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.

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.

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

🤩

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

Still no response then. Hmmm.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

I hope nobody gets fired for following orders

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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