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:
morningpaper · 06/09/2009 20:03

don't worry the Red Cross are on their way

justabouteatingchocolate · 06/09/2009 20:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Georgimama · 06/09/2009 20:08

Thank you Justine.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/09/2009 20:18

They would raise the profile of MN, firmly set up MN as a brand in it's own right, generate more business opportunities and come up with a pro-active business plan including targeting certain demographics, or expanding the existing one. They would make the site more appealing for advertisers and other
businesses, and encourage partnerships - all of the above generating more revenue for MNHQ.

There's a lot more to it than that, but that's a precis.

daftpunk · 06/09/2009 20:20

and..

i know the moldie saga is so last year (the DM threads have been much more interesting).....i was just pointing out that you can't rely on customer loyalty (as the existence of the moldie site proves)

LadyStealthPolarBear · 06/09/2009 20:25

Or make CAT subscriptions mandatory (say after 3 months so the odd newbie who needs help now can get it)
Or keep it as it is but put it up to £10 rather than £5
Interesting point...who are MN's customers? We make MN what it is (without being too big headed about it ) but the advertisers pay the bills presumably! (And bribe Tech to ocassionally let the ads take over the page )
mp - I thought you were pointing out the flaw in my argument!

motherinferior · 06/09/2009 20:26

Agree with VVVQV. Utterly.

At the moment, MNHQ seems either to be seizing opportunities for coverage, or turning them down...but not thinking it through. I may be wrong; but honestly, from my days of running communications it doesn't look like it. Which means that if there is a strategy, it probably needs a rethink.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/09/2009 20:28

What a fat load of bollocks daftpunk. I think there are far fewer members on here who only post here than there are members who post on various fora.

I do wish folks would stop throwing mouldies into the mix as some sort of example or lesson or smokescreen.

Anyway, customer loyalty is earned you know. Or lost.

MrsEricBanaMT · 06/09/2009 20:31

Can I just say for the record that I didn't gang up on MP

VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/09/2009 20:33

Can I say, for the record, that I think MP doesn't mind a gang bang. It has potential copy

xxxxBAMBOOxxxx · 06/09/2009 20:34

I love the way moldies demand that we stop talking about them. It's never gonna happen

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 20:41

agree with MI and VVV, and i would also argue that DP's point about loyalty to one forum also underlines why MNHQ should have a strategy that exists on a higher plane than its members, iykwim?

i certainly brought up the moldies thing because it seemed to me like a couple of 'new' names appeared to make nasty little snipes at MP, which appeared to my eye to rely on an old association with her. it's possible, of course, that i was completely wrong.

BoysAreLikeDogs · 06/09/2009 20:43

tbh Bamboo, only a few folk now go on and on about Moldies, for whom the war is never over

VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/09/2009 20:44

Talk about mouldies all you like. I couldnt care less. And I didnt "demand" anything. But feel free to embellish it. It IS about mouldies after all........

I'm entitled to object to people spouting bollocks about mouldies though. Particularly by way of muddying the waters.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 20:45

i really hope neither of you are talking about me... i'm switzerland.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/09/2009 20:45

Indeed BALD. It's tedious in the extreme.

motherinferior · 06/09/2009 20:47

Before I go and revive the crush on Trevor Eve I've had since I was 16 I just have to explain a bit further; look, there is a difference between being journalists and having a worked-out idea about which other journalists/programmes/publications you want to target - and what your contingency plans are for any (perceived or real) crisis, which is what this seems to have become. They're different skills, or perhaps different approaches to what you do with broadly similar skills. Sure, plenty of people have both (fwiw lots of journalists go into PR, and some of us go the other way too, like I did) but they aren't identical.

slyandgobbo · 06/09/2009 20:47

Maybe MN is pursuing the Katie Price approach to PR and tis v subtle...

BoysAreLikeDogs · 06/09/2009 20:47

arf Aitch

xxxxBAMBOOxxxx · 06/09/2009 20:49

Tedious for some, amusing for others

motherinferior · 06/09/2009 20:49

I should have inserted the word 'between' in that first sentence: there is a difference between being journalists and BETWEEN.

Sorry.

brokenspacebar · 06/09/2009 20:51

I have to say I am happy about the decision, I haven't been particularly vociferous, because I don't feel I could add to the debate in an eloquent way.

I have enjoyed the debate (it has reminded me of good debates on here when I first started lurking). I do feel for anyone who has had a hard time throughout the whole experience, including justine, oops and mp.

morningpaper · 06/09/2009 20:55

Can I just point out (pedant stylee) that I didn't mentioned moldies

Also, every time I insult someone I am not "making a thinly veiled pop at the moldies"

Sometimes I am just insulting non moldies

as you were

MrsEricBanaMT · 06/09/2009 20:57

I feel like Fay Weldon. 'You all come round to my way of thinking in the end'

nooka · 06/09/2009 20:59

Why are we into Moldies crap again? They were by definition a small group (for exclusivity) and as they post their private stuff elsewhere I would have thought that they would be less likely to be up in arms about the DM issue than those of us who have been here for a long time and were very bothered but have nothing to do with Moldies. Seems to me that there was one person who was fairly inexplicably unpleasant to MP and claiming her writing skills were lamentable (like LH was some sort of literary genius NOT) where past history may have come into play. But most people in this debate appeared to be normal posters, some of whom (like me) who might be seriously thinking about leaving because of this association, or because they realised that perhaps the way they used mumsnet was no longer advisable. How expressing this unhappiness becomes blackmail is beyond me, as individual posters amoungst thousands we have absolutely zero power to make threats in any case.

Anyway I think this is a good call, and second VVV and MIs opinions that MN need to do some long term thinking about how to steer their path through the strange and unexplored waters of the Internet. Sites like MN do rely on customer loyalty, you need your viewers/contributors to come back again and again (not necessarily forever) to generate a good core following.