More on "1000 True Fans"

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

Here is a (rather vulgar, in places) discussion of the "1000 True Fans" model.

I don't think it's necessary to have that many fans contributing that that level to enjoy success. I could live quite comfortably on a quarter of that. Finding 1000 people to give me $25 per year? Maybe not impossible.

So forget the original numbers. To get some use out of this theory, ask yourself: how much would you need to live on comfortably? How much would 1000 people each have to donate to you in order to reach that? Conversely, how many people would each have to donate $100 per year? Do either of those options seem achievable?

Discuss.

Comments

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I detect a great deal of anger in that post that has little to do with the theory and a lot to do with "I am angry because I don't have money." (I will ignore for now the way it suggests that art is unnecessary and that makers-of-things should have to choose between doing something for adulation and doing it for mercenary cause, as if the two should never ever touch).

I do think there's something to the theory, in that (to be honest) this is how all artists have always made their living: collectors, patrons, and "true fans" who are willing to invest in their creative output over years. Just because the internet gives people a new way to find and maintain artists doesn't mean this is some revolutionary idea. Artists have always had to figure out how to attract and keep long-term collectors/fans if they want to remain viable financially.

Hmm...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

I certainly don't agree that art and literature are unimportant. Often they're the only things that keep people sane amidst mayhem; consider the African-American tradition of songs and quilts that survived the slave days, after all.

I think what is perceived as being "new" is actually a return to something very old. For the last ... oh, century or so ... the trend has been megacorp possession of control over creativity. If you wanted to make it big in music, you had to sign with a major record company; if you wanted to be a world-famous artist, you needed gallery backing. Entrepreneurs successfully separated most of the creators from most of the audience.

But now the Internet is connecting people all over the world. It's easy for me to read the blogs of people who live in Australia and New Zealand, to be inspired by their photography of exotic-to-me places. It's easy for them to read my writing online and become fans of mine if I impress them.

There's potential to shift the relationship back to creator-audience. To make that work, we may have to unlearn the skills we learned to please intermediaries and rediscover the old ways of interacting directly with artists. I think it's different when you're pitching an idea to a marketing board than when you're pitching it to a crowd of viewers. With the former, you have to convince them that people will like it enough to buy it. With the latter, you can just ask: "I have this wild idea; are you interested in seeing more?" And if the answer is yes, you can be as wild as your audience wants to see; you can take as many risks and you and they are mutually interested in exploring.