The depressing truth about web stardom

Ah, so people are less successful over time if we define "success" as "sheer number of hits".

Just because they're not reaching the widest audience doesn't mean that these people aren't reaching their audience.

Isn't this how you want it to work? The point of publicity is to get everyone to look at your work once. But there's no way that all of those people are going to stick, unless your product is heroin. (Even then, some people are smart enough to say "no, thanks" to your first offer.)

If nearly 100% of the people who first see your product stick around, the most likely explanation is not that you have invented heroin. More likely, you have not reached enough people yet: Your product is still spreading solely via word of mouth, and there are potential fans among the general population who you would pick up if you cast a wider net. (Though, obviously, casting such a net has a cost. Your true fans may accuse you of "selling out" once your ads start appearing on daytime television.)

The important thing about a viewership curve is not that it declines over time. The important question is: What's the asymptotic value, and is that equilibrium number of fans large enough to keep you happy in perpetuity? If it isn't... what's the rate of decline, and is there enough area under the curve to keep you happy while you work out the next thing you want to do? The first scenario is The Simpsons. The second is just about every other successful TV series in history.

If your first lottery ticket has a 0.01 chance of winning, but your next lottery tickets have a declining chance of winning, the overall chance of winning the lottery can continue to rise. In their example, it rises from 0.01 to approaching 0.20. Doesn't sound all that irrational, does it? Persistence increases your chance of becoming popular by a factor of 20X. It just takes many more than 20 uploads to accomplish that increase.

In fact, ... when you think about it, ... it could not turn out any other way. If the probability of your next video getting you in the "top 1%" on YouTube stayed fixed, ... then EVERYONE could be in the "top 1%". ... sounds like everyone wanting their kids to be "above average" in school. It's just not possible.

-- dxjones

i.e., why don't "one-shot wonders" recognize themselves as such and... give up?

It's a basic principle of the psychology of learned behavior: intermittent reinforcement: Having occasionally been rewarded, s/he persists in trying to be rewarded (cf: win the big one in the lottery).

In either case, it's not the destination, it's the journey :) Being a 'star' might be important to some people, but I would argue that most will not waste their time if they didn't enjoy doing it.

It includes a link to the original paper.