Anthony Zhu, G10C, RDF International School

How does a famous brand keep its popularity for decades, whereas a small restaurant fails in six months? Although we might be tempted to blame the small company’s marketing strategy, the Matthew Effect is a much likelier indicator when determining a company’s success or failure.

A quick way to summarize the Matthew Effect is “the rich gets richer, and the poor gets poorer.” (Its name derives from the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible.) In 1968, psychologist Keith Stanovich coined the “Matthew Effect.” This phenomenon is so widespread that it occurs every day on a global scale. For instance, as soon as a song enters the pop chart, by virtue of being on the chart increases its chance to be even more popular; whereas the songs that aren’t listed on the pop chart are more likely to be forgotten quickly.

In the 21st century, reputation determines success. If a person is successful, there is a high probability that he or she will continue to be successful — in fact, the Matthew Effect states that this person is likely to be even more successful. Why? The better your reputation, the more people will want to give you opportunities to continue to succeed. Not too many people are eager to read a novel by an unknown author, but everyone waits breathlessly for the next “Harry Potter” novel. However, if no one takes a chance on an unknown, then the unknown never has a chance to be known. Sadly, those who lack a reputation may never get a chance to have one.

For those who acquire a reputation, the benefits are immense. Indeed, if a company gains such a benefit, it could become a monopoly, eliminating all competitors. For example, in the 19th century, Standard Oil Company owned 95 percent of all the petroleum in the U.S. It had bought up almost every other petroleum company, and after it consolidated, it then charged other companies who were not part of their consortium tremendous freight fees if they refused to be acquired or join the organization. By the end of the century, Standard Oil had dominated the entire market.

In summary, the Matthew Effect is a useful means of describing an unfair advantage, but once we detect the inequality, we need to correct it. Otherwise, an unfair system is allowed to dominate. As Karl Marx has warned, people are self-interested, even to a criminal degree; they will not police themselves when there is an obvious benefit. Who would not sell his soul for super-stardom or a dominant share of the marketplace?