Has 'Going Viral' Killed 1,000 True Fans?
Is there still a place for smaller creators in an ocean of quickly refreshing content where everyone wants to go viral?
True Fans™ 🤗
In 2008, writer and all-round technology thinker Kevin Kelly published an essay (updated + original version here) in which he made the following claim:
A creator, such as an artist, musician, photographer, craftsperson, performer, animator, designer, videomaker, or author – in other words, anyone producing works of art – needs to acquire only 1,000 True Fans to make a living.
These True Fans are not simply people who follow you or like your creations, but they are the ones among them who will be willing to pay for any and all (or at least the majority) of the things you produce.
Since then, this has become the unspoken guiding principle for many burgeoning solopreneurs. “If I can just hit that 1,000 True Fans benchmark, I can make my own fortune.” As far as I know, there is no real data to back this up, and it depends, of course, on what you’re selling, how often you produce something new, the price point, etc. Still, it’s a number and an idea that motivates many writers/designers/artists - yours truly included (not that I’m anywhere near it, wink wink nudge nudge).
(For more thoughts on the challenges of solopreneurship in the age of social media and personal branding, check out one of my previous newsletters.)
However, the way we consume content has shifted quite a bit since 2008. So much so that author and computer science professor Cal Newport wrote a piece in The New Yorker where he, spurred by thoughts from technologist Jaron Lanier, writes:
The user-generated Web became an infinite stream of disembodied images and quips, curated by algorithms, optimized to distract. The 1,000 True Fans model was destined to struggle in the context of this dehumanized Web.
How do you find your True Fans when algorithms decide what people get to see?
The viral virus 🧫
It would be too easy to (only?) blame algorithms for this. After all, aren’t the tech giants trying to convince us that these algorithms learn from our own preferences and online behavior? Shouldn’t that - in theory - make it easier to find like-minded people, or for True Fans to find people they’d like to support?
Newport puts it this way:
If you’re lucky, perhaps something you post will temporarily spark a surge of engagement, but those same spectators, exhausted by the onslaught, will soon shift their weary attentions to the next recommended item flowing close behind. This relentless pace rewards passive consumption, not active interaction with individual creators.
The simple translation of that chunk of text is: “It’s just too much to pay attention to.”
We’re inundated by a constantly refreshing stream of new content that leaves us without the time, energy, or frankly patience to find the creators we want to become a True Fan of. On the other side of the looking screen, most creators are too busy trying to be one of the unicorns and go viral to actually make something that reflects their own quirky selves - quirky is risky, it’s safer to copy something that has already gone viral. An article/post goes viral for whatever reason, and copycats lick their lips. The 1,000 True Fans have been replaced by the 1,000 Copycats©.
“Wait a sec,” you might think, “isn’t going viral the new way to find your True Fans then?”
Not necessarily. Not all followers are True Fans. “Haha, like, follow, subscribe” is a far cry from actively following a creator with genuine interest. Of course, there is strength in numbers. If you have a million followers, you don’t need a high conversion rate to sell enough of whatever you are selling to live a very comfortable life. The price? Your creative soul. Or you are one of the unicorns who manage to amass a large audience while staying true to your quirks.
Unicorns are rare. Most of us won’t become one.
Saving the fans (and creators?) 🤝
In the New Yorker essay, Newport isn’t ready to dismiss the creative ‘middle class’ just yet. The same set of technologies that floods us with cat pictures, selfies, and viral fad diets that don’t work also gives creators tools to try to find and connect to their True Fans. Two that come to mind (let me know which ones I forgot):
Platforms.
A lot of aspiring creators means a lot of opportunities for software developers. That can be mutually beneficial. Software developers get to build (and profit) from platforms where creators can display their work, and creators don’t have to set everything up themselves if they don’t have the time/expertise. For example: I would have never set up a newsletter by myself, but Substack made it ‘click, click, done’.
Challenge: Platform monopolies. When one platform dominates a specific market, it can control which creators are allowed/seen and set unreasonable prices/commissions.
Digital products.
Alongside the platform, the opportunities to make and sell something online have boomed. Unlike initial expectations, people are also willing to pay for digital products, in part thanks to technology. Who’d have thought people would ever pay for an e-book? But if you’re no longer bound by your laptop screen and have a good e-reader, you’ll probably consider it.
Challenge: Piracy, plagiarism, and pesky distributors.
(I do not include productivity tools - and here’s why…)
Choosing the right platform and products can help you set up as a budding creator. They can also help you interact with your True Fans and build a community.
Findability, though, remains an issue. How do you stand out in the endless stream?
Niche down? I shudder at the thought. If you’ve been here for a while - thanks! - you know I jump from octopus to AI to random reflections on unfounded sociocultural expectations. I think… no, that’s not true… I have to believe that there’s still room for general curiosity and random ‘hey, what a weird idea’ moments. Ha, maybe that’s my niche. *shudders*
Hitchhike? Feed on someone else’s audience in the hope of stealing a few fans. There’s a reason reaction videos are popular on Youtube… Hey, another shudder.
Copycat? See earlier. Copy something/someone that’s proven to work. Per the famous quote that Picasso probably stole: “Good artists copy; great artists steal.“ Mindless copying leaves little room for creativity, but carefully integrating elements from all over the place can lead to something cool.
Cross-promotion? If you know other creators with interests that somewhat overlap with yours, you can try to give each other a boost (guest blog, double interview, or simply a mention here and there). Two small audiences add up to a slightly larger audience in which a potential future fan might lurk.
Quality and quantity? People think/hope that quality will float to the surface of the relentless media stream. Sometimes it does. But other times, amazing things get lost beneath the surface. There’s an aspect of luck involved that’s (mostly) quality-independent, I think. Additionally, one item/writing of tremendous quality will not hold an audience for long, unless in really special cases. Quantity then? Good luck trying to ‘out create’ the hordes of others trying it that way. Something in between perhaps?
In truth, I wish I could give you better ideas and tips to get noticed, to find those kindred spirits, but it’s an aspect of this writer thing I struggle with myself. It’s hard enough as it is to get eyes on this. I have not yet mastered the fooling of our algorithmic attention overlords or the capturing of True Fans - they’re a slippery bunch.
If you’ve got any tips, I’d be very interested to hear them.