Introducing Pay or Consent on Mumsnet

[BeckyAMumsnet]

Hello everyone.

We wanted to give you a heads-up about a change in the way we deal with cookie consent. We are introducing a Pay or Consent model, giving you two different options to continue accessing the site:

1. Continue for free with cookies and ads: this is the option that most people have enabled already.
2. Subscribe to Mumsnet Premium: For those who prefer an ad-free experience with no cookies/tracking for ad purposes - Besides ad-free you’ll also get first access to our product tests plus all revenues from Premium are put towards our campaigning work

Why are we making this change?

The pay or consent model is becoming increasingly common across online platforms as publishers adapt to changes in advertising levels and data privacy regulations. Like many other publishers, we relied on advertising to generate income but changes in tracking regulation and the growing use of ad blockers have made this model less viable.

We know that Mumsnet is an essential space for many - a place to seek advice, find support, and connect with your fellow Mumsnetters. That’s why we’re committed to ensuring that the site remains free at the point of use for anyone who needs it but it’s not fair that those who install ad blockers or rejected cookies are piggy backing on the back of other users who haven’t.

At the same time as introducing this, we’re going to reduce the price of Mumsnet Premium to £2.99 a month because we want to be fair to those who’d rather not accept advertising cookies. This is less than the cost of a flat white a month from most decent coffee shops and we very much hope you think Mumsnet’s worth it! Nb anyone who’s signed up to Mumsnet Premium already at the previous price (£4.99 per month) will have their payments reduced within the next week or so.

We’ll be here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, as always, for supporting Mumsnet.

I’ve just looked at the pop up again.

It doesn’t make it clear that by clicking “Accept” you are giving your consent to not only ads, but cookies. In fact the small print at the bottom suggests that you can agree to see ads and still go into your settings to disable cookies.

I’m pretty sure this would not pass an ICO transparency test.

I only installed the adblocker because mumsnet ads were so awful, I can't remember when it was, but an AI image of a mutilated child I think that got through on one of their 'oh dear some bad ads slipped through please report operating system and handset' moments and I had enough. I also used to pay for premium for a while during and after lockdown but stopped that as it wasn't value for money. I don't actually think £3 is a lot to pay if it's worth having but I'm not convinced it is yet.

@IThoughtHeWasWithYou Quite.

‘Pay a subscription and you can have child abuse thrust on you, too!’

After that unbelievable disgrace why would anyone give Mumsnet money. Ever.

And why on earth would you ask for money now?! Why couldn’t you wait a while? Utterly bonkers.

Thanks for your reply. I find it curious that I don't seem to have this problem on other sites, other than a few really small ones that aren't run by professionals.

Do you think that other sites have better cyber security agencies to clean up their ad feeds, or could it be that other sites ditch the ad networks that feed them garbage ads whereas mumsnet has chosen to keep using them?

In all honesty, this is the nudge I need to stop wasting time on MN. I've been here for 20 years, and things have changed so much. I think it's run its course for me.

I got to privacy settings at the bottom and it blacks out - maybe too many of us accessing it?

Exactly my thought.

Justine my dear are you so tone deaf after the events of this week that you're seriously thinking this is a good move.

Seriously I am thinking MN is "not acting in good faith".

It really is the worst possible week to implement this and I cannot understand why MNHQ thought it was a good idea to do so.

Well put madamweb

@Linens has it absolutely spot on:

The vast difference between sites that charge and this one is that on sites that charge (The Times/ Sun etc) THEY provide the content and their readers consume it.

Here, WE provide the content. We are the content.

I think all those at MN Towers need to pop the gin down and have a rethink. Culturally it feels likes there has a been a shift in your team. We’re the problem now, right? The site would be great if it wasn’t for all of those pesky users? Bit like the creep that happens in the NHS where patients become the problem instead of the reason for everything.

I've been here since 2006, and I'm pretty damn sure that I've provided a LOT of content for you @BeckyAMumsnet and @JustineMumsnet.

To be called a 'freeloader' or someone who is 'piggybacking' on other posters is beyond offensive.

I think you forget that without your users, there would be no Mumsnet.

OFF TO DELETE MY ACCOUNT

PAY OR HAVE OUR COOKIES TRACK YOU YOU FREELOADERS

FFS.

Same here BiWi, been here same length of time on and off.. i did briefly leave after the last time we were called 'freeloaders' but usage crept back up again.

now apparently not only am i freeloader, but my accessibility rights as a disabled person to block sensory noise is now also frowned on.

What protection are you using to secure our bank details?

MN is not a site that id consider secure and protected, you normally act after the fact, with we should have, could have done better etc…

Years of cyber attacks and phishing attacks does not make your site a trust worthy subscription, considering your past failure to protecting your users.

it’s not fair that those who install ad blockers or rejected cookies are piggy backing on the back of other users who haven’t

It is beyond fucking stupid to say this.

You're basically admitting you're shit at running your company because you can't leverage the data of 100% of your user base. That's not how your model should be running. You need to accept that you won't get income from every user directly - there are many different segments to cater for. In fact, I'd wager that the most informed and intelligent users who are giving very sound advice are also the ones with as blockers. They're creating free content that makes your site more appealing to users, but you're too dumb to realise that, so describe them offensively.

As a Data Protection Officer, I'm pretty unimpressed with Pay or Consent as a model also. Doesn't matter if it's 'increasingly common', if that's followed up by, 'increasingly getting attention from the regulator as an unjustified use of data protection law'. Short sighted and dumb.

Freeloaders.
Piggybackers.
Scroungers.
AD SHY.

We'll be hurting the taxpayer next.

IME people don't block ads on sites if the ads are not intrusive, disruptive and sometimes wholly innappropriate in content.

Agree. MN is the only site I use an ad-free browser for. I am quite able to ignore, scroll past or quietly roll my eyes at ads on other sites I use, but I find the MN ones all the things you say - intrusive, disruptive and inappropriate.
If my behaviour eventually excludes me from using MN then so be it. Other sites seem to be able to work it out.

Yes accessing it for free whilst advertisers pay MN a fortune to advertise to us, the users!

Probably. All these maternity leavers, SAHPs and part timers failing to maximise their tax contributions!

I don't pay for things like using a chat forum or reading newspaper articles.But I appreciate these organisations/businesses need to make money. I can't see why folk are getting so het up about it. I hardly ever respond to ads on websites.

I think MN willingly allow the ads to be like that to frustrate users into giving in, in order to get rid of them.
Like I said above, just use the app! Little to no ads on there and if you need to access the features the app doesn't have then use the browser but I rarely need to. No annoying ads for me at all

That’s why we’re committed to ensuring that the site remains free at the point of use for anyone who needs it but it’s not fair that those who install ad blockers or rejected cookies are piggy backing on the back of other users who haven’t.

Even children eventually realise that crying “But it’s not faaaaiiiiirrr!!!” and stamping their feet won’t get them anywhere.

It’s time to stop acting like lovely Auntie Justine is doing all this to help the poor mums and gets nothing out of it, and to start running this major business with some damn PROFESSIONALISM. How can a multimillion pound business be so, so bad at PR? This is even worse than the original launch of Premium, where you said it was “squeaky bum time” and you needed the money because of COVID - even though your entire business model should get a massive boost from more people being bored at home - rather than actually trying to sell the benefits to the user.

Yes, advertising revenue is important. But so is content. Your users create the vast majority of your content for you - even the “freeloaders” and “piggy backers”. Fewer users equals less content and fewer clicks - so much less traffic to the ads you’re so desperate for people to see.

If you’re expecting users to pay, either in cash or by opening themselves up to excessive advertising, you need to accept that they are your customers, not your mates - and telling people not to be horrid to volunteers who are just doing their best against the nasty men with the bad pictures just won’t cut it.

I accept reasonable cookies and don’t use extra ad blockers.

I only use the browsers themselves to decide about my tracking, cookies, ads etc. based on the standard settings available.

My browser automatically does not like the site.

It blocks half your ads entirely and blocks pop ups (which I never actually click on but I get notification it has). Scarily it notifies me it sometimes blocks downloads too.

This is standard chrome protection. Not even enhanced! This only triggers when it’s known malware!

I’m not against paying. But I’m not sure that would make the same experience as the demographic would change.

You should really just fix the site properly and ads will be shown again by people’s standard browsers.

Well, that was a very mealy mouthed reply @BeckyAMumsnet and oddly, but not unexpectedly, doesn't answer my questions.
I will not have cookies and I will not pay to reinforce my rights to refuse non-essential cookies.
I'm now deregistering from MN. It's been about 17 years but I know my worth and I know what my peace of mind is worth and it's not £2.99 per month - not that I trust MN anyway and definitely not now.
Bye all - it's been lovely

This feels as if the announcement is hidden away on Site Stuff.

Surely if it's a major change to T&Cs it ought to be at the top of every section of MN?

Site stuff isn't exactly well read.

Wow. Talk about timing.
If I thought you were going to invest money into keeping the site safe, and on a proper overnight mod team, I’d pay. I don’t.
Like others, I didn’t realise I was considered a ‘freeloader’.
I don’t want to flounce, but I’m done.