I found myself with time to peruse Substack today for the first time in quite awhile. Kate McKay over at DYING BREED has written multiple articles that have resonated with me. While my time to read is limited, I maintain a subscription to support both her and Brett McKay , as a long-time AoM acolyte. I have loved what they have curated for 15+ years now and I’m honored to be able to do my part to support them.
Anyway, something I’ve been mulling over lately is the concept of low-value information and media. I recently received a hand-written “thank you” from someone via -wait for it- the US Mail. That’s right, someone took the time to press pen to paper, then place said paper in an envelope and apply an evermore expensive sticker to the upper-right corner and drop into a mailbox.
Can I tell you? It meant a lot to me. I’ve read it once each day since I received it. The words that are written in it could have been shared over the internet through email, but this person spent both time and money to present me with a real and tangible representation of their appreciation. The weight of their words also carries more weight because of the effort that went into getting those words delivered to me.
That got me thinking about the evolution of human written communication since the beginnings of mainstream internet usage. I’ve observed that as the cost of writing down and distributing one’s thoughts has decreased over time, it has allowed many more people to write down many more ideas and to share with many more people with much less effort.
I think about the number of emails I send (and receive). If I had to handwrite every communication I sent, not only would I think considerably more about what I was going to say, but I also wouldn’t write as many communications. Interesting. Remember “junk mail” delivered by the USPS? How does that compare to email spam? I don’t know about you, but my experience has been orders of magnitude in difference. Physical junk mail costs more, and as such, marketers seem to be (only a little) more discerning about to whom they send what.
The irony isn’t lost on me that I’m typing on a laptop into a digital system that costs me little in respect to sharing this partially formed idea. So maybe it’s a double-edged sword?
Before YouTube, you had to jump through thousands of hoops before you could get on TV or into the movies. Before the podcast explosion, not just anybody could get on the radio. Before music streaming, if as a musician you wanted to get on the radio, you were at the mercy of a few record companies. Various other social media outlets have filled their own niches that have democratized a great many things that were the domain of a privileged minority. It even created a new career path: “Influencer.”
I posit that with the glut of information and discourse we have lost much to the noise. Of late, I have mentioned in certain company that “while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not every opinion is worthy of an audience.” But I also support free speech, so…
The best hypothesis I can come up with right now is that people tend to ascribe greater value to things that cost them in some way. This isn’t limited by any means to direct financial cost. There is opportunity cost. Spending time on A means I’m not spending time on B, for instance. There is discomfort, pain, heartache, disappointment, loss. The greater the perceived cost, the greater the value. If I hate being dirty, sweaty, and tired, then spending evenings and weekends preparing our garden plot so that in a short time we will be able to eat of the fruits of our labor, those meals prepared with the garden produce are going to be valued more highly than a meal obtained from a drive-thru.
As I ponder this idea further, I consider the low cost/low value baubles and trinkets we purchase online, play with for an afternoon, then put on a shelf. Don’t get me wrong, I like stuff. I have a materialistic bent. I like “stuff”. For the purposes of this article, this fact is neither good nor bad. It just is. But even in liking stuff, I observe that those things that are unique, on of a kind, or custom - those things that are of a higher level of craftsmanship - have a higher value in my mind and heart. Not just because they are more expensive, but because they come with a higher cost from creation to purchase. Low value material objects are assembly line carbon copies. They are largely made by laborers or robots, not craftsmen, and one example has zero difference in value than another.
If you haven’t picked up on it yet, I’m still wrestling with this. On the one hand, a lower barrier to entry is a good thing. People who would otherwise be excluded have a voice and can share their ideas. Others can purchase things they couldn’t afford if everything were custom made by a few craftsmen (supply and demand). On the other I can’t ignore that there is most definitely a trade-off in the form of greater volume of low-value content, materials, and consumer goods.
What do you think? Have we lost something along the way, or has what we’ve gained more than made up for the higher noise floor in all areas of society?
Thanks for the support Brian!