[giantrobot]

Who in the hell is going to pay another individual $1000 a year to make content? That's more than a year's subscriptions to Disney+, Amazon Prime, and Netflix!

One of the root ideas in the True Fans essay was a fan would be willing to spend a day's wage for a year's worth of content from a creator. A large portion of the population at large can pay a day's wage for say 52 hours (a creator spitting out and hour of content a week) of entertainment. Out of that population, argues the essay, a creator needs to only find a thousand True Fans out of the population that can afford the $100 in order to make a living.

That's not only workable math but something that's doable. The market can support the model, it won't always and in every situation but it can. At the reasonable "day's wage" level many people can afford to support multiple creators. Spending $200 a year for content is still in the affordability range of a large portion of the populace.

A far far smaller portion of the population at large can afford $1k for 52 hours of entertainment. It's definitely not a tenth of the $100 population, it's more likely a fraction of a percent. So any given creator isn't likely to find 100 True Rich Fans, they're going to find maybe one if they're lucky. The market isn't going to support a model where a few dozen hours of entertainment costs a thousand dollars. A thousand dollars will get you a game console, a TV, subscriptions to a bunch of streaming services, and a ton of games. Even fewer of these whales could support multiple creators so very few creators could ever possibly survive of the whale model.

[anonytrary]

> Who in the hell is going to pay another individual $1000 a year to make content? That's more than a year's subscriptions to Disney+, Amazon Prime, and Netflix!

The same people who pay thousands of dollars for self-help seminars and MLM schemes. You're missing why people are buying a product. All of the video streaming services out there combined won't help people get better at love or their career. That's why they're not willing to drop $1k on streaming services.

But a charismatic YouTuber who shows you how to bodybuild and gets you motivated? People will drop $1k on that per year.

[biztos]

I pay $75 per week to my personal trainer and where I live trainers are cheap. People routinely pay hundreds per week in places like LA.

I’m not sure I’d pay that for an online trainer but if there are probably things a step or two away from workouts where I would pay for an internet mitigated version.

But that’s not being a fan, that’s buying a service.

[etrautmann]

Apps like Shred are pretty good for this now...

[rorykoehler]

How expensive can a banana really be? $10?

[el_cujo]

I have seen people drop over $1000 dollars in gifted subscriptions/coins over the course of a single stream where a guy is just playing a video game. I'll admit that this kind of thing isn't common, and you definitely aren't going to find 100 people with that level of disposable income for your following, but there are plenty of people who blow what seems like an unreasonable amount of money just so a stranger on the other side of a screen will notice them.

[KaoruAoiShiho]

I kinda hate the current media though. I would definitely pay $1000 for the content that I want, content that caters to me.

[Traster]

So what you're saying is this is just a restatement of the original article, but by someone who actually does earn $1k in a single day and so doesn't realise that's not a reasonable amount to spend.

[ageofwant]

At this moment I'm paying GPBBD https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3CBOpT2-NRvoc2ecFMDCsA $600/year. Wintergatan https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcXhhVwCT6_WqjkEniejRJQ gets $120

And its a steal.

[fouc]

But you know, $1000 a year is only $84/mo, which is less than $4 per day. It's the price of a fancy starbucks coffee probably.

[justaguyhere]

So this is the problem with "starbucks coffee daily" argument - you are assuming people spend money logically/rationally, most people don't. That is why folks don't have any problem dropping $4 every single day at Starbucks (their coffee isn't even that good), but they won't spend $5 per month for something as important as email and depend on free email like GMail.

[arexxbifs]

$84 is more than I pay monthly for Spotify, Netflix, the local newspaper, my broadband connection and occasional magazine buys combined. $1000 is more than I spend yearly on my biggest hobby - and that includes air travel and hotel fares. I have a really hard time coming up with any kind of content that'd be worth that much money.

[mikro2nd]

I think the point is that Netflix and your local newspaper don't interact with you, personally in a one-on-one, honest, direct interaction. At an $84/mo subscription level, that's what you're buying.

Now this may be because the buyer is a true-believer or whatever, but equally likely because they're now able to drop a name around the dinner table, tell their friends that they're in direct dialogue with a 'name',... Status signalling, in a phrase. Tell me why some (rich!) people are willing to pay millions of dollars for a painting that looks like a couple of wet blobs on a half-plastered wall. Same forces at work, I suspect.

[arexxbifs]

Not denying your point, but the wet blob painting is probably considered an investment that is expected to increase in value over time, unlike a Youtube video.

[nottorp]

Ah, the starbucks coffee analogy.

Problem is, you can only drink so many fancy starbucks coffees per day. There are many more content creators around.

What will the customers do when everyone wants a starbucks coffee per day? Pay one? Pay no one?

Also don't forget that not everyone is living in the HN well paid tech ivory tower. Even in the US, there should be a lot of people who can't afford a starbucks coffee per day...