3 ms·

No one makes a living on Patreon

30 points by kawera 9y ago

tomcam 9y ago
I don't understand the problem. Patreon, a site of which I am not a big fan (especially in view of their recent footgunned announcement), has reduced the friction between creators and donors. It has enabled many people to do things they couldn't be otherwise. Yet we need to support the other 98% to at least a minimum wage level? What if the other 98% suck?
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  And importantly, what percent of the creators are actually putting in 5/10/20/40 hours a week, before we start comparing to minimum wage?
aalleavitch 9y ago
I totally made a living on Patreon. In fact, I supported a team of four people and additional contractors to boot. The trick is to be making porn.
kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
This looong post is arguing against a ridiculous strawman. Just because I want to write blogs or take pictures does not mean others care about it enough to together pay me a minimum wage for it. This is a bizarre expectation. This guy had 9000 followers on Instagram (big number but far from being exceptional). He then set up a Patreon which was largely funded by friends and family. He spent a lot of time creating content (writing stories along with photos) that did not get much traction. And somehow it's Patreon's fault that he does not get a living wage out of this. I mean I get that it sucks that you can't do what you love (take photos and write stories) and make a living wage out of it. But you weren't able to do it even before Patreon. BTW, this happens with Uber too. Everyone starts commenting on how you can't raise a family of 4 just driving Uber 8 hrs a day.
- Noos 9y ago
  His point is that in general, the patronage model doesn't really help the majority of creatives, and doesn't really work to create a small business model of creative work. It's just a few people making a modest living, and a lot of people who are just really making patreon rich in aggregate. We're going to have to deal with the devaluing of creative work somehow, or eventually people will just stop.
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
    But was creative work ever supremely valued in the average case? Even the 'original' patrons, the kings / aristocrats didn't patronize hundreds or thousands of artists. They patronized a few good ones. I feel that the presence of some rock star musicians / YouTubers / whatever sends the wrong message that life as an artist is all hunky dory in the average case.
combatentropy 9y ago
On the contrary: - Chapo Trap House, a podcaster, makes $88,074 a month - Philip DeFranco, a commentator and YouTuber, has 13,823 patrons (amount kept secret) - Nerd3, a gaming YouTuber, rakes in $8,003 per month - 1,393 other members make at least $1,160 per month These numbers are from the article itself, whose headline is "No one is making a living on Patreon." Normally I would be fine rounding "2%" to "no one." But I think it's astounding that so many people nowadays can make a living taping themselves playing video games, posting photographs of dried leaves online, writing a travel journal, or being a social commentator. The focus of the article is on the social injustice of it being just 2%. It would be unjust if we deserved to make a living chasing our dreams. Before Patreon, people moved to New York or Los Angeles or Paris, worked low-paying, hard jobs while struggling for their big break into whatever. After a year or two, they ran out of money, headed back home, and settled into the best job they could find. Was anyone's first choice to be a farmer, electrician, plumber, sewage worker, schoolteacher, nurse, or factory worker? If everyone knew they could get a livable wage from Patreon, who wouldn't sign up?

30 points by kawera 9y ago

I don't understand the problem. Patreon, a site of which I am not a big fan (especially in view of their recent footgunned announcement), has reduced the friction between creators and donors. It has enabled many people to do things they couldn't be otherwise. Yet we need to support the other 98% to at least a minimum wage level? What if the other 98% suck?

Dylan16807 9y ago
And importantly, what percent of the creators are actually putting in 5/10/20/40 hours a week, before we start comparing to minimum wage?

aalleavitch 9y ago

I totally made a living on Patreon. In fact, I supported a team of four people and additional contractors to boot. The trick is to be making porn.

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago

This looong post is arguing against a ridiculous strawman. Just because I want to write blogs or take pictures does not mean others care about it enough to together pay me a minimum wage for it. This is a bizarre expectation. This guy had 9000 followers on Instagram (big number but far from being exceptional). He then set up a Patreon which was largely funded by friends and family. He spent a lot of time creating content (writing stories along with photos) that did not get much traction. And somehow it's Patreon's fault that he does not get a living wage out of this. I mean I get that it sucks that you can't do what you love (take photos and write stories) and make a living wage out of it. But you weren't able to do it even before Patreon. BTW, this happens with Uber too. Everyone starts commenting on how you can't raise a family of 4 just driving Uber 8 hrs a day.

Noos 9y ago
His point is that in general, the patronage model doesn't really help the majority of creatives, and doesn't really work to create a small business model of creative work. It's just a few people making a modest living, and a lot of people who are just really making patreon rich in aggregate. We're going to have to deal with the devaluing of creative work somehow, or eventually people will just stop.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
  But was creative work ever supremely valued in the average case? Even the 'original' patrons, the kings / aristocrats didn't patronize hundreds or thousands of artists. They patronized a few good ones. I feel that the presence of some rock star musicians / YouTubers / whatever sends the wrong message that life as an artist is all hunky dory in the average case.

combatentropy 9y ago

On the contrary: - Chapo Trap House, a podcaster, makes $88,074 a month - Philip DeFranco, a commentator and YouTuber, has 13,823 patrons (amount kept secret) - Nerd3, a gaming YouTuber, rakes in $8,003 per month - 1,393 other members make at least $1,160 per month These numbers are from the article itself, whose headline is "No one is making a living on Patreon." Normally I would be fine rounding "2%" to "no one." But I think it's astounding that so many people nowadays can make a living taping themselves playing video games, posting photographs of dried leaves online, writing a travel journal, or being a social commentator. The focus of the article is on the social injustice of it being just 2%. It would be unjust if we deserved to make a living chasing our dreams. Before Patreon, people moved to New York or Los Angeles or Paris, worked low-paying, hard jobs while struggling for their big break into whatever. After a year or two, they ran out of money, headed back home, and settled into the best job they could find. Was anyone's first choice to be a farmer, electrician, plumber, sewage worker, schoolteacher, nurse, or factory worker? If everyone knew they could get a livable wage from Patreon, who wouldn't sign up?