Are We Becoming Addicted to the Internet?
Total time spent online is up 24.3%. At least that’s the conclusion reached by Jay Meattle after, I assume, conducting a thorough study. To graphically illustrate his conclusion, Jay provided this handy graph but neglected to mention the source data used in its construction. Perhaps it’s provided elsewhere on his site. Nonetheless, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt since we all sort of assume that we spend too much time online and, after all, it’s a pretty impressive graph. Check it out:
From the graph and presumably the data it depicts, Jay concludes:
“We are spending more and more time consuming information online. Logically, since time is finite, online advertising spend[ing] should follow a similar trajectory with marketers allocating their ad budgets in proportion to where people are spending their time.
Needless to say, this is a time of considerable opportunity for online media properties and online marketers!”
Well, sure. But shouldn’t we at least consider what kinds of online activity are included in the data? I mean, I think we can all agree that a great many people use the internet as their primary news source. My readers (ahem) probably fall into this group. If they weren’t online, they would be reading Time or Newsweek in paper format thereby contributing to deforestation. So let’s classify them as “green” onliners. And some are online to post the aforementioned news stories, also “green” onliners but sub-categorized as “producers” vs. “consumers”.
Then there are ‘net “surfers”, free spirits who simply ride the internet waves in search of the next “big one” but contribute little beyond clever cryptic comments like “Awesome dude” and “LOL”. If they weren’t online, they would be watching cable TV or skateboarding… And although I’m likely to draw some fire on this, let’s throw online gamers into this category as well.
“Porn Junkies” make up a surprisingly large segment of online consumption. If they weren’t online, they’d be trolling the malls. Some have real jobs or are politicians. They also fall into the non-contributory sub-category.
And last, but not least, are “bloggers”, those of us that work a day job while we await that mega-job offer from Time or Smithsonian that’s sure to arrive any day. Call us “wannabe journalists” for lack of a better term. At least we’re “green”.
Of course, some will point to another group, those poor souls tragically addicted to being online. But “online addicts” more accurately fall into one or more of the above categories rather than a separate one. But that raises a good question: Are we, perhaps without even realizing it, becoming addicted to being online?
Without straying into the habit vs. addiction quagmire, I think we should all ask ourselves from time to time if we are already — or in danger of becoming — “addicted”. And if we are, what can we do to get unhooked? Is there a 12-step program available in our neighborhood? Is treatment covered by insurance? Is there government aid? Can we set ourselves free cold turkey?
I went online (oh dear!) to find out. Fortunately, there is no shortage of articles on the internet aimed at getting the online monkey off one’s back. For example, wikiHow provides steps to help you analyze your time online and tips to reduce it; BBSpot lists the top 11 signs you’re spending too much time on your computer; the Center for On-line Addiction provides a Resource Center; and ParentsCentre offers an online forum to help you get, well, off line. Googling “Spending too much time online” provides more than a million hits to consider (Hmmmm).
As for me, I’ve probably spent way too much time writing this post. Am I addicted to being online? Naw! I wrote it off line!
Doug
14 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (14)
Wonderful article. I love your satirical perspective of what some might consider humdrum subject matter.
I am sure your readers are in the category of "knowledge with a healthy pinch of humor seekers". But you left out "internet lurkers", blog readers who hang out to follow comment threads but never add their own. I used to be a lurker but I do occasionally comment on your site. But I am glad to report I am not addicted, only on maybe 30 minutes a day.
Anyway, a good article. :-)
Funny! I especially like the Logoff Warning. "Remind me in a year". LOL!
I have never seen the subject dissected so thoroughly and humorously! Good job! The logoff meter was a nice add: "Remind me next year". That is too funny! Kudos!
My name is Teddy and I'm an internet addict....
Not really. I mean I can quit anytime. No, really. I could quit tomorrow if I wanted to....
My name is Sasha and I am not addicted to anything. Well maybe my boyfriend, but that is all. I do spend lots of time on computers though. Mostly doing research for school and reading news. I use email a lot but I don't count that as Internet use because it is a faster way to communicate with more people and exchange pictures than mail or even the phone.
I found your article while doing research for a school project. It didn't give me much for statistics which I was looking for but it did give me some ideas to make my presentation more interesting. Thanks :)D
Please! No more advertising on web sites! There is too much already!
I enjoyed your article. Some thoughts:
The number of people using the internet will continue to increase as the cost of computers decreases and access to bandwidth increases. Increasing Internet portability, e.g. Apple's iPhone devise and knockoffs, will also contribute to increased internet usage.
However, at some point usage will reach its natural saturation point as everyone who wants or needs access will have it, barring of course some new technological development that adds additional useful availability. Commercial airlines, for example, are allowing travelers to use idle flight time online.
Finally, I'm not sure what Mr. Meattle meant in relation to the graph when he stated that "time is finite". If he meant that as long as there is time, there will be continuous growth in usage along the lines shown on the graph, that would be an unsupported conclusion.
Really Teddy? You can quit anytime? Show me. Quit for a month and then email me.
"Onlineaholics Anonymous, a 12-step program to break your online addiction. Meets online every Thursday night at 7:30 PM. Go to www.onlineaholics.com for confidential registration."
lol that would be like holding AA meetings in a bar.
Just like you. I quit for a month and then have to "get online" to tell you. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck you know.
How about I send you a postcard and you send me a bottle of good Scotch?
Very entertaining article. In Jay Meattle's defense, he explains his data in a comment reply following the linked article:
* data represents U.S. online behavior - not global. Hence the “US online population” note on the chart.
* Source for this data is Compete, Inc. Details about the methodology and company can be found here: http://www.compete.com/help#snp1
* Since time is a finite quantity (each of us only has 24 hours a day - I wish I had more!), the assumption is that if one is spending more time online, one has to be spending less time doing other things. It would be interesting to dive deeper and investigate what channels are losing the U.S. consumer’s attention.
* Graph is measuring Total Time Spent Online by the U.S. online population. Anecdotally I know # of people online in the U.S. is also up during the same period — but I believe not as much as time spent per person online. More people are online, and on average each person is spending more time online.
* You raise the age old question about quantity vs. quality :) I like to think advertisers are ultimately driven by revenue and profits , and I think a more engaged audience is more likely to be more profitable — granted that however engaged an audience (depth) might be, one still needs volume (or reach).
* Increase in time spent online also means that advertisers have a bigger window of opportunity to reach their target segment online, more often.
I had to smile at the way you insert stealth humor where the reader might miss it if he or she isn't paying attention. Very good article.