and has allowed you to take the temperature of opinion and let people with strong and not so strong opinions to have their say and hear others. What more can you ask..

After that its up to you, this not being a democracy and all. I guess it comes down to a business decision about the MN Brand. I think the strongest argument against at this point is oneofsuesylvesterscheerios 's that it would undermine MN's unique selling point that, despite some limited advertisements this place does stand out amongst the Bounty, baby mags, NetMums, Cow&Gate marketing bumf that you get when you have a new marketing opportunity baby, as a place that is 'less commercial' and more of a community.

Whatever you do I do think you will need to review the overall policy a bit, although it doesn't need to be etched in stone and can always come back for a bit more argy bargy discussion.

I think getting controversial companies onto MN for a webchat is great (have you had Nestle?)

Justine could you answer my question and glasnost's further on down.

Not getting at you but fear they may have been overlooked,I've posted a lot .

Mila, that was my point I think. The people complaining about the process are really complaining because they don't like the result. Unless they were 'wondering' like BIWI which is different . It's fair enough to be pissed off about the result if its something you feel strongly about, but this is how MNet has always done consultations.

Fucking Hell, its just McDonalds.

Go for it.

Why do you need our permission?, its your site.

oh, not you personally. To the extent that it is a 'database' for advertisers, politicians, etc, it functions as a focus group? Refining their perception of what we want them to be? That educates the stance they take when they speak to us on webchats etc, and in the media. Some talk threads serve that function more than others, and I guess this is an example of a thread that advertisers will look at closely. Etc etc.

Have had enough of being a pita now so will piss off.

Or maybe that's what is really for

Told you, Justine, you need that 'can't win' emoticon!

I'm not complaining - I was wondering ...

Perhaps there would have been complaints about the process if the argument against The Baby Show or indeed Nestle hadn't gone down that route?

Polls are self-selecting too though unless it's a weighted survey, which costs £££. Talk threads have always been used by MNHQ for this stuff.

Anyone else remember when we used an MNHQ talk thread to let Justine know we didn't want to her to take MN to the Baby Show because it's organizers also organized arms fairs? DOn't remember people complaining about the process then!

This is interesting..

1)Have to admit to being pleased that you asked.My vote would be a no - I don't want to see McDonalds advertising on here, but would accept the majority rule.

2)I was of the understanding that by not allowing certain adverts, the ones allowed were then (in some small way) sanctioned by MHHQ, or were certainly there to appeal to the particular audience.

HTH

Thought for one ghastly second you told me to piss off then, JM. [horror]

I do appreciate very much a lot of what you have done. I just fear the transition suggested bt Slim, from authentic voice of mothers to mothers, to projected processed voice of "valuable database" selling women's thoughts back to them. It seems inevitable, though. Perhaps it was never possible that it wouldn't happen.

my five cents worth...

McDonalds are a distinctly unethical company who are heavily involved in the deforestation of the rainforests.

but... so many multi-nationals are also guilty of this and other equally abhorrent working practices - e.g coca cola re-routing water supplies.

not sure where MN would draw the line if ethics were the reason for declining their sponsorship.

the food is gross and i never eat there. i wouldn't want their money in my business either and I tend to lose respect for companies that do associate with brands like McDonalds.

Never even notice the ads and couldn't say who does and doesn't advertise on here. Anyway this is a site for mums, not kids and I don't think there's one of us that would be swayed by an ad on here or not for McD's. It's not like they're not on every high street and we/our grots don't know about them. 2 out my 4 DCs can't stand the 'food' in there anyway. Don't give a stuff...

Sorry but you still haven't said why you're prepared to alienate so many thinking mums by running these ad's when you could just as easily take another company's cash.

Surely you could just send a round robin e-mail poll then you would know everybody had seen it,a link could get missed.

Would be interesting to see the results and very sad if the majority simply don't care.

Personally I still think an element of integrity is needed,you may not care but that doesn't mean it's right to run a McD ad on a parenting site.

Whilst I think the discussion has been interesting, perhaps you could now do a poll? Post a link on the site to the survey.

That will then give you 'proper' statistics.

You could also publicise the poll in the round-up, or parenting news, or the other ways that you regularly communicate with MNetters.

Baring in mind that it's parents who provide children's food and in the vast majority of cases play a huge part in child obesity.