Advanced search

Paying for Mumsnet

(119 Posts)

MNHQ have commented on this thread.

BIWI Sun 28-May-17 18:20:09

There have been eleventy billion threads (only a slight exaggeration) about the advertising on MN becoming more and more intrusive. And calls, inevitably, for it to stop.

We all KNOW - we're not stupid - that MN is a free-so-use site, so needs to take advertising to keep going.

However, lots of us on the various threads have also said that we'd be prepared to pay for an ad-free version of the site.

So you'd run two sites - one with advertising, which is free, and one which costs [x amount] per month/year.

Have you actually tried running your figures and working out how much revenue you'd get from people who are prepared to pay, and different scenarios, e.g. If x% pay y amount, we'll achieve x revenue?

Because it feels every time this issue is raised that you just pat us on the head and tell us that you're 'looking into it'

YetAnotherHelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 29-May-17 16:57:14

We're looking into it. <pats everyone on head>

Actually, we're not sure if this would come under TSSDNCOP or not, but promise to flag to the higher ups and get back to you when they tell us what's what.

gillybeanz Mon 29-May-17 17:07:49

but then wouldn't the site be split, so half the comments on the threads.
Hey we could have a wc free site for all of us who don't budget/ can't afford to pay for sites and a site for the mc or those who can afford/ are happy to pay.
I wonder if you'd just get the same comments on each site as they'd attract similar thinking posters?
AIBU would just be people agreeing grin

I wouldn't pay, not because I couldn't afford to, but don't think it's worth paying for. I certainly couldn't justify paying for a magazine forum.

user1496069596 Mon 29-May-17 17:11:27

I would never pay for a forum, I'd just go elsewhere!

bibbitybobbityyhat Mon 29-May-17 17:12:10

That's not how it would work gillybeanz. You don't seriously imagine BIWI was suggesting that do you?

LIZS Mon 29-May-17 17:12:55

We used to pay, way back in the dawn of MN, but www has mushroomed since.

Sparklingbrook Mon 29-May-17 17:13:10

I would pay. Especially if it meant fewer trolls as well as ads.

ImperialBlether Mon 29-May-17 17:14:49

But that was only paying for private messaging, wasn't it, LIZS?

bibbitybobbityyhat Mon 29-May-17 17:14:56

Oh God, it's going to be like this grin.

You wouldn't have to pay. You could remain on Mumsnet for nothing, but still see the ads.

Those who paid would simply be paying for an ad free version. It feels a bit more community minded than just using an ad blocker which is what I've been doing for years but I would be prepared to pay a sub. Maybe £3 a month or something?

Gruach Mon 29-May-17 17:15:24

So you'd run two sites - one with advertising, which is free, and one which costs [x amount] per month/year.

Surely one site, with some people getting it advert-free and others not? Or am I misunderstanding? Two separate sites would be - outrageous. Whatever would be the point?

JamesDelaneysHat Mon 29-May-17 17:15:53

I would consider paying. I've been on here for years and can't imagine not using MN. However I do view the forum through an adblocker and don't see any of the ads that are causing all the brouhaha.

bibbitybobbityyhat Mon 29-May-17 17:16:21

You ARE getting it wrong Gruach.

Sparklingbrook Mon 29-May-17 17:16:53

Yes, my adblocker does a really good job TBF on my laptop. Not mastered the phone one yet I hate the ads on the phone.

Lweji Mon 29-May-17 17:17:40


Unless everyone had to pay, it wouldn't mean fewer trolls.

And I suspect the DM would want to get more out of their subscription. wink

SwedishEdith Mon 29-May-17 17:18:22

I did pay in the very beginning when the collection buckets were rattled a few times. Not loads but chipped in. Not sure now I'd feel about it now - it'd have to be very cheap.

Gruach Mon 29-May-17 17:19:06

Well that's a relief!

I think ...confused

LIZS Mon 29-May-17 17:19:39

Think it was before the days of pm , around 2003/4

lynmilne65 Mon 29-May-17 17:20:06

I use an adblocker and don't get any !

ShesNoNormanPace Mon 29-May-17 17:20:59

I suggest subs of £12 a year hmm

gillybeanz Mon 29-May-17 17:22:49

How can you run two sites one free with advertising and one free without, but everybody able to post?

This is what made me respond in the way I did.

Surely it would be the one site with ads blocked for those who pay and the remainder seeing the ads.

ErrolTheDragon Mon 29-May-17 17:23:27

I mostly MN in the app on an iPad, and have an adblocker - the only ad I see is the not very obtrusive Fairy banner across the thread. I'm not aware of many if I use it on my PC via browser (maybe I've got some level of adblocking on that, though its not perfect)

Sparklingbrook Mon 29-May-17 17:23:43

I guess so Lweji. It's a shame. But they could use some of the added revenue to do something about the trolls maybe? Because at the moment MN is hard going.

BillyButtfuck Mon 29-May-17 17:23:57

I use the app on my iPhone mainly and the ads really aren't an issue. I get a Fairy laundry banner every now and then but nothing which gets in the way or pops out at me.

Is there more advertising on the desktop site?

peaceout Mon 29-May-17 17:25:36

No way would I pay, all the content is generated by the posters if anyone should be paid it's them or rather us
No one pays to use internet forums

user1496069596 Mon 29-May-17 17:59:30

People would soon give up on paying anyway, not like we would be paying for quality content written by professionals.
I recall seeing a post where Justine is comparing MN to The Guardian, that is hilarious and she is delusional!

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: