Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

MNHQ want money from us

605 replies

JellySlice · 08/04/2020 15:26

Perhaps now is the time to tell MNHQ what we want from them.

eg
Relaxation of the anti-women censorship rules.
Reinstating banned respected posters like LangCleg.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
VitreousHumour · 10/04/2020 15:52

The truth is that I wish you could all take a step back and realise that a bit of gratitude might be in order. You have done so much nose-cutting. I understand why and I have the same impulses myself. But it's ultimately completely self-sabotaging. It's shit, I know.

Datun · 10/04/2020 15:49

There have been numerous threads along the lines of, came for the baby advice, stayed for the Feminism. This is one of the busiest boards on the site, and statistically, I believe, for every poster there are 12 lurkers.

Justine herself has deliberately gone public to say that she favours free speech, which is why she will not bow down to transactivists who deliberately target her revenue in order to shut down the speech that she is trying to platform.

I might have less scepticism over the success of transactivism on her advertisers, if the tide had not already turned in favour of women's rights, with both the Scottish and English government putting reforms on the back burner, legal precedents being set, and many, many people coming out in favour of free speech at universities and penalising those who disallow it. Justine nailed her colours firmly to the free speech mast right when it was unpopular to do it. Many more people have taken the same path, and if anything, she is falling behind the times in terms of openness.

Whatever happens, the optimum time to leverage advertisers has passed.

Mumsnet has at least 12 million unique users. That's a hell of a lot of women, many of whom post and read here.

Hardly a day goes by when I don't read about somebody, often an MP, or journalist, who mentions mumsnet as a source of information or their own. enlightenment.

It's the people who create the content here. That content can happen anywhere.

It's already proven to be massive, huge, unbelievable money maker and source of power.

WhatKatyDidNot · 10/04/2020 15:49

Is the anonymous authority you're appealing to socially constructed through discourse, Vitreous?

Asking for a friend.

GCAcademic · 10/04/2020 15:48

99.9%, indeed? You do seem to have an awful lot of statistics and backroom knowledge up your sleeve, Vitreous. The only possible way you could be so certain of such "facts" is if you were an employee of Mumsnet.

VitreousHumour · 10/04/2020 15:47

I've already indicated that I can't say. It's up to you to decide whether to cling to your over-reaching version of the current landscape, in which MN needs to court commercially valuable FWR users, or to listen to someone who sounds pretty confident about the impact that hosting debate has already had on MN and the necessity - even on purely selfish grounds - of being realistic about what the ultimate result might be. Ie MN is forced to close FWR or goes under altogether.

R0wantrees · 10/04/2020 15:44

But the fact is that MN has been wounded, possibly critically, by their decision not to shut down this debate

Saying something is a fact does not make it so.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 10/04/2020 15:43

Indeed. "No debate" has failed, and a debate is now beginning to happen. In order for it to be useful clear communication is necessary, and that's exactly what the guidelines for this forum prevent. Whether or not they were intended to is a matter of, ironically, much debate.

R0wantrees · 10/04/2020 15:42

And 99.9% will turn around and go straight back to Twitter.

Source?

R0wantrees · 10/04/2020 15:41

That was during the period of the Westminster government's public consultation wasn't it Datun ?

WhatKatyDidNot · 10/04/2020 15:39

I've just read through the whole forty pages of the Site Stuff thread. Is that a virtual form of self harm?!

No. I won't be subscribing.

Primarily because - regardless of FWR and material reality versus the coalition of female socialisation and pomo headfuckery - you'd have to be a fool to trust personal financial data to a website with a record this bad on security.

But also because it is utter effrontery to ask your product to pay for the privilege of being your product without even so much as the ubiquitous two-for-one cinema tickets in return.

Would I contribute to a funding drive? Only if FWR were to be returned to operating on the same rules as all the other boards. It's a myth that Mumsnet is the only place allowing the critique of queer theory and the implications for women and children. This discussion is taking place everywhere now - Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Spinster, the comments section of every national newspaper except for the Guardian and more. In fact, Mumsnet is more censorious than most of these. It's way behind the curve.

Lots of words there. Tl;dr?

No.

VitreousHumour · 10/04/2020 15:39

HQ told us that entry to the whole site via this board was massive and had increased to 12 fold in just one year

And 99.9% will turn around and go straight back to Twitter. These entries are commercially meaningless.

Datun · 10/04/2020 15:35

HQ told us that entry to the whole site via this board was massive and had increased to 12 fold in just one year.

VitreousHumour · 10/04/2020 15:35

Ok, that's up to you. I'm trying to give you a heads up. You must realise that whenever MN speak on these matters, FWR users are not their only audience. They will not be able to be entirely frank on commercially sensitive issues , nor will they always wish to be. But the fact is that MN has been wounded, possibly critically, by their decision not to shut down this debate. There are very good reasons for other platforms choosing to do so.

R0wantrees · 10/04/2020 15:33

'DadTrans' who published a communication with unsubstatiated commentry had taken a position about/against 'Mumsnet' some time ago

8/4/2020 'DadTrans' twitter comments:

"Mumsnet is in financial trouble. According to their CEO its "squeaky bum time".

With less money floating about, advertisers are carrying out more due diligence, I expect those businesses which support anti-LGBT sentiment are more at risk. Mumsnet transphobia was bad business.

Birdseye money ran out in October 2018 #mumsnettransphobia" (continues)
twitter.com/DadTrans/status/1247965936981807105

Current thread re 'Pink News in Trouble'
"From the article:

Fifteen-year-old, London-based LGBT media publisher PinkNews faces the likely prospect of scrapping its largest event, the PinkNews Awards, scheduled to take place in October, according to CEO Benjamin Cohen.

The company earns 15% of its revenue from events — last year PinkNews brought in $2.3 million in revenue and made $450,000 in profit — but the sponsorship sales made from selling the awards at the start of the year provides important cash flow for the second and third quarters, he said. This year, however, not a single sponsor has come on board and typically typically the company would have received all of its sponsors by now."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3875830-Pink-News-in-trouble

Theflushedzebra · 10/04/2020 15:27

Are you going to explain why we should take your conjectures seriously then VitreousHumour?

MNHQ have told us the stats on threads before - so I think I'll take it from them, not you.

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 10/04/2020 15:25

Ok, not sure what happened to that quote, the bold went a bit bonkers!

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 10/04/2020 15:24

The claim about Birdseye withdrawing advertising due to alleged 'transphobia' was generated by TRAs. I dont think any evidence was ever produced to substatiate it

I never said anything about why they did or didn't withdraw though, did I?
I said they were losing big advertising names well before coronavirus was a thing.

VitreousHumour · 10/04/2020 15:22

Sorry VitreousHumour - you still haven't told us the source of your very confident analysis here.

No, I haven't.

R0wantrees · 10/04/2020 15:21

The claim about Birdseye withdrawing advertising due to alleged 'transphobia' was generated by TRAs. I dont think any evidence was ever produced to substatiate it.

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Tue 30-Apr-19 16:34:22
Hello all
Thought I'd provide some detail and our take on all of this.

We started working with Birdseye in March 2017 testing a number of products - they were awarded their first Mumsnet Rated badge in June 2017 which they renewed for a further 12 months ending this June. They've decided not to renew the licence when it expires but that isn't unusual and their view was that the activity had come to a natural end.

We are talking to Birdseye about commercial activity with a number of their other brands and have no reason to believe they have any ongoing concerns about working with Mumsnet.

It is true that a number of TRAs have targeted Mumsnet advertisers over the past year. Obviously we are able to point to our commitment to freedom of speech as well as to minority rights and civilised discussion with regard to this issue and we don't believe it's had a significant impact on advertising activity.
P7 from thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3571408-birdseye-no-longer-in-a-business-relationship-with-mumsnet-re-transphobia-unverified

'DadTrans' who published a communication with unsubstatiated commentry had taken a position about/against 'Mumsnet' some time ago:

twitter.com/DadTrans/status/914165853742075905

from October 2017thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3048350-Some-sort-of-campaign-being-organised-against-MN?pg=5

He seems quite well connected & had recent piece in the i :
'This is what it is really like to seek healthcare for your trans child
The media paints a picture of 'fast-tracked' services and easy access to hormones. The reality couldn't be more different'
inews.co.uk/opinion/trans-children-treatment-gids-hormones-blockers/

Pink News
"Former Labour leader Ed Miliband warned about a “moral panic” on transgender issues in the British press."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3233421-Home-Affairs-Committee-Hate-crime-enquiry-Newspaper-editors-interviewed

The background to the comment by Ed Milliband quoted at the Home Affairs hearing was discussed on a MN thread in November 2017

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3096513-to-let-you-know-how-men-use-the-Equality-Act-to-undermine-womens-spaces?pg=6

questions were asked by @ pisacake 25/11/17 21:50
with comment on what was believed to be a significant meeting with Ed Milliband prior to his statement:

"Those Miliband guests in full:
1. Helen Webberley - bonkers GP, not allowed to practise unsupervised, runs online trans clinic.
2. @ DadTrans - works for Mermaids
3. Paris Lees - trans rentaquote, invited to Mumsnet blogfest www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2775504-Why-is-Paris-Lees-speaking-at-Mumsnet-and-are-MN-seeking-Spartacus-tees
4. Miranda Kane - former dominatrix sex worker"

'Growing Up Transgender' blog:
"In November 2017, (@ DadTrans) was interviewed by Ed Miliband and Geoff Lloyd for their Reasons to be Cheerful Podcast.

The episode went on to jointly win broadcast of the year at the 2018 Pink News Awards

Receiving the award, ex-Labour leader Miliband joked: “This makes up for the general election in 2015.”
growinguptransgender.com/2019/04/15/trans-rights-are-human-rights-interview-with-ed-miliband/

Theflushedzebra · 10/04/2020 15:09

My bottom line is that yes, I would both like to, and am in a position to support Mumsnet financially - but I'm not giving them persona data, because of the Emma Healey thing. I felt at the time that this wasn't taken seriously enough - and how do we know there aren't more Emma Healeys at MNHQ?

R0wantrees · 10/04/2020 15:05

The bottom has dropped out of the advertising market, because of the coronavirus.

The subscription model was a planned roll-out anyway.

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 10/04/2020 15:05

The bottom has dropped out of the advertising market, because of the coronavirus

They lost a few big advertisers before coronavirus was even a thing though.
Flora was one, and I think Birds Eye used to be but aren't anymore?
That's two I can think of

Theflushedzebra · 10/04/2020 15:04

Sorry VitreousHumour - you still haven't told us the source of your very confident analysis here.

R0wantrees · 10/04/2020 15:03

Source?

Apologies, flushedzebra, I was asking Vitreous

R0wantrees · 10/04/2020 15:02

Source?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.