12 ms·
The creator economy can't rely on Patreon
- sibeliuss 3y agoPatreon is one of the buggiest, broken websites I've ever visited. I am tempted every time i use it to stop everything and build a competitor.
- lewismenelaws 3y agoI’m a full-time content creator. I feel like patreon/newsletters/paid communities are more hassle than anything. When I look at the pros and cons of every single revenue strategy, sponsorships has the highest gain and least cons (for me). Sponsors pay at least 10x what ad revenue pays, I don’t have to ask my community for money and the audience are likely to skip the ad anyway if they didn’t want to watch it. Patreon is great in theory, but as soon as sponsors start inquiring, you realize Patreon is a lot more work for less revenue.
- JoshTriplett 3y agoWhat does the typical sponsorship pay, and what factors does it scale with?
- lewismenelaws 3y agoIt depends. I have a large following across short form platforms like TikTok and Instagram too. Usually for an integration (basically 1-2 minute ad) it ranges between 8-14k. For a short form video usually around the same.
- i-sam 3y agoPersonally YouTube is ruined for me because of sponsorships. It just became advertisement packaged as content. I understand from an economical perspective why people do it, but I can't shake the feeling that the content is just an excuse and the ad is the meat of the content.
- rainbowzootsuit 3y agoYou are one of today's 10,000. https://sponsor.ajay.app/ https://sponsor.ajay.app/ And if you have android: https://github.com/polymorphicshade/Tubular https://github.com/polymorphicshade/Tubular
- mvdtnz 3y agoExtensions like sponsor block don't help when entire videos are centered around promoting a product. A very popular mountain bike channel I used to follow, GMBN, for example, pretty much only makes videos in order to promote sponsors. The sponsors drive the very content we're here for, it's not just 30 second spots.
- Diti 3y agoSponsorBlock can also tag entire videos of the kind you cited! It won’t block them by default, but the choice of what to do when you find out will be yours.
- mathieuh 3y agoI do notice that the GMBN and GCN videos that are just advertorials do have "AD" in the top corner when you look at the video thumbnail. I'm assuming this is an EU or UK thing, because there are a lot of other channels that do exactly the same thing but there's no such "AD" callout. https://imgur.com/iorhrD7 https://imgur.com/iorhrD7 These videos take away from the channel's integrity for me but at least they're clearly marked as ads
- rainbowzootsuit 3y agoFair point there. That channel would just have to drop for me if the "review" videos got excessive, and find a replacement or no replacement. I'm looking to skip the embedded ad-read sponsorships, credits, the "thanks for subscribing," and "thanks for our patreons" stuff and sponsorblock does that in spades.
- electroly 3y agoI see the same few sponsorships constantly: Skillshare, Brilliant, Nebula, Hello Fresh, BetterHelp, Raid: Shadow Legends. I like to guess which one it's going to be when the creator starts telling a made-up story that leads into the sponsorship segment. The fact that it's the same ones, over and over again, across a wide spectrum of channels, makes me think that sponsorship is not yet a proven reliable source of income in the long term. A seemingly small number of companies are trying it out and it seems like they could easily pull out at any time. Patreon may be harder but it feels like a more dependable source of income than sponsorships.
- Ekaros 3y agoNebula is bit weird on that list as my understanding is that it is somehow creator owned and controlled, but rest yeah... I also wonder how long this model will operate, the advertising spend on these products must be significant and I wonder if it is sustainable in long run. Specially with these interest rates or in possible recession...
- ehnto 3y agoI don't exactly know how it works but creators tend to call it "my streaming platform" and that feels a little bit like a marketing angle. For the longest time I thought Adam Neely had literally funded and built Nebula.
- sickofparadox 3y agoIt is a marketing angle, Wendover Productions is the actual creator of the service and has a video about how they bootstrapped the service and got it to the size it is currently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alqt6RCEWdM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alqt6RCEWdM
- vintermann 3y agoAlso PCBWay (mostly for "maker" videos) and VPN providers. Paradox Interactive's relationship with the comedy sketch group Door Monster is also pretty nice to see. It seems clear that's not strictly a business relationship, but also someone at Paradox being genuine fans. I think there's actually a bit of a sliding scale between personal patronage and corporate patronage. Local businesses sponsoring local plays, concerts or sports events is another example of sponsorship which isn't likely income-generating.
- xxs 3y agoDepending on the type of content, there is always a chance the sponsorship deals affecting integrity.
- lewismenelaws 3y agoVery true. I’m not a review type channel, so this isn’t something I have to worry about.
- kalleboo 3y agoThat interesting since several YouTube creators I follow on Patreon (ok, so it's a self-selecting group) say the opposite. They've done sponsors a few times, but the sponsors are so much work to collaborate with (they take too long to approve videos, they want pointless changes done, etc) that they gave up on it and rely on Patreon instead where they can just create the videos they want to on their own schedule without interference.
- lewismenelaws 3y agoI’ve done sponsorships for a while now, we have contracts specifying that any changes they make is minor at most. Business sense is really important when dealing with this.
- bombcar 3y agoSame with all the various things - you have to balance the effort vs the reward. One trick is to not do too much on Patreon to start, do the bare minimum so that you don't get overwhelmed later. E.g, give early access instead of a custom special show each week/month, etc.
- mrguyorama 3y agoOkay, but I don't want to watch businesspeople, I want to watch what this person is making/doing/writing/etc! That's the whole point! Patreon means I can just give them dollars for doing a good job, and they don't have to go get an associates degree in marketing to realize that sponsorships are lowballing them entire magnitudes. I consider this infinitely better to a creator selling my attention, for pennies on the dollar compared to what a company would spend for equivalent advertising from a less exploitable cadre, to companies that are morally grey at BEST, often false advertising or literal scams like Established Titles in the norm.
- lewismenelaws 3y agoYou're right! Creators often get short changed from deals like this. All I am saying is that my background has made this career decision for me easy to transition into while making sponsors sustainable. I know lots of creators who get completely screwed on this front. I am sure the same could happen on Patreon.
- _v7gu 3y agoHow much extra work is Patreon if you don't offer any extras to people who sponsor on there? Most sponsored content is either completely orthogonal to the channel and its contents which is quite iffy if the creator is positioning themselves a someone with judgement their audience can trust (non-gaming channels advertising Raid: Shadow Legends, or non-tech channels advertising NordVPN), or actively make me lose respect for the creator (gaming channels advertising Raid: Shadow Legends, tech channels advertising NordVPN, or anyone with BetterHelp after all the shit they pulled). Of course there are exceptions, like content creators posting on Nebula being sponsored by them or anything Josh Strife Hayes does.
- lewismenelaws 3y agoI’m sure none but then I would feel guilt taking money from my audience. I know it might be silly, but sponsors makes everything free for everyone.
- MomoXenosaga 3y agoSponsors want something in return. Reminds me of Rembrandt who got into trouble because he didn't beautify his clients enough and went for art instead...
- monkey_monkey 3y agoI took a look at your YouTube channel and it was exactly what I expected it to be.
- tomcam 3y agoWhat did you expect it to be?
- incrudible 3y agoExactly what it was.
- mdorazio 3y agoWhite dude making coding videos with the usual modern algorithm-inspired cringe thumbnails and titles. It definitely seems to be working, though - over 500k subs is impressive.
- lewismenelaws 3y agoHahaha! Love this comment. Long form and short form content has been significant for the growth.
- monkey_monkey 3y ago500k subs and a very low level of actual views...
- lewismenelaws 3y agoLong form has been expirementation to see what works the last year or so. Shorts is how we grew a lot, long form still needs work but getting there!
- lizknope 3y agoWhen you say sponsor do you mean a 1 minute advertisement in a 10 minute video where you say "Today's video is sponsored by ABC Corporation, they make this useful product to do XYZ" or do you mean a video where you got a free product and paid money to do a promotional video about the product? I've seen both and I don't mine the advertisement style but when someone makes an entire video about a product that they got for free they seem like a shill. Usually their enthusiasm level is off and the whole things seems fake and I don't like watching them. As for Patreon being a lot more work, I am wondering how? Every month Patreon charges me $12 for the various creators I support. Some of them create videos full time but many have full time jobs. The Patreon money lets them buy old computers, toys, or games to review. I'm nostalgic about my 1980's childhood. Patreon seems really easy when they say for 10 seconds "If you would like please contribute to my Patreon account"
- LegitShady 3y agogetting a product for free translates to $0 in your bank account. It's not sponsored, its just been given or lent to you. You can't feed your family with free items.
- lizknope 3y agoIn my first paragraph I said: "got a free product and paid money to do a promotional video about the product?" It's not just a free product but also money to promote the product.
- lewismenelaws 3y agoIt’s different for everyone, but for me, it’s similar to the 1 minute section like you mentioned. I integrate it within my video. Not sure if this is what you’re referring to, but if someone doesn’t disclaim that something was sent to them or paid to say it. Highly illegal. Reason I say Patreon is a lot more work is because usually you need to build an incentive with Patreon as well (community, BTS, extra content).
- dotnet00 3y ago
- Roark66 3y agoWhat creators need is a better youtube algorithm. Is it just me, or has youtube recommendations become almost unusable by now? Some years ago when I spent "an hour watching YouTube" I'd watch a huge majority of videos recommended by the algorithm based on my current subs. Today it is 1%. Why? I'll give you an example. I have varied interests, I sub and regularly watch a number if channels in each of my hobbies, but fixing cars is not one. However, one day I searched youtube how to change a bulb in a specific model of a car. This was a week ago. My youtube feed is still full of car repair howto videos. The people I'm subscribed to have produced new videos, but they don't show up. Also I used to get recommended channels similar to ones I sub. No more. It looks 100% random now. I get recommended a random channel with 10 subs, but somehow I manage to miss one of the biggest channels in one of my hobbies for months.
- Timothee 3y agoI agree that the algorithm is weird. To start with, it feels like 30% of the videos are videos I’ve already watched. The rest tends to be a very naive list of things related to the last ten videos I’ve watched including many that were recommended before that I didn’t watch and never will. Often I pull down to refresh and it alternates between two lists and that’s it. I know recommendations are a complex problem but the results seem very far off from what I’d expect.
- gryn 3y agohere's my recommendation to get better suggestions. in your single account you can multiple yt channels. the recommendations are per channel, so if you like cooking you can make a cooking channel where most of you recommendations will be just that. I have around 4 channels each attached to a Firefox container you different topics (1main + 3 for more specific interests)
- kalleboo 3y ago> This was a week ago. My youtube feed is still full of car repair howto videos FWIW, if you go into your view history, you can remove videos from there, and they will no longer influence your recommendations
- bruceb 3y agoThe TL;DR of this is basically there are too many people creating content. Best thing that creators could do is tell other creators to quit. The author doesn't say this part but really that is what it comes down to. Instead she offers a generic advice about diversifying the medium of delivery.
- blitzar 3y agoThe irony is that the "creator economy" was meant to democratise content and make everyone able to make a living from being a "creator". In reality the maximum number that can be sustained in this manner is less than the number of salaried listicle writers at media outlets.
- mavhc 3y agoEveryone? Or more people. There's definitely more people
- rjmunro 3y ago> In reality the maximum number that can be sustained in this manner is less than the number of salaried listicle writers at media outlets. I think the maximum is probably quite lot more than there are salaried writers. But it's certainly a lot less then "everyone".
- pjc50 3y ago> make everyone able to make a living from being a "creator". Never "everyone". A brief pause to think about how the world works and how all those physical artefacts around you get there imply that it could never be more than a few percent.
- hoseja 3y agoJust adding to others: not everyone, anyone. The promise was that you don't need to go through nepotistic middlemen and can just directly engage with an audience solely on the merit of your work.
- 3y ago
- buf 3y agoA lot of creators have to realize that Patreon is a stepping stone to sponsors. I run Casting Call Club, which is basically where amateur Patreon creators go to collaborate on projects and ideas. Many of the CCC members will only stay until they either A) fail, or B) get big enough to have sponsors.
- arthurcoudouy 3y agoMy primary guess would be that it's easier to earn your first dollars with fans vs. with B2B sponsorships (or even with retribution from platforms like YouTube). Also, I don't really understand the term illusion in the image if someone could help. 5% conversion from content consumer to "paid fan" does not seem that low
- hasoleju 3y agoI also struggle with understanding the image. It starts out as a flow chart depicting the conversion funnel. In the end it somehow is a state diagramm of the feeling of the creator. I get the points that are spelled out in the text, but the image is a mistery for me.
- bell-cot 3y agoSorry, but the "creator economy" is a mostly-malicious delusion. Sure, it can sound great. And for a very lucky few it probably is great. But the 99% reality is that it's just hype from techo-utopians, wanna-be's, get-rich-quick salesmen, and a bunch of mega-corporate platforms - whose profits are built on the backs of virtual-slave "creator" labor. (Yes, maybe this is a bit too cynical. Maybe. A bit.)
- meheleventyone 3y agoI see parallels to the AppStore where the dynamics are similar but the return on spending money to attract attention works much more effectively. Basically discovery is totally screwed because the stores/platforms are oversaturated and no one has figured out a sensible way to curate content in an algorithmic manner. The only thing left is to be a first mover, already have a big audience elsewhere or to be able to pay for eyeballs and focus on retention and monetization metrics to get costs below revenue. For the average “gig work” creator the latter is basically out of reach whereas mobile games spend hundreds of millions of dollars on customer acquisition and got incredibly sad when the privacy changes Apple made reduced the effectiveness of ad tracking.
- bell-cot 3y agoYep. Ignoring stuff like charity raffles, I first saw such dynamics back in the 1980's, with this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonia_dilemma#Luring_Lottery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonia_dilemma#Luring_Lotter... (in Scientific American, back when it was actually respectable). A huge-sounding jackpot, seemingly available to anyone with a postcard and a bit of luck...but that ain't how human nature actually works. A zillion wanna-be's entered, and nobody received enough money to even cover the cost of their postcard.
- pompino 3y agoThat is true, but I'd say that its no different when you're starting any new venture by yourself with the goal of being sustainable. The entertainment business is rough, but it's even harder to sell tangible goods/services and deal with customers, investors, accounting, inventory, shipping, and everybody expecting the perfect shit from you "bEcAuSe tHiS oThEr mEgAcORp dOeS iT". It comes full circle because ultimately you need eyeballs to sell your shit, and its awfully nice when you have creators with an audience, who they can convince to stand in line with an open wallet for the shiny widget that you made. Let me one up you on the cynicism :P
- kalleboo 3y agoThis doesn't sound as dire to me as the author makes it out to be. I think it sounds totally reasonable that you need 20,000 or even 100,000 engaged followers to be able to make it full time off creating content. I don't see how, even with advertising or sponsors, a smaller number of followers could ever pay a livable salary (out of 20,000 people, how many of those mattresses are you really going to sell?). It used to be that a TV show needed viewership numbers of millions of viewers to be profitable, this is still a massive democratization of content.
- wodenokoto 3y agoNo, tv shows where profitable with much, much lower numbers than millions.
- rjmunro 3y agoNot many TV shows are profitable with less than 20,000 viewers, which is what we are talking about here.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoLois & Clark was canceled (not just not renewed - canceled in the middle of their contract) when their ratings fell below 10 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_%26_Clark:_The_New_Adventures_of_Superman#Season_4_(1996%E2%80%931997) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_%26_Clark:_The_New_Advent...
- twic 3y agoThat doesn't mean it wasn't profitable, just that the network thought another show in that slot might be more profitable. Talking about audience thresholds for profitability of TV shows is a bit pointless though, because there's so much variation in how much they cost to make. Effects-heavy action shows are ~30 million dollars an episode at the moment. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is ~1.5 million. Gameshows and reality TV are even cheaper.
- 3y ago
- grey_earthling 3y agoPatreon knows that Patreon doesn't work - they don't fund themselves by donations on Patreon; instead they take a cut of other people's donations. And the model where some patrons receive a reward encourages transactionalism and disappointed patrons when they don't get the reward they expected. Liberapay's model seems much more sustainable - donations only, no rewards; Liberapay fund themselves via Liberapay because they actually believe their system works.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago>Liberapay fund themselves via Liberapay because they actually believe their system works. As in they are also funded by donations, or do the creators themselves pay for entry?
- fleg 3y agoThey are funded by donations: https://liberapay.com/Liberapay/ https://liberapay.com/Liberapay/
- segfaltnh 3y agoDo you suppose their 41 members split the 700 euros evenly each month or have some kind of Ramen group buy system?
- fleg 3y agoNo need to guess: https://liberapay.com/Liberapay/income/ https://liberapay.com/Liberapay/income/ . Most money goes to the creator of Liberapay, and I would not be surprised if it would mainly cover the costs of running the service.
- grey_earthling 3y agoThey say they are funded by donations: > How is Liberapay funded? Are there fees? > Liberapay does not take a cut of payments, the service is funded by the donations to its own account. However there are payment processing fees. https://liberapay.com/about/faq https://liberapay.com/about/faq
- nitwit005 3y agoI saw a streamer on Twitch say "This is my favorite hobby. It pays for itself". I don't think most of these people expect to live off of the income. Most people seem well aware the odds of that happening is low. Remember that tons of content was created before YouTube was paying anyone anything. They just wanted to share it.
- internet101010 3y agoThe best streamers don't get into it because of money. In any case, 500 average viewers seems to be the magic number for a lot of people to start really considering going full-time.
- hoseja 3y agoMaybe we don't need that many "content creators" then.
- whywhywhywhy 3y ago“1000 true fans” are 1000 people who would pay you $1000 in a lump sum and feel happy about it. Not selling 1000 cups of coffee like this article is acting it is, cup of coffee price isn’t a “true fan”. And yeah for that you need 1000 people who your content is truly scratching an itch they can’t get anywhere else.
- Charlie_32 3y agoTom Nicholas has a really good breakdown of Patreon's longevity https://nebula.tv/videos/tomnicholas-the-rise-and-fall-of-patreon https://nebula.tv/videos/tomnicholas-the-rise-and-fall-of-pa... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXyN3-gQwJw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXyN3-gQwJw.
- MisterBastahrd 3y agoThere are always different strategies for advertising what it is that you do. There's a streamer named Caseoh on twitch whose profile you can find here: https://twitchtracker.com/caseoh_ https://twitchtracker.com/caseoh_ He doesn't do grueling hours, he isn't a top tier gamer who is constantly giving out tips, he's just a guy who discovered a goldmine when he decided to take the jokes his viewers were writing about him and posted his reactions from his streams to TikTok. Tiktok is particularly great about this sort of thing because once you've watched an entire clip, you're more likely to see more clips from or about the same subject. In March of 2023, he averaged about 1200 viewers. Today, he's got over 2.9M followers and averages 60K viewers and over 50K subscribers. He's not vulgar, he's not rude, he just gets online and does about an hour of reaction videos from his Discord and a few hours of playing random games nobody's ever heard of. This is a guy who lives in a trailer and hasn't changed his streaming setup in forever. He gets online, streams for 4-5 hours, and then gets off to go live his life. He's making between $60 and $100K a month. He'll be a millionaire by the end of this year after spending the last few years working for a company alongside his dad. He found a niche and owned it.
- happytiger 3y agoAnd yet it is. And if it weren’t some other rents seeking platform Would take its place. What the author is ultimately complaining about is something they touched upon, which is that the creative market is saturated and in order to survive you need to have another job. You can call it “diversification of revenue sources,” but what it actually is is getting a job as a waiter or a waitress while you audition for your Hollywood dreams. And it happens when there are too many people wanting to sing and dance and be in movies and not enough people ready to pay them to do that. So there’s an oversupply of creative talent, which is about to get even more squeezed as artificial intelligence pushes in on human capital. There are, at the end of the day, only so many eyeballs, and not everyone can be the radio star. Whenever there is a financialization of creative markets, there are artists screaming about the legitimacy of the art, and the connection with the receiver of that art, is being tainted by the commercialization. But it doesn’t matter. The commercialization is inevitable because artist need to eat, and unless they have patrons, they have customers, and that’s just how the thing has worked throughout history. Really at core it’s just another industry being eaten by software. This is a trend that has been going on for a very long time, as tokenization and monetization and incremental digital transformation comes in and gradually disassembles ways of human existence into component parts and creates a business model around them. Let’s remember that painters screamed about photography being sacrilege and not even qualifying as an art form as the process involved no expression but mere capture. I met a few in my younger years who regaled me with my camera about the wrong I was committing. It’s been the thing that’s been going on here for 30 years (and I’ve been lucky to watch the juice being squeezed). But from a digital perspective this is the way that it works in the modern economy. There’s a gold rush, then a reckoning, and from ashes emerge winners and losers, eventually leading to another stabilized period. That stability then transforms by new technology (the next breakthrough) and another rapid change of social behavior and income opportunity happens. It just goes on and on as digital technology progresses. > The content should be meaningful, insightful, written, recorded or filmed for your audience. The people who give a shit. The people who care. That’s the price of digital. It exacts emotional taxes to make change and people find it difficult and objectionable to watch their values erode as it gets eaten by disruption. But can anyone really get off the bus? Maybe if there’s a large scale EMP attack, the internet is shut down from a massive cybersecurity event, or solar flare, but I see almost no other way to stop the disruption otherwise as the snake that eats it tail pays the bills.
- nubinetwork 3y agoNot a content creator, but I tried patreon and gave up after 2 years. It's as if asking for money in FOSS is a bad thing... I could try going commercial but I'm not really getting my hopes up. What are my options really? Try other platforms? Something tells me Kofi isn't going to be much better.
- bombcar 3y agoIf you do open source, and there's even a chance a business might use it, at least sell something that looks business-related on the invoice generated. I can expense $100-500 for something business-looking, even books, I can't easily expense $5 for "buy me a coffee"-type support things.
- veunes 3y ago"More commonly, independent creators utilise audience monetisation to supplement other incomes." as the article says and it is the reality for content creators and platforms as Patreon. It is hard for them to monetize the audience by the platform and make it their main source of income.
- max_ 3y agoIs there any industry where everyone (or majority) says they are making enough money? Software Development, Restaurant business, Banking, Education?
- aendruk 3y agoEveryone in the industry, or everyone else?
- karaterobot 3y agoSubscription services like Patreon are the only way I give people money unless they sell a product I want. I'm not going to watch commercials, and I'll skip sponsored videos or segments every time. If the idea is that not enough people use Patreon for you to make money, then go ahead and run advertisements, I'll just move on down the road to someone else. If the idea is that Patreon in particular is bad—that it takes too big of a cut, or doesn't have enough features—then tell me what other service to use. But the model where many fans directly support creators they like via small contributions on a recurring basis, that's the one we need to work if there's going to be a creator or artist economy in the future, so we should probably figure out how to make it work rather than tossing it out. The alternative of just more and more advertisements being shoved into everything is not the world we want to live in, so let's make the better option work.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoReality is the vast majority of people will absolutely refuse to pay content creators. Even legit newspapers with large staffs can’t get people to subscribe. Most people are ok with ads though. Your best bet is some sort of split where a small niche try’s to go subscription because there’s no chance of a widespread content creator subscription service that can replace ads.
- mandmandam 3y agoAll of your assumptions - and the article's - are rooted in this profoundly unequal society. The very worst of us are making billions on our collective suffering, and will gladly keep murdering millions to keep it that way. That's the context missing from tfa. Universal basic income, as an example, makes debates like this irrelevant. There may be other ways to run things that also make these arguments look like the anachronism they ought to be. I believe a world with 99% less advertising is not only possible, but necessary. And I believe a world where creators can create, without having to sell their souls, is not only possible but necessary. And we best make that world manifest fast, before our window closes.
- xzz 3y agoHow about, for example, delaying content releases until certain funding milestones have been reached? This will act as an incentive for people to pay for the content. If they want it released even earlier, they should pay more?
- picadores 3y agoThere is also a deeply worrying trend to "milk" creators, in "controversial" topics, by banning them and taking the income for the company. It allows for unholy alliances of company revenue, controversial topics, and state driven brigading.
- skybrian 3y agoI’d normally take a ban as an indicator that the website doesn’t want that content. What’s the evidence that they actually do?
- no_wizard 3y agoI worked on a creator economy Salesforce-like product for the for businesses wanted to pay creators, run campaigns, interact with creators on a unified platform etc. I have to say that Sponsorships make much more revenue than Patreon, however sponsors have gotten a bit smarter and not simply relied on view count anymore, they look at things like quality metrics, how the creators voice stands in the community and other aggregate factors (which we would factor for them in the product as a good estimate, we were an organic match making service in a way). That is all to say that you can get much better sponsorships if you have a Patreon because it a very strong signal to companies about your viability in the community. Its not required by any means, but it serves a purpose around this. I am 100% certain that most of the creators you might see with sponsorships and Patreons have realized that simply having a good active Patreon lets them up their sponsorship money and thats why many keep it around even when its revenue by comparison is a rounding error
- miragecraft 3y agoWhat happens if the creator just say no? You don't have to operate like a VC-funded company and look for infinite growth, if you want to stay small with cheap production then just stay small? There's likely a silent majority that supported the creator because they are authentic and relatable. Just make it clear to your supporters that's your objective and don't expect more.
- mrguyorama 3y agoRight, the people who harass you to "more more more MORE" and "better better BETTER" are NOT the people you want to enable and encourage. Usually they have a parasocial relationship with you and that just feeds into it. They also are enormously entitled and when you eventually burn out trying to keep up with their insatiable needs, they will be irrationally upset at you.
- elevatedastalt 3y agoIn a perfect market, the profits tend to zero. This is a basic idea in Economics, and can be seen in any area of work that gets 'democratized'. Whether that's good or bad can be debated, but the outcome isn't very surprising. Apart from a few (0.01% or lower) content creators, most do NOT have very distinctive content. In economic terms it's a commodity market, and therefore it's not surprising that it pays similar profits.
- iteratethis 3y agoI consider the words "creator" and "creator economy" dangerous because it suggests it's a serious and viable job. As the article and many comments explain, it isn't viable for 99.99% of those trying. Which isn't true for pretty much any other job. You can aspire to be a dog psychotherapist and actually have a decent chance of making a living from it, the odds are better than being a "creator". The digital world is really simple: we all work for Big Tech but without the pay. All revenue flows in that direction.
- nicbou 3y agoI create very valuable content that saves my readers time and money. It's not entertainment; it's thoroughly detailed information about settling in a new country. It's a bible for local bureaucracy that a lot of people have come to rely on. I get about one donation for every ten to twenty thousand visitors. Donations are about a hundredth of my income. If I got a donation for every reader I personally help over email, I'd get twice as many. Even the people who ask for personal assistance don't donate. Donations simply don't work. Most people pay nothing if they can. I have made my peace with that.