Co-founder Jack Conte after raising $15M in 2014 [1]:
> Conte said his main concern in raising the round was pissing off the Patreon community. “Because we’re so cognizant of how venture capital can also be a dangerous thing, we do want to make sure our creators know how thoughtful this round was,” he said. “We spent a long time meeting a lot of folks.”
I wonder how creators feel about Patreon raising $30M today?
I was extremely worried to see this headline. Patreon is opening up a new path towards professionalism (a 10x improvement over e.g. YouTube, and that was a pretty massive deal), and if it goes under a lot of human potential will be shuttered. Might sound overly dramatic, but cultural shifts are always on a razor's edge
I'd like to think of Patreon as validation for this model of supporting content creators. Even if Patreon can't turn a profit (which seems impossible considering the amount of money going through them), it's validated the idea that consumers are willing to pay the people they like to make the content they like.
Well the fear with taking VC is that they now have an ever greater growth agenda, and it's either the moon or bust. No option of living happily on earth, so to speak.
Now that the internet has billions of people, if just a tiny fraction of them direct their gaze upon someone, that person is almost instantly made rich.
There are lots of Bob Ross type people in the world that we would all love to learn from and get to know. They're starting to show up on YouTube and podcasts. They're providing huge value to millions of people. All they need is a few dollars per subscriber to be comfortable and productive.
There are a fair few who've done it in the Youtube space (the infamous Pewdiepie for example), but no, I don't think I know of any Patreon millionaires yet either.
But how sustainable is it? Patreon is rather simple: Users directly pay the artists, however much they want (and Patreon presumably takes some fee).
Youtube makes artists depend on Youtube's subscription and/or advertisement viability, which are largely outside of the control of both artists and consumers. Consumers cannot control where their money ultimately ends up, artists have little planning security.
This is important. Typically one would have income from: youtube ads, twitch payout, sponsored content and patreon as a bare minimum. Usually you can add sponsored stuff on instagram/fb/wherever, possibly selling merch. Not to mention the stuff you get without being explicitly asked to endorse it.
Google says there are currently 2.9 billion internet users, if 1% of them pay you 1 dollar you'd gross 29.1 million dollars, 0.1%, moving the decimals even at just 0.001% could gross you a cool 29 grand. That's really not a bad deal.
Hey all! Engineering manager at Patreon here. Thanks for all the kind words throughout the comments. Would love to answer any questions you may have about what we're up to, how we do things, where we're going, and all that fun stuff. We're also hiring! Shoot an email to jobs@patreon.com if you wanna talk more :D
- Server is in Python using Flask and SQLAlchemy, running on AWS (EC2, RDS (MySQL), and some Redis, Celery, SQS, etc. to boot). A few microservices here and there in other languages too (e.g. real time chat server with Node & Firebase)
- Web code is written in React (with some legacy code in Angular). We tend to use Redux for the non-component pieces, but are still trying out new React-compatible libraries here and there.
- iOS and Android code are written in Objective-C and Java, respectively. We use Realm on both platforms for data storage, most of the rest is pretty standard modern project stuff (CocoaPods for iOS, Gradle on Android, etc.)
In addition to looking for your standard development experience on those technologies, we do have a few additional specific roles we're looking for: specialists in payments, specialists in database usage design and management, and security experts.
I have a question for HN: would running a Patreon for a software developer be a good idea?
It's something I've been considering doing myself in lieu of the traditional ads/sponsorships/ebooks/etc methods of monetization, but it might not make sense since the costs of development (for purely code-related endeavors) are much more manageable than artistic endeavors.
I suppose there's room for different models though: both "support your hero developer", and "support features of projects". But perhaps the former is better served by organizations like Mozilla?
As for other crowdfunding platforms, I'm surprised Twitter hasn't tried to monetize Likes using a Flattr-like system. Just add a "tip" button next to the heart button, paying out say $0.01. It could create a virtuous cycle of more tweets, more tweeters, and more idle funds in tip accounts for Twitter to reinvest elsewhere.
If you have a website online and ask people to support you via patreon and reward them with some kind of extra feature on the site would this be seen as them paying for this feature? Contractually, or legally for example?
A bit like the idea of crowd funded projects could accept money but not delivering anything were looked at negatively in terms of legal contracts and people paying for things and services.
In my case, my hobby website of a few tens of thousands of users could benefit from some extra development time (backups, caching etc) and I was thinking of Patreon rather than a paid service to reward the donors with these new features. Would Patreon be a better fit for "support this and as a side effect get somewhat improved access to new features" rather than "I will give you X in return for your money". Seems like a Patreon donor may consider their donation as a service they have paid for, rather than a gift.
> ... would this be seen as them paying for this feature?
I can't give you an answer that I know is 100% correct and back it up with a primary source. However, I believe that it would be and let me explain why.
I recently received a renewal notice in the mail for an organization of which I am a member. A while back I had already decided that when renewal time came around, I would become a "life member". In the marketings materials with the renewal letter was an offer for a slight discount on a lifetime membership along with the option to receive a "free gift" (of my choosing, out of three or four choices) or to forego the "free gift" entirely.
If I did not select a free gift, 100% of my membership would be tax-deductible. If I did choose one of the gifts, part of the membership fee would be applied towards that gift and only the remaining amount would be tax-deductible.
It's a slightly different situation, obviously, but I believe the decision of whether they are paying or not paying (legally, at least, in the USA), would hinge on whether or not the "donator" was receiving ANY "compensation" -- regardless of what that compensation is.
I hate Jack Conte, CEO of Patreon, in a good way. I mean, he is a super talented musician, singer and youtuber. And just recently I learned that he is also the CEO of Patreon? And I'm just a mediocre musician and an always aspiring founder. That's why I hate him, but not really.
You don't need a big exit when you actually make money. And since they are middle men for cash exchanges I don't think making money will be too much of a problem.
Ahh Patreon, the middle man helping uneducated or uncaring musicians raise money through performing cover songs but probably not paying the mechanical license rates to the authors. Just like Conte's Pomplamoose. Not a fan. Fortunately I'm of the belief that the serf-patron model isn't viable so I do at least have their eventual disbanding to look forward to in time.
I find it frustrating and confusing that Patreon conjures this image, and that there's good reason for that.
The platform itself is sorely underutilized by large groups of people for who it's very suitable: Animal Rescue (Rescue (many species), Trap Neuter Release), homeless outreach and care, harm-reduction, etc. All of these groups require ongoing funding, and are positioned to provide monthly backers with evidence of the funds good-use. Obviously, if they're large enough to have 501c3 status and an active fundraising branch, it's less useful, but it would be gratifying to see Patreon attempt to enable grassroots work.
Eh, I'd advise caution with your generalizations. I support a web comic that rakes in $226/month drawing cats with exceptional financial acumen. My wife supports a knitting ezine that rakes in $17,000 per issue.
Completely different animal, to stay relevant to your topic. That's an original work. No derivative conditions appy. I was being specific about the music part. I don't see any information on the site about it either, though if it's there and I've missed it, I'd be willing to read it and revise my take if needed.
In the tabletop gaming world, it's being used to support lots of people (myself included, in a small way) produce higher-budget content that's not a single product that's Kickstarter friendly.
It's way better than the alternative - ad support in that arena has just resulted in most of the "top" sites being slathered with banners.
> I would like to get a perspective from people who are doing the funding.
Funding in general, or funding in those specific cases? I fund an Indie band that despite what the OP claims writes their own music and tours. I support them because I enjoy their music, they are nice people, I've met them in person, and want them to know that I value their efforts and this is a way for me to encourage them to continue.
Not sure if this answers your question, or if it was even what you were looking for.
I support a strategy games podcast that has existed for a few hundred episodes and recently started to ask for money. I do it because it helps make the podcast sustainable (the show's host and editor are full-time freelancers.) However, I don't give enough to hit any tier because just as I don't like burdensome Kickstarter rewards, I don't like Patreon rewards which take extra time when I'm giving to compensate for the time burden.
I don't like that Patreon has "won" the recurring support market but I like the model very much.
> Conte said his main concern in raising the round was pissing off the Patreon community. “Because we’re so cognizant of how venture capital can also be a dangerous thing, we do want to make sure our creators know how thoughtful this round was,” he said. “We spent a long time meeting a lot of folks.”
I wonder how creators feel about Patreon raising $30M today?
[1] http://recode.net/2014/06/23/creative-patronage-startup-patr...