Why Bite-Sized?

Content is for consumption. People like consuming content, on levels that range from old-style newspapers to gossiping about the new family that just moved across the street to today’s oh-so-convenient Twitter et. al.

It does not satisfy a need or an external purpose to have a chuckle at a funny post from Facebook. Or look at a celebrity’s photos from their not-so-interesting-but-mildly-entertaining daily activities. Or read about an accident near the antipode of one’s location. People simply appear to enjoy consuming content.

This seems to be why “express” feeds of information from the social circle that users care about are so engaging and tempting, to the point where it has become a culturally-recognizable statement to say that some spend “too much time” on whatever media (smartphones, etc.) they use to consume such content.

But why has the current market for distributors and broadcasters of content moved towards bite-sized, easy-and-fast-to-consume stories? Why is it that any individual extensive story will get some “TL;DR” responses, even though it is arguable that the time distribution and allocation ends up being equivalent?

Not necessarily a bad thing, but this seems to be more influential than I would’ve expected: the Apple AppStore has been having “bite-sized news” as a featured category for a few days now, for instance. The apps listed there are among the most popular news apps in the store. It is not merely “social” stories. It is about media and content consumption, more generically.

I don’t know the answer yet. I’ll have to think about it.