Marketing research apparently shows that people are multi-tasking more and more while they use various media. We already knew that, really, I mean, when the television or newspaper doesn’t give you all the information you want, of course you’ll check it out online. Our main other activity while using media isn’t blogging or googling, though, it’s eating…

I was surprised at the finding (opinion? I’m not sure) that

media that can target, be timely, and deliver value to consumers – such as coupons/direct mail, radio, yellow pages, newspapers and newspaper inserts – increased in purchase influence

Really? I always simply throw out that junk mail, and the horrible inserts that come with newspapers, yuck, they go straight in the recycling. I imagined that was everyone else’s response too.

Are “Bigresearch.com” simply trying to sell direct mail and waste paper, or am I a total anomaly?

OK, time to go read the newspaper while I have some cereal… (hey, it’s still morning in Chicago!)


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. writershall

    As an overly-avid computer user, this doesn’t surprise me. More often than not, I get too engrossed in what I’m doing to remember to eat, but when I do I’ll usually try to manage eating and doing something on the computer at the same time. Though, not having much space on my desk here at college, it’s kind of difficult to manage typing around a bowl of cereal.
    But as far as junk mail goes, I agree with you that I just throw it all out. If it looks interesting, I’ll scan through it briefly before tossing it. I’ve never gotten any junkmail worth saving.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.