Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 234 posts

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#71

Post by mamborambo »

jraby3 wrote: post #35
SatvikBeri wrote: post #13

Patreon is selling a service, Facebook is selling access to an audience. Two seemingly similar but vastly different offerings. That's why Facebook can have a lot of crappier versions of other products that are still successful (e.g. Facebook events vs. Meetup.) I doubt they'll be able to get away with the terms as is, but it wouldn't surprise me if they manage to successfully charge significantly more than Patreon an…

Absolutely correct and the best comment here imo. It’s very different to provide an audience vs. providing a service.

But pas

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#72

Post by michaelmrose »

zone411 wrote: post #66
gnicholas wrote: post #3

How is this a "Patreon killer" at all? In addition to the extra 25% cut, they will also apparently demand IP rights that would continue even after you stop using their service. Are they thinking that people will sign up for this because it gives them instant access to lots of people on FB, and that justifies the higher percentage? I'm guessing that creators will end up having to pay to get exposure, just like brands,…

I think it would make the most sense for creators to have accounts on both Patreon and Facebook.

Alternatively you could pay to promote your work on facebook which you will have to do anyway and take payment on patreon.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#73

Post by mamborambo »

jraby3 wrote: post #35
SatvikBeri wrote: post #13

Patreon is selling a service, Facebook is selling access to an audience. Two seemingly similar but vastly different offerings. That's why Facebook can have a lot of crappier versions of other products that are still successful (e.g. Facebook events vs. Meetup.) I doubt they'll be able to get away with the terms as is, but it wouldn't surprise me if they manage to successfully charge significantly more than Patreon an…

Absolutely correct and the best comment here imo. It’s very different to provide an audience vs. providing a service.

But once past initial audience discovery, the recurrent billing of patronage donations is just pure service.

So logically creators should only use FB for access to new audience, build a relationship with the newly acquired audience, and pivot to direct billing or Patreon for recurrent collection.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#74

Post by michaelmrose »

agigao wrote: post #45

I miss those times when enthusiasm used to drive the net. Seeking profit in every corner of one’s life is demoralizing to say at least.

Most regular people call this behavior... survival. Anything else is an extreme luxury reserved for a minuscule fraction of the human race.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#75

Post by michaelmrose »

thucydidesofusa wrote: post #68
RileyJames wrote: post #23

> But whatever cut it takes will be after processing fees and the 15 to 30 percent tax Apple and Google levy on iOS and Android in-app purchases. We’ll see if Facebook tries a workaround that pushes users to their mobile browser where it can take their subscription money tax-free. That makes it kinda ridiculous. $5 subscription. 30% to Apple: $1.5 30% to Facebook: $1.05 (of the remaining $3.50) Leaving the creator wi…

Heh, now assume the creator makes $80k/yr and lives in California. Marginal tax rate - ~38%? $5 subscription. 30% to Apple: $1.5 30% to Facebook: $1.05 (of the remaining $3.50) 38% to the Government: $.93 (of the remaining $2.45) Leaving the creator with: $1.52

50% further for housing and 15% for healthcare enjoy your 53 cents.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#77

Post by pavlov »

mamborambo wrote: post #73
jraby3 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely correct and the best comment here imo. It’s very different to provide an audience vs. providing a service.

But once past initial audience discovery, the recurrent billing of patronage donations is just pure service. So logically creators should only use FB for access to new audience, build a relationship with the newly acquired audience, and pivot to direct billing or Patreon for recurrent collection.

By the same logic, YouTube creators should only use YT to build an audience, then switch to hosting their own videos. Yet they want to remain on the platform.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#78

Post by nspkr »

jelv wrote: post #52

Liberapay takes 0% https://liberapay.com/ It's European non-profit and open source. It's funded by the donation on it's own platform.

Very careful with this option, as it's based in the EU which means free speech is not considered; that makes it a very dangerous option for podcast and youtube creators, opinion bloggers, etc.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#79

Post by DuckyC »

nspkr wrote: post #78
jelv wrote: post #52

Liberapay takes 0% https://liberapay.com/ It's European non-profit and open source. It's funded by the donation on it's own platform.

Very careful with this option, as it's based in the EU which means free speech is not considered; that makes it a very dangerous option for podcast and youtube creators, opinion bloggers, etc.

Are you saying that there isn't free speech in the EU? What are you basing this statement on?

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#80

Post by IGN »

nspkr wrote: post #78
jelv wrote: post #52

Liberapay takes 0% https://liberapay.com/ It's European non-profit and open source. It's funded by the donation on it's own platform.

Very careful with this option, as it's based in the EU which means free speech is not considered; that makes it a very dangerous option for podcast and youtube creators, opinion bloggers, etc.

what?
Post reply on HN