Clickbait describes a phenomenon where a headline is given a deliberately provocative title to try to get users to engage with some kind of online content. We may bemoan the phenomenon, but it persists because it’s effective.
The most effective form of clickbait is known as rage bait. As the name suggests, rage bait is when content producers try to get engagement by deliberately angering people with their content. Again, while this might seems deplorable, it persists because it works – content that makes people angry is more likely to be engaged with than content eliciting any other reaction.
This simple observation can help explain why some of the most successful and high profile people in public conversation often seem needlessly antagonistic. The snarkiest, most enraging people will tend to rise in prominence, giving an incentive even to those who are actually more mild mannered to put on a deliberately antagonistic persona. Rage sells.
At this point, its worth considering Sherwin Rosen’s work on the economics of superstars. The gist of this idea is along these lines. Consider acting as a profession in, say, the year 1600. Across Europe, there would be a very large number of stage actors to fill theater demand. The number of actors must be large because each performance is local – it can only be seen by people in a particular theater at a particular time. It also meant the quality of actor performances was heavily determined by local conditions. If your local troupe consisted of mostly mediocre actors, that was the best you could get. And an actor of great talent was still limited in how much he could benefit from that talent, for the same reason. Even if he joined a traveling theater troupe and expanded his range, he can still only perform one place at a time.
Over time, and as technology improved, actors were not limited in the same way in how far their performances could reach. As the movie industry arose, suddenly the most skilled actors could have the entire world as their audience. And on the other side of the coin, audiences could benefit from the performances of the most skilled actors in the world. The same was true with music – a couple of centuries ago, someone with Bruce Springsteen’s level of performance ability couldn’t have had the actual Springsteen’s level of success – their market simply wasn’t big enough for that. Nor could anyone have benefitted from their Springsteen-level skills unless they happened to be within the area where this musician could perform.
(I’m personally not a huge fan of Springsteen, I just grabbed his name out of the air because he’s been very successful over a very long time – feel free to substitute your own favorite musical act.)
This change in reach brought about by technology had a couple of effects. One, the highest levels of success were more heavily concentrated among the very highest performers. In the past, being one standard deviation above average in acting ability could have secured you a career, and being five standard deviations above average wouldn’t have made your career all that much more successful than your one sigma counterpart. But today, when movies have global releases, only a very small number of actors are needed to serve the global market. People who live in Wichita, Kansas aren’t solely dependent on the quality of actors who reside in Wichita. They can witness the performances of the very best actors the world has to offer. To have a shot at being a successful actor, you need to be at the far right end of the distribution.
The second effect is that even very small differences in ability at the top end can have huge effects in overall success. If you have 90% of Anthony Hopkin’s acting skills, you don’t end up with 90% of Anthony Hopkin’s career success. You’re more likely to be 10% as successful as Hopkins, as he wins Oscars and gets remembered as one of the all time greats, and you have a minor supporting role on a modestly well received sitcom.
I think rage bait follows a similar dynamic, for the same reasons. With the reach of internet and cable TV, content producers have virtually no limits with how far they can reach – and with how many competitors they have. If I’m 90% as rage-inducing as some other content creator, I won’t be 90% as successful for it. This creates an incentive for people to keep upping the ante – but it doesn’t have the same natural plateau as the distribution of something like acting skills or musical ability. People can choose to be more provocative much more freely than they can choose to be more skilled with an electric guitar.
I find this to be a discouraging analysis – but then I look at the world around me and it seems to explain things pretty well. Still, what do you think? Does this seem to fit your observations, dear EconLog reader? I’d love to be convinced I’m wrong about this!
READER COMMENTS
Morris Theodor
Jul 11 2025 at 1:05pm
A tangential question and some tangential references:
Perhaps there are second-order effects (even benefits) of mediocrity that economics has yet to consider? (That is, aside from any flavor of Ricardian comparative advantage. Perhaps more akin to the tradeoffs of efficiency and redundancy. Or related to social dynamics.)
Matt Might: “The most obvious way to manage temptation is to put distance (in any sense) between yourself and the object of temptation.” (Sometimes, increased “transaction costs” lead to increased utility.)
https://matt.might.net/articles/cripple-your-technology/
https://matt.might.net/articles/how-to-avoid-temptation/
Ike Coffman
Jul 11 2025 at 1:35pm
I agree, and I want to also mention that attention seeking and success seeking are part of human nature and thus cannot easily be limited. However, I contend that it is in the best interest of humanity to limit those natural tendencies. So the question is, how do you do so?
Religion and morality should impose some limits, as should shame and public condemnation. Meanwhile, those are exactly the same attitudes and behaviors that have been eroded, and that erosion leads to acceptance of more and more deviant behavior. Significantly, the blame is on all of us because we are unwilling (or, to some degree, unable) to use those tools.
This leaves few options, and I am open to suggestion. It seems clear to me, though, that government is one of societies effective tools, and indeed has been developed for exactly that purpose. One big problem I see is that government is actually filled with the worst abusers of law and morality in order to gain power and wealth. If we want to enable government with the power to limit the worst of human nature we need to somehow insure that those entrusted with that power have the best interests of society in their hearts, and not simply the will to power. This requires change, and the polarization created by our two political parties eliminates the possibility for that change.
I suggest that we begin the process of reducing polarity by supporting, promoting, and advocating for things that all of us (or most of us) can agree on. If we can agree on one thing, then we can start to agree on other things.
What one thing can we all agree on? I suggest that it is the fact that oligarchy is bad and needs to be eliminated. We need to fight oligarchy. I believe things won’t change until we can get rid of Citizens United, and the only way to get rid of Citizens Unites is to eliminate legal supports, such as Buckley vs Valeo.
We have a way to do that. Demand that congress pass a law or bill that simply says corporations are not people.
If we all pull together it can be done. If we sit on the sidelines nothing changes.
If I am wrong, tell me.
john hare
Jul 11 2025 at 6:35pm
You want the elected to operate in our best interests?
Create a situation in which their incentives are aligned with our best interests. Perhaps a percentage of savings on government money spent in their district. And a percentage of increase in GLP (Gross Local Product)
Passing laws to force whichever behavior won’t work.
Ike Coffman
Jul 12 2025 at 8:18am
I don’t want to make this a thesis, but the basic problem is that there are bad actors that want to increase the amount of rage in society, for their own gain and for the gain of their “team”. The tools they use are very powerful and effective, and we see that the result is very real, indicated by the amount of polarization, basically exploiting human nature to generate rage and hatred. We see it all around us: a mistrust of government, of law, of religion, of really all of the supports for a civil democratic society that allow us to live together in at least some semblance of peace and security. Bad things (use your own definition) are happening all around us, and it is getting worse.
I don’t accept that there is nothing we can do to improve civility. But because the “opponents” are so powerful, using tools that are so very effective, the only way to fight back is to find tools that are equally powerful. Government is the only tool powerful enough (that I see, I am certainly open to other alternatives) to fight back effectively. The good news, and the tool that we use, is that government is subject to the will of the people. We get the government we vote for, and the electorate is divided among itself. IF we want to use government as a solution, we have to decrease the division. My suggestion is that we do so by finding something we can all (the vast majority of us) agree on and get behind. Again, if we can start working together on one thing, there is hope that we can start working together on others, which will decrease the power of the tools that are so effectively dividing us.
I may be completely off base on this, that there is nothing we can all agree with, and that our problems will only get worse. I am making a suggestion, a proposal, just to see if there is any support for a solution. We have to find a solution. Does anyone else have any ideas?
Robert EV
Jul 12 2025 at 2:22pm
The old-school solution to improve civility was dueling. For a variety of reasons this probably isn’t coming back, at least not in mass.
I do wonder if it would be constitutional to create and enforce nuisance laws regarding civility.
David Seltzer
Jul 11 2025 at 3:32pm
Kevin: People can choose to be more provocative much more freely than they can choose to be more skilled with an electric guitar. I think they are more provocative precisely because the are much less skilled as guitar players. Read some of the comments from the sports pundits who point out the faults athletes make. There is a whole industry of those parasites, many of whom have never played the game or competed in an octagon. My take, their cliched use of iconic, outrage, jaw dropping…etcetera is more than one sig below the journalistic norm.
Robert EV
Jul 11 2025 at 7:19pm
A general opinion: The field within any human skill set is vast. Even acting has a host of distinct fora. At some point luck also matters. Anthony Hopkins may be great, but there’s only so much room for equally talented Anthony Hopkinses. And he cannot substitute for even a mediocre Meryl Streepish.
OTOH the greats can’t be everywhere, all the time, and all at once. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as the saying goes.
As someone who has enjoyed both movies and live-action theater, even from the balcony theater has a quality that movies don’t replicate.
An actor, a mathematician, a whatever can only receive so many laurels. And even today some of the greats end up taking care of relatives in the boonies instead of breaking out. Proportionately it might not be that different from yesteryear. While movies with broad circulation may be limited, some disciplines really aren’t (or at least we’re no where near the limits).
Off-topic, but inspired by the topic, Twoset Violin did a great panning of the K-pop group Blackpink (who had sampled Paganini, one of the greats of the early 1800s, in a song/video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klmvaVvv_0c
Robert EV
Jul 11 2025 at 7:56pm
I’m reminded of a story about a coach who swore in every sentence. One time when he wanted to get his athlete’s attention, he didn’t swear at all.
The Streisand effect is real.
Mister Rogers getting angry would draw everyone’s attention. In much the same way Trump’s recent “does anyone care about that anymore” in re: Epstein drew attention to it that he didn’t want.
You can turn it up to 11 however much you want, but at some point the sound of silence will dwarf a 120 decibel ragefest. The best juggler in the world has a smaller audience than a decent juggler who can also sing.
Mactoul
Jul 12 2025 at 12:24am
Another curious phenomenon coexists with click bait. When powers that be do not wish attention to be given to some particular story, they make it as boring as possible and bury the really interesting point, really the only and actual point, on the 25th para on the tenth page. This phenomenon is most likely to be observed in liberal papers such as NYT.
For instance, some years ago Rolling Stone carried a story of malfeasances in a college fraternity. The story made serious allegations on actual people and caused violence even but the story turned out to be largely fabricated.
The story was retracted but the way media reported the entire affair was a much duller version of the actuality.
Marta D
Jul 13 2025 at 5:02am
Thank you for your article. I guess we’re all concerned with the degradation of public space. It has made me wonder if maintaining the (apparent) “freedom of speech” of social media and of the comments section in articles (even in this one) supersedes the very crucial need to stop the ever increasing violence in our societies (not only violent speech, but actual physical aggressions and killings). However outrageous it would seem to entirely and globally ban social media and public comments in general, it still pales before a dystopian future shaped by Mad Max “every man for himself” behavior – an old movie series which only ten years ago was still science fiction territory. Unfortunately, today it’s become possible to envisage this sad outcome based on the current policies in place for a not too distant future…
Henri Hein
Jul 13 2025 at 3:19pm
My understanding is that books follow a Zipf distribution in number of sales. I imagine the same is true for actors, though it’s harder to measure up their status in a single number like book-sales.
I think what you point out is true but I also wonder if the effect is ephemeral. During the emancipation debate, rage went much higher than even today. Yet people now quote Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, rarely Calhoun or Stephen Douglas. In 30 or 80 or 150 years time, I believe today’s rage-baiters and their nasty comments will be forgotten.
Marta D
Jul 13 2025 at 5:29pm
[I thought I had posted this comment earlier today, but I must have forgotten to submit it… here it is again]
Thank you for your article. I guess we’re all concerned with the degradation of public space. It has made me wonder if maintaining the (apparent) “freedom of speech” of social media and of the comments section in articles (even in this one) supersedes the very crucial need to stop the ever increasing violence in our societies (not only violent speech, but actual physical aggressions and killings). However outrageous it would seem to entirely ban social media and public comments in general, it still pales before a dystopian future shaped by Mad Max “every man for himself” behavior – which only ten years ago was still science fiction territory. Unfortunately, today it’s become possible to envisage this sad outcome based on the current policies in place for a not too distant future…
Thomas L Hutcheson
Jul 14 2025 at 6:56am
Makes sense to me and suggests in the case of social media, at least, of the possibility of an improved outcome if advertising associated with the most engaging sites were taxed progressively. The algorithms would learn how to promote less engagement.