What does the fame of Susan Boyle tell us about economics? Here are some possibilities.
1. The power of the contrast effect. Ms Boyle’s singing talent is magnified by the contrast between it and her ugliness and - yes - mild learning difficulties. Her rival Hollie Steel also exploited this effect; her bad dancing caused her singing to seem better by contrast.
This contrast effect is a powerful influence upon our perceptions. If you put your hand in a bucket of lukewarm water, it’ll feel cold if your hand had previously been in hot water, but warm if it had been in cold. And it has important implications. In Influence, Robert Cialdini cites research which shows that men shown pictures of average-looking women whilst watching Charlie’s Angels judged them to be uglier than they did if shown the same pictures during other TV shows; women suffered by comparison to Farrah. The damage done by the “beauty myth” is down to the contrast effect.
And retailers exploit this. We’re likely to buy ties just after an expensive suit, or lots of options for our car just after deciding what model to get because after a large purchase, a given sum of money seems smaller than it otherwise would.
2. The ubiquity of statistical discrimination. Ant (always the one on the left) hit the nail on the head: “you didn’t expect that, did you.” We were prejudiced against Ms Boyle because she was ugly.
This is a widespread prejudice. Ugly people, on average and controlling for other things, earn less than good-looking ones, with the penalty for ugliness being generally larger than the premium for beauty. It’s for this reason that criminals are more likely to be ugly; munters have worse labour market prospects, and so are more likely to turn to crime.
However, this bias against the ugly is not pure spite. The audience’s low expectations of Ms Boyle were well-founded, because very few successful singers are ugly - even the ones who aren’t conventionally handsome have charisma; Celine Dion and Barbra Streisand come to mind precisely because they are rare exceptions.
Similarly, there’s evidence that good-looking people are genuinely more productive than ugly ones - perhaps because teachers give them more attention in school and so develop their talents.
3. Efficiency vs. justice. The correlation between looks and ability suggests that the rule, “don’t hire the munter” will, generally speaking, be a useful one. It’s a fast and frugal heuristic that saves the decision-maker time and often works. It is, therefore, an efficient rule.
But it can be an unjust one, because it penalizes the small number of Susan Boyles. If it’s expensive for these to demonstrate their talents - and it will be in many cases where they can do so only over time, or by working with costly capital - they will not get hired.
There’s therefore a trade-off between efficiency and justice.
4. The (limited) power of the web. Ms Boyle has become an overnight star in the US - something not achieved by many British singers even with huge record company backing. It’s tempting to say this shows the power of the web; that Youtube clip has gone viral.
But in another sense, it shows the impotence of the web. The web did sweet FA to bring Susan Boyle to initial public attention. Instead, she got her break through very old media - a TV talent show.
And this is still generally true. There are pitifully few big stars - yet - who have broke through thanks to the web alone: Sandi Thom (who she?) and Lily Allen don’t count.
Yes, the power of old media is waning. But it is still the only way for making a star.
1. The power of the contrast effect. Ms Boyle’s singing talent is magnified by the contrast between it and her ugliness and - yes - mild learning difficulties. Her rival Hollie Steel also exploited this effect; her bad dancing caused her singing to seem better by contrast.
This contrast effect is a powerful influence upon our perceptions. If you put your hand in a bucket of lukewarm water, it’ll feel cold if your hand had previously been in hot water, but warm if it had been in cold. And it has important implications. In Influence, Robert Cialdini cites research which shows that men shown pictures of average-looking women whilst watching Charlie’s Angels judged them to be uglier than they did if shown the same pictures during other TV shows; women suffered by comparison to Farrah. The damage done by the “beauty myth” is down to the contrast effect.
And retailers exploit this. We’re likely to buy ties just after an expensive suit, or lots of options for our car just after deciding what model to get because after a large purchase, a given sum of money seems smaller than it otherwise would.
2. The ubiquity of statistical discrimination. Ant (always the one on the left) hit the nail on the head: “you didn’t expect that, did you.” We were prejudiced against Ms Boyle because she was ugly.
This is a widespread prejudice. Ugly people, on average and controlling for other things, earn less than good-looking ones, with the penalty for ugliness being generally larger than the premium for beauty. It’s for this reason that criminals are more likely to be ugly; munters have worse labour market prospects, and so are more likely to turn to crime.
However, this bias against the ugly is not pure spite. The audience’s low expectations of Ms Boyle were well-founded, because very few successful singers are ugly - even the ones who aren’t conventionally handsome have charisma; Celine Dion and Barbra Streisand come to mind precisely because they are rare exceptions.
Similarly, there’s evidence that good-looking people are genuinely more productive than ugly ones - perhaps because teachers give them more attention in school and so develop their talents.
3. Efficiency vs. justice. The correlation between looks and ability suggests that the rule, “don’t hire the munter” will, generally speaking, be a useful one. It’s a fast and frugal heuristic that saves the decision-maker time and often works. It is, therefore, an efficient rule.
But it can be an unjust one, because it penalizes the small number of Susan Boyles. If it’s expensive for these to demonstrate their talents - and it will be in many cases where they can do so only over time, or by working with costly capital - they will not get hired.
There’s therefore a trade-off between efficiency and justice.
4. The (limited) power of the web. Ms Boyle has become an overnight star in the US - something not achieved by many British singers even with huge record company backing. It’s tempting to say this shows the power of the web; that Youtube clip has gone viral.
But in another sense, it shows the impotence of the web. The web did sweet FA to bring Susan Boyle to initial public attention. Instead, she got her break through very old media - a TV talent show.
And this is still generally true. There are pitifully few big stars - yet - who have broke through thanks to the web alone: Sandi Thom (who she?) and Lily Allen don’t count.
Yes, the power of old media is waning. But it is still the only way for making a star.
"Similarly, there’s evidence that good-looking people are genuinely more productive than ugly ones - perhaps because teachers give them more attention in school and so develop their talents."
It could also have something to do with sexual selection: peacocks with bigger feathers than average, for example, tend to be healthier than average.
Posted by: Hugo | April 26, 2009 at 01:51 PM
What about the constrast effect between her and the rest of contestants?
Simply put: there are a group of people that do not know how to sing and one that sings badly. Of course, what you perceive is not how well she is singing, but the fact that she sings.
Put M. Boyle in company of the standard singing amateurs of any provincial theatre and you will get just the inverse effect.
Posted by: ortega | April 26, 2009 at 02:13 PM
Did I not read Farah was unwell?
Posted by: kinglear | April 26, 2009 at 07:54 PM
Hmmm... limited power of the web?
I think it's called the Long Tail, instead of the Big Head, for a reason.
So you're right, but not really.
Posted by: RE | April 26, 2009 at 09:13 PM
Chris,
It wuz Video wot killed the radio star.
Ella Fitzgerald was remarkably ugly and her's is one of the great signature voices of 20 century music.
Don't look - listen
Posted by: Tony Maher | April 26, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Agree on the TV point - to be a star she needed that first initial boost of PR/publicity, in this case the TV show.
Posted by: Craig McGill | April 27, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Another implication, which you don't consider, is that there are very large numbers of people out there with talent equal or superior to those in the "star" roles in entertainment and business. How many other people are there who can sing as well or better than the current crop of Top 20 artists? How many people are there who can run a bank as well or better than the current sorry crew?
Posted by: gordon | April 28, 2009 at 12:33 AM