Category: Patty Wittenburg

This week I chose to answer a classmate’s questions.

Erika asked: For my research project, I studied children’s interaction with the media. In these websites, we are reading about people have virtual worlds with their churches. Will this stretch out into schools? How will children be affected by virtual reality, specifically in an educational environment?

I have recently been seeing commercials for online high school.  It appears that it works in the same way that college online works and allows students to work from home at their own rate.  I think that this could be a positive thing for some students but probably not for all.  If a student, for instance did not feel comfortable in a school environment or if they were made fun of school this seems like the perfect solution for them. If they are particularly social, it seems that they would not like to be separated from other students in this way.  As far as how children are affected by this I guess time will tell!

She also asked: What makes virtual worlds a new idea, separate from other digital environments like video games? How can I relate this to how children will relate to media in the upcoming years?

Virtual environments are different for a number of reasons but I think the most prevalent is customization.  A user in Second Life is able to create their own goods to wear or sell.  While in a video game a user can generally just choose from a set list of clothes that have already been made. I think that this will relate to how children view media because they will want everything to be as customizable as possible, in fact they will expect it.  So, I think that games need to be as customizable as possible.

1. How far is too far?  That is with everything going virtual is there a limit?  And who is policing all of this?  With all of the unethical problems that Second Life has, who is watching over the innocent and naive people that log onto the website such as Miss Avatar?

2. As we viewed in the video in class, many people are developing Internet dependency issues.  Will this spark a whole new track of study in medicine?  It seems that since it is becoming such a big problem there will need to be a remedy for it.

3. Are online lives dangerous to younger generations?  That is they have grown up with these personas but are they aware of the dangers that are involved?  Are there media awareness classes? And if not is there a need for them?

For my first question I asked: In class we have discussed the evolution of in game advertisements.  Just how effective are these?  What is the market for these?

As we saw in the movie in class some in game advertisements are incredibly ineffective such as the Second Life clothing brands.  These in game virtual clothes were pretty much useless and did not gain the companies that put them out very much money.  Other in game advertisements are very effective.  As a group that presented last week showed, Obama advertised on in game billboards and these were seen as a success.

My second question was: In class we discussed how video gaming has increased recently.  Is this due to the fact that gaming systems such as the Wii, or more recently the Kinect is bringing the entire family into the game?  If this is true, why does this ad campaign work for these modern games when it didn’t work as well for the Atari.

I think that gaming has increased for multiple reasons.  First of all games have become much more affordable.  When the Atari first came out games cost about the same as they do now.  Also, games are much more accessible and gaming systems are in homes across the country.  There are also a variety of systems the choose from and most games have versions across all platforms.  Finally, while gaming has gotten much more advanced so have basic skill levels.  That is, most know how to play video games pretty instinctively since gaming has been around for so long.

My final question was: The music industry has been falling since the introduction of Napster in the 1990s, but with games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero, music is being put out there more so than it has been in years.  Has this affected the music industry at all?  As in are people purchasing albums based on songs they love to play on their favorite video games?

From the brief research I’ve done on the Internet, my presumptions about the music industry do not seem to be true.  If anything, more songs are being downloaded illegally now than ever before.

1. In class we have discussed the evolution of in game advertisements.  Just how effective are these?  What is the market for these?

2. In class we discussed how video gaming has increased recently.  Is this due to the fact that gaming systems such as the Wii, or more recently the Kinect is bringing the entire family into the game?  If this is true, why does this ad campaign work for these modern games when it didn’t work as well for the Atari.

3. The music industry has been falling since the introduction of Napster in the 1990s, but with games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero, music is being put out there more so than it has been in years.  Has this effected the music industry at all?  As in are people purchasing albums based on songs they love to play on their favorite video games?

I asked:
In Obama’s political campaign he utilized Social Media outlets to the best of his capabilities and it was considered a groundbreaking technique. Is this just new to The United States, or has this ever been done anywhere before?

As we learned in class, Segolene Royal, a French Politician tried to make a name for herself on the Internet, and this was a first among political campaigns as well. However, after I have looked over her website it is very plain and basic in comparison to Obama’s approach. Royal’s campaign was before President Obama’s, and while it was a new approach it wasn’t very interactive. Royal’s website had a few videos and some updates but that was about it. She did not utilize the Internet the way that she could have. As far as my Internet research on this topic goes, I haven’t seen any other campaigns as new and groundbreaking as President Obama’s was. That having been said, there are many new technologies that Obama took advantage of that others, such as McCain, failed to do. The videos we watched in class were a prime example of how technology hurt McCain as much as it helped Obama. In the first video McCain shows how strongly he feels on Republican issues, even calling himself a “True Conservative.” The other ad claimed he was an “Original Maverick.” These two conflicting viewpoints that he put out confused people. His strategy was to appeal to everyone, but in doing so he turned people off because they did not know what to believe about him. Before the Internet Age this tactic may have worked but in our common Internet Age, it backfired on him. People could view his conservitive ad and then view his maverick ad one after another. These ads were clearly not meant for everybody, yet many people saw both, discrediting McCain’s word. The mere fact that McCain’s campaign was not Internet savvy may have been the reason he did not win the 2008 elections.

With all of this citizen written and reposted journalism, is there any way to for a reader to tell which stories are professionally written and true and which aren’t?

Is there a fear, or problem with people receiving incorrect information via meta-journalism? Has there been a case where it has happened on a big scale?

In Obama’s political campaign he utilized Social Media outlets to the best of his capabilities and it was considered a groundbreaking technique. Is this just new to The United States, or has this never been done anywhere before?

In Chris Anderson’s book “Free,” he discusses freeconomics, which is the practice of giving things away for free bundled up with other things.  For instance, if you sign up for TimeWarner Cable for twelve months, you will get a free DVR.  It is basically a way for companies to get you to try their product by giving away incentives.

This model seems to have worked for years.  But exactly how well does it work.  We know that it helps to get exposure to new ideas and inventions such as in Gillette’s case, but what about across all industries?  Radiohead gave their fans the option to download their album, “In Rainbows,” for whatever price they choose to pay.  This model worked very well, and fans on average paid around six dollars per CD.  Radiohead, however, is a very well known band with many followers.  Would this model work with an unknown band or artist?  Would people even care enough to download their album for free let alone make a donation to the band to listen to the music?

Anderson also mentions many websites that offer free services, such as Google.  Google offers a search engine, maps and email, all free to the public.  These services are free to the naked eye, but I would argue that they aren’t exactly free.  While Google’s search engine gives us free results, those results are often rated based on which company has bid higher for the rights to the search.  The same things goes for Google’s Gmail.  If I happen to receive an email about a recently booked vacation in Florida in my Gmail inbox, an ad banner with hotel prices in Florida and local attractions will pop up.  Many of these websites also require that you give them your information to get started, such as name, age, gender, address, etc.  So my question is – is this really free?  If we are giving our information away and viewing results that were paid for are these services even though we may not have actually spent any monetary value on these services there has to be some value on what we are being forced to view and which information we have to share to participate.

Going off of the Google example, Anderson discusses GoogleDocs, another free Google service.  Anderson says that he no longer uses Microsoft Word since he has discovered GoogleDocs.  He cites the following reasons:  It does all that Word Processors do, it is available from all locations, it is stored at a remote, safe, location, so your computer can not crash and lose your work, multiple people can share the document at once, and of course it is free!  Before this program I had never used GoogleDocs before, and to be honest I’m not the biggest fan of the service, but I think that may be because I am so used to Word that it is hard for me to change services, no matter the benefits.  My question is:  will GoogleDocs be the new Word?  As big companies put out these free versions of otherwise expensive products will consumers move towards to free products?  Will everyone one day use GoogleDocs, forcing Microsoft to offer their service as free on all new computers?

Nicole asked: I wonder, why should we assume ourselves to be computers simply because we work with them, specifically in regard to MIDI?

According to good old Wikipedia, a MIDI is a Musical Instrument Digital Interface. Which is basically a way of allowing all musical instruments to work together digitally through computer interfaces.

I think that Lanier’s point was that music pre-MIDI was extremely dynamic and rich. A MIDI is able to take all of those sounds and place them into the diameters of a rigid system. That is not to say that music is no longer dynamic or robust in nature, but it is becoming more computerized. This makes me think of bands like “The Postal Service,” while their music is very interesting, it has an incredibly computerized MIDI sound to it.

It seems to me that Lanier’s fear is that one day we will all be put into small diameters like music has been put into MIDI notes. I’m not sure that I believe his theory in whole but I understand where he is coming from. People are categorized by their Facebook likes and interests, and by what they post on Twitter. It is as if we are making ourselves small enough to fit into status boxes all on our own. I think that Lanier’s point is that we should try to break free from this digital mold and be different like music can be different than just the regimented notes that MIDI provides for it.

On page 21 of “You Are Not a Gadget,” Jaron Lanier states some ways he believes modern Internet users should strive to be considered, ” a person instead of a source of fragments to be exploited by others.” He goes on to explain that there are many dangers in letting computers becomes smarter. He believes in some ways, such as when windows auto corrects something that the user did not want corrected. Everyone has had this happen to them, and it’s not only annoying, but as Lanier points out, actually more time consuming.
My question is – What is better? The old way of having to do everything for yourself? Or this new way we’ve become accustomed to? Obviously every way has it’s pros and cons but are we better for all of the technology that we have?

On page 68 Lanier discusses “personal reductionism,” on Facebook. He talks about how people choose their statuses and which information they put into to represent themselves. He argues that this makes the info less personal because it essentially being put into a system and organized based on “common interests.”
My question is, in a world where online dating has become such a popular phenomenon, how does this work? Answers on dating websites seem to me to be just as impersonal. In this regard, according to Lanier they should fail miserably, but they seem to be pretty successful. How is that?

In that same section Lanier discusses how Facebook has become a somewhat fake world for the “Facebook Generation,” to hide behind. Their words, emotions and relationships are all identified by “statuses.”
My question on this is, are these feeling and emotions any less dynamic of important than past generations? What I mean is, are teens feeling becoming more mainstreamed to fit into a little box on their Facebook page? Or are they just as they’ve always been dynamic and meaningful, just shared differently than before?

According to Benkler, ” The first-generation critique of democratizing effect of the Internet was based on various implications of problem of information overload, or the Babel objection. According to the Babel objection, when everyone can speak, no one came be heard, and we devolved either to a cacophony or to the reemergence of money as the distinguishing factors between statements that are heard and those that wallow in obscurity. ”

Benkler basically says that many site go unnoticed, which is true since there are billions of sites, but is it really true that with every speaking, no one is heard? Or does the speaker just need to express themselves in a different way?

I think a little bit more about this and I definitely think that the speaker just needs to speak in a clear and or unique way.  With all of the voices in the world it is hard to hear just one but it is possible.  Look at phenomenons like popular blogs or YouTube videos.  While there may be millions of people on the Internet fighting for everyone’s attention there has to be a reason why certain blogs are known by everyone and certain YouTube videos have millions of views.  Since most of these posters are everyday people, they embody the idea of ‘everyone speaking.’  These people, however, were able to be heard so I think that it is more about the content of the message and the way that it is portrayed that is really important.

Benkler also says that because of the Internet, free information is available everywhere, and easier to put out by anyone.

Thinking ahead to my research project, how does this affect advertising? Does a multi-billion dollar ad campaign run by coca-cola or a small internet run campaign, such as “The Story of Stuff,” gain more attention, if the message is for the betterment of society?

I think that this question directly relates to my first question.  Since a company like Coca-cola can afford to get their message and their brand out everywhere consumers look from television to movies to billboards I think that Coca-cola would gain more attention just because they are a globally run company and a household name.  Where as a smaller campaign such as “The Story of Stuff,” will be seen by less people but that may be okay.  “The Story of Stuff” doesn’t necessarily need to be a worldwide campaign to make the impact that it needs, while Coca-cola does need to be seen worldwide.  The Internet lets the general masses put their opinions out there no matter how valid, and a smaller website may be able to reach thousands of users at once, and before the internet it would only be able to reach  dozens.  For marketing and advertising purposes, the Internet lets smaller companies and causes get their ideas out there.

Benkler discusses Wikipedia, and how it is a site governed by the people. He discusses how the website is so well policed by the people that even when acts of vandalism are committed they are reverted back to their original format very quickly. He suggests that this keeps the group on track. Is this true? Is that really why Wikipedia is so successful today? It seems to me that such a website would fail because there are so many people in the world to edit out or edit in content so that it is to their liking. Do social norms really help to police the website?