3 ms·

Agreed, but I don't think you're necessarily in disagreement with your parent. Some people struggle to understand how to improve on their weaknesses and think t

Agreed, but I don't think you're necessarily in disagreement with your parent. Some people struggle to understand how to improve on their weaknesses and think they're paying attention to how their content is received, adapting to their audience, etc, but in reality they're missing the mark by a mile. In this sense it's essentially entrepreneurship. The founders who are simply not doing a good job don't always realize it. Some people will continue their efforts for years without knowing it's their own inability holding them back.

tomhoward 6y ago
The parent commenter wasn't clear about whether they meant success comes mostly down to random chance vs persistence and responsiveness to the audience. I've expanded (and edited) my comment to try and clarify what I think is an important distinction. But to be clear, I highly doubt it's true that for every creator who builds a big audience, there's another nine (or even one or two) who put in the same effort, persistence and attention to their audience, over at least 2 years, and get nowhere. I can believe that many start out then get discouraged and give up early, because they don't know how to gauge their results and improve their product, but that's a different issue.
- rdgthree 6y ago
  I agree largely, I'm just not sure that insufficient effort/persistence so heavily outweighs low quality content as a reason for failure over time. I'd imagine there are actually a large amount of "zombie" YouTubers that consistently put out videos that very few people (relatively) end up watching. A lot of startups end up in this "zombie" state rather than shutting down[0]. So I agree most probably just get discouraged and give up early. But I can easily see 9 long-time "zombie" YouTubers for every channel with a big audience. [0]https://yclist.com/ https://yclist.com/
  - tomhoward 6y ago
    I guess it's that kind of topic where once you discuss it enough you reach consensus on a position that is neither particularly controversial nor insightful :) I gather the people who've found my earlier comments disagreeable are assuming I'm advocating that people blindly persist at something for countless years, even if they see no signs of success, which of course I'm not. My point assumes that by doing something with sufficient dedication for a sufficient amount of time, you'll learn the necessary skills, including learning how to learn, and learning how to gauge success, and learning when it's best to quit and try something else. I actually don't think it's likely there's huge numbers of "zombie" YouTubers, slogging away for years with no success. Sure, plenty of stuff gets posted that gets very few views, but not by people who are serious about making a career of it. Career-focused people either see signs of success or realise they need to find a new career path. As for the YC list, I know a lot about that list as my company is on it, as are several others run by people I know. There aren't many actual zombie companies on that list. There are companies that didn't become unicorns, but did become solid small-medium businesses that employ a decent number of people and provide important services to their customers, and will likely eventually be acquired for a decent return to the founders and investors. And there are others that have been abandoned, but provided valuable lessons to their founders, which helped equip them for greater success in the next stages of their career. My opinions expressed above are from having spent 10+ years running and observing others running startups, and by seeing what persistence and long-term success look like. I've never seen persistence work out badly for people, as long as they are adequately able to gauge their success along the way. I get saddened at the thought that people with the potential to do great things might be discouraged from giving something a go because somebody else tells them "you know, for every successful person you see, there are 10 people who failed", when the truth is not nearly that simple or dismal.

tomhoward 6y ago

The parent commenter wasn't clear about whether they meant success comes mostly down to random chance vs persistence and responsiveness to the audience. I've expanded (and edited) my comment to try and clarify what I think is an important distinction. But to be clear, I highly doubt it's true that for every creator who builds a big audience, there's another nine (or even one or two) who put in the same effort, persistence and attention to their audience, over at least 2 years, and get nowhere. I can believe that many start out then get discouraged and give up early, because they don't know how to gauge their results and improve their product, but that's a different issue.

rdgthree 6y ago
I agree largely, I'm just not sure that insufficient effort/persistence so heavily outweighs low quality content as a reason for failure over time. I'd imagine there are actually a large amount of "zombie" YouTubers that consistently put out videos that very few people (relatively) end up watching. A lot of startups end up in this "zombie" state rather than shutting down[0]. So I agree most probably just get discouraged and give up early. But I can easily see 9 long-time "zombie" YouTubers for every channel with a big audience. [0]https://yclist.com/ https://yclist.com/
- tomhoward 6y ago
  I guess it's that kind of topic where once you discuss it enough you reach consensus on a position that is neither particularly controversial nor insightful :) I gather the people who've found my earlier comments disagreeable are assuming I'm advocating that people blindly persist at something for countless years, even if they see no signs of success, which of course I'm not. My point assumes that by doing something with sufficient dedication for a sufficient amount of time, you'll learn the necessary skills, including learning how to learn, and learning how to gauge success, and learning when it's best to quit and try something else. I actually don't think it's likely there's huge numbers of "zombie" YouTubers, slogging away for years with no success. Sure, plenty of stuff gets posted that gets very few views, but not by people who are serious about making a career of it. Career-focused people either see signs of success or realise they need to find a new career path. As for the YC list, I know a lot about that list as my company is on it, as are several others run by people I know. There aren't many actual zombie companies on that list. There are companies that didn't become unicorns, but did become solid small-medium businesses that employ a decent number of people and provide important services to their customers, and will likely eventually be acquired for a decent return to the founders and investors. And there are others that have been abandoned, but provided valuable lessons to their founders, which helped equip them for greater success in the next stages of their career. My opinions expressed above are from having spent 10+ years running and observing others running startups, and by seeing what persistence and long-term success look like. I've never seen persistence work out badly for people, as long as they are adequately able to gauge their success along the way. I get saddened at the thought that people with the potential to do great things might be discouraged from giving something a go because somebody else tells them "you know, for every successful person you see, there are 10 people who failed", when the truth is not nearly that simple or dismal.