the metrics of success: write by numbers

I've been reading an interesting book by Japanese author Haruki Murakami about his experiences as a writer and as a runner, entitled, not surprisingly, "What I Talk About When I Talk About Running".

A lot of what Murakami writes resonates with me, especially in how lessons learned in the physical activity (in his case, running, in my case...well, not running at this point) inform work in the writing sphere, and vice versa.

This passage struck a chord as I continue thinking towards the panel discussion on the Metrics of Success at Podcamp Toronto 2009:

"I felt that the indispensable relationship I should build in my life was not with a specific person, but with an unspecified number of readers.  As long as I got my day-to-day life set so that each work was an improvement over the last, then many of my readers would welcome whatever life I chose for myself.  Shouldn't this be my duty as a novelist, and my top priority?  My opinion hasn't changed over the years.  I can't see my readers' faces, so in a sense it's a conceptual type of human relationship, but I've consistently considered this invisible, conceptual relationship to be the most important thing in my life.

In other words, you can't please everybody.

Even when I ran my bar I followed the same policy.  A lot of customers came to the bar.  If one out of ten enjoyed the place and said he'd come again, that was enough.  If one out of ten was a repeat customer, then the business would survive.  To put it the other way, it didn't matter if nine out of ten didn't like my bar.  This realization lifted a weight off my shoulders.  Still, I had to make sure that the one person who did like the place really liked it.  In order to make sure he did, I had to make my philosophy and stance clear-cut, and patiently maintain that stance no matter what.  This is what I learned through running a business." (pp. 37-38)

Murakami notes that he writes, and continues to write, with this same attitude he developed as a bar owner, and found that with each work he created, his readership increased.  He had the writer's equivalent of that one-in-ten customer, a devoted readership that really loved his works, and, most importantly, which formed enough of a a book buying base that he was able to earn a living, AND allowed him to continue writing what he wanted, the way he wanted to.

I can't help think about those folks in new/social media/podcasting who focus very hard on the numbers and how they define success, and on folks willing to change what they do in order just to make those numbers increase.  Instead, I would argue for Murakami's example:  define what you want out of life, what you want out of your creative process, first, and don't compromise what you want or what you're aiming for just for the sake of the numbers.  Make sure you love what you're doing, and make sure that whomever comes to listen really, really likes it, too. 

And for those who don't like it?

There's a whole other world of podcasts out there.  There's got to be something else out there for them, too.

Comments

[Scarborough Dude]

Wow - I love that! Thanks for sharing.

[k]

It's rare that I enjoy a book I've borrowed from the library enough to consider getting my own copy, but I think I'm going to buy this one. There's so much in it that resonates for me right now...

[Keith Burtis]

Kathryn, I am very in tune with what you are saying here and in full agreement. However, I need to ponder these thoughts more. I think finding your true voice, and your true passion will lead others to water. It is in conveying this passion where success is ultimately found.

I would like to say as well that like art, success is not definable. It is in the definition that we find pain. Many of us are always pushing for the next goal and not enjoying our current status or taking time to enjoy the process.

I believe that it is in the giving away and letting go that we find our true success. The monetary, the fame, the accolades all follow because you have decided that these things are not necessary for happiness.

[k]

Keith, I think sometimes we try to define success, but it's such a slippery thing -- each person's success is something different, and even then, our own individual view of success changes as we change.

I think -- I'm glad you feel you need to think more about this. It's one of the reasons I've been writing these posts with an eye to the panel at PCTO, because there are so many issues for such a seemingly simple topic.

And I like looking at how other creative people look at success and what it means to them. I think in the case of Murakami, he's decided that having enough money to have a decent living from his work is enough, though I'm not sure that's the part he'd define as "success". I suspect he'd say being able to do that *and* not have to change his art in any way to suit an audience is probably a success of sorts.

But that's his definition. I know there are some folks chasing the numbers who would feel that a huge listener base is how they view success, too, even if that's not where I'm coming from.

Lots of stuff to think about, before we even get to podcamp!

[Andrea Ross]

We each have our own personal, ever changing sometimes very personal reasons for podcasting. I guess you could think of those reasons as goals and you could determine whether your podcasting is successful at any given moment by assessing your podcasting in terms of your current version of goals.

If your goals are based on tangible, countable outcomes like dollars, downloads, hits, comments, or hatemail, then I guess measuring "success" would be easier, but achieving "success" could be much more challenging.

I think those of us whose reasons are not countable don't ask ourselves so much about "success", instead we reflect on the reasons we podcast and on our experience of the process. I don't think one set of goals is any more virtuous than the other. As long as someone else's goals or their strivings to achieve them don't cause harm, then they're no one else's concern.

Most of us likely run into situations where we suddenly ask ourselves "why the heck am I doing all this?", but if we're *stuck* questioning ourselves about issues of success then maybe our podcast is a toaster, afterall.

[katherine]

Andrea, you make some good points -- most especially that if no one else is being harmed, then whose business is it how each of us defines success.

More and more I'm finding that success is some sort of continuum, and we all fall at different places, depending on what our individual goals are.

The only situation I'm having a hard time reconciling are the folks who come at new/social media just to make money. But I'd have a problem with that attitude no matter what the field, and maybe that's still just my personal bias.

[Mark Blevis]

I think, ultimately, many content creators are trying to appeal to that 1 out of 10 in a way that inspires a dialog.

[katherine]

But that may depend, Mark, on how you define "dialogue", too. Is it an actual conversation, back and forth, give and take with the audience? Or maybe just knowing they're out there is enough.

For a fiction writer like Murakami, he knows that "one in ten" is out there because it translates into book sales, which are measurable. In the same vein, as a bar owner, that one in ten translated to drinks sales, say, measurable income for the bar.

But what isn't measurable are other kinds of dialogues he has with his readership -- in the book about running, he talks about "running" into readers who occasionally stop him on his training runs to tell him they love his books. And he tells story about making an appearance in the U.S. where twice the number of people expected by the venue showed up -- that's a different kind of dialogue -- or, at the very least, a different kind of measurement of impact or success.