For those wondering how this relates to hairstylists...
People are not a customer of "Awesome Hair Inc". They are a customer of Laura, whom happens to work for said company. Because Laura knows exactly how to do my hair properly.
So when Laura switches company or becomes an independent, her customers follow her. Awesome Hair Inc just lost half their regular customers. A source of perpetual drama. Now you know why hairstylists are so excellent at bonding with people. It's how you create forever customers.
An interesting variation of this dynamic is found at the very publication of the article: NYT. Some of their journalists have become very savvy on social media, building up an enormous personal following. A following that is loyal to the person, not specifically to NYT. Yet it was NYT that paid for it, as these journalists tweet on the job, as part of their job. At the very least, NYT could hope that this sends a lot of clicks towards their articles, but even that is questionable as increasingly these journalists tweet screenshots of key sections, knowing that nobody on social media actually reads anything.
News outlets already have social media policies (often inconsistently enforced, but they exist). If they were really worried about their employees using their good names to kickstart their Substack they could do something about it. In reality, NYT and others actively seek out writers who get a lot of engagement on social media.
People are not a customer of "Awesome Hair Inc". They are a customer of Laura, whom happens to work for said company. Because Laura knows exactly how to do my hair properly.
So when Laura switches company or becomes an independent, her customers follow her. Awesome Hair Inc just lost half their regular customers. A source of perpetual drama. Now you know why hairstylists are so excellent at bonding with people. It's how you create forever customers.
An interesting variation of this dynamic is found at the very publication of the article: NYT. Some of their journalists have become very savvy on social media, building up an enormous personal following. A following that is loyal to the person, not specifically to NYT. Yet it was NYT that paid for it, as these journalists tweet on the job, as part of their job. At the very least, NYT could hope that this sends a lot of clicks towards their articles, but even that is questionable as increasingly these journalists tweet screenshots of key sections, knowing that nobody on social media actually reads anything.
An awkward marriage, to say the least.