4 ms·
> "But where I'm at now, in my mind," Flegel said, "you just need some regulars. Some people who've got your back, are into what you're doing." This reminds me
by joshstrange 3y ago
> "But where I'm at now, in my mind," Flegel said, "you just need some regulars. Some people who've got your back, are into what you're doing."
This reminds me of "1,000 true fans" [0]. A concept I've always liked and been drawn to. The internet has made that more possible than ever with things like Patreon. There are a couple podcasts in way behind on that I still pay for simply because I like the hosts and want to support them, I'd love to see more of that.
[0] https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/ https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/
- Valodim 3y agoSo how many things can one person be a true fan of, and what does that tell us about how many people can statistically have 1000 of them?
- twoodfin 3y agoAmericans spend on average about $3,500 annually on entertainment. If we benchmark success of the “true fan” model at $100k, that’s a $100 annual bar to be a true fan, which means the average American could be a true fan for a reasonable number of artists. What “reasonable” means determines the answer to the second question, but since we’re basically talking about the cost of a streaming service, 4 seems like a reasonable number that maps closely to today’s consumer behavior in that similar space. That’s about 1.2 billion aggregate “fanhoods”, which leaves room for 1.2 million artists if fans are distributed uniformly. But that’s extremely unlikely. Typically, this kind of interest and attention follows a power law curve, so the real number would be much, much lower. Hundreds, most likely. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nr0.htm
- hinkley 3y agoI would be shocked if the answer to this is not tied up in Dunbar numbers. But whether it’s proportional or cumulative I cannot say. Could a person who is a true fan of World War I era postage stamp lore and still retain a full complement of social links or is there a quick point where the obsessions subtract from the total number of human contacts a person can sustain? Or is it like Sherlock Holmes whom Doyle made afraid of useless knowledge for fear of crowding out “important” things like the scent of every brand of smoking tobacco and the color and texture of every muddy spot in the United Kingsom?