Sunday, December 5, 2010

The Persuaders

* neuromarketing ( psychological )
Pepsi vs. Coke:  Pepsi held a blind taste test of Pepsi vs. Coke, where more people preferred Pepsi, they all said Coke was better. Marketing and image has helped Coke gain popularity, holding more influence than Pepsi, despite Pepsi's scientific appeal of the brain. 
* emotional branding
Apple: Apple has created a relationship with its consumers by showing strong corporate ethic, and an easily recognizable brand.  Their keen understanding of the consumer has allowed them to gain popularity and influence consumers to continue buying their product.
* branding/creating a culture around a brand
Nike: Nike is a giant when it comes to branding. They have built a culture that extends to all sports, baseball, basketball, football, soccer, track and field, snowboarding, skateboarding and more. Nearly everyone owns something Nike because the image it comes with is so valuable. 
* narrowcasting
Cable Television: things like cable TV require a consumer to log in or subscribe to something to view the content. Cable TV is only shown to a specific audience, those who have purchased the service.
* rhetorical marketing
McDonalds: McDonalds uses rhetoric to pull in consumers. Visual appeal in marketing creates strong feelings for the consumers, as well as using its strong brand image and tradition for consumers to return.
* under the radar marketing
Corona: Corona beer became the number one selling imported beer in America through under the radar marketing. The Mexican beer was first introduced in cities with large Mexican populations, in stores and restaurants. They remained out of sight of competitors until they took over because their marketing was almost invisible.
* across-media marketing
Godaddy.com: this website constantly runs Super Bowl ads on TV, which must be continued on their website. It's a way to reach millions of consumers, then pull them to their website with their appealing commercials left in cliffhangers.
* product placement across media
Under Armour: UA is just one example out of thousands, but in the movie the Blind Side, UA was used exclusively on all of the gear, football equipment and clothing of the actors.
* guerrilla marketing
The Sopranos: HBO's hit show The Sopranos used guerrilla marketing, placing fake body parts in/on taxis, playing on the crime aspect of the show.
* viral marketing
Cloverfield: This film used viral marketing in the beginning, showing online teaser trailers, not revealing the name and only giving a date, which turned out to be the release date. Cloverfield had web pages created alluding to characters and companies from the movie as well for consumers to examine before seeing the film.

Illustrator Vector Assignment

Original University of Miami Hurricanes logo, Sebastian the Ibis
 Using the pen tool I traced all of the shapes on the ibis, creating this vector design. Should have used simpler image as this had a lot of detail

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

The Internet and Democracy

1. Based on this debate and previous readings What Definition of democracy do you feel is most fitting for us to use in-conjunction our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies?

I feel the most fitting definition for us to use is that of direct democracy or the ability of anyone to contribute to the source, everyone has a say and can add more information.  When everyone is involved, the posted information is not influenced by any small party that influences the system to show results in a specific order by pay, or hiding information that isn't good.

2. How does your answer to #1 fit into the unchecked nature of Web 2.0 technologies, and what are some tangible examples of this? Do you feel this is an important issue that needs to be addressed further?

Direct democracy relates to the unchecked nature of Web 2.0 because of the sheer number of contributors and the majority are anonymous in their postings.  One example is Don Imus: the man has been in trouble a few times, including recently when he ripped a kids charity commercial on the radio. He issued a retraction and apology, merely joking around and meant for some humor. On the Internet, it would be just any other post-- people can get away with anything. Imus also had another scandal, which everyone knows about, where he was fired for his words.  Internet audiences are so huge, I don't believe anything can be done to regulate it; the chances of finding each and every offender is too large a task. Plus the cases where it is threatening, police have their ways of tracking down the perpetrator; most cases are tame enough.


3. Define and describe the phenomenon of the Media echo-chamber as described in the Internet Debates. What are some examples of this silo effect, and do you believe it is an issue that need to be addressed? Why or Why not?

The media echo-chamber is the posting of news, which in turn is reposted in other locations where more people see it, and this is done over and over until everyone has heard the news and possibly even changed.  This happens all the time, sites like www.reddit.com spread news to numerous other sources.  One example was Michael Jackson's death which caused Google to crash, huge number of people flooded twitter and Wikipedia crashed.  Mass confusion leads to a flooding of the Internet and sites crash, leading people to go somewhere else, and information is reposted over and over.


4. What are some ways that expertise and authority could be (or is being) enforced on the internet? Who would be behind these forces? Why do you believe are they needed or not needed?

I don’t think expertise and authority on the internet can be enforced; It is all users responsibility to obtain reliable information from the Internet. People can be encouraged to find quality information but it can’t really be forced onto people. College professors and teachers constantly remind the class to gather good information for assignments. When people look for information on the internet, they should continue to search for reliable sources, with fact based evidence. Expertise already exists on the internet, people just have to look for it.

6. Give a through example of an adaptation or improvement made by a of a social, political, or cultural group, government, business or individual to keep up with changing nature of the internet.

Businesses today use Facebook to host their pages, moving away from purchasing their own domain to save money.  Every ad today seems to have a reference to the company's Facebook page or Twitter, and it works because both are so popular; the business has moved into the social forums.

7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?

Despite the unchecked nature of the internet, democracy continues to exist without being threatened.
Having the ability to create internet sites, post blogs, and share comments is ultimately a basic democratic function. Even in an uncertain online world, much of the information is posted legitimately, checked for facts and provided with a source; certain things are regulated for accuracy making the Internet a powerful tool of information.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

The Great Seduction

1. How does Keen define Democratized media, and what are his main issues with this trend? use examples from the web in the form of links.
Keen defines Democratized media as a society that has power from everyone, there are no higher-ups to control what the mass does.  An example is anyone can produce a type of media without any formal training or knowledge of a subject, spreading their ideas to millions because they have an Internet connection.  Nearly every website has a place to comment on works such as youtube.com, places to post information such as wikipedia.org, and numerous boards to post opinions and find answers, like Yahoo Answers.  Keen believes that with this unlimited power and no guidelines culture is blurred an/or lost to uneducated peoples-- order is lost in the online realm.  He takes issue with the amount of responsibility people are given and how it's abused as groups attack websites, change information and cause problems for others trying to reach a certain site.  4chan.org is a big offender, Keen has not mentioned them but they are constantly bombarding online sources.  So much information is shared through Web 2.0 that most of it is lost and stolen, reposted and no one receives credit for their work.  Much of the information is copied and it's becoming very difficult to identify what is reliable; it's a large mess of information with little regulations.

2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why?
Andrew Keen is explicitly disgusted by Web 2.0 and the new culture that comes with it.  Douglas Rushkoff sees these issues but understands that we as a people can overcome the problems and find a middle ground-- further online use to benefit everyone. Both present the problems, but in entirely different ways.  Keen shows no mercy, no room to budge in his opinion on Web 2.0 saying that nothing good will come from it and it's detrimental to society.  Rushkoff looks at all parts of Web 2.0 and takes it case by case, how does something hurt of benefit society, what are the best ways to use the Internet.  Rushkoff observes how we can utilize the Internet to our advantage, while Keen believes all wrong has been done, there's no going back and it's a travesty how culture is doomed by Democratized media.  I stand by Rushkoff who is not totally one sided in his work; there are many negatives but plenty of positives.  Only a matter of time will people mature generation by generation and utilize the Internet in new ways to improve lives.  I find Web 2.0 very beneficial because I can locate numerous opinions and information on topics and opinions on that information. Any information can be found and with my diverse class topics finding it is easy, plus classes have taught me what is reliable and what should be avoided. I like Web 2.0 because people can expand their horizons and learn new things, voice their thoughts on just about anything.  All sides are represented and one can decipher for themselves what is the most logical.  Keen shows too much bias and is unable to see any benefits, but his argument has some legs, it's just he doesn't trust people. Rushkoff is more rational and sympathetic towards people and believes Web 2.0 is a wonderful thing that when used correctly can expand ones world.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Digital Nation: The Mob


            You can be whatever you want to be if you put your mind to it.  The world has driven this idea into our minds, preaching a choice in individuality.  Did it work? Have we as a society listened, put an idea in our mind and become whatever we want to be?  There are a few considerable factors to look at when analyzing effects, one being technological advancements.  At any one point in time, a person can be connected to a vast network of people, little to hinder the links.  But with this extreme network come positives and negatives, issues society must face or advancements to embrace.
            A common term used to describe the mentality with all of the social networks and Internet use is “the mob” which works perfectly.  Some of the effects of the nearly ultimate connectedness are positive: globalization is refined and spreads allowing businesses and services communicate in any situation, people can stay connected no matter where they are (I for one benefit from this, my immediate family lives in Oregon, and I only see them at Christmas, spring break and summer, but I can stay in close communication with them) and information can easily be shared for the world to learn and understand.  With the connections maintained through online interactions, information can be passed on to anyone; there are no obstacles such as time to restrict what can be shared. And with the spread of business and work across the world, friends and families can stay in touch through any number of technologies, from cell phone, to social networks, Skype or e-mail. And in this new world, all people can learn anything and everything they want to through the Internet, a faster way to learn. Ideas are shared and memories saved using the Internet, innumerable connections are made everyday to all across the world.  People use Facebook to connect to friends, stay in touch and make new friends when in the past relationships were limited to time and place.  Facebook is a way for people to receive a small dose of another’s life in as much information as is shared.  Skype is a great way to stay in touch in a more personal way than phone, as it is in a sense, face to face.  Video chatting has picked up the past five years, and is used to share how ones day is with a friend, or for an employee to relay visual information to an associate anywhere in the world.  However, with this power comes conflict, responsibilities are abused and privacy is broken; anonymity creates a new monster.
            The negatives are clearly apparent, everyday stories of online bullying; identity theft and other issues are chronicled.  The negative effects of the connectivity are in my opinion totally unintended, as those who abuse it, have no reason to other than selfish disregard for people and wasted time when bored.  Misbehavior runs rampant because people are scared and hide behind the wall that is the Internet.  People conclude that no one can see them, they have anonymity on their side, and so they can do whatever they want.  Any person can get away with almost anything so they use and abuse what the Internet gives them. Opinions are voiced and harsh criticism doled out because there are no consequences—it is a wild-west smack down, people can do whatever.  In relation to society, it’s making people more critical, a person can say anything anonymously, and it carries over to the outside world.  The lack of consequences creates a false air for people to criticize others to the furthest extent.  The boundaries have been completely changed, almost non-existent and people are being hurt, lives disrupted.  The “online mob mentality” has changed to insult people from afar, without ever knowing them.  Places such as 4chan.com, and Formspring ridicule people to the extreme and post false and hurtful things about others.  Hatred is clearly evident online; there has to be some reason for this.
            The unlimited connections online can put you in contact with billions of people.  What would you say to them? Where would you go to say these things?  In the past decade this has been a major issue, people are being rude and hateful online, for almost no reason.  Is society to blame for this?  One explanation is it is an outlet for these people, a place to get rid of anger.  But this is totally irresponsible; how can anyone be comfortable doing this sort of thing? The anonymity factor.  It’s all about what you can get away with.  Universal connectivity has its obvious problems, but with those are the advantages.  As the world changes, so does our technology and the etiquette has not carried over, rules and boundaries have been more and more vague.  The wall that is the Internet has created a new monster; everyone is connected to each other.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Web 2.0

1. Over time, I think TV shows and advertisement qualities will remain about the same, then improve as cultural ideals change. With the amateurish look, media can be created with the message and ideas at the forefront and recording techniques will take a backseat; the focus in the creative process is on the idea. People like Bo Burnham become stars because of Youtube videos. The Soup is a show dedicated to Youtube videos. And the new movie The Virginity Hit is done in a very homemade style. But other things continue to have high production values, such as the majority of movies and television shows being released every month.
2. I use Facebook or Youtube, the most. I have a Twitter but I don't use it and I don't see the need for it, although that could come in handy in the future. Youtube is just fun, and I love to maje movies and watch others, as it is a fun outlet of expression. Facebook is a great way for me to stay in touch with friends since I'm from the west coast, and it's simple; no crazy designs and features like Myspace. Facebook will be hear to stay longer than most social networks because for the most part it has remained simple and adaptive to what people want. It isn't too gimmicky which has helped it survive.
3. Transparency is important both on and offline because it is what allows people to be open and share ideas. It is so important in social media because what is said or posted online can be accessed by nearly anyone with an internet connection; what is said on any kind of medium has its effects. Being completely honest instead of hiding behind the wall that is the internet is being true; becoming another person online because it isn't face to face is childish and immature. Transparency is so important because it is a reflection of the person. Offline, some things can slip through the cracks as they aren't posted all over a network, but it is reality, and that is a time to act accordingly.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

My photo document shows the unlimited possibilities of man to remain connected no matter what, through the internet, and Apple products such as the iPod and iPad. The background is a map of the internet, the connections that are being made every second. The infinite connections allow man to stay connected no matter where they are, despite great distances as the outer space element suggests. Both astronauts have the new iPhone 4, with face to face video chat, and internet, as well as many other tools. The astronaut in the foreground has an iPad, the newer smaller more portable laptop replacement, and he is watching ESPN3.com on it, which allows viewers to watch nearly every sporting event televised on their computer through their cable provider.  The internet and smart phones allow for zero breaks in communication; people can be reached no matter what through the brand new mediums of technology. Even face to face conversation is available through your cell phone.