Why did he spark controversy? Does Wang Zhian have a traffic password? ——Success against common sense｜Mary again

Since the opening of my channel, I have often received messages like, this channel is doing very well, why are the number of views and subscriptions so low. I hope you keep going, it's a comment like gold always shines. First of all, thank you very much for your affirmation and support for me. As for your questions, I have been improving and reflecting on them. I hope that everyone who can thank you with actual data as soon as possible will not give up. Just when I was thinking about whether the next video would be a hit, I suddenly discovered an interesting phenomenon that seemed to answer this weird question.

Hello everyone, I'm Marley, this is a small channel that advocates thinking and tearing fifty cents by hand. In each issue, I will combine a political and economic case to discuss the reasons behind it and different thinking dimensions.

During this time, there is one person who is very popular, and everyone should pay attention to it, that is Wang Ju. His channel has attracted a lot of attention and dramatic growth after the update, and it has also amazed many big Vs of the same type. There are also many people who are analyzing why he can increase his followers so quickly, such as what comes with his own traffic and news skills. Excellent and so on. Of course, these are very important factors, and they are also natural advantages that are beyond the reach of ordinary people's self-media. Apart from these factors, what enlightenment can the sudden disruption of the Wang bureau bring us? Before I talk about this topic, let me state my conclusion first. I personally think that the success of Wang Ju is not a case worthy of review, but his appearance has made some people miss the plagiarism.

Why do I say that Wang Ju's case is not worth reviewing? It's not that his show is bad or not worth mentioning, but that if you analyze too much why he is popular, you may only be able to distance yourself from the truth. come far. If a person or something suddenly becomes popular, we always habitually think that this person or this thing must have something special or powerful, or that there must be a driving force behind it, and people who firmly believe in this often I feel that I have been struggling in this industry for many years. These are common sense, and it must be caused by a certain reason. But in fact, many things that happen every day on earth are not so taken for granted, many things he just happened. A type of people who often appear on my shows are sociologists or psychologists, or a combination of the two, social psychologists. They like to toss people or make some weird remarks when they have nothing to do. A professor named Duncan Watts did an experiment. He took pop songs as an example, and wanted to prove whether some of the best-selling or screen-beating things really had something to do with them.

So he found someone to design a music website with some experimental songs made by independent musicians, and then recruited more than 10,000 people to rate and download these songs. He divided these people into several groups, one of which was an independent group, that is, this group of people could not see the downloads and evaluations of these songs by others, and could only rate them independently, while the others could see the ratings and ratings of these songs. The social influence group of downloads. A total of 10 groups were divided, and 48 new songs were scored. The bottom line is that songs that score high in the independent group are not bad in the social group, as do songs that score low. However, high-scoring songs ranked higher in the social group than in the independent group, and low-scoring songs also performed worse in the social group. However, the most important result of this experiment is that the specific songs that rank at the top are very random events, and the rankings of each group are also very different. Some songs may get more downloads purely by chance at the beginning of the experiment, and later receive more downloads. Affected by this, test subjects will think that the song is good, and will pay more attention to it, forming positive feedback. For example, a song that only ranked 26th in the independent group was ranked first in one social group and 14th in another social group. Generally speaking, the popularity of bad songs is not high, but good songs still need a lot of luck to be popular. So when the audience can be influenced by each other's choices, what is popular becomes more popular, and there is a winner-take-all situation.

Whether online or offline, we inevitably live in a society that influences each other. We think a certain song is good, maybe it was influenced by music critics or recommended by friends. When we want to see a certain movie, we also subconsciously go to Douban and Maoyan to check the ratings. But these recommendations and ratings, apart from the factors of black box operations, are just the result of accidental factors and mutual influence. We imagine that if the users of Douban, Maoyan, and imdb are completely isolated, or imagined as users in three parallel worlds, there will be huge differences in the top 100 movies with high probability. Do we often see a question on social media, am I the only one who thinks that a certain movie, a certain song, or a certain star looks ordinary? Although not many people responded, it did illustrate a phenomenon. Just like I always thought the joke of a famous cross talk god was very general, why do many people find it funny and socially critical?

We often make a mistake in our daily life called circular reasoning or root cause inversion. The circular argument is, because A is good, so A is good. For example, a master's work, even if you can't understand it, it is very advanced. Another example is the study of success, which is a typical root cause inversion, or the study of hindsight. Because he has succeeded, the things he has experienced before and the methodology he has used are all objects worth learning. I have hacked Apple's leader Steve Jobs in a previous show. I personally think that Apple's success is largely a probabilistic event of gambling. From the perspective of demand and user psychology, it is better to design products according to the needs of users. Helping users create demand is a story that makes sense, and no methodology is better or absolutely correct. Apple's success was simply a narrow victory over its open and user-centric competitors in helping users create demand. Today we might as well look at a counter-example. By the way, another giant is hacked, that is, the Dafa factory - Sony. We all know that Sony is also a company that likes to constantly innovate and establish its own industry standards. In the video recorder market competition, Sony and Panasonic both launched their own standards. Sony is the betamax standard, while Panasonic's VHS standard is not because the quality of betamax is not good, but the VHS recording time is longer, plus Later, the development of rental video tapes made the more open VHS compatible with more manufacturers. However, this kind of market change was not expected by Sony and Panasonic, so more and more users use VHS. Although Sony betemax also released an updated version to solve this problem, the general trend has passed and it has been completely defeated. .

However, Sony's nightmare did not end. Sony, who loves Dafa, invented a magical music player MD in the early 1990s. Senior Dafa believers should be deeply impressed by this product. It solves many pain points such as portability, storage, and high-quality sound in one fell swoop. Apart from being a little expensive, it is almost a subversion of the Walkman and the entire music industry. The key is that this technology is only unique to Sony. At that time, the president of Sony and the father of CD, Dana Oga, personally deployed and directed, held a publicity conference, prepared to start a new digital music revolution, and could also sell patent licenses. But happy times are always short. In less than 10 years, MP3 players and the Internet appeared, with larger capacity, lower prices, and simpler and cruder download methods. The man in jeans is here again, He said that this small box can hold 1,000 songs, which made Sony MD, who had just made breakthroughs in technology and cost, directly die.

By the way, in the competition between iPod and other mp3s, it is very similar to the battle between betamax and VHS. Compared with iPod, in addition to being better looking, the price/performance ratio is very average, and the price is not impressive. To copy songs, you need to use special software, and the sound quality Not much better than a no-name mp3. The key fruit powder appeared, allowing the Apple iPod to occupy a certain market share for a long time in the competition with other mp3 players and become the mp3 player with the longest life.

So whether Sony is not doing well enough or the opponent is too good, at least in the above case, I don't think so. We have seen countless analysis of Sony's failed products, all of which are well written, and they seem to make sense, just because betamax and MD just happened to have a successful competitor. If they don't meet these competitors, can you say that their product is not good, their strategy is not visionary. According to Duncan Watts, the sociologist we mentioned at the beginning and the author of "Anti-Common Sense", "Sony did try their best to learn lessons and predict the future, but they still defeated by a force beyond human ability to predict or control." The only difference between Apple and Sony is that Sony's choice happened to be wrong, and Apple's choice happened to be right. This is called the "strategic paradox" ". That is to say, to determine the success of a commercial company, results-oriented analysis is an afterthought. It cannot be said that there is no reference value at all, but at least it does not take into account the many uncertain factors in the implementation process, and even the factors of luck. Therefore, the only way to solve the "strategic paradox" is to keep trial and error and adjust the flexibility of your strategy. Don't think that your success is inevitable, and don't make excuses for failure.

Let's go back to the case of Wang Ju again. Personally, I don't think the content of Wang Ju is so amazing. Of course, it is also a good content. As for the kind of touting that it is a ceiling of current affairs, it is a bit too much. To me, his good point is that his content is more fact than opinion. This is very rare for current affairs reviews, because as long as it is an opinion, it must be subjective, but if you say more facts and less opinions, it will give people a sense of trust. He can attract the attention of so many people in a short period of time. His previous influence and news skills are indeed an advantage, but they are definitely not enough to be the main reason for him to quickly attract fans. If I have to say the reason, I think he made the right bet. . Just at this time, just when he returned to China and resumed his old business without success, when his personality was swaying, he happened to meet a group of melon eaters watching the fun. As for whether he planned it on purpose or not, I don't think it matters anymore, because even if it is, so what? He succeeded anyway.

I also found an interesting phenomenon. Since the Wang Bureau became popular, in addition to sighing and analyzing his people, a certain anti-thief V appeared particularly emotional, which surprised me. Because before this big V's usual style is mainly objective and rational, and occasionally swearing at Wumao Pink, he is basically a high-quality blogger. Why do you have to give others the hat of big publicity? I'm not here to speak for Wang Ju (he doesn't need me to speak), because even if Wang Ju is a big publicity, is it important? Are you killing harm for the people or are you worried that the traffic will be diverted? Isn’t the spirit of democracy and freedom to respect people’s right to speak? If you feel that what he said is wrong, you can refute it or make an argument. It is really naive to judge a person’s attributes from past remarks alone. This judgment is essentially no different from digging graves on Weibo inside the wall. In my impression, when this big V first started broadcasting, his words were still relatively conservative, and he even defended the system a lot of times or did not spray the system on everything, but only later gradually showed a clear position. If this logic is followed, the big V himself was also suspected of big publicity at the time. Of course, it's okay for him to do this, first test the audience's taste, and finally find his own character or establish his own character. I remember the most classic quotation of big V is that Chen Qiushi was also a big propagandist until Chen Qiushi was arrested.

Therefore, as to who is the big propaganda and who is not the big propaganda is a very ridiculous proposition. The logic of analyzing who has emulsified or not, or who has emulsified in the wall is exactly the same. So what's the difference between some of these people's thinking patterns and Little Pink? Isn’t the so-called independent thinking that we should encourage everyone to learn to judge for themselves?

People always like to find laws and give answers in complex societies, and use so-called evidence and common sense to answer many doubts. Including my own channel, I often use social psychology to try to analyze many questions, but these are just the tip of the iceberg. I just gave everyone a direction of thinking and possible answers. As for the world itself and each individual, Far more complicated than we know. And each person's background, experience and cognitive level determine that each person's judgment and definition of common sense are different. Back to the Wang Bureau incident, where did he come from, what he said, what he wants to say now, and why he attracts fans so quickly, there may not be any necessary connections.

Well, today's sharing is here. If you think my channel is still helpful to you, please help to subscribe, like, share, and support, so that I can also feel the thrill of taking off as soon as possible, see you next time! 88 slightly.