Patreon Scraps New Service Fee, Apologizes To Users (theverge.com)

Patreon has decided to halt its plans to add a service fee to patrons' pledges, a proposed update that angered many users. "We're going to press pause," CEO Jack Conte tells The Verge. "Folks have been adamant about the problems with the new system, and so basically, we have to solve those problems first." The company plans to work with creators on a plan that will solve issues with the current payment system, but won't create major new problems in their stead. From the report: Conte published a blog post laying out the core problems, alongside an apology. "Many of you lost patrons, and you lost income. No apology will make up for that, but nevertheless, I'm sorry," it reads. "We recognize that we need to be better at involving you more deeply and earlier in these kinds of decisions and product changes. Additionally, we need to give you a more flexible product and platform to allow you to own the way you run your memberships. I know it will take a long time for us to earn back your trust. But we are utterly devoted to your success and to getting you sustainable, reliable income for being a creator."

Conte says that any new system will need to take the popularity of small pledges into account, and preserve the benefits of aggregation. It will also need to give artists more autonomy, rather than announcing a sweeping overall change directly to users. "The overwhelming sentiment was that we overstepped our bounds" with the non-negotiable fee, he says. "I agree, we messed that up. We put ourselves between the creator and their fans and we basically told them how to run their business, and that's not okay." Webcomic creator Jeph Jacques previously quoted Conte as saying Patreon "absolutely fucked up that rollout."

Comments

Breach of Trust (A wound that doesn't heal.)

[sehlat]

They didn’t ASK. Instead, they simply said “All your wallets are belong to us.”

They forgot that trust, once broken, is damn near impossible to repair. I am reminded of an exchange in the British Parliament after Dunkirk, when an admiral was being upbraided for risking the fleet. The admiral replied, “We can rebuild the fleet in thirty years. We can rebuild the tradition in three hundred.”

I may check in on Patreon in 2317.

Re:Breach of Trust (A wound that doesn't heal.)

[tlhIngan]

They didnâ(TM)t ASK. Instead, they simply said âoeAll your wallets are belong to us.â

They forgot that trust, once broken, is damn near impossible to repair. I am reminded of an exchange in the British Parliament after Dunkirk, when an admiral was being upbraided for risking the fleet. The admiral replied, âoeWe can rebuild the fleet in thirty years. We can rebuild the tradition in three hundred.â

I may check in on Patreon in 2317.

Good for you. Now what are you going to do in the meantime?

Patreon could do these things as they're one of the top "tip jar" places on the web, and they manage things such that "creators" can offer donators special perks. All this managed on one convenient interface. Sure the creators could use Paypal, but then you lose out on the perk management.

So they did it, assuming everyone would see it this way.

They did explain later on what happened.

First off, they used to aggregate the payments - at the end of the month, they charged everyone. Great, except that lead to a problem of someone who say, donated on the 28th of the month, then paid again 3 days later. Not ideal. So then they decided they would do it on the anniversary, but then it resulted in increased fees for the creators because instead of being charged once, people were charged multiple times and incurring multiple fees.

So some creators complained again - they got $1200, but after fees, they got only $800. (Which happens because if you do $1 donations, the creator really only keeps around 65 cents of that if you billed individually. If you aggregate, the fees go down)

And yes, apparently fees are the #1 issue at Patreon - creators just complain constantly how much money is taken away. So Patreon decided to shift payment fees away from the creator and onto the donator in an effort to quell the complaints. End result was what happened last week when creators realized that the shift may mean more money for them per donator, but a lot of donators simply left.

Clueless?

[swm]

From the new blog posting

Aggregation is highly-valued, and we underestimated that.

Aggregation is pretty much their core value proposition.
How could they "underestimate" this?