Video Vocab

1. Neuromarketing (psychological)-  Unconscious associations with products. 

2. Emotional Branding-  advertising that focuses on the way a product makes the consumer feel instead of the image, price and usage

3. Branding/Creating a culture around a brand- creating a brand that binds consumers together around it, creating extreme brand loyalty.

4. Narrowcasting- the spread of information to a very small target audience and not the general public

5. Rhetorical Marketing- marketing that is used to gain sympathy, convince audiences and convey a sense or reliability

6. Under the radar marketing- unconventional marketing that uses different forms of media such as viral videos

7. Across- Media Marketing- Marketing that uses many different forms of media

8. Product Placement across media- using product placement in different forms of media such as movies and TV. 

Re-creation of vector image

I mainly used the shape tools and the pen and paintbrush tool.

Original Vector Image

http://i.ehow.com/images/a04/f3/0r/create-vector-cat-illustrator-200X200.jpg

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?
The best definition of democracy to use in-conjunction our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies is self-regulation on the internet. I think this is most fitting because the debate argues whether or not self-regulation on the internet is a good or bad quality or if companies regulating the internet is good or bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_democracy


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?
My answer to number 1 fits into the unchecked nature of web 2.0 technologies. This is because I said that the definition that best fits is self-regulation on the internet. This coincides with nature of web 2.0 technologies because web 2.0 technologies are all unchecked by officials or companies and all self-regulated by the people. Some tangible examples of this are Facebook, Myspace, blogs, and podcasts. I have mixed opinions on whether this issue needs to be addressed further. On one hand, it should be addressed due to all the problems with cyber bullying. On the other hand, we have freedom of speech and we should have an outlet where we can say what we want to say.
http://www.udel.edu/fth/courses/web2resources/examples.html

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.
The phenomenon of the Media echo-chamber as described in the internet debates are when people only view reports and news, and only interact with people who share the same views as them. Some examples of the silo effect are Republicans and conservatives only watch Fox news and only read papers and news reports that share the same views. I think this issues should be addressed. I think this because people should look at everything from every view to gain the most knowledge about an issue to make the best formed opinion that they can. If people only look at things that they know they will agree with, they are missing an opportunity to expand their horizons and opinions and missing an opportunity to learn something new. Sometimes an option someone is comfortable with is not always the best one. 


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?
There are ways expertise and authority could be (or is being) enforced on the internet. One way is how Wikipedia pages are checked and false information is taken down. Another way would be if the internet was regulated by the government or if the owners of social networking sites would check peoples comments to each other and delete them if they were inappropriate.  The people behind forces that could enforce authority on the internet could be site owners, elected officials by site owners, and government officials. I do not believe this is needed. I think the people themselves should elect themselves to be appropriate and responsible on the internet. If they fail to do that then its their choice.


6. 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.
There are many examples of an adaptation or improvement made by of a social, political or cultural group, government, business of individual to keep up with the changing nature of the internet. The internet has become so increasingly large and popular many small, and large businesses, now have webpages and websites to keep up with this growing sensation. One example of this is how my father's business now has a webpage. Businesses have to have webpages and have online businesses just to keep up. 
http://www.poughkeepsienissan.com/


7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?
I do not think that democracy is threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet. A democracy is about the people having a say in what happens, and having your own opinion. Countries such as North Korea and China are communist countries and those are the countries where the internet is being checked and controlled. If we were to start internet regulations and checking everything that is put on the internet, we would be no different than China or North Korea in that aspect of our government. Democracy is not threatened because the internet is an example of a democracy. If the internet is checked, then our democracy is threatened. 

The Great Seduction

1. Keen defines Democratized media as a method of seduction, this is because it is promising like seduction. He says it practices an ideal platform for citizens to "dig for truth, to articulate ideas and report the news". He defines it as "undermining truth, souring civic discourse, and belittling expertise, experience and talent." His main issue with it is that everything is being transformed and killing our culture. It has made us superficial. Democratized media has transformed information business and  is destroying the status of our entertainers such as journalists, editors, musicians, movie producers. Now because of this media, anyone can do anything on the internet, taking away the status of professionals. An example of this is YouTube. Absolutely anyone can make a video using a camera, then edit it on their computer and then publish it for free on YouTube, gaining publicity and fans. For example...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMjpppudNkk
This YouTube video received so much publicity it was even featured on the entertainment news show LX New York.

2. Keen's and Rushkoff's view on social media are extremely different from one another. Keen views social media as a completely negative feature. He views social media as a force of destruction to our culture. Rushkoff on the other hand is a huge contender for social media. He thinks it is a great innovation and source of empowerment to the public. Keen is so negative about social media that he barely speaks about any of the positive traits of it and Rushkoff is the exact opposite. He is such a huge fan of social media that he barely speaks about any of the negative side effects to it.
Rushkoffs view of social media is more similar to my own than Keens is. I think social media is a great concept that allows people to take risks and chances, and receive opportunities that they may have never had. So many people get famous through YouTube these days, something that would be lost without social media. Without YouTube and social media these new celebrities may have never of had the opportunity to get noticed. Like Keen I recognize there is some downfall to social media but I more relate to Rushkoff's views.

Response to comments

One of the comments on my The Mob post was about how websites such as websites and cyber-bullying are leading to the suicides of many people. I think that the website formspring is probably one of the most problematic websites I have ever seen. The fact that absolutely ANYONE can ask you a question completely anonymously on your formspring, whether they have an account or not, is a terrible idea. It has lead to a major increase in cyber bullying because now the victims do not even know who their bully's are. All the victims see are completely anonymous people telling them how much they hate them. My friends and some of my family members have formspring accounts and some of the posts I have seen on there are completely appalling. I believe a website like this was with good intentions. It was created so people can ask questions they have always wanted to know but never have had the courage to ask in person. However, it has turned into a way to bully anonymously with no consequences and a website that has increased the number of suicides due to cyber-bullying.

partner

Craig Corbeels