In an attention economy like we have, it seems like the solution is selectivity – information now is, for the first time on such a scale, better, more numerous, and personalizable (p. 4). Since filtering is also personalizable that should solve the problem of information overload. It also contributes to the tremendous specialization available in contemporary society, like, for example, cardiothoracic surgery or piloting a modern jet fighter. A hundred years ago, people were able to read most of what was available, on all topics, if they so desired. If they did, they overwhelmingly read important, meaningful words – stirring literature, economics, history, civics. Does selectivity make it much, much easier to distract people away from serious information and rather choose to, say, watch slam dunks on YouTube (p. 5-6)? Am I being elitist or is this a problem? The authors admit that attention to entertainment was on the rise already in 2001 and I love Herbert Simon’s quote: “…a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention.”
This is just an aside, but the attention economy discussion reminded me of the three levels of media “effect” – cognitive, affective and behavioral. It seems like one big advantage of the Web, from a communicators perspective (think about the 40,000 grocery store items) is the wider reach for cognitive awareness. Ever heard of Goya foods? Now you have. And the Grateful Dead example (p. 8) illustrates that attention can lead to a desire for more attention, and a profit.
I’m a little surprised at Davenport & Beck’s lack of skepticism at the devaluing of some information in the attention economy (p. 9) although they wrote this in 2001. It seems like mainstream media, under a tsunami of distractions and competing sources for information, has clearly deflated in value. You mention in your chapter (p. 91) that supply outstrips demand even at a cost of zero. Davenport & Beck do acknowledge a mismatch of supply and demand, worsening the attention deficit. Given that we’re in journalism, is there a deficit of attention paid to important news – not just mainstream media, mind you, just the information that will guide how I spend my money and live my life. I’m not at all adverse to exploring new models of journalism, but here’s a thought for you. As for me, I’d rather have surgery now than at the end of the 19th Century. Does the same apply to news?
As for your chapter, I’ve long had an interest in young adults and news, every since I started to realize a decade ago that my young newsroom colleagues weren’t following the news. I think it’s ironic that new technologies diffuse most quickly among the young but that online news consumption is lowest among the young. But there are a lot of ironies, online and in life. For example, Facebook began as a closed network only for college students but now most users, by far, are over 30. And here’s an analog – when Vespa introduced its retro scooter in 2004 it expected big “cool factor” sales to the young. Instead, sales overwhelmingly went to buyers over 40 who remember the original Vespa.
Information surplus contributes mightily to Putnam’s time displacement hypothesis. It’s easier than ever, especially with wireless devices, to find something digital to do. In that environment, is differentiation enough? Do we need to push price below zero – to pay people to consume news? It sound crazy, but think about this – the majority of revenue, by far, has come from advertisers for 170 years. We’ve been “selling” eyeballs for decades – why not take the next step?
