In 2001, Thomas H. Davenport and John C. Beck published
The Attention Economy [link to wikipedia's entry on the concept]
through Harvard Business School Press.
Here's the money quote:
"In postindustrial societies, attention has become a more valuable currency than the kind you store in bank accounts. The vast majority of products have become cheaper and more abundant as the sum total of human wealth increases. Venture capital dollars have multiplied like breeding hamsters. The problems for businesspeople lie on both sides of the attention equation: how to get and hold the attention of consumers, stockholders, potential employees, and the like, and how to parcel out their own attention in the face of overwhelming options. People and companies that do this, succeed. The rest fail. Understanding and managing attention is now the single most important determinant of business success. Welcome to the attention economy." (p. 3)
This book and its theoretical approach tell us what to do after we go beyond providing information access. Now the work is to get the attention of those awash in information flows. It's worth your attention.
JEG
As usual, Charles Tuite's blog "Seeing To It"
has nailed another key issue in contemporary information science.
He is one of the thought-leaders produced by the Center for Information and Communication Sciences
master's program at Ball State University.
I recommend you read in its entirety his latest post, "A New Coat of Paint"
Tuite says:
[A]t least a passing comment is needed to address the seemingly endless stream of FUD ["Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt"] coming out of the security segment of the IT world regarding social networking and the associated softwares. The simple fact of life is that the only absolutely secure software is one never installed, and the only safe network is one powered down. There are varying degrees of security and hardening, but it is more guaranteed by the policies and implementations of technology than by any one software.
Note the force of the well-written phrase: "The simple fact of life is that the only absolutely secure software is one never installed, and the only safe network is one powered down."
Next, Tuite recommends using the "Subject" line to convey routine information, instead of forcing the reader to open a message that simply contains the same information that could be in the "Subject" line used as a headline, as in journalism:
Here are two potential examples of messages:1) To: People
From:ctuite@bsu.edu
Subj: CM02 will be taken down for maintenance at 17:00 today.
or the second, more standard:2) To: People
From:ctuite@bsu.edu
Subj: CM02 down for maintenanceTo my co-workers - this afternoon, the CM02 server will be brought down so that some maintenance may be performed.
There is some background information needed here. The audience is a group of co-workers who know the terminology. They are also extremely busy - I've said before that we first overclocked the machines, then we overclocked ourselves. Therefore, why would there be a need to stick to the standard business format of a subject line, then a more expansive restatement of the message? A quick blurb is not only acceptable, it must also be preferred, given the audience and environment.
When I worked at Bellcore, now Telcordia Technologies,
its professionals were so busy, and we received such a torrent of email, that many people there literally stopped reading emails, unless the messages were sent from your boss, your family, or your real friends.
People started using the "Subject" line to send the essential information, so at least you got your true message across to people who wouldn't open messages. It worked. It was email-receipt-queue as bulletin board.
Thank you once again, Charles Tuite, for helping your colleagues by seeing to it--the issues of our field, deeply
thought through and well-expressed.