[catone]

This seems like someone being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

Kevin Kelly never said getting to the level of true fans necessary to earn a living was easy. He also said that 1,000 and $100 were oversimplifications for the sake of making his point (i.e., what people will spend on your work and how many people you'll need to do that each year to live will vary widely from artist to artist).

The point was he was making, as I read it, was that artists can make a comfortable living in the long tail by attracting and catering to (that's the key part) a group of die-hard fans. It's labor intensive, but it can be done.

A friend of mine is a niche musical artist who makes a living playing small shows, selling t-shirts, and putting out one new album per year. He lives comfortably (though by no means lavishly) and has a lot of fun. His MySpace page says he has 12,000 fans, but his shows usually have 20-50 people, and often, the same people will go to every show they can reasonably drive to, will buy every one of his CDs, and purchase any new t-shirts or stickers (or whatever) that he makes.

In other words, he found his group of true fans, and he caters to them by making music and merchandise he knows they'll want. In return, they buy his shit and he makes a living.

[angelbob]

It's possible Scalzi's being contrarian to be contrarian. He's known as a bit of a grump, among other things.

However, you could make the whole thing more useful to you by reading his article as "you may need a lot more fans if you're in a low-margin industry with a lot of competition." And that's true, as far as it goes. Books aren't, by themselves, a fabulous way to make money.

Similarly, CD sales were only about 4% of the income of the same guy who made 26% of his money off just 40 fans. He'd have had a much harder road to a decent living if he tried to make his money purely off CD sales. Like books, they're low-margin and high-competition.

Presumably the "1000 true fans" folks would argue that Scalzi should diversify what he's selling and how he's selling it. Honestly, that'd probably be a good idea, financially speaking.

[netcan]

Looking at it is missing the point.

1000 true fans doesn't mean you can do the same stuff Brittany Spears or JK Rowling do (sell CDs or books produced & marketed for lots of people) and make it with just 1000 fans. I think Scalzi is (perhaps wilfully) missing the point. He seems to be pointing at his (as an example. He is right that this applies to most) fan spectrum and noticing that there are very few 'true fans' in there & that most of the revenue comes from normal fans. He then goes on to demonstrate that very rarely do people spend $100+ on a single artist. The people who do are rare gems.

Nowhere does it say that your true fans are already spending $100 each with you. Most artists do not really cater to these. This is the point. Most artists cater to many more $20 fans instead.

Here is an example. I really like Leonard Cohen. Over the years, I have probably bought about 10 cds & books, saw a documentary of his a few years ago with my girlfreand. I went to a concert this year (2 tickets @ over $100). It doesn't add up to close to 'true fandom' though. I never bought a T shirt or an expensive premium copy of any books or CDS. Why? I don't really like that kind of stuff. Most people don't. I am willing to spend more than $100 every year, but I have no use for special edition CDs or Leonard Cohen underpants. To get me in to the $100-$200 range, I would need to be offered more stuff I want, not just the ability to be some really expensve, die-hard only souvenir. I'd gladly see a two or three shows and a poetry reading a year, provided the cost was not so high. If he got creative & ran a writing class, I might attend. Say 1 cd + 3 shows + one-off film/seminar/debate/whatever = $20 + 3* $30-$100 + something = $100-$200.

The point to note is that Leonard Cohen does not cater to me as a true fan. He caters to me (and millions of others)as a normal fan.

Catering to fans willing to spend a lot with you is not exactly the same as catering to fans willing to spend a little. The point is that creative people have lots of choices, they can do various revenue making things. Adopting the true fans approach means choosing mostly those things that people who like you a lot will appreciate.