Turn off the light?

I took this photo in a café the other day while waiting for my daughter to finish her dance class. I used my phone on a 10x zoom, so the quality isn't great, but I just thought it would give some interesting color range if made a little bolder. The word "PUOTI" just means shop and is a little display of items you might expect to buy from a café, like reusable cups, teas and grindable coffee.

This was the original before I edited on Lightroom Mobile.

Not quite as punchy, is it?

Far less Roxanne

Imagery is important and I wonder how much it affects people's decisions on whether they read or share a post or not. For instance, how many posts get shared that have no image at all? I am not sure if I have shared any like that - but it seems that most people realize that in order to get some content attention, the first thing to engage are the eyes.

This is the case in most things isn't it? At least those of us who have intact vision. A lot of people say "I don't care about looks" but I have seen those types checkout people on the street and then the question is, if they aren't checking on what they see, what are they basing their attraction decision on?

I feel that person has a nice personality.

Nonsense.

Of course, there are other mediums that we use to meet people, so looks aren't always the first point of attraction, but even then, when we do see those people for the first time, do we not evaluate their looks?

But, it isn't just people we judge by their cover, it is all kinds of things where we make decisions based on the aesthetics, not the function. We "shop around" for a coffee table, but at a practical level, any coffee table would do. Pragmatically, nothing needs to aesthetically match in order to fulfil its function - unless its function is to be attractive.

Attraction is the core of the attention economy and there are many ways to get eyes on with novelty, but it is harder to keep those eyes engaged long-term. No matter what it is, eventually audiences turn away, unless they are able to get something out it, benefit enough to keep coming back, keep clicking, buying, watching. Essentially, long-term attraction moves the object from want to need, making it a staple part of the diet, not a treat. But, just because it is a staple, doesn't mean it is good for you, just like a staple diet can be comprised of 90% sugar, but that doesn't make it healthy.

We can be attracted to and engaged by content, but this doesn't mean that what we consume is valuable to us to consume, it doesn't mean it helps us. This is one of the problems with homogenous content that becomes popular, because it degrades the pool of content, but incentivizes more of the familiar same - it is a reduction of content that is driven by the consumer, but that consumer is being fed a narrow slice of the cake and conditioned to desire more of the same type. It is a self-fulfilling condensing of content as demand drives creation and what is demanded is more of the same, meaning narrow selection.

But, we don't feel that it is narrow because it is all sourced globally and packaged in ways that make us think it is something other than what it is - more of the same. Every new series that gets released is a remake, all the songs are run through AI testing - nothing really stands out as brilliant, but we still have to spend our time on something, so we consume more of what is fed us.

A cow doesn't get to choose what it eats, the farmer does, and we are being farmed. The farmer feeds us what makes us the most productive for their needs, whether it is to produce more milk or more meat - our experience doesn't matter unless that helps them achieve their goals. A better UX doesn't change the practical conditions of a website, but it definitely makes it more attractive to use. User experience matters, consumer experience matters and if it isn't attractive enough to the audience, it isn't going to cut it.

But, this doesn't mean that it is all about looks or ease of use, as for example, I have been told for years that my content is too long and no one will engage with it. Is that the case? For some, yes, but for others, the "attraction" is the chance to read something (hopefully) decent and engage a bit around the topic, having a little fun in the process. There is a relationship built through the content that connects us, no matter what the entry picture might be. But, this doesn't mean that I don't bother building my content to be at least somewhat attractive and engaging.

I do think about the images, I do add section titles when I think they are called for, I do change up the rhythm with quotes, italics and bold if necessary and, I try to make it neat with some justification. This doesn't mean it is for everyone though.

However, since we are in the attention economy and we are incentivized by rewards on what we create, why wouldn't we put some effort in and build our presence, persona and "brand" even if we aren't selling ourselves directly. It seems natural to me, like making sure that when I go to the office, I am dressed appropriately, my hair is done and I don't smell like I haven't showered in three days. Is it pride, or professionalism?

Just like the café with a little shop, we are all selling something on the side and if we want people to buy, we have to get their eyes on us. But, if we want them to come back and buy again, we have to make sure that we offer is worth it to them.

Looks matter plenty. But they don't matter for long.

Taraz [ Gen1: Hive ]