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

161–168 of 168 posts

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#161

Post by thaumasiotes »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #101
thaumasiotes wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Install an ordinary ad blocker and your video experience will be completely ad-free without needing YT Premium.

Sorry, but an ordinary ad blocker will not block the ads embedded in the video. Apparently "SponsorBlock" actually solves that. Haven't of it before, but the description is promising. >>> SponsorBlock lets you skip over sponsors, intros, outros, subscription reminders, and other annoying parts of YouTube videos. SponsorBlock is a crowdsourced browser extension that lets anyone submit the start and end times of sponso…

> Sorry, but an ordinary ad blocker will not block the ads embedded in the video.

Yes, that's why I called it a replacement for YT Premium and not a replacement for SponsorBlock.

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#162

Post by nicbou »

I create very valuable content that saves my readers time and money. It's not entertainment; it's thoroughly detailed information about settling in a new country. It's a bible for local bureaucracy that a lot of people have come to rely on.

I get about one donation for every ten to twenty thousand visitors. Donations are about a hundredth of my income.

If I got a donation for every reader I personally help over email, I'd get twice as many. Even the people who ask for personal assistance don't donate.

Donations simply don't work. Most people pay nothing if they can. I have made my peace with that.

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#163

Post by thaumasiotes »

twic wrote: post #156
thaumasiotes wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That would only be correct if the cost of the time slot was set according to the maximum amount that any show could pay to be in it (determined via cross-universe market research?). But it isn't, so it's incorrect.

That is literally what happened (though the price was determined by expert estimate rather than surveys), and the show folded.

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#164

Post by hmcq6 »

xzz wrote: post #129
HDThoreaun wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reality is the vast majority of people will absolutely refuse to pay content creators. Even legit newspapers with large staffs can’t get people to subscribe. Most people are ok with ads though. Your best bet is some sort of split where a small niche try’s to go subscription because there’s no chance of a widespread content creator subscription service that can replace ads.

How about, for example, delaying content releases until certain funding milestones have been reached? This will act as an incentive for people to pay for the content. If they want it released even earlier, they should pay more?

Well there's a pretty good reason this won't work for the given example (newspapers). Why am I gonna wait for an NBC article when CNN (or worse FOX) posted the story already for free?

Some types of reporting I would be happy to fund and wait for but other stories need to be posted ASAP or they lose their value.

The same is true of art. For example, Age of Empires getting an expansion 25 years later is notable because it is uncommon. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/02/age-of-empires-2-gets...

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#165

Post by segfaltnh »

JohnFen wrote: post #158
inglor_cz wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an author ... People will gladly buy physical books off you, but they won't pay for articles. There seems to be a mental barrier between those two. A physical book in your hand probably feels more real, though the total amount of work isn't that different (to a series of articles).

A physical book is more real. If I buy a book, I have that book available to me effectively forever. If I "buy" something that only exists online, it's temporary.

But, at least for me, when I buy a book I may actually read it (maybe), and then it sits around until I manage to donate it when I move in seven years. Is it really any different from a digital purchase I forget about?

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#166

Post by segfaltnh »

fleg wrote: post #61
johnnyanmac wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Liberapay fund themselves via Liberapay because they actually believe their system works. As in they are also funded by donations, or do the creators themselves pay for entry?

They are funded by donations: https://liberapay.com/Liberapay/

Do you suppose their 41 members split the 700 euros evenly each month or have some kind of Ramen group buy system?

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#167

Post by fleg »

segfaltnh wrote: post #166
fleg wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are funded by donations: https://liberapay.com/Liberapay/

Do you suppose their 41 members split the 700 euros evenly each month or have some kind of Ramen group buy system?

No need to guess: https://liberapay.com/Liberapay/income/ . Most money goes to the creator of Liberapay, and I would not be surprised if it would mainly cover the costs of running the service.

Re: The creator economy can't rely on Patreon

#168

Post by JohnFen »

segfaltnh wrote: post #165
JohnFen wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A physical book is more real. If I buy a book, I have that book available to me effectively forever. If I "buy" something that only exists online, it's temporary.

But, at least for me, when I buy a book I may actually read it (maybe), and then it sits around until I manage to donate it when I move in seven years. Is it really any different from a digital purchase I forget about?

Maybe not for you, but there are tons of people who reread treasured books regularly. For that crowd, a digital purchase is not great.
Post reply on HN