Advertising - who would you be unhappy about

[JustineMumsnet]

Hello, hello,
We wondered if you would mind giving us your two penneth on which companies are off limits as far as advertising is concerned. Ruling out obvious candidates like arms dealers and the BNP is there a concensus about anyone else? Would for example MacDonalds sponsoring the Food boards make people cross or would it be a case of why not let them spend some of their enormous mountain of profits keeping mumsnet afloat? Who's aloud and who isn't bascially... (thanks in advance .

I think it's a good point that you need to consider how an advertiser looks from the outside, particularly as someone's first impression of the site. Clicking in for the first time and seeing say McDs or Nestle (sorry to use the obvious ones) isn't going to be a positive impression I don't think. You want the revenue but you also want the good reputation and good press, and it would make a really easy target.

If they want to throw money at MN, why not? This is a site for adults, surely we aren't as susceptible to insidious advertising as children are? We all know that people smoke, and nothing is going to stop them, and I can't see any adult seeing an advertisement and deciding to take up smoking as a result.

let's exploit them to keep our site going. Just charge them more.

Oooo don't start charging sponsors 'too' much more please - I'm working on DH to get a proper advert on here for the business (as opposed to just a £25 add in the 'talk' section........)

Avent is allowed by the NCT Justine, they even have a stand at conference, as long as it is not their bottles and teats they are advertising (as these are covered by the WHO code and is deemed to be a conflict of interest between the bfc's and the product). They can and do advertise breastpumps etc.

The NCT do have a distinction between sponsorship and advertising. More is acceptible for the latter. Avent would not be allowed to "SPONSOR" the NCT but can advertise with them.

I personally love the fact that mumsnet (unlike the other parenting websites) don't at the moment take advertising from Nestle or formula milk companies.

wwb i'm not talking about taking up smoking, but taking money from a company that gives people lung cancer

No-one forces people to buy the products that are advertised though, we're all adults and can make our own minds up what we buy into and what we don't. Can't we?

but do "we" want MN to be associated with it?

Do you really think that MN will end up "associated" with it? Boden advertise at the moment, but I don't "associate" MN with Boden, or Amazon, or any of the other companies.

no, but i do associate children/their clothes with it and so do most people. but not fags.

I associate Babyworld with some awful cow and gate ads.

Fair enough. I have no problem with anyone else's opinion, good for you for being so principled, but in my opinion, if advertisers want to throw some of their money at MN then MN should grab it with both hands.

agreed wwb (bar the fags )

I'm gonna be a prood.

Mcdonalds I wouldn't like to see advertised at alll or any other big multi billioned pound companies.

In theory it sounds great to exploit them but it works the other way to they don't care about being exploited there even paying to be exploited as long as there adds get noticed, talked about keeps it fresh in peoples mind.

If you had to go that way I would ask that the ads were discreetly as small as you could do in some far away corner instead of big in yer face things.

Sorry its just that ads are everywhere especially mcdonalds sick of seeing them and all the others.

Incidentally from a personal point of view I would have no problem with McDonalds.

Personally nothing would bother me on a personal level, tobacco advertising is banned in the UK anyway isn't it??

There are certain things that MN should steer clear of from a PR point of view but I am sure they are wise enough to know what these things are

yes it is banned 101sp, i was just being hypothetical/s**t stirring/trying to draw my line in the sand

Oh sorry, jus skimmed the posts - obviously didn't cotton on to that fact

I changed my mind the whole time I was reading this thread. I do agree with the thought of first impressions being worth considering. I would definitely draw the line at tobacco companies, and to be honest (if irrational ) I wouldn't be too chuffed to be faced with a huge ad for turkey twizzlers every morning when I log on, or indeed anything that involved Bernard Matthews' face.

Justine, I think it would be interesing if McDonalds did sponsor the food board - presumably they (or even MN) could monitor the number of times the link was clicked. If MNers are as virtuous as they make out it should soon become obvious to McDonalds and any other 'beyond the pale' advertiser that they are wasting their time on here! [tongue in cheek icon]

I agree with batters, go for it and take the money
It's not as if mumsnetters are susceptible to corporate brainwashing, I'd have thought! in fact I'd imagine mumsnet provides quite a resilient audience

actually even though I totally stand by my previous comment of take the money and run I do want to add one proviso

.. please, god please NO (and I mean absolutely NO) esure ads - if I ever see Michael Winner's face in a banner ad on mumsnet I shall log off permanently

especially if he's dressed as a woman and waving a mouse

but twig, it's just a commercial...

Saga?