Maybe you can't make money doing what you love(sethgodin.typepad.com)
sethgodin.typepad.com
Maybe you can't make money doing what you love
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/10/maybe-you-cant.html
39 comments
This is another example of Seth's cookiecutter gurudom. I don't think it applies to startups at all, though.
Also, stop rehashing the same old, 'If you commercialize your art, it stops being satisfying' BS. We knew that forever ago. I think in the connected universe it is easy to to do something you love on the side AND make money from it AND be happy doing it. Like that guy who makes $2k/yr because he sold some photos to iStockphoto 10 years ago.
Not to bring ad hominem into this, but why has Seth become so un-original?
Also, stop rehashing the same old, 'If you commercialize your art, it stops being satisfying' BS. We knew that forever ago. I think in the connected universe it is easy to to do something you love on the side AND make money from it AND be happy doing it. Like that guy who makes $2k/yr because he sold some photos to iStockphoto 10 years ago.
Not to bring ad hominem into this, but why has Seth become so un-original?
"become"?
In order to monetize your work, you'll probably corrupt it, taking out the magic in search of dollars.
The great artists of the Renaissance were very highly paid. In fact they were probably the best paid craftsmen of the time. And they are hard to beat for magic.
The great artists of the Renaissance were very highly paid. In fact they were probably the best paid craftsmen of the time. And they are hard to beat for magic.
It's very well documented that rewards diminish both intrinsic motivation and creativity, so this is mostly a moot point. But for the sake of argument:
A) The psychological effect of working for a church/patron is probably not analogous to, say, trying to produce a blog post that makes the front page of Digg. To borrow from Herzberg's two-factor theory, their patronage was more of a hygiene factor than a motivation factor.
B) You're only looking at the best pieces from the best artists. It's likely that the average artist was producing mostly shit in hopes of getting paid. In fact probably even the best artists were producing mostly shit in hopes of getting paid.
A) The psychological effect of working for a church/patron is probably not analogous to, say, trying to produce a blog post that makes the front page of Digg. To borrow from Herzberg's two-factor theory, their patronage was more of a hygiene factor than a motivation factor.
B) You're only looking at the best pieces from the best artists. It's likely that the average artist was producing mostly shit in hopes of getting paid. In fact probably even the best artists were producing mostly shit in hopes of getting paid.
It's likely that the average artist was producing mostly shit in hopes of getting paid. In fact probably even the best artists were producing mostly shit in hopes of getting paid.
The great artists couldn't bring themselves to produce shit, any more than great people in any field ever can. Show me an example of shit made by Leonardo or Van Eyck or Brueghel.
It's very well documented that rewards diminish both intrinsic motivation and creativity
In studies where they offer one group of undergrads money to complete some random task and another group does it for free? Things work differently at the other end of the expertise spectrum.
The great artists couldn't bring themselves to produce shit, any more than great people in any field ever can. Show me an example of shit made by Leonardo or Van Eyck or Brueghel.
It's very well documented that rewards diminish both intrinsic motivation and creativity
In studies where they offer one group of undergrads money to complete some random task and another group does it for free? Things work differently at the other end of the expertise spectrum.
"In studies where they offer one group of undergrads money to complete some random task and another group does it for free?"
The studies are pretty wide ranging. For example, people paid to wear their seatbelts are less likely to do so. People who are offered money if they lose weight are less successful, and are more likely to gain even more weight. If teachers are offered money if their students improve on a test, the students will do worse on the test. Students who study something in an attempt to get a good grade will have a more superficial understanding of the material than they would otherwise.
"Things work differently at the other end of the expertise spectrum."
Maybe that's true once your work is at the genius level and you don't need any more external validation, but even if so how do you get there? If you've been mastering your craft for twenty years and then you're offered money it might not be damaging, if done right, but being offered money too soon may well harm the average person.
"The great artists couldn't bring themselves to produce shit, any more than great people in any field ever can."
George Lucas.
The studies are pretty wide ranging. For example, people paid to wear their seatbelts are less likely to do so. People who are offered money if they lose weight are less successful, and are more likely to gain even more weight. If teachers are offered money if their students improve on a test, the students will do worse on the test. Students who study something in an attempt to get a good grade will have a more superficial understanding of the material than they would otherwise.
"Things work differently at the other end of the expertise spectrum."
Maybe that's true once your work is at the genius level and you don't need any more external validation, but even if so how do you get there? If you've been mastering your craft for twenty years and then you're offered money it might not be damaging, if done right, but being offered money too soon may well harm the average person.
"The great artists couldn't bring themselves to produce shit, any more than great people in any field ever can."
George Lucas.
There is debate about the impact of reward on motivation. Motivation is a complex thing.
http://www.physorg.com/news4126.html
"George Lucas"
I think that George Lucas has very aptly demonstrated that he is not a great artist. He got lucky with Star Wars. With his next two movies he had the sense to let someone else direct. Then he let the success go to his head.
"George Lucas"
I think that George Lucas has very aptly demonstrated that he is not a great artist. He got lucky with Star Wars. With his next two movies he had the sense to let someone else direct. Then he let the success go to his head.
“There are many children for whom the important reward to them is the grades they get, the competition among classmates,” Reiss said. “This goes against what some psychologists say, who think competition is bad and a non-competitive attitude is good, and that learning and curiosity are intrinsic values that everyone shares. They are pushing their own value system on to everybody.”
That last sentence is extremely disingenuous.
I would be like to read the his original argument though.
That last sentence is extremely disingenuous.
I would be like to read the his original argument though.
Definitely some of my favorite jazz composers have some dark moments. I mean what was Chick Corea thinking in the 80s?! :-)
That said, I think the point stands, and that's why there's not a strong correlation between greatness in the arts and salary. The great artistic minds, even when producing stuff that I feel like was below par for their work, were doing so out of a genuine desire to do something important, even if they didn't have a perfect batting average. Similarly, those who were driven by that desire didn't cave just because they weren't commercial successes.
That said, I think the point stands, and that's why there's not a strong correlation between greatness in the arts and salary. The great artistic minds, even when producing stuff that I feel like was below par for their work, were doing so out of a genuine desire to do something important, even if they didn't have a perfect batting average. Similarly, those who were driven by that desire didn't cave just because they weren't commercial successes.
[deleted]
"It's very well documented that rewards diminish both intrinsic motivation and creativity"
Citation?
Citation?
Not to pee on your parade, the only one of that gaggle of technicians that was any good was Hieronymus Bosch!
</flamewar>
</flamewar>
The better the artist, the more they are able to explore their ideas and abilities. It's not universal but it's as circumstantially true now as it was then.
I think Hugh MacLeod's How To Be Creative gives this subject a better treatment. I haven't forgotten the very simple "Sex & Cash Theory." Creative people need two jobs: one is sexy, and one pays the bills.
I think there's some kind of implicit sentiment that the happiness from doing something you enjoy and getting paid are additive when you do something you enjoy. I'm not sure that's true.
I love computers, UNIX/Linux, scalable architectures, yadda yadda yadda. I work in the field, and am reasonably well compensated, but I've always said "I'd keep doing computers even if I was the one paying."
Doing something you're passionate about for someone else (whether your customer is a manager, or you're self employed and your customer is the one paying) isn't inherently pleasurable if the customer's goals aren't perfectly aligned with yours -- in fact it can be deeply saddening to know there's a better way to accomplish something, if only some business reality (cost, technical constraint) wasn't in the way.
For me, the big win working in my favorite field is that the job is easy -- I have a great pool of contacts, I've spent over 80% of my entire life immersed in the problems and solutions of this field. That said, I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy computing a lot more again if I went back to bagging groceries -- 100% of the computing I'd do would be computing for pleasure, no more chores or building stuff for people that have needs that are different than mine.
I love computers, UNIX/Linux, scalable architectures, yadda yadda yadda. I work in the field, and am reasonably well compensated, but I've always said "I'd keep doing computers even if I was the one paying."
Doing something you're passionate about for someone else (whether your customer is a manager, or you're self employed and your customer is the one paying) isn't inherently pleasurable if the customer's goals aren't perfectly aligned with yours -- in fact it can be deeply saddening to know there's a better way to accomplish something, if only some business reality (cost, technical constraint) wasn't in the way.
For me, the big win working in my favorite field is that the job is easy -- I have a great pool of contacts, I've spent over 80% of my entire life immersed in the problems and solutions of this field. That said, I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy computing a lot more again if I went back to bagging groceries -- 100% of the computing I'd do would be computing for pleasure, no more chores or building stuff for people that have needs that are different than mine.
"That passion you have for art... perhaps making your painting commercial enough to sell will squeeze the joy out of it."
Once you cross the line of doing something to pay the bills, instead of doing it for the joy of doing it, then it becomes work. And, work, ultimately sucks.
Once you cross the line of doing something to pay the bills, instead of doing it for the joy of doing it, then it becomes work. And, work, ultimately sucks.
I was trying to figure out when a hobby I love turns into something I hate, and you just nailed it for me. Needed to pay bills = work.
It also becomes work once you believe you have to turn your hobby into something that makes money (because everyone - especially this site - tells you to find your passion and then make money from it).
Some pursuits are better left intrinsicly rewarding.
It also becomes work once you believe you have to turn your hobby into something that makes money (because everyone - especially this site - tells you to find your passion and then make money from it).
Some pursuits are better left intrinsicly rewarding.
[deleted]
I have a feeling Seth Godin loves what he does for money.
I think he misses the real problem. It is easier to be noticed. It is easier to get "picked up". However, it's easier for everyone, which means that the supply of niche content is radically increasing... and when supply increases, the price drops. In the end, the key is still to move from niche to large, and we've moved from "like winning the lottery" under the old system to... "like winning the lottery" under the new system, too. The barrier of entry is lower, but it's even more random behind the barrier.
I mostly agree with most of the comments, especially since Seth oversimplifies, but he has a point. I know a couple of people who loved painting and graphic design, but lost all love for it when it became a career, so they switched to another career and started enjoying design again. It wasn't that they couldn't make money from design, but making it a career took the joy and creativity out of it.
HN might just skewed towards those lucky few who are able to make money from things they love. Personally, if I am not doing something I love, it's not worth it.
HN might just skewed towards those lucky few who are able to make money from things they love. Personally, if I am not doing something I love, it's not worth it.
Two quotable quotes: "Work does not necessarily make you happy, but it may provide you the money to do the things that make you happy."
"If all you get from your job is a paycheck, you're underpaid"
I don't think it's a trade-off if you don't love your job. However, if you truly hate your job - why are you doing it?
I was a workaholic for the longest time and I still am - I am re-applying my workaholic tendencies to outside-the-cube. Software development bankrolls ventures like learning Spanish and Salsa dancing.
"If all you get from your job is a paycheck, you're underpaid"
I don't think it's a trade-off if you don't love your job. However, if you truly hate your job - why are you doing it?
I was a workaholic for the longest time and I still am - I am re-applying my workaholic tendencies to outside-the-cube. Software development bankrolls ventures like learning Spanish and Salsa dancing.
In some fields doing what you love won't pay your bills. But haven't you noticed that usually people that do what they love they are really good at it? And you keep wondering how he/she does it? A lot of people choose to work in a field that maybe it doesn't suits them or maybe because they have to because of the trends, but be sure that one day they will end up miserable and with no time to do what they really love because time may have passed.
There are plenty of careers that meld creativity and commercial gains, like being an architect or interior designer. Don't you think an architect takes pride in seeing one of their buildings standing against the skyline?
Sure, you might not get rich making splatter paintings, but you can still be creative and make money at the same time. People will pay for things that are aesthetically pleasing.
Sure, you might not get rich making splatter paintings, but you can still be creative and make money at the same time. People will pay for things that are aesthetically pleasing.
Architects don't make much money. And within the field, there is strong inverse correlation between prestige of the job and the pay. Some of the most prestigious New York firms actually pay their employees less than minimum wage. And I'm not talking about interns - I'm talking full time employees with masters in architecture getting paid virtually nothing. On the flip side, if an architect does project management for construction, they get paid a lot more.
I'm a pop musician, and I put out a few records, but I found that once committed to vinyl (not necessarily with the medium of CD-R), I got bored with those songs and couldn't enjoy them anymore. Vinyl is the most long-lasting medium for music, so this act of your music going on permanent art is more satisfying than the music itself.
Yeah, but more than likely you can do something doing what you like.
I read it as: "Produce great content for free and let Google make money off it." Does Seth see the conflict of interest? Or is it the actual reason behind the post?
My thoughts on this : http://www.web2media.net/laktek/?p=90
if you're going to make a living at it, it helps to find a niche where money flows as a regular consequence of the success of your idea
as soon as you focus on your art and leave the money behind, you may just discover that this focus turns out to be the secret of actually breaking through and making money.
thats the meat of the articles, overall good ideas..
as soon as you focus on your art and leave the money behind, you may just discover that this focus turns out to be the secret of actually breaking through and making money.
thats the meat of the articles, overall good ideas..
Being successful is key and money is an addon.
I had a girlfriend like this: she was an excellent photographer, had a degree in fine arts with a photography specialty, but didn't want to make money doing it -- she didn't want it to become her job. This discrepancy made her miserable, not only because she generally didn't get to take pictures, and didn't get to make the money she could be making, but also because she wasn't using her degree.
I went to school for CS, not because I love it (though I do at times) but because the market forecast was good, and I wanted to retire early. What I like about programming is the freedom to innovate, to solve problems. I get to solve problems, solve puzzles with my job. That's great. When I get done working, I'll write a book -- that'll be even better.
I think it's enough to work doing something you like, to support what you love.