Category: Kimberly Wolfe

1. In the book “Free” Chris Anderson talks about video game advertising and how internet games allow advertisers to continually update their advertisements as opposed to building them into the original game, making them impossible to update. Does this change in advertisements make advertising more expensive and time consuming for advertisers since they can constantly update it? How much outcome must they get in order for this expense and time to be worth it?

2. If giving free samples is so beneficial, why don’t more companies partake? I realize it’s mostly start up companies that benefit from it, but wouldn’t a “free burger” day from McDonald’s seriously benefit them? Because most people would also buy fries and a drink to go along with it.

3. In chapter 16, Anderson that free is no longer a trick. That “Trickery is no longer an essential part of the model”. I don’t believe that to be true. In fact, I think that because of the internet it is almost easier to “trick” someone into having them pay for something free. Think about all of the pop-up ads that make you think if you click a box it will go away, but doing that just takes you to another page, selling some sort of product? Doesn’t the free access of the internet actually make it much easier to trick someone into buying things?

1. In chapter 2 in The Wealth of Networks, Benkler discusses how information production is non-rival and that we have a lack of information access because of copyright law and copyrighted information. But because we have access to free information via wikipedia and other websites, doesn’t that dismiss this idea? That now because of volunteers we have a whole plethora of information at our fingertips (literally)?

Response: Although I think that information via free websites such as wikipedia are helpful in a lot of ways, it is all secondary information. People that post on this website are getting their information from various articles, journals, novels, etc. In order to get primary information (which is what most people are looking for when researching a topic) most would have to subscribe to a journal or another form of information. As we discussed in class, this DOES make it difficult for people who want to access certain information to create their own information difficult. But, then again, without copyright law, and without the incentive to make money off of original information, many wouldn’t bother to come up with or post their information. In that case, information would be impossible to obtain. So, it’s either pay for information, or not have it available to you at all.

2. In chapter 3, Benkler talks about the relevancy and credibility of peer produced information. Although relevancy is subjective, how do we measure the credibility of content? To go along with the previous question, wouldn’t it be smart to pay someone to put information onto wikipedia rather than allowing volunteers to post whatever they want at will? Information coming from someone who is getting paid to post that information is more likely to be valid, right?

After thinking about this question, I came up with the conclusion that there is no need to pay anyone to write on wikipedia. We had a long conversation in class about wikipedia and how it is actually incredibly reliable. As one video tutorial of wikipedia showed, it takes mere minutes for people to clean up spam in wikipedia. Also, in order for information to stay in wikipedia, they must be able to prove that their information came from a reliable source. If this cannot be proven, the information promptly gets removed. So, when it comes to wikipedia, and possibly other “cumulative information” websites, they are actually quite credible and reliable.

3. In chapter 10 Benkler discusses networking. It made me think about job opportunities and how it is a good idea to be on social networks such as twitter so you can “follow” a company that you might be interested in working for. Job networking has certainly moved to the internet but will it be the primary source of networking in the future? What are the advantages and disadvantages if this does happen?

Although I think it will take a while for the internet to be the primary source of job networking, it is certainly moving in that direction. Especially for people that are trying to get jobs in the categories that we are working in (web publishing, interactive media, digital design, social networking, etc.) all we hear about is how we need to get our names out there on the internet, because companies are looking for people who blog or tweet consistently. However with other majors is might be unnecessary to be on a social network website. The advantages to this is it might be a lot easier to find available jobs on the internet. People are posting job opportunities on various websites everyday. Specifically, they post on website that someone they are looking to hire might visit every once in a while. A disadvantage would be that people in certain majors would find it unnecessary to have to search online for job opportunities or networking. Why would someone who is an English major feel the need to tweet to find a job? A medical major planning to become a doctor certainly shouldn’t have to join LinkedIn to “connect” with hospitals that are hiring. So like I said before, online job networking is becoming very prevalent, but it will take some time before it becomes a primary source.

For week three, I have decided to answer someone else’s question:

When reading chapter 5, I couldn’t help but think of the movie “The DaVinci Code” as I was reading about human beings unique ability to engage in symbolic communication. Symbols have been apart of our society and apart of our communication process since the beginning of humanity. But the chapter says that communication has not been in mass form since the beginning, that mass communication is a fairly new concept. But in a way, because the masses have understood and used symbols since the beginning of time, could this not be considered an aspect of mass communication?

In reference to the part about mass communication being a one-way communication flow mediated and enhanced by technology. R & V said that mass communication used to give little opportunity for immediate feedback from the audience, but new media technologies are changing this. Will these new and evolving media technologies change the way we think about mass communication and lead us into a new paradigm shift?

McQuail notes the perceived purposes of mass media (providing a window on events or a mirror to events, filtering or serving as gatekeeper for info reaching the audience, being a guide to interpret events, offering a forum for the presentation of ideas, and disseminating information). Are there other purposes for mass media? What other similarities do these purposes have?

1. I agree with you on this concept. I think that the term “mass communication” is used very differently now than is was “back in the beginning”, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. I guess the best way to completely answer this question is to define what exactly mass communication is. Obviously mass communication described for today would be communication through some form of media to a large population of people. The first form of mass communication through media would probably be through the radio. However, radio wasn’t used commercially until the 1920′s. So, what about before then? I think that mass communication without some form of media would just be communicating to a large number of people. When I think about that, I think about organized religion. Religion has been around forever, and priests, reverends, rabbi’s, imam’s etc. have communicated their version of the message of God to a very large number of people for centuries, millennia! To say that mass communication through a form of media is a new thing would definitely make sense, media hasn’t been around that long. But to say mass communication is a new concept, in my opinion, is just wrong.

2. This is exactly what we are studying, right? Interactive media. Not only sending a message but also receiving feedback. I definitely think that as media changes and evolves into the new forms interactive media that will come, it will (and has) change the way we think about mass communication. Comparatively, I think about regular newspaper compared to online newspaper. A simple letter to the editor would normally take about a week to be published into the newspaper. Now, a lot of different news sites have an available response area right under the article. Another example of this is reality television competition, like American Idol. Even when you had to call in and vote, it would take a while to get all the votes in because someone had to answer and respond to every call. Now, you can vote online AND through text messages! They could literally open the polls at the beginning of the show and have all the votes after the hour. Things are changing. Hope we can keep up!

3. I just racked my brain for about 20 minutes ( I even asked my roommate for help) and could not come up with another purpose for mass media. In my mind, and based on what I have read, mass communication is various means by which individuals and entities relay information through mass media to large segments of the population at the same time. I don’t think I could say that in any different way than McQuail already did. I wish I could come up with a better answer than that.

1. In chapter 2 in The Wealth of Networks, Benkler discusses how information production is non-rival and that we have a lack of information access because of copyright law and copyrighted information. But because we have access to free information via wikipedia and other websites, doesn’t that dismiss this idea? That now because of volunteers we have a whole plethora of information at our fingertips (literally)?

2. In chapter 3, Benkler talks about the relevancy and credibility of peer produced information. Although relevancy is subjective, how do we measure the credibility of content? To go along with the previous question, wouldn’t it be smart to pay someone to put information onto wikipedia rather than allowing volunteers to post whatever they want at will? Information coming from someone who is getting paid to post that information is more likely to be valid, right?

3. In chapter 10 Benkler discusses networking. It made me think about job opportunities and how it is a good idea to be on social networks such as twitter so you can “follow” a company that you might be interested in working for. Job networking has certainly moved to the internet but will it be the primary source of networking in the future? What are the advantages and disadvantages if this does happen?

Online shopping and online fashion have become progressively more popular in the last decade. Since the late 1990’s, an increasing number of consumers purchase increasingly diversified products on the Internet, making it a source to be reckoned with. According to CNET, a new report by Forrester Research shows that by 2014, online sales are expected to reach $248.7 billion, or 8% of the total retail sales in the United States. The most interesting aspect of this article is that apparel, accessories, and footwear hit $27 billion alone last year, a 17 percent jump over 2008. According to the article, Forrester expects this market to outpace that of overall online retail sales over the next five years.
While shopping and the Internet overall have become more sophisticated, consumers and so-called “fashonistas” are gaining instant gratification with quicker access to the newest trends. Rather than waiting for the next catalog or magazine to state what should be worn in the following winter season, shoppers can simply log onto twitter and read the latest tweet from Urban Outfitters: “It’s here… The Fall Catalog! http://bit.ly/d65nDa”. According to an article by Tim Jackson, there are some fast on-line fashion services that “post photographs from the runway shows at key fashion weeks almost as they are happening” (Hines). This immediate fulfillment to be the first to know what the latest trends are is like any other addiction, we want MORE, MORE, MORE, NOW!
Not only are consumers now able to discover the latest trends as soon as they hit the runway, they can also broadcast their opinions on blogs and other online forums. Before the first day of school teens can post on the fashion blogs or message boards what is “in” and “out”. They can give advice on what to wear to the first day of school or to the big dance. Fashion blogs are popular as the subjective nature of fashion encourages endless discussion. This type of widespread discussion can be both hurtful and helpful to new trends. While multiple blogs deeming a certain garment to be outdated or just plain ugly will certainly send it straight to the sales rack, some companies are using blogs as a way to reach out to their consumers online and build a community. Whether it is by starting a blog about a designer, asking for customer reviews, or becoming present on a social network, brands are engaging and listening to their customer blogs.
So the question is, what are designers and clothing manufacturers doing about this incredibly fast-paced online fashion environment? Surely there has been a dramatic change in the rapidity that trends are going in and out of style since the development of the Internet and online shopping. Through different methods such as interviews and surveys I intend to discover how the fashion industry is keeping up with the high-paced input and output of different fashion trends.

While reading chapter five, specifically about mass communications, I couldn’t help but think about social networks. I know they were originally intended for small communications (connecting with friends) but for some, they have turned into something more. When I think about twitter, Ashton Kutcher, every “tweet” he sends out reaches over 1 million followers. So, by knowing this, how can understanding mass communication help social networking sites such as twitter expand? Can they make a new platform that is specifically for mass communicators rather than having one for both?

If people are dependent upon media, and media is constantly changing, how do people that control the media decide where to output the information first?  If their story isn’t going to be on the news until say 7:30 that night, will they just go ahead and post the information on their website and twitter, or do they wait until the (almost) most traditional form of media — television– is ready for it?

What theories in interactive media are the most controversial and/or the most discussed in the media?

Although interactive media is relatively new, there have still been many changes regarding mass audiences since it came out, such as technological updates, user content, advertising schemes etc. How have the theories in interactive media adjusted to these changes?

Lastly, how can understanding theories applied to mass audiences help me as a professional? And because interactive media is changing so rapidly, how do I, as an individual, keep up with the changing theories that go along with it?