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 think there are ways to pay securely.

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

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.

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

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

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!

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 £££

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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

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

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

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 )

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.

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

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.

@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

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.

Wouldn't it be like paying to see the btl comments in a newspaper?

The times has subscription to pay for journalist, other newspapers use advertising. What unique content are mumsnet offering?

@BigDeskBob

Wouldn't it be like paying to see the btl comments in a newspaper?

The times has subscription to pay for journalist, other newspapers use advertising. What unique content are mumsnet offering?

An ad free version of Mumsnet is the unique content. I doubt we'd ever force subscription however - we've always been of the view that it would be wrong to exclude someone desperate for advice if they couldn't afford to pay for it.

Be sad not to use the site when subscription brought in, but hey ho.

But you wouldn't have to, surely? You could carry on as now - no payment, seeing ads. You could choose to pay to switch the ads off, but you wouldn't have to.

I can stop seeing ads by using an ad blocker.
Subscription will send a clear message that from that point on MN is not interested in representing the voices of all women. Just the ones who can pay.

But the ones who couldn't pay could still use the site? The service people would pay for is "no ads", not "access to Mumsnet".

The ideology has a bit of a conservative ring to it. I'm guessing you vote Tory OP?