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 always refuse cookies and don’t use sites that force you to accept them. I also use ad blockers on MN because so many of the ads are awful. I guess that’s it for me, I like MN but never mind.

This is such a great question!

Well the timing of this announcement by MN is unfortunate after the (poorly responded to) fiasco the other night. Talk about not reading the room. MN risk losing a lot of support at the moment in my view

Argh - I am a numpty. Must drink more coffee before posting! Thanks, @HotCrossBunplease.

Oh dear @BeckyAMumsnet.

You appear not to have updated your privacy policy since 2022, and it certainly does not reflect the latest changes.

I'd advise you to withdraw this update until your Privacy Policy is updated (there have been substantial updates since 2022 and I sincerely doubt you have no new or updated processing since then).

You are failing badly at the transparency clause.

I think Mumsnet doesn’t care that much about it’s users anyway, they won’t care if lots of people leave. We are all just their worker bees providing content for them, and there will be more along after us.
The thread where people complained that the laugh emoji was being used inappropriately to bully people was more or less ignored and glossed over, this will be the same. They’ve made their decision, they don’t care what us ‘peasants’ think.
I also pressed to continue with ads without seeing this thread, so the “heads up” wasn’t really a heads up either.

How does one become a piggybacking freeloader please?

The pop up just says accept or pay up.

AIBU to think there's no 3rd piggybacking sponger, CF option?

This 100%

Yep. I'm Spartacus-ing out of here too.

Here you go, MNHQ - take the .

I find the piggy backing section interesting, 24 hours after Justine defended using volunteers for running part of the site. If people using adblockers are freeloaders, what are million pound corporations using volunteers instead of paid staff?

I thought I'd check which sites had covered the CSA story and clicked on the MSN link which apparently included it - only to see "This story is unavailable"

Wonder what happened ...

Mumsnet: Parenting site targeted with child sexual abuse images

You couldn't make it up

Abso-fucking-lutely not. I have no interest in paying for mumsnet or viewing without an ad blocker / cookies.

Once this is implemented I’ll be outta here

I think that is their point! Except currently you can have an ad blocker and continue to “piggyback” despite what they say.

*Good GOD, You’re timing is utterly fucking shit. With all the shit that happened at the weekend you think “Now’s the time to call them a bunch of freeloaders and charge them for the experience of seeing CSA that we couldn’t be fucked to deal with in a timely manner”

Wonderful work guys*

One could almost think the MN "Big Boss" has just had her Ratner Moment.

Not sure if the link was meant for me, @cranberrytart, but while I thank you for posting it I was aware the BBC still had the story
What interested me more was that MSN seemingly once did and now it's somehow become "unavailable"

I mean, what does one do when one's website has been targeted with child sexual abuse images?

Apologise sincerely to the site's users (who create 99% of its content, and hence its revenue)? Vow to install measures to make sure this never happens again. Announce paid moderators will now be on 24/7. Share a link where users traumatised or retraumatised by the CSA images can apply to access confidential trauma counselling, paid for by MN?

No. Brush over it. Crankily call users wishing to have some questions and shortfalls answered "bad faith actors". Then when they have the nerve to keep discussing the issues, slap them with this to distract them from the enormous holes in site protection, and basic human caring, that have been displayed.

I clicked on ‘accessibility’ for the first time this morning while trying to figure out how to change these settings, and the page includes the following:

*You can do your bit by avoiding unnecessary punctuation (appalling punctuation will be jumped on in pedants' corner) especially in Talk thread titles.

Text speak (or txt spk) is obviously an abomination, but should also be avoided to help members who use screen readers (strangely, they don't find it very interesting to hear "asterisk, asterisk, asterisk" repeated ad nauseam in a monotone).

If you've got any accessibility suggestions, gripes or questions, please email [email protected] and we'll do our best to address them. (Alternatively, just start a thread called Am I Being Unreasonable to want to access Mumsnet?)*

Having a poor and contemptuous joke in every paragraph is the opposite of accessible, and I’ve no idea what would qualify as ‘unnecessary punctuation’. Honestly, what a way to run a website.

Thanks I thought I was missing something.

I've never ever had to consider using an ad blocker for any site. Ironically MN is the only site I've ever had trouble with. I had to put up with months of the most gruesome ads of dead animals and creepy Victoriana freakshow photos😨

There are other parenting and lifestyle forums. Maybe those will get more clicks now.

Indeed. It's quite the juxtaposition.

You can tell MN how to fix their problems and they'll come back and laugh in your face. Their IT security is dreadful.

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet but will after this response.

@BeckyAMumsnet I don't appreciate the undertone of being blackmailed into accepting cookies (which I don't do on any other site).

Fellow users of this site have been extremely supportive during a recent (and ongoing) difficult health challenge, which is my main reason for staying at present - and to return that support where I can. When that is done, I will be happy to leave.

I'm not sure what you mean? I've never seen these guidelines before but I can understand why screen readers might not cope with these issues and make it harder for users of that technology?

Genuinely I think they are good guidelines for people who want to prioritise accessibility.

The timing is breathtakingly embarrassing. They’re running a business, surely they have PR experts. Who’s advising them?