5 ms·

Godin, or maybe Gladwell (haven't read the book), is missing the point of the "10,000 hours" theory. It is about being "good" at a subject, not being famous for

by hassing 18y ago

Godin, or maybe Gladwell (haven't read the book), is missing the point of the "10,000 hours" theory. It is about being "good" at a subject, not being famous for it. Tiger Woods has spent thousands of hours practicing and is one of the best in his field (and is famous for that). Miley Cyrus is (afaik) not considered among the best actors in the world - she's just famous for landing a disney role.

teej 18y ago
"Miley Cyrus is (afaik) not considered among the best actors in the world - she's just famous for landing a disney role." I have to call you out on this point. Miley Cyrus isn't famous because she acted for Disney. There are plenty of child actors who did the same and went nowhere. Miley Cyrus is famous because she is the face of the Hannah Montana brand run by the Disney marketing machine. A brand that has net Disney revenues in the tens of millions of dollars.
- axod 18y ago
  You can't deny she is a talented actress, has a great voice, and is generally 'star quality'. A lot of it's just in the breeding and growing up around it all. She's probably done 10,000 hours of watching other people acting + singing while she grew up. Disclaimer: Sure, I'm a Miley Cirus fan. Admission is first step to recovery + all that.
  - unalone 18y ago
    I don't think she's particularly talented. She's decent in a field where everybody else is worse, but I've seen young actors that blow her away. Her voice, too, is good but not great. Again: there are young singers who are incredibly better than her. She's not terrible. But she isn't exactly good, either.
    - axod 18y ago
      What about the song writing that's sold millions of albums? For a 16 year old that's reasonably impressive no?
      - whatusername 18y ago
        But then does the impressiveness rest with the Disney Marketing Machine for Hannah Montana. In part it seems like she would be replaceable (or at least - another could havew been picked) with probably no detriment to the result. The same doesn't work for Tiger Woods or Bill Gates.
        anamax 18y ago
        > In part it seems like she would be replaceable (or at least - another could havew been picked) with probably no detriment to the result. Disney doesn't think so - she turned the role down and Disney put the show on hold for over a year while they tried to convince her to do it. While there's no doubt that that show wouldn't have been nearly as popular without Disney pushing it, it doesn't follow that any cute kid would have been as successful given the Disney push. Disney is constantly pushing kids and only a few make it big. If you're better than Disney at picking child stars, big bucks await.
        unalone 18y ago
        Are you kidding? Disney very frequently makes kids this huge. When the kid's a singer/actress, especially so: they've done a good job of marketing her in both directions. If you write a show entirely around one person, then yeah. You'll put the show on hold to wait for them. That doesn't mean she's particularly brilliant. Just that she's not entirely awful.
        anamax 18y ago
        > Are you kidding? Disney very frequently makes kids this huge. "Very frequently"? I don't see enough "kids this huge" to justify "frequently". And they didn't write the show for Cyrus. They created the show and she auditioned. They offered. She declined. They waited. If Disney can create hits at will, why don't they? Instead, they ride the hits that they have. They try a lot of things. When something works small, they go bigger. If it still works, they hit the gas. Like I said, if you can do better, big bucks await.
walterk 18y ago
This is exactly right, and I had written a comment ripping into Godin's post for that reason. But then I checked Gladwell's book and he argues that 10,000 hours is the rule for "successful" people rather than the exception (that is, "successful" -> 10K, not 10K -> "successful"), and now I'm wondering if that's really true. Of course, he never really defines what he means by "successful", but by picking Bill Gates and The Beatles, he's probably got his sights set a little higher than The Doors and Miley Cyrus. Also, quotes from at least one of the researchers who advocate the 10K theory assume that you need 10K to be a "world-class expert" in any discipline. That's a claim that probably needs to be heavily qualified to retain validity, since some of Godin's examples would seem to refute that.

by hassing 18y ago

teej 18y ago

"Miley Cyrus is (afaik) not considered among the best actors in the world - she's just famous for landing a disney role." I have to call you out on this point. Miley Cyrus isn't famous because she acted for Disney. There are plenty of child actors who did the same and went nowhere. Miley Cyrus is famous because she is the face of the Hannah Montana brand run by the Disney marketing machine. A brand that has net Disney revenues in the tens of millions of dollars.

axod 18y ago
You can't deny she is a talented actress, has a great voice, and is generally 'star quality'. A lot of it's just in the breeding and growing up around it all. She's probably done 10,000 hours of watching other people acting + singing while she grew up. Disclaimer: Sure, I'm a Miley Cirus fan. Admission is first step to recovery + all that.
- unalone 18y ago
  I don't think she's particularly talented. She's decent in a field where everybody else is worse, but I've seen young actors that blow her away. Her voice, too, is good but not great. Again: there are young singers who are incredibly better than her. She's not terrible. But she isn't exactly good, either.
  - axod 18y ago
    What about the song writing that's sold millions of albums? For a 16 year old that's reasonably impressive no?
    - whatusername 18y ago
      But then does the impressiveness rest with the Disney Marketing Machine for Hannah Montana. In part it seems like she would be replaceable (or at least - another could havew been picked) with probably no detriment to the result. The same doesn't work for Tiger Woods or Bill Gates.
      - anamax 18y ago
        > In part it seems like she would be replaceable (or at least - another could havew been picked) with probably no detriment to the result. Disney doesn't think so - she turned the role down and Disney put the show on hold for over a year while they tried to convince her to do it. While there's no doubt that that show wouldn't have been nearly as popular without Disney pushing it, it doesn't follow that any cute kid would have been as successful given the Disney push. Disney is constantly pushing kids and only a few make it big. If you're better than Disney at picking child stars, big bucks await.
        unalone 18y ago
        Are you kidding? Disney very frequently makes kids this huge. When the kid's a singer/actress, especially so: they've done a good job of marketing her in both directions. If you write a show entirely around one person, then yeah. You'll put the show on hold to wait for them. That doesn't mean she's particularly brilliant. Just that she's not entirely awful.
        anamax 18y ago
        > Are you kidding? Disney very frequently makes kids this huge. "Very frequently"? I don't see enough "kids this huge" to justify "frequently". And they didn't write the show for Cyrus. They created the show and she auditioned. They offered. She declined. They waited. If Disney can create hits at will, why don't they? Instead, they ride the hits that they have. They try a lot of things. When something works small, they go bigger. If it still works, they hit the gas. Like I said, if you can do better, big bucks await.

walterk 18y ago

This is exactly right, and I had written a comment ripping into Godin's post for that reason. But then I checked Gladwell's book and he argues that 10,000 hours is the rule for "successful" people rather than the exception (that is, "successful" -> 10K, not 10K -> "successful"), and now I'm wondering if that's really true. Of course, he never really defines what he means by "successful", but by picking Bill Gates and The Beatles, he's probably got his sights set a little higher than The Doors and Miley Cyrus. Also, quotes from at least one of the researchers who advocate the 10K theory assume that you need 10K to be a "world-class expert" in any discipline. That's a claim that probably needs to be heavily qualified to retain validity, since some of Godin's examples would seem to refute that.