Patreon is not an advertising supported platform, so it can't be from advertisers. Onlyfans has no problem accepting credit cards; and Patreon is certainly at the scale where they negotiate with payment facilitators.
I'm curious why they made the decision... moral superiority?
If it's a brand perspective, then I think the biggest regret of Patreon in the coming years is going to be not spawning off their own Onlyfans, a reskinned and rebanded version of Patreon.
I wouldn't be surprised if Onlyfans is growing faster than Patreon right now...
If you've ever tried to monetize NSFW content in a context that involves credit cards, you know it is an absolute nightmare. If Onlyfans is seriously NSFW, it may have no problems accepting credit cards but its days are numbered and it runs the risk of the credit card processors unilaterally refusing to service them anymore (especially Visa, IIRC)
Patreon is at the scale where they would be exceedingly aware of this. One of the side-effects of the earlier 'not tying payments super tight to individual creators, but just charging patrons for ALL their committments' is that it let them aggregate charges in such a way that patrons were doing business with THEM, not 'NSFWCamGirl69', while still supporting CamGirl as the patron intended. The credit card company didn't really have a way to dig in and go 'prove you're not giving any of this money to porn creators'.
This changed, but Patreon remains a platform where it screens creators pretty well from the moral expectations of credit card processors (and governments? kinda? It's a very tough problem if they expect to do business at all in certain countries)
The question is more 'will Onlyfans be cut off from service by credit card companies': 'growing faster' is not useful if it's doomed. They have to also stay in business and maintain relationships with processors that have a record of showing intent to blacklist certain types of creation.
Payment processors view this as a risk/reward scenario. NSFW content historically has very high chargeback rates. When your overall processing amount is low, the risk is low. As the amount goes up and your business gets more successful, the risk increases as your new customers are more likely to be fickle.
This is a few years out of date but when I investigated what it would take to legally accept credit cards for NSFW content, the processors all wanted a very large bond to hold as protection against chargebacks. I imagine once your daily transaction volume grossly exceeds reasonable bond levels, the processors get pretty flighty.
IIRC there's basically one payment processor, whose name I can't recall, that ~100% of NSFW sites use. And their fees are very high, given the risk of processing those payments.
CCBill is the primary one and they charge nearly 4% per transaction and routinely hold transactions for up to 6 months sometimes. They also have high registration fees but they are one of the best for high risk industries.
They have a 3.9% ("green") tier without a high-risk fee, but I don't think the adult companies qualify that one.
I could be wrong, but I didn't find a clear breakdown of who qualifies for each plan on their website. I'm guessing the 3.9% plan and their non-profit plan are there so they can present as a normal payment processor.
Patreon has always had its hands dirty in enforcing their definition of "morality" -- while I almost completely agreed with their decisions, banning "anime" was the last straw for me.
Each choice they made to ban an "influencer" in the name of morality was a massive hit to their business because by definition, not only was said influencer banned, but also the massive audience that he/she influenced.
Unfortunately, you can only successfully stick to an allow-all policy (with all of the dangerous content and liability/bad PR this entails), or you can haphazardly try to enforce your often-subjective definition of morality with all of its inconsistencies and edge cases, to your own detriment, like Patreon did (I'm a moral relativist).
It's a Faustian bargain because neither is a good business decision.
> They're not banning anime. They're banning the fetishization of young girls, which has been against the community guidelines for quite a while:
> However, we have zero tolerance when it comes to the glorification of sexual violence which includes bestiality, rape, and child exploitation (i.e., sexualized depiction of minors). This is true for illustrated, animated, or any other type of creations. Patreon reserves the right to review and remove accounts that may violate this guideline.
> even though anime characters more closely resemble aliens than actual human beings
The typical characteristics of child-like appearances is proportionally large head compared to the rest of the body, round head, and large eyes.
It also happens that having a large head with large eyes is a common method to make it easier to express emotion for objects which we know is fake. For example, the two main robots in the movie wall-e utilize this a lot, and yes, one can interpret that as if both robots are children as they do have more human child like proportions than human adult proportions.
The only real way to know the age of non-photo non-realistic image of a character is in context or if the author spells it out. If we were to guess the age of Donald duck we would base it on that he has a job, has nephews, and wear a time appropriate hat for adults, but also that his head is slightly less round compared to Huey, Dewey, and Louie.
The issue is with how they define minors. Considering they're stylised cartoons it can be pretty subjective, and for some, simply having a flat chest = child, regardless of anything else. In other cases, curvy body + large breasts can also be considered child if they are deemed 'too cute', etc.
It leads to inconsistency, which leads to people creating content that is well within the guidelines deciding to not publish to Patreon as they can't guarantee whoever is enforcing the rules that day won't arbitrarily decide otherwise.
Do you not realize the false equivalence they are making here to justify actually banning it? Banning first person shooter video games can also be done under the guise of having zero tolerance for glorifying mass shootings. And then any heavy handed enforcement actions can be justified by saying that only violent games are banned. Look at which patrons have actually been affected by their policy and how they are choosing to enforce it. Wake up!
(Lastly, hentai is obviously a very different thing than anime. It is clear that Patreon is targeting anime, as well as hentai.)
I'm guessing Patreon is reacting to the changes in the legal landscape. The same ones that made Craiglist close its Personals section (or however it was called): the increased liability for the platform for whatever behaviors the public at large might find objectionable. Or find an excuse to take an issue with, really.
From what I know, the anime genre creators were a fairly popular niche (with the associated income stream), so they probably weren't taking these changes lightly.
I'd say write your congressmen (I'm not from US myself), but at this point it seems futile.
These are private companies, other competitors have stepped up that are willing to take on a certain level of risk -- no need to get the government involved. People didn't stop making video games because of "moral" activists like Jack Thompson. Anime is a global industry for Japan, much like K-Pop is for Korea; however, I'm willing to bet that far more than just anime creators (to say nothing of their respective fan bases) have been alienated by Patreon's policies. One of my favorite creators, Louis Rossmann, is pretty vocal about being against Patreon's moral policing. I don't even watch anime, but if you don't see anything wrong with Patreon's business strategy, you can at least observe how the market is reacting to it (i.e. badly enough that they need to cut some of their top senior engineers, even though their business model practically prints money in a scalable way -- a rarity in the SoftBank tech bubble -- and the industry they are in is one of the LEAST affected by the coronavirus pandemic).
Patreon is not an advertising supported platform, so it can't be from advertisers. Onlyfans has no problem accepting credit cards; and Patreon is certainly at the scale where they negotiate with payment facilitators.
I'm curious why they made the decision... moral superiority?
If it's a brand perspective, then I think the biggest regret of Patreon in the coming years is going to be not spawning off their own Onlyfans, a reskinned and rebanded version of Patreon.
I wouldn't be surprised if Onlyfans is growing faster than Patreon right now...