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

The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

joanwestenberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 168 posts

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#71

Post by ehnto »

Ekaros wrote: post #8
electroly wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the same few sponsorships constantly: Skillshare, Brilliant, Nebula, Hello Fresh, BetterHelp, Raid: Shadow Legends. I like to guess which one it's going to be when the creator starts telling a made-up story that leads into the sponsorship segment. The fact that it's the same ones, over and over again, across a wide spectrum of channels, makes me think that sponsorship is not yet a proven reliable source of inco…

Nebula is bit weird on that list as my understanding is that it is somehow creator owned and controlled, but rest yeah... I also wonder how long this model will operate, the advertising spend on these products must be significant and I wonder if it is sustainable in long run. Specially with these interest rates or in possible recession...

I don't exactly know how it works but creators tend to call it "my streaming platform" and that feels a little bit like a marketing angle. For the longest time I thought Adam Neely had literally funded and built Nebula.

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#72

Post by veunes »

"More commonly, independent creators utilise audience monetisation to supplement other incomes." as the article says and it is the reality for content creators and platforms as Patreon. It is hard for them to monetize the audience by the platform and make it their main source of income.

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#73

Post by physicsguy »

Roark66 wrote: post #4

What creators need is a better youtube algorithm. Is it just me, or has youtube recommendations become almost unusable by now? Some years ago when I spent "an hour watching YouTube" I'd watch a huge majority of videos recommended by the algorithm based on my current subs. Today it is 1%. Why? I'll give you an example. I have varied interests, I sub and regularly watch a number if channels in each of my hobbies, but f…

There's a lot more content too though, and the attention span of the average viewer has gone down dramatically with TikTok, which is why YouTube launched Shorts and Instagram launched Reels.

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#74

Post by lizknope »

lewismenelaws wrote: post #2

I’m a full-time content creator. I feel like patreon/newsletters/paid communities are more hassle than anything. When I look at the pros and cons of every single revenue strategy, sponsorships has the highest gain and least cons (for me). Sponsors pay at least 10x what ad revenue pays, I don’t have to ask my community for money and the audience are likely to skip the ad anyway if they didn’t want to watch it. Patreon…

When you say sponsor do you mean a 1 minute advertisement in a 10 minute video where you say "Today's video is sponsored by ABC Corporation, they make this useful product to do XYZ" or do you mean a video where you got a free product and paid money to do a promotional video about the product?

I've seen both and I don't mine the advertisement style but when someone makes an entire video about a product that they got for free they seem like a shill. Usually their enthusiasm level is off and the whole things seems fake and I don't like watching them.

As for Patreon being a lot more work, I am wondering how? Every month Patreon charges me $12 for the various creators I support. Some of them create videos full time but many have full time jobs. The Patreon money lets them buy old computers, toys, or games to review. I'm nostalgic about my 1980's childhood.

Patreon seems really easy when they say for 10 seconds "If you would like please contribute to my Patreon account"

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#75

Post by twic »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #68
wodenokoto wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, tv shows where profitable with much, much lower numbers than millions.

Lois & Clark was canceled (not just not renewed - canceled in the middle of their contract) when their ratings fell below 10 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_%26_Clark:_The_New_Advent...

That doesn't mean it wasn't profitable, just that the network thought another show in that slot might be more profitable.

Talking about audience thresholds for profitability of TV shows is a bit pointless though, because there's so much variation in how much they cost to make. Effects-heavy action shows are ~30 million dollars an episode at the moment. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is ~1.5 million. Gameshows and reality TV are even cheaper.

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#76

Post by LegitShady »

lizknope wrote: post #74
lewismenelaws wrote: post #2

I’m a full-time content creator. I feel like patreon/newsletters/paid communities are more hassle than anything. When I look at the pros and cons of every single revenue strategy, sponsorships has the highest gain and least cons (for me). Sponsors pay at least 10x what ad revenue pays, I don’t have to ask my community for money and the audience are likely to skip the ad anyway if they didn’t want to watch it. Patreon…

When you say sponsor do you mean a 1 minute advertisement in a 10 minute video where you say "Today's video is sponsored by ABC Corporation, they make this useful product to do XYZ" or do you mean a video where you got a free product and paid money to do a promotional video about the product? I've seen both and I don't mine the advertisement style but when someone makes an entire video about a product that they got f…

getting a product for free translates to $0 in your bank account. It's not sponsored, its just been given or lent to you. You can't feed your family with free items.

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#77

Post by thaumasiotes »

twic wrote: post #75
thaumasiotes wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lois & Clark was canceled (not just not renewed - canceled in the middle of their contract) when their ratings fell below 10 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_%26_Clark:_The_New_Advent...

That doesn't mean it wasn't profitable, just that the network thought another show in that slot might be more profitable. Talking about audience thresholds for profitability of TV shows is a bit pointless though, because there's so much variation in how much they cost to make. Effects-heavy action shows are ~30 million dollars an episode at the moment. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is ~1.5 million. Gameshows and…

> That doesn't mean it wasn't profitable, just that the network thought another show in that slot might be more profitable.

Another show in that slot being more profitable does mean that the show already in there isn't. The time slot is a resource that the show consumes; if it can't afford to pay for that resource, then it's unprofitable.

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#79

Post by lizknope »

LegitShady wrote: post #76
lizknope wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say sponsor do you mean a 1 minute advertisement in a 10 minute video where you say "Today's video is sponsored by ABC Corporation, they make this useful product to do XYZ" or do you mean a video where you got a free product and paid money to do a promotional video about the product? I've seen both and I don't mine the advertisement style but when someone makes an entire video about a product that they got f…

getting a product for free translates to $0 in your bank account. It's not sponsored, its just been given or lent to you. You can't feed your family with free items.

In my first paragraph I said:

"got a free product and paid money to do a promotional video about the product?"

It's not just a free product but also money to promote the product.

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#80

Post by mdorazio »

tomcam wrote: post #58
monkey_monkey wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took a look at your YouTube channel and it was exactly what I expected it to be.

What did you expect it to be?

White dude making coding videos with the usual modern algorithm-inspired cringe thumbnails and titles. It definitely seems to be working, though - over 500k subs is impressive.
Post reply on HN