Scene One

… where the Adverts, depicted as a swarm of rampant trolls, are occupying every conceivable space and attracting to themselves by lifting their filthy kilts and waving their vulgar parts. The Consumer turns rather to Messi, Draper, Pie: The Objects of Interest.

Innately compelling, they needn’t purchase the means of attraction, needn’t pursue ROI, so are un-requiring. The Adverts are hopelessly outmatched — their ‘discontent’ mundane in comparison, their ideas inane. 

—This is no ‘battle’ at all.

Were it a battle … that could imply an interest in the Advert, and some choice in its consumption. Other than placing himself in effect of the Advertising stream, the Consumer has no choice. 

Attention is taken, not given. 

Scene Two

ENTER THE CONSUMER, AN ECONOMIST AND A THERAPIST:

Economist (a rational person):

“The piper must be paid. If Ads annoy you, a premium may remove them.”

Consumer:

“My Claim excludes your implied currency. I’m not claiming money, I am claiming Attention. Attention equals time, equals money … in a colloquial sense only. Those currencies do not actually match. Attention is priceless… and the Advertiser has presumed to capture mine.”

— (Once captured, how contained?) 

Therapist:

“You assume that the media page is free, and yours. It belongs to the media owner. Remove your associations of ownership, and the cause of your annoyance vanishes.”

 Consumer:

“I may not own my YouTube page, but I do own my Attention. That is a proprietary effect, as in: it belongs to me, is mine; and when taken and not given, it is neither free.”

—The capture incurs the cost.

Continue to the Intermission