You can ask questions such as
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2025 6:20 am
A tweet evaporates faster than wet snow melts
Steve Rubel (photo) gave an interesting talk about the battle for attention that dominates media thinking. In Attentionomics in the digital time-space-continuum Rubel paints the picture that all media for media professionals are actually focused on getting attention. We see this on both a business and a personal level. My hypothesis here is that frequent business tweeters have a personal motivation for this, which is in the area of asking for attention.
Twitter is the most recent and currently most popular 2.0 tool with which this attention is sought and pursued. Every day (!) some 110 million thoughts of max. 140 characters are shared with the world. According to David Winer, Twitter paraguay phone number list is a 'dress rehearsal for news of the future', in the sense that anyone can publish anything, without the intervention of a media editor. Quantity in supply is no longer a challenge.
Are all those updates and news items actually being read?
Does more information and especially communication provision lead to a greater effect of that provision?
Can you still maximize attention by focusing on volume and quantity?
Do all those people who leave a digital trail of tweets actually get the attention they expect?
No. The statistics that Rubel shared with the audience show that seeking attention does not necessarily yield that attention. The bottom line is: Tweets evaporate faster than wet snow melts. The main reason for this is that many tweets are irrelevant. They add nothing. Relevance increases quality. Relevance is becoming increasingly important now that a lot of information lacks quality. Because many people will not care if someone drinks coffee or rocks the baby. The phase in which it is all about as many followers as possible is also over. It was about quantity; it is about quality.
Steve Rubel (photo) gave an interesting talk about the battle for attention that dominates media thinking. In Attentionomics in the digital time-space-continuum Rubel paints the picture that all media for media professionals are actually focused on getting attention. We see this on both a business and a personal level. My hypothesis here is that frequent business tweeters have a personal motivation for this, which is in the area of asking for attention.
Twitter is the most recent and currently most popular 2.0 tool with which this attention is sought and pursued. Every day (!) some 110 million thoughts of max. 140 characters are shared with the world. According to David Winer, Twitter paraguay phone number list is a 'dress rehearsal for news of the future', in the sense that anyone can publish anything, without the intervention of a media editor. Quantity in supply is no longer a challenge.
Are all those updates and news items actually being read?
Does more information and especially communication provision lead to a greater effect of that provision?
Can you still maximize attention by focusing on volume and quantity?
Do all those people who leave a digital trail of tweets actually get the attention they expect?
No. The statistics that Rubel shared with the audience show that seeking attention does not necessarily yield that attention. The bottom line is: Tweets evaporate faster than wet snow melts. The main reason for this is that many tweets are irrelevant. They add nothing. Relevance increases quality. Relevance is becoming increasingly important now that a lot of information lacks quality. Because many people will not care if someone drinks coffee or rocks the baby. The phase in which it is all about as many followers as possible is also over. It was about quantity; it is about quality.