Slashdot Mirror


No One Makes a Living on Crowdfunding Website Patreon (theoutline.com)

Brent Knepper, writing for The Outline (condensed): Patreon is basically a payments processor designed like a social network. Every creator sets up a profile where they fill out a prompt about what they're making: "Oliver Babish is creating cooking videos," or "Hannah Alexander is creating Art and Costume Designs inspired by pop culture and Art Nouveau." Patreon encourages creators to provide a description of themselves and their work and strongly suggests uploading a video. [...] Today, successful Patreon creators include Chapo Trap House, a lefty podcast with 19,837 patrons at the time of writing paying $88,074 a month; the new commentator and YouTuber Philip DeFranco (13,823 patrons paying an amount that is undisclosed, but is enough to put him in the top 20 creators on the site); and the gaming YouTuber Nerd (4,494 patrons, $8,003 per month). But despite the revolutionary rhetoric, the success stories, and the goodwill that Patreon has generated, the numbers tell a different story. Patreon now has 79,420 creators, according to Tom Boruta, a developer who tracks Patreon statistics under the name Graphtreon. Patreon lets creators hide the amount of money they are actually making, although the number of patrons is still public. Boruta's numbers are based on the roughly 80 percent of creators who publicly share what they earn. Of those creators, only 1,393 -- 2 percent -- make the equivalent of federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, or $1,160 a month, in October 2017. Worse, if we change it to $15 per hour, a minimum wage slowly being adopted by states, that's only .8 percent of all creators. In this small network designed to save struggling creatives, the money has still concentrated at the top.

10 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Slow news day? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The story blurb makes it sound like Patreon is a scam or scamish because only a few people using it are making bank. But I think this is a pretty normal distribution for folks involved in earning money this way, and any "creative" endeavor where margins are thin and success stories few. There are acres of people YouTubing and Podcasting, and only a few make any substantial part of their income from them. The same is true for selling products on eBay, Amazon, Listia, whomever. Individuals - people not companies - can make a living that way, and some do - but very few. Is Patreon "overselling" what you can do with their platform? Perhaps, but it's up to *YOU* to create something people want to give you money for, not Patreon.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Slow news day? by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yep..and again....EVERY job is NOT a job one makes their sole livelihood from....

      And with stuff like Patreon, most all it takes is your extra time doing something you likely would be doing for free as that you like it.

      I am curious, however, how much the gun channels are making on Patreon. YouTube has apparently de-monetized most all of them (I guess YT has a political slant)...and it appears most of the larger ones are now using Patreon to try to regain some of that lost YT revenue.

      But really....most people doing stuff online are not making a living from it, it is a hobby that is generating some income.

      I'd rather get paid for doing what I like that I'd do anyway, than get no $$ at all, if given the choice.

      Who wouldn't?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Slow news day? by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      YouTube has apparently de-monetized most all of them (I guess YT has a political slant).

      No, advertisers have a political slant. And most of them, especially with all the mass shootings going on, don't want their ads (or brands) associated with guns.

      Remember, advertisers have some of the thinnest skins in the world, and YouTube monetization relies on ads to pay both YouTube and the content creator. If the advertiser doesn't like the videos their ad gets attached to, then they pull their ads or force YouTube to never show their ads on those kind of videos.

      YouTube demonetized a lot of videos simply because there was no advertiser willing to pay to have their ads on those videos. And it doesn't seem like Google/Alphabet is wanting to pursue those kinds of ads either.

      Effectively, the adpocalypse happened because before, advertisers were fairly blase about where their ads showed up. When the alt-right started becoming more "normalized" and expressing hate and all that was more common, advertisers started taking note and they started pulling out of YouTube ads. And then it happened a few more times - advertisers seeing their ads on videos they deemed inappropriate, and pulled even more of their ads from YouTube. So YouTube was forced to crack down because they were losing their revenue source. They could ban all those videos that caused problems, but that likely will have more problems in the end, so it was easier to demonetize the videos and keep them up.

      That way all those people could still post their videos just fine, they just had to contend with not getting paid for them (but that's how it all started anyhow - you posted videos on YouTube and didn't expect payment).

    3. Re:Slow news day? by eclectro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. What you have now are left leaning "social justice warriors" calling *all* conservatives and anybody who has voted Republican "alt-right". Not just the Nazi's and the KKK racists.

      Thus, they truly believe that any conservative talk is therefore "hate speech" and needs to be censored if at all possible. Many believe that violence is justified in order to silence the so called hate speech, and why antifa has in the past on both youtube and Patreon websites.

      Youtube has evolved itself into a socialist/feminist monoculture internally which will demonetize or put in limited state anything that it disagrees with politically. It's what resulted in James Damore's firing.

      I find it interesting that when Youtube started the "limited state" censorship, they censored a Nazi video, then they censored political videos from youtube user Black Pidgeon Speaks that was critical of Islam before they censored a bunch more Nazi videos. Do your research.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  2. Patreon is only one revenue source. by Jack+Zombie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most people on Patreon have multiple things going on at the same time, and that adds up to a full wage.

    Plus, they can monetize in other ways the stuff they create with the Patreon money; for example, a musician can get funded to create a music album, and then use the songs they created to tour and sell merchandise.

    Article is knowingly deceptive.

    --
    "You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
  3. Definitions by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hey everyone, what does "No-One" mean to you. Would it mean a number that is zero instead of non-zero? Because the headline says "no-one" but the summary even says something like 0.8% of some non-zero number.

    The reality is that there are also a lot of people who just want extra cash for something they work on part time or some base of fixed revenue they can work on top of through other funding means. Even just $1500 a month is enough to live in a lot of places and it would let you have plenty of time to work on other revenue streams, so you cannot really say who is or is not making minimum wage from what they do.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  4. Re:FAR worse that that.. by MattskEE · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yep, for the many patrons who do lots of small pledges it amounts to a new 37.9% processing fee. The creators get slightly more money, but the bulk of these fees are going straight to Patreon since they already batch the small transactions together.

  5. Re:Raising prices by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except $1 pledges are apparently quite common - Patreon is basically increasing the price to those people by 37.9%.

    Odds are someone who currently makes a bunch of $1 pledges will simply end 40% of them now.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  6. Re:"No one" meaning "few" is a figure of speech by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Usually if you're using "no one" as a figure of speech, you don't turn around and immediately give at least two examples to the contrary.

    No one makes a living off Patreon. This guy makes $88,000 a week.

  7. Re:Some thoughts from an online content creator by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Frankly, their fees are far better than any other site, even with the recent changes. You keep 95%? that's the fairest site of them all.

    With the new 2.9% + $0.35 per pledge fees they're rolling out for donors, it's more like you keep ~69% of each nominally-$1 pledge. (Actual cost payed by donor $1.37, of which you receive $0.95.) Larger pledges result in a better ratio, naturally, up to about 92.3% in the best case.

    Those fees might be reasonable on a per-transfer basis, where a transfer is $15 or more and can be used to fund multiple pledges, but not for each individual pledge. Especially since the only difference in the cost to Patreon between one $40 pledge and 40 $1 pledges is some entries in a database.

    --
    "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat