Most days, I wake up pretty early. Early-Bird early. Before-the-sun-rises early. I have a window of time, a magic few hours, utterly to myself, before the sun fully paints the sky. In New York City, at this hour, the streets are utilitarian and the air, pregnant with a day’s possibility. Sometimes, it’s as if nothing moves. Yet, even in a time so seemingly sacred, so quasi-religious in its weight, an act of sacrilege takes place: A cloying glow of a computer screen illuminates my work area, my hand fumbles, reaching for my mobile, retrieving a cross-Atlantic sms, a television suddenly activated, diligently eats silence. I’m . . . connected.

But, this feels wrong. While “sacrilege” may be an indulgence of language on my part, awaking to this much connectivity is definitely kinda bad, right? It is kinda bad to feel alien without a screen present. It is kinda bad to feel foreign to the alterity of zoning out.

But why? Why is this “bad”?

New York Times Technology Journalist Matt Ritchel thinks that when our beloved communication devices inundate us from all directions, ironically we feel more disconnected and less able to focus. He thinks we shouldn’t. This is why it is bad.

Recently Ritchel spoke with National Public Radio’s Fresh Air program regarding his series for NYT about the mess we’re making of our mental health and subsequently our society by staying "connected" at all times. In his series Your Brain On Computers, Ritchel describes how multitasking on computers and digital gadgets affects the way people process information. On issues of technology, Ritchel is a proponent of what many would consider a good thing: taking a break. Yet through his research and writing the unfortunate reality is that we’re not only not wanting that break, but we’re figuring new, glorious routes to smuggle technology in for the core purpose of distraction.

He ran a test recently, inviting a group of scientists studying the brain to a retreat in Utah. This was billed as a “no technology” retreat. Therefore all communication devices were not permitted. He split the team into two groups, those who agree with his hypothesis and those who are skeptical. What Ritchel discovered was what he unimaginatively dubbed the “Three-Day-Effect”. By the third day the mood of the group, “Believers” and “Skeptics” alike, shifted.

According to NYT Tech writer Matt Ritchel overloading our brains with technology is making us less productive. Is he right?

"You start to feel more relaxed. Maybe you sleep a little better. Maybe you don't reach for your phone pinging in your pocket," Ritchel reported to Fresh Air. "Maybe you wait a little longer before answering a question. Maybe you don't feel in a rush to do anything — your sense of urgency fades."

Culturally, we’re addicted to addiction. The dopamine rush one experiences with the buzz of an incoming call, text message or email leaves us curiously vacant in said communications absence. Ritchel feels this makes us bored. We don’t like being bored. Boredom makes us return to the culprit that is causing our boredom in the first place: technology. We overload and therefore keep ourselves clogged with too much technology. Our relationship with technologically overloading is cyclical and dependent.

So, what does a brand take away from Ritchels' findings? How will this effect consumers relationship with brands?

The process of breaking through to consumers will need to mimic Ritchels' process of breaking through the brains over-activity to gain focus on singular thought. Not unlike going on a diet, brands will need to “clean house” and "shave the fat". Needed are not more mediums of entry, but less. Needed are not overloading consumers with thinly spread brand visibility, but laser focusing on finite approaches.

More and more, brands will need to appeal not only to what the numbers are saying consumers may want (more, more, more!) but what consumers don’t realize they actually need, (less, less, less!).

Listen to the show:

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=129384107&m=129398822

Link to consider:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129384107