Will this article be read by anyone?That was the #1 question going through my mind as I pressed ‘Publish’ on my first Forbes article in April of 2013.As someone with no email list or journalism background, my insecurity felt overwhelming. I feared my words would die the silent death of obscurity.So, I made a crucial decision…
Love the article and had difficulty grappling with your relevations given most are told to write for the algorithms (myself included). What are your thoughts on wanting to write a blockbuster with only a person or two in mind knowing that it could help them (then extrapolating it could impact others)?
And what are your thoughts on writing a blockbuster to help you think through a large problem or burning desire you want to learn or clarify for you only?
First, I pick topics that I'm deeply curious about. And, I write in a way that allows me to maximize my learning and evolving my thinking rather than just proving what I know. Said differently, my aim is to have the process be so personally enjoyable and beneficial that even if I never published it, I would still consider it a good investment.
Building on that internal foundation, I feel like it's a matter of reach and depth. Blockbuster articles at their best actually accomplish both. However, when you're just getting started, you won't have the reach. What I keep in mind during this phase is that if I'm writing high-quality, ever-green content and linking back to it in the coming years, it will get lots of traffic in the coming years. In other words, I'm taking a longer term perspective on reach rather than just a few day perspective.
I believe your long term view is deeply important and if you treat it as a learning experience, even if it does not gain an audience with the years, you will have hedged your bet against articles views/audience growth with learning.
Wouldn't there still be a little risk that what you are deeply curious about garners no interest by others?
And something else that comes to mind: if publishing a successful blockbuster has the same odds as a coin toss, why publish them in the first place?
I'm thinking it returns to the notion of learning (much value is derived from learning and writing), but I could be wrong?
The mental model I use for thinking about the value of curiosity is best explained in WHY GREATNESS CANNOT BE PLANNED by two AI researchers. They also did some interviews when the book originally came out that summarize the book well.
Regarding probabilities of success as a writer, I see it that my probabilities go up as a function of:
1. The size, diversity, ever-greeness, and value of my knowledge base and personal experiences.
It flies in the face of common online advice promoting disposable, low substance--high quantity digital publishing.
Given the even odds of having an article go viral, I question the economy of such a steep investment in “chance”.
Odds are no better than flipping a coin, according to the research.
So there’s something else driving this obsession with quality.
It may have more to do with being an artisan than a merchant of ideas.
You’ve mastered both.
That’s the path I chose.
Thanks for the great model you teach, Michael.
So what are my odds of accomplishing this level of success?
I’ve got more history than future, no time to spare, and trying to catch a train that may have already left the station...a fools errand or a 1% chance of getting there?
Give me your best bet on my chance for writing a blockbuster! Cheers, Elizabeth
Appreciate your comment. Based on it, I actually updated the post to make things more clear.
To have a super viral hit that reaches millions of people or sells millions of books is very rare. People who are skilled and consistent can dramatically increase their odds though.
To have enough success to impact the lives of thousands of people and build a solid six-figure income is very likely for most professionals who play the long game and are deliberate about learning. I don't think it is likely for people who are consistent with posting, but NOT deliberate about getting better with each post.
Any individual's chances and time-frame is super hard to predict since it depends on so many factors:
1. Existing mindsets
2. Existing thought leader skills
3. Existing body of work
4. How close they are to having product-market fit
He recommends testing ideas like a comedian. A comedian does 4+ sets per week in small comedy clubs refining their jokes. Then, the bigger ones, start performing their jokes in theaters to people who paid specifically to see them. Then, every 2-3 years, they create a special with all of their best, most proven jokes. That special is often put on a platform like Netflix.
So, basically, I would recommend multiple levels of testing and then with each level testing fewer ideas and giving more resources to those tests:
1. Test ideas in your own head - Write out your ideas briefly and select based on your refined intuition of what works and what doesn't work and what you want to write and don't want to write.
2. Informally test your ideas in one-on-one conversations with others friends, editor, students in your class, people you're coaching, etc.
3. Create short-form content online that tests various hooks / ideas.
4. Create longer form content.
Is that helpful? I am planning a post specifically on this in the next month.
I really like your blockbuster article. It makes so much sense, and it's also very inspiring. However, it also sounds like a mini-startup where you are going all in on one idea and spending 50-100 hours on it without validating it first.
However, if what we're saying here is before you commit yourself to writing a blockbuster article, you should go through multiple levels of testing, then that reconciles the two approaches.
Love the article and had difficulty grappling with your relevations given most are told to write for the algorithms (myself included). What are your thoughts on wanting to write a blockbuster with only a person or two in mind knowing that it could help them (then extrapolating it could impact others)?
And what are your thoughts on writing a blockbuster to help you think through a large problem or burning desire you want to learn or clarify for you only?
Hi Alex - Great questions.
First, I pick topics that I'm deeply curious about. And, I write in a way that allows me to maximize my learning and evolving my thinking rather than just proving what I know. Said differently, my aim is to have the process be so personally enjoyable and beneficial that even if I never published it, I would still consider it a good investment.
Building on that internal foundation, I feel like it's a matter of reach and depth. Blockbuster articles at their best actually accomplish both. However, when you're just getting started, you won't have the reach. What I keep in mind during this phase is that if I'm writing high-quality, ever-green content and linking back to it in the coming years, it will get lots of traffic in the coming years. In other words, I'm taking a longer term perspective on reach rather than just a few day perspective.
What are your thoughts on this?
I believe your long term view is deeply important and if you treat it as a learning experience, even if it does not gain an audience with the years, you will have hedged your bet against articles views/audience growth with learning.
Wouldn't there still be a little risk that what you are deeply curious about garners no interest by others?
And something else that comes to mind: if publishing a successful blockbuster has the same odds as a coin toss, why publish them in the first place?
I'm thinking it returns to the notion of learning (much value is derived from learning and writing), but I could be wrong?
HI Alex,
The mental model I use for thinking about the value of curiosity is best explained in WHY GREATNESS CANNOT BE PLANNED by two AI researchers. They also did some interviews when the book originally came out that summarize the book well.
Regarding probabilities of success as a writer, I see it that my probabilities go up as a function of:
1. The size, diversity, ever-greeness, and value of my knowledge base and personal experiences.
2. My ability to synthesize this into ideas.
3. My ability to communicate those ideas
4. The quantity of ideas I share (see equal-odds rule or https://bit.ly/3SahUAg)
Also, very few people are willing to be deliberate over long-time scales on the 4 points above so I see that as a differentiator.
Hi Michael,
I’m fascinated by your blockbuster model.
It flies in the face of common online advice promoting disposable, low substance--high quantity digital publishing.
Given the even odds of having an article go viral, I question the economy of such a steep investment in “chance”.
Odds are no better than flipping a coin, according to the research.
So there’s something else driving this obsession with quality.
It may have more to do with being an artisan than a merchant of ideas.
You’ve mastered both.
That’s the path I chose.
Thanks for the great model you teach, Michael.
So what are my odds of accomplishing this level of success?
I’ve got more history than future, no time to spare, and trying to catch a train that may have already left the station...a fools errand or a 1% chance of getting there?
Give me your best bet on my chance for writing a blockbuster! Cheers, Elizabeth
Hi Elizabeth -
Appreciate your comment. Based on it, I actually updated the post to make things more clear.
To have a super viral hit that reaches millions of people or sells millions of books is very rare. People who are skilled and consistent can dramatically increase their odds though.
To have enough success to impact the lives of thousands of people and build a solid six-figure income is very likely for most professionals who play the long game and are deliberate about learning. I don't think it is likely for people who are consistent with posting, but NOT deliberate about getting better with each post.
Any individual's chances and time-frame is super hard to predict since it depends on so many factors:
1. Existing mindsets
2. Existing thought leader skills
3. Existing body of work
4. How close they are to having product-market fit
I will likely do a larger post on this.
How do we reconcile the blockbuster model where you spend 50-100 hours producing one article with the idea of small bets and experimentation?
The best metaphor I have for this comes from the book LITTLE BETS - https://www.amazon.com/Little-Bets-Peter-Sims-audiobook/dp/B005GBVH5K.
He recommends testing ideas like a comedian. A comedian does 4+ sets per week in small comedy clubs refining their jokes. Then, the bigger ones, start performing their jokes in theaters to people who paid specifically to see them. Then, every 2-3 years, they create a special with all of their best, most proven jokes. That special is often put on a platform like Netflix.
So, basically, I would recommend multiple levels of testing and then with each level testing fewer ideas and giving more resources to those tests:
1. Test ideas in your own head - Write out your ideas briefly and select based on your refined intuition of what works and what doesn't work and what you want to write and don't want to write.
2. Informally test your ideas in one-on-one conversations with others friends, editor, students in your class, people you're coaching, etc.
3. Create short-form content online that tests various hooks / ideas.
4. Create longer form content.
Is that helpful? I am planning a post specifically on this in the next month.
Yes, it's very helpful.
I really like your blockbuster article. It makes so much sense, and it's also very inspiring. However, it also sounds like a mini-startup where you are going all in on one idea and spending 50-100 hours on it without validating it first.
However, if what we're saying here is before you commit yourself to writing a blockbuster article, you should go through multiple levels of testing, then that reconciles the two approaches.
FYI - I updated the article to add a whole new lesson on this topic.
Yes, exactly. I'm going to update the article tomorrow and make that more clear. I think it's worth emphasizing.