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.

Having said that, I understand that advertising is a source of revenue for Mumsnet, and it's absolutely their prerogative to seek companies and brands that want to advertise here.

To be honest, I never thought of ad blockers as any more worthy of criticism than fast forwarding through the ads when you watch something on TV. Some streamers stop you doing that when you watch a programme on their catch up, but all commercial channels know people do it when watching their own recordings.

You Tube even has an option to skip ads.

Any idea when?

I don't understand how they can say they will answer questions and then radio silence.

But this is the issue all over, we don't even deserve a reply, it isn't the first time where I have felt that MN actually feels contempt for users that dare to question them.

Good tip! Thanks.
I think I'd totally forgotten I have always used an adblocker on both my phone and other devices when using MN so this is the first time I've seen ads and they are too annoying for me to continue.

I don't actually think £3/month is that bad of a deal considering how much time I waste on here - as long as the laggyness goes away. Or perhaps I should stop wasting so much time!

My guess is that they are prioritising dealing with the Sunday incident (which is further evidence that the timing of the change was ill-advised). But also they may have realised that, at the very least, they have worded their communication poorly, and they need time to regroup. Perhaps it's best that they take some time rather than making things worse with ill-prepared responses.

I would think the fact they have hosted CSA images; have poor protocols in place for dealing with the events of Sunday night; use volunteers (not even able to report to a member of staff overnight for assistance, and not able to implement real safety measures in an emergency) rather than pay a single staff member to moderate overnight in a site that is used 24/7, globally, and that rakes in millions of pounds; and that they have responded in a manner that simultaneously downplays the matter - "nasty vile images" doesn't quite cut it - and implies it is users upset about and wanting answers for what they've experienced or were lucky enough to not experience on a parenting website that are in fact part of a hazy group of "bad faith actors" trying to bring MN down, and possibly responsible for the CSA images on the site, like the "reds under the beds"... is all deeply not a good look for advertisers.

Bringing this pay or consent model in days later is mindboggling poor - and seems like a petty spiteful kneejerk response for being criticised and held to account by users, otherwise known as "these people".

Holy fucking moly this site is unusable once you consent to these fucking ads. Within 10 seconds of opening a thread it blocks the whole screen, makes the whole page twice as big and you cant get rid of the fucking thing.

Fuck this for a laugh. What's the fucking point?

Adblocker @AlisonDonut - it really is the only way.

If MNHQ allowed ads that weren't so intrusive, I wouldn't recommend it. But honestly, the site's approach to advertising has always seemed to be 'take the most flashy and intrusive ads'

Well said @cranberrytart 👏

Agreed, too, @cranberrytart

It’s not the only way - I amended my Safari settings on my iPhone yesterday to stop all trackers etc and now no ads whatsoever. Even better if you use a private browser, which Safari has the option as well. I use private browsing sometimes but have no ads now on either browsers. There’s just empty grey boxes where the ads used to be, and oddly enough, MN has finally stopped freezing on me and the page has stopped constantly reloading. It’s been driving me nuts for months.

The ads are not user friendly. I don’t mind them, but they have made this site very challenging to use.

As a user not based in the UK, there is no way I can afford (or justify) Premium given the current exchange rates. I have brought this up before with MNHQ but didn't receive a response. I do think that has made overseas users freeloaders by default though when there is no scaled option available.

I don't mind ads, I've read articles and product recommendations but this cookie policy is madness.
What a sad end to using MN.

My ipad still freezes constantly when loading a long thread. And Mumsnet seriously expects us to pay for such a substandard experience?

There are apparently 8 million active users per month using MN. A lot of users.

if a few thousand are lost to this latest debacle, that's a spot in the ocean in the grand scheme.

it reminds me of insurance companies, they know there will be a churn of customers, they aren't that bothered. So in the interests of everyone's positive mental health*, it may be worth being reminded of that reality. It isn't earth-shatteringly important in the grand scheme of life,

• based on the current running thread "I've got mental health" Brigade, I think I've said it the right way

There are apparently 8 million active users per month using MN. A lot of users.

Curious what is meant by an 'active user'. I'm sure the number posting each month is orders of magnitude less. And the number starting threads and contributing meaningfully (not just reacting, or voting, or posting without reading OPs updates etc) is less again.

I can't disagree about the contemptuous tone, and don't dare think what's being said behind the scnes if this is the "public face", but TBH it's the many wise posters I value rather than the site itself if that makes sense

As for £2.99 not being that bad a deal I agree with that too - though certainly it'll soon increase - but it's not so much the money that's an issue but handing bank details to a site that's been shown to be so insecure

but it's not so much the money that's an issue but handing bank details to a site that's been shown to be so insecure

I think it was very clear in BeckyAMumsNet's third post that MN itself would not have any payment details.

But it had a email and password leak, they got shared on the mumsnet site I believe

@BarbaraHoward

BeckyAMumsnet - I doubt you have made this decision yourself, and I doubt you're paid enough to be communicating the bad news of other people's poor decision making. You should get out too.

I was thinking exactly this.
Did all the Beckys and Michael have to draw straws to decide who should make this announcement? Shouldn't Justine have been brave enough?

And this just generally irritates me: why is it always the price of a coffee that's cited?
This is less than the cost of a flat white a month from most decent coffee shops

And this just generally irritates me: why is it always the price of a coffee that's cited?
This is less than the cost of a flat white a month from most decent coffee shops

Ha yes. It's almost a parody.

(Not only do I not use an adblocker, I have never had a 'flat white' from a 'decent' - or undecent - 'coffee shop'. I feel very unseen here).

I'm disappointed to see that another day has passed and there has still been no response to any more questions. Genuinely curious as to why MNHQ would post the thread and say they will answer questions if they have no intention of doing so?

This happens so often on Site Stuff threads. A few posts from MNHQ, promises of updates, the radio silence.

Because, collectively, MN is made up of a lot of very well informed freeloaders women. A small team is up against thousands of niche experts, who're prepared to bring that expertise to the forum.

They poked the bear without being prepared to deal with it.