Rushkoff: The Persuaders Online Notes

Key Terms

* neuromarketing ( psychological )
At the beginning of the class, a man is being interviews on certain emotions he relates to eating a piece of white bread.  Lonely, accepting, scared, comfortable, etc... the market research is looking for psychological connections to their product.  Corporations hire psychology (e.g. Rapaille) experts to "crack the code" of certain products.  This video focuses on the idea/product of luxury.
- Focus Groups
-reptilian hot button - he doesn't want people to tell him things intellectually... he just wants people to use an unbiased and clean version of their opinion on luxury




 
* emotional branding
LISTENING - need to listen to the public about what they want... and direct your advertising toward those opinions.  Need to test language and find words that work and spark something in consumers' minds.  Simple words to need to move people on an emotional level... move them to action.

----80% emotion, 20% intellect


* branding/creating a culture around a brand
* narrowcasting
* rhetorical marketing
* under the radar marketing
* across-media marketing
* product placement across media

Vector Art

11/2 - 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?

Andrew Keen’s definition of democracy seems most fitting for us to use when talking about the new technological age our society seems to be embracing.  Keen used the term democracy to describe the equality-based nature of the Internet.  Unlike many aspects of life, the Web does not judge.  It does not segregate or play favorites.  If you have a computer, you’re in the club. 

         Keen’s definition is very similar to the definition we read about in History classes in elementary school.  America is considered a democracy because of equality and freedom.  The freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom to choose.  Those are some of the values our country was built on, and the new world that is being created on online is following these same values. 

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 mirrors the ideals and values of democratized media; however, it also pushes the great aspects of democracy to extreme, sometimes negative, limits.  Yes, the nature of Web 2.0 grants an opportunity to anybody across the globe, an opportunity to let their voices be heard by anyone interested in hearing them.  Yes, the anonymity creates a safer environment for communication, resulting in more and more people standing up and speaking out about extreme and controversial topics with no fear of repercussion.  All of that sounds great, but in reality, by stretching the limits of freedom, democratized media is really hurting society.

         Even in the most equal and free democratic societies, there are consequences for bad behavior or bad decisions.  Many features of Web 2.0 eliminate users’ personal responsibility for their actions.  In real life, if you were to make fun of someone or call them a name, there would be consequences.  In the simplest terms, if you were to call someone’s girlfriend a “whore” in public, you might get punched in the face.  In the most extreme terms, if you were to consistently and ruthlessly abuse homosexuals in public, you might get arrested for a hate crime. Telling an entire online community who your classmate slept with last night or spreading a rumor that one of your housemates is gay does not reflect the goals and values of our constitutional right of freedom of speech.  In order to enjoy the right of freedom of speech, I think you need to be willing to accept the potential consequences for your speech.    

Web 2.0 is enabling people to voice all of their opinions, no matter how crazy, unheard of, or controversial.  But society is better off if some people had to keep their opinions to themselves. 

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 participants in the Internet Debates define the term echo-chamber as the place or venue where different ideas are being communicated.  This could be a blog or a forum or social networks like Facebook or Twitter.  The silo effect occurs when everybody is talking to everybody else with same exact ideas.  This effect can be seen on television quite often.  As soon as a news story breaks, the same headline will be running across the screen of NBC, CBS, Fox News, CSNBC, ABC, and CNN. 

         This could become an issue if the first news channel who breaks the story is wrong.  If one venue receives incorrect information, a slippery, slippery slope of lies and misinformation commences.  I do think this is an issue that needs to be addressed in some way.  I understand that all news stations want to beat their competitors to the punch, but I also feel like there used to be journalistic integrity.  Don’t print a story until you have confirmed from trustworthy sources that it is valid.  If this trend continues, will it even be possible to know which outlets to trust and which outlets to be wary of?  If they’re all saying the same thing, I don’t think it will be.

        

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?

         Personally, I believe there needs to be a little bit more authority on the Internet.  I have already stressed my opinion that anonymity is, for the most part, a bad thing, and I have said that I don’t think every single one of every single human being’s opinions need to be voiced to the entire planet. 

         Since I’ve already touched on the negatives, I want to elaborate on some positive steps the Internet has already taken.  Some authority can be seen in certain aspects of the Web.  Of course, there are laws against certain types of pornography (although they sometimes do not accomplish their goal as well as one would hope).  Even Facebook, one of the biggest advocates of user-generated freedom of all time, has some rules.  Facebook does not allow users to post inappropriate pictures, they have a feature where users can report and block offensive and even potentially dangerous users, and the Facebook team has done a pretty good job creating privacy preferences.

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.

        

         The world of politics and big business has drastically changed with the growing influence of the Internet.  It has changed so much that new positions, new careers, are being created to keep up with the fast-paced evolution of the Internet.  Politicians now do a large amount of their politicing (I don’t think that is a word) on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.  My brother is the press secretary for the Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, and one of his many responsibilities is to maintain the LG’s Facebook page, updating it with status reports, pictures, and speeches.  This certainly did not exist in the past.

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

         Absolutely.  I love the Internet.  I love our 21^st century technological age.  And I would really love to say that we as a society are mature and disciplined enough to be able to weed through the nonsense and understand that information on the Internet is unchecked and cannot be taken as absolute truth.  However, I am concerned about the generation below us (current college students). 

         Yes, we were raised on technology.  I think my family bought our first computer when I was still in elementary school, and I had a laptop by the time I was in ninth grade.  But we were not raised on Facebook, Twitter, Blogspot, or any of these other features of Web 2.0.  These were not introduced until we were in high school, after we developed our personalities and sense of true and untrue. 

         My brother’s nine year old niece has a cell phone and a Facebook.  She uses the Internet to look up information and entertain herself.  If the Web remains “unchecked” and anonymous, I really do fear that her generation will lose their grasp of the truth.  There will be too much information available for them to choose from.

Tuesday, October 12: Andrew Keen

How does Keen's does Keen define Democratized media, and what are his main issues with this trend? use examples from the web in the form of links.

Before reading the excerpt from Keen's book, I watched his spot on the Colbert Report first.  I'm glad I did the assignment in that order, because his interview with Colbert provided a great introduction to Andrew Keen's thoughts on Web 2.0.  Simply put, he hates it.  Or to be more specific, in Keen's own words, he loathes it.

Democratized media is basically the same idea we have been covering throughout the duration of this semester.  It is the idea that anybody, no matter who you are or what you do, has the ability to view and create any kind of media they'd like, from blogs to YouTube videos to video games to essays featuring political commentary.  Some people praise democratized media as a grand societal revolution, arguing that it's great that anybody with a computer has a chance to share his or her ideas with the masses.  Not Andrew Keen.

Keen, in these exact words, claims that the Internet is "destroying culture as we know it."  Throughout the first chapter of his book, he describes Web 2.0 with so much disdain you'd think the founders of Wikipedia and Google were terrorists plotting to blow up all of the world's museums and art galleries.  I do exaggerate, but Keen is absolutely not shy about his opinions, and he brings up some great points to support them.

Personally, I think one of his strongest arguments was that democratized media is coming dangerously close to eliminating trustworthy sources.  He cited examples of misinformation from Wikipedia, he told stories about Public Relations firms hiring "regular people" to create YouTube advertisements with subliminal messages, and he even provided evidence that political campaigns were behind satirical YouTube videos that belittled their competitors.  His reference to Big Brother from the novel 1984, where he claimed that new media could literally change societal perception of fact, was chillingly conceivable.  If people believe everything they read on the Web, we might start losing our inherent sense  of what is true and what is not.

One link I could think of that shows this is Here.  It's a website warning people of the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide, the scientific name for water.  The website is supposed to be a clever joke, and many research professors use it to teach their students not to trust everything, but the fact that it tricks people every day helps Keen's argument.

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

If I had to choose one these two points of view on Web 2.0, I suppose I would go with Douglas Rushkoff's.  I agree with a lot of what Andrew Keen argued; however, from reading the first chapter of his book, it seems as though he is only focusing on the negatives.  Yes, there is a lot of irrelevant, stupid material on the Web, and yes, too many people speak just to hear themselves speak.  But what about the legitimate websites, the websites that do have editors and do fact check and do present valid, influential information?  I live in Washington, DC, but the Internet gives me the opportunity to read a legitimate newspaper article published in the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, or The London Times.  Anybody in the world can learn about and appreciate anything they want, no matter where it is taking place.  I don't see how that could be considered a bad thing.

Rushkoff, however, just thinks that the Web 2.0 is about to take over, and our lives are going to change.  I agree with that, although I might be resistent to the change.  I know that the world is speeding up.  People multitask more now than ever before, and we do this because we can.  We have the tools to make this possible.  

But sometimes, I wish Keen and Rushkoff were both wrong.  That way, we could just slow down for a bit.

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?

 

Collective anger is not unique to our current society.  Human beings are always upset about something; it is impossible to even consider living in a society where everyone was completely content with everything in their lives.  Utopia, unfortunately, is not real.  This is not news to us.

 

What is unique to our society, however, is the almost astonishing level of online connectedness we have with each other.  The world we live in today makes it possible to voice an opinion as soon as it comes to our heads.  You don't like something?  Take out your anger by punching some keys on your keyboard and just click submit.  

 

On the surface, the connectedness of our society seems positive.  It can be.  It gives everybody, regardless of status, an opportunity to be heard.  The internet does not sensor, discriminate, or exclude.  As long as you're connected, you can say what we want to say.  

 

With all of that being said, should every thought of every person be circulated on the web?  Of course not.  Before blogs, forums, Facebook, and Twitter, there was a certain social status quo for what was appropriate to say publicly.  But since the emergence of online anonymity, that sensor button has disappeared.  This is not good.  We need that sensor button.  Badly.

 

It is said that the best way to handle sending angry emails is to type it, read it, and then delete it.  That process gives you the chance to release some frustration, calm down, and then protect your reputation by not doing something stupid.  Your name would have been attached to that angry, unprofessional, immature note (just look at Cleveland Cavaliers' owner, Dan Gilbert, for an example of that).

 

Now, people don't need to worry about their names being attached to anything they say, resulting in the gradual degradation of personal responsibility.  It seems that societal morals and sense of appropriateness are being forgotten rapidly.  We all have personal stories about cyber-bullying.  When I was in high school, a large amount of people would frequent a website called www.DCSportsFan.com, a venue that reported  about high school sports in the DC area.  Students would post on forums about high school athletes personal lives, academics, and life decisions.    It got to a point that people stopped seeing football and basketball players as their friends or classmates.  They became celebrities, and that's how they were talked about.

 

If we were still required to take responsibility for the words we say, websites such as JuicyCampus never would have taken off.  Of course, rumors would remain prevalent, but I don't know a lot of people who would sign their name on a public internet posting after calling their classmate a "stupid whore" or "dumb bitch."

Connectedness is great.  It makes our society more efficient and more convenient.  Social networking is an outstanding tool to either develop new relationships or maintain old ones.  However, the idea of anonymity makes me horrified about the future. Kids need to learn from an early age the importance of taking personal responsibility for their actions.  If this generation of children continues growing up in this age of anonymity, how can they mature?  We need our societal sensor button back, but I'm afraid it may be disappearing.

Discussion Questions

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 it's possible that amateur user-generated content might become the new professional standard.  It is obviously already becoming popular in television and advertising, and we have to remember that technology gets better and better every year.  Soon, it's probable that miniature versions of professional production equipment will be available for relatively cheap prices in any Best Buy you walk into.  

If the technology and equipment becomes available everywhere, amateur video content will get better over time.


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.

Like millions of other people in the world, I find myself using Facebook more than any other social networking site.  I think the reason for this is, quite simply, that it's the most popular one.  People use social networking sites in order to connect with most amount of people they possibly can.  Why would they choose a website that didn't have as many options?  It wouldn't make any sense.


That said, I do think Facebook is "here to stay" for a while.  I think it's too late in the game for anybody to come up with a new idea that can grow as fast as Facebook did.  So as long as social networking websites remain a vital part of our technological society, Facebook will live on.

McLuhan Photoshop Assignment

The image I created shows Maximillian Robespierre, an incredibly influential political figure during the French Revolution, in a traditional boxing poster going up again the new media form of blogging.  In my last post, I used blogs as an example of new, revolutionary media, emphasizing the fact that, in today's technological world, anybody (literally, anybody) can have their work published for all to see.  

This has not always been the case.  It used to be incredibly difficult for one to voice their opinion and even harder to have an audience that is willing to hear it.  

That is why I created this image.  The quotes above the picture were from the original boxing poster, but I thought they fit.  The blogspot logo is saying, "Hand me the torch, or I'll just take it."  It's very true.  The torch has already been passed.  Welcome to Blogspot.

 

New Media

Blogs, like the one you're currently reading, are becoming more and more prevalent in the communication industry.

1.  BLOGS

Publishing personal thoughts, opinions, and arguments is much easier to do today that it has been in the past.  Rather than going to journalism school, working and clawing your way up the industry's ladder, and finally getting the chance to make your work known... now all you need is a computer.  Scratch that.  All you need is access to somebody else's computer.

The accessibility of blogs is, in some ways, great for communication.  They provide a simple, quick way for countless numbers of people to get their opinions out there.  Of course, with millions of different blogs on the vast World Wide Web, you're bound to find a few that are influential, important, and worldly.  However, you'll also find ones like "Hot Chicks with D-Bags" and "Lesbians who Look Like Justin Bieber."  Entertaining, sure, but if I'm a New York Times writer 20 years ago, I'm not a very happy horse knowing that www.icanhazcheeseburger.com probably gets a million times more readers than I ever did.

2.  TWITTER

Tweet

In many ways, Twitter defines Marshall McLuhan's vision of a global village.  The internet makes everyone who has access to it connected in that everyone has access to the same information as everyone else.  Facebook connects people and creates this global village by being able to see who is friends with who, and what people are up to in terms of jobs, relationships, or even what they did last night (news feed photo album stalking).  Twitter allows people to tell the world exactly what they are doing at all times.  If you just woke up, rubbed your eyes, brushed your teeth, and put on pants.... you could tweet to the world that you just woke up, rubbed your eyes, brushed your teeth, and put on pants. 

3.  Meebo

Instant Message Everywhere

 Don't worry, the Internet apparently knew how annoying it was to have a million tabs open on your browser, so they just combined everything in one super communication site called Meebo.

I had no idea this website existed until my brother told me to include it in this assignment five minutes ago, so I went to the website to check it out.  It's an explosion of social networking.  It's the online equivalent to having reality TV show cameras following you at all times.  Not sure if I like it.

But it does decrease the clutter on your computer screen...