Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
RustyBear · 06/09/2009 16:31

H1N1Mary -I think MNHQ might be forgiven for not being sure of the coyright issues, when even the Intellectual Property Office isn't sure:

"In certain circumstances, some works may be used if that use is considered to be 'fair dealing' There is no strict definition of what this means"

LadyStealthPolarBear · 06/09/2009 16:39

Thanks for the update MNHQ
So back to the important issues, can you block my mum from joining?

morningpaper · 06/09/2009 17:13

God, yes, PLEASE let there be a rule that no one's MUM can join...

Agree that the people who objected really objected. Also agree that it is hard to know exactly what the opinions of MNers are on this kind of thing when there are a very very teeny minority of vociferous name-changers who really only pop up just to cause mischief when it's easy to do so. They know who they are and it's why I ran off bowed out of the other thread/s.

'Tis a shame when genuine people want to work through the issues and no doubt find themselves thinking 'hmm X may be right, perhaps Justine is a self-serving capitalist bitch!' rather than "OMG it's X who pissed all over the boards a few months ago and disgraced herself!" It's really the opinions of posters that use the boards that are the important ones - and their voices get drowned.

Glad a decision has been made though - obviously gutted that it is one that doesn't give me an ENORMOUS SALARY, but still...

Would anyone like a very reasonably priced fundraising strategy?

LilyBolero · 06/09/2009 17:14

I don't accept that 'people against it are prone to hate'. It is possible to feel very strongly about something, because you feel it is wrong.

If you have a group of people, and a suggestion is made, lots 'don't care' but a significant proportion feel STRONGLY that it shouldn't happen, no-one feels STRONGLY that it should, then surely the answer is not to. For example in a toddler group, suppose a suggestion was made to film it for Cbeebies. On asking the parents, most were ambivalent, thought it might be quite fun but didn't feel strongly, some didn't care, and a significant group were strongly against it, for reasons of privacy. You might argue that they are 'prone to hate' and will just find something else to complain about. But actually, if you ignore them and go ahead (bearing in mind no-one feels strongly pro the suggestion), you are then putting them in the position where something they are a part of, that was ok when they joined/signed up, is now no longer ok for them, they have registered their protest, and the upshot is they have to leave. It isn't appeasement. It's just respecting your members.

Obviously, if you have 2 groups with strongly opposing views then it's harder, but that wasn't the case here. And all too often, strong feelings are ignored in favour of the 'don't really mind, but on balance I'd probably say....'s.

LadyStealthPolarBear · 06/09/2009 17:29

PMSL at not letting mums join...OK so maybe as a general rule it doesn't work very well!

bibbitybobbityhat · 06/09/2009 17:34

Aw, surely you don't have many secrets from your own dear Mama MP, after you emailed her that schedule .

morningpaper · 06/09/2009 17:35
Blush
policywonk · 06/09/2009 17:37

at banning mums

morningpaper · 06/09/2009 17:46

Yes I realise now that there was a flaw in my thinking...

policywonk · 06/09/2009 17:50

No no, it's out-of-the-box thinking. I'm sure Justine will LOVE it.

daftpunk · 06/09/2009 18:34

what a shame, i would have gone with the majority vote,....the 43% who created such a fuss probably wont be around in a year or two anyway (no matter what you'd decided)....not many people are loyal to a web site....

...as we all know.

tvaerialmagpiebin · 06/09/2009 18:44

Thanks Justine and MNHQ.
I think this is the right decision. As one of those who (albeit tongue-in-cheek( suggested MP as our DM correspondent I'd like to apologise to her for anyone who got too far on that particular bandwagon.

Hope you all had a nice peaceful Sunday

Prunerz · 06/09/2009 19:06

MP, I was struck on that thread by quite how many long-standing and "well-known" MNers had an opinion against and were prepared to put it eloquently. But, as you say, a teeny, teeny minority. Who can't be under any illusions that their namechanging will be a secret from you.

I'm a bit confused about this. I think it's great that MN won't be associated formally with the DM. But wasn't one of the arguments for it that MN wouldn't realistically be able to enforce a 'no thanks'? Can't the column just go ahead anyway?

Chinchilla · 06/09/2009 19:08

DaftPunk - I have been here 7 years. A lot of long-timers still post here. Loyalty is not expected on a forum, but I think MN has had a lot of loyalty from many posters.

If you are referring to the Moldie thing, a lot of Moldies still post here. Who says it is disloyal to post on more than one forum? If that is the case, I should de-reg from my craft forum quick-smart.

Oh, and MP, please stop making veiled references to Moldies in a negative manner - it is getting wearing frankly. Yes, you loyally left Moldies because you didn't agree with the idea, but it didn't stop you joining in the first place. As with other Moldies, I am tempted to de-reg from here because people just can't move on. If you feel so strongly about those that appear with changed names just to post on contentious threads, just ignore them as you would other posters.

All this vitriol against Moldies is so last year dahlings.

Oh, and I recognise the irony of posting under a name-change, but I was annoyed about the whole DM thing, so went back to an old name. I used to be a designer though, if that helps.

stillfrazzled · 06/09/2009 19:10

Thank you Justine and MNHQ, and the unknown Mumsnetter who expressed so gracefully exactly why so many of us have spent so much time spluttering on threads these last few days .

I'm kinda at how much this issue got to me... but it's a reflection on how good this site is and how much it has meant to me. So thank you again.

MrsEricBanaMT · 06/09/2009 19:23

For the record didn't name change to try to hide my identity, which is why I added the MT at the end. I've just been taken away by a fancy after watching TTW

WebDude · 06/09/2009 19:27

LOL love the 43% coming back into conversation as that 43% can also be taken as "49.85% who expressed a preference" since the "don't care" votes are hardly endorsing the column, so including them either way seems wrong.

daftpunk · 06/09/2009 19:28

chinchilla...i think MN should have put their business interests first, are they running a business or this a hobby for them..?

posters come and go, you can't make long term business decisions based on a few posters who happen to disagree with you for a 2 weeks in september..

and re; my comment about web site loyalty..

half of mumsnet buggered off because a few posters used text speak..

morningpaper · 06/09/2009 19:29

Moldies threatening to de-reg is so last year dahling

What is that all about eh?

singalongamumum · 06/09/2009 19:30

Well done MNHQ, a tough decision well taken. It doesn't matter if it was right or wrong at the end of the day- you have made your decision with the best intentions so good for you and thank you for your authenticity and consistency. It is what makes your (our) site great.

WebDude · 06/09/2009 19:31

Whoops! I thought MNHQ had closed the poll. My mistake.

Currently seems like 522 saying "NO" and 519 (53 + 112 + 354) say "OK"

ZephirineDrouhin · 06/09/2009 19:32

Chincilla, if you're tempted to dereg because other posters' attitude to moldies is making you uncomfortable, please don't let us stop you. Alternatively, just ignore them. Either way please leave MP alone. Looks to me that she's been on the receiving end of quite enough undeserved sniping in the past few days.

ZephirineDrouhin · 06/09/2009 19:36

x-posts with MP. Should have known she would get in there before me with a pert riposte.

justabouteatingchocolate · 06/09/2009 19:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/09/2009 20:03

Erm.....?

I'm glad a decision has been made

I think it's possible to procure the services of a PR company and be able to reap the benefits enough to cover your costs. Otherwise they wouldnt exist, would they? Wouldnt be worth it if it didnt work enough to bring money in to fund it.