My paper is finished!!

A text version can be found on request.

Have fun reading it,

Pepijn van Weeren

cu later

edit<98><is>

 

Lasica, J. (2003) Blogs and Journalism Need Each Other

 

Isn’t blogging just a temporary aid?

 

Lasica gives a lot of credit to blogging when looking at its effects and faith in its usefulness. But when you’re keeping up a blog about some subject, isn’t there a big chance that the same people look at it and react to it. When this occurs, blogs will get more personal. The same people will use nicknames or real names on the blogs, over and over again. This might result in a lot of personal, not-to-the-subject information only applicable for the known users of the blog community. To new users, such information can’t be useful and it deviates from the subject. Another thing is that this process will probably not attract new readers to get involved in that community as well. There’s also a chance that the blogging community won’t let you get in, because the newcomers can be seen as hazards.

Another question might come to the surface when one asks oneself how valuable the new information from unknown participants is? Is it true or based on lies? The overview might get lost and then the traditional ways of news provision may be a relief.

So although there are many blogs with loads of information about a great variety of subjects, one might just want to hear the summary of it, to keep an overview for oneself and that is just what the traditional ways of news provision give.

 

 

Gillmor, D. (2003) Moving Toward Participatory Journalism

 

Isn’t Gillmor a bit overconvinced about the influence of blogs?

 

Do blogs have counters of how many visitors they have? And if they do, do all visitors read everything there’s written? One can say that a lot of people react on the stories. But still, would these blogs have such an impact? Does everyone who reads them believe what has been written? Does everyone who reacts to blogs feel the same way about the stories or do people just react for fun or to get attention or for other reasons?

Gillmor only uses personal arguments why blogging would be so great and its progress has effects. But real arguments, some objective convincing arguments are missing. The examples that are given may be fun to read and could have occurred, but a research should be carried out about the influence of blogging. Then with fundamental prove we can see if Gillmor’s experiences weren’t just accidental and we can agree of disagree with Gillmor’s thinking.

 

Luuk van Middelaar, On logos and grassroots: the anti-globalization movement between morals, economics and politics.

  

Van Middelaar describes a lot of anti-globalization groups.  This makes me think; is Globalization stoppable?

The term globalization is most commonly used in economics for companies who stretch their market over a lot of countries around the world.  Coca-cola, which can be found al around the world, is a good example of a globalized company. In this way local companies might have a smaller change to get on the market. This makes me understand why anti-globalization groups exist. However, their name might be a bad choice. Especially because anti-globalization groups need to globalize to get some power. That’s why van Middelaar gives them the alternatives; anti-capitalism or counter-capitalism. And, sure, big companies can be stopped, but globalization can not. Because globalization is not only in the hands of the big companies, but also of the citizens. The internet, with its p2p network, blurs the distinction between producer and costumer, and turned the world in the global village McLuhan described. So my group of friends is globalized as well, with friends in England, Israel and the USA, boundaries seem to be no problem. In this way globalization is unstoppable, or irreversible. But then again; why should we deglobalize? 

Gay, P. du & Pryke, M. (2002) Cultural Economy

The article says that a large part of the consumers get new aesthetic and stylistic values because the economy has its influence on culture. Consumers are becoming more concerned with the price and value for money due to their cumulating knowledge of time spending practices, like work and hobbies. But what I missed in the article is the fact that time can be seen as money as well. Doesn’t branding save time?

 Although consumers might know more about the products they purchase and therefore can save money, the variety of available commodities can make the choice harder. If you want a printer nowadays you have to choose out of a lot of brands. Although you might know a lot about printers and you had lots of experience with your old printer, buying a new one can be quite difficult. Do you want to spend more money on a laser printer, or less on a bubblejet? Because all printers differ; making a choice can be hard. And you may find all the information you want, making a solid choice remains hard. Therefore consumers might want to buy their printer at a very well known computer store and buy a deer brand. Although they might pay more because of the brands of the printer and the store, consumers know their product quality probably is ok and they can fall back on a providing customer service. So brands offer certainties, which can save the consumer time and although there are cheaper commodities than the big time branding corporations, in the end it may well even up.

Tybout, A. & Carpenter, G. (2001) Creating and Managing Brands

 

This article focuses on branding strategies, which worked successfully. But what I did miss were strategies that didn’t work. At the end of the article some examples are given when the successful strategies didn’t work to accomplish the company’s goals, but aren’t there strategies that didn’t have an impact at all?

 

A strategy that didn’t work so well in the Netherlands was ‘Sport 7’. If I remember correctly, the idea of ‘Sport 7’ was to monopolize all sporting events on their channel(s). If you wanted to see soccer for instance, you had to subscribe to ‘Sport 7’ and you would get soccer and all other sporting events too.

The originators really thought they had it there, the first week they even gave you a free magazine with all the upcoming sporting events. But after a real short period, ‘Sport 7’ went bankrupt and the sporting events went back to their original state.

Like I said, this article focuses a bit too much on only the successes. For instance, SBS6 learned from ‘Sport 7‘s’ mistake. SBS6’s strategy is a bit different. SBS6 is trying to get their hands on sporting evens also, but they use a cockroach approach. They are buying more and more sporting events step by step. It all started with darts, after that they bought the right to broadcast the practice matches of the Dutch national soccer team. Now they have the rights of their qualifying matches too and they broadcast ‘De Amstelcup’.

So it is possible to duplicate successes and learn from their strategies, but you can also learn a lot from mistakes and that’s the part I missed in this article.

 

 

 

 

George N. Dafermos; Blogging the market. How weblogs are turning corporate machines into real conversations

 

George Dafermos wrote in his article Blogging the market about blogging as potential organizational goldmine, with stories about Slashdot, Amazon, Macromedia, Groove Networks, and Gizmodo. My question is; How can I make money with this weblog?

Dafermos writes about the weblog from Andrew Sullivan, who actually makes money with it. This guy writes about books and discusses with others about these books. The money he makes comes from Amazon.com who pays him for every person who buys a book through his page. Why can’t I do that? Well, go to the next link, and buy the book. Amazon.com.

I can’t imagine money coming in. The main reason is that there are not a lot of readers at my weblog. Dafermos says you have to be an opinion maker to influence the public. So the things I have to do are; become an opinion leader by making interesting discussions, make sure a lot of people are following my blog, and make a deal with a company who uses my influence to sell their products. It’s as easy as that! Oh, one thing Dafermos says is important; it is obvious that unless the weblog is unique, it’s not going to work. There goes my plan…

 

 

Sean Nixon, re-imagining the ad agency.

 

Nixon says a culture within an ad agency is very important for the results. Next to the way you pay, and the way you communicate with your clients. If we consider this, is a medium ad agency better then a big one?

I think it is. In a smaller agency the changes are bigger you know all your colleges. This results in a better bond between these people. And in a smaller agency your boss is closer to you; you don’t have to go through sub-bosses. This means you have a less formal contact and this makes it more fun to work.

The way you communicate with clients is probably better as well. In a big agency changes are a client always communicates with a different staff member. This will probably get to their nerves.

I personally noticed this when I changes from working in a small hardware store to a big hardware store. Some clients prefer direct help, so they go to the smaller stores. Working in a smaller store makes it easier to remember witch clients you helped, with makes the contact more intense, and make the clients come back. In the big store I lost track of the amount of clients I made orders for. In this way, if an order didn’t come in, I wouldn’t notice. And the client gets annoyed.

My paper is about www.movie-mistakes.com

My paper is going to about the website www.movie-mistakes.com.

At this site people report mistakes they saw in movies. The owner of the site doesn't contribute much mistakes himself. So this site is based on participation.
Also if a mistake you send to the site isn't really in the movie, other participants report this. So this site is correcting itself.

A while after this site became populair, the owner gave users the availability to see the mistakes for themselves. iMMAGES AND BOVIES ARE PROVIDED. But you have to be a member.

There's a forum aswell, so check it out!

 

Shirky, C. (2000) What is P2P… And What Isn’t

 

Shirky writes that users not adopt applications for the decentralizing benefit, but just decentralize enough so creation or improvement of functions can be realized. But wouldn’t maximum decentralization be a bigger stimulation for creations and improvements?

When you want to decentralize P2P network at maximum, that means everyone had to carry the weight of the P2P network to function at it’s top. All the hardware would be used to maintain the biggest and broadest P2P network. Wouldn’t that stimulate people more for improvements and new creations? When you create, help creating or improve something, everyone would be able to enjoy its benefit. It would stimulate processes that computers have less of a burden, so in the long term, a maximized decentralized network would create a better network environment than a lesser-decentralized network. If this will ever happen is another question.

 

 

Rutherford, E. (2000) The P2P Report

 

Rutherford says that when P2P networks get bigger, CIO’s will likely want to beef up their computers’ bandwidth and networks’ capacity. But before it comes this far, isn’t it more likely to restrict the participation of file-swapping programs than to ban them all?

 CIO’s can also set up boundaries, which cannot be overwritten. Therefore computers’ bandwidth and networks’ capacities will not be overwritten and is a much better solution than just to ban the file-swapping programs like at the Indiana University happened. And banning isn’t a great solution I’d say. When almost everyone gets his or her information through file-swapping, it wouldn’t be a good progress if your University didn’t. It would be quite difficult to watch the Apprentice if the University of Utrecht wouldn’t allow you to use file-swapping programs. But when restricting the use of hardware, you can still download but it will be less fast. So when it takes too long, people will start losing interest and file-swapping programs will get les popular, so the wanted result will come inevitable, until the hardware is on a level that everyone can download without slowing down the network. And on the other hand, people will always find ways to get past the restrictions. At my high school we weren’t allowed to use hotmail, so everybody used another provider.

 Wellman, B. & Boase, J. (2001) A plague of viruses; Biological, Computer and Marketing.

 

A virus on your computer. It sounds like just another computer metaphor, like a desktop, a file and a window. But Boase and Wellman show in their article that a computer virus has a lot in common with a biological virus. (Unlike some other computer metaphors, like the mouse) They both need people, or their computers, as a host and contact between people, directly or via computers, to spread. Another form of virus uses the same principle according to Boase and Wellman; Viral marketing, sometimes called mouth to mouth advertising. If I had something to sell, how would I use this kind of marketing?

I actually witnessed this kind of marketing in high school. My school was located across the road from a snack bar. On a shiny day I bought an ice-cream, and ate it in front of the school. I noticed that a lot of other kids went to the snack bar to buy an ice-cream as well. The next day I didn’t buy one, and less other people bought an ice-cream. (Trust me it wasn’t the weather) The third day I reported this to the snack-bar owner and said that if he gave me an ice-cream for free, he will eventually sell more of them. He liked my idea, gave me a free ice-cream, and soled more ice-cream than the second day.

The same thing happens with trendsetters; if a popular guy on school wears certain shoes (the host); other people see them (the contact ) and want to have them as well. That would make them cool. The consequence is that within a few months everybody wears these shoes. People like to copy thing from other people. Mostly because they are not confident enough to create their own look. Almost everybody wants to fit in a group. (Even people who want to be off-normal look the same like punkers.)

If I put these two points together I see that if I want to sell something, I should give something away to inspiring people. And then other people want to have it as well. That is the reason why a lot of people buy a simple t-shirt that only has the logo really small on it, like Ralph Lauren, rather than a cheaper t-shirt from an unknown brand.

Another way of using these trendsetters is looking at what they like, and then providing a similar product. Boase and Wellman call people who do this ‘coolhunters’.

 

Yochai Benkler, From consumer to User

 

Benkler questions himself ‘if the internet is going to replicate the mass media model, or will it change the deep structure of out information environment.’ My question is; how mass is the internet?

The television with its broadcasting model was always seen as a mass medium. Everybody saw the same thing on the same moment. But even that is changing; with the choice of many channels, the television experience became very individual. You can change the channel whenever you want. And with the record devises, as the video recorder and the computer, you can even play the program at any time you want. So every television experience is a unique experience.

I think the same thing counts for the internet. The pages you watch may be the same the second time you’re online, but the experience will be different. Everybody has a different way of ‘watching’ the internet.

So in terms of experience the internet is not a mass medium. In terms of people using it, it is; millions of people are online at the same moment. But I don’t reckon that this determents the term mass medium. Not in the way the user sees it.

 

L. Lessing, Innovations from the internet.

 

The internet brought a lot of new things, according to Lessing. New products, new markets, new means of distribution, new demands and new participation are the result of the rise of the internet. How does the real live economy react to these new things, provided by the internet?

MP3 is a product that can be considered as a product made available by the internet, as Lessing says. MP3 is a compressed audio format that takes less computer space than original audio. The reason for this development was that smaller files could be transported easier over the internet. It didn’t take long for some people found out that you could place a lot more MP3 files on a CD than original audio. So why not place three original cd’s on one cd? Smart marketers responded to this by making a MP3-player. This basically was a disc-man with the possibility to unfold MP3-files. Later they even developed MP3-players that didn’t nee a cd, but had its own hard disc. And you can connect it directly to your computer.  Without a computer with internet this device is useless.

The music market responded shocked by the many download of MP3’s. They missed a lot of money, because people wouldn’t buy cd’s anymore. (This argument is arguable.) The solution to this was; selling your music via the internet. Some artists don’t even make tangible cd’s, but place their music on the internet, and let people download them for money.

These examples show two examples of opposite developments. The first is company’s making real products which use the internet. The second is company’s using the internet to sell products.

 

D. Harries, Watching the internet.

 

Dan Harries argues in this article that the terms ‘viewing’ and ‘using’ are not suitable for the usage of the internet. The first is used for people who are watching movies ore pictures online, but implies passivity. People not only view the internet, but they also participate. The second is used for people who search for information, or play online games, but this term sounds to active. Harries melts these two terms in a new one; ‘viewsing’.  This is the way people experience the new medium, and implies both using and viewing. Is ‘viewsing’ only useable for describing the usage of the internet?

Well, for the internet it’s a good description. Most of the games I play online contain clickable options (use) and little movies (view) in between levels. And most websites are viewsed; watching pictures, and click hyperlinks. But in my opinion this term doesn’t limit itself to the internet. For example watching television is not just looking at a program and take everything they show; if you don’t like the program you switch program. And teletext can be used to find information. And a library visit is not only searching information, or books, you can find films as well. And shopping is viewsing for a lot of people as well. Sometimes you just look at clothes, or music cd’s. (I’m just browsing.) And other times you go to the fitting room, or listen to the cd. Maybe viewsing is a quality of (post)modern life?

 

Keith Negus, Identities and industries.

 

We all like to think that our demands are going to be fulfilled by the offers of companies. Keith Negus gives an example that proves otherwise. He says that commerce is corrupting creativity. The reason for this is that the culture of production is too one-sided. His example is the music industry in England during the 1969’s and 70’s.  The people working in this industry in this time where mostly middle-class white males with preferences for ‘white’ music. This way the ‘black’ R&B didn’t have a change to develop in Britain. Because the expanses to get in the music market are high, no individual could produce its own music. Does the internet give an alternative to this elitist culture?

Now everybody (in the western world) can make his/her own music on their own computers, and distribute them just as easy. And all for very little money. Nobody needs to have a hardcopy (cd) of your songs. Does this mean everybody has a fair change on the music-market? Well, everybody who has a computer with these capabilities can spread his/her songs. But this doesn’t mean that they become popular. In this market you have to advertise your product. This means you have to make video clips. This can also be done by a lot of individuals. But you will only become popular if the mayor music channels on TV (MTV) show your clip. People wouldn’t download your song if they don’t know it.

So the music industry is still in the hands of elite. Though the smart businesspeople make sure they provide products for every group of people; this way they make the most money. So R&B is also available in Britain now.

 

L. Kung-Shankleman, What is organisation culture

In my text below ‘how does technology get involved in social live?’  I wrote about the question whether technology just infects the society, without negotiations. The main argument against this deterministic approach is that the people who shape these technologies are part of the society, so the influence is the other way around as well; society influences technologies. Basically this counts for every product on the market. Some of the best products were considered by people who just needed something that didn’t exist, like ice cubes-sacks.

L. Küng-Shankleman wrote in her article ‘What is organization culture?’ about things that influenced the output of a company. Among these things where the founder, basic assumptions, ideas of new staff members, and stakeholders. All these things were combined in the organization culture. She calls the organization culture a mysterious force whose strength needed to be harnessed. My interest goes to the role of the founder. And my question is; how are Walt Disney’s ideas mirrored in the films in his company?

Walt Disney is dicribed in many different ways. On of them is; a man whose modest mission was simply "to bring happiness to the millions." Going along with the gag, he implied that the task was easy for him because he always whistled while he worked: "I don't have depressed moods. I'm happy, just very, very happy." His goal of bringing happiness is still visible in al the Disney cartoons. If ‘finding nemo’ doesn’t make you happy, you’re not human.

 

 

M. De Mooij (1998) Global marketing and advertising; Dimensions of culture.

An advertisement says a lot about the culture in which it exists. That’s why advertisers can’t use the same advertisement in two different countries. I mean real different countries; sure Norway and Sweden can have some of the same advertisements. The main question is;

What do I have to take in mind to use an advertisement in another country?

To answer this question I take the next advertisement of BMW which was placed in an American magazine.  And to make it extra fun I want to advertise this car in Japan

First look ad the ad at this site: BMW sedan.Click BMW and look at the middle ad. (I know i wanted the ad to be on this blog, but it wouldn't let me)

The ad shows a comparison between a formula 1 car and the BMW sedan they want to sell.

Text on the ad:

M3 Sedan. The fastest sedan in America

Propelled by a 3.2-liter power plant, the M3 Sedan sees 60 mph in a mere 5,6 seconds. Its renowned handling makes a spin around the block as exalting as a sprint around a race course. While its massive brakes bring all its wonderment to a quick and effortless halt. Practical alternatives do not yet exist.

 

To answer my question I will use Hofstede’s Five Dimensions of Culture which was published in De Mooij’s article Dimensions of Culture.

The first one is Power Distance. This defines the acceptation of unequal power spread. America scores low on this scale, this means that people don’t easily accept that some people have more authority. One prefers to become the boss himself, rather than to work for a boss. The ad symbolizes this by saying that it is the fastest sedan in America. So I f you have this car you are the fasted, the best of America. In Japan the fact that some people have more power than others is accepted as natural. This means that they don’t really care about being the fastest. (And we all know we don’t use all the horse powers in a traffic jam.) They probably just want to go from A to B.

The second is Individualism versus Collectivism. Do people just take care of the selves (and close relatives) or the group of people that surrounds them. Americans are more individualistic than the Japanese. A Japanese ad would probably be better if it shows an entire family. Instead of 4 men, on the formula 1 car, who all look businesslike. This is off course connected to the Power distance; in the USA the height in a company is shown by the car you drive.

The third is Masculinity versus Femininity. Masculinity is defined by the success you have, Femininity by your social values and quality of life. Masculinity, is connected to quantity, and is shown in this ad by the data shown; 60 mph in 5.6 seconds. Japan is less masculine and therefore doesn’t care much about this. Safety would probably be more important, and thus be a crucial part in the ad. An other thing Japanese value high is harmony with nature; is this car clean (e.g. is the air pollution not that big)? Something the Americans don’t really care about.

The fourth is Uncertainty Avoidance. This shows the avoidance of situations you don’t want to happen, because you don’t know whether you like the outcome or not. The Americans score low on this scale, which means they’ve got a high sense of adventure. This is shown in the ad by the comparison of the BMW sedan with a formula one car. De Mooij’s article doesn’t say anything about Uncertainty Avoidance in Japan, but I think thy score a bit higher than the Americans. This also expresses the need for safety in a car. Something the American ad doesn’t say anything about.

The last is Long-term Orientation. Is a culture future orientated; does it do long-term thinking?  Americans has short-time thinking; everything has to be fast. You better show your success as soon as possible. So why not buy this car? Japan has Long-term thinking. This is shown in the love for nature. And second; a car is an investment for many years, so it has to have a stable performance.

Summarized the Japanese ad should show less data, but has to show that this car is a car for a lifetime, in which your entire family can be happy; it should show it is save, and that nature loves it. Japanese ads contain more symbols, like happy faces, and less text.

Sean Nixon (2003) Advertising Cultures

Give an example for the statement of Lash and Urry; the advertisement industry is paradigmatic of trends occurring in the cultural industries.

Advertisements an commercials show what’s going on within a culture. What’s really big now is attaching music stars to your brand name. Like the next Pepsi commercial.

 

This shows that pop music is really big in the culture in which the commercial is shown. Pepsi gives away free singles of the stars the have under contract. This stuff is done by many other organizations as well. Smitch chips had a deal with Looney tunes. And Nike with a lot of major sports people.

 

Angela McRobbie; From holloway to Hollywood.

 

In this article McRobbie writes about the fact that society and economy are become more and more enculturalized. Culture is playing a bigger role in economy nowadays. Creativity is a key feature for this new development. A lot of companies depend on the creativity of individuals. As a result a lot of people start their own creative company. My question is; How is this shift towards creativity in culture visible in the new media?

I think that the Internet is the perfect example of the need for creativity. Not only do companies need creative persons, the people self want to express their creativity. This is done very often by people who have their own web site. Even young kids can do it! Look at this link. http://www.kidsturncentral.com/topics/computers/htmakewp.htm

Next to creativity ‘youth’ is an important factor in the present society. Apparently young people can bring healthy new ideas into a company. So this development, younger people being creative, is not a bad one.

 

Another question McRobbie answers herself is; what are the consequences of this new type of society? “Permanently transitional” work, she says; people move from job to job, without a secure income. And self-employment means no sickness-benefit, no union, and most important, no pension plans. In between assignments means no pay, just like the Hollywood system (no movie; no money).