3 ms·

Subscription 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 spo

Subscription 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 ago
Reality 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 ago
  All 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 ago
  How 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?
  - mjhay 3y ago
    That doesn't get past the free-rider problem. That kind of thing can also wind up angering some people (which is kind of entitled, but that doesn't mean it isn't real)
  - hmcq6 3y ago
    Well there's a pretty good reason this won't work for the given example (newspapers). Why am I gonna wait for an NBC article when CNN (or worse FOX) posted the story already for free? Some types of reporting I would be happy to fund and wait for but other stories need to be posted ASAP or they lose their value. The same is true of art. For example, Age of Empires getting an expansion 25 years later is notable because it is uncommon. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/02/age-of-empires-2-gets-another-expansion-25-years-later-and-deservedly-so/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/02/age-of-empires-2-gets...
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  As an author ... People will gladly buy physical books off you, but they won't pay for articles. There seems to be a mental barrier between those two. A physical book in your hand probably feels more real, though the total amount of work isn't that different (to a series of articles).
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Zero marginal cost structure of the internet has conditioned everyone to thinking digital goods should be free. Remember that anti piracy ad with "you wouldnt download a car" and literally everyone was like "of course I would download a car if I could"
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      "of course I would download a car if I could" LOL at that, you're right. When it comes to content online, we live in an era of total abundance. This is the sort of abundance that used to be considered utopian. You will literally never run out of excellent texts for free, a mere human just cannot read them fast enough. Same with videos, games etc. But that abundance has significant downsides for the people who create all that content. Competing with free stuff is a task for Sisyphos.
      - CMCDragonkai 3y ago
        And even more abundance is coming with the advent of generative AI. The problem now isn't scarcity of content. It's signal vs noise. As a consumer of content what we want is content specifically relevant and valuable to us, but there is too much noise most of the time. As a producer of content we want to is to be able to capture some of that value. For example if there was a source of content that have me an advantage in some domain area I work on, I would absolutely pay for it. (And in fact I do, like chatgpt plus). For entertainment content there's probably enough free stuff that most people don't care to pay.
    - joquarky 3y ago
      It didn't condition us, it reminded us that intellectual property is a social abstraction that flows against nature
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dsir 3y ago
I think the issue with Patreon, and a lot of similar services is that they are too focused on the "creator > consumer" relationship. I think the biggest value that a content creator is creating is acting as a beacon that people can rally behind regarding a specific niche and facilitating "consumer > consumer". Their biggest value add is as a curator. It's often difficult, especially for smaller niches to find a dedicated community around it if not for a content creator creating content and promoting it. In many cases, a content creator becomes synonymous with the niche. I've been working on a platform called Sociables (https://www.sociables.com/ https://www.sociables.com/) that gives content creators a place to offer their community as a part of their product offering. The difference between Patreon is it is much more focused on allowing creators to set up a place for their community to interact with each other instead of the more para-social style relationship seen on Patreon.
- RulerOf 3y ago
  Most Patreons I've seen use discord to fill that specific social gap, but I've always found it a little odd that they didn't try to fill that niche themselves.
  - meheleventyone 3y ago
    Discord are with Server Subscriptions: https://creator-support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/10423011974551-Server-Shop-For-Server-Owners-and-Admins https://creator-support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/104230...

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Reality 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 ago
All 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 ago
How 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?
- mjhay 3y ago
  That doesn't get past the free-rider problem. That kind of thing can also wind up angering some people (which is kind of entitled, but that doesn't mean it isn't real)
- hmcq6 3y ago
  Well there's a pretty good reason this won't work for the given example (newspapers). Why am I gonna wait for an NBC article when CNN (or worse FOX) posted the story already for free? Some types of reporting I would be happy to fund and wait for but other stories need to be posted ASAP or they lose their value. The same is true of art. For example, Age of Empires getting an expansion 25 years later is notable because it is uncommon. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/02/age-of-empires-2-gets-another-expansion-25-years-later-and-deservedly-so/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/02/age-of-empires-2-gets...
inglor_cz 3y ago
As an author ... People will gladly buy physical books off you, but they won't pay for articles. There seems to be a mental barrier between those two. A physical book in your hand probably feels more real, though the total amount of work isn't that different (to a series of articles).
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Zero marginal cost structure of the internet has conditioned everyone to thinking digital goods should be free. Remember that anti piracy ad with "you wouldnt download a car" and literally everyone was like "of course I would download a car if I could"
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    "of course I would download a car if I could" LOL at that, you're right. When it comes to content online, we live in an era of total abundance. This is the sort of abundance that used to be considered utopian. You will literally never run out of excellent texts for free, a mere human just cannot read them fast enough. Same with videos, games etc. But that abundance has significant downsides for the people who create all that content. Competing with free stuff is a task for Sisyphos.
    - CMCDragonkai 3y ago
      And even more abundance is coming with the advent of generative AI. The problem now isn't scarcity of content. It's signal vs noise. As a consumer of content what we want is content specifically relevant and valuable to us, but there is too much noise most of the time. As a producer of content we want to is to be able to capture some of that value. For example if there was a source of content that have me an advantage in some domain area I work on, I would absolutely pay for it. (And in fact I do, like chatgpt plus). For entertainment content there's probably enough free stuff that most people don't care to pay.
  - joquarky 3y ago
    It didn't condition us, it reminded us that intellectual property is a social abstraction that flows against nature

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dsir 3y ago

I think the issue with Patreon, and a lot of similar services is that they are too focused on the "creator > consumer" relationship. I think the biggest value that a content creator is creating is acting as a beacon that people can rally behind regarding a specific niche and facilitating "consumer > consumer". Their biggest value add is as a curator. It's often difficult, especially for smaller niches to find a dedicated community around it if not for a content creator creating content and promoting it. In many cases, a content creator becomes synonymous with the niche. I've been working on a platform called Sociables (https://www.sociables.com/ https://www.sociables.com/) that gives content creators a place to offer their community as a part of their product offering. The difference between Patreon is it is much more focused on allowing creators to set up a place for their community to interact with each other instead of the more para-social style relationship seen on Patreon.

RulerOf 3y ago
Most Patreons I've seen use discord to fill that specific social gap, but I've always found it a little odd that they didn't try to fill that niche themselves.
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  Discord are with Server Subscriptions: https://creator-support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/10423011974551-Server-Shop-For-Server-Owners-and-Admins https://creator-support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/104230...