6 ms·

Attention > Time > Energy > Money There's always a cost when it's our attention. We've been in a war for our attention for many years. What I don't understand

Attention > Time > Energy > Money There's always a cost when it's our attention. We've been in a war for our attention for many years. What I don't understand is why everyone puts emphasis on social media and not digital media in general? Television held the crown for many years and still does. Read Jerry Mander and his thoughts about advertisements. You'll never think about them the same when you realize they are implanting into your head and you can never get them out.

carabiner 4y ago
With machine learning and digital breadcrumbs, "adtech" has evolved into a beast akin to WMD. It's devastatingly effective paired against radio, TV ads, billboards and other forms of non-interactive media. The deep surveillance that adtech deploys gives unparalleled information on consumers. This is why tech companies have become the wealthiest corporations in human history, and radio station conglomerates have not.
- lmpdev 4y ago
  I'm nitpicking here but wasn't the Dutch East India Company worth substantially more than today's tech companies?
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    Comparing valuations across the years never really works. Of course they were worth more. The East India basically owned the Indian subcontinent, which today or then was incalculable wealth.
    - mangamadaiyan 4y ago
      Parent is referring to the Dutch VOC, not the British East India Company. The entity that eventually "owned" the Indian Subcontinent was the British East India Company. The VOC ended up with Indonesia, swaths of land in South America, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and so on.
      - sandworm101 4y ago
        Ok. They all owned huge chunks of the globe, in as much as ownership was allowed by their European masters. Their worth cannot be translated into modern money. Interestingly, one of these companies is still around. The Hudson's Bay company once owned the entire middle of canada. Now they sell jeans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson%27s_Bay_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson%27s_Bay_Company
        germinalphrase 4y ago
        I would be more interested in knowing we’re the wealth of the Hudson’s Bay Company actually ended up. Presumably someone’s great-great-granddad was a big muckety-muck at the HBC and that’s why today the family owns two skyscrapers in Toronto, yea?
- doliveira 4y ago
  Adtech as WMDs is a quite good analogy. It bothers me when people just brush off concerns with "it's just the same as before" without considering the different scales.
  - daenz 4y ago
    Weapons of Mass Distraction
    - elevaet 4y ago
      That's a zinger
- ddingus 4y ago
  Well, I believe Radio had a GREAT opportunity during the 80's. What radio did was look for ways to eliminate dependencies on "the talent." And what they should have done is get more talent and put the incentives on interactions. Radio was super compelling. Audio only material still is. Being able to listen while doing other stuff, like driving, software, all sorts of partial attention consuming tasks makes for an audio only market that is consistent and demanding. And it was, and still is going nowhere! Radio got this horribly wrong, and they got it wrong because they did not understand what compelling means and why that matters.[0] And they got it wrong because of raw greed and a failure to respect their listeners, who form the heart of what was otherwise a government protected magic money machine![1] So, what they did was research the tunes, sort them into buckets and blast those out as cheaply as they could, and at the same time water down the talent by having them record all sorts of stuff for many cities thinking recordings are almost as good as real people are. And what that did was nationalize radio making it bland and soul less. And then rise of the Internet and the phones being portable radios, among many other things, completely dominated. Radio divides right along Internet / pre Internet lines. Older people mostly, but not completely, like radio and can relate to it well enough to listen. Maybe during work, or a drive. And there is talk radio. When it is done right, talk radio is very compelling! The divide here is mostly old vs. young, but also authoritarian vs more egalitarian. Talk radio plays extremely well to authoritarians! It can play well to others, but the industry is establishment aligned and that is hard to shake due to very large numbers of stations being owned by single entities. It is a mess nowadays. But it could have been much better. Podcasts have replaced this stuff for many, and there are plenty of tou tube people doing the work radio used to do. Having video is nice, but totally optional. ----- [0] Thought experiment: Say you get two streams. Stations. One is great quality, but dull. The other is of dubious quality, but super compelling! Which one do you listen to? Why? Which one do you believe most others listen to and why? What do you feel explains your answer being different? [1] Fact is we are super good at detecting other minds through communications. It can be simple or complicated, and it does not matter much at all. We connect, identify and start to bond with and understand this other person well. This is daily relevance and once it is established, people crave it and will put up with a lot to keep their daily driver type person happy, healthy and able to entertain and inform us every day.
  - 4y ago
poidos 4y ago
Do you recommend any of Jerry’s works in particular?
- thenerdhead 4y ago
  Four arguments for the elimination of television is a good start.
aaronwalker 4y ago
I think the reason why they focus on social media is because it is so much more effective at capturing our attention. This is because social media giants know to a high degree of accuracy the profile of their users. Besides basic demographics, stats such as the amount of time spent looking at a entertainment video can give away more information about the user’s interest than they know themselves. Regarding television being king, According to statistica, the number of social media users in the US is 294 million (https://www.statista.com/statistics/201182/forecast-of-smartphone-users-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/201182/forecast-of-smart...). Whereas the number of television users is about 305 million (https://www.statista.com/statistics/243789/number-of-tv-households-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/243789/number-of-tv-hous...). Even though these numbers are comparable now, the increased effectiveness of social media and its popularity among younger populations makes it a more effective means of mining our attention than television in general.

carabiner 4y ago

With machine learning and digital breadcrumbs, "adtech" has evolved into a beast akin to WMD. It's devastatingly effective paired against radio, TV ads, billboards and other forms of non-interactive media. The deep surveillance that adtech deploys gives unparalleled information on consumers. This is why tech companies have become the wealthiest corporations in human history, and radio station conglomerates have not.

lmpdev 4y ago
I'm nitpicking here but wasn't the Dutch East India Company worth substantially more than today's tech companies?
- sandworm101 4y ago
  Comparing valuations across the years never really works. Of course they were worth more. The East India basically owned the Indian subcontinent, which today or then was incalculable wealth.
  - mangamadaiyan 4y ago
    Parent is referring to the Dutch VOC, not the British East India Company. The entity that eventually "owned" the Indian Subcontinent was the British East India Company. The VOC ended up with Indonesia, swaths of land in South America, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and so on.
    - sandworm101 4y ago
      Ok. They all owned huge chunks of the globe, in as much as ownership was allowed by their European masters. Their worth cannot be translated into modern money. Interestingly, one of these companies is still around. The Hudson's Bay company once owned the entire middle of canada. Now they sell jeans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson%27s_Bay_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson%27s_Bay_Company
      - germinalphrase 4y ago
        I would be more interested in knowing we’re the wealth of the Hudson’s Bay Company actually ended up. Presumably someone’s great-great-granddad was a big muckety-muck at the HBC and that’s why today the family owns two skyscrapers in Toronto, yea?
doliveira 4y ago
Adtech as WMDs is a quite good analogy. It bothers me when people just brush off concerns with "it's just the same as before" without considering the different scales.
- daenz 4y ago
  Weapons of Mass Distraction
  - elevaet 4y ago
    That's a zinger
ddingus 4y ago
Well, I believe Radio had a GREAT opportunity during the 80's. What radio did was look for ways to eliminate dependencies on "the talent." And what they should have done is get more talent and put the incentives on interactions. Radio was super compelling. Audio only material still is. Being able to listen while doing other stuff, like driving, software, all sorts of partial attention consuming tasks makes for an audio only market that is consistent and demanding. And it was, and still is going nowhere! Radio got this horribly wrong, and they got it wrong because they did not understand what compelling means and why that matters.[0] And they got it wrong because of raw greed and a failure to respect their listeners, who form the heart of what was otherwise a government protected magic money machine![1] So, what they did was research the tunes, sort them into buckets and blast those out as cheaply as they could, and at the same time water down the talent by having them record all sorts of stuff for many cities thinking recordings are almost as good as real people are. And what that did was nationalize radio making it bland and soul less. And then rise of the Internet and the phones being portable radios, among many other things, completely dominated. Radio divides right along Internet / pre Internet lines. Older people mostly, but not completely, like radio and can relate to it well enough to listen. Maybe during work, or a drive. And there is talk radio. When it is done right, talk radio is very compelling! The divide here is mostly old vs. young, but also authoritarian vs more egalitarian. Talk radio plays extremely well to authoritarians! It can play well to others, but the industry is establishment aligned and that is hard to shake due to very large numbers of stations being owned by single entities. It is a mess nowadays. But it could have been much better. Podcasts have replaced this stuff for many, and there are plenty of tou tube people doing the work radio used to do. Having video is nice, but totally optional. ----- [0] Thought experiment: Say you get two streams. Stations. One is great quality, but dull. The other is of dubious quality, but super compelling! Which one do you listen to? Why? Which one do you believe most others listen to and why? What do you feel explains your answer being different? [1] Fact is we are super good at detecting other minds through communications. It can be simple or complicated, and it does not matter much at all. We connect, identify and start to bond with and understand this other person well. This is daily relevance and once it is established, people crave it and will put up with a lot to keep their daily driver type person happy, healthy and able to entertain and inform us every day.
- 4y ago

poidos 4y ago

Do you recommend any of Jerry’s works in particular?

thenerdhead 4y ago
Four arguments for the elimination of television is a good start.

aaronwalker 4y ago

I think the reason why they focus on social media is because it is so much more effective at capturing our attention. This is because social media giants know to a high degree of accuracy the profile of their users. Besides basic demographics, stats such as the amount of time spent looking at a entertainment video can give away more information about the user’s interest than they know themselves. Regarding television being king, According to statistica, the number of social media users in the US is 294 million (https://www.statista.com/statistics/201182/forecast-of-smartphone-users-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/201182/forecast-of-smart...). Whereas the number of television users is about 305 million (https://www.statista.com/statistics/243789/number-of-tv-households-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/243789/number-of-tv-hous...). Even though these numbers are comparable now, the increased effectiveness of social media and its popularity among younger populations makes it a more effective means of mining our attention than television in general.