What are the Odds of Succeeding at Outlandish Dreams? - 08/28/08

[Aaron Stanton]

What are your odds of becoming famous?  It's not a rhetorical question - I'm very serious, and there's a point to this.

I get a fair number of e-mails from people that go something like:
"Hey Aaron, love your project.  I'm working hard on my own project, so wish me luck, too."

And I do wish them luck, very sincerely - but I tend to think they'll do fine, regardless.  Partly because they're the small percent of the population that's out there DOING THINGS.  As far as I'm concerned, if you just keep DOING THINGS, over and over, eventually you'll make it. 

I came across a study by the National Endowment for the Arts that I thought was interesting.  It was a study on how many people in the U.S. work in artistic fields.  How many actors are there, how many artists, writers, etc.

This all connects back to why you shouldn't be afraid of taking a risk from time to time - 1.4% of the population in the United States works in an artistic field as their primary job.  That equates to about 2 million people in a country of about 305 million people, with an additional 300,000 that work in the arts, but make a living some other way.  Almost half of those are designers and architects, which means the remaining 1 million people account for the vast majority of everything you read in a book, magazine, or watch on TV.

I find that fascinating, because it means that very few people are effecting great change.

But this is a post about the risks of failure when you take a chance.  So here's what struck me from the article the most.  Of all the artists working in the U.S., about 2% of them were actors, or 39,717 people.

Half live in California, with New York claiming about 20%.  So let's take a look at a historically risky thing to do - moving to Hollywood to become an actor.  Try telling your parents that your plan is to become famous in Hollywood, and see how they react.  Everyone knows that making it in acting - becoming famous - is... well, insane.  No one really does it, right?

The question is, what does it take for you to be at the top?  If you're an actor, and want to become famous, who do you have to beat in order to do it?  Let's define famous as having one of the top 200 acting jobs in Hollywood - after all, I can think of 20 top name actors off the top of my head, and I'm not really up on those things.  200 seems a fairly good number.

Sitting at home thinking about becoming an actor, you're competing against all the millions of others that would like to be rich and famous, just like you.  Your odds are hugely against you being successful, because millions of people want those top 200 spots.  Haven't you ever SEEN the turn out for American Idol?  The line stretches for miles and miles (or so it seems).

But the truth is, as soon as you make the decision to become a full time actor, you're no longer competing against the millions that want to become rich and famous, you're competing against those that are actually doing something about it.  And according to the NEA, that's about 40,000 people.  If you take yourself very seriously and move to California to act as your primary occupation, you take a step that most would-be actors never take, and now you're competing against the other 20,000 actors living locally.

Half of the roles will be for one gender or another, cutting your competition in half again. 

We're now at 10,000 to 15,000 or so competitors who are in town to really do this full time.  To really give acting a go as their dream.

But now we look at you, and your skills.  Let's say you're a good actor, and a good networker. In fact, at these two skills - which is what you need to get off the ground - let's say you're in the 80th percentile; you're better than 80% of the actors out there.

So, really, in auditions, you're up against the other 20% who are as good or better than you, and the 10% who are worse, but have the right characteristics for the role.  30% of 15,000 is 4,500 people competing for those top 200 roles.

4,500/200=23 people.

There's a lot in there that we can't account for, like luck, and those top 200 roles only being for beautiful people and you and I look like lumps of coal... those are problems.

But if you're good at what you do, and you look at yourself and say, "Yes, I have the characteristics needed as qualifiers to the industry," then your odds of being successful, of being one of the 200 most successful actors in Hollywood, is about 1 in 23.

Which means that right now, sitting in your room reading this, wherever you are in the world, the chances of you becoming famous is about 1 in 23.  Great odds?  Not really.  But as bad as you would expect?  To become the next Julia Roberts or George Clooney?

I don't think so.  After all, if I put your name in a hat along with 22 other people, and told you I'd give you 1 million dollars if I picked your name... you'd be pretty excited.

But here's the point of this entire post: It's all a chain.  It's a chain that starts with you sitting in your living room thinking about how cool it would be to be rich and famous.  And the action items in that chain are what separate you from the world; the things that you do that most of the others don't are what knock out your competition.  Thinking about becoming an actor makes you like millions of others, but becoming an actor makes you like only 2% of the population.  Taking a chance and going to where acting is happening knocks out all but about 1% of the population.

If you're talented and good, your odds of becoming a famous actor right now are 1 in 23.  But no one will ever really pull your name from a hat and declare it so.  They won't come to your house and pull you out on their own.

Your odds are 1 in 23 because you're one of the few people in the world that stood up and walked out your door, and really, honestly tried to follow your dreams.

And so few people really do that.  And if you actually get done reading this post, stand up, and become an actor - or whatever your dream is - then you really are on your way to success.  But if you just nod after reading this, think it's interesting, and then close the browser and go make yourself lunch and that's it - then welcome to the millions.

Your odds are entirely determined by your own next moves.

Aaron


P.S.  I should also add that the biggest problem in acting, really, is not that hitting that top 200 spots is impossible or outside aiming for, but that hitting lower doesn't make much money.  According to the survey, most actors are better educated than the rest of the world (strong competition) and earn less than their peers at about $23,400 annually.  When people say that acting is a hard business, they don't really mean that getting to the top is impossible, just that getting to the middle is far easier.  And the middle in this industry is not as lucrative as in other industries.

[Jo Red]

Hmm, I still can't see the point of this post. What's it got to do with your database ?

Anyway, I'm also starting a new venture  - a blog site.  Not a "blog", but a site to host "blogs". Like blogger.com, etc.  Anyway I'm waiting for quotes at the moment from my subcontractors who will make it.

[Stephen Rollins]

He never said it had anything to do with the database.

An interesting read, Aaron, thanks for posting this.  It's certainly encouraging.  Not that I want to be an actor... I probably could, but there's too much swearing involved in lead roles nowadays.  >_>  That, and I really don't care to be rich and famous like that.

Still, this can certainly be applied to other fields as well...  I wonder what the numbers look like for authors?

[Therin]

That is probably the most interesting thing I have read all week.  Thank you very much for sharing that, Aaron.   

[Daniel Bowen]

The "... it's all about doing" message is something I've learned to preach.  I'll will admit though, my understanding originated on the guitar - "you can do anything on a guitar, it's just about repitition," but I apply it to every little bit of my life (even when it's something I ending up deciding against... saying "It's just about doing," gives me a clearer understanding of the consequences of whatever the decision might be - usually creating a wider range of opportunity to draw on).  I repeat the "... it's all about doing" phrase to myself whenever i have doubt about anything in life.  Maybe I should be a rockstar? hmmmm... it's all about doing.  Unfortunately, I don't have the time to become a rockstar right now, but that's only the agenda for this brief moment, and most-likely (but not necessarily) the next few as well. 

I recognize so many decisions that move life one way or another in a path-dependent, infinitesimally branching decision tree.  Now some decisions, for example, may not make as much of a difference (should I have 1 or 2 cheez-its at a time) and depend on our own personal characteristics (high/low metabolism, weight), ever-changing preferences (I never use to like cheez-its).  Our only limitations are the properties of our own personal time, place, and understanding...... at least that's what's seemed to work for me.

-Dan

PS  I had to correct my spelling of cheez-it from "cheese-it," and the cracker seems less appetizing with that cliche "z" ... i guess it look's unnatural or fat or something 

[Subhodeep Bhattacharya]

One of the better posts I've ever read. I completely agree with you Aaron. Let me know if I can be of any help
Wish you all the very best.
subhodeep@subhodeep.com
 

[Aaron Stanton]

Stephen, you mentioned you wondered what the numbers were for authors.  NEA says that there are about 185,000 people in the U.S. in 2005 that identify writing as their primary career.  Another 33,000 that write as their primary career, but have a second job that supports them.  Not all of those are book writers, though - that counts sports writers, journalists, etc.  As an author writing a book, you're competing with only those others that have actually written a book, as opposed to those that thought about it an never did.

It'd take a little bit to break it down similar to acting, but maybe I'll do that.  Seems fun.  Probably you'd look at the bestselling slots - there are 100 New York Times bestselling slots available each year,  I believe - and they fluctuate depending on what stays there for how long.  If your book sells more than 100 copies your in the top 7% of the publishing industry.  If you sell more than 100,000 you're considered a bestseller.

With writing it's a bit harder to break down, because you don't have to be physically located near your job in order to do it.  But a manuscript submission is much like an audition.  It'd be interesting to see...

Maybe I'll do that when I have a little time. 

Aaron

P.S.  Hope everyone is well.  Been busy. 

[Stephen Rollins]

100 copies?  That seems so few, but...  That's really a lot, isn't it?  XD

It'd be interesting to see what kinds of numbers you come up with though. 

[Daniel Bowen]

this distribution might help:

In 2005. This distribution is relatively consistent for recent years:

76.318% (948,005 individual ISBNs) sold less than 100 copies
16.337% (202,938) sold between 100-999 copies
05.394% (67,008) sold between 1,000-4,999 copies
01.855% (23,047) sold between 5,000-49,999 copies
00.062% (767) sold between 50,000-999,999 copies
00.026% (324) sold between 100,000-249,999 copies
00.008% (96) sold greater than 250,000 copies

... so to your average author, selling 100 copies is quite a milestone.  I think this distribution is what Aaron would've been referring to in the above post.

[Therin]

Wow those numbers are just scary.  If movies attracted so few an audience they'd be laughed out of the business.

Actually it's a little discouraging.  All that work, drafts, redrafts, proofing, applications and odds are you will not even touch one hundred people. 

Would that number be even smaller over here in Australia where the population is only a tenth of the US?  Or is that based upon international sales figures?

[Daniel Bowen]

If I remember correctly, that distribution only considers the US market.

I would consider the distribution %s to be relatively comparable to what you might expect in Australia, but the exact sales # would obviously be smaller.

The exact numbers would take a bit of digging.

[Stephen Rollins]

Actually it's a little discouraging.  All that work, drafts, redrafts, proofing, applications and odds are you will not even touch one hundred people. 

Hopefully you don't go into it with the expectation to make a profit, or even to make an impact on the world.  Writing is just a way to express yourself and your ideas, and if you get famous for it than that's just a bonus.  I don't think people who write for the popularity or money do a very good job, which is one reason why I don't care much for the really popular books (Harry Potter, Eragon) that would otherwise land in my reading genres.

[Mandi Taylor]

which is one reason why I don't care much for the really popular books

Are you saying that just because a book is popular, the author wrote it for the popularity or the money?  On the contrary; I think the most successful authors are those who write purely for the love of telling a story.  Success and popularity are not one and the same, true, but they tend to go hand in hand.

[Stephen Rollins]

Authors who write to write are the good ones.  Authors who are skilled but only write because of the money aren't.  My example is the Eragon books.  The first was great, since he was only writing it for fun.  But the second wasn't as great because now he had people expecting a sequel.  I haven't read the third yet, and I'm really not too interested in the series anymore, but hey. XD

It's not a set-in-stone rule, of course.  Nor is it always true.  It just kind of gives me an automatic prejudice against the book, which I probably shouldn't have.   

[Therin]

Hopefully you don't go into it with the expectation to make a profit, or even to make an impact on the world.  Writing is just a way to express yourself and your ideas, and if you get famous for it than that's just a bonus. 

If that were so why take it to a publisher at all?  Why not just leave it in the bottom drawer?   

And I was not talking about money - yes I write for fun, for pleasure and because I simply get twitchy when I don't.  But I send my manuscript out to share with people, to help people understand different points of view, to enliven and teach.  I don't pretend to know any more than the next, but we all know it differently and I owe too much to too many authors who have helped shape me and my views to not try and reach other readers.  We learn from our own experience, but through reading we gather the experiences of countless others and make them our own.  Some of the greatest lessons I have come to understand and rely upon I encountered through experiences that happened only between the pages of a good book.   

"Thou shalt not is soon forgotten, but Once upon a time lasts forever." Philip Pullman.  And I agree. 

So I don't write to make money, but I share to touch people.