neuromarketing ( psychological )
Pepsi vs. Coke: Pepsi held a blind taste test of Pepsi vs. Coke, where more people preferred Pepsi, they all said Coke was better. Marketing and image has helped Coke gain popularity, holding more influence than Pepsi, despite Pepsi's scientific appeal of the brain.
* emotional branding
Apple: Apple has created a relationship with its consumers by showing strong corporate ethic, and an easily recognizable brand. Their keen understanding of the consumer has allowed them to gain popularity and influence consumers to continue buying their product.
* branding/creating a culture around a brand
Nike: Nike is a giant when it comes to branding. They have built a culture that extends to all sports, baseball, basketball, football, soccer, track and field, snowboarding, skateboarding and more. Nearly everyone owns something Nike because the image it comes with is so valuable.
* narrowcasting
Cable Television: things like cable TV require a consumer to log in or subscribe to something to view the content. Cable TV is only shown to a specific audience, those who have purchased the service.
* rhetorical marketing
McDonalds: McDonalds uses rhetoric to pull in consumers. Visual appeal in marketing creates strong feelings for the consumers, as well as using its strong brand image and tradition for consumers to return.
* under the radar marketing
Corona: Corona beer became the number one selling imported beer in America through under the radar marketing. The Mexican beer was first introduced in cities with large Mexican populations, in stores and restaurants. They remained out of sight of competitors until they took over because their marketing was almost invisible.
* across-media marketing
Godaddy.com: this website constantly runs Super Bowl ads on TV, which must be continued on their website. It's a way to reach millions of consumers, then pull them to their website with their appealing commercials left in cliffhangers.
* product placement across media
Under Armour: UA is just one example out of thousands, but in the movie the Blind Side, UA was used exclusively on all of the gear, football equipment and clothing of the actors.
* guerrilla marketing
The Sopranos: HBO's hit show The Sopranos used guerrilla marketing, placing fake body parts in/on taxis, playing on the crime aspect of the show.
* viral marketing
Cloverfield: This film used viral marketing in the beginning, showing online teaser trailers, not revealing the name and only giving a date, which turned out to be the release date. Cloverfield had web pages created alluding to characters and companies from the movie as well for consumers to examine before seeing the film.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Adobe Illustrator Original
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
The Internet and Democracy
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?
I believe that direct democracy, or the ability for each and every user to have input into the system is the most likely to be used and the best to use in conjunction with current technologies.
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?
My answer is a direct results because this type of democracy allows anyone to comment, leading to an unchecked nature. The tangible examples are any forum or message board. Anyone can post whatever they feel like and this unregulated approach is usually unchecked until a regulator or another source edits, or removes the material. While I feel that regulation needs to improve in some sectors, it cannot totally happen or no one will be able to have any input unless they are experts. It is an issue that is the process of being addressed and it will continue to do so, as long as there are people to post and others to edit and regulate the process.
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 need to be addressed? Why or Why not?
A media echo chamber, when an idea is disseminated through media and amplified in popularity through and small rounds then grows as the story become more widespread. This can lead to the story being incorrectly reported or full of errors because the initial process convoluted the facts. The effects can lead to completely false rumors staring ,such as the deaths of celebrities who turn out to be alive and well. This issue is annoying and should be addressed because in certain situations it can damage the reputations and creditableness of certain sources. This issue is misleading and this only harms people when they believe the false information.
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 needed or not needed?
Authority on the internet is being enforced through editing and limiting posts and what people say. For example, different websites and companies moderate forums to make sure nothing too offensive or over the top is written. Online video games can ban or suspend players for offensive actions. The people usually behind these actions are employees, who are directed through corporate mandates. I believe this control is necessary because if people are allowed to run wild like they are over some places in the internet, it can become and unsafe or volatile place to go and use. Others behaviors will affect people who would like to be left alone and this distinction is important. Editors also help ensure a factual experience when researching or fact finding, helping provide important and factual information.
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 way the political landscape has adapted to internet is an incredible phenomenon. Ads, political commercials, debates, and many more staples of a campaign are becoming extremely integrated into the online world. More people can now research and check the track records and voting tendencies of candidates than ever before. Many political commercials have been put on Youtube and are viewed hundreds of thousands of times, exposing these people to citizen who otherwise would not get involved in the political process. Smear campaigns gain new life on the internet, where people write whatever they want or whatever they feel about certain candidates as well as praising their choices. Politicians have been able to use this new forum to its maximum effectiveness.
7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?
I do not think that democracy is really threatened by the internet or the way it is run. As much as there is total false and misleading information, there is also factual and important verified information that can found only on the internet. As much as we are lead to believe, the internet is continually being upgraded to be more accurate, most of the sources that we use everyday such as Wikipedia are vastly superior top what they used to be. To me the internet may engender healthy debate and inquiry. We can now interact and exchange information on a much grander scale and this is important in keeping democracy alive. That being said, there are many places with faulty information and what is presented as fact is actually someones misguided opinion. But as a whole, I do not think that democracy is truly threatened by unchecked internet usage.
I believe that direct democracy, or the ability for each and every user to have input into the system is the most likely to be used and the best to use in conjunction with current technologies.
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?
My answer is a direct results because this type of democracy allows anyone to comment, leading to an unchecked nature. The tangible examples are any forum or message board. Anyone can post whatever they feel like and this unregulated approach is usually unchecked until a regulator or another source edits, or removes the material. While I feel that regulation needs to improve in some sectors, it cannot totally happen or no one will be able to have any input unless they are experts. It is an issue that is the process of being addressed and it will continue to do so, as long as there are people to post and others to edit and regulate the process.
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 need to be addressed? Why or Why not?
A media echo chamber, when an idea is disseminated through media and amplified in popularity through and small rounds then grows as the story become more widespread. This can lead to the story being incorrectly reported or full of errors because the initial process convoluted the facts. The effects can lead to completely false rumors staring ,such as the deaths of celebrities who turn out to be alive and well. This issue is annoying and should be addressed because in certain situations it can damage the reputations and creditableness of certain sources. This issue is misleading and this only harms people when they believe the false information.
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 needed or not needed?
Authority on the internet is being enforced through editing and limiting posts and what people say. For example, different websites and companies moderate forums to make sure nothing too offensive or over the top is written. Online video games can ban or suspend players for offensive actions. The people usually behind these actions are employees, who are directed through corporate mandates. I believe this control is necessary because if people are allowed to run wild like they are over some places in the internet, it can become and unsafe or volatile place to go and use. Others behaviors will affect people who would like to be left alone and this distinction is important. Editors also help ensure a factual experience when researching or fact finding, helping provide important and factual information.
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 way the political landscape has adapted to internet is an incredible phenomenon. Ads, political commercials, debates, and many more staples of a campaign are becoming extremely integrated into the online world. More people can now research and check the track records and voting tendencies of candidates than ever before. Many political commercials have been put on Youtube and are viewed hundreds of thousands of times, exposing these people to citizen who otherwise would not get involved in the political process. Smear campaigns gain new life on the internet, where people write whatever they want or whatever they feel about certain candidates as well as praising their choices. Politicians have been able to use this new forum to its maximum effectiveness.
7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?
I do not think that democracy is really threatened by the internet or the way it is run. As much as there is total false and misleading information, there is also factual and important verified information that can found only on the internet. As much as we are lead to believe, the internet is continually being upgraded to be more accurate, most of the sources that we use everyday such as Wikipedia are vastly superior top what they used to be. To me the internet may engender healthy debate and inquiry. We can now interact and exchange information on a much grander scale and this is important in keeping democracy alive. That being said, there are many places with faulty information and what is presented as fact is actually someones misguided opinion. But as a whole, I do not think that democracy is truly threatened by unchecked internet usage.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Keen vs. Rushkoff
1. 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.
Keen defines democratized media as the way in which anyone can contribute to a subject, amateur and expert alike. What it means is I can comment on something that I am completely uneducated about. He has many issues with this trend that has stemmed from the use of user-generate content. Basically, he believes that the introduction of Web 2.0 has allowed the internet to flatten and destroy our culture. He has been observing what is happening and plainly states "... I'm dismayed by what I've seen." He is dissatisfied with almost everything involved with Web 2.0. He doesn't believe amateurs should be able to comment or contribute to subjects they aren't familiar with. he plainly calls out Wikipedia as the dominate offending party. he refers to an episode where Ken Lay, former head of Enron died, and the cause of death was change hundreds of times in a matter of minutes, making it extremely difficult for the consumer to get the exact cause of death. This a shiny example, as the inaccuracies cloud the truth over the internet. I thought what would Keen think about reviews of his books by people who had read but weren't critics? Another big problem Keen has is the prevalence of file sharing and the copy/paste culture that has arose. He says "Authenticity is almost impossible to verify. the idea of original authorship and intellectual property has been seriously compromised." He makes a good point in that the original ideas and works of the authors is lost among the crowd and therefor no one gets credit for their own creation. The last point I'll about is when Keen talks about the fact that we are losing our individuality to the monster of anonymity on the internet. As everything becomes shared, nothing is sacred anymore, leading to the loss of individual accomplishment as well as the loss of anything unique to one person.While Keen makes a very good argument on all fronts I believe he is a step too far in describing the downfall of our world through Web 2.0.
2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why?
In all both Rushkoff and Keen are saying similar things about the world today. The way they present it is totally different. Rushkoff takes a more forgivable stance, allowing us to analyze and try to correct the mistakes that are going on right now. He believes that the revolution of 2.0 has had many detrimental effects of society but not so much so where there is irreversible damage or that we cannot stem the tide and spread of misuse. Keen is much more cynical and nihilistic. He believes we have irrevocably damaged our world and there is no turning back. He acts as though society is about to collapse because of misinformed internet use. I feel as though he makes many excellent points about it, but is too caught up in the effects to really be a help in solving the problem. This is why I firmly believe Rushkoff has the more constructive and amicable approach to the problem of democratized media. Although there are many negatives, there are also positives and Rushkoff is able to show this rather than condemn the entire process. I think through his approach we can help mend the what is wrong with the use of Web 2.0 and democratized media, and use it for the better. If we cannot though, I'm afraid Keen might be right after all.
Keen defines democratized media as the way in which anyone can contribute to a subject, amateur and expert alike. What it means is I can comment on something that I am completely uneducated about. He has many issues with this trend that has stemmed from the use of user-generate content. Basically, he believes that the introduction of Web 2.0 has allowed the internet to flatten and destroy our culture. He has been observing what is happening and plainly states "... I'm dismayed by what I've seen." He is dissatisfied with almost everything involved with Web 2.0. He doesn't believe amateurs should be able to comment or contribute to subjects they aren't familiar with. he plainly calls out Wikipedia as the dominate offending party. he refers to an episode where Ken Lay, former head of Enron died, and the cause of death was change hundreds of times in a matter of minutes, making it extremely difficult for the consumer to get the exact cause of death. This a shiny example, as the inaccuracies cloud the truth over the internet. I thought what would Keen think about reviews of his books by people who had read but weren't critics? Another big problem Keen has is the prevalence of file sharing and the copy/paste culture that has arose. He says "Authenticity is almost impossible to verify. the idea of original authorship and intellectual property has been seriously compromised." He makes a good point in that the original ideas and works of the authors is lost among the crowd and therefor no one gets credit for their own creation. The last point I'll about is when Keen talks about the fact that we are losing our individuality to the monster of anonymity on the internet. As everything becomes shared, nothing is sacred anymore, leading to the loss of individual accomplishment as well as the loss of anything unique to one person.While Keen makes a very good argument on all fronts I believe he is a step too far in describing the downfall of our world through Web 2.0.
2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why?
In all both Rushkoff and Keen are saying similar things about the world today. The way they present it is totally different. Rushkoff takes a more forgivable stance, allowing us to analyze and try to correct the mistakes that are going on right now. He believes that the revolution of 2.0 has had many detrimental effects of society but not so much so where there is irreversible damage or that we cannot stem the tide and spread of misuse. Keen is much more cynical and nihilistic. He believes we have irrevocably damaged our world and there is no turning back. He acts as though society is about to collapse because of misinformed internet use. I feel as though he makes many excellent points about it, but is too caught up in the effects to really be a help in solving the problem. This is why I firmly believe Rushkoff has the more constructive and amicable approach to the problem of democratized media. Although there are many negatives, there are also positives and Rushkoff is able to show this rather than condemn the entire process. I think through his approach we can help mend the what is wrong with the use of Web 2.0 and democratized media, and use it for the better. If we cannot though, I'm afraid Keen might be right after all.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Mob
The mob is a very interesting phenomenon of the internet. Basically, I believe the anonymity really does embolden people into saying and posting things about them that they would never normally consider. Whilst I definitely do not believe it is always interconnected, I believe it allows for the behavior and has caused many of the cyber bullying cases we hear about every day. I think the anger that is unleashed is something most of the people live with everyday, and the online world allows them to vent without the threat of consequences or recourse. People will do very crazy things if they don’t believe that they will get in trouble or be judged for it and the internet it the perfect storm in it acquiesces to all 3 of these criteria. At the same time, I ultimately believe people are the ones responsible for what they post on the internet. If you can’t handle the fact that what you put out about yourself will have unexpected or intended backlash, then you need to examine why you are putting things online. While this may not be fair, it is the system that is in place and people need to be careful with what they put on their Facebook or Twitter. The internet is truly a dangerous place when not used properly and the Mob is a great example of what happens when you don’t take care of your information. If you put a video of yourself on Youtube, one can expect a fair amount of criticism. If you can’t handle the heat, get out of the fire. Be responsible and don’t post embarrassing information and one can hopefully avoid the wrath of the mob. But as long as people are looking for attention and people are allowed to say whatever they want over the internet, the mob figures to be a big part of the process and will remain so until there are actual consequences for the brutish behavior over the internet. But I don’t see this coming anytime soon.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Web 2.0 Discussion Questions
1.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 personally do not think that production values will continue to drop because big budget productions are still viable. The "homegrown" content is used for to create a feel for what it is displaying rather than displacing polished productions. The amateur content seems to be the medium that will continue to grow and improve, as technology advances and improves as well as drops in price. The two styles will probably coexist very well as they are used for different purposes.
2.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.before answering question #3 please read the Transparency in Social Media Blog Article
I definitely use Facebook the most as well as Twitter occasionally. I believe Facebook's available options and more adult oriented user base has increased the popularity over MySpace.
Transparency is extremely important because of the proliferation of social media. It allows us to easily see the motives and actions of individuals and companies over the internet. This openness and honestly can be interpreted as good or bad because the it gives us insight into things we have no idea about. The downside could be the discovering of bad business practices or inconsistencies in ideas and policies of certain people or companies, exposing harmful material.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
McLuhan Photoshop Final Post
What I wanted to communicate and convey in this image pertains to Battle.net, an online gaming service provided by industry giant Blizzard Entertainment. The whole gaming culture in of itself is very developed and highly personal, and the computer is the first step. I chose an Alienware laptop, a well known builder of computers designed for gaming to show the advanced and sleek design of the entire gaming culture. The computer is also the basic mediium through which all the others i will discuss run through. Battle.net is linked up though many Blizzard games such as Starcraft and World of Warcraft. Millions of people play these games daily and these gamers have their own little society through using Battle.net. The system allows you to fully integrate a social experience by keeping track of your friends and activities as well as notifying you when you interact and play the games with total strangers. This is what Battle.net does very well, allowing you to make and grow relationships with people who these games. The message of this medium is the social experience and happenings inside a virtual world. This is unique in video games as it helps you become a more involved into the digital community and interact on a more human level as opposed to the anonymity that is the norm for most online gaming and socializing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)