Tags
Recently, a YouTube channel I’ve been following for a little while announced its new Patreon page. This is pretty normal for YouTube, but what was a little unusual was that this was the creator’s second channel, and he already has a Patreon for his main channel. This bothered me a little, and I’d like to share my thoughts on why.
First, if you don’t know what Patreon is, you can probably stop here. I’m not going to explain it. Frankly, I’d prefer anyone reading this already be familiar with and have their own opinions on Patreon, rather than learn it from me and be coloured by my own opinions. There are too many echo chambers on the Internet already.
Second, while it was a particular channel which brought this to my attention and which I’m using as an example, I don’t intend this to be at all accusatory. While I take some issue with the practice of having multiple Patreons, I don’t beleive this person was acting cynically and I think they are doing it the right way, having Patreon funds paid per video rather than per month.
Now, I don’t have an issue with Patreon per se. I don’t have cable and I barely use Netflix. I can’t tolerate Cruchyroll’s broken video player or excessive and repetitive ads, and what the hell’s a book? YouTube is my preferred entertainment and I understand how important Patreon has become for creators. While there is some abuse, I generally don’t begrudge it.
However, typically the point of Patreon is to give content creators the economic stability to focus on their chosen project, without the distraction of a part-time job or having their Internet cut off. It’s about making content creation their job and their primary focus.
So what do we make of someone splitting their focus between two channels and two Patreons? My concern is that each side only gets half of the attention that they, in principle, should. Particularly in a case where the two channels produce very different content and attract different audiences.
It seems to me that this could generate a funding war. A situation where the creator can say to one side, “Sorry guys, no new video this month. The other side is paying better. You’re all going to step it up with the funding.” (Well, maybe not in those words; that would be a pretty quick way to lose both audiences.)
With a little subtle coercion, the whole thing can be used to artificially convince funders to give more than they normally would; not more that the content is with to them (I’m not going to try to refute the basic premises of capitalism in this rambling aside), but more than has been expected as the Patreon standard. It creates a situation where scummy creators can further milk their audience. And it’ll undermines the general organizing principle of fan funding that people give because they want to support creators, not necessarily because they want to buy more content.
This isn’t some sort of industry-ending break in the system. It’s not even something that I see becoming a widely abused trick. But it is a little troubling.
I see a lot of content creators branching out now. Whether it’s changes in the website or viewership, popular topics, or just the creators wanting to explore new things, a lot of people are making second channels. I expect we’ll see more creators with multiple Patreons, too. It will be an interesting development, and I just hope it doesn’t damage the good faith and cordiality this fan funding economy is based on.
The Anime Harvest 
You make some interesting points………although, it’s interesting that you initially think it’s just about trying to pit fans against each other. Or “milking” people for more money. If anything, I’d say that the prevailing situation is that consumers are “milking” all the free/low-cost art and music that’s available.
Per multiple account – I’ve considered it (as I am about to start a Patreon account) – because I wonder if fans prefer certain content from me. Like – maybe someone just really likes my piano music, and wants to specifically support that. And someone else prefers the collaborations I’m doing. Takes the guessing game out for people to make that choice. And since, via Patreon, people are paying per piece of content – if I spend more time/energy on the content with more interest – this doesn’t “cost” them anything. They only pay for what you create. And if you create less often, then they pay less.
My concern, is that if people are really only interested in your “A” content, but you keep producing “A” and “B” content, that they might pull their funding, as they are having to pay for content they aren’t as interested in.
For example, it’s known best practice to segment your email list – and then distribute content/information based upon whatever categories you’ve set up (location, interest, etc.). Why not have that segmentation in Patreon too?
Good luck.
Hi. Thanks for the article as it helped me think out loud for a bit, although I agree with Jonathan. It is quite pessimistic to qualify of a new creator resource only in terms of the villain who will use it against their patrons. The article even admits that such an attempt by the creator would backfire so the question is, is there even a way for someone to exploit patrons by having two accounts?
I’m looking to join Patreon in the future and I’ve been thinking of making two accounts. One reason why is what Jonathan said, you have two entirely different concepts and audiences.
For example, 1. if you want to start a channel that is all about poker (your personal exploits, tutorials, etc.) and another that is for your illustrated fantasy novel where you post a new chapter each week. It’s to the patrons’ and creators’ benefit to have these organized under separate pages since one likely couldn’t care less for the other.
2. There is also the possibility that on one you have identified yourself to the public and the other you haven’t. My fantasy writings may get me noticed but a publisher but I don’t want just anyone to know about my interest in poker.
3. The other conundrum is if you have an adult page. Say you are writing a comic strip for all audiences, something like Calvin and Hobbes. You do not want the same audience seeing your pornographic art. Partly because they may judge you by it and force anyone under-18 to disassociate themselves from your accessible work. The other problem is under-18 people actually finding pornography on your page when they were looking for some good old comedy. If you label your entire page as ‘Adult’ then you become invisible to a lot of your audience.
4. I thought of another point but now I’ve forgotten it. May this shrine to it darken with the unremembered light of a thousand black holes.
Finally, I think the sentiment of not devoting all of yourself to your project has been said backwards by the writer. It’s asked from the perspective that patrons are being screwed (it definitely happens, I read about Breeding Season). Like what is the patron paying for then? I think you have to consider that you are always paying for a part of someone’s day:
I know that of my art projects I do not physically perform work for more than about 5-6 hours a day as I found it opens me up to injury. So then there is time for writing, which you know, if you have written a story before, involves a lot of reading. All over the place reading. And to be creative in general one has to admit to a lot of discovery since you don’t just sit down one day and say, ‘I’m going to write a novel. Time to learn how the entire world works.’ It’s a constant part of your day. And you spend as much time as is sustainable on each project, but having varied interests does not naturally detract from what you create.
It could. I mean of course, having three different things in the air could really make them all shit. But so could having one and falling in love with a girl… I mean there’s a whole world out there, the article is just too pessimistic and there are good reasons for creators to have this resource.
Agreed. I was actually quite surprised at how undeservedly accusatory this article was. Patrons don’t pay to “own” the content creator, they only pay to SUPPORT the further creation of more likewise content. It’s not rocket science.