Slashdot Mirror
Youth Spend More Time on Web Than TV
ChopsMIDI writes "According to a survey of 2,618 people, aged 13 to 24, teenagers and young adults spend more time on the Internet than watching television, indicating a shift in media consumption for a demographic prized by advertisers. On average, young people said they spent nearly 17 hours online each week, not including time used to read and send electronic mail, compared with almost 14 hours spent watching television and 12 hours listening to the radio."
first post yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Only 17 hours a week? I think they need to survey more slashdotters.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Lets hope they are using interactive forms (like this comment form) and not just wathing flash movies or playing mmorpgs.
On average, young people said they spent nearly 17 hours online each week, not including time used to read and send electronic mail ..."
...? Kids today!
What -- reading and sending email isn't "time online"
-kgj
I don't even watch TV these days, with the ocassional exception for the Simpsons and maybe a movie or two. The internet is much better. It doesn't show you 30 minutes of ads per movie, content is just available there and not during a specific day and time, and the content is much more interesting.
Here (Spain) it seems that the producers of some shows are brain damaged. A while ago I turned on the TV to see if there was anything, saw a bit of some "Putin's daughter" crap, and went back to my computer.
I mean, look at all the services that the Internet can provide:
Chat, Shopping, Gaming, Education, Music, Movies AND TV (I mean, who hasn't downloaded a Simpsons episode or two off Kazaa?)
Add to that the fact that Reality TV (TM) is killing off all of the creativity in television; I want to see comedies, movies and interesting documentaries. I don't care if Joe Bloggs from London has won £10 000 for pretending to be a chicken in the streets.
For me, TV can be too much of a passive experience after a short while. If I'm gonna stare at a screen for hours, why not be fragging AND chatting to a few people in Day of Defeat?
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
amateurs! more like seventy hours a week!
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
Did they count the hours teenagers and young adults spend on the computer, while watching television? If the television and the computer are in the same room, it's not uncommon for them to do both.
That's about 2.5 hours of internet access per day, plus 2 hours of tv and 1.5 hours of listening to the radio. So either these kids are spending 6 hours a day (after school no less) sitting in front of various electronic babysitters or they've learned how to multi-task.
Will the future generations be more literate since they spend all of their time reading instead of watching TV? Maybe it will make it worse since 3v3ry7h1ng 15 5p3ll3d l1k3 7h15.
Sound waves should be free!
95% of those surveyed only spent a couple of hours a week tops but it is alleged that a few Slashdotters bumped that mean right up
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
'Nuff said
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
It's an easy choice: (1) easy access to free pr0n or (2) "reality TV".
For (1) substitute whatever interests you. News junkies, humor, multi-player gaming, music swapping, ad infinitum. It's available on demand 24x7. TV forces you to adhere to mostly least-common-denominator programming at the programmer's schedule, unless you fumble with a VCR, or you have a TIVO that your Dad hasn't monopolized. It's not surprising that the kids have gravitated to the Internet as the new entertainment medium, as have many adults.
The Internet is a vaster wasteland.
OK. Yes, it does matter.
I don't watch TV either. At least, very little. Most days I watch none.
I like getting news in real time on the Internet and from various sources. I feel much more informed than my in-laws, who religiously sit in front of Dan Rather every night and think that he some how makes them more informed than I.
I do read local newspapers for more local flavor, though.
For entertainment, let's just say that the Internet offers, um, more provative content...
I even listen to radio over the Internet. I think my lifestyle will eventually demand a Tablet PC or something. But, I'll wait until they beef them up a bit on battery life and applications.
That said, I'm not sure how long all of this free content will last. Given my choice of browser, I don't view any ads. How long can the "system" support this leeching of content?
The final aspect to my online life is the social one. Email and IM makes life much easier as opposed to the unconnected world.
So, from an information, entertainment, and social point of view, the content of the online world has finally reached critical mass for me. It may take another 5 years for this to make some drastic change in TV, newspaper, etc. But, I think we have finally passed the inflection point.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
The web has the potential to be a very powerful medium. Literally everything you'd ever want to know (from movie reviews to why the sky is blue) is only one click away. I know whenever I have a question, the first place I turn to is google. Kids figured out a while back that it's more fun to have control over the material you're sitting in front of, as opposed to say, watching another episode of Dharma and Greg.
The only downside to this is that advertisers figured out that a majority of the people in the world use this fancy new "intraweb" thingy, and decided to litter it with their banners and spam. If you can sidestep that little roadblock however, the web is still a wonderful thing.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
Certainly this inclination toward the web over TV is one reason that advertising will have to drastically change. As spam filters, and pop-up killers, and page-based context filters develop, it will get harder and harder to put the "sell" on younger people. (All people, for that matter.) I think the P2P vs. filtering evolutionary wars are a harbinger of things to come. Individuals do not like being manipulated by corporate imagery. My fear is that eventually a legal argument will be made that since an advertiser has paid for space on a page, it will be illegal for somebody to mess with that page, since the page is the property of some other corporation and not of the individual who views it.
Maybe as an analogy, you can imagine some hot-shot electronics guy building a special jammer that only jams beer commercials and leaves all other content in place. Clearly beer companies would hate it, and no doubt the FCC already says they control all transmitting of public content and not just the non-advertising stuff (cmp. the small power FM station fiascoes). Since this is the rule in Wavelength Land, I can see nothing to stop it becoming the rule in Web Land.
Moreover, if congress is willing to introduce bills to make P2P software illegal, I have little reason to think their $$$ masters will hold back on anything else. I think getting something like a super-Freenet up and running with (effectively) unbreakable crypto is the only hope of keeping us from some weird oligarcic socialism.
brinticus
P.S. I don't mind clones, its me being like everybody else I hate.
You have to consider the source of the information. It was pitched to me a couple of days ago (I work in television news), and guess who paid for the survey -- Yahoo!. It's like an oil company commissioning a survey that shows people hate electric cars.
I'd be more interested in how much time these people are spending on an IM service rather than using their phones. For myself, IM is basically my primary form of communication. If only all my friends would keep their machines on 24/7 as well.
"0101100101? It's just jibberish. *looks in mirror, gasps* 1010011010@!? AHHHHHH!!"
...were these polls taken? The 13 to 24 demographic is obviously the lower half of the meat and potatos of Yahoo, but I wonder how these polls were conducted.
Was it outside of a shopping mall? Was it forms mailed out from junk mail lists? What was the income range of the families involved? This would be more interesting to me, as it seems that would tell more about who is moving tword the internet as a whole - when even the lower income brackets are spending more time in front of a computer.
Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently. - Henry Ford
Quote: On average, young people said they spent nearly 17 hours online each week, not including time used to read and send electronic mail, compared with almost 14 hours spent watching television and 12 hours listening to the radio, the study said.
But what about ripping cds, downloading mp3s and movies, playing games, and doign schoolwork. This is all on the computer as well, so if you add that I'd assume that the number of hours spent on a computer would have to be at least 20-25. Its scary to think that so much time is spent in front of a computer monitor.. Add to that number the number of hours in front of the tv (14) and you have almost have a full workweek.
In linux libertas
IT wa$ TH3 83$t 0f +1m35, 1t wa$ th3 Wor$+ 0pH +1me$, i+ W@5 TEH @GE 0PH W15dOM, IT W@5 Th3 @ge 0PH f00li$Hn35$, 1T W4$ tHE 3PocH 0PH bELI3pH, IT W45 +h3 3P0Ch Of 1ncreduL1ty, iT W45 th3 $eA5on 0PH L1GH+, it w4$ TEh $3450N oF d@rKN3$$, 1+ w@$ +H3 5pR1nG 0Ph HoP3, IT W@5 teh wiN+3R OF De5p@IR, We h4D ev3rY+h1NG 83PHOR3 u5, W3 H4d n0th1n9 bEforE Us, w3 wEre alL 90iN9 D1REC+ +o h34ven, we WEre @Ll 90Ing d1r3cT the O+heR WAY--iN $h0Rt, The p3rIOD W@5 5O ph@R liKe TH3 PR3SeNt p3Ri0D, tH4+ 5OM3 0Ph i+5 no15I35T 4u+hor1+ie$ 1N$i$Ted 0n 1+$ 8EIng R3C31v3d, F0R g0oD 0R fOr eViL, in The 5upeRl4tIv3 d39R33 0PH C0mPAR1$On oNLY.
TH3re w3RE 4 K1ng wi+H @ L4R93 JAw AND 4 kW33N WI+H 4 pL@iN F4cE, 0N +hE +hr0n3 Of eNGL4nd; TH3RE Wer3 4 K1NG wi+H @ L@R93 j@W 4ND a kwEEn W1+H @ fA1r pH4Ce, 0n th3 +hR0ne oF phRANCe. 1n 8O+h cOun+R13$ 1+ w@5 CLe@rER +H4n cRY5+4l To tHe LORd$ of T3H $T4+3 prEseRvE$ of lo4VE5 @Nd ph1$h3$, +H@+ Th1N95 In gEneR@l w3r3 $3++l3D f0R EveR
1t W4S the YE4r 0Ph OUR LORd on3 THoU5@Nd 5eVEn HundRed @Nd 53v3n+Y-f1V3. 5p1Ritu4l REVel4t1On5 w3r3 Conc3DeD +O 3N9L4nD 4T tH4t f@V0URED PErI0D, 4 54+ +hi$. mR5. $0uTHco+T h4D rEcEn+LY 4t+@1N3d H3r f1Ve- 4Nd-twEN+IETh bL3$seD B1RTHD@y, OPH WH0m a Proph3TIc pR1v4t3 1n +h3 liPh3 9u4rd5 H@D HeR4lD3d +H3 $u8LIm3 APpE4R@Nce BY 4nnOUnCIN9 +h4+ 4rR4NG3m3NT$ wERE M4D3 fOr t3h 5w@lLoW1ng up oF LonD0n ANd W35+MIN5TER. 3V3N Th3 cocK-l4n3 9HOS+ h@d b3En l4id 0nlY @ rOunD D0z3n 0PH Y34R5, @ftER r@PPin9 0U+ ItS m3$$A9Es, 45 +eH $P1r1+5 of TH15 V3rY Y3aR L4$+ p@5+ (5UpERn4+UR@LLy DeF1CiENT iN 0r1G1nal1Ty) r@pp3d 0ut TH31r5. mER3 Me55@9E5 1n tHe 34R+HlY 0RDer 0ph 3vEn+5 h4d lA+3Ly c0me +o +H3 3n9L15H cR0wN 4ND p30PlE, FR0M @ C0N9r355 Of Bri+15H 5uBj3C+5 IN @m3R1C@: wHIch, $tr4ng3 +0 r3L@t3, HAV3 PR0V3d Mor3 ImP0R+4nt +0 tEh huMAn r@cE +H4n aNY COMmunIC4+I0N5 y3+ r3c31ved +Hr0UGH 4ny Of +he CH1ck3N5 0PH THe C0Ck-l4NE bro0d
It's alarming that big companies like Forbes associate Internet time with TV, using the blanket statement, "media consumption". I don't know about you but as a member of several online forums and an occational website content producer myself, someone who uses the internet as a tool to look up information, I don't really feel like I am sitting here consuming a media product.
Now, don't mind as I once again don my tin-foil hat.
You see this language everywhere. We are all consumers. We consume things. That's our purpose. "They" produce product and push it out, and we consume. Is Forbes's language evidence that big media still doesn't "Get It" with respect to the power of creation the Internet provides to us lowly consumption robots? Does the author really believe that Internet use soley consists of consumption of products?
Or is it one of the many subtle ways large companies push the idea that we are just consuming pac-men, and that nothing we do is imporant unless it involves consuming someone's product.
I think the consistant use of the word "consumer" to describe PEOPLE is evidence that this is a widespread attempt by those in charge (large corporations) to make their world-views come true through the force of subtle language changes.
Ok, off with the tin-foil hat! Good day.
things are changing:
:-)
1. first, the music industry loses its ability to control the marketing of new music to people because the people themselves have control of the distribution technology (i.e. Napster, Kazaa )
2. then, the television industry loses its control of what people think because the internet allows people once again to control what they read, hear, and see.
It sounds to me like the whole media industry is losing its control over people and we can thank technology for doing this for us!
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
In a time where kids are convinced that oral sex is not sex, email not being seem as online is no surprise. The Internet is what you see in IE, isn't it?
See naked people (hell even autopron posts on /.)
Centrally communicate (anyone from around the world can join the same chat room).
But let's get into to why when I was a teenager (soo long ago *cough* 3 years ago *cough*)
1.) Private password protected conversations (no more parents overhearing part if not both parts of a conversation over the phone). You have the ability to talk with others without the fear of the parents figuring out what the hell is going on.
2.) Sex. While it may seem a bit innapropriate for the older crowd here, most people from the age of 13+ have sex on the mind, either sex appeal or actually shagging. While of course there may not be a whole lot of knowledge in the area, there's still the curiosity and since mom and dad usually won't take the time to explain sex as it might actually lead to little billy and suzie wanting to try it, they turn to the one source they can find.
3.) Information. Heard something about a war in Iraq, but all you know is mom is indifferent and dad thinks bush is some asshole for it. But you really would like to know what's going on, but can't understand it. Turn to the internet and a search engine, in a few hours you can deem yourself an expert on middle eastern politics.
4.) Pop-Culture. Want to know what's cool and what's not cool and be able to actually survive highschool? Then you need to know what's "hip" and "Cool". So MTV.com and others like it will guide you through the pains of trying to look "normal" and not be a spectacle. There's three types of people in highschool "popular" "normal" and "bad popular". "Bad popular" is basically the kid everyone knows but everyone picks on, if in highschool you want to avoid at all costs this classification. So best way, spend as much dough as you can muster up and stay "normal" with the cool shoes and correct name brands.
5.) Homework. Yes it's true the internet is a vast tool of conquest in knowledge. But even better, no more turning to the index of a book. Hop on to your local libraries website and do a keyword search in a book. AMAZINGLY enough you will know exactly where the boston tea party is mentioned in the first 100 books that are the authroity on the subject. All by never stepping foot in the library, opening the book, or god forbid reading the damned thing. You can find someone elses blog/essay on the subject and get it dumbed down enough to where you can "write it in your own words". "Write it in your own words" is a new form of "writing" where you take the same basic concept and write it in a different manner with different words thus negating any type of plagerism.
All-in-all the TV is there for when someone else is on the computer or there's no emails or active people on your buddy list. Then and only then, you'll hop on the couch and turn on the TV. And what do teenagers watch? Exactly what I said above, but they don't get it in such mass quantities, it's like methadome for a crack addict, keeps ya at bay, but you still don't like it as much.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
The main appeal 'net-related activities have for me is the need to think. You spend your time reading, thinking about opinions, actually exercising those little grey neurons.
TV is not interactive, and with the quality of most shows currently produced, it's boring. Often it steps over the line from merely boring to annoyingly bad production values.
Who wouldn't prefer an entertainment media that doesn't presume one is a drooling moron?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
As much as I hate MTV and the crap that they force on the viewers they still have, I find that they are approaching this transition in a positive manner. There are several shows that are utilizing the multitasking potential of the internet with television, in order to receive feedback and make shows interactive. MTV2 does a show that requires viewers to log on and vote for the next video in realtime. This is the way to combine your programming with the power of the internet and not lose out. By making your TV programming customizable to some extent by the viewers, I would think they would be less likely to change channels or even turn the TV off altogether.
So, what, is this our generation's "When I was YOUR age" event?
Previous: "When I was YOUR age, sonny, we used to go outside and play baseball out by the sandlot! Not all this TV watching crap you kids today do..."
Today: "When I was YOUR age, sonny, we used to watch TV all day on the couch! Not all this new-fangled 'internet' crap you kids today do..."
Future: "When I was YOUR age, sonny, we used to log onto the internet all the time on the computer! Not this new-fangled starship crap you kids today do..."
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
Considering there are 16 hours of free time on Saturday and Sunday, I highly doubt they are cramming all that activity into weeknights.
And has been mentioned before you can do more than one thing at a time (ie. listening to the radio while on the internet)
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
If television offered free porn to kids who are smart enough to admit to being over 18, television might start being as important is the web is to today's youth :)
> I'm really in support of bringing back radio plays and
> dramatizations,
Radio 4 (and 3 too IIRC) from the BBC do plays etc quite often, and you can listen online - here
Once you've used the internet enough, watching a TV news program is incredibly annoying, with all the "ok, this interesting sounding story will be coming up soon". The internet spoils you with the instant information, on what you want and right now, compared to TV. I can only see the amount of TV that anyone who uses the web much continuing to go down.
12 hours listening to the radio
I'm surprised by that. I wouldn't think teens would listen to that much radio. If they are spending that much time on the internet, shouldn't they just be downloading songs for commercial-free enjoyment? I know I probably put in quite a few hours a week listening to the radio, but that's because I'm a freak who listens to talk radio.
it's because anything you watch on tv you can download off of the internet anyway. and you can watch it at your leisure too. plus, we're a generation of high-tech pirates. we don't need any of this tv crap. it slows down our ships.
I'm against picketing but I don't know how to show it.
..is anybody REALLY that shocked?
Not that online is any better, but at least you get to choose the crap that infects you.
Advice to all generations: Read a book, quite being sheep.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
(Disclaimer: Totally OT) That reminds me of something that happened to me in high school physics class. The teacher was doing a demonstration witha frequency generator hooked up to a speaker. He kept raising the frequency in increments and had the class raise their hands until they couldn't hear it anymore. As he kept testing higher and higher frequencies eventually everyone's hand dropped except mine (i seem to be able to hear white noise and the like better than most). He supposedly went up another step and asked if I heard anything. I said "yeah I do" and he proclaimed "Well it's not even turned on. You're imagining it. Ha ha!" And of course the whole class was laughing at me thinking I was lying. But I could still hear it!
After class as I was exiting the room I walked by a TV facing the back wall and I realized that was where the sound was coming from. It turns out the tv was left on and showing a blue screen. I was hearing the whine from the TV
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
TEEN: Mom, I'm infected. I think it's a virus.
MOM: Oh dear, I didn't even know you were doing it, and besides I thought we agreed you'd use protection.
TEEN: I did use protection, my definitions must be out of date.
As a 15 year-old myself, i do spend lots of time on the web, mainly reading /.
All of my peers, however, are spending most of the time on the web on Kazaa and messenger services like msn messenger and icq. Some of them can waste an entire afternoon just using icq.
As for the internet replacing tv, I blame it on awful daytime programming. I can only watch family matters so many times before I start mutilating neighborhood pets.
I hate my sig
Because porn isn't scrambled on the internet.
It reminds me of a bit from Beavis and Butthead -- they're talking about having 200 channels ot TV, and one of them suggests what if they just had one channel that didn't suck.
I mean, hell, I admit, I keep on the TV as background noise, but there's just some stuff I have to change the channel for. It's hard finding something on at 5pm EST that isn't an infomercial. If it weren't for FoodTV, BBC America, TLC, Discovery and similar channels, there'd be many more hours of the day when I wouldn't be able to find something worth watching.
When a good program does finally make it to the air, they cancel it after a season (Mad Jack the Pirate) or two (Invader Zim). They put things in bad time slots (Futurama, always pre-empted by sports when it was in first run). If it weren't for the random stuff that somehow manages to make it on the air -- Good Eats, Coupling, Monster Garage, we'd be in even more trouble.
So, anyway, this brings up the real question -- is 'the Internet' winning because it's better than TV, or is TV losing because it's worse than 'the Internet'?
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Hmm...
Crossing Over with John Edwards...
Ricky Lake and Jerry Springer, yea!!!
Big Brother 25, oh yeah
Pet Psychic?!
Most Sexy Artists of All Time, sure
"This girl is going to choose one guy to marry out of a million, let's see what happens..."
Uh, gee, I can't see why they don't watch so much TV these...
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Of course, I'm sure companies will just see this situation as "Oh, I guess we need to put more advertisements on the web." As if there weren't already pop-up ads galore. Good thing that I haven't seen a pop-up ad in years, otherwise I'd be really annoyed. :-)
In the end, the internet is better than television at conveying things like information and/or news because it is much faster and more efficient. And I won't even begin to get into the more addictive side of the internet, such as online multiplayer games (*cough* Counterstrike *cough*) ;-)
...Children.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
News.com has a slightly more detailed report: Web marketing sells like teen spirit
The executive summary from Yahoo is available (1MB PDF): Born To Be Wired Executive Summary, accessible from Born To Be Wired
And this is ... bad? Hardly...
Sitting in front of a TV, you do absolutely nothing. You slouch, with remote and hand, and stare at the TV while frequently drooling, grabbing one's self, burping, or snacking. This is horrid behavior - nothing positive comes of it. Period.
At least on a computer, even if playing MMORPGs, the user must *interact*, which is something television lacks. Televions is a broadcast medium whereas the Internet is interactive. The user must do some work in order to achieve satisfaction. With a TV, they must simply watch. On the web, they must read or strategize, or at the very least point and click, which is an exercise of hand-eye coordination.
I'd take a computer geek MMORPG no friend having dorkahontas over a TV addicted vegaholic that sits around and watches Space Ghost Coast To Coast all day.
Do it for da shorties