The MN Mail Column - what we think, and what we plan to do next... part 2

[whataboutthisone]

Firstly, I am a regular but have created a new name for this.

My thoughts about what I know so far:

1. In a much earlier post there was a discussion about a change in T&Cs and whether they are valid or not. Several years ago I took a company to court for a breach of their T&Cs. Their argument was that they had changed T&Cs and my complaint was therefore no longer valid. However, the judge said that because I had not specifically been asked to accept the new T&Cs, I was entitled to rely on the ones I had accepted and therefore I won my case.

1. I choose to post on MN in the knowledge that the details I give are probably just obscure enough to anyone I may know in RL who also posts, so that what I say still effectively remains private. However, that doesn't mean that the same could be said of, for instance, my mother, who reads the DM (!) There is probably just enough about my circumstances that would enable her to put 2+2 together. I would like the option to choose whether or not I let my Mum ( or anyone else in RL) in on certain areas of my life, and there is a real possibility that this hack, has taken that choice away from me.

1. I have never ( and now will never) post asking for advice, but I will also be very careful about offering advice in the future. I, along with many others, occasionally use examples from my life to explain where I am coming from. If I continue to do that, as I said earlier, it is possible that some people would be able to work out who I am. Now, I am not so big-headed as to believe that any advice I offer is worth taking, however, there are many fantastic posters on here who do give amazing and insightful advice based on their own experiences. It would be a real shame if that was to stop because they, like me, do not want to share some of those experiences with the folk they are close to in RL. It would also be a real tragedy if others were prevented from asking for help for the same reasons.

I am very disappointed that any MNer would feel it is acceptable to violate the trust we place in each other on this forum. I do not know who she is. I do not want to know who she is. But I hope she is hanging her head in shame for breaching the trust that has been placed in her by everyone whose words she has stolen to make a few bucks!

SaintlyD, I know I said I was going to skip off, but I do feel I need to respond to your points.

Whatever you think about the association mmhq benefits from it. "Exposure in a national newspaper = more hits =" possibly, but Justine said there had not been an appreciable increase in traffic after the piece went out, so that is not always the case

"growing the business. Which is after all the point of a business. Which is the point of Talk."

MN has stated it is a social enterprise, so it has different objectives to a purely commercial enterprise, if you scroll down you will see some definitions regarding social enterprises. But this post suffice to say that commercial gain is only one of the objectives of a social enterprise, not its raison d'etre.

"Mnhq sound as if they have got a pretty hood deal out of it in terms of dialogue with the DM and keeping it topical/ knowing the topic in advance etc."

Please explain precisely to me where the good deal is in having your intellectual property stolen and used without your permission? We do not know if there has been some kind of agreement reached regarding financial recompense, and as a marketing professional (in a previous life) I cannot see that this benefits MN in terms of brand awareness. Yes, they are getting exposure, but the wrong kind of exposure can kill your business quicker than I can turn on a sixpence.

"I don't suppose they needed to be bullied into free advertising."

I don't beleive that has ever been suggested, the bullying was in reference to know they can use MN property and MN really hasn't got the legal or financial resources to fight their piracy in the courts, however in the right they may legally and morally. That is bullying, using might to intimidate a smaller entity into handing over property because you will destroy them otherwise.

"Remember they need to remain on good terms with the press. "

Its a two way street here, they need MN for copy, MN need the press for exposure. Its not some kind of fagging relationship where the press hold all the cards. And no reputable press organisation would blink at a business seeking to protect its intellectual property.

If they're difficult they won't be quoted anywhere ( netmums will) and their business will stop growing.

If you are suggesting the MN business model is predicated on growth resulting from PR alone, I think you are mistaken. That is not a sound business model. Good PR helps, clever brand allignment helps, word of mouth helps, advertising helps.

PR is simply one of the marketing tools available to any enterprise wishing to market their business.

There ya go.

Sooo, the DM are actually doing it for our benefit are they ?

A quote from an e-mail from their Commissioning Editor:-

"It is never our intention to dredge up old stories or to ostracise any of your members. Our aim is to empathise with them and support them by highlighting the debate and issues facing mums today."

Right then. Will that run alongside all the positive stories they run about evil working mothers (just yesterday for example), benefit scroungers etc?

I feel really understood now. Thanks DM

nancy, it has also been just as much about the issue of copyright in this world of modern technology. A fascinating and pertinent debate that affects all of us way beyond the confines of MN.

And it has also been a debate about the vaunted values of MN, which as a brand we buy into, and this seeming dislocation of those values when it comes to an alliance with an entity that not only goes against everything that MN stands for, but has had to temerity to steal MN property.

affordable, not really in the MN spirit, is it?

And I would rather be a thorn in their side than a sheep that takes whatever is doled out to me by any powers that be.

Well, I might like the sound of your voice too, if you had anything to offer rather than telling me to shut up, and not bother thinking about these issues.

I am starting up a social enterprise. If someone is investing in you they want their return. It is naive to think that a social enterprise shouldn't be trying to maximize profit tbh. If you want to be non profit making then you would be more likely to choose to be a charity. I am interested in where the social bit comes in in MN, not entirely clear on that but being a social enterprise does not mean you shouldn't work to increase profits. It was the first thing my advisor explained to me.

And although some posters may think the
DM devalues their brand I'm not sure MNHQ would feel the same way. A lot of people thought that mothercare devalued the brand - mn very clearly did not.

re the brand devaluing, yes indeed, maybe MNHQ don't feel that, and then that is really fine, it does mean that I will think differently about MN though.

Well, good. Security risks avoided and certain threads will not be used.

People will still not be happy with the Daily Mail association because it is lower middle class not to their taste.

I never saw any reason for all these threads of fuss anyway, and good on Mumsnet for all their patience and consideration of everyone's worries.

Can we leave it now, please.

madame - it's yet to be conclusively established whether there is any infringement of copyright. I would say it's 50/50.

And I do agree with you, any business, social enterprise or no, must work on increasing profits.

But I used to work in marketing for big companies, and spent a lot of time considering which partners we chose to work with to promote the business, and which we chose not to work with, their values had to chime with ours, add value to ours, and not diminuish ours in any way.

Can you hear me at the back, affordable?

Well yes that comes to us all eventually. MN Talk is not set up for the benefit of individual posters. It is part of a business strategy which means that it will mean a very different thing to HQ than to posters. This is entirely fair but it means that decisions will be taken from a business point of view which won't always be able to reflect personal wishes. This is fine in my book - you just have to post realizing it.

Reading carrie's post it all sounds a very amicable agreement and one that is likely to benefit both parties. Unless mnhq do think the DM devalues their brand ( which I doubt) in which case presumably they'll take it further. If they're reasonably happy with the association then it sounds like a good solution for them. There's never going to be this sort of column in the guardian so DM might be the next best thing.

Translation of the communication from MNHQ.

We've tried running the site for Guardianistas and free-thinkers but we've found there's no money in it. We are therefore going with the Daily Mail. We don't really care what anyone thinks. Femail has a much wider readership than site stuff on Mumsnet. Joules and Boden will pay us more. Kerrching.

Actually, affordable, if they are paying any attention at all, then they are getting a masterclass in marketing.

calling someone self important because they happen to have professional expertise is a bit silly, really.

You don't have to read any of this, but why you want to drag the tone of the thread down to personal insults is beyond me.

Debates about ideas and issues not really your thing, then? Maybe MN is not the place for you in that case,

MD Your points are all well and good but unfortunately there is no way MNHQ are going to please everyone. I think if we ran a poll on the matter, there would be 5% I AM VERY AGAINST THIS, 5% THIS IS A GOOD THING and 90% IS GAVIN A GOOD NAME FOR MY NEW BABY?

I think until the issue of Fair Useage is agreed on (I assume MNHQ are awaiting a formal opinion on that) then this is a compromise.

Although really I am of course thinking: WHERE'S MY FUCKING COLUMN, BITCHES? HMMMM? and wanting to gun you all down

Affordableprint, I must admit I do feel terrible for acknowledging that not all the points of concern are yet addressed, I also feel really awful that I am giving HQ full chance to sort everything out before I make any decisions about my next move. I am certain this is unforgivable behaviour and am suitably chastising myself, don't you worry. I am also convinced I am important enough to HQ to be a thorn in their side, after all, of the thousands of posters here, I am by far the most important.

I am not yet fully happy, I have the right to say that - hope you can live with it your queenliness because it is not going to change for you.

I think the DM (which I loathe and detest) changing the usernames is a big step forward. Of course, I've changed mine anyway, after 5 years with my old one, with and wirhout the academic title, but there you go. Can't be too careful, it now appears.

You are absolutely right MP. guess that is what we are waiting to hear. I utterly respect their right to market business any way they see fit. If it doesn't chime with me, then it is up to me to make a decision about whether to use MN or not.

Its the waiting.....