Pauline Hoebanx
M.A. Sociology, Concordia University
December 15, 2019
The production of free-to-consume online content is supported by an advertisement-based revenue model, known as the attention economy – or the eyeball economy. Within the eyeball economy, digital media is not directly purchased by consumers. Instead, its production is funded by advertisers, who purchase the possibility to run ads on webpages. In other words, value is not generated by selling media content to consumers, but by auctioning off consumers’ attention to advertisers. However, attention is not a material object that can be bought and sold. Instead, digital media platforms collect and sell consumers’ personal data to advertisers (location, browsing history, demographic data shared on social media), who then use it to better target and tailor their ads to individual consumers.
Aptly named, the eyeball economy reflects both the increasingly visual nature of media messages, as well as the biological limitations faced by this business model. While the quantity of digital content incessantly grows, the human attention span cannot follow suit. There is only so much we can see or consume. Our attention is a biologically limited resource. In addition to the scarcity of attention – the eyeball economy’s primary commodity – the revenue model is now at a turning point. The rates advertisers are willing to pay for personal data are dwindling and digital media content producers are finding themselves stuck in a race to the bottom. Forced to become more competitive, media producers are pressured to sell more and more of their consumers’ data to advertisers, and to do so for a declining profit margin.
It is within this context that I will explore the social regulation of sight online. I will first describe whose attention – or eyeballs – has become a commodity within this economic model. Then, I will discuss what is shown to consumers, and finally, what is hidden from their sight.
Whose sight is valuable?
Scholars and journalists had high expectations for the internet in the 1990s. However, Curran identifies four major predictions that fell short: (1) an economic transformation; (2) a move towards global understanding; (3) the empowerment of citizens; and (4) the renaissance of journalism. The internet failed to deliver on these promises because its nature was misunderstood. Scholars and journalists of the ‘90s failed to see that the internet was not a new, revolutionary social institution. Rather, Castells argues that the internet is a tool and a communication medium. It is, as Fenton explains, embedded in the economic and social structures in which it was created and exists. Thus, the social inequalities present before the popularization of the internet were reproduced – and even heightened – online. Not all individuals have equal access to the internet. Material barriers such as unequal access to resources and mastery of the English language, coupled with varying levels of cultural capital or state legislations, affect individuals’ capacity to become digital consumers and, by extension, a sought-after commodity in the eyeball economy.
For Castells, power derives from social representation. It is undeniable that questions of who is communicating what, and to whom, reveal the extent to which online representation is selective. Those who are seen and heard online are mostly Western, anglophone, upper-middle-class individuals. It is their attention that is commodified, and their gaze that is valued in the eyeball economy. Their tastes, experiences and opinions are hyper-visible. Those without access to the mainstream online world, however, remain out of digital sight.
In focus
Scholars of the ‘90s predicted that the internet would transform consumers into ‘prosumers’: individuals who would both consume and produce content. However, Curran found that few people actually produce online content. Thus, only a privileged group has access to mainstream digital media, and what they can see online are the representations of an even smaller portion of their group. Westervelt argues that with the falling profit rates of the eyeball economy, those who can afford to be digital media creators are privileged individuals and corporations who no longer rely solely on the eyeball economy for revenue. In Westervelt’s words, this “impacts what sorts of stories get told, and how”.
Despite the restricted number of prosumers, there is still far too much digital content available for an individual to consume alone. Choosing what to consume is facilitated by recommendation algorithms, which cater the content we see in an increasingly personal way. These algorithms are based on personal data gleaned from our browsing habits, our location and our identities. The accuracy of these algorithms is supported by the eyeball economy: advertisers buy our personal data from digital media companies, in the hopes of creating increasingly targeted ads. This, in turn, might improve the chances of attracting consumers’ impressions and clicks (and eventually purchases).
However, these recommendation algorithms have the adverse effect of creating filter bubbles or echo chambers. These recommendation algorithms are based on the self, rather than democratic representations of all opinions and experiences. Additionally, recommendation algorithms reflect and reinforce existing biases against marginalized populations. Algorithms filter out content deemed to stray too far from the opinions and experiences of an individual and their network, and social media feeds appear falsely homogenous. When algorithms dictate what we see, then we are shown those who do, think, and are, like us.
Out of focus
The content we consume online is not truly free. Rather than purchasing the content themselves, digital consumers are unknowingly selling their attention and their personal data. These transactions happen out of sight, and out of the consumers’ control. However, they can come to the public’s attention in times of transformation and crisis. For example, the Cambridge Analytica data breach revealed how personal data was harvested from millions of Facebook profiles to influence the 2016 American presidential campaign. More recently, YouTube’s updated terms of service made headlines, as they now clearly state YouTube’s right to terminate channels that are “no longer commercially viable”. These new guidelines reveal the tacit commercial agreement between the platform and its content creators. They also give a glimpse into the growing difficulties of digital media platforms to sustain themselves within the eyeball economy. Advertisers are reducing the amount of money they are willing to spend on online consumers’ attention. To remain competitive, media platforms are harvesting more of their users’ data to sell to advertisers. This has created spaces of constant surveillance. Ads are now so precisely targeted that some users have accused Facebook of listening in on their conversations while they were browsing the app – something that Facebook has denied. The eyeball economy is not a tenable model. Scholars and journalists seem to agree that the deflationary spiral will soon give way to an alternative model such as a subscription-based model, which can already be seen with services such as YouTube premium, Disney +, or Patreon. However, a new model like the subscription model is limited by the amount of content consumers can afford – and are willing – to subscribe to.
Hidden economic transactions are not the only aspects of the eyeball economy occurring out of the consumers’ sight. There are also transactions of power. Within this business model, the power to persuade individuals is sold to those who are willing to pay the most. This is a far cry from the democratic digital space dreamt up by scholars and journalists of the ‘90s. In fact, a handful of digital mega-corporations hold a quasi-monopoly of the power to control what is shown and what is hidden. Much like transactions of personal data, mega-corporations’ policing of digital content is brought to public attention in moments of crisis, such as LGBT+ Youtubers accusing the platform of demonetizing their videos, or sex workers accusing Instagram of censoring their content. These are examples of moments where the act of dissimulation itself was brought into the public eye. However, these mega-corporations are not democratic institutions. While they are not technically above the law, they are out of the citizens’ control.
Scholars studying the internet agree that the relations of power found offline are reproduced and reinforced online. Mega-corporations, digital content producers and social media platforms were borne out of a neoliberal capitalist society, and thus cannot escape its norms. For scholars like Castells, social media holds the promise of great political power. For others, it is mostly used by consumers as a source of entertainment, irrespective of the political debates taking place. However, these theorizations ignore the underlying power relations shaping our online experiences. The internet is not simply a public sphere in which individuals are potential political agents. It is also a marketplace, where individuals are commodities. Fenton warns that social networking sites are not driven by the need to empower digital citizens. They are driven by capitalist interests, and this is reflected in their actions.
Conclusion
Our attention has become a commodity with which we pay for access to free digital content. This has affected our online navigation experiences, as what we are shown is heavily catered by algorithms and by advertisers. Our choices are made between increasingly personalized options, sponsored by the eyeball economy. However, the eyeball economy has reached its limits. While it is possible to continue increasing the amount of available content, human attention is biologically limited and cannot increase accordingly. The subscription-based model that seems to be emerging has its limits as well. These limits are rooted in the inequalities and ever-increasing gap between the poor and the rich. When eyeballs can no longer afford to be eyeballs, who is left to see the content? However, despite, the internet being embedded in neoliberal and capitalist systems, Fenton believes that it is also a potential site for change, as the internet holds the potential to expose the inadequacies of these systems.
Works Cited
Alexander, J. (2019, November 11). YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video. Retrieved from The Verge: https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/11/20955864/youtube-terms-of-service-update-terminations-children-content-ftc
Bruce, M. (2016, January 20). Is this the end of the eyeball economy? . Retrieved from UK2 Blog: https://www.uk2.net/blog/is-this-the-end-of-the-eyeball-economy/
Cadawalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018, March 17). Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. Retrieved from The Guardian.
Castells, M. (2007). Communication, power and counter-power in the network society. International journal of communication, 1(1), 238-266.
Cook, J. (2019, April 4). Instagram’s Shadow Ban On Vaguely ‘Inappropriate’ Content Is Plainly Sexist. Retrieved from Huffpost: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/instagram-shadow-ban-sexist_n_5cc72935e4b0537911491a4f?ri18n=true
Curran, J. (2016). The internet of dreams: Reinterpreting the internet. In J. Curran, N. Fenton, & D. Freedman, Misunderstanding the internet (2nd ed., pp. 1-47). Routledge: New York.
Farokhmanesh, M. (2018, June 4). YouTube is still restricting and demonetizing LGBT videos — and adding anti-LGBT ads to some. Retrieved from The Verge: https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/4/17424472/youtube-lgbt-demonetization-ads-algorithm
Fenton, N. (2016). The internet of me (and my ‘friends’). In J. Curran, N. Fenton, & D. Freedman, Misunderstanding the internet (2nd ed., pp. 145-172). New York: Routledge.
Fenton, N., & Barassi, V. (2011). Alternative media and social networking sites: The politics of individuation and political participation. The communication review, 14(3), 179-196.
Gilbert, B. (2019, August 14). There’s a wildly popular conspiracy theory that Facebook listens to your private phone calls, and no matter what the tech giant says, people just aren’t convinced it’s not true. Retrieved from Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-ads-listening-to-you-2019-5
Gillani, N., Yuan, A., Saveski, M., Vosoughi, S., & Roy, D. (2018). Me, my echo chamber, and I: Introspection on social media polarization. Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference, 823-831.
If you liked that, you will love this: Recommendation algorithms. (2017, February 11). The Economist.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. Penguin.
Westervelt, A. (2018, January 1). Pressing issues: Did the digital eyeball economy set media up to fail? Retrieved from Dame Magazine: https://www.damemagazine.com/2018/01/01/did-the-digital-eyeball-economy-set-media-up-to-fail/