#8 SOCIAL PROOF IS YOUR ENEMY, NOT YOUR FRIEND

It is my belief that, at any given time (remember: we're all getting older once a year), there are approximately 30,000 white women (ie. aspiring actresses) in Los Angeles who present in a social-conforming manner, such that their choice of hairstyle, dress and personality draws no attention from the perspective of "societal approval."  There's no scientific or mathematical means to calculate an exact number, but this writer would estimate that in any calendar year there are no more than 300-900 professional acting jobs for talent in this category, of which less than 30 would be considered "game changers" or "career makers."  And the substantial number of good roles would be awarded to encumbents (established talent) without casting calls (a process which I have documented here).

So approximately 10 in 10,000 (among more established talent with the necessary prerequisites) will book a "game changer" and the remainder of the roles will be statistically distributed among the remaining 29,000 thespians, taking into account pre-existing factors like work experience (credits).  Do a survey of your friends in this category and I think you will find that most of them spent a decade gathering 3-6 entry level credits.  Which would support the numbers described above, more or less.

Despite significant anecdotal evidence that this is the case, a survey of talent in this category would often reveal that the talent is "sure that they are going to be the one to make it, despite the odds" or "completely  unaware that these are the circumstances they are facing."  With a very small number of candidates actively seeking accurate casting intelligence so they can make sound career decisions.

Regardless as to the exact reasons that talent ends up in this category, which takes the term "market saturation" to new heights of inanity, this is a primary problem facing casting offices, talent representatives and talent.

"Casting directors are looking for actors who do not look like actors." - Major Casting Office

Until talent comes to term with this business reality and undertakes basic market analysis with respect to the competitive landscape (i.e. peers who are the same category but have substantial work experience, "credits"), market saturation (an approximate count of similar actresses competing for roles) and market demand (the number of professional roles published on private agency-only casting sites), it is unlikely that the talent can hope to emerge from the career era of 25-35 with a viable resume and work history.

I call this typical period in a talent's career "the lost decade."  And I hope to prevent this happening to the actors who happen upon this blog in advance of this coming to pass.

One possible reason for this cultural landscape might be found in the chump economy which generates millions of dollars a year for businesses in Los Angeles catering to the needs of talent.  The good businesses in this category might include: career-changing photographers, audition technique classes, professional self-taping facilities and vocational training programs in comedy like the ones offered at The Groundlings School (Los Angeles), Upright Citizens Brigade (Los Angeles & New York), The Second City School (Chicago), The Annoyance (Chicago), iO (Chicago), ComedySportz (national chain) and The Impro Theatre (Los Angeles).

Could it be that the economic engine driving the chump economy in Los Angeles has an incentive to keep their customers spending money on unnecessary products and services?  This might necessitate the promotion of false hopes. Surely, if a talent were able to gain the career opportunities they sought, they would no longer need the services from most of these businesses nor would need to continue to pay hundreds of dollars a month in fees.

This entire economy is driven by a psychological phenomena known as "social proof", a term which was coined by Robert Candini in his seminal book, "Influence".

How do you know the huckster's consulting service is legitimate?  One need only look at the testimonials on the website:

Social proof is a psychological phenomenon where people copy the actions of others in an attempt to undertake behavior in a given situation. MLMs and similar business models often use testimonials and success stories as social proof to convince potential recruits that success is common and achievable.

 I would argue that social conformity, at its frenzied peak in aspirants seeking social proof, is actually the very cause of career failure among young women who move to Hollywood at age 22 with a degree in drama from one of hundreds of accredited colleges in America.

One might wonder how this can be the status quo or endemic to Hollywood actresses?

Maybe the answer lies in the history of state-sponsored lotteries.  I don't have any real interest in lotteries and so I've asked Chat GPT to describe them for us:

Mrs. Waddlesworth: "It would seem that American state run lotteries are the very prototype of hucksterism and chump marketing through survivorship bias.  Would you elaborate on the history of these lotteries, how they came to be state-sponsored and why so many consumers waste their money on lottery tickets despite significant public writings by academics on the statistics of lottery tickets."

ChatGPT:

State-run lotteries in the United States indeed provide a compelling example of how survivorship bias and certain marketing tactics can influence consumer behavior, even in the face of overwhelming statistical evidence that the chance of winning significant amounts is extremely low. The history of these lotteries, their evolution into state-sponsored enterprises, and the reasons behind their widespread consumer participation, despite the odds, offer insight into the complexities of human behavior, economic need, and governmental policy.

History and Evolution into State Sponsorship
The history of lotteries in America dates back to the colonial era. Early lotteries were often organized to raise funds for public projects, such as roads, bridges, and churches. The founding fathers, including Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, supported lotteries for financing public works and wartime expenses. However, due to scandals and mismanagement, lotteries fell out of favor by the late 19th century.

The modern era of state-run lotteries began in the 1960s, starting with New Hampshire in 1964. This resurgence was driven by the states' need for revenue without raising taxes. Lotteries were seen as a voluntary tax, where participation was a choice. This argument, combined with the promise of funding public services like education, helped justify the establishment and expansion of state lotteries. Today, the vast majority of U.S. states operate their own lotteries.
Marketing Tactics and Consumer Participation

State lotteries employ sophisticated marketing strategies to promote ticket sales. These strategies often highlight life-changing jackpot wins, using survivorship bias to focus public attention on the few winners while ignoring the vast majority who do not win significant amounts. This creates a distorted perception of the likelihood of winning, similar to the tactics discussed earlier in "chump economics."

Despite the public availability of statistical information about the low odds of winning (for example, the odds of winning the Powerball jackpot are 1 in 292.2 million), many consumers continue to purchase lottery tickets. Several factors contribute to this behavior:

• Hope and Dreaming Big: For many, buying a lottery ticket is a low-cost way to indulge in the fantasy of drastically changing their lives. The small investment allows them to dream of escaping financial difficulties or achieving a lavish lifestyle.
• Lack of Financial Literacy: A lack of understanding of the statistical odds or of better ways to invest money contributes to continued participation. For some, the lottery is seen as a legitimate avenue to wealth, despite the poor odds.
• The Entertainment Value: Some people enjoy the excitement and the experience of playing, viewing it as a form of entertainment rather than a genuine investment or path to wealth.
• Social Factors: The cultural phenomenon of lottery jackpots, especially when they reach enormous sizes, creates a communal event that people want to be part of, regardless of the odds.
• State Endorsement: The state sponsorship of lotteries lends them an air of legitimacy and can lead individuals to underestimate the risks involved. The association with funding public goods like education also helps mitigate ethical concerns.

Criticism and Concerns
Academics and critics have pointed out that state lotteries often function as a regressive tax, disproportionately affecting lower-income individuals who spend a larger portion of their income on lottery tickets. This has sparked debate over the ethics of state-sponsored gambling, especially given the clear evidence regarding the odds of winning.

Despite the significant public writings and academic research on the topic, the combination of sophisticated marketing, the human tendency towards optimism and risk-taking, and the allure of life-changing wealth continues to fuel lottery ticket sales. The phenomenon underscores the complexity of human decision-making and the powerful role of hope and desire in driving economic behavior, even in the face of unfavorable odds.