viz.

(Image Credit: Ad Age, MBA Online, Magid Generational Strategies)

This cutesy inforgraphic from Ad Age and MBA Online presents the reader with a breakdown of media use by type, time and generation. The initial study was performed by Magid Generational Strategies. At first blush this seems to present a thorough overview of how different populations consume media, but on closer examination there are some signifigant issues. These issues aside, and in some cases because of these issues, this long image (I've broken it into several pieces for readability's sake. See the full image here) raises a number of questions about not which types of media we consume but how our methods of media consumption are changing to the degree that this infographic doesn't quite make sense. 

Some of the choices apparent in the key are pretty interesting. First, we have activities broken into strict online and offline portions. And while this initially might feel like a reasonable position to take, especially if you're concerned with the marketing to specific demographics through specific types of media, it brings to light the question of just how various forms of media are percieved by consumers today. Increasingly discreet artifacts, songs, shows, articles, games, etc are seemlessly available across a variety of media types without any appreciable difference. What we might consider is that rather than consuming any kind of blanket media people gravitate toward consuming particular artifacts. 

(Image Credit: Ad Age, MBA Online, Magid Generational Strategies)

This, of course, raises the question of how exactly we should begin to classify these artifacts. What exactly are we to make of an article initially written for a print magazine, though  probably first published  on the magazine's website, and finally read on facebook? There are several clear answers. We can look to the context of an artifact's creation. In this case it was created for a print magazine; it was constrained by a monthly publication schedule, the phsyical space available in the magazine, the cost of producing the magaziine (pictures, etc). You could say, though, that all these constraints mean little to the end user, and their experience is shaped by the context within which they consume the artifact. That several people have liked and commented on the piece, that it was shared by a particular friend, the ads running down the side of the screen create more meaning for the consumer than the specific reasons behind its length.

(Image Credit: Ad Age, MBA Online, Magid Generational Strategies)

These issues have, in some part, been played out in discussion surrounding MLA's decision to require that citations include the source's medium of publication. These generally break down between Print and Web, though according to the Purdue Online Writing Lab, "other possibilities may include Film, CD-ROM, or DVD." The question of just what a works cited is supposed to perform  for both its author and subsequent readers is a slightly different question than how we should appraoch the blended mediation of various artifacts. 

In the end the infographic doesn't really tell us terribly much. I would have liked to see a nod toward the differences between social and personal mmedia consumption. And many of the categories, especially in the online section, are either too broad (entertainment, what isn't entertainment online?) or to specific (Facebook, rather than social media in general) to give any clear picture of how people are spending their time. This, coupled with the lack of total time breakdown, makes drawing any sort of concrete conclusions other difficult. It is charming, though, and the rough strokes it works with have been useful in generating discussion.