Some elderly people who live alone like the TV on for company - in many cases they aren't even watching it properly, they just have it on in the background to feel less lonely, like there are other people in the house with them. The article even alludes to this albeit in negative terms "this includes time spent engaged in other activities while the television is blaring in the background". But it is a very different pattern from being "screen-obsessed" and "waste hours ... fritter on chat-shows and repeats of soaps". I think the author could benefit from showing a little more sympathy towards people who have circumstances different from their own.
back
5 comments
We mostly got the grandparents on facebook because they kept complaining about not getting photos in the mail anymore. This give them the ability to see the photos of the grandkids and great grandkids in the system that their kids and grandkids actually use.
Of course I'm more than a little nervous about facebook radicalization and scams, but we made sure she does things like not use her real photo and luckily my aunt that lives nearby is very tech-savvy and paranoid. But unfortunately facebook seems to be the best option for helping more isolated elderly people connect with their families.
Preface: this is going to sound like an advertisement, but I promise I'm not connected in any way. I just like the idea.
Have you heard of NanaGram? (https://nanagram.co/). It's a service that regularly mails physical copies of photos to someone you choose, and it's one of the most "of course that should be a product" products that I've seen recently.
It's a winner of an idea, because Facebook lets us work around the real goal of grandparents when they ask us for regular updates; attention. Giving our elderly family members ways of passively observing us defeats their goal of wanting us to talk to them, but a NanaGram is a specific, actionable gift that demonstrates this abstract, "Well they must be thinking of me!" concept that they can then extrapolate however they need.
@otras thanks for sharing. It's an honor to be mentioned on HN like this.
One of the big goals of the product is to increase interaction between loved ones. I wrote about this a bit more at https://nanagram.co/blog/niche-start — we have a feature, which allows you to list names and phone numbers of you and your siblings on a cover photo. I get reports all the time of grandparents who go down the list, dialing each grandkid to talk through the photos with them.
Have you tried talking with them?
Seems pretty expensive, when you can print a photo from your local CVS for 10c and mail it for 50c.
We're certainly a convenience service. You can definitely do this cheaper on your own and I wrote a bit more about that here:
https://nanagram.co/blog/how-to-mail-photos/
I think our prices are pretty solid and often hear that from customers. For $6.99 per month we mail 5 photos and all you have to do is text or email them to us. We also have an annual plan which brings the price down to just under $6 per month.
The service also really shines when you have multiple senders (siblings, cousins, etc) using it as we curate photos from the group via reminders.
We recently had the 5-photo plan set to $7.99 but unlocked savings on the fulfillment side, passing those on to customers.
Pricing has been a challenge for sure, as on one hand I've always firmly believed the product should be accessible to people from all walks of life, and on the other there is a reality of paying the bills.
I know Google is gets criticism, but if you want to share photos with grandparents, Google Photos is well designed for that purpose and avoids many of Facebook's problems.
Google Photos or a similar photo-only service with sharing features may be better than Facebook if that's your main use and you have concerns about scams and radicalization.
Eh, you go where your audience is right?
If the grandkids banter all the time on facebook that's the real draw. The photos are just an initial obvious benefit, it's much easier to explain a photo stream than chat threads to someone new to the internet. Facebook does a pretty good job at making interactions feel natural, much as I dislike them.
Yes, it is valid strategy. Not only elderly do it. I have seen women who cared for children to do it too. Otherwise there is too much silence and nothing interesting going on whole day, it helps to keep sanity.
Morning tv programs and soap operas are designed especially for people like that.
If you have a family and a small house having the TV on can provide some much needed privacy that you do not have in a dead silent house. A lot of it may be habit from having kids, something a good number of younger journalists can't relate to.
I've done it as a man too.
Or they were conditioned to this as the normal state. I grew up in a home with three TVs: living room, parent's bedroom, my bedroom. The TV in the living room was on 24 hours a day. It only went off if we left the house. My father was an insomniac and so it stayed on all night too.
The one in their bedroom was on most of the time. It usually only went off at night when my father moved to the couch in the living room to let my mother sleep.
For years after I moved out I had to have a TV on at all times or else the place I was in felt empty and too quiet. When I realized this about myself I cut cable out of my life and can barely stand the TV now. When we visit my mom, it's always on, and it's always on FOX. My father sat in front of it every day until he died of dementia. My mother can't break the habit now. Even when we visit she keeps it on and occasionally watches it instead of engaging with us and is making it very hard to visit.
When I have a few days alone at home for whatever reason I'll usually leave the radio (BBC Radio 4) on in the background, it definitely makes a difference.
That's how TV worked (for those who remember the TV days). In most slow/quiet/boring places there was a tv in the background .