The internet is an amazing thing for oh so many reasons. It's changed the way we connect with each other, the way we find out our information, the way we seek entertainment, the way we share our lives with each other. But it is also changing the political climate. The citizens used to look towards the government/state/politicians for their grievances and concerns in order to resolve political issues - but now we are beginning to become more and more cynical of politicians and those in power. Nobody seems to like a politician these days, nobody seems to trust them. But if we can't trust the people who are keeping our nation in check - then who can we trust?
As James Crabtree notes: "The political potential of the internet lies not in connecting people to politicians [but] in the possibility of bringing citizens together to help themselves." Essentially, Crabtree is illustrating the benefits of internet allowing mutual aid through the citizens rather than through the state. This made me realise that this is actually a very large part of the internet. People seeking help go to the internet to ask people for answers. I know that whenever I need help, I google some forums and read up on what people have to say - and I take that advice to be much more genuine. When I was looking to get a new phone (my first smartphone) I was not very interested in looking for the reviews/videos made by the phone company themselves but more so in people who had the phones, or third parties who reviewed the phones who are seemingly much more unbiased. This seems more authentic because it is from people who are like us. It has always amazed me why people go to the effort of giving people advice. It is amazing the sheer amount of information available at the tip of our fingers. The number of youtube unboxing videos, the number of painstakingly long and detailed blogs explaining how to fix/improve something, the number of people who with no real advantage to themselves write back on forums to help people out is just really extraordinary.
It is based on the "principle of reciprocity" - they do it with the belief that "If I scratch your back, this will create a system in which back scratching is the norm, and when I need my back scratched, someone will do it for me." I really like that concept. However, it makes me feel pretty bad because the number of times I had sought help on the internet (about 10000) compared to the number of times I have actually helped someone I didn't know on the internet (about 2) is pretty dismal. Still, there are always people willing to help - and they are usually much better to ask than actually trying to contact say, the manufacturer of the phone company. This is because we as citizens are generally interested in the same kind of things, getting the most of our products, learning how to fix our problems, etc etc. The people who make the phones are more so interested in selling more phones, money is probably a much bigger priority to them.
This brings me to my next point which is in relation to the article in the New Yorker about Julian Assange and Wikileaks. It is a very fascinating concept and I will have to admit I did not know very much about Wikileaks before this. I believe that exposing the secrets and controversial issues which are kept hidden from us through the use of hacking is a topic with many grey areas when it comes to ethics. I think it is important that when doing this kind of online activism, it should be done with the same interests in mind as the ordinary citizens. It should be to help each other, to bring awareness, to help ourselves and our communities and not for personal power. There is a lot of room for this type of organisation to go very very wrong, but if kept in check - I think it is a great thing.
The government is monitoring us, but who monitors the government. Well, now, we are.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Ok Twitter, You Can Have This One
If you guys have been following my blog as avidly as I'm sure you are - you may remember that my first post went something like this:
Now, this isn't one of those blogs where I say - "Oh man - I'm a new person, I love Twitter. I have changed my opinion... I can't believe what I was missing." If that's what you wanted, sorry... let's save the revolutions for the end of the course, ay? Actually - what I wanted to talk about was that finally, something about Twitter does actually make sense. I don't really find it all that useful as a "social networking" with friends tool because my friend's aren't really vain enough to post tweets about what colour socks they are wearing - (facebook status updates, however...) but as a tool for citizen journalism? Bingo! I get it now!
Steven Johnson addresses this very notion in his article about How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live. I immediately felt an affinity with Steven as he echoed many of my cynical thoughts about Twitter and the phrase "ambient awareness" is actually a good one, in my opinion. As Ted mentioned in today's class, all of these Tweets when aggregated right, become "tiny chunks of content which form a coherent and dynamic narrative - a dynamic story is developing!" I had never really thought about Twitter being used in this way to be honest. It makes sense - the hash tag system suddenly becomes rather useful.
What does this mean for us? Well, it means that the culture of journalism and news reporting is changing radically. There is a shift from the news being something only people in "power" with the money and resources can distribute (at whatever angle they choose) - to something anyone with a computer or smartphone can distribute (again, at whatever angle they choose). The benefits? We find out news faster, due to a shorter feedback loop - the ordinary citizens don't have to go to "the boss" to make sure their article is OK to publish. They see something they think is newsworthy, press a few buttons, snap a shot and BAM IT'S ON THE INTERNET!
While the news used to be a finished commodity, which was polished up by the editor, printed and distributed to the masses in newspaper format - the news now becomes a flow of information, a flow of stories from a variety of sources and people who tell it how it is - how they see it - unfinished coverage and footage allowing for us all to participate, contribute, add and most importantly, consume.
I think this is a fitting change. After all, the world doesn't stop after an article is published. It continues. The people reported about continue living their lives. The news continues after the newspaper stops writing about it.
Twitter? Meh. I don't get it. I don't want to get it. I don't like it. I don't want to like it.
No thank you.
Now, this isn't one of those blogs where I say - "Oh man - I'm a new person, I love Twitter. I have changed my opinion... I can't believe what I was missing." If that's what you wanted, sorry... let's save the revolutions for the end of the course, ay? Actually - what I wanted to talk about was that finally, something about Twitter does actually make sense. I don't really find it all that useful as a "social networking" with friends tool because my friend's aren't really vain enough to post tweets about what colour socks they are wearing - (facebook status updates, however...) but as a tool for citizen journalism? Bingo! I get it now!
Steven Johnson addresses this very notion in his article about How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live. I immediately felt an affinity with Steven as he echoed many of my cynical thoughts about Twitter and the phrase "ambient awareness" is actually a good one, in my opinion. As Ted mentioned in today's class, all of these Tweets when aggregated right, become "tiny chunks of content which form a coherent and dynamic narrative - a dynamic story is developing!" I had never really thought about Twitter being used in this way to be honest. It makes sense - the hash tag system suddenly becomes rather useful.
What does this mean for us? Well, it means that the culture of journalism and news reporting is changing radically. There is a shift from the news being something only people in "power" with the money and resources can distribute (at whatever angle they choose) - to something anyone with a computer or smartphone can distribute (again, at whatever angle they choose). The benefits? We find out news faster, due to a shorter feedback loop - the ordinary citizens don't have to go to "the boss" to make sure their article is OK to publish. They see something they think is newsworthy, press a few buttons, snap a shot and BAM IT'S ON THE INTERNET!
While the news used to be a finished commodity, which was polished up by the editor, printed and distributed to the masses in newspaper format - the news now becomes a flow of information, a flow of stories from a variety of sources and people who tell it how it is - how they see it - unfinished coverage and footage allowing for us all to participate, contribute, add and most importantly, consume.
I think this is a fitting change. After all, the world doesn't stop after an article is published. It continues. The people reported about continue living their lives. The news continues after the newspaper stops writing about it.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
A 2 PART BLOG
WE ARE CONTENT PRODUCERS (LOSERS?)
Isn't the world of the internet a funny place? We are now all content producers but with one small difference - we don't reap the benefits (to a certain extent). Instead, the people who supply the platform to us do - e.g. facebook (we are the one's making the content which makes facebook interesting), blogger (we are the one's who write the blogs, the reasons why we like to go there), and even gaming - with the concept of Machinima (we create small films out of interactive games which end up promoting the games even further).
Now - I don't know if you noticed, but I said we don't reap the benefits to a certain extent. Let's have a look at this. The people who supply the platform, what benefits do they get from this new system of "prosumers"?
Without all that much personal effort from them, their platforms are generating content which draws more and more people to them. The more people, the better the value of the platform. And the more people, the more people are being drawn to it - making the platform even better. The platforms get success, financially, socially and culturally but what do we get?
Well, better platforms are a benefit for us for sure. I am not complaining and I'm certainly not going to stop people using a platform becuase the more people use it - the more advantages there are to using it. We benefit culturally and socially - because the content which is created by us, is content that we want to read. We add value to the things that we want. Yet, it still gives me a funny feeling when I realise I am putting so much time and effort into blogs, facebook posts etc in order to benefit these large corporations...
IS THIS THE DEATH OF MARKETING?
A second point from me about these large corporations.... is about the rise of the long tail and about how physical shops are being forced into bankruptcy by the online, cheap, alternatives where they don't have to spend money on the shop front and merely have a big warehouse capable of holding more stuff. On one hand, I think - great! I love cheap stuff!!!! On the other hand - being a student of marketing, it really struck me as a little ridiculous. In the past, so much effort went into marketing and creating brand identity. Creating a shiny brand was the main goal and then you could jack up the prices as you want. Creating shops with attractive displays, spending money on the interior design, creating a enjoyable shopping experience. The products in the shop had an "aura" about them - a sort of presence, and when we bought it - we felt like we were buying into this amazing experience.
As Kelly says: "when copies are free, you need to sell things which can not be copied" as they become scarce and valuable.
Well - amazingly, it's now the companies who don't bother with marketing and designing the amazing product experience for the user who are winning. Or so it seems.... I guess you could think of it as a different KIND of marketing? It's definitely a different way of thinking. But as a graphic designer, and one who loves the auratic feeling of owning something tactile, with a presence.... and enjoy going into a store and appreciating the effort gone into its presentation - I don't think I will ever stop wanting to go to shops to buy things.
That doesn't mean I won't occasionally buy things online if they are cheaper though!
Isn't the world of the internet a funny place? We are now all content producers but with one small difference - we don't reap the benefits (to a certain extent). Instead, the people who supply the platform to us do - e.g. facebook (we are the one's making the content which makes facebook interesting), blogger (we are the one's who write the blogs, the reasons why we like to go there), and even gaming - with the concept of Machinima (we create small films out of interactive games which end up promoting the games even further).
Now - I don't know if you noticed, but I said we don't reap the benefits to a certain extent. Let's have a look at this. The people who supply the platform, what benefits do they get from this new system of "prosumers"?
Without all that much personal effort from them, their platforms are generating content which draws more and more people to them. The more people, the better the value of the platform. And the more people, the more people are being drawn to it - making the platform even better. The platforms get success, financially, socially and culturally but what do we get?
Well, better platforms are a benefit for us for sure. I am not complaining and I'm certainly not going to stop people using a platform becuase the more people use it - the more advantages there are to using it. We benefit culturally and socially - because the content which is created by us, is content that we want to read. We add value to the things that we want. Yet, it still gives me a funny feeling when I realise I am putting so much time and effort into blogs, facebook posts etc in order to benefit these large corporations...
IS THIS THE DEATH OF MARKETING?
A second point from me about these large corporations.... is about the rise of the long tail and about how physical shops are being forced into bankruptcy by the online, cheap, alternatives where they don't have to spend money on the shop front and merely have a big warehouse capable of holding more stuff. On one hand, I think - great! I love cheap stuff!!!! On the other hand - being a student of marketing, it really struck me as a little ridiculous. In the past, so much effort went into marketing and creating brand identity. Creating a shiny brand was the main goal and then you could jack up the prices as you want. Creating shops with attractive displays, spending money on the interior design, creating a enjoyable shopping experience. The products in the shop had an "aura" about them - a sort of presence, and when we bought it - we felt like we were buying into this amazing experience.
As Kelly says: "when copies are free, you need to sell things which can not be copied" as they become scarce and valuable.
Well - amazingly, it's now the companies who don't bother with marketing and designing the amazing product experience for the user who are winning. Or so it seems.... I guess you could think of it as a different KIND of marketing? It's definitely a different way of thinking. But as a graphic designer, and one who loves the auratic feeling of owning something tactile, with a presence.... and enjoy going into a store and appreciating the effort gone into its presentation - I don't think I will ever stop wanting to go to shops to buy things.
That doesn't mean I won't occasionally buy things online if they are cheaper though!
Monday, September 5, 2011
Let's Spread The News!!!!!!!
Ok, so the hot topic for DIGC202 last week was Convergence and unfortunately, due to a certain annotated bibliography being due - I was unable to get my blog written in time. Still - it is and will continue to be a hot topic for quite a while to come, it seems. Why? Because, thanks to convergence - Media is everywhere. We are living in a convergence culture. (See: Jenkins article "Worship at the Alter of Convergence")
And as always - with media comes social consequences/benefits (whichever way you tend to lean).
Jenkins lays these out for us quite well. It will alter the relationship between existing technologies, industries, markets, genres and audiences.... it will alter the logic behind how media industries operate and how we as media consumers process news and entertainment. I thought I'd just have a quick look through this point today as it was one of the key things that stood out for me this week.
Convergence alters the relationship between existing technologies:
Yes, I agree with that. An easy example of this is the relationship between mobile, camera and mp3 is now very different thanks to the smartphone. While technology used to be separate, we are seeing an increase in different forms of media combining and merging to become super media appliances for our "convenience."
Convergence alters the relationship between existing industries, markets and audiences:
True. The way that industries, corporations, marketing and promotions act and think has had to change dramatically to suit the new times. In the past, a company could be pretty sure their advertisements would be reaching the audience by simply placing it in a newspaper, television or even radio! This was because this was the primary source of information and it could be assumed that most people would be reading this. Now? We get our information largely from other sources (see: social networking, internet) which are much harder for companies to control in the traditional manner of simple advertisements. Instead, they need to act smarter, think intuitively and change their marketing strategies. That is where we start to see a product being able to do multiple things in order to suit a wider audience (e.g. Jenkin's line: "what was mom going to do with the game console when her kids were at school?"). This is where we see companies encouraging consumer's to spread the news about their products or about a promotion in exchange for rewards, benefits, discounts etc.
Therefore the way that media industries operate and the way we consume news and information is now very different. However, I believe it is still inherently, human nature. We are people who crave human contact. We like to socialise and essentially, the reason why this new system of networking works is because it emphasises the network. I like to read things that my friend's and family recommend to me because I know that it will surely be something that interests me. I am less cynical of using a product recommended to me by my friend as opposed to one recommended to me by an annoying advertisement on tv. I am more likely to listen to my network of friends rather than the capitalist advertiser.
It is this new world that the advertiser is now starting to use and abuse - but in the end, it is still up to us to spread the news!
And as always - with media comes social consequences/benefits (whichever way you tend to lean).
Jenkins lays these out for us quite well. It will alter the relationship between existing technologies, industries, markets, genres and audiences.... it will alter the logic behind how media industries operate and how we as media consumers process news and entertainment. I thought I'd just have a quick look through this point today as it was one of the key things that stood out for me this week.
Convergence alters the relationship between existing technologies:
Yes, I agree with that. An easy example of this is the relationship between mobile, camera and mp3 is now very different thanks to the smartphone. While technology used to be separate, we are seeing an increase in different forms of media combining and merging to become super media appliances for our "convenience."
Convergence alters the relationship between existing industries, markets and audiences:
True. The way that industries, corporations, marketing and promotions act and think has had to change dramatically to suit the new times. In the past, a company could be pretty sure their advertisements would be reaching the audience by simply placing it in a newspaper, television or even radio! This was because this was the primary source of information and it could be assumed that most people would be reading this. Now? We get our information largely from other sources (see: social networking, internet) which are much harder for companies to control in the traditional manner of simple advertisements. Instead, they need to act smarter, think intuitively and change their marketing strategies. That is where we start to see a product being able to do multiple things in order to suit a wider audience (e.g. Jenkin's line: "what was mom going to do with the game console when her kids were at school?"). This is where we see companies encouraging consumer's to spread the news about their products or about a promotion in exchange for rewards, benefits, discounts etc.
Therefore the way that media industries operate and the way we consume news and information is now very different. However, I believe it is still inherently, human nature. We are people who crave human contact. We like to socialise and essentially, the reason why this new system of networking works is because it emphasises the network. I like to read things that my friend's and family recommend to me because I know that it will surely be something that interests me. I am less cynical of using a product recommended to me by my friend as opposed to one recommended to me by an annoying advertisement on tv. I am more likely to listen to my network of friends rather than the capitalist advertiser.
It is this new world that the advertiser is now starting to use and abuse - but in the end, it is still up to us to spread the news!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)