Fewer "True Fans" Can Equal More Moneyz

I've written positively about Kevin Kelly's "1,000 True Fans" piece, how I think it's a great reframing of what it takes to have a happy creative life, and how it speaks to the DIY ethos that can be found hidden beneath the sea of crapitalism that usually suffocates PKM and the productivity scene in general. And, I'm happy to report that I'm feeling similarly about this recent "100 True Fans" piece. Here's the background to get you up to speed:

"More than a decade ago, Wired editor Kevin Kelly wrote an essay called '1,000 True Fans,' predicting that the internet would allow large swaths of people to make a living off their creations.... Rather than pursuing widespread celebrity, he argued, creators only needed to engage a modest base of “true fans”—those who will 'buy anything you produce;—to the tune of $100 per fan, per year (for a total annual income of $100,000)."

Now, setting aside that getting 1000 people to pay you 100 a year is incredibly difficult to do, the idea is, I believe, totally sound. And, attainable. And, while this may sound like capitalism 101, it's still punk. The above has basically been the M.O. of underground scenes since the dawn of the fanzine: If you can resonate with a core group of diehard fans who are willing to pay for your stuff, you might be able not starve.

Record scratch.... This new "you actually only need 100 true fans" approach takes that idea into a new place:

"Today...the global adoption of social platforms like Facebook and YouTube, the mainstreaming of the influencer model, and the rise of new creator tools has shifted the threshold for success. I believe that creators need to amass only 100 True Fans—not 1,000—paying them $1,000 a year, not $100. Today, creators can effectively make more money off fewer fans."

Now, let's set aside (again) the article's reliance on corporate surveillance capitalism platforms like FB, and the rest, as well as the parasocial grossness that is the influencer industry, so we can focus on the next part, the part about how this shift from 1000 TFs to 100 TFs can work. Not starving by getting 100 TFs is achieved by:

"[A] move away from the traditional donation model—in which users pay to benefit the *creator*—to a value model, in which users are willing to pay more for something that benefits themselves."

What I find most interesting about this shift from 1000 TFs to 100 TFs is the way it requires a shift in how we think about the fan and the creator's respective roles.

The 1000 TF model sees the fan as a supporter. This is how I've understood my readers in the past. They may get value from my work, but if they pay me, they're really just doing me a favor by supporting me. Can you see the self-deprecation hidden in there? Even when I knew my stuff was dope, I still thought of my audience and patrons as helping me. The 100 TFs flips this, and I think, correctly reorients the relationship.

In order for the 100 TF model to work (where instead of having 1000 TFs paying you $100/year, you're getting 100 TFs to pay you $1000/year), you need to assume that your fans want to get something from you. In other words, your fans need to be self motivated.

100 TFs thinking says that your fans are paying you because they want something that only you can provide. They're not trying to help you. They want you to help them. All you need to do is have something that can do that. 

Well do yaaaaaaaaaa?

https://future.com/1000-true-fans-try-100/

📦