Patreon Scraps New Service Fee, Apologizes To Users (theverge.com) 66
Patreon has decided to halt its plans to add a service fee to patrons' pledges, a proposed update that angered many users. "We're going to press pause," CEO Jack Conte tells The Verge. "Folks have been adamant about the problems with the new system, and so basically, we have to solve those problems first." The company plans to work with creators on a plan that will solve issues with the current payment system, but won't create major new problems in their stead. From the report: Conte published a blog post laying out the core problems, alongside an apology. "Many of you lost patrons, and you lost income. No apology will make up for that, but nevertheless, I'm sorry," it reads. "We recognize that we need to be better at involving you more deeply and earlier in these kinds of decisions and product changes. Additionally, we need to give you a more flexible product and platform to allow you to own the way you run your memberships. I know it will take a long time for us to earn back your trust. But we are utterly devoted to your success and to getting you sustainable, reliable income for being a creator."
Conte says that any new system will need to take the popularity of small pledges into account, and preserve the benefits of aggregation. It will also need to give artists more autonomy, rather than announcing a sweeping overall change directly to users. "The overwhelming sentiment was that we overstepped our bounds" with the non-negotiable fee, he says. "I agree, we messed that up. We put ourselves between the creator and their fans and we basically told them how to run their business, and that's not okay." Webcomic creator Jeph Jacques previously quoted Conte as saying Patreon "absolutely fucked up that rollout."
Conte says that any new system will need to take the popularity of small pledges into account, and preserve the benefits of aggregation. It will also need to give artists more autonomy, rather than announcing a sweeping overall change directly to users. "The overwhelming sentiment was that we overstepped our bounds" with the non-negotiable fee, he says. "I agree, we messed that up. We put ourselves between the creator and their fans and we basically told them how to run their business, and that's not okay." Webcomic creator Jeph Jacques previously quoted Conte as saying Patreon "absolutely fucked up that rollout."
Re: How about also supporting American troops? (Score:1)
I have altered our deal... (Score:2)
Pray I don't alter it further...
Re: (Score:3)
Why not link to the actual joke [youtube.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
HAW HAW! /Nelson (Score:1)
Re: HAW HAW! /Nelson (Score:1)
Breach of Trust (A wound that doesn't heal.) (Score:5, Insightful)
They didn’t ASK. Instead, they simply said “All your wallets are belong to us.”
They forgot that trust, once broken, is damn near impossible to repair. I am reminded of an exchange in the British Parliament after Dunkirk, when an admiral was being upbraided for risking the fleet. The admiral replied, “We can rebuild the fleet in thirty years. We can rebuild the tradition in three hundred.”
I may check in on Patreon in 2317.
Credit card fee (Score:2)
The credit card charge is a bullshit argument. Patreon bills you monthly so they only get hit with the fee once. They were going to add a fee to EVERY pledge. So if someone makes 10 videos in a month Patreon would have taken the fee 10 times. Had that been $1 pledges they would have pocketed $3.70 on top of the $10 they charged you.
Re: Credit card fee (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The credit card charge is a bullshit argument. Patreon bills you monthly so they only get hit with the fee once. They were going to add a fee to EVERY pledge. So if someone makes 10 videos in a month Patreon would have taken the fee 10 times. Had that been $1 pledges they would have pocketed $3.70 on top of the $10 they charged you.
No, its exactly what happened. They were *changing* the system to make lots of small charges to you every month. Which is dumb, and not well thought through, but why the costs changed. Patreon wasn't taking more of your money for themselves.
Re: (Score:1)
Your argument doesn't make sense though.
If a card is being used for fraud, I assume it would be all or nothing.
The odds that I donate to ten projects, then someone steals my card, and donates to an 11th causing the first ten to be reversed seems super low.
Re: Give them a slight benefit of doubt... (Score:1)
Re:Breach of Trust (A wound that doesn't heal.) (Score:5, Interesting)
Good for you. Now what are you going to do in the meantime?
Patreon could do these things as they're one of the top "tip jar" places on the web, and they manage things such that "creators" can offer donators special perks. All this managed on one convenient interface. Sure the creators could use Paypal, but then you lose out on the perk management.
So they did it, assuming everyone would see it this way.
They did explain later on what happened.
First off, they used to aggregate the payments - at the end of the month, they charged everyone. Great, except that lead to a problem of someone who say, donated on the 28th of the month, then paid again 3 days later. Not ideal. So then they decided they would do it on the anniversary, but then it resulted in increased fees for the creators because instead of being charged once, people were charged multiple times and incurring multiple fees.
So some creators complained again - they got $1200, but after fees, they got only $800. (Which happens because if you do $1 donations, the creator really only keeps around 65 cents of that if you billed individually. If you aggregate, the fees go down)
And yes, apparently fees are the #1 issue at Patreon - creators just complain constantly how much money is taken away. So Patreon decided to shift payment fees away from the creator and onto the donator in an effort to quell the complaints. End result was what happened last week when creators realized that the shift may mean more money for them per donator, but a lot of donators simply left.
Re: (Score:1)
You have good points, sir. And I have read the blog post. It sounds sincere. I do agree that somebody has to pay "shipping costs" and since I'm the one on the sending end...
Actually, as long as they didn't nickel-and-dime me with a separate fee for each contribution I make to each of my beneficiaries, I'd be OK with it and happy to see my beneficiaries getting more money in a more reliable fashion. That's the whole point of being a patron.
But for G-d's sake, they had better warn me next time!!!!!!!!
Re: (Score:1)
The people who control Patreon, saw a gap in the internet market, that they felt they could parasitically exploit. The gap, take money from mug punters, grab a percentage and hand what's left to those who actually produce the content. Who are you to complain, those people who receive money should be thankful for the crumbs, as Patreon like all parasites are born and breed to suck it all down.
It's the modern corporate way, they all want a percentage of everything for nothing. Have money in bank, they take a
Re: (Score:1)
The man doesn't seem to get that his new fee scheme didn't fail because of "technical difficulties" at all. All over the internet you can see the real reason: people just plain don't like it. And for good reasons.
No amount of "fix" will change that.
Re: Breach of Trust (A wound that doesn't heal.) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, in one breath you equate charging a percentage with working for free. It's like charging only five percent, is being truly generous, charging for nothing, taking money and giving it to someone else but keeping some because, well, just because. Parasites always hate being exposed, they become violent and aggressive, it is their nature, that and the demand for more and more and more. If you found the response so bad, perhaps you should have pointed out errors instead of resorting to a rather lame https:/ [wikipedia.org]
Re: Breach of Trust (A wound that doesn't heal.) (Score:2)
Re: Breach of Trust (A wound that doesn't heal.) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that rather than taking that percentage out of the received money, the plan (now retracted, I understand) was to tack an additional 5% on to what people donate.
If that needs explanation, the old scheme was: if you give $100, the recipient received $100 - (Patreon's % + $0.35).
In the new scheme they brought out, if you gave $100, you, not the recipient, would be charged $100 + (Patreon % + $0.35)
Almost n
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, apparently fees are the #1 issue at Patreon - creators just complain constantly how much money is taken away. So Patreon decided to shift payment fees away from the creator and onto the donator in an effort to quell the complaints. End result was what happened last week when creators realized that the shift may mean more money for them per donator, but a lot of donators simply left.
I've left them feedback that I'm perfectly fine with shifting some of the fees to my side of the divide. The part that annoyed me is dis-aggregating my contributions, since that kind of small transaction was really my entire point in using them. I could already provide support via Paypal or Google Wallet with the $fee+%percentage model, and save the %5 Patreon overhead.
Actually, I'm not entirely clear about having both %percentage-from-patron and %percentage-from-creator. It's the same percent either way
Re: (Score:1)
I ran into that exact problem when I had to reset my monthly PayPal donation to Bill Holbrook. Two hits didn't bother me because I could see it coming and was happy to add a bit extra to my yearly total.
This could probably be handled with a warning that this might happen. Let's say I donate $5 to SciShow on December 25 (signing up) and get hit with another $5 on January 1. As lo
Re:Breach of Trust (A wound that doesn't heal.) (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to me that the best option would be to provide more options.
As a creator, let me pick who's covering the processing fees. If I'm aiming for wide appeal, it might be beneficial to pay my own fees, just to keep the apparent prices low. If I have a small appeal to some highly-contributing individuals, a few cents in processing fees won't change our relationship that much.
As a patron, let me pick when and how I'll be charged. Let me pick a schedule, and just show me the fees associated with it. If I'm picking something that causes costs to rise, I'm fine paying for it, but give me the option up front. I might be fine shifting my payment schedule a few days if it cuts down the fees, but let me make that choice. To compromise with the creator, a middle-ground option might be that the creator picks a plan for which he's willing to pay the minimized fees, and the cost of any deviations from that schedule would be paid by the patron choosing to be different.
As a business, Patreon can do a few other things to mitigate the apparently-high risks involved. Rather than passing chargebacks directly through to the creators, Patreon could hold a one-month buffer of donations, collecting the individual charges (and chargebacks), then releasing them to the creators 30-60 days after the charge deadline. Essentially, Patreon itself takes the role of a clearinghouse, maintaining account balances and payouts for each creator. Having floating balances would also open the door to allow creators to support other creators directly from their accounts (preferably with reduced fees), promoting collaboration under the Patreon banner.
Now, implementing these choices would be a significant development and logistics effort, but certainly possible.
Re: (Score:1)
> Good for you. Now what are you going to do in the meantime?
Look into Patreon and, if I see something I want, talk directly with the creator about supporting him/her. Less fees for me and less fees for him/her.
> And yes, apparently fees are the #1 issue at Patreon
Nope, the #1 issue at Patreon is that they think they can violate the Law.
1) No one can change a payment agreement without the consent of ALL parts involved in it; or the agreement became automatically illegal and the parts that weren't aske
Re: (Score:1)
Patreon responded well. I moved the forgiveness date up a bit. :)
Re: (Score:2)
So how are you going to reward artists instead?
Do you know of a competing service with better terms? If you do, then you should let the artists you support know of it, because they're the ones who need to sign up for it and put it on their web page.
Or will you pay $20 for some $10 crap in the artist's store, of which the artist only ever sees $2? That's a horribly inefficient way of supporting artists, but hey, it's great virtue signalling for you, right?
Re: (Score:2)
They didn’t ASK. Instead, they simply said “All your wallets are belong to us.”
They forgot that trust, once broken, is damn near impossible to repair. I am reminded of an exchange in the British Parliament after Dunkirk, when an admiral was being upbraided for risking the fleet. The admiral replied, “We can rebuild the fleet in thirty years. We can rebuild the tradition in three hundred.”
I may check in on Patreon in 2317.
Alright calm down, they weren't raiding your wallet, this is not a trust issue. They changed the system in a stupid way that lead to charges (to Paypal, not Patreon) to increase, and you can debate the decision to change the system but it's not like they were personally taking your money to enrich themselves. They changed the system to make more, inefficient, charges.
Re: (Score:2)
This is another instance of feedback porn that dulls perception, not actually being so true as we wish to suppose.
Trust is perhaps something that functions in a vigorous, disruptive market. By the time the world k-opolizes (k, a small integer) fomo and habit become the main conditioning force.
Sometimes on the voyage betwixt, a growing company overestimates its grasp on its customer base's short and curlies, and abandons good ship Trust p
They could have explained themselves here (Score:4, Interesting)
If they would just be upfront about their costs and margins it could settle an awful lot of this... Provided they're being honest, and not actually out to screw everyone.
What about the SanFranBans? (Score:3, Interesting)
When is Patreon going to stop banning people for being "conservative", i.e. they were leftist a week ago but the party line changed...
The mainstream media is now calling Noam Chomsky an alt-right nazi. This bullshit needs to stop.
Clueless? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the new blog posting
Aggregation is pretty much their core value proposition.
How could they "underestimate" this?
Re: (Score:2)
Because it turns out that aggregation isn't much of a business. If Patreon decides to maintain their current business model (and that is their main value to me), I don't know whether they'll actually go bust, or just be economically moribund, but either way, it turns out that there's not money in being the sort of business I need.
It's much like KickStarter started out as an Arts funding model, but eventually realize
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I absolutely didn't understand about the change.
Paypal charges: $0.30 + 2.9% for receiving money, charged to the receiver
Their proposed patreon fee change was: $0.35 + 2.9%, charged to the sender
This costs more than using Paypal to send a bunch of $1 donations. Paypal is accepted more places and far more widespread than Patreon.
If they aren't doing the aggregation to reduce the credit card fees than they don't really have a reason to exist IMO. Everyone should just switch to using paypal becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Patreon makes it really easy to reward patrons with, well, rewards. And there are other payment methods available, including "pay per devlierable" - for every video the creator makes, patrons pay. So if they do two videos a month, you pay twice a month for the video. Paypal doesn't make this easy to do (sending invoices to a thousand people isn't easy).
And then there's the rewards - Patreon
The EA of funding (Score:1)
What's next? Patreon Loot Boxes?
Too bad Drip/Kickstarter couldn't capitalize (Score:2)
The tone deaf handling of Patreon (and I still can't grasp that, considering who created it, created it as a starving artist) would have been a perfect moment for Drip/Kickstarter to say fuck the invite only, let's roll. They'd probably have gotten a huge swath of folks switching because there was a reason too. The completely shit way Patreon handled this by announcing it to the users and creators simultaneously ... trying to solve a problem people didn't have.
It's unfortunate a lot of people lost income
Re: but nevertheless (Score:4, Funny)
Did the world already ended?
Patience; we're working on grammar first.
TOO LATE, you are not un-replaceable (Score:3)
I deleted all my pledges via your site, and instead I have donated directly to all those who I was sending funds via your service, just as I did before you existed.
You have been cut out of the process because your only value was convenience, and that is easily replaced with direct payments and just about 5 minutes more effort to contact each person I supported individually.
BTW, I am not going back to you no matter how much you "change", the deed is done.
Frankly, I don't know why PayPal does not lift a pinky and replace you. They already have monthly subscriptions supported in their service, all they need is to spend 15 minutes adding a page that allows you to setup monthly payments yourself instead of requiring it to be initiated from the provider. You guys are one webpage and about an interns afternoon of work from PayPal away from being replaced.
Patreon was losing money (Score:2)
The fundamental reason for the fall-back, aside from complaints, was that people voted with their money. By leaving in droves ... it doesn't matter what fees Patreon charges ... means Patreon itself was seeing a reduced income, not just those who were receiving pledges. Simple as that.