Mumsnet's integrity

[GetOrfMoiLand]

I was going to email MNHQ but thought a thread would be better.

There have been several threads in the last few months where mumsnetters have questioned how much mumsnet has changed recently. Evidently mumsnet is getting more popular, and I, along with several others, have bleated on about MNHQ decisions being 'different' in light of what has been seen to be a demographic change. There have certainly been mutterings about the fact that some mumsnetters think that MN is viewed as a money making business, and is not the cosy old forum of old, and I think Justine et al have been on the receiving end of a certain amount of criticism.

However, on the 'NOTW are scumbags' thread (or whatever it is called) there were several posts early on questioning MN advertising Sky. Within hours Justine confirmed that they had removed all Sky advertising, at a cost of £30K. Evidently this shows that MN still holds the views of its members in very high regard. And presumably £30K is quite a significant to wave bye-bye to for a business such as this.

Considering that big players such as Tesco etc were fudging about whether they would advertise in the NOTW (never mind the rest of News International, and other Rupert Murdoch owned media) I think that MN's stance on this is highly commendable, and my respect for the owners of this forum has increased hugely.

Yes, you could say that it is in MN's best interests to support the Guardian's stance (for personal reasons of the owners) however MN have put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, and that is, in this cynical age, something to admire.

Well done MN (hard to say that without sounding pompous)

i like MN and im sick to the fucking arse ring of people moaning about how its changed

things change move on or FUCK OFF

On a more serious note, I completely agree and applaud MNHQ

Hear, hear

But Custy, it just ain't the same. Don't you remember the good old MN days when you could leave your pages open without fear, when our DC could play merrily away while we MNed without the worry of paedos on street corners, and when ads on MN were for ha'penny sweets and 2s happy meals?

Them's were the days.

I agree with you actually custy despite me being one of those moaning to mumsnet in a clutching pearls type of way.

I will agree with you anyway because I think you are great (remember meeting you and drunkenly shouting 'custaaaaaaaardo')

Am a bit drunk now actually.

Hadn't realised HQ had taken this stance over SKY advertising, am very impressed. Thanks for highlighting it GetOrf.

OOOH I like the concept of 'I agree with getorf' badges.

That reminds me, I had a getorfmoiland badge at the meetup, and afterwards I pinned it to my laptop bag.

This prompted my daughter to say 'mum take that off or you will look like a twat'

On a serious note, quite a few large companies were having a fit of the vapours aboyr removing their advertising space from NOTW. Which would cost THEM money (contractually they would still have had to fork out for it but you see the point).

MN actually refused direct revenue by removing Sky advertising from here. And they weren't advertising NOTW - it was not the direct link, it was the indirect (so to speak) link to Murdoch which MN was so sensitive to move away from, which makes them even the more commendable.

I never understood tha macdonalds furore anyway, I bloody love big Macs.

Thanks folks for the vote of confidence Getorf and all. We are a business, and we've never tried to hide it, but profits are really not the be all and end all for us - we've always turned down advertisers and campaigns that don't fit with the mn philosophy or are too cheesy or annoying and we've always consulted over who those advertisers should be.

First and foremost we want/ wanted to make something useful and good. For a long time that process was distinctly unrewarding in a monetary sense and if we'd simply been after profits MN would have shut down long ago (we didn't earn a salary to speak of for 5 years). But it has always been hugely rewarding in other ways (most of the time anyway ).

The 30k+ loss in Sky revenue and any future loss in revenues is not insignificant but it will not break the bank. We are of sufficient size now to be able to forgo that without folding. I'll admit to being a bit concerned to be seen to be taking on the Murdoch empire - afaik MN is the only organisation to extend direct action to other Murdoch businesses - but that really only goes to show that it's probably the right thing to do.

Anyway cheers all - it's been a helluva journey thus far.

Hooray for Justine!

Yes it is a business but your product has to have integrity and be trusted, just like any other product. As soon as your customers don't like the product, you have a real problem on your hands, it is nearly impossible to win people back.

Slightly more cynically, I hope the high profile that MN have taken on this matter will have brought in more contributers / customers, thus raising more potential advertising revenue.

From a moral point of view, you did the right thing
From a business point of view, you did the right thing

Well done MN - it's really good to see someone putting their money where their mouth is!

My only complaint is the MN didn't take up DS's kind offer to fill the vacant space with an ad for his fledgling business, as he can't afford to advertise on MN - and you'd all love his product far more than Sky.

Wot everyone said

Completely agree with your GF

I am not buying The Times ever again and much as dh may want Sky in the new house, he aint getting it!

Well done MN