Hey, I’m Isaac 👋 I founded Pistachio, a B2B content agency working with brands like Clay to build trust, relationships and loyalty with their current and future customers.
If you want to chat about your own content-led growth strategy, book a free call with me here.
Read time: 4 mins 40 secs
Interested in sponsoring these emails? See our partnership options here.
Why 100 subscribers can beat 500,000
In 2019, Mark Schaefer ran an experiment. He has more than 170,000 followers on Twitter, 20,000 blog subscribers, and a podcast with 15,000 monthly downloads. He released a book called LESSONS with almost no promotion. One blog post, one email, a few social posts. In its first year it sold around 100 copies.
By the famous math, Schaefer should have cleared a thousand sales without breaking a sweat. He has the audience many times over. He still came up 90% short.
His result usually gets mentioned as a debunking of Kevin Kelly's "1,000 True Fans", but I think both fans and critics of that essay have missed the point. The core idea is one of the best in modern marketing, and it has become one of the most misunderstood.
What Kelly got right
Kelly published "1,000 True Fans" in 2008. The premise is deceptively simple. To make a living you do not need millions of fans. You need roughly a thousand who will buy everything you make, at around $100 a year each. That comes to $100,000, a salary.
The reason the essay still circulates almost twenty years later has nothing to do with the maths. The enduring concept is that Kelly gave people permission to stop chasing scale for its own sake and build something deeper with a smaller group. Depth over breadth. I think it is the single most useful sentence written about audience-building this century.
It has also aged incredibly well because social platforms went the opposite direction. Every feed now rewards reach that is miles wide and an inch deep. You can rack up a hundred thousand impressions and a thousand followers who feel nothing and wouldn’t notice if you vanished. Schaefer had exactly that, and it sold 100 books. Depth is the part that converts attention into revenue, and Kelly called it decades before the rest of us.
Two hidden factors
Over that time, people have latched onto the number and lost the core idea. A thousand was only illustrative of the two key factors, and both of them matter more than the number itself.
The first factor is depth. A “true fan”, in Kelly's words, drives 200 miles to see you speak, buys the hardback and the paperback and the audiobook, and buys your next thing sight unseen. That level of fandom sits at the opposite end of the spectrum from someone who counted as an impression on your social post.
I've written before about that difference between being ‘Top of Mind’ versus ‘Top of Heart’. This is that same gap, measured in dollars. A relationship at that depth behaves differently. A true fan buys without being sold to every time, and actively recruits other fans for you. I’ve also written about the Time to Resonance concept, which makes the same case from the other direction. Trust has to form before conversion is even an option.
The second factor is fit. A deep relationship with the wrong person is a hobby. A thousand fans only becomes a sustainable business when those fans are people who can buy what you sell. Depth tells you what each relationship is worth, and fit tells you whether it is worth anything at all. Size on its own tells you nothing, which is why it makes such a poor target.
Behind the math
When I mention “a thousand true fans” to most people, they hear "I only need a thousand", exhale, and decide reach isn’t their problem anymore. In the model Kelly was describing, that’s a very costly mistake.
Jessica Abel, a creative coach, ran the funnel numbers. To convert 1,000 people at a 2% conversion rate, you have to make the offer to 50,000. To make that many offers, given that people need several exposures before they can trust you, your total reach needs to be closer to 500,000. The thousand fans are the best-of-the-best percentile from a funnel that starts orders of magnitude wider.
Kelly’s essay was written in 2008, so he assumed the internet would supply that reach for free. He turned out to be half right. As the social networks grew, the algorithms funnelled attention towards the top performing content, and reach got harder to win.
But most of you reading this aren’t solo content creators, you’re marketing and growth leaders working in bigger brands. That changes the equation, because Kelly’s funnel belongs to one specific setup, the $100 fan. He priced a true fan at $100 because he was modelling a solo creator selling to consumers, where the target revenue of a living wage/salary only adds up through sheer volume. Volume is what forces the necessity of increased reach. Change the price of a fan and the entire downstream equation changes too.
What’s a fan worth?
One founder of a B2B SaaS startup we just started working with said in our first onboarding call "I've only got a hundred email subscribers. Is that enough? I'm struggling to grow it." It is the most common version of the question I get, and the one where this “thousand true fans” concept comes up the most. But the subscriber count on its own tells me basically nothing.
Which would you prefer? 500,000 subscribers who are broadly interested in “marketing”. Or only 100 subscribers, but they’re all CMOs of Fortune 500 companies. The list of 100 is worth more, and it is not even close. That is the fit factor doing the work that reach pretends to do.
In B2B the gap is even bigger, because of what a single fan is worth. Kelly's creator earns $100 a year from a true fan. A true fan in B2B is worth thousands a year, sometimes tens or even hundreds of thousands. Run his math with that input and the target number collapses. The funnel that punishes creators barely touches you, because fit and unit economics do all the heavy lifting. This is the takeaway from "1,000 True Fans" that B2B leaders need to get their heads around. A small audience of the right people is enough to build a very serious business.
Which is what makes the permission-slip trap so easy to fall into. A small, high-fit audience, held closely, is exactly what the original concept was reaching for. The trap is using "I only need a few" as cover for poor content performance, never checking whether those few are the right few, or never doing the work to make the relationship deeper. A small passive list goes nowhere. A small list of the right people, tended closely, is the strongest asset a B2B brand can have.
Reach still has a job, but in a narrower sense than the creators mean. Yours is to get in front of every person who fits, including the 95% I've written about who are not ready to buy yet. Cover the right room and go deep with the people in it. The room can be tiny, it just has to be the right one.
The number was never the point
Kelly gave the world a goal, and the number is the only part most people kept. Audience size was only ever a poor stand-in for the two things that actually move a business, fit and depth.
So stop counting followers. Count how many of the right people know you, and how deeply. That is the number Kelly was actually pointing at, and it is the only one worth growing.
P.S. Building the engine that finds the right small audience and turns it into the relationships that move revenue is most of what we do at Pistachio. Fit and depth are the same project, run patiently.
If you enjoyed this post or know someone who may find it useful, please share it with them and encourage them to subscribe: brandchemistry.co/p/1000-true-fans