* neuromarketing ( psychological ) (focus groups, confuse them, the code, cheese dead/alive in france/US) (heineken commercial eye tracking and engagement studies)
* emotional branding (white bread guy)
* branding/creating a culture around a brand (hummer)
* narrowcasting (acxiom- database that knows what people buy/like to give information to their clients for target marketing)
* rhetorical marketing (change words) (simply change certain words to get people to agree more- war in Iraq to war on terror)
* under the radar marketing (not know it's advertising, Herald Newspaper cover-Jet Blue ad)
* across-media marketing (ex. sports arena named after brand)
* product placement across media

bitmap: pixelbased - photographic purposes
vector: anchor points, paths, fill/stroke - logo designs

                                    Original                                             Re-creation

Internet Debate Questions

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?

1.       I think that Andrew Keen has a more accurate perception of democracy and the internet. I am with Keen when he argues that the internet is giving too much power to the unreliable individual and taking away authority from the professionals who actually deserve the authority. On sites such as Wikipedia, any person can add information about any topic, and this information can be viewed instantly by millions of people. Though Jimmy Whales argues that democracy is not threatened because this is a good way for people to collaborate and determine a correct definition, and the information may be checked to a certain extent, I still believe Andrew Keen has a valid point and his argument and definition of democracy is stronger and more realistic.

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?

2.       My answer fits into the unchecked nature of the internet and Web 2.0 technologies because it supports Andrew Keen’s response dealing with the unreliability of information sites. There are examples everywhere on the internet of homemade websites with information claiming to be correct and reliable. If a website appears official and is well organized and professional-looking, people will believe information on it. It is not hard to create these websites either. Wikipedia is an obvious example of this as well, and so are all social networking sites. I think this issue needs to be addressed further, there must be some type of solution to help deal with this massive “rise of the amateur” as Andrew Keen calls it.

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 needs to be addressed? Why or Why not?

3.       The phenomenon of the Media echo-chamber states that people are only interested in types of media that state similar opinions to their own. In my other communications class, I am currently learning about different models of media effects. One is the powerful effect model, in which the person exposed to the media plays a very passive role and just believes and goes along with whatever they see because the media is so persuasive. Media is even more persuasive when it goes is along with your theme of beliefs. The other model is the limited effect model, in which the media allows more room for the viewer’s opinion; the viewer plays a more active role. An example of the Media echo-chamber can be found in FOX news. FOX news is a very Republican-based news station, so really only Republicans would watch this news station because it follows their beliefs and interests. I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed as well because I think the way politics are run nowadays is very biased and ineffective, most republicans just vote for the republican candidate, and most democrats just vote for the democrat because the media persuades them to.

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 are needed or not needed?

4.       Expertise is being enforced on the internet to an extent. For example, on Wikipedia has some fact checkers that oversee that information is correctly and reliably cited from valid sources. This may not be the best way to check accuracy, but it is one way. I believe experts need to be there to check every fact and every piece of information before it is actually available to the public. On Wikipedia, information can be posted by anyone, and it will stay there until a fact-checker gets around to looking at it and validating its accuracy. In the amount of time the information is out there, anyone can see it, and since it has not been checked by experts, it can be completely false.

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.

6.  An example of a company that adapts and improves to keep up with the changing nature of the internet is Wikipedia. When Wikipedia first started the information was not checked completely and thoroughly. Even though it is still not checked quick enough and thoroughly enough today, Wikipedia has improved its fact-checking and source-validating department. People have realized that Wikipedia is not completely reliable and I think it is important to know this when using Wikipedia, but in an effort to improve itself, improving the fact-checking department is certainly a positive change in adaptation to the changing nature of the internet.

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

7. I think democracy is threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet to an extent. It is definitely threatened, but I do not think the unchecked nature of the internet has completely undone democracy at this point. Facts are still checked, and most people are aware of what they are getting into when using an informational site such as Wikipedia. Also, schools are teaching students to use more reliable, peer-reviewed sources for their research. So while the unchecked nature of the internet has certainly hurt society and threatened democracy, it has not completely destroyed democracy.