People may not be willing to spend their money online or on mobile devices. But they may be willing to spend their time. My question is where that time is coming from. In economic terms, attention is a scarce resource that consumers decide how to distribute based on their desires to maximize utility. To focus on a narrow application of this idea, a person might decide to dedicate a certain portion of their attention to news consumption. This news consumption might be entirely from a morning newspaper, or split between the Internet and local TV news, or any other combination. If a person wanted to use a new medium for news, say because they received an Amazon Kindle for Christmas, they would have to cut back on other media use because their attention is a scarce resource.
But I argue that attention is not as fixed a resource as
some might suspect. First, increasing media use may take attention from other
areas of life (a person may go out less, for example). Of course, there are still only 24 hours in a
day, so at some point there are no other parts of the pie to steal from. But
secondly, what if new technologies introduce efficiencies into the attention
system such that person has more expendable attention? Instead of simply
waiting in line – what used to be attention essentially wasted – people
frequently consume media on portable electronic devices. Not that this wasn’t
possible (people have always brought books to waiting rooms) but it now
requires no advance thought because a cell phone is, for most people, a
constant companion (unlike a book, for most people).
It may be that, in a world of increasing choice, people are
more able to exercise their preferences (as Prior says), and hence simply swap
one medium or news source for another that better suits their preferences. But
it could also be that access to the Internet anywhere has fundamentally changed
how and when we choose to consume media, pushing media consumption into
heretofore media-less areas of our lives. I find some evidence of this in my
study of how journalists use smartphones and tablets, which enable them to work
at times and in places where it was previously impossible or prohibitively
inconvenient. This new convenience of Internet access may be wiggling its way
into the nooks and crannies of our lives, leading to a surge
in busy-ness.
Proposition: Mobile Internet technologies are not “or”
media, but “and” media. (The language of substitute and complementary would
seem to apply, but I think that would imply some sort of relationship between
the media. My sense is that they are NOT related, that mobile internet
consumption fits into a new gap that it created for itself.)
Data required: Media usage across several years, but preferably
at least the last five years. Hours working. Leisure time and recreation data.
Some measure of busy-ness, maybe stress or anxiety could be a proxy here. The
idea is to get a sense of how much attention people have to spend, and then
decide whether that has changed with the adoption of mobile Internet devices.
Interesting idea.
ReplyDeleteSome thoughts:
Consequences of "and media"
Multitasking
Diary approach
Displacement effect (absolute vs. relative measures)
Busy-ness (or info overload) perceived by different generations
consuming media now in smaller bites and while distracted.
ReplyDeletepossibly develop a new way to measure media use, because people don't remember those 30-second, incidental facebook checks on their phone.
In response to "the surge of busy-ness," would it be interesting to measure willingness to pay for leisure (e.g., a day off from email)?
ReplyDeleteOr, to go back to the "information surplus" concept, how can we prove that the price for non-niche online content is below zero?
May we ask respondents the following question:
With virtual dollars ranging from 0 to 10, how much would you be willing to pay for the following?
a) a glass of water
b) 15 minutes of idle time
c) fresh air
d) an online news article
e) a song streaming from an online radio station
f) a YouTube clip
g) a news tweet
h) a piece of email
Angela:
ReplyDeletea) 2
b) 5
c) 3
d) 3
e) 1
f) 0
g) 0
h) 0
Lei:
a) 2
b) 3
c) 5
d) 2
e) 1
f) 1
g) 0.5
h) 0.5
a) 3
ReplyDeleteb) 3
c) 10
d) 0
e) 0
f) 0
g) 0
h) 4
a) 0
ReplyDeleteb) 1
c) 0
d) 0
e) 0
f) 0
g) 0
h) 0