Techniques of Persuasion

* neuromarketing ( psychological )
The google commercial from the 2010 superbowl was neuromarketing because they used sound and altered the volume levels at different parts, they had common questions asked in the google search box, they made it remind the viewer of a time when they had done a similar search, and it also told a sweet story which was supposed to evoke some sort of emotion


* emotional branding
Mercedes is definitely emotional branding because they have their symbol that now represents some sort of higher status, they want their customers to want their products and everybody wants to be able to show off that symbol.

* branding/creating a culture around a brand
Apple has created a culture around their brand, there are definitely Mac people and PC people, and the Mac users have this whole other world of using technology that is so different then PC's. As a Mac user myself, I have realized that anything that a PC has there is a Mac version of it and we're kind of in our own apple world where everything works seamlessly and PC's don't even exist unless were forces to use one.

* narrowcasting
Cable TV or satellite TV is an example of narrowcasting because you have to be subscribed to view it and you can only view it with a cable box or satellite, something that enables you to view it.

* rhetorical marketing
The Campbell's soup commercials with Donovan McNabb where they try to make the audience think that because McNabb is eating this product that they should too.

* under the radar marketing
Twitter has under the radar marketing because it's not like you read about it in magazines or see commercials for it on TV, instead it is mostly marketed by the users themselves and it is working because it is one of the top social networking sites next to facebook.

* across-media marketing
There was a Mitsubishi commercial during one of the Superbowls where it was a very short commercial that ended with two cars potentially crashing and then it cut off with a link to go online to see the rest of it.

* product placement across media
The one movie that always stuck out to me is You've Got Mail, AOL had definitely owned the "youve got mail" slogan that would play whenever you received and email, and that basically the slogan that the whole movie was based after.

* guerrilla marketing
The Facebook breast cancer awareness campaign was a good example of guerilla marketing because everybody started making their facebook status's have these sexual innuendos that stemmed from wanting to raise awareness for breast cancer.  It was a small thing that not everybody did but it certainly got noticed.

* viral marketing
The Jack Links Beef Jerky Commercials were viral marketing because they created characters within the TV ad that people continued to watch online on sites like YouTube, and although they weren't rewatching the commercial to learn more about beef jerky (instead to be entertained by the ridiculous sasquatch) the company would definitely stay in their mind.

illustrator image

The original is in black and white and then I used the pen tool in pink and varied in stroke size.

The Internet and Democracy

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?
I believe that the best way to describe our growing dependence of digital networked technologies is direct democracy.  This is because on the internet, we are all our own person, and we can all voice our opinion without having to have it filtered through other people first.  We make the decisions to say and do what we want on our own, and we rarely have trouble doing so.


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?
This absolutely fits into the unchecked nature of Web 2.0–blogs are a perfect example of this.  Many people follow certain bloggers, and take what they say to be true, without any real evidence that it is.  The same thing goes for Wikipedia, which was addressed in the debate, sure they have get it checked for it to be published but it can often times send out information in a way that it wasn't meant to be perceived (like Andrew Keen's entry on Wikipedia).  I believe that this is an important issue because although some of us are aware that the validity of information on the internet isn't certain, there is still a vast majority of people who base their opinions on the so-called "facts" they got from internet sources.  It would be nice if it was addressed further, but the reality is that there are too many of those websites out there to control that.


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 need to be addressed? Why or Why not?
In the debates, I understood the meaning of an echo-chamber, or a silo to be somebody who holds a certain opinion on a topic, and broadcasts this view through the media, then many other people who are looking for somebody who hold similar ideas to their own will find this, and then continually spread it.  As a result many issues that many not be that big of a deal, are twisted and skewed to become a big deal.  One of these examples could be a liberal politician who may have said something that could be taken controversially, then a more conservative news station (like Fox) would take this statement and put it in a light that would make it seem like a certain idea was intended from the statement, even when often times it is not.  This is definitely an idea that needs to be addressed because it seems so stupid and immature to only be listening to other people who share the same opinion as you, by doing that you are not learning anymore information, and often times will end up misinformed.


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 needed or not needed?
Some of the ways that authority is being enforced on the internet are through people who own the companies that are host to places where people post information.  Sites such as Wikipedia claim to have authority because a piece of information that is trying to be published on Wikipedia doesn't automatically get accepted, it goes through some sort of filter to make sure that it is appropriate.  However this is also arguable that it is not a rigorous enough check for something to be published for the whole internet to see.  I think that the idea of authority on the internet is definitely needed because like I mentioned earlier, there are too many people who will easily accept random information on the internet which eventually leads to a misinformed, and generally confused society.


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.
I think that the movie company Netflix has adapted well to the changing of the internet.  Before, people would look all over the internet to illegally stream movies because they didn't feel like buying them or renting them.  With Netflix, you are able to pay a monthly fee which is extremely cheap and you have access to basically any movie that you want.  I definitely think that this has helped with the amount of pirating that happens on-line.

6. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?
Democracy is definitely not threatened by the internet.  If anything it is supported, that's why it's the "unchecked nature" of the internet.  Things aren't checked before being posted or shared, and although that may ultimately lead to other problems, it is still a democratic function.

Keen vs. Rushkoff

1.   The democratized media traditionally is argued to be beneficial- making media more efficient and more truthful.  That doing away with the middle-man is a positive subtraction giving the original publisher more credit.  However, Keen argues to defend mainstream media and that it has recently become a "punching bag" for libertarians on the left and right, or people who he describes as having no respect for authority. This new democratized media caters to those people and allows them to be publishers, and artists without any skills or training.  Digg.com and Rediff.com are two examples he mentions of democratized media where many of the work published doesn't go through a middle man, and therefore doesn't have much of a filter.  He says that we don't have the ideal economy for this to happen and that we need the middle men, or the experts.  Keen also brings up that the core of the media is being able to find and advertise human talent, and that the only way of finding other human talent, is with human talent.  In addition to the unfiltered media that is now being published, it is also corrupting our society because we are easily impressionable by these anonymous people.  If we are to be influenced by something it should be something that is trustworthy.

2.  Keen's take on social media is much more negative than Rushkoff's.  In Digital Nation, there were many flaws pointed out by social media, including that growing up in a world where we are constantly multi-tasking isn't actually helping anybody because we just become metiocre at many things instead of mastering many concepts.  However, Rushkoff also pointed out what he believed to be benefits of this new media, that many schools are benefiting from the technology, such as the public school in the Bronx.  Also how games like Second Life and World of War Craft are connecting people all around the world.  As I previously stated about Keen's view he really just thinks that what is being published isn't reliable and that we are missing the talent in the media.  I definitely agree more with Keen.  I think that Rushkoff did a good job of documenting different views of the positive and negative effects of this democratized media, but that even what he stated as positive I saw as negative.  The fact that children can't learn traditionally, and that they need technological gadgets to succeed is concerning.  What is even more concerning is that people are calling other gamers their "closest friends" without even spending time with them in real life.  I find it both sad and pathetic that somebody has to buy a game, and spend an inhuman amount of time playing it to find their friends.  Furthermore, Keen's point that we can't find real talent anymore is especially frightening.  Sure, the democratized media allows everybody to have a say which sometimes results in finding new talent, but there is also an insanely large amount of useless information that people are putting on the internet.  And anybody with a mind shouldn't listen to what they have to say because they're not specialized to share that work with the entire internet world.  In short, the democratized media is just letting people record, publish, or ramble on about something they probably don't know much about.

Responding to Brittany Sepe

Digital Nation-the mob

      Constant connectedness coupled with anonymity can certainly lead to misbehavior and cruelty.  However while used with discretion it can also be beneficial.  Many believe that the anger exposed online is due to being able to be completely anonymous and that this anger is the reason for our society’s discourse.  I hold the belief that while anonymity can be the cause of much unrest on the internet, it is up to the individual to be responsible in an age where we are always connected, and that saying our society’s discourse is due to this new technological era is simply a way for people to place the blame on something other than themselves. 

      The unintended effects of our constant connectedness are that this generation is always expecting immediate results.  We could be in the middle of a city, nowhere near any reference sources or computers, but thanks to our phones and 3G connections, we can find the answer to practically anything at any time.  Our connectedness also leads to a lack of privacy, however I believe that is our own fault.  If we didn’t want people knowing what we were doing all the time, then we shouldn’t be updating all of our social networking sites.  The option of doing all things anonymous in addition to being constantly connected often times leads to misbehavior and cruelty.  From identity theft to internet bullying to invasion of privacy, the anonymity can turn many people off from using the internet, “According to most recent surveys, privacy and especially anonymity are the fundamental issues of concern for most Internet users, ranked higher than issues like ease-of-use, spam-mail, security and cost” (Gritzalis).

      On the other hand, I also believe people abuse the privileges we have been given by modern technology and end up involved in internet bullying, harassment, or general invasion of privacy.  Although this behavior is linked to our new obsessive connectedness, we as consumers should know better than to take advantage of such availabilities.  Anonymity plus connectivity can be beneficial instead of the negativity that seems to be coupled with it.  Being able to voice yourself without judgement of other is clearly one of the benefits, “People can express themselves without fear. That's the reason well-run democracies have secret ballots” (Dvorak)

      The collective anger that is unleashed online, I believe, is just a means of an outlet for people to vent.  For instance, if somebody were to be upset about something and they wanted to talk about it, but had nobody to talk to (whether nobody really cared, or they didn’t want others to know how they really felt), the internet is the perfect place to type out, or record your feelings.  This can be done so anonymously so that the user is able to express their thoughts completely candid without ever having to reveal their identity, and sometimes they can even form a connection with somebody who deals with a similar problem, “Chat rooms are full of people who hate their jobs, their spouses, their lifestyles—and openly discuss these feelings anonymously” (Dvorak).  As a result, other people who view this online are usually able to form some sort of response that could agree or disagree with the original poster.

      In terms of describing our society’s discourse, I would have to disagree and say that we are not discoursed in anyway.  We might be connected 24/7 and rely more on it than other generations, but has it really seemed to cause severe problems?  I don’t think so.  I believe that although there are some problems that stem from this new phenomenon, it has brought about more benefits that negativities.  Some might say that the anger unleashed online is a negative part of always being able to be on the internet, and being able to do so anonymously, but think about how different it would be if those angry people didn’t have internet.  Sure the internet allows them to broadcast their anger to the entire world, but without the internet they’d still be angry people.  It would just be a different medium in which they’d be portraying their anger.

Dvorak, John C. "Pros and Cons of Anonymity." PC Mag. ZiffDavis, 30 Dec. 2002. 

      Web. 30 Sept. 2010. <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/ 

     0,2817,801688,00.asp>.

Gritzalis, Stefanos. Privacy and Anonymity in the Digital Era.

Bradford, , GBR: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2006. p 117.

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/marist/Doc?id=10132661&ppg=6

Discussion Questions

1. I believe that the amateur or "homegrown" productions will continue to be seen because it is a new way for companies to be advertising.  I don't believe that it will hurt production value of professionals because they are called professionals for a reason.  If they weren't around, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and the amateurs- basically I don't think they one will exist without the other.  The user-generated content I'm sure will get better in quality, but I don't think it will soon reach the quality of the professionals.

2.  I definitely find myself using Facebook the most out of social network sites mainly because literally everybody I know has a Facebook so it's a convenient way of communicating.  As somebody who has had both a MySpace and a Facebook, the difference is just the maturity.  MySpace was over concerned with cool backgrounds you could download, while Facebook is more concerned with the functionality of the site.  You can tell this because I often find my homepage being revamped to make navigation easier.  As of now I don't see Facebook dying out, however I'm sure eventually something will surpass it, but for now its a convenient way of keeping in touch for users of all ages while MySpace was usually just for teens to play around with after school.

3.  I think that transparency is such an important concept in the social media world because from the examples I read, it basically implies lying or letting money and other reactions influence what you do.  It is just as important if not more than in the offline world because while I consider it to be manipulative and sneaky in both contexts, the Social Media World can access more people at a much faster rate which can be dangerous in such situations.