The article gives example of Justin Bieber and Adele. For those two examples, there are hundreds who got where they are just because they knew someone important. Miley Cyrus, Jaden Smith, Charlie Sheen, Ben Stiller, Angelina Jolie, Paris Hilton. Actors/singers make very poor examples for this given that most of them mostly get to where they are by networking more than anything else.
Lets say there was an absolute master of his profession that nobody knows. Compare that to someone who knows enough to get by when it comes to his profession but knows most people there is to know in the industry. In general, which one is more likely to get hired? Who will have better references? Who is likely to know about vacancies before they are announced? Are companies willing to hire someone because he answered more question in a test even vs who did OK but has a lot of good references from respectable people, some of whom they personally know?
Someone who only cares about a better paying job should spend 90% of their time in networking and 10% on honing their profession because networking is all that matters. Someone who absolutely loves their work will happily do their share of work for a lower pay.
I was about to write a very similar comment to yours.
My father is a remarkably talented guitarist. I used to think he was "good" as a kid, but it wasn't until I was older that I realized just how "good" he actually was. I vividly remember being home from college over the holidays one year, listening to some Rory Gallagher ('74 Irish Tour), and he just casually started following along with Rory's lead in Tatoo'd Lady. That's when it first clicked to me.
He was born in NYC and did all the terrible things that any kid would do in NYC in the '70s. But when my brother and I were suddenly a thing my parents picked up and moved north to the Adirondacks so that we, presumably, wouldn't do all the terrible things that any kid would do in NYC in the '80s.
While there is obviously no telling whether or not he would have become a successful musician by staying down in the city, there is no doubt in my mind that he was, in some small way, giving up on his dream by moving out of the city in an effort to give us a chance at a more, I suppose "wholesome", life as kids.
Right, the point is, your dad is interchangeable with most of the 'successful' people in music. Unfortunately, this is always true for subjective creative endeavors.
I would add that many of the very best artists owe their careers to knowing the right person at the critical moment.
In a recent interview, composer Randy Newman explained how childhood connections got him into the business:
"Newman started writing songs because his childhood friend Lenny Waronker, who later became the president of Warner Bros. Records, suggested that he try it. “He knew who Carole King was and stuff. His dad had started a record company,” Newman said."
And vice versa. Jobs got where he was by (not likely coincidentally) finding a person with Woz's combination of genius and gullibility. Woz didn't get a remotely fair shake from Jobs, and there are not a ton of guys dumb enough to ride that ride and smart enough to deliver what Woz delivered.
Woz isn't dumb, just had different priorities in life. If you sum up the total happiness over the course of Jobs and Woz lives, Woz might come out ahead.
An excellent point. Who's the smart one at the end of the day? Woz seems to have all the money he needs and all the fame I think he can stand. There's a lot to be said for quitting while you're ahead.
Woz+Jobs were a partnership, not cronyism. Both are people coming together to build something, but cronyism is when certain people are elevated over others for personal reasons unrelated to thei contribution to the work.
> Someone who only cares about a better paying job should spend 90% of their time in networking and 10% on honing their profession because networking is all that matters. Someone who absolutely loves their work will happily do their share of work for a lower pay.
As depressing as this seems, it does really seem to be the case. And it seems to be even more accentuated for non-programming jobs. At least in software, we have some kind of test (as flawed as it might be).
I don't even know why the article would consider Bieber as a of case not networking. The article itself states that his career took off when he signed with Usher.
This sums up everything I've seen so far: academia, companies, and startups. It makes one very cynical after experiencing how much things are driven by PR.
Academia is less so than the others. The main thresholds of ability is determined by publications and grants. Both of those are peer-reviewed in a fair way (either blind reviewed, or where the conflict of interests have to leave the room). You can be amazingly successful being a no name who publishes and gets funding.
Can being related to someone already famous really be considered networking, though? I always think of networking as actively going out and making new contacts. Being born with a contact to an industry is just luck.
Networking is one the most expensive forms of advertising. If a better paying job is what you are after, spending 90% of your time on networking doesn't sound like an efficient or even a good idea. Instead focus on building your brand, doing PR, writing articles, speaking at various events, etc., basically focus on becoming a rockstar and wait for offers to come to you.
Through other channels, the same way people know about anyone famous without ever networking with them. For example, it's much cheaper to submit your article to a bunch of websites, mention it in comments on various platforms, advertise it on Google, Facebook, than to network with people and ask them to read it.
Lets say there was an absolute master of his profession that nobody knows. Compare that to someone who knows enough to get by when it comes to his profession but knows most people there is to know in the industry. In general, which one is more likely to get hired? Who will have better references? Who is likely to know about vacancies before they are announced? Are companies willing to hire someone because he answered more question in a test even vs who did OK but has a lot of good references from respectable people, some of whom they personally know?
Someone who only cares about a better paying job should spend 90% of their time in networking and 10% on honing their profession because networking is all that matters. Someone who absolutely loves their work will happily do their share of work for a lower pay.