Mumsnet Premium membership - please support us if you can

[JustineMumsnet]

Hi folks,

First and most importantly, I hope you and yours are safe and well, and that you all stay that way.

After 20 years of unreasonableness, rofls, wtfs, advice and support, and the odd lawsuit, it's fair to say that we are as close as we’ve ever been to existential difficulty.

Like many ad-funded businesses, the COVID-19 crisis has seen us take a big hit to our revenues. The businesses who would normally pay to advertise with us are slashing their marketing budgets, but lots of our outgoings are fixed and we so need to find new ways to keep paying the bills.

We’re doing our darndest to find every single saving we can - lots of our staff have volunteered to reduce their hours, we’ve cancelled all non-essential services, I've taken a pay holiday and we will use every scheme and loan available to us from the government and the bank to help tide us over. But we still need to find alternative revenue streams to ensure we don’t run out of funds in a few months...

To put it frankly, it’s squeaky bum time.

I know this is a very tough time for many of you and some of you are only just keeping the lights on yourselves. We’re sending you our solidarity and we most certainly don’t want anyone to stump up anything they can’t afford, but if you can help, please do subscribe now to our Premium service.

We’ve banged this out as fast as possible in response to the current crisis and it’s definitely not the finished article, but it’s free of banner advertising, so if you’ve ever been vexed by those (or use an ad-blocker) this might be right up your alley. Banner ads also tend to make pages render more slowly and take up bandwidth, so if you’re surrounded by bored kids streaming with their mates, step this way.

We’ve opted for a price point that we hope is doable for most and which covers the potential lost ad revenue for the majority of users. We hope £4.99 per month or £49.99 for a year (less than a pound a week!) feels a reasonable exchange for the value Mumsnet brings you, but in any case you can unsubscribe any time.

Over the next little while we’ll look to add some extra features: things that people have requested regularly like editing, sorting posts by the OP, and reading offline.

Rest assured we remain committed to always providing a free version of the site, as we fundamentally believe that access to the advice and support Mumsnet offers should not depend on your ability to pay.

And if you can’t spare any cash right now… then of course we get it. It would still be very helpful if you removed any ad blockers or clicked on affiliate links around the site when you shop, joined our insight panel or even shared the best Mumsnet threads on your social channels whenever you can - it all helps.

If you have any questions at all feel free to post them here and I'll get back to you. We also have a page of FAQs that might answer your question.

Hold tight everyone.

Love

Justine and the team at MNHQ

@MoleSmokes Justine said earlier in this thread that 5 staff members would have access to information, but it wouldn’t be held on MN servers. So there’s still a question about the security of real names, addresses and their link to usernames

While moderators continue to allow trolls to hound and bully posters on certain topics I'd struggle to find the enthusiasm for this.

Maybe if a block button was introduced so posters could protect themselves I'd consider it.

The fact is that Mumsnet is a tainted brand. If you’re in the middle of FWR it’s possible you don’t see how it’s perceived further afield. Eyes roll if you mention it even tangentially. This is 90% down to the perception of transphobia. I never, ever admit to coming on here - it’s not worth people thinking I’m a frothing-at-the-mouth gender-critical nutter and actually, really, truly avoiding me in real life.

Agree. I nearly mentioned I'd read something on MN at work but didn't because I didn't want people to think I'm transphobic, which is their major perception of it now.

It's actually been a mixed blessing of the fact that the site is now all coronavirus threads, not so many things are detailed by people turning everything to be a trans issue.

100 very well paid staff and not one of them suggested that maybe you should have a concrete offer before you try and flog it? It all feels a bit back of fag packet and the ‘faqs’ haven’t done anything to mitigate that.

Mumsnet is supposed to be all about its users. It badges itself to government as having a unique insight into what all these women think and yet you couldn’t even imagine what concerns and questions we might have and have answers ready ahead of time, not just defensive shit about ad-blockers.

The questions I want answering (and that you should have seen coming a mile off) are: what data protection measures have been put in place since the doxing.

What exactly would I get for my £50?

What possible technical reason would there be for a moderator to need to know a user’s subscription status, or anything else about their account? What current access do moderators have to account details and is this GDPR compliant?

Do you really use unpaid moderators at night and if so, how is this compliant with National Minimum Wage Regulations? (Sorry, this isn’t about the new model, but is something I have only just become aware of on this thread.) And if as a business you are happy to use unpaid volunteer workers, do you also use unpaid interns?

Supporting you 100%

I've literally never heard anyone IRL mention anything about mumsnet transphobia. I don't doubt that some posters move in circles where that happens, but the idea that most people in our society are actively opposed to gender critical ideology is one that requires examination. The criticisms I have heard of MN from people who don't use it are usually more of the isn't it all silly yummy mummies variety.

nibdedibble

So advertising companies, who are not exactly known for their morals, are so disgusted with FWR, one section of the whole website, that they’re prepared to withdraw access to millions of unique users on behalf of the brands they sell? You mention yourself that you scroll past it. Do advertisers give up on people like you because, morals?

Nope, still not believing it. Clearly there are plenty of advertisers who still do associate with MN and the brands that do don’t seem to be pulling out or the ad revenue would be zero and MN would be bust. I refuse to believe there are as companies worth their salt who would give up access to so many users and data. They must be rubbish ad companies.

No thank you.

NotBadConsidering it will be down to a variety of factors, won’t it?
Huge, established brands with dedicated staff can be resilient. Small companies have to weigh up this sort of association far more carefully. My own company is minuscule but extremely woman-focused; in many ways there’s a great market for me here (if you ignore FWR) but we can’t take the hit, our readership is just very savvy when it comes to inclusion of all sorts and the woman-hours (=££££) required to deal with a backlash coupled with the loss of respect we’d suffer - plus it goes against our personal views anyway. It’s just not worth it. You might see it as all debate and awareness-raising and strong feminism but that’s not the perception at all outside of the bubble.

Worth considering whether you might be in a particular bubble yourself nibdedibble...

The fact is that Mumsnet is a tainted brand. If you’re in the middle of FWR it’s possible you don’t see how it’s perceived further afield. Eyes roll if you mention it even tangentially. This is 90% down to the perception of transphobia. I never, ever admit to coming on here - it’s not worth people thinking I’m a frothing-at-the-mouth gender-critical nutter and actually, really, truly avoiding me in real life

Oh come off it. I have been on MN since before anyone non-trans had even heard of transphobia. Mention of MN has always provoked eye-rolling and contempt, especially from men and anyone under 30. It's not because of transphobia or any other discussion topic, it's because we are women and, even worse, (in most cases) mothers.

I do agree that perceived transphobia has provided additional grist for this mill, but mainly amongst people who are not MN's target - or their advertisers' target - anyway. And brands are a lot more robust in their approach than you are suggesting, if there is money to be made. I agree that small companies may decide it's not worth the hassle, but MN advertisers are mainly large nationals/multi-nationals. Large corporations aren't stupid; they are well aware that Twitter isn't real life and that most of their consumers are barely aware of trans issues.

It's not because of transphobia or any other discussion topic, it's because we are women and, even worse, (in most cases) mothers.

Bingo.

I find it bizarre that you are surely fully in agreement that TRAs have managed to have large events cancelled, speakers barred, etc (I don't think anyone can deny that happens) but think that such campaigns would have no impact on advertisers? It's not about their own moral disgust, it's that they think 'if we run a big campaign on MN we'll have to deal with a social media bombardment calling us transphobes; if we use another website instead we don't get any of that, so why have the hassle?'

Have to agree, MrsNoah2020, it's systemic sexism at play with the so-called "tainted" brand of Mumsnet and pre-dates any hoo-haa about trans issues.

Women. Having opinions. On the internet. Oh the humanity.

nibdedibble

Well that’s just it isn’t it? An ad company that’s prepared to give up access to millions of users based on the perception that MN is “transphobic”, based on the bleating of MRAs on Twitter, instead of reading what goes on and realising it’s nothing of the sort, is a rubbish ad company.

If you describe your company as “woman-focused” but are happy to see women silenced in the progress of expanding your ad company, you probably don’t deserve access to millions of users. You’re willing to turn down access to millions of women because there’s a board that says things men don’t like? Yes, very “woman-focused” .

Large corporations aren't stupid; they are well aware that Twitter isn't real life and that most of their consumers are barely aware of trans issues.

And have huge contempt for women, anyway, despite women being the main spenders. Take M&S, John Lewis, Primark etc all saying that men can use the women's fitting rooms. They don't care about our opinions, they just want our money. And will still want us spending our money in their shops when this is all over.

I doubt the large corporations see the gender-critical posters on FWR as anything other than another market.

I doubt the large corporations see the gender-critical posters on FWR as anything other than another market.

Exactly. Which is why I refuse to believe the oft spouted reason for the need for more regulation, pronoun-policing and moderation of biological reality is because ad companies don’t like it. I think it’s an excuse.

And it’s why I won’t pay for the privilege of being a product on this website.

if we use another website instead we don't get any of that, so why have the hassle?'

Because there has - until recently - been no SM platform with such a direct reach into the target audience of the MN advertisers.

I would guess the pre-Covid problems with revenue are much less about transphobia than the fact that FB now has incredibly sophisticated algorithms for identifying target groups and pointing niche advertising at them. Companies don't need to pay to advertise to 1 million people in the hope of reaching 10,000 potential customers any more - they can just target the 10,000 via FB.

You can't have it both ways - either TRAs ruin people's careers, force them out of jobs, vindictively take action against individuals and organisations they don't like which can have real affect, are so influential that they can push through legislative change with disastrous consequences for safeguarding that people don't dare publicly question OR it's all just silly stuff because twitter isn't real. I suspect you think the former - that they're actually a very powerful, if small pressure group - in which case why wouldn't an advertiser draw the same conclusion?

Look, ok - I have no skin in this game, your choice to accept it or not. True, anything with women involved garners eyerolling and dismissal but this is on a different level. My experience is, the anti-trans focus on the site makes it less valuable. If you disagree, then ok.

There isn’t anti-trans focus on this site. There is pro-woman focus on this site. That you are part of an ad company that purports to be woman-focused can’t see that and its value is strange.

If your business is small and lean, and you can’t spare the staff to cope with an internet backlash, you don’t risk it.

No wouldnt pay because it is a shambles now, cannot believe they actually employ 100 people doing what exactly because it is not IT or moderating or security

You can't have it both ways - either TRAs ruin people's careers, force them out of jobs, vindictively take action against individuals and organisations they don't like which can have real affect, are so influential that they can push through legislative change with disastrous consequences for safeguarding that people don't dare publicly question OR it's all just silly stuff because twitter isn't real. I suspect you think the former - that they're actually a very powerful, if small pressure group - in which case why wouldn't an advertiser draw the same conclusion?

I would expect any ad company worth its salt to look at what the product here says (us) and figure out how it can use that to its advantage to advertise things, not decide that vocal TRAs who might vindictively come after them (as they do) are going to get in the way of them making money out of MN.

Besides, when all the gender feelz bollocks goes away - and it’s clear people are becoming less and less inclined to tolerate demolition of sex-based concepts right now - those ad companies that turned a moral cheek will be the first to spy an opportunity to get back in the game.

If they actually did. Which I doubt.