,
6 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
The tastes of hyperconsuming outliers are by definition not the tastes of the population at large. Some business models, however, cause them to be quite influential.
Ad-supported models were one almost immune to this. Newspapers / TV stations basically can’t detect a difference between someone who uses the artifact once a week and someone who uses it 40h+ a week, and if they could, they’d be worth approximately the same amount of money.
This changed with pageview based online advertising, because a hyperconsuming outlier generates many more ad impressions.
The thing that really kicked this issue into the public spotlight, though, was recommendation engines which in optimizing for engagement made outliers.
The thing that really kicked this issue into the public spotlight, though, was recommendation engines which in optimizing for engagement made outliers.
You might think that I’m using “hyperconsuming outlier” as a euphemism. I’m not. Some of the psychographs are morally odious or low-status (two things society often confuses, unfortunately).
Some are neither; librarians, for example, index off the charts.
Some are neither; librarians, for example, index off the charts.
I think the dislocation people feel about this is that, in a model where culture is sold, if you’re watching it, it is for you.
In a model which optimized for the outlier, you’re relevant only to the extent you can be transformed into an outlier. What you’re watch is for them.
In a model which optimized for the outlier, you’re relevant only to the extent you can be transformed into an outlier. What you’re watch is for them.
An example that isn’t YouTube/Twitter or ad supported is the anime market, which has a *gigantic* worldwide following and also a small subculture of hyperconsuming outliers who dominate the economics of anime-related goods purchases.
Their tastes often dictate the product.
Their tastes often dictate the product.
