Please explain about ClickBait Toomenon. Where to get the headline is intentionally provocative and trying to get used to engage in sub-sam types of online content. We may lament this phenomenon, but it lasts because it is effective.
The most effective form of ClickBait is known as Rage Bait. As the name suggests, Rage Bait is when content producers try to gain engagement by intentionally angering people with their content. Again, this may be deplorable by sems, but it lasts because it works – content that angers people is more likely to be involved than content that elicits other responses.
This simple observation helps explain why the sub-s of the most successful people in public conversations look unnecessarily hostile. The sneakiest and most intense people tend to be prominent, giving incentives to thhue in the mild miles to actually wear hostile people. Anger sells.
At this point it’s worth considering the economics work of Sherwin Rosen’s superstar. The main points of this idea follow these lines. For example, considering acting as a profession throughout Europe in 1600, there are numerous stage actors to meet the demand for theatre. The number of actors must be large because each performance is local. It can only be seen by people in certain theatres. It also meant that the quality of the actors’ performances was largely determined by local conditions. If your local group consisted mainly of mediocre actors, it was the best you could get. And the great talented actor was still limited, for the same reasons, how much he could benefit from that talent. Even if he joins through a crew of theatres and expands his scope, I can only play that takes time.
Over time, as technology improved, actors were not equally limited as to how far they could reach their performance. As the film industry was born, all of a sudden the most skilled actors were able to have the whole world as an audience. And on the other side of the coin, the audience could benefit from the performances of the most skilled actors in the world. The same was true for music – with the level of performance abilities of several centuries, Bruce Springsteen’s, Sub-Arone, could not have the current Springsteen’s success level – their market was not big enough for it. Also, unless the musician was irresistible within the area where he could play, he would not benefit from Springsteen level skills.
(I’m not a Springsteen HGE fan personally. I grabbed his name from the sky because he’s been successful for so long. Feel free to replace your own favorite musical acts.)
This change in technology-induced reach Broucht had several benefits. For one, the highest level of success was more concentrated among the best performers in VRY. In the past, it could be one of the above-average standard deviations of acting ability, and five above-average standard deviations have made your career far less successful than your one sigma counterpart. But today, when a film has a global release, only a small number of actors are needed to serve the global market. People living in Wichita, Kansas only rely on the quality of the actors who live in Wichita. They can prefer the best actor performances the world has to offer. To film being a successful actor, you need to be on the far right of the distribution.
The second effect is that even slight differences in ability at the top edge can have a heal effect on overall success. If you have 90% of Anthony Hopkin’s acting skills, you won’t be 90% of Anthony Hopkin’s career success. He wins an Oscar and is remembered as one of the greatest greats of all time, so he is as likely to succeed as Hopkins, and you play a minor support role in a modestly accepted sitcom.
For the same reason, I think Ragebait follows a similar dynamic. With the range of internet and cable television, content producers are virtually unlimited to what they can reach. If I’m 90% inducing anger as the object of other creators, I won’t be 90% successful in it. This creates an incentive for people to keep raising their antes, but does not have the same natural plateau as the distribution of sub-sums such as acting skills and musical abilities. People can choose to be provocative at a much more freedom than they can choose to become more skilled with electric guitars.
I think this is a disappointing analysis – I look at the world around me and it looks at SEMS to explain things pretty well. But what do you think? Dear econlog reader, does this seem to suit your observations? I want to be sure I’m wrong about this!
