What Every Entrepreneur Could Learn from Justin Bieber(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
What Every Entrepreneur Could Learn from Justin Bieber
http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/01/what-every-entrepreneur-could-learn-from-justin-bieber/
13 comments
This is actually an old link baiting title formula. What x can learn from y where x usually is outlandish or unusual in relation to y.
First 2 sentences: "I know what you’re thinking – link bait title, right? Wrong."
Refuge in audacity.
It's still a good article - be talented, work hard, get mentors, build an audience and engage with them.
Like all business articles, it's not really hard facts. It's sloppy stories, that helps you learn through osmosis.
You learn from stories, because you feel emotion, and they trigger the part of your brain that says "I can do that too!" (not totally scientific explanation). They aren't about hard facts though.
Refuge in audacity.
It's still a good article - be talented, work hard, get mentors, build an audience and engage with them.
Like all business articles, it's not really hard facts. It's sloppy stories, that helps you learn through osmosis.
You learn from stories, because you feel emotion, and they trigger the part of your brain that says "I can do that too!" (not totally scientific explanation). They aren't about hard facts though.
I really dislike the idea of "talent". "You have to be talented." "It all starts from talent."
I've seen people with seemingly NO talent for music or coding or whatever turn themselves into virtuosos because they WANTED it. It seems like saying "You need talent" is a way to tell people that "it's okay that you're not trying, because you might not be talented in this area". And that's bullshit.
I've seen people with seemingly NO talent for music or coding or whatever turn themselves into virtuosos because they WANTED it. It seems like saying "You need talent" is a way to tell people that "it's okay that you're not trying, because you might not be talented in this area". And that's bullshit.
I've come to believe that many people (like the article author) confuse talent with passion and persistence. If you naturally have a talent for something, you are more likely to pursue it and spark a passion for it.
It's much easier to get good at something you have a natural inclination towards. This does not mean that talent is a prerequisite for getting good at something.
And besides, having talent is like having a small head start in a marathon. You may start faster but that doesn't mean you'll finish faster.
It's much easier to get good at something you have a natural inclination towards. This does not mean that talent is a prerequisite for getting good at something.
And besides, having talent is like having a small head start in a marathon. You may start faster but that doesn't mean you'll finish faster.
Certain things require more talent than others. It doesn't matter how hard you practice, you're not going to run faster than Usain Bolt.
Do you think no one ever told Usain Bolt "It doesn't matter how hard you practice, you're not going to run faster than $previous_record_holder"?
I wouldn't say Usain Bolt is talented because he's the faster runner. Majority reason why he is so fast is because of the amount distance he can cover with his leg stretch over his opponents due to his height; not his talented ability to quickly move one foot in front of another (just like ever professional runner has)
Physical makeup and mental makeup both count as talent.
Physical is easier to measure, but mental is just as real.
Physical is easier to measure, but mental is just as real.
That's funny, it used to be that one would never run faster than a 4-minute mile.
I have artist friends who get really annoyed when they hear people say "I wanted to draw but I just don't have any talent for it, not like you". They feel like it's totally dismissing the years of obsessive practice they've put into it to make it /seem/ effortless.
Natural talent counts for something, but it's not going to make you a success. I saw "result = talent * effort" mentioned on the last HN post about this, and I thought it was pretty accurate.
Natural talent counts for something, but it's not going to make you a success. I saw "result = talent * effort" mentioned on the last HN post about this, and I thought it was pretty accurate.
I had an ex with natural talent for art. She never went anywhere with it (took the safe route and became a nurse instead), but she was just plain better at art than other people, with considerably less effort.
Some people certainly do have a natural talent for something. However, this rarely means that they're good enough to succeed at that thing without working on it. I.e. if your ex wanted to make a living as an artist she'd still likely have had to go to school / practice extensively before being good enough that people would have bought her stuff.
Also, and I don't know whether this is the case with your ex, it's entirely possible that she was better at art because she'd been idly drawing over the years. I've certainly known people who wouldn't call themselves artists whose default idle activity is to sketch away on a piece of paper. They're vastly better than me, because they've been practicing in a low-key way for years.
Natural talent just gives you a head start on others. Someone willing to put in more effort than you can still be better than you.
I suppose this may break down around the limits of a field, especially one rooted in physical activity. E.g. Michael Phelps seems to be nearly perfectly physically adapted for swimming. If he never practiced then he'd be easily outswum by anyone half-decent... but by putting in massive effort training he reaches a point where he's practically unbeatable.
Also, and I don't know whether this is the case with your ex, it's entirely possible that she was better at art because she'd been idly drawing over the years. I've certainly known people who wouldn't call themselves artists whose default idle activity is to sketch away on a piece of paper. They're vastly better than me, because they've been practicing in a low-key way for years.
Natural talent just gives you a head start on others. Someone willing to put in more effort than you can still be better than you.
I suppose this may break down around the limits of a field, especially one rooted in physical activity. E.g. Michael Phelps seems to be nearly perfectly physically adapted for swimming. If he never practiced then he'd be easily outswum by anyone half-decent... but by putting in massive effort training he reaches a point where he's practically unbeatable.
As usual, Derek Sivers has a wonderfully relevant essay on this: http://sivers.org/15-years
Mark, if you're reading this, I'd like to suggest the Talent Code (http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Code-Greatness-Born-Grown/dp/05...), superior cousin to the more famous Talent Myth (http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Myth-Larry-Gluck/dp/1929473001)
I would have loved to see Bieber succeed without any help. With phenomenons like him I'm never sure if it's really them or if it's the puppeteers being smart (in this case Usher and his record label).
The internet seems to have the power to bring anyone to superstardom, but most of the time that happens accidentally or is done clumsily. What if a talented programmer with a knack for marketing took a few years off to learn how to act, sing and dance (and to get few plastic surgeries ;)) and then promoted themselves on the internet? Next time I find myself without anything to do for a few years I'll make sure to try that :) And I'm only half-kidding.
Please excuse me now, we're going on a company excursion to see this movie.
The internet seems to have the power to bring anyone to superstardom, but most of the time that happens accidentally or is done clumsily. What if a talented programmer with a knack for marketing took a few years off to learn how to act, sing and dance (and to get few plastic surgeries ;)) and then promoted themselves on the internet? Next time I find myself without anything to do for a few years I'll make sure to try that :) And I'm only half-kidding.
Please excuse me now, we're going on a company excursion to see this movie.
"What if a talented programmer with a knack for marketing took a few years off to learn how to act, sing and dance (and to get few plastic surgeries ;)) and then promoted themselves on the internet?"
You mean Jonathan Coulton?
You mean Jonathan Coulton?
You succeed much faster with help.
Masi Oka (Hiro on Heroes and Max on Hawaii Five-O, formerly a visual effects programmer at ILM) is an example of a programmer who taught himself how to act and became a successful actor, but he didn't self-promote on the Internet. He did it the hard way (commercials, guest roles, pilots, etc).
I think the most interesting part of the Bieber story is that he gives away all his music for free. He started on YouTube, so all his music is on YouTube. Sure, if you want it in a different format you'll have to buy a CD or go to the iTunes store, but if you just want to listen to it, it's free.
...and then he makes up for it by selling concerts and merchandise and now this movie, and he seems to be doing just fine.
But this business model is extremely disruptive, this is the exact opposite of what the recording industry wants and preaches. They want people to keep paying for the music again and again, and stop people from sharing.
I hope that the 1.3 billion views on YouTube can make more artists reconsider, and start giving away their music for free, and move to a business model that doesn't rely on copyright.
http://www.youtube.com/user/JustinBieberVEVO
...and then he makes up for it by selling concerts and merchandise and now this movie, and he seems to be doing just fine.
But this business model is extremely disruptive, this is the exact opposite of what the recording industry wants and preaches. They want people to keep paying for the music again and again, and stop people from sharing.
I hope that the 1.3 billion views on YouTube can make more artists reconsider, and start giving away their music for free, and move to a business model that doesn't rely on copyright.
http://www.youtube.com/user/JustinBieberVEVO
This has to be the best article I have read on TechCrunch in a while. There is no way I would have ever considered watching a Justin Bieber movie, but I feel like doing so after reading this.
Once again the famous selection bias... For one Justin Bieber -- whose story so perfectly fit the good ol' American dream it isn't even funny, we've all seen 4564398 movies with this plot already, but I digress --, for one Bieber how many talented, hard working people who didn't success?
What about giving some friggin' facts for a change, instead of same old tired, rehashed, syrupy story not even good enough for Cosmopolitan magazine?
What about giving some friggin' facts for a change, instead of same old tired, rehashed, syrupy story not even good enough for Cosmopolitan magazine?
At first, it looks like twitter, youtube etc are disrupting incumbent publishers, but then you see they are being co-opted as just another talent-scouting venue.
It's sad for social media, but impressive of publishers. Looks like they still have something to offer.
It's sad for social media, but impressive of publishers. Looks like they still have something to offer.
Why is it sad for social media?
Seems like a social media success story to me.
Also, there's a big difference between a publisher and a coach or agent or manager or assistant or tutor.
Seems like a social media success story to me.
Also, there's a big difference between a publisher and a coach or agent or manager or assistant or tutor.
He's signed to Island Records (I have to admit I just assumed his was signed to a major label, because of how he is presented, and I looked it up just now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber).
It would be cool if social media replaced published. "Co-opted" is a technical term in disruption, meaning that the incumbents absorb the new approach instead of being replaced (i.e. disrupted) by them. At one time, there was a lot of talk about "disintermediation", where publishers and other middlemen between producer and consumer would disappear. That hasn't happened. The closest is iTunes and amazon, which disrupted retailers.
Although there is a long-tail, where it presumably is happening, it seems that we still need filters. Even more so, people often want whatever everybody else wants, just because they want it. They want to fit in, conform, be part of something greater than themselves, rather than be themselves. This is possibly (I have no idea) most true of Mr. Biebers' primary demographic, tween girls. This popularity for its own sake is where centralized music publishers are strongest, and disintermediated serving of the long-tail is weakest.
It would be cool if social media replaced published. "Co-opted" is a technical term in disruption, meaning that the incumbents absorb the new approach instead of being replaced (i.e. disrupted) by them. At one time, there was a lot of talk about "disintermediation", where publishers and other middlemen between producer and consumer would disappear. That hasn't happened. The closest is iTunes and amazon, which disrupted retailers.
Although there is a long-tail, where it presumably is happening, it seems that we still need filters. Even more so, people often want whatever everybody else wants, just because they want it. They want to fit in, conform, be part of something greater than themselves, rather than be themselves. This is possibly (I have no idea) most true of Mr. Biebers' primary demographic, tween girls. This popularity for its own sake is where centralized music publishers are strongest, and disintermediated serving of the long-tail is weakest.
We can have some fun taking the Justin Bieber-is-a-startup metaphor a little too far. Like... he better hope that Microsoft doesn't acquire him for his intellectual property and then kill him off...
[deleted]
Interestingly Bieber's movie has a rottentomatoes.com rating of 65% and an imdb rating of 1.1.
It seems like Mark Suster is trying to get a tax deduction on his Justin Bieber fan gear!
The message is: be super talented, be lucky, work your butt off, and then you're set. Pretty superficial article -- I am disappointed by the lack of irony...
The message is: be super talented, be lucky, work your butt off, and then you're set. Pretty superficial article -- I am disappointed by the lack of irony...
I tried hard to resist commenting on this subject but obviously not hard enough.
It's kind of a funny thing to read but nevertheless I stick to my opinion that Justing Bieber is the product of someone else. But this one succeeded in creating a new product for a new market. Still I hope that with enough effort I can succeed without having a 70s hairstyle, a choirboy's voice, or a busy childhood.
1) An article with "Justin Bieber" in the title hits HN, or
2) I click on it, or
3) I read the whole thing, or
4) It was actually worth reading.
Not bad Mark Suster... not bad at all.