Slightly-urgent request...

OH!! Nah, it's just that Patreon's email notifications for a reply vs. direct message are identical save for the actual words "reply" and "direct message." ;)

Danielle Corsetto

Odd, because I sent a direct message to you, rather than a reply to this. Probably yet another bug somewhere :-)

Yeah, I'm giving myself until March (assuming they go through with their dumb plan) and then I'll jump ship. Regardless, I'm keeping my pledges for the creators I support, for the same reason (though I may rearrange the same way you are!). And thank you! <3

Danielle Corsetto

Ward... that's really kind, thank you. If they don't cancel the whole idiot idea, I'll find a better way to do this and let you all know!

Danielle Corsetto

I can't seem to find the follow-up reply you wrote here (Patreon tells me when someone comments, but doesn't lead me to the actual buried comment, ONE OF MANY ISSUES I HAVE WITH PATREON'S INTERFACE &gt;:| ), but thank you for both writing and sharing that post you wrote! And very much for the shout-outs, that was super kind of you. :) (You may want to tweak this line a bit? "The creator wants to create something and needs money to do so Those form offer and acceptance, two of the three things you need for a contract.") (I hope that's helpful and not annoying!) Someone posted a Twitter thread that paraphrases my feelings on what Patreon is (versus the path Patreon is trying to choose for itself): <a href="https://twitter.com/thisblackmagic/status/939888455517069312" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/thisblackmagic/status/939888455517069312</a> I've been thinking about this all weekend.

Danielle Corsetto

One thought I thought I'd like to share, after cooling off a bit: the people at Patreon are still fairly new at this; it is very much possible that they simply didn't realize how their move would appear to lots of people. Businesses do screw up sometimes. Maybe they'll acknowledge this was a mistake and learn from it? On the other hand, businesses seem to have a natural tendency to go evil after they grow above a certain threshold (i.e. they're so powerful they can just get away with it). Anyone noticed when Google stopped having "Don't be evil" as their slogan? Not that Patreon'd be in Google's league now or, well, ever.

Janne Peltonen

I'm going to keep my pledges the way they are for a few months, and see if Patreon can figure something else out. And if they don't I'm going to rearrange my pledges and probably give larger pledges to fewer creators instead of smaller pledges to a lot of creators

Allison Hastings

Please do share it if you like. My rantings and ravings are public :-). I probably have one or two more (someone has a theory the change is because of regulations. It isn't). Once I get a burr under the saddle, it has to be dealt with :-).

Well, I will tell you this has made me move from the $1 to the $5 pledge for you.

HAH!! Geoff, I didn't realize you wrote that - I went looking for your Twitter so I could properly credit you (do you mind if I share this?) and then noticed your name. Well, I feel silly. I always forget the legal definition of "donation." Is there any parallel term for for-profit entities? I still feel like "subscription" is off somehow. But maybe I'm just seeing it through the eyes of an everyday consumer. That was a great write-up, thank you for taking the time to post it!!

Danielle Corsetto

(crap, wasn't done). The product and customer thing is a bit tricky, but the main product is the creators. But the creators are also a customer, because the creators pay Patreon via the 5% commission on money pledged. Patrons are more "customer" than "product", in that their primary motivation is to pay creators, and Patreon is the one that facilitates that. From one perspective, the patrons are the "product" for the creators, since Patreon is selling a way to get patrons, and facilitating payment. Why does this matter? Because it determines how you build and evolve the business model. Clearly Patreon leadership got some wonky feedback from some creators, and maybe for the ones they spoke with, the new model works for them (or they really only care about getting more money, and not how that it happens). Either way, Patreon is still too new to this game to try a move as aggressive as this one. A few years from now, sure, they might be able to pull it off and weather the storm. But at this stage, this is a big risk for them.

From a strictly legal perspective, they are not donations because they are taxable income/revenue for the recipient. That there isn't reciprocity in the sense of a tangible return on the fee, it is still technically a subscription fee (even if it is a one-time thing) and not purely a donation.

AUGH, I wrote an enormous reply to you that disappeared when I hit "enter!" *raises fist* PATREONNNNNNN The long and short of it was this: first of all, thank you for your kind words, and thank you for sharing that link. I'd always wondered if Patreon was covering their bases enough to pay off investors. I know this guy is only estimating, but it helps to see it sussed out like that. I disagree with one thing he says: "These are not donations, they are subscription fees." Several of the creators I back have no rewards, or at least no tiers. You donate (sorry, but yeah, DONATE) any amount, and you get a) all of the rewards, or b) the satisfaction of knowing you're supporting that artist. Which also makes this statement: "The product is the content made by the creators." a bit wiggly. This may seem like I'm being nitpicky, but I suspect this concept of "what is the product" is at the core of the problem. I talked to Jack on the phone yesterday, and he insisted this change was meant to bring in more money to creators. I told him that more MONEY was not what I wanted; my priority is to give as many PATRONS as I could access to either a) rewards or b) the satisfaction of supporting me. This genuinely seemed like news to him. So I think, ultimately, the issue is that Patreon thought they knew what creators wanted, but lord only knows which creators they "thoroughly polled" who said yes to this change. If they're looking to make Patreon into a subscription service, they have a pretty different goal in mind for the company than what I'd hoped or expected.

Danielle Corsetto

I'll follow you where you decide to go, here or elsewhere.

Bob Scheid

I'm not going anywhere unless you do. I think I know why Patreon did it (see <a href="https://geoffkratz.wordpress.com/2017/12/08/patreons-questionable-decision/)," rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://geoffkratz.wordpress.com/2017/12/08/patreons-questionable-decision/),</a> but it doesn't make it a smart move on their part. I suspect Patreon forgot that their service isn't the product, their product is the content from creators like you. Their service helps monetize that product, but without your content, they have nothing. If you decide to move elsewhere, I'm right there as well.

Welp, I just sent Patreon's zendesk a rather.... vitriolic message. I will happily follow you if you move to another platform. I hope this all comes out in the wash!

Christiane Leastings

That's not paltry, and thank you. :)

Danielle Corsetto

I offer you a paltry $3/month. When the change goes into effect, that will rise to $3.44. While the percentage increase is kinda gross, the real effect is negligible. I'll continue supporting by any means necessary.

"(EDIT: Actually, no; according to their blog post, they tried this and people were unhappy.)" You know what really bothers me about that? Of COURSE there will be people who are unhappy. But, like you said, it's a straightforward concept. Let them be unhappy! As long as it's spelled out for them*, they can't complain about misunderstanding directions. *And I suspect this was the problem; I think this could have been fixed by simply making a giant pop-up message that says "You are pledging for [CURRENT MONTH]. With your pledge today, you will have access to all of this creator's [CURRENT MONTH] archives. If you choose to continue supporting this creator, your subsequent pledges will go through on the first of every month. Thank you for supporting this creator!" Not that hard. If people can't read, that's on them.

Danielle Corsetto

Seems like there are several potential solutions to this. One would be to charge for the initial one-month subscription immediately (with associated fee), and then charge for renewal on the first of the month thereafter (with pro-rating for the transition). Or, make it simple: When you subscribe, you pay for the current month. If it's about the end of the month, well, you just get a few days of access. Don't like that? Wait and subscribe at the beginning of the next month. (EDIT: Actually, no; according to their blog post, they tried this and people were unhappy.) As for whether they could have been more forthcoming: They certainly could have said "This is going to cost more on a percentage basis because we're changing how subscriptions work and that means an individual card transaction for each pledge," even if they wanted to not mention the abuse side of things. Seems to me a big reason for the unhappiness has been that they wrote the initial announcement as if the percentage costs would be essentially the same, when they aren't.

Brooks Moses

Marc, you're a gem. Thank you so much. &lt;3

Danielle Corsetto

Andy: nailed it. Their priorities are fucked. People who abuse the system have to live with the assholes they are 24/7; the majority of patrons are honest people, and THOSE are the people who are my priority. I do disagree with this: " It's also understandable for them to not be forthcoming in explaining the real reason behind the change, since discussing abuse cases has a tendency to create more abusers." I think - just like handling subscription abusers - the number of people who'd a) read that Patreon explanation in the first place and b) would then become subscription abusers themselves would be so minimal, it's far outweighed by the faith of their creators and patrons that was just shattered by being shady in their first post. I'm down with your #3 solution, and thank you for sharing your ideas!!

Danielle Corsetto

I'm SUPER angry at the *idea* of this happening without our consent - neither the patrons' nor the creators'. To be honest, I feel like I'd been taken advantage of by a friend, and that's what burns so much; if it were a nameless, faceless corporation, it'd be expected. This is Patreon, whose face was, to me, a mirror. Deb: BINGO. On the nose. It's the way they're saying it. They've issued an update on their blog: <a href="https://blog.patreon.com/updating-patreons-fee-structure/">https://blog.patreon.com/updating-patreons-fee-structure/</a> (scroll down), which explains some things, but also makes it look like they took the WORST solution and ran with it, without getting their creators' consent. I'm holding on to one strand of hope and talking to someone there tomorrow, so we'll see?

Danielle Corsetto

I should be talking to someone at Patreon tomorrow, so I'm sipping in the last of the breath I'm willing to hold until then. Also, GOOD, and thank you!!

Danielle Corsetto

Wow, this is a lot of comments. Can't say much that hasn't been said before. I'll support you in whichever way you deem sensible for overseas fans. You are my most favouritest creator. &lt;3

A little bit ago they just posted some additional explanation on their blog. I still think they're optimizing for the wrong things, but that wrong thing is that they're trying to lock out subscription abusers rather than make the system as good as possible for honest subscribers. For those unfamiliar with the abuse case, it goes like this: 1) Creator gradually accumulates a lot of posts gated behind a patronage level 2) Abuser subscribes to that level 3) Abuser consumes/copies/etc. all the existing posts 4) Abuser cancels subscription before the first charge 5) Abuser repeats the process each month As a reminder, the old payment model works because charges are batched. Creators who were being hit by these abusers requested charge-up-front subscriptions as a potential solution, but in order for that to work with batching, the initial payment would be problematic: Either it would be for the full amount, which would result in feeling like you got double-charged if you honestly initially signed up at the end of a month, or it would be prorated, which would result in an abuser still being able to do the same thing as above as long as they did it at the end of a month. So the solution they decided to go with was to desync the subscriptions, which has neither of these drawbacks, but instead no longer has the power of batching, which causes the fees to explode. In all, their goal was not unreasonable (shut out abuse cases), but way too many honest subscribers are going to be hurt by this change. It's also understandable for them to not be forthcoming in explaining the real reason behind the change, since discussing abuse cases has a tendency to create more abusers. Another potential solution: 1) Prorate the subscriptions on the patron's side 2) Pay creators as though the first partial month is a full month 3) Spread the difference out as part of the universal % cut/fee 4) Blacklist/prosecute abusers to keep that % under control

Andy Nguyen

I agree with you that the core issue here isn't really about the fee itself. For me, it's less about the actual cost increase and MUCH more about the way they're explaining it. I feel lied to. They are still going to charge my account once per month, so charging me per individual pledge helps no one but themselves. If they'd just be up-front about it and say "hey, we're not making enough of a profit to keep this service growing to meet increased demand, so we're gonna charge a little more per donation" that would at least be honest. I really dislike how Patreon is communicating this change and seemingly trying to obfuscate their true business goals.

Deb with the purple bike

Maybe wait and see how people react to this in the long term? I only support 4 creators, so the 35 cent fee doesn't really effect me at all. I'd think that most people who support large amounts of creators either have enough disposable income not to notice an extra $10 or so a month taken out, or supporting people on Patreon is an important enough part of their life and they'll figure out a way to budget for it. I think a lot of people might be angry at the /idea/ of being charged more money, but not actually notice or care once the charges start coming (honestly I barely make any money at all, but would not notice this fee hike had happened if I hadn't gotten an e-mail about it). I don't mind paying a fee, fee processing is basically infrastructure and I don't mind supporting infrastructure. I would like to see an explanation for the flat fee though, since that seems to be what people are most upset about!

Ashley Smith

I going to hold on, to see if Patreon roll back on this; but, if they don't, I'm afraid I'll be leaving. OTOH, I *am* on your mailing list. :-)

Allan MacBain