In 1930, the union of American singers spent the equivalent of $10m on a campaign to stop people from listening to recorded music and watching movies with sound. 1/
When films were silent, theatres employed local musicians to accompany each screening. But once films gained a soundtrack, local musicians were no longer necessary.
The economic implications were significant: 2/
In 1927, around 24,000 musicians were employed in theatres across the US and Canada. But then came the first talking film — The Jazz Singer. 3/
By 1930, some 7,200 musicians lost their jobs — 30% of the pre-talkie total. In some markets, such as New York and Cincinnati, musician unemployment reached 50-75%.
Over time, all theatre musicians were eliminated, and recorded soundtracks became par for the course. 4/
The advent of records, radio, and talking films made creative work scalable:
"300 musicians in Hollywood supply all the 'music' offered in thousands of theatres. Can such a tiny reservoir of talent nurture artistic progress?" 5/
A hundred years ago, it seemed improbable that "canned music" would replace "real" music. Joseph N. Weber, president of the American Federation of Music, predicted that the public will not always accept "like-less, soulless, synthetic music." 6/
Edward More, the Chicago Herald Tribune music critic, agreed with Weber, stating that "the films have a long way to go before they can duplicate living musicians"
Films never managed to "duplicate" living musicians. They didn't have to. 7/
Disruptive technology doesn't seek to "replicate." More often, it sidesteps and makes old standards and processes redundant.
Records and talking films made music cheaper and accessible to a much larger audience. Most of the audience didn't care about traditional quality. 8/
As a result, we tend to underestimate technology's power to turn in-person work into scalable work.
In many "creative" professions, fewer people can already capture a larger share of the market than ever.
9/
Such professions include programmers and designers, but also teachers and fitness instructors.
A Peloton instructor earns about 12 times more than an offline competitor — and can service many more clients at the same time.
We assume that most professions cannot be scaled in the same way. But there is already evidence to the contrary. Many things that seem ridiculous to us now will seem obvious to our grandkids.
Because the landscape is dancing. The internet compels us to constantly respond and adapt to each other's behavior.
Why does this happen and how can we succeed in such an environemnt?
1/
First, let's understand some key terms. Evolutionary Biologists use "fitness landscapes" to represent how well an organism's DNA is suited to its environment.
The higher you are on the map, the more "fit" you are — and the more likely to prosper under current conditions.
2/
Imagine 2 penguins with different DNAs. Penguin A is able to run faster, while B is able to swim in cold water. Given their environment and available food, B is more "fit," and A is not likely to survive.
Visually, we can represent this with B on the top of the landscape. 3/
Creative work is inherently unequal. This is very visible in the income distributions of singers and movie stars, but less visible in white-collar professions.
Why? Thanks to/because of the office. 1/7
Office-based companies only hire from a small local talent pool. In a small pool, employees face less competition & are less likely to encounter "outlier" competitors who are 50x better than them. (if NBA teams only hired locally, worse players would get to join the league) 2/7
Employee evaluation in offices is biased towards input and presenteeism rather than output and impact. At the office, "showing up" counts for a lot, making it easy for low-performers (or whole layers of management) to survive. 3/7
The next decade will do to COGNITIVE tasks what the previous decade did to PHYSICAL tasks.
This has implications for your career, income inequality, and social stability.
Let me explain. 1/19
Way back in the early 2010s, every second startup was pitching itself as "Uber for X." The idea was simple: take a group of disparate humans, aggregate them into an app with a nice UI, and deliver a delightful experience for customers looking to complete physical tasks. 2/19
Billions of dollars flowed into companies that aggregated anything from drivers and house-cleaners to dog-sitters and dope dealers. 3/19