This assumes the static model of 'engagement'. The 'engagement' via web in the
past decade or so has substantially modified the way people think and ...
engage.
The situation today is not the one where 1980's person is put in front of
2010's web. In that case there would definitely be a gross indignation and
rejection.
The situation today is where groomed mid-attention span (not the
short-attention one like with TV), through amplification of short-attention
events ("trending" - WTF would one care what gazillion morons click on?), does
affect the rules of "rational engagement".
While TV was skin-deep, the Web goes to the bone. It is not about short
attention span any more. It is about hijacking the rules of engagement, and it
can do it because it is interactive.
They don't need banner ads any more.
> The WEB directly undermines *ALL* of these requirements.
>
> It cannot force the "viewer" to watch the ad, since the screen also has
> other "more important" material. It generally requires some level of
> "rational" engagement. It is inherently *active* and involves TWO-WAY
> communications, which often involve "talking back" to the seller.
>
> So, to varying degrees with different people, the WEB (i.e. "digital
> media") *breaks* the SPELL that is needed for mass-media
> (i.e. mostly television) to work its consumption-driving MAGIC.
>
> This destabilizing *effect* of "interactivity" on the impact of
> advertising is now pretty well understood by advertisers!
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
