Patreon now has over three million users supporting creators

[Shawn Knight]

The big picture: Patreon had a couple of missteps over the past year or so but the shortcomings don't appear to have caused the platform any long-term damage. Growth is trending in the right direction as the company is on track to surpass $1 billion in revenue generated for creators in 2019.

Patreon, the membership platforms that helps fans financially support creators, now has over three million patrons supporting more than 100,000 creators, the company revealed on Wednesday.

Patreon was founded in 2013 when YouTube musician Jack Conte realized he needed a better way to supplement the income his videos were generating. With help from college roommate Sam Yam, they created Patreon, a platform that is now a solution for thousands of other creators.

Platforms like YouTube help creators get paid through various monetization features but a major benefit of Patreon is that it is platform agnostic. This allows creators specializing in a variety of artistic endeavors to monetize their passions, not just, say, video makers.

The number of patrons that support creators has increased from two million to three million in just one year. Patreon continues to nearly double the amount of money it sends creators each year and is on track to pass along more than $500 million in 2019. The total generated for creators since its founding is expected to eclipse $1 billion this year.

Patreon is planning to introduce new features and services to better serve creators in 2019 including a merch solution that’ll assist creators in sending out physical benefits to their supports.

Lead image courtesy nutcd32 via Shutterstock

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/78410-patreon-now-has-over-three-million-users-supporting.html

 

[fluffydroid]

That is a nice way to describe Patreon. It should be noted that there are some who believe Patreon bans people for political stances (e.g., Lauren Southern, Sargon of Akkad). Also, they have lost a few major people on the platform who believe this threatens free speech (e.g., Dave Rubin, Sam Harris). Perhaps joining Patreon is more suitable for folks who are not involved in politics. It seems that people who hold public opinions considered controversial would be at risk of account termination and loss of income.

 

[Eldritch]

That is a nice way to describe Patreon. It should be noted that there are some who believe Patreon bans people for political stances (e.g., Lauren Southern, Sargon of Akkad). Also, they have lost a few major people on the platform who believe this threatens free speech (e.g., Dave Rubin, Sam Harris). Perhaps joining Patreon is more suitable for folks who are not involved in politics. It seems that people who hold public opinions considered controversial would be at risk of account termination and loss of income.

Patreon is indeed embroiled in controversies and they have time and again flaunted their own ToS when it comes to free speech. Very unfortunate that even crowdsourcing sites think its OK to push their political agenda by blocking opposing views

 

[someOtherGuy]

Wow, so, there's this service called Patreon that "exists" and is doing fine. Is that what is considered "news" here, @ocianet? It might be that you're not big into Patreon issues but here are some interesting questions that you might want to pursuit:

- What does Patreon consider itself this days? It was supposed to be a payment processor but they've been talking about being a media company (funding/promoting content creators instead of being a neutral processor).

- How do they interpret/apply their ToS? Apparently they have a very subjective way of doing this even when they claim that it's completely objective. (maybe ask them to define "objectivity").

- How invested are they into the politically correct trend? Apparently most of their problems with creators have been a product of this. Finding out "how PC you need to be" to use Patreon could be useful for your readers.

And if you're big on collusion theories, you could go down the Patreon-MasterCard-PayPal rabbit hole...

Just my two cents.

 

[Footlong]

That is a nice way to describe Patreon. It should be noted that there are some who believe Patreon bans people for political stances (e.g., Lauren Southern, Sargon of Akkad). Also, they have lost a few major people on the platform who believe this threatens free speech (e.g., Dave Rubin, Sam Harris). Perhaps joining Patreon is more suitable for folks who are not involved in politics. It seems that people who hold public opinions considered controversial would be at risk of account termination and loss of income.

Does not really affect free speech. The government gives you free speech since they are the ones that can impose sanctions (censure). Private companies are not obligated to give free speech nor they have to serve people they do not believe or contradict their beliefs. Since a recent Supreme Court ruling (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/04/gay-cake-ruling-supreme-court-same-sex-wedding-colorado-baker-decision-latest) companies have exercised this given right both left and right (sorry for the pun). It is just that people on the right are complaining more.

 

[Eldritch]

Does not really affect free speech. The government gives you free speech since they are the ones that can impose sanctions (censure). Private companies are not obligated to give free speech nor they have to serve people they do not believe or contradict their beliefs. Since a recent Supreme Court ruling (https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...me-sex-wedding-colorado-baker-decision-latest) companies have exercised this given right both left and right (sorry for the pun). It is just that people on the right are complaining more.

That's an interesting point but I don't think legality of their move is being questioned here. Its the issue of a popular platform which removes its users with certain political tilt. Its not a problem when small business like the aforementioned baker do it but when big corporation do it, consequences are vast and far reaching. Imagine what will happen if Google decides to refuse service or limit service to certain political ideoloigies only.

 

[Footlong]

That's an interesting point but I don't think legality of their move is being questioned here. Its the issue of a popular platform which removes its users with certain political tilt. Its not a problem when small business like the aforementioned baker do it but when big corporation do it, consequences are vast and far reaching. Imagine what will happen if Google decides to refuse service or limit service to certain political ideoloigies only.

But that was the problem when this decision was taken. While left and right squabbled over their own ideology, lawyers and law students were thinking about what you just said.

 

[fluffydroid]

Does not really affect free speech. The government gives you free speech since they are the ones that can impose sanctions (censure). Private companies are not obligated to give free speech nor they have to serve people they do not believe or contradict their beliefs. Since a recent Supreme Court ruling (https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...me-sex-wedding-colorado-baker-decision-latest) companies have exercised this given right both left and right (sorry for the pun). It is just that people on the right are complaining more.

Dave Rubin and Sam Harris are not "on the right". Agree on the concept that free speech is theoretically a government concept. Just echoing the opinions of some people directly involved in the Patreon issues.