patron
noun pa·tron \ˈpā-trən, for 6 also pa-ˈtrōⁿ\
: a person who gives money and support to an artist, organization, etc.
: a person who buys the goods or uses the services of a business, library, etc.


pa·tron·age
ˈpatrənəj,ˈpātrənəj/ noun
noun: patronage
1. the support given by a patron.
"the arts could no longer depend on private patronage"
synonyms: sponsorship, backing, funding, financing, promotion, assistance, support
"art patronage"


I said this in another journal a while ago but I guess it needs repeating!
A PATRON is someone who HELPS AN ARTIST BECAUSE HE OR SHE WANTS TO NOT BECAUSE THEY"RE FORCED TO!!
And that is what that site is SUPPOSED TO BE AND BE FOR!!!

And this goes to FANS as WELL as ARTISTS!

Thanks for the post DOPER5. Don't think it'll do any good but you never know.

I openly call artists out on this BS. It's abuse to their fans and abuse to their patrons as well.

Some of them treat their tier rewards as one-offs, like "You'll get an art CD for paying $X a month!"
And it's like: Are you going to give it to them once, or are you going to keep sending them art CD's every month?

They do this crap with "Raffles" as well, with higher tiers getting more entries in these fixed raffles, and even not doing them until a per-month goal has been reached. Meaning if that artist has not reached the goal and one of the tiers is a raffle entry, that person is paying per month for nothing at all which is disgusting. But even then, usually it's the artist's friends that conveniently win despite not donating to the patreon in question.

People don't give money for nothing, they expect something back whether it's acknowledgement or a sense of friendship. When you do stuff like this, the relationship begins to sour to the point where that loyal fan will hate them to the end.

I continue to maintain that any artist is free to charge for their art in whatever fashion they feel appropriate.

If what they ask for is unreasonable, nobody would buy it.

The world isn't a freebie carousel, and the earlier the man-children learn it, the better.

I find the idea someone is being "forced" to be a patron because the slimy bits are blocked with a black bar ridiculous at best. It's as if you claim that best buy is forcing you to buy that shiny new cell phone by having display models out that you can fuck around with but can't take home.

And arguing semantics is not changing the fact that some artists need to make money with their art to put food in their mouth or shiny cell phones in their hands.

Have to agree with this entirely, artists spend time and effort creating what many of us enjoy seeing for free, and if any of them decide that their time and efforts should be compensated in some way, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with them being able to make money from it. I believe that at the very least, artists deserve to make a living wage from their work, and if that means having some amount of their art viewable through things like Patreon, I say go for it! Art is a living for some, and most of the time it really doesn't pay well compared to a lot of jobs out there.

I think you hit upon another interesting factor of the Patreon debate - living off of the art.

Not every artist uses their art as a living, and not every artist that wants to will be able to. Someone like Bernal, or Wolfblade, or Dark Natasha may have the talent and fanbase to be able to make a living from what they create. Not every artist does. Some of the latter may see Patreon as a golden ticket of sorts to replace their job with subscription money. The more that jump onto the bandwagon, the more fans are left behind with empty wallets and full of frustration (remember, Furry fans are just as poor as Furry artists).

For my part, I don't expect or want to make a living off of my art, so I sympathize more with the fans, since I could never imagine trying to charge my followers for the things I do for fun in my spare time - even something like RapRex which I've poured a great deal of effort into.

I can agree with this up to a point, for sure.
I'm not trying to say that artists are being unfair for charging for their work. Paysites exist, physical for-purchase portfolios continue to exist, YCHs, traditional commissions and other methods of monetizing artistic talent will always be around.
I also don't feel like my arm is being twisted by artists who create Patreons. I don't need my Furry porn so badly that I feel compelled to see everything all the time. I love Bernal's work, but not enough to make a subscription to his paysite worthwhile. I don't blame him for having a paysite, the rewards just aren't worth it for me. Your mileage may vary.
Alternately, there is an artist I've considered supporting on Patreon because I think their setup, and their rewards make donating worthwhile. I also know the person personally and want to help them out.
The issue isn't so much the Best Buy analogy you brought up, where people have to pay for something that is already on sale, as it is people suddenly having to pay for something that was previously free - and oftentimes paying more than it may be worth. Again, your mileage may vary.

This journal was not intending to say that Patreon should be abolished, or that all artists who use it are horrible and should feel bad for wanting an option to make money from their work. I was voicing my feeling that many artists are (at least to my thinking) misusing Patreon and/or misusing their fans while doing so, and that it will invariably result in not only an angry backlash and loss of trust, but in a collapse as both fans and artists alike turn their backs on the service due to it's negative stigma.

As I pointed out in the journal itself, it seems that many artists leapt on the Patreon bandwagon hoping to make easy money off of the same type of sketches and personal art that they previously posted for free. Do they have the right to do so? Of course! It's their work and they can do with it what they like. The relative success of sites like SexyFur prove that fans are indeed willing to pay, and it happens in the real world as well when costs rise, or businesses decide to charge for previously free samples. But the sudden influx of artists turning to this method thinking it will replace the need to get a job, and the poor rewards and loss of trust has embittered many people.

Not every user has the ability to donate $5 a month to the dozen or two dozen artists on their watch list who decide to switch over. And seeing previously freely shared content go behind a paywall is frustrating, particularly when the artists lash out angrily to fans who complain.

The relationship between content creators and fans/customers has always been a back and forth. Fans want free or cheap, artists want to make a decent return for the effort that goes into the work. Charge too much, fans won't support you. Be too conciliatory, and fans will exploit you. Patreon is just another battlefield in this debate.

I tried to explain this to people, like Wolfblade, but they just don't seem to understand.

These times are troubling for artists with a daily increase in competition who are offering commission services as well as an influx of foreign artists from third world countries who are driving down rates simply because at the end of the day, a $5 commission for the can easily translate into a full day's earnings.

Nothing against them, but unless you are an artist offering physical products, many buyers are going to unfortunately question why they should pay $50 for a commission when John Doe from Bangladesh is offering something of the same quality for $10. It sucks, but the artist's market isn't as robust as it once was due to globalization. I have seen an influx in younger members here too who crank out colored drawings for $10 because the don't have jobs, are still in high school and simply want to get paid for having fun.

For an artist here in the USA, putting two hours into a $10 project translates into $5 an hour and may quite simply not be worth it. Flat rates seem to be king here, so you need to be crazy quick to be profitable and at that point it would be all about volume. If you kick ass and have great popularity, you can easily crank up the rates, but not everyone has that benefit.

I think Patreon is an attempt to remedy that by tipping the scales toward a subscription base for artists who want to pad their revenue for extra compensation. Many of them are contributing amazing work to the community and while Patreon may be viewed a paywall, eventually the images they're posting only on Patreon will be pirated and shared as always happens with digital media. The artist should at least benefit before this happens. The elephant in the room is how much would be reasonable for an artist to generate per month on Patreon before it is truly worth it? $100? $200? The other question is what would be a fair amount to contribute and if the amount of content they post keeps monthly subscribers pocketbooks open.

I've seen hybrid models where the 'censored' content from paid submissions is put on FA and folks (except for the commissioner, of course) would then have to subscribe to see the 'uncensored' versions on Patreon. This seems fair to me since it is basically extra content. The same goes for sketches someone did not post on FA and posts to Patreon. These artists are asking that their time is 'worth it'.

I'd truly be curious to see the financials to see examples of artists on the platform and what revenue they pull in per month.

Personally, if I were in it for the money, I would just go to selling physical products such as the original commissions or go the publishing route where it is a much harder to pirate content.

- The Desert Fox

As I mentioned to another commenter above, my issue isn't so much with Patreon itself as a service as much as it is with how many artists are trying to use it.
Patreon has done very well for some artists, truly freeing them up to do other things and providing them with resources to create great content. Other artists have seen this and want the same result.
But Patreon is not a magic wand that dispenses free money. Nor is it a one-size-fits-all resolution for budget alleviation. What works for one, won't work for another.

What I think we're seeing now is the initial rush of people trying to get a piece of the Patreon pie. Eventually things will even out.

Another part of it may be more personal on my part in that I don't use my art to supplement or replace my job. For me, drawing is a hobby that I enjoy sharing with others. I don't care if I get paid for it so long as I enjoy the process and fans enjoy the content.

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't advocate using art to replace full time employment. Those who do are probably the lucky or insanely talented .1% of artists out there. I do believe there should be a quality standard before you can put up content to ensure quality content. Without a quality standard , I suspect the pool of providers will get too big too fast and the pool of subscriptions will be more spread out. This could reduce the incentive of using the service if the overall subscriber count remains flat.

And that's pretty much what I'm saying. Too many people, too fast, using too few options.

Fuck it. I have no problem with the idea of a donation pool and allowing people to donate if they want to but I draw the line at subscriptions. Once an artist parks most of their better art behind a pay wall I start to lose interest in them and I might even stop watching them.

All this recent controversy around skyrim and a paywall for mods is a great example of what I hate. Yeah, if a modder is good enough I might toss a few bucks his or her way but I am not going to download third party content that could break my game as if it were dlc. I am not going to give 5 dollars to the mods creator and 15 dollars to Benthesda/Valve. Valve is just greedy.

Have you ever heard of Forgotten Hope? Single best Battlefield 1942 mod ever made. Hell, it might be one of the best mods ever made for a game period. If Forgotten Hope had been behind a pay wall I would have not been able to enjoy several hundred hours of fun playing that mod both on and offline. That mod came out almost ten years ago and was three times bigger and ten times better than the vanilla BF1942.

The Steam Workshop debacle is a great example of a corporation looking at the fans and wondering how they can "get a piece of the action".

As a modder myself, it makes my blood burn to think of how awfully exploitative that decision was. Nothing saps creativity out of a genre better then commercialization.