The Patreon Cancer

[Metsys]

There's a lot of crossover, but marketing is not exactly the same as PR. What they have sounds like bad PR. Unfortunately, bad PR can also be great marketing.

For the record, I'm all for Patreon. I have way many more examples of it being done right than it being done wrong. I don't think it's Patreon's fault, and it's not the fault of the funding model either (a model that has existing for munch longer than Patreon has). Like all technology, it gets misused. It's not the technology's fault.

When people think an artist crosses the line they have the option to stop supporting them. If more artists who create better quality art and have a better business ethic start to emerge and get on Patreon, then I think the type of predatory practices you've talked about will start to become less of an issue. Consumers will have more options and can put their money elsewhere. But if they are starving for something specific, whether it's art or video games, they will put their money towards crappy art and shady developers because to the hungry soul, every bitter thing tastes sweet. So if you want to really fix the source of the problem, support and help promote artists who are the type of artists you want creating content, and/or become one of those types of artists yourself.

A few of my favorite creatives can now do what they love full-time without being at the mercy of ad revenue or their work schedule. My opinion? Patreon kicks ass.

[Oly]

Elaborate.

It's... not really that complicated.

Reading something is a larger time investment, requires more imagination on the reader's part to enjoy, and is altogether a very different experience from visual art. A single picture can be worth several paragraphs worth of writing, but can easily lack some of the depth and specificity that writing affords.

Honestly I don't even know why I should have to explain that. It seems incredibly self-evident to me.

And just to be clear when I said 'not equivalent' I didn't mean in a 'one is better than the other' sense. I just meant they're different mediums and it's a mistake to try and force the same standards on both. Same idea as writing vs. film. I love books and I love movies, but something that makes a great book can easily be a completely shitty concept for a film, and something that's great in film can easily lack the depth and intricacy to be an enjoyable read. And typically, the best adaption of book to film have to make adjustments to the material in order to translate into a something that both works on a technical level, and is enjoyable and understandable to watch.

[Sassafras]

"Blocking people who leave poor reviews, giving people free copies of the game so they can write fake positive reviews, now allowing patrons any say in the content, and lying about the scope of the game and getting away with it because 'hey, it's early release' is all fine and dandy because it's just good marketing."

That's a highly illogical conclusion to draw from what I said. Saying "X happens" isn't the same as saying "X is great". The first is a statement of fact, the second is a value judgment.

I haven't delved into the ethics of various marketing practices at all in my post. I am simply informing you that you are incorrect in singling Patreon out as unique in regards to marketing techniques. You mention, for instance, "giving people free copies of the game so they can write fake positive reviews" and yet giving away free review copies is an old practice that isn't unique to Patreon--I've gotten several free review copies of books from Goodreads. I take it we can expect a forthcoming "The Goodreads Cancer" thread from you?

[TeenageAngst]

@Metsys

I don't like it as a payment system, I don't like how it enables artists to become lazy after they hit a certain point, and I don't think it does anything constructive for the artistic community besides siphoning wallets. It's not a new funding model but it's a new funding model for this particular niche, a niche that is filled with lackadaisical artists and sycophants. I do not support it.

@Oly

I'm well aware of everything you said, you twit. You sandwiched that statement in between market forces and Patreon acting as a tip jar for fools. I assumed it had something to do with one or the other, as by itself it's a pretty pointless thing to say, because it's self evident.

@Sassafras

I don't like "free copies for reviews" because it encourages positive reviews. If you were given free copies of books, and 50% of them were bad, and you reviewed them truthfully, how much longer do you think people would be sending you free books to review? Anyway, at no point did I say any of this was unique to Patreon, which I think is the major disconnect in this thread. Patreon isn't something inherently new or different, what it is is an easily accessible medium for lazy artists to have access to all the worst possible methods of promoting themselves and sucking funds from their patrons:

• They are responsible to a collective, not a single payer. This means mediocre work can and often does generate the same revenue as better stuff.
• It segregates the fanbase into those that pay and those that don't. Those that don't might as well not exist.
• It removes the need for the artist to reliably produce content. If they produce a little, they still have a baseline income. If they produce more, they might attract new patrons. It's diminishing returns.
• Little to no accountability for content.
• Little influence over what content is created.
• Patreon's moderation system is worse than 4chan's.
• Refunds? Good luck.

[Oly]

Dude, you asked me to elaborate and quoted only that bit. I did exactly what you asked. Don't ask questions if you aren't interested in answers.

I agree the moderation needs work. If that's a huge problem you can do what some people do - I know artdecade does this very successfully - and set up your own subscription site.

I completely disagree that it removes the need to create reliably, and that it means that shitty work can get through. If you don't push good content reliably, people will reduce or cancel their pledges. Free market yo, just like you said.

If you want influence over what's created, commission someone. I have a hard time believing most artists are stopping taking commissions in favor of pateron only, too, and if so it's their stupidity. I've also seen plenty of things like polls where people get to vote on aspects of content. The artists I watch who have paywalls also release much of the content after a period of time - I've never felt left out or ignored or deprived of content from artists I don't support on patreon, and I've only ever seen you complaining about that frankly.

[TeenageAngst]

Oly, everything you've said is backed up by "I don't agree" or "I haven't seen it." I've clearly stated in this topic I've seen it. I've seen it so much in fact that I've now made this topic twice. Contrary to popular opinion I don't pull things out of the æther to bitch about. You can disagree all you want, but these things happen and they happen with increasing frequency from what I've seen. And as hard as it is to believe, yes, people will often only take commissions from those already paying them through Patreon or reduce their commission load because of Patreon to the point you're going to have a hard time getting a slot. Were it not against ToS I'd link examples of artists who do all of this as they seem to populate half my fucking watch list now.

[Oly]

Dude, it gets hard to get commission slots even with moderately popular artists sometimes, depending on their work habits. That's just how it is. It has nothing to do with patreon and if moving behind a paywall is what a creator wants to do it's entirely their right. Don't like it? Don't support it. They don't have to take open commissions at all. There's your free market - and i'm not just saying that to throw it in your face, I DO believe to some extent in the free market and that generally people who practice shitty business won't last too long.

And while yeah, I'm saying a lot is based on what I haven't seen, I HAVE seen plenty enough artists using it not doing the shit you say to think that you're just projecting your distaste of the format onto everyone who uses it. Besides that; my belief comes from the evaluation of your argument against what I've experienced and seen for myself. How else is a debate conducted?

Again, I'm not saying you don't have a point, I'm saying you're attacking a symptom instead of a cause. I'm not saying I don't see what you're saying at all, I'm saying I simply don't see it the same way. Patreon makes being lazy easier? It also makes supporting good creators and projects easier. Is it worth killing the latter to prevent the former? I say hell no. It is worth pressuring patreon to improve community standards and moderate more effectively. Instead of lumping a bunch of good and ok artists in with a bunch of lazy doofs (and the inevitable assholes who will straight up plagiarize or conduct ripoffs) and calling them all cancer and saying that the platform itself is a promoter and cause of laziness, which isn't productive at all.

[Kurk2288]

I'm not saying you don't have a point, I'm saying you're attacking a symptom instead of a cause.

Agreed.

I'm not saying I don't see what you're saying at all, I'm saying I simply don't see it the same way. Patreon makes being lazy easier? It also makes supporting good creators and projects easier. Is it worth killing the latter to prevent the former? I say hell no.

I don't think TA was intending that Patreon as a whole needs to die, just that there's glaring flaws with it.

It is worth pressuring patreon to improve community standards and moderate more effectively.

I haven't used Patreon, but from what I hear they're like Steam in many regards.
Crappy customer service, shit policies, a hands off approach and the good ole
"We trust people to not abuse shit" or "we're not responsible for..."

One of the main reasons why people don't mind is because the trade offs are seen as worth it.
Plus the whole idea of "dollar voting" and the "free" market balancing itself out, which I won't go into.

Instead of lumping a bunch of good and ok artists in with a bunch of lazy doofs (and the inevitable assholes who will straight up plagiarize or conduct ripoffs) and calling them all cancer and saying that the platform itself is a promoter and cause of laziness, which isn't productive at all.

I don't know where you get some of this.

I recall you saying something about TA insulting cancer patients because he exaggerated this thread title? LoL? Anyways, you do have some valid points. Specifically about it being mostly a user (artists/patron) problem, rather than Patreon itself.

This thread has been more productive and thoughtful than TA's previous one.
-Banana stickers for all!-

[TeenageAngst]

I don't want Patreon to die necessarily, I just want its community to undergo chemo.

And by that I mean I want the mods at Patreon to enforce community standards with an iron fist and flush the crap out of their service.

[Oly]

Well shit, you shoulda put it exactly like that to start with. I can't argue much with that. If you got rules, enforce em.

And Kurk, yeah I super don't take using cancer as an analogy for people lightly. The thread is called 'the patreon cancer'. A thread title sets the tone for the whole thread. The biggest deal? Nah, but I don't feel the problem is nearly severe enough to justify such a comparison.