As a connoisseur of internet outrage, I was riveted by the
momentary disturbance around Jack Conte and the discussion of his
band’s 2014 tour profits. The initial surge of support, from people who
felt sympathy for struggling artists, was followed by a barrage of criticism; some
people thought it was a sneaky marketing ploy to hype his company, Patreon. Putting aside the drama
of whether Conte can describe himself as a struggling musician, Patreon itself
is an interesting look at the changing dynamics of building an audience.
Artistic pursuits — whether they involve playing in a band,
writing a story, or creating a work of
Interactive Fiction — are more fulfilling when they are done for an
audience. At start of an ambitious project, it’s always worth asking “does
anybody else want me to do this?” And
in an ideal world, people who want you to do it will also pay you for it. (In a
cartoon world created by Matt Groening, people sing about how you’ve got to do
what you love even if
it’s not a good idea.)
Crowdfunding has been a useful way to gauge audience support.
Creators — when they know what they’re doing and haven’t set out to scam people
— can raise money and use it to bring their ideas into the world. Crowdfunding
has also seen its share of public embarrassments. Takedown: Red Sabre was funded
through Kickstarter and later panned as “unfinished
and broken, with playability problems everywhere you look.”
Conte’s platform offers an option that lies between collecting
the money up front and hoping that people will pay you for your work at the
end. It’s a way for creators to collaborate with their audiences, and when it
works well, it allows them to spend more time on the parts that resonate with their
fans. Ongoing feedback helps them recognize whether artistic changes are taking
their work in the right direction.
The dark side of Patreon is its potential for scope
creep. Developers can promise too much, forcing them to make some difficult
choices. They might have to do more things in less detail to deliver all the promised
features, or they may need to cut back on their original design to deliver higher
quality work. These choices become more difficult when they’re made in front of
an audience that has become financially and emotionally invested in the
outcome.
This leaves aspiring creators with the choice to develop
their work in public, in private, or something in between. Each approach has
seen high-profile failures, and each one has seen unconventional successes that
would not otherwise have been possible. It keeps things interesting.
