Reading Is Expensive

Published on February 20, 2010 by in Featured Content, Tech Trends

0
Reading Is Expensive

iStock 000010028959 267x300 Reading Is ExpensiveThe human brain uses 20% of the body’s energy while accounting for just 2% of its mass – a whopping 900% premium.  It generates 25 watts of power each day and demands 15% of the heart’s output.  The average reader can comprehend 120 words per minute,  taking nearly fourteen hours to read a typical novel (100k words) at a cost of almost 1,000 calories (or 4.2 kJ), 164 gallons of blood (or 622 liters) and nearly $300 in lost wages (theoretically for average U.S. wage earner at $21/hour).

In terms of energy, blood flow, and time, reading is very slow, expensive, and inefficient.

I think this raises some interesting questions, such as:

  • As an author,
    what is the return on brain-investment for reading my article, novel, or blog post?
  • As a publisher,
    how do I convince the reader to invest in my product(s)?
  • As a device manufacturer,
    how can I make the reading experience most brain-efficient and enjoyable?

Reading for Effect Versus Purpose

It seems to me that there are two reasons for reading; effect or purpose.  Reading for effect is essentially fulfilling some internal, emotional need like escapism, voyeurism, arousal, etc…  Put simply, it’s entertainment and entertainment plays by different rules than other products.  We are, generally speaking, much more willing to give up two hours of our lives to have a good cry Reading Is Expensive or watch a bunch of explosions Reading Is Expensive than to read chapter 12 of our favorite physics textbook.  Reading for enjoyment is an activity that not everyone enjoys, but those who do are willing to invest for the pleasure and emotional fulfillment it brings; they are not necessarily calculating an ROI.

Reading for purpose means doing so specifically for achieving some goal or outcome, or put another way, because one needs to and not necessarily because one wants to.  Reading for educational purposes, staying informed, or as part of one’s job are examples of reading for purpose.  This category is far more sensitive to the high cost of reading than the former.  For example, most people who read newspapers will skim the articles looking for interesting stories, and then skim the story to see if it is worth the investment.  One does not skim War and PeaceThe Catcher in the Rye, or The Lord of the Rings.

2641590444 34f371cec2 b 300x199 Reading Is Expensive

Pacific Coast Highway (Creative Commons license via Frank Kehren's Flckr stream)

I would liken these to the difference between a pleasure ride down the Pacific Coast Highway and commuting to work.  You are performing the same task (driving), using the same tool (car), perhaps for the same amount of time, and maybe even with the same person(s).  Yet everything about the drive is different.  In the case of the former, it’s about enjoying the journey, whereas in the latter it is all about reaching your destination as quickly, efficiently, and painlessly as possible.

Implications

There are obvious implications to looking at reading in these two contexts.  Obviously, it behooves the content producers and consumers to understand whether their writing is intended to be a journey or a destination.  Once this is understood, certain strategies and tactics become clear.

For Authors

When writers intend to take their readers on a journey, the style and tempo must be a cognitive banquet.  The experience itself is the return on the reader’s investment.  Efficiency gives way to pace and style takes precedence over not burying the lead.  When writing for purpose, however, the author must understand that from the first word of the title onward, the reader is calculating the return on her investment and may cancel at any time it seems like the deal isn’t profitable enough.  As such, it is important to introduce the value proposition early on (i.e. don’t bury the lead) and get to the point quickly.  Of course, sprinkling in some color so that the reader enjoys the journey won’t hurt a bit either.

For Publishers

431329322 f833a5d9ce b 225x300 Reading Is Expensive

Nothing says "romance" like a black and white printout taped to a light pole (Creative Commons license via sixes & sevens Flickr stream)

Readers interested in going on a journey will evaluate content much like shopping for a vacation.  Cost is always a factor, but so is scenery, adventure, luxury, relaxation, romance, etc…  Therefore, packaging and marketing are going to mean a lot.  It must appeal to the prospective reader on an emotional level and promise to fulfill not only their needs, but desires as well.  Purpose readers, on the other hand, are hunters scrutinizing the landscape for prey.  They will be intent on getting to their destination as quickly and efficiently as possible; a pleasant journey is a fringe benefit and not a primary concern.

Newspapers are perched precariously between both of these paradigms, and so they have a tough job balancing them.  There are news reports, stock quotes, classified advertisements, and other assorted facts and items people want to quickly scan and read if they perceive some return on investment.  Other sections, like essays, travel, or editorials are much more about journey and need to be packaged and delivered differently.

Business to business publications are by and large firmly entrenched in the purpose-reading camp.  Their mission is to deliver industry-relevant information in a non-biased and convenient format.  They face issues of timeliness, relevancy, and ubiquity.  Timeliness is an issue in the age of real time search, self-publication, and social networking.  Answers are frequently a few mouse clicks and moments away, so a weekly or monthly publication is at a disadvantage.  Relevancy is an issue for similar reasons.  Readers are able to find very specific information on obscure subjects relatively easily, while publications are always trying to balance completeness against overload.  Ubiquity is a reference to the fact that publishers can’t always be in the right place at the right time.  Publish your information on your web site, and the reader may not have it available during that lunch meeting with a vendor.  Publish your information in print, and the reader no doubt will have thrown it out before realizing they needed it.  The challenge in B2B publishing is not as much marketing or style as it is timeliness, relevancy, and ubiquity.  They need to have the information the reader wants at the time he wants it, where he wants it.  But just as importantly, it must be in at an acceptable brain-cost.

For Device Manufacturers

I recently wrote that the iPad is heralding the age of content.  There has been much discussion about the impact it will have on print media and other existing content consumption devices.  If you accept the argument that reading for effect is much less sensitive to cost factors and substitute forms, then the likely conclusion is that the iPad (and subsequent tablet products) will have a different effect on different types of content.  If the key to reading for effect is the experience, then I submit that appliances like the iPad and other color readers deliver a superior experience to books.  Content of this type is also inoculated against infection from other forms of media like video.  When reading for purpose, however, it remains to be seen whether the efficiency and usability can be improved when compared to a computer.  But with the (assumed) increased availability of high quality video, which is a more efficient means for acquiring information, reading for purpose is going to be marginalized to some degree.  The key for the device manufacturers is to understand the features that will address each of these types of reading.

The Bottom Line

As Clay Shirky brilliantly observed, we don’t live in a world of information overload but a world with filter failure.  Part of the price of that failure is shorter attention spans and greater sensitivity to the expense of reading.  As more solutions evolve and improve our ability to filter, it would be easy to conclude that it will be more difficult for authors and publishers to get their content “through the walls” and to their audience.  But I rather believe that the filters won’t simply get stronger, they will get better.  This means that it will actually be easier for readers to find the content they are truly interested in and be more willing to pay the brain-price.  However, I think this also spells doom for purveyors of broad swaths of content like newspapers and magazines.  Once these filters get sophisticated enough, readers will be able to find the very best of the content they want with laser precision.  Rather than subscribing to a sports magazine like Sports Illustrated, readers can subscribe to “stories about the New England Patriots, Boston Red Sox, any player named Horatio, or cricket matches played in the southern hemisphere on a Monday.”  Publishers of “reading for purpose” content are going to have to find a way to deal with this paradigm.

Continue Reading

iPad Heralds the Age of Content

Published on February 1, 2010 by in Tech Trends

2
iPad Heralds the Age of Content

4309488147 d4ed8b408b iPad Heralds the Age of ContentDisclosure #1:
I am not an Apple fanboy – not even close.

Disclosure #2:
This is about what we can learn from the iPad, not so much about the iPad itself.

I finally carved out an hour and half of time to watch the iPad unveiling, conforming myself to the reclining love seat with my laptop.  It was perched atop a lap desk that affords a comfortable typing position but very awkward access to the external mouse that I much prefer over the touch pad.  My right arm was buttressed against a travel pillow that I use to provide support on that side.  As I watched Steve Jobs settle into a similar couch on stage and stroll through a demonstration of various types of content on the iPad, a frustrating irony became clear: he was more comfortable and at ease on a stage in front of hundreds of people than I was sitting at home in my living room.  For ninety minutes, I desperately wished I was watching the iPad keynote address on an iPad.  This is when it became clear to me that Apple’s decision to create the iPad is proof that we are living in the Age of Content.

It’s the Experience, Stupid

The iPad is getting quite a bit of extreme reaction on both ends of the spectrum.  From comparisons between the iPad and a rock, to declarations that it will single handedly save the newspaper industry, hyperbole is by no means in short supply.  However, they all seem to be focusing on the wrong things – the features.  The thing is, Apple doesn’t create new technology, they redefine user experiences.  Let’s take a look at their major product lines over the last thirty years.

  • The original Apple and McIntosh computers didn’t invent the personal computer; they made them a user-friendly experience by implementing a beautiful, easy to use interface when compared to other machines at the time.
  • The PowerBook was not the first portable computer, but it was the first true laptop that provided a color, TFT screen with a hand rest for more comfortable typing.
  • The Apple Newton was a tablet PC that failed because it did not redefine the user experience.  Rather, it was focused on reinventing the personal computer platform and rewriting contemporary application programming.  It’s probably worth mentioning that this project occurred during the absence of Steve Jobs.
  • The iPod changed the user experience for listening to and purchasing music. It was the fusion of these two experiences that set it apart from other means of consuming music.
  • The iPhone didn’t reinvent the cellular telephone; it redefined the user experience for a mobile device.

The iPad is a content consuming device. That is its mission. Music, movies, books, web pages, games, etc…  Everything about the form and function of this device was conceived with the objective of making it the ultimate mobile content consuming experience.

What’s the Lesson?

I’m making the case that Steve Jobs, as the world’s leading authority on user experience and by deciding to create a mobile content consumption device, has provided prima facia evidence that we have entered the Age of Content.  The fact that so much squabbling has erupted over its lack of certain features only underscores the argument because it’s not a device that is focused on accomplishing tasks.  It is a device that is focused on an experience.  And Jobs has concluded that the availability, quality, and desirability of this content warrants an entirely new class of device.

As I sat uncomfortably on my couch watching his presentation, reading news articles, checking email, and interacting on Facebook, I knew exactly what kind of content consuming experience I didn’t want.  Once I have an iPad, I know I’ll become an even more voracious consumer of content than I already am.  I expect that will be the case with millions of others before all is said and done.

Continue Reading

High Five for Week Ending 24-Jan

Published on January 24, 2010 by in High Five

1
High Five for Week Ending 24-Jan
HighFive 300x275 High Five for Week Ending 24 Jan

Weekly High Five lists the most interesting, compelling, and/or useful links of each week.

The theme for this week’s High Five is, “Content Wars.”  Wrangling continues over copyright protection, and content creators continue to struggle with delivery channels and monetization.

#5: Apple Courts Publishers, While Kindle Adds Apps

The e-reader market is heating up nicely.  Apple’s expected announcement of a new tablet computer is igniting a battle “for the hearts and minds of book publishers, authors, and readers.”

Link: New York Times

#4: $675,000 RIAA File Sharing Verdict Is ‘Unreasonable’

A defendant has asked the U.S. Disctrict Court in Massachusetts to either retry the case or reduce the fine of $22,500 per song.  This comes on the heels of a $1.92 million judgement last year against a woman who downloaded 24 songs.  These shocking verdicts are raising the volume of calls for Congress to change the laws, but a Justice Department dominated by RIAA lawyers and lobbyists it seems that the entertainment industry’s stormtroopers will continue to patrol the Internet for the foreseeable future.

Link: Wired

#3: Open Letter From OK Go, regarding non-embeddable YouTube videos

OK Go is a rock band that just wants to make music and share it with their fans.  In a thoughtful post on their web site, they explain the intricacies of publishing music videos in the current Internet climate.  Shockingly, they declare that “crazy as it may seem, it’s now far harder for bands to make videos accessible online than it was four years ago.”  Like the aging Hippie reluctantly pulling the lever for a Republican, YouTube is finding itself answering to new constituents in its quest for monetization.  The soundtrack to this drama would surely include Roger Daltry’s voice; “I hope I die before I get old.”

Link: OK Go’s User Forum

#2: YouTube Will Start Charging for Some Videos

On the heels of the OK Go story, we learn that YouTube will begin experimenting with paid content.  They plan to charge users around $5 to view independent films from the 2009 and 2010 Sundance Film Festivals.

Link: ReadWriteWeb

#1: New York Times Ready to Charge Online Readers

In the latest chess game between newspapers, readers, and search engines, the New York Times announced this week that it is planning to charge readers.  Their approach will differ from the Wall Street Journal, which charges based on premium content.  Instead, the Times plans to charge by volume, which will ostensibly allow the casual visitor to find an article on Google, for example, and have full access to read the article.  It’s a novel idea and not without some technical hurdles to be overcome.  It seems to me that it strikes a fair balance between the free exchange of ideas and making a living.  I will be rooting for it to succeed.

Link: New York Magazine

Feel free to provide your thoughts and/or contributions…

Continue Reading

High Five for Week Ending 3-Jan

Published on January 3, 2010 by in High Five

0
High Five for Week Ending 3-Jan
HighFive 300x275 High Five for Week Ending 3 Jan

Weekly High Five lists the most interesting, compelling, and/or useful links of each week.

This week’s High Five is as close as I’m going to get to any sort of “best of,” “worst of,” or “top x” post for the new year.  Rather, it’s a look forward that may be best described as “The Times They Are A Changin’.”

#5: It Was a Facebook Christmas; Site Hits #1 in US For First Time

This is an important milestone that I think is going to largely be brushed aside as an interesting but not terribly surprising fact.  When Facebook is a more common destination than Google, it’s worth taking note.  Why?  We all know what Willie Sutton’s answer would be; “Go where the money is… and go there often.” (That’s right, apparently he never really said the quote that is most commonly attributed to him.)  Facebook is where the people are, which means the money and opportunity are both there (see “The Future of Software Is… Facebook?!?!“).

Link: Read Write Web

#4: Apple Tablet Will Launch in 2010 — This Time, For Sure

Last week’s High Five included a story about downloads for the Amazon Kindle eclipsing “real” book sales on Christmas day.  This is illustrative of the size and scope of the move away from printed materials to e-books and the rumored announcement of a new product from Apple is likely the next battle ground in the “Print v. Digital” war.

Link: PC World

#3: Adding Fees and Fences on Media Sites

The battle for paid versus free content will loom large over the next decade.  Though I have my own opinions about what may or may not happen, the truth is that the combination of technology developments and innovation are too complex and fickle to predict.  It will be fascinating to see how this turns out, but as Clay Shirky predicts, it may take as long as fifty years to fully play itself out.

Link: New York Times

#2: Twitter and Me! Why It’s The Only Social Media Tool I Use.

Explaining Twitter is hard.  This article is written by a self-described “tech entrepreneur trapped in academia” and is hands-down the best articulation of Twitter’s value proposition (for non-celebrities) I’ve ever read.  It’s a short article and I highly recommend it if you a) don’t “get” Twitter or b) have an opinion of it that ranges anywhere between negative and neutral.

Link: Tech Crunch

#1: My only prediction for 2010 and it ain’t pretty

Are our copyright laws under assault?  Is the entertainment industry on the brink of stealing the Internet from us?  I’m not sure because I don’t know enough about it right now, but I do know two things: 1) The entertainment industry is on my list of the slimiest, least trustworthy groups of people I know and they are teaming up with the supreme ruler of slimy organizations; the US Congress. 2) I will be paying attention to this story.

Link: The Inquisitr

Feel free to provide your thoughts and/or contributions…

Continue Reading