You may have noticed that during the last month the "format" for successful articles has kind of stabilized in a pattern that goes like this:
- Header or intro (some times bolded),
- a few short paragraphs,
- images,
- a few short paragraphs,
- images again (repeat the alternation a few times),
- some closing remarks
- perhaps some meme or additional "light-hearted" image in the end (in less "serious" subject matters that allow it).
So there is this text-image-text-image alternation that is supposed to be less tiring to read and more visually appealing. And if it brings the money why not... right?
Cultivating ADD
Now, content found in modern TV and movies, is fast-paced and appeals to constant stimulation in order to keep the viewer immersed / engaged. The constant stimulation makes any slow-action gap "boring" and thus the viewer slowly develops an attention-deficit issue which makes him get bored quickly if he doesn't get his "dope" of stimuli.
So the media, after having cultivated the attention-deficit issue to the viewer in the last 2 decades, then treat the viewer like an attention-handicapped patient who can only maintain focus by a constant bombardment of "flashy" stimuli.
Fueling or starving the "stimuli-dope" in articles
This same principle applies to text articles as well. If one's mind has been trained by the media to break concentration after a few seconds because it hasn't taken a new "stimuli-dope" then it's perceived as "difficult" or "boring" to read a slightly longer text. That's when we get reactions like "ohhh... wall-of-text... bye bye"...
As authors, we can either fuel this programmed deficiency (by making our articles more ADD-friendly), or we can reverse it by expecting more from people: Expect that they can and that they will hold focus for a couple of minutes without getting their stimuli-dope.
Personal stance on the issue
I'm of the opinion that images should only be used on a need-to-basis, or, if the text is unregularly long and may "need" a few breaks for the "stimuli-dope". But short paragraph (or a few sentences) and then photo alternation is somewhat of an overkill. Will it bring the money to the author? It might have better chances indeed for getting a good payout. Will it make the viewer a better person if it feeds his artificial need for visual stimulation to keep him "engaged"? I don't think so because the ADD is kind of a self-feedback loop that tends into a downward spiral when you get your "dope" often. Plus, in the long run, articles will devolve into articles that try to satisfy better the stimuli-dope-addiction.
I should also note that even in a pure-text scenario, bolding, underlining, etc also implies that the reader needs to be shown the important stuff because his attention (or ability to discern the important parts) is "handicapped". So, even there, there is an element of choice regarding how you "treat" your reader and the implications for the reader (is he being fed ADD-reinforcing material?).
Personally I've made my decision that while it may hurt the "presentation" aspect, and by extension the monetary aspect as well, I'll try to keep images at a minimum. I will also try to do the same with bold/underlined/italics etc for the same reason.
I know many will disagree with what I write (perhaps because they do not see this as I do) but I welcome all feedback from fellow authors. Thank you for your time.