Last night at the 2012 Grammys, Lady Gaga sat there in an expected-by-now loud costume and saw the three awards that she was nominated for pass her by and go to Adele. Moments like these bring to mind the expression "It's the music, stupid" (to paraphrase Bill Clinton).

When Lady Gaga burst onto the scene with "Just Dance", it was such a great tune, a refreshing change over the stagnant music that was available at the time. And people responded. According to Wikipedia, that song went on to become multiplatinum in many countries around the globe. And so did the next several of her songs.

Due to the extravagant way she dressed, many assumed that her success was mainly due to that, and not to how good her songs were. With every meat dress and every kermit dress she wore, she drove home the fact that she was weird, eccentric, loud, different, and it became her trademark. But, then, "Born this way" album came out, and the results weren't pretty. The performance of the singles from that album pale in comparison to her previous singles, both in terms of failing to reach platinum in major countries and in terms of chart performance.

It turns out that, lo and behold, no matter how many meat dresses or kermit dresses you wear, or how much publicity you get, if your songs aren't good, people won't buy them. And as last night showed, you also won't get any Grammys for them. It turns out that the success of Gaga's early songs was due to the songs themselves and not due to the whole persona that Gaga had created and the related publicity.

I think this is indicative of a general trend that wrongly undervalues the content, and overvalues the marketing, publicity, and execution. This is true in many forms across multiple fields that deal with the creative element, such as music, movies, books, and even technology startups.

The thinking seems to be that, no matter how mediocre the content or idea, if you execute perfectly and have the right marketing strategy and publicity, you will be a success. Execution, marketing, and publicity matter of course. But for something to be great or legendary, instead of just a minor hit, it has to be based on a solid foundation of great content.

For example, there are many big-budget Sci-Fi action movies, and they all get the best computer graphics, marketing, and PR that money can buy. But, they all seem to blend into one another and are soon forgotten. Some however, are based on a story that captures the public's imagination, and are talked about for years, such as The Matrix or Star Wars. No matter what computer graphics you use or how much PR you do, no movie will reach the success and legendary status of The Matrix or Star Wars if the underlying story is boring.

The doers vs the thinkers/creatives

It's as if there is a battle between the doers and the thinkers/creatives in society, for who gets the most credit, the most respect, and/or the most money from products that have a creative element.

The doers have their well-oiled machine, ready to be deployed, and are simply waiting for some content to act as grist. For example:

• Given a hit single: make the music video, commission the cover art, book talk-show tour, plan national/global music tour, etc.
• Given a hit startup: put them in touch with biggest VCs, contact biggest tech blogs and top news organizations, get featured in NYT, partner with big names like Facebook/Google, etc.
• Given hit movie script, hit book, etc: there is always a tick-off-the-check-marks set of things that the doers are great at implementing.

Without that killer content though, they simply apply their skills to bland content, and the result is often a dud. Only when combined with great content (e.g. The Matrix, Lady Gaga's first songs, Google's algorithms, etc) do the doers' methods shine. Without the great content, they are a hammer in want of a nail: useless.

Of course, a nail in want of a hammer, i.e. great content without some help from the doers, is also useless.

Essentially, both the content/idea and the marketing/execution are essential, like two links in a chain. You can't have good results if either link is weak.