This is a bad idea, I would never work for someone who openly admits that they will only make arbitrary payments to me based on nothing but a whim.
Nah, payment needs to be consistent and based on the number of times an artist gets played.
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
33 points (86.7% liked)
Fediverse
28351 readers
679 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
only make arbitrary payments to me based on nothing but a whim.
How is that different from the current situation? For most people, supporting indie artists is already an optional thing, those using Patreon could cancel "on a whim" as well, no?
based on the number of times an artist gets played
Doesn't that create a huge skew towards the pop-stars, who are already making money through other means (touring) anyway?
Do you really compare someone cancelling their pateron and a company taking all the money that customers have paid from the artists they want to support?
Sure, the payment would be skewed, but that is easily remidied by not having pop music on the plattform.
company taking all the money that customers have paid
I think you misunderstood. What I mean is that the customer will choose how much of their allocated budget goes to each artist.
I would definitely reword your original post, it’s very misleading with how it’s worded now
(Eg “How I feel” -> “how individual users feel”)
The whole paragraph starts with "as a backer". I can rewrite it, but to be honest it's not that difficult to comprehend it as is.
however I want
isn't going to work for anyone.
"Good fences make good neighbors".
Declare a payout method up front, and stick to it.
Again, is it that different from Patreon?
With Patreon, the resource allocation signal is determined by the creators, but the people will support as many artists as they can/want. Letting the backer determine the amount given to each just makes this more granular, but besides that the mechanism is the same, no?
I like the overall idea in theory, but as others have said, it's all in the implementation. I think the UI will be very important on the page that controls the contribution to the artists. I think you should have 2 "shortcut" buttons - "Pay Supported Artists by My Play %" and "Pay all artists equally" and then have some sort of vertical equalizer sliders with each supported band having a slider representing a custom contribution setting. I think that would work ok for people who want to tweak their contributions, at least for people with a small amount of supported bands. You could also specify a time frame for the first button... Year/Quarter/Month etc. The main question... what is the default setting? Is it equal to start, based on play percentage, or does the UI force you to try out custom contributions at first?
I don't think having users putting in percentages is a viable option. Alternatively to the aforementioned ideas, I think a 1-5 star ranking system would be useful, and then the percentages would be derived from that, on the backend. (with a FAQ and such available explaining the % correlation)
I think you should have 2 “shortcut” buttons
Yeah, I think having sensible defaults would make a lot of sense and it is not hard to implement.
UI-wise, I'd try to implement a page where you can see all the artists you want to support, and each of one them would get a slider scale. It's (relatively) easy to program it in a way that the payout distribution percentage is preserved even if you add/remove artists.
I like the general idea!
Specific implementation would make all the difference. The percentage splitting would have to be very graphical to be intuitive and used by most. And artists would need a way to sign up once, and be paid from all instances.
It sounds like a massive project. But one that may be worth while.
Not a service I would use personally, but I imagine a feature to automatically split it based on play time would be useful.
Oh, yeah, I think there could be many "default split strategies": play time, play count, direct/inverse correlation to general popularity, cutoffs for artists that already hit a funding threshold, extra weights for new work vs old catalog...
I think this model is the future for all media, but without a middleman and automatically distributed based on time spent listening (or reading or watching etc). but the fan decides how much they give per month, while if we get the total given to get high enough, more and more artists adopt the model. also, FW needs to get artist focused. they could replace Bandcamp. lot of pieces still need to get built but maybe we could organize to make this happen. #ccmusic
Yeah, lots of pieces to be built, but taking this a bit to a meta-level one of the reasons I am thinking about this is because I believe this could also be the future of R&D for software and the services in the digital economy. To illustrate, I am not working on Communick because it is hugely profitable, but because the more I grow the amount of customers the more I am free to work and contribute to open source projects that can benefit everyone.