Choices and Magical Thinking

Humans are the only species in the Animal Kingdom that can make logical decisions. We were given the ultimate talisman to rule the Kingdom at the top of the food chain. We have thrived and advanced for a very, very long time. So why do we continue to make the decisions we do, hoping that magical thinking, somehow, will result in a different outcome? 

The answer, to me, seems clear: we can also make no decision and we can make a bad decision. Take this observation from an editorial board member at The New York Times:

"We know a lot more [about coronavirus] now...we know that temperature checks won’t prevent outbreaks (at least one-third of people who transmit the virus have no symptoms at all), but that routine surveillance testing can catch outbreaks before they become catastrophes. 

"We don’t know how safe schools are, or how safe they might be made. But we do know that bars and restaurants are hubs of viral transmission.

"And yet, as we enter the third — and potentially worst — coronavirus surge, pandemic fatigue and magical thinking have us acting like all of this is brand-new. Schools are closing while restaurants remain open. State and local leaders are dithering on mask mandates. 

"Too few communities have effective programs in place for contact tracing, quarantine and isolation."

However bad it looks right now, this pandemic won't last forever; they never have. Our goal as a nation should be to protect as many people as possible in the tough months ahead. Magical thinking will not get us through this. Making good choices will help.

"Newspapers," modern media, advertising, and expectations

While sitting at a truck stop on a 10-hour break a couple of weeks ago, I read an email received that included a link to an essay written by the CEO of The New York Times Company, the parent company of the famed newspaper. The piece was a well-written explanation of the challenges he faces as the head of a world-famous media outlet that, like every other one, has struggled with rapidly falling revenues due to decreased revenues brought about by declining readership.

Of course, nothing is either simple or singular in any change process; no one factor can "blamed" or shown as the start of it all. That is true in this case, too. Physical newspaper subscriptions have declined as the population ages and younger readers get their "news" more from mobile electronic devices than not. That is where this story goes.

Since the advent of mobile cell phones and tablets, their ability to process data and connect with data sources has expanded wildly over the years. Early on, there was the expectation by the end user that they could connect to everything for free, as long as they paid their provider monthly to do so. This created an enormous supply of eyes on the receiving end and companies were fast to identify the potential market. As Google, for example, ceased being a small startup company of math and programming geniuses and became a large international powerhouse with expensive needs to fill as they grew, their executives and Board of Directors began to focus on "monetizing" - there is a word that did not exist before the Electronic Age we are in - really meaning charging for this new product they created.

Google (and all the others) started selling ads to companies looking to sell their products or services based on their internal proprietary algorithms that somehow were tied directly to the de-identified but accurate mobile device user. Of course, as the ad buyers soon realized, they could get more eyes on their product for less money than by advertising in a paper news media or radio or television, so guess what they did?

The advertising revenue stream shifted from print (and other media) to electronic media.

Over time, this stream has shrunk and CEO's of organizations have had to adapt. Many did not have the resources to do so and failed. Large, established companies like The New York Times did not fail but have been working on survival solutions. End users noticed an increase in ads on the web pages they viewed, other apps they downloaded, and pretty much everywhere else. This caused some angst for them because they never had to deal with them before and now these ads are all over the  place. These ads were on the sides, at the bottom, at the top, and they even popped up almost completely covering the page being viewed. Many users downloaded the ad-blocking apps that were developed at the same time.

This led to a conflict in the industry: If ads were blocked, nobody saw them and the ad company would not pay as much (or at all) to display their products. The revenue stream was reduced again and the site owner would have to figure out a solution to stay in business.

All because we expect what we've always had as end users...access to freedom for a monthly fee.

After having given this a lot of thought, I have come to the decision to pay for things I used to get for free. I bought a subscription to the digital New York Times...on sale, of course; I am not a dummy! I will not use apps that block ads, as irritated as I know I will get at times. Since there is often a link between a click and how much is charged and/or earned, I will even click on products that interest me from time to time, though I know I will hardly ever buy anything based on that; it's just not how I operate.

The times have changed. How we get information has also changed and the producers and deliverers of that information have changed, as has the expense of doing so. I want to help companies  survive this difficult transition, or at least not help kill them, even if I'm just one of millions and I know very few others will choose my course of action. What used to be free when it was starting out now has cost associations. The way to get it must change, too.