How strong/long is the human attention span? I sure don’t know. But it seems to grow shorter by the year.
The first time I began to notice it was when USA TODAY came on the market. Their model was to create a national newspaper with shorter stories. They added more charts and graphs. They gave readers a state-by-state one issue synopsis. Most stories followed their model of less is better.
Shift to today with the explosion of media channels, including the ability to send snippets out of context. Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Vine, Vimeo and many other many other vehicles play to our dwindling human attention span. “PAY ATTENTION TO ME!” Delete. “READ THIS!” Delete. “CHECK OUT THIS PICTURE!” Delete.
We scan and delete, scan and delete, rarely taking time to read, assimilate and think. We lose personal judgment when that happens and become easily to manipulate. Individuals, companies and organizations have figured this out, playing to our base instincts.
Television stories average 8 seconds in length. THAT’S 8 SECONDS, FOLKS! Do you think you’re informed in that period? Do you have time to evaluate data that quickly? Can you form an intelligent opinion in a few seconds? Of course not.
If you read a Tweet, you’re probably done in less than 8 seconds. Again, you’re not informed when you glance at 140 characters while looking at a photo of someone making an absurd face.
Sadly, the written word is slowly disappearing. I have adapted to this. When this column started almost 20 years ago (WHOA!), I wrote it to the average newspaper length for a column –750 words. I doggedly stuck with this for 15 years, even when it became clear that fewer and fewer people sat down to read about a subject rather than listening to two jabbering heads talk about something on TV instead.
The 750 word limit dropped down to about 600 words around 5 years ago, as I gave into reality. “People won’t stay with the column until the end, so I better shorten it.” No one noticed. No one commented. I still got positive feedback from the same readers.
You can tell when you lose readers based on the types of comments you receive on what you wrote and the frequency of people weighing in. It became clear in the last year that even 600 words was probably too many to expect people to read on a weekly basis. I felt I was drawing messages out, playing around with words too much, and should probably cut the column even shorter. So I did.
For those faithful readers, you’re now typically perusing 550 words per week. The messages still come through. Hopefully, funny and insightful stories still grab you during the ebb and flow of what I type. If we lose that, then no one will pay attention.
Is shorter better? I’m not sure. But I write to share, get people thinking, laughing and digging deeper into why the world is the way it is, and what we can do to positively impact it for our children and future generations.
To be successful, I’ve had to adapt in many ways, like we all must do in our jobs and personal lives. Hopefully, shorter makes sense and you still muse and laugh reading this column. Damn it, just went 557.
The first time I began to notice it was when USA TODAY came on the market. Their model was to create a national newspaper with shorter stories. They added more charts and graphs. They gave readers a state-by-state one issue synopsis. Most stories followed their model of less is better.
Shift to today with the explosion of media channels, including the ability to send snippets out of context. Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Vine, Vimeo and many other many other vehicles play to our dwindling human attention span. “PAY ATTENTION TO ME!” Delete. “READ THIS!” Delete. “CHECK OUT THIS PICTURE!” Delete.
We scan and delete, scan and delete, rarely taking time to read, assimilate and think. We lose personal judgment when that happens and become easily to manipulate. Individuals, companies and organizations have figured this out, playing to our base instincts.
Television stories average 8 seconds in length. THAT’S 8 SECONDS, FOLKS! Do you think you’re informed in that period? Do you have time to evaluate data that quickly? Can you form an intelligent opinion in a few seconds? Of course not.
If you read a Tweet, you’re probably done in less than 8 seconds. Again, you’re not informed when you glance at 140 characters while looking at a photo of someone making an absurd face.
Sadly, the written word is slowly disappearing. I have adapted to this. When this column started almost 20 years ago (WHOA!), I wrote it to the average newspaper length for a column –750 words. I doggedly stuck with this for 15 years, even when it became clear that fewer and fewer people sat down to read about a subject rather than listening to two jabbering heads talk about something on TV instead.
The 750 word limit dropped down to about 600 words around 5 years ago, as I gave into reality. “People won’t stay with the column until the end, so I better shorten it.” No one noticed. No one commented. I still got positive feedback from the same readers.
You can tell when you lose readers based on the types of comments you receive on what you wrote and the frequency of people weighing in. It became clear in the last year that even 600 words was probably too many to expect people to read on a weekly basis. I felt I was drawing messages out, playing around with words too much, and should probably cut the column even shorter. So I did.
For those faithful readers, you’re now typically perusing 550 words per week. The messages still come through. Hopefully, funny and insightful stories still grab you during the ebb and flow of what I type. If we lose that, then no one will pay attention.
Is shorter better? I’m not sure. But I write to share, get people thinking, laughing and digging deeper into why the world is the way it is, and what we can do to positively impact it for our children and future generations.
To be successful, I’ve had to adapt in many ways, like we all must do in our jobs and personal lives. Hopefully, shorter makes sense and you still muse and laugh reading this column. Damn it, just went 557.
