[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

They consider not being able to go anywhere without being recognized a drawback. I've never heard a celebrity refer to just being awake and outside their house as 'work.'

Because that's pushing through the fourth wall a little to hard. Part of the celebrity cachet is living the life of Riley. "My life is filled with stupid bullshit" gets you tagged as a whiner, and people no longer wanting to live vicariously through you.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't even know what we are talking about anymore. Should I repeat my original point so that it can be acknowledged, or do you get it?

...

Originally Posted by subego 

I'll agree the challenges are different, but I question placing them on different scales.

This "sociable" element is a great example. A celebrity's bread and butter is the relationship they have with their fans. Maintaining that is a job.

For non-celebrities, being sociable is recreation.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Because that's pushing through the fourth wall a little to hard. Part of the celebrity cachet is living the life of Riley. "My life is filled with stupid bullshit" gets you tagged as a whiner, and people no longer wanting to live vicariously through you.

Well what can I say, subego? I can't prove a negative.

[subego]

@Dakar

Another way to put my point is focusing on how maintaining a fan base is actually a giant pain in the ass loses fans. This is why celebrities dance around it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'll agree the challenges are different, but I question placing them on different scales.

This "sociable" element is a great example. A celebrity's bread and butter is the relationship they have with their fans. Maintaining that is a job.

For non-celebrities, being sociable is recreation.

It is a different scale. I think you underestimate the work it takes to start a successful business.

Somebody starting a business needs to be social with his/her employees, customers, potential customers, investors, the media, financial service people, the government in some cases, lawyers in some cases. They need to be on the road just as Beiber does, going to trade shows, conventions, going to meet with investors, big companies. In the early going, nobody is going to (nor should) do this for you.

In addition, the individual needs to stay focused on their products and developing them, marketing them, measuring things, competing with other companies, and budgeting and staying within that budget. They have to decide how much investment money to seek out, when, from whom, and how the investors are going to benefit. They need to figure out how to stay afloat for the time that the business is not making money. They may need machinery, office space, inventory, etc. etc.

How is this in ANY WAY comparable to actual work and stress to what Beiber does?


Even if you *still* don't think that the scales are much different (although I'd think that you are naive to what it takes to create a business), you still haven't addressed timeline.

That business owner needs to be doing this stuff for YEARS. Beiber had a crapload of money thrown at him which stepped on the gas about as much as gas can be stepped on. If this isn't a shortcut in terms of the amount of time needed to get from place A to place B, I don't know what is.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well what can I say, subego? I can't prove a negative.

You don't have to prove a negative. I provided a rationale for why celebrities don't talk or mention this issue.

If this claim doesn't meet your standard for plausibility, I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder why.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

You don't have to prove a negative. I provided a rationale for why celebrities don't talk or mention this issue.

How do I prove they don't think that?

Oh, and I'm open to the fact that some might. But most?

[subego]

@besson

Time factor is variable. If it always took a long time you wouldn't have venture capitalists.

Likewise, I know plenty of businesses where a total social retard is the brains. They hire someone to do all those things you mention.

Celebrities can't really do that to any large extent. They can hire handlers and managers, but those people aren't keeping the cash flow up. It's the celebrity doing that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How do I prove they don't think that?

Oh, and I'm open to the fact that some might. But most?

The same way I "proved" they don't.

I'm saying bitching about maintaining your fanbase is going to lose fans. Present an argument for why you think this wouldn't be the case.

I'm saying calling the maintenence of your fanbase "work" is the same as bitching about it. Present an argument for how fans would interpret that differently.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

@besson

Time factor is variable. If it always took a long time you wouldn't have venture capitalists.

Respectfully, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

It usually takes a long time. The short times like an Apple are exceptions, not the rule. Venture capitalists understand this, I didn't pull the 10 year average lifecycle of a business out of my ass, this is well documented and well understood.

Likewise, I know plenty of businesses where a total social retard is the brains. They hire someone to do all those things you mention.

With what money? Venture capitalists are not going to invest in your company before it has proven to make money. Maybe on TV they do, but in the real world this is very rare.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

The same way I "proved" they don't.

I'm saying bitching about maintaining your fanbase is going to lose fans. Present an argument for why you think this wouldn't be the case.

I'm saying calling the maintenence of your fanbase "work" is the same as bitching about it. Present an argument for how fans would interpret that differently.

I don't even accept the premise that it is work. I mean, given the stress and effort required in managing your resources when you're poor, I might as well call being poor work.

[subego]

To put what I'm saying another way: part of what makes someone a successful celebrity is, well... being a celebrity. Fans look to them for escapism and vicarious life.

Pointing out how being a celebrity isn't all it's cracked up to be doesn't help them. It doesn't help them to the point a good part of their job is masking that. That's what the industry does. It sells fantasy. That's what celebrities do. They sell fantasy. The whole operation is laser focused on this.

If you see a celebrity do a slick interview, it ruins the fantasy to know that 10 minutes of slick took an hour in the makeup chair, and hours of rehearsal to make those rehearsed answers come off as natural.

Go on TV and act natural with a dozen crew people, six cameras, and a pissy floor director in your face. It doesn't just happen. Making it look that way is their job.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

To put what I'm saying another way: part of what makes someone a successful celebrity is, well... being a celebrity. Fans look to them for escapism and vicarious life.

...and now I feel like we might not even have the same definition of celebrity.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't even accept the premise that it is work. I mean, given the stress and effort required in managing your resources when you're poor, I might as well call being poor work.

I'm having trouble getting around the direct causative relationship between a celebrity's success and the adoration of their fans.

Maintaining a fanbase is the primary thing a celebrity needs to do. How is the primary thing you do as a celebrity not your work?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

...and now I feel like we might not even have the same definition of celebrity.

However you are defining it, would you say it's something you have respect for?

It's not coming off that way.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm having trouble getting around the direct causative relationship between a celebrity's success and the adoration of their fans.

Maintaining a fanbase is the primary thing a celebrity needs to do. How is the primary thing you do as a celebrity not your work?

The primary thing he does is music. Supposedly.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Respectfully, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

It usually takes a long time. The short times like an Apple are exceptions, not the rule. Venture capitalists understand this, I didn't pull the 10 year average lifecycle of a business out of my ass, this is well documented and well understood.

I'm totally confused here. The standard VC route is to get in and get out quick. VCs do what they do because they get bored easily. If you're still in a project after 10 years, you're not a VC.

The archetypal VC for this generation is Kevin Rose. He stays on projects for a decade?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

However you are defining it, would you say it's something you have respect for?

It's not coming off that way.

Respect doesn't really factor into it. It's a status. And one that can be achieved without doing work, I might add.

Do I have sympathy for the drawbacks? Sure. Do I think the money doesn't always make up for it? Yeah.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't even accept the premise that it is work. I mean, given the stress and effort required in managing your resources when you're poor, I might as well call being poor work.

I think subego is mired in another semantic question of what constitutes "work". According to my definition, I would say that a business owner has to deal with more "work", because the opportunity exists for celebrities to make very big jumps from being a no-name to a very big name. With that jump comes a lot of things that a business owner has to build themselves from scratch.

Of course, this usually doesn't happen to actors/musicians, and business owners can make these very big jumps too, but here's the difference...

The big entertainment corp marketing machine finds people like Justin Beiber and latches on to them, milking them for whatever they are worth. During this process, the marketing machine takes over, does its thing, and then when the entertainer has been consumed they move on.

A big investor may latch on to a big business, but only after that business has proven to create something that makes money, and will continue to grow. That big investor doesn't take over that business and start doing its thing, because they can't, they don't know how, and they probably wouldn't want to invest in a company that is fully dependent on them to produce worthy products and services anyway. Investors exist to take what a company is already doing, and bring them to the next level.

This building process is usually incremental. It often results in eventual non-linear growth, but that process is still time consuming and gradual. There are very, very few overnight successes like a Justin Beiber.

One of the fastest successes was Apple, but we all know how many years of struggle it took for Apple to be Apple. Same with Microsoft. Facebook might be the fastest success that comes to mind, but Facebooks are *very* rare. There are probably far more one-hit wonder musicians and actors.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The primary thing he does is music. Supposedly.

People who do "music" are people you've never heard of. They play in orchestras and do commercial jingles.

Bieber is wank material for 13-year-olds, who wouldn't know music if it bit them in the ass.

As luck would have it though, they're more interested in wank than music, so it's a win-win for all involved.

I have far more respect for his skill at being a celebrity than as a musician.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm totally confused here. The standard VC route is to get in and get out quick. VCs do what they do because they get bored easily. If you're still in a project after 10 years, you're not a VC.

The archetypal VC for this generation is Kevin Rose. He stays on projects for a decade?

No.

Venture capitalists help with providing financial resources to put companies on the path to being multi-millionaire class companies. They are instrumental in the early going, or the "get in" part, but the "get out" part can be hanging onto shares, or profiting from the company being bought out. The "get out" part means they are no longer actively working with the company.

Sean Parker is another VC guy. He invested $15 million in Spotify, and has "gotten out" because Spotify is doing just fine now, it doesn't need more of his money or guidance. He resides on their board of directors, and probably doesn't visit the office more than a few times a year or something.

However, Sean Parker was shown Spotify in 2009, likely as an MVP (minimal viable product) which meant that it was at least a working prototype. It likely took a considerable amount of time to build Spotify before Parker even saw it, and this isn't counting the number of years the creators spent learning about how to build such as system, and considerable efforts spent laying legal groundwork. We have some idea how long it took Apple to lay some groundwork for the iTunes Store, you might even argue that Spotify piggybacked on what Apple started.

Some of the absolute game changer sort of tech businesses can come to their own in 6 years, but the average is around 10 years. If the wheels started turning on Spotify in 2006 (like the Wikipedia page says), this might be a realistic timeline for a company like this, but Spotify is statistically a very rare sort of business. Surely, the people that founded it had plenty of experience prior, which you could argue could be counted in the lifecycle of Spotify. 2006 was just when Spotify officially was formed as some sort of business identity.

[subego]

@besson,

I would say you are mired in the idea big leaps constitute less work.

It's just like the computer analogy I made a few posts ago.

The computer allows you to save massive time. That time then gets used for other work.

[subego]

@besson

No longer actively working with the company is work?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Bieber is wank material for 13-year-olds, who wouldn't know music if it bit them in the ass.

...

I have far more respect for his skill at being a celebrity than as a musician.

His skill at being a celebrity was being cute. Aside from clothes shopping and getting your hair cut, that's not work, either.


Look, I'm ashamed at how many posts I've put into this. We're not changing each other's minds, I'm moving on.

[besson3c]

Also, find somebody here that know what Spotify was before 2009, and I would call them a liar. Looking at Beiber's Wikipedia page on his career, it looks like he was discovered in 2007, and connected with very powerful people in the business in 2008. By then, his success was a foregone conclusion. These labels rarely miss with their resources, they know exactly how to create stars.

Can you see how the timeline of somebody like Justin Beiber is far more compressed?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

@besson,

I would say you are mired in the idea big leaps constitute less work.

It's just like the computer analogy I made a few posts ago.

The computer allows you to save massive time. That time then gets used for other work.

Except Justin Beiber's computer is somebody else. Somebody else is making it possible for him to make this leap.

Do you acknowledge this?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

His skill at being a celebrity was being cute. Aside from clothes shopping and getting your hair cut, that's not work, either.

This is the fantasy bullshit they're selling, and you have so bought into it, hook, line, and sinker.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Except Justin Beiber's computer is somebody else. Somebody else is making it possible for him to make this leap.

Do you acknowledge this?

Only if you acknowledge computers have users, and don't accomplish dick without them.

Fair middle ground?

[Shaddim]

We have a some celebs that crash here, a couple come by a few times each year, and they do it because they're our friends, it's private, and we treat them like regular people. When they arrive they're twisted in knots and ready to snap, oftentimes needing to detox and sleep for 24 hours. The public wears them down and out; pictures, autographs, constant conversations, and proposals (of all types). Some of it's fun, but it's almost all work from sunrise to sunset, a real grind. Sure, those in the A-list (like Bieber) have it better than almost anyone, but that's the showbiz 1%.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is the fantasy bullshit they're selling, and you have so bought into it, hook, line, and sinker.

9/10 almost goaded me into arguing twice.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

@besson

No longer actively working with the company is work?

I really don't know what you are trying to accomplish here. I've made my arguments, I don't really wanted to be pulled into some weird semantic and/or bickering back and forth. I've spent more time than I was expecting and wanting on this whole Justin Beiber line of conversation in the first place.

You know how you requested that I acknowledge when my positions have pivoted? I have a request for you: acknowledge whether the original point was understood so that people like myself don't have to keep on repeating it and finding new and creative ways to make the same point in a way that can be best understood.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Only if you acknowledge computers have users, and don't accomplish dick without them.

Fair middle ground?

Of course, Beiber is not Beiber without Beiber. Who would argue that?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

We have a some celebs that crash here, a couple come by a few times each year, and they do it because they're our friends, it's private, and we treat them like regular people. When they arrive they're twisted in knots and ready to snap, oftentimes needing to detox and sleep for 24 hours. The public wears them down and out; pictures, autographs, constant conversations, and proposals (of all types). Some of it's fun, but it's almost all work from sunrise to sunset, a real grind. Sure, those in the A-list (like Bieber) have it better than almost anyone, but that's the showbiz 1%.

Did Charlie Chaplin ever sleep at your place?

If you say yes I can catch you lying, because you probably weren't hanging out with him before he died in 1977, and I can win the internet.

Please say that you guys were buddies?

[subego]

@besson

Which argument would you like me to acknowledge. This is an honest request.


@all

I'm not trying to be an ass, annoying, or argumentative. I have one specific argument which I feel is being continually glossed over.

It is in a celebrity's best interests to put forth the appearance being a celebrity is awesome.

Because of this, I don't take a celebrity's claims of how awesome their life is at face value.

To put it another way, part of the gig is lying about how awesome you and your life is. I feel this scam is being bought into here.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

@besson

Which argument would you like me to acknowledge. This is an honest request.

That there are shortcuts to wealth, and that Justin Beiber is one of those, albeit a very rare one. "Shortcut" meaning, Justin Beiber was created in a very short amount of time compared to any fathomable legal business in existence. And, shortcut meaning that his wealth was/is a result of his unique opportunity and the machinery of another entity he was, and still is solely dependent on that made him who he is, in contrast to the work needed to be more of a self-made entity like a Spotify, for example.

I would also love it if we could move beyond the picking apart semantic MacNNey stuff and agree that Justin Beiber's life involves less "work" than building a business. I'm not saying that being a celebrity is easy and isn't work in its own way, but the way it is work is in maintaining that status, ensuring that that external recognition and acknowledgement exists, maintaining relevance as a marketable product, etc. This pales in comparison to actually building that entire platform and *then* struggling to do all of these celebrity maintenance things.

I actually think that the Justin Beiber thing is tougher emotionally, more of a grind than being a Zuckerberg or somebody of the same ilk, because his success is so dependent on others. At the back of his head he must realize that he is being used, and that a time will come when those that have built him up latch onto something else. Zuckerberg at least is in control of his destiny. Wrinkles on his face won't make his celebrity status plummet.

The shorter shelf-life of most celebrities must also be a source of stress in realizing that this might be their only chance for making a ton of money and being in the spotlight, and after his celebrity status is diminished he may have a hard time finding out who he is, and that who he currently is probably difficult to sort out.

[subego]

That spate of posting killed my phone. Give me a bit to juice up.

P.S. I appreciate the restatement.

[turtle777]

Hey bisson, could you please stop misspelling Bieber.

Thanks.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

That spate of posting killed my phone. Give me a bit to juice up.

P.S. I appreciate the restatement.

I appreciate your appreciating me, and I appreciate you, but most of all I appreciate Turtle777!

[turtle777]

I appreciate you spelling my name right.

Since this is the second time I needed to remind you of Bieber's spelling, I begin wondering if you are a Bieber dyslexic

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I appreciate you spelling my name right.

Since this is the second time I needed to remind you of Bieber's spelling, I begin wondering if you are a Bieber dyslexic

-t

Or, maybe you are a Bieber fan?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Or, maybe you are a Bieber fan?

No. The reason why I notice (and it sticks out for me) is that Bieber is the German word for beaver.

Therefore, spelling it Beiber just looks so wrong to me.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

9/10 almost goaded me into arguing twice.

That was just a dick move on my part. I humbly, and with no snark, apologize for it.

[subego]

@besson

I don't disagree there are shortcuts to wealth, but I'm not sure what the takeaway is supposed to be.

Where I do disagree to some extent is the day-to-day workload of the hypothetical entrepreneur versus Bieber, which is why I've been focusing on that.

My argument is two-pronged.

First, I think most people would underestimate the workload of someone in the Justin Bieber strata.

Second, the machine for which he works has a vested interest in you underestimating his workload, and they're really ****ing good at their job. You (or anyone else in this thread) obviously aren't unaware of this, but that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is it's pervasive to the point it's probably a waste of time trying to sort deception from reality. Or better yet, assume it's all deception, and you'll have a hit rate in the nineties.

Without knowing much about him at all, I can tell you what the arc of his career indicates about his personality.

First off, this kid is disciplined as ****. You couldn't get me to clean my goddamn room when I was 15, and I didn't have any precocious shit to fall back on. I'm doing him a disservice calling him a dancing monkey (though I'm still going to do it). Being a dancing monkey is hard. If you just clock in and clock out like it's been presented he does, you start doing bad shows sooner or later, and all the vital to the process dudes with the cigars start pointing out how they can take it all away. He used his discipline to do more than just clock in and clock out. As a ****ing kid.

Likewise I'm perfectly willing to drop the semantic argument as to whether maintaining a fanbase is work. For someone in the Bieber strata, he's been filmed every single moment he's left the house for several years, and somehow managed until recently not to **** it up. Think about that for a second. Again... from a kid.

I'll back off on work, but I'm not backing off from the idea this is a clear indication of immense effort.

[turtle777]

^^^ very well said

Sure there's dumb luck, but that usually doesn't last long. To consistently be "lucky" takes more than luck.

Like Bieber or not, but to call him a lazy dumb f$&@ is just ignorant.

P.S. I can't believe I'm defending Bieber. WTF ?

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Did Charlie Chaplin ever sleep at your place?

If you say yes I can catch you lying, because you probably weren't hanging out with him before he died in 1977, and I can win the internet.

Please say that you guys were buddies?

Stop doing that shit. Really.

[turtle777]

He's just being the passive-aggressive asshole that he is.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

@besson

I don't disagree there are shortcuts to wealth, but I'm not sure what the takeaway is supposed to be.

Where I do disagree to some extent is the day-to-day workload of the hypothetical entrepreneur versus Bieber, which is why I've been focusing on that.

My argument is two-pronged.

First, I think most people would underestimate the workload of someone in the Justin Bieber strata.

Second, the machine for which he works has a vested interest in you underestimating his workload, and they're really ****ing good at their job. You (or anyone else in this thread) obviously aren't unaware of this, but that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is it's pervasive to the point it's probably a waste of time trying to sort deception from reality. Or better yet, assume it's all deception, and you'll have a hit rate in the nineties.

Without knowing much about him at all, I can tell you what the arc of his career indicates about his personality.

First off, this kid is disciplined as ****. You couldn't get me to clean my goddamn room when I was 15, and I didn't have any precocious porn to fall back on. I'm doing him a disservice calling him a dancing monkey (though I'm still going to do it). Being a dancing monkey is hard. If you just clock in and clock out like it's been presented he does, you start doing bad shows sooner or later, and all the vital to the process dudes with the cigars start pointing out how they can take it all away. He used his discipline to do more than just clock in and clock out. As a ****ing kid.

Likewise I'm perfectly willing to drop the semantic argument as to whether maintaining a fanbase is work. For someone in the Bieber strata, he's been filmed every single moment he's left the house for several years, and somehow managed until recently not to **** it up. Think about that for a second. Again... from a kid.

I'll back off on work, but I'm not backing off from the idea this is a clear indication of immense effort.

I hope I've also convinced you that Bieber represents shortcuts to wealth as far as timeline goes as well, I think that case has been made pretty clearly, this is the case for most pop-stars really. This is the big record label formula in action that has been utilized countless times.

I agree that what he does is not easy. I never said that, but if I gave this impression, hopefully this changes that.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

He's just being the passive-aggressive asshole that he is.

-t

If you see passive-aggressiveness in that post, it is clear that some words don't mean what you think they do (the other one is "trolling").

It was silly and weird, but then again, I'm besson3c.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

@besson

I don't disagree there are shortcuts to wealth, but I'm not sure what the takeaway is supposed to be.

Where I do disagree to some extent is the day-to-day workload of the hypothetical entrepreneur versus Bieber, which is why I've been focusing on that.

My argument is two-pronged.

First, I think most people would underestimate the workload of someone in the Justin Bieber strata.

Second, the machine for which he works has a vested interest in you underestimating his workload, and they're really ****ing good at their job. You (or anyone else in this thread) obviously aren't unaware of this, but that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is it's pervasive to the point it's probably a waste of time trying to sort deception from reality. Or better yet, assume it's all deception, and you'll have a hit rate in the nineties.

Without knowing much about him at all, I can tell you what the arc of his career indicates about his personality.

First off, this kid is disciplined as ****. You couldn't get me to clean my goddamn room when I was 15, and I didn't have any precocious shit to fall back on. I'm doing him a disservice calling him a dancing monkey (though I'm still going to do it). Being a dancing monkey is hard. If you just clock in and clock out like it's been presented he does, you start doing bad shows sooner or later, and all the vital to the process dudes with the cigars start pointing out how they can take it all away. He used his discipline to do more than just clock in and clock out. As a ****ing kid.

Likewise I'm perfectly willing to drop the semantic argument as to whether maintaining a fanbase is work. For someone in the Bieber strata, he's been filmed every single moment he's left the house for several years, and somehow managed until recently not to **** it up. Think about that for a second. Again... from a kid.

I'll back off on work, but I'm not backing off from the idea this is a clear indication of immense effort.

This, all of it. The being found part, that was luck. The 13M albums sold, 64 sold-out stadium shows, 45M Twitter followers, and 5 #1 albums? That's him working his skinny ass off.

While many people do inherit money, they don't keep it long if they're stupid with finances. The fact is, and it is a fact, if you meet someone who is worth 9,10, even 11 figures, you've just met one of the hardest (and smartest) working individuals on the planet. The number of people who believe that having wealth is mostly luck is staggering.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

This, all of it. The being found part, that was luck. The 13M albums sold, 64 sold-out stadium shows, 45M Twitter followers, and 5 #1 albums? That's him working his skinny ass off.

It's also him having great song writers and producers, which he is dependent on.

While many people do inherit money, they don't keep it long if they're stupid with finances. The fact is, and it is a fact, if you meet someone who is worth 9,10, even 11 figures, you've just met one of the hardest (and smartest) working individuals on the planet. The number of people who believe that having wealth is mostly luck is staggering.

I agree this is generally the case, but wealth certainly does not guarantee that somebody is smart or hard working in and of itself.

The Lehman Brothers were probably smart, but hard working? Maybe not so much if their success depended on fraudulent and shady activities.

A-Rod was clearly hard working, but smart? Not so much. Same with Paris Hilton.

Usually wealth is a result of hard work and intelligence, but there are people that have benefited from their talent being valued far more than any other sort of talent (A-Rod), from some serious advantages that other people don't have (Hilton).

In the case of Justin Bieber, he has some ability, but he benefited BIG TIME from the financial backing of his label and all the trimmings that go along with it. If he wasn't manufactured into the star that he is, he would be like many other fine musicians that go unnoticed, and there are many musicians that possess just as much or more talent than Bieber that you've never heard of and probably never will.