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 not about asking for permission! It’s totally up to me if I want to see ads on any of the sites I use.

I absolutely get that MN want to take advertising, as this will help to pay their bills.

But the whole point is that we - all the posters - are providing the content that attracts the advertisers. Without us, there would be no advertisers.

Therefore, to tell us that if we want to use an adblocker, we are ‘piggy backing’ on other users, or ‘freeloading’ (although I don’t think that was the actual word that Justine used), is simply unfair.

I am no better than anyone else who is providing content on Mumsnet. That’s what we’re all doing. I was just justifying my own position by pointing out how much content I’ve provided over the years.

But the only reason you can use MN at all is because other people are willing to put up with the ads. So I can see the point there.

I might provide content for MN but I'm not here in order to provide content for MN. I'm here for me.

Yes, and to add to that @noblegiraffe there are plenty of people who will continue to provide content for MN whilst subscribing / viewing ads. There’s nothing in it for them keeping posters around who block ads. In fact, they would cost them money.

It’s not how I want the world to work. But it is how the world works. The rule of thumb on the internet used to be that either you paid for the product, or you WERE the product. Now you have to be the product and pay for it too.

Maybe I'm just being old-school and out of touch, but my thinking on the matter is that I'd prefer advertising to be like it is on ITV.

Nobody is tracking me, treating my privacy as their property and doing the online equivalent of going through my bins and intercepting my post.

Of course they tailor the adverts that they show according to the expected demographics for the programme, but they are not personalised or intrusive.

And going on the firm continued popularity of ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and countless other commercial channels, they must get enough of a satisfactory response to the adverts for their advertisers to keep on using their platform.

Just because you can do something online that you can't with traditional broadcast or print media, that doesn't mean that you should or that it is magically somehow ethical to exploit people's privacy for whatever it is worth.

If MN delivered well planned, impactful but unintrusive adverts without tracking and without making the site unusable/distressing - especially for users with various disabilities - I (and I'm guessing a huge number of others) would have no issue whatsoever. It's called killing the golden goose.

I'm not quite sure that I properly understood the earlier statements from MNHQ that seemed to be suggesting that all the revenues from people who subscribe and pay will go towards campaigning.

Is none of this anticipated revenue earmarked for general costs of running the site - including properly employing and paying Australians and Kiwis for night-time modding, rather than relying on kind, untrained volunteers - and profits of course (which is 100% reasonable for a commercial website)?

I think, if changes and streamlining are needed, MN should focus on what the vast majority of users value and use it for: the wide-reaching discussion forums, featuring user-generated content and sharing and bouncing advice, ideas and opinions off each other.

I think that the other sides of MN - the features and the campaigning - whilst undoubtedly having some value, have largely been outgrown now, and should be 'rested' if it comes down to making choices in order to protect the MN jewel, which is the discussion forums.

Campaigns spread like wildfire nowadays on platforms like TwiX, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and many others. However well-received or not any opinions and campaigns may be by the population at large, there is certainly no shortage of ways to spread the message far and wide to those who will listen.

The rule of thumb on the internet used to be that either you paid for the product, or you WERE the product. Now you have to be the product and pay for it too

This 100%.

I just feel like on MN after all the breaches of poster security there have been over the years- and when it’s an important space because of the anonymity of it allows women to be vulnerable and speak about their lives and support each other- forcibly overlaying that with tracking type advertising and following us all around digitally just gives me the creeps.

I'm now trying to work out what I'm doing differently to everyone else because half the time I can't see any adverts and even when they're they they're there, they don't seem to affect loading/browsing etc. I don't use an ad blocker. I've never clicked on an ad on any website either. That's on a cheap 3 YO Android phone or an old windows laptop, both using Chrome.

The way people are talking, it's as if they're seeing MN like those shitty Reach Media sites that on first glance appear to be local news sites but are really 80% adverts with snippets of 'news' about how someone ate a burger from the takeaway they're promoting littered in between.

'...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 was this that grated.

What really annoys me is that Mumsnet has not got the courtesy to come back and reply to the question about ads being so intrusive. Surely it is not that difficult to fix and give us al lan update?

They'll just say that they can't replicate what we're all seeing, which is their standard MO with almost any tech issue.

I want not to have to see ads or be tracked by advertisers across the whole internet or to have to pay for MN.

The privacy policy seems to be irrelevant because without me changing anything, my view of adverts that I had reluctantly agreed to has now been replaced by ads hidden. Happy to get away from ads temporarily, but the site seems to pop in and out of ‘show ads’ mode. Should that be possible?

It does make Mumsnet look like a Reach newspaper having unusuable ads which stick to the bottom of the screen covering up 2/3 the text so you have to close the window and start again. I’ll try to screen grab next time that happens.

I particularly dislike these polls which I presume are from MNHQ because they’re not attributed to anyone else. It’s very poor practice not to have the name of what organisation is asking clearly displayed on a poll. it’s part of giving site users choice and information, being transparent, being respectful basically.

I just feel like how posters view their contribution to here and how the MN private company owners view our contribution or purpose as posters is worlds apart. It doesn’t feel great getting a look behind that curtain.

And as soon as I posted that, the ads are back being displayed on the page..
Then in the time it took me to write this, the ads are hidden again.

It was an indelicate and undiplomatic way for a CEO to put it, but she’s not wrong.

Surely it depends how they're paid for having the ads? If they're paid to host them and then paid again if the ad is clicked on, then they lose nothing from me having an ad blocker, as I won't click on any ads on here or any other site, but the hosting fee is still paid regardless. I don't know if it's possible to be paid per time the ad is displayed to somebody, but not clicked on? Maybe somebody more techy than me can answer that?

But they have, magimedi - they send a standard response (which makes absolutely no difference) about what browser are you using / clear cookies / send us a screenshot / we're working on a fix

And on the AI thing I'd struggle to find it now, @peachgreen, but am certain HQ posted to say they don't use it ...

Apologies I think the specific term ‘freeloaders’ WASN’T used by MN about this. So apologies I must have imagined that.

Is this why I'm getting incessant message to accept notifications?

Same, I'm just using chrome on an ancient android mobile.
The ads are not that intrusive at all. Certainly not on a par with those shitty news sites.

Having to disable my content blocker every time I come onto MN is depressing and unwelcoming. And seeing adverts takes away the relaxing immersive environment I’ve enjoyed until now.

But what really grates is that now when I go to the Active threads page, half the threads are ‘Promoted by Mumsnet’ - something I haven’t encountered before. It all feels a bit cheap and … mercenary.

The 'relaxing environment' that you've enjoyed until now has been paid for by other people enduring the 'grating' experience that you're now having so I'm not sure you should be expecting much sympathy there.

I think you're being a tad dramatic. It's no different from reading a paper with adverts in or watching a film at the cinema with adverts at the beginning (and you would have paid for the paper/film)

People are being disingenuous about "creating the content".

nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to type away into the Message box. It's entirely voluntary entertainment. Unless you want to elevate yourselves to being the 4th Emergency Service or something ridiculous.

People spend hours and hours on here posting content. None of us will get back the time, but they must know that when they're posting. They can't then retrospectively gripe to MNHQ about how many hours they've spent posting and creating content. Derrr no shit Sherlock.

Cheap and mercenary?
You do know MN is a BUSINESS don't you?
Making money is their purpose. That's not cheap or mercenary. It's economics

I wasn't impressed with this at all and have only accepted cookies so I could read some of the updates after the SC ruling.

I will now delete the cookies and stop visiting again.

I don't really see why targeted ads are ok, and non-targeted ads aren't ok. You are making money either way.

And given all the sensitive information people share on MN, I am not sure they want to be chased around the internet by related advertising.

I just make a point of not responding to any ads in any way, so it’s totally counter productive.

Nor do I look at ‘promoted’ threads