The Atlantic Home

Why do some technological and cultural products spread like kudzu while others wither on the vine? Journalists and academics have written volumes about "stickiness," but even the sharpest manufacturers, publishers, and producers have been rejecting future hits for decades -- often ideas and styles the break normally reasonable rules.  Parker Brothers actually declined Monopoly twice: as the Landlord's Game (a simulation promoting Henry George's socialist tax reform principles, with a cult following in academic economics) in the 1920s, and its ultimate pro-capitalist version, authorized for a pittance by the unworldly original patent holder, in the 1930s. (The developer of that successful revision, or rather inversion, had to market a home-made prototype to convince them.) But if the game had flopped, there would have been many plausible reasons -- too complicated, consumers were sick of monopolies, etc.

Recent tributes to the late composer Vic Mizzy show the power and unpredictability of hits. The LA Times explains how it worked:

. . . [B]ecause the production company, Filmways, refused to pay for singers, Mizzy sang it himself and overdubbed it three times. The song, memorably punctuated by finger-snapping, begins with: "They're creepy and they're kooky, mysterious and spooky, they're altogether ooky: the Addams family."

In the 1996 book "TV's Biggest Hits: The Story of Television Themes From 'Dragnet' to 'Friends,' " author Jon Burlingame writes that Mizzy's "musical conception was so specific that he became deeply involved with the filming of the main-title sequence, which involved all seven actors snapping their fingers in carefully timed rhythm to Mizzy's music."

For Mizzy, who owned the publishing rights to "The Addams Family" theme, it was an easy payday.

"I sat down; I went 'buh-buh-buh-bump [snap-snap], buh-buh-buh-bump," he recalled in a 2008 interview on CBS' "Sunday Morning" show. "That's why I'm living in Bel-Air: Two finger snaps and you live in Bel-Air."

It's encouraging to note that budget limits helped make the song such a success.Mizzy was challenged to become a one-man band and chorus, rose to the task, and managed to include copyright ownership in his contract. Mizzy not only had the right idea, he was willing to put hours of work into the right execution.

For whatever obscure neurological or aesthetic reason, the theme song has joined the ranks of the earworms. It's infectious even across species. Parrots learn not only speech but melodies and rhythm from their human companions, and the Addams Family theme song is an avian hit on Youtube, with dozens of versions by cockatiels alone. Here's the best finger snap I found:


Creative success is usually a lot of work -- except when it isn't. And in the end, like the Mizzy's Adamses, it can also be a bit "mysterious and spooky."

Consider this idea of the Harvard philosopher and television ambassador Michael Sandel as summarized in the (London) Times Higher Education. (I have not been able to get Sandel's new book itself yet and will correct this post if it turns out I am misinterpreting the original.)

Adopting the philosopher John Rawls' argument that a person does not merit success merely because he or she was lucky enough to be born with gifts that are in demand, Professor Sandel says a "philosophically frank" university should tell those it rejects that "we don't regard you as less deserving than those who were admitted" and that "it is not your fault that when you came along society happened not to need the qualities you had to offer."

This is supposed to "lessen the sting" (as the article quotes Sandel's book) of rejection--telling unsuccessful candidates that "society," with the Harvard admissions staff as omniscient arbiters, doesn't need "the qualities" you are offering. But look at the qualities that the Harvard Admissions office lists in its FAQ:

There is no formula for gaining admission to Harvard. Academic accomplishment in high school is important, but the Admissions Committee also considers many other criteria, such as community involvement, leadership and distinction in extracurricular activities, and work experience. We rely on teachers, counselors, headmasters and alumni/ae to share information with us about an applicant's strength of character, his or her ability to overcome adversity and other personal qualities - all of which play a part in the Admissions Committee's decisions.

In other words, Professor Sandel's allegedly consoling message would imply, academic brilliance, work ethic, athletic prowess, musical talent, community spirit, leadership, and resilience aren't everything! It isn't your fault that you are relatively lacking in one or more of them. We're sure you're good at something.

Sandel's proposed words to the winners, as quoted by the Times Higher, are as transparently flattering as the ding letter is implicitly devastating.

"You are to be congratulated, not in the sense that you deserve credit for having the qualities that led to your admission--you do not--but only in the sense that the winner of a lottery is to be congratulated. You are lucky to have come along with the right traits at the right moment."

In other words, don't be proud just because you are a naturally superior person, but you are also exactly what society needs at the moment--you lucky dog.

Seriously, don't use a great philosopher's concepts to sugar-coat a bitter pill. I propose a different message that could be adapted by other leading colleges and that could go to admits and rejects alike.

We have done our best. But remember, we not only admitted but honored, during the Third Reich, Hitler's piano man Putzi Hanfstaengl We rejected Warren Buffett and accepted the future Unabomber. Our short-lived independent alumni magazine 02138 delighted the national press a few years ago with highlights of our mistakes, and archive.org has saved a copy of the original, or at least its first page. Even if the seven percent of candidates we accepted are on average five times as likely to be as outstanding as the 93 percent we rejected--not likely because most applicants are self-selected as qualified for Harvard academic work--the latter as a group will have twice as many notable people as the former by their sheer numbers. So whether we accepted or rejected you, let our decision motivate you to work harder at learning and prove us right in the first case or wrong in the second.

Rejection, like other arts, is best learned young. To overcome it, begin by calling it by its rightful name.