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.

It’s complex, we create and consume the product. We may create the ‘entertainment’ but hosting it costs money and eyes viewing it are only generating money when (for example) they’re also viewing ads. We might not like it but it’s just reality. The difficulty is that a lot of users have an emotional connection to MN which is great for loyalty and to keep people coming back, but that creates anger when there’s a perception of ‘betrayal’ or even just change. It’s a fine line to walk for a business.

I do wonder, though, when there are bunfights like this, whether it actually increases the traffic for a few days.

The interaction between MN and active posters is transactional.

I could not log in and read, no problem.

I like posting, other opinions are available.

MN for the last few months has been the dodgiest site I have used for decades.

I'd rather not use an ad-blocker because I am a big girl and recognise our transactional relationship. BUT, MN has been performing like a 2005 porn site and trying to download executable files to my computer plus ads that seize the whole window.

A little self reflection would reveal the answer is not how to stop people using ad-blockers but to ask - why have users recently decided that they are necessary.

If a site like, say, Sky News, wants to allow advertising, then that’s fine. I’m happy to allow those ads, because I’m consuming their posts, information and entertainment. I’m not contributing anything.

But when it comes to Mumsnet, by being here and posting regularly, I am making a contribution. What I (or anyone else who posts) is doing, is creating content, providing the information and (sometimes!) the entertainment.

So it’s a quid pro quo - I’ll happily continue to do that, but my ‘charge’ to Mumsnet is that I don’t want to see the ads.

Those ads will happily still run on the site. Some posters will continue to click through or search info based on them. Some, like me, have no wish to. Which is my fundamental right.

I believe that, on balance, I have over the almost 20 years I’ve been here, provided more than enough content for Mumsnet to justify my continued usage of an ad blocker (or ways to access the site without one), without having to pay to use the site.

I think that is a very good, well argued point, @BIWI.

As someone who has been here for 18+ years myself, i agree @BIWI

I think in a pre-AI world that argument might have worked, @BIWI, but I'm not sure it does now. The fact is, MN can get as much content as it needs through a combination of those who don't mind ads, those who are happy to pay to avoid it, and AI. They don't need anyone else. Will it reduce the quality of content on the site? Almost certainly. In the VERY long term will it reduce visitor numbers and therefore ad revenue? Possibly (although the number of people still posting YouTube comments suggests otherwise). But in the short term, if you're not financially contributing either via subscription or ad views, you're not needed.

You are of course morally right, absolutely so. But sadly, that's not how the world works. People can vote with their feet and leave. But I doubt we'll be missed. Not soon enough for the current MN management to care, anyway.

Depressing, isn't it?

You’re so right @peachgreen, it is depressing.

In particular, I’ve seen (over many many years) the help and support that @BIWI has provided. I absolutely cannot see AI replicating that to anywhere remotely near its past effectiveness, but MNHQ don’t value that contribution it seems.

Sad times.

Yep. Valuable contributions – to other users – will certainly be lost, but from a business perspective that's neither here nor there, really. In the long term perhaps the decline in quality of contributions will lead to the death of the site altogether but in business, rather like in politics, what matters is the here and now.

MN isn't alone in this and it is genuinely quite possible that they're struggling to keep the lights on. A lot of web outlets are. To be frank, I imagine the userbase of MN is ageing out – it's certainly not the hive of activity it was in its heyday and I imagine there are nowhere near as many new subscribers as there were. Advertisers are continuing to squeeze the margins and paying less and less for space – not least because there are so many more choices nowadays about where they can place their ads. Before it probably wasn't a big deal if 10% of users had ad-blockers – 10% of a huge userbase still gives you an attractive number to tempt advertisers with. But 10% of a smaller and dwindling pool of users becomes a problem. If you can get even half of those back – even at the expense of completely losing the other 5% – you can see why it becomes the obvious decision from a financial perspective. Especially when that 5% who have left are essentially seen as worthless to you anyway.

I wish it wasn't this way, but we'd have to dismantle a lot of societal systems for it to be any different!

Exactly. I suspect many of us have no problem with the presence of some adverts, but there becomes a point when it affects experience enough to drive people towards blockers.

The ageing out is going to be a continuous issue.

I've noticed a considerable shift over the past couple of years from a general "pro-mum" stance to a "pro-gran" stance - e.g. more siding with ILs, more siding with grandparents, more sniping at "entitled" new mums, more sneering at "faddy" parenting that's at odds with what they did.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if your forum skews away from AND becomes noticeably more hostile to its primary target, then you're going to lose traction.

Mumsnet is still a top result for new mums desperately googling in the middle of the night, sure. But will it remain so if it ends up effectively becoming Gransnet by default? Not likely, with young people habituated to using TikTok etc as a means of information.

I'd be looking at solving THAT issue, not this one.

I've noticed a considerable shift over the past couple of years from a general "pro-mum" stance to a "pro-gran" stance - e.g. more siding with ILs, more siding with grandparents, more sniping at "entitled" new mums, more sneering at "faddy" parenting that's at odds with what they did.

Same. There seems to be a spate of posts excusing or making up backstories for obviously poor MIL behaviour.

MN allows women to post on issues of feminism for example so it extends way further than straightforward parenting issues or discussion site though. It could develop that side of the business if it wanted to.

As a website and with Justine as the front person owner, MN still has a bit of mainstream political profile although engaging with that seems to have been stepped back a bit by MN along with the rise in business oriented decisions like this.

I think they could engage strategically to raise MN profile in traditional media or with younger women on social media but maybe they don’t want to. Maybe the owners just want someone else to buy it and to cash in their chips, who knows. But I think women will always want and need to talk, and parenting isn’t the only issue. Forums like this I hope will always exist for mutual support.

I don’t know another national gathering place online that’s doing the same thing with permitting predominantly women’s voices and which allows anonymity for posting, so for now I am sticking around. I have a lot of affection for this site. I just don’t like being tracked by advertisers or being asked for money to avoid adverts, or being called a freeloader, when I also create the content for the site.

I would wager that the feminism board and the reputation it has given MN in the wider public sphere — for better or worse, depending on your own viewpoint — is a big part of why young women aren’t attracted to sign up, tbh.

This is also true.

I have very "medium/moderate" views on the transgender debate, but on Mumsnet, there essentially isn't a debate - which is just as true of other parts of the internet on the opposite side.

A polarised position that excludes the polar opposite is one thing, but excluding the majority of moderates is a whole other level.

Well, young women will eventually become older women whether or not they have kids and unless the world changes a lot in that time, those women will then realise that they want a place to talk about women’s issues. And MN is a good place to do that now. Maybe there are other places coming up for that in future.

The generic social media platforms aren’t right for that type of discussion for lots of reasons though. The places (like here) that allow it anonymously and with a major of the other posters being female, are very precious public spaces for women. That’s why it makes me a bit nervy that MN is run commercially because this can create competing interests.

I have a lot of affection for this site. I just don’t like being tracked by advertisers or being asked for money to avoid adverts, or being called a freeloader, when I also create the content for the site.

Abso fucking lutely this.

I posted on the other thread to say my adblocker still works.

Here I want to add my voice to those who deplore how the greed of the owner seems to be acting to diminish MN as an internet asset.

I say 'greed' advisedly. Yes, OK, Justine, you want to make money. That's fine. And you have every right to do what you like with your creation. But - I've lived long enough and seen enough to know - you already have enough money to be able to live comfortably for the rest of your life. So, yes, 'greed'.

I don't really care about MN for myself. If you succeed in blocking my adblocker I'll not be worried. And I know I haven't actually created any part of the content of the site. I'm just a bit sad to see a good thing made worse solely out of greed. Not at all a nice thing.

Driving away some of the people who create MN's content for free does seem like a short sighted move.

What do you think MNHQ can do, pick their favourite posters and give them Premium? You know how popular the idea of MN Royalty is on here...

Honestly the solution is simple. I'm sure the vast majority of us would be content with removing ad blocker if they just fixed the fudging adverts.

No need for a ‘MN royalty’ type solution, @noblegiraffe - they can either fix the advert problem, or allow ad blockers.

My quote disappeared for some reason (another site glitch...), it was to @BIWI above who ended their post I believe that, on balance, I have over the almost 20 years I’ve been here, provided more than enough content for Mumsnet to justify my continued usage of an ad blocker (or ways to access the site without one), without having to pay to use the site.

Which seemed to be suggesting that special exception should be made for 'quality content providers'.

That was absolutely not what I was suggesting @noblegiraffe and I think that’s actually a pretty despicable thing to say.

It wasn't intended as an insult. You seemed to be saying that you deserved to continue to be allowed to block ads because you provide quality content for MNHQ. But how would that work?

(I agree you've provided quality content btw)