487 lines
27 KiB
Markdown
487 lines
27 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
created_at: '2015-11-25T07:37:00.000Z'
|
||
title: 1,000 True Fans (2008)
|
||
url: http://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/
|
||
author: aaronbrethorst
|
||
points: 47
|
||
story_text:
|
||
comment_text:
|
||
num_comments: 8
|
||
story_id:
|
||
story_title:
|
||
story_url:
|
||
parent_id:
|
||
created_at_i: 1448437020
|
||
_tags:
|
||
- story
|
||
- author_aaronbrethorst
|
||
- story_10625906
|
||
objectID: '10625906'
|
||
year: 2008
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
This is an edited, updated version of an essay I wrote in 2008 when this
|
||
now popular idea was embryonic and ragged. I recently rewrote it to
|
||
convey the core ideas, minus out-of-date details. This revisited essay
|
||
appears in Tim Ferriss’ new book, [Tools of
|
||
Titans](https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1328683788/cooltools-20).
|
||
I believe the 1,000 True Fans concept will be useful to anyone making
|
||
things, or making things happen. If you still want to read the much
|
||
longer original 2008 essay, you can get it after the end of this
|
||
version. — KK
|
||
|
||
To be a successful creator you don’t need millions. You don’t need
|
||
millions of dollars or millions of customers, millions of clients or
|
||
millions of fans. To make a living as a craftsperson, photographer,
|
||
musician, designer, author, animator, app maker, entrepreneur, or
|
||
inventor you need only thousands of true fans.
|
||
|
||
A true fan is defined as a fan that will buy anything you produce. These
|
||
diehard fans will drive 200 miles to see you sing; they will buy the
|
||
hardback and paperback and audible versions of your book; they will
|
||
purchase your next figurine sight unseen; they will pay for the
|
||
“best-of” DVD version of your free youtube channel; they will come
|
||
to your chef’s table once a month. If you have roughly a thousand of
|
||
true fans like this (also known as super fans), you can make a living —
|
||
if you are content to make a living but not a fortune.
|
||
|
||
Here’s how the math works. You need to meet two criteria. First, you
|
||
have to create enough each year that you can earn, on average, $100
|
||
profit from each true fan. That is easier to do in some arts and
|
||
businesses than others, but it is a good creative challenge in every
|
||
area because it is always easier and better to give your existing
|
||
customers more, than it is to find new fans.
|
||
|
||
Second, you must have a direct relationship with your fans. That is,
|
||
they must pay you directly. You get to keep all of their support, unlike
|
||
the small percent of their fees you might get from a music label,
|
||
publisher, studio, retailer, or other intermediate. If you keep the full
|
||
$100 of each true fan, then you need only 1,000 of them to earn $100,000
|
||
per year. That’s a living for most folks.
|
||
|
||
A thousand customers is a whole lot more feasible to aim for than a
|
||
million fans. Millions of paying fans is not a realistic goal to shoot
|
||
for, especially when you are starting out. But a thousand fans is
|
||
doable. You might even be able to remember a thousand names. If you
|
||
added one new true fan per day, it’d only take a few years to gain a
|
||
thousand.
|
||
|
||
The number 1,000 is not absolute. Its significance is in its rough order
|
||
of magnitude — three orders less than a million. The actual number has
|
||
to be adjusted for each person. If you are able to only earn $50 per
|
||
year per true fan, then you need 2,000. (Likewise if you can sell $200
|
||
per year, you need only 500 true fans.) Or you may need only $75K per
|
||
year to live on, so you adjust downward. Or if you are a duet, or have a
|
||
partner, then you need to multiply by 2 to get 2,000 fans. For a team,
|
||
you need to multiply further. But the good news is that the increase in
|
||
the size of your true-fan base is geometric and linear in proportion to
|
||
the size of the team; if you increase the team by 33% you only need to
|
||
increase your fan base by 33%.
|
||
|
||
Another way to calculate the support of a true fan, is to aim to get one
|
||
day’s wages per year from them. Can you excite or please them sufficient
|
||
to earn one day’s labor? That’s a high bar, but not impossible for 1,000
|
||
people world wide.
|
||
|
||
And of course, not every fan will be super. While the support of a
|
||
thousand true fans may be sufficient for a living, for every single true
|
||
fan, you might have two or three regular fans. Think of concentric
|
||
circles with true fans at the center and a wider circle of regular fans
|
||
around them. These regular fans may buy your creations occasionally, or
|
||
may have bought only once. But their ordinary purchases expand your
|
||
total income. Perhaps they bring in an additional 50%. Still, you want
|
||
to focus on the super fans because the enthusiasm of true fans can
|
||
increase the patronage of regular fans. True fans not only are the
|
||
direct source of your income, but also your chief marketing force for
|
||
the ordinary fans.
|
||
|
||
Fans, customers, patrons have been around forever. What’s new here? A
|
||
couple of things. While direct relationship with customers was the
|
||
default mode in old times, the benefits of modern retailing meant that
|
||
most creators in the last century did not have direct contact with
|
||
consumers. Often even the publishers, studios, labels and manufacturers
|
||
did not have such crucial information as the name of their customers.
|
||
For instance, despite being in business for hundreds of years no New
|
||
York book publisher knew the names of their core and dedicated readers.
|
||
For previous creators these intermediates (and there was often more than
|
||
one) meant you need much larger audiences to have a success. With the
|
||
advent of ubiquitous peer-to-peer communication and payment systems —
|
||
also known as the web today — everyone has access to excellent tools
|
||
that allow anyone to sell directly to anyone else in the world. So a
|
||
creator in Bend, Oregon can sell — and deliver — a song to someone in
|
||
Katmandu, Nepal as easily as a New York record label (maybe even more
|
||
easily). This new technology permits creators to maintain relationships,
|
||
so that the customer can become a fan, and so that the creator keeps the
|
||
total amount of payment, which reduces the number of fans needed.
|
||
|
||
This new ability for the creator to retain the full price is
|
||
revolutionary, but a second technological innovation amplifies that
|
||
power further. A fundamental virtue of a peer-to-peer network (like the
|
||
web) is that the most obscure node is only one click away from the most
|
||
popular node. In other words the most obscure under-selling book, song,
|
||
or idea, is only one click away from the best selling book, song or
|
||
idea. Early in the rise of the web the large aggregators of content and
|
||
products, such as eBay, Amazon, Netflix, etc, noticed that the total
|
||
sales of \*all\* the lowest selling obscure items would equal or in some
|
||
cases exceed the sales of the few best selling items. Chris Anderson (my
|
||
successor at Wired) named this effect “The Long Tail,” for the visually
|
||
graphed shape of the sales distribution curve: a low nearly interminable
|
||
line of items selling only a few copies per year that form a long “tail”
|
||
for the abrupt vertical beast of a few bestsellers. But the area of the
|
||
tail was as big as the head. With that insight, the aggregators had
|
||
great incentive to encourage audiences to click on the obscure items.
|
||
They invented recommendation engines and other algorithms to channel
|
||
attention to the rare creations in the long tail. Even web search
|
||
companies like Google, Bing, Baidu found it in their interests to reward
|
||
searchers with the obscure because they could sell ads in the long tail
|
||
as well. The result was that the most obscure became less obscure.
|
||
|
||
If you lived in any of the 2 million small towns on Earth you might be
|
||
the only one in your town to crave death metal music, or get turned on
|
||
by whispering, or want a left-handed fishing reel. Before the web you’d
|
||
never be able to satisfy that desire. You’d be alone in your
|
||
fascination. But now satisfaction is only one click away. Whatever your
|
||
interests as a creator are, your 1,000 true fans are one click from you.
|
||
As far as I can tell there is nothing — no product, no idea, no desire —
|
||
without a fan base on the internet. Every thing made, or thought of, can
|
||
interest at least one person in a million — it’s a low bar. Yet if even
|
||
only one out of million people were interested, that’s potentially 7,000
|
||
people on the planet. That means that any 1-in-a-million appeal can find
|
||
1,000 true fans. The trick is to practically find those fans, or more
|
||
accurately, to have them find you.
|
||
|
||
Now here’s the thing; the big corporations, the intermediates, the
|
||
commercial producers, are all under-equipped and ill suited to connect
|
||
with these thousand true fans. They are institutionally unable to find
|
||
and deliver niche audiences and consumers. That means the long tail is
|
||
wide open to you, the creator. You’ll have your one-in-a-million true
|
||
fans to yourself. And the tools for connecting keep getting better,
|
||
including the recent innovations in social media. It has never been
|
||
easier to gather 1,000 true fans around a creator, and never easier to
|
||
keep them near.
|
||
|
||
One of the many new innovations serving the true fan creator is
|
||
crowdfunding. Having your fans finance your next product for them is
|
||
genius. Win-win all around. There are about 2,000 different crowdfunding
|
||
platforms worldwide, many of them specializing in specific fields:
|
||
raising money for science experiments, for bands, or documentaries. Each
|
||
has its own requirements and a different funding model, in addition to
|
||
specialized interests. Some platforms require “all or nothing” funding
|
||
goals, others permit partial funding, some raise money for completed
|
||
projects, some like Patreon, fund ongoing projects. Patreon supporters
|
||
might fund a monthly magazine, or a video series, or an artist’s salary.
|
||
The most famous and largest crowdfunder is Kickstarter, which has raised
|
||
$2.5 billion for more than 100,000 projects. The average number of
|
||
supporters for a successful Kickstarter project is 241 funders — far
|
||
less than a thousand. That means If you have 1,000 true fans you can do
|
||
a crowdfunding campaign, because by definition a true fan will become a
|
||
Kickstarter funder. (Although success of your campaign is dependent on
|
||
what you ask of your fans).
|
||
|
||
The truth is that cultivating a thousand true fans is time consuming,
|
||
sometimes nerve racking, and not for everyone. Done well (and why not do
|
||
it well?) it can become another full-time job. At best it will be a
|
||
consuming and challenging part-time task that requires ongoing skills.
|
||
There are many creators who don’t want to deal with fans, and honestly
|
||
should not. They should just paint, or sew, or make music, and hire
|
||
someone else to deal with their superfans. If that is you and you add
|
||
someone to deal with fans, a helper will skew your formula, increasing
|
||
the number of fans you need, but that might be the best mix. If you go
|
||
that far, then why not “subcontract” out dealing with fans to the middle
|
||
people — the labels and studios and publishers and retailers? If they
|
||
work for you, fine, but remember, in most cases they would be even worse
|
||
at this than you would.
|
||
|
||
The mathematics of 1,000 true fans is not a binary choice. You don’t
|
||
have to go this route to the exclusion of another. Many creators,
|
||
including myself, will use direct relations with super fans in addition
|
||
to mainstream intermediaries. I have been published by several big-time
|
||
New York publishers. I have self-published. And I have used Kickstarter
|
||
to publish to my true fans. I chose each format depending on the content
|
||
and my aim. But in every case, cultivating my true fans enriches the
|
||
route I choose.
|
||
|
||
The takeaway: 1,000 true fans is an alternative path to success other
|
||
than stardom. Instead of trying to reach the narrow and unlikely peaks
|
||
of platinum bestseller hits, blockbusters, and celebrity status, you can
|
||
aim for direct connection with a thousand true fans. On your way, no
|
||
matter how many fans you actually succeed in gaining, you’ll be
|
||
surrounded not by faddish infatuation, but by genuine and true
|
||
appreciation. It’s a much saner destiny to hope for. And you are much
|
||
more likely to actually arrive there.
|
||
|
||
The original 2008 essay follows. It was written before the advent of
|
||
Kickstarter, Indiegogo and other crowdfunding sites, and includes more
|
||
the idea’s history. — KK
|
||
|
||
\[Translations:
|
||
[Chinese](https://service.goodcharacters.com/blog/blog.php?id=165),
|
||
[French](http://versionfrancaise.blogspot.com/2008/08/1000-vrais-fans.html),
|
||
[German](http://www.flocutus.de/ubersetzungen/1000-wahre-fans/),
|
||
[Hebrew](http://kk.org/thetechnium/1KTrueFans-Hebrew.pdf),
|
||
[Italian](http://horizonsmusic.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/kevin-kelly-1000-veri-fans-ita/),
|
||
[Japanese](http://memo7.sblo.jp/article/12799892.html),
|
||
[Portuguese](http://www.empreendedor-digital.com/1000-fas-verdadeiros),
|
||
[Romanian](http://webhostinggeeks.com/science/true-fans-ro),
|
||
[Spanish](https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/kk.archive/1%2C000+Fans+Verdaderos%2C+Spanish.pdf),
|
||
[Danish](http://www.stinus.net/da/1000-rigtige-fans/)\]
|
||
|
||
The long tail is famously good news for two classes of people; a few
|
||
lucky aggregators, such as Amazon and Netflix, and 6 billion consumers.
|
||
Of those two, I think consumers earn the greater reward from the wealth
|
||
hidden in infinite niches.
|
||
|
||
But the long tail is a decidedly mixed blessing for creators. Individual
|
||
artists, producers, inventors and makers are overlooked in the equation.
|
||
The long tail does not raise the sales of creators much, but it does add
|
||
massive competition and endless downward pressure on prices. Unless
|
||
artists become a large aggregator of other artist’s works, the long tail
|
||
offers no path out of the quiet doldrums of minuscule sales.
|
||
|
||
Other than aim for a blockbuster hit, what can an artist do to escape
|
||
the long tail?
|
||
|
||
One solution is to find 1,000 True Fans. While some artists have
|
||
discovered this path without calling it that, I think it is worth trying
|
||
to formalize. The gist of 1,000 True Fans can be stated simply:
|
||
|
||
A creator, such as an artist, musician, photographer, craftsperson,
|
||
performer, animator, designer, videomaker, or author – in other words,
|
||
anyone producing works of art – needs to acquire only 1,000 True Fans to
|
||
make a living.
|
||
|
||
A True Fan is defined as someone who will purchase anything and
|
||
everything you produce. They will drive 200 miles to see you sing. They
|
||
will buy the super deluxe re-issued hi-res box set of your stuff even
|
||
though they have the low-res version. They have a Google Alert set for
|
||
your name. They bookmark the eBay page where your out-of-print editions
|
||
show up. They come to your openings. They have you sign their copies.
|
||
They buy the t-shirt, and the mug, and the hat. They can’t wait till you
|
||
issue your next work. They are true fans.
|
||
|
||
![Truefans-1](http://kk.org/thetechnium/TrueFans-1.jpg)
|
||
|
||
To raise your sales out of the flatline of the long tail you need to
|
||
connect with your True Fans directly. Another way to state this is, you
|
||
need to convert a thousand Lesser Fans into a thousand True Fans.
|
||
|
||
Assume conservatively that your True Fans will each spend one day’s
|
||
wages per year in support of what you do. That “one-day-wage” is an
|
||
average, because of course your truest fans will spend a lot more than
|
||
that. Let’s peg that per diem each True Fan spends at $100 per year. If
|
||
you have 1,000 fans that sums up to $100,000 per year, which minus some
|
||
modest expenses, is a living for most folks.
|
||
|
||
One thousand is a feasible number. You could count to 1,000. If you
|
||
added one fan a day, it would take only three years. True Fanship is
|
||
doable. Pleasing a True Fan is pleasurable, and invigorating. It rewards
|
||
the artist to remain true, to focus on the unique aspects of their work,
|
||
the qualities that True Fans appreciate.
|
||
|
||
The key challenge is that you have to maintain direct contact with your
|
||
1,000 True Fans. They are giving you their support directly. Maybe they
|
||
come to your house concerts, or they are buying your DVDs from your
|
||
website, or they order your prints from Pictopia. As much as possible
|
||
you retain the full amount of their support. You also benefit from the
|
||
direct feedback and love.
|
||
|
||
The technologies of connection and small-time manufacturing make this
|
||
circle possible. Blogs and RSS feeds trickle out news, and upcoming
|
||
appearances or new works. Web sites host galleries of your past work,
|
||
archives of biographical information, and catalogs of paraphernalia.
|
||
Diskmakers, Blurb, rapid prototyping shops, Myspace, Facebook, and the
|
||
entire digital domain all conspire to make duplication and dissemination
|
||
in small quantities fast, cheap and easy. You don’t need a million fans
|
||
to justify producing something new. A mere one thousand is sufficient.
|
||
|
||
This small circle of diehard fans, which can provide you with a living,
|
||
is surrounded by concentric circles of Lesser Fans. These folks will not
|
||
purchase everything you do, and may not seek out direct contact, but
|
||
they will buy much of what you produce. The processes you develop to
|
||
feed your True Fans will also nurture Lesser Fans. As you acquire new
|
||
True Fans, you can also add many more Lesser Fans. If you keep going,
|
||
you may indeed end up with millions of fans and reach a hit. I don’t
|
||
know of any creator who is not interested in having a million fans.
|
||
|
||
But the point of this strategy is to say that you don’t need a hit to
|
||
survive. You don’t need to aim for the short head of best-sellerdom to
|
||
escape the long tail. There is a place in the middle, that is not very
|
||
far away from the tail, where you can at least make a living. That
|
||
mid-way haven is called 1,000 True Fans. It is an alternate destination
|
||
for an artist to aim for.
|
||
|
||
Young artists starting out in this digitally mediated world have another
|
||
path other than stardom, a path made possible by the very technology
|
||
that creates the long tail. Instead of trying to reach the narrow and
|
||
unlikely peaks of platinum hits, bestseller blockbusters, and celebrity
|
||
status, they can aim for direct connection with 1,000 True Fans. It’s a
|
||
much saner destination to hope for. You make a living instead of a
|
||
fortune. You are surrounded not by fad and fashionable infatuation, but
|
||
by True Fans. And you are much more likely to actually arrive there.
|
||
|
||
A few caveats. This formula – one thousand direct True Fans — is
|
||
crafted for one person, the solo artist. What happens in a duet, or
|
||
quartet, or movie crew? Obviously, you’ll need more fans. But the
|
||
additional fans you’ll need are in direct geometric proportion to the
|
||
increase of your creative group. In other words, if you increase your
|
||
group size by 33%, you need add only 33% more fans. This linear growth
|
||
is in contrast to the exponential growth by which many things in the
|
||
digital domain inflate. I would not be surprised to find that the value
|
||
of your True Fans network follows the standard network effects rule, and
|
||
increases as the square of the number of Fans. As your True Fans connect
|
||
with each other, they will more readily increase their average spending
|
||
on your works. So while increasing the numbers of artists involved in
|
||
creation increases the number of True Fans needed, the increase does not
|
||
explode, but rises gently and in proportion.
|
||
|
||
A more important caution: Not every artist is cut out, or willing, to be
|
||
a nurturer of fans. Many musicians just want to play music, or
|
||
photographers just want to shoot, or painters paint, and they
|
||
temperamentally don’t want to deal with fans, **especially** True Fans.
|
||
For these creatives, they need a mediator, a manager, a handler, an
|
||
agent, a galleryist — someone to manage their fans. Nonetheless, they
|
||
can still aim for the same middle destination of 1,000 True Fans. They
|
||
are just working in a duet.
|
||
|
||
Third distinction. Direct fans are best. The number of True Fans needed
|
||
to make a living **indirectly** inflates fast, but not infinitely. Take
|
||
blogging as an example. Because fan support for a blogger routes through
|
||
advertising clicks (except in the occasional
|
||
[tip-jar](http://tipjoy.com/)), more fans are needed for a blogger to
|
||
make a living. But while this moves the destination towards the left on
|
||
the long tail curve, it is still far short of blockbuster territory.
|
||
Same is true in book publishing. When you have corporations involved in
|
||
taking the majority of the revenue for your work, then it takes many
|
||
times more True Fans to support you. To the degree an author cultivates
|
||
direct contact with his/her fans, the smaller the number needed.
|
||
|
||
Lastly, the actual number may vary depending on the media. Maybe it is
|
||
500 True Fans for a painter and 5,000 True Fans for a videomaker. The
|
||
numbers must surely vary around the world. But in fact the actual number
|
||
is not critical, because it cannot be determined except by attempting
|
||
it. Once you are in that mode, the actual number will become evident.
|
||
That will be the True Fan number that works for you. My formula may be
|
||
off by an order of magnitude, but even so, its far less than a million.
|
||
|
||
I’ve been scouring the literature for any references to the True Fan
|
||
number. [Suck.com](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suck.com) co-founder
|
||
Carl Steadman had theory about microcelebrities. By his count, a
|
||
microcelebrity was someone famous to 1,500 people. So those fifteen
|
||
hundred would rave about you. As quoted by [Danny
|
||
O’Brien](//www.oblomovka.com/entries/2004/08/08#1091959020), “One
|
||
person in every town in Britain likes your dumb online comic. That’s
|
||
enough to keep you in beers (or T-shirt sales) all year.”
|
||
|
||
Others call this microcelebrity support micro-patronage, or distributed
|
||
patronage.
|
||
|
||
In 1999 John Kelsey and Bruce Schneier published a model for this in
|
||
First Monday, an online journal. They called it the [Street Performer
|
||
Protocol](http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_6/kelsey/).
|
||
|
||
> Using the logic of a street performer, the author goes directly to the
|
||
> readers before the book is published; perhaps even before the book is
|
||
> written. The author bypasses the publisher and makes a public
|
||
> statement on the order of: “When I get $100,000 in donations, I will
|
||
> release the next novel in this series.”
|
||
>
|
||
> Readers can go to the author’s Web site, see how much money has
|
||
> already been donated, and donate money to the cause of getting his
|
||
> novel out. Note that the author doesn’t care who pays to get the next
|
||
> chapter out; nor does he care how many people read the book that
|
||
> didn’t pay for it. He just cares that his $100,000 pot gets filled.
|
||
> When it does, he publishes the next book. In this case “publish”
|
||
> simply means “make available,” not “bind and distribute through
|
||
> bookstores.” The book is made available, free of charge, to everyone:
|
||
> those who paid for it and those who did not.
|
||
|
||
In 2004 author [Lawrence
|
||
Watt-Evans](http://www.ethshar.com/thesprigganexperiment0.html)used this
|
||
model to publish his newest novel. He asked his True Fans to
|
||
collectively pay $100 per month. When he got $100 he posted the next
|
||
chapter of the novel. The entire book was published online for his True
|
||
Fans, and then later in paper for all his fans. He is now writing a
|
||
second novel this way. He gets by on an estimated 200 True Fans because
|
||
he also publishes in the traditional manner — with advances from a
|
||
publisher supported by thousands of Lesser Fans. Other authors who use
|
||
fans to directly support their work are [Diane
|
||
Duane](http://www.the-big-meow.com/), [Sharon Lee and Steve
|
||
Miller](http://www.korval.com/fledgling/), and [Don
|
||
Sakers](http://www.readersadvice.com/mmeade/scatwlds/sponsor.html). Game
|
||
designer [Greg Stolze](http://www.gregstolze.com/ransom.html) employed a
|
||
similar True Fan model to launch [two pre-financed
|
||
games](http://www.danielsolis.com/meatbot/ransom.html). Fifty of his
|
||
True Fans contributed seed money for his development costs.
|
||
|
||
The genius of the True Fan model is that the fans are able to move an
|
||
artist away from the edges of the long tail to a degree larger than
|
||
their numbers indicate. They can do this in three ways: by purchasing
|
||
more per person, by spending directly so the creator keeps more per
|
||
sale, and by enabling new models of support.
|
||
|
||
New models of support include micro-patronage. Another model is
|
||
pre-financing the startup costs. Digital technology enables this fan
|
||
support to take many shapes. [Fundable](http://www.fundable.org/) is a
|
||
web-based enterprise which allows anyone to raise a fixed amount of
|
||
money for a project, while reassuring the backers the project will
|
||
happen. Fundable withholds the money until the full amount is collected.
|
||
They return the money if the minimum is not reached.
|
||
|
||
![Fundable](http://kk.org/thetechnium/Fundable.jpg)
|
||
|
||
Here’s an example from Fundable’s site;
|
||
|
||
> Amelia, a twenty-year-old classical soprano singer, pre-sold her first
|
||
> CD before entering a recording studio. “If I get $400 in pre-orders, I
|
||
> will be able to afford the rest \[of the studio costs\],” she told
|
||
> potential contributors. Fundable’s all-or-nothing model ensured that
|
||
> none of her customers would lose money if she fell short of her goal.
|
||
> Amelia sold over $940 in albums.
|
||
|
||
A thousand dollars won’t keep even a starving artist alive long, but
|
||
with serious attention, a dedicated artist can do better with their True
|
||
Fans. [Jill Sobule](http://www.jillsobule.com/jetpackintro.html), a
|
||
musician who has nurtured a sizable following over many years of touring
|
||
and recording, is doing well relying on her True Fans. Recently she
|
||
decided to go to her fans to finance the $75,000 professional recording
|
||
fees she needed for her next album. She has raised close to $50,000 so
|
||
far. By directly supporting her via their patronage, the fans gain
|
||
intimacy with their artist. According to the [Associated
|
||
Press](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_en_mu/music_making_jill_s_cd):
|
||
|
||
> Contributors can choose a level of pledges ranging from the $10
|
||
> “unpolished rock,” which earns them a free digital download of her
|
||
> disc when it’s made, to the $10,000 “weapons-grade plutonium level,”
|
||
> where she promises “you get to come and sing on my CD. Don’t worry if
|
||
> you can’t sing – we can fix that on our end.” For a $5,000
|
||
> contribution, Sobule said she’ll perform a concert in the donor’s
|
||
> house. The lower levels are more popular, where donors can earn things
|
||
> like an advanced copy of the CD, a mention in the liner notes and a
|
||
> T-shirt identifying them as a “junior executive producer” of the CD.
|
||
|
||
The usual alternative to making a living based on True Fans is poverty.
|
||
A study as recently as 1995 showed that the accepted price of being an
|
||
artist was large. Sociologist [Ruth
|
||
Towse](http://books.google.com/books?id=eDb1GI3Nr-cC&pg=PA96&vq=The+Value+of+Culture:+On+the+Relationship+Between+Economics+and+Arts&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0&sig=9QEYLk6aBQ9Cv39M2AuDDYFQ7NI#PPA99,M1)
|
||
surveyed artists in Britian and determined that on average they earned
|
||
below poverty subsistence levels.
|
||
|
||
I am suggesting there is a home for creatives in between poverty and
|
||
stardom. Somewhere lower than stratospheric bestsellerdom, but higher
|
||
than the obscurity of the long tail. I don’t know the actual true
|
||
number, but I think a dedicated artist could cultivate 1,000 True Fans,
|
||
and by their direct support using new technology, make an honest
|
||
living. I’d love to hear from anyone who might have settled on such a
|
||
path.
|
||
|
||
**Updates:**
|
||
|
||
One artist who partially relies on True Fans responds with a disclosure
|
||
of his finances:
|
||
[The Reality of Depending on True
|
||
Fans](http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/04/the_reality_of.php)
|
||
|
||
I report the results of my survey of artists supported by True Fans:
|
||
[The Case Against 1000 True
|
||
Fans](http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/04/the_case_agains.php)
|