The Persuaders

* Neuromarketing ( psychological ) [11/30/2010]
This is the science of selling. It helps reach the part of the brain that makes decisions. The companies may use focus groups to interview. The information that is received may be used to create advertisements or change a product. Neuromarketing is where people try to understand the consumer (why they buy what they buy, needs and impulses, thoughts, appeal, etc). It is referred to as "the code." Appeal is used to relate to the consumer.
 Example: When people think of SUV's, they think of domination. This is why these vehicles seem more intimidating and big; the people creating the products made vehicles bigger, with tinted windows to appeal to the "domination" feeling needed from the cars for the consumers (Rapaille).

* Emotional branding [12/3/2010]
80% of life is emotion, only 20% is intellect. Questions that may help measure emotions are agree/disagree or believe/disbelieve. Lunts believes that you have to use certain words to describe your policy. Different words resonate with people differently, and this causes a larger emotional reaction. Some believe that emotional branding may be hiding what is fact (political advertising).
Example: Words like, "In with the good, out with the bad..." are going to make a policy sell better. "Estate tax vs Death tax."Some people use the words "Global climate change" as opposed to "Global warming." In the video, people also used a special message catered to each demographic group in order to find out what people would react to in the political campaigning. 

* Branding/creating a culture around a brand [12/3/10]
Branding creates an identity. Wikipedia notes, "Some people distinguish the psychological aspect, brand associations like thoughts, feelings, perceptions, images, experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and so on that become linked to the brand, of a brand from the experiential aspect." All of this creates an experience. Branding is meant to be noticed.
Example: The breast cancer logo can be recognized anywhere. Different products are sold with the logo in order to create awareness or make money. Images can be used as well, but the logo is always included to make sure it is branded and noticed. Our culture notices this symbol anywhere. It has become second nature to see a pink ribbon and think breast cancer. It impacts us anywhere we see it. It is a common brand that is known all over the world.

* Narrowcasting [12/3/10]
Narrowcasting is used to reach a specific list of people. Narrowcasting is used to appeal to a specific set of people. Consumers react to this because we like to hear that we come first. Human nature is to be selfish. We want to come first, so we like when people or companies seem to be directed toward us.
Example: Democrats in the video stated that they use a computer system to narrow down different lists of people. This may be based on a specific profile. This profiling can be used to send emails to people who are likely to vote for a specific individual. Cable television could also be used as a broad example. People subscribe to cable television, so it reaches a certain set of people. Song used, "Welcome aboard you savvy shopper you."

* Rhetorical marketing [12/3/10]
Rhetorical marketing has an impact through ethos, pathos and logos. This means that it appeals to emotion, logic, and beliefs or ideas.  This is used in different types of advertising such as emotional marketing. It is done by picking the right words in advertising to successfully persuade. This can be done through text, visuals, and logos in advertising.
Example: An example from a PDF document notes a shampoo commercial: “Helps control dandruff symptoms with regular use.” The weasels include 'helps control,' and possibly even 'symptoms' and 'regular use,' both of which are vague. The claim is not that the product 'stops dandruff.' The way the company plays on words is an example of rhetorical marketing.

* Under the radar marketing[12/3/10]
This is when something is made to go unnoticed, or look like something it is not.
Example: When the Boston Harold made their newspaper to look like the New York Times in the video shown in class. Or, when you type in the wrong URL to a web page, a similar looking page comes up.


* Across-media marketing[12/3/10]
Across media marketing is used to market a specific product anywhere, as opposed to just on commercials or billboards, or traditional advertising spots. A company may put their product in a movie to grab attention of the people watching the movie. This crosses over with product placement.
Example: An example of this may be coca-cola being the only soda throughout a movie. People may be buying specific products such as a Dell computer, or an iPod. These products are not just on advertisements, but the companies are paying to advertise them in movies or posters, etc. 


* Product placement across media [12/3/10]
Example: When you are checking out at a grocery store, the magazines and candies (also known as impulse items) are put near the register. This is placed near the register because you have to wait in line next to the products. Many people find these items unnecessary, but hard to resist. Also, grocery stores put dip near the chips. Often, because of this placement, people buy both the chips and the dip, even though the really go in for only the chips. Because the products compliment each other, and they are placed close to one another, people are more likely to buy them together. One final example is when a specific product is presented in a movie. A Dell computer be presented in a movie.

Democratization on the Internet

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?


Currently, the internet seems to be using a form of direct democracy. Any individual has the ability to post anything on the internet for anyone to see. There is no fact checking or certainty behind anything that is available on the internet. All too often people use information that is found on the internet in papers or to support theories without checking the author's credibility. When we go online to search for information, we usually take the first supporting detail we see without researching validity. This could be a problem because a paper or supportive material for a theory may be based on fabricated evidence. This can be avoided if the researcher takes the time to use multiple sources and fact check everything they are learning. People have the ability to look for credible sources and sift through for plausible information. If people take the time to correctly do research, this should not cause a problem. A direct democracy on the internet is actually beneficial because there are many points of views. If we used a representative democracy, not every point of view would be available. Everybody has a voice on the internet; personal stories and experiences could be beneficial to specific audience members. If a representative democracy was put in place, we would no longer have such a wide range in freedom of speech. Everything on the internet would have to be right or wrong, there would be no room for opinion. People go on the internet because it is a direct democracy and everybody fits in somewhere, not everybody can be represented in a representative democracy.We should keep the direct democracy that is currently in place, a representative democracy would only create more censoring. 


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 refers to how anybody can post anything because of the way the internet is set up with a direct democracy. Some clear examples of direct democracy would be YouTube, Blogger, any forums, Facebook, etc. Anybody could create a website and get thousands of hits per day. There is no need to be a professional to be able to contribute to the information on the internet. 


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?


a) The concept of silos is that people only search within a certain bias. If someone was pro life, they may only search for reasons why abortion should be illegal, or they may search for forums of people with similar beliefs. The same would go for someone who is pro choice. It is possible that neither side of the debate looks at the points that the other side makes. Silos are often very biased and opinionated. People may get wrapped up in an idea without doing much research on it. This is a danger of the direct democracy on the internet, but it is a right that people have that should not be taken away. 
b) Silos are entirely possible and it is probable that they exist. I feel as though they are not as prevalent as Andrew Keen may think because conversations are allowed. Because the internet is a direct democracy, people can share opinions. If a pro life individual were searching abortion rights on the internet, they may come across a pro choice website. This can spark conversation or debate. Debates are beneficial to help see both sides of a belief. Silos are possible, but because of the wide range of information on the internet, I feel like all sides of each topic are easily findable, even for people who do not go searching. 


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?


Expertise or authority is usually needed to post information on a government, educational or organizational website. The organizational information may be biased, but it often makes sure to provide valid sources or credentials. When researching specific topics, it would be smart to use websites such as these because they are fact checked. Also, books and online databases that are often offered at libraries are usually fact checked. These are reliable and acceptable to use on school papers and research projects. The government is usually behind these forces. This could be a good or a bad thing. If the government feels it is important for them to censor something, there will be underlying information that is not released to the people, but we know that the information is generally accepted by the public. I think it is good to have sites like these because we know they are generally accepted, but I also think the .com websites could be beneficial because they show opinion and practice of freedom of speech. I have always found it beneficial to look at all different types of sources when trying to prove a point. 
Example: Government documents are not available because of national security. Some people believe that it is fair that everything is readily available. One young man hacked into a government safe site and posted confidential documents for everyone to see. If there were no opinion websites, this might happen more because when people are given a restraint, they often break through it. This also may show that .com websites could cause a threat.


5. 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.


Alerts, opinions, support groups, online video/voice business arrangements, etc. Everything is being put online. We need to have the latest form of technology to be able to keep up with society. 


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


My personal opinion is that democracy is strengthened by the unchecked nature of the internet. Anything is available to anybody. Anybody has the right to speak and share what they think, believe, or study. This is what democracy is. A representative democracy would limit the voice of the common people, which I think would be limiting the available democracy we have with the direct democracy that we currently have online. 

The Great Seduction

1. Keen does not support democratized media. He talks about how it has become a method of seduction. Keen mentions how democratized media has allowed the undermining of truth, thievery of work, and the belittling of expertise. People no longer need a degree in journalism to publish their work; they can go online and start a website or a blog. This exemplifies the belittling of experience. This site [www.blogspot.com] is actually one of the many blog sites that allows for anybody to create a blog without writing experience. All one needs is a computer to start up their site. Along with not needing a degree in journalism, people no longer need a degree in radio/tv/film in order to create films. There are videos posted on youtube all the time that receive more hits/views that some movies receive. In Keen's interview with Google, he also touches on the subject of lack of pay. On the internet, you make little to no money. People are posting these videos [personal or pirated] and blogs for free, which are stealing audiences from news papers and movie theaters. Credibility has been lost along with the lack of need for a degree. Anybody can post anything. The demand for these democratized mediums are increasing while the demand for professions (money costing) media is either staying the same, or possibly even decreasing.

2. Keen and Rushkoff's views on today's media are on complete different ends of the spectrum. Keen believes that though we have the ability to use technology in a positive way, we are using it in a way that is damaging society. He thinks that we are so far gone in the democratized media that there is no return to "safe ground." Rushkoff believes that the advancing technology has enabled us to advance in social media in a way that can benefit our culture. Rushkoff believes that this will let the public take control and set their agenda in the media, rather than the media setting an agenda for society.
I see, and completely agree with many of Keen's ideas, but I would have to side with Rushkoff. Keen is too negative. There are so many things that the media has allowed us to do, that we could not have done before. There is so much information to be shared, people can help others from across the country, everybody can stay connected with one another, and so much more. Yes, the need for a degree in specific fields has become unnecessary, but the benefits seem to outweigh the consequences. I believe that there is a right way and a wrong way to use the media. I know many people use it in a negative way, but I believe it has overwhelmingly  had good outcomes.

Comment to my Partner

Because I was not here when we picked partners, I chose to comment on Adiaroz Diaz's paper. He wrote about Crowd/Out Sourcing, which I did not see anybody else do. I thought this would be an interesting and unique paper to provide my input on.

Commenting Back on Digital Nation

I was not here last class, so I did not have a partner to respond to. Instead of responding to a partner, I commented on 3 other posts.

I commented on the following posts:
Stephanie Robinett
Ashley Casiano
Tom Landers

Digital Nation

               Since technology has amplified in popularity and modernism, connectivity between individuals has increase all over the world. This jolt in popularity has sparked debate; there are people who are disgraced by the way technology can be used and the impacts it has on people, while others are astonished at how it benefits society.
                Social networking is increasing in popularity by the minute. Millions of people belong to at least one social networking site. As the number of social networking sites increase, the number of sites people belong to seem to rise. It used to be that everybody just had a MySpace. Then, Facebook became the “next big thing.” Following Facebook was Twitter. Though Facebook seems to hold the popular vote, many Facebook account holders also have a MySpace or Twitter account. We need it all; we feel left out if we don’t have it all. It is as if we are addicted to the gossip.
                The addiction to gossip has lead to many heartbreaking stories. Not only do people access social networking sites or stay connected via computer, but they also do it from cell phones. Teenagers feel that it is so important to stay connected, that they cannot even put their phone down to drive. Hundreds, if not thousands of people die every year because of this addiction. Laws have been put in place to prevent these events from taking place, but people are so attracted to the gossip and updates that they are willing to risk tickets, murder, or their own death. It has become a serious problem.
                Society has changed. We are no longer wrapped up in our own lives, but everybody else’s as well. With each of these social networking accounts, we can keep tabs on any of our friends (real life, or virtual). Privacy had diminished. With the loss of privacy came the loss of trust. We can no longer trust people we meet online. There are too many people that take advantage of technology. There are sex offenders, murderers, rapists, and people with nothing better to do than cause trouble. A while ago when MySpace was still popular, a mother actually took advantage of one of her child’s classmates. The mother made a MySpace account to appear as if she were some boy. Of course, the younger girl believed it was really this alleged boy, because there was nothing to make her think otherwise. It ended in tragedy. The mother said terrible things to her daughter’s classmate; she felt worthless and alone. The girl committed suicide. If it were not for the lack of privacy, restraints and protection online, this would have never happened. Cyber bulling has grown exponentially since the social networking sites have taken off. There is no system that checks to make sure you are who you say you are. Anybody could pretend to be anyone. Privacy and safety are nonexistent when one signs online.
                Though there are people who suffer from addiction, who take advantage of the system, and those who have lost all privacy they have ever had by participating in this social networking, there are also people who use the connectivity for good. There are organizations that reach out via social networking. The Biggest Loser has its own “Pound for Pound” challenge on Facebook. This not only encourages donation, but spreads awareness on obesity. It gives people something to be a part of, and could potentially save many lives. There are also sites that use message boards. Sometimes people feel they have nobody in real life to talk to, so they turn to cyber space. Because of anonymity, people are able to reach out for help. There is always someone that is willing to help, and that someone is much easier to find online than in a phonebook.
                Yes, there are downfalls to the connectivity that technology provides. If people practice safe social networking, and remember that it is only virtual, it can be a positive experience. There will always be the fear that technology will be our demise, but if we continue teaching cyber, social privacy safety, we might be able to withstand the off-sets.

A video that I feel would support my view on how identity, anonymity and life are much different online than they are in real life is "Online by Brad Paisley"

Everything is Different Online - Click this link to view the video

Discussion Questions

Personally, I am not a fan of the amateur videos. Thinking more on a societal level though, I do think the population creating these videos and advertisements will continue to grow. I feel as though society enjoys watching these videos because it gives us a sense of relation to the actors/participants, and it appears more realistic. People enjoy relating to people, and prying into their lives (whether it be a professional amateur or an actual amateur film). YouTube is the perfect example of prying into other people's lives via actual amateur films, while Cloverfield is a good example of a professional amateur movie that appeals to the public through allusion of reality. 
I am a chronic "Facebooker". When school is not in session, I find myself sitting on facebook day in and day out. I feel like it is a constant update of all of my friends and the people around me. Even if I cannot physically be with a friend, I know what they are up to. We can chat, message or post messages for all friends to see. I feel like Facebook is here to stay for a while. It seems to be catching up with all of the new mediums that are released. It stays up to date with technology while letting people stay connected to their friends. 

When school is in session, though, it is a different story. I rarely have time for Facebook. I try to go on once a week to make sure I get to talk to friends that are no longer local. I think it is a great way to catch up. Yes, it is addicting, but I also find it helpful to stay social. I am a believer that it prevents face-to-face social skills from growing, but that is the individual's responsibility. I like to stay social both online and face to face. I do not feel it has personally changed my in person communications, but I know that it does for many.

Facebook has become much more popular than MySpace. This could be for a number of reasons. This could have to do with the fact that is started out as a college student only website. Many people moved away from MySpace as they got older. MySpace seems to be dumbed down and less instant communication. Facebook has appealed more to the customer's needs of communications, rather than fancy design and music. MySpace seems to be dragging behind Facebook now. 

Openness, communication and accountability-- these are all major aspects of transparency. This has become more common online, but should be equally as important offline (if not more important). People need to be able to interact in person. That is how people get jobs, relate to others, and demonstrate proper communication. Of course everybody is open online. You can find anything out about anyone. It has become popular online. People need to start moving back into the offline world. Online transparency will not get you places in the real world, that transparency offline can get you. ortant in the offline world?