Slashdot Mirror


Is The Attention Economy Dying? (theverge.com)

"The attention economy is dying, and it's not pretty," argues the Verge, adding "there is only so much time in the day to pay attention to things, and we as a society have reached the limit..."

"The base assumption that the whole edifice is built on is becoming unstable, because what happens when society's attention is entirely monopolized? A recent report put out by the media and technology research firm Midia underscores that point: "[E]ngagement has declined throughout the sector, suggesting that the attention economy has peaked. Consumers simply do not have any more free time to allocate to new attention seeking digital entertainment propositions, which means they have to start prioritising between them." The trend, they write, has persisted for a while, and only now promises a revenue slowdown -- as told through disappointing quarterly results from a few of the major games publishers. "Arguably sooner than most of the games industry would have thought." As Midia researcher Karol Severin says, "competition within the attention economy is now more intense than ever before."

The problem is attention doesn't scale. There is only so much time in the day to be advertised to; ads themselves are becoming less effective, because they're now everywhere. When was the last time you consumed something that wasn't trying to sell you something, or harvest your personal data to sell you things better?

The article also argues that a "substantial portion" of the attention economy has been captured by the videogame Fortnite. "Last month, Netflix mentioned in its 2018 earnings report that 'we compete with (and lose to) Fortnite more than HBO'...

"That Netflix is even acknowledging Fortnite as a competitor is important, because it means that digital media companies are beginning to concede that growth isn't infinite, and are shifting their ambitions in response."

139 comments

  1. Growth isn't infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No shit, Sherlock.

    1. Re: Growth isn't infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right but it's sensationalist to say it's "dying" when really we might be reaching a plateau.

      Economy doesn't "grow or die", that's just how some people think. Economy continues to exist as long as there's a demand for something.

    2. Re: Growth isn't infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the environmentalists out there: take note. Instead of allowing populations to plateau and come into balance, we must subsidize and facilitate 3rd world overpopulation through direct aid and mass immigration. More hungry mouths. More consumption. More more more.

    3. Re: Growth isn't infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With debt based fiat money, it does.

  2. Explains why the WaPo is shitting on games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're scared of the competition.

    1. Re:Explains why the WaPo is shitting on games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is the Georgia DNR. They just murdered a giant alligator for FUN.

    2. Re: Explains why the WaPo is shitting on games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it was just trying to find some water!

    3. Re: Explains why the WaPo is shitting on games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would make me nervous since I'm just a bag of mostly water.

  3. 'The Attention Economy' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was never a thing, let alone a viable thing, to begin with. If you thought otherwise, you have exactly zero understanding of other humans, and are a rube.

    1. Re:'The Attention Economy' by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, Wikipedia gives a nice definition of what "Attention Economy" is:

      Attention economics is an approach to the management of information that treats human attention as a scarce commodity, and applies economic theory to solve various information management problems. ...
      As content has grown increasingly abundant and immediately available, attention becomes the limiting factor in the consumption of information.

      All this seems eminently reasonable and well-supportable to me. As to what advertising executives and "content providers" mean when they use the term "attention economy", well they might not mean anything in particular. Such people often use words for how they feel rather than what they denote.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:'The Attention Economy' by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Such people

      You're being generous...

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:'The Attention Economy' by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Which is why the phrase "suggesting that the attention economy has peaked" makes zero sense. Attention was always scarce. People who were making money were doing so for mostly two reasons. Those are that people were naive and easily tricked, and the medium was novel. People are catching on though and the used car salesmen of the Entertainment industry are eventually being seen for what they are and hence attention is shifting. They could fix this by adapting, but they are a bunch of useless crybabies and so they'll just have a fit and pound the dark earth instead.

  4. Sorry, I can't pay attention... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Too much music going on right now...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  5. Video Killed the Radio Star by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The entertainment economy has always competed with the entertainment economy.

    Guess what, they're competing with imported chocolate, too.

    And skating rinks. And fancy restaurants.

    1. Re:Video Killed the Radio Star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a great song.

    2. Re:Video Killed the Radio Star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really I can eat chocolate while ice skating while watching a show on my phone. At least I could if all these jerks on skates stopped bumping into me.

    3. Re:Video Killed the Radio Star by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3

      There is more to it than just competition. People have been burned so many times they are not engaging any more.

      All the good stuff on TV gets cancelled, so don't get too engaged with that. Online is full of scams and you find that thing you were really into is just some shitty viral marketing campaign. Everyone you liked turns out to be a milkshake duck.

      There is also the rise of streaming that means everything is transient and probably won't be available in a year or two, so no point getting attached to it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Video Killed the Radio Star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's different though, you are thinking about discrete entertainment *items*. Like "a" chocolate, or "a" skate at the rink, or "a" dinner at a fancy restaurant. And the thing is a normal person could do all or most of them in a normal day. Economic outcome? Growth that at least keeps pace with buying power.

      But they've bet everything on entertainment *platforms*. And a platform is supposed to be the last entertainment you ever need. Like "a" stay at the Hotel California. Which actually shrinks the available market and makes previously profitable entertainment unprofitable. Economic outcome? Contraction leading to collapse.

    5. Re:Video Killed the Radio Star by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      None of that is new.

      Weird Al released "I Can't Watch This" in 1992, long before most people even knew what the "internet" was or had local access. I listen to that song way more often than I watch a television. Jefferson Airplane released the song Plastic Fantastic Lover in 1967, before I was born, which is also about television. And it dovetails nicely with social media concerns; the last verse is

      Data Control and IBM
      Science is mankind's brother
      But all I see is drainin' me
      On my plastic fantastic lover

      Online scams are nothing new; in the olden days they were conducted by mail. And like the internet, just because it is scammy and you lose your money doesn't mean it is illegal; they even have chain stores where you can "rent to own" a $300 couch for $20/month for the rest of your life. I remember in the mid 90s a co-worker showed me a "Finger Hut" catalog which was basically the same thing.

      Maybe you just like low quality media too much, and so you're too hurt when it turns out they don't love you back?

      If you don't like shows getting cut, my advice, wait until after it is finished running, and watch the re-runs. That way you know what you're getting into, and if the fans ended up happy or sad about the time invested in fandom.

      It is like people crying that the Beatles broke up. The music is all still there.

      If the streaming services are running stuff that is going to just disappear, it must not have very much value. The Star Wars Christmas Special survived the ages, as did Leonard Nimoy's music video of The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins. Surely with modern technology, things of value are getting preserved.

  6. I don't know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Verge did a good job of drawing attention to itself when it copyright striked two channels for reaction videos to their terrible PC build video and prompting the community to donate $7,000 for #SomethingPositive on Twitter.

    1. Re: I don't know... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      Mod up. The Verge is no longer a reputable news outlet as far as I concerned and we need to bring this up.

    2. Re: I don't know... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Was it ever one? The Verge, Wired and that other one - the scissors-paper-stone of semiscientific shite that is the source of 90% of PHB's "initiatives".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. We've Lost The Stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We could have been training deep sea explorers. We could have been training cosmonauts. We could have been building subterranean villages in the arctic.

    We have instead chosen the future of constant consumerism, lootboxes, maximum debt, the destruction of the id and also ego via social media, the desecration of historical identity.

    The Georgia Guidestones did nothing wrong.

    1. Re: We've Lost The Stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just an organized multi pronged effort to reach that 500M #. Meanwhile genetic experiments go on and the current population will get replaced with Human 3.0

    2. Re: We've Lost The Stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So do we roll with accelerationism?

    3. Re:We've Lost The Stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We never had the stars so we lost nothing. They are just too far. And the rest of Solar system is thoroughly disappointing.
      Why would we need more cosmonauts? They come up, they make few hundred orbits, they come back. They do it for decades and no one cares.
      Why would we need deep sea explorers? Below few hundred feet/meters there is nothing. I suppose we could hunt down some deep sea monsters to extinction but the way it goes they will not last long anyway.
      Subterranean villages in the arctic - why? Just why?

  8. Help me understand Fortnite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My suspicion is that everyone is wrong that Fortnite is a popular game. Fortnite is actually the next social media platform that younger kids have jumped onto. It's a platform that importantly does not include their parents. True?

    1. Re:Help me understand Fortnite. by owlaf · · Score: 2

      It isn't just fortnite that is a social media platform and game. I had played GTA way back but stopped after a while. I watch some vids of the latest version, and you see how you can play with a group of friends with audio chat between the whole time. There are many others

  9. If you want my attention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Put more quality in your product.
    2. Don't chase me off if I value my security and privacy more than your ad revenue. Find better revenue streams.
    3. Be relevant.
    4. Don't be evil.
    5. Understand your fan base.

    1. Re: If you want my attention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. If I'm your subscriber, I'm not your free QA dev/beta tester
      2. If I'm your subsciber, I'm not going to have patience for an ad platform.
      3. Breaking up a product into DLC'S may chase me away forever.
      4. I don't have time to be pinched for pennies.
      5. I don't have time for fecal level support.

  10. Since always! by evanh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "When was the last time you consumed something that wasn't trying to sell you something, or harvest your personal data to sell you things better?"

    I guess that means there is still a group beyond that refused to be suckered. Funnily, I didn't explicitly try to avoid ads. They just happen to not appear with scripting disabled.

    1. Re:Since always! by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I guess you never watched or listened to an episode of the Ben Shapiro show. He will stop mid-sentence to deliver an ad.

  11. I'm sorry by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    I wasn't paying attention. What were we talking about again?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:I'm sorry by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That time you went to Shelbyville.

      Again.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:I'm sorry by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I don't have the energy today... but I vaguely remember wearing an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  12. Probably has not happened yet. by will_die · · Score: 4, Funny

    No way we have reached the end of the attention economy. We still have not had all the people complaining about big attention and where are all the journalists saying that peak attention is here.

    1. Re:Probably has not happened yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Loads of youtubers were doing just fine on ads... until Youtube crippled it AND then decided that anything other than a hyper-progressive nutjob view was not allowed. There were niches all over the place. Now it's all being squashed in an attempt to return to the kind of control the establishment used to enjoy when its messengers in the mainstream media fed swill to the proles.

    2. Re: Probably has not happened yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Youtube changed the ads because their clients were pissed at the various neo-nazi creepers they were appearing on? Companies tend to do that because they worry about their image. Is the same reason you'll never see an Apple ad on the shemale porn you love watching.

    3. Re: Probably has not happened yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Checkbox on Apple's account "Allow you adverts on controversial content Y/N"

      Sorted. Not removing ALL ads.

      You fucking idiot.

      Also, they didn't just stop the ads, they banned anyone at the behest of left-wing ideologues. Morons like you conflate that with "neo-nazi" because you're a simpleton.

  13. metasensationalism is the new black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when you conflate your personal point of view with the state of the world but then communication technology improves, the whole world is affected by your personal problems.

    Also this is called solipsism.

    1. Re:metasensationalism is the new black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you've had black, you can't go back.
       
      =BeauHD=
      s e n i o r x x x e d i t o r

  14. Why do so many people get economics backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Economic systems are based on scarcity. The fact that our attention is limited is the reason that there can be an attention economy. It doesn't mean the opposite, that the attention economy has come to an end.

    1. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by sgage · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly. In fact, you could say the 'attention economy' is now beginning. There is no longer enough 'attention' for dozens of companies to experience exponential growth every year - now they are really going to have to compete. Like in the real economy.

    2. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's bloody obvious, and always has been, that there are 24 hours in a day, 8 of which you typically spend asleep.

      It's a ten dollar name for a ten cent idea, and now the "influencers": and other bullshit artists are latching onto it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by Tyger-ZA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's bloody obvious, and always has been, that there are 24 hours in a day, 8 of which you typically spend asleep.

      It's a ten dollar name for a ten cent idea, and now the "influencers": and other bullshit artists are latching onto it.

      24 hours in a day, about 8 spent asleep, 8 at work, maybe an hour in traffic, maybe another 2 hours on the preparation and consumption of food, maybe another hour for washing yourself (being generous here, I know some of you won't even shower daily)

      That's already 20 hours gone out of a day, leaving just 4 hours for whatever random errands and entertainment (not even taking into account time spent fucking your partner or parenting)

      The publishers think they can make those who don't work grind their way through the game while those of us with jobs will pay to skip the grind. They didn't consider that we paying customers will stop paying, leaving them with millions spent to make a game, and millions more spent on servers that need to remain running for people who will grind instead of pay. How many times can they take that sort of financial hit before the shareholders leave?

      I'm looking forward to a gaming market crash, hopefully some valuable franchises will get liberated from their greedy owners during liquidation proceedings and get picked up by whoever is left to actually make good games again

    4. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economic systems are based on scarcity. The fact that our attention is limited is the reason that there can be an attention economy. It doesn't mean the opposite, that the attention economy has come to an end.

      Yes, we understand. Growth is coming to an end.

      And yet I struggle to see a ceiling for the attention economy based on the amount of people here pissing away copious amounts of time going back and forth discussing article translations on attention economy as if it were a bible story.

    5. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's certainly changing though. Part of that is due to the shear volume of stuff competing for attention. Remember when there were four TV channels? Now multi-million dollar productions are competing with cat videos on YouTube.

      Streaming has also made media transient and disposable. Back in the 90s I modded my brother's Playstation to play imports and backups... Games, even bad ones, used to get huge time investments due to scarcity and high cost, but within a few months he was often spending more time burning the disc at 2x than playing the game. If it wasn't instantly great then move on to the next one.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You must be preparing very elaborate meals for it to take 2 hours a day. You could surely optimize that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by Tyger-ZA · · Score: 1

      You must be preparing very elaborate meals for it to take 2 hours a day. You could surely optimize that.

      2 hours on the preparation and consumption of food

      I don't know what slave driver you work for, but I go away during lunchtime for an hour. The other hour is for the other meals in a day.

    8. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      My employer provides decent lunch meals for people who want them. Zero prep time, they take care of all that.

      Before this place I used to go out too, but even then most of that was not spent solely preparing or eating food. In fact much of it was spent reading news or posting on Slashdot.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attention economy means that attention is scarce and there is competition for it. What you're describing is literally the basis for an attention economy, not the end of it. When there were only 4 channels and few games, there was no shortage of attention. Supply and demand: If something isn't scarce, it's not worth anything. Now that there is contention for attention, it's valuable.

    10. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      shear volume

      It transforms a cuboid into a parallelepiped?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re: Why do so many people get economics backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, its the amount of space between the cutters.

    12. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      It's bloody obvious, and always has been, that there are 24 hours in a day, 8 of which you typically spend asleep.

      This is not right though. Smartphones changed the game by increasing where we could consume digital media, thus allowing us to spend more time on it. Of course this came at the cost of paying attention to the kids' soccer game, or having a conversation with the person whose car we're riding in, or whatever we used to do with that time. But it was an increase in the amount of those 24 hours that was monetized.

    13. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Until that number reaches 25, my point still stands.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Until that number reaches 25, my point still stands.

      And that's why the mods were wrong to give "insightful" to the guy following you who went to great pains to quantify the day. As long as there's only 24 hours in a day, it doesn't matter what you are using them for if there is competition for all 24 of them. Trying to say there are only 4 hours available is not insightful, it's myopic. It also ignores multitasking, like making dinner while watching TV, or watching videos at work.

    15. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Streaming has also made media transient and disposable.

      Remember when there were three TV channels? Media has for the vast majority of time been transient and disposable. People spent a dime going to see the latest installment of the action serial at the movie house, and had only fond memories of last week's episode. VCRs tried to change the transient nature of "media" and did quite a bit to help. DVRs have replaced that, but leave you with intangible things called "files" instead of a tape or DVD. Streaming is just a new wrinkle, not a new paradigm.

    16. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... or while driving.

    17. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by Tyger-ZA · · Score: 1

      Until that number reaches 25, my point still stands.

      And that's why the mods were wrong to give "insightful" to the guy following you who went to great pains to quantify the day. As long as there's only 24 hours in a day, it doesn't matter what you are using them for if there is competition for all 24 of them. Trying to say there are only 4 hours available is not insightful, it's myopic. It also ignores multitasking, like making dinner while watching TV, or watching videos at work.

      His point and mine still stand.

      All of the replies to counter the argument miss the point because they're debating *exactly* how much one might spend on any of the tasks, and/or how much time is spent on multitasking.

      The point being that there are only 24 hours in a day, most of which are engaged in "non monetized" tasks, and you don't get to increase the number of hours in a day

      If I bothered to quantify how long everything takes down the the minute, someone will still be on here moaning that it's not accurate enough, or doesn't match what they do

      To clarify: the two largest time sinks in a day are working and sleeping (2/3 of a day). You're not doing any multitasking while asleep, and work differs for each person. Not everyone is sat in an office watching Youtube when the boss isn't looking.

      If you've got a counter example with greater detail than my "rounded to the nearest hour and no multitasking" example then please provide it.

    18. Re:Why do so many people get economics backwards? by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      The real problem for media companies is the cat videos are winning.

  15. Maybe, or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we just don't want to read garbage like The Verge anymore.

  16. How are they measuring this? by Tolvor · · Score: 2

    Netflix stated that 'we compete with (and lose to) Fortnite more than HBO'. How are they measuring this? How do they know I'm playing Fortnite and not doing something unrelated like web development, programming, finishing the book "Atomic Habits", finishing reading some novel like "The King's Blood", or commenting on a tech forum? I would agree that all metrics point to a lot of people playing Fortnite, and maybe other metrics like less people watching Netflix, but how do they correlate the two?

    1. Re:How are they measuring this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps by running a survey?

    2. Re: How are they measuring this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alphonso, Silverpush or an equivalent technology.

    3. Re:How are they measuring this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netflix stated that 'we compete with (and lose to) Fortnite more than HBO'. How are they measuring this? How do they know I'm playing Fortnite and not doing something unrelated like web development, programming, finishing the book "Atomic Habits", finishing reading some novel like "The King's Blood", or commenting on a tech forum? I would agree that all metrics point to a lot of people playing Fortnite, and maybe other metrics like less people watching Netflix, but how do they correlate the two?

      I like how you assume Netflix would find zero value in buying their competition's usage statistics and discovering a rather obvious correlation between Netflix binging and Fortnite gaming, particularly during peak viewing hours before and after Fortnite went viral.

      When part of your revenue stream is selling usage data, you get pretty damn good at understanding it's value, especially when trying to understand revenue impacting activity.

    4. Re:How are they measuring this? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      I'll have to admit, that wasn't the clip I was expecting.

  17. Advertise on Fortnite by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

    Marshmello seems to be smarter than all those "ad men".

    --
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  18. I think this is true by erp_consultant · · Score: 2

    For years everyone has known that using a cellphone when driving is dangerous. The evidence is overwhelming. Yet the federal government has done nothing about it, largely due to the telecom lobbyists. But local governments are taking notice and passing laws. Several of them where I live have done just that due to pressures from their constituents.

    To me, this is a sign of backlash against mobile devices. People walking around like fucking zombies glued to their phones. It is similar in some ways to the backlash against smoking. It had nothing to do with the fact that smoking is bad for the smoker. It had everything to do with the fact that it stinks and it potentially bad for the non smoker.

    Sooner or later the phone zombie will be shunned and instead of being seen as hip will be seen as a loser. Everything goes in cycles and this is yet another one, only to be replaced by the next fad.

    1. Re:I think this is true by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      For years everyone has known that using a cellphone when driving is dangerous. The evidence is overwhelming. Yet the federal government has done nothing about it

      Have you read the Constitution? There is nothing in it that gives the federal government jurisdiction over driving.

      But local governments are taking notice and passing laws.

      As they should. That is what local governments are for.

    2. Re:I think this is true by DogDude · · Score: 2

      I don't know if you know, but there have been thousands, probably millions of laws written about things that aren't in the US Constitution. That's because the US Constitution was written more than 300 years ago. They didn't have cars then. Or electricity.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:I think this is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Yet the federal government has done nothing about it, largely due to the telecom lobbyists."

      Having a republican federal govt is the same as not having a federal govt at all. Their whole motto is "govt cant do anything right"... so its not surprising that under their guidance the govt does nothing.

    4. Re:I think this is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sooner or later the phone zombie will be shunned and instead of being seen as hip will be seen as a loser. Everything goes in cycles and this is yet another one, only to be replaced by the next fad.

      Portable electronic distraction devices have about as much chance as becoming a "passing fad" as porn does. Sure the interface may change in the next few years (VR headsets), but the device and it's purpose will remain.

      Trust me. You're not changing human behavior that quickly. If ever.

    5. Re:I think this is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I missed the tricentennial celebration!

      Dang, I bet it wouldn't have been amazing!

    6. Re: I think this is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For years everyone has known that driving is dangerous. The evidence is overwhelming. Yet the federal government has done nothing about it.

    7. Re:I think this is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phones haven't been "hip" for a long time. Everyone and their mother and grandmother and great-grandmother has one.

      They're wonderful for playing music, communicating with others, and not being bored whenever I am forced to wait in line for something or otherwise have an idle moment, such as at work. I no longer have to talk to strangers I don't want to when waiting for stuff and I completely love it.

      Modern life itself with allo turns people into zombies

      So no, there isn't going to be a backlash. They are fully integrated into modern life now, like your washing machine and dryer. It's not a fad. It isn't the latest and greatest anymore but phones aren't going anywhere.

      Yes, people who don't pay attention in cars or walking should be shunned. For that particular stupidity, not because you think the reason no one is talking to your old ass is because everyone's on their phone.

    8. Re:I think this is true by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      There is nothing in it that gives the federal government jurisdiction over driving.

      Except on federally funded "postal highways", which is explicit. Or the fact that trucking is vital for "interstate commerce". Oh, and since people drive from state to state with driver's licenses, there's the "full faith and credit" clause too. And of course, there's the "necessary and proper" clause.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re:I think this is true by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Most laws exist at the state and not the federal level. Federal laws are struck down as unconstitutional all the time simply because they should be left to the states to decide. In fact even more federal laws should be struck down for being unconstitutional. Just because there are unconstitutional laws doesn't argue for their continued existence nor does it argue for more of them.

  19. The Verge is trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nobody there knows what they're talking about, they're bloggers LARPing as journalists. 11 people signed off on this project from a supposed tech journalist. Why anyone would lend any weight to what they have to say is mind-boggling.

  20. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is a shitty game like fortnite compete with Netflix? I know lots of people who watch Netflix but no one who plays fortnite.

    1. Re:WTF by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Well, it's apparent that your world view is not correct for the rest of the world. It may be absolutely accurate in your circle of acquaintances, but apparently people, in general, like Fortnite more than Netflix. I don't use either, but that doesn't lead me to believe that nobody else does.. They're both pretty successful companies.

  21. Consume? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the fuck does someone consume data or media?

    I don't ever pay attention to commercials but if one is obnoxious enough to catch my eye it goes on the blacklist so ads are not a problem. Granted, most Americans are stupid enough to want to be advertised to(Super Bowl ads? LOL) but even those low IQ mongs will eventually figure it out.

    People not paying attention to ads or spending less time gaming or whatever is not a problem so no solution is necessary.

    numbnuts

    1. Re: Consume? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know right??????

  22. No it is alive and well! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No attention economy is alive and well!

    As a renowned Slashdot collaborator living in San Jose, I still get a lot of attention on Slashdot although I left Slashdot after 30+ years...
    --
    Rocketman - Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan - William Shatner Trailer

    1. Re:No it is alive and well! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please update your link to the newest video, "Is Wreck Ralph The Next Casey Neistat for Young Wannabe YouTubers?"

      - Team Creimer

  23. Stop reading the Verge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Consider the source. This is the same group of companies that went after actual technical Youtubers for debunking their PC "upgrading video".

    Stop giving them any attention.

  24. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyday I consume food. The food doesn't want my data. The food doesn't sell me data

  25. Pat Attention to Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't force them to mandate you watch their propaganda. Get with the program.

  26. What was old is new again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and just when I thought that so many TV commercials were featuring radio hits of the 80s...we now have Facebook becoming this generations AOL and Fortnite as the new Second Life. -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life ..and you hipsters think you're so original....all that was will be once more...

  27. It's getting married by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    After all those engagements, it was to be expected that the attention economy is finally settling down with a wife and kids.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:It's getting married by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all those engagements, it was to be expected that the attention economy is finally settling down with a wife and kids.

      The skyrocketing single parent rate, says otherwise.

      You're now considered "weird" if you actually get married and have kids. In that order.

  28. Re:German growth is infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germany's fertility rate is 1.5. They are dying.

    Let them die.

    Japan and Italy are even lower. So even if they had won WW2, it wouldn't have mattered in the long run.

  29. EGO - Embedded Growth Obligation by ka9dgx · · Score: 1

    Publicly traded companies have an Embedded Growth Obligation (EGO) due to the expectations of shareholders and the market. Nothing can grow forever, but the market seems to think that sustaining certain customer level for decades is equivalent to death. This will change eventually, due to the laws of physics, but it is likely to be a rough ride.

  30. Fuck the verge by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    They are not a reputable tech news outlet. Especially after this

  31. Netflix is not indicative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Netflix CEO has all but officially declared a war on introverts. That's not a good stand if you want to compete for attention of people who get their kicks from digital media.

  32. cheats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're trying to hide the fact that time is getting shorter as the universe's expansion accelerates.

  33. Re: German growth is infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shitty stupid sand n1ggers will die too, whats your point.

  34. Re: German growth is infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, Fuhrer Merkel will import millions of "refugees" to replace the German people whom her policies are killing off.

  35. The dupe economy by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    The dupe ecopnomy is thriving!

    https://games.slashdot.org/sto...

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  36. To any effect? No. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Yet the federal government has done nothing about it, largely due to the telecom lobbyists. But local governments are taking notice and passing laws.

    Wow, they passed some laws! Awesome! Then in areas where they have passed laws, citizens have entirely stopped using phones in cars, just as they have stopped speeding thanks to local speed limits.

    Oh wait. In fact the laws have exactly ZERO effect on behavior apart from the state mining slightly more money from citizens. Just as people still speed, people still use phones in cases because people are people.

    If you actually cared about dangers of cell phones use in cars, you would push for something that actually resulted in less danger from that activity - basically meaning a big push for autonomous or semi-autonomous driving abilities for all cars. But how much money would that earn the Sate? None, that's how much - in fact it would be a tremendous loss from speeding and cell phone use fines never to be collected.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: To any effect? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your claim that laws have zero effect is wrong. People here have stopped using cellphones while driving since it became illegal. Sure, some people still do, but they are now seen as selfish and antisocial and nobody will try to get sympathy if they are stopped and fined for doing it.

      Maybe your view of the world makes you believe it won't make any difference. My experience tells me it does! So there ;-)

  37. Pay attention to my mortgage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is still plenty of room for the attention industry. If I can pay off my mortgage by paying attention to the industry they can have all my attention they want.

  38. Re: German growth is infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The point being: The population of your typically well off countries is in decline, and the majority of the world's population are in India and China.

    Maybe you lot should stop fucking your sister cousins if you want to have any hope of producing large numbers of healthy offspring.

    Or go learn Mandarin/Hindi

  39. I have never played fortnite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And its doubtful i ever will.
    Its a shooter, & i'm bored to death with shooters.

    I have other reasons for not having a netflix account. I used to have one, and then for about 3 months in a row i failed to find anything at all on there that i wanted to watch... so i cancelled. Isnt that what you're supposed to do when youre no longer enjoying the service?

    I havent really missed it much either.

  40. Leveling off != dying by CptLoRes · · Score: 1

    Why is everybody so surprised in the financial sector every time the growth of starts to level off?

    1. Re:Leveling off != dying by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      In capitalism, a thing is either growing or it's dying. Like cancer.

      But I'm glad that TPTB are realizing that human attention is a finite resource, this should kill off the capitalists' hopes that we can all become YouTube stars or Instagram influencers to keep this clusterfuck rolling along in the face of mass unemployment from automation - as if there's no problem with the hellishness of everyone having to work such a degrading job. Actual camwhores seem to have a more dignified profession.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Leveling off != dying by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Nobody is, it is just that the high growth opportunities offer better returns and are thus more interesting to the financial pundits the general public normally hears about. There are trillions invested in slow to normal growth securities, but they don't get blog posts. It is much the same problem that affects science reporting (or any other niche) targeted at general audiences.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  41. Re: German growth is infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you and fuck your shitty smelly hindu-chimps breeding like fucking cockroaches. Exterminate them, problem solved.

  42. The flip side of "intellectual property isn't". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A while ago, capitalism "discovered" intellectual "property". As of short, it "thought" it to be the solution to sustained exponential growth -- the lifeblood of The Behemoth, which threatened to dry out as colonial expansion had bumped against the finiteness of the Earth and the (as for now) unreachability of the (near) Solar system.

    But... the bottleneck is in the consumer! Attempts at widening that bottleneck (clickbait, nudging, telemetry and other creepy techniques) only brought a constant factor. Exponential growth on the asset side now means... exponential depreciation! A Youtube video isn't worth much anymore: why should a Netflix blockbuster? Why some Hollywood "content"?

    A while ago I worked for a "media company" (they like to depict themselves as "quality journalism", go figure). The way they talked about "content" sounded quite like "contempt". Now: would you expect to sell that stuff?

  43. Re:To any effect? No. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Any law which cannot be enforced, no matter how good the intentions, is a bad law. At best it teaches people to have no respect for the law in general. At worst it provides corrupt police with a convenient excuse to arrest people they dislike for any reason.

  44. Re: German growth is infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How? Most of your core components are built by the Chinese and the software by the Indians. Trumps big button probably has like a 30-70 ratio of non- to Asian. And both those countries have nukes too.

    Good luck. You lost the war before you even had time to make it up in your insecure imagination.

  45. Does what goes up, still go down? by epine · · Score: 1

    Let me fix that for you:

            Is the attention economy land-grab petering out?

    Betteridge's law of headlines carves out an important exception for headlines of the form:

            Does what goes up, still go down?

  46. what is this all about? by sad_ · · Score: 1

    even when i didn't have a job yet and could spend almost every waking hour on whatever i wanted, i still didn't have enough time to do all the things i wanted to do.
    this hasn't improved with getting a job, wife & kids, house, ...
    you'll always have to make choices what to do with your free time, i don't understand how there are people who are bored.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  47. This is spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://xkcd.com/1227/

  48. Environmentalists already know that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anti environmentalists don't know that environmentalists do, however,and they willingly lap up propaganda from the propollution industries with shibboleths and flat out lies pretending that environmentalists don't.

    Hows it feel to be the led when you think you're a leader?

  49. Nope. General welfare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not getting mown down by a half-ton vehicle driven by a dribbling moron sexting his dickpicks to random women is part of ensuring the general welfare.

    Fucking moron.

    And when will you demand the disband of the military, since that right is not part of the constitution either? AND give up your vote. Not part of the constitution. As proven for your kind not having the vote for generations, only barely beating out the women for the vote.

  50. Re:To any effect? No. by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

    I disagree. Fewer people using phones in cars leads to fewer traffic accidents and fatalities. My point has nothing to do with the State collecting more money. It is about public safety. And I say this knowing that auto manufacturers are as much at fault as anyone else. They cram every electronic gadget under the sun into the new cars and those certainly cause driver distraction as well.

    You want self driving cars? Sure I'm all for that. But the technology is not there yet. My fear is that autonomous cars will only really work if ALL cars are autonomous, not just some of them. Trying to predict erratic human behavior behind the wheel has proven to be extremely difficult. Erratic behavior like using cellphones and in car gadgets :-)

  51. It isn't "dying" by 1ucius · · Score: 1

    It's just switched from being a growth market to a mature market. And, as such, the game becomes how to take market share* away from your competitors.

    *arguably, this was always the case. It was just new media taking market share from newspapers, televised sports, movies, etc. Now, new media is also competing against new media.

  52. More Free Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big corps want more time to market to us? Then they need to lobby for a four day workweek, with wages staying the same or going up.

  53. Substanial portion of a small percentage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would argue that a substantial portion of people do not play fortnite.

  54. Makes me wonder by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    How much of their own attention do business leaders at the top of the food chain allow to take part in the Attention Economy? Beyond a certain point, doesn't spending loads of time binge-watching, playing games, etc, make one less likely to be creative, to innovate, and to successfully strategize in business and in personal endeavours? OTOH, it seems to me that overloading the mental processing power of the plebs with trivialities makes them more pliable and, (perhaps paradoxically), less likely to inquire deeply into the activities of the point-one-percenters. The attention economy is all about fleecing average people while undermining their ability to rise above the average and make full use of their capabilities.

    I don't even have to posit a conspiracy to make this argument work - it's possible that things either evolved this way or we ended up here largely by chance. However, there is ample evidence of such a conspiracy in our education system dating back more than a century. For more on the characteristics and consequences of the education system that was created by the Robber Barons for their own purposes, see John Taylor Gatto's book. (PDF).

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Makes me wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely the robber barons bribed the government to require poor people to pay lawyers a million dollars to legally access capital. This prevents them from competing with the rich, and the rich get their money back when they sell to the poor.

  55. Re: German growth is infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, Fuhrer Merkel will import millions of "refugees" to replace the German people whom her policies are killing off.

    Sad but true. Through diversity Europe has lost its diversity.

  56. thanks admin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  57. This post and article are straight garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that they mention an individual product (fortnite, which is 95% people without jobs) as a culprit is ridiculous. Blaming economic "trends" is the new boogeyman for mismanaged companies (netflix content is turning into garbage lately - Electronic Arts have mismanaged valuable gaming IPs like star wars and etc for years as well) that have produced garbage for years straight and then want to reconcile the bubble they put themselves in when their revenue starts dipping.

    NO. NO. NO. It's not a market cap, it's your shitty management practices and bad product planning that lost revenue.

  58. Attention span? by The+Relentless · · Score: 1

    I feel like I have the attention span of a goldfish crackers are delicious.

  59. Re:To any effect? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any law which cannot be enforced, no matter how good the intentions, is a bad law. At best it teaches people to have no respect for the law in general. At worst it provides corrupt police with a convenient excuse to arrest people they dislike for any reason.

    Texting while driving laws can be enforced. I see it happen daily. I doubt a police officer would have to wait more than 5 minutes to find one. The problem is, they are not enforcing it in my city.

  60. Why do so many people get english backwards? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    , maybe another hour for washing yourself (being generous here, I know some of you won't even shower daily)

    That's not generous, it's stingy. So is the food prep. You're using mandatory tasks to remove free time, so "generous", implying giving the other side the benefit of the doubt, is to minimize the time. So if you assume 10 minutes reheating a pizza (eaten while you play) and 10 minutes showering, that's generous.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  61. Re:To any effect? No. by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    This isn't a case of a law that CAN'T be enforced. It's a case of competition for which law to enforce. Plus, all things equal, they will enforce the easiest law. The easiest to enforce is speeding even though like 2-4% of accidents are found to be primarily caused by excess speed over the limit.

  62. your feefees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awwww Orange Fan Sad?

  63. Not Growing != Dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These "entertainment" companies are no longer growing as fast as they were. They're still making money but not more money than last time. That ticks off their investors.

    "Advertising" companies are running out new product (i.e your attention) to sell.

  64. Re: German growth is infinite by sagenumen · · Score: 1

    Oh wow. You're so edgy! Posting racist comments anonymously!