Who Owns the Future? – part 2

Jaron Lanier’s book, Who Owns the Future?, takes on many connected subjects. His editor should have requested he split it into a series of two or three books. One subject he brings up throughout the book is the primary income source of Siren Servers : advertising.

Advertising has been a driving economic force since its beginnings. Signs and barkers were the earliest forms from pre printing press times. Newspaper ads started in the US, according to Advertising Age, in 1704. Benjamin Franklin offered advertisement pages in his Pennsylvania Gazette. Since then, advertising has been on a continuous growth path. Through the last century, the number of ads the average pair of eyes sees in a single day has increased astronomically. The estimates vary by orders of magnitude, from a low of about 250 to figures over 20,000. The larger estimates are inflated by counting every package label, every logo, every sign, every commercial ID of any kind that may have flashed in front of your eyes. That’s not exactly all advertising. I’m talking about advertising messages—billboards, radio and TV spots, print ads, banner and popup ads—messages that are not directly on the product; messages meant to get your attention, and with luck, hold it long enough to make an impression. The number of ads seen per day may be debatable, but the increase of advertising messages is unquestionable. Some estimates indicate that ad exposure has multiplied ten fold since the 1970s. No matter how you count them, we are over saturated. In the process, we have become desensitized. The uncritical, knee jerk response by advertisers is to step up exposure. For instance, as recently as the 1990s, a half hour TV show had 24 minutes of programing. That left 6 minutes, 20% of the time, for ads. Back then ads usually ran 30 seconds to a full minute. Typically three commercial breaks, each 2 minutes long, had 2 or 3 ads; total 6-9 messages. Today, programming has been reduced to 21 minutes, or less for reruns. That leaves 9 minutes, 30%, for ads. Commercials rarely exceed 30 seconds and many are now 15-20 seconds. Breaks are about 3 minutes long with 6-8 ads. Do the math. That’s 50% more ad time, about as many ads per break as you used to get per show, and at least triple the total number of messages, 18-24 every half hour. Watching a feature length film on TV is even worse. Typically ad breaks run about 4 minutes long with 12-14 messages each, and they increase the frequency towards the end of the movie. It’s torture to watch commercial TV. You can interrupt my attention only so many times before I give up. It’s diluting ad effectiveness, and alienating viewers. No wonder on-demand, download, and pay-per-view is rapidly overtaking old school commercial TV.

TV is just one example. Ad density has increased in every medium. And not only have there been increases, but new vehicles for advertising are popping up everywhere—movie theaters (you pay and are still subjected to obnoxious ads), illuminated, multi-ad billboards (very distracting for drivers, blinding at night—likely cause accidents), store check-outs (no way to escape), and ad placement even in schools and churches.

Here are a few maddening factoids. US pharmaceutical companies could triple their research spending without effecting the bottom line one penny. How? Drop advertising. They spend twice as much on advertising as research—twice. In 1965, 85% of primetime viewers were watching one of the three major broadcasting stations. Now, 85% of the viewers are spread out over the top 125 channels. We may be seeing more ads, but if you’re an advertiser, your dollars are spreading thinner than ever. (Do the math again. If evenly distributed, 85/3 = 28% of viewers per channel, today, 85/125 = 0.68% per channel. That’s almost a 98% drop. Do TV ads cost 98% less?) The newest irritation is ambient advertising. This is advertising in, or more accurately on, unexpected places, such as, sidewalks, public bathroom stalls, airplane tray tables, floors, grocery carts. What’s next, hotel room ceilings? How about at traffic lights while waiting for the light to change? Makes you wish you had a big can a spray paint handy.

There’s a saying in the ad industry. “Half of your advertising is a waste. Problem is, there’s no telling which half.” (That’s been paraphrased. The exact quote is, well, inconsistent, and attributed to, well, various people. A typical result of a “quote” that hasn’t a reliable source.) I’d bet, in the real world, it’s closer to 90%, 95%, or more, and there’s still no telling what’s working. One thing is certain, advertising is shifting from old media to the internet. And the pace is expected to double in the three year span from 2012 through 2014. It’s already quadrupled from 2000 to 2011. In 2011, one eighth of internet ad spending went to a single antisocial media site ($4 billion). We’re talking a total of over thirty-two BILLION US dollars on internet ads that are calculated by secret computer algorithms to be aimed specifically at you. And they brag about “giving you relevant ads.” When I’m interested in something, I’ll seek it out on my own, thank you. But get this, the standard banner ad has a click-through rate of 0.04%. That’s one click in over two thousand five hundred views, and the rate has been dropping every year since their inception. On mobile devices 50% of the click-throughs are accidental. And remember, those miserable rates are for ads supposedly calculated with you as the target. The problem is, or rather the good news is, people have learned to ignore banners. Banner Blindness as a phenomenon has been documented since 1997, yup, 16 years ago. To counter these trends, the industry is applying the brute force method. If somethin’ don’t work, just do it more, and make it more obnoxious. What happened to, “Work smarter, not harder.”? Of course, like spam, it’s a numbers game. And in case you haven’t been keeping score, a game that only the biggest, richest, multinational corporations can afford to play. A multi-billion dollar game, which in turn, makes the Siren Servers loads of profit, and consequently, all that money is just circulating from one deep pocket to another deep pocket. It does frightfully little for our souring economy at large.

There’s a limit to how much a mind can absorb. That limit was surpassed decades ago. The human nervous system has an efficient and effective means for dealing with overload. It blocks it. Desensitization is a normal defense mechanism for filtering out excessive, continuous, or irrelevant stimuli. Yet we are being bombarded evermore by messages, despite the reduction in effectiveness, and increased cognitive filtering. Despite the annoyance. Despite the absurdity. Despite that fact that overexposure to advertising germinates mounting animosity, distrust, and alienation. Here we have one more reason to adopt a pay-as-you-go model in the digital world. Pay-as-you-go would eliminate the waste on ads. It would clean up our screens, our streets, our fields of view, and make the world a more pleasant place.

[Who Owns the Future? – part 1]

Posted in Book reviews, Discover, Thoughts | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Who Owns the Future?

part 1

Is the title of a new book by Jaron Lanier, computer scientist, musician, and virtual reality techno-wiz. He’s been up to his neck in the digital revolution for most of his life. The book takes yet another look at our changing economy. Lanier’s hypothesis examines digital technology’s contribution to the shrinking middle class. Along with bank fraud, public policies favoring the one percent, and out of control corporate greed, he cites the internet and information technology as a core culprit in the collapse of the economic bell curve.

Lanier’s explanation is the hyper concentration of personal data collected by giant servers reigning over the internet. He calls them Siren Servers, because of their inescapable allure. Google, Facebook, Amazon are among the top sirens offering us free services or cut throat prices while collecting vast amounts of information about us. That information is power. That power is used to manipulate us and the economic marketplace. Shrinking markets—a soft way of saying creating monopolies—and mounting cyber control over individuals—another way of blurring the lines of privacy—are the price we pay for free and cheap. A price that his strongly supported argument claims is unaffordable. And if we continue, it will destroy free market economies. It’s turning out to be another example of a winner takes all scenario. He suggests the winners need to be saved from themselves. We’re experiencing an information age rerun of the Robber Barron era of a century ago.

In comparison, the success of the 1950s and ’60s was based on the growing wealth of the middle class. It was a time when the middle class could out spend the rich. When the economic power was in the middle, we had a more solid, more stable economy. The Trickle Down theory of the 1980s has betrayed us, for in reality, it’s a trickle up that bleeds wealth from the middle. Middle class jobs are vanishing. The demand for highly skilled, highly educated workers has gone up, but as Siren Servers have exponentially increased in efficiency, mid-skilled jobs have become scarcer. The result is a net loss of jobs. Kodak was used as an example. At its height, Kodak was a multi-billion dollar company, with over 140,000 employees. Digital technology has eviscerated its manufacturing jobs. The remaining high-tech jobs haven’t grown enough to fill in the gaps. In contrast to Kodak, and to highlight this dramatic shift, some of today’s billion dollar internet companies have employee counts in the hundreds, the low hundreds—not tens of thousands, or even a few thousand, just a meager couple of hundred. Is that worthy of an exclamation point? Or two?

He goes into distressing descriptions of how IT companies, and specifically Silicon Valley, are amassing huge amounts of data, power, and wealth, with no means, or intention, for a more equitable distribution. We have been seduced by digital candy—free searches, free music, free shipping, free money (remember mortgages handed out without a job or credit), and lower prices (and lower yet for those who spend more), so low they squeeze out our local businesses—our next door neighbors, you and me, our relatives, our young adults, our friends. Cheap and free has to come from somewhere. As prices get lower, someone has to be sacrificed. The squeeze is on—lower wages, fewer jobs. Eventually, it won’t matter how cheap things get, few will have sufficient income to afford much of anything at any price. We can see further evidence of this with the split in consumer marketing moving either towards the lowest-end of the mass market or the tippy-top of the high-end.

He talks about risk dumping. How servers reap huge benefits while they slough off risk onto their users. One point he appears to have left out, though, is how centralized servers conversely pose a huge risk to themselves. They are the target for hackers, jeopardizing huge sectors of the system. Decentralizing the network, in other words democratizing it, would make impossible attempts at take-over or major disruption.

Here are a few excerpts from the book.

Even the most ambitious outcomes in the most fabulous futures articulated in the moneyed dreamspace of Silicon Valley, those where the world isn’t utterly wrecked by nuclear war or some other disaster, tend to leave people behind. Even the optimism is dismal for people. People will be surpassed and left behind.

And yet Silicon Valley engineers, venture capitalists, and pundits continue to go about their days, zipping up to Napa to frolic in the wine country from time to time, having children, and generally living as if nothing unusual is happening.

. . .

To add to the earlier glimpses of what a creeped-out version of Mixed reality might be like, imagine a situation where a young man returns from college and wants to reexperience his old room as he left it, before his parents turned it into a guest room. He puts on his [virtual reality] eyewear, and a message hovers, “To recall your old room, you must check this box accepting Company X’s latest changes to its privacy policy, and agree to use the company’s services for personal navigation for a year, and agree to publish the book you’re working on through the company’s store. Otherwise, good-bye old room.”

The online space feels a little creepier, a little less under individual control, every time a user is asked to acquiesce to a bunch of fine print no one reads.

The reason people click “yes” is not that they understand what they’re doing, but that it is the only viable option other than boycotting a company in general, which is getting harder to do. It’s yet another example of the way digital modernity resembles soft blackmail.

. . .

The way digital networks have been designed by fashion, though not by necessity, creates ultravaluable [sic] central nodes that spawn temptations for bad actors, whether those actors are traditional legitimate players or not. [legitimate players? I believe he means insiders.]

The best way to reduce temptation to act abusively is to distribute value, power, and clout less centrally. The best way to do that is to enable a more comprehensive commercial sphere than the one in place today.

The irony is that the majority of people, the middle class, are the source of the data and wealth. The redistribution of wealth is going upward at an increasing rate with no levees in sight to stop the flow. His thesis proposes a solution through a new form of exchange for digital data : reciprocity. Instead of a one-way flow of data, wealth, and links, a two-way flow is needed. In the current system, digitized information is infinitely copyable; its value reduced to zero. Networks enable copying by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Instead of allowing free distribution and free copies, everything should be paid for. Every person/creator would be the exclusive owner of his/her information. Each access of one’s information is paid for with tiny payments. Everything would require a payment, even open source software or internet searches. For each contributor/creator, and every time data is accessed, a payment is made. Too costly? Not when all information is paid for reciprocally, including the collection of your personal information, or any other contributions, data, articles, blogs, videos, music, etc., that you make available to others. In a reciprocal system, everyone pays for everything. The more you contribute and the more your contributions are accessed, the more micro-payments you receive. It’s an intriguing proposition.

However, as he gets deeper into his program, it gets more convoluted, and less coherent. Not until the final couple of chapters does he offer a few feasible scenarios. Nevertheless, Lanier’s got a redoubtable argument. One we cannot continue to ignore. The overarching idea of his solution is powerful. Many topics are covered that I haven’t even touched on, security, privacy, transparency, fraud, intellectual property and copyrights. The great value of this book is in how it ignites an array of critical, interrelated topics that need discussion now, before it’s too late. And it’s nearly too late already.

Who Owns the Future?, Jaron Lanier, Simon & Schuster, 2013

Also read : [Blood Will Boil], and listen to another TTBOOK interview : [Future Jobs]

Posted in Book reviews, Discover, Thoughts | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments