Comment by w10-1

This is not oligopoly, but the result of technology as an enhancer delivering more value to the leader.

E.g., in the 1990's vehicles for commercializing movies took off. Toys, fast-food tie-in's with well-timed ad campaigns and printed bags, etc.: all this technology took time to develop, but resulted in the major movies making more money from tie-in's than the box office. That results in more "producers", i.e., people dedicated to making commercial success out of stories, and the most successful of those can translate those skills to new artists (whether movie directors or pop stars) -- much like the Bush and Clinton political teams picked new horses to run for a decade or more. Their secondary offerings may be successful mainly because their producers are good, but that effect peters out with fashion fatigue.

The underlying intuition is that "popular" culture, by virtue of being many, many people, is somehow a test of reality, a stochastic scale. But any measurable effect is largely a function of followers - some fast, some slow - that reflect different types of network and investment effects.