examples of terms

* neuromarketing ( psychological ): Pepsi vs. Coke Challenge- When people were asked to taste test both Pepsi and Coke without knowing which was which, more people said they liked the taste of Pepsi better.  However, when the same people knew which soda was which, more people stated that they liked Coke better.  This is due to Coke's method of advertising-they create better quality, more memorable advertisements that consumers connect more with mentally.


* emotional branding: Disneyland advertises their amusement park as "The Happiest Place on Earth."  This connects with consumers emotions, influencing them to trust and believe that they will have a good, happy, exciting time at Disneyland.


* branding/creating a culture around a brand: Apple focuses on how it is the better option compared to a PC.  The Apple company brands itself as being more innovative, more user-friendly, more hip, and better quality.


* narrowcasting: Satellite Radio is an example of narrowcasting because it only reaches a narrow audience (in this case, those who paid for it) rather than the general audience


* rhetorical marketing: An example of this is how the "War in Iraq" has been changed to "The War on Terror."  The change of wording influences and persuades people to agree more.


* under the radar marketing: Unlike mainstream forms of marketing such as TV and magazines, Twitter is an example of under the radar marketing.  Companies can create Twitter accounts to advertise their products through  Tweets.


* across-media marketing: Starbucks is a very well-known brand due to its across-media marketing strategies.  Advertisements are displayed through magazines, newspapers, television, and the Internet.  

* product placement across media: Apple is an example of product placement across media as well.  Throughout different movies and TV shows, characters are shown using different Apple products including laptops, itunes, iPods, etc



*guerilla marketing: The brand, Obey uses guerilla marketing. Stickers, posters, and graffiti art of Andre the Giant, and simply the word "obey" have been displayed on random places throughout cities around the world.  These unique forms of ads have unclear messages forcing viewers to use their imagination.


*viral marketing: The movie, Cloverfield used viral marketing.  Actual Myspace pages were created for the fictional characters and actual website were created for fictional companies that were alluded to in the movie

vector image project

original:

recreation using adobe illustrator:

Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the Internet?

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?

One definition of democracy is “the practice and principles of social equality” (Oxford American Dictionary).  This definition ties in well with our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies.  Everyone from amateurs to professionals have the right and the ability to upload any sort of content to the Internet (videos, pictures, personal blogs, etc).  In addition, anyone has the ability to access this information on the Internet.  While Keen believes this is killing our society because it leads to amateurs "running the show" and to everyone simultaneously broadcasting themselves rather than listening to each other, I agree with Jimmy Wales’ opinion.  The website he created, wikipedia.com, “is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based on an openly-edited model.”  This explanation of what this website is about matches perfectly with the definition of democracy and how it has influenced the uses and content of the Internet. 

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?

The fact that Web 2.0 technologies are unchecked relates to democracy in that individuals are able to post pretty much whatever they want on the Internet, which ties into freedom of speech. Websites such as facebook.com are unregulated in the sense that users do not need permission to upload pictures, or make posts; users can edit their name, hometown, interests, relationship statuses, etc to whatever they want whether it’s true or not.  I don’t believe this is an issue that needs to be addressed because as long as people are aware of the nature of the Internet, they should be able to regulate themselves and make their own decisions based on what is true or not.  People just have to know that not everything on the Internet is true.

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?

The media echo chamber has to do with the idea of a specific “space” in which information and ideas are being communicated.  It is a type of silo effect because often times one media chamber will report on an issue with a biased opinion but leading people to believe it is fact and causing other media outlets to copy and transmit the same (untrue) information.  This lack of communication and miscommunication is an issue that needs to be addressed because individuals will believe this false information to be true since there are multiple sources reinforcing it. 

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?

Although websites such as Wikipedia and Facebook enforce the idea of democracy, to some extent there is authority regulating it.  On Wikipedia, even though any individual can add to or create a defintion, the admin of the website are able to remove it if it is false.  Similarly on Facebook, the authority is able to regulate activity such as removing certain content. On Facebook, individuals can report other users’ photos which will notify the authority who will then take action if needed.  The people behind these forces should be the creator of the specific website.  I think they are needed to a certain extent, as they are present now but I don’t believe greater authority needs to be enforced because then this would take away from the idea that the Internet is democratized. 

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.

More and more people are watching TV shows on the Internet rather than on their actual televisions.  The website hulu.com was created to enable individuals to access these shows online, legally and for free.  Television networks and creators of shows realize that in order to maintain ratings, it is necessary to adapt and keep up with the Internet.  They are still making money because Hulu incorporates short ads into the shows that viewers are forced to watch.  There are also ads on the sides of pages.

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

No, I don’t believe that democracy is threatened by the unchecked nature of the Internet but rather that the two concepts go hand in had.  If the Internet were checked, controlled, and restrained, it would take away from the idea that it is a democracy.  There would be no Freedom of Speech and not everyone on the Internet would be equal.  Internet users should be aware of the Internet and should be able to behave accordingly and regulate themselves.  

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.


Basically, Keen defines the democratization of media as the "Great Seduction."  Democratized media encompasses the idea that in a democracy, every one is equal--on the Internet, all users (mostly amateurs) have the ability and freedom to broadcast themselves.  However, because people simultaneously hog the limelight via the Internet, the "law of Digital Darwinism" has resulted, meaning that only the loudest and most opinionated will survive.   Because democracy has revolutionary potential, it was thought that Web 2.0 would bring more depth of information, more global perspective, more unbiased opinion from dispassionate observers, all to more people.  These are all factors of how democratized media seduces users.  However, Keen believes this is all a mask to what Web 2.0 is actually delivering.  Keen expresses his issues with democratization, which include: how it results in "sheer noise" of millions and millions of bloggers all self-advocating, how it destroys the ranks and lines of professionals and amateurs, how it leads to plagiarism or deceit, how it creates ambiguity about authorship or ownership, and how the value and existence of traditional books are declining.  There are many more points of issue that Keen discusses, yet his main point is that although democratization appears to be helpful and luxurious, it leads to amateurs "running the show" and to everyone  simultaneously broadcasting themselves rather than listening to each other.  


This is an example of how anonymity causes confusion about ownership:
http://www.facebook.com/jackinthebox?v=wall
Jack, the mascot of Jack in the Box, is a fictional character who has a page on Facebook where "he" provides personal background information as well as  creates status updates that usually don't even have to do with the restaurant.  Because he is fictional, who actually "owns" this content?  

2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why?

Both Keen and Rushkoff make valid points that support their opinion on Social Media.  Keen sees new media with more of a negative perspective, explaining how it undermines truth, discourages civic discourse, and devalues talent and expertise. On the other hand, Rushkoff is more skeptical of new media rather than oppositional of it.  He explores many aspects of the evolving media and how it affects users' behaviors.  In Digital Nation, I feel that Rushkoff presented both positive and negative aspects of social media.  Therefore, I agree more with Rushkoff because he focuses more on how new media has provided more interconnected means of communication (whether it be positive or negative). I don't believe that the Internet is "killing our culture" like Keen advocates, but I believe it is causing our culture and humanity to evolve in both good and bad ways.  

Response

Responded to Marc Friedman's post, "Whither the Individual"
http://marcfriedmanmedlit.blogspot.com/2010/10/whither-individual.html

Whither the Individual?

As individuals join groups and social networking sites on the Internet, people are becoming more closely connected then ever before, causing conformity in some aspects but also creating new ways for individuals to express their unique identity.  It does not have to be looked at in either a good or a bad way, but rather as the next step in the process of evolution of humanity and our society. 

Because the Internet is still a relatively new and constantly developing innovation, people will always continue to question its impact on both the individuals and the society as a whole. Before the Internet and Web 2.0, groups and social organizations existed only in real, concrete, tangible life.  People could argue how even these networks of people in real life cause conformity and loss of personal identity, causing members to become a part of one collective organism. However, this is the way society works, have always worked, and inevitably will always work.

Before Facebook, before the Internet, and before advanced technology, in the 1800s, August Comte, who was both a philosopher and a sociologist, compared society to a “collective organism.”  A collective organism is an organism made up of many organs or parts.  Thus, with society as the collective organism, each individual is an organ that must interact, work together, and influence each other in order to create a society.  Comte also added that man is not the only type of organ that makes up society but also aspects such as knowledge, cultural ideas and ideals, generations, and values help to create the collective organism of society. Comte believed that, “man exists as man only by participation in the life of humanity” which means that individuals and society will always naturally be tied together.  By recognizing Comte’s beliefs from the 1800s, we see that individuals have always been members of a whole and that this is not some negative new occurrence that the Internet has brought about.  Social groups with a high influence on its members have always been around. 

           

Because these social groups and networks now exist on the Internet, interconnection has been hyper-activated.  There is a greater and faster flow of information that is being spread to more and more people.  This adds so many more ideas, thoughts, creativity, and productions to not only cyber world, but the real world as well, that while in some aspects individuals seem to be conforming.  But in other ways, individuals are expanding and extending their identities.  Even with sites such as Facebook, although all users have to stick to the same exact layout, there are still so many ways to remain an individual.  There are multiple sections where users can write about themselves, their interests, favorite quotations, etc. Each user can upload personal photos to which they can add captions and users can “like” different pages as well.  Finally, with status updates, users can individualize themselves by writing whatever they want, their “reflection”—something they are currently doing, something they are thinking, a quote, a joke, an opinion on a current event or politics; they could post a link of a picture, a song, a video, a personal blog, or any other website.

In the documentary, A Digital Nation, it shows how the Internet is highly used all over the world.  In South Korea, Internet addiction is so bad that Internet Recovery Camps have been created to rehabilitate teenagers who have disengaged from the real world due to overuse of the online world.  Internet Cafes also exist in Korea in which rows and rows of computers are constantly in use 24/7 by mostly teenagers playing online games.  Although these aren’t the typical online groups such as Facebook, so many teens are being sucked into the cookie cutter stereotype of a gamer.  They have conformed to this sense of only feeling the need to interact with each other through cyber space. In the real world to an observer, each gamer seems like the same exact person who sits at the computer and stares at the screen for hours, expressionless, and merely clicking and pressing buttons.  However, in the online world for these gamers, each player has a different persona, each player has a different mindset, different tactics and techniques, and a different perception. In some games, gamers are even able to design what their online player looks from skin color, to eye color, to height.  Thus, although an individual’s personal identity seems to be stripped of personal traits while entranced by online games, each gamer still holds an identity in cyber world.

           

Digital Nation also explained that cyberspace players/characters are used in the professional workplace as well.  Instead of flying halfway across the globe for a conference, professionals can now meet online and hold a meeting in a digitally created office.  Each person creates an online character that replicates themselves, down to facial features and even a particular outfit.  This shows how Internet users are not always surrendering their personal identity but instead just transferring it into cyber world. 

In the documentary, a computer expert explained that altering one’s height in cyber world could impact his ability to make business deals in the real world.  For example if a man’s height in real life were 5’7’’, he could alter his online character to make him appear 6 feet—taller than his opponent.  Because he is taller he seems more dominant and more intimidating, helping him to win the business negotiation.  Then when the two meet in person, even though the man is actually shorter than his opponent, he will still be the successful one of the business deal because of the impressions made during the previous online experience.  This is an innovative way of how people can not only expand and extend their identity but also alter it, with the help of the Internet. 

Therefore, I believe that online social networking sites connect people and force them to conform in certain ways, yet because the Internet is so dynamic, I don’t think users should feel the loss of ego or personal space.  There are so many new ways in which people can express their identity and through so many different mediums.  However, just the fact that everyone is jumping on the bandwagon to join online social groups and get as much use out of the Internet as possible, shows conformity.  Conformity and society is a natural part of life. Without the Internet, people were already participating as members of a collective organism.  And now with the Internet, these members have become hyper-activated.  It’s just the next step in the process of evolution of humanity; each member of the collective organism and the collective organism as a whole will learn to and be forced to adapt to this natural change.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2764507?seq=1

Rushkoff and Dretzin's Digital Nation

"Whither the Individual?" part 1

Whither the Individual?
As we join groups and social networks from affinity sites to Facebook, are we extending and expanding identities, or increasingly conforming to the cookie-cutter profiles demanded of these interfaces? Is the loss of "personal space" and "reflection" so many users complain of merely the necessary surrender of "ego" as we learn to participate as members of a more evolved "collective organism" of "hyper-people?"

Because the Internet is still a relatively new and a constantly developing innovation, people will always continue to questions its impact on both the individuals and the society as a whole. Before the Internet and Web 2.0, groups and social organizations existed only in real, concrete, tangible life.  People could argue how even these networks of people in real life cause conformity and loss of personal identity, causing members to become a part of one collective organism. However, this is the way society works, have always worked, and inevitably will always work—which is not necessarily a bad thing but rather just an aspect of humanity and evolution.

            Because these social groups and networks now exist on the Internet, interconnection has been hyper-activated.  There is a greater and faster flow of information that is being spread to more and more people.  This adds so many more ideas, thoughts, creativity, and productions to not only cyber world, but the real world as well, that while in some aspects individuals seem to be conforming.  But in other ways, individuals are expanding and extending their identities.  Even with sites such as Facebook, although all users have to stick to the same exact layout, there are still so many ways to still be an individual.  There are multiple sections where users can write about themselves, their interests, favorite quotations, etc. Each user can upload personal photos to which they can add captions and users can “like” different pages as well.  Finally, with status updates, users can individualize themselves by writing whatever they want, their “reflection”—something they are currently doing, something they are thinking, a quote, a joke, they could post a link of a picture, a song, a video, a personal blog, or any other website

            Therefore, I believe that online social networking sites connect people and force them to conform in certain ways yet because the Internet is so dynamic, I don’t think users should feel the loss of ego or personal space.  Without the Internet, people were already participating as members of a collective organism.  And now with the Internet, these members have become hyper-activated.  It’s just the next step in the process of evolution of humanity; each member of the collective organism and the collective organism as a whole will learn to and be forced to adapt to this natural change.