Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 20:42:08 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

   It is incredibly frustrating that the only thing more stupid than Patreon is all the alleged Patreon substitutes that clearly don't even understand what Patreon does.

   Pro tip: Patreon has no meaningful competitors, and also it sucks, so there's a huge opportunity for somebody to kick sand in its face and take its lunch money. But to do that you would have to understand what actually Patreon does that is worth it to creators to allow Patreon to take 5% of their proceeds (and then pass on to them a second 5% in payment processing fees).

   • clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 20:41:59 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     There is an entire little universe of people using Patreon to be funded to do good works in the world. These may be open source contributors. They may be activists. They may be journalists or bloggers. They do not make things that they exchange for money with the people who pledge them on Patreon.

     Their patrons do not pay these creators to give things *to them*. Their patrons pay these creators to give things *to the world*: to release code for anyone to use, to engage in activism that changes the world for the better, or to write things that anyone can read.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 20:42:00 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     Part of the reason this is hard to understand is that people who are not creators (and even some who are) think of what Patreon affords as "selling stuff". Which is incorrect.

     There are two problems with the selling stuff paradigm: the selling and the stuff.

     First and foremost, Patreon does not require you to sell anything. I mean, you can use it for that. Lots of creators do.

     I don't.

     I use Patreon for patronage instead. Kind of like it says on the tin.

     So this is the next item on the list.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 20:42:00 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     3) Non quid pro quo patronage

     Patreon is not a platform for selling things, even though you can use it that way, and Patreon seems to prefer it be used that way.

     But Patreon can also be used to collect support that is not tied to directly providing the person who pays the money with something just for themselves.

     pettter repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 20:42:01 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     To my knowledge – and, BOY, would I like to be wrong about this – there is not a single other platform in the world that supports the by-works model that Patreon offers.

     To be crystal clear, it entails:

     • Patrons pledge to pay $n per work, on an ongoing basis, in advance of the work being done.

     • The creator then generates works on an ad hoc basis, not to any set schedule, and each time they do, they check in with the UI to bill their patrons.

     • The platform aggregates these bills, and submits them to the patrons' credit cards monthly.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 20:42:02 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     There will be more on that subsequently (probably item three on this list of Patreon competition sine qua nons).

     So you might be wondering, "but that's basically just a 'pay me' button, more or less directly connected to the patrons' credit cards!"

     Yes. Precisely. I mean, it doesn't charge them until the end of the month, but yes.

     "But what's to keep a creator from just hammering the 'pay me' button?"

     Nothing. Nothing at all.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 20:42:02 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     Like I said previously, individual patrons can set their own monthly maximums. But really the only thing that prohibits the creator from doing that is that it will piss off their patrons, and if the patrons don't feel that they're getting their money's worth, they can cancel their patronage. Which they will do.

     And that's totally sufficient.

     It helps to get over the emotional hump if you realize that it's not actually any different than invoicing somebody through PayPal. If somebody hires you to landscape their yard, and you send them an itemized invoice through PayPal's invoice system, PayPal isn't going to check to make sure that you actually edged the lawn and planted the begonias like agreed.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 20:42:03 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     Yeah, Patreon has a solution for that too: patrons can set a monthly upper limit for how much they're willing to support a given creator. If the creator exceeds that limit, that's fine, that patron is not charged in excess of that amount.

     (Personally, I warn all of my patrons to set that limit, because every once in a while I go off on a productivity tear.)

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 20:42:03 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     This is where things get challenging. If you imagine this system, if you try to walk through in your mind how this would work, it will probably occur to you to ask the question, "Okay, but... How does the system know that you shipped something?"

     Yeah about that. I log into Patreon, and I basically make a little blog post that says "Look! I made the thing you pledged to pay me for!" with the associated ticky box for "Pay me for this" ticked, and click submit.

     That's it.

     Patreon and no way, shape, or form attempts to validate that I actually shipped the thing. That is between me and my patrons. And, personally, I'm smart enough not to use Patreon as my delivery mechanism, so delivery of what I am paid for happens through a completely other channel.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 20:42:04 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     If you're thinking, "but how many works does a creator ship each month?": no, that's the whole point of by-works. It can be ANY number. The creator makes no particular commitment to their patrons as to how many creations they're going to ship. They may ship NO creations in a month, so in that month their patrons are charged nothing. Or they may ship one thing. Or 10 things. Or a 100 things.

     (My best month was 10 things.)

     You might reasonably be thinking, "migod, what protects patrons from getting socked with an enormous bill because a creator ships many more things then they expected?"

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 20:42:05 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     People have trouble believing that this is actually so, but it is. This is the funding model I use.

     The by-work funding model is where patrons pledge their support not by the month, but by the instance of whatever it is that the creator makes. If the creator makes stories, it's per story; if the creator makes music videos, it's per music video. The patrons pledge a certain amount of money for each work the creator makes.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 20:42:06 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     Relatedly, it is not enough for your creator patronization platform to HAVE fully supported pseudonyms. You must make that abundantly specific and clear, and a commitment that you make to your creators, UP FRONT. Ideally, it's part of your elevator pitch.

     Patreon falls short of the standard but comes closer than any other payment accepting platform – as far as I know *at all*, of *any* type.

     If you want to pull business away from Patreon, you will not do it if your platform, like umpteen zillion other idiot platforms, assumes that the creator is going to use their wallet name, and does not treat that wallet name as confidential information.

     Listen, if all we wanted was a subscription platform that exposed our wallet names, we could have been using PayPal subscriptions all this time. What would we need you for?

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 20:42:06 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     Speaking of subscriptions:

     2) By-works funding model support.

     Patreon had two foundational funding models it supported, and while Patreon has introduced a variety of complexities and alternatives, these remain its core offerings.

     One of these is trivial: monthly subscriptions. Like I said, creators can get that from PayPal if they don't care about pseudonyms. Every supposed Patreon substitute is just a monthly subscription service.

     But Patreon's much more interesting funding model is not by-month, it's by-work.

     This is where things get very hard for outsiders to understand. For emotional reasons.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 20:42:07 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     Because I want there to be Patreon competitors, I will explain what Patreon actually does, so if somebody would like to actually compete with Patreon they will know what they have to actually accomplish.

     Brace yourself. Some of this is a little complicated to explain.

     And before explaining it, allow me to observe: these are the sorts of features you get when somebody who actually really understands the usage case designs the platform. Patreon was founded by and designed by an actual goddamn artist, a musician and music video maker, who understood what artists and other creators actually need out of a platform.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 20:42:07 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     1) Pseudonym support.

     Attention dumbasses: stage names and pen names have been realities of the business of being an artist for over 2,000 years.

     Creators are not shoe salesmen.

     The most basic functionality of any platform that intends to support *creators* earning money online – the basic, rock-bottom, sine qua non affordance – is people doing business using pseudonyms.

     What that ACTUALLY means is the platform has to allow creators (the people who charge money) to be PSEUDONYMOUS (to use their stage name or pen names) in all of their interactions with their patrons (the people paying the money), AND the platform, which is legally required to know the legal identity of the creator and have on file their relevant tax ID numbers (e.g. SSN in the US), needs to keep that legal identity CONFIDENTIAL.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:10 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     The thing is, a bunch of those options arose well after I began to surmise that Patreon was struggling with the implementation necessary for the by work model. Patreon had done a number of things that seem to be deprecating the by-work model, most obviously their tearing out the part of the UI that by-works creators relied on, which suggested to me they repented of the decision to ever have it in the first place, given its complexity and difficulty to support in the code.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:10 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     So on one hand, I was getting the impression that Patreon was struggling with the complexity of its bookkeeping already at that point, and then on the other hand, Patreon was forging ahead with new variations on payment models, multiplying the complexity further.

     This is one of the things that inclines me to suspect that Patreon, as an organization, suffers from an especially acute case of neophilia. It looks from the outside like simultaneously Patreon is trying to reduce complexity in its code and in its bookkeeping, while it's rolling out new features and new options that add even more complexity. And the new features and options don't look like things that are mission critical, or fixes for terrible problems: they just look like somebody's Cool New Idea(tm).

   • Embed this notice
     clacke (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:10 JST clacke

     in reply to

     • Chartodon
     Calling @Chartodon ...
   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:11 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     Now, to be clear... No I can't be clear, because I have no idea what Patreon actually did, or why. Patreon has now moved away from this apparently? And I guess no longer bundles for newer campaigns?

     When I think about how breathtakingly complicated their bookkeeping must be – two major funding models, by month and by work, plus various variations like annual memberships and pay at the start of the month versus pay at the end of the month, needing to keep track of when during a month a patron pledges or changes their pledge for reckoning by work pledges, plus they now somehow support merch payments? and also apparently they have two different approaches to handling payment processing depending on the age of the creator's campaign, one that deducts and bundles, one that adds and is unbundled – this is one of the things I'm thinking about, when, as I said to a commenter, I think maybe Patreon bit off more than it could chew, technologically speaking.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:11 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     I look at the complexity of logic necessary to just reckon how much they should charge whose credit cards and deposit in which bank accounts, and I look at the difficulty they seem to be having both managing credit card charges and presenting creators with an informative UI that tells them what is happening to their money, and it makes me wonder whether these things are indicative of Patreon's core bookkeeping system being the software development equivalent of a train with no brakes, headed down a steep hill, fast and getting faster.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:12 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     The problem with the long tail was, and apparently still remains, micropayments. Transaction costs are what causes friction in the long tail. This is why long tail businesses have to find ways to batch transactions.

     It's why Amazon really really really wants you to order at least $n of goods at a time, and incents you with free shipping at that number.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:12 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     So it turns out one of Patreon's biggest features was the fact that it was a vast marketplace of patronage, where one patron might find very many of the different creators they wanted to support – allowing Patreon to bundle their pledges when it came time to charge their credit card.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:13 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     And it's a horrendous problem for pretty much any business remotely shaped like Patreon. This is "the long tail".

     That term was coined and popularized by Chris Anderson of Wired here https://www.wired.com/2004/10/tail/ which is behind a paywall.

     Investopedia explains it: "The long tail is a business strategy that allows companies to realize significant profits by selling low volumes of hard-to-find items to many customers, instead of only selling large volumes of a reduced number of popular items. The term was first coined in 2004 by Chris Anderson, who argued that products in low demand or with low sales volume can collectively make up market share that rivals or exceeds the relatively few current bestsellers and blockbusters but only if the store or distribution channel is large enough." (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/long-tail.asp)

     clacke repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:13 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     The long tail was a revelation as an idea and a revolution in commerce. Part of what made commerce on the internet different was that on the internet you could leverage the long tail. Whole types of businesses came into existence or rose to prominence by realizing many tiny transactions could dwarf blockbusters.

     Fundamentally, Patreon is a long tail business. It doesn't sell a million of something at $100 a pop; it doesn't sell 10 million of something at $10 a pop. It sells ("sells") millions upon millions of different things at $1 a pop.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:14 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     But even then, you only get to a sweet spot if a given patron pledges enough across different creators. That $14.29 is even WITH bundling.

     From my back of the envelope calculations it looked like Patreon was either losing money on every patron who pledged a total of less than $14.29 a month, or was otherwise struggling financially with low value patrons at some other threshold.

     This is actually a horrendous problem, in light of that datum that the average pledge was less than $2.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:15 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     If a patron pledges one creator $1 a month, a huge amount of that would be lost to processing charges – either Patreon cuts deep into the creator's share, or they lose money. But – with charge bundling – if a patron pledges 15 creators each $1 a month, the fee stops being so bad, because the $0.30 is only charged once. The fee works out to 2.9% (3¢) plus 2¢ per creator, so each creator's fee on their $1 is only $0.05.

     Fundamentally, charge bundling is what made Patreon able – in so far as it was able, and it's not actually clear they were able – to offer what really was the first functional micropayment system on the internet.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:16 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     Now they *weren't* trying to keep to 5% – they did in fact charge larger amounts for smaller pledges.

     But the amounts they charged didn't seem remotely as large as they would have had to be to cover those payment processor fees if they were 2.9% plus $0.30.

     But notice how bundling made this more plausible.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:17 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     The other hypothesis is that, well. There was an old joke about Amazon, "We're losing money on every sale, but will make it up in volume". It may be that Patreon actually did that, for real. They may have assumed that they could subsidize the processing fees for small value pledges out of their own fees that they charged for high value pledges.

     Only that math doesn't quite work.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:17 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     I sat down with a spreadsheet and figured it out back in December 2017. If my math was correct, the point at which the 5% they said would cover payment processing actually did was for pledges of $14.29 and above.

     "The Fourteen Twenty-Nine Hypothesis"
     https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1371510.html

     This meant that if they weren't getting a special deal on payment processing, if they had tried to keep to 5%, they would have been losing money on any pledge less than $14.29.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:18 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     PayPal, which is one of Patreon's payment processors, was offering a deal there for a while – and while all this was going down in December of 2017, I got on the phone with PayPal and asked if the deal was still available and it was – where one could opt into an alternative fee structure, with only a 5¢ flat fee, but a 5% fee rate.

     So one hypothesis is that that was what Patreon was using, either through PayPal or through another processor that offered equivalent terms.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:19 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     Part of what made Patreon explosively successful, in the first place, was that Patreon had apparently cracked the code on one of the hardest problems on the internet: micropayments.

     By the time Patreon had come along people had been discussing the problem of micropayments on the internet for at least two decades. The problem with micropayments was that there was a huge amount of things that people buy for very small amounts of money, and a huge amount of what people wanted to buy on the internet where things that could not reasonably be priced more than a few bucks – one track on an album, for instance – but the transaction costs for very small purchases were such a large percentage of such purchases that they weren't economical. The payment processing fees put so much friction on small purchases that they pretty much killed them dead.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:19 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     Then Patreon came along, and this was the deal they offered: you can do your thing and accept pledges of any amount, even tiny amounts, even amounts of less than $1, and we will charge you 5% for ourselves and approximately 5% for payment processing.

     It was the right price point. Micropayments worked at that price point.

     Nobody knows how Patreon made that work.

     There's two major hypotheses.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:20 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     Patreon tried to play a shell game with how fees were charged. The system they had deducted fees out of whatever patrons pledged, as I described in the above example: if a patron pledges a dollar, the payment processor fee would be deducted from that dollar, along with Patreon own fee, with the creator receiving the difference.

     In addition to unbundling the charges, such that there would be dramatically higher payment processor fees, Patreon explains that their plan was not to deduct it from what was pledged, but to add it. No longer would the amount that a patron pledged be the amount that their credit card would be charged. The amount a patron will be charged would be the amount they pledged plus the payment processor fee. If you pledged a dollar, you would be charged a $1.33 – the dollar you pledged plus 2.9% (3¢) plus the 30¢ flat fee.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:20 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     The internet, understandably, lost its goddamn mind.

     Now, Patreon did back down – temporarily. They ultimately grandfathered all of the extant creators as continuing to enjoy payment bundling, but I understand that after a certain flag day, new creator accounts work in the new unbundled way they wanted to roll out all along.

     But the important thing to realize here, as a whole lot of us suddenly realized back in 2017, was that the numbers didn't work without bundling.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:21 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     P.S. I would be remiss if I didn't also mention a fifth thing that Patreon did which was part of its secret sauce, the feature nobody realized Patreon was giving us until they tried to take it away and broke everything: charge bundling.

     In December 2017, Patreon announced that they were changing the rules of the game, in a way they tried to pass off as advantageous to creators, but was something very else under the hood. What that was, well, nobody's quite sure because of how much lying Patreon did and because of how they swore parties they told things to to secrecy.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:21 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     What Patreon had been doing up to that point was if a patron pledged more than one creator, then Patreon would submit a single charge to the payment processor for the total amount that patron owed all of the creators they had pledged for that month.

     What they proposed to do instead was run a charge for each creator a patron supported. A patron who pledged three creators would be charged three times in a month.

     That doesn't sound like a big deal, but it is. Because the fee structure of the payment processors includes, in addition to a percentage rate, a per transaction flat fee of $0.30.

     And because the average patron pledge across Patreon is less than $2.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:21 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     So where previously a patron who pledged three creators each a dollar a month would have had a total of 39 cents deducted in payment processor fees, leaving the creators to split $2.61 three ways, under the new system there would be a total of 99 cents deducted, leaving the creators to split $2.01 three ways.

     Put another way, for a patron who supports three creators each for a dollar, the payment processing fee is 13%. Patreon was proposing making it 33%.

     Only, no, what they actually proposed to do was even worse than that.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:22 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     So there you go: four crucial aspects of what Patreon is ACTUALLY up to – what its value proposition is to the creators that choose to use it – that you're not going to be able to compete with Patreon unless you implement, and ideally improve upon.

     Edit: turns out I wasn't done, there's a number 5: https://universeodon.com/@siderea/111124515211951131

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:23 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     Patreon also has removed key functionality from within the web interface that creators used to tell what's going on – particularly if their campaign is by-works, as discussed previously.

     More generally, Patreon's UI for creators is really kind of terrible. I could itemize why but we'd be here for a while. A company could go far that offered the same services as Patreon, but let creators actually see what was happening to their money.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:23 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     For instance, the creator UI used to have a page that listed all of the works a by-works creator had submitted, that listed, *for each work*, how much money was pledged in the first place, how much revenue was actually collected (declined credit card charges are a thing), how much Patreon's cut was, how much Patreon took out to pass on to the payment processor, and how much you, the creator, would actually net.

     They took that away.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:24 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     They were creators whose entire business models were based on this. I gather there were also a third party integrations, companies that actually developed against the Patreon API so that their own services could be integrated with creators' campaigns on Patreon – that is to say there were companies that made products that they sold to creators, that relied on the API.

     Well Patreon decided that they're not supporting the API anymore. Apparently, from the screaming on the (now long defunct) creator forums, for a while there it looked like Patreon was going to turn it off. The Patreon walked that back and said that they wouldn't turn the API off, but they wouldn't be supporting it anymore, and they wouldn't be doing any further development on it.

     clacke repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:24 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     So in a really important sense, these creators (and these companies that had third party integrations) were (are) using Patreon.com as an identity server. But not just an identity server. It doesn't just serve the identity of patrons, but their status as patrons. That's part of what makes it "audience relationship management".

     If your supposed Patreon competitor does not support doing that, well, you're certainly not going to seduce all of the creators clinging to the sinking wreck of Patreon's API into abandoning ship on your account, are you?

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:25 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     So for instance, if you (a creator) wanted to run a private discussion forum on the web somewhere just for your patrons, and you're willing to do some programming, you could implement a system whereby your discussion forum software checked in with Patreon.com when someone logged in, comparing their email address with the one on file for patrons, to see whether or not they should be let in in the first place, and if so which forum features they should have access to, based on their tier.

     Well, you could.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:26 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     Patreon's infrastructure for doing all of this is kind of falling apart. In some places they've just taken things down rather than fix bugs.

     The really big example of this, I'm not wholly familiar with, because I don't really use it, and I was hearing about it and its problems from other people on the creator forums that then patreon took down.

     I'm talking about Patreon's API.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:26 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     So here's what I think I know, and my information is kind of old, and the pandemic happened, and I wasn't directly involved myself, so I might be misremembering.

     But as I understand it it goes something like this:

     Patreon has the affordance of allowing creators to establish "tiers", where the creator associates certain dollar amounts of pledges with certain package deals they put together. Patreon has – had – has – an API that creators can have their own software query, so that the creator's other systems can tell in real time whether one of their users is a paid up patron over on Patreon, and if so at what tier level.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:27 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     And this brings us to number four:

     4) An audience relationship management system, ideally one with an API one can build against

     Here's where you can really kick Patreon's ass in the market for alternatives, because Patreon's game has been slipping very badly in this area.

     I just invented the term "audience relationship management" system, by analogy to "customer relationship management" system. Like I said patrons are not the same thing as customers. But if you're a creator you do need to keep track of them, and you do need to keep track of their payments, and you do need to be able to communicate with them.

     Also you would probably like to be able to tell what's going on with your money: with the amounts pledged, the amounts received, the fees deducted, the credit cards declined, stuff like that. You might also appreciate some analytics.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:28 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     (All that said, I also absolutely someday intend to write books that I will sell for money. But that is a very different project.)

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:29 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     I'm one of them. The number one reason I signed up for Patreon as my funding platform 9 years ago, was because it was literally the only way of funding my writing that did not entail my SELLING it: my withholding it only for those people who paid me for it.

     People get confused here. I'm not talking about my intellectual property rights. I'm not worried somebody is going to steal my copyright in my writing. (I mean it's a legitimate concern but that's not what I'm talking about here.)

     I'm talking about the very basic nature of what it means to sell a work of writing, as a book or a magazine or a stand-alone article in a PDF.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:29 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     If I put my writing into documents that then I sell on Amazon or Kajabi, then the only people who get to see it are the people who pay me for them.

     That is the antithesis of what I want to do. What I want to do is write openly on the internet where anyone can read what I write. Where what I write can be cited by anyone who wants to refer to it in any internet discussion.

     The audience of my writing is not my patrons, and it is not just the people who pay me for it. It's the whole world.

     And that, quite explicitly, is what my patrons pay me to do.

   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Monday, 25-Sep-2023 23:42:29 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     Most would-be competitors to Patreon think it's some sort of DRM system. There are definitely people who try to use Patreon that way, and it works about as well as any DRM system does.

     We have lots of other "pay us to access this document" platforms, starting with the 800 lb gorilla, Amazon. If you think there is some benefit to wedding a membership system to a document storefront, I think you're probably wrong. I could be convinced otherwise – since I'm not actually in that business, I assume there's a lot I don't know about it – but my guess is having to join a club just for the privilege of buying a PDF introduces friction that reduces revenue. Heaven knows I resent it as a customer.

   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@bikeshed.party)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Sep-2023 09:42:39 JST feld

     in reply to
     I really hope someone invents an alternative internet native currency that is great at micropayments
   • Embed this notice
     David J. Atkinson (meltedcheese@c.im)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Sep-2023 10:20:51 JST David J. Atkinson

     in reply to

     @siderea The SecondLife Marketplace does this for people who offer stuff/services within the SecondLife world. Good analytics are provided on views/sales/search terms etc. of every *work* you offer. The catch is, your offerings are only deliverable in-world #SecondLife AFIK. Now, you have me wondering about RL delivery.

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Kevin Marks (kevinmarks@xoxo.zone)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Sep-2023 10:20:53 JST Kevin Marks

     in reply to

     @siderea Anderson popularised it but didn't invent it https://epeus.blogspot.com/2005/09/too-short-history-of-long-tail.html

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Sep-2023 10:21:00 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     • Kevin Marks

     @KevinMarks Ooh, thanks!

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Kevin Marks (kevinmarks@xoxo.zone)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Sep-2023 10:21:02 JST Kevin Marks

     in reply to

     @siderea another older post on this https://www.kevinmarks.com/powerlaws.html

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Mark Gardner (mjgardner@social.sdf.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Sep-2023 10:21:07 JST Mark Gardner

     in reply to

     @siderea This was a really enlightening thread, but I’m glad your patrons can cap their monthly payments because if you were to charge per Mastodon post you’d bankrupt them 😉 https://universeodon.com/@siderea/111123007212375473

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     clacke (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Sep-2023 10:21:24 JST clacke

     in reply to

     • Ángel Ortega

     @angel @siderea Here is the main thread in a top-down manner, with comments branching out to the side:

     web.archive.org/web/2023092600…

     Courtesy of mathstodon.xyz/@Chartodon/1111…

   • Embed this notice
     Ángel Ortega (angel@triptico.com)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Sep-2023 10:21:32 JST Ángel Ortega

     in reply to
     Oh my. This thread is the most valuable and eye-opening miniessay on artist patronage platforms I've seen in years.
     
     Do you have this same content in a less temporary, time-proof format, like a blog post or whatever?
     
   • Embed this notice
     Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis (siderea@universeodon.com)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Sep-2023 10:08:43 JST Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

     in reply to

     • Mark Gardner

     @mjgardner Oh yeah, that's why I told them to. As the inestimable folks running r/Historians once put it, "Concision is not our brand".

     clacke likes this.