One of my favorite installments of Slow Upload was penned post-Eras Tour, examining digital cults through the lens of Taylor Swift. Complete with core believers, mutually reinforced power dynamics, multi-layered experiences, intricate fan hierarchies, and strategic communication, the Swifties represent one of the largest, most fervent communities we’ve observed. Critically, their bond is rooted in a shared understanding and deep appreciation of the feminine condition, yet somehow transcends demographics entirely. (Cue the eye rolls but I am a Swiftie after all…). Taylor’s most loyal followers romanticize and find collective resonance in the joys of growing up and trials of getting there, metabolized through her songwriting and decades-long narrative.
But enough about Taylor Swift. Let’s move onto part two of our four-part analysis, diving deeper into digital cults and the communities that creators cultivate. From our overview a few weeks ago:
Community: As we’ve previously discussed, our hyper‑connected world has ushered in unprecedented levels of visibility and competition, meaning creators can rise at dramatic rates but only cult‑level communities cut through. We look for a white‑hot core of fanatics bonded by psychographics like shared values, interests, or stories rather than surface demographics. When the center burns bright, growth on the edges gets easier.
A practical way to approach understanding a creator’s community is by asking: if you disappeared tomorrow, who would be really, really sad — and why? The “who” identifies the baseline interests and behaviors of the community, while the “why” explores the deeper emotional or attitudinal connections driving their engagement.
Consider YouTuber Jordan Mara (@mindandsoil). His growing audience consists broadly of gardening enthusiasts across various skill levels (the who). Yet deeper exploration reveals their motivation: a profound commitment to food sovereignty (the why). This insight elevates our understanding from a mere hobbyist group to a passionate community invested in controlling their own food systems. This information isn’t just essential in our underwriting of opportunities — it’s crucial for creators as investors in their own businesses, informing how they tailor content, foster community engagement, and develop businesses. In Clayton Christensen’s terms, it clarifies the creator’s “job to be done” for the community.
Beyond qualitative assessments, we also evaluate the community quantitatively:
How large is the core community today, and how quickly is it growing?
How engaged and loyal are these followers? How deeply relevant is the creator to them?
How easily identifiable are the most devoted fans? How significant is this group relative to the broader audience?
What is their willingness to spend or endure friction to partake?
Is there a subset of the community connecting independently from the creator? If so, how big is that group and how often are they connecting?
An additional, somewhat counterintuitive signal we watch for: does the creator attract passionate detractors (think Dave Portnoy/Barstool or Bryan Johnson/Don’t Die)? Haters often signal that the creator and community have achieved cultural significance and resonance.
Analyzing a creator’s community involves not just understanding the breadth and growth trajectory, but appreciating the emotional drivers and communal bonds underlying their audience. These insights shape our investment evaluation and can guide creators toward sustainable growth.
Next week, we’ll transition from exploring who these communities are to examining the categories these creators dominate, highlighting where and why specific niches offer compelling investment opportunities.
— Megan
P.S. Read more from the archive here