I had a look and MN does have a policy. It does give some basic principles about what MN stands for, but not a lot of guidance on which companies and sectors are in or out and why:
"Mumsnet is akin to a social enterprise. Though the site is a business and we hope to be a profitable one, our overarching aim is not the pursuit of profits. We manage Mumsnet with the aim of serving our community as much as serving our shareholders and we endeavour to conduct business in an ethical manner.
With this in mind, Mumsnet supports the WHO/UNICEF International Code on the Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and we do not accept advertising from a number of companies including Nestle and McDonald's, and for a number of products, such as formula milk and cosmetic surgery, that we believe do not sit well with our philosophy - namely to make parents' lives easier."
I think it is great that MN is consulting on this issue. The sitea new kind of business that co-creates value with its users, and like Facebook etc.. will need to work out a new basis of consultation and accountability, that goes beyond the basic decide-and-defend approach of traditional businesses.
I agree with Eleison - having got a fair ammount of feedback on a very short question on the McDonald's question as posed, it would be good if MNHQ now puts some more of its cards on the table about what the the actual decision making process they are consulting about is (as far as they can within the bounds of commercial confidentiality). For example;
- are McDonald's looking to advertise on Mumsnet (and is it a product promotion or an effort to respond on the issues.)
- Is this about a stream of advertising - i.e. a contract with an online advertising agency to sell space on MN
- Is it about changing and upgrading the current policy and making it more robust?
Whatever the catalyst for this discussion, maybe it is time to review the policy (perhaps together with how and why MN chooses particular campaigns, and the extent to which MN can and should claim to speak for members in the media).
I am not sure that 'making parents lives easier' captures the full basis of what MN is about in its campaigning and ethical stance - surely there should be something there about making 'children's lives better' (...and all the difficult ethical dilemmas that that involves - which form the basis of most of the most heated debates here)
McDonald's does often make parents lives easer as it is a non-snooty, convienient, cheap, easy place for a meal (also IME for breastfeeding, going to the loo, changing nappies..). Others would argue it makes parents lives harder because of the pester power factor.
But a lot of the pro- anti- Mcdonalds debate is about impacts on children's health through obesity. Causes of obesity of course go beyond McDonalds to other fast food, supermarkets, playing fields, PE, road safety, cycling, walking etc.... I would argue that children's issues are within the scope of what MN should stand for and against. But if MN wants to do something serious on childhood obesity it needs to be a serious campaign strategy, not a tokenistic ban on McDonalds.
And then there are the questions that go beyond parenting - rainforests, animal welfare, employment conditions, capitalism etc.. I guess that MN shouldn't be expected to have a consistent viewpoint on these things, given the huge variety of people and views here... other than to say that companies should be open and responsive to stakeholders on these issues...
(...which is why I would be generally OK with a McDonalds link to an information/debate type site, but think a 'two-all-beef-patties-special-sauce-lettuce-cheese-pickles-onions-on-a-sesame-seed-bun'type advert would probably be a bad idea both for MN and for Ronald McDonald.)