Attention is overvalued.

Attention is also undervalued.

The thing is, not all attention is created equal. The value of attention varies widely. But most creators aren't thinking about the differences in attention. They're simply trying to maximize attention (any attention), and the way to do that is by following the incentives of platforms.

Here's the thing – discovery platforms like Instagram, X, YouTube, etc. are ad-supported. Ad-supported models rely on impressions. In some cases, they have sophisticated auction technology that helps them identify and capture more revenue on higher-value attention.

But to the creator, they mostly incentivize high view counts. Yes, some channels on YouTube earn a higher RPM (Revenue Per Mille – the revenue earned per 1,000 views), but most creators aren't thinking about how to influence that. They're simply trying to maximize views.

I never saw it that way.

When I was getting started, I had major financial constraints. I needed clients, or the bills would go unpaid! Attention wasn't useful to me unless it led to a client relationship. So, I was unconsciously pulled toward the attention-attracting activities that most reliably created a client relationship!

Twitter? No.

Instagram? Nope.

Email worked. And later, I realized podcasting worked, too.

These didn't give me impressive Follower counts, but the bills were paid. I was finding that the most efficient way to convert attention into revenue is by developing trust.

At this point, you probably expect me to tell you (again) about the merits of relationship platforms like email, podcasting, SMS, and private communities. Systems of distribution you own.

But it's actually more nuanced than that. It's not strictly about the platform – it's about the type of attention most typical of that platform. The attention type is the most important detail – if you can emulate valuable forms of attention on any platform, it's a winning strategy.

Today, I'm going to walk you through several ways of categorizing attention. Important note: each of these dimensions exists on a spectrum rather than as a binary choice. Your content likely falls somewhere along these continuums – not fully at one extreme or the other.

Understanding where your content typically lands on each spectrum can help you make strategic adjustments to capture more valuable attention. And for many creators, small shifts toward the more valuable end of any spectrum can dramatically improve your return on attention.

Considered vs. Unconsidered

What's actually happening when someone comes across your content on a discovery platform like TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube?

In the best case, they actively sought out some specific type of content and decided that [TikTok] is the best place to find it. This does happen – my wife and I have been comparing a few different full-size SUVs, and we've been seeking authentic, knowledgeable reviews from other parents.

This is considered attention. Attention that was purposefully directed.

But we don't actively seek specific content a lot of the time. We're seeking distraction, entertainment, or escape. We may not even realize that on a conscious level! Discovery platforms have spent decades creating the habit of checking into these apps when we feel momentary discomfort: boredom, loneliness, sadness, etc.

We feel discomfort → we open an app to avoid that feeling → and suddenly, we're consuming the content of creators like you and me.

This is doomscrolling. It's the time we spend watching Reels only to look up and realize an hour has passed. Often, we can't even remember what we saw or who shared it.

It's a social media-induced blackout.

This is unconsidered attention. People are giving you their time, but not purposefully. They didn't seek your content out; they just found it. And it may or may not have made any material impact on the future of that potential relationship.

When you're competing for unconsidered attention, the HOOK really matters. People aren't looking for YOU or YOUR ideas – so you have to HOOK them into giving them a shot.

Considered attention is much more valuable than unconsidered attention. If someone seeks out our type of content or – even better – us specifically, this signals thought, intent, and a real opportunity to build a relationship.

It IS possible that you can convert unconsidered attention into considered attention, but it requires such a strong impact on the consumer that they snap out of the blackout. Your work must resonate deeply – a worthy goal of your short-form content on discovery platforms.

Relationship platforms are nearly all considered attention. That's the real reason these platforms are valuable. We choose whether we open your email. We choose whether we click play on your podcast. We choose whether we take the active steps to log in to your community. When we've CHOSEN to consume your content, that's a fundamentally different relationship than if it's fed to us (you know, via a feed).

SMS is an exception. People love SMS due to the high percentage of open rates. We have a habit of reading text messages. And the way most phones work, we get a push notification for them.

SMS is a relationship platform (opt-in, owned distribution), but it's primarily unconsidered attention. It isn't the same choice as other relationship platforms.

Consideration is not the only classification of attention that matters.

Relevant vs. Irrelevant

The first readers of my newsletter were my girlfriend, family, and friends. It felt good to have SOMEONE paying attention – but it wasn't going to pay the bills.

Your content is more relevant to some viewers than others. The more closely your actual readers resemble your ideal readers, the more valuable that attention is. You want your content to be relevant to your audience and your audience to be relevant to your content.

If your content isn't relevant to the consumer, they will lose interest. You're not building a relationship with them – if anything, you're disqualifying their future consideration.

That's not necessarily a bad thing! Unless a third-party advertiser is paying you to maximize impressions, I would argue it's better to have fewer, more relevant viewers than a large audience of irrelevant viewers.

Active vs. Passive

Any content format can be consumed actively or passively – and the more active the consumption, the more valuable the attention.

When I'm reading a physical book, that's all my little brain can handle. I read each word carefully, often pausing to reflect on what I've read. An audiobook, on the other hand, I may be driving, walking the dog, doing dishes...my mind can wander.

The more engaged we are with the content, the more it shapes our thoughts and relationship with the creator. The less actively we are engaged, the less our relationship with that creator strengthens.

Content that requires more active engagement will certainly filter out some irrelevant consumers, but this is somewhat out of your hands. Some formats (like audio) are more passive. Podcasts may actively engage some listeners while not others. Some episodes may engage the listener more actively than others.

The lesson is that the more actively engaged your typical consumer is, the better.

Deep vs. Shallow

Hand-in-hand with how actively someone engages with your content is how deeply it engages them.

Is this surface level, or does it cut someone's core?

Is this making them feel smart, or is this making them make smarter decisions?

Is this for beginners or a more advanced audience?

People will be more actively engaged when something is more challenging (emotionally, spiritually, intellectually). As a result, deeper engagement is more valuable than shallow engagement.

That said, most people are uninterested, unqualified, or unprepared to go to a place of depth. If you prioritize depth, you will reduce the overall relevant attention available to you.

Long vs. Short

I strongly believe that trust is a function of (positive) time spent with someone.

Creating content allows you to have positive, 1:1 interactions at scale.

Everything you create has an upper bound of potential consumption time. Long-form content has a higher potential for time spent (with each individual) than short-form content. If you wanted someone to spend 20 minutes with you, you could publish a 20-minute podcast or 20 separate 60-second clips.

It's more difficult to convince someone to invest 20 consecutive minutes with you (a considered decision), but it will almost certainly have a greater impact on the overall relationship.

Longer periods of consumption are a multiplier for overall trust and affinity.

Frequent vs. Infrequent

Increasing publishing frequency is another multiplier for time spent with an individual – but only if you continue to get in front of the same consumers.

This is the challenge with discovery platforms. There's no guarantee that someone who sees your short-form content will see your next post (unless they take the step to turn on notifications for you specifically). Even if someone loved your latest Reel, you don't know they'll see the next one. Or your post a month from now.

Meanwhile, relationship platforms give you much better odds for your audience to engage with your content. When someone opts into receiving your content directly into their curated feeds (email inbox, podcast RSS, text messages), they're much more likely to see and choose to engage with it.

There are limits, of course – if you send five emails per day, you'll likely become increasingly ignored or unsubscribed.

Above all, you must pass the regret test with each piece of content you make available for consumption:

If you do that, there's theoretically no limit to how frequently you publish.

Authority vs. Entertainment

Lastly, there's a difference between how you're positioned in peoples' minds. When someone sees you as an entertainer, the relationship is different than if they see you as an authority or trusted advisor.

The transformation business commands higher prices than the entertainment business.

But, again, there's a smaller relevant audience for any authority-based business than entertainment. If you're optimizing for maximum impressions, authority is a more difficult path.

Conclusion

Remember, despite these variables being framed as X vs. Y, they aren't binary – they're spectrums:

• Consideration
• Relevance
• Focus
• Depth
• Length
• Frequency
• Authority

You could think of these as a series of sliders, and you could plot on each slider where YOUR content tends to fall. It can help you identify how valuable the attention you typically command is.

Based on my biggest priority platforms (email, podcasting, long-form video), my audience comes from a highly considered place. Because those platforms require more effort to opt-in, they filter for a more relevant audience on average. I cover the creator space at a deeper, more advanced level, requiring more active engagement.

By publishing long-form essays, podcast episodes, and videos, my audience tends to spend more time with me (more quickly) than if I were focusing on short-form. I publish those formats multiple times each month because I recognize more frequent interactions lead to revenue growth. And, of course, I'm focused on education rather than entertainment.

This is MY mix, which was born out of a desire to attract more valuable attention (on average). It doesn't have to be YOUR mix. It doesn't work for everyone. But it does explain why I've been able to generate a higher Return on Attention than many creators with an audience of similar size.

Play with these sliders. Look for opportunities to push the dial toward the more valuable end. It doesn't need to happen in every category, but wherever it makes sense for you.

Could you move 10% closer to the more valuable end of one of these spectrums?

This should help you to improve your typical attention quality and capture more of the value you create.

If you enjoyed this essay, consider sharing it!

Keep going,
Jay

PS: I just published the first private update on the behind-the-scenes build of my next course. If you don't know what I'm talking about, read this (and consider joining us!)