Slashdot Mirror


US Adults Will Spend More Than Half the Day Consuming Media, Study Says (emarketer.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report from marketing research firm eMarketer: Thanks to multitasking, US adults' average daily time spent with major media will slightly exceed 12 hours this year, according to eMarketer's latest report. But while our reports early in the decade told a story of robust gains -- with increases in digital usage more than compensating for declines in time spent with nondigital media -- growth has been petering out. Of course, media multitasking is what has made so much usage possible. That is how the figure for time spent can add up to 12 hours a day.

51 comments

  1. Consuming media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Because USB sticks and DVDs are crunchy and delicious with milk.

    *BURP*

    1. Re:Consuming media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found floppy disks to be easier on my teeth.

  2. That's 3/4 of the day without sleep by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know math isn't a top subject for Slashdot editors these days, but 12 hours is 3/4 of a 16-hour day, where 16 hours is a 24-hour day minus 8 hours of sleep.

    1. Re:That's 3/4 of the day without sleep by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      It's not a math error; they just aren't excluding sleep. A day is 24 hours, regardless of however much of it is spent watching Lightspeed Briefs sponsored content.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    2. Re:That's 3/4 of the day without sleep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      math problem detected

    3. Re:That's 3/4 of the day without sleep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not insightful. This sounds like the shit that would flow from Trump's mouth.

  3. Unemployed? Retired? by aglider · · Score: 2

    How can an employed adult spend 12 hours on media? Either they don't work yet or they don't work any more!

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:Unemployed? Retired? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm at work right now....

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Unemployed? Retired? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Does reading /. count as consuming media?

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    3. Re:Unemployed? Retired? by gnick · · Score: 2

      I RTFA. Yes, reading /. counts as consuming media. Any Internet surfing does for this study. Reading stuff on the Internet while listening to music counts double.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:Unemployed? Retired? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The trick for lying with statistics is to get people not to read the explanation. You just fell for that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Unemployed? Retired? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Consuming media might include listening to music, having a TV on in the background, etc. That plus sleeping an average of 6 hours per night so you've really got 18 hours in which to squeeze the 12 of consumption, and it's doable.

    6. Re:Unemployed? Retired? by quantaman · · Score: 0

      How can an employed adult spend 12 hours on media? Either they don't work yet or they don't work any more!

      Why don't you ask him?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:Unemployed? Retired? by PPH · · Score: 1

      NEETs.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:Unemployed? Retired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well shoot - help us out here. What media are you watching?

    9. Re:Unemployed? Retired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At work there is a radio playing all day every day. Doesn't that mean that I consume media 40-60 hours a week when I'm at work, including the most annoying commercials that are targeted to people working in an office environment?

    10. Re:Unemployed? Retired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can only guess that all those tabs you have open in your browser for the whole day at work are counting for 8 hours each.

      "Multitasking" can only be bad news for advertisers - unless you're living in an alternate reality where people channel surf between the ad breaks, it can only serve to devalue your advertising.

    11. Re:Unemployed? Retired? by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      I have Pandora running while I'm at work.

    12. Re:Unemployed? Retired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not only at work, but usually streaming music through headphones all day long. That means all my hours at work are also consuming media. Coupled with the streaming during my commute on mass transit...I can easily surpass those 12 hours during a normal day.

  4. Other half by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spent consuming fat

  5. Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "And note our method of accounting for simultaneous usage: If someone spends an hour watching TV (for example) and uses a smartphone to surf the web during the same hour, we count this as an hour of usage for each medium, and hence as 2 hours of total media time."

    So if you watch a program and browse a website during the advert break, that counts twice (one hour each of TV and surfing for one hour)?

    And if you browse 12 websites a day, one an hour for a fraction of a second each, that could count as 12 hours of usage on its own.

    Shitty statistics present shitty conclusions.

    1. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I leave streaming music on my phone and my desktop so I can spent 48 hours consuming media every day.

    2. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of when companies brag about their "150+ years of experience!"
        Then you learn those years are all added up for the 50 staff members, with their 3 years each.

      As Homer Simpson says: You can't trust facts & statistics, they can be used to prove anything!"

    3. Re:Sigh. by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much my 120 open tabs would skew this.

    4. Re:Sigh. by losfromla · · Score: 1

      I don't really see anything wrong with that. They do have that much experience.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    5. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shitty methods present shitty conclusions.

      FTFY. Shitty statistics can be derived from proper methods - but it's much easier to refute those as wrong. Sadly - we haven't gotten that far yet in this "study" because the methods are horrible.

      Oblig: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuA98MqIAAAvHhw.jpg

  6. Dont be a lemming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's four hours. Two before work and two after. Sometimes that makes four in a row. Eight hours. What are you some kind of grown infant? Maybe with Trumpism disease.

    1. Re: Dont be a lemming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here I sit
      Broken-hearted
      tried to shit
      but only posted on Facebook.

    2. Re: Dont be a lemming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for 12 solid hours

  7. How does this work, unless you don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sleep for 8 hours, work for 8 hours, that leaves 8 hours.... I guess they assume everyone listens to music at work or something and spends every free minute watching videos and never eating or talking to someone?

  8. Productivity will suffer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can only imagine as more young people enter the work place that productivity will suffer, as workers become more and more distracted with media and social interaction. Maybe this is why robots are becoming a more open possibility to replacing humans as they do not get distracted with Facebook or texts or media.
    It's obvious to me that some become addicts for social networking and fulfilling their social interaction even at work.

    1. Re:Productivity will suffer by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Here is news for you: In all major enterprises, productivity is very bad already. This will not make any difference.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  9. Marketers are idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Marketers are idiots. That is all.

  10. So, is this the point of civilisation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this the point of civilisation ? Is this why we left our caves and our hunter/gatherer societies ? To mindlessly "consume" the products that are made for us by an elite who themselves consume the products of another elite ? Is this the point of existence ?

    Is "media" our soma ? Is it the new opium of the people ?

    I'm sorry, but if you need any more proof that humanity is nothing but an evolutionary dead-end, a horrible and pointless mistake of nature, nothing will convince you.

  11. So "time spent" is not actually time spent? by gweihir · · Score: 2

    At least that is what I read from the summary. It sounds a bit like if you leave your web-browser open at Facebook, that counts as "time spent with major media". If so, then this figure is basically nonsense.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:So "time spent" is not actually time spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, that makes sense.

      BTW I haven't PLAYED Civ5 for 2000 hours Steam. That is merely how long the other computer was running, You do know it will wait 24hrs for me to make my next move, that is hardly 24 hrs of media time :O If 10 minutes can equal 24 hrs, this really means 5 minutes of media time. Gee, statistics really are fun !

      I wish i was a bored rich lawyer I would sue em for telling lies about me to my friends.

  12. Impossible alarmist headline makes Slashdot by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 2

    Pigs still not flying, hell still warm. Carry on.

    --
    Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
  13. 24 hours in 24 seconds = not good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obligatory flashback from Max Headroom:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJP-Ilw_xaY

    #zikzak #blipvert

    1. Re:24 hours in 24 seconds = not good by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      This is why you have to control the pixels on the screens you look at. Otherwise you're just going to end up recycled like that guy.

      Adblockers will save your life.

  14. automation will fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can automate millions of unproductive dummies to watch media, we don't even need people for that!

    But seriously, once millions of jobs will be freed via automation what will the least productive members of society actually do? -We have too many useless people.

    1. Re:automation will fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they'll still be executives and government officials.

  15. Really? That's disgusting. Get a life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a waste of a life. I rarely consume any media anymore.

  16. "Multitasking" doing many things badly by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    This makes sense-- consuming multiple inputs at once should go up as the "Luddites" die off. I would expect this to go above 12 hours in the near future.

    As studies show, people who are used to over stimulation, they can filter it out better and focus on what matters better. So if you combine that with an addiction of heavy stimulation without an ability to focus longer than a goldfish you get somebody who has a strong need for many inputs so that they can jump around constantly--- like a channel surfer addict but worse. I've seen these millennials on their phones listening to music, texting, or using some app WHILE watching a movie... and the heavy resistance to not doing this in a movie theater. I've taken away the phone and they end up thinking a movie they should like was boring or they don't like it as much; while total shit is OK with the phone. (if the movie has a good hook of suspense / fear it keeps them engaged so it's no surprise horror is popular and the exception. This only works if they are refreshed on the feeling every 8 seconds. Yes, I've actually counted the seconds. Then it's back to the phone stimulation. BTW, there is zero creativity and imagination which makes sense because that develops from the lack of external stimulation. It also fosters more consumption... )

    Either the content is slow and stupid or they can manage it with their lower IQ due to multitasking-- such as a family movie with subtleties only adults get but in this case it's having something for people operating in low IQ mode but gets great reviews for supporting thinking adults and slow adults.

    You've probably noticed this when you watched a movie again and noticed a lot because the first time you missed things because you were tired or multitasking or forgot much of it (unless you are one of the 1/3 in permanent low IQ mode. If you are unsure, just check if you still support Trump.)

  17. I call horseshit by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    Unless they greatly redefine "consuming major media" to include things like playing video games, listening to CDs, googling things like "java how to make an object", or google "kim kardashian's tits please".

    In other words, unless they define "consuming major media" to stuff everyone does every day anyways it's horseshit.

    Hmmm, now that I think about it.... I watch the news getting ready for work. Listen to the radio (DSC for the win) driving to work. Listen to CDs/podcasts at work. Listen to a CD on the way home. Watch the news. Play a game for an hour or three. Watch the DVR til 10. Lather rinse repeat 5 days of the week.

    1. Re:I call horseshit by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I guess it is true, the internet knows everything.

      But wow, you consume like 87 hours of media a week. That's insane. You should get out more.

  18. Because 'studies' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only the retarded and brainwashed. It's about as good as the reality tv they were watching before, I guess. 'Get me my beef supreme!'

  19. Re:"Multitasking" doing many things badly by losfromla · · Score: 1

    Not sure what studies you are referring to, but, every study I'm aware of shows that multi-tasking ability is very rare and what the vast majority of "multi-taskers" do is actually task switching. The human brain can do one thing and one thing alone at a time that requires higher functions. Task-switching comes at a cost from switching away from a task, remembering prior context, and then picking up the mental thread. Not efficient.

    Your post if unfocused, are you one of those context-switchers?

    --
    Only I can judge you.
  20. Re:"Multitasking" doing many things badly by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    I can't find the study, I read it this year... I must not have been clear, I didn't say that these gamers have multitasking abilities they simply have been proven to FILTER input better so all those distractions do not impede them like normal people. They don't have to focus on as many things at a time despite having an overwhelming amount of input. It is like learning to hear 1 person out of a crowd of people - better filtering means less time wasted on hearing their words. Or how when reading is made more difficult reading comprehension goes down. Also, different parts of the brain do different things and those do work in parallel but that is not true multitasking. If you train part of your brain to do 1 thing and another part to do something else that is the closest we can get but the overlap and integration involved in nearly everything make even talking impact driving a car... (it's ok because the other person in the car helps you out but on the phone it is a real problem and I am not even talking smart phones.)

    Unfocused: I have a problem jumping to supporting topics because I recall a lot of related and supporting issues behind the main topic sometimes jumping a connecting step. "Working memory" (aka "short term") is extremely limited to 3-5 items (historically it was 5-9) so picking and structuring the best ones is a problem due to composition time and that distraction. Add in a habit of non-linear writing... and not thinking in english.

  21. That's ridiculous by whitroth · · Score: 1

    I spend more than that on solitaire.....

    I am not addicted, I can quit any time I want.

  22. Re:"Multitasking" doing many things badly by losfromla · · Score: 1

    I see. It sounds like they don't have multitasking abilities at all but rather an improved ability to focus. An ability to multitask would definitely mean that they can do more than one thing at a time and it sounds like that is not what you mean at all. So, I think we agree, people can focus on only one thing at a time. Gamers have an improved ability to filter out irrelevant data, interestingly, this is similar to what one can achieve through meditation (namely an improved focus).

    --
    Only I can judge you.