Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

The Mumsnet MUM of the year award.

299 replies

QuintessentialShadow · 17/04/2009 11:46

Will there be a thread to discuss nominations, or will it all be secret through email?

It must be a hard task doing the judging.
It must be bloody harder than the Christmas appeal, so I dont envy you this task. A whole holiday stands to gain for one lucky winner, wow....

But, what criteria do you use to judge? If I were to put myself somebody forward, so to speak....

What I really would like to ask is:

???? why? What the fuck are you thinking?

OP posts:
DesperateHousewifeToo · 18/04/2009 14:34

Does that mean I win?[wheedling emoticon]

Flamesparrow · 18/04/2009 14:37

DD says I am mum of the year because I can be being sick and still give cuddles

PrettyCandles · 18/04/2009 14:42

I don't like this at all. Why is MNTowers trying to be divisive? Are we not all fabulous? Are we not all the best mums we could be? Do we not all do our best for our families?

How can we possibly know what each other is like in RL?

Vote for the funniest poster, or the most contentious one, or the wisest one, or almost anything else that we can judge from what we read.

PrettyCandles · 18/04/2009 14:44

Have a vote for the funniest poster etc...

lisad123 · 18/04/2009 14:53

thats me then better get gold spray out

twinsetandpearls · 18/04/2009 20:19

Maybe they are trying to goad us all into falling out again, so MN gets more column inches.

I think there should be a winners enclosure forum, where the top twenty mums can post safe int he knowledge that other mere mortal mothers cannot view their far superior postings.

scottishmummy · 18/04/2009 20:36

what a mawkish concept!celebrate misery and schmooze with schlebs.

the MN deserving and undeserving disadvantaged souls,as voted for by other mums.eugh

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 19/04/2009 23:35

Yes from our point of view we did this for PR purposes - whoever said that is quite right. That and the fact that we knew we could attract a great competition prize for someone to win.

We don't charge for MN or have a big Government grant, so we can't afford PR or marketing folks but we need to attract people to the site to enable it to stay a certain size, so we can get advertising in and pay the bills. We've turned down more money from advertising and advertising formats than we've accepted in the last year or two - Nestle, Macdonalds, formula milk pop-ups etc. In truth we wish we didn't have to accept any advertising at all, but instead had a license fee or similar to fund us and could take every decision according to what would be the optimal outcome for the community but we don't.

And tbh whilst we understand your distaste about having to choose and concerns about whether the most deserving person is chosen we thought this type of thing was an acceptable compromise in how we operate.

We do it, hopefully, with a bit more wit than it's done elsewhere - making the point that you don't need to be a sob story/ particularly desperate to be worth celebrating - and someone gets a lovely prize.

But at the end of the day if folks feel strongly about it, then we can try to duck out of it. But somewhere along the line you should bear in mind we have to be a bit commercial if we're going to carry on serving and moderating etc.

policywonk · 19/04/2009 23:44

'We've turned down more money from advertising and advertising formats than we've accepted in the last year or two - Nestle, Macdonalds, formula milk pop-ups etc.' - I think that's really amazing. Good on yer. PLUS I'm still admiring your decision to pull out of the Baby Show because of the arms-trading connection.

I can't think of many other profit-making companies that take such pains.

BecauseImWorthIt · 19/04/2009 23:45

Justine.

--> rock
--> hard place

But you must have known it was going to result in this kind of response, surely?!

Ronaldinhio · 20/04/2009 00:08

Why don't you just charge us a fiver to join?

hunkermunker · 20/04/2009 00:14

I'm really heartened by the stance MN has on advertising. It means the quality of information on here is better (you won't see an NCT bf counsellor posting on a site that carries formula ads, for instance) and it also means that some thought has gone into the ethos, the aim behind the place. Yes, it's got bigger since it started, but that's a GOOD thing - Mumsnet's stance gives parents a respected voice with Government; the site is oft-quoted and referred to in the media (sometimes that ends better than others, admittedly!).

So this isn't the most worthy competition - never mind. Someone might get a nice prize - good show. And MN might get some more decent publicity - what's not to like?

Sheesh, some people would make an argument out of anything, eh?

littlelamb · 20/04/2009 00:18

I'm pretty sure that's been discussed before and rejected as a Bad Thing. I wouldn't mind paying but do you really want MN to become that exclusive?? Surely the point of MN is that it is accessible to all?

As for the prize, well I wouldn't enter as the thought of being 'Mum of the Year' is a little bit but not just that, I don't drive so couldn't get to the damn hotel in the first place
Do you remember when the for sales boards got 'demoted' and you had to pay for the privelige of advertising. There were loads of people who said they didn't even have bank cards and so would be excluded.

BecauseImWorthIt · 20/04/2009 00:23

I suppose it's about the balance between keeping the MN spirit alive, providing a decent revenue/salary for those who work at MN so tirelessly and funding the decent quality of site that we have come to expect - i.e. speed, not falling over every 5 minutes, etc.

MN take an admirable stance by refusing advertising from certain companies, at considerable expense, in order not to offend posters on the site.

Why, therefore, shouldn't posters pay to maintain this stance? £5 isn't much - although the whinging about the For Sale huns posters when the CAT payment was introduced would suggest that we had returned to Dickensian times when £5 was a yearly salary.

Why not, therefore, introduce a minimum membership of £1? No-one could argue that they couldn't afford that. Or if they could, then they should have their broadband payment suspended immediately.

littlelamb · 20/04/2009 00:31

But can you imagine implimenting that?? Would it be 'pay up now or you can't post??'
It just feels a bit ick to have to pay to post. And I too think the advertising here is brilliantly thought out with the exception of that bloody cbeebies rollover, and I remember the decision not to go to the babyshow, and thought it was a good one. But I also understand that this is a business to you and of course you want to be able to make a profit. I'm just not sure a paid subscription is the best way to do it.
am a fully paid up CAT member

twinsetandpearls · 20/04/2009 00:37

Right well only to keep mumsnet alive I am quite happy to take nominations and go to the hotel for a good rogering some quality time with dp.

LibrasJusticeLeagueofBiscuits · 20/04/2009 08:45

I think it's a great prize I just think it's a horrible competition, surely we could come up with a better competition to win the prize for? Maybe something along the lines of what being a mum means to them. (ok maybe I shouldn't come up with the idea because I have imagination of a goldfish but someone must have a good idea).

I think the payment for mumsnet would be a bad idea, whilst I would be quite willing to pay it mumsnet has always been the place someone could come onto in the middle of the night and say "oh no my child is xxxxxx" and get a soothing or helpful reply.

I am not a CAT member as I don't know anyone on here well enough for them to CAT me or me to CAT them.

scottishmummy · 20/04/2009 08:48

this isn't about folk being argumentative about the idea.but lets face it it hasn't meet with plaudits has it?

paid membership!perhaps

well £1 for hoi polloi who get regular black font
£10 for bling flashy types who get BIG GOLD font

TrillianAstra · 20/04/2009 08:51

I think having to pay would discourage a lot of people who come along for a nose around and then get sucked in - it would definitely decrease the number of new people signing up.

scottishmummy · 20/04/2009 08:52

yes,payment would reduce spontaneity

LibrasJusticeLeagueofBiscuits · 20/04/2009 08:59

maybe you can charge people a fiver for starting a bumsex thread?

TrillianAstra · 20/04/2009 09:08

What if they started a thread that got turned into a bumsex thread?

It could be a competition to try to turn threads to bumsex!

Tortington · 20/04/2009 09:26

i have always been vehemently against paying membership for mumsnet. I too applaud their stance on advertising and click away at the ads from time to time.

i think its interesting how so many on this thread have read the page to enter ( presumably) and come out with different ideas

can you can't you nominate yourself?
well it says you can

"celebrate misery & schmooz with celebs"

or

"giving the prize to someone who cracks a joke now and again and gives good copy (for that is the crux of it, shurely?) and the real people who really truly deserve a bit of recognition will be left behind."

FelineFine · 21/04/2009 13:13

I never come on here bragging telling people about the good things I do.

Do I have to start doing that to win this competition?

I would be here all day, listing all the good I do. Then that would be neglecting my little darlings...

DadInsteadofMum · 23/04/2009 10:46

Why Mum of the Year, why not Parent of the Year. I think the question was asked very early on but no reply from MNTowers.

, appreciate that coming from here it is far more likely to be a mum, but despite the name the tag line is for parents by parents.

And no this is not a self nomination, I can't imagine anything more embarassing than winning and having 150 - 200 words about me publicised all over.