The reality of depending on "1000 True Fans"
Link
One of the artists I contacted was musician Robert Rich (above), whom I knew only as a fan (but not a True Fan). Rich was an early pioneer in ambient music, and a force in the Bay Area new age music scene in the early 1980s. He's prolific, issuing about 40 albums in the past 20 years, many in collaboration with other ambient musicians. Among his earliest albums was "Numena", which made his reputation, and among his latest is "Eleven Questions", which was recorded with colleagues in a seven day burst at his home studio.
Robert Rich was one of the first professional musicians to start dealing directly with his fans via his own website, which is why I contacted him. He wrote an extremely candid, insightful and thorough reply to my query. He tempers my enthusiasm for 1000 True Fans with a cautionary realism borne from actually trying the idea. The summary of his experience is so pertinent and detailed that I felt was worth posting in full. With his permission, it follows, slightly edited.
I agree strongly with your basic thesis [of a thousand True Fans], that artists can survive on the cusp of the long tail by nurturing the help of dedicated fans; but perhaps I can modulate your welcome optimism with a light dose of realism, tempered by some personal reflections.
Previously on Boing Boing:
HOWTO Earn an artist's living in the 21st century: 1000 True Fans
the latest
latest episodes
The model is not applicable to artists of all types. It applies to artists who make work that involves a mass produced product or repeated performance such as musicians or stand up comedians. It does not apply for example to visual artists who make a small amount of unique works.
This strikes me as a horrible idea.
Every "True Fan" of any artist I've ever known abandons when the artist is seen as suddenly failing the expectations of the audience (getting too popular, becoming too mainstream, not giving enough attention to the fanbase).
I'm sure there is a good business model in all of this, but depending upon a relatively small audience for my livelihood is an idea that gives me the creeps.
I have somewhere between zero and two "true fans" and am perfectly content with that.
But I also have a full-time job.
Well, visual artists can probably make it with some true fans iff they produce their Great Works but also produce high-volume, low effort works as well.
For example*, a painter who sells one $10-15k oil painting a year may also need to sell 100 giclee prints at $500 a piece and/or 1000 $50 proofs/small prints.
Throw in crass T-Shirt, Mug, Mouse-pad, and poster sales, and it's a living.
(*Numbers are all imaginary).
I'm sure Mike Masnick will explain why this guy has it all wrong despite having many years of experience at it.
I did a video on this after reading Cory's first post about it.
http://blip.tv/file/get/Scottyiseri-SoHowsTheAlbumSelling953.m4v
I kind of feel it takes into account that it's hard to compete with free when it comes to building that fan base. Once you've been giving the music away for free, how do you get those fans to turn around and cough up dough for the Mousepad and the Coffeemug when the one thing they cared about in the first place (the music) was free?
The equation is X number of Fans spending Y number of dollars per year = Artists Living. If we take the idea that an artist needs to build to a certain sizable fan base ie 1,000 true fans, we need to understand that as an artist they would need to generate a certain amount of value attached to their product (or an increase in the amount of unique product). The Y number was nicely rounded to $100 a year, which isn't actually that much. But we don't just give any old person $100 just because, we expect a certain level of value for that $100, a CD, going to a performance with a tshirt thrown in, isn't going to be $100 of value to even the most ardent fan. When the original 1K Fan posting was released it was right around the time Trent did his thing, he offered a limited edition package for a fair bit of coin, however the value of this package was seen by most people as worthy, ie the apparent value to them was worth more than what they paid for it. So they didn't mind parting with the cost for the item, add in the fact it was limited, it cinched it, he was smart to make sure that wasn't the ONLY thing offered, not everyone wanted to pony up for that limited edition work. If you put out something a book a cd or what have you and people buy it great but if you want the 1,000 true fans to feed your lifestyle, you have to be able to provide a certain amount of value to those fans, per year, every year, and hope they come through on their side of the bargain. The value you produce has to be worthy of that $100 a year to your fans, else the equation breaks down.
1000 True Fans? That sounds suspiciously like the business model for A Tale in the Desert.
I would, in fact, be among that 1000.
This is an idea I've been interested in, as a music-maker, since it broke. I fluctuate between optimism and pessimism regarding the idea. It seems to be very Socialistic when it's boiled down, and that may not be realistic in an increasingly Capitalistic Western culture. But then again, there's an audience for everybody, given a certain minimum of quality.
I gave $100 to the owner of a small record label not too long ago, one that I wasn't even a True Fan of, to send me that amount of the label's best material. I enjoyed it, and I won't do it again with that label.
$100,000 a year is a lot of money. Let's keep that in mind. I'd be ecstatic with half that if it meant I could break the ball and chain of my day job, and know that I'm making a lot of people happy with the work that makes ME happy. Hell yeah, I'd work to maintain it. Shit, I'd dedicate my soul to those people. I'm already dedicating much of my soul to pushing paper that means absolutely nothing to me, for the same amount of money I'd make with this True Fan set-up.
Additionally, Robert Rich, of whom I'm a fan, doesn't mention, although he begins to imply it, that the 1,000 fans will be rolling over as the years go by, with lags and booms, just as long as output and quality are more or less maintained. The same 1,000 True Fans do not have to be kept.
Finally, for the visual artists: There are lots of ways to fulfill one's duties in this area. Limited edition (say, 1,000?), framed giclee prints, for example, for painters. I was a dedicated painter not too long ago, and it might be smart to start to think of painting in terms of mass production, like musicians did way back in the 20th century. Why do paintings have to be one-of-a-kind anyway? It's a very interesting question. I don't have the answer, except that it's been the tradition, and staying traditional is not how art works. Art is as commercial as anything else.
I'm a fan of many, but a true fan of few. I have found I'm often a big fan of dead artists.
Starcadia brings up the point that stood out, for its absence, in the article. Some fans are lost and some are gained. I don't really see that as a catch-22. Grow and change as an artist, following your own inspiration, it isn't like you are suddenly going to just flat out suck.