Attention Surplus Syndrome: Definitions and Warning Signs, Part 2

Although the condition lacks the resources of a well-established disorder, those that develop it can make a total A.S.S. out of themselves with little to no outside intervention. In fact the total A.S.S. is not overwhelmed by TMI or intimidated by non-sequiturs. Au contraire.

The A.S.S. populace finds comfort, even a calling, in being able to box, package, group, intercept, and ultimately classify the frequency and nature of persistent, flowing, and overabundant information. Any virtual folder, RSS feed, or content bucket will do. Name the content management system or the virtual community and the total A.S.S. will go the distance, naming the buckets before tracking the frequency and defining the nature of what fills them -- evenly of course.

The H.I.T.s ("high information thresholds") sustained by these deviant thinkers can result in some improbable but productive outcomes. Attention measurement systems are the design of A.S.S. thinking applied to the problem of closure around TMI -- namely how do I logoff with confidence when I don't have the option of being on a call, at a site, in a meeting, over a barrel, and under the wraps of any potential wrinkle that could interrupt or complicate my work day, career goals, or someplace inbetween.

Want to split the difference?

Even when they are not this practical a good attention measurement system helps business analysts and media watchers to apply meaningful standards to market behaviors and the corporate spending done to promote and discourage them.

The bottomline is that if you're about to meet a person (who you know way more about from Googling them online) the more you need to announce your candidacy for attention surplus status. There's no need for a treatment or community awareness -- just the freedom to make a total A.S.S. out of yourself.

Attention Surplus Syndrome: Definitions and Warning Signs, Part 2

Although the condition lacks the resources of a well-established disorder, those that develop it can make a total A.S.S. out of themselves with little to no outside intervention. In fact the total A.S.S. is not overwhelmed by TMI or intimidated by non-sequiturs. Au contraire.

The A.S.S. populace finds comfort, even a calling, in being able to box, package, group, intercept, and ultimately classify the frequency and nature of persistent, flowing, and overabundant information. Any virtual folder, RSS feed, or content bucket will do. Name the content management system or the virtual community and the total A.S.S. will go the distance, naming the buckets before tracking the frequency and defining the nature of what fills them -- evenly of course.

The H.I.T.s ("high information thresholds") sustained by these deviant thinkers can result in some improbable but productive outcomes. Attention measurement systems are the design of A.S.S. thinking applied to the problem of closure around TMI -- namely how do I logoff with confidence when I don't have the option of being on a call, at a site, in a meeting, over a barrel, and under the wraps of any potential wrinkle that could interrupt or complicate my work day, career goals, or someplace inbetween.

Want to split the difference?

Even when they are not this practical a good attention measurement system helps business analysts and media watchers to apply meaningful standards to market behaviors and the corporate spending done to promote and discourage them.

The bottomline is that if you're about to meet a person (who you know way more about from Googling them online) the more you need to announce your candidacy for attention surplus status. There's no need for a treatment or community awareness -- just the freedom to make a total A.S.S. out of yourself.

Attention Surplus Syndrome: Definitions and Warning Signs, Part 1

When are you truly behaving like an A.S.S. for minding everyone's business? That's right. When you have too much attention to give to causes and effects that no one else seems to notice or care that much about. Wikipediasts take note -- Att: Surplus Syndrome will also acquire a marketing home brand as ASD for Adults when Big Pharma begins to position Ritalin as the cure for A.D.D. in non-teens (circa 2012).

A couple of telltale signs:

* You start to believe that the overlaps and cross-secting shapes that appear in analyst presentations are not only real but an actual destination point where your career aspirations are destined to meet your organization's strategic imperatives.

* You collect slides that cover all Roget variants on the term cohesion, including "fusion," "glue," "interdependencies," and that aspiring destination you arrive at from pulling the teamwork cart -- synergy!

* You begin to link together teams, groups, and offices that have no current efforts or plans to even recognize their mutual co-existence.

Receiving a diagnosis of attention surplus also means keeping your guard up against TMI ("too much information"). A sure sign -- you give out too much information (especially the kind that the people around you see little point in remembering). In fact the A.S.S. population is often compromised by its towering antennae, collecting dumpsterfuls of data that requires the touch of a sauvant or a model train enthusiast. Maturity can also help cover one's A.S.S. tendencies, steering a digressive strain of trivia back on the track to neurotypical comprehension.

So is attention surplus another term for the multi-tasking of focus? Is it the death of concentration? Is there a way to a dignified and productive use of A.S.S. in an otherwise A.D.H.D. world? There are twists and turns along the A.S.S. spectrum. Here's one recent thread with a colleague that brings out some interesting hybrids and variations in the profile:

From: A.S.S. Recipient To: A.S.S. Sender

What is she talking about…everything has already been transferred.

From: A.S.S. Sender To: A.S.S. Recipient

I’m stumped. All I know is that it was "user" generated (to coin an IT expression for customers).

From: A.S.S. Recipient To: A.S.S. Sender

It’s better for me to keep quiet.

From: A.S.S. Sender To: A.S.S. Recipient Subject:

But that mind – that mind!!!

From: A.S.S. Recipient To: A.S.S. Sender

I know…one of these days it will get me in serious trouble - LOL

From: A.S.S. Sender To: A.S.S. Recipient

You might have what I have – diagnosable as attention surplus syndrome (a.k.a. a.s.s.)

From: A.S.S. Recipient To: A.S.S. Sender

Belligerent and Desperate Attention Surplus Syndrome (B.A.D. A.S.S.)

From: A.S.S. Sender To: A.S.S. Recipient

You can’t be B.A.D. without testing for the A.S.S. first (otherwise known as A.S.S. backwards).

From: A.S.S. Recipient To: A.S.S. Sender

But you can make an A.S.S. of yourself by using portals as a collective mind of our business (and everyone else's)

Attention Surplus Syndrome: Definitions and Warning Signs, Part 1

When are you truly behaving like an A.S.S. for minding everyone's business? That's right. When you have too much attention to give to causes and effects that no one else seems to notice or care that much about. Wikipediasts take note -- Att: Surplus Syndrome will also acquire a marketing home brand as ASD for Adults when Big Pharma begins to position Ritalin as the cure for A.D.D. in non-teens (circa 2012).

A couple of telltale signs:

* You start to believe that the overlaps and cross-secting shapes that appear in analyst presentations are not only real but an actual destination point where your career aspirations are destined to meet your organization's strategic imperatives.

* You collect slides that cover all Roget variants on the term cohesion, including "fusion," "glue," "interdependencies," and that aspiring destination you arrive at from pulling the teamwork cart -- synergy!

* You begin to link together teams, groups, and offices that have no current efforts or plans to even recognize their mutual co-existence.

Receiving a diagnosis of attention surplus also means keeping your guard up against TMI ("too much information"). A sure sign -- you give out too much information (especially the kind that the people around you see little point in remembering). In fact the A.S.S. population is often compromised by its towering antennae, collecting dumpsterfuls of data that requires the touch of a sauvant or a model train enthusiast. Maturity can also help cover one's A.S.S. tendencies, steering a digressive strain of trivia back on the track to neurotypical comprehension.

So is attention surplus another term for the multi-tasking of focus? Is it the death of concentration? Is there a way to a dignified and productive use of A.S.S. in an otherwise A.D.H.D. world? There are twists and turns along the A.S.S. spectrum. Here's one recent thread with a colleague that brings out some interesting hybrids and variations in the profile:

From: A.S.S. Recipient To: A.S.S. Sender

What is she talking about…everything has already been transferred.

From: A.S.S. Sender To: A.S.S. Recipient

I’m stumped. All I know is that it was "user" generated (to coin an IT expression for customers).

From: A.S.S. Recipient To: A.S.S. Sender

It’s better for me to keep quiet.

From: A.S.S. Sender To: A.S.S. Recipient Subject:

But that mind – that mind!!!

From: A.S.S. Recipient To: A.S.S. Sender

I know…one of these days it will get me in serious trouble - LOL

From: A.S.S. Sender To: A.S.S. Recipient

You might have what I have – diagnosable as attention surplus syndrome (a.k.a. a.s.s.)

From: A.S.S. Recipient To: A.S.S. Sender

Belligerent and Desperate Attention Surplus Syndrome (B.A.D. A.S.S.)

From: A.S.S. Sender To: A.S.S. Recipient

You can’t be B.A.D. without testing for the A.S.S. first (otherwise known as A.S.S. backwards).

From: A.S.S. Recipient To: A.S.S. Sender

But you can make an A.S.S. of yourself by using portals as a collective mind of our business (and everyone else's)

Think Competition is Hard? Try Cooperation!

And so we continue to debate the purpose of managing systems and computer networks. Tired.

In the process we lose the higher purpose of managing knowledge and social networks. That's right. You would think that the aim of computers is to help people to communicate, not just store the communication. You would think that with all that raw processing power we could spend less time on their speed, volume, and display, and more on the quality of the message.

But if it's true that companies get what they measure: time-to-market, book-to-bill, cost-per-unit, then it's doubly true that they don't get the costs and benefits around competition's kinder, wiser, stepcousin -- cooperation.

Is there any mystery why? Control is lodged in what's processed and calculated in dollars -- not in what people say and think. Cooperation is prefaced on goodwill and better natures. Competition carves up the spoils.

Show me a company that benchmarks:

* How well it fuses its interdepencies
* How cohesively it weaves its systems into one seamless infrastructure
* How closely its supporting functions base that support on forging cross-unit consensus

... and I'll show you an organization that takes its fight outside, closes ranks, and executes on a strategy long after the last re-org was supposed to take effect. I'll show you an organization whose competitive advantages are as plain to the eye as they are invisible to the balance sheet.

Harvard Business Review's current issue couches this approach in decision rights -- a new flavor substitute for delegating responsibility in a way that favors open tables over closed doors.

For most companies execution is as solid and grounded on behalf of its revenues as it is calloused and tone deaf when it comes to petitioning on its own behalf. When the unsatisfied customer is the front office, the back office would rather turn on itself than satisfy a new requirement. Nothing new there.

What the Booz & Co. research team suggests in the HBR piece is that we don’t need to convene task forces, distract executives, fatten overheads, or eat away the clock. We need clear direction on decision rights and information flows:

The single most common attribute of such companies is that their employees are clear about which decisions and actions they are responsible for. As a result, decisions are rarely second-guessed, and accurate competitive information quickly finds its way up the hierarchy and across organizational boundaries.

This is not a choice between marching to academy fight songs or sitting around camp fires. The efficiencies gained and redundancies shed in a cooperative enterprise would hearten the most calculating bean-counter. The connections made would warm the coldest calls. And the resources marshalled could help solidify an otherwise shaky entry into new markets.

Competition intensifying? We're no better equipped to control market forces than we are in containing greenhouse emmissions -- not yet. But we can foster internal cooperation to cool down, and recharge, before we pitch back into the heat of battle. It's not a call to arms. But it is a response to competing more effectively.

Think Competition is Hard? Try Cooperation!

And so we continue to debate the purpose of managing systems and computer networks. Tired.

In the process we lose the higher purpose of managing knowledge and social networks. That's right. You would think that the aim of computers is to help people to communicate, not just store the communication. You would think that with all that raw processing power we could spend less time on their speed, volume, and display, and more on the quality of the message.

But if it's true that companies get what they measure: time-to-market, book-to-bill, cost-per-unit, then it's doubly true that they don't get the costs and benefits around competition's kinder, wiser, stepcousin -- cooperation.

Is there any mystery why? Control is lodged in what's processed and calculated in dollars -- not in what people say and think. Cooperation is prefaced on goodwill and better natures. Competition carves up the spoils.

Show me a company that benchmarks:

* How well it fuses its interdepencies
* How cohesively it weaves its systems into one seamless infrastructure
* How closely its supporting functions base that support on forging cross-unit consensus

... and I'll show you an organization that takes its fight outside, closes ranks, and executes on a strategy long after the last re-org was supposed to take effect. I'll show you an organization whose competitive advantages are as plain to the eye as they are invisible to the balance sheet.

Harvard Business Review's current issue couches this approach in decision rights -- a new flavor substitute for delegating responsibility in a way that favors open tables over closed doors.

For most companies execution is as solid and grounded on behalf of its revenues as it is calloused and tone deaf when it comes to petitioning on its own behalf. When the unsatisfied customer is the front office, the back office would rather turn on itself than satisfy a new requirement. Nothing new there.

What the Booz & Co. research team suggests in the HBR piece is that we don’t need to convene task forces, distract executives, fatten overheads, or eat away the clock. We need clear direction on decision rights and information flows:

The single most common attribute of such companies is that their employees are clear about which decisions and actions they are responsible for. As a result, decisions are rarely second-guessed, and accurate competitive information quickly finds its way up the hierarchy and across organizational boundaries.

This is not a choice between marching to academy fight songs or sitting around camp fires. The efficiencies gained and redundancies shed in a cooperative enterprise would hearten the most calculating bean-counter. The connections made would warm the coldest calls. And the resources marshalled could help solidify an otherwise shaky entry into new markets.

Competition intensifying? We're no better equipped to control market forces than we are in containing greenhouse emmissions -- not yet. But we can foster internal cooperation to cool down, and recharge, before we pitch back into the heat of battle. It's not a call to arms. But it is a response to competing more effectively.

The Unintended Consequences of Instant Content Gratification

I was talking to an old friend about the party mixes that his post-iPod gen kids are putting together and how that compares to our LP-fueled tape mixes when our own identities were intertwined with our musical heroes. Having played the dad in our elementary school production of Bye Bye Birdie it was just a little prophetic when I thought I heard the phrase "kids these days" creep into his critique of just how clueless today's music samplers are about the uptake of their downloads.

Whether he was quoting Paul Lynde or just riffing on what it means to raise one's musical game to a state of intergenerational fusion-bliss, he focused on the thrill of the hunt -- rifling threw racks of records and CDs to nail the rarities, take in exotic song titles, and sample the overlooked gems of the cut-out bins.


Some of my favorite content-inspired chase scenes are filmed in my head at a SoHo NYC institution, music retailer, and over-the-counter subculture of Rocks in Your Head. The proprietor was a curmudgeon who pontificated (groused) one day on the thrill of content victory. He defined this in degrees of musical ownership:

* If you had a rock in your head that existed on a comp tape you didn't even make the rental list.
* If you bought some reissue on CD you were just along for the ride.
* By his ownership standards you practically had to hold the master tapes or the bootlegging device between your legs to lay claim to the capture of musical possession.

Compare this to the carefree ease of peer-to-peer computing or even legitimate downloading. You barely even know what you've got, let alone what you can live with, or will nurture you in ways you cannot yet imagine. From...

I am a deejay / I am what I play

to..

I am an iPod / I'm somewhat aware of what I download?

I don't think so.

As a periodic compiler of mixes I will throw away a dozen works-in-progress until the ideal blend can be sculpted from the scraps of media clips and backs of new acts I only know by way of idle curiosity and 30 seconds of tonal color. Would I unleash my lack of familiarity on a mailing list of my contemporaries? Would I simply randomize a sampling and attach a ZIP folder of MP3s to some group email? As a recipient I would be more likely to respond to Ed McMahon's home equity meltdown on Larry King. The sequencing, the packaging, the seques ... The overall chemistry of a mix is more important than its most important song. This is a team effort. Every great mix has a great lead-off song and a clean-up hitter that can clear the musical bases (assuming you haven't fast forwarded to the stuff you've heard before).

I think another downside of easy downloads is that it increases one's susceptibility to catchy songs. Sure, they go to work pronto. Like a sugar rush. Like a tequila shot. But the cumulative effect is addictive and deadening. Each infectious song bloats the spongy mind like a Twizzler stirring the bottom of a hypoglycemic punch bowl. Instead of a goose bump swelling on your arm you get a diabetic imagination, crimped from the ravages of A.D.D.

I'm no purist and I do my share of downloading in a disengaged state. I don't cling to the sanctity of analog recordings. But here's the thing as Paul Lynde would say: You need to live with these songs. They need to stew in your juices for a bit. Only then will you know if/when they wear out their welcome or plow down from surface noise to the sonic depths worth sharing with your mixing buddies.

So what is the true definition of content ownership from an experiential perspective? Is it the pursuit? Is it the rumination? Is it an art to mixing media samples or a personal fetish? Given today's media landscape these theories are either true or dead. In the case of Rocks in Your Head they may well be both. The store closed its doors in April 2006.

The Unintended Consequences of Instant Content Gratification

I was talking to an old friend about the party mixes that his post-iPod gen kids are putting together and how that compares to our LP-fueled tape mixes when our own identities were intertwined with our musical heroes. Having played the dad in our elementary school production of Bye Bye Birdie it was just a little prophetic when I thought I heard the phrase "kids these days" creep into his critique of just how clueless today's music samplers are about the uptake of their downloads.

Whether he was quoting Paul Lynde or just riffing on what it means to raise one's musical game to a state of intergenerational fusion-bliss, he focused on the thrill of the hunt -- rifling threw racks of records and CDs to nail the rarities, take in exotic song titles, and sample the overlooked gems of the cut-out bins.

Some of my favorite content-inspired chase scenes are filmed in my head at a SoHo NYC institution, music retailer, and over-the-counter subculture of Rocks in Your Head. The proprietor was a curmudgeon who pontificated (groused) one day on the thrill of content victory. He defined this in degrees of musical ownership:

* If you had a rock in your head that existed on a comp tape you didn't even make the rental list.
* If you bought some reissue on CD you were just along for the ride.
* By his ownership standards you practically had to hold the master tapes or the bootlegging device between your legs to lay claim to the capture of musical possession.

Compare this to the carefree ease of peer-to-peer computing or even legitimate downloading. You barely even know what you've got, let alone what you can live with, or will nurture you in ways you cannot yet imagine. From...

I am a deejay / I am what I play

to..

I am an iPod / I'm somewhat aware of what I download?

I don't think so.

As a periodic compiler of mixes I will throw away a dozen works-in-progress until the ideal blend can be sculpted from the scraps of media clips and backs of new acts I only know by way of idle curiosity and 30 seconds of tonal color. Would I unleash my lack of familiarity on a mailing list of my contemporaries? Would I simply randomize a sampling and attach a ZIP folder of MP3s to some group email? As a recipient I would be more likely to respond to Ed McMahon's home equity meltdown on Larry King. The sequencing, the packaging, the seques ... The overall chemistry of a mix is more important than its most important song. This is a team effort. Every great mix has a great lead-off song and a clean-up hitter that can clear the musical bases (assuming you haven't fast forwarded to the stuff you've heard before).

I think another downside of easy downloads is that it increases one's susceptibility to catchy songs. Sure, they go to work pronto. Like a sugar rush. Like a tequila shot. But the cumulative effect is addictive and deadening. Each infectious song bloats the spongy mind like a Twizzler stirring the bottom of a hypoglycemic punch bowl. Instead of a goose bump swelling on your arm you get a diabetic imagination, crimped from the ravages of A.D.D.

I'm no purist and I do my share of downloading in a disengaged state. I don't cling to the sanctity of analog recordings. But here's the thing as Paul Lynde would say: You need to live with these songs. They need to stew in your juices for a bit. Only then will you know if/when they wear out their welcome or plow down from surface noise to the sonic depths worth sharing with your mixing buddies.

So what is the true definition of content ownership from an experiential perspective? Is it the pursuit? Is it the rumination? Is it an art to mixing media samples or a personal fetish? Given today's media landscape these theories are either true or dead. In the case of Rocks in Your Head they may well be both. The store closed its doors in April 2006.