Who are the consumers of Media?

[Telos]

I was just listening to public radio and they had a guest on from the Global Exchange, a notoriously anti-global NGO. While some of their views are legitimate, they can get kind of kooky. No big deal. That's their right, after all. But the guest said something that I, as an economics student, found extremely fascinating. He said, and I'm paraphrasing:

"People who watch television are not the consumers of television. We are the product. The advertisers are the consumers. They are purchasing access to our attention and our minds. They get more return on their investment if we are not critical and instead absorb what we're watching. It follows, then, that content on television, including the news, will be designed to put us in a mindset where we are not critical."

Let me say again I am heavily paraphrasing. Certainly, similar things have been said about the passive nature of television, but I've never heard it in the language of economics. I've been taught to view economic participants as active, dynamic and powerful individuals. But this is turning it all upside down. He's right. Advertisers purchase our attention, but not from us. Television studios draw our attention in and then sell it. We are neither the producer nor the consumer. We're the product. The more passive we are about the process, the better.

From this all manners of conspiracy and other kooky conclusions can come, but I'm trying to see this from the point of view of the participants.

The basic economic model of supply and demand says this is only possible if we actually demand the passive experience. This is confounded because no one purchases the experience of being passive. It's a decision that is independent of income. The only thing we "spend" watching TV is our time. This breaks the classic economic model because inputs are no longer uniform, and not longer is restricted to two parties (producer and consumer) but three parties (supplier, producer and consumer). I'm hurting my head... sorry to bore you with this.

To solve the problem, however, the guest from Global Exchange basically said we should all go online and visit websites and form strong local communities, support your local farmers, etc. My dad was nearby and he said that that same kind of talk was around in the 60s - minus the "online" part of course.

The issue I'd like to present for discussion this: what good is using the Internet to focus on local communities when the Internet's strength is in connecting people from all over the world?

Similar questions from the original topic: Who are the real consumers of the Internet? Is it still the advertisers? Who/What are the real producers? The products? You're really thinking like an economist if you can answer these questions. ;)

[Stillwater]

This is an incredibly deep observation, and one which could easily merit a book. Though I am hardly an economist (Honor's econ. is hardly a degree, lol), I cannot resist these nebulous philosophical issues- it is my feeling that issues such as these bring us to the heart of what it really means to be a social, rationing, inquistive, and good-intending entity in a world of so many fleeting perspectives and levels of understanding.

The academic issue seems to stem from the fact that the supplier and producer no longer function on the same side of commerce (those who supply do not produce, or make secondary commerce with those who do, as in the classical model); the producer (the media viewer, in one explanation) creates the availibility of the product (time/ influence/ recognition of other products) through either boredom, apathy, or desire for stimulation (lol...), although the actual supplier of the product (advertiser), rather than compensate the producer, is actually harvesting what the producer deems to be of no value (his/her time).

In this way, the exchange is really between the force of demand and supply, as it usually is, in the model everyone knows and loves,

Price
  l................S........
  l...\.........../.........
  l.....\......./...........
  l.......\.../.............
  l........./...............
  l......./..\..............
  l...../......\............
  l.../..........\.D.......
  ---------------------------------- Amount

where s is the harverseter of time (media), and d is the consumer of this "lost" time (advertiser); although I am sure, as an economics student, and an apparently sharp one, you certainly saw this, and your question centers on the reasons of how and why this can occur, with an entire party being harvested from, without wishing any compensation.

I have often thought of the idea that in certain situations, there may exist at least three states which increase in value as one travels up, where the first and second are completely distinct, but the first and third are quite similar in appearance; suppose now that the second state is deemed superior to the first- this brings up an interesting problem: if these states are held by individuals, then one who held the third state might be deemed inferior to one who, by chance, held the second, as this person's third state would actually appear to be the first. In this case, one who held the third state may be said to hold two merits: 1)possessing the merit of having the third state, and 2) caring more about essences than appearances, in that this individual may be confused for one of lesser mettle than those immediately below in mental state.

That said, we can dicuss what is really occuring here.










When one begins to embrace duality, one begins to let go of notions like "good", and "bad", and sees events as a series of causes and effects. Some might believe that this perspectie allows one to see the elegance in what is otherwise deemed profane. It is easy to see that this setup where a powerful media preys on the ignorant can warrant harsh criticism, yet there is another dimension to all of this, which Adam Smith would apporve of: as Americans and other industrial citizens are giving away their wit before their tiny screens, they are serving consumerism; this materilaistic result may be held in low regard for the dreadful toll it exacts on the environment, although we all know the result of this- because the demographic is urged to continuously desire more and more material items, the economy is served in the process; all of this avarice keeps the very mind-slaves who are clamoring for more in work, Brave New World-style; It is the ideal that was longed for in the times of Hoover and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. For all the terrible spectres this system brings with it, if nothing else, one must have an off-hand appreciation for a living, breathing monster which, for the time being, serves its master; this intricate machine, with "The Powers that Be", or some such, at the controls, or perhaps no one at all (no wouldn't that be remarkable...), is both bandit and doler, highwayman and beneficiary.

I think that this is the reason why Industrial societies do not want to address the issues of pollution and resource depletion- the song that plays on everyone's instrument is Status Quo; it is their longing for a dying way of life, the desire to hold on to a system which outside pressures are beginnig to resist that keeps technology from moving forward- the end in mind is not progress, but wellbeing; as an economics student, I think that you cannot but have an indirect appreciation for what this grand machine is ultimately doing- exchanging resources for time. Now you may say, "Isn't this the basis of most commercial interactions?", but you must realize the scale of this operation: we are buying 1/4 of the world time- that is why the price is so solemn.

Now I didn't say that you had to agree with this ideal, for I don't either, but it really is beautiful in its complexity, and allows one to understand how those who support the cogs of commerce actually feel they are doing the world a great service. It is all an immense cycle that takes those who would have nothing at all, and allows them to unwittingly serve themselves!

The transition of industrial society from this system will come in time, of course, but those who worship stability will resist this change as a cactus endures the sun. This is part of the reason why the next 30 years may be rockier for some than they may have been, but what an interesting time it shall be to be an economist ......

well, that was my rant, you are free to accept, ammend, reject, etc. at your own discretion, as always, and I am truly curious as to what others may think of either these ideas or the orgianl topic.

Thank you,
Stillwater

[Telos]

Thank you so much for that post, Stillwater. You really grasped the importance of my question. Your candor and lucidity has made me appreciate your insight. And I'm flattered by your compliments ;)

I recently finished a book called "Ubiquity." It was in the physics section of the library, but it was about "catastrophic" events of all kinds, including crashes in the stock market or in economies in general alongside earthquakes, avalanches, and more specialized topics in physics. Basically, it presents the theory that little tiny catastrophes happen very often, but occur less along a statistical power series as they grow in magnitude. The catch is that they all occur potentially from the same conditions - which means that it is not possible to distinguish a precursor of a small catastrophe from a big one. They are all inevitable, but impossible to predict.

In that sense I know exactly what you mean. In the next 30 years our system will grow to various stages of "critical mass." Most catastrophes will be little, others medium, and only one or two big ones.

This division of participants in the economics of the media seems like something that will grow to a critical mass, and start failing along a power series distribution - just like small and large earthquakes along converging tectonic plates. As new technologies emerge people will suddenly stop watching TV in groups and move to more active systems, causing disturbances in our models. TiVO was a really good example of people taking a less submissive role to television, which ended up resulting in a controversial and harmful paradigm for advertisers (or at least, they were scared it was going to). And the Internet, well... we'll see where that goes! :)

but what an interesting time it shall be to be an economist

Economists, like Seismologists, currently only really know how to look backwards.

I hope it is an interesting time for everyone.

[Stillwater]

Quote:
but what an interesting time it shall be to be an economist


Economists, like Seismologists, currently only really know how to look backwards.

I hope it is an interesting time for everyone.

hmmm......

To a point I would agree, but isn't it a magor part of theoretical economics to interpret current trends, and from them generate a model with the aim of predicting future behavior? But I suppose what you may mean is that the easiest way to understand economic causation is to analze situations where the effects of a particualr cause have already occurred.

And yes, it will certainly be an interesting time for an individual in any field, as challenges and experiences of many forms will begin to present themselves in increasingly greater density....


Disruptions in the ways in which the populace and media interact may be precurrsors to social change as well, as you point out- I would certainly view such changes in the role of mass media to be indicators of possible alterations in our current social structure.

Let us all wait and see

what does anyone else feel about these notions?

[patapouf]

Quote:
"People who watch television are not the consumers of television. We are the product. The advertisers are the consumers. They are purchasing access to our attention and our minds. They get more return on their investment if we are not critical and instead absorb what we're watching. It follows, then, that content on television, including the news, will be designed to put us in a mindset where we are not critical."


Interesting subject folks, one good example, of course, can easily be seen when the Superbowl is occuring; they have to spend 1million $ per second of advertising since there is a big crowd stuck in front of the TV. People just can't wait to see how ''cool'' the ads might be (ex: Budweiser has hit the jackpot with the ''Wazz up'' advertisement some years ago). Anyway, the worst now is that advertisement is trying since a long time to shape the cultural background not for the need of society, but for the needs of those filthy rich corporation; they ''create'' needs, they need us to consume what they have, so they try to do everything to get our attention. You can see ads everywhere nowadays.  Also, it is not surprising nowadays that we are living in a completely disconnected kind of ''corporate culture'' or ''TV culture'' or whatever you want to name it.... Everything is transformed into commoditity now....

Take care,

[halfphased]

I feel that this discussion is something that has been on my mind for a long while and I am glad to have run across two people who have the ability to express it through a viewpoint that I am not as skilled at using.  I could pretend to be as skilled as you two, but lets not kid myself.

I do not see it exactly as we are solely the product.  We are also the consumers.  In this economy time is equivenelent to money.  i.e. I make $10 an hour or get paid a salary of $3000 a month.  It is entirely possible for me to convert all of my time into money, if I so desire.  All products take time to produce and we have to exchange our time converted into money to purchase them.  

Perhaps this is a stretch, but you could trace this idea back to the beginnings of agrarian culture, where an individual did not have enough time to produce all the things she needed in order to survive.  So, communities of people would ban together and use their time to focus on specific tasks.  The end result being that they would share the results between each other and thus everyone would have everything that they needed.

I could be out working and making money or I can use my time to sit at home and watch tv.  So, when I decide to stay home and watch tv I have chosen to purchase television watching with my time.  The television companies decide to convert that time into money, since they are equivalent in this economy.  To do this they find the advertisers who wish to consume time with ads so they give money to the tv companies in exchange for the time.  

The result is that advertisments can be piggybacked onto the thing we wish to purchase, so we indirectly purchase something that we really do not want.  (Although we really do want it, because this economy depends on it and we all love the fruits of this economy)  No one would spend their time to watch advertisements (although I have run across a few shows on tv that specialize in showing the "funnies tv ads" or some other nonsense) but they will watch some half an hour show that makes them laugh or touches their innermost being because of how they relate to the characters in the show.  

It is the job of the tv companies to produce tv shows that are desireable for tv watchers and advertisers.  They make it desireable for the tv viewers by making it enertaining and make it desireable for the advertisers by having a lot of people watch those shows.

The insane thing is that at the same time we are purchasing tv watching with our time we are also becoming a product due to the highly suggestive nature of television.  

Damn, it just gets more complicated the more I think about it and I don't know where to end as there always appears to be loose ends.

The breaking point for this system will be when we are forced to use our time to do other things besides consuming these products or when they run out or resources to make these products they wish to sell.  I have a feeling that these two things will happen very close to each other.  

If we continue to use our time to work at jobs where we produce things for ourselves to consume, and such things destroy the environment, there will come a point where we will be forced to use our time to repair the environment.  We will no longer have time that we can convert into money to purchase the latest gadget, unless that gadget happens to be a machine that can fix the environment.

You can see that trend already starting.  Fixing the environment is now a product that you can consume by buying organic or recycled paper.

This economy is in for the long haul and we're going to go out kicking and screaming if they don't start selling us on the idea that we have to transition into something different.

hehe, I just like fire and brimstone scenarios.  I'm still trying to get over my frustration that we could have been a little more wiser and less submissive these past 300 years.