To think MN should drop the idea of a two-tier system?

[shirleesw]

AIBU is particularly infested with trolls, I think this will only make it worse.

The trolls will pay for the premium membership so that they don't get banned and non paying people that don't want to risk their privacy or can't afford it will suffer.

In fairness this would be a good feature, if it guaranteed your OP wouldn't end up in the daily mail.
All the papers pinch content from here not just DM.

I know people are all loving the emojis and quote features on the other site but I genuinely don't want all that. I like mumsnet as it is and I'll keep using it unless it changes beyond recognition

They have only been running a couple of days- how many have they banned?

From what I gather - one. Out of a few hundred members.

The price they expect is frankly bonkers. It’s £1 more for subscriptions like Amazon prime and Netflix. I like using MN but there’s no way it benefits my family and I like those sites do.

Having browsed "the other site" ...

1. The ownership and management details aren't transparent at all. Either up front, or when you ask in a forum.

2. They aren't going to allow the ability to name change. Which they think will be a selling point, but from my time on MN will simply guarantee vulnerable posters won't go near it with a barge pole.

However ...

3. It's just running on open source (i.e. free) software, and just out of the box allows all the feature that have proved "too hard" for MN with it's team of dedicated (and highly paid) developers

They don’t sell content to the DM: DM hacks just browse for likely looking threads and “report” on them. Nothing that can be done to stop it if you’ve made a comment in public - it’s just like a story saying “celebrity X said Y on Twitter”. If you don’t want to end up in the papers then I’m afraid the only answer is to never say or do anything interesting in a public forum.

Can someone explain to me what you are actually paying for if you subscribe? If this is a free website why are people willing to pay for it?

I agree, when I got the email I wished they had gone for a one-off request for financial support. I’d happily pay £50, but the last thing I want others is yet another monthly subscription, and the two tier offer was also half baked with little immediate benefit.
I also agree that something would be lost by privileging those who pay.

You’d be paying for no adverts and an edit button. Perfectly normal online business practice. I think they’d have got less flack if they’d just kept it at “pay for ad free”, at a lower price point.

The two tier offer is odd. As if MN employees never read the threads on MN and therefore hasn't realized that most posters consider two tier to be rude.

MN would get more money from their advertisers if we clicked on more adverts, so I have just clicked on 3.

You’d be paying for no adverts and an edit button.

Fewer ads. And (if they are to be believed) a 15second edit button.

MN have misjudged badly, IMHO - the ability to edit is akin to witchcraft to a lot of their fans, and a different demographic are already untroubled by ads to begin with.

People are free to spend their money as they see fit of course. But personally even if I wanted to subscribe here, I'd be on the monthly option to avoid the inevitable battle to recoup my £49.99 when they go bust. I am a free spirit not an unsecured creditor ...

The two tier offer is odd. As if MN employees never read the threads on MN and therefore hasn't realized that most posters consider two tier to be rude.

The whole thing is a bit crap. And continues to be so. It's obvious that there is only one desired outcome. And that isn't keeping the lights on at MN, which is clearly a cover story. MNHQ have already decided what they want (lots of subscribers) and have spun a story they think will achieve it. If the genuine aim was to find ways to keep MN going in the face of the current situation then even a cursory "request for comments" before setting off on this path would have been worthwhile.

Long bitter experience has taught me that when a problem is announced by management together with it's "solution", things aren't going to get any better.

You’d be paying for no adverts and an edit button

You wont get no ads you will have fewer ads, which could mean 1 less and they will still technically have given what you were promised.

Theres also the possibility of an edit button in future but as yet no one has clarified how long it will take for it to possibly make an appearance...

Hardly great value for your 5 quid a month

You should be able to donate if you wanted too rather than a set price. As we know there are people that are mega mega rich and very poor so I think this would be a fairer way of doing things

You should be able to donate if you wanted too rather than a set price.

Yes. There are many ways the current situation could have been addressed. The fact that MNHQ decided in advance the only way was to tap subscribers for a fee speaks volumes. It means they want the money first and MN surviving is a nice-to-have.

I would have preferred it was more obvious they wanted MN to survive, and getting money to do it was a nice-to-have.

Some might get where I am coming from. Some might not. But when you add my thoughts to the subsequent confusion about how the payment is processed, who gets to see the subscribers details etc etc, it all starts to look very iffy. If I was being paid to advise, I'd advise against subscribing. And if you have to, pay monthly.

Maybe they should make the other areas of the website only accessible through premium membership (articles, job vacancies, special offers) since that’s one of the staffing costs they’ve specified needs covering.

Journalists lifting content from other sites is rife throughout the internet and most sites like it since it brings more traffic.

Maybe they should make the other areas of the website only accessible through premium membership (articles, job vacancies, special offers) since that’s one of the staffing costs they’ve specified needs covering

Does anybody actually read them? I'm here for the forum and nowt else.

Can someone fill me in on this all. Why is a tech company like mumsnet short of cash so quickly? What is mums chat?

Another thing is not everyone on MN is from the UK. My country has really terrible exchange rates with the UK pound - it’s been that way for some time and I don’t see it changing any time soon. Currently, my dollar is worth half of yours. So this deal is especially bad for me, and likely a good percentage of other overseas users. I simply cannot afford it.

Does anybody actually read them? I'm here for the forum and nowt else.

I would presume most are only here for the forum. I often forget they even have a website.

Blimey. I've been in and out of MN for the last 15 years or so but this is the first I've heard of a £5pm charge. Sometimes I've spent far too much time here but £5????

I've just been trying to explain to DS1 that Disney, Netflix, Amazon Prime, a phone upgrade etc might seem like "nothing" er month but all those small subscriptions add up and are one of the reasons poor people stay poor.

MN was great in its prime but it's been on the wane for a while now.

@FredericcaPotter and @PleaseStopCrying me either

The info I’ve read from MNHQ though is saying that staffing these things are significant part of their costs so they should be funding themselves surely?

The forums have to account for most of their traffic therefore desirability for advertisers so I’m not happy with the premise that they want me to shore up a relatively shit part of their business. Nor posh offices....

I like this site but I wouldn't pay for it. Other industries affected by Covid 19 haven't tried to increase costs for their customers imo, there are other ways to decrease costs (furloughing etc.)

I'd have donated to a genuine 'keep the lights on' fund, with no perks, no recognition. That really isn't what this is. Without us they have no product.

I always contribute to ao3 when they ask.