Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Paying for Mumsnet

118 replies

BIWI · 28/05/2017 18:20

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'

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 20/06/2017 07:35

Yes it's a fair point CoteDAzur. That said, our annual wage bill is close to £4.5m and, call us old fashioned, but we do like to have money in the bank to pay the staff in case of catastrophe (it's a zombie plan of sorts). But the point about intrusive ads/ alternative models to support MN is well made and something we are very much thinking on. We've already removed the T-bar ad on mobile (the one that goes across the top and the side) and we won't be having it back.

One of our problems is that a lot of our display advertising is served by third parties and stray code sometimes slips in which makes ads render wrongly and seem more intrusive than they're meant to be.

Longer term we are reviewing several options including subscription for for a premium model but we'd be very unlikely to put the access to MN forums behind a premium model as we do believe it should be free to use as a point of principle.

Thanks for the input, as ever, and promise to keep you all posted.

@CoteDAzur

Justine - re "Yes much of that content is indeed kindly provided for free. But obviously there is a lot of cost involved in hosting, moderating, securing user generated content as well as producing non-user content."

As at year-end 2016, Mumsnet Limited has almost £3 million in cash, with a net worth of almost £4 million.

Do you really REALLY have to have so many obtrusive ads? Sure money is cool, we all like it. But still... It is possible to aim for a middle ground where you can make money without pissing off your users who also happen to be your content providers.

CoteDAzur · 13/06/2017 22:19

Not bad - several cool millions there.

They can certainly afford to be selective with the ads they publish and NOT poke our eyes out with the most intrusive, poppy, HUGE ones that I have personally ever come across on the internet.

PencilsInSpace · 13/06/2017 21:54

I don't think those are huge figures for a company with as many customers/users/members as MN, tbf. That's about 3-4 posh houses worth.

CoteDAzur · 13/06/2017 21:42

Justine - re "Yes much of that content is indeed kindly provided for free. But obviously there is a lot of cost involved in hosting, moderating, securing user generated content as well as producing non-user content."

As at year-end 2016, Mumsnet Limited has almost £3 million in cash, with a net worth of almost £4 million.

Do you really REALLY have to have so many obtrusive ads? Sure money is cool, we all like it. But still... It is possible to aim for a middle ground where you can make money without pissing off your users who also happen to be your content providers.

PencilsInSpace · 13/06/2017 19:27

I'm bumping this because lots of people seem to be grumbling about ads at the moment and I meant to post when the thread was fresh - I would be more than happy to pay a small subscription for an ad-free version of MN.

I use an adblocker but usually turn it off for sites I like and use a lot because I do understand sites need to make money. Not MN though as I find the ads here far too intrusive.

OlennasWimple · 01/06/2017 16:26

AStick - the problem is that if every MNer uses adblock, advertisers will stop paying to advertise on MN, so MNHQ will need to look elsewhere for revenue. So it works at an individual level, but isn't sustainable in the long run

OlennasWimple · 01/06/2017 16:24

It's interesting that there are a number of different pay to use / ad access models developing online

The Telegraph has put a lot of content behind a paywall with it's Premium offering (I think you can access five articles a week for free but more than that you have to pay to subscribe, and you have to register to view for free too)

The Guardian has a prominent bucket being shaken at the end of every article, encouraging regular donations (like Oxfam and other charities do with their chuggers in shopping centres)

I opted to pay a bit less for my Kindle but have an advert on the "home page" when I switch it on; I could have paid more to opt out of the adverts, but I don't mind getting ads for new / promoted books TBH

Some sites, particularly local newspaper sites it seems, have an advert that you can't click past until a certain amount of time into the video; I've played free online games that do this too during a natural pause in play.

So I don't think that there is currently much consensus on what works best, so no obvious route for MN to choose. I don't want MN to be an overt two tier system like the Telegraph site is, though, that's for certain

AStickInTime · 01/06/2017 16:07

I don't even know what you're talking about with these ads. I use the app and so there's no bother.

Easy solution?

peaceout · 01/06/2017 11:57

as well as producing non-user content
The boring stuff, definitely wouldn't pay to access that
The interesting and entertaining content comes exclusively from the members and theye give it up for free
Yes some of what the member post is dire vacuous old gobshite, but some of it is entertaining and informative
Contributions from mnhq are largely patronising and trying too hard to be witty but failing
Yes the site coSt money to run but pretty sure it makes a nice profit

I do wonder why you're here, if you think it's gobshite, stream of consciousness asinine bullshit
Well sometimes I just wanna point and laugh

DonkeyOaty · 31/05/2017 23:52

Fucksake I need an eye test. I thought the thread title was Praying For Mumsnet wtf?

[d'oh face]

ImperialBlether · 31/05/2017 23:47

I'd like to charge everyone who says "blardy", myself.

MiaowTheCat · 31/05/2017 21:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Highalert · 31/05/2017 20:39

Special lounge for the ones who pay.

Saucery · 31/05/2017 20:37

It could run like a 200 Club.

Highalert · 31/05/2017 20:35

I'd pay for a once a month chance to ban hammer posters. Grin

Saucery · 31/05/2017 20:33

That's ok, BIWI, it's easy done. I know you aren't asking for anything apart from an ad free site. It would appear the planning does include more than that though, which is a shame.

Original poster
BIWI · 31/05/2017 20:31

Apologies Saucery. I missed that - the phone rang when I was in the middle of reading. But no excuse. I'm sorry.

And I'd like to make it quite clear that as the OP of this question, I wasn't thinking about any extra features at all.

OP posts:
Saucery · 31/05/2017 20:29

Apparently, reading the owner of MN's own words about extra features above and beyond not seeing ads is just me being obtuse. Confused

Highalert · 31/05/2017 20:27

Extra features if you pay? I don't like the sound of that.

Saucery · 31/05/2017 20:24

'Extra features' at 14.17 today.

Saucery · 31/05/2017 20:23

How rude, BIWI Hmm Justine herself has mentioned extra content.

Original poster
BIWI · 31/05/2017 20:22

But it's not about adding anything that non-paying members can't access! Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The only think paying members wouldn't be able to access would be the advertising.

OP posts:
Saucery · 31/05/2017 14:33

No, I won't be emailing any details of that account. I have moved house since then, different mobile no. etc. It was an example of inadequate data protection and a lack of joined up processes for managing that data. The situation may well have improved since then, but I won't be chancing it with financial details.

The 'extra features' are disenfranchising poorer members of the site. I realise you can do this, that lots of sites do this, it's perfectly legal, your site-your rules and all that jazz. You want and need to make money out of this and that is reasonable. However, you won't then be able to claim MN is for everyone as you will have put in a two tier system based on ability to pay (leaving aside whiny suspicious baggages like myself who just don't trust you with financial details).
The minute you add anything that non paying members can't access you are saying they are not equal in your eyes and that money buys privilege, even on a chat site.

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 31/05/2017 14:17

@AudacityJones

I would pay for an ad-free version. I actually do use an ad-blocker at the moment so miss most of the ads, but I spend time on MN and find it useful so would be happy to contribute to its running and upkeep.

To the posters saying we generate the content - sure we do but surely you also realise MN pays for servers and hosting and moderators and such right? Think of how difficult it would be to recreate the community (as flawed as it is) if MN disappeared?

Thanks Audacity - good to know.

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 31/05/2017 14:17

@Saucery

Justine, when I was on the Insight Panel as well as a poster I continued to get emails from the former despite repeated requests after the hacking to remove all my details, every last one of them, from your databases. They are probably still sending them, but the Yahoo address I had is no longer in use. I know they are separate pools of info but from a security point of view not being able to delete them at your end doesn't fill me with confidence that a bank account or PayPal details would be safe with MN.

The moderation is ok here. Overstretched, I'd say, but for the most part they get it right. Paying customers are going to want it to be perfect though (well, some of them!) so I can see workload going up when staff have to deal with complaints.
The Night Watch is inadequate for a paid service.

Hi Saucery,
Will certainly check out the insight panel stuff and get back to you (will you mail partnerships@mumsnet with the email address in question?) - We do have strict rules on the data we hold - who has access and when it is deleted.
I'm not sure I agree the nightwatch is inadequate - very few if any complaints of late - obviously they'll miss things now and then but humans do. Plus a subs version of MN would be likely to be an offer around no ads and extra features (not extra moderation).