So we always had an attention economy, whether
it was on radio or television there's always
been a race for our attention and it's a zero
sum game.
If one TV station gets more of your attention
the other TV station gets less.
But now because we're spending more and more
time on screens and there's so many things
competing for our attention we really feel
it.
And in the attention economy with social media
and with the Internet and our screens, everything
needs your attention.
So a meditation app, the New York Times, Big
Think or Facebook—they're still all competing
for the same currency, which is attention.
And if one guy gets more attention someone
else gets less.
As an example, the CEO of Netflix recently
said that the biggest competitors to Netflix
weren't other video sites, he said the biggest
competitors to Netflix were Facebook, YouTube
and sleep, because at the end of the day it
all comes from this limited supply of attention
that we get.
And part of that is because of advertising.
Because the business model of advertising
says I don't just want some of your attention,
I actually make more money the more attention
I get from you.
So I have an unbounded appetite for more of
your attention.
And the problem is that as each factor in
the attention economy, whether it's a meditation
app or it's Snapchat or it's Facebook or Netflix,
they start ratcheting up more and more persuasive
design choices to stick us to the product
for longer and to keep us coming back, to
addict us even.
And the problem is it becomes this race to
the bottom, where the lower I go on the brainstem
at getting you to click and stay, the lower
someone else has to go.
So when YouTube ads auto play the next video
Netflix has to auto play the next video too
otherwise they lose out on their attention
market share.
And so in this zero sum game what we really
need to talk about is how do we reorganize
the attention economy so it actually aligns
with what we want?
Almost like redesigning the urban plan of
a city, it's not about leaving this polluted
city, it's how can we reorganize the city
so it's livable again?
How do we create zoning laws so that Netflix
competes with other entertainment?
How do I help each of us get the best two
hours of downtime?
And that's different than meditation apps
that are competing for how to help people
wake up in the morning.
Imagine that those are different zones, both
in app stores and on our phones so that it's
really about helping us, competing to help
us live our lives not competing just to get
the most attention.
So, why should we be questioning advertising?
This is such a huge deal.
Because advertising has, up until this point,
propped up much of the tech industry's economy.
It's been the cheapest and easiest way to
grow and scale a business because you can
always figure out new ways of getting attention,
and you can find new ways of getting more
money per eyeball that spends time with you.
But the costs of it are really just too big,
because in a world where I've got your eyeball
(and I'm Facebook) and I've got actually a
billion of these eyeballs, and I'm asking,
“Who wants to pay me the most to put a message
in front of this eyeball?”, and in a world
where I give that person personal information
that would tell them exactly how to persuade
this person (and they can persuade them with
anything that they want because they know
exactly, as for example, with companies like
Cambridge Analytica which knew exactly how
to persuade you politically), I would be enabling
whoever wants to pay me the most to manipulate
and influence this person's mind.
And in a world that's more and more persuasive
where we know more and more about what influences
this person, the ability to simply sell to
the highest better whoever wants to persuade
them undermines something really fundamental
about what of our institutions are based on.
A market is based on a person making a conscious
choice to buy or transact.
When you can undermine or manipulate the thoughts
and attitudes and beliefs of that person then
that's really not something we can stand on
anymore.
In an election where people have their own
thoughts, opinions, beliefs and ideas about
a candidate or about a policy—or not even,
just about how much they hate each other—and
that can be manipulated, then the foundation
of an election or a democracy is also questionable.
And so in a world that's more and more persuasive,
where it's more about persuasion than it is
about advertising, what is the ethically persuasive
world that we want to live in?
In a world that is on a one way track getting
better and better at persuading our minds
to believe, feel and have different opinions
than we would have had—because it can personalize
exactly and tailor exactly messages that would
sway us—how do we live in that world when
so much of our institutions depend on us having
sovereign minds and sovereign ideas and the
ability to democratically talk to each other
about what the right answer might be?
So we need to question the business model
of advertising in the way that it affects
that economy.
