* 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.

Keen Questions

1.      Keen defines democratized media as media that everyone has fair access to. Media that any person has a say in whether or not they are qualified is democratized media. Like democracy in politics, where any untrained and uneducated citizen can vote for something as important as the next president, democratized media allows any amateur writer or blogger to say whatever they want on the internet and have it be publicly viewable within seconds. Andrew Keen’s problem with this is that it takes away from the importance and power of expert and professionally trained writing in the media. For example, Keen writes in “The Great Seduction,” “democratization, despite its lofty idealization, is undermining truth, sourcing civic discourse, and belittling expertise, experience, and talent” (Keen 15). Since any person can write whatever they want on the internet, there is no one stopping them from writing false facts on legitimate-looking websites. A professional appearance can be deceiving when viewing a website and many people will believe false information written on particular sites. Keen’s main issue is that democratized media takes away from the power of a trained, educated individual, and gives equal power to an amateur. He also believes that it is too easy to share information and avoid giving credit. According to Keen, “Copyright and authorship begin to lose all meaning to those posting their mash-ups and remixing on the Web.”

2.      Andrew Keen and Douglas Rushkoff have similar views on new technology and the sudden interconnectedness of all humans on the web. Both believe that it has now become an enormous part of today’s culture, and both delve into the belief that it may be too much. However, it seems as though Keen took a more negative and harsher view on the situation. Keen attacks almost every aspect of new technology and “Web 2.0.” He says it takes away from the importance of expertise and trained scholars, and removes meaning from copyright and authorship due to vast and constant sharing capabilities. Rushkoff covers how new technology and constant interconnectedness on the internet has changed human behavior, and creates bad habits for many people. The documentary “Digital Nation” by Rushkoff exemplifies many situations in which internet and computer addiction has significantly changed the way the people operate and the world works. I believe Rushkoff speaks to me more effectively, because I think it is more interesting to see how the world is changing in terms of human behavior. While it is also interesting to see how the rise of the amateur is hurting society, I feel as though Keen’s negativity is too great and there are many upsides of the internet and social networking that Keen ignores. Overall, the truth is that both speak to me and I have learned much and considered new and different views because of them.

Whither the Individual

Marc Friedman

Media Literacy

Professor Jacobsen

Whither the Individual

            Many people in today’s society worry about joining a social network. Facebook and Twitter have become such a huge part of the world and they are so hyped up that it may appear intimidating to join. But another concern that is typically overlooked is that of losing individuality and personal space. Many people criticize social networks saying that they force people into unwanted conformity. In my opinion, this should not be a concern in the least. These social networks are a place where one can express themselves, connect with friends, stay in touch with the world and learn new things.

            When joining a social network such as Facebook or Twitter, it is not guaranteed that you will conform to the cookie-cutter profile in which so many people put themselves. Although there may be a strict guidelines and formats to follow in the design of the website itself, there is otherwise almost unlimited freedom. Since Facebook and Twitter are the two most popular and commonly used social networks today, I will use specific examples from these sites. On Facebook, there is an “About Me” area which is meant for providing basic information about yourself. This section not only includes space for your school or company, but also provides room to right a short personal biography. This is a great place to express yourself and be original. Twitter has a similar section, although it is not as in-depth. Unlike Facebook, you cannot display your relationship status, birthday, interests, or several other details.

            Apart from the preliminary descriptions, the most popular part of Facebook and Twitter is the posting section. On Twitter it is called “tweeting,” on Facebook it is simply called “posting” a status. The purpose of this area is basically to write anything that happens to be on your mind. In fact, within the blank text box on Facebook reads “What’s on your mind?” This is specifically encouraging individuality and creativity. Twitter’s encouragement reads “What’s happening?” The great part about these social networks is that you are directly connected to the rest of the world. On Twitter, you can post something, anything you want, and it will immediately be available to the rest of the worldwide Twitter network. In an article titled “Social Media for Introverts,” analyst Chris Guillebeau states “The beauty of the internet is that you can be yourself and somewhere you’ll find other people who are interested.”

            This brings me to my next point; social networks are an excellent place to not only keep in touch with friends, but to gain new ones. As a part of the constantly tweeting community, you will always be connected to the rest of the world. Naturally, this means the opportunity for more friends in more places. On Twitter, people tend to tweet their opinions on various subjects. It is likely you will come across an interesting view on a particular topic that you agree with. By “following” this person, you will be alerted of all their recent tweets. Engagement with this person or input on their comment could lead to further discussion and eventually a new friendship. It is easy to find people with similar views as yourself on the vast network of Twitter. Chris Guillebeau writes “I’ve always had a small circle of close, local friends but now I enjoy knowing a much larger group of people all over the world. I think the difference is that the people I’m getting to know are self-selected.”

But perhaps you are not looking for new friendship. Maybe you just want to learn something new and stay in touch with the modern world and community. In my opinion, Facebook is the better place for keeping in touch with current friends. On Facebook, you are free to post on the “walls” of friends and other people in your network, depending on privacy settings. Facebook is good about keeping content private and secluded to only the people you want seeing it. The privacy settings are extensive and re-assuring on Facebook. Anyone worried about personal space should take advantage of these options. Being yourself may be easier when you are only around people you know. Twitter is more open, but many people see this as an advantage. It opens the doors to a more educational experience. Writer Jim Mitchem explains in one of his blogs, “There’s actually value in following people you don’t engage with.” Following other people gives you the opportunity to see topics from many different viewpoints. Many people really do have interesting things to say. After sifting through all of the personal commentary that is commonly found on Twitter, you can certainly find valuable information. “Following” the right person could lead to a helpful learning experience.

Lastly, there is one more type of social network that I would like to cover. In the PBS documentary “Digital Nation” by Douglas Rushkoff and Rachel Dretzin, the creator of Second Life, Philip Rosedale, was interviewed. He explained how the program works, and how people can meet online and hang out wherever they want in their own created world. This program provides an interactive opportunity to be yourself, but in whatever environment you can dream of. Though programs such as these may pose potential issues such as addiction and loss of reality and real-life communication skills, they do not however, restrict individuality and personal space. I believe it does the opposite, giving people an opportunity to express themselves and show their creativity.

Overall, a social network is not a place that should be feared. It is a great place to keep in touch with friends, meet new people with similar interests, and even learn new things. Most importantly, networks like Twitter and Facebook are not guaranteed to force you into the cookie-cutter profile of modern society. It is easy to be yourself and express your own ideas and individuality. Conformity has always been and will always be a large concern in the world, but the standard interfaces of sites such as Twitter and Facebook do not constrict our personality and creativity enough to make us operate strictly as one collective organism of hyper-people. I am not sure how this will change in the future, but I do know one thing, I am certainly looking forward to seeing the new movie The Social Network.

Sources:

“Social Media for Introverts” by Chris Guillebeau- http://chrisguillebeau.com/3x5/social-media-for-introverts/

“Why I Stopped Un-following People on Twitter” by Jim Mitchem- http://www.obsessedwithconformity.com/obsessed_with_conformity/social-media/

“Digital Nation” by Douglas Rushkoff and Rachel Dretzin- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/

Social Media 3 Questions

1.      I believe that the amateur user-generated videos will continue to get better over time, and they will slowly get closer to looking professional because of the greater access to helpful technology. But this does not mean the real professional shows and commercials will go away. There is a time and place for a “homegrown” video. Shows like The Office that use a amateur-looking appearance with the interviews and moving cameraman work well because it is just the style of the show. A show like Everybody Loves Raymond would not be as good with a moving camera, it would distract from the content which is the constant humorous situations and jokes. As for commercials, I think it depends on the product being sold. If the product is trying to closely relate to everyday life, then an amateur video will use the “simple folks” advertising technique. The goal of this technique is to relate to everyday common life.

2.      I probably use Yahoo and Facebook the most. I think Facebook is more successful than MySpace because it is more organized and targets the older, more mature crowd. While MySpace was a good place to “express yourself,” Facebook is the ideal place to keep in touch with friends and family easier, which is what the majority of people us it for. I think Facebook is here to stay for long term. They are constantly updating their format and applications to stay contemporary.

3.      Most people just want to fit into the crowd and feel normal. These sites such as Twitter and Facebook make it easy to keep updated about things going on with friends and even in the news. I think it is equally important to be transparent in the online world and offline world, but only at certain times. There are times when it is definitely good to stand out if you want to get anywhere and make a name for yourself doing something. You can also do this on Facebook or Twitter if you are innovative and start trends with posts or tweets.