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

[Wondermoomin]

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.

Hope this one makes it to trending & active!

I'm sure literally no one on the previous thread will be surprised to learn I found my way to this thread via active threads.... 🤔

Gosh and with only 2 posts on it before yours @Spies

Placemarking for Justine’s return after the bank holiday

Yep funny how that works isn't it.

I literally saw your previous thread in active once over the whole bank holiday weekend no matter how busy it was or how often I posted on it and yet something tells me if I post this and go back to active it will mysteriously be at the top...

Pleased to report I found this in active.

I wonder if it will trend 🤔

And yep there it is, right at the top...

🍿

Definitely going into active in real time!

Following with interest. Wonder how long it will be Active?

I predict Becky

Thanks for the new thread.

None of us are stupid, we knew that there would be some financial benefit to MN promoting items in Swears By but I assumed they would see a recommendation by a poster and go to the company and say 'our member(s) liked your ABC and if you give us xyz % we will promote the item in our Swears By email which goes to this number of people.

I think what actually happens is XYZ company have some tat to get rid of, approach MN who search all the threads (going back up to 12 years) find someone who has ever mentioned a gazebo and link it to the item.

AND THEN LIE ABOUT DOING SO!

Trust is a very delicate thing and you, MN, have totally destroyed it for me.

Well that's quite some thread title!

Accurate though.

It’s a quote from another poster on the other thread. It’s actually about MNHQ in general, but that’s the same product category anyway.

Interested to join this very Active thread.

I hope that before this thread gets suppressed by admin, as many MNers as possible understand what's going on.

Anyone who has, for years, trusted 'Mumsnet Swears By... and either saved up or spent hard-earned family money on a vacuum, shoes, bloody gazebo...anything, thinking that fellow MNers had bought, used and recommended it, have been roundly swizzled.

It turns out that 'Mumsnet Swears By...' is a money-making work of fiction. We all get - despite Justine thinking that we're not bright enough to understand How Websites Make Money - that money must be generated.

The issue here is the deceit. The business model that MN have adopted here is reliant on dishonesty and misleading every MN member. It's very deliberate.

When this was raised, Justine - as the OP says - claimed it was a 'cock-up' and only affected 1% of the recommendations. That was very easily and swiftly proved to be untrue.

The messages from MNEditor and Justine herself can be read on the first thread - the one that MN is trying to suppress - judge for yourself whether you think there is a fundamental honesty issue here.

MNers have trusted this site for years, and the site owners have taken huge advantage of that relationship, opting for profit over integrity.

I honestly expect better - more fool me.

Place marking

Let’s time-travel back to 2012 to see what Swears By was meant to be about:

https://www.marketingweek.com/will-mumsnet-get-consumers-social-shopping/

The only potential problem will be that in order for this to be a genuine peer-to-peer experience, it will have to be tightly policed to ensure that it is established Mumsnetters recommending items, rather than cheeky marketers logging on without being regular forum users to try and push people to brands.

Very true…

Good find. That aged well.

Oh wow this whole thing has passed me by, I definitely haven’t seen the other thread at all and only clicked on this because I was intrigued by the thread title… off to read the other thread!

After this I won't ever buy a product that Mumsnet recommends. Not that they're bothered by that of course, but it makes me feel better!

I rely on honest reviews to purchase things. Money is very tight and I like to know it's well spent. I hate the idea of false reviews or companies purposely misleading consumers, which Mumsnet have done whether they admit to it or not.

No doubt we'll soon get a patronising 'Just popping our head round the door folks' type inane comment on this thread.

It seems very odd and - again - unprofessional to leave questions unanswered, presumably because it's a bank holiday weekend. I'm sure Justine & co are taking advice, but meanwhile the total silence is completely inadequate for a 24/7 forum.

I’ve just remembered about something I bought years ago based on MN Swears By. The item never arrived, so I left a review to that effect about the seller.

The seller tried to pressure me to remove my review as a condition of getting a refund. It was an inexpensive item, so I could afford to be principled and refuse to remove my review. I shouldn’t have had to risk my money as a result of a MN Swears By recommendation.

Probably should have been my first clue that all was not as it was meant to be, but at that point I just assumed I was unlucky and it was an isolated incident.