Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/09/2009 23:22

What kind of business (Limited Company that calls itself a social enterprise) is it that employs 20 or so people but takes 5 days to react to a request of deletions?

Or doesnt know what the T & C's they are implementing mean. And change them and say they didnt or didnt advise people.

All this long drawn out stuff with the DM, and, it seems at any time, they could have just said "we don't want it to run", instead of running with this convoluted tale of "it's beyond our control, we dont know our rights and anyway Justine is on holiday"

Either they are a business, or they arent. Either way, it's a shambles.

foronethreadonly · 06/09/2009 23:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pielight · 06/09/2009 23:24

They might. I might. I might start a campaign of total deletion. It'll be like the 1999 thing, and everyone will rush to have their posts deleted - and their memories wiped at the same time - and we'll be left denuded, innocent, yet oddly willing to start all over again.

enough with your non-points, point. tsk

xxxxBAMBOOxxxx · 06/09/2009 23:25

VVVQ - you seem to have lost all faith and pleasure in MN. Yet you are still here.

Tortington · 06/09/2009 23:25

agreed bamboo - strange isn't it

Tortington · 06/09/2009 23:26
VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/09/2009 23:27

oops, you are being very gracious

xxxxBAMBOOxxxx · 06/09/2009 23:27
AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 23:28

i think the revelation, custy, is that mnhq, despite owning the copywright on people's posts, is not going to fight for that copywright. (indeed they have announced that they do not want to get into a legal anything after what they went through with GF). so we are entirely without protection. for me, i thought opting-out offered me some autonomy but evidently i am no longer opting-out anyway.

personally i think that the DM will back away from this, but as it stands they don't have to, because HQ has said that they won't fight them.

i'm not in the slightest bit het up about this, i should stress. i do find it all very interesting, though, and do think that some of MN's policies should be looked at again.

OnlyQuoteMeInTheTelegraph · 06/09/2009 23:30

Has your sub got the night off Aitch? "copywright" indeed

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 23:31

at least vvv's raising these questions under a name that is recognisably her own.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 23:31

lol, did one sneak through? lol. i actually caught a couple of them. it's one of my spelling blind spots, that.

Prunerz · 06/09/2009 23:32

It is bloody fascinating.

All the more interesting is the fact that like in any industry, media people do love to gossip. I bet Nancy66 knows exactly what's gone on

VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/09/2009 23:33

My posts over the last 4 years are a commodity to MNHQ's archives. I have a vested interest as much as anyone else. Whether I like it here or not is irrelevant.

It's an important debate to have, and there are lots of answers with regard to policy and terms and conditions that need clarifying, which I'm sure MNHQ are as keen to clarify.

My disgruntlement as a consumer bears no relation to my entitlement to being here. Indeed, ensuring a better future for MN and it's users is in everyones best interests, and its those that strive for change and improvement that are the ones that are more likely to make it a better place for everyone else, and people like you.

I'm not one to sit looking pretty but do little all else cept kiss hq ass.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 23:33

rofl, i did it loads. i actually had copywrite before, would you believe?

foronethreadonly · 06/09/2009 23:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Tortington · 06/09/2009 23:34

aitch, i agree that there should be the choice to opt out.

i think the decision not to fight the DM had to be financial one. i am sure they have been having lots of schmoozing sessions

VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/09/2009 23:35

aitch, I don't know who half the people are here anymore anyway, so no worries

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 23:37

truthfully, i doubt it would have cost them more than a hundred and fifty quid for the one letter that they'd have needed to send saying 'please cease this, it is not fair use for x and y reason and breaks our coppppywryte, thankyou MHHQ'. it's just not something the editor of femail would get into, imo. and in the opinion of nancy66 who works there.

Tortington · 06/09/2009 23:43

so if someone disagrees they are kissing MNHQ ass?

interesting standpoint. However it is heartening to see that some peoples interests and involvement are purely in creating a better MN world for us all.

VVQ ofcourse is as entitled to be here as anyone else, however her posts seem to have an attack stance, whereas other posts have a debate stance. In short it is how they are written which i think belies another facet to the whole thing.

foronethreadonly · 06/09/2009 23:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bibbitybobbityhat · 06/09/2009 23:59

One thing we are all missing now, as the dust is settling, is that what has happened here, in the last two weeks, is a really intresting/valid/pertinent/sellable story re. the current zeitgeist.

Any journalist (Aitch, c'mon) could make a good article out of this.

The tears, the drama, the name changing, the impassioned pleas, the pithily-fought objections. The privacy and copyright issues. The infighting. The fundamentally opposing points of view.

I'd like to see someone start an interesting media debate out of this slightly sordid but nevertheless necessary debacle.

foronethreadonly · 06/09/2009 23:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

foronethreadonly · 07/09/2009 00:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 07/09/2009 00:08

not my area, bib. i am VERY glad to say.

Swipe left for the next trending thread