Paying for Mumsnet

[BIWI]

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'

I barely see advertising on my phone!

Of course I didn't mean two separate sites - sorry, I phrased that really badly

But two different ways to access the same site was what I was meaning - so you could choose to have it for free, but have the site with all the ads, or you pay a monthly subscription and get the site without any ads.

It obviously would have to be costed out - how many people would be prepared to pay, how much would they be prepared to pay and how much would it cost from a tech/site-running point of view - and would it be worth it for MNHQ financially.

I totally get that a lot/perhaps most people don't want to have to pay for a site where the content is (mainly) generated by its users - but there are lots of posters who have already said they'd pay for no advertising.

This way - assuming it's financially viable - both sets of posters are happy.

Oooh yes, have some kind of payment interface with a site that has security so crap it can be hacked in an instant. Marvellous idea!

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

Adblocker.
The only way that !
MNhQ will start taking the user experience issues seriously is if they are losing money hand over fist because everyone is using an ad blocker. So many people have tried to tell them how bad it is and they never listen. Hitting their pockets is the only way I'm afraid.

I imagine firms pay a lot to advertise here.

I can't imagine most of us would be able to or pay enough to compensate for that.

Why would you pay?

Ad blocker on my phone/tablet/pc already gives me an ad free verosion of mn?

They would probably ramp up the ads as there would be an option not have them. So more people would use ad blockers anyway.

Can't see mumsnet being the same with an paywall. I think it would work if you had same site with same users just money goes to get ads off plus maybe additional content?

Plenty of sites have a premium version you access with a subscription, it's not exactly a unique idea.

I quite like the Reddit system where you can buy credits to give other members a month of "Reddit Gold" for any post you particularly like which gives them access to nicer features, no ads, etc. Sort of a virtual version of "I'd buy you a drink for that post". And of course you can buy it for yourself if you want too.

The site is perfectly functional without paying but it's a fun little extra.

I use adblocker. But I don't like doing it because I know that it's depriving MN of income. They do need to earn money to pay for all their staff!

I just use an ad blocker. I wouldn't pay to use the site.

I do use adblock on MN because the ads are too intrusive. I used to whitelist them but they have become such a problem that I'm not willing to any more.

Perfectplonker - yes, of course we can all install adblockers. But eventually then MN has no source of revenue, and as it's a valuable site which I use a lot I would hate to see it go tits up because of loss of ad revenue. Interesting article about adblockers here. I'd certainly be happy to pay a subscription, and wish it was an option.

There's no way I'd pay for this

Hmm, they will definitely incentivise subscription I think, to avoid the use of ad blockers.
It will all go swimmingly until all the financial data gets stolen.

But that's my point, @TheBogQueen - you wouldn't have to! You'd have the choice!

Many people have made it very clear that they don't want to, others have said they're quite happy to.

I only use mn on my phone and without an Adblocker it is unusable, as the ads frequently cause my phone to crash. If I couldn't use an Adblocker then I wouldn't use the site, so they'd lose money either way.

I think Reddit does it quite well with the gold system, which means their ads can be far less intrusive as they're not solely reliant on ad revenue.

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

Nope, nor me.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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