More Thoughts on 1000 True Fans

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

e_cunningham has a post discussing the "1000 True Fans" concept. She is right in asserting that writers get a tiny percentage of profits from most publishing methods. But when I look at my spending habits, I realize that the people for whom I am closest to being a True Fan are doing cyberfunded creativity or other self-promotion, which means that everything I send them goes straight into their pockets, except for a handful of change to PayPal and the Post Office.

I'm curious how other people behave in this regard. For the top five or so people whose art/writing/etc. you adore the most ... are you buying it through traditional models so they only get a tiny percentage of your money, or are you buying directly from them so they pocket most or all of what you spend on their work? And why do you do it that way?

Comments

[kadiera.livejournal.com]

These days I don't really qualify as a fan in any definition - I've cut spending to the bone in order to promote some other goals in life.

However...In the one case in the last 5 years or so that I far and away qualified, I was buying direct from the artist (more ecommerce than cyberfunded creativity, but still, it illustrates the point).

In her case, it wasn't that she was the only person I could get similar items from - frankly, I could have made the things she was making - it was the *experience* of buying from her. And at $50-$80 per piece...I have about 9 or 10 of her pieces, bought over a 2 year period, and I know I'm not the only one with that kind of a collection of her work.

This particular person is a jewelry artist. At the time, she was only making one-of-a-kind pieces, and her whole site was geared towards the idea that only *special* people bought from her (and you *are* special, aren't you?) Every package was packed in ways to say this, every item came with an authenticity card, she had a "collectors club" for people who spent lots of money. She encourages people to showcase their collections on the forums on her site, and has a whole interactive area.

She was wildly successful - so successful that she's now doing a one of a kind piece, followed by a series of pieces in the same color scheme and style...and I don't know that I'd buy from her these days, because it's lost the thrill of being the only person to get that piece, and of having to check back every time she listed new items in case it was the *perfect* piece that I had to have - and I had to get it before anyone else because there was only the one.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Cool model! Though a touch self-limiting, as you observed. :)


For my part, these days I'm more likely to buy directly from an artist than buy anything that involved a middleman. In some cases, I've hunted down the person and asked them if I could give them money directly.

But half of that is because I've come to believe the system is flawed and I no longer want to reward it.

[kadiera.livejournal.com]

I really think she could have raised prices and still sold out every piece she made, because it was never "can I afford this" when I was looking at her stuff...it was, "if I find the right piece, I *WILL* have it" :-)

But I agree - lately, when I find something I like, I go track it to its source. It's become habit as a part of our business, because there's no sense in paying an extra markup, but also because it just seems more reasonable to support the original source directly when possible.

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

That makes sense. I favor direct purchase myself, when it's an option.

Wow!

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

The jewelry sounds awesome.

I actually have one piece of jewelry that I commissioned and paid extra to have it stay unique. Some others are unique just because of the materials; you can't really duplicate a necklace based on fishbone pearls.

When I make jewelry or other magical artifacts, items are often unique because they're often made especially for one person. People do seem to be thrilled at having one-of-a-kind items ... particularly in today's mass-market world.

Hmm. That could be useful for cyberfunded creativity, in any medium that lends itself well to uniquities.

[minor-architect.livejournal.com]

I'd say that the money I spend on artwork/crafts/writing/music/etc. is split pretty evenly between the two distribution methods. And while I agree that it is better to buy such things directly from the people who created them, so that they may retain a larger share of the profits, this option does not always exist. For instance, I would never be able to buy a book of short stories directly from my favorite author, Harlan Ellison, because he does not self-publish his works. Nor would I be able to shoot a few extra dollars his way via PayPal simply because I like his stuff, because he doesn't have an online presence. Heck, by his own admission, the man doesn't even own a computer! So if I wish to fill in those gaps in my own Collection of Ellison, I must continue to buy his books through the mainstream publishing houses. I have no other choice.

With this in mind, I suppose all of my purchasing decisions simply answer the same basic question: Do I like this work enough to spend money and living-space on it? If that answer is yes, then I will buy that work through the best available method.