#76449 - viral media

[Katya]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/76449/

Duncan Watts is a researcher who studies networks, particularly social networks. He's done some work on how trends and fads spread across networks. In particular, some of his work focused on Malcolm Gladwell's idea of "influencers," people who supposedly exert undue influence on others in terms of adopting trends. What Watts found was that influencers don't really exist, because for every trend that we pick up from them, there are a dozen trends that we don't pick up. Instead, the biggest factor in whether or not a trend is adopted is the receptiveness of the user, although broadcasting power is another important factor.

In terms of video virality, what makes a video popular is how well it meets the needs of a viewer. You could think of it as an equation looking like with something like "user satisfaction" on one side and "time/money/work invested" on the other side, if the satisfaction (or promise of satisfaction) outweighs the investment, a person has a greater likelihood of watching the video, and if the video is especially satisfying, he or she will also be more likely to share the video. Watching something like a YouTube video requires a very low investment of money or work, so it's easy for videos to go viral. In addition, many people like to be aware of trends or cultural references, so once a video gains popularity, you can also add "cultural awareness" to the positive side of the equation.

Also, this morning I heard a story on NPR about a study which set up parallel "worlds" to see how much of artistic success in innate and how much of it is due to chance. The researcher found that you can't artificially make bad art successful, but one you reach a certain degree of quality, what becomes successful and what doesn't is largely a matter of chance.

[Haleakalā]

I heard that same NPR story this morning too!

[Katya]

I heard that same NPR story this morning too!

Wasn't it interesting? I love that kind of stuff.

[Haleakalā]

I wonder if that rule would hold true for more traditional forms of art as well. The study NPR talked about made it sound like they used primarily modern forms of media. I wonder if the rule hold for more traditional art like literature and classical music.

[Katya]

I wonder if that rule would hold true for more traditional forms of art as well. The study NPR talked about made it sound like they used primarily modern forms of media.

Right. And in particular, they used popular music, which is a very easily digestible form of art, so to speak.

I wonder if the rule hold for more traditional art like literature and classical music.

One thing I find interesting is how many artists/composers who are now held in high esteem went through periods of obscurity. Vivaldi, for instance, was popular in his lifetime, then unpopular/unfashionable for a couple of centuries after that, until a revival in the beginning of the 20th century, and now he's generally considered the second greatest Baroque composer (after Bach). As another example, Van Gogh had very little success during his lifetime, and now he's considered one of the greatest impressionist painters who ever lived. There are also many stories of artists who were very popular in their lifetimes who are now considered unimaginative or shallow.

So, I think the study definitely applies to short-term popularity, but long-term success may rely on other factors. That said, the first part of the story talked about the Mona Lisa's reputation as the best painting in the world, and whether or not that was deserved, and I think it's probably largely a fluke that we like the Mona Lisa, above all other paintings. I.e., at some point, a number of people decided that there was something extra special about the Mona Lisa, and then the media reinforced that perception (through coverage, media references, related merchandise, etc.) until it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. (And it would be fascinating to find a way to track the popularity of the Mona Lisa somehow, to see if it got a bump from things like Nat King Cole's song, etc.)

[Digit]

In the book world, there's this:

To briefly recap: Ross had written a mystery novel that had been turned down everywhere he sent it. So, as an experiment to see how the publishing business really worked, he retyped a National Book Award-winning novel -- "Steps," by Jerzy Kosinski -- and submitted it to 14 major publishers and 13 top agents. But he didn't put a title on it, and he didn't put Kosinski's name on it.

Every publisher and every agent turned it down. None recognized that they were rejecting a book that had already been a bestseller and had already won the National Book Award. So much for talent being judged on its own merit.

[Katya]

In the book world, there's this:

To briefly recap: Ross had written a mystery novel that had been turned down everywhere he sent it. So, as an experiment to see how the publishing business really worked, he retyped a National Book Award-winning novel -- "Steps," by Jerzy Kosinski -- and submitted it to 14 major publishers and 13 top agents. But he didn't put a title on it, and he didn't put Kosinski's name on it.

Every publisher and every agent turned it down. None recognized that they were rejecting a book that had already been a bestseller and had already won the National Book Award. So much for talent being judged on its own merit.

I don't think that this is really an issue of "talent" not being judged on its own merit so much as "unsolicited manuscripts for the slush pile" not being given a fair chance by a small group of (possibly unpaid) interns. Novels also have a much larger opportunity cost to consume and evaluate them as compared with, say, YouTube videos or songs, so it's easier to democratize the evaluation of the latter media.