The opium of the masses
In Hal Hartley's film Trust, the character of Matthew Slaughter describes television as "the opium of the masses". I am starting to think that the Internet is becoming the television of the 21st century.
By this I mean that the Internet is gradually replacing television as the main medium by which people are:
1. entertained, and
2. exposed to advertising.
This raises the question of what is causing this change to take place? Are people changing the way the like to be entertained and business is following like a flock of hungry seagulls to reap the benefits of such a captive audience?
Or has business recognised that the Internet is a much more effective medium for advertising and has somehow enticed people into switching off their TVs and turning on their computers?
The Internet does seem to be a better medium for advertising:
It is probably cheaper (though I don't know this for a fact)
People seem to tolerate more of it on the Internet than they do on TV. Example, on the Internet, we are almost constantly exposed to ads - they take up a good deal of the page on most websites. We wouldn't tolerate having a part of the TV screen taken up by an ad during our favourite program. But we seem quite ok with ads taking up part of the screen while we are surfing through are favourite websites.
We can't escape it on the Internet like we can on the TV. Because ads on TV generally come in-between the show, we are able to leaving the room, or press the mute button, or fast forward if we have taped something. On the Internet, we can't do this. The ads are so integrated into the web pages that we cannot escape from being exposed to them.
However, it does seem a bit far-fetched to think that our favourite websites are being dreamed up by a bunch of advertising executives for the purpose of using them as vehicles for exposing the masses to their advertising campaigns.
I'd guess that most sites are dreamed up by ordinary people with a bright idea which strikes a chord of popularity within the Internet community. Perhaps meeting a latent unmet demand within those who use the site. However, each sites long term success is perhaps dependent on advertising revenue it generates due to the popularity of the site.
Let's take another look at the comparisons between the Internet and TV:
Both can be a form of entertainment - a way for us to relax and enjoy our leisure time,
Both can be vehicles for advertisements,
Both can cover the broad spectrum of human interests,
Both can be informative and educational,
Websites, like TV shows, are perhaps designed to get as many people as possible to use them for as much time as possible - more people spending more time on a site equals are greater audience and therefore a greater ability to generate advertising revenue. For example, what are the most expensive TV shows to advertise on? The ones which are watched by the most people. Similarly, the websites which are used by the most people are able to charge the most for business to advertise on the site.
The Internet has a much greater captivating power than TV does. I would make the comparison that TV was to radio, what the Internet is now to TV.
TV was such a wonder to people when it first started because it added a new dimension to the way in which they were entertained - the dimension of vision. It stimulated a whole new sense - our sight. In the same way, I think the Internet is such a success because it, too, has added a whole new dimension to the way in which we can be entertained. But what is this new dimension exactly? It is not stimulating any new senses - it's still just sight and sound. I think the difference lies somewhere in the interactive capability of the Internet. Perhaps entertainment is more fun when we can interact with it - not just experience it in a static form, like a TV show or a movie.
The Internet is not stimulating a new sense in us, but it is stimulating something new. Something that TV doesn't. What is this something?
In Hal Hartley's film Trust, the character of Matthew Slaughter describes television as "the opium of the masses". I am starting to think that the Internet is becoming the television of the 21st century.
By this I mean that the Internet is gradually replacing television as the main medium by which people are:
1. entertained, and
2. exposed to advertising.
This raises the question of what is causing this change to take place? Are people changing the way the like to be entertained and business is following like a flock of hungry seagulls to reap the benefits of such a captive audience?
Or has business recognised that the Internet is a much more effective medium for advertising and has somehow enticed people into switching off their TVs and turning on their computers?
The Internet does seem to be a better medium for advertising:
It is probably cheaper (though I don't know this for a fact)
People seem to tolerate more of it on the Internet than they do on TV. Example, on the Internet, we are almost constantly exposed to ads - they take up a good deal of the page on most websites. We wouldn't tolerate having a part of the TV screen taken up by an ad during our favourite program. But we seem quite ok with ads taking up part of the screen while we are surfing through are favourite websites.
We can't escape it on the Internet like we can on the TV. Because ads on TV generally come in-between the show, we are able to leaving the room, or press the mute button, or fast forward if we have taped something. On the Internet, we can't do this. The ads are so integrated into the web pages that we cannot escape from being exposed to them.
However, it does seem a bit far-fetched to think that our favourite websites are being dreamed up by a bunch of advertising executives for the purpose of using them as vehicles for exposing the masses to their advertising campaigns.
I'd guess that most sites are dreamed up by ordinary people with a bright idea which strikes a chord of popularity within the Internet community. Perhaps meeting a latent unmet demand within those who use the site. However, each sites long term success is perhaps dependent on advertising revenue it generates due to the popularity of the site.
Let's take another look at the comparisons between the Internet and TV:
Both can be a form of entertainment - a way for us to relax and enjoy our leisure time,
Both can be vehicles for advertisements,
Both can cover the broad spectrum of human interests,
Both can be informative and educational,
Websites, like TV shows, are perhaps designed to get as many people as possible to use them for as much time as possible - more people spending more time on a site equals are greater audience and therefore a greater ability to generate advertising revenue. For example, what are the most expensive TV shows to advertise on? The ones which are watched by the most people. Similarly, the websites which are used by the most people are able to charge the most for business to advertise on the site.
The Internet has a much greater captivating power than TV does. I would make the comparison that TV was to radio, what the Internet is now to TV.
TV was such a wonder to people when it first started because it added a new dimension to the way in which they were entertained - the dimension of vision. It stimulated a whole new sense - our sight. In the same way, I think the Internet is such a success because it, too, has added a whole new dimension to the way in which we can be entertained. But what is this new dimension exactly? It is not stimulating any new senses - it's still just sight and sound. I think the difference lies somewhere in the interactive capability of the Internet. Perhaps entertainment is more fun when we can interact with it - not just experience it in a static form, like a TV show or a movie.
The Internet is not stimulating a new sense in us, but it is stimulating something new. Something that TV doesn't. What is this something?
However, it does seem a bit far-fetched to think that our favourite websites are being dreamed up by a bunch of advertising executives for the purpose of using them as vehicles for exposing the masses to their advertising campaigns.
They most certainly are. It's not far fetched at all. Even if you can consider them not, they're still financed by them. This site itself is even shaped by the advertising. As can be seen in this post (Sean is the administrative officer here at SG as can be seen on the about page (the link is at the bottom of every page on suicidegirls)).
