Revisiting The Economy of Attention
April 3, 2007 8:13 AM Subscribe
The currency of the New Economy won't be money, but attention -- A radical theory of value. It's with great hesitation that I post an article that refers to the Internet as "cyberspace", but I found this article revolutionary when I read it almost ten years ago. Does MetaFilter prove it right after all these years?
Another one I have not read but is probably more accessible is The Attention Economy : Understanding the New Currency of Business (2001).
posted by stbalbach at 8:26 AM on April 3, 2007
posted by stbalbach at 8:26 AM on April 3, 2007
Doesn't First Contact need to happen before we can shift to that economic model?
posted by psmealey at 8:29 AM on April 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by psmealey at 8:29 AM on April 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
Somewhat good theory, but the Attention Economy that Stbalbach mentions is still the gold standard about this. I would love for someone like Edward De Bono to weigh in on this. Is he a member?
posted by parmanparman at 8:32 AM on April 3, 2007
posted by parmanparman at 8:32 AM on April 3, 2007
From the last paragraph:
"Any conventional economist will tell you that ordinary material products are scarce and presumably always will be. Technically, that might be true, but in practice, mass production spews forth so much that there's a shift in emphasis away from the material desires that dominated the old economy. For many people in the US, Western Europe, Japan, and a growing list of other places, the materials needed for basic living are more than abundant"
I'm going to have to agree with the conventional economist. There may be "an increasing number of workers are no longer involved directly in the production, transportation, and distribution of material goods", but there are still a helluva lot of people still in those industries - and somebody's got to keep that up.
The world will always need builders, engineers, architects, doctors, police officers, miners, butchers, bakers and even candlestick makers, and they will continue to want payment in a more tangible form.
And like the rest of us, what they'd better be paying attention to is their jobs!
posted by kisch mokusch at 8:34 AM on April 3, 2007
"Any conventional economist will tell you that ordinary material products are scarce and presumably always will be. Technically, that might be true, but in practice, mass production spews forth so much that there's a shift in emphasis away from the material desires that dominated the old economy. For many people in the US, Western Europe, Japan, and a growing list of other places, the materials needed for basic living are more than abundant"
I'm going to have to agree with the conventional economist. There may be "an increasing number of workers are no longer involved directly in the production, transportation, and distribution of material goods", but there are still a helluva lot of people still in those industries - and somebody's got to keep that up.
The world will always need builders, engineers, architects, doctors, police officers, miners, butchers, bakers and even candlestick makers, and they will continue to want payment in a more tangible form.
And like the rest of us, what they'd better be paying attention to is their jobs!
posted by kisch mokusch at 8:34 AM on April 3, 2007
The world will always need builders, engineers, architects, doctors, police officers, miners, butchers, bakers and even candlestick makers, and they will continue to want payment in a more tangible form.
"Always" is a loaded word. What if there's a revolution in robotics?
posted by spicynuts at 8:36 AM on April 3, 2007
"Always" is a loaded word. What if there's a revolution in robotics?
posted by spicynuts at 8:36 AM on April 3, 2007
ordinary material products are scarce and presumably always will be
When the economist says scare, it doesn't mean what we ordinarily consider scarce. Scarcity simply means that resources are limited, which of course they are.
The attention economy is little more than filling a psychological need directly, from others online, rather than through imperfect product intermediaries that rely on brand identity and ego involvement to satisfy the need.
In other words, in the past a sports car or sneaker was sold on the implied basis that it would make the driver look 'cool'. (No one actually needs a high performance car.) If you needed to feel cool, you bought the car, or the shoe (or the beer, whatever).
Now, you can have that need met by doing something online (taking interesting pictures, writing blog posts, making youtube videos) that will result in others online simply calling you 'cool'. That is much more effective way to fulfill that need than a product.
The issue really strikes at the heart of marketing which has powered the economic growth of the last four decades. If you can feel smart or sexy, or cool, simply by interacting with others online, it is a problem for industries that have relied on planned obsolescence based on shifting notions of 'cool' or 'sexy'.
I'm not sure how I feel about it myself. At first, reading the article, I wanted to dismiss it as some jargon-laden nonsense, but I'm not so sure.
There will always bee a need for producing 'scarce goods' for which ego involvement is not as much an issue (decent cars, medicine and medical devices, tools of creation (computers, cameras, paints, etc)), but this is sucking the air out of a lot of the economy.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:47 AM on April 3, 2007
When the economist says scare, it doesn't mean what we ordinarily consider scarce. Scarcity simply means that resources are limited, which of course they are.
The attention economy is little more than filling a psychological need directly, from others online, rather than through imperfect product intermediaries that rely on brand identity and ego involvement to satisfy the need.
In other words, in the past a sports car or sneaker was sold on the implied basis that it would make the driver look 'cool'. (No one actually needs a high performance car.) If you needed to feel cool, you bought the car, or the shoe (or the beer, whatever).
Now, you can have that need met by doing something online (taking interesting pictures, writing blog posts, making youtube videos) that will result in others online simply calling you 'cool'. That is much more effective way to fulfill that need than a product.
The issue really strikes at the heart of marketing which has powered the economic growth of the last four decades. If you can feel smart or sexy, or cool, simply by interacting with others online, it is a problem for industries that have relied on planned obsolescence based on shifting notions of 'cool' or 'sexy'.
I'm not sure how I feel about it myself. At first, reading the article, I wanted to dismiss it as some jargon-laden nonsense, but I'm not so sure.
There will always bee a need for producing 'scarce goods' for which ego involvement is not as much an issue (decent cars, medicine and medical devices, tools of creation (computers, cameras, paints, etc)), but this is sucking the air out of a lot of the economy.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:47 AM on April 3, 2007
"Always" is a loaded word. What if there's a revolution in robotics?
I'm guessing that there probably already are automated candlestick manufacturing lines.
posted by public at 8:56 AM on April 3, 2007
I'm guessing that there probably already are automated candlestick manufacturing lines.
posted by public at 8:56 AM on April 3, 2007
Will trade Favorites for working washer/dryer.
posted by hal9k at 8:57 AM on April 3, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by hal9k at 8:57 AM on April 3, 2007 [2 favorites]
Pastabagel,
How is interacting with others and doing stuff online that brands you 'cool' any different from doing similar stuff and interacting with people in person?
Making music, art, etc. has always been a more effective path to coolness and validation in the eyes of others that consumption. What changes?
posted by leotrotsky at 9:04 AM on April 3, 2007
How is interacting with others and doing stuff online that brands you 'cool' any different from doing similar stuff and interacting with people in person?
Making music, art, etc. has always been a more effective path to coolness and validation in the eyes of others that consumption. What changes?
posted by leotrotsky at 9:04 AM on April 3, 2007
Now, you can have that need met by doing something online (taking interesting pictures, writing blog posts, making youtube videos) that will result in others online simply calling you 'cool'. That is much more effective way to fulfill that need than a product.
In other words ... (self post)
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:06 AM on April 3, 2007
In other words ... (self post)
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:06 AM on April 3, 2007
A million people, all standing, screaming at the top of their lungs "LOOK AT ME! LOOK ATME!LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK!"
It sounds like myspace.
leotrotsky:
The barrier to create art and distribute it on a global scale has been reduced to nothing. That, and communities on the Internet tend to reinforce norms and practices, which part of what coolness is. If a person like trance in a small town in Iowa, he may be seen as a weird kid. Online, he is cool, because his peer group is of the same mind as he is. His norms define his group, not the other way around, and thus, it is easier to be cool.
This does have negative qualities, in that geolocational communities are a necessity in modern government, and all norms can be reinforced, including terrible ones.
posted by zabuni at 9:16 AM on April 3, 2007
It sounds like myspace.
leotrotsky:
The barrier to create art and distribute it on a global scale has been reduced to nothing. That, and communities on the Internet tend to reinforce norms and practices, which part of what coolness is. If a person like trance in a small town in Iowa, he may be seen as a weird kid. Online, he is cool, because his peer group is of the same mind as he is. His norms define his group, not the other way around, and thus, it is easier to be cool.
This does have negative qualities, in that geolocational communities are a necessity in modern government, and all norms can be reinforced, including terrible ones.
posted by zabuni at 9:16 AM on April 3, 2007
Whuffie, anyone?
The difference between the Goldhaber idea (at least after a quick read of the article) is the value judgement - No matter how many old PR guys say 'Any publicity is good publicity', I'm sure George Michael (just off the top of my head) would rather people paid less attention to him at times in his life...
posted by pupdog at 9:27 AM on April 3, 2007
The difference between the Goldhaber idea (at least after a quick read of the article) is the value judgement - No matter how many old PR guys say 'Any publicity is good publicity', I'm sure George Michael (just off the top of my head) would rather people paid less attention to him at times in his life...
posted by pupdog at 9:27 AM on April 3, 2007
Wired used to be so good. What happened?
posted by roll truck roll at 9:29 AM on April 3, 2007
posted by roll truck roll at 9:29 AM on April 3, 2007
Can't really see attention as a replacement of money as ordinarily expected legal tender. Money has certain characteristic such as 1. cumulability 2. being extremely negotiable 3. is the most commonly used unit of measure
Attention 1. isn't cumulable 2. it's measured in time spent " attending" something 3. X's attention isn't likely to be worth as much as Y's attention, unless x,y are fungible in that particular situation....whereas pecuniam non olet.
Still, as we can't possibly pay attention to everything at the same time, many people are very interested in renting attention for short whiles.
posted by elpapacito at 9:38 AM on April 3, 2007
Attention 1. isn't cumulable 2. it's measured in time spent " attending" something 3. X's attention isn't likely to be worth as much as Y's attention, unless x,y are fungible in that particular situation....whereas pecuniam non olet.
Still, as we can't possibly pay attention to everything at the same time, many people are very interested in renting attention for short whiles.
posted by elpapacito at 9:38 AM on April 3, 2007
Wired used to be so good. What happened?
It stopped paying attention to its readers?
posted by hal9k at 9:39 AM on April 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
It stopped paying attention to its readers?
posted by hal9k at 9:39 AM on April 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
Wired used to be so good. What happened?
That's a 10 years old article, did you just notice ? You weren't paying much attention !
posted by elpapacito at 9:53 AM on April 3, 2007
That's a 10 years old article, did you just notice ? You weren't paying much attention !
posted by elpapacito at 9:53 AM on April 3, 2007
Making music, art, etc. has always been a more effective path to coolness and validation in the eyes of others that consumption. What changes?
posted by leotrotsky at 12:04 PM on April 3
What has changed is that you can make music without having to spend years learning how to play an instrument. In the past you had to find a gallery that would show your art, now you have flickr and a built in audience of people to see it.
Real-life interaction has disadvantages. One is opportunity cost. You go to a club to hear live music, but that means you aren't going to the gallery or hearing some other band. The convergence of everything to digital and then online means you can switch around as fast as you want.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:58 AM on April 3, 2007
posted by leotrotsky at 12:04 PM on April 3
What has changed is that you can make music without having to spend years learning how to play an instrument. In the past you had to find a gallery that would show your art, now you have flickr and a built in audience of people to see it.
Real-life interaction has disadvantages. One is opportunity cost. You go to a club to hear live music, but that means you aren't going to the gallery or hearing some other band. The convergence of everything to digital and then online means you can switch around as fast as you want.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:58 AM on April 3, 2007
The convergence of everything to digital and then online means you can switch around as fast as you want.
I don't think the in-person and on-line experiences are interchangeable. Presumably, if you are going to see live music, you are doing so for diversion or the social experience and not necessarily for consumption of what you want when you want. Is the experience of watching a live show really equivalent to watching (even very high quality) video on demand? Not to anyone I know.
you can make music without having to spend years learning how to play an instrument.
You can't make very good music without putting in the time. I know some hackers that are pretty good with midi, but few of them are capable of composing anything interesting. The ones that are, are the ones that have been doing it for almost as long as an old fuddy duddy like me has been playing guitar.
Similarly, you can get maybe 1,000 or so bored MeFites to click on a Flick'r photoset if it's properly framed, but is this really equivalent to getting a portfolio and a show together, doing the marketing and flesh pressing to get people to show and get the interest of corporate or personal backers to launch it?
The levels of interest and engagement on the part of the attendees are completely different.
The on-line experience may have improved in its ability to deliver analogues for real-life experiences, but it still as centuries to go. Or else, maybe this is precisely why mental healthcare pros have been pushing powerful psychoactive meds for the last 15 or so years, so we'll get to a point where we won't be able to discern the difference.
posted by psmealey at 10:17 AM on April 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
I don't think the in-person and on-line experiences are interchangeable. Presumably, if you are going to see live music, you are doing so for diversion or the social experience and not necessarily for consumption of what you want when you want. Is the experience of watching a live show really equivalent to watching (even very high quality) video on demand? Not to anyone I know.
you can make music without having to spend years learning how to play an instrument.
You can't make very good music without putting in the time. I know some hackers that are pretty good with midi, but few of them are capable of composing anything interesting. The ones that are, are the ones that have been doing it for almost as long as an old fuddy duddy like me has been playing guitar.
Similarly, you can get maybe 1,000 or so bored MeFites to click on a Flick'r photoset if it's properly framed, but is this really equivalent to getting a portfolio and a show together, doing the marketing and flesh pressing to get people to show and get the interest of corporate or personal backers to launch it?
The levels of interest and engagement on the part of the attendees are completely different.
The on-line experience may have improved in its ability to deliver analogues for real-life experiences, but it still as centuries to go. Or else, maybe this is precisely why mental healthcare pros have been pushing powerful psychoactive meds for the last 15 or so years, so we'll get to a point where we won't be able to discern the difference.
posted by psmealey at 10:17 AM on April 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
Attention has its own behavior, its own dynamics, its own consequences. An economy built on it will be different than the familiar material-based one.
Or, as it always has been, your attention will be utilized as a transmission vehicle for - wait for it - selling you material goods!
Youtube is a horrible example of some ethereal self sustaining commune as they have yet to prove they provide anything of value to the corporations that own them except pageviews that can be quantified in the context of traditional advertising - as well as litigation from large media outfits that own the material they continue to host.
In the past you had to find a gallery that would show your art, now you have flickr and a built in audience of people to see it.
Heh, yeah... a traditional gallery show versus a shitty photoset on flickr... what an impeccable analogy!
If Metafilter proves anything it's that this article is incredibly flawed. This site continues to exist because it remains a profitable hobby - mainly through advertising revenue and secondarily through signups and referrals, so on and so forth. In other words, the marshmallow gaze of all these special little snowflakes doesn't line mathowies bank account with cash, although I'm sure he wouldn't complain.
posted by prostyle at 10:20 AM on April 3, 2007
Or, as it always has been, your attention will be utilized as a transmission vehicle for - wait for it - selling you material goods!
Youtube is a horrible example of some ethereal self sustaining commune as they have yet to prove they provide anything of value to the corporations that own them except pageviews that can be quantified in the context of traditional advertising - as well as litigation from large media outfits that own the material they continue to host.
In the past you had to find a gallery that would show your art, now you have flickr and a built in audience of people to see it.
Heh, yeah... a traditional gallery show versus a shitty photoset on flickr... what an impeccable analogy!
If Metafilter proves anything it's that this article is incredibly flawed. This site continues to exist because it remains a profitable hobby - mainly through advertising revenue and secondarily through signups and referrals, so on and so forth. In other words, the marshmallow gaze of all these special little snowflakes doesn't line mathowies bank account with cash, although I'm sure he wouldn't complain.
posted by prostyle at 10:20 AM on April 3, 2007
Similarly, you can get maybe 1,000 or so bored MeFites to click on a Flick'r photoset if it's properly framed, but is this really equivalent to getting a portfolio and a show together, doing the marketing and flesh pressing to get people to show and get the interest of corporate or personal backers to launch it?
posted by psmealey at 1:17 PM on April 3
Heh, yeah... a traditional gallery show versus a shitty photoset on flickr... what an impeccable analogy!
posted by prostyle at 1:20 PM on April 3
If all you are looking for is some ego fulfillment, then flickr works fine, because there you get the quick "pretty neat" feedback that the person is looking for. It obviously isn't the same as getting a gallery to exhibit your work, but the gallery isn't the alternative.
People don't try to get their stuff in a gallery in order to be thought of as cool by some random people. They do it to advance a career, or obtain recognition from the very small but selective art community. I only used the analogy because leotrotsky brought it up.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:25 AM on April 3, 2007
posted by psmealey at 1:17 PM on April 3
Heh, yeah... a traditional gallery show versus a shitty photoset on flickr... what an impeccable analogy!
posted by prostyle at 1:20 PM on April 3
If all you are looking for is some ego fulfillment, then flickr works fine, because there you get the quick "pretty neat" feedback that the person is looking for. It obviously isn't the same as getting a gallery to exhibit your work, but the gallery isn't the alternative.
People don't try to get their stuff in a gallery in order to be thought of as cool by some random people. They do it to advance a career, or obtain recognition from the very small but selective art community. I only used the analogy because leotrotsky brought it up.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:25 AM on April 3, 2007
Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov used to predict that in the future, robots and technology would allow us all to work more creatively. The thing is, the technology has made it far easier to be less creative, but the influx of creativity has made it less likely for most people to be able to make a living off their creativity.
In short, the long tail is a bitch if you're an author.
posted by drezdn at 10:40 AM on April 3, 2007
In short, the long tail is a bitch if you're an author.
posted by drezdn at 10:40 AM on April 3, 2007
from the article:
"Let's suppose you woke up one morning, well supplied with food and other material essentials, but invisible and inaudible, unable to get noticed in any way at all. At first, it could be quite amusing to spy and eavesdrop, to see what you're not supposed to. But no matter what you discovered, not being able to share your encounters with anyone would soon become torture - itself a pain you couldn't express to anyone. Living without feedback, even in the lap of luxury, would be for all but a few recluses barely living at all."
thus ignoring that which we dislike overtook classical bigotry as a form of social oppression.
posted by kigpig at 10:55 AM on April 3, 2007
"Let's suppose you woke up one morning, well supplied with food and other material essentials, but invisible and inaudible, unable to get noticed in any way at all. At first, it could be quite amusing to spy and eavesdrop, to see what you're not supposed to. But no matter what you discovered, not being able to share your encounters with anyone would soon become torture - itself a pain you couldn't express to anyone. Living without feedback, even in the lap of luxury, would be for all but a few recluses barely living at all."
thus ignoring that which we dislike overtook classical bigotry as a form of social oppression.
posted by kigpig at 10:55 AM on April 3, 2007
And should anyone prefer to avoid Wired, the article can be found at First Monday
posted by BillJenkins at 11:27 AM on April 3, 2007
posted by BillJenkins at 11:27 AM on April 3, 2007
Keeping attention transactions equitable in the future will be no easier than keeping cash transactions equitable today. A spendthrift will allow a few people to monopolize her attention. Or she may even lavish it on someone who can't give it back - say, Elvis, or an ancestor. Remember Rheingold's advice: Pay attention to where you pay attention.
That's because the attention economy is a star system, where Elvis has an advantage. The relationship between stars and fans is central. Even without cyberspace, celebrities in show business, politics, and every other discipline accumulate huge amounts of notice.
Oh, wonderful.
An economy that favors drama queens and narcissists.
What form would welfare take in an attention economy? Once a month a social worker drops by and listens to you for fifteen minutes?
posted by jason's_planet at 11:47 AM on April 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
That's because the attention economy is a star system, where Elvis has an advantage. The relationship between stars and fans is central. Even without cyberspace, celebrities in show business, politics, and every other discipline accumulate huge amounts of notice.
Oh, wonderful.
An economy that favors drama queens and narcissists.
What form would welfare take in an attention economy? Once a month a social worker drops by and listens to you for fifteen minutes?
posted by jason's_planet at 11:47 AM on April 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
If there is nothing very special about your work, no matter how hard you apply yourself you won't get noticed, and that increasingly means you won't get paid much either.
Doesn't that kind of subvert his whole argument? Or, reading through the comments, I'm with prostyle.
The whole point of "attention" is to make money. Do you think that Ze Frank ended his web show because he didn't enjoy it? Of course not, and his next project won't likely have nearly as many viewers. However, he's trying to capitalize on his attention to get some good paying gigs.
So I don't really understand how attention can be a new commodity. Your "attention value" is only worth what people will pay for it.
I'd much rather be completely anonymous and financially independent, e.g. some nutty Johnson & Johnson heir you've never heard of. Cash can always buy attention. I do not think the converse is true.
In short, the long tail is a bitch if you're an author.
Only if you want to get paid for your work. ;) On the other hand, it's a huge boon for the reader, imo.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:47 PM on April 3, 2007
Doesn't that kind of subvert his whole argument? Or, reading through the comments, I'm with prostyle.
The whole point of "attention" is to make money. Do you think that Ze Frank ended his web show because he didn't enjoy it? Of course not, and his next project won't likely have nearly as many viewers. However, he's trying to capitalize on his attention to get some good paying gigs.
So I don't really understand how attention can be a new commodity. Your "attention value" is only worth what people will pay for it.
I'd much rather be completely anonymous and financially independent, e.g. some nutty Johnson & Johnson heir you've never heard of. Cash can always buy attention. I do not think the converse is true.
In short, the long tail is a bitch if you're an author.
Only if you want to get paid for your work. ;) On the other hand, it's a huge boon for the reader, imo.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:47 PM on April 3, 2007
Exactly, the Long Tail never seems to tell you how the niche artists who make up the tail-- as opposed to Amazon or other sellers of many things-- will actually make money.
You cannot live on attention alone. Writers now have the bizarre experience of either getting paid or having attention paid. Attention is nice but it don't pay the rent.
The consulting economy still doesn't work well for most writers who would rather, um, get paid for writing than for speaking or
other consultant-ish things.
posted by Maias at 1:42 PM on April 3, 2007
In a certain sense, attention as currency is as old as advertising. Seems a valid point that since advertising is spreading like a plague, the new currency would contend the old. Interesting idea anyway.
disclaimer: did not rta
posted by creeptick at 1:44 PM on April 3, 2007
disclaimer: did not rta
posted by creeptick at 1:44 PM on April 3, 2007
LOOK AT MY ALL-CAPS COMMENT AND HOW AWESOME THE THINGS I HAVE TO SAY ARE!
That should be good for the attention-equivalent of $1.49.
posted by davejay at 1:51 PM on April 3, 2007
That should be good for the attention-equivalent of $1.49.
posted by davejay at 1:51 PM on April 3, 2007
Don't we already have this? Isn't it called "entertainment?" You know, I give you three cords and the truth and you pay me the price of a ticket? I'm sure I'm just being silly here...
posted by MarshallPoe at 3:02 PM on April 3, 2007
posted by MarshallPoe at 3:02 PM on April 3, 2007
1. Insert virtual penis into virtual bowl of virtual mashed potatoes.
2. Get virtual attention.
3. Profit!!!
posted by bardic at 3:29 PM on April 3, 2007
2. Get virtual attention.
3. Profit!!!
posted by bardic at 3:29 PM on April 3, 2007
"Always" is a loaded word. What if there's a revolution in robotics?
Point taken, I should've said "the world continues to need...". But why wait for robotics. Just ship in a whole bunch of third world slaves to do all the work for us, so that we can concentrate on what's important.
(He says as though it already isn't happening)
I'm guessing that there probably already are automated candlestick manufacturing lines.
There continues to be a marked for traditional, handcrafted candlesticks (even if it's a small one).
posted by kisch mokusch at 4:26 PM on April 3, 2007
Point taken, I should've said "the world continues to need...". But why wait for robotics. Just ship in a whole bunch of third world slaves to do all the work for us, so that we can concentrate on what's important.
(He says as though it already isn't happening)
I'm guessing that there probably already are automated candlestick manufacturing lines.
There continues to be a marked for traditional, handcrafted candlesticks (even if it's a small one).
posted by kisch mokusch at 4:26 PM on April 3, 2007
Exactly, the Long Tail never seems to tell you how the niche artists who make up the tail-- as opposed to Amazon or other sellers of many things-- will actually make money.
Micropayments, dude!
posted by Artw at 4:28 PM on April 3, 2007
Micropayments, dude!
posted by Artw at 4:28 PM on April 3, 2007
Personally, I am sick of the Long Tail hype. It's yet another 1999er slogan out of Wired to sell magazines and books (erm, attention-getters, whatever you wanna call them). The Internet has made a lot more information accessible to a lot more people a lot more cheaply. That only means that some niche-producers that weren't able to turn a profit before will be able to do so now. Good for them, but that does not a new economy make.
It's like claiming that jet travel would make location secondary and will make metropolises less relevant. In reality, people used jet travel to go to the very places that were supposed to lose value. New York, Tokyo, London, etc haven't lost importance since the '60s; quite the opposite.
Business models will change, companies will go bust, others will flourish, but it's gonna be the same old arithmetic: revenue vs cost.
posted by costas at 5:56 PM on April 3, 2007
It's like claiming that jet travel would make location secondary and will make metropolises less relevant. In reality, people used jet travel to go to the very places that were supposed to lose value. New York, Tokyo, London, etc haven't lost importance since the '60s; quite the opposite.
Business models will change, companies will go bust, others will flourish, but it's gonna be the same old arithmetic: revenue vs cost.
posted by costas at 5:56 PM on April 3, 2007
Hmmm...just pondering the impact of negative value here...
I’m reminded of Matt Groening’s advice in a letter (not, um, to me): “Just be sure to pay attention, observe people’s behavior, and remember everything you can. Keep a journal if you dare.”
posted by Smedleyman at 6:04 PM on April 3, 2007
I’m reminded of Matt Groening’s advice in a letter (not, um, to me): “Just be sure to pay attention, observe people’s behavior, and remember everything you can. Keep a journal if you dare.”
posted by Smedleyman at 6:04 PM on April 3, 2007
Stimulating post Chinese Jet Pilot. Thanks. Been thinking about the article you linked all day.
Attention has a lot of aspects and so does neglect, lack of attention. There is the command, political power and financial backing a Hitler gets from attention. Adoration and financial backing a Pope, Dalai Lama, Ayatolla gets from attention. Marketing their skill at being visible/heard/read any actor/actress/musician/artist/writer/entertainer gets. Attention is also a basic human need on a fundamental level. A neglected infant, who isn't stroked literally dies.
"Eric Berne coined the term 'stroke' to denote a unit of human recognition. In so doing he made it possible to discuss the exchange of affection or love in fine, textured detail." A little about the stroke economy by Claude Steiner.
From the article, I don't think this is likely: "it is not difficult to foresee a time when corporations will pretty much disappear, and when it will make a lot more sense to speak of a complex carmaking community, made up mostly of entourages surrounding thousands of stars and microstars." Nor do I come to the same conclusions as the author.
A handful of other aspects to the topic of attention: addiction to and severe psychological dependance on attention, narcissistic supply; online book The Culture of Narcissism: American life in an age of diminishing expectations By Christopher Lasch; the neurology of attention [pdf]; Psychopathy and Consumerism.
posted by nickyskye at 7:43 PM on April 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
Attention has a lot of aspects and so does neglect, lack of attention. There is the command, political power and financial backing a Hitler gets from attention. Adoration and financial backing a Pope, Dalai Lama, Ayatolla gets from attention. Marketing their skill at being visible/heard/read any actor/actress/musician/artist/writer/entertainer gets. Attention is also a basic human need on a fundamental level. A neglected infant, who isn't stroked literally dies.
"Eric Berne coined the term 'stroke' to denote a unit of human recognition. In so doing he made it possible to discuss the exchange of affection or love in fine, textured detail." A little about the stroke economy by Claude Steiner.
From the article, I don't think this is likely: "it is not difficult to foresee a time when corporations will pretty much disappear, and when it will make a lot more sense to speak of a complex carmaking community, made up mostly of entourages surrounding thousands of stars and microstars." Nor do I come to the same conclusions as the author.
A handful of other aspects to the topic of attention: addiction to and severe psychological dependance on attention, narcissistic supply; online book The Culture of Narcissism: American life in an age of diminishing expectations By Christopher Lasch; the neurology of attention [pdf]; Psychopathy and Consumerism.
posted by nickyskye at 7:43 PM on April 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
I used to think that the Internet was going to usher in a new era of open communication, and that our new heroes were essentially going to be library scientists. While that was true in some senses for companies like Google, the reality is that the mechanisms of the "old economy" could be brought to play in the new media. And because fees and transaction costs contribute to wealth redistribution, there will always be forces aligned to monetize and close off access to that which interests us.What interests me is that certain kinds of attention are easier to convert into money than others. There is probably some kind of hierarchy from business knowlege/analysis to games to video to books, and finally curiosity surfing for getting revenue out of the attentive. I'm not surprised that virtual property in Second Life has value, but I am surprised to see Coldwell Banker stepping in to take a cut.From the article, I don't think this is likely: "it is not difficult to foresee a time when corporations will pretty much disappear, and when it will make a lot more sense to speak of a complex carmaking community, made up mostly of entourages surrounding thousands of stars and microstars." I could see this as a possible niche or fringe group in the future. If we develop a nanotech assembly cottage industry , almost all manufactured goods could become commodities, and intellectual property in terms of design and schematics would be the new economic value. This would of course prompt the same fights between IP holders and those who want to liberate information. I could easily see some people paying for the status car designs while others used open source designs.
posted by BrotherCaine at 8:36 PM on April 3, 2007
posted by BrotherCaine at 8:36 PM on April 3, 2007
Argh! my paragraphs, where did they go?
posted by BrotherCaine at 8:37 PM on April 3, 2007
posted by BrotherCaine at 8:37 PM on April 3, 2007
In a certain sense, attention as currency is as old as advertising.
damn. i came all the way back to say the same thing and you beat me by days.
Attention is good if you can get paid for it. in the Web economy right now, "attention" might be equal to value, but only so long as advertisers are willing to pay. that seems like a critical component, unless i'm missing something.
posted by mrgrimm at 8:04 PM on April 4, 2007
damn. i came all the way back to say the same thing and you beat me by days.
Attention is good if you can get paid for it. in the Web economy right now, "attention" might be equal to value, but only so long as advertisers are willing to pay. that seems like a critical component, unless i'm missing something.
posted by mrgrimm at 8:04 PM on April 4, 2007
« Older British Scientists Grow Heart Valve Tissue from... | clouds from both sides now Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by stbalbach at 8:22 AM on April 3, 2007