Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

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:
MNHQ
YetAnotherHelenMumsnet · 29/05/2017 16:57

We're looking into it.

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 · 29/05/2017 17:07

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 · 29/05/2017 17:11

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

bibbitybobbityyhat · 29/05/2017 17:12

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

LIZS · 29/05/2017 17:12

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

Sparklingbrook · 29/05/2017 17:13

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

ImperialBlether · 29/05/2017 17:14

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

bibbitybobbityyhat · 29/05/2017 17:14

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 · 29/05/2017 17:15

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 · 29/05/2017 17:15

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 · 29/05/2017 17:16

You ARE getting it wrong Gruach.

Sparklingbrook · 29/05/2017 17:16

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 · 29/05/2017 17:17

Sparklingbrook

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 · 29/05/2017 17:18

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 · 29/05/2017 17:19

Well that's a relief!

I think ...Confused

LIZS · 29/05/2017 17:19

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

lynmilne65 · 29/05/2017 17:20

I use an adblocker and don't get any !

ShesNoNormanPace · 29/05/2017 17:20

I suggest subs of £12 a year Hmm

gillybeanz · 29/05/2017 17:22

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 · 29/05/2017 17:23

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 · 29/05/2017 17:23

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 · 29/05/2017 17:23

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 · 29/05/2017 17:25

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 · 29/05/2017 17:59

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!

DameDiazepamTheDramaQueen · 29/05/2017 18:03

Oh God, seriously? I left the last parent site I was with because if subscriptions. It closed not long after too. It was the kiss of death imo.