[citricsquid]

Justin Bieber blows my mind every time I read about him and I really respect him (mainly because his life is insane and he somehow hasn't screwed it up yet) but his success is much more his management and Justin Bieber (the brand) is a story of how good management can make a success.

Just looking at how the entertainment industry works is fascinating, they can create such incredible brands in so little time. Take the boy band "One Direction", every single teenager in the first world has heard of them, they haven't even existed for 2 years and the hype surrounding them is huge, they were formed artificially. There's also the boy band "The Wanted" (Bieber's manager Scooter Braun is their manager too) who were also formed artificially, they're growing as a brand too and there is huge hype surrounding them.

The entertainment industry appears to the outside to be very simple, most people think that bands start out and make some music and grow in popularity organically, but that seems to rarely be the case, SOMEONE put every successful musician where they are and often it's a very strategic thing. Entertainment is where the money is.

This is the sort of thing the people that want to "disrupt" the music industry don't understand, they think that artists not getting 100% of their music sales is a terrible thing, what they don't seem to understand is there's a reason the music industry takes a big cut. Justin Bieber would not be making 9 figures a year if he'd sold his music on Bandcamp.

[confluence]

> This is the sort of thing the people that want to "disrupt" the music industry don't understand, they think that artists not getting 100% of their music sales is a terrible thing, what they don't seem to understand is there's a reason the music industry takes a big cut.

People drastically underestimate the difficulty that is present in industries other than their own.

Engineers/Programmers are notoriously bad at this. Disrupt Education/Hollywood/Music/Movies/Medicine/Everything!

Now, they will eventually be proven correct (anything that can be defined; can and will be automated), but it is the systemic underestimation in difficulty that's the problem.

Doing well in any industry is hard, and most people don't understand that when they only have the facile prejudices of various industries to rely upon.

Things are broken, yes. People will fix it, correct. But it is not nearly as easy as people like to think it is.

Coders scream in shock and horror when people call them nothing more than code monkeys (which they obviously aren't) or when people state how easy programming is compared to generating a brilliant idea (it's obviously not).

But coders will scream just as loudly that others aren't very bright, smart, worthy/aren't doing work in their industry correctly.

Things are harder to do than most people, including you or I, can possibly anticipate without the requisite domain knowledge.

[kamaal]

>>mainly because his life is insane

Most kids are insane. Such insanity comes because they don't think before they act, they don't worry about risks and so creativity flows instantaneously. I know this as I was insane as a kid. I used to sing at every opportunity and occasion. I won awards at numerous occasions singing devotional songs in Indian classical music genre. I have sung in front of large audiences, in stadiums, before sporting events, tough competitions etc. In fact the only thing I enjoyed totally in school was singing and science exhibitions.

The only issue was 'video camera' was not affordable and accessible at that time. There was no Youtube and my parents thought singing and music won't help me make a living. I begged them to let me learn how to play an instrument. But they didn't let me go close to it.

You will be shocked how many kids are talented but never receive the appreciation and much needed direction they need in the early part of the their lives. A lot of talent goes wasted this way.

If Justin Bieber is what he is today, he is a insane kid who works very hard and enjoys what he does. But he has also had the advantage of getting the right direction and appreciation from people around him.

[corin_]

"His life in insane" is not the same as "he is insane".

[PakG1]

If you define "insane" in the colloquial sense of "unbelievable" or "amazing" or "astounding", then the word works for both sentences. If you define it as "clinically crazy" or "no grip on reality", then it doesn't work for both sentences. I think the gp is clearly going for the prior, not the latter.

[corin_]

Yes the word would work in both, but saying someone has an amazing live still isn't the same as saying that somebody is amazing.

GP was talking about the life he has, not the talent he has, so the "insanity" isn't comparable between his life and that of a child who is talented but has a normal life.

[jcampbell1]

Off topic, but the whole notion that tech industries "disrupt" other industries outside of tech is confused.

If we list tech companies that massively disrupted non-tech industries, you come up with a list like:

* Napster

* Wikipedia

* Craigslist

* AirBnB

If you list companies that didn't disrupt non-tech industries, and created new value, you come up with a list like:

* Apple

* Microsoft

* Google

* Facebook

* Oracle

* Dropbox

Based on my naive list of companies, disruption of non-tech industries seems overrated.

[btipling]

> If you list companies that didn't disrupt non-tech industries

> * Google

...

Libraries and the centuries old librarian profession as well as Yellow Pages, Printed Map books, and oh, privacy.

Also Apple disrupted the record industry with $.99 songs + iTunes and iPod.

Amazon, not on your list, has disrupted retail.

[confluence]

You have to be careful with that list.

You need to look not just at the direct products produced (which may not be disruptive in the classical sense), but also at the positive externalities that they effect.

Apple made the computer personal when it was founded (or at least that is my impression). That didn't disrupt too many people, but think of all the secondary effects. People could learn to program, people could automate things, they could reduce their reliance on word typesetters, photocopiers, radios, television, encyclopedias - the list goes on.

Oracle did kill a lot of big government/company paper waste (not that there isn't any left :), and stuck it into databases, effectively wiping out an industry and creating the new data warehousing/analysts that we know of today.

Google makes research/discovery democratic - instead of editorial. It allows people to directly connect with what they want (information/news/stuff), disintermediating a lot of advertisting channels at a lower cost (TV/Radio/Newspapers especially).

Microsoft got "a PC on every desk", think of all the secondary effects of that (networking/internet/app development/programming tool etc.)

You see my point?

[jcampbell1]

I don't see your point. Your reference to "positive externalities" is the same as what I meant by "new value".

[confluence]

> If we list tech companies that massively disrupted non-tech industries, you come up with a list like:

It should be Fair to say that the popularization of software, hardware and search has disrupted quite a few industries via secondary effects - which is what companies on the second list have done (the ones you list as non-disruptive).

Google has destroyed the newspaper advertising model. Oracle has destroyed the big corporate/government back offices (not all). Apple destroyed a great many jobs (via popularization of PCs -> Lotus Notes/App development).

My point is that they are disruptive companies :).

[csomar]

Microsoft Office disrupted traditional spreadsheets and probably reduced the number of employees required to do the work.

Facebook disrupted the traditional way of meeting friends and connecting with them.

Dropbox disrupted movable storage (Flash or Memory cards)

Someone else mentioned Google and Amazon.

[ippisl]

Look at [1], slides 32-84. There are many disruptive changes mentioned there.

[1]http://www.businessinsider.com/mary-meekers-latest-incredibl...

[ippisl]

Let's look at a related industry: amazon made it that 70% of sales are given to the author. Now if the author want he can give money to marketing guys.If he wants to go alone , he can. He controls the process.

This has definitely given more market power to book authors(leaving aside amazon power grab).

Similar models can be offered to the music industry. They'll just enable artists to get more control over the process.

So the boy band will pay high royalty rate to the marketing guys because he is mostly marketing based, but the amazing new musical talent who seems to get a lot of people via viral marketing will share much less of the money.

[wh-uws]

I think you're discounting the fact that Bieber was discovered because of videos that were on youtube

[citricsquid]

No, he was discovered because his videos were on the internet. Scooter Braun misclicked on a link and a video of Justin Bieber played, that link could have been to any website. The value there was the internet, not Youtube. If you want to argue how Youtube plays into the success of Justin Bieber you should look later in the timeline, Youtube was a valuable part after he had gained traction, just like radio and television, it was a platform for distribution (not sure if that's the right word) of the brand.