3 ms·
This is an interesting comparison because I think it actually highlights something deeper here, which is that the kind of shamelessness described in this post i
by ChefboyOG 6y ago
This is an interesting comparison because I think it actually highlights something deeper here, which is that the kind of shamelessness described in this post is an effective—if not optimal—strategy for a fundamentally different type of reward.
Paris Hilton, for example, was certainly already in a privileged tier of humans—as were/are many others who are born into similar circumstances. It seems, however, that the reward she was optimizing for (building a platform around her persona, effectively turning her life into a consumer brand) was not the same as everyone else in that circle. Her shamelessness seems like a very effective policy, in that context.
Ibra (one of my all-time favorite players) is also a perfect example of this. Despite being a high-level competitor and objectively world-class player, he is also interested in using his personal brand as a monetizable tool in a way that many other top players do not (though, it's fair to mention that players like Maradona have done this historically as well). For example, Ibra's move to the MLS—and the fact that he was paid a record breaking 7.5 million per year—certainly required him to be a great player, but it's also fair to say that the platform he brought with him made him especially attractive to a team looking to sell jerseys and season tickets.
So yes, I think you're right that the table stakes to shamelessness being effective are the essential building blocks of success in one's field—Paris Hilton/Donald Trump have to have wealth and access, Zlatan has to be world-class, etc.—but I think that what that shamelessness buys them is a different kind of success, one they might not achieve without shamelessness (or without some parallel promotional strategy).