4 ms·

I'm a big big fan of the "1000 true fans" concept as applied here. It's not for everyone but.... who knows? If you are persistent and passionate... https://k

I'm a big big fan of the "1000 true fans" concept as applied here. It's not for everyone but.... who knows? If you are persistent and passionate... https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/ https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/ https://seths.blog/2008/03/1000-true-fans/ https://seths.blog/2008/03/1000-true-fans/

WA 7y ago
What if 1,000 true fans is already a power law? Doesn’t seem a lot on a global scale, but yet, who can claim to have 1,000 true fans with a paid newsletter? For 1,000 true fans, you probably need 10,000 customers and be exposed to 100,000 people. Because 1% conversion rate to true fans seems about right. Note: this isn’t about strict numbers. 1,000 true fans paying 10 bucks a month might be enough. The same paying $2 a month? Doesn’t pay the bills of a family. I like the concept as well, because it seems a lot more approachable than trying to build a unicorn, but what if only the top 0,1% really get 1,000+ true fans? Still a power law.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  the 1000 true fans concept is people who will buy anything you put out though, so they should not just be buying your $2 a month newsletter, but also your $15 t-shirts, $2000 speaking engagements and so forth.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  > For 1,000 true fans, you probably need 10,000 customers and be exposed to 100,000 people. Because 1% conversion rate to true fans seems about right. The rule of thumb for email subscriber to paying customer is actually closer to 1% (compared to your 10%) which just means it's that much harder. I don't think there is a rule of thumb for "true fan" conversion, where it might be as high as 50% for something like Tesla and 1% for something like Comcast.
- the_watcher 7y ago
  > Note: this isn’t about strict numbers. 1,000 true fans paying 10 bucks a month might be enough. The same paying $2 a month? Doesn’t pay the bills of a family. Really? Maybe not every family (and definitely not in the Bay Area), but those numbers work out to $120-240K/year, with no requirement on where you live. EDIT: I can't be trusted with mental math. Leaving the above unchanged, but it's answering a comment that used different numbers that never actually existed. The correct numbers are $24-120K/year, which is obviously a very different discussion about feasibility.
nine_k 7y ago
The idea hinges on two important premises: (1) Almost everyone is aware of you and (2) Language is not a barrier. This may hold true for music, given a long enough time. Not so much with a newsletter which is limited by the language (at best two), and has a quite limited shelf life.
coldtea 7y ago
There are tens of thousands of music acts in Spotify, Bandcamp, etc with less than 1000 fans. So "1000 true fans" is already a big filter. In fact, e.g. for 2017, 99% of the 377 billion streams were from the top 10% of 2017’s most-streamed tracks alone. Less than 1% of streams accounted for all other music.

WA 7y ago

What if 1,000 true fans is already a power law? Doesn’t seem a lot on a global scale, but yet, who can claim to have 1,000 true fans with a paid newsletter? For 1,000 true fans, you probably need 10,000 customers and be exposed to 100,000 people. Because 1% conversion rate to true fans seems about right. Note: this isn’t about strict numbers. 1,000 true fans paying 10 bucks a month might be enough. The same paying $2 a month? Doesn’t pay the bills of a family. I like the concept as well, because it seems a lot more approachable than trying to build a unicorn, but what if only the top 0,1% really get 1,000+ true fans? Still a power law.

bryanrasmussen 7y ago
the 1000 true fans concept is people who will buy anything you put out though, so they should not just be buying your $2 a month newsletter, but also your $15 t-shirts, $2000 speaking engagements and so forth.
OnlineGladiator 7y ago
> For 1,000 true fans, you probably need 10,000 customers and be exposed to 100,000 people. Because 1% conversion rate to true fans seems about right. The rule of thumb for email subscriber to paying customer is actually closer to 1% (compared to your 10%) which just means it's that much harder. I don't think there is a rule of thumb for "true fan" conversion, where it might be as high as 50% for something like Tesla and 1% for something like Comcast.
the_watcher 7y ago
> Note: this isn’t about strict numbers. 1,000 true fans paying 10 bucks a month might be enough. The same paying $2 a month? Doesn’t pay the bills of a family. Really? Maybe not every family (and definitely not in the Bay Area), but those numbers work out to $120-240K/year, with no requirement on where you live. EDIT: I can't be trusted with mental math. Leaving the above unchanged, but it's answering a comment that used different numbers that never actually existed. The correct numbers are $24-120K/year, which is obviously a very different discussion about feasibility.

nine_k 7y ago

The idea hinges on two important premises: (1) Almost everyone is aware of you and (2) Language is not a barrier. This may hold true for music, given a long enough time. Not so much with a newsletter which is limited by the language (at best two), and has a quite limited shelf life.

coldtea 7y ago

There are tens of thousands of music acts in Spotify, Bandcamp, etc with less than 1000 fans. So "1000 true fans" is already a big filter. In fact, e.g. for 2017, 99% of the 377 billion streams were from the top 10% of 2017’s most-streamed tracks alone. Less than 1% of streams accounted for all other music.