Even the robots ‘stealing’ the jobs of warehouse workers have Christmas spirit in Amazon’s (UK?) Christmas advert:
I came across this via Thomas Dekysser and AdDistortion on Twitter.
Just as with the old Nokia 3220 “funshell” LEDs the principle seems to be that if you turn your head (rather than the device being turned) the advert/picture appears to ‘drag’ out of the light unit.
This obviously presents yet another level of issues around the uses of ‘public’ space and what reasonable expectations of intrusion into one’s attention/vision/cognition might be made, what constitutes ‘choice’ in terms of exposure to these images and lots more things besides…
‘I’ll consume my consumers, [with] no sense of humour’ — Grace Jones, Corporate Cannibal
I keep failing to write up a talk I did over 18 months ago in Bristol for the Politics and Economics of Attention seminar convened by Jessica Pykett. My main argument is that the ways that a thing called ‘the attention economy’ gets figured by a lot of folks, including Christian Marazzi, and Bernard Stiegler to an extent, is that ‘attention’ is ‘work’ and therefore it can be factored through the marxian labour theory of value. Indeed, Jonathan Beller flips this and suggests that, rather, work is a form of attention and therefore it should be the ‘attention theory of value’.
There’s another version of this story, which is also based in marxian theory. This is perhaps best articulated (in my limited reading) by Dallas Smythe regarding advertising and the broadcast media but can also be accessed from a rather different angle via David Harvey’s work on wine. In this version of the economisation of attention, attention is not ‘work’, instead attention is a commodity. The advertiser rents an audience from the broadcaster, which is more-or-less demographically specific due to profiling. Smythe refers to this as a kind of ‘consciousness industry’ (presumably in a similar vein to the ‘culture industry’). This is more precisely the case with online advertising where, through all sorts of techniques, the profiling can appear to be a lot more specific. As Smythe has it in a 1977 paper for the Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory:
What do advertisers buy with their advertising expenditures? … they are not paying for advertising for nothing… I suggest that hat they buy are the services of audiences with predictable specifications who will pay attention in predictable numbers … at particular times to a particular means of communication… As collectives these audiences are commodities. … Such markets establish prices in the familiar mode of monopoly capitalism.
A sub-industry sector of the consciousness industry checks to determine [that the audience pays attention]. … The behaviour of the members of the audience product under the impact of the advertising … content is the object of market research by a large number of independent market research agencies as well as by… the advertising corporation and in media enterprises.
The most important resource employed in producing the audience commodity are [sic.] the individuals and families in the nations which permit advertising.
So, while it may be useful for some to consider that the ways in which we are addressed as an audience and the kinds of ways we ‘pay attention’ can be figured as ‘labour’ that has a value and therefore exploits apparent leisure time as, instead, a continuation of work by other means, this does not perhaps tell the whole story. The advertising businesses are, certainly, using all sorts of ways to profile us and in some senses individualise a potential target for an advert but this is in order to serve up aggregates of profiles to advertisers as a commodity from which they extract rent. I should note Smythe does not see it that way but instead analyses the whole system of monopoly capitalism in which advertising is operating and in which there is, what he expertly articulates as:
…the contradictions produced within the audience commodity [which] should be understood more clearly … as between audience members serving a producers’ goods in the marketing of mass produced consumer goods and their work in producing and reproducing labour power.
Maybe I should write this up… it’s quite an interesting argument and as I said in my talk some time ago I think it highlights the issues with contradiction in the ‘attention commodity’ between it’s apparent uniqueness and a reproducibility as a ‘type’. There are a few avenues of critique open as a result. One, is to think the categorisation techniques as a pharmakon, perhaps to interrogate the processes of calculation/categorisation as rethink-able, another might be to look at ‘derivative’ nature of the categorisations, and how this produces a form of financialisation ( for e.g. following Louise Amoore) and another still might be to explore alternative valuations – whereby people take an active role in ‘selling’ themselves into this commodity market (for e.g. following Sarah Gold).
When you forget some essentials in your supermarket delivery and find yourself in the 24-hour supermarket at 10 o-clock at night you can see some vaguely (or not) interesting things… Here’s some “digital signage” (look, it says so – see?) that seems to have nothing to signify but it tells you some stuff… it doesn’t seem to be ‘online’, it has a measly 5Gb of storage and it has a hardware ID. I sort of think it’s quite nice to see the crap-ness of things like this when we get buffeted with promises/warnings of digital signage that profiles us, our cars and so on…
From the MIT Tech Review:
Well that’s alright then! 😉