4 ms·

No One Makes a Living on Patreon

4 points by untangle 9y ago

maxharris 9y ago
In this small network designed to save struggling creatives, the money has still concentrated at the top. Why on earth would anyone expect otherwise? Let's take, for example, the explicit attempt to organize society so that its members are more equal. This ought to be easy to do because we have an entire century of communism and socialism to draw conclusions from. In every instance where these ideas have been put into practice, the elite lives much better than the average subject. (This is not even a controversial point.) Contrary to what most people think, the problem isn't that human nature is at fault. That humans are inherently bad, and are failing to live up to a noble ideal. The real problem is the concept of equality itself, which includes two separate but opposite ideas. The idea of legal equality - where every person ideally gets a fair shake through the courts - is excellent. A bedrock of a fair, just and prosperous civilization. Here, the ideal is a system that punishes only those that choose to violate specific, well-defined rights of other people, leaving everyone else free to go about their lives. But this other idea of equality - where every person gets just as much money as everyone else does, no matter what choices they make, no matter what they prefer - is an absolute disaster. A century of history shows that this supposed ideal itself leads to mass suffering and death, precisely because people weren't free to think and act in ways needed to sustain their lives. The underlying fact is that we are not all the same in every sense or capacity. Some of us are better at some things than others. Some of us decide to make better choices, or to delay instant gratification for long-term benefits. We ought to stop glossing over these differences and instead embrace them. (I say this not because my goal is to stomp on or take advantage of anyone - in fact, my goal is precisely the opposite.) If no one wants to pay you for what you make, try to figure out why. Be prepared for an answer you do not want to hear. Stop thinking that your life is driven by fate or forces outside of your control (it only is if you think it is.) Be your own worst critic. And take even this paragraph with a grain of salt - success isn't ever guaranteed by blindly following a static recipe. Not everyone will choose to think this way, but maybe you will?
- eesmith 9y ago
  I think you've inverted the intent of that point. You ask "Why on earth would anyone expect otherwise?" This expectation appears to be the core of Patreon's marketing. "Patreon had all these great selling points and stats. I could get “meaningful revenue” from my fans, and finally find the “creative freedom” I’d heard so much about. Patreon’s about page said creator’s incomes “doubled annually.” Their blog has story after story after story of their users making thousands a month. Of course I was grateful for everyone who contributed to mine, but none of the site’s promises were coming true." ... "It’s easy to feel like the failure of my Patreon is entirely on me. It’s an anxiety most artists feel acutely: Am I actually any good? This paranoia is bolstered by the presence of wildly successful creators on the site, and there is a nascent market for Patreon advice in the way that Kickstarter birthed an industry of professional crowdfunding consultants." Regarding the rest of your comment, you mentioned the goal was "so that its members are more equal". As an example of how that might work in Patreon, consider the recent change in fee payment, which ended up taking a bigger cut of small donations while reducing the cut on big donations. Since most people have only small donors, and only the elites have significant numbers of big donors, this disproportionately affects those making less money from Patreon. While if they had reduced the cut from small donations and increased that from large donations, then the result would have lead to more equals (meaning, less dissimilar) incomes. It would still mean that "the elite lives much better than the average subject. (This is not even a controversial point.)" As you say, "we have an entire century of communism and socialism to draw conclusions from." That experience (which is not limited to just communism and socialism) includes a progressive tax rate, where those elites pay more because they are more able to pay. Under the analogy you are using, Patreon is changing their tax system to be more regressive. Have you drawn the conclusion that more regressive taxes are better for a country?

4 points by untangle 9y ago

In this small network designed to save struggling creatives, the money has still concentrated at the top. Why on earth would anyone expect otherwise? Let's take, for example, the explicit attempt to organize society so that its members are more equal. This ought to be easy to do because we have an entire century of communism and socialism to draw conclusions from. In every instance where these ideas have been put into practice, the elite lives much better than the average subject. (This is not even a controversial point.) Contrary to what most people think, the problem isn't that human nature is at fault. That humans are inherently bad, and are failing to live up to a noble ideal. The real problem is the concept of equality itself, which includes two separate but opposite ideas. The idea of legal equality - where every person ideally gets a fair shake through the courts - is excellent. A bedrock of a fair, just and prosperous civilization. Here, the ideal is a system that punishes only those that choose to violate specific, well-defined rights of other people, leaving everyone else free to go about their lives. But this other idea of equality - where every person gets just as much money as everyone else does, no matter what choices they make, no matter what they prefer - is an absolute disaster. A century of history shows that this supposed ideal itself leads to mass suffering and death, precisely because people weren't free to think and act in ways needed to sustain their lives. The underlying fact is that we are not all the same in every sense or capacity. Some of us are better at some things than others. Some of us decide to make better choices, or to delay instant gratification for long-term benefits. We ought to stop glossing over these differences and instead embrace them. (I say this not because my goal is to stomp on or take advantage of anyone - in fact, my goal is precisely the opposite.) If no one wants to pay you for what you make, try to figure out why. Be prepared for an answer you do not want to hear. Stop thinking that your life is driven by fate or forces outside of your control (it only is if you think it is.) Be your own worst critic. And take even this paragraph with a grain of salt - success isn't ever guaranteed by blindly following a static recipe. Not everyone will choose to think this way, but maybe you will?

eesmith 9y ago
I think you've inverted the intent of that point. You ask "Why on earth would anyone expect otherwise?" This expectation appears to be the core of Patreon's marketing. "Patreon had all these great selling points and stats. I could get “meaningful revenue” from my fans, and finally find the “creative freedom” I’d heard so much about. Patreon’s about page said creator’s incomes “doubled annually.” Their blog has story after story after story of their users making thousands a month. Of course I was grateful for everyone who contributed to mine, but none of the site’s promises were coming true." ... "It’s easy to feel like the failure of my Patreon is entirely on me. It’s an anxiety most artists feel acutely: Am I actually any good? This paranoia is bolstered by the presence of wildly successful creators on the site, and there is a nascent market for Patreon advice in the way that Kickstarter birthed an industry of professional crowdfunding consultants." Regarding the rest of your comment, you mentioned the goal was "so that its members are more equal". As an example of how that might work in Patreon, consider the recent change in fee payment, which ended up taking a bigger cut of small donations while reducing the cut on big donations. Since most people have only small donors, and only the elites have significant numbers of big donors, this disproportionately affects those making less money from Patreon. While if they had reduced the cut from small donations and increased that from large donations, then the result would have lead to more equals (meaning, less dissimilar) incomes. It would still mean that "the elite lives much better than the average subject. (This is not even a controversial point.)" As you say, "we have an entire century of communism and socialism to draw conclusions from." That experience (which is not limited to just communism and socialism) includes a progressive tax rate, where those elites pay more because they are more able to pay. Under the analogy you are using, Patreon is changing their tax system to be more regressive. Have you drawn the conclusion that more regressive taxes are better for a country?