The Persuaders

* neuromarketing ( psychological )
study consumers  cognitive and affective response to marketing stimuli
Study measures in the brain to track progress, used to measure consumer's preference on products
Example - researchers measured the brain to see how people think in relation to what they actually do. Measure people's satisfaction with products that they use. 


* emotional branding
"do you feel lonely when you eat bread" try to figure out what emotions are attached to products.
register moment by moment feelings of republicans/ democrats.
Emotional branding influences how the company advertises and markets the product because they are much more concerned with what people feel then what they think
Example- persuasion techniques try to persuade people to buy products by making an emotional connection

* branding/creating a culture around a brand
identity of a specific product. creating a name/culture changes consumers attitude on the product.
Example- airline "song" vs. Delta. crucial for song airline to build an identity. don't even show airplane in ads, focused on other aspects, tried to appeal to certain demographic which ultimately failed. shows the importance of advertising, it can make or break a product/company.


* narrowcasting
disseminating information to the general public. radio, tv, newspaper, internet.
Aim media messages at specific segments of the public
Example- "Cabivision"- a network in London cabs which shows pre-recorded TV programs which target taxi cab passengers.


* rhetorical marketing
what accounts for primal impulses? must understand the unspoken need of the people. good marketing research works- marketers understand need of customers. "give us what we want" changing slogans and words to have different meaning to appeal to consumer. by changing the rhetoric you can sell anything to the consumer. (FRAMING).
using technology to figure out what language for politicians to use. when both political parties agree with rhetoric of speach, he can tell, and knows whaent to use that wording when he wants everyone to agree. MANIPULATIVE.
Example- Global warming vs. Global climate change


* under the radar marketing
low- key marketing and advertising
Example- Advertisements embedded into cell phones and games.

* across-media marketing
Guerilla marketing technique, strategic marketing
Example- stamping people's hands at the club with certain logo

* product placement across media
Branded goods or services are placed in context
Example- Done very much in movies, somene holding a Coke can

Original Logo

My Logo on Illustrator

Internet Debate Questions

1. Based on this debate and previous readings What Definition of democracy do you feel is most fitting for us to use in-conjunction our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies?

One brief definition of democracy is "a government by the people" This definition fits perfectly in conjunction to our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies. Just as a democracy is a government by the people, the digital networked technologies and Web 2.0 are entirely governed by the people. The content on the web and in mostly all social technologies today are controlled by just about anyone from amateurs, to professionals and everywhere in between.  People can add any kind of information from personal pictures to public info, and everyone can access this information. With social networking these days almost everything can be shared and transmitted online. Keen stands firmly against the simultaneous amateur broadcasting because it leads to amateurs taking over with invalid opinions and information. The integration of social technologies has allowed for a complete democracy where the people are conforming and collectively taking power over the professionals. I agree with Keen's observations, there definitely is alot of power in the amateurs court because of the power that there naturally is in numbers. But i don't think it is always necessarily bad. I agree more with Jimmy Wale's opinion that democracy on the web has had great influences on society. A prime example is his own website, Wikipedia; a collaborative effort by the people, overseen by him, to produce accurate information on just about any topic.

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 unchecked nature of Web 2.0 relates to democracy in that everyone has equal power, and some people don't handle it as well as others. On the internet, pretty much everyone has an equal opportunity to get up there and say whatever they want- and plenty of people abuse that privelege fully. Social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter can be regulated, but there is so much content constantly flowing through it that it's hard to monitor everything. I don't think this is an issue as much as it is an everyday truth about life. Not everything can be monitored, there will always be people braking the rules, so everyone needs to individually take the precautions and know that not everything you see on the internet is beautiful, flowery, and true. 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. 

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 relates to the idea that when there is a specific space in which information is being spread and communicated, there is inevitably a huge echo effect. People will take information and copy it and spread it, sometimes even changing it much like the game of telephone. This is because everyone in a confined space is passing around this same information. This creates a type of silo effect which is "when a managing system is incapable of reciprocal operation with other related management systems". In conjunction with Web 2.0 there is a silo effect because often times one media chamber cannot effectively exchange information with other media chambers because the information is quickly falsified and frequently invalid. This particular issues is one that i feel should be addressed because i feel like there is so much potential for more efficient, clean and organized media . 

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?
While there is a very strong degree of democracy on the internet, there is a certain extent of authority on some websites such as Facebook and Wikipedia. On Facebook, anyone can say whatever they please and share whatever type of content they would like, but if something is inappropriate it will be reported and eventually removed. Also, there are rules and regulations that the authority creates, usually the creator.  The same goes for WIkipedia; everyone can input information, but there is someone evaluating the information for validity. I don't think it is possible for everything to be overseen because of the masses of info there is on the internet, but i think that when it can be done, it's a great thing. Just like a democracy, everyone has a say but there is someone in control who ultimately gets the final say.

6. Give a thorough 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.

Facebook is yet again another prime example. It has transformed over the few years it has been around in order to accommodate and adapt to it's users. Initially, Facebook was only open for the use of college students. Now, it has been made available to everyone. It used to be as basic as writing comments on people's walls and adding photos. Now, people can create applications groups, events, or post an Ad. It also now appeals to businesses and corporations with it's small advertisements on the side. Facebook has advanced tremendously in a few short years because it would fail without the public's support.

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

I think democracy influences the unchecked nature of the internet. If the internet were checked or censored, a huge portion of the information would be effaced because it is invalid or controversial. Democracy thrives on the internet because it is the perfect setting for anyone to do or say whatever they want, strictly because it is unchecked. If the internet were regulated, not everyone would have an equal opportunity, there would virtually be internet police, giving some people more power than others. 

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.
Keen describes the concept of democratized media which is the idea that democracy exists in the media, therefore every one is "equal" on the internet. Everyone has the freedom to broadcast and express whatever they please on the internet. He describes this as "The Great Seduction" because it seems appealing to everyone, but he points out that there's more than what meets the eye. While democratized media has the potential to provide us with more information and different worldwide perspectives, unfortunately it also sets the stage for a mass of insignificant information and excess. He describes this as the "law of Digital Darwinism", in other words only the most vocal and opinionated people on the internet will survive. This isn't necessarily a good thing because it causes people to act out just for attention or to get a reaction. Keen stands firmly against the "seduction" of democratized media because he insists that it leads to plagiarism, ambiguity, deceit, and destroys authenticity. Keen feels that although democratized media seems constructive and beneficial for everyone, it also leads to a mass chaos of under qualified people and insignificant opinions.


2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why?
Andrew Keen is strictly against web 2.0 because of the opportunity it creates for copyright infringement and ambiguity. He believes that user generated content messes with economy and the creative value of culture. He supports big media over small media and he believes web 2.0 takes away "middle man" and social media sets up barriers. He is very pompous and stubborn is his approach, with a very "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. 
Rushkoff acknowledges those problems, but he believes we have the power to change them. He mentions how even experts have been rejected on Wikipedia to show us that we really can't believe everything that we're reading on the internet. He believes that of course there are problems, but we have the responsibility to take control of it before it takes control of us. He recognizes that the media can get completely out of control but as long as we keep it in control we can really utilize and benefit from it.
Both Keen and Rushkoff make valid points that support their opinion on Social Media.  Keen sees new media with more of a negative perspective, while Rushkoff is aware, but also hopeful of new media rather than oppositional. I like Rushkoff's stand because he is more unbiased, presenting both positive and negative aspects of social media which is more realistic.  He focuses more on how new media has in fact provided interconnected means of communication and sees it for what it is, both positive and negative, rather than blaming the internet for killing our culture, like Keen. Like Rushkoff, I believe social media has a major impact on our culture and is causing our society to slowly evolve, but whether or not we change for the better or for the worse is ultimately up to us.

Response

Kelly Scalera, Whither the Individual: I believe social networking sites are changing our society in a negative way. 


Response Thesis: I see how this social networking trend can cause adversity, however I also believe that today's social networking conformity has it's perks.

http://kellyscalera.blogspot.com/2010/09/digital-nation-whither-individual.html#comments

Digital Nation Paper

The Mob.
What are the, perhaps, unintended effects unleashed by our connectedness? Does anonymity plus connectivity always equal misbehavior and cruelty? How are we to explain some of the collective anger that seems to be unleashed online - and is it a result of the same anger characterizing much of our society's discourse, or is it the cause?

At a first glance, online connectedness appears to be a wonderful thing, and it can be in many aspects. It’s amazing to be able to connect with long lost friends through Facebook, share pictures of special events with online photo albums, or to effortlessly collaborate online for a group project. In essence, online connectedness brings us together as people and puts us at a higher advantage, socially, than ever before. But with the good always comes the bad, and with online connectedness comes the vicious. While there are plenty of perks to social connectivity, there are also some unintended effects such as misbehavior, cruelty and anger.

As a college student, social connectivity has personally saved my life on numerous occasions. Group projects happen on a regular basis despite everyone’s entirely different schedules. It’s virtually impossible to coordinate a convenient time for everyone. Thus, being connected online makes group projects feasible, effective and much easier.  In this way, online connectivity is extremely beneficial.

The online world would not be the same without the aspect of anonymity. Anonymity allows many people to express their problems and seek help. Many people depend on anonymous online question and answer websites for true, uncensored resolutions to their problems. People can form strong connections and relationships with others online not only in the form of support but also intimately. In a study comparing self-disclosure online and face-to-face, McKenna and Seidman (2005) found that people shared more of their true selves online than face-to-face and liked an Internet partner more than a face-to-face partner. Computers can sometimes enhance the development of friendships, free of the usual constraints of the first reactions to physical appearance and personal mannerisms.  In this way, online connectedness can be a huge plus. But again, the aspect of anonymity can take a huge turn for the worse. Anyone can easily conceal, or feign their identity online. This is where some of the negative effects of online connectivity come into play.

Being connected with massive amounts of people online can be dangerous. Social networking such as Facebook, allows people to expose themselves to thousands of others that they may not necessarily know. Even with the privacy settings available, people can still retrieve personal information online. This opens up a field for predators and unethical behaviors online. Anonymity online allows people to act freely, uncensored, and inappropriately because they are not held responsible for their actions.

People also tend to use the Internet as a place to take out their anger and express their true opinions about others. Formspring is a new social networking site used to anonymously critique others. In other words, the website enables cowards to say demeaning things that they don’t have enough courage to say face to face. People are more courageous online because their name and dignity is not compromised. Anonymity, especially online, is like liquid courage. It makes people feel invincible and untouchable. Some people simply view the Internet as alternate reality where normal rules of decency fail to apply. Consequently, people act cruel and vindictive. Being connected with others online makes it even easier for the online bully to gang up against another because they have support behind them.

If you take a step outside of the online world, anger and cruelty prevails. I don’t necessarily feel that this anger is caused by online connectivity, but I think much of the anger that characterizes our society’s discourse is furthered online. The online realm is the perfect place for people to express their opinions on recent news and controversial issues. With the millions of people online, it’s easy to find someone who will agree and it’s even easier to start a heated debate, which plenty of people these days enjoy. All together there is an abundance of animosity that is unleashed online. There will always be people who chose to release their angers and insecurities online rather than taking advantage of the close connection to the world.