Building An Audience Takes Time, But In The Long Run It Can Provide You More Time To Do What You Love
from the so-get-to-it dept
One of the regular complaints we hear when we talk about people like Amanda Palmer or Kevin Smith is that they have to spend so much time cultivating their "audience" that they don't have time to actually "work." Of course, that should be plainly ridiculous if you just look at those two. In the last year alone, Palmer has put out two full length albums and an EP (all excellent) while continuing to tour... and continuing to build her audience, brand and business (and now without any "help" from a label). Similarly, Smith has toured the country a few times, built a podcast network with a ton of shows (also excellent), released a movie he directed, and previewed a brand new movie at Sundance that he directed, edited, and cut. Oh yeah, and all the while continued to build an audience. Both seem a hell of a lot more productive than the vast majority of content creators I know who went "by the book."However, there is another (important) angle to all of this. Which is that while building an audience and a fanbase takes time and effort -- which you might think takes away from doing the creative stuff -- in the long run, it can do the exact opposite. As we discussed about Smith's latest plan, the reason why it makes sense is because he's cultivated an audience all these years. Because of that he doesn't have to spend nearly as much time or money "marketing" the new film -- just as Palmer didn't have to do all the traditional "marketing" methods for her latest release, which quickly shot to the top of the Bandcamp charts.
This point was driven home in an even stronger way in looking at another content creator in a different arena. We've discussed novelist JA Konrath a few times in the past -- including his explanation for why authors shouldn't fear file sharing as well as his look at how much money could be made on ebooks. He's continued to discuss this, highlighting how he sold over 18,000 ebooks on the Kindle in January (and that was as of the 26th, so there were still five more days) and how his income for the month would end up being somewhere around $42,000. Yes, for the month.
All very interesting.
But the rest of that post is where things get even more interesting. Robert Niles does a fantastic job comparing Konrath's story to another author -- a freelance travel writer, who complains that there's no money to be made in writing. Specifically, that writer, Mark Hodson, complains that it's tougher to get paying gigs these days and that blogging is all about "working for free." Niles immediately notes the comparison, in which the freelance travel writer seems to be waiting for a paycheck, rather than building an audience who has a reason to buy something.
And here's the key part: while building a loyal audience and community may take time and effort, in the long run, they provide you with the ability to actually focus more on creativity. Niles highlights how Konrath's post talks about all of the sweat equity he put into book signings and blogging and building up his personal brand for a few years -- all of which he no longer needs to do with each new book, because he has an audience who seeks him out (similar to Palmer and Smith). Niles concludes:
The irony? Those who put in the work of building a business often end up with more time to do the writing that they love. As Konrath wrote, he doesn't have to press the flesh at bookstore any longer. He doesn't have to devote time to promotion. With his social media support having reached a tipping point, he can spend more hours writing.This is the whole point of making sure people understand both sides of the CwF+RtB equation. It's not just about giving people stuff to buy, it's about connecting with those fans, and really building a community. Yes, it takes work at first, but what new job doesn't take work? But the point is that if you've really connected and really built up a community it doesn't take you away from being able to do what you love, it enables you to do more of what you love and do it under your own terms. That's exactly what Konrath, Smith and Palmer have all done, and it's a point that many others strive for, but miss out on if they just think that doing that work isn't worthwhile because it somehow "takes away" from their creativity.
I've found the same in talking with colleagues who are still pursuing freelance work. They spend hours of extra time for each piece they write networking with editors, writing pitch letters, reviewing contracts and filling out various publications' expense forms. I just write stories - what, when and how I want.
While some lament the loss of secure employment for a handful of writers, I'm thrilled to live in an era when anyone with the will to write and drive to connect with a community can earn a living, without having to wait for some editor's approval.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: amanda palmer, audience, business models, fans, ja konrath, kevin smith, robert niles
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You must certainly not have listened in their entirety to Amanda's products which she has put out this year. If you do indeed deem Amanda's most recent product, a putrid affair in which she sounds and looks alarmingly like Jar Jar Binks, then it is entirely possible that you have traded all credibility and critical distance in exchange for your access to Gaiman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Amanda Palmer is talented. Not really so talented at music, as much as talented at manipulating the internet and covering up the people who don't like her. She manipulated Mike in the past, and has gladly accepted all the attention it brought her. She is to Australia what David Hasselhoff is to Germany. The rest of us just shake our heads and wonder why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your solution to every problem is "ridicule the people paying your bills" and "run to daddy Government to solve your problems". Then you start blaming everyone else when your cash flow starts slipping away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "run to daddy government" is total BS. They go to the authorities for help to enforce the laws of the land. They don't go for handouts (as many do), they don't expect a free lunch. They just expect the laws to be applied.
I don't get the "ridicule the people paying your bills". I think that much more applies to the freetard mentality that hopes that one idiot will come along and overpay dramatically for something, so everyone else can have free music. $5000 for an Amanda Palmer picnic? Holy crap, talk about mocking your fans. That poor girl will one day realize what a sucker she was for paying that much for so little, all so others could enjoy something for nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See James Cameron's Sanctum: Pure Paytard bait, just add big name!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Editor's cut
There are several editing stages and the editor's cut is the first. An editor's cut (sometimes referred to as the "Assembly edit" or "Rough cut") is normally the first pass of what the final film will be when it reaches picture lock."
"Director's cut
When shooting is finished, the director can then turn his full attention to collaborating with the editor and further refining the cut of the film. This is the time that is set aside where the film editor's first cut is molded to fit the director's vision."
There are many ways to refer to these processes. "Editing" can refer to the editor's cut, or "assembly edit", cut can also refer to the 2nd step "director's cut".
Then there is the "final cut". Editing and cutting is definitely not the same thing: editing is the entire process of "cuts", while the first "cut" is also sometimes called an "edit".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What? their Tweeter accounts were hacked or faked?, are those pics fake?
Wow! somebody got really busy trying to do a stunt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
She went down under. Maybe they can keep her so we don't have to bother anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, England will have her. Please. I'll beg.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Job!
1 - As technology changes so does the job and the business.
2 - you are responsible for growing the business. The idea that the world owes you a living is simply disgusting, unless you are a nobleman living in the Medieval Age. I suggest you build a time machine and go back to the 1200s.
3 - So artists - adapt or change jobs - just like the rest of us. Growing a business is tough - why should the business of art be different or privileged?
You now know the basic tenets of Techdirt concerning art. The rest is details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another side to freelancing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one is stopping you from doing your art. Absolutely no one. The problem is that you want to be paid for your art. No one owes you a fricken living!!!!
You can't go through living doing only what you want to do and expect society to give a rat's ass. Either face the fact that you'll almost certainly be a starving artist, or grow the frick up and get a fricking job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This reminds me...
This really reminds me of some conversations I've had with people about charity (which is a form of doing what you want, if you want to help people). My argument is that being charitable is unsustainable. We all get a kick out of helping people, but you can only give away so much time and money before you have to go back to work.
My point is that if you make a business out of doing what you want, weather it be charity, or making the type of art that you want to make regardless of what the industry wants, the best way to sustain that is to figure out how to do it while making a profit. Turn your desires into a business and it is no longer based on how much you can give away, but it can establish a lasting business that can continue carrying out the desires of its creator well after they're gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This reminds me...
You have a bizarre notion of what charities are. You must imagine them as some sort of black hole. People give to charities, sometimes by donation and sometimes by volunteering. Sometimes those donations pay other people's wages. The only people who tend to work for charities full time are either those who have income from elsewhere or those who are employed by the charity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't forget the balding homoerotic stalkers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And which of these categories do you fit it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It always amazes me when head-honchos can spew out crap like "free doesn't pay the bills" when they've spent their entire careers free-riding off of talented individuals, making every effort to HURT the business they supposedly run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
GOOD GOD I THINK HE'S ONTO SOMETHING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sometimes I think techdirt is confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#13
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #13
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course! Palmer is Australia's Hasselhoff!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course! Palmer is Australia's Hasselhoff!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To add to the Kevin Smith discussion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These two artists seem to be experimenting, but they already have success through traditional means, so experimenting isn't exactly a risk for them, it seems more "fun."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's funny, of course, is that early on, we ONLY had examples of people who had been successful totally foregoing the traditional method. But now there are examples all up and down the chain.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml
These two artists seem to be experimenting, but they already have success through traditional means, so experimenting isn't exactly a risk for them, it seems more "fun."
As for Amanda, there are serious questions about how much of her success was via "traditional means." She had a big following before she signed a label deal, and her following has mostly grown now that she's independent of that label deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Never said anything of the sort. I've said that they can team up with folks who can help them on that front.
In the past, though, they really couldn't. Their *ONLY* options were to sign a deal with a huge label/studio/publisher which basically gave up all creative control along with everything else.
Please stop perpetuating your ignorance stating how great everything is without publishers and companies who would otherwise do legwork for content creators.
Again, I've never said such a thing. I've just said that people should team up with *enablers* rather than *gatekeepers*
Who knows of all the great content we've missed out on from eclectic creative types who failed to be masterful promoters and business tycoons.
Wait, seriously? Let's face facts: under the old system, the "eclectic creative types" all gave up and got other jobs, because no publisher/label/studio cared about them. Now they have a chance to work with smarter partners and actually succeed, and you're complaining?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Current Independant estimates are that it is no more than a tiny fraction of the content dekiberately withheld and purposefully killed off by the major labels. Only a fraction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope everyone read Lawrence Wright's Scientology expose in the New Yorker. At some point Palmer is going to have to come clean about the extent of her involvement with the cult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]