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].
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
People don't join Patreon to watch cat videos in their feeds, though. Patreon users (both creators and patreons) are a very focused, task-oriented group.
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 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.
Network effects. But the correct answer is to use Facebook for the free attractors and link to the paywalled site that's under full control of the creator.
In a constrained way that's actually necessary in order to provide the service.
E.g. if the sentence you quoted was directly followed by "to promote, attract and deliver the subscription service on behalf of the creator"
In that regard it's similar to Youtube requiring permission to host and share your videos. But this is Facebook so I'm less convinced that this isn't an IP grab in exactly the form you're fearing (and because it's on Facebook I'm not sullying my browser by going to find the T&Cs to check).
Patreon have 2 million people giving money through the platform every month.
Facebook have nearer to none.
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/...
Would you use a Credit card that takes 30% from each purchase?
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
You realize those 2.32 billion monthly active users on Faceook aren't paying money to support the site, right? If Facebook put up a paywall and required subscriptions, that number would drop faster than stock values during the dot com crash.
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.