MNHQ: Proper labelling on advertising features

[CormoranStrike]

Twice this week I have been lulled into reading ad features because your thread title and the content itself had no labelling on it.

The most recent example, John Lewis, may well be useful content - and I have no issue at all with reading good, paid-for content - but I feel cheated when I get to the end and find out it is paid for content. I would think more highly of the brand, and MN, if you were more overt about what it really is.

ASA rules are clear around this kind of content -the consumer should be able to see at a glance that it is paid for content, and can then make the choice to read it or not.

Instead, we read what is presented as independent editorial, then get to the end and find it is in association with John Lewis, and feel we’ve been duped.

Mumsnet seem to be very hit-and-miss on this.Years ago they drove me away from the site altogether by misrepresenting advertorial content as genuine forum content or (even worse) some sort of empowering/campaigning initiative.
It has got better since the ASA codified which online advertorials counts as misleading (and therefore illegal). But the whole business of plonking adverts onto the site as talk threads is still intrusive, and if the OPs and thread titles aren't properly worded it often seems like they are pushing against the limits of what is acceptable.

Agreed - any comments? @justine_musmnet

Not sure if I tagged you properly @justinemumsnet

Hi there,

Thanks so much for highlighting that you've felt cheated or misled when you were reading paid-for content.

We're really sorry to hear that and we will raise this with our advertising team. We'll post back on the thread when we have an update.

If you're able to post a screenshot of the content in question, that would be really useful too.

Thank you again!