The Future is NOW

In Tom Lowery’s article titled “Why Mobile Is the Future of Advertising and Marking,” he states that print attracts only 7% of media attention, yet it receives 25 times more ad money than mobile does. When you consider what we have already learned about information conveyed through print – that is more emotionally impactful, more memorable, etc – how could we possibly believe that mobile is the future of advertising and marketing?

The short answer is that a mobile device allows customers to access certain resources that make their decision-making process and follow-through quick, easy, and reliable. Lowery explains that customers want a tailored and easy-to-use experience, and mobile devices cater to this desire.

An awareness of audience values is extremely important in determining an advertisement’s success. Ad success is defined by how many people who see the advertisement wish to purchase the product and/or feel that it is relevant to them. However, Lowery emphasizes that a viewer’s perception of a product or service is not solely influenced by the advertiser’s presentation; it is also influenced by other audience members’ opinions. According to this article (http://marketingland.com/survey-customers-more-frustrated-by-how-long-it-takes-to-resolve-a-customer-service-issue-than-the-resolution-38756), 90% of customers say that their buying decisions are based on customer reviews. Consider mobile sites such as Yelp or TripAdvisor – checking these sites has simply become the norm before deciding where to eat, what to do, and what is worth paying for. Mobile advertising considers the holistic process of advertising, and recognizes that a buyer’s decision is influenced by more than the words in a newspaper. While reading words on print does prove to be a more emotionally impactful experience than reading online, the power of another person’s experience and perspective outweighs that of a print ad.

Secondly, the future of advertising and marketing is mobile because it is extraordinarily convenient. This article (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/#2ce49b102c9d) highlights the three “P’s” relevant to marketing as it relates to mobile devices: mobile allows the advertising scene to be personal, pervasive, and in close proximity. It is personal because each person owns a phone – therefore, people have an emotional attachment to the very source from which they are receiving the information. Because people carry their phones with them EVERYWHERE and are constantly looking at them, advertisers are given a plethora of opportunities to bombard users with advertisements. The amount of time that people spend looking at paper news or magazines is significantly less. Third, it allows for proximity – phones can detect your location and suggest restaurants, museums, or coffee shops in the area. This is the tailored service users want and mobile devices allow for follow-through.

The electronic ad infiltration seems to increase on a daily basis, and it is only a matter of time until “the future” of mobile advertising becomes "the present"!

Goldfish: 1 Humans: 0

On a scale of one to goldfish, how short is a human's attention span?

Oh look, a flower!!!

According to TIME Magazine, goldfish surpass humans in their ability to maintain focus. A research study in Canada conducted 2000 studies of the human brain using electroencephalograms (EEGs). It found that the human's average attention span dropped from 12 to 8 seconds while the goldfish stands triumphantly at 9, and it attributes this attenuation to one primary cause: a digitalized lifestyle. 

According to THE Huffington Post, one reason for our reduced attention spans relate to habits and practices associated with electronics. In shedding light on the role of critical thinking, the article states: "the ways we use technologies lead us to develop particular habits of mind. With print, even though we might skim and scan, the default mindset is continuous reading. It's also focusing on what we're reading, even though sometimes our thoughts wander. Digital technologies engender a different set of habits and practices." In other words, when I open the e-book version of my Aural Rehabilitation textbook on my browser, I have an imaginary list of tabs lining up in my brain to be next: Gmail, Facebook, Gmail again (I really love checking email), the list goes on. This default multi-tasking mode makes e-book reading a challenge as my brain hungrily searches for more stimulation rather than absorbing the content. When it comes to reading books from a hard copy, I think that the "less is more" philosophy rings true. There is only so much you can do with a book, and the primary activity is -- you guessed it -- reading! From a subjective perspective, I find myself more focused on reading material that is presented in hard copy and now I understand why: there is no where else to turn (except to the next page, of course). 

In Daniel Kahneman's book entitled Thinking Fast and Slow, he describes two systems of mental activity: System 1 is quick to make decisions and snap judgments, whereas System 2 is slower-paced and analytical. He describes that deep reading requires effort, concentration, and focus, and utilizes System 2. System 1 is activated during digital use, including e-books. This distinction highlights the scientific backing for why hard copy books are more beneficial for the sake of learning.

However, learning is only one piece of this puzzle. When it comes to convenience and price, e-books most certainly win, leading to my first-ever e-book purchase this spring. And so, to loop it back to last week's discussion: are e-books an inferior good? Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? We'll see, but in the meantime...I'm gonna go buy a goldfish. 

When evaluating online news, consider broccoli

In an interview titled “Ramen Noodles Theory of Online News is Still Food for Thought,” Professor Chyi highlights the flawed logic of modern-day news reporters by putting the issue into terms that everyone can understand: food.

She explains online news as an “inferior good,” and defines this term as something that people consume less when income goes up. In the flipped perspective, an inferior good is something people consume more when income goes down. While she cleverly cites ramen noodles as an example, I’d like to extend her metaphor to include another crowd favorite: sugar.

Sugar is a sweet-tasting carbohydrate comprised of glucose and sucrose, but more importantly, it is addictive and offers little nutritional value (aside from the natural sugar found in fruit). THIS STUDY shows that excessive internet use can result in a similar type of addiction. Some term this addiction as Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) or Compulsive Internet Use (CIU), and research shows that it can cause mental distress and clinical impairment. In the article titled “Reality Check: The performance gap between US Newspapers print and online products,” Dr. Chyi clarifies that contrary to popular belief and word of mouth, newspapers are not dying. In fact, their readers and accessibility surpass that of digital news sources. Why is this misconception perpetuated, and what does this have to do with sugar?

                I think that news reporters erroneously believe in the popularity of digital news because when you consider the prevalence of internet addiction, how could digital news NOT be more popular? One would think that if people spend so much time on the internet, then of course they value and read online news. However, similar to sugar, just because internet use is easy and convenient does not mean it is higher quality, or more nutritious. Despite the temptation of online news, readers have found that the “broccoli” of news sources – the newspaper – is redeeming in its own right. Similar to organic food, print news is more expensive and not as easy to obtain. However, it is also more substantive and provides a more emotionally-impactful experience. Where sugar (the internet) triggers the chemical release of the dopamine and creates a temporary sensation of pleasure, broccoli (print news) contains fiber that enables users to remain fuller and more satisfied for longer.  

                While a bushy stock of broccoli may not be as outwardly tempting as a cookie or chocolate cake, the positive effects of consuming it are last far longer. How does one opt for the better nutritional choice? In simple terms, read the label, and you will find that contrary to sugar's appeal, health experts recommend broccoli because it is the healthier chocie. In the news world, Chyi urges readers to “rely on audience research as opposed to wishful thinking or guess work.” By relying on research and reading the labels of news sources, print news – or broccoli – will win every time. 

Facebook: An ego-fueling illusion

These articles highlighted what many Facebook users often forget: Facebook is not all about us. Contrary to the illusion that Facebook’s offerings – such as the opportunity to connect with old friends, the throwback photo reminders, and even suggesting “people we may know”– are in our best interest, at the end of the day, Facebook is a business that aims to make money. The article emphasizes four primary factors to consider in running a business: value creation, target market, sources of competencies, and revenue. Facebook certainly gets creative in executing these factors by monitoring our google searches and statuses with a watchful eye, picking up on the subtleties in our language and luring us with advertisements that pique our interests. Reading this article made me aware of Facebook’s underlying intentions as a business. With modern technology, it is easy to get distracted by the excitement of digital gratification to the point that we forego our privacy. By keeping in mind that Facebook is a business and does not necessarily value our best interest over theirs, we can consciously protect our privacy.

These articles also highlight Facebook as a viable branding tool for businesses. However, in thinking about how young adults use Facebook in today’s age, I realized that branding is not limited to businesses as individuals use it as a self-branding tool. Facebook provides people with the opportunity to portray the person they want others to see, and market themselves shamelessly and with careful intent. This article, along with this one and this one all aim to help individuals up their self-branding game, and in the process, raises some serious questions about identity and ego. Is self-branding a good thing? Is it necessary? Do people who market themselves on social media hold an advantage over others? Questions like these are prevalent in our society and hold meaningful implications related to self-esteem, social status, vocational endeavors, and personal happiness. 

Entertainment Apathy: Nature vs. Nurture

When it comes to pop culture, I am under no false impression that I am "hip" or "with it." My television viewings are limited to occasional episodes of Shark Tank and Friends, and while I enjoy listening to music, my die-hard fan days peaked in the 90s with NSYNC and Britney Spears. Therefore, when it comes to digital media in the year 2016, I tend to consume what is right in front of me; if there is a show on TV that I've heard is good, I'll watch it. If a song is on the radio, I'll listen to it. My entertainment preferences are very much a product of what is available at any given time.

What calls for this entertainment apathy? Is it a genetic predisposition? Or are my lack of passionate preferences a product of limited options? In "The Long Tail," Chris Anderson argues the latter. He explains that "many of our assumptions about popular taste are actually artifacts of poor supply and demand matching," and that the entertainment industry is limited by constraints of space, time, and resources. For example, the shelf space at Blockbuster is limited and therefore, so are its offerings. In his view, my favorite childhood movies were not Cinderella and Flubber because I truly felt connected to princesses or slime science, but rather, I "chose" those movies because they were placed at the center of the shelf at Blockbuster. Is this really choice? Such limitations prevent people from forming individual, unique interests as they are swept into the mainstream "hits" that everyone loves.

Until recently. With new developments such as Netflix and Pandora, popularity no longer determines profitability. Consumers can track down even the most obscure documentaries and most random artists, leading to an authentic discovery of self. While Anderson rejoices that we have "broken the tyranny of physical space," it means that places like Blockbuster also get shut down. The possibilities for human consumption are endless, which leads me to these final questions: can humans handle this kind of freedom? If given a vast array of options with no direction, will people still reach the same conclusion and fulfillment? Will movie theaters even exist in 50 years?

While I relish the opportunity to discover my own taste in music and movies through modern technology, I can't help but look back on my Britney Spears, Flubber-filled, Blockbuster days with nostalgia. The prospect of true entertainment is provocative, but will it enhance one's self-identity, or confuse it? Bind a community, or destroy it? These are the questions I continue to ask.