5 ms·
> Were creators asking for this change? Nope. And the absolutely universal response, from tiny artists all the way up to Chapo Trap House (the largest Patreon
by TillE 9y ago
> Were creators asking for this change?
Nope. And the absolutely universal response, from tiny artists all the way up to Chapo Trap House (the largest Patreon creator by far) has been firmly against this change.
But investors put in money expecting to get more money out. That's the only credible explanation I can see. They're lucky that Drip isn't up and running yet so there can't be an immediate reaction.
- JeffreyKaine 9y agoThis was likely the strategy. The board wanted more profit, knew they needed to change some things, and decided to do it before a real competitor made it to the scene.
- siffland 9y agoAmen. Like always it is all about the Benjamin's. They are a for profit business. The best thing you can do is switch to another service with better rates. Most people wont do that. I currently give $38 a month to 19 creators ($2 each, I don't really have much to give). So that is like what $13 in fees for me. I think not.
- robryan 9y agoPatreon would only need to bill you once, not sure why they need to add processing fees to each pledge?
- trowawee 9y agoBecause it lets them extract a lot more cash from their users under the cover of processing fees.
- njarboe 9y agoI agree. Without an efficient micropayment system available, I can understand a charge per transaction. But adding a transaction fee to each pledge, when the patron is making one monthly payment, is a bad idea. Maybe they want to get rid of patrons supporting lots of people at low levels for some reason.
- runj__ 9y agoThey could argue they're potentially paying a transaction fee when they're paying the creator if you're the only patreon. That's a silly argument though. I'd be happy to pay a single 2.9% of my total pledges + a single 35c fee. This just kills $1 donations (and in my mind: anything up to $10)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- zimpenfish 9y agoIt seems that they might also be de-aggregating pledges - which means not only will you be paying the 2.9% + 35c on each pledge, you'll also get N charges on your card rather than one. There was also some other hint that pledges would continue to be charged on the day you signed up rather than the 1st - just to make a triple whammy of idiocy.
- endless1234 9y ago>So that is like what $13 in fees for me. No, 19 * .35 + 38 * .029 = 7.752. Still quite a lot of course. This change really disincentivizes making multiple small donations (no shit). If instead you'd pick 4 creators to give 9.5 to, the fees would drop to under a third.
- tehwebguy 9y agoI asked this elsewhere and got no answer so far: > how will this earn Patreon more profits? Am I doing the math wrong?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- falcolas 9y agoEDIT: Due to a blog post I was unaware of, the rest of this post is incorrect. Patreon will still make a bit more money than before, but with the new structure of billing each pledge on its own schedule, not nearly as much as I had outlined. https://blog.patreon.com/updating-patreons-fee-structure/ https://blog.patreon.com/updating-patreons-fee-structure/ ORIGINAL: Most patrons provide many small donation amounts. Patreon will, as called out in the article, get a lot more money from those patrons. If you assume a 2.9% + $0.30 CC charge fee (i.e. Stripe), and a patron giving $1 to 100 artists: Before: Patreon gets $5 from their cut from the artists; the patron is charged $100, the artists each get $0.67. After: Patreon gets $5 from their cut from the artists, and $34.70 from the additional fees; the patron is charged $137.50, the artists each get $0.95.
- freeone3000 9y agoThe structure to avoid increased fees is dumb. Charge once, wallet the money, distribute as needed. Steam can handle this. Bitcoin can handle this. Why can't Patreon handle this?
- gkya 9y agoDrip? Is it this: https://d.rip/ https://d.rip/
- duck 9y agoCurrently invite-only: Drip is currently in an invite-only period for creators. We plan to open up more early next year, and you can drop your email in at the bottom of the homepage to be notified when we do.
- pronoiac 9y agoIt's like Kickstarter's version of Patreon. More info: https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/introducing-the-new-drip https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/introducing-the-new-drip https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15704169 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15704169
- tehwebguy 9y agoForgive me, how will this earn Patreon more profits? Am I doing the math wrong?
- ZenoArrow 9y agoImagine you have a user who supports five different creators, each with a $10 donation, and the money they are charged comes out on the same day every month. From the end user perspective, as a result of this latest change they will be charged five transaction fees. However, from Patreon's perspective, that's not an efficient way to process the payments. What Patreon can do is bundle up the five $10 payments into a single $50 payment. What this means is Patreon will only pay for one transaction fee, but they'll charge this user for five transaction fees. The four extra transaction fees that Patreon have charged for are then used to boost Patreon's profits.
- tehwebguy 9y agoAre they doing that? It sounds like they explicitly are NOT doing that.
- quadrangle 9y agoThey are proposing multiple charges each month, super wasteful. It's because they are first and foremost a paywall service.
- chipotle_coyote 9y agoActually, from Patreon's update, it sounds like Patreon will, in fact, run five different transactions: https://blog.patreon.com/updating-patreons-fee-structure/ https://blog.patreon.com/updating-patreons-fee-structure/ Which is frankly insane, but does explain the change.
- falcolas 9y agoYikes. That is an insane way to do things. Silly inefficient to boot. The only real winner in this will be Stripe and its ilk. Thanks for finding and posting that.