Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

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

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Daily Mail - The On Mumsnet This Week Column - part 374, appendix 5

601 replies

JustineMumsnet · 06/09/2009 12:20

Goodday Mumsnetters,
Now I know we said we'd abide by the results of the poll and the poll's not quite due to close yet, so first off we hope you'll forgive us for bringing this matter to an early conclusion.

We've thought about this a bit more (thanks to everyone for their considered input - it's been generally helpful to us though not always fun) and we've decided to ask the DM not to run this column under any circumstances.

We've said all along that we were torn by the column. When push came to shove we thought, on balance, we would prefer though it to exist rather than not, assuming we had editorial control (explanation why later on). But NOT if the majority of Mumsnetters were strongly against it running.

I don't think the poll shows that the majority of MN is actually against it, as it happens - I know there's some debate here - I think it shows 43% are. But I think the whole process has shown that those who are against are very very strongly against whilst those who don't mind the column in one form or another don't feel particularly strongly about it (save perhaps Daftpunk ). The 43% odd would never be happy with the column running and I think that therefore it would cause ongoing acrimony, which is of course not what we're about.

What we are about is making parents' lives easier and we don't exclude DM readers from that. MN is open to all.

However, a weekly column could and has been interpreted as a brand alignment - and it's not really as some have pointed out the right fit for us - which is why we wouldn't have sought it in the first instance.

For anyone who's been upset by/ caught in the crossfire of this debate - MP in particular and indeed, Leah Hardy - I apologise. A Mumsnetter has just written to me to say the following (she agreed that I could quote her here):

"I feel the flames of crises are fuelled by MNHQ's over willingness to collaborate. Offering Mumsnetters an opportunity to help steer, but knowing they all want to go in different directions is always going
to be carnage. They can never be of one voice. That's what makes Mumsnet interesting and wonderful, isn't it?"

I think on reflection this is spot on - we have always tried to be as inclusive as possible here at MNHQ. Our answer to most dilemmas is usually "Let's see what the Mnetters think". But on polarising issues like this one this is perhaps a mistake. It all becomes a bit too Lord of the Fliesish, and innocent folk get caught in the crossfire.

A final thought about the nature of MN and how we go about making it viable. Much bigger beasts than us are trying to work out how they can make their websites work in terms of paying the bills. Many are mooting charging in some way for access. Mumsnet is free and we probably turn down as much advertising as we take. We do our best to operate as ethically and communally as possible but we have costs that are rising as we grow - servers, people, offices etc - and it's a balancing act.

Mumsnet is big and successful in many ways but it does not generate huge amounts of revenue and profit. We don't have and can't afford a big PR machine - it's me!

But we want to do tonnes of things - run campaigns like our miscarriage one that could benefit lots of folk, improve the site with new features, spread the word so more can have access to the good advice available here. To do that we need to get out there a bit and we need to generate some revenue.

Being in the Daily Mail every week was obviously one way of getting out there - but not perhaps, as many of you have argued, the right way.

So we'll ask them to stop and keep you posted.

Have a lovely rest of weekend.

MNHQ

OP posts:
oopsagainandagain · 06/09/2009 14:44

i think it is a wise decision too.

And i repeat my wuestion from the last thread, and from about 3 weeks ago- and varu=ious times inbetween....

Does MN intend to have a policy of warninig posters more effectively of the dangers of posting very personal and specific issues on the site?

And is there anyhting that can be done to protect the archives from being raided by other publications?

I have learnt alot from this and i hpe that MNHQ have also learned.

I accpet your apology from the other thread, Justine. I do hope it will mean that you have a more effective and swifter policy on how to handle mass deletion requests.

And now I shall dereg.
Anough of enough.
'Tis done for me.
I may pop in and out with how to n bake a cake type requets but nothing more- it's too open and risky.

thanks all, and good luck.

policywonk · 06/09/2009 14:47

oops, I'm sorry that this has been such a crap experience for you and I'm doubly sorry if anything I posted made it worse for you.

PrincessToadstool · 06/09/2009 14:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsEricBanaMT · 06/09/2009 15:00

PW, Its simply the nature of the beast that anyone with a grudge will be more verciferous than someone with out. That doesn't make them right.

I'm sorry that MNHQ have been bullied and/or emotionally blackmailed into this, because that's how it seems to me. MNHQ obvioulsy thought it some kind of opportunity, or else they would have declined it immedialty.

MrsEricBanaMT · 06/09/2009 15:01

soz, vorciferous

kormachameleon · 06/09/2009 15:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

kormachameleon · 06/09/2009 15:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BecauseImWorthIt · 06/09/2009 15:15

I'm slightly puzzled, having read Justine's thread, how you think that MNHQ have been bullied or emotionally blackmailed into this decision, MrsEBMT.

Justine has made it clear that this has provoked a realisation at MNHQ that they have to take charge and make a decision.

IMHO and IME this is the very hard part of running a business - knowing that some people will hate you for the decisions that you make.

Sometimes I think MNHQ bend too far over backwards to take into account what MNetters think. That's not to say that we're not important (after all, if we didn't post there would be no MN!), but MN is their business and livelihood - it puts food on their tables.

Boco · 06/09/2009 15:15

Thanks Justine. I too think it's good news and the right decision.

I also think it's been a fascinating and useful debate. I don't agree that the againsts have all been involved in personal attacks - there were very few posters whose tone was unpleasant , but I do hope no one has been left feeling too battered by it all.

SoupDragon · 06/09/2009 15:20

What happens when if they say "tough" ?

noddyholder · 06/09/2009 15:27

Could they do that?

MrsEricBanaMT · 06/09/2009 15:39

Korma, I said in my opinion, they have. Your opinion is otherwise. That's as much as can be said about it.

Not sure how you can quality your next sentence unless you can see into the furure. If the poll showed anything it was that more people didn't care. What about listening to those customers, who have now seen their attempts at moderation trumped by hysteria?

BIWI, I think that the realisations are not be over. I think this will have a profound influence on certain things in future.

Is it really a part of business to know that "some people will hate you for the decisions that you make". If those people are so prone to hate, something tells me that it won't be long before they are agreived by somehting else. I personally would not appease such people.

MN goes on even though people de-reg. One day, MN will end and those at MNHQ will go onto pastures new. I'm in no doubt that these people will always be able to put food on their kids tables. For that reason, they don't need to be held to randsom by anyone on here and I am frankly bewildered that so many people feel justified to attempt to do that. And now feel proud of themselves.

sayithowitis · 06/09/2009 15:42

I think it is rather unfair to run a poll with five statements where three of them are basically saying yes and only one states the opposing view. Clearly it would always be more difficult for anyone of the statements to have an overall majority of responses. It would have been much fairer to have either a yes or a no option. Especially given that even if the winning option had been one of the yes options, it was always extremely unlikely that the DM would ever have agreed to giving MN editorial control of any sort.

The poll might not show that the majority are against the column, but it is clear that the larges individual group are those who object. maybe it would have been fairer to run the poll with the two questions that actually matter. ie: would you be happy to see the column run at all, however the DM chooses to do it?
Would you be against the DM running the column in any format at all? Only then would you ever be guaranteed to get a clear majority of respondents one way or the other.

As it is, this issue has caused too much upset amongst some very long-standing and respected MNers, some of whom have chosen to de-reg and move on. As I said on another of these threads, whilst I have never yet been in the position of needing to post for advice and support, I know now that however desperate I get,I never will, purely because I no longer trust MN to be a safe-haven in that way. Rightly or wrongly, many people on here do view it in that way and many of them have been very hurt by the way this has been handled.

noddyholder · 06/09/2009 15:43

I think if it had been just yes or no the result would have been defintive.All the categories did blur things but in the end I think the right decision was reached

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 15:45

i think ericbana is saying some interesting stuff, tbh. it's the reason why i wasn't involved in the last long thread, it seemed to me like MNHQ had their position, that they wanted the column (and who can blame them from a business perspective, apart from the worry about the profile fit) and in many ways i think they should just have taken advice from business people rather than mners, iykwim, as to whether to go ahead with it or not. because we can always be replaced, oh yes we can...

i do hope they're happy in their decision now, though, at least it puts a lid on the DM thing. (if they oblige). but i do think that it's thrown up some great big issues of ownership (i didn't realise that my 'i'm not in the books' button had been done away with for example) and the archive.

kormachameleon · 06/09/2009 15:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

kormachameleon · 06/09/2009 15:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

H1N1Mary · 06/09/2009 16:02

Of course they haven't been "blackmailed" into it mrsericbana. They may not have handled the sequence of events well, and the "we don't really understand copyright/intellectual property issues" stuff is not very convincing, IMO, given MNHQ are mostly journalists/married to journalists.
But Mumsnet would not be where it is today if the people who founded it allowed themselves to be swayed by huffy threads or e-mails from ordinary posters, however heart-rending or well-argued. Ultimately as shareholders and founders, they do what they want to - because it is now, more than ever, their livelihoods.

MrsEricBanaMT · 06/09/2009 16:07

No probs Korma . I'm not really after a huge debate either, just trying to articulate my feelings.

Agree Aitch, re getting professional business advice - if they didn;t already but went with the 'heart' not the 'head' maybe.

ThingOne · 06/09/2009 16:13

I gave the last thread a swerve as it quickly got far too long.

I'm glad there's a decision. I think it's the right one. Let's hope they agree.

kormachameleon · 06/09/2009 16:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsEricBanaMT · 06/09/2009 16:16

it's Monkeytrousers BTW. Just realising that my MT at the end of MrsEricBana isn't helping

kormachameleon · 06/09/2009 16:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsEricBanaMT · 06/09/2009 16:17

I might have to forsake the big Croat

kormachameleon · 06/09/2009 16:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.