In a great part, because people confuse numbers with success.
I hope that @Chris won't mind my using him as an example of what I mean.
Chris delivered a TED(x) talk that was apparently a success among those who heard it. But suppose a big name Hollywood actor had memorized that same speech and then using all the tricks of the trade had delivered the same speech to eveyone who came to hear that the actor was going to speak. Many people would think that it would be better to have the actor deliver the speech than Chris, but there is a major flaw in that way of thinking.
That speech was a result of life experiences and lessons which Chris has learned and which the actor cannot grasp on the same subjective level which Chris possesses. After delivering such a speech if Chris interacted for many days among those who had heard the speech, he would be able to exercise and influence which the actor would not be able to do.
One of the reasons that some antique furniture which has survived for centuries has survived is that it was not built at the fastest speed that the crafter could manage.
There is a saying "Price, Time, Quality, Choose two."
In relationships, there is no substitute for Time and persistence.
The point of the movie "It's a wonderful life" is that although George had never done something that appeared spectacular yet his influence over time and persistent interaction had been invaluable to the people of the town in which he lived.
Those who think that they can only be significant within a large group are those who don't understand what Capra, Goodrich, and Hackett were attempting to say.
Yesterday, I wrote about a fundamental problem of communication which exists within the feminist movement.
Let me describe another problem of communication because it ties into the idea that is something is not spectacular and does not involve a large number that it is worthless.
There is a problem of communication between those women who are feminists because they want to make a mark on the world and those who are homeschooler women because they want to make a mark on the world.
I've known women who had the home school attitude. I don't think I've ever known any family in which the driving force behind the decision to home school and continue home schooling for at least 8 years was not the mother's "dream."
The woman who has the attitude "I could have stayed home and baked cookies" cannot comprehend the mindset of the woman who is fervently sold on homeschooling her children. And those women who home school tend to feel as if climbing the corporate ladder or becoming a successful professional such as a Lawyer or a Doctor would be the last thing in the world they would want to do.
My mother and my youngest sister had the "home school" mentality. (Because most of my siblings and I grew up in the 1960s and 70s, Mom's enthusiasm for home schooling did not really manifest itself until she was able to work with her grandchildren.) Two of my sisters do not. One is an RN and one has been a caseworker for the State of Florida for decades. So I got to see up close and personal the difference between these two mind sets.
The point is that the George Bailey approach to life is so subtle that many people like George don't realize how effective it is.
In Stephen Covey's writings, this is referred to as the "Circle of Influence." Blaine Lee and Bob Berg have also written about this effect. Berg has a saying similar to "You can't push a rope very far." (That's not an exact quote as I'm writing from memory) What Berg means is that influence doesn't work in the way that intimidation works but that in the long run, influence is more effective.
The reason that Chris could over a long period of time be more effective than a celebrity who has never experienced these things is that a celebrity's effect is like a pep rally. The effect wears off quickly. Influence builds slowly but it builds to last.