Oh Mumsnet you bunch of racketeers, you have upset Nick Cohen in the Spectator

[UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea]

Sorry if someone has already started a thread about this already.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2013/12/the-mumsnet-racketeers/

You wouldn't pay the poor man.

FWIW I think you were fair - you stated your policy, he was free to take it or leave it.

I'm going to stop offering free mental health advice/guidance and information.

I'm going to stop offering advice, guidance and information on plant and garden design.

I'm going to stop offering advice, guidance and information on health promotion.

I'm going to stop writing about MH unless they pay me for it (whether they can afford to or not). Sod those who might benefit from it.

All things I am a professional in. I expect to get paid from now on stamps my little foot instead of using my privileged position to further the profile of worthy causes/events and support others when invited to do so without any gain to myself other than the pleasure of doing good, gaining a higher profile in my chosen profession and publicity for what I choose to speak about.

Only I couldn't go through with it because hopefully I am not a self important prick.

Cohen has found another way to skin a cat, that's all.

Oh, that's a bit unfair. We all post on MN because we want to, for whatever reason. Its nice when others incidentally benefit, but we do it as a leisure activity, not as an expenditure of our professional time (unless you count wanton procrastination as an expenditure of professional time).

Cohen could post too -- perhaps he does do it, for all we, know, on MN or on other sites. That's very very different from being invited to attend HQ unpaid and have your real name used in association with whatever professional expertise you have to offer as a draw to get punters to click on the site. It would be daft to present ourselves as selfless and Cohen as less so for not wanting to do an unpaid webchat.

Most webchat guests are here as a promotional activity to gain exposure for a product (or, in the case of politicians, for a party) So Cohen is not at all far off the mark in expecting recompense. And I can't help thinking that by inviting a professional journalist to talk for free MNHQ are taking their own publicity machine a little too seriously or taking too seriously the immense flattery that must be flung their way by politicians etc who are keen to use MN as a broadcast medium. Webchats aren't the huge exercises in accountability and crowdsourced womanly wisdom that they are sold as. They are a quid pro quo. Why on earth would a journo with nothing to sell want to come onto one when, if he wanted just to discuss the issues, he could just chat anonymously on a normal thread -- as we all do so magnanimously for free.

Thanks for offering to clarify the sponsored nature of the Watch with Mumsnet thread SarahMumsnet but could it be clear in a way that retains salience even where the actual op isn't read i.e. in the topic name?

Can I ask, was MN already up and running with the Netflix advertising package, of which Watch with Mumsnet is a part, when HQ posted the thread asking site users for a good name for this TV discussion topic? No mention of the Netflix contract was made in HQ's request for a catchy topic name -- and in fact no sponsorship was clear from the OP: a lot of posters on the thread didn't understand why a duplicate TV topic was being created so they clearly hadn't twigged that it was to be a sponsored topic.

I imagine that the (brilliant) topic name Watch with Mumsnet is worth a lot to this Netflix deal and any subsequent TV topic sponsorship. I don't doubt that the person suggesting it will have been happy to have created something so commercially valuable for MN, but it really ought to have been clearer up front that it was commercial content that she was creating. If she had come up with it at an advertising company brainstorming session she'd have been given a raise on the spot!

It is that kind of blurring of commercial and community activity on MN that seems a bit troubling.

But there has been blurring on the chats too.

For example I post on the long running MNVogue threads, now on their 29th 'edition'. These threads are full of links to clothing/style recommendations, discussions about fashion and what we have bought/want to buy/think others should buy.

Readers do not know and have no way of knowing whether many of us are being bunged incentives to mention certain brands or gain other kick backs. That is not the case (as many of us know each other IRL or know of our RL identities) but that is by the by. We could be pretending to know each other.

The advertising that the companies mentioned on there is worth a hell of a lot of money and we know it has been noticed because there have been spam posts by companies drawing our attention to sales etc in the past.

The book threads are similar- plenty of links to Kindle Daily Deals. How do you know one or more of the posters are not involved in the business. Same with any other thread with links and recommendations.

Online it is impossible to separate the two. MNers are already blurring the lines and taking advantage of a free at point of use platform upon which to do so. We sometimes cross the line into complacent entitled arrogance regarding the demands we make upon HQ about how they should conduct their business. Maybe if we actually paid to register, we'd have more of an entitlement to entitlement?

Oh I don't think MNHQ mind us sounding off a bit on these matters, do they? Being shaped by user-preferences is part of their image, so they need users to say what their preferences are! I do feel grateful for the opportunity to interact with the site's staff on these things.

And surely you don't have to pay to have an opinion on such a major cultural issue (the fallout of our conversation spaces becoming privately owned ones that are dependent on advertising and free content). All the conventions of the industry MN is a part of are in flux (Cohen's confusion is testimony to that), because the internet is so new and so fast-evolving. So it seems important to chuck in the odd squeaky-voiced attempt to influence how those conventions develop.

Interesting thread. Although I am a very regular Mumsnet user, I never visit this part of the site and came across it on Twitter instead.

Mumsnet charges high fees for webchats - £1,000 to £1,500 (I know because I have asked on behalf of someone else). I always assume when I see a webchat with an established author, with a book to promote in the run up to Christmas, say, that a fee has been paid by that author's publisher as part of its PR budget. But from what's been posted on here by MNHQ perhaps that's not true as those chats don't appear in the "sponsored" section of the web site.

In the interests of transparency could MNHQ clarify if fees are paid to Mumsnet for those types of webchat? Because if you read the introductory blurb they appear to be very promotional … and I think Advertising Standards Authority rules now apply to websites too.

Mumsnet charges fees for Sponsored webchats which are not the same as author/celeb Q&A's.

At least some of the Q&A's must be charged for though? They seem more consistently commercial than the webchats, and sometimes to tie in with adverts that run at the same time? None of this is clear though, so I might be completely wrong.

No, they definitely also charge for some of the regular webchats too - I know this from my own experience. It's not just the massive corporates like British Gas.

Can you give examples, Merguez?