vector art jpeg

Rushkoff's definitions

* neuromarketing ( psychological )

a form of marketing which studies three aspects of human psychology. the consumer's sensorimotor, cognitive, and affective responses to stimuli. Researchers are able to through MRI images, electroencephalography or sensors to measure brain activity when presented with new stimuli. These measurements try to understand the decisions which dictate consumer's actions.

* emotional branding

A term used to describe how a consumer feels about an advertised product. This is not based on image, usage or price. emotional branding is mostly used to market to a specific demographic.

* branding/creating a culture around a brand

Marketing focused on creating a brand or re-marketing a brand. Agencies focus on creating an image and strategy for clients to create an image for people to respond to. Advertising is meant to create an image which is easily recognizable and associated with a group of people who respond to the product.

* narrowcasting

advertising which is broad casted or shown to a specific audience. sometimes even specified on a one on one basis such as in the 2004 democratic elections which focused on showing voters personalized videos.

* rhetorical marketing

marketing which uses selective words which capture more meaning to the audience. often examples can be found in politics such as when republicans started referring to global warming as global climate change.

* under the radar marketing

attempts at marketing which are made to be unnoticed or noticed in a place where they would not normally be such as the front page of newspapers made to look like the daily bugle as an advertisement for spiderman 2 the movie.

* across-media marketing

advertising which appears in places outside of normal advertising space such as within a program itself. a character in a show may often meet at a certain coffee house or be seen using a certain product, such as in sex in the city when an entire episode was written by Smirnoff. 

* product placement across media

similiar to across media marketing, it is a form of promotion where companies promote themselves within media content such as placing the product within the content of a show adding extra appeal to both the character and company.

vector image

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs17/f/2007/170/9/5/vector_wallpaper_by_seppoftw.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.designzzz.com/beautiful-vector-illustration-designs/&usg=__DtYNiu542pjUmzsBJIaJR_d-edE=&h=768&w=1024&sz=564&hl=en&start=0&sig2=i_jx3YS3y2ZVqIFvRMbiNQ&zoom=1&tbnid=6D85Z3oZ_a5X7M:&tbnh=136&tbnw=186&ei=cKXYTN2cOIO6sQPqkLCaBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvector%2Bimage%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D869%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C382&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=604&oei=cKXYTN2cOIO6sQPqkLCaBw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=34&ved=1t:429,r:32,s:0&tx=106&ty=60&biw=1680&bih=869

web 2.0, Keen, and me

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?



Well the democracy which is represented by the digital network is essentially a totally direct democracy. Everyone has a voice and everyone has the ability to contribute. I don't personally think this is the kind of democracy we should have but it is the democracy we have adopted in response to new technology. I can only assume this is due to the perception of democracy and the ability the internet has to allow this to be the type of democracy we have. As Keen has often said america is a representative democracy and has always been in both political and media spheres. with web 2.0 we have allowed ourselves to be viewers of unlimited and unchecked media. I think the response of this trend should be to make internet media more secure, better checked, and less direct. I am almost always opposed to censorship but with the internet it seems there is just too much at stake without censorship.


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 most prevalent example i can think of right now is the tragedy at Rutgers. Because of the internet's uncensored nature students were able to publicly disgrace a student based on his sexual orientation resulting in the students suicide. If there were limits placed on a user or people in charge of checking posted videos then perhaps this event could have been circumvented. It is certainly relevant and important, peoples lives and livings are put up on the internet to be made a mockery of. any student at Marist can log onto websites like facebook or acb and read slanderous material about people they interact with on a day to day basis. These websites promote stereotypes and negative preconceptions while destroying means of normal social interaction. I think the internet has changed and in many ways hindered the social experience and is something which should be monitered.

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?

On a personal level I don't think about echo chambers all that much. I don't personally contribute to any websites which I deem as silos but the concept is slightly frightening. It is a well known psychological and sociological effect for people to become more polarized when involved in a group of like minded individuals. As a result we have websites where people are able to confer and discuss issues which they may not fully understand or at the very least have very biased views on. Again this is an issue that I don't really deal with often so I'm not sure how it should be monitored but this is not exactly a new phenomenon. Personally I don't think it has so much to do with the internet as it does with how people interact with the internet. I think a great deal could be achieved be getting rid of the anonymity on the internet. People will say a lot anonymously that they would never say if they could be connected with 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?

I don't see much expertise offered on the internet but i will concede that it seems to be getting better. Wikipedia for instance is reliable 90% of the time, but that 10% is scary. The one thing which i think will be a huge factor is that the big companies in web 2.0 will probably be the ones controlling the media and and large companies being in charge of media always leads to biases and agendas. I think there should be enforcers and editors on websites but I think they should be answerable to agencies like the FCC. This is hard to admit since I've gone against the FCC on almost every issue they have ever raised. Perhaps there should be a seperate agency in the government but I feel any private company would use censorship in a negative way. this is a necessity if we want our internet experience nit to be damaged by the voices of those who don't deserve the privileges that the internet offers.

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.




well again this isn't something I really see all that often but I'll start with the largest internet movement I was involved in that I saw as a positive. President Barack Obama was the first president who i think really succesfully was able to use the internet effectively in a campaign. It was really easy and popular for kids I knew to sign up and be a part of the movement just by logging onto a website to support a politician they believed in. On a smaller level I'll talk about our own school. Marist is really on the up swing in terms of being web savvy. Personally I am a webmaster for a club on campus and we use the internet to relay information to our members pretty much on a daily basis. The internet can be a really positive thing and I don't think there is much doubt in that but it's the prospect of extremists and ill-informed having access to expressing their values

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

Again I really follow Keen on this matter and it is based on something I said earlier. The need for censorship is evident to many and the job will probably fall to the companies themselves to monitor this. Companies really only care about the bottom line and will likely be swayed to only monitor as far as they can afford to. Companies will be likely not to care if a person posts something extreme if it coincides with the beliefs of one of their constituents.I like to think of this as fox syndrome. Fox has really very little belief in reporting the news and much more belief in ratings. This has lead to figures such as Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly who can say outlandish and unchecked material and have it taken as fact. The internet allows this on a huge level allowing large companies and their views to dominate media, news, and people's opinions. This kind of media leads not to a democracy but to an oligarchy, a government or economy ruled by 3 or 4 huge companies.This is extremely dangerous to democracy and could have terrible effects on our culture.

Keen's argument

In Keen's great seduction he makes an argument against the movement towards democratized media. He defines this movement as the progression of information, music, and video being created by the amateur. It is now possible for every internet citizen to make a blog or a movie and have people view it and appreciate it at the same level as professional works. This bothers Keen for a number of reasons including the internet's reliance on advertising and the lack of resources for the amateur producer. Keen sees the idea of free media as a dangerous possibility as often there seems to be an ambiguous difference between the content and the media. As a result more people are swayed by media which is not especially well funded and is dependent on advertising content. In addition, he finds the ability of every person distressing. Not everyone has the resources or funds to research information as would a reporter or journalist. These are just some of his arguments against the democratization of media.


Keen and Rushkoff represent two of the most brilliant perspectives on web 2.0 and believe it or not they are not completely dissimilar. Yes they certainly have different opinions on web 2.0 but this stems from one main point which they are on total opposite poles and this is the middleman. For Rushkoff the middleman is the one who gets in the way and prevents true progress because the middle man creates nothing but simply buy and sell. Keen on the other hand sees the middleman as a gate keeper who ensures the quality of each end of the bargain. Personally I can't begin to decide where I see myself am aligned with. Keen makes good points in the lack of security in new media and the rise of mediocrity in our world. Where Rushkoff sees the middleman as slowing the process wasting money that could be earned person to person. I feel like it is too early for me to really form an opinion both sides seem well versed in political and philosophical thought which is usually what tips me one way or the other but since I'm required to give an answer I'll say they're both right and perhaps that is the more important philosophical concept. Its true there is a mediocre aspect to web 2.0 but we still are able to see incredible creations. It's true middlemen really have no creation and have nothing to offer in terms of service but without that man in the middle do we really trust the other side and would we be willing to sell for so much or so little without their say? So that's my big contribution to the web 2.0 debate it can go either way and perhaps that will be what happens we will keep living in a world where the internet is both treasured and mistrusted as it seems to feel right now.

Response

For my response I am reading Tom Landers essay on the good and bad of social networking. Tom captures the lack of privacy involved in being a part of the social networking. At the same time he draws on how there is a constant battle between alienation and overexposure. He shows numerous examples but the one which I found very true was how being facebook can either get you a job or lose you a job opportunity. I've heard numerous times that companies have started doing background checks on applicants by checking their facebook. Personally I have always thought that facebook almost lost it's appeal to my generation when kid's parents started getting facebooks and "friending" their kids.

To reflect on Tom's paper I feel that social networks will lead to either forcing people to be more candid with what they do online or perhaps people will come to understand that much of what is said on facebook and other social networks is said with no ill or crude intent. On a personal note I can't express how many times I've qouted a lyric or a movie only to get scolded by my mother, often ending with me saying "mom it was just in good fun" to which she often replies "then maybe you should be studying instead of having fun." Personal mother woes aside, I think that my generation should be more careful when it comes to what is put on facebook, I realize this makes me look pretty hypocritical as their are a fair number of things I would be less then proud of people seeing on my facebook.

Back to constructive comments on Tom's paper. I felt the best part of the paper was in his metaphor for the internet creating a chain between people. He created an interesting visualization for how the world has become extremely small and every person is connected in it causing a mass of assimilation which penetrates ethnicity, culture, and religion. I can't tell you how many people all seem to have an opinion on whether lil' Wayne deserves more or less jail time according to facebook. Whether you really have a strong opinion on lil Wayne people seem compelled to join the groups their friends become fans of. This assimilation creates a lack of diversity in thought and ideas. My only real critique of the paper was I felt it didn't really pick a side, which would be fine but I find it hard to read the rest of his paper without a majority of people seeing the vast negatives the social network has created. all in all though I enjoyed the paper and the insightful views on the social network.

The here and Now

Alexis Tocqueville in his comprehensive study on American culture Democracy in America, asserted that one thing was certain of American culture; American art will always be mediocre. His basis for this was that where Europe had a rich patronage system to further artistic movements, without an aristocracy America could never achieve this. America has since revealed that not all great art movements require great monetary benefit to become regarded as fine art. The finest movements in American art history have been exemplified in the art of Andy Warhol, Jackson Pollock, and Frank Lloyd Wright. These artists were not motivated by what people were willing to pay them for; their concern was always in the creation, the reinvention of their medium, and often the fame that came with starting a revolution. It is through these concepts which I have an acceptance for the current trends in society. 

To the question should everyone be here the answer is no. While the internet allows for universal participation only the few truly excel. I would like to show this through two youtube videos which are both without a doubt of the mediocre genre. David after Dentist is a youtube video which has received over 65,000,000 hits and is by far one of the most memorable videos of the youtube generation. This however is all that can be said for the poster of this video they have posted many other videos but they all are about the same as the original or simply referential to the original. The second video I would like to make note of is Charlie the Unicorn which was created by a user named SecretAgentBob. Charlie the Unicorn was the seventh post made by this user and the fifth animated short posted by him. SecretAgentBob is a true example of why it is okay that everyone has this opportunity. He created a tremendously successful video and has a huge cult following of the videos he posts. Youtube is brilliant in that it has captured the very idea which Tocqueville thought would never be successful and that is media which everyone has access to. Some will thrive and some will flounder but gems are always being found amongst the rubble. This references McLuchan’s theories which signify that the message is captured within the medium. Charlie the unicorn is simple and silly but at the same time it is a video which will be enjoyed for many years to come. Similarly film has gone through this same transformation not every film is going to win an academy award but there will be movies the masses enjoy and films which simply die out

On a somewhat completely other hand the act of putting your opinion, view, or creative idea in the web may not have your desired result. There are many blogs which go un-read, many youtube posts which go unseen, and there are far too many websites to make anyone think that the website which they made is the best. At this point in time anyone can create a website, blog, youtube video, facebook, myspace, twitter account and I am sure the list goes on. If people have an opinion to make they can certainly make it but has that not always been the case. When I was much younger my dad would often take me to his job in Manhattan;u before arriving at his humble office in downtown we would pass through a subway terminal where waited us a man we called the prophet. The prophet was a homeless man who between the hours of 8-11 and 4-6 preached the most unbiblical and unmoral principles to everyday commuters. Now perhaps the prophet still preaches at his station but I would imagine anyone with his similar agenda who possessed the means of the internet could accomplish their same message and reach a much wider audience if they were to do it online. It is from this notion that one must recognize that a freer freedom of speech does not make a better democracy but rather infiltrates things which the government cannot control. Politically I cannot be more inclined towards less censorship in the means that have been addressed on television and radio but when it comes to internet I think many things are fair game. 

I certainly think that the future is going to be very different as a result of advances made in technology. Perhaps in the future teachers will ask their student to respond via facebook status in regards to their assigned reading but at the same time right now there is a tremendous disconnect between student and teacher. Children are growing up in a technological age with teachers who for the most part did not learn with the aid of a smart-phone, the internet, or a database. As a result teachers are giving out test which children can cheat on. Essays can be answered with a simple Google search. Sources can be found which make assignments far easier than they were before. As a result teachers need to affiliate themselves with all the resources on the web to better prepare their students/ be aware of what their students are doing. Academic studies are not going to fall by the wayside but teachers will need to play catch-up if they want to stay ahead of their classes. It is still possible to teach the classical theories or lessons by simply using media as a tool instead of admitting it is a easy way out.

Personally I love watching media develop I feel it is a constant precursor to social stages. After all many sociologists speculate that social norms are established first by the advancement of technology. From a personal perspective I feel you cannot hold technology back and the best you  can do is follow it and pass each stage of it down to you younger generations. When the oral tradition was lost, people speculate that people lost a lot of their capacity for memory. Similarly things will be lost with the advancement of technology but people will learn to assimilate and life will go on with a better understanding of what people value as long as social norms are based around technology

here and now

Everybody is, indeed, here now - but should everyone be here? Does the rise of the amateur lead to an unnecessary devaluation of the professional? Do collective online activities promote a new form of participatory democracy and the development of new and accurate folksonomies, or rather to they lead people to overestimate the value of their unconsidered posts and opinions? Do representative democracy, academic disciplines and other seemingly elitist artifacts fall by the wayside?


Alexis Tocqueville in his comprehensive study on american culture Democracy in America, asserted that one thing was certain of american culture; american art will always be mediocre. His basis for this was that where europe had a rich patronage system to further artistic movements, without an aristocracy America could never achieve this. America has since revealed that not all great art movements require great monetary benefit to become regarded as fine art. The finest movements in American art history have been exemplified in the art of Andy Warhol, Jackson Polock, and Frank Lloyd Wright. These artists were not motivated by what people were willing to pay them for, their concern was always in the creation, the reinvention of their medium, and often the fame that came with starting a revolution. It is through these concepts which I have an acceptance for the current trends in society. 


To the question should everyone be here the answer is no. While the internet allows for universal participation only the few truly excel. I would like to show this through two youtube videos which are both without a doubt of the mediocre genre. David after Dentist is a youtube video which has received over 65,000,000 hits and is by far one of the most memorable videos of the youtube generation. This however is all that can be said for the poster of this video they have posted many other videos but they all are about the same as the original or simply referential to the original. The second video I would like to make note of is Charlie the Unicorn which was created by a user named SecretAgentBob. Charlie the Unicorn was the seventh post made by this user and the fifth animated short posted by him. SecretAgentBob is a true example of why it is okay that everyone has this opportunity. he created a tremendously successful video and has a huge cult following of the video he posts. Youtube is brilliant in that it has captured the very idea which Tocqueville thought would never be successful and that is media which everyone has access to. Some will thrive and some will flounder but gems are always being found amongst the rubble.


There will always be those who consider themselves in the cultural aristocracy and will bash things such as youtube for all their lives. Personally I can appreciate the finer things in art but no man can be immune to the occasional guilty pleasure. 


I'm going to call this the halfway point but I'd like to get some time to re-edit the first half too.

assignment on social media

Today many TV shows and advertisements try to look amateurish or "homegrown" to emulate what is often seen on the Web. Do you think professional production values will continue to drop, or do you think amateur user-generated content will get better over time? WHY??

 I think that professional production value will you eventually drop but certain pictures will always end up being high budget. A prime example of this can be seen this year there have been many large budget productions but they have had extremely varied results. Inception which was a huge production and many years in the making is being held as a huge contender for best picture. Avatar although visually stunning is being labeled as nothing more then a stunt for the eyes. Having worked at a movie theater for a couple of years I know how people have been responding to the prices of 3d movies and it's not pretty. At the end of the day productions are going to need to scale back and make movies more affordable for the working class. that said the production value of movies has been so high it's hard to imagine them scaling back so much. That said if movies with lower production values continue to make progress as they have been it could be a huge boost for the movie industry. I am not talking exactly about blair witch project stylized movies but more along the lines of movies like juno which are shot on lower budgets. while this is not exactly what the question is addressing it is not as far from it as it may seem. user-generated content is getting better with higher production value as time goes on. I do not think that it will be long before youtube movies become a highly regarded artistic format. After all this is the film style which micheal gondry based the be kind rewind style of film on. All this said I believe high level productions will decrease but there will always be a few and they will often be academy award winning productions. that said there will be years where the lower budget films will get academy recognition.


What social media sites do you find yourself using the most, and why? In your opinion why is Facebook so much more successful than MySpace, and do you think Facebook is "here to stay" for the long term.

The only social media site I use is Facebook. personally Facebook has the same appeal that microsoft had after windows 98, everyone uses it. I'm not sure it is here to stay but I imagine it will always hold a spot for a lot of people wether it is the popular social media of the time or not. There are a lot of reasons facebook is more succesful then myspace but I'll stick to the reason that I chose facebook over myspace. I made my myspace account in ninth grade when i was a very different person. and also my ex girl friend knew my pass word and made it so i couldn't use my myspace any more. I'm sure that isn't the reason why the majority of people made the switch but that's my story.


Why is transparency such an important concept in the Social Media world? Is it MORE or LESS important in the offline world? Why?

transperency is a huge deal in society and social media. I get a phone call from my mom weekly about something me or one of my friends posted on facebook and the bottom line is in the future culture will have to adapt to becoming more open to what people are willing to express. not for nothing this has been an ongoing trend in U.S. supreme court tradition for the last few decades. it is more important offline and will continue to be for a while. technology has given people a unique oppurtunity to do things less face to face. In person we are often on gaurd and hiding alternate motives. when we are in contact through text, im, facebook, phone, or video chat there is a level of disconnection which makes people free of such social restraints. eventually society may catch up to technology as those who study the social sciences suggest, but for now transparency is far more important offline.

so since we had a free class period to mess around with photoshop I decided to make an image showing the de-socializing effect communication technology can have on society. I'm not anti technology or anything I just think it has a serious effect on time spent with actual face to face time.  This is some what where I feel McLuhan was going in his media is the message.

I'm still a little confused on some of the photoshop techniques but I was able to try and collage a bunch of images to make a image which encompasses some of the people who have exemplified the nature of facebook. I'm not totally happy with the finished project. I think that if I used many more images I would be able to make a better collage. so perhaps this will just be a work in progress.

For my project I decided to use youtube. The content contained withen youtube is an extensive library of video media created by personnel users of the site. Youtube's content is totally controlled by the user's making it a universally accepted medium. the medium however has quite a different message. By making youtube open to all members it allows every member to be a screenplay writer, directror, cinematographer, or actor. This is a mildly confusing subject to deal with when you think about in terms of what mcluchan would think. In one respect it gives a lot of chances for people who are striving for these roles and don't have the oppurtunity to pursue these roles. At the other time it detracts from networks and films as a source of media affecting their ratings. This use of media causes people to stay home and not contribute to conventional buissnesses but at the same time it allows people who would never reach stardom to reach internet fame. Youtube is a very convuleted concept from a pre-internet perspective so it is hard to evaluate from a mcluhan perspective. That said his concepts hold true that the medium of youtube delivers a message more powerful then the content withen. Each individual can create their own content and deliver their own message but the bigger news is that youtube represents a means for everyone to show media to everyone else. Youtube really channels the idea that mcluhan preeched wich was that the medium in which content is conveyed is more important then the content itself

medium is the message

medium: Twitter

medium: Video Conferencing

medium: Youtube