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:
Saucery · 31/05/2017 10:18

I do think the content is worth subscription. I just don't want to risk any rl info being accessed. Even when deregistered the Insight stuff is still there and never deleted despite repeated requests. I don't think member security is taken as seriously as it should be. Be sad not to use the site when subscription brought in, but hey ho.

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 31/05/2017 10:18

@peaceout

Subscribe to mumsnet?? Actually pay a fee to read all this gobshite, stream of consciousness asinine bullshit Hahahaha Good luck with that

Go on, say what you mean, Peaceout. Don't hold back Grin

PhilODox · 31/05/2017 10:16

I think this shows how much MN has changed.
BIWI, you're the same MN vintage as I am, and yes, I'd pay to have no ads- they're destroying my usage ATM.
CAT was paid via world pay, so MNHQ didn't have your payment details.

PeanutButterJellyTimeforTea · 31/05/2017 10:16

I can't imagine why anyone would pay for an ad free site when they can adblock for free in 30 seconds?

NameThatPrune · 31/05/2017 10:12

I have posted this on another thread, sorry to repeat.. but I recently noticed that the MN logo is now on packets endorsing DC ice creams, (which gave me a wierd sensation of my online life popping up IRL Grin)

Anyway while you are about HQ, is product endorsement another revenue generator that will enable you to tackle advertising bother/ improve the user experience? (I missed it if you've already been talking about it somewhere on here).

I'm also nosily interested to know what HQ's criteria for the 'MN rated' product endorsement is (...does a MNer have to have posted about it?) and what the limits are to what the MN endorsement can be applied to.

peaceout · 31/05/2017 10:09

You really think we will pay money to access the rantings and ramblings of Joanne Public, you want to to charge us to chat with each other, extract a profit from the work that we do for free
You already sell our attention to advertisers, you can probably mine some of the content for public opinion data
Working for free so that internet companies can profit is bad enough, I will not pay to provide content

Instasista · 31/05/2017 09:52

People wouldn't pay. They pay site would die a death. All forums have a shelf life, paying just speeds it up.

peaceout · 31/05/2017 09:50

Subscribe to mumsnet??
Actually pay a fee to read all this gobshite, stream of consciousness asinine bullshit
Hahahaha
Good luck with that

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 31/05/2017 09:12

Hi there,
Thanks for the comments - very interesting and useful to hear people's thoughts on this. In answer to BIWI's question, yes, a two version model, ad-free subscription model is something in our thoughts - we are currently scoping out the development requirement.

In general, over the next few years Mumsnet is likely to move to fewer display advertising formats as advertisers embrace more native solutions which they've already started to do (eg content, insight, direct engagement).

Added to that we are currently reviewing our display ad mix and the viewability of ads (how long they are on the page for), which is something advertisers really care about. The upshot will be that we'll be disallowing some annoying formats but that the ads are likely to be on screen for slightly longer when you scroll for instance - much like the Guardian does here. That should take place in the next few weeks.

Overall our aim is to reduce our reliance on display advertising over the next 3-5 years with a larger share of income coming from e-commerce and potentially subscription.

Will take a look at Reddit's Gold system - thanks for the pointer.

53rdWay · 30/05/2017 12:17

You wouldn't necessarily have to give bank details to MN. Other sites use PayPal etc for this - could be done the same way here?

ErrolTheDragon · 29/05/2017 22:20

I'm sure I used to pay something, way back when...

Way back when, cybercrime wasn't on today's scale.

I reckon ultimately, advertisers are going to have to get smarter. Less intrusive but more interesting/amusing, otherwise people will adblock or pay to opt out. We already never watch tv in real time, always record enough so we can skip most of the ads ...but you betcha we've deliberately watched the heinz sausage dog stampede!

ErrolTheDragon · 29/05/2017 22:11

I recall seeing a post where Justine is comparing MN to The Guardian

C'mon, the spelling on MN isn't that bad, and the content is more balanced.Grin

MrsLucyEmerson · 29/05/2017 21:25

I am sure MN could put th necessary security in place. It is more whether they would. Jeffrey-gate suggests security is not a top priority.

peaceout · 29/05/2017 21:18

I wasnt suggesting that my content is of any particular merit, but the value of the site derives from the volume of traffic and the amount of posting, the size of the community and the fact that we engage with each other to provide an audience which can be advertised at.

In short we do the work even if it is trashy it earns mn £££

paxillin · 29/05/2017 21:14

Mumsnet should pay me, I work for them as a content providers, no way would I pay for the 'privilege' of providing forum content Grin Grin Grin

As an academic, I am a "content provider" at work. I am paid for it. The content is vastly better than the frivolous nonsense I write on MN. In my experience, paid-for content goes through some quality control or peer review. I am glad my MN musings do not!

Sparklingbrook · 29/05/2017 21:03

I think the quality of work by the 'content providers' is a little erratic to say the least. Grin

AgentProvocateur · 29/05/2017 20:59

I would have paid in the past, when it was more of a community, and there were intelligent, funny, interesting posts. Now, it feels completely different. The same threads are rehashed over and over, and with so many resurrected zombie threads (which aren't flagged up in any way) and others by GFs, it's not s site I value enough to pay for any more. I think this is as a direct result of the DM lifting threads - it stops genuine people posting anything interesting, and it encouraged an influx of DM readers to the site.

Having seen other site fold and close, it feels very much as if mumsnet is at a tipping point now.

OhYouBadBadKitten · 29/05/2017 20:46

I think there are ways to pay securely.

I'm sure I used to pay something, way back when...

peaceout · 29/05/2017 20:41

Mumsnet should pay me, I work for them as a content providers, no way would I pay for the 'privilege' of providing forum contentHmmConfused

MrsLucyEmerson · 29/05/2017 20:00

I don't think Mumsnet is adequately set up security-wise to take payments. The hacking / doxing incident proved that their security is incredibly lax, sort of reflecting the original purpose of the site: mum's posting about which pram is best and which holiday company have best deals for families.

The site then moved on dramatically but the security didn't.

I would worry that Mumsnet is just not equipped / designed to be an e-commerce site so I would be very reluctant to put in bank details. A legion of Jeffreys would have a field day.

Highalert · 29/05/2017 19:58

Reputational death spiral sounds like the name of a heavy metal band Grin

JennyHolzersGhost · 29/05/2017 19:50

Reputational death spiral in action. You were warned, MNHQ.

OvariesBeforeBrovaries · 29/05/2017 19:44

While I wouldn't be opposed to paying for sites, there's no way I'd give MN my bank details after what's happened in the past.

IvorHughJarrs · 29/05/2017 19:31

I'm going to sound like a grumpy old git now but I would have paid happily at some points in the past but the quality of posting really has fallen and I think I would just move elsewhere if that came in. I think I'll just resort to an adblocker as others have said

DameDiazepamTheDramaQueen · 29/05/2017 19:26

Not a chance I would give any of my bank details to MN

Nope, nor me.