publication
2025-08-17 06:00
The patronite crowdfunding platform points to YouTube an unfair system of supporting creators. The founders of the website in an interview with the Virtual Media portal say that the media giant under films promotes their own methods of supporting authors, which makes the choice of another way less convenient for the user. On YouTube you can find links to competitive platforms, but they want to be treated equally with mechanisms implemented by Google.
According to virtual media, the Google website with Facebook controls about 85% of the video market and the user's point of view, a convenient option is to support the selected channel directly from YouTube. Patronite ensures good cooperation between the two sides, but accuses the service of favoring his own methods (thanks, support), marginalizing smaller companies. Under YouTube movies you can find links to crowdfunding platforms, but not directly, but only in the description, which in the opinion of the founders Patronite is not so intuitive and convenient, which is why they call for the opportunity to choose to collect funds for both creators and users,
Creators often ask for support
The mechanism of supporting digital creators by their fans is not new. Patronite itself has been operating in Poland since 2015 and already brings together over 14,000 profiles, which regularly supports over 1.2 million users. Patreon is popular abroad, gathering over 250,000 artists and 8 million patrons. Regular payments allow access to unique content, often in the first place, in exchange for the selected amount that helps the authors in the development of their internet activities. These platforms work on the basis of subscription, but there are also such as Buyffee or Suppi, where the creator can be supported by a one -time amount.
YouTube has its own mechanisms
YouTube authors can use support mechanisms implemented directly by Google. Under long movies you can find the “Support” and “thank you” buttons – the first method is cyclical, the second one -off. Both mechanisms support YouTube, they are visible immediately next to the number like and thus default for users who want to support their favorite channel. Creators who do not want to use Google tools can link to external pages (such as patronite), but only in the description of the film or in the commentary, not directly under the material. This is what aroused the dissatisfaction of crowdfunding platforms that feel discriminated against with such a system of content.
Who and how much does it earn?
In the whole story, the issue of earnings of both the creators and platforms that allow them to support is interesting. Patronite charges 6.5% from each payment, while the rest goes to the creator's account. In the case of YouTube, this is a bit more complicated, because in the help center we will find only information that the authors receive 70% of SuperPości revenues.
The creators receive 70% of SuperPhista revenues, which were recognized by Google and reduced by the amounts of local sales tax and the applicable App Store fees on iOS devices. Transaction costs, including fees for credit cards, are currently covered by YouTube.
The explanation appears “local sales tax”, but it is not clear what exactly it is about. The author of the translation channel looked at this issue and it turned out that the tax is VAT, so the creator receives a net amount of thanks, but reduced by 30% commission for YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUQDBVNFW2W
Patronite wants equal treatment
The founders of Patronite claim that the buttons that YouTube adds under the films favors his creators' support mechanisms, allowing you to easily make payments, while in the case of external platforms the user must go to the next website, which extends the entire process. The Polish crowdfunding platform has asked YouTube for permission to choose the support method for both creators and users, but on the same terms (probably using one button). President Patronite, Marcin Skonieczny, calls for the support and interest of market regulators, because in his opinion, although the website is a smaller company than Facebook or YouTube, he deserves equal treatment.
