This is the kind of propaganda you will see in North Korea. I've been following this lightly, realizing that this is being pushed to build an army. What are your thoughts? Is this kind of manipulation completely isolated?
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Saturday, March 30, 2013
I was wondering if YOU remember learning anything while watching those early childhood shows.
Are there any songs or scenes you remember that contributed to your "knowledge"?
Were there any early childhood shows that you remember that your parents didn't want you to watch? Why?
Feel free to talk about your favorite early TV show and discuss if you think it was educational or not.
Friday, March 29, 2013
If I asked you if you wanted to have either $10 or $100, what would you say?
My good friend Time Warner told me that you would rather have $10 because you don't need any more than that, is that right?
Well that's strange, I wonder why they would say that. By the way, can I have that $10 back? I need to pay Time Warner for their crappy Internet services.
It turns out that Time Warner has a habit of overestimating people's modesty—especially that of their customers.
A month ago, Time Warner Cable chief technology officer Irene Esteves suggested that their customers don't want faster Internet speeds, and they especially don't want gigabit speeds offered by Google Fiber. She believes that only businesses will need that sort of bandwidth—a service that Time Warner already offers to such customers.
According to Esteves, "We’re in the business of delivering what consumers want, and to stay a little ahead of what we think they will want... We just don’t see the need of delivering that to consumers."
Rather than being faced with a lack of customer demand, experts believe that Time Warner is simply trying to maximize its profits. Time Warner and similar companies are making a 97% profit for their existing services(check out MIT's Technology Review for more detail).
Until Google Fiber becomes available to the public, we're stuck facing service carriers who offer nearly identical services and prices. Based on Time Warner's attitude, it doesn't matter what we want because they apparently know better.
What do you think? Does Time Warner have it right? Is our Internet speed fast enough based on how much we're being charged for it? Or is Time Warner full of it? You better respond before Time Warner answers for you!
In the meantime, check out the following ad from an honest cable company.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
“The television commercial is the most peculiar and pervasive form of communication to issue forth from the electric plug. An American who has reached the age of forty will have seen well over one million television commercials in his or her lifetime,…competition in the marketplace requires that the buyer not only knows what is good for him but what also what is good…there even exists in law a requirement that sellers must tell the truth about their products, for if the buyer has no protection from false claims, rational decision-making is seriously impaired (126-127).”
Monday, March 25, 2013
Sunday, March 24, 2013
With the use of DVRs and TiVo capabilities most people are waiting to watch a show until they can fast forward and skip all of the advertisements. I think that this is making commercials on television almost irrelevant to viewers.
I feel that due to this the shift to advertisements online has increased. Not only are we seeing ads on the sides of our screens while surfing the web, but also before videos load. I think that this shift is, although sometimes frustrating for the viewer, smart for those marketing products. The culture's reliance on internet brings about a more widely available opportunity for ads, considering the web goes from computer to tablet to phone, not just the stationary television anymore.
It also allows for much more centralized advertising on what an individual is interested in - take note of the ads that show up on your Facebook feed or on the edges of Google. Everything is now based on what is "recommended" for you, after having tracked things in the past that you have shown interest in. Despite this making some people nervous about how much is being monitored while they are searching for sites (that's a whole different blog topic), it does make the ads much more relevant to each person's interests, and produces a higher interaction with ads.
People tend to be untrusting of commericals and ads, what they boast seems too good to be true, and that is often the case, but when commercials and ads are in relation to products and places that you as a consumer are familiar with there is a more likely chance for you to take the time to click.
One way that tv's commercials are remaining relevant is with the addition of "digital disruption." For example, as an article from Ad Age discusses, the ads during the SuperBowl are highly popular, and began to include hashtags and other incentives for people to interact with the content. Whether it was naming the Budweiser clydesdale, or choosing a side with Oreo, it enabled advertisers to connect with the viewers in a way more suitable to this digital age, and the very common use of second screens.
So now it's time for your comments...
Do you think that television commercials are now irrelevant? Are you more or less skeptical of online ads in comparison to what tv ads boast about products? Do you still sit through tv commercials? Do you find ways to ignore ads, or do any intrigue you and stand out from the multitude that we see each day?
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
Reading Postman's book throughout the past ten weeks or so, the main point I've taken from it (and I believe everyone else has as well) is that the form of media controls the content that it portrays. One of the side points that he makes, however (I believe in the "Typographic America" chapter), is that the form can also have an effect on the way that people think. He uses the example of the Lincoln debates, citing that each ranged from 4 to 7 hours, and that their audiences sat (presumably) patiently through the entire thing each time. Now, I don't remember if he contrasts this with today's audience, or if that was a result of discussion in class, but the sad truth is, not many nowadays would show up for such a lengthy debate, and among those who did, many would probably not stay til the end. I would attribute this to our have-it-now culture, one that allows us to purchase items at the click of a button and have them delivered to our homes the next day if we only pay an arm and a leg, one that gives us instant information also at the click of a button online, one that is loathe to give us any television programming over two hours when even the two hour programs are lacerated with blips of advertisement every five minutes.
Now, the prevailing opinion I've heard in class is that this switch is the result of moving from a print culture to a media culture. They function differently, and our way of thinking changes to match that. My question is: do you think this switch can occur within a single form of media?
Let me explain. Have any of you ever watched any old films? I don't mean films from the 90s either, I mean ones from the 30s, 40's 50's, etc. They're a little more difficult to sit through than Die Hard, am I right? Yet, these films are the same form of media as the movies that we pay obscene amounts of money to go see today. We pay so much to see modern film, we must love it. It must be incredibly entertaining. Why do we not always feel the same about older cinema? Is it the quality of the picture? That certainly has changed. Is it the CGI? We certainly didn't have that in the early-mid 1900s. Perhaps it is the very stories themselves. Are they drastically different?
It seems to me that the change in structure of thinking has occurred within the form of film, not from a switch to another, in this case. What do you all think, and why?
Friday, March 15, 2013
Monday, March 11, 2013
I came across an interesting study today (also reported here). Some researchers recently compiled a bunch of information from Facebook regarding people's 'likes' of things and threw them into an algorithm. They then were able to, with surprising accuracy, predict one's sexual orientation, IQ, religion, political affiliation, and other traits.
|All of that from a few 'likes'?|
This brings up the issue of online security - both the awareness people have as far as what their security settings are as well as how protective they really are. This is a discussion that seems like it will continue on for a decent amount of time.
Even more than that though, I was very intrigued by the fact that so much information was revealed from looking at some seemingly meaningless 'likes'.
What do you think? Can people discover who we are through 'likes'? Is internet security good enough, or does it need to be strengthened? Something else?