Modern Day Patrons?

First off, sorry for not posting much for a few weeks. Illness and travel got in the way. I am planning to be back on a regular schedule at this point, though, which means full posts on Mondays and Thursdays, with video collections on Fridays. My inconsistency would no doubt be remedied if I had enough followers to make some money on this blogging gig, but as the following will point out, it's easier theorized than actualized.

We live in a tough world for professional content creators: authors, photographers, filmmakers, and the like. We've been hearing for years that journalists are an endangered species, and in a world where novels are self-publishable and available on e-book readers for under $10, it's not hard to imagine a world where everyone is an amateur story-teller but nobody can make a living doing it. And while there are some safe havens for those with a truly creative flair, even in those cases very few can do so for a living.

It's as if we live in a world where the superstars make more money than they know what to do with, and everyone else works for the Man, transforming these creative minds into mere evening hobbyists.

In response to this mainstream narrative, there are those out there favoring a different approach to professional creativity. They say you don't have to be a megastar to support yourself and your family, you just need 1,000 True Fans. What exactly is a "True Fan," you may ask?

 A True Fan is defined as someone who will purchase anything and everything you produce. They will drive 200 miles to see you sing. They will buy the super deluxe re-issued hi-res box set of your stuff even though they have the low-res version. They have a Google Alert set for your name. They bookmark the eBay page where your out-of-print editions show up. They come to your openings. They have you sign their copies. They buy the t-shirt, and the mug, and the hat. They can't wait till you issue your next work. They are true fans.

This is an appealing idea to an artist, since it gives you an audience that genuinely appreciates what you like to create, and the marketing level is manageable at an individual level.

True Fanship is doable. Pleasing a True Fan is pleasurable, and invigorating. It rewards the artist to remain true, to focus on the unique aspects of their work, the qualities that True Fans appreciate. 

The key challenge is that you have to maintain direct contact with your 1,000 True Fans. They are giving you their support directly. [...]  The technologies of connection and small-time manufacturing make this circle possible.

How is this an effective way to make a decent income? The idea is that, on average, your True Fans will spend "one day's wages per year" on what you create. The article suggests this is about $100 per year, leaving you with $100,000 per year to cover your living and production expenses. It's a chance to turn the demise of many professional content-producing institutions into an opportunity.

Of course, there's the practical question of whether the theoretical structure works in practice. According to the follow-up post, The Case Against, it can, but usually doesn't:

What my research tells me: there are very few artists making their entire living selling directly to True Fans. The few that are, are selling high-priced goods, like paintings, rather than low-priced goods like CDs. But there are many that partially fund their livelihood with direct True Fans. However, most of these artists make it very clear in their notes to me: It takes a lot of time to find, nurture, manage, and service True Fans yourself. And, many artists don't have the skills or inclination to do so.  The fact that very few creators wholly sustain themselves with direct True Fans may be because it is a job few want to do for very long.  

The results reminded me of this piece by Cowen and Tabarrok of Marginal Revolution. The paper focuses on the complex trade-offs between pleasing customers and pleasing yourself in how you do your job. It also points out that artists are most inclined to pursue their own tastes when their final product is hard to market to the masses--paintings are usually avante-garde, but movies are usually popular.

All things considered, it's a pretty interesting way to use the technology of tomorrow to simulate the patronage system of yesterday. I think I'll stick with working for the Man, though.