Thanks for sharing the Rod McKuen version of "Seasons in the Sun." I hadn't heard it before, but it's an interesting bridge between the original "Le Moribund" by Jacques Brel and the Terry Jacks version.
QED, Chris! Thanks for doing the math on this evergreen topic. Bill Bernbach, the closest to a sage in the ad business put it best long before the dawn of social media: ‘a principle isn’t a principle unless it costs you money...’
I remember my music teacher at school taught us about Kevin Kelly’s “1000 Fan theory” - that you only(...!) need 1000 true fans to sustain a career in music. That would be 1000 fans who will buy literally anything with your name on it, which is harder than it sounds.
I think what your research shows is just how artificial social media engagement truly is. It seems that some aspiring artists now feel forced to spend more time “engaging” with their fanbase (eg. Instagram live streams, staged photo ops etc) as much time as actually creating their art.
I’ve been very reluctant in joining the social media machine for this very reason. In my opinion, social media isn’t really geared towards the betterment of artists. While OG Instagram was great for photographers etc, modern Instagram is primarily a time dump designed to keep users on the platform for as long as possible (to serve more ads and collect more data). If you are trying to promote your art on social media, you just get lost in the flood of disposable and surface level content. How can any fan build a deep connection with your work if they can swipe it away at a whim and never have to see it again?
Organic growth is much harder in the current web than 5 years ago. Obvious examples being Twitter/X Blue boosting your visibility, Ad campaigns on Meta Platforms. Essentially, pay to win! And for all of that, you only get surface level engagement, not those “true fans” you need to build a career. The only winners are big tech.
Thanks Chris for writing up and quantifying what many of us have increasingly intuited, but haven't been able to put our fingers on.
Like Oliver says, social media has evolved from being an information, marketing and resource tool online into a machine designed entirely to keep eyeballs locked on the screen. For those of us that want (actually, need) to create art how do we navigate this world? I have no answers, but I can imagine many artists seeking to revert back to primarily the physical space (books, shows, paintings etc). Have you any considerations regarding what seems to be a small but growing trend toward physical music, the "return" of LPs etc?
Always enjoy the data interlaced with great music I have never heard of before... Its funny how I have been introduced to a lot of new great music through substack, I would never have imagined it :)
Hmm, unless there is some form of unforeseen change in the technology landscape, I don’t see a mainstream return to physical media (eg. CDs). For the average consumer, getting stuff for free/freemium/ad-supported is pretty good! You also have the perceived environmental cost of the production of physical media (although digital media is just as bad, Kyle Devine’s book is worth a read!), I just don’t see it happening any time soon.
Where do you share your art? Curious to learn more about how artists find their genuine fans considering, as you said, how ineffective social media is.
You raise a good point, and the answer is... I don’t think we really have a suitable alternative at the moment! Haha! Apologies if that’s a bit of a cop-out answer.
The idea of social media works well for artists, in theory. There’s the concept of “enshittification” which started being passed around during the Twitter acquisition.
“HERE IS HOW platforms die: First, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.” - Cory Doctorow, Wired magazine.
The issue is, platforms that were once heralded as a way to spread your work, are now a shadow of their former selves and no longer work for your best interests. You could say this is sadly inevitably, i’d imagine it costs a lot of money to run hosting these platforms.
There are open source and/or decentralised alternatives to the main social media platforms. The issue is that these platforms inherently are more complex to understand and use, and the user base is so much smaller compared to the big sites that you can end up just talking to yourself. For example, I’ve had a look at Mastodon as an alternative to Twitter, once you have found the right instance (or just the official one), you have to hand craft your feed with no recommendation algorithm. I haven’t found any meaningful discussion of music and the topics I like yet. These sites may also struggle to expand to a large audience because of the operating costs and
There’s always self-hosting, making your own website. The downsides are the monetary cost of hosting and the expertise needed to manage the site. Not to mention discoverability.
Substack could be a solution going into the future. It’s not without its issues though - the top writers are mostly those who have formed a career beforehand and some are even paid a “salary” by substack to use and promote the platform. This kind of gives a false impression to creators starting out. Issues may arise when substack tries to expand, again going back to the enshittification concept.
There’s always the “wait until the next big thing comes around” method, but at the moment the potential contenders seem to be skipping the “good phase” anyway, eg. Meta-owned Threads or Metaverse projects. TikTok could be a consideration but it isn’t for everyone because short form video isn’t to everyone’s taste (and may not suit some art forms as well as others)
Wow, you summed up my experiences with Twitter, Instagram, and Spotify really well here. I essentially get no engagement on Twitter or Instagram (not that I have a large following on either). On Spotify I’ve had my music put on bot playlists (without my consent) and real playlists, but no one really sticks around after like you said. That’s why I don’t bother worrying about them, it’s all just empty numbers.
And this is the beauty of Substack. Subscribers here mean so much more. I feel we are all more connected. I’d rather have my little community here on Substack than thousands of followers on Twitter.
Your comment reminded me of a podcast I listened to a few weeks ago. “You’re Dead To Me!”, which is a history podcast, did an episode on the History of “Cultural Fandom. One of the key ideas raised was how the invention of mass media (eg the printing press) changed the relationship between reader and author. Before the printing press, your audience would be limited to your close circle of friends (realistically, fellow educated writers as well). But with mass media, readers still longed for this personal connection with the author!
And this was beneficial for the writers as well. Elizabeth Barrett Browning, for example, thrived on having correspondence with her fans. She had likewise been a loyal fan of Wordsworth, so by receiving the same praise from “random strangers”, helped her to feel empowered as a writer.
Essentially, people don’t just want to “consume product”, they want to feel like they have a deeper connection and understanding of the author. While I haven’t been here for long, I think Substack taps into this phenomenon quite well. It avoids the “echo chamber” issue when forming small niche online communities. And isn’t on such a macro scale that the system is forced to rely on “engagement” rates and emotional content. I haven’t started publishing here yet, but as a reader I’ve certainly felt more comfortable reaching out to authors of work I like and having a meaningful discussion.
(Podcast was through the BBC but I think it’s on Spotify and other platforms if it’s region locked)
I've been thinking of the same thing you were except for music. It's amazing (but also really obvious) to think that before the technology to record music, the only way to listen to music was at a live performance. But that performance may be the only time you would hear that specific piece of music.
Yep and it’s interesting to think about how many of the icons of the classical music canon (think Bach, Mozart, Beethoven), died penniless and whose music was only rediscovered years later through scholarly research. There are still many ambiguities as to how to perform some of these pieces because of the difference in conventions and standards of the time. (HIP = Historically Informed Performance) Recording technology for sure helps the long term preservation of an artist and their work.
It goes to show that followers on a social media platform may not correlate into actual fans. I know my experience on most social media sites is that I follow the same people on different sites, which itself is fandom. It just doesn’t make the number I generate unique. It feels false if I never read their actual feed, just their little blurb that shows up on mine!
This is the appeal to me of SubStack!
Where as I try to read every newsletter from every person I subscribe to. I make the choice to do so! I should be counted but am I a fan or what? Music is easier to quantify!
I know I support my favorite band, Tedeschi Trucks Band by purchasing their music in different forms (CD & Vinyl & Digital) but also buys tickets to live shows. Be it local or through nugs.net or Raga Family sites.
Follow them on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter. I also buy merchandise like T-shirts & hats, etc.
A friend went viral on Spotify. He doesn’t really know how. He thinks he was put on one playlist. That made Spotify’s algorithm recommend him more, then he was put on another playlist and it all snowballed. He makes about £500 a month from what amounts to millions of listens. People have saved his songs.
I asked if he had more fans or offers as a result. He said next to none. Just a few new Instagram followers.
I struggle to wrap my head around this. 250,000 listeners a month, and virtually none of them fans.
Thanks for sharing the Rod McKuen version of "Seasons in the Sun." I hadn't heard it before, but it's an interesting bridge between the original "Le Moribund" by Jacques Brel and the Terry Jacks version.
QED, Chris! Thanks for doing the math on this evergreen topic. Bill Bernbach, the closest to a sage in the ad business put it best long before the dawn of social media: ‘a principle isn’t a principle unless it costs you money...’
I remember my music teacher at school taught us about Kevin Kelly’s “1000 Fan theory” - that you only(...!) need 1000 true fans to sustain a career in music. That would be 1000 fans who will buy literally anything with your name on it, which is harder than it sounds.
I think what your research shows is just how artificial social media engagement truly is. It seems that some aspiring artists now feel forced to spend more time “engaging” with their fanbase (eg. Instagram live streams, staged photo ops etc) as much time as actually creating their art.
I’ve been very reluctant in joining the social media machine for this very reason. In my opinion, social media isn’t really geared towards the betterment of artists. While OG Instagram was great for photographers etc, modern Instagram is primarily a time dump designed to keep users on the platform for as long as possible (to serve more ads and collect more data). If you are trying to promote your art on social media, you just get lost in the flood of disposable and surface level content. How can any fan build a deep connection with your work if they can swipe it away at a whim and never have to see it again?
Organic growth is much harder in the current web than 5 years ago. Obvious examples being Twitter/X Blue boosting your visibility, Ad campaigns on Meta Platforms. Essentially, pay to win! And for all of that, you only get surface level engagement, not those “true fans” you need to build a career. The only winners are big tech.
Thanks Chris for writing up and quantifying what many of us have increasingly intuited, but haven't been able to put our fingers on.
Like Oliver says, social media has evolved from being an information, marketing and resource tool online into a machine designed entirely to keep eyeballs locked on the screen. For those of us that want (actually, need) to create art how do we navigate this world? I have no answers, but I can imagine many artists seeking to revert back to primarily the physical space (books, shows, paintings etc). Have you any considerations regarding what seems to be a small but growing trend toward physical music, the "return" of LPs etc?
Always enjoy the data interlaced with great music I have never heard of before... Its funny how I have been introduced to a lot of new great music through substack, I would never have imagined it :)
Hmm, unless there is some form of unforeseen change in the technology landscape, I don’t see a mainstream return to physical media (eg. CDs). For the average consumer, getting stuff for free/freemium/ad-supported is pretty good! You also have the perceived environmental cost of the production of physical media (although digital media is just as bad, Kyle Devine’s book is worth a read!), I just don’t see it happening any time soon.
Where do you share your art? Curious to learn more about how artists find their genuine fans considering, as you said, how ineffective social media is.
I’m still convinced the best way is playing live
You raise a good point, and the answer is... I don’t think we really have a suitable alternative at the moment! Haha! Apologies if that’s a bit of a cop-out answer.
The idea of social media works well for artists, in theory. There’s the concept of “enshittification” which started being passed around during the Twitter acquisition.
“HERE IS HOW platforms die: First, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.” - Cory Doctorow, Wired magazine.
The issue is, platforms that were once heralded as a way to spread your work, are now a shadow of their former selves and no longer work for your best interests. You could say this is sadly inevitably, i’d imagine it costs a lot of money to run hosting these platforms.
Here is an interesting post I found from a well established and long running academia blog, which I think captures my thoughts on this topic perfectly: https://thesiswhisperer.com/2023/07/10/academicenshittification/
There are open source and/or decentralised alternatives to the main social media platforms. The issue is that these platforms inherently are more complex to understand and use, and the user base is so much smaller compared to the big sites that you can end up just talking to yourself. For example, I’ve had a look at Mastodon as an alternative to Twitter, once you have found the right instance (or just the official one), you have to hand craft your feed with no recommendation algorithm. I haven’t found any meaningful discussion of music and the topics I like yet. These sites may also struggle to expand to a large audience because of the operating costs and
There’s always self-hosting, making your own website. The downsides are the monetary cost of hosting and the expertise needed to manage the site. Not to mention discoverability.
Substack could be a solution going into the future. It’s not without its issues though - the top writers are mostly those who have formed a career beforehand and some are even paid a “salary” by substack to use and promote the platform. This kind of gives a false impression to creators starting out. Issues may arise when substack tries to expand, again going back to the enshittification concept.
There’s always the “wait until the next big thing comes around” method, but at the moment the potential contenders seem to be skipping the “good phase” anyway, eg. Meta-owned Threads or Metaverse projects. TikTok could be a consideration but it isn’t for everyone because short form video isn’t to everyone’s taste (and may not suit some art forms as well as others)
Wow, you summed up my experiences with Twitter, Instagram, and Spotify really well here. I essentially get no engagement on Twitter or Instagram (not that I have a large following on either). On Spotify I’ve had my music put on bot playlists (without my consent) and real playlists, but no one really sticks around after like you said. That’s why I don’t bother worrying about them, it’s all just empty numbers.
And this is the beauty of Substack. Subscribers here mean so much more. I feel we are all more connected. I’d rather have my little community here on Substack than thousands of followers on Twitter.
Your comment reminded me of a podcast I listened to a few weeks ago. “You’re Dead To Me!”, which is a history podcast, did an episode on the History of “Cultural Fandom. One of the key ideas raised was how the invention of mass media (eg the printing press) changed the relationship between reader and author. Before the printing press, your audience would be limited to your close circle of friends (realistically, fellow educated writers as well). But with mass media, readers still longed for this personal connection with the author!
And this was beneficial for the writers as well. Elizabeth Barrett Browning, for example, thrived on having correspondence with her fans. She had likewise been a loyal fan of Wordsworth, so by receiving the same praise from “random strangers”, helped her to feel empowered as a writer.
Essentially, people don’t just want to “consume product”, they want to feel like they have a deeper connection and understanding of the author. While I haven’t been here for long, I think Substack taps into this phenomenon quite well. It avoids the “echo chamber” issue when forming small niche online communities. And isn’t on such a macro scale that the system is forced to rely on “engagement” rates and emotional content. I haven’t started publishing here yet, but as a reader I’ve certainly felt more comfortable reaching out to authors of work I like and having a meaningful discussion.
(Podcast was through the BBC but I think it’s on Spotify and other platforms if it’s region locked)
I've been thinking of the same thing you were except for music. It's amazing (but also really obvious) to think that before the technology to record music, the only way to listen to music was at a live performance. But that performance may be the only time you would hear that specific piece of music.
Yep and it’s interesting to think about how many of the icons of the classical music canon (think Bach, Mozart, Beethoven), died penniless and whose music was only rediscovered years later through scholarly research. There are still many ambiguities as to how to perform some of these pieces because of the difference in conventions and standards of the time. (HIP = Historically Informed Performance) Recording technology for sure helps the long term preservation of an artist and their work.
Yes, it’s all really interesting.
It goes to show that followers on a social media platform may not correlate into actual fans. I know my experience on most social media sites is that I follow the same people on different sites, which itself is fandom. It just doesn’t make the number I generate unique. It feels false if I never read their actual feed, just their little blurb that shows up on mine!
This is the appeal to me of SubStack!
Where as I try to read every newsletter from every person I subscribe to. I make the choice to do so! I should be counted but am I a fan or what? Music is easier to quantify!
I know I support my favorite band, Tedeschi Trucks Band by purchasing their music in different forms (CD & Vinyl & Digital) but also buys tickets to live shows. Be it local or through nugs.net or Raga Family sites.
Follow them on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter. I also buy merchandise like T-shirts & hats, etc.
Is that fandom or consumerism?
Good perspective on this new music paradigm we find ourselves in these days.
I’ll tell you what. I’ll be a fan of yours if you’ll return gesture. Leave me a comment after listening to this song on YouTube. Thanks.
https://youtu.be/y0CjpwHjJaw?si=uEINUnYJ-gqwom6a
Dope Insites. Preshate U 4 this.
Great post Chris.
A friend went viral on Spotify. He doesn’t really know how. He thinks he was put on one playlist. That made Spotify’s algorithm recommend him more, then he was put on another playlist and it all snowballed. He makes about £500 a month from what amounts to millions of listens. People have saved his songs.
I asked if he had more fans or offers as a result. He said next to none. Just a few new Instagram followers.
I struggle to wrap my head around this. 250,000 listeners a month, and virtually none of them fans.