and software developers use this procrastination economy to monetize the in-between moments of the workday. While mobile devices have become essential to the entertainment industries as vehicles of promotion, branding, distribution, and engagement, audiences use smartphones, tablets, laptops, and wearable technology to wield the culture and conversation of the procrastination economy as a tool for navigating public space. Drawing from media industries studies, cultural studies, and new media theory, this chapter shows that mobile devices are enhancing and amplifying certain mobile users’ behaviors and privileging them as the preferred mobile audience. The economic effort to monetize the ways a mobile audience spends their in-between moments has significant repercussions for the possibilities of the mobile Internet.
Chapter 2 examines the procrastination economy of the workplace. Composed of several case studies including a look at the Fox Sports web series Lunch with Benefits and three examples of workplace audiences, the chapter reveals how the entertainment industry targets the workplace as a way of promoting television programs and film franchises. Through interviews and observations of a production culture of the procrastination economy, it is clear that television networks intentionally program snackable content, positioning it as an entertaining alternative to the drudgery of modern work. Though media snacking is intended to carry audiences from one conglomerate-owned media platform to the more substantial (and lucrative) offerings on television and movie screens, the procrastination economy actually affords workers enough freedom to add new and interesting, if perhaps unintended, uses for this content. Watercooler gossip, office camaraderie, and mood management are a few of the ways workers use these snacks to creatively engage with one another and foster community.
Chapter 3 examines the procrastination economy of the commute as defined by “smart” car technology, outdoor advertising companies, audio-streaming platforms, and public-transit agencies. The media companies targeting the commute present in-between moments as a time for commerce and personal leisure. At the same time, networked mobile devices offer a means of communication that has previously been impossible on the commute. Contrary to concerns about individualism and increased disconnection with public space, this chapter argues that mobile devices have actually increased social opportunities in spaces in which people were previous disinclined to be social. Evidence of this communication is drawn from a study of the mobile media habits of MARTA (Metro Atlanta Rail Transit Authority) commuters. Over 200 participants shared their opinions and provided evidence of their mobile device use on their commute. The results show that the commute has become a key site for social maintenance and offers people digital tools for enhancing conversations with friends and family.
Chapter 4 considers the procrastination economy of the waiting room. The act of waiting is a moment when people are confronted with their economic and social standing. Those who are made to wait are subject to the schedule of an institution or authority. Mobile devices and the culture of the procrastination economy provide tools for navigating this feeling of powerlessness. Through interviews with Turner Private Networks, the division of Time Warner that programs content for CNN Airport and other waiting rooms, the chapter reveals how companies have approached the waiting room audience for over three decades. Previous research on airports and waiting rooms done by Anna McCarthy provides a template for this chapter and the theory that accompanies it.48 An analysis of the mobile gaming industry and its users adds to these historical accounts and the interviews with Turner. Examining the fans of “casual games,” the chapter shows that mobile technologies allow people in waiting rooms a sense of empowerment and agency. The games and their fans provide evidence of the ways waiting room audiences use culture to navigate their spatial dynamics, their relationship to a media franchise, and their own position in public space.
Chapter 5 looks at the “connected” living room as a space of multiple screens. The evolution of “second screen” apps and “smart” TVs is presented as evidence of efforts to monetize the audience’s attention as our eyes drift from the television screen. An examination of the relationship between the television industry and Twitter provides evidence of the ways the entertainment industry understands the procrastination economy in the living room. While dual-screen efforts to capture attention is concerning, research on cable television owners’ desires for mobile functionality shows that people look to their mobile devices as a way of gaining control over the social dynamics of the living room. Considering the history of studies on the living room audience, this chapter shows how mobile devices offer solutions to decades of competition and gender-based inequality regarding control of the television remote.
The conclusion draws from the evidence of the preceding chapters to argue that the procrastination economy is crucial to the development of the “Internet of Things.” The Internet of Things refers to a future in which computer technology will network together everyday objects to increase efficiency and productivity. In this formulation, media companies will be further engrained in our everyday lives, and owners of intellectual property will find new ways of managing their brands across media platforms. The evidence throughout this book offers a warning to this efficiency discourse. The procrastination economy will continue in an era of ubiquitous computing. This means that attempts to integrate networked technology in everyday routines will require an understanding of how people behave in particular contexts. Through analysis of Pokémon Go, Snapchat, and Samsung’s “smart” appliances, the conclusion applies the principles of the procrastination economy to theories about the Internet of Things. Critical to this argument is the idea expressed by Henry Jenkins that a major danger of the convergence era is the “participation gap.”49 The procrastination economy privileges mobile users who know how to use their mobile devices to their advantage. This means that those who understand how to adjust the settings, privacy controls, and push notifications can exert the most control over the technology. Those who struggle to control their devices will face an Internet of Things that automates the experience of navigating a digitally networked world. The development of the procrastination economy participation gap has serious implications for the development of the Internet and the future of the entertainment industry.
The Procrastination Economy considers mobile media culture from the theoretical perspectives of media industries studies, cultural studies, television studies, and new media studies. From these perspectives, I argue that the context of use is critical to understanding mobile media devices and their concomitant culture. By emphasizing social context and media use through various case studies, I debunk oversimplified arguments about mobile technology. This book provides a sense of continuity by showing how mobile technology complements and enhances existing audience behaviors. It also provides a critical history of the development of mobile media as a cultural object. The chapters that follow build on traditions and accepted theoretical arguments in cultural studies and media studies to explain that mobile technology is not so much a revolution as it is an amplification of people’s creative uses of culture in everyday life.
1
The Procrastination Economy and the Mobile Day Part
Comedian Louis C.K. often aims his acerbic wit at mobile phones and their users. Expressing concern about the technology, he claims it provides constant distractions that keep people from facing the realities of life: “That’s why we text and drive. I look around, pretty much 100 percent of the people driving are texting. And they’re killing, everybody’s murdering each other with their cars. But people are willing to risk taking a life and ruining their own because they don’t want to be alone for a second because it’s so hard.”1 C.K.’s humor reflects concerns about media technologies that have occupied scholars for decades. Media and communications technologies change our relationship with the outside world by blurring the division between public and private life. Evaluating the technological affordance of television, Raymond Williams used the concept of “mobile privatization” to describe the ways television enabled people to enter public life from the comfort of their home.2 In an analysis of portable television, Lynn Spigel flipped Williams’s term to “privatized mobility” to describe how mobile devices enable people to bring the comforts of home to public spaces.3