Facebook:
1. Hodgkinson's thesis is that Facebook is being used by it's creators and directors as a method of social control, so to speak, through government monitoring and venture capitalism.
2. While not necessarily something I agree with or disagree with, I do find that, since the introduction of targeted advertisements on Facebook, the quality of the website has gone down significantly. I do find it rather ironic how targeted ads work, though. For instance, I have expressed anti-fascist and anti-police sentiments on my Facebook in the past. As a result, I see ads fairly often offering me a job as a Vermont state police officer.
Something I do agree with is the author's sentiment regarding the stupidity of people voluntarily offering information about themselves. As an activist, I feel that if the government wants my information, they should have to work for it. I don't particularly want to make their job any easier.
I do find it interesting that Facebook, which has promoted itself as a fairly liberal, casual projcet, is being directed primarily by ultra-conservatives. And while I agree with Thiel's limited-government views, I can say with no shame that I believe the idea of free market economy is bullshit.
Media Literate Mind
This article certainly raised some questions for me. Many of them seem to be semantical, such as Williams' categorization of sexual and violent imagery as contributing towards antisocial behavior. I find this troublesome due to the subjectivity of the word "antisocial". It appears that Williams is trying to reopen the argument that was made many years ago surrounding school shootings, and the influence that music, videogames, and television may have had on the shooters. This, in turn, reminds me of the interivew with Brian Warner (aka Marilyn Manson) in Bowling for Columbine, when Michael Moore asks him what he wuld say to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (the Columbine shooters) if he had the chance to say anything to them. Warner's response was that he wouldn't say anything. He would listen to what they had to say, and that's what nobody ever did for them.
I also have a problem with Williams' comment regarding education as "fostering a sense of compassion and mission to do good work within the larger communities to which we all belong". I see this as being true if the communities to which Williams refers to are the free-market capitalistic communities of the corporate world. As it stands, education, in my mind, is an institution that trains us to become a part of a larger system, similar to a colony of ants, where we must plug into our own little niche and ascribe to the greater beliefs of the system. This is not to say that I am trivializing media literacy, because I think it is immensely important. However, much of what can be considered media literacy, I feel, must come from our own personal experiences. It needs to involve a personal reflection on what we are exposed to.
I think the questions asked at the end were good, but could have gone more in depth, and need to be more prevalent within our society. It needs to be asked, for instance "what do you walk away from this media with?" or "what lasting impression is made?".
Killing Us softly
We've heard jean Kilbourne's name in a few of the other mediums we've studied this semester. In particular, I believe she was interviewed in Consuming Kids. This movie, Killing Us Softly 3, had a couple of good points in particular.
1. The comparison between the hair product ad and the Calvin Klein Jeans advertisement pointed out with stunning clarity the differences between advertising targeted at men and women.
2. Kilbourne makes a number of good points about the increasing objectification of women, including the numerous comparisons regarding women and money. The idea that women are there to look pretty and consume a man's money is ludicrous, in my mind.
3. Kilbourne also makes a point regarding breast sizes. From personal experience, I will say that I have a lot more respect for women who have respect for themselves and are comfortable being who they are, regardless of their physical appearance. Of my past girlfriends, I would say that all of them are beautiful, regardless of how our society sees them.
4. I was extremely intrigued by Kilbourne's association of advertising to an overlying theme of "putting women in their place" and overt sexism and patriarchy.
5. Time and again, Kilbourne reverted to an argument that this was based almost solely on power dynamics and that ad campaigns were designed to dehumanize women.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Week...aww hell, I've lost count already.
How Twitter Will Change The Way We Live
1. Johnson's thesis is that, while at first glance it may seem unnecessary and superfluous, Twitter is changing how we live and how business is done in our world through what Clive Thompson calls "ambient awareness".
2. When talking about the educator's conference, Johnson says that Twitter "brought a wider audience into what would have been a private exchange". I have to agree with him on this point, because that seems to be one of the main purposes of Twitter. It is a means for getting a message to a larger audience, in a wide array of settings, from business meetings to concert information to punctuated beliefs regarding the benefits of low-fat mayonnaise.
However, following that, he claims that the tweets resulting from this conference built something substantive, "like a suspension bridge made of pebbles". I would like to point out that suspension bridges made of pebbles DO NOT WORK. Likewise, I have trouble believing that people who are communicating in 140 characters or less are unable to form substantive thoughts and effectively convey everything that they would like to express. From my personal experience, I find that it is very difficult to hold a productive conversation when all parties are limited to how much they can say.
I can agree with the point Johnson makes about the up-to-date-ness of Twitter. Whereas Google and other search engines do better in terms of discovering articles that have garnered views, and, arguably are therefore more reliable (though this could also be debated), Twitter seems to succeed better in a society where gossip plays a large role in social situations. However, this doesn't necessarily contribute towards the overall health of our society.
I also disagree with Johnson on his point about the search usefulness of twitter. While there may be some merits, I feel that what you are going to find is heavily dependent on what your friends are interested in. Therefore, it narrows the range of what you can search for. Worse, it narrows that range with arbitrary boundaries that may be unknown to yourself, the "tech-savvy Twitter user".
3. Do I use twitter? No. I've sworn that I won't start a Twitter account, because I'm one of those primitive people who thinks that it is completely superfluous. I have followed my friend Sam's Twitter, however, while he was hiking the Appalachian Trail last summer, as it was the only way to find out how he was doing, and where along the trail he was.
Ad Nauseam
The biggest thing that stuck out to me from the last two sections came from the article "The Idiot Consumer". I'm amazed at how ad agencies have been conspiring against the general public with a view of superiority. Equally amazing to me is how this view has adapted to changing times and tactics. I find it hard to comprehend how, not only does the advertiser get away with reverse psychology in the "You're smart, you're not going to buy into cheap advertising gimmicks" schemes, but the average consumer still buys into it.
The entire last section of the book made me quite gleeful. As an avid fan of pranks and things that shake up the general doldrums of day-to-day life, seeing so many pranks being pulled in a productive manner always makes me smile. As Jello Biafra (former frontman for seminal punk band the Dead Kennedys and outspoken political activist)(as a sidenote, Biafra's first name, Jello, shows up as being spelled correctly, yet this blog doesn't recognize the word "frontman" as a real word) once said, "A prank a day keeps the dog leash away".
In particular, coming from the last section, the article "MeBay!", by Joe Garden, makes a vivid statement in my mind about just how consumer-oriented our culture is. The fact that people are actually bidding on some of the things Garden puts up, such as his DNA, his friendship, and a peanut butter sandwich, shows just how out of touch we are with our own natural environment, and how an environment of the Internet and consumerism has replaced nature as our primary life surroundings.
My question for section 5 is "Where does the idiocy of the average consumer end, and the manipulative qualities of the advertiser begin? It appears that much of the consumer responses to certain marketing techniques, such as subliminal advertising, are being fed to consumers by the advertisers themselves."
My question for section 6 is "How can the pranks that are currently being pulled to open people's eyes be made accessible for all ranges of social structures, on both the creative and receptive spectrums?"
The Merchants of Cool
1. The cycle of marketing to teenagers and taking marketing advice from (unknowing) teenagers who are deemed to be "trend-setters" and "influencers" scares me to no end.
2. Until it was pointed out to me, the idea of the "mook" as a common male character on television and in the movies passed completely over my head. It wasn't until I started thinking about it, in addition to what this film said, that I realized how obvious it was. Like any stock character, it is prevalent in so many different mediums. Off The top of my head, I can think of about 5 or 6 different shows based entirely around this stock character, as well as "mooks" in other shows, such as Gob in Arrested Development and Zach Galifianakis' character in Out Cold.
3. The ties between all forms of industry becoming clear...Sprite plus Hip-hop. The Vans Warped Tour plus energy drinks plus shitty pseudo-punk bands endorsed by said energy drinks.
4. Sexuality is becoming accepted at younger and younger ages. This was made clear to me when I worked at an amusement park a few summers ago, and would see ten- and eleven-year-old girls wearing shoulderless shirts and miniskirts.
5. "market research" is disgusting.
I'm still recovering from a weekend in New York City. The overt consumerism is absolutely revolting, and yet so fascinating at the same time. More on this in class.
Peace. If you're gonna support a record label, make it an independent one!
Nate
1. Johnson's thesis is that, while at first glance it may seem unnecessary and superfluous, Twitter is changing how we live and how business is done in our world through what Clive Thompson calls "ambient awareness".
2. When talking about the educator's conference, Johnson says that Twitter "brought a wider audience into what would have been a private exchange". I have to agree with him on this point, because that seems to be one of the main purposes of Twitter. It is a means for getting a message to a larger audience, in a wide array of settings, from business meetings to concert information to punctuated beliefs regarding the benefits of low-fat mayonnaise.
However, following that, he claims that the tweets resulting from this conference built something substantive, "like a suspension bridge made of pebbles". I would like to point out that suspension bridges made of pebbles DO NOT WORK. Likewise, I have trouble believing that people who are communicating in 140 characters or less are unable to form substantive thoughts and effectively convey everything that they would like to express. From my personal experience, I find that it is very difficult to hold a productive conversation when all parties are limited to how much they can say.
I can agree with the point Johnson makes about the up-to-date-ness of Twitter. Whereas Google and other search engines do better in terms of discovering articles that have garnered views, and, arguably are therefore more reliable (though this could also be debated), Twitter seems to succeed better in a society where gossip plays a large role in social situations. However, this doesn't necessarily contribute towards the overall health of our society.
I also disagree with Johnson on his point about the search usefulness of twitter. While there may be some merits, I feel that what you are going to find is heavily dependent on what your friends are interested in. Therefore, it narrows the range of what you can search for. Worse, it narrows that range with arbitrary boundaries that may be unknown to yourself, the "tech-savvy Twitter user".
3. Do I use twitter? No. I've sworn that I won't start a Twitter account, because I'm one of those primitive people who thinks that it is completely superfluous. I have followed my friend Sam's Twitter, however, while he was hiking the Appalachian Trail last summer, as it was the only way to find out how he was doing, and where along the trail he was.
Ad Nauseam
The biggest thing that stuck out to me from the last two sections came from the article "The Idiot Consumer". I'm amazed at how ad agencies have been conspiring against the general public with a view of superiority. Equally amazing to me is how this view has adapted to changing times and tactics. I find it hard to comprehend how, not only does the advertiser get away with reverse psychology in the "You're smart, you're not going to buy into cheap advertising gimmicks" schemes, but the average consumer still buys into it.
The entire last section of the book made me quite gleeful. As an avid fan of pranks and things that shake up the general doldrums of day-to-day life, seeing so many pranks being pulled in a productive manner always makes me smile. As Jello Biafra (former frontman for seminal punk band the Dead Kennedys and outspoken political activist)(as a sidenote, Biafra's first name, Jello, shows up as being spelled correctly, yet this blog doesn't recognize the word "frontman" as a real word) once said, "A prank a day keeps the dog leash away".
In particular, coming from the last section, the article "MeBay!", by Joe Garden, makes a vivid statement in my mind about just how consumer-oriented our culture is. The fact that people are actually bidding on some of the things Garden puts up, such as his DNA, his friendship, and a peanut butter sandwich, shows just how out of touch we are with our own natural environment, and how an environment of the Internet and consumerism has replaced nature as our primary life surroundings.
My question for section 5 is "Where does the idiocy of the average consumer end, and the manipulative qualities of the advertiser begin? It appears that much of the consumer responses to certain marketing techniques, such as subliminal advertising, are being fed to consumers by the advertisers themselves."
My question for section 6 is "How can the pranks that are currently being pulled to open people's eyes be made accessible for all ranges of social structures, on both the creative and receptive spectrums?"
The Merchants of Cool
1. The cycle of marketing to teenagers and taking marketing advice from (unknowing) teenagers who are deemed to be "trend-setters" and "influencers" scares me to no end.
2. Until it was pointed out to me, the idea of the "mook" as a common male character on television and in the movies passed completely over my head. It wasn't until I started thinking about it, in addition to what this film said, that I realized how obvious it was. Like any stock character, it is prevalent in so many different mediums. Off The top of my head, I can think of about 5 or 6 different shows based entirely around this stock character, as well as "mooks" in other shows, such as Gob in Arrested Development and Zach Galifianakis' character in Out Cold.
3. The ties between all forms of industry becoming clear...Sprite plus Hip-hop. The Vans Warped Tour plus energy drinks plus shitty pseudo-punk bands endorsed by said energy drinks.
4. Sexuality is becoming accepted at younger and younger ages. This was made clear to me when I worked at an amusement park a few summers ago, and would see ten- and eleven-year-old girls wearing shoulderless shirts and miniskirts.
5. "market research" is disgusting.
I'm still recovering from a weekend in New York City. The overt consumerism is absolutely revolting, and yet so fascinating at the same time. More on this in class.
Peace. If you're gonna support a record label, make it an independent one!
Nate
Monday, February 15, 2010
Blog Post: Week 3 or 4?
THe Persuaders:
1. We've been talking in class about how the advertising industry is continually updating their methods of reaching us, the consumer. This video continues to reinforce that standard, as Andy Spade's campaign with Song showed, with absolutely no focus on the airline itself.
2. The fact that the advertising industry is dominated by six major players is rather scary. It reminds me of the music industry, where standards are set by the major labels, and independent labels have to work within those rules if they want any chance of success.
3. The Cheerios commercial and the Tide commercial, along with the interview of Kevin Roberts of Saatchi & Saatchi, are another reinforcement of the continually evolving ad industry, in a different way. While Spade's Song campaign was focused on a stylistic approach and emphasis on a certain idealized lifestyle associated with the product, Roberts' Lovemarks idea focuses on associating emotional loyalty with a product based on, as he says "mystery, sensuality, and intimacy".
4. The collaborations between Hollywood and the ad industry, such as product placement within movies and TV shows, has really become prolific in recent years. The scariest part, for me, is that I know that somewhere out there, somebody IS going, 'Well, I saw them drinking Sierra Mist on Survivor, so I'll have a Sierra Mist." ALso, Bob Dylan? Seriously!?
5. Market research in general, and specifically CLotaire Rapaille, is CREEPY. The method of finding out demographic information and vulnerabilities of the consumer by
systematically confusing and questioning people seems beyond weird to me. Even the
information that he gathers seems arbitrary and unnecessary.
Get Smarter
1. We've been talking in class about how the advertising industry is continually updating their methods of reaching us, the consumer. This video continues to reinforce that standard, as Andy Spade's campaign with Song showed, with absolutely no focus on the airline itself.
2. The fact that the advertising industry is dominated by six major players is rather scary. It reminds me of the music industry, where standards are set by the major labels, and independent labels have to work within those rules if they want any chance of success.
3. The Cheerios commercial and the Tide commercial, along with the interview of Kevin Roberts of Saatchi & Saatchi, are another reinforcement of the continually evolving ad industry, in a different way. While Spade's Song campaign was focused on a stylistic approach and emphasis on a certain idealized lifestyle associated with the product, Roberts' Lovemarks idea focuses on associating emotional loyalty with a product based on, as he says "mystery, sensuality, and intimacy".
4. The collaborations between Hollywood and the ad industry, such as product placement within movies and TV shows, has really become prolific in recent years. The scariest part, for me, is that I know that somewhere out there, somebody IS going, 'Well, I saw them drinking Sierra Mist on Survivor, so I'll have a Sierra Mist." ALso, Bob Dylan? Seriously!?
5. Market research in general, and specifically CLotaire Rapaille, is CREEPY. The method of finding out demographic information and vulnerabilities of the consumer by
systematically confusing and questioning people seems beyond weird to me. Even the
information that he gathers seems arbitrary and unnecessary.
Get Smarter
1. The main thesis of this article is that our current societal inundation with technology is making us smarter as a whole, due to the extended overstimulation that our brains are receiving.
2. One thing I agree with is the simple statement that Cascio makes regarding human assessment of threats: "As good as our brains have become at planning ahead, we're still biased toward looking for near-term, simple threats. Subtle, long-term risks, particularly those involving complex global processes remain devilishly hard for us to manage". Time and again, especially regarding environmental crises, we turn to the most immediate solution for the most immediate problem, hoping that it might be the final solution.
Another point that I agree with Cascio on is when the author mentions that most people associate knowledge with "the capacity to memorize and recite facts". One of the other classes I'm taking this semester is "Rethinking Educational Paradigms", and redefining knowledge is one of the basics that we covered in order to delve further into the course. Through our discussions, I've come to realize that education and knowledge certainly do not correlate with the simple recitation of facts. I'm not sure if I agree with the second half of this point, however, where Cascio postulates that oversaturation by the Internet and other media is increasing what he calls our "fluid intelligence".
Something that Cascio says that really makes me worried is his mention of a hypothetical Twitter that is able to weed out the messages the user does not want to see. This is very reminiscent of both FEED and the progression of the advertising industry over the years.
Another point that I disagree with Cascio on is his whole Modafinil argument. While I won't say that I don't condone recreational drug usage, I feel like the author is advocating something that I cannot support. His comparison of it to steroid use within organized sports is well-drawn, in my opinion. It also makes the author appear to be dependant on this drug in order to feel as though they are keeping up with our current flood of technology within society. This, in turn, appears to negate the thesis of the piece, showing that we as humans are not only not getting smarter, but we're resorting to additional supplements just to keep up with everyone and everything else.
Ad Nauseam
I found myself particularly worried by the article, "How Do Kids Read Commercials?". In particular, the segment illustrates the very real need for media literacy to be taught at a young age. THe interviews with the children included reinforces the fact that the ad industry is focusing on a market that does not yet have the cognitive ability to recognize their own victimization. When a student is completely unaware of the intentions of a Pepsi commercial, it sends a signal (to me, at least) that we need to step up our defenses against a more and more ruthless industry. As for the influence that commercials have on worlds our youth are living in, I am only reminded of the Budweiser commercials from a few years ago, with the whole "WHASSSSSSUUUUPPPP" shit going on. Not only was that crap annoying, but it solidified a brand in a demographic that was TOO YOUNG TO LEGALLY CONSUME THE PRODUCT ANYWAYS. Kids these days, I tell ya.
In "Coca-Cola and the Case of the Disappearing Water Glass", I was extremely perturbed by the massive influence COca-cola has on entirely separate sectors of our economy. We've talked about the ad industry's act of being bedfellows with a number of other parts of or economic society, such as hollywood (through "product placement") and the government (through lobbying for less control over advertising restrictions, as shown in "Consuming Kids"). It just shows that there really is no aspect of our lives that consumerism won't try to reach.
Yeah.
Welcome
Anyways, here's my blog.
Here's a cool song.
Here's a shameless plug for myself, manifest as a photograph of myself:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)