André Chaperon

Tiny Digital Worlds: The Art and Philosophy of Attracting and Cultivating the Right People

I write about how Sovereign Creators can build a digital "World" around their novel idea, theme, skill, or expertise. This shifts focus from chasing audiences to attracting them, thus establishing credibility, building trust, and earning attention. Welcome to the art of building a Tiny Digital World.

Resonance Fidelity: Attracting the Right People

André

8 min read

“Education is when you read the fine print. Experience is what you get when you don’t.” — Pete Seeger

Note: This is a slightly edited (for the web) issue of a previous email newsletter. (If you’re not subscribed, join here, it’s free.)

⦿

I intentionally used the quote above, signaling several interesting dimensions I’ll examine, theming this essay.

(I’ll revisit the quote at the end.)

To frame this essay, I’ll contrast a “hypothetical” yet realistic scenario:

Skyler is a marketer/creator/influencer person…

Skyler uses social media to capture attention and attract followers. They recognize the value of building an email list (smart!) and leverage their following, directing them to lead magnets to build a large email list.

Harper is also a creator…

Harper uses channels embedded in the fabric of the internet, recognizing that it models the vastness of Tokyo. Tokyo is a sprawling metropolis that supports hundreds of thousands of eclectic, niche businesses. Each has customers hungry for what it sells, which supports its growth.

Whether a street food vendor, a whisky lover’s bar, or anything in between, the vendors’ businesses (“World”) must first exist as the object of attraction. Recognizing this, Harper establishes a digital World, then leverages the various channels of the internet to attract an audience and build an email list.

Skyler attracts 100 new email subscribers a day — 700 a week, nearly 3,000 a month.

The metrics/KPIs that matter to Skyler are to increase the throughput of followers, likes, and clicks. When these numbers trend upwards, the business grows. It’s not rocket science, after all.

Harper attracts just 10 new email subscribers a day — 70 a week, nearly 300 a month.

Harper doesn’t fixate over numbers on a dashboard — there is no dashboard or spreadsheet. (Shocker!)

The only thing that matters to Harper is activities that attract people who naturally resonate with their work. Each signal Harper sends, or seed planted among the soil of the internet, is designed to appeal to a particular kind of person.

Harper measures progress differently, focusing not on the rate of growth but on the type of people being drawn in. This approach results in fewer subscribers and a different kind of audience.

Skyler generates an order of magnitude more email subscribers than Harper. All things being equal, it’s hard not to argue that Skyler’s efforts are more effective than Harper’s.

Of course, things are not equal — they never are because embedded in our actions and behavior (our strategy!) are implications and consequences.

That’s what this essay aims to reveal — hypothetically, of course.

Consider this…

If I asked you whether 1,000 of Skyler’s subscribers are equal to 1,000 of Harper’s subscribers, you would prob’ly agree they are not, likely biased towards Harper.

However, what about 1,000 of Skyler’s subscribers vs. 500 of Harper’s subscribers? Or 1,000 vs. 100?

Hmm … now the jury is out.

Many people choose to play the numbers game under the assumption that, even when lead quality likely diminishes with scale, sheer quantity makes up for the lack of quality.

It’s a logical argument.

It’s not an argument I would make.

Why?

1,000 isn’t just 10x larger than 100…

… because the outputs of the games played are not equal.

This goes beyond the concept of “quantity over quality” into a more precise philosophy of attracting and cultivating the right people.

A word I use a lot is “resonance”…

It’s when something you create — a message, an idea, a story –vibrates at the same frequency as someone else’s thoughts, emotions, or worldview.

Like this essay, perhaps. (Once you’re done digesting it.)

However, resonance operates across many dimensions, introducing the idea of different “qualities” of resonance.

Therefore, resonance itself isn’t enough.

What does it take to cultivate deep resonance that attracts the “best” customer?

Let’s unpack this idea a little more…

Resonance can be shallow, fleeting, and transactional — or deep, lasting, and transformational…

That’s where fidelity comes in. Resonance fidelity focuses on the precision and quality of the connection, not just its existence.

Resonance on a shallow dimension (e.g., clickbait, big claims, highly consumable fast-food content) appeals to short-term desires or superficial worldviews.

This creates a transactional relationship between the marketer/influencer and the audience: shallow inputs (noise) lead to shallow outputs (subscribers/customers who lack alignment, loyalty, or potential for long-term growth).

Shallow resonance often hinges on vanity metrics and is self-reinforcing — success in this system requires staying in the shallow game.

Resonance that exists on a deeper dimension prioritizes alignment with values, aspirations, and shared vision — a higher-order connection.

It’s transformational rather than transactional: your work changes the audience, and the audience challenges and fuels your growth in return.

Deep resonance requires intentional filtering: you’re actively repelling the wrong people to create space for the right ones.

Implicit in the actions, activities, and behavior of Skyler and Harper is the “game” they each choose to play.

When we combine systems, game theory, and feedback loops, we can begin to see how our actions influence downstream behaviors over time.

Coordination theory, an element of game theory, explores how people align their actions to amplify collective outcomes…

… in marketing, it’s not just about attracting an audience — it’s about attracting the right audience, which aligns so deeply with your work that their engagement amplifies its impact over time.

The system you build creates feedback loops that reinforce its own rules…

For Skyler, the focus on volume creates a system where success is measured by growth metrics, which encourages more shallow resonance.

Harper’s system, on the other hand, amplifies depth and alignment, creating feedback loops that reward transformational connections.

This emphasizes reducing “noise” (superficial likes, clicks, subscribers) and amplifying “signal” (genuine interest, alignment, and potential long-term value).

The point I’m trying to make, albeit perhaps clumsily, is that the output of the game we choose to play is a function of the game being played.

Skyler is intentionally (or unintentionally) playing a different game to Harper. Therefore, the emergent output is not the same.

It’s not the same, just larger.

And it’s not the same, just smaller.

They are not equal in any way, shape, or form.

This is why I used “Resonance Fidelity” in the title of this essay to signal its nuance.

It points to a different kind of resonance because the degree of resonance matters.

It’s worth restating: resonance fidelity describes the pursuit of high-quality resonance over superficial engagement.

It emphasizes attracting deeply aligned, committed individuals rather than chasing numbers or vanity metrics.

Fidelity (related to harmonics — the deeper, more resonant frequencies that emerge when two things are perfectly in tune, implying a higher-order connection — not just resonance but amplified resonance) introduces the idea of precision, accuracy, and alignment in the resonance.

It implies that not all resonance is created equal, and the “fidelity” of the resonance determines the depth and quality of the connection.

To attract the “best” type of customer, our activities and signals must:

  • Challenge shallow worldviews: Signal that this is not for everyone by emphasizing depth and nuance.
  • Filter through friction: Create barriers to entry that naturally repel people looking for quick wins or surface-level engagement.
  • Align values at every touchpoint: From your copy to your offers, ensure every signal reinforces your core philosophy and screens for depth.
  • Reward long-term thinking: Design your ecosystem to favor people who think and act with longevity in mind (e.g., serialized content, open-world frameworks).

I believe resonance fidelity intersects three dimensions: worldview alignment, depth of interaction, and long-term potential.

These are the filters through which true, lasting resonance emerges:

  1. Worldview Alignment: Shared values and vision.
  2. Depth of Interaction: The level of emotional and intellectual investment from your audience.
  3. Long-Term Potential: The likelihood of building meaningful, enduring relationships.

(Excuse the child-like sketch.)

Having made it this far (well done!), I want to clarify my distinction between Skyler and Harper.

Skyler’s approach isn’t inherently wrong — it’s simply optimized for a different kind of outcome.

It’s efficient, measurable, and “works” for those playing that game.

… but it’s a game with hidden implications, which I’m drawing your attention to in this essay.

At its core, resonance fidelity isn’t just about attracting the right people — it’s about the integrity of the relationship between creator and audience.

The game you choose to play defines the resonance you create and, in turn, the World you build.

Skyler and Harper remind us that not all games — or outcomes — are equal…

… and that’s worth thinking about.

What kind of game are you playing — and what sort of World is it creating?

This isn’t just a philosophical question; it’s a strategic one embedded in the choices you make every day as a professional sovereign creator/marketer.

If it wasn’t obvious, the framing of this essay wasn’t completely “hypothetical” — Harper embodies how I see the world.

Skyler’s approach, while not wrong (and while I disagree with the approach, I’m not making a judgment), represents the antithesis of Harper’s.

Harper is a case study of me. {grin}

André

P.S.

OK, I’ll tie up the quote at the top of this essay…

For me, the quote became a lens for exploring intentionality versus consequences…

Reading the “fine print” parallels deliberate, intentional action aimed at cultivating deep resonance and filtering for high-quality connections.

Ignoring the fine print reflects a focus on vanity metrics and short-term gains, which (hopefully) leads to “experience” in the form of unintended consequences (e.g., disengaged or misaligned audiences/customers).

This duality — education versus experience — mirrors our choice between playing the shallow game and cultivating an expression of resonance fidelity.