Is it all Worth It?
In her article "Why Webfeeds (RSS) Beat E-Mail Newsletters," Amy Gahran states that in the age of spam blockers webfeeds are a better Internet tool to reach an audience than E-mail newsletters. When our inboxes are constantly being crowed with announcements claiming we have won a million dollars (which always makes me think twice because what if one of these messages is real...) users are beginning to subscribe to newsletters with fake email addresses or at least ones they never check. Gahran believes that webfeeds are superior to e-newsletters because they are "spam proof."
But are e-newsletters and webfeeds even worth the time, energy, and budget it takes a campaign to put them together? Many would argue yes, that even one new vote makes all the effort worth it, but here is a new opinion.
Mitch Albom, one of my favorite columnists from the Detroit Free Press, took a break from his usual sports commentary to write about the media. His article, "What if CNN hadn't happened?" explores the fact that when people watch 24-hour news networks they believe they know what is going on in the world because of the images they see, but when it comes down to it people only know 20 seconds of the true story. When CNN polled their viewers about the top 25 stories they have covered in the last 25 years, three of the top stories were the Space Shuttle Columbia, Tiananmen Square, and Monica Lewinsky - all stories that are associated with images not facts. So are people really informed?
Albom believes, and I agree, that knowing a 20-second version of a complex story is worse than knowing anything at all. People fool themselves into knowing the news.
Now how does this relate to e-newsletters and webfeeds??? In class we have learned that the average someone looks at a website is a few seconds. Now that e-newsletters are being filtered by spam, fake email addresses are given to campaigns, and users are only looking at webfeeds for a few seconds, I am not sure it is worth all the effort. I think too much emphasis is being put on these new technologies and not the general website. Maybe a voter looking at a webfeed or an e-newsletter for a few seconds is worse than them looking at all.
Sidenote...Congrats again to my underdogs the Detroit Pistons! Get read for Game 7 baby!
2 Comments:
You said that you learned in class that the average that a person looks at a web page is a few seconds. To me, this sounds like you might be getting only "part" of the information.
What is the use of even "going" to a web site, or pulling in an RSS feed if you're not going to actually "read" it? I first read your post in my feed aggregator, then I came to the web site, and I read it again (just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding you).
To answer your title's question, "yes, it is all worth it". First, there would have been no way that you would have known my e-mail address, to begin with, so if you didn't have this feed, I never would have seen this post.
Second, the fact that I'm leaving a comment here says a lot. Even if the average was just a few seconds, there's a lot of "above average" people who can start a conversation, directly because of these "new technologies". Amy Gahran also talks about the aspect of conversation, a lot.
Wow! I actually "meant" to make that sound "nicer". Sorry if it came off a little rough.
Post a Comment
<< Home