Now that I've had a little more time to read through these changes, I think Tildes is actually in a bit of a weird situation. I don't use any of the Patreon features at all, the Tildes page is...
Now that I've had a little more time to read through these changes, I think Tildes is actually in a bit of a weird situation. I don't use any of the Patreon features at all, the Tildes page is about as minimal as it's possible to be. I'm solely using it as a convenient way to support recurring donations.
Because of that, the new "Lite" plan should be all that I need, which is the same fee as current (5%). However, the page says:
Future creators will choose one of the plans above, and will have new payment processing rates, including a special low rate for small pledges. Pledges of $3 or less will use the new micropayment rate of 5% + 10 cents per successful payment. This really boosts the power of smaller pledges, with a much bigger percentage reaching the creator. Pledges over $3 will use the new industry-standard rate of 2.9% plus 30 cents per successful payment. For all payments from patrons outside the US using PayPal there is an additional 1% surcharge. These rates are for future creators only. Creators who launch on Patreon before these changes will keep their current processing rates with no change
The weird part is that while keeping the current rates seems to be framed as a good thing, I'm not sure if it is for Tildes or not. The lower "micropayment rate" for pledges $3 or less might actually be better to be able to support people that want to make small donations of a dollar or two a month. I'll need to look into this more, and may need to contact them to see if I can voluntarily switch to the new rates.
napkin math that at least one person is doing seems to suggest that the switchover to these rates for small pledges would actually serve to do the opposite and takes something like double what...
napkin math that at least one person is doing seems to suggest that the switchover to these rates for small pledges would actually serve to do the opposite and takes something like double what gets taken from a creator under the current rates (12) for people who would be subject to it, so make of that what you will.
edit: this might disproportionately affect people who would have smaller pledge tiers, though, thinking it over a bit. i suspect the impacts are more muted the more variance there is in pledges--so if you have a lot of larger pledges or a mixture of large and small, this might not take as much from you as it might if you had the same amount in small pledges.
Related TechCrunch story. Off-topic: I read this on HN, and I don't like it, but that's business? Is this a problem? What are some solutions to this? Companies should be allowed to buy competitors...
Off-topic: I read this on HN, and I don't like it, but that's business?
They've been using the VC money to buy up competitors (Memberful, Kit, Subbable).
We need to look more closely at business models like this, where a new technology starts gaining traction and insane amounts of money piles in to squash competition before it even begins. It's anti-competitive/anti-capitalistic and ends up hurting consumers in the long run as they force them to pay for the privilege of having nowhere else to go.
See also Grubhub.
Is this a problem? What are some solutions to this? Companies should be allowed to buy competitors at early stages, right? Where do you draw the line exactly?
i have to ask: does this person actually pay attention to capitalism in practice? because this happens literally all the time, and it's basically a feature of capitalism, not a bug. monopolies...
It's anti-competitive/anti-capitalistic and ends up hurting consumers in the long run as they force them to pay for the privilege of having nowhere else to go.
i have to ask: does this person actually pay attention to capitalism in practice? because this happens literally all the time, and it's basically a feature of capitalism, not a bug. monopolies will pretty much inevitably occur when and where they are possible in a capitalist system even if you regulate them. this also sorta gets into your point:
Is this a problem? What are some solutions to this? Companies should be allowed to buy competitors at early stages, right? Where do you draw the line exactly?
i tend to lean toward the idea that these questions are just not something that you can truly solve in the confines of a capitalist system--or at least in a way that would also be desirable to people who support the capitalist system. there are simply too many confounding variables involved to make it possible to really prevent people from doing that without doing something like gimping industries. buying and selling companies is simply a part of the system, and even though it's self evident that allowing people to basically create monopolies by simply buying up competition is bullshit, i don't see how you can regulate people's ability to do that or not do that based on timing any more than is already the case without also then opening the door to other questions that call into question the structure or the validity of the system.
So they're making the service worse for new users and grandfathering in old ones to what used to be the standard to keep the outrage down? Great. Just, great.
So they're making the service worse for new users and grandfathering in old ones to what used to be the standard to keep the outrage down?
It's honestly not as bad as I was expecting. A couple of months ago, the CEO was starting to talk about how their business model "wasn't sustainable", so they were obviously planning to do...
I don't know if I read it somewhere, or if I just made it up, but VC is like recreational drugs. A little bit makes your life fun, but when your only purpose to exist is to get more of it, you—and...
I don't know if I read it somewhere, or if I just made it up, but VC is like recreational drugs. A little bit makes your life fun, but when your only purpose to exist is to get more of it, you—and the people closest to you—have an issue.
Honestly, having now gone back and read it more thoroughly I agree with you - not as bad as it first seemed to me. Especially the low fees on small transactions. I don't like the positive spin...
Honestly, having now gone back and read it more thoroughly I agree with you - not as bad as it first seemed to me. Especially the low fees on small transactions. I don't like the positive spin that their announcement is trying to put on it, though.
Podcast I follow had Conte on for an interview. http://www.dailytechnewsshow.com/jack-conte-on-new-patreon-plans-dtns-interview/ He seems to talk the talk regarding intentions and making Patreon...
He seems to talk the talk regarding intentions and making Patreon for the creatives instead of the consumers, but talk is cheap and international payment platforms are difficult, so we'll see how this shakes out.
Now that I've had a little more time to read through these changes, I think Tildes is actually in a bit of a weird situation. I don't use any of the Patreon features at all, the Tildes page is about as minimal as it's possible to be. I'm solely using it as a convenient way to support recurring donations.
Because of that, the new "Lite" plan should be all that I need, which is the same fee as current (5%). However, the page says:
The weird part is that while keeping the current rates seems to be framed as a good thing, I'm not sure if it is for Tildes or not. The lower "micropayment rate" for pledges $3 or less might actually be better to be able to support people that want to make small donations of a dollar or two a month. I'll need to look into this more, and may need to contact them to see if I can voluntarily switch to the new rates.
napkin math that at least one person is doing seems to suggest that the switchover to these rates for small pledges would actually serve to do the opposite and takes something like double what gets taken from a creator under the current rates (1 2) for people who would be subject to it, so make of that what you will.
edit: this might disproportionately affect people who would have smaller pledge tiers, though, thinking it over a bit. i suspect the impacts are more muted the more variance there is in pledges--so if you have a lot of larger pledges or a mixture of large and small, this might not take as much from you as it might if you had the same amount in small pledges.
Related TechCrunch story.
Off-topic: I read this on HN, and I don't like it, but that's business?
Is this a problem? What are some solutions to this? Companies should be allowed to buy competitors at early stages, right? Where do you draw the line exactly?
i have to ask: does this person actually pay attention to capitalism in practice? because this happens literally all the time, and it's basically a feature of capitalism, not a bug. monopolies will pretty much inevitably occur when and where they are possible in a capitalist system even if you regulate them. this also sorta gets into your point:
i tend to lean toward the idea that these questions are just not something that you can truly solve in the confines of a capitalist system--or at least in a way that would also be desirable to people who support the capitalist system. there are simply too many confounding variables involved to make it possible to really prevent people from doing that without doing something like gimping industries. buying and selling companies is simply a part of the system, and even though it's self evident that allowing people to basically create monopolies by simply buying up competition is bullshit, i don't see how you can regulate people's ability to do that or not do that based on timing any more than is already the case without also then opening the door to other questions that call into question the structure or the validity of the system.
So they're making the service worse for new users and grandfathering in old ones to what used to be the standard to keep the outrage down?
Great. Just, great.
It's honestly not as bad as I was expecting. A couple of months ago, the CEO was starting to talk about how their business model "wasn't sustainable", so they were obviously planning to do something in the near future.
The reason it's not sustainable is because they took a lot of venture capital, but that's a different issue.
I don't know if I read it somewhere, or if I just made it up, but VC is like recreational drugs. A little bit makes your life fun, but when your only purpose to exist is to get more of it, you—and the people closest to you—have an issue.
Honestly, having now gone back and read it more thoroughly I agree with you - not as bad as it first seemed to me. Especially the low fees on small transactions. I don't like the positive spin that their announcement is trying to put on it, though.
Podcast I follow had Conte on for an interview.
http://www.dailytechnewsshow.com/jack-conte-on-new-patreon-plans-dtns-interview/
He seems to talk the talk regarding intentions and making Patreon for the creatives instead of the consumers, but talk is cheap and international payment platforms are difficult, so we'll see how this shakes out.