[JulianMorrison]

There is an alternative to adverts. Its real, it's here, it works. That alternative is Patreon.

In the Patreon model, you can support the creator directly, and their ability to produce content scales with that support. It's like a subscription, except you allow anyone else to free ride.

A Patreon supported site could run no ads at all and still make a stable income. It would no longer be fighting its readers to force them to view manipulative nonsense. It would no longer be answerable to pushy, content-controlling advertisers. It would have more editorial freedom, bounded only by the willingness of people to pay.

IMO the Patreon model answers all the problems of the advertising model and I'd like to see it becoming the norm.

[SebastianMerz]

Isn't that just saying "we want all content creators to become charities, and then other people can pay them". It's like saying all software should be free, but the companies should have patreons. Even the open source softwares supported by donations from big companies get their money indirectly from the actual monetization the big company does.

I just don't see a charity economy being long term sustainable on the web...

[JulianMorrison]

Patreon isn't charity. It's "I spend my money to hire you to do something." You pay to keep the content you care about, or to push them over a milestone goal to a feature you want.

[thephyber]

The author is nostalgic for the days when newspapers commanded high ad rates, something which never really existed in web-based news.

I agree with the idea that there are existing alternative business models, but I don't think a voluntary model will generate enough revenue to sustain current content standards.

[amelius]

It seems that in the Patreon model, the creator is the central element, and not the content itself. This seems a bit weird, because it is the content I'm after, not the artist. It may be nice for fans who will buy anything from a particular artist, even if it is worthless when considering just the content.

Also, this seems a lot like "branding & marketing" version 2.0. I don't like branding. And I don't want to like what people write just because of what they have written before. I want to read or listen to work, and then decide if I pay for it.

Do you have a better way of viewing this?

[GhotiFish]

I'm paying for creation, that is what is valuable, not content, content is worthless. Content has infinite supply. Creation is what is limited.

This dissonance has been, and (it seems) will always be, the primary stumbling block in the discussion of the information economy.

Why are pirates immoral? Why are they not immoral? Why is DRM immoral? Why is DRM not immoral? Who owns the copyright? what is fair use?

All to do with information. All fighting this central dissonance.

This is why the Patreon model should be advocated when it comes to information. Because as a tool, the market is utterly unfit to operate in this arena.

[JulianMorrison]

Now that's an interesting point.

And it's one reason why I support Basic Income as an idea. I feel like the potential prevalence of creation is huge. But everybody is wasting away their life in "day jobs".

It's interesting to consider in fact, that Patreon is kind of like a one-person basic income.

[GhotiFish]

Well, day jobs create new content as well, right?

Really I'm not sure basic income enters into this. Patreon is a pretty aggressive arena, only the people that generate public interest get funded, that's not everyone.

[copsarebastards]

I hadn't thought about things in this way, that's very interesting. I guess this applies to software too.

[JulianMorrison]

You pay the NYT for a subscription, not tip after the fact for content.

If you don't like what they make, you stop subscribing.

[copsarebastards]

Are you really making the argument that content creators are uncorrelated with your enjoyment of the content they create? Really?

[avital1]

From the Patreon wikipedia page:

> Artists set up a page on the Patreon website, where patrons can pledge to donate a given amount of money to an artist every time they create a piece of art, optionally setting a monthly maximum. Alternatively a fixed monthly amount can be pledged

So it either turns into a monthly subscription fee, or becomes another game for the ad-tech industry to solve.

[JulianMorrison]

A monthly subscription to having the artist or company make content. Not to the actual content itself. The subtlety here, is that if people are paying the artist to work, the work itself can be free or sold-at-cost if physical. So basically, you get what the web used to be before the bust - free content as far as the eye can see.

[avital1]

It's interesting and I'm glad it works for independent artists, but the cyncic in me knows that if it were to work on a large scale, some ad-tech company would figure out how to game it.

[strayptr]

This might be true for individual creators, but ad revenue powers companies. Can Patreon do that?

(It's still an important point for individuals though.)

[JulianMorrison]

Well, right now it's people.

But I see no reason the NYT or some such site couldn't fund itself the same way.

[Edit, posted in reply to the wrong person]