movie terms & examples

1. neuromarketing (psychological): use focus groups and interview consumers to understand the mind of the consumer; use mental connections, or "mental highways"...people "crack the code" for companies to adjust their ad campaigns to fit the consumers (using the focus groups).  This helps companies better relate to their consumer.  For example, Starbucks might have focus groups to understand the minds of coffee drinkers, and what kind of drinks they want.  Do they want strong drinks or mild drinks?  Do they want specialized drinks? What about pricing?

2. emotional branding: focuses on emotions, as opposed to the product's actual attributes; looks at what the consumer  feels about a product, as opposed to the product's image or price.  For example, Wikipedia states, "the Coca Cola Company has chosen specific colors for their can to inspire certain emotions...the general red color is a power color to inspire strength and confidence, and a general warm comforting feel.  The silver stripes and bubbles give a refreshing look, and the yellow stripe is a subtle but important color that inspires a feeling of happiness."  Coca Cola is more concerned with how their product makes their consumer feel, as opposed to the product's image and price.

3. branding/creating a culture around a brand:  creates an identity; you ingrain your name or slogan/logo into the minds of the consumer .  For example, everyone knows that the golden arches symbolizes McDonald's...one does not have to see the word "McDonald's" to know what it is.  

4. narrowcasting:  there are different strategies to reach different groups of people;  people see different commericals, that are customized for their particular demographic. send ads that they went, and anticipate when they will want them.  For example, John Kerry found a way to talk to voters who had been turned off by campaign ads.  They looked at information they had and created a Kerry voter profile. This gave him a chance to say things to some people that he didn't want others to hear/see.  People who would respond positively would hear it, and those that wouldn't, didn't hear it.

5. rhetorical marketing:  meant to convince and seem reliable.  involves pathos, ethos, and logos.  it can help to clarify the objective of a campaign and it persuades people to act in a certain way.  rhetoric is defined as "the art of using language to communicate effectively and persuasively."  Some examples of rhetorical marketing involve using metaphors, hyperboles, and irony...you phrase things in a certain way, so as to be "mysterious" in a sense, and not misleading, yet not coming out and saying what you want to say.

6. under the radar marketing:  marketing that "goes under the radar"; not the typical forms of marketing, like tv, radio, and print; meant to be subtle.  For example, in the Persuaders, they mentioned how the Boston Herold made their newspaper look like the New York Times.  This isn't a typical form of marketing, and it was effective.

7. across-media marketing:   meant to market a product anywhere.  it is not made just for print, or just for tv.  it is diverse and multi-dimensional.   the product might appear in a print ad, and then appear in a movie or in a book.  therefore, its appearing in many different forms.

8. product placement across media:  form of advertisement where branded products are strategically placed, often for money.  Product placement is typically seen in movies.  Instead of drinking any old coffee, the characters might drink Starbucks coffee and drive a Honda civic.  This allows companies to advertise their brands in a different setting.

Illustrator Image

http://www.clipartspace.com/clipart/winter/snowman-01.gif

internet and democracy

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?

     Based on the readings and debate, I feel Andrew Keen's and Farhod Manjoo's definition of democracy is most fitting for us to use in conjunction with our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies.  In the debate, Manjoo stated that democracy was threatened by the unchecked nature of information on the internet.  People can anonymously post whatever they want on the internet, and there is no way of knowing whether or not this reputable.  Keen states that he fears democratized media will "threaten the very future of our cultural institutions".  Therefore, internet democracy is all about self regulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_democracy 

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?

     My answer to number 1 fits into the unchecked nature of web 2.0 because web 2.0 is all about self regulation.  People have the ability to post whatever they want on these websites, without anyone stopping them.  Some examples of web 2.0 are social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace, blogs, Wikis, and video websites such as YouTube.  This is an important issue that needs to be further addressed.  As people post more and more things on the internet, credibility is diminishing.  There is no way to tell if what we are reading is fact or completely made up and that is a very bad position to be in.

http://news.cnet.com/The-security-risk-in-Web-2.0/2100-1002_3-6099228.html

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 phenomenon holds that we only talk to like minded people.  We only hear opinions of people similar to our own, and as a result, we don't hear the other side of an argument  According to the debate, this silo affect has contributed to harsh partisanship in Washington D.C. and the country.  This is evident through Fox news.  Fox news is known to be a conservative news station, so when people watch Fox news they only receive one side of the information.  Therefore, these conservative people only receive information from people who share a similar viewpoint.  This problem needs to be addressed because our society is becoming increasingly fragmented and isolated.  We are convinced of our own ideas, and unwilling to view another side.  When people do not take the time to see the other side of an idea, they are making a decision based on opinion and not fact because they cannot make an opinion based on fact when they do not know the whole story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)

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 believe that some authority should be enforced on the internet, but I feel that it is easier said than done.  Currently, there is some enforcement on the internet, with websites such as Wikipedia.  Because people can post whatever they want on these websites, there is no way of knowing if the information is 100% accurate.  However, there are some people who regulate the website and remove information that is clearly incorrect.  There are also websites like "factcheck.org" where you can check to see if information is valid or not.   I believe some enforcement is need on the internet especially in today's times where people are so reliant on technology for their information.  Many people go directly to the internet to get their information, and if the information is not accurate, that is a problem.  However, that is not to say that I feel that there should be total regulation.  I think above all people need to be responsible for themselves and their actions.  However, because not everyone can be a responsible person, some regulation wouldn't hurt.

http://factcheck.org/

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.

     An example of an adaptation or improvement made by a social, political, or cultural group, government, business or individual to keep up with the changing nature of the internet is when companies create Twitter pages and Facebook pages to provide their customers with extra information.  Businesses are coming to the realization that more and more people receive their information from the internet, so they are catering to the needs of their audience.  If people will see their businesses advertised online, why not make the information available?  The more ways people see the information, the more apt they will see it and remember the business, individual, etc.

Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?

     I feel that democracy is not threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet because democracy is all about freedom.  People have the opportunity to say whatever they want to say on the internet.  If the internet was checked, democracy would be threatened because people would not have the opportunity to say whatever they wanted to say.  However, since the information is not checked on the internet, democracy is not threatened.  

The Great Seduction

1. Keen defines democratized media as seduction.  He states that Web 2.0 promised to bring more truth to people, but in reality what it was really brings is superficial observations of the world around us.  His main issues with democratized media are that this "user-generated" content means there is less culture, less reliable news, useless information, and the disappearance of truth.  Instead of reputable videos, YouTube contains thousands of homemade videos.  All over the internet, one will find amateur bloggers and moviemakers.  Because people can post things anonymously online, you never know if what you are reading contains factual information and whether or not it is reputable.  Keen fears that this democratized media will "threaten the very future of our cultural institutions."  I chose this video because it a) was self-made and demonstrates how people are publishing videos on Youtube and b) some of the content in the video itself talks about how people just make their own videos and get so much viewership. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_YvesLycys&feature=channel

2. Andrew Keen and Douglas Rushkoff have very different ideas about social media.  Andrew Keen is extremely opposed to social media; he believes that the internet has become the medium of choice for distorting the truth.  He states that there are countless social media sites for preteens, teens, post teens, and "fake" teens.  Social media, in his opinion, has taken over our lives.  He states, "everyone was simultaneously broadcasting themselves, but nobody was listening."  Everyone is expressing themselves on the internet, yet at the same time they are so wrapped up in expressing themselves that it takes over our lives.  Essentially Keen compares it to a cult taking over America.  Douglas Rushkoff, on the other hand, is an advocate for social media.  He believes that social media allows people to share information and cultures easily.  It provides one with the opportunity to take risks and find advances for future generations.  To him, social media "functions as am extension of the heart, mind, and soul."  I find myself in between both positions, as I can see where both men are coming from.  Keen believes that social media essentially distorts the truth and that it has taken over our lives.  I agree with this.  Many people cannot go one day without using some form of social media.  There are treatment centers for people who are addicted to technology.  People have become attached to their cell phones and computers.  There comes a time when you need to ask yourself, when is enough enough?  Because everyone has the opportunity to post things online anonymously, you never know if the information you are viewing is reputable, or if it is by some kid who thinks its funny.  However, at the same time I see Rushkoff's point of view.  Social media provides an outlet for people to share and learn about others.  It is a way to take risks and improve life for future generations.  Social media, like everything else, is ok in moderation. 

comments are not showing up on people's pages, so I'm posting them here instead

I tried to post comments on people's papers and they are not showing up, so I am posting them here instead. 

Response to Rifayet:
When I was researching my paper, I discovered that there are over 500 million Facebook users, and that in a given month people spend over 700 billion minutes on Facebook; this is a horrifying statistic. You mentioned that people are putting personal information, such as their address and phone number online. I feel that people's perceptions of what is personal have changed drastically. You mentioned how you had to deactivate your Facebook when you were studying for an exam, and I had a similar experience. I didn't deactivate my Facebook, but I had my friend change my password and deactivate my internet. Why do we have to go to these extremes for a website? Facebook is changing our culture; people forget how to communicate if they do not have a computer screen or cell phone in front of them.  It is almost pathetic how much people rely on technology and Facebook.  I don't even think people could go a day or two without checking or talking about Facebook.  It makes me wonder what people did before Facebook.  Communication was much more personal, and I almost long for that.  While I am a fan of Facebook, I miss talking to someone face to face to learn about them, instead of looking at them on Facebook and knowing everything about them and their family and friends when you meet them.  Everything is right at your fingertips, and I miss the sense of "adventure" getting to know someone.  I agree that we are partially to blame for our dependence on these innovations because no one forced us to use them, but I also feel that society is to blame. Society makes it very difficult to communicate without the use of websites such as Facebook. I feel that people do not realize the effects Facebook has on them while they are living it. It is when you step back and remove yourself from the situation that you realize the effect it truly has on you.

http://mwalsh2812.blogspot.com/


Response to Tom Landers: 
I agree that when you sign up for Facebook, we lose our personality and personal space.  It is almost as if Facebook just drains us of our individuality, and we conform to the expectations of society.  I agree with you that sometimes I feel as if I know people even if I don't really know them, just because of their Facebook page.  I think people are still debating as to whether or not Facebook is a good or bad thing, but I feel like if Facebook continues how it is going now, it will be a more obvious answer: Facebook is a bad thing.  People don't know who they are anymore and are so reliant on technology to get them through life.


Response to Megan Warne:
I am a Communications major, so I really enjoyed reading your interpretation of technology's affect on interpersonal relationships.  As you mentioned in your paper, the thought that in the future we will have the ability to have all of our interactions through technology is terrifying.  When you communicate behind a screen, you lose that personal touch.  You cannot see someone laugh, smile, or cry.  Communication becomes informal.  As bad as sites such as Facebook may seem,  they do have some benefits.  Without Facebook, I probably wouldn't keep in touch with some of my friends from high school.  Facebook is convenient, and if people do not lose sight of who they are, Facebook can be a way to express oneself. 


Response to Nicole Araque:
The title of your paper was very creative, and I was really intrigued to see where you would go with it!  Your paper was really interesting and I thought you had some really good points.  I agree that people replace face to face communication with texting and Facebooking.  Society relies far too much on technology, and it is almost sickening.  I remember last week, Facebook was down for a few hours.  I went on Twitter and everyone was tweeting about how they needed to be on Facebook, and how Facebook sucked.  Are we that reliant on Facebook that we cannot go a few hours without refreshing the page?  I admit that I found myself clicking refresh a few times to see if it would magically work again.  People were lost without Facebook; they had no idea what to do.  It was as if you just told them someone died.  Facebook is slowly overtaking society.  I don't think I have gone a day without hearing "did you see X's Facebook status (or picture, or wall post)".  We need to detach ourselves from Facebook and regain our individuality and communication skills.  

page response partner

my partner is Rifayet

Digital Nation Paper [final paper]

     Many people have heard the saying, “you learn something new every day.”  While Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites might not have been the outlets for information that people had in mind when this saying was created, social networking sites like these make it possible for people to learn many new things every day, often about things that don’t concern them.  MySpace, created in 2003, attracts 57 million users.  Facebook, created in 2004, attracts well over 500 million users.  Twitter, created in 2006, attracts around 75 million users (WebStrategy).  Many people use more than one social networking site, thereby providing more and more personal information for others to see.  Social networking is defined as, “web-based services that allow individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system” (Boyd 1).  The concept of social networking is changing our culture right before our eyes; it changes people’s interactions with each other, as well as how we communicate, share, and learn. 

     When you create an account on Facebook, you might as well just sign a release form for your personal life.  Yes, information like your social security number and address might not be readily available, but your life is essentially online.  People can see your status updates, pictures, and wall posts and determine what you did and where you are going.  Your personal space is gone; you have no control over what others post on your wall, and what pictures they decide to upload of you.  People become more worried about how they appear online than how they do in person, negatively affecting how we communicate.  People communicate with others in the virtual world as if it was the real world, which poses a problem because many times these people forget how to effectively communicate face to face. 

    The motivation behind many Facebook accounts is the intention to easily keep in touch with family and friends.  The intention is to communicate and update them on our lives through wall posts, messages, pictures, and videos.  However, what many people fail to realize is the extent to which we lose our personal identity through these social networking sites.  Instead of being an individual and staying true to oneself, people conform to the expectations of society.  Instead of posting pictures and wall posts to inform others of various occurrences in their life, they post pictures and wall posts they think others would find acceptable.  Before posting pictures, many people often wonder “what will people think of me based on these pictures?”  We become so consumed with worrying about what others think, that we forget the original reason we created our Facebook account.  We create new identities online, a different way to express ourselves.  We might be reserved and introverted in person, but online, we find ourselves to be loud and extroverted.  You start to wonder when is enough really enough?  Who are you really, and how do you portray yourself to others?  Many times the way we portray ourselves to others and how we really are vastly vary. 

     People are consumed with technology, many to the point of addiction.  Facebook.com provides statistics about Facebook users, as well as their activity on Facebook.  According to this press release, there are over 500 Facebook users.  Well over 50 percent log onto Facebook every day, and people spend over 700 billion minutes on Facebook per month.  Over 150 million users access Facebook through their cell phones.  The average Facebook user creates 90 pieces of content a month (Facebook).  These statistics are horrifying.  People become anxious and uneasy when they do not have cell phone reception or internet access.  If they need to communicate face to face, interactions become impersonal.  Many find it hard to make eye contact and hold a legitimate conversation with others. 

     Aside from poor communication skills, there are other repercussions of using websites such as Facebook.  Personal space, something people often take for granted, is compromised.  People often feel invincible and have nonchalant attitudes towards privacy settings.  This allows people to view what others are doing, regardless if they are “friends” or not.  You have no idea who is looking at your profile and what information they know about you.  Often times you can search for someone on Facebook, and they have not bothered to change their privacy settings, thereby allowing you to see everything about them.  As a result, people don’t even need to take the time to get to know someone anymore.  You have all the information you need at your fingertips.  You might not be friends with “Joe”, but you might as well be best friends with the boy.  You have never met him before, but you have seen him around campus.  His Facebook is not private, so you learned that Joe’s favorite sport is football and he loves the Patriots.  His status update informed you that he is going to the game this Sunday.  You decide to look for him on TV, and you spot him in the crowds.  You later see Joe’s Facebook status that he was at the game and he was on TV.  You don’t even know Joe, but you already knew that.  Essentially, you just experienced a day in Joe’s life.  The situation with spotting Joe is not that big of a deal in the scheme of things, but you never know who is looking at your profile and what their motives are.  You might have been creeping on Joe because you had a crush on him, but what if someone was creeping on his page with bad intentions?  What if someone went to the Patriot’s game with a weapon with the intent of harming Joe? 

     Facebook and other social networking sites are slowly sucking out the individual in all of us.  We are conforming, becoming one and the same.  How do we differentiate ourselves anymore?  Everyone has a Facebook and everyone is preoccupied with how others view them.  We spend so much time on Facebook that we forget how to communicate effectively face to face.  In the past, being an individual and “marching to one’s own drum” was a good thing.  People wanted to be noticed and different.  Today, people want to be noticed, but no one wants to be different.  It is as if we are cookie cutter versions of each other, conforming to the standards of society.  Is Facebook really that much of a good thing?  It was created with good intentions, but are those intentions even important and relevant anymore?  Do people even know who they are anymore?  Facebook has taken the individuality out of the person, and it is important that people find ways to regain their individuality. 

http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

http://mimosa.pntic.mec.es/mvera1/textos/redessociales.pdf

http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2010/01/19/a-collection-of-social-network-stats-for-2010/