14 ms·

1k True Fans? Try 100 (2020)

152 points by superasn 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
earthboundkid 4y ago
One true fan but it’s Marc Andreessen.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  That is also a successful (and much more traditional) model.
- scandox 4y ago
  One true fan that happens to be your boss is really the classic model
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    Unfortunately they are a fan of having your butt on a seat (sit stand desks excepted) for 40h/w.
  - bluedays 4y ago
    This is my current model. I actually got a lot of work because of this.
alephnan 4y ago
> We’re already seeing this shift, according to creator platforms... Patreon... Podia... Teachable No OnlyFans? > One creator on Teachable who advises artists on how to sell their art made $110,000 last year with only 76 students, at an average of $1,437 per course. Another creator who teaches physiotherapy made $141,000 with only 61 students, at an average price point of $2,314 per course So sell shovels?
- wodenokoto 4y ago
  > So sell shovels? For those who don't get the reference, there's a saying along the lines of "During a gold rush, sell shovels", implying that everybody joining the gold rush needs tools to dig, but not everybody who digs will strike gold.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dav_Oz 4y ago
  To further increase the sells of your shovels as a next step you pay successful gold diggers (or actors) to amplify the message how easy it is to find gold, as a side job you show how easy it is to sell shovels ... at some point you arrive at the pinnacle of the current financialization of every aspect of life: you sell people the philosopher's stone itself to transmute everything into gold i.e. how easy it is to sell anything, really. It is remarkable how long this spawned ouroboros can bite through itself given the context of financial desperation (no savings, inflation, no stable source of income). At some point I came to the sober realization that younger generations, now, have no clue how people lived back then. It must have been even more terrible.
- garbagetime 4y ago
  This article was written a couple years back. I'm not sure OnlyFans was as big then as it is now.
pearjuice 4y ago
I'm wondering how much of these shifts in monthly revenue for creators are actually additional signs of inflation.
tiborsaas 4y ago
This might be misunderstood as followers on social media, but a follower on social media does not equal to a fan. They address this at: > Here’s how it works: A creator can cultivate a large, free audience on horizontal social platforms or through an email list. Fair enough, but let's say the TrueFans™ are in the range of 0.1% - 1% of your followers. That translates to 10k-100k followers which is still incredibly hard to build.
- alephnan 4y ago
  > let's say the TrueFans™ are in the range of 0.1% - 1% of your followers. That translates to 10k-100k followers which is still incredibly hard to build. In this case, I have no fans.
- oefrha 4y ago
  A true fan in TFA is willing to spend $1k a year. That’s gotta be way less than 0.1% in terms of social media followers (usually). A friend of mine has close to 3 million social media followers on one platform alone, and the number of “true fans (tm)” paying more than $1k a year is about ten to twenty. Of course it heavily depends on the category, too.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    I think it depends on how you decide to structure your offerings? For example, someone who emphasizes 1-1 instruction can shift some people to much higher payment tiers, at the cost of turning away a larger number of people who aren't interested in that sort of thing.
- Existenceblinks 4y ago
  I really hate this building audience things in the past couple years. It makes me want to quit twitter.
  - mattgreenrocks 4y ago
    Social media changed to be brand-centric pretty early on. It's only natural that users would respond by becoming brands themselves.
abirch 4y ago
For me it'd be hard to pay 1K a year although I could afford it. Heck it was only back in 2019 that I'd force myself to buy apps that make me happy, even though I'd drop 6 dollars on a coffee without thinking twice. I'm definitely a slave to my mentality.
quickthrower2 4y ago
I have heard this kind of stuff for years (going back to early 2000s). Different ways of dividing your salary by N and then figuring out what you need to offer to get S/N per customer. Usually if someone is saying stuff like this they have a “solution” to sell you to help you get there. You are now the fan rather than the star.
Existenceblinks 4y ago
Newcomers started doing this on twitter for a while and turn social media from platform ads to federation ads network .. it's getting worse, like everybody is literally selling to each other. Remember old "long time no see" friends shown up trying to sell you something? Aghh now everyone pretends to be friend and sell you something.
- natly 4y ago
  Yeah that's a part of twitter I don't interact with. It's so cringy and obvious when people spew marketing advice like this and then turn around and act like your friend. As if their ulterior motive can't be deduced from what they advice others to do. I try spending my time with kinder more normal people instead.
  - Existenceblinks 4y ago
    There are also twitter extension apps coming up that helps flooding twitter. And tech twitter is not moving on yet on meme and drama.
- tluyben2 4y ago
  The word 'friend' is really abused these days (guess because of Facebook etc) and people are somehow falling for it. Seems it's becoming quite common (in my circles anyway) that people use the term friend for basically everyone they ever talked or wrote to and 'good friend' for people they had a deeper than casual talk with. And then the drama after because these 'friends' probably didn't think the same about them (if they even remembered meeting them).
  - Akronymus 4y ago
    I have been called old for using acquaintance a twice. Which feels really weird to me, as I am not that old. ('97) I'd say I have about 3 friends at MOST, altough, more like 1 that I consider to truly be a friend. And I agree, friend is completely misused. On steam, friend means someone you want to be able to contact. On discord its someone you trust (more than regular people) or one you allow to contact you at all (if dms are otherwise turned off) and so on.
wodenokoto 4y ago
I'm quite interested in learning more about what kind of things people are willing to pay 80-100 USD a month for on Patreon. The author also throws around some percentages of the growth of hig end payers on Patreon, but no hard numbers. Did it increase by 5 people? Are high paying patrons growing faster than low paying?
- ringworld 4y ago
  While it doesn't fit TFA's premise of 100 on one thing, Patreon is used as a donation platform by many groups, for example i know of several online radio platforms using it (when asked "why not Liberapay?", they say Patreon helps take care of business and tax issues, provides an API, etc.). DKFM uses the API to display their Patreon donors on the website for example. Sci-fi publications use it as well for monthly subscriptions - the general math holds up that some people spend $5/$10 per thing totalling up to $100/mo (or some variation). But I don't think that supports what TFA is suggesting $100/thing/mo), that feels like a lot. They might believe the Patreon user only supports one thing/mo, but I'm not sure that's true - people have varied interests based on my travels.
  - ryanbrunner 4y ago
    > when asked "why not Liberapay?", they say Patreon helps take care of business and tax issues, provides an API, etc. Another big advantage, especially in audio / video formats, is that you can say "support me on Patreon" and people will know what you're talking about, vs. needing to spell out a URL for people.
- esrauch 4y ago
  On Twitch people commonly give $100 for absolute nothing, just to be thanked by the creator live, which they would do for significantly less money as well, often just $5. I suspect the top tiers at Patreon must work the same, there's some benefit there but people are doing it because they are a megafan and want to show it. I'd be intested in how many of them are living in a false belief / parasocial relationship though.
  - 4y ago
RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
> Another creator who teaches physiotherapy made $141,000 with only 61 students, at an average price point of $2,314 per course. This seems like a scam. To be a physiotherapist in the United States, you have to have a bachelor’s degree (4 years) followed by a 3 year Doctor of Physical Therapy degree from an accredited college. https://www.apta.org/your-career/careers-in-physical-therapy/becoming-a-pt https://www.apta.org/your-career/careers-in-physical-therapy... So the people paying that money definitely aren’t making progress to become an actual physiotherapist. There is also a physiotherapist assistant training which can be completed in just a couple of years. These programs are offered by community colleges and are likely cheaper and more useful than an online course.
- newaccount74 4y ago
  I don't know anything about this teacher, but they might already be physiotherapists and doing additional courses on some speciality. It's common for health workers to take additional classes to stay on top of things. Some countries require certain professions to take some number of classes every few years to keep their license.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    And describing those situations as "Fans" just feels wrong. It is clearly offering a service as product. And basically buying the possibly relevant certificate for participation.
m3kw9 4y ago
I’d try 1 if you can even, then 10, then..
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
gammabetadelta 4y ago
love is hard to foster solve a deep and painful problem and people will follow give people meaning and purpose is why religion is so powerful the best products look like religion (see tesla as an example) the fans take on the identity of the product speaks more to the human condition and our need to belong, the biggest fans are rarely healthy folks
Applejinx 4y ago
Of course this poses other challenges. You'll end up an 'artist' of gilding toilet seats for rich and demanding 'customers' who are very clear on what they want. That ain't me: my branding is aligned with what my actual values and heritage are, and it's profoundly oriented towards the folks who have skills and dreams but no resources, and so I make open source software supporting 'em. I get excited when I can support a new platform like the new Raspberry Pi, not about thinking up stuff to excite about three of my audience who could throw me a hundred bucks a month. If I go over to serving only them I'll be doing only as they direct, and they absolutely don't have the vision to run my show and get anywhere worthwhile with it. This doesn't make the article worthless. I've been thinking very hard about how I can expand into hardware DIY and the article hints at possibilities there. I can try to come up with a DIY synth module that comes in under $20 for my primary base… or, apparently, if I can make the ultimate speaker cabinet using all my tricks and sell it to someone for $200, I could also execute it in the most sophisticated possible way, and sell it for $2000 to a superfan who is that kind of wealthy. The $20 guy can't afford either, but the $2000 guy doesn't need me to hold it to $200, they need me to make it special for them. Risk of course is if the $2000 guy doesn't exist or doesn't show up. Trying to target only the wealthy is dangerous. They are as fickle as your attitude towards them is. There's exactly one guy out there who randomly gave me $1000, and rather than demand a product, he wanted me to think about spherical harmonics in the belief that I might come up with something helpful in the field that interested him. I suspect there are guys out there who would likewise give me $1000 on the condition that I abandon what I do and start doing what they would do if they were me…
- ryanbrunner 4y ago
  I think the difference between what you're saying and this article is that you have customers, not patrons (or you're treating your patrons like customers). The people who shell out $1K a year aren't generally doing it because they are getting a product or service in return that is worth $1K / year to them, they're doing it because they believe in the mission of the creator and want to help support that. Most of our creators that have a "crazy amount of money" plan generally don't offer anything extra beyond gratitude to the big spenders (public gratitude, but still just gratitude). And oddly enough, the big spenders tend to be the least demanding. So long as you don't overcharge them or something, they don't have many demands, because they were never thinking of it as purchasing something in the first place.
ryanbrunner 4y ago
I work for a company that's very much like Patreon for podcasters (Supercast). The people who will pay $1K a year to support a creator absolutely exist, but they are a small subset of the people who will pay $100 / year, which is itself a very small subset of the people who will listen to your podcast. Some rough numbers: - A podcast with an engaged fan base can usually get about 5% of their listeners to support them monthly / yearly - Of the paid supporters, 1-2% are going to be the big spenders who spend in $1K a year territory. So sure, you can be self-sufficient on 100 $1K a year fans, but to get there, you need 5,000 $100 / year fans (which needs 100,000 listeners), and not doing anything for them is leaving money on the table.
- cushychicken 4y ago
  That's encouraging if you think of it as a funnel optimization problem. What can I do for the $100 per year set? T shirts or other swag? Signed merch? What can I do for the $10 per year set? Stickers?
  - mcv 4y ago
    Interestingly, I think most creators are already doing this intuitively without any analysis telling them to.
  - ryanbrunner 4y ago
    Surprisingly we don't have a ton of creators offering swag stuff, I'd have assumed that it would have been a bigger draw (Some of that might have to do with us not really offering any support on our platform, but it's not a common request either). If there's a "product" to sell, it's usually either the content itself, or access through things like community. But like I said in another comment, how much people spend isn't very correlated with what they get out of it at all.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - CosmicShadow 4y ago
jefftk 4y ago
(2020)
mcherm 4y ago
So the point here is that you don't need as many fans if your fans are sufficiently rich? I mean, it's true: one can make more money by [selling to / servicing / having as a patron] the rich, but it's not a new observation.
Havoc 4y ago
That does seem about right Though the composition also matters. A small twitch streamer that recognises all their regulars usernames and interacts with them individually is likely to have a much higher concentration of die hard fans. So there the math works easier despite lower absolute numbers. And that in turn is determined by what type of content it is and what type of parasocial relationship it is
bko 4y ago
> Since 2017, the share of new patrons paying more than $100 per month—or $1,200 per year—has grown 21 percent I think this is worded ingenuously. I originally read it that new patrons paying $100 per month has grown to 21%, but upon second reading I see that the percent has grown 21%. But what's the base line? Why not reference that? Is it relative compared to other subs (e.g. percent paying $100+ went from 1% -> 1.23%) or absolute (e.g. 1k people paying $100+ -> 1,230). I would think a large percent of that is probably friends and family. Does anyone personally support a stranger creator to the tune of $100+ a month? It seems like a lot. What's the thought process and what do you expect?
EGreg 4y ago
Immanuel Kant once formulated the categorical imperative … something is moral if it can work universally and be sustainable. How about economically? Is it sustainable to have every artist supported by 100 true fans? Maybe. It means enough people have disposable income to spend $1000 a year on something, and that every artist finds a niche. Those artists who already got 100 fans would drop out of the marketplace, leaving the others until everyone found a dance partner (like with dating). Viewed more broadly, though, this would go heavily against the Pareto principle, where some artists simply achieve escape velocity and get to a different level because they never leave the market, while most artists do not produce anything that people would really pay to consume, even if they discovered it over and over. It is like polygamy starving many young men of mates, and polygamy goes hand in hand with war. I think a much more sustainable model is a UBI that isn’t truly “unconditional” but a gated community where successful artists and their patrons voluntarily agree to redistribute some wealth to new artists that keep showing progress in their craft. Crypto can be done to redistribute this wealth. But that would mean there would be quotas on who can join as a new struggling artist and get the UBI subsidy, since it’s free money for any scammer, especially globally it could pay for a lot more where cost of living is small. People would try to make 10 accounts. It is essentially voluntary socialism online. And one major problem with libertarian socialism and why it can’t solve poverty is that people don’t want to let in too many others into their subsidy program that pays non-market rates for what could be art no one wants. So yes the workers own the factory collectively and work 2 hour days but they do hazing for new people. That’s what countries do with immigration and fraternities do on college campuses.
- m348e912 4y ago
  >>I think a much more sustainable model is a UBI that isn’t truly “unconditional” but a gated community where successful artists and their patrons voluntarily agree to redistribute some wealth to new artists that keep showing progress in their craft. It seems like you're inferring that unconditional UBI is not sustainable and therefore immoral according to Kant's definition. While that position may ruffle some feathers, you may have a point. How do you ensure that under conditional UBI that recipients are adequately redistributing their productivity/wealth?
varispeed 4y ago
This kind of fan driven art transform artists into dancing monkeys. I mean, there is nothing wrong in that - but makes art bland and utilitarian. It changes thinking from expressing oneself, pushing boundaries, to what can I do to make my fans continue to pay $5. The soul somehow gets lost. Many artists cannot fit themselves into such regime and end up giving up. I guess that's how humans work.
- circlefavshape 4y ago
  This bothers me too. I get tons of social media ads for how to make money from music, one of them is Savvy Musician - a stay-at-home Mom with 5 kids who makes Celtic Metal. Her advice centers on finding your micro-niche, which to me feels like just writing the same song over and over, and then digging in it looks like most of her income is from selling merch, so the music ends up being just ads for t-shirts and mugs.
mrweasel 4y ago
Doesn't this sound like inherently bad advice? Fewer number of "fans" means that you risk is centralized around those few fans and their particular requests and demands. I can honestly see this getting very dark, very quickly. You would rarely argue that a business should centralize around only a limited number of customers.
annie_muss 4y ago
I think the shift from big companies deciding the winners to democratized content creators Isa shift in the right direction. However, has anyone tried to quantify just how difficult it is to get those 100? Even for unpaid followers/listeners I've never managed to get more than a handful.
newaccount74 4y ago
What the article is describing isn't "fans" as much as plain old "customers". Almost all the examples given in the article are people doing courses. If you sell a course for $1000, then the person buying it isn't a "fan" who just gives you money, the buyer is just a customer who buys a service. The only thing new about this is that it's happening online; offering courses for $1000 is not exactly a new thing, it's a business that has existed for ever. And I'm pretty sure that most of these customers aren't long-time fans. People will pay for access to a course, but they aren't going to take the course over and over again.
- lozenge 4y ago
  These aren't educational courses, they're self-help/improvement courses. "Starts with the user's needs and pain points - motivated by self-interest - desire for improvement, transformation and/or exclusive access" So, you need to get fit/get in shape! $40/month for my nutrition and exercise coaching! Go green and zero-waste with my advice! How to teach your kids! Yoga and meditation to improve your health! How to pick up women! Break into your dream career/TV writing/comedy! Be your own boss! Etc, etc. Some needs are never satiated.
- altdataseller 4y ago
  But it's the VC world. They need to come up with new, innovative concepts so they can be seen as a thought leader! /s
  - rchaud 4y ago
    The original essay that this pulls its title from from was written in 2008, and used examples of self-published authors and musicians - purely creative works. None of the startup-bubble, hustle-culture fueled BS that infected the following decade. VCs are only interested monetizing the "product" aspect of creative ventures so they rephrase the key concepts in MBA blandspeak.
- GeorgeBanica 4y ago
  >What the article is describing isn't "fans" as much as plain old "customers". This doesn't apply to webnovels. There are people there making over $1000 a month (some over $15 000) publishing completely free webnovels.
bradhe 4y ago
Why stop there? Why not 10?
- trynumber9 4y ago
  Why not 1? Just marry a rich fan/customer. I'm kidding.
armchairhacker 4y ago
Yeah, in an ideal world content creators could make an entire salary off of donations and offering simple perks and exclusive access. But actually this is a terrible career advice and relatively few people actually end up making anywhere close to $100k on Twitch or Patreon. For each example the author mentions there are 100s if not 1,000s more who are wasting their time. We just aren’t a society where most people donate thousands or even hundreds of dollars out of altruism or for “exclusive access” except in a few niche scenarios. I personally subscribe to a few content creators on Patreon. These people are very talented and have die-hard fans, because frankly their work is seriously exceptional and unique, and they make money. But not $1000 or even $100 per person, more like $1000 a month in total. The average subscriber donates ~$5 per month. That’s not to say you shouldn’t do Patreon, in fact I think Patreon is a great tool to give you a) motivation, b) feedback, and c) a decent supplement to your income which is at least part of what you deserve for your work. But don’t think you can quit your job and do Patreon full time, that won’t happen unless you’re especially lucky or successful, and it takes years of work. And don’t think doing Patreon full time is any easier than a full-time job either. Not to mention, the audience who donates is often very different than your main audience, who are very different than the creator himself/herself. Often what gets the most money isn’t what the most people want: case in point, mobile games, or at least mobile-style AAA games. And, often what gets the most views (and thus ad revenue) isn’t what the creator likes to create: case in point, clickbait videos and the “kid-ification” of popular YouTube channels. Work on your passion, but don’t expect to work full-time on it.
- dubswithus 4y ago
  Cum Town makes close to 100k per month on Patreon. Proof that you can make a lot of money by just fucking around.
  - duxup 4y ago
    Well someone can ... "you" probably can't ;)
    - dubswithus 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
oceanplexian 4y ago
Obviously this is HN and not r/Livestreamfail, but the vast majority of Super Fans are not buying courses or supporting the development of content. The real Super Fans have an unhealthy obsession with an online personality and think they are going to buy a friendship, or a girlfriend, or some other reciprocity. I worked in this industry for a bit. A lot of times big donors will dump their life savings or steal a family member or relative's credit card (Which is why the rate of chargebacks is so high). The companies pushing this have all the data and know exactly what's going on, but market to this demographic anyway. IMO it's no different than a Casino taking advantage of someone with a gambling addiction. It's not a "Passion Economy" it's an economy of exploitation and social dysfunction.
- bryans 4y ago
  I've consulted with several hundred live streamers, and none of what you're saying is reflective of their experiences. It is outrageously false and disparaging to claim that the vast majority (or even a significant portion) of large contributors are somehow dysfunctional and that content creators are exploiting them. Some people build cars for fun and spend their disposable income on that experience. Other people enjoy online content and spend their disposable income ensuring that content keeps getting made, or can be made even better. To declare an entire populations' preferred hobby as "dysfunctional" is plainly inflammatory and entirely inappropriate. > The companies pushing this have all the data and know exactly what's going on, but market to this demographic anyway. "The companies" aren't marketing high-cost options in any way. Twitch's highest subscription tier is $25/mo. Patreon suggests a higher tier of $30. Those are not "ruin mom's credit" or "dump your life savings" prices, so it's disingenuous (at best) to suggest that something nefarious and exploitative is happening in regards to platforms' marketing efforts.
  - mjr00 4y ago
    > "The companies" aren't marketing high-cost options in any way. Twitch's highest subscription tier is $25/mo. Patreon suggests a higher tier of $30. Those are not "ruin mom's credit" or "dump your life savings" prices, so it's disingenuous (at best) to suggest that something nefarious and exploitative is happening in regards to platforms' marketing efforts. You're ignoring superchats and tips which is where most of the money comes from. Watch any fairly popular livestream, especially during the "just chatting" style periods, and you'll see $500, $1000 or higher superchats getting dumped in every few minutes. I mainly watch VTubers (never paid one money, for the record...) and the so-called "Girlfriend Experience" (or Boyfriend Experience, to a much lesser extent) is a real thing. Look at what happened to Uruha Rushia -- she accidentally leaked that she was dating someone and that caused her entire contract to get terminated.[0] Her "GFE" style made her the top Hololive earner in 2021, making $1.6 million from superchats alone.[1] [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/t06ryl/what_is_going_on_with_uruha_rushias_termination/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/t06ryl/what_i... [1] https://animecorner.me/hololive-vtubers-dominate-top-10-list-of-most-super-chats-received https://animecorner.me/hololive-vtubers-dominate-top-10-list...
next_xibalba 4y ago
Keep an eye out for my next blog post: “100 true fans? Try 10”
stakkur 4y ago
Maybe. Sort of. What I'd really like to see is some sort of data on long-term income from these sorts of models. Yes, I know there are some--but I haven't seen it widely successful over several years or more for more than the '1%'.
paulpauper 4y ago
Why stop at 100 fans when you can have one winning lottery ticket or one sugar daddy. "100/1000 true fans theory" ignores the difficulty and luck required in getting those 100-1000 paying fans. It's a nice story or idea, but impractical for the vast majority of people. Getting even a handful of fans is probably very hard for most people unless you are lucky or famous.
- Applejinx 4y ago
  A good observation. If you are the creator trying to please one of your ten very wealthy super-patrons, have eyes on the back of your head because there will be thousands of people, some of 'em better than you, who will want to win away your patron's custom. You're probably not special enough to hang on to your ultra-wealthy super-patron. There will be someone younger and cuter who'll come along and take 'em from you. Metaphorically, if not literally. And if you've devoted your life to trying to be their ultimate creator, and they leave, then you don't have much of a fall-back position. You've specialized around something that has been taken away. Your branding, your identity, is 'super-patron's ideal artist' and that's no longer true. Nasty.
egypturnash 4y ago
I had a lengthy reply here but really it comes down to one thing: Andresson Horowhatsit can either start giving every creator on Patreon a few hundred a month, or they can fuck right off. Their "100 true fans" model proposed here is not true fans at all in the sense Kelly meant, and if I pivoted my Patreon to doing the kind of stuff they're advocating, it would involve doing a ton of crap that's tedious work to me, and constantly warping my work around what I think my bigger supporters want instead of making what I want to create and trusting my fans to keep on wanting to follow wherever the Muses lead me. Also if any of you FAANG types have a thousand bucks a month you're not using, I will gladly take it and convert it to goofy furry porn, and give you absolutely no training or special treatment. https://www.patreon.com/egypturnash https://www.patreon.com/egypturnash
simne 4y ago
It depends. In reality, much easier to work with 1k true fans model. Exceptions are, when your expensive product is in high demand, but not scaled well, so you HAVE to limit number of clients, because you just cannot make more sales. What this could be? One example I hear from CG community - CG Grooming Artist - at the moment in high demand and highly paid, and many firms accept freelancers, but not all CG firms need it.
SMAAART 4y ago
Just another observation about The Long Tail, the top 0.1% of the long tail can do well with 100 patrons. I bet that Damien Hirst has < 100 patrons that contribute >80% of his revenue.

152 points by superasn 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

earthboundkid 4y ago

One true fan but it’s Marc Andreessen.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
That is also a successful (and much more traditional) model.
scandox 4y ago
One true fan that happens to be your boss is really the classic model
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Unfortunately they are a fan of having your butt on a seat (sit stand desks excepted) for 40h/w.
- bluedays 4y ago
  This is my current model. I actually got a lot of work because of this.

alephnan 4y ago

> We’re already seeing this shift, according to creator platforms... Patreon... Podia... Teachable No OnlyFans? > One creator on Teachable who advises artists on how to sell their art made $110,000 last year with only 76 students, at an average of $1,437 per course. Another creator who teaches physiotherapy made $141,000 with only 61 students, at an average price point of $2,314 per course So sell shovels?

wodenokoto 4y ago
> So sell shovels? For those who don't get the reference, there's a saying along the lines of "During a gold rush, sell shovels", implying that everybody joining the gold rush needs tools to dig, but not everybody who digs will strike gold.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dav_Oz 4y ago
To further increase the sells of your shovels as a next step you pay successful gold diggers (or actors) to amplify the message how easy it is to find gold, as a side job you show how easy it is to sell shovels ... at some point you arrive at the pinnacle of the current financialization of every aspect of life: you sell people the philosopher's stone itself to transmute everything into gold i.e. how easy it is to sell anything, really. It is remarkable how long this spawned ouroboros can bite through itself given the context of financial desperation (no savings, inflation, no stable source of income). At some point I came to the sober realization that younger generations, now, have no clue how people lived back then. It must have been even more terrible.
garbagetime 4y ago
This article was written a couple years back. I'm not sure OnlyFans was as big then as it is now.

pearjuice 4y ago

I'm wondering how much of these shifts in monthly revenue for creators are actually additional signs of inflation.

tiborsaas 4y ago

This might be misunderstood as followers on social media, but a follower on social media does not equal to a fan. They address this at: > Here’s how it works: A creator can cultivate a large, free audience on horizontal social platforms or through an email list. Fair enough, but let's say the TrueFans™ are in the range of 0.1% - 1% of your followers. That translates to 10k-100k followers which is still incredibly hard to build.

alephnan 4y ago
> let's say the TrueFans™ are in the range of 0.1% - 1% of your followers. That translates to 10k-100k followers which is still incredibly hard to build. In this case, I have no fans.
oefrha 4y ago
A true fan in TFA is willing to spend $1k a year. That’s gotta be way less than 0.1% in terms of social media followers (usually). A friend of mine has close to 3 million social media followers on one platform alone, and the number of “true fans (tm)” paying more than $1k a year is about ten to twenty. Of course it heavily depends on the category, too.
- jefftk 4y ago
  I think it depends on how you decide to structure your offerings? For example, someone who emphasizes 1-1 instruction can shift some people to much higher payment tiers, at the cost of turning away a larger number of people who aren't interested in that sort of thing.
Existenceblinks 4y ago
I really hate this building audience things in the past couple years. It makes me want to quit twitter.
- mattgreenrocks 4y ago
  Social media changed to be brand-centric pretty early on. It's only natural that users would respond by becoming brands themselves.

abirch 4y ago

For me it'd be hard to pay 1K a year although I could afford it. Heck it was only back in 2019 that I'd force myself to buy apps that make me happy, even though I'd drop 6 dollars on a coffee without thinking twice. I'm definitely a slave to my mentality.

quickthrower2 4y ago

I have heard this kind of stuff for years (going back to early 2000s). Different ways of dividing your salary by N and then figuring out what you need to offer to get S/N per customer. Usually if someone is saying stuff like this they have a “solution” to sell you to help you get there. You are now the fan rather than the star.

Existenceblinks 4y ago

Newcomers started doing this on twitter for a while and turn social media from platform ads to federation ads network .. it's getting worse, like everybody is literally selling to each other. Remember old "long time no see" friends shown up trying to sell you something? Aghh now everyone pretends to be friend and sell you something.

natly 4y ago
Yeah that's a part of twitter I don't interact with. It's so cringy and obvious when people spew marketing advice like this and then turn around and act like your friend. As if their ulterior motive can't be deduced from what they advice others to do. I try spending my time with kinder more normal people instead.
- Existenceblinks 4y ago
  There are also twitter extension apps coming up that helps flooding twitter. And tech twitter is not moving on yet on meme and drama.
tluyben2 4y ago
The word 'friend' is really abused these days (guess because of Facebook etc) and people are somehow falling for it. Seems it's becoming quite common (in my circles anyway) that people use the term friend for basically everyone they ever talked or wrote to and 'good friend' for people they had a deeper than casual talk with. And then the drama after because these 'friends' probably didn't think the same about them (if they even remembered meeting them).
- Akronymus 4y ago
  I have been called old for using acquaintance a twice. Which feels really weird to me, as I am not that old. ('97) I'd say I have about 3 friends at MOST, altough, more like 1 that I consider to truly be a friend. And I agree, friend is completely misused. On steam, friend means someone you want to be able to contact. On discord its someone you trust (more than regular people) or one you allow to contact you at all (if dms are otherwise turned off) and so on.

wodenokoto 4y ago

I'm quite interested in learning more about what kind of things people are willing to pay 80-100 USD a month for on Patreon. The author also throws around some percentages of the growth of hig end payers on Patreon, but no hard numbers. Did it increase by 5 people? Are high paying patrons growing faster than low paying?

ringworld 4y ago
While it doesn't fit TFA's premise of 100 on one thing, Patreon is used as a donation platform by many groups, for example i know of several online radio platforms using it (when asked "why not Liberapay?", they say Patreon helps take care of business and tax issues, provides an API, etc.). DKFM uses the API to display their Patreon donors on the website for example. Sci-fi publications use it as well for monthly subscriptions - the general math holds up that some people spend $5/$10 per thing totalling up to $100/mo (or some variation). But I don't think that supports what TFA is suggesting $100/thing/mo), that feels like a lot. They might believe the Patreon user only supports one thing/mo, but I'm not sure that's true - people have varied interests based on my travels.
- ryanbrunner 4y ago
  > when asked "why not Liberapay?", they say Patreon helps take care of business and tax issues, provides an API, etc. Another big advantage, especially in audio / video formats, is that you can say "support me on Patreon" and people will know what you're talking about, vs. needing to spell out a URL for people.
esrauch 4y ago
On Twitch people commonly give $100 for absolute nothing, just to be thanked by the creator live, which they would do for significantly less money as well, often just $5. I suspect the top tiers at Patreon must work the same, there's some benefit there but people are doing it because they are a megafan and want to show it. I'd be intested in how many of them are living in a false belief / parasocial relationship though.
- 4y ago

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

> Another creator who teaches physiotherapy made $141,000 with only 61 students, at an average price point of $2,314 per course. This seems like a scam. To be a physiotherapist in the United States, you have to have a bachelor’s degree (4 years) followed by a 3 year Doctor of Physical Therapy degree from an accredited college. https://www.apta.org/your-career/careers-in-physical-therapy/becoming-a-pt https://www.apta.org/your-career/careers-in-physical-therapy... So the people paying that money definitely aren’t making progress to become an actual physiotherapist. There is also a physiotherapist assistant training which can be completed in just a couple of years. These programs are offered by community colleges and are likely cheaper and more useful than an online course.

newaccount74 4y ago
I don't know anything about this teacher, but they might already be physiotherapists and doing additional courses on some speciality. It's common for health workers to take additional classes to stay on top of things. Some countries require certain professions to take some number of classes every few years to keep their license.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  And describing those situations as "Fans" just feels wrong. It is clearly offering a service as product. And basically buying the possibly relevant certificate for participation.

m3kw9 4y ago

I’d try 1 if you can even, then 10, then..

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

gammabetadelta 4y ago

love is hard to foster solve a deep and painful problem and people will follow give people meaning and purpose is why religion is so powerful the best products look like religion (see tesla as an example) the fans take on the identity of the product speaks more to the human condition and our need to belong, the biggest fans are rarely healthy folks

Applejinx 4y ago

Of course this poses other challenges. You'll end up an 'artist' of gilding toilet seats for rich and demanding 'customers' who are very clear on what they want. That ain't me: my branding is aligned with what my actual values and heritage are, and it's profoundly oriented towards the folks who have skills and dreams but no resources, and so I make open source software supporting 'em. I get excited when I can support a new platform like the new Raspberry Pi, not about thinking up stuff to excite about three of my audience who could throw me a hundred bucks a month. If I go over to serving only them I'll be doing only as they direct, and they absolutely don't have the vision to run my show and get anywhere worthwhile with it. This doesn't make the article worthless. I've been thinking very hard about how I can expand into hardware DIY and the article hints at possibilities there. I can try to come up with a DIY synth module that comes in under $20 for my primary base… or, apparently, if I can make the ultimate speaker cabinet using all my tricks and sell it to someone for $200, I could also execute it in the most sophisticated possible way, and sell it for $2000 to a superfan who is that kind of wealthy. The $20 guy can't afford either, but the $2000 guy doesn't need me to hold it to $200, they need me to make it special for them. Risk of course is if the $2000 guy doesn't exist or doesn't show up. Trying to target only the wealthy is dangerous. They are as fickle as your attitude towards them is. There's exactly one guy out there who randomly gave me $1000, and rather than demand a product, he wanted me to think about spherical harmonics in the belief that I might come up with something helpful in the field that interested him. I suspect there are guys out there who would likewise give me $1000 on the condition that I abandon what I do and start doing what they would do if they were me…

ryanbrunner 4y ago
I think the difference between what you're saying and this article is that you have customers, not patrons (or you're treating your patrons like customers). The people who shell out $1K a year aren't generally doing it because they are getting a product or service in return that is worth $1K / year to them, they're doing it because they believe in the mission of the creator and want to help support that. Most of our creators that have a "crazy amount of money" plan generally don't offer anything extra beyond gratitude to the big spenders (public gratitude, but still just gratitude). And oddly enough, the big spenders tend to be the least demanding. So long as you don't overcharge them or something, they don't have many demands, because they were never thinking of it as purchasing something in the first place.

ryanbrunner 4y ago

I work for a company that's very much like Patreon for podcasters (Supercast). The people who will pay $1K a year to support a creator absolutely exist, but they are a small subset of the people who will pay $100 / year, which is itself a very small subset of the people who will listen to your podcast. Some rough numbers: - A podcast with an engaged fan base can usually get about 5% of their listeners to support them monthly / yearly - Of the paid supporters, 1-2% are going to be the big spenders who spend in $1K a year territory. So sure, you can be self-sufficient on 100 $1K a year fans, but to get there, you need 5,000 $100 / year fans (which needs 100,000 listeners), and not doing anything for them is leaving money on the table.

cushychicken 4y ago
That's encouraging if you think of it as a funnel optimization problem. What can I do for the $100 per year set? T shirts or other swag? Signed merch? What can I do for the $10 per year set? Stickers?
- mcv 4y ago
  Interestingly, I think most creators are already doing this intuitively without any analysis telling them to.
- ryanbrunner 4y ago
  Surprisingly we don't have a ton of creators offering swag stuff, I'd have assumed that it would have been a bigger draw (Some of that might have to do with us not really offering any support on our platform, but it's not a common request either). If there's a "product" to sell, it's usually either the content itself, or access through things like community. But like I said in another comment, how much people spend isn't very correlated with what they get out of it at all.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - CosmicShadow 4y ago

jefftk 4y ago

(2020)

mcherm 4y ago

So the point here is that you don't need as many fans if your fans are sufficiently rich? I mean, it's true: one can make more money by [selling to / servicing / having as a patron] the rich, but it's not a new observation.

Havoc 4y ago

That does seem about right Though the composition also matters. A small twitch streamer that recognises all their regulars usernames and interacts with them individually is likely to have a much higher concentration of die hard fans. So there the math works easier despite lower absolute numbers. And that in turn is determined by what type of content it is and what type of parasocial relationship it is

bko 4y ago

> Since 2017, the share of new patrons paying more than $100 per month—or $1,200 per year—has grown 21 percent I think this is worded ingenuously. I originally read it that new patrons paying $100 per month has grown to 21%, but upon second reading I see that the percent has grown 21%. But what's the base line? Why not reference that? Is it relative compared to other subs (e.g. percent paying $100+ went from 1% -> 1.23%) or absolute (e.g. 1k people paying $100+ -> 1,230). I would think a large percent of that is probably friends and family. Does anyone personally support a stranger creator to the tune of $100+ a month? It seems like a lot. What's the thought process and what do you expect?

EGreg 4y ago

Immanuel Kant once formulated the categorical imperative … something is moral if it can work universally and be sustainable. How about economically? Is it sustainable to have every artist supported by 100 true fans? Maybe. It means enough people have disposable income to spend $1000 a year on something, and that every artist finds a niche. Those artists who already got 100 fans would drop out of the marketplace, leaving the others until everyone found a dance partner (like with dating). Viewed more broadly, though, this would go heavily against the Pareto principle, where some artists simply achieve escape velocity and get to a different level because they never leave the market, while most artists do not produce anything that people would really pay to consume, even if they discovered it over and over. It is like polygamy starving many young men of mates, and polygamy goes hand in hand with war. I think a much more sustainable model is a UBI that isn’t truly “unconditional” but a gated community where successful artists and their patrons voluntarily agree to redistribute some wealth to new artists that keep showing progress in their craft. Crypto can be done to redistribute this wealth. But that would mean there would be quotas on who can join as a new struggling artist and get the UBI subsidy, since it’s free money for any scammer, especially globally it could pay for a lot more where cost of living is small. People would try to make 10 accounts. It is essentially voluntary socialism online. And one major problem with libertarian socialism and why it can’t solve poverty is that people don’t want to let in too many others into their subsidy program that pays non-market rates for what could be art no one wants. So yes the workers own the factory collectively and work 2 hour days but they do hazing for new people. That’s what countries do with immigration and fraternities do on college campuses.

m348e912 4y ago
>>I think a much more sustainable model is a UBI that isn’t truly “unconditional” but a gated community where successful artists and their patrons voluntarily agree to redistribute some wealth to new artists that keep showing progress in their craft. It seems like you're inferring that unconditional UBI is not sustainable and therefore immoral according to Kant's definition. While that position may ruffle some feathers, you may have a point. How do you ensure that under conditional UBI that recipients are adequately redistributing their productivity/wealth?

varispeed 4y ago

This kind of fan driven art transform artists into dancing monkeys. I mean, there is nothing wrong in that - but makes art bland and utilitarian. It changes thinking from expressing oneself, pushing boundaries, to what can I do to make my fans continue to pay $5. The soul somehow gets lost. Many artists cannot fit themselves into such regime and end up giving up. I guess that's how humans work.

circlefavshape 4y ago
This bothers me too. I get tons of social media ads for how to make money from music, one of them is Savvy Musician - a stay-at-home Mom with 5 kids who makes Celtic Metal. Her advice centers on finding your micro-niche, which to me feels like just writing the same song over and over, and then digging in it looks like most of her income is from selling merch, so the music ends up being just ads for t-shirts and mugs.

mrweasel 4y ago

Doesn't this sound like inherently bad advice? Fewer number of "fans" means that you risk is centralized around those few fans and their particular requests and demands. I can honestly see this getting very dark, very quickly. You would rarely argue that a business should centralize around only a limited number of customers.

annie_muss 4y ago

I think the shift from big companies deciding the winners to democratized content creators Isa shift in the right direction. However, has anyone tried to quantify just how difficult it is to get those 100? Even for unpaid followers/listeners I've never managed to get more than a handful.

newaccount74 4y ago

What the article is describing isn't "fans" as much as plain old "customers". Almost all the examples given in the article are people doing courses. If you sell a course for $1000, then the person buying it isn't a "fan" who just gives you money, the buyer is just a customer who buys a service. The only thing new about this is that it's happening online; offering courses for $1000 is not exactly a new thing, it's a business that has existed for ever. And I'm pretty sure that most of these customers aren't long-time fans. People will pay for access to a course, but they aren't going to take the course over and over again.

lozenge 4y ago
These aren't educational courses, they're self-help/improvement courses. "Starts with the user's needs and pain points - motivated by self-interest - desire for improvement, transformation and/or exclusive access" So, you need to get fit/get in shape! $40/month for my nutrition and exercise coaching! Go green and zero-waste with my advice! How to teach your kids! Yoga and meditation to improve your health! How to pick up women! Break into your dream career/TV writing/comedy! Be your own boss! Etc, etc. Some needs are never satiated.
altdataseller 4y ago
But it's the VC world. They need to come up with new, innovative concepts so they can be seen as a thought leader! /s
- rchaud 4y ago
  The original essay that this pulls its title from from was written in 2008, and used examples of self-published authors and musicians - purely creative works. None of the startup-bubble, hustle-culture fueled BS that infected the following decade. VCs are only interested monetizing the "product" aspect of creative ventures so they rephrase the key concepts in MBA blandspeak.
GeorgeBanica 4y ago
>What the article is describing isn't "fans" as much as plain old "customers". This doesn't apply to webnovels. There are people there making over $1000 a month (some over $15 000) publishing completely free webnovels.

bradhe 4y ago

Why stop there? Why not 10?

trynumber9 4y ago
Why not 1? Just marry a rich fan/customer. I'm kidding.

armchairhacker 4y ago

Yeah, in an ideal world content creators could make an entire salary off of donations and offering simple perks and exclusive access. But actually this is a terrible career advice and relatively few people actually end up making anywhere close to $100k on Twitch or Patreon. For each example the author mentions there are 100s if not 1,000s more who are wasting their time. We just aren’t a society where most people donate thousands or even hundreds of dollars out of altruism or for “exclusive access” except in a few niche scenarios. I personally subscribe to a few content creators on Patreon. These people are very talented and have die-hard fans, because frankly their work is seriously exceptional and unique, and they make money. But not $1000 or even $100 per person, more like $1000 a month in total. The average subscriber donates ~$5 per month. That’s not to say you shouldn’t do Patreon, in fact I think Patreon is a great tool to give you a) motivation, b) feedback, and c) a decent supplement to your income which is at least part of what you deserve for your work. But don’t think you can quit your job and do Patreon full time, that won’t happen unless you’re especially lucky or successful, and it takes years of work. And don’t think doing Patreon full time is any easier than a full-time job either. Not to mention, the audience who donates is often very different than your main audience, who are very different than the creator himself/herself. Often what gets the most money isn’t what the most people want: case in point, mobile games, or at least mobile-style AAA games. And, often what gets the most views (and thus ad revenue) isn’t what the creator likes to create: case in point, clickbait videos and the “kid-ification” of popular YouTube channels. Work on your passion, but don’t expect to work full-time on it.

dubswithus 4y ago
Cum Town makes close to 100k per month on Patreon. Proof that you can make a lot of money by just fucking around.
- duxup 4y ago
  Well someone can ... "you" probably can't ;)
  - dubswithus 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

oceanplexian 4y ago

Obviously this is HN and not r/Livestreamfail, but the vast majority of Super Fans are not buying courses or supporting the development of content. The real Super Fans have an unhealthy obsession with an online personality and think they are going to buy a friendship, or a girlfriend, or some other reciprocity. I worked in this industry for a bit. A lot of times big donors will dump their life savings or steal a family member or relative's credit card (Which is why the rate of chargebacks is so high). The companies pushing this have all the data and know exactly what's going on, but market to this demographic anyway. IMO it's no different than a Casino taking advantage of someone with a gambling addiction. It's not a "Passion Economy" it's an economy of exploitation and social dysfunction.

bryans 4y ago
I've consulted with several hundred live streamers, and none of what you're saying is reflective of their experiences. It is outrageously false and disparaging to claim that the vast majority (or even a significant portion) of large contributors are somehow dysfunctional and that content creators are exploiting them. Some people build cars for fun and spend their disposable income on that experience. Other people enjoy online content and spend their disposable income ensuring that content keeps getting made, or can be made even better. To declare an entire populations' preferred hobby as "dysfunctional" is plainly inflammatory and entirely inappropriate. > The companies pushing this have all the data and know exactly what's going on, but market to this demographic anyway. "The companies" aren't marketing high-cost options in any way. Twitch's highest subscription tier is $25/mo. Patreon suggests a higher tier of $30. Those are not "ruin mom's credit" or "dump your life savings" prices, so it's disingenuous (at best) to suggest that something nefarious and exploitative is happening in regards to platforms' marketing efforts.
- mjr00 4y ago
  > "The companies" aren't marketing high-cost options in any way. Twitch's highest subscription tier is $25/mo. Patreon suggests a higher tier of $30. Those are not "ruin mom's credit" or "dump your life savings" prices, so it's disingenuous (at best) to suggest that something nefarious and exploitative is happening in regards to platforms' marketing efforts. You're ignoring superchats and tips which is where most of the money comes from. Watch any fairly popular livestream, especially during the "just chatting" style periods, and you'll see $500, $1000 or higher superchats getting dumped in every few minutes. I mainly watch VTubers (never paid one money, for the record...) and the so-called "Girlfriend Experience" (or Boyfriend Experience, to a much lesser extent) is a real thing. Look at what happened to Uruha Rushia -- she accidentally leaked that she was dating someone and that caused her entire contract to get terminated.[0] Her "GFE" style made her the top Hololive earner in 2021, making $1.6 million from superchats alone.[1] [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/t06ryl/what_is_going_on_with_uruha_rushias_termination/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/t06ryl/what_i... [1] https://animecorner.me/hololive-vtubers-dominate-top-10-list-of-most-super-chats-received https://animecorner.me/hololive-vtubers-dominate-top-10-list...

next_xibalba 4y ago

Keep an eye out for my next blog post: “100 true fans? Try 10”

stakkur 4y ago

Maybe. Sort of. What I'd really like to see is some sort of data on long-term income from these sorts of models. Yes, I know there are some--but I haven't seen it widely successful over several years or more for more than the '1%'.

paulpauper 4y ago

Why stop at 100 fans when you can have one winning lottery ticket or one sugar daddy. "100/1000 true fans theory" ignores the difficulty and luck required in getting those 100-1000 paying fans. It's a nice story or idea, but impractical for the vast majority of people. Getting even a handful of fans is probably very hard for most people unless you are lucky or famous.

Applejinx 4y ago
A good observation. If you are the creator trying to please one of your ten very wealthy super-patrons, have eyes on the back of your head because there will be thousands of people, some of 'em better than you, who will want to win away your patron's custom. You're probably not special enough to hang on to your ultra-wealthy super-patron. There will be someone younger and cuter who'll come along and take 'em from you. Metaphorically, if not literally. And if you've devoted your life to trying to be their ultimate creator, and they leave, then you don't have much of a fall-back position. You've specialized around something that has been taken away. Your branding, your identity, is 'super-patron's ideal artist' and that's no longer true. Nasty.

egypturnash 4y ago

I had a lengthy reply here but really it comes down to one thing: Andresson Horowhatsit can either start giving every creator on Patreon a few hundred a month, or they can fuck right off. Their "100 true fans" model proposed here is not true fans at all in the sense Kelly meant, and if I pivoted my Patreon to doing the kind of stuff they're advocating, it would involve doing a ton of crap that's tedious work to me, and constantly warping my work around what I think my bigger supporters want instead of making what I want to create and trusting my fans to keep on wanting to follow wherever the Muses lead me. Also if any of you FAANG types have a thousand bucks a month you're not using, I will gladly take it and convert it to goofy furry porn, and give you absolutely no training or special treatment. https://www.patreon.com/egypturnash https://www.patreon.com/egypturnash

simne 4y ago

It depends. In reality, much easier to work with 1k true fans model. Exceptions are, when your expensive product is in high demand, but not scaled well, so you HAVE to limit number of clients, because you just cannot make more sales. What this could be? One example I hear from CG community - CG Grooming Artist - at the moment in high demand and highly paid, and many firms accept freelancers, but not all CG firms need it.

SMAAART 4y ago

Just another observation about The Long Tail, the top 0.1% of the long tail can do well with 100 patrons. I bet that Damien Hirst has < 100 patrons that contribute >80% of his revenue.