3 ms·

Steam takes 30%. Apple, Google Play take 30%. Physical stores can eat 60% unless you're selling something that's demonstrably saleable. Those sorts of markups a

Steam takes 30%. Apple, Google Play take 30%. Physical stores can eat 60% unless you're selling something that's demonstrably saleable. Those sorts of markups aren't at all weird for access to a market... And that's what it is, as SatvikBeri has already said. People typically don't go to Patreon to find new content. They consume the content elsewhere (YouTube, Facebook, etc) and then go to Patreon. Facebook et al are packaging together a huge userbase as well as a very targeted marketing service amounts. In the big scheme of things —because I'm sure some people do browse— Patreon is just the money processor. Edit: Should also point out that YouTube has a similar system. Users can pay 100K-sub channels a fixed £4.99/month and Google keeps 30%. It's all about the point of contact. YouTube, Facebook, established app markets, etc all have near-monopoly access to people. That's why they can demand the big bucks.

pluma 8y ago
It's a bit more complicated, which is why many content producers still use Patreon even if they want an alternative. Patreon not only collects money, it also provides a way to assign rewards, define goals and notify patrons (filtered by reward level) of new content. It's not a publishing platform, but it's not just a payment processor, it's also a kind of marketing platform. That said, the most appalling part of Facebook's "competitor" is not the 30% rate, it's that their ToS try to pull the same bullshit stunt they try to pull on their social platform: tricking you into believing you owe them perpetual transferable rights to everything you share via their platform. They know this isn't actually enforceable (at least not in all jurisdictions internationally) but they still try to trick people into believing they unknowingly agreed to it and are comfortable exploiting those in jurisdictions where this nonsense works and those who don't know any better.

pluma 8y ago

It's a bit more complicated, which is why many content producers still use Patreon even if they want an alternative. Patreon not only collects money, it also provides a way to assign rewards, define goals and notify patrons (filtered by reward level) of new content. It's not a publishing platform, but it's not just a payment processor, it's also a kind of marketing platform. That said, the most appalling part of Facebook's "competitor" is not the 30% rate, it's that their ToS try to pull the same bullshit stunt they try to pull on their social platform: tricking you into believing you owe them perpetual transferable rights to everything you share via their platform. They know this isn't actually enforceable (at least not in all jurisdictions internationally) but they still try to trick people into believing they unknowingly agreed to it and are comfortable exploiting those in jurisdictions where this nonsense works and those who don't know any better.