[aj-4]

I don't think Ninja is a particularly good example because (1) he is operating at a scale where the normal rules don't apply (2) his rise was equally fast and volatile (3) twitch requires a constant presence more than other content platforms.

Furthermore I read your take, and maybe I'm wrong, as a 1k "fans" and not 1k "true fans"

The "true fans" model is a subset within the larger audience demographic -- they don't care if you stop producing for a while, need their short attention spans pandered too, or the like, this is what makes them "true" fans.

maybe your advice changed their life, or they really resonate with you for some personal reasons -- and again this would only be a sub-set of a creator's total fan base.

At least this is my interpretation of the concept.

[krab]

True fans or true Scotsmen? ;-)

[Proziam]

Ninja is the most visible example, but the same pattern holds true at virtually any audience size (within the range of what is typically monetizable). This pattern is actually more extreme on platforms like Patreon because the audience is expecting something for their money. They are closer to a customer than a typical viewer.

The distinction between a 'true' fan and just a 'fan' is a vague one. If a creator has a total audience size of 1 million, you can bet that less than 1% of them are giving the creator any amount of money, even 1 dollar. Does that 1% count as their true fans? The folks with thousands of paying subscribers, or tens of thousands, have audience sizes to match.

Given that less than 1% pay anything, what percent of those do you think pay at least 20x the normal amount ($5 -> 100$)? Many creators make this somewhat visible by highlighting their contributors and the air is quite thin.

To make a long story short, I disagree with the concept because it paints a very rosy picture of the situation and doesn't match reality much, if at all. If you had 1,000 'true' fans you'd probably end up with $2,000 a month after taxes/platform fees/expenses. And of course, that assumes that you're able to consistently monetize through a subscription platform. If you had to sell individual products to get there it would be even worse.

[michaelt]

Right, but while ninja might have lost $140,000 by going two days without streaming, almost none of the youtube channels I support on patreon are producing a video daily. Much easier to take two days off if you're only producing one or two videos a week!

[Proziam]

On that front, I totally agree. Some platforms are far easier to manage an acceptable work-life balance than others. Unfortunately, a month off due to illness would still result in a massive loss of income which could take a long time to rebuild. The financial situations many creators put themselves in scare me, to be honest.