Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jabelk 4342 days ago
I was hoping for more fleshed-out examples of why the business models were good, but the list was interesting nonetheless.

My two personal-favorite business models are (in no particular order): Tesla and Miley Cyrus.

Tesla: evident if you're familiar with it (http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-p...)

My interest in the Miley Cyrus model might need a little more explanation. Back a few months ago, when she was releasing over-the-top videos (wrecking ball?), everyone was saying some variant of "wow why is Miley famous she obviously has no talent and this is just lewd." But this is the crux of her brilliance.[0] She has tricked a very large number of people into advertising for her, regardless of whether she does anything requiring talent. But then there's the obvious tradeoff: she has to deliver all of these ridiculous things, likely to the detriment of her ability to contribute anything actually meaningful to the industry. Maybe other people have made that deal but none seem to have been as successful, at least based on the data from my facebook feed. And this is a rare case in which facebook feed data is a useful measure of the success of the business, because it fuels the clicks and the conversations and the weird interest.

Anyway. Every time I see something about her, even overwhelmingly negative, I shake my head and think "another person tricked into feeding her success". Her willingness to decouple her success from anything "worthwhile"[1] about her (talent/skill/beauty/benefit to fans), at the cost of irrecoverably changing her career in what most would view as a very negative way, is sort of fascinating.

[0] I say "her brilliance" but in reality I am sure she is just the face for a manager type orchestrating the money-and-fame-for-girl's-reputation-and-soul deal.

[1] "Worthwhile" in quotes because is anything in the pop music industry really worthwhile?

8 comments

Are you purporting that Miley is currently popular because she's doing over the top things, despite her music not being good?

If so, I don't think it's a correct assessment. Her music is ultimately popular because people like it. I don't think people think Wrecking Ball is a better song because the video was over-the-top, nor would a wild video make me like a song I would otherwise hate. Miley was also popular before she got more extreme. On the flip-side, Britney Spears was far more popular before she got extreme. I'm sure there are other cases where an artist receives more press attention that does not correlate to increased music sales.

Chris Brown has had nothing but bad press since he hit Rhianna a few years ago and he's still placing songs on the charts and radio. People seem to mostly dislike him, but will still listen to his music. I don't think they're listening to him because he hit a woman and is in and out of jail. I think they just like the songs he makes.

In the end, people still need to have some connection to the music. In pop music, that connection may not be entirely rational, and it certainly isn't lasting, but it's still there for some period of time.

>Her music is ultimately popular because people like it.

I don't think that this is actually true - most of these songs are purchased from agencies, produced to within an inch of their lives, and marketed aggressively in every possible medium. People may like the songs (and they should, because every part of the process has been managed by the most talented and successful people in the music industry), but that's not specifically the reason for Miley Cyrus's success.

Biley Papyrus could have the same songs in the same order on the same records with a sound produced to be indistinguishable to the versions you're familiar with, and if Biley didn't have the brand that has been created around Miley (or Rhianna, or any major corporate pop artist), Biley's success with that same set likely wouldn't be what Miley's success has been.

edit: Also - Smiley Papyrus (Biley's sister) could have the exact brand as Miley, and an entirely different set of songs, and the expectation would be that she would be successful. Hell, when Miley puts out her next album, she pretty much is Smiley.

It seems like some baseline talent is necessary to make the strategy work. I don't claim to have any ability to judge musical ability, plus it seems many artists aren't writing their own songs anyway, so I'm not trying to comment on her merits. Just noting that she's chosen to shift attention from her actual music to these antics, which is a strange choice from my perspective.
Correct. A pop star needs a few ingredients:

* Have at least some baseline modicum of talent * Have access to talented songwriters * Have access to talented producers * Be attractive, or at least interesting to look at * Have a stage presence

Bonus points for: * Ability to dance * A salacious or intriguing "private" life

Many pop stars have singing talent in spades (Beyonce, Adele, Whitney Houston), but many others have proven that extraordinary singing talent is not a pre-requisite for enormous success (Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez, Miley Cyrus, perhaps Madonna).

I would say talent is less important now than ever. But this could be an illusion, as history is likely to forget pop stars who leave behind nothing memorable.

The bonus points for "salacious private life" are short-term, often borrowed against the long term.

Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan are not exactly long-term success stories, even though they continue to be in the news and their popularity is still worth money.

And thanks to autotune, the baseline is lower than you'd think.

These documentary clips about the "pop star formula" (boobs + hair + autotune + writing talent from elsewhere) are rather instructive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soNLWoSMy1k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9tpOvYDqyo

(the 2nd clip about 1:30 applies the formula, humorously)

I don't know if she's thinking of it this way, but one could look at her antics as a marketing strategy (cough cough growth hacking? cough cough). This is an old strategy that many others in the entertainment industry have tried with varying levels of success.
I think that an over-the-top video helps to get more reach, helps to introduce more people to a song. There are many songs with similar qualities, but if yours reach a wider audience, you will dominate the sales (and award) charts.

Put it another way: it doesn't matter if your song is good for many people, if you can't reach them, nobody will know about you.

>Her music is ultimately popular because people like it.

It is so simple, yet I'm always amazed about how uncomfortable this can be for some people.

Tesla Master Plan:

  Build sports car
  Use that money to build an affordable car
  Use that money to build an even more affordable car
  While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
Thanks for the link, good reading.
I'm pretty sure with a father and godmother long timers in the music business, I'm pretty sure she knows what she's doing. For another take that confirms it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOwblaKmyVw
She definitely knows what she's doing. You can't go from that "Jolene" video you linked to sitting naked on a wrecking ball[0] in one year, by accident. The interesting thing is that she would choose deliberately to do that.

[0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My2FRPA3Gf8 - note that this song has 20x more views

Yes, I think she needed to kill the Hanna Montana image.

And look! here we are, talking in "social media" about her... damn!

I'm assuming the Rap Genius guys are following the Miley Cyrus model then.
I don't think so - unless I'm missing information about them (they're now rebranded as just "Genius" FYI). Their two main controversies that I'm aware of were the SEO violation thing and the founder's inappropriate comments about the serial killer's sister.

The first they apologized (and were penalized) for, the second they fired the founder. They aren't embracing negative attention, as far as I can tell.

I disagree. Even though Rap Genius has showcased plenty of what I like to call "douchey" behavior, in the end of the day they still make an awesome app that I and many others essentially need.
Every time I see something about her, even overwhelmingly negative, I shake my head and think "another person tricked into feeding her success".

What does it say about you, though, that you are reading that person's commentary? Whoever it was was probably just using her notoriety to make a point they wanted to make anyway. Media feeding frenzies go both ways. The media uses Miley as much as she uses them. The system isn't as simple as one person tricking another person into free publicity.

It's worth pointing out that Miley Cyrus didn't exactly invent this model. The old saying is "there's no such thing as bad publicity". The first example that came to my mind is Madonna who always seems to do something "stupid" and "crazy" every couple years that reminds people she exists and keeps her in the public eye.
The old saying is "there's no such thing as bad publicity".

I am really so sick of hearing people repeat this mantra. Bad publicity can have silver linings and sometimes what might seems like bad publicity is not bad at all. But there are plenty of examples of bad publicity that is just bad publicity. See Tiger Woods for a straightforward example.

Soulja Boy also used the 'Miley Cyrus' model, except he would release a short, easy to do, dance video for everyone to dance when his song came on!
Paris Hilton did it as well - leak a sex tape, do all sorts of outrageous shit, and make sure that the media covers it all and people talk about it. Ironically, she's the first Hilton in a while to be a self-made millionaire; her actions got her cut off from the bulk of her trust fund, but she's making about $10M/year in endorsements and public appearances.
Why is Miley Cyrus famous, despite an apparent lack of talent? She was probably famous before she was born.