simon button • com » Attention http://www.simonbutton.com Deep into a world that interests, fascinates and never fails to surprise me! Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:54:28 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 Attention as a Currency and Noise http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/chrisbrogandotcom/~3/71fuyPQj7dI/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/chrisbrogandotcom/~3/71fuyPQj7dI/#comments Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:34:44 +0000 chrisbrogan noise

I’m not sold on Google Buzz. It’s very noisy. Heck, if you’re following me there, you’re probably wondering what it’s about. It reminds me of Friendfeed, with the conversations looping under every piece of information. It’s also a lot like Facebook, in that sort of “wall post, comment” dance kind of way. I’ll probably come to tell you why I love it in some future post, or maybe I won’t. I never liked FriendFeed, though Robert Scoble always raved about it. Now, not all noise is bad, but allowing yourself to be buried in it isn’t very helpful.

I am thinking of attention as currency, and am going to recommend that you set a budget.

Attention as a Currency

Part of what Julien and I wrote about in Trust Agents is that attention and reputation and trust are all currencies that aren’t as easily swapped out. You can pay for attention, at least for a little bit. Advertisements are a purchase of your attention. You can’t exactly pay for reputation, though you can buy the trappings of reputation quite easily. And you can’t buy trust. But things like Google Buzz are about attention, and that’s kind of the baseline currency for the higher-level instruments of reputation and trust.

Attention is worth something to me. Your attention is very important to me. (And when I say “me,” replace this with your company name, and you’ll see what I’m driving towards.) Being responsive and attentive in two directions is very important to me.

How You Use Attention Decides a Lot

I have many projects on my plate right now. Too many. I have things I’ve promised friends that need my attention. I have client obligations for New Marketing Labs. I have new friends that I want to explore and get to know. I have lots of places where I can spend my attention.

But attention is finite.

With that in mind, it becomes a matter of budgeting and management. How much one-on-one can I invest, because that’s where the real value of social media kicks in. How can I get more information to more people in a one-to-many format, because that’s my only hope at scaling. This is what we have to ask ourselves daily.

How NOT to Get Sucked Into Buzz/Twitter/Facebook

Ask yourself this question CONSTANTLY: where can I add the most value to what matters most to me and the people who care about me?

I love spending time on Twitter and getting to know people. I do a few hours a day inside Twitter, but for every bit of time I spend just talking back and forth with people to prove I’m human and that I care, I’m also collecting information for work, for clients, for story ideas, and more. When I feel like I’m just chatting for chatting sake, I ask myself, “where can I add the most value to what matters most to me and the people who care about me?” The answer is rarely, “by chatting about plane delays.”

If that doesn’t work, use a timer. I have a very simple egg timer software application for my Mac. I set it often. Want the real one? Go to a kitchen store (do they have those any more?) and buy a green pepper egg timer or a cat-shaped one. Whatever. Simple, and yet it works. Allot yourself time.

Budget. Set an attention budget.

Spending Some of Your Attention

My current favorite tool on the web is Google Wave. Wave is like Google Buzz’s stuffier older brother. When used right, it can be a place to share collaboratively around projects. Julien and I are writing the paperback version of Trust Agents with the help of Wave. I’m planning my next business with Wave.

Why? Because it’s where I’m getting value for my time.

I spend my attention on my blog. Why? Because it’s what matters most in helping others and building my community.

I spend my attention on my book writing. Why? Because it’s going to help me grow new community members and find people who aren’t already in the circle.

See where I’m going?

Set Up a Real Attention Budget

What if you did something as simple as take a spreadsheet and put in the top 3-5 things you wanted to spend time on in a day? Just list them out. Put the first thing first (Thank you, Dr. Stephen R. Covey). And so on. Now, what if you made that a sticky note? What if you made that your desktop background? What if you followed your own attention budget?

What would you be able to accomplish then?

And what does your attention budget look like? Want to share?

Photo credit 4000f

]]> http://www.ozmota.com/?feed=rss2&p=1735 0 Social media: the attention economy explained http://www.gravity7.com/blog/media/2009/09/social-media-attention-economy.html http://www.gravity7.com/blog/media/2009/09/social-media-attention-economy.html#comments Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:30:00 +0000 noreply@blogger.com (adrian chan)
There's nothing wrong with this, and while some may see a cynical twist or twitter's dirty little secret (nobody's listening!), I see instead perfectly reasonable social media coping mechanisms. ;-)

Social media's two audiences
Social behaviors are shaped and informed by design, but not explained by design. The obvious reason that none of us can see each other's twitter usage (groups, or subsets of followers actually viewed and paid attention to) is that if designed into twitter, activity would change instantly and radically. This is not just a matter of privacy, but a deeply social matter.

Reflecting on this last night led me to thinking about the social and public space constructed across all social media. There are, in mediated social contexts, always two audiences.
  • There is an audience we'll call social, and which we describe in terms of proximity: it's a internalized social world of friends, peers, colleagues: known individuals.
  • And there is a second, anonymous public, which is not internalized but is imagined.

Any person known belongs in the social and is potentially present. Any anonymous individual, because we don't yet know them (as soon as we do, they move to the internalized social world), is possibly present.

Potential and possible relations
Potential social relations become active relations, or interactions, when we communicate. Possible relations become actual relations, based on the action of following, when we are seen and found.

I think the doubling of audience could go far in explaining the power of social media.

We know, for example, that the probability of actually having a conversation is less in social media than it is face to face. There's simply a lot more at our command in face to face situations by means of which to have conversation. However, face to face situations limit us, of course, to those in our presence. Social media may reduce the probability of having real conversation but increase the opportunities for creating conversation.

This seems, to me, the main reason we use social media. Not mass, but mini media. Or, "me"-dia, in the context of social, not mass audiences. The distinction between social and mass media being that relations are possible in the former, not so in the latter. (This is changing as mass incorporates social.)

The medium's three modes: mirror, surface, window
Back then to attention, and the veil of nondisclosure from behind which we engage in social media. I like to say that the social interface has three modes: mirror, surface, and window.
  • We see ourselves reflected in social media: this is it's mirror mode.
  • We consume content of all kinds off the screen — sites, apps, communication — all using the screen as a presentation layer: this is its surface mode.
  • And we talk to each other through social media: this is its window mode

Modes of attention
Social presence, proximity, and attention are then each implicated in a mediated social context that has ways of seeing and ways of being seen.

Consider this, for example. We enjoy accumulating followers, seeing ourselves referred to, commented to, and otherwise being made visible. Doesn't matter whether this involves acknowledgment, recognition, or validation; the point is that the medium does create a kind of social visibility. Call it, for simplicity's sake, "being paid attention to."

Well, attention doesn't correlate with actually engaging in conversation. Many of us sometimes ignore a request for communication, for whatever reason. It's part of daily life; in real life it's called "civil inattention," and is handled by acknowledging others in ways that also indicate to them "I see you, recognize you, but I'm not available to interact." Simply put, politeness.

Now, consider the social media space. Attention paid to others may not be visible to them. But if it's given, such as by taking any action recorded and captured by the medium and surfaced by design, then this action can have two social outcomes, not one. This is the power of the medium, and the net effect of the doubled audience mentioned above.

Social actions, social relations
One translates as the potential for further social action. The other translates into the possibility for social relation. For the social world already has relations but has activity only on the basis of user actions. And the public world has activity but lacks the connection until a relation is established.
  • A social action has been made which can be picked up by any user who sees it: potential for further action
  • A social action increases the user's visibility: the possibility of being seen

The possibility of being seen is motive enough, for some. While communication is no more probable, the possibility is there. As they say of the lottery: your odds of winning increase dramatically if you buy a ticket.

The power of this second audience, the public, which creates infinite possibilities and which is motivation for much of what we do, explains a lot of how the attention economy works.

Perceived and transactional influence
Attention, interestingly, is described in economic terms: paid, spent, given, taken. Note that the first two are zero sum and involve the temporality of attention. Paying attention takes our time. The second two are non-zero sum and transactional.

Giving and getting attention is the simplest social action. Nothing yet has to be said or communicated verbally: attention can be given a person, and that in itself, is socially meaningful.

Now consider how we attend to the attention economy in social media. Brands, as well as users, watch and attend to it. Brands, as well as users, transact in it.
  • Social capital, the perceived value of a brand or individual, collects attention paid and spent on that brand or person. Call this perceived influence.
  • Social currency, the transacted value of a brand or individual, is attention given and taken by the brand or person by means of social actions. Call this transactional influence.

Unfortunately, perceived influence, which is just social observation, is grossly under-rated. It's much more difficult to measure because there's no action taken. Brands can't see the value in it for it's not in the numbers provided by metrics and analytics tools. For it lies behind the veil of personal social media use, in the activity of paying attention to twitter, or more specifically, to the users we actually follow.

I say this is unfortunate because i think much social action is preceded by long periods of social observation. Consider the difference it would make, to brands and to users, if all social media were split screen interfaces: what I see and what you see. Real life social situations are like this: I see you looking at me, and can see reflected in your face something of how you see me (what you think of me).

Motives explained by the social and the public
The dual public also helps to explain many of our motives in using social media. Again, our actions can lead to potential further action, and if not, are at least possibly seen. Tweets, like comments, reflect these motives.

For example:
  • Tweets or comments intended to get attention from the author
  • Tweets or comments soliciting or appealing for direct response
  • Tweets or comments that are a direct response
  • Tweets or comments that continue a conversational run or thread
  • Tweets or comments intended to garner attention to their author

We could break each of these down and show that for each, the user's motive may be to appeal to the author's attention, to get visibility in front of the public, to solicit a response, or to respond. Tweets and comments, in other words are not just that: (Nothing is explained if we describe social action by its form of content.)

Summary
To conclude, then, I think that the fact that any use of social media can have outcomes in two distinct audiences may explain its uniqueness as a medium, and its use by brands and individuals alike. That the attention economy involves both looking and being seen, posting and responding, would explain why motives for participating in social media reflect to the "presence" of two audiences. These are properties particular to the sociality of the medium, and to the sociability of its uses.
]]>
There's nothing wrong with this, and while some may see a cynical twist or twitter's dirty little secret (nobody's listening!), I see instead perfectly reasonable social media coping mechanisms. ;-)

Social media's two audiences
Social behaviors are shaped and informed by design, but not explained by design. The obvious reason that none of us can see each other's twitter usage (groups, or subsets of followers actually viewed and paid attention to) is that if designed into twitter, activity would change instantly and radically. This is not just a matter of privacy, but a deeply social matter.

Reflecting on this last night led me to thinking about the social and public space constructed across all social media. There are, in mediated social contexts, always two audiences.
  • There is an audience we'll call social, and which we describe in terms of proximity: it's a internalized social world of friends, peers, colleagues: known individuals.
  • And there is a second, anonymous public, which is not internalized but is imagined.

Any person known belongs in the social and is potentially present. Any anonymous individual, because we don't yet know them (as soon as we do, they move to the internalized social world), is possibly present.

Potential and possible relations
Potential social relations become active relations, or interactions, when we communicate. Possible relations become actual relations, based on the action of following, when we are seen and found.

I think the doubling of audience could go far in explaining the power of social media.

We know, for example, that the probability of actually having a conversation is less in social media than it is face to face. There's simply a lot more at our command in face to face situations by means of which to have conversation. However, face to face situations limit us, of course, to those in our presence. Social media may reduce the probability of having real conversation but increase the opportunities for creating conversation.

This seems, to me, the main reason we use social media. Not mass, but mini media. Or, "me"-dia, in the context of social, not mass audiences. The distinction between social and mass media being that relations are possible in the former, not so in the latter. (This is changing as mass incorporates social.)

The medium's three modes: mirror, surface, window
Back then to attention, and the veil of nondisclosure from behind which we engage in social media. I like to say that the social interface has three modes: mirror, surface, and window.
  • We see ourselves reflected in social media: this is it's mirror mode.
  • We consume content of all kinds off the screen — sites, apps, communication — all using the screen as a presentation layer: this is its surface mode.
  • And we talk to each other through social media: this is its window mode

Modes of attention
Social presence, proximity, and attention are then each implicated in a mediated social context that has ways of seeing and ways of being seen.

Consider this, for example. We enjoy accumulating followers, seeing ourselves referred to, commented to, and otherwise being made visible. Doesn't matter whether this involves acknowledgment, recognition, or validation; the point is that the medium does create a kind of social visibility. Call it, for simplicity's sake, "being paid attention to."

Well, attention doesn't correlate with actually engaging in conversation. Many of us sometimes ignore a request for communication, for whatever reason. It's part of daily life; in real life it's called "civil inattention," and is handled by acknowledging others in ways that also indicate to them "I see you, recognize you, but I'm not available to interact." Simply put, politeness.

Now, consider the social media space. Attention paid to others may not be visible to them. But if it's given, such as by taking any action recorded and captured by the medium and surfaced by design, then this action can have two social outcomes, not one. This is the power of the medium, and the net effect of the doubled audience mentioned above.

Social actions, social relations
One translates as the potential for further social action. The other translates into the possibility for social relation. For the social world already has relations but has activity only on the basis of user actions. And the public world has activity but lacks the connection until a relation is established.
  • A social action has been made which can be picked up by any user who sees it: potential for further action
  • A social action increases the user's visibility: the possibility of being seen

The possibility of being seen is motive enough, for some. While communication is no more probable, the possibility is there. As they say of the lottery: your odds of winning increase dramatically if you buy a ticket.

The power of this second audience, the public, which creates infinite possibilities and which is motivation for much of what we do, explains a lot of how the attention economy works.

Perceived and transactional influence
Attention, interestingly, is described in economic terms: paid, spent, given, taken. Note that the first two are zero sum and involve the temporality of attention. Paying attention takes our time. The second two are non-zero sum and transactional.

Giving and getting attention is the simplest social action. Nothing yet has to be said or communicated verbally: attention can be given a person, and that in itself, is socially meaningful.

Now consider how we attend to the attention economy in social media. Brands, as well as users, watch and attend to it. Brands, as well as users, transact in it.
  • Social capital, the perceived value of a brand or individual, collects attention paid and spent on that brand or person. Call this perceived influence.
  • Social currency, the transacted value of a brand or individual, is attention given and taken by the brand or person by means of social actions. Call this transactional influence.

Unfortunately, perceived influence, which is just social observation, is grossly under-rated. It's much more difficult to measure because there's no action taken. Brands can't see the value in it for it's not in the numbers provided by metrics and analytics tools. For it lies behind the veil of personal social media use, in the activity of paying attention to twitter, or more specifically, to the users we actually follow.

I say this is unfortunate because i think much social action is preceded by long periods of social observation. Consider the difference it would make, to brands and to users, if all social media were split screen interfaces: what I see and what you see. Real life social situations are like this: I see you looking at me, and can see reflected in your face something of how you see me (what you think of me).

Motives explained by the social and the public
The dual public also helps to explain many of our motives in using social media. Again, our actions can lead to potential further action, and if not, are at least possibly seen. Tweets, like comments, reflect these motives.

For example:
  • Tweets or comments intended to get attention from the author
  • Tweets or comments soliciting or appealing for direct response
  • Tweets or comments that are a direct response
  • Tweets or comments that continue a conversational run or thread
  • Tweets or comments intended to garner attention to their author

We could break each of these down and show that for each, the user's motive may be to appeal to the author's attention, to get visibility in front of the public, to solicit a response, or to respond. Tweets and comments, in other words are not just that: (Nothing is explained if we describe social action by its form of content.)

Summary
To conclude, then, I think that the fact that any use of social media can have outcomes in two distinct audiences may explain its uniqueness as a medium, and its use by brands and individuals alike. That the attention economy involves both looking and being seen, posting and responding, would explain why motives for participating in social media reflect to the "presence" of two audiences. These are properties particular to the sociality of the medium, and to the sociability of its uses.
]]> http://www.ozmota.com/?feed=rss2&p=438 0 Kevin Kelly: Predicting the next 5,000 days of the web http://www.simonbutton.com/2009/03/09/kevin-kelly-predicting-the-next-5000-days-of-the-web/ http://www.simonbutton.com/2009/03/09/kevin-kelly-predicting-the-next-5000-days-of-the-web/#comments Mon, 09 Mar 2009 06:26:26 +0000 simonb http://www.simonbutton.com/?p=198

]]> http://www.simonbutton.com/2009/03/09/kevin-kelly-predicting-the-next-5000-days-of-the-web/feed/ 0 Bill Stone: Journey to the center of the Earth http://www.simonbutton.com/2009/03/04/bill-stone-journey-to-the-center-of-the-earth/ http://www.simonbutton.com/2009/03/04/bill-stone-journey-to-the-center-of-the-earth/#comments Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:27:12 +0000 simonb http://www.simonbutton.com/?p=194

]]> http://www.simonbutton.com/2009/03/04/bill-stone-journey-to-the-center-of-the-earth/feed/ 0 Keith Barry: Brain magic http://www.simonbutton.com/2009/03/04/keith-barry-brain-magic/ http://www.simonbutton.com/2009/03/04/keith-barry-brain-magic/#comments Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:33:34 +0000 simonb http://www.simonbutton.com/?p=191

]]> http://www.simonbutton.com/2009/03/04/keith-barry-brain-magic/feed/ 0 Did You Know? http://www.simonbutton.com/2009/02/22/did-you-know/ http://www.simonbutton.com/2009/02/22/did-you-know/#comments Sun, 22 Feb 2009 04:12:24 +0000 simonb http://sibacom.com/2009/02/22/did-you-know/ Law of Accelerating Returns demonstrated in this video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPqHt4LpyKY

]]> http://www.simonbutton.com/2009/02/22/did-you-know/feed/ 0 Attention Allocation – from Search to Social http://www.simonbutton.com/2009/02/10/attention-allocation-from-search-to-social/ http://www.simonbutton.com/2009/02/10/attention-allocation-from-search-to-social/#comments Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:01:29 +0000 simonb http://sibacom.com/?p=184 The Attention Economy is a concept unifying the different approaches to enter the user’s mind, from search engines to spreading through the social graph of social networks to recommendations.

Attention Allocation – from Search to Social
]]> http://www.simonbutton.com/2009/02/10/attention-allocation-from-search-to-social/feed/ 0 Enemy in Sun Tzu’s Art of War http://www.simonbutton.com/-0001/11/30/enemy-in-sun-tzus-art-of-war/ http://www.simonbutton.com/-0001/11/30/enemy-in-sun-tzus-art-of-war/#comments Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:45:33 +0000 simonb http://www.simonbutton.com/?p=186

]]> http://www.simonbutton.com/-0001/11/30/enemy-in-sun-tzus-art-of-war/feed/ 0