Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Wants Up To 30 Percent of Fan Subscriptions Vs Patreon's 5 Percent (techcrunch.com)
Facebook's Patreon-like Fan Subscriptions feature lets people pay a monthly fee for access to a creator's exclusive content. But, as TechCrunch reports, it greatly differs from Patreon in that the social network "plans to take up to a 30 percent cut of subscription revenue minus fees, compared to 5 percent by Patreon, 30 percent by YouTube which covers fees, and 50 percent by Twitch." "Facebook also reserves the right to offer free trials to subscriptions that won't compensate creators," TechCrunch reports. "And Facebook demands a 'non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use' creators' content and 'This license survives even if you stop using Fan Subscriptions.'" From the report: Distrust of Facebook could scare creators away from the platform when combined with its significant revenue share and ability to give away or repurpose creators' content. Facebook has consistently shown that it puts what it thinks users want and its own interests above those of partners. It cut off game developers from viral channels, inadequately warned Page owners their reach with drop over time, decimated referral traffic to news publishers, and most recently banished video makers from the feed. If Facebook wants to win creators' trust and the engagement of their biggest fans, it may need a more competitive offering with larger limits on its power.
Facebook began testing Fan Subscriptions a year to give creators a financial alternative to maximizing ad views after watching the rise of Patreon which now has 3 million patrons who'll pay 100,000 artists, comedians, models, and makers over $500 million this year. This month Facebook expanded the test to the UK, Spain, Germany, and Portugal to allow users to pay $4.99 per month to a creator for exclusive content, live videos, and a profile badge that highlights them as a subscriber. While Twitch owns gamers, YouTube rules amongst videographers, and Patreon is a favorite with odd-ball creators, Facebook may see an opportunity to popularize Fan Subscriptions internationally and turn mainstream consumers into paid supporters. The terms for Fan Subscriptions are not publicly available, and only visible on Facebook's site to Pages it's invited to test the feature. But TechCrunch has published the full policy document [in their report].
Facebook began testing Fan Subscriptions a year to give creators a financial alternative to maximizing ad views after watching the rise of Patreon which now has 3 million patrons who'll pay 100,000 artists, comedians, models, and makers over $500 million this year. This month Facebook expanded the test to the UK, Spain, Germany, and Portugal to allow users to pay $4.99 per month to a creator for exclusive content, live videos, and a profile badge that highlights them as a subscriber. While Twitch owns gamers, YouTube rules amongst videographers, and Patreon is a favorite with odd-ball creators, Facebook may see an opportunity to popularize Fan Subscriptions internationally and turn mainstream consumers into paid supporters. The terms for Fan Subscriptions are not publicly available, and only visible on Facebook's site to Pages it's invited to test the feature. But TechCrunch has published the full policy document [in their report].
All scams. Put together a viable business model and the funding will come. These things are begging for money and then not delivering most of the time. Kill the whole model imo
People are willing to pay for this sh*t?!
That gives more money direct to content creators from their supporters.
No need for 3rd party politicly active payment services.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Blinding obvious that's why they chose that cut.
I understand that people have good reasons to hold their nose and use Facebook for staying in touch with friends and family. But there have to be limits. Artists who turn their work over to Zuckerberg and the rest of those cocksuckers deserve what they get.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Why should a third party take money from people supporting the content they want to support AC?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Distrust of Facebook *Should* scare creators away
Because they promote scams. I never said the platforms were not viable, I said the people who use them are not viable.
on facebook you can make up the difference by the huge difference in the number of people you can reach.
Seriously, why would you pay for the privilege of reading someone's Facebook page?
If you really agree with them and want to help fund them I guess?
It seems like both parties would be better off paying a subscription to a pay walled blog.
But YouTube seems to also take 30% of the donation when people join your channel.
Creimer has been making Youtube videos for years, in fact it's where nearly all his spare time goes when he gets home from his hours-long bus ride home, and he still hasn't had to pay Youtube a single cent of his cut.
Facebook demands a 'non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use' creators' content
What-The-Fuck!
But YouTube seems to also rake 30% of the donation when people join your channel.
There, I fixed it for you.
The ban-hammer of FB is absolute.
Patreon became a thing as an alternative to FB when the SJWs, the liberal elites and the thought police decided that there was only one opinion that mattered. I find it hilarious that FB decided to match the fees of Youtube (Google), Apple (/natch), and undercut Twitch (is that a thing?).
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press is being regulated and now being charged for. Can you imagine if you had to pay for a newspaper that had total freedom of the press but you got a "discount" if you bought the one that was regulated and restricted but at a lower cost? I hope not.
Who doesn't understand this is a problem?
Because they are bridge & tunnel suburbanites?
Faceboot shills be shillin'.
Why would Facebook charge more than Patreon? Gee, I wonder...
Patreon's website says they have 2 million "monthly active patrons". This is the largest category of users that they mention on their site. They also say that they have 100,000 creators. I was hoping that Patreon would publish their number of monthly active users, but I could not find it.
Facebook at the of 2018 had 2.32 billion monthly active users. Assuming this number is comparable to Patreon's number of monthly active patrons, that would make Facebook about 1,160 times larger than Patreon.
So does Facebook have a larger fee? Hell yeah! Patreon isn't even one-tenth of one-percent of the size of Facebook. If they were, they would surely charge more.
In my experience most YouTubers sprook their Patreon account for donations, especially during live streams, just because YouTube takes a 30% cut.
Patreon kind of works if you don't have your own site, though setting up a subscription via your own site with a payment processor is probably the best bet. Then you are limited to missing out on the payment processing fees alone, but you need to be able to maintain the technical side of running your own website
Seriously? People still use Facebook?
Reminds me of when we were kids and would tape a "kick me" sign to someone's back.
At least selling your soul to the devil usually comes with some real benefits -- but Facebook? I don't get it.
The same reasons why MasterCard, Visa and the others take a cut when you use your cards. They offer a service. Since there is no such thing a a free lunch, someone has to pay for that service. If you can offer free transactions of money - please do!
The loss in moving funds from a users to a content creator can be greatly reduced as a % of the payment.
No more 10% to 30% loss in funds to some political CC, service, network demanding creative control over the content creators publications.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
My take is that most creators still on facebook will leave as soon as there is a reasonable alternative. Facebook just has lost all respect for those that made it big.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Now Facebook being a huge multinational it seems to me that creators are likewise cheated getting only 70% -- of SOMETHING, while FB gets worldwide rights of all sorts, i.e. rights to use for MUCH MORE. Cagey Zuck.
To be fair Patreon was doing superbly. 5% covered payment fees and paid for itself with network effects, and also by making it easy and possible for subscribers to easily share their funds across multiple creators.
Then they tried to fuck over the subscribers to make more profit, then they tried to fuck over the creators to make more profit and then they went all political and now they're in financial trouble.
Idiots.
If you think this is bad, you should have been a recording artist in the 80s or 90s having to deal with a record label. They often gave artists just 1-2% of the gross from an entire album run (which included record sales and tour income) and had oppressive contracts that turned artists into modern day indentured servants. For example, artists were required to use the record label's contracted recording studio, which often charged artists 10 or 15 times what a normal studio cost, and of course would front the money to do it, at high interest. They also coerced artists into taking out what amounted to payday loans against future revenue, also at high interest, to be paid back out of sales.
There were dozens of completely unregulated mechanisms by which the record labels screwed artists out of their content. What we have today with modern streaming is far more transparent and straightforward than the byzantine contracts of yore which required a JD to be able to understand.
Artists should be thankful it's only 30% or 50%. Patreon is a unicorn.
Oh wait, at least uber will match the client for you.
If you can offer free transactions of money - please do!
Banks do exactly that. I never pay to transfer money - such as paying bills or shopping.
The bank has a different method for profiting. In order to transfer money between accounts, the users must put money into said accounts. In practice, lots of money just sits there, waiting a long time for the next shopping spree or bill. A bank with many such accounts sits on a ton of money, and profit from providing expensive loans.
So banks don't need a transaction fee, and therefore at least some has zero such fees in order to attract customers who care about not paying fees. No transaction fee is a competitive advantage.
Interesting. I've noticed a few sites and video channels relying on Patreon in recent times, but wasn't aware of the controversy. More details or relevant links, please?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I support 4 different Patreon accounts. One is for the creator of a piece of software for 3D printing that is continually updated and improved. Three are for artists who provide a ton of content for 3D printing - including an online designer for making builds out of some of those same designs other people are creating among others.
In those cases Patreon is a great platform. They can interact with their patrons easily, have a community board, have posts restricted to patrons and ones that are open to everyone, and they get an audience without having to maintain their own website. They can focus on creating content and working with the people who choose to support them.
Facebook severely overestimates their value here. Funny enough every Patreon I subscribe to has their own Facebook page so there's more reach but I have no doubt that they're not even looking at Facebook for their subscription platform. I don't blame them even with the over the top fees and the casual assumption of their rights to their own work.
My experience may be different since I'm mostly getting physical products. These aren't people streaming video. They use other platforms for that and there's no charge to see them. But who in their right mind is going to say that they want to lose revenue and rights to their product for no gain?
https://www.polygon.com/2017/1... - charging people 38c for a $1 contribution.
https://www.allsides.com/blog/...
Thanks. I had no idea they'd upset so many people over the past couple of years.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The Apples App Store takes 30% and everybody else copied and now facebook wants the same 30%. Greed, Greed, Greed!
Google should bring back an upgraded RSS reader to help people keep track of their favorite sites and content. By having a good reader, people will be less inclined too use Facebook and instead use websites where content providers are compensated for their work rather than have it stolen away by Facebook.