Have you heard the phrase “attention economy”? I spend more time than is perhaps wise reading about the internet (on the internet, naturally), but this phrase is increasingly common; no longer the reserve for self-styled “social-media experts”.

The thinking is: (via wikipedia)

“Since the cost to transmit advertising to consumers is now sufficiently low that more ads can be transmitted to a consumer than the consumer can process, the consumer’s attention becomes the scarce resource to be allocated.”

This blog post isn’t about adverts, though, but more general messages. For example, a famous person saying something which is then reported on and commented on.

The old adage of  “all publicity is good publicity” shows that (some) celebrities and promoters are more concerned with exposure and recognition than they are with their reputation. Naturally, this is not something that only arrived with the advent of the internet.

“I won’t give them the oxygen of publicity” is a slightly hackneyed phrase, albeit with a kernel of wisdom. As our culture moves from a one size must fit all to a gloriously varied, yet siloed approach, should we be modifying our response methods to media stimuli?

I believe the era of mass culture is coming to an end, as Seth Godin argues so convincingly in We Are All Weird. This isn’t a bad thing. It’s pretty obvious it’s happening, too, if you take the time to think about it.

Seth Godin

I’m only thirty, but the fragmentation of culture since I was a ten year old is startling. We don’t all watch the same programs, at the same time. We don’t all go and see the same films, at the same time. Each of us has a music collection that’s spiralling further and further into a profusion of niches comparable to only the die-hard music enthusiasts of years gone by.

All of this can be ignored as merely a cultural phenomenon to think about if you have something to sell or promote, but as we’re no longer in a few to many communication network- rather a many to many network- we’re all a greater part of this than our established systems are trained for. Do we need to rethink our approach?

There’s a strong argument that the best way expose a fool is to give him space to talk. To air a weak argument gives others the opportunity to expose its flaws and cut away public support for it. A classic example of a reputable body taking this approach to a  controversial subject is the appearance of a British National Party leader and an alleged holocaust denier at an Oxford Union debate.  It’s hard to quantify the effect of such exposure.

What actually prompted me to begin writing this was watching my twitter stream’s response to Baroness Warsi’s article about “militant secularisation”. The actual details of what she said (and even my thoughts on it) are not the focus of this article. What I’m interested in here is the question “what is an appropriate response?”

The Baroness (Harkonnen)

If we accept that there’s a continuous stream of new information out there, of varying degrees of relevance to us, we have to have some sort of filter in place regarding how we react to it. To use Warsi’s article as example fodder, does my quite exhausting level of disagreement with her mean that I should:

1)Write a withering dissection of her poor reasoning, false assumptions and so on?
2)Retweet/blog/link via facebook/etc the most appropriate examples my online community provides?
3)Simply ignore what seems so clearly to be an absurd view from a source known for questionable views?

In contrast, what does it mean if I fail to mention/retweet/post/blog about it? Will those who follow my opinion believe I don’t hold a strong view? This can lead to absurd situations; one cannot comment on everything.

So how are we to choose? The corporate media have their agenda, and I don’t feel I should be led by them. Is there a certain level of interest from my peers that means I should weigh in, or is the reverse true? Perhaps they’re all making such a strong case that I don’t need to?

As an important aside, the web is (of course) still evolving, and one aspect of this that’s easily overlooked, but has huge ramifications, is the filter bubble, best explained in Eli Pariser’s 9 minute TED Talk which I encourage you to find time to see, if you haven’t already:

People take the trouble to point out in their Twitter bio’s that their Retweets do not indicate endorsement. (n.b.  A “retweet” repeats another twitter user’s comment to the re-tweeting party’s own followers.) I have a political journalist friend who retweets the most dreadful shit. But he does this to highlight what dreadful shit some politician is tweeting.  (Despite the great impression I’m giving of him here, he’s actually great and writes wonderfully.)

I’ve known him 15 years, but even just from his twitter feed over the last few years, it’s clear when he’s pointing out something rather than endorsing it.  This contextual insight can only be relied upon when you have built a relationship with your listeners/followers/readers/etc.  I can never know in this broadcast environment if this is the first you’ve heard of me.  Nevertheless, I have to trust that you’ll interpret accordingly.  This is why comedians telling jokes to a sympathetic crowd will get into trouble when  quoted out of context.

Frankie Boyle realising he's done it again

I suppose I’m finally groping towards my point here, which is that if you’ve built up a reputation for (say) being a champion of secularism, it’s not necessary to respond and thus draw attention to a religious advocate every time they try to suggest the role of religion in society is positive.   You can therefore deny them the oxygen of publicity they crave.

Exactly as I have done here.

********************************************************************************

Endnote: Seth Godin’s book, mentioned above, is amazing.  Read a good interview with the author here.

I recently spent some time in Devon, and was taught a cheese sauce recipe by my mother. This may not immediately draw you in, dear reader, but give me a chance.

There is a mean (but instructive) site called http://letmegooglethat4u.com. Some of you may have actually been given a custom link to it, which would show an animated version of a hypothetical, more Google-reliant you, typing in whatever question it was the link sender deemed should simply have been directed at google. Whether this is just supposed to make you feel stupid, or stupid along with a new sense of possibility, I don’t know.

Credit http://www.shoeboxblog.com/?p=15314

Clearly, Google and the instant access to knowledge it represents is a marvellous development in human knowledge and knowledge sharing. This seems so inescapably apparent to hardly merit mention, but there it is.

What struck me as I stood at the gas hob, listening to my Mother explain the correct method for avoiding lumps forming from cornflour* as soon as it hits the heat, was that I no longer connect with people to ask them for this sort of information.

This isn’t about cooking, though, of course. There are a near limitless range of things I might, once, have called my father for advice about. There still are many, but their number is drastically reduced. If I simply want to know how to change a tyre, (say), I will Google it. And how wonderful it is that I can, you might rightly respond.

But how many conversations are being lost through this technological advance? And aren’t these human connections what those nearing the end of their life judge to be most important? This reads as melodramatic, but I worry that we are losing something through our “hive” connected devices.

When I visit a supermarket, I sometimes use the self service checkout for ease or speed. Each time I do, I find myself imagining the poor, lonely socially isolated people who have lost what may have been their final point of human contact. Perhaps everyone is thinking about this as they use the self service checkout; I may have solved the mystery of why they are so abysmally slow.

Credit: http://xkcd.com/610/

It can, of course, be argued, that not all human conversations are based around trying to find something out. I’m aware that I may come across as some ruthless bastard who’ll only phone you when I need something. And I’m an unashamed technophile; so perhaps I do this more than most.

The fact remains that I have noticed this influence of technology repeatedly, and yet read about it nowhere, so I thought I’d share my thoughts. As always, I’d love yours.

* My Mother can, in fact, make a proper cheese sauce, using a roux. She just knows I’ll never bother

I don’t want to make a habit of putting out covers, but this song resonated with me, and I’ve temporarily got access to a ukulele, so I thought “why not?”.   The song is from the second solo record by Eddie Vedder (he of Pearl Jam fame).  The album is great.  Do check it out if you haven’t already.

(And no, I can’t play the harp… I’m working on it!)

This past Sunday, I (or rather a song of mine) was featured on Radio Port Douglas. For those few of you not familiar, Port Douglas is an idyllic small town village in north east Queensland, Australia; some 35 miles north of Cairns.

You might reasonably wonder why, despite the wonders of modern communication, I’d be highlighted there, of all places. After all, I’ve never been on the radio before. It all becomes clear with the knowledge that their new host is Ben Glove, a friend and former Brighton resident. He’s also a terrifically talented songwriter and singer. Please open soundcloud in a new tab and listen to some of his tunes while you read the rest of this:

http://soundcloud.com/benglove

As I already mentioned, I’ve not been on the radio before. So this is surely a cause for celebration, no?

No, apparently.

Emphatically not.

Learning (allowing for time differences) that I was on the radio, I found myself literally hopping around the room in fits of both anxiety and embarrassment. This can be partly explained by the iffy (at best) vocal in the tail end of the song (transform- it’s on my bandcamp page, for now, at least). More interestingly, it was driven by my feelings of inadequacy and the unavoidable fact that Ben had highlighted our personal relationship before playing the tune. I hope it is unnecessary to highlight my warm gratitude toward him for wanting to promote my measly releases. Regardless, I hated that everyone knew that he knew me. That (in my mind at bare minimum) suggested he was only playing it because he knew me.

I’m proud to be self aware enough to say that I know my music is not yet world class. The internet means we have both the advantages and disadvantages of a level playing field. Why would people choose anything sub-standard? What Ben’s gracious act prompted was my fear, my bullshit, my awareness of my need to improve.  I didn’t just want to say “ohh look at this!”  I was wanting to hide it.  The obvious fact is that I should be working hard to produce something better, not hiding the poor quality songs I’m not proud of.

But it did more than that.  It motivated me, it gave me perspective, and  made me feel as if I’m on the path, even if I’m not all the way there yet.

So I’m hugely grateful.  It’s a crazy load of insecurities he’s fired off, but the fact is he’s helped me focus and know what I should be focusing on next.  Perhaps your work would benefit from the same kind of exposure?

What I want to communicate here is that although I felt all sorts of horrible sensations because of this, I gained huge clarity, and I’m grateful, and all the more determined to improve and progress.

The radio show is here:

http://podcasts.radioportdouglas.com/DriftersEscape3rdJuly2011.mp3

Again, Ben Glove: http://soundcloud.com/benglove

Update:  I posted a link to this on Ben’s facebook wall, and he responded there.  I thought his perspective deserved to be here too, as a counterweight:

“trust me, i play stuff worse than you on my radio show. Friend or no friend. I play it BECAUSE i think your radio worthy. Same for Martha and all the other people I play. I genuinly love transformer as a song, not cos it’s by you and i know you. Also, its relivant to my show in terms of style. Yeah i want to promote friends, and part of me likes the idea that they’ll do the same for my music, but i’d still play if i didnt know you, and if i wasnt a musician myself…. SO SHUTUP!

Thinking about why i said you were my friend.. it wasnt because i felt i needed to justify it or make it radio worthy, it was for 2 differant reasons. 1, Insecurity: I’m new to radio anounsing, and i scrounge for things to say, so to sound like a pro and like a lot of people i yak bollocks when i’m nervous. and 2, Sellfish vanity: I wanna sound cool cos i know such good musos. As if it give ME credibility, not you. SO SHUV THAT IN YOUR SELF REFLECTING ESSAY

You’ve annoyed me and made me miss you at the same time. nice work.

OH and thank you ”

I’ve finally got a video camera, so there’ll be more of these, for sure.  I’m really happy with the colour scheme I stumbled upon here.  More luck than judgement, I assure you.

Lyrics: I’d argue with you, with the phase of the moon
Question every thing you attest to
We’d lay our thoughts bare, but just one look repairs
Hay algo mas bonito que esto

I’ve lived lives through you, I’ve been utterly screwed
I can’t believe what I sleep next to
The morning, it’s true, has got nothing on you
Hay algo mas bonito que esto

I’ll draw a circle in your palm and then you’ll know
Just say the word, the place, and there I’ll go