I think the problem is most are gunning for number 2.

If they're looking for fame, and they get the fame they want - then they're a success - no?

But if their aim is money, but they use fame based metrics (number of page views, number of users, amount of publicity) - thats where the problem arises.

No. The fame is a delusion. If you're trying to get famous behind entrepreneurship, your businesses have to succeed, or you stop being famous --- or you wind up Scoble Famous, which may be even worse.

The subtext is good though. Fame of any sort is highly, highly overrated.

Not really.

Most authors go after fame. Not money. A New York Times bestseller status is 100 times more meaningful than the low royalty fees they may earn.

Most non-profits and social movements (eg: http://blogactionday.org/) aim for fame and/or making a difference too.

R. Buckminster Fuller never chased money. He went for making a difference. And (I think) he achieved that.

J.P. Morgan was one more guy who aimed for fame more than money. He made a shit load of money too. But people were surprised after his death that he wasn't the richest person of his generation (everyone thought he was...)

Different folks have different wants and measure success differently.

We're not talking about humanitarians or artists. We're talking about entrepreneurs, and their goals. I agree money doesn't have to matter to an artist. But it has to matter to an entrepreneur, even if your goal is fame. It matters the same way that being able to kick a ball matters to a punter, even if they're playing football just for the fame.