New media has changed the way we receive media messages particularly with the inclusion of telephone (yes) but more so the influence of the internet.

Quantifying word rate is impossible due

to attentiveness and I take this simply from my own actions and my own

reception of media messages. I don’t have a television I stream

everything onto my pc. If I’m watching television I will be browsing

websites, checking my mail, on msn etc. On this level quantification

becomes even more complex because whilst I’m on a website I’m being

pushed to received other messages, while I’m on Msn I’m seeing media

messages as well. That said consumers’ attentiveness will be based on

the messages that are most valid to them and I think as a medium the

internet allows to some extent the user to be more in selective of what

messages they receive (opting in to receiving a newsletter for example)

I believe that in such dense info culture we are subjected

to pay less attention as we do with say spam, however how would you

justify viral marketing? People just seem to be going back for more. It

such an addictive technique that most certainly maintains interest don’t

you think? Maybe we block out the non important info but opt in to

receive the info that is important to us.

Something that I recommend – might answer some of those questions about viral marketing – definitely gives food for thought :

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/22/the-secret-strategies-behind-many-viral-videos/