You misinterpret the spirit of the quote. What it means is the following. > Having very good research is a necessary condition to succeed in academia, but it i

You misinterpret the spirit of the quote. What it means is the following. > Having very good research is a necessary condition to succeed in academia, but it is not sufficient. The reason why this is emphasized to starting academics is that many naively believe the system is purely meritocratic and that their work will speak for itself. This is borne out of an ignorance of how fundamentally important it is to communicate the importance of your work to others. The reality is that there is a total glut of research. Even the best do not have time to sift through all recent results in their broader field. Even if they scan abstracts, understanding the true value of results is a hard process that takes time. The most effective way to understand value of research is to interrogate the researcher directly (e.g., in a seminar talk). Thus, self-advertisement through seminar talks and other modes is crucial to getting your message out. Otherwise you will wilt into obscurity. I can assure you, the space for some sort of corporate style huckster selling poor research with flashy branding in pure math is very small. This stuff is not easy to fake.