Hmmmmm. Dennis rodman was playing for the San Antonio Spurs when he painted his hair and became famous. When he moved to the lakers he was already famous (or notorious). You could say that it is an unimportant mistake, but it seems rather silly, considering they actually have pictures of rodman in a san antonio spurs uniform illustrating their point about how he played for the lakers.
He played less than a season for the Lakers. He played three seasons with the Bulls, winning three championships next to Michael Jordan.
I wonder how much correlation there is between attention-seeking behavior and high salaries among professional athletes. Do Terrell Owens and Chad Ochocinco actually make more money than equally talented but more workmanlike wide receivers?
Probably about the same as the correlation between attention-seeking behavior and money for pop stars :)
I think the system works similarly - a face gets turned into a trademark and a 'flavor', which is used to sell stuff to people. But poor people don't make good flavors, which is why they have to be paid a lot.
Being 'different' certainly has something to do with it. If the loudmouth-alpha-guy market is saturated, maybe by addressing the totally-insane-guy market you can get picked up to fill that niche.
It's much like high school social dynamics, to be honest; everybody has to find their own part to play, with the price of failure being utter insignificance, and (low) compensation to match.
Whenever I see a piece like this, it makes me think I'm just oh so very slightly out of touch with how normal people interpret things. Take for instance:
> Be the best at what you do. Because the difference between #1 and #2 is growing wider in all the fields!
> (But what if you aren’t the best in your field? Read on…)
Growing wider in all fields! (But what if you're not the best?! Read on...!)
Now, I'm not poking fun at that style of writing - I'm genuinely curious, if anyone knows, why it seems to draw people in. Energy? Excitement? People's short attention spans? Very curious, any insight would be welcome.
(Disclosure: I'm the author of the post in question)
So why did I use the "Read on" tactic?
Answer: To circumvent an objection. I felt that an objection would be raised after that story. So I added that sentence so people would read further stories without being turned off.
Why do others use it?
Couple of reasons:
1. It builds anticipation. And its a form of subtle encouragement.
2. It shows that the piece is incomplete. Which improves the % of people who end up reading the entire article.
Similar tactics people use... good copywriters always end the page in the middle of a sentence - so people have to turn the page to know how the sentence ends. Magazines mention the page number right besides the headline on the cover itself.
The purpose of all these tactics: prevent people to drop off in the middle of an article and get them to finish reading the entire piece!
Personally I felt that the article had too many exclamation points. Reading it was like having the author shout at me for a couple minutes. I don't know why it made it to the main page of HN.
Dennis Rodman: Before & After. Black boring hair hid him in the pack. Red exciting hair made him rich and famous!
Sounds like a TV hair dye commercial. lol
I guess the article has useful advice on how to make yourself or your startup business stand out from the pack. But all things considered I don't think this article is particularly profound.
