Comments on: The Problem With 1,000 True Fans

By: Rodney Gagnon

Rodney Gagnon — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:53:25 +0000

Great emphasis on getting 1,000 fans is hard and takes a lot of effort. Effort expended on social media/self-promition comes at the expense of producing enough content for your fans. I’m thinking some coopetition must come into play to make the business model scale.

By: neworleansmusicman

neworleansmusicman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:34:09 +0000

Artists have to keep touring to keep obtaining new $100 fans as they lose others.

By: brian botkiller

brian botkiller — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:53:43 +0000

Despite what you say here, I’m sorry – it is still the right way to go. 1,000 true fans isn’t just saying that you hit 1,000 and that’s good – the point of it is to make a goal and reach it – after you do that, you see it climb from there.

I realize that you want to pick it apart and point out all the ways it can’t work, would be too hard, etc. – but I have to say that that does nothing but set you back. Put aside your issues with the idea and just go forward.

By: John Scalzi

John Scalzi — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:47:59 +0000

Greg Stolze:

“One minor correction is that Kelly doesn’t think 1000 TFs give you $100,000. If you have 1000 TFs, he thinks you’ll GET $100,000, because for each TF you have ten casual fans who buy a book or something a year, and perhaps more fans who buy every third book.”

That’s not what he wrote:

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.

By: Greg Stolze

Greg Stolze — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:54:16 +0000

One minor correction is that Kelly doesn’t think 1000 TFs give you $100,000. If you have 1000 TFs, he thinks you’ll GET $100,000, because for each TF you have ten casual fans who buy a book or something a year, and perhaps more fans who buy every third book. TFs are the foundation — the bedrock that you can count on. But surrounding them are a cloud of people who aren’t as reliable but are still present.

I’ve got less than 1000 TFs, I reckon, and I make less than $100,000 a year. But I’m making far, far more than I made working for traditional publishers. Then again, hobby games are a strange economic beast, adapted for an odd little niche. Nevertheless, I think the core points ideas of (1) cultivating fans and (2) letting the audience find you, rather than vice versa are both very useful insights.

-G.

By: Randy Chertkow

Randy Chertkow — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:29:26 +0000

I also could stop thinking about this concept, and your issues mentioned here are really on target. I have yet more issues, at least, from the point of view of a musician, which is what I am. Primarily among them, to make enough product to sell every year. But also that most musicians are in bands, rather than singular, which makes the numbers difficult to reach.

But there’s still another issue: Most pro musicians have a significant income from music licensing and similar money sources. So, my question is: do you focus on getting your fans to buy more, or do you focus on getting more fans? The latter makes it more likely to follow in Jonathan Coulton’s footsteps, who managed to license a song to G4 for their show “Code Monkeys.”

There’s more in a blog entry here:

http://blog.indiebandsurvivalguide.com/?p=10

By: dunc

dunc — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:20:38 +0000

I’m also a touch sceptical to be honest -as more usually with music but also with other arts, many ‘creative’ projects are collaberative. My drummer would kill me if he thought I was pocketing $100,000 per year and expecting him to survive off tins of beans.

By: thecapitalclinic

thecapitalclinic — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:24:35 +0000

I view with wonder both the adulation and controversy created by Kelly’s article. Its title, “1000 True Fans”, is only a metaphorical benchmark, yet it is precisely because it is a powerful and easy to grasp symbol that most of those giving the article either a “thumbs up” or “thumb down” fail to get the basic premise, which is reflected in Kelly’s simple and true statement: ”Direct fans are best.” The key word to tag here is, direct.

Those taking the “contra-Kelly” position are quick to point out that $100,000 per year would be a dream come true for most struggling artists with day-jobs who are on the verge of giving up their dreams of making any money at all. However, most critics overlook the important point that Kelly uses the “formalized” term, 1000 True Fans, to represent a process or “path” rather than a specific result.

Even within the long tail environment fostered by new technologies, there are practical opportunities for artists to make a living by focusing on “the heads within the tails” rather than the stardom of the “heads within the heads.” As Kelly notes, this is accomplished by using the power of “the very technology that creates the long tail” to establish direct rather then indirect connections.

For those interested, we elaborate on these points at the Nightschool For Entrepreneurs column at The Fix at Fuzz: http://www.fuzz.com/articles/article/Nightschool-49

By: Julian Moore

Julian Moore — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:35:43 +0000

OK enough of the semantics, anyway

Great article and refreshing to read some truth for a change

I jumped on the 1000 Fans Bandwagon when the original article came out. I think one of the reasons for it’s popularity amongst other things is that it actually set a goal for people to aim for.

The internet is so vast that it’s easy to be aimless and wonder what you should be doing, and very hard to set targets for. What this article offerered was a cosy bubble you could sit in amongst the sprawl.

Kevin Kelly’s article was good, and so is this blog post.

By: lizzie

lizzie — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:19:34 +0000

You’re welcome, John.