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

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:
WebDude · 10/09/2009 18:19

I don't think the DM were generous enough to make the name into a weblink direct to the MN site, compared with some other paper (cannot recall which) having a link straight to the thread on MN. (I guess some might not want that, if their words were quoted!)

It was one day last week when there was a query over who copied who (DM had "shopworker" while the other said "slopworker").

morningpaper · 10/09/2009 18:20

They have an online edition which you can subscribe to for free for 7 days (and I can touch type)

WebDude · 10/09/2009 18:20

Thanks for clarification on them not putting some DM columns online.

morningpaper · 10/09/2009 18:29

I'm surprised there is not more interest in this, but I guess we can conclude from this is that it isn't the formality of the link between MN adn DM that worries people, but the volume of posts quoted (which is fair enough).

tvaerialmagpiebin · 10/09/2009 18:43

Ooooh I don't know MP. A formal link worries me a lot. I think everyone has just calmed down about it since MNHQ announced they would be asking the DM to pull the plug on it.

I thought the DM comments were unmoderated so it seems oddly coincidental that Mr xesmub and his friends had so much impact. Perhaps I am just too cynical.

foronethreadonly · 10/09/2009 18:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

foronethreadonly · 10/09/2009 18:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Redworm · 10/09/2009 19:37

I was surprised too that there was not more interest. I guess that the absence of direct quotes diminishes the privacy worries an awful lot, and that everyone is too exhausted from last week's horrible rows to make much comment on the remaining issues.

madameDefarge · 10/09/2009 19:48

Redworm. I kind of feel I have said everything I need to say about this, and now its just a matter of waiting and seeing what develops.

ZephirineDrouhin · 10/09/2009 20:50

I can't summon up any indignation either. To take one quote as a starting point for a column seems far more reasonable (and am guessing would constitute fair usage unlike the previous efforts). Also, unlike the previous columns, if I saw this I wouldn't automatically assume an association between the DM and MN. And if anyone is going to come out of the column looking like an airhead (not that I'm saying anyone does) it will be LH, not a group of MNers.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 10/09/2009 21:56

who wrote it, MP?

morningpaper · 10/09/2009 21:58

Leah Hardy

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 10/09/2009 22:15

and does it still look like an MN-endorsed thing on the page?

morningpaper · 10/09/2009 22:27

yah I shall send you link

ZephirineDrouhin · 10/09/2009 22:39

Was that a "yah it does look MN endorsed" or "yah I'm not sure - see what you think"? (Or is yah your special name for Aitch?)

morningpaper · 11/09/2009 07:36

ermmm it wasn't either really

it was sort of a yah to the "still" i.e. it is presented in the same way

more of a hmmmmmm than a yah perhaps?

LIZS · 11/09/2009 08:51

I don't think it looks endorsed now, there is no tag line with a link. However the format now makes it much harder for MNHQ to argue against as the article has so much less lifted material it may well now be fair usage. It is really no more than taking a headline from , say, the Sun as a starting point. Given the ensuing furore though, I'm surprised LH has been happy to continue her association with it. Unfortunately it has done her reputation no good here and disappointed many of those who have "spoken" to and respected her in the past - I guess money really does talk .

madameDefarge · 11/09/2009 08:54

So maybe this format is the best compromise. They still get to use MN as the foundation, so MN get the publicity, without having a formal alliance.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 11/09/2009 10:12

more from MN

it is hilarious that we're providing so much copy for them, isn't it? what goes on on their own forums, why wouldn't they plunder them?

Redworm · 11/09/2009 10:23

They seem to be rehashing their own rehash of MN. The media are like a tailchasing dog that has actually succeeded in eating its own back half.

NigellapofacedLawson · 11/09/2009 10:27

And therefore talk shit.

Redworm · 11/09/2009 10:28
Grin
Merrylegs · 11/09/2009 15:04

"Elle, 46, possibly scooped the top fashion prize for her rock-chick inspired mixture of ripped jeans, black blouse, animal-print handbag and ballet pumps.

Chances are her sons Arpad, 11 and six-year-old Aurelius were more than happy to hold her hand on the way home."

Is it just me, but does that not sound a bit, well - -wrong?
"Ooo mummy, you look well rock-chick. Wanna hold your hand."

AND PMSL at Stella McC being 'bang on trend'. But she forget her trousers....

Are there no further depths for the DM to plummet?

LIZS · 17/09/2009 16:35

Have I misses the outcome of the vote ? DM column still there today re: Do you lie to your children ? thread

tvaerialmagpiebin · 17/09/2009 20:22

IIRC MNHQ were going to ask the DM to pull the plug.

Hmm. Perhaps they didn't have their listening ears on at the DM......