Thanks for the comments. Loved your thoughts. Wish I could have responded sooner.

(Caution: rabbit chasing ahead)
My father’s a pastor. I’m pretty involved in church myself. As I’ve studied business matters and spiritual matters, it seems uncanny how the two parallel. Eugene Peterson’s interview in Christianity Today (or his book, Christ Plays in a Thousand Places) helped me understand why.

Back to your comment. Amusement is a great word. A distraction. Why would we want to “distract” people instead of engaging them?

“What if they realized there was a return on their investment of time listening, watching, and responding?”

I was a pastor for 17 years before I moved into the business world. I felt it was my obligation to supply a return on investment when people listened to a sermon. In some sense I suppose my messages could have been considered entertaining, but I found myself defining entertainment as an engaging style of presentation for the purpose of delivering meaningful truth. For my own purposes I tried to distinguish the entertaining quality of my presentation from simple amusement.

I think a great deal of what I see in the advertising world is amusement - that is to say, attention getting communication without any value offered to those making the investment of their time to listen.

In a networked marketplace made up of conversations and not just monologues as in the past this is a problem. It seems to me we are between worlds, the broadcast world and the new narrowcast world. Response rates are a metric from the old broadcast world (which has not yet past off the scene, maybe never will). Perhaps we should think of investment rates - those engaged by our messages, those willing to listen and derive value from the offers?

I am not saying this as clearly as I would like; but you have my mind racing - thanks again for the post! it is always good to think out loud with others!