Monday, May 4, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Flattered Self: Draft 2
here's the second draft...finally! it still needs some tweaking, I think I might change the music and work on the timing a little more. But I think all the ideas I want are in there! I might also add some more visuals besides me talking...or more text. We'll see. Let me know what you think!!
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
ideas for the video
Right now, I'm thinking my video will have a lot of the ideas presented in text format, with some images interwoven. I would like to focus on the word "flattered" and make connections from there, but keep coming back to it throughout the video.
Here's the order of ideas I'm looking at right now...
We crave attention.
The media gives us attention.
We feel flattered, special.
We like it and want more.
We make choices to maximize the flattery.
Our choices consume our identity.
Our identity becomes our choices.
Our choices become our attitude.
We become self-centered in maintaining our identity.
We lose the capacity to connect with others.
But are we also losing our "self"?
I'm still thinking about how all this will fit with images and whatnot...And how the discussion we had about whether there is a "true self" fits in...but that's what I've got so far!!
Here's the order of ideas I'm looking at right now...
We crave attention.
The media gives us attention.
We feel flattered, special.
We like it and want more.
We make choices to maximize the flattery.
Our choices consume our identity.
Our identity becomes our choices.
Our choices become our attitude.
We become self-centered in maintaining our identity.
We lose the capacity to connect with others.
But are we also losing our "self"?
I'm still thinking about how all this will fit with images and whatnot...And how the discussion we had about whether there is a "true self" fits in...but that's what I've got so far!!
Monday, March 30, 2009
Re-creation of Self: Outline
Here is a (very) rough outline of what I just posted!
I.Definition of “self”
a.Consumption vs. creation
b.Attitude vs. identity
c.Approval vs. fulfillment
II.Portrayal of “self”
a.Desire for recognition
i.Reality television
b.Exploitation of flattery
i.Platforms of communication
ii.Facebook
III.Effects of the recreation of “self”
a.Loss of devotion
i.Heroes
b.Loss of intimacy
I.Definition of “self”
a.Consumption vs. creation
b.Attitude vs. identity
c.Approval vs. fulfillment
II.Portrayal of “self”
a.Desire for recognition
i.Reality television
b.Exploitation of flattery
i.Platforms of communication
ii.Facebook
III.Effects of the recreation of “self”
a.Loss of devotion
i.Heroes
b.Loss of intimacy
Sunday, March 29, 2009
The Re-creation of the Self
What are we doing to ourselves? Right now in our society, that is a very complex question. Yet it is one that desperately needs to be answered. The simple idea of the “self” is being completely redefined and recreated. How we define our “self,” what our “self” actually is, and how we portray our “self” has changed drastically in the past 50 years. This evolution has occurred alongside the growth of technology and communication. As with any cultural shift, there are supporters and opponents, and those who sit on the fence. Judging it absolutely positive or negative is unreasonable; the consequences of this redefinition are what should be scrutinized.
Fifty years ago, the Internet as we know it was merely a dream that most people had never fathomed. Our generation cannot imagine a world without Internet. How would we keep in touch with our friends from high school? Where would we do our research for that psychology paper? What about getting directions to the airport? Obviously, there were solutions to all these problems before the advent of the Internet. We just think them time-intensive and unnecessary. The Internet has changed every aspect of society, from the way we advertise to the way we learn. This revolution has altered the way we define ourselves. Our society has become much more materialistic and fast-paced. People are faced with a perpetual time crunch, and self portrayal has seen a drastic change. We pass judgments of others in one glance. Everything on the outside of the person is assumed to be a direct representation of identity. This does not mean that those assumptions are unchangeable, but it is true that first impressions can be hard to take back.
This immediate image that each individual portrays is what others now identify with our “self.” As a society, we recognize that. And we are responding to it. Some responses are insignificant, but others are more penetrating. Instead of cultivating our personalities, we rely on the things we wear and buy to define ourselves. We have more choices than ever before; and those choices define who we are to the rest of the world. Our consumption creates our identity.
Music is one of the most telling representations of identity. In Mediated, de Zengotita discusses musical preferences and their connection to attitude. Ultimately, our attitude is what shapes our identity. When we choose what music we listen to, it is generally based on the most simplistic, yet broad aspect of ourselves: our background. Region, ethnicity, religion, education and values are the primary basis for our musical preferences. We will not listen to something if we do not believe in it. People will buy a shirt or car because they perceive that others will think they are “cool”; but most people cannot stand to listen to music that they don’t agree with for an extended amount of time. Music may be the one thing you cannot fake.
Emotion, on the other hand, is a different story. We have learned to fake just as much "sincere" emotion as we can actually show. Often times, we regulate our outward emotions to what we perceive is expected, be it more or less than what we really feel. Rarely now is our emotion truly pure: we live in the moment, putting on a show, performing for a crowd, acting the way we are "supposed to." (de Zengotita 2005)
Ultimately, we are looking for approval. All we want is to be accepted by other people. This is has always been true for any human being; however, in this age, we are obsessed with it. Our lives have become centered on others’ opinions, as opposed to self-fulfillment. We are too concerned with what other people think. Our image has become more important than our beliefs. Eventually, no one will be honestly happy. Why? As de Zengotita states so well, because “real is not real enough.” Being ourselves is not good enough anymore. Or at least that is what we think. We are on a constant quest for flattery. We feed off of it and make every choice based on it. Being fulfilled used to be good enough, but now we are not allowed to be happy until everyone else is happy with us. Is that really fair? Some people are recognizing the problem with this, but too many of us have remained ignorant and complacent. Those people continue to portray their created “selves,” and live in a false light of happiness.
This desire for recognition has filtered to us through the media. Television promotes reality television, where you get to be your “self”; advertising is personalized for us, giving us constant, yet false, one-on-one attention. We have learned the best ways to get that attention. We exploit the system to get the highest, most positive response possible. By choosing what we wear, what we say, who we are friends with and what we consume, we can predict fairly accurately the response of the media and society. Therefore, we make said choices to maximize that attention and flattery. But we are not the only ones who know that. The media knows that we have figured out what they know. So while we think we are (usually subconsciously) undermining them, they are still using us. It is an unending cycle of manipulation and a false sense of triumph.
A prime example of this is found in reality television. We use reality television to exploit the media and get the ultimate attention: for the contestants, a national (sometimes worldwide) television appearance; for the audience, typically a chance to feel a lot better about ourselves. Producers of reality television exploit that desire for flattery by driving contestants to their breaking points through various methods of deprivation (Brenton and Cohen 2003). They push the contestant to the extreme of their created “self”. It could be seen as a test, to see if the person can really stay true to their “self” in alternative conditions. On the audience front, producers are using the pseudo-unpredictable actions of contestants to bring in an audience that desires to be considered “normal.” We need affirmation that we fit in, we are not like those contestants who do crazy things to get attention. It is a double-edged sword. While we are trying to stand out (like the contestants), we also need approval (like the audience). We crave uniqueness, yet seek normalcy.
Infiltrating not only television, but all types of media, is advertising. Marketers’ primary goal is to figure out what we want. Right now, we want attention. And they are giving it to us – personalized e-mails, customized online pop-ups, coupons tailored to our shopping tendencies, the list is extensive. Even politicians are in on it, calling our cell phones and leaving messages beseeching our support. As obnoxious as it seems, the advertisements keep coming. Why? Because the tactics are working. We like to pretend that we are annoyed, even creeped out, by all the personalization. In actuality, it is exactly what we want. Every one of those e-mails and phone calls feeds our ego a little bit. It is not quite as effective as face-to-face communication, but that is nearly impossible in marketing. The platforms that are currently utilized – Internet, telephone, television, radio, etc. – are getting the job done. We feel a little bit more special; because someone (or something) was thinking of us.
Platforms of communication say a lot about human perception. The platform on which people communicate is a window into what is important to them. Although technology has created radically different pathways of communication than before, there are still some things that inherently require face-to-face contact. Yet, people still have their private lives plastered on the web for almost anyone to see. Facebook status updates are like mini press releases. We have become accustomed to broadcasting information about ourselves and receiving tiny pieces of (possibly) insignificant feedback. Do all those status comments accumulate to the equivalent of a face-to-face conversation with a best friend? The possibility exists that we are slowly giving up our ability to have unique, meaningful relationships. There is something to be said for compensation on other communication platforms, but generally, the more people that know a piece of information, the less important it is perceived; the surprise factor is gone.
All of this is a very basic summation of the effects that the media has had on our culture in recent decades. It is still obvious that there are significant and potentially catastrophic changes taking place in society. We are losing our capacity to connect, not only with others, but with ourselves. The quality of our relationships is diminishing with a growing lack of devotion. Our friendships, while more numerous, are more superficial. Our heroes are fleeting and few. Humans thrive on that interaction with others, be it one-on-one or in looking up to someone we have never met. We need that personal connection. It helps us define ourselves.
Heroes are becoming a thing of the past. No one is big enough to be a true hero anymore. Having a hero requires devotion, and the flattered self is not willing to give that to anyone anymore. (de Zengotita 2005) The idea of modeling our lives, or just a part of our lives, after one thing, person or idea is traumatizing. It takes away our individual freedom. As de Zengotita discusses, our society has become obsessed with picking people’s lives apart. The press feeds off of the faults of public figures. We feed off of the faults of public figures. It makes us feel better about ourselves, or more accurately, our “selves.” We aren't willing to let anyone be our hero anymore, because that means they are better than we are. We are conditioned to the "I am number one" concept. Believing that someone is better than we are undermines our individual self-confidence. At least, that is what the media insinuates. There is something to be said for having a hero, someone to look up to. It gives If our culture focused less on "what I am," and more on "who I can be," our world would be a very different place.
We have become so focused on our “selves” and how we portray our “selves” that we no longer know who we really are. We are also losing the ability to see others for who they really are. This phenomenon is permeating our society and changing the way we live and interact. If it goes unrecognized much longer, there will be no choice but to conform. Now, though, we still have the ability to adapt. The evolution itself is not catastrophic, but the effects could be. We are losing ourselves in the choices we make, but there is still time to reconnect with our true “self.”
Fifty years ago, the Internet as we know it was merely a dream that most people had never fathomed. Our generation cannot imagine a world without Internet. How would we keep in touch with our friends from high school? Where would we do our research for that psychology paper? What about getting directions to the airport? Obviously, there were solutions to all these problems before the advent of the Internet. We just think them time-intensive and unnecessary. The Internet has changed every aspect of society, from the way we advertise to the way we learn. This revolution has altered the way we define ourselves. Our society has become much more materialistic and fast-paced. People are faced with a perpetual time crunch, and self portrayal has seen a drastic change. We pass judgments of others in one glance. Everything on the outside of the person is assumed to be a direct representation of identity. This does not mean that those assumptions are unchangeable, but it is true that first impressions can be hard to take back.
This immediate image that each individual portrays is what others now identify with our “self.” As a society, we recognize that. And we are responding to it. Some responses are insignificant, but others are more penetrating. Instead of cultivating our personalities, we rely on the things we wear and buy to define ourselves. We have more choices than ever before; and those choices define who we are to the rest of the world. Our consumption creates our identity.
Music is one of the most telling representations of identity. In Mediated, de Zengotita discusses musical preferences and their connection to attitude. Ultimately, our attitude is what shapes our identity. When we choose what music we listen to, it is generally based on the most simplistic, yet broad aspect of ourselves: our background. Region, ethnicity, religion, education and values are the primary basis for our musical preferences. We will not listen to something if we do not believe in it. People will buy a shirt or car because they perceive that others will think they are “cool”; but most people cannot stand to listen to music that they don’t agree with for an extended amount of time. Music may be the one thing you cannot fake.
Emotion, on the other hand, is a different story. We have learned to fake just as much "sincere" emotion as we can actually show. Often times, we regulate our outward emotions to what we perceive is expected, be it more or less than what we really feel. Rarely now is our emotion truly pure: we live in the moment, putting on a show, performing for a crowd, acting the way we are "supposed to." (de Zengotita 2005)
Ultimately, we are looking for approval. All we want is to be accepted by other people. This is has always been true for any human being; however, in this age, we are obsessed with it. Our lives have become centered on others’ opinions, as opposed to self-fulfillment. We are too concerned with what other people think. Our image has become more important than our beliefs. Eventually, no one will be honestly happy. Why? As de Zengotita states so well, because “real is not real enough.” Being ourselves is not good enough anymore. Or at least that is what we think. We are on a constant quest for flattery. We feed off of it and make every choice based on it. Being fulfilled used to be good enough, but now we are not allowed to be happy until everyone else is happy with us. Is that really fair? Some people are recognizing the problem with this, but too many of us have remained ignorant and complacent. Those people continue to portray their created “selves,” and live in a false light of happiness.
This desire for recognition has filtered to us through the media. Television promotes reality television, where you get to be your “self”; advertising is personalized for us, giving us constant, yet false, one-on-one attention. We have learned the best ways to get that attention. We exploit the system to get the highest, most positive response possible. By choosing what we wear, what we say, who we are friends with and what we consume, we can predict fairly accurately the response of the media and society. Therefore, we make said choices to maximize that attention and flattery. But we are not the only ones who know that. The media knows that we have figured out what they know. So while we think we are (usually subconsciously) undermining them, they are still using us. It is an unending cycle of manipulation and a false sense of triumph.
A prime example of this is found in reality television. We use reality television to exploit the media and get the ultimate attention: for the contestants, a national (sometimes worldwide) television appearance; for the audience, typically a chance to feel a lot better about ourselves. Producers of reality television exploit that desire for flattery by driving contestants to their breaking points through various methods of deprivation (Brenton and Cohen 2003). They push the contestant to the extreme of their created “self”. It could be seen as a test, to see if the person can really stay true to their “self” in alternative conditions. On the audience front, producers are using the pseudo-unpredictable actions of contestants to bring in an audience that desires to be considered “normal.” We need affirmation that we fit in, we are not like those contestants who do crazy things to get attention. It is a double-edged sword. While we are trying to stand out (like the contestants), we also need approval (like the audience). We crave uniqueness, yet seek normalcy.
Infiltrating not only television, but all types of media, is advertising. Marketers’ primary goal is to figure out what we want. Right now, we want attention. And they are giving it to us – personalized e-mails, customized online pop-ups, coupons tailored to our shopping tendencies, the list is extensive. Even politicians are in on it, calling our cell phones and leaving messages beseeching our support. As obnoxious as it seems, the advertisements keep coming. Why? Because the tactics are working. We like to pretend that we are annoyed, even creeped out, by all the personalization. In actuality, it is exactly what we want. Every one of those e-mails and phone calls feeds our ego a little bit. It is not quite as effective as face-to-face communication, but that is nearly impossible in marketing. The platforms that are currently utilized – Internet, telephone, television, radio, etc. – are getting the job done. We feel a little bit more special; because someone (or something) was thinking of us.
Platforms of communication say a lot about human perception. The platform on which people communicate is a window into what is important to them. Although technology has created radically different pathways of communication than before, there are still some things that inherently require face-to-face contact. Yet, people still have their private lives plastered on the web for almost anyone to see. Facebook status updates are like mini press releases. We have become accustomed to broadcasting information about ourselves and receiving tiny pieces of (possibly) insignificant feedback. Do all those status comments accumulate to the equivalent of a face-to-face conversation with a best friend? The possibility exists that we are slowly giving up our ability to have unique, meaningful relationships. There is something to be said for compensation on other communication platforms, but generally, the more people that know a piece of information, the less important it is perceived; the surprise factor is gone.
All of this is a very basic summation of the effects that the media has had on our culture in recent decades. It is still obvious that there are significant and potentially catastrophic changes taking place in society. We are losing our capacity to connect, not only with others, but with ourselves. The quality of our relationships is diminishing with a growing lack of devotion. Our friendships, while more numerous, are more superficial. Our heroes are fleeting and few. Humans thrive on that interaction with others, be it one-on-one or in looking up to someone we have never met. We need that personal connection. It helps us define ourselves.
Heroes are becoming a thing of the past. No one is big enough to be a true hero anymore. Having a hero requires devotion, and the flattered self is not willing to give that to anyone anymore. (de Zengotita 2005) The idea of modeling our lives, or just a part of our lives, after one thing, person or idea is traumatizing. It takes away our individual freedom. As de Zengotita discusses, our society has become obsessed with picking people’s lives apart. The press feeds off of the faults of public figures. We feed off of the faults of public figures. It makes us feel better about ourselves, or more accurately, our “selves.” We aren't willing to let anyone be our hero anymore, because that means they are better than we are. We are conditioned to the "I am number one" concept. Believing that someone is better than we are undermines our individual self-confidence. At least, that is what the media insinuates. There is something to be said for having a hero, someone to look up to. It gives If our culture focused less on "what I am," and more on "who I can be," our world would be a very different place.
We have become so focused on our “selves” and how we portray our “selves” that we no longer know who we really are. We are also losing the ability to see others for who they really are. This phenomenon is permeating our society and changing the way we live and interact. If it goes unrecognized much longer, there will be no choice but to conform. Now, though, we still have the ability to adapt. The evolution itself is not catastrophic, but the effects could be. We are losing ourselves in the choices we make, but there is still time to reconnect with our true “self.”
The Method
My research has focused primarily on reading and analyzing Mediated by Thomas de Zengotita. The articles that we have read for class as well as Shooting People by Brenton and Cohen have played a large role in my work. The biggest thing for me is writing down my thoughts as I'm reading. I keep finding myself writing little pieces of my research paper as I go, and then finding ways to connect everything. Everything is starting to fall into place!
(this was written a few weeks ago, just realized that it didn't post!)
(this was written a few weeks ago, just realized that it didn't post!)
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Presentation Preview
Here are the general points that I plan to highlight in my presentation...I'll make them more specific and add information as I work on it!
Are we losing the capacity to connect deeply?
Media is infiltrating our lives in ways we've never experienced before.
It is forcing an evolution in how we define ourselves.
We focus on things we like, not personality traits.
We are more emotional about objects than we are about actions.
We seek attention and approval, not fulfillment.
Media has changed the very definition of being a "self."
It is pointless to do something without recognition.
Why do we post our Friday night plans on Facebook?
Why do we have dating competitions on television?
Because we have to look good to everyone else.
We have to get the approval of everyone else, of course.
Media has taught us that, too.
If Stacy is going to make fun of my status, well, then I better not post it.
I dunno if Joe will think my favorite band is dumb...so I'll just put something cooler.
"Cooler?" Why do we care?
Because we live to be flattered.
We create a "self" that has the highest potential of praise and attention.
But what are the consequences?
Have we become so connected to ourselves that we cannot connect with others?
Are we losing the capacity to connect deeply?
- Media is forcing an evolution in how we define ourselves.
- Media has changed the very definition of being a "self."
- Because of media, the way we portray ourselves to others has changed.
- Outside influences are changing what is important to us. Or what we say is important to us.
- Music and morals are uniquely linked in portraying identity.
Media is infiltrating our lives in ways we've never experienced before.
It is forcing an evolution in how we define ourselves.
We focus on things we like, not personality traits.
We are more emotional about objects than we are about actions.
We seek attention and approval, not fulfillment.
Media has changed the very definition of being a "self."
It is pointless to do something without recognition.
Why do we post our Friday night plans on Facebook?
Why do we have dating competitions on television?
Because we have to look good to everyone else.
We have to get the approval of everyone else, of course.
Media has taught us that, too.
If Stacy is going to make fun of my status, well, then I better not post it.
I dunno if Joe will think my favorite band is dumb...so I'll just put something cooler.
"Cooler?" Why do we care?
Because we live to be flattered.
We create a "self" that has the highest potential of praise and attention.
But what are the consequences?
Have we become so connected to ourselves that we cannot connect with others?
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Are we losing our real friends?
"Excuse me? Are you even Amy's friend?" (de Zengotita 82)
How has being someone's "friend" changed with the advent of the Internet and especially, Facebook? We now have our private lives plastered on the web for almost anyone to see. The girl who was in my Intro to Anthropology World Sim group second semester of freshman year is now privvy to information that probably only 15 to 20 people knew about me five years ago. Does this make me feel more special? Not really. Well, maybe. She probably doesn't even care that I've decided to go skydiving this summer. But now she knows. If she really wanted to, she could figure out who my ex-boyfriends are and which of my "friends" are actually related to me. Including my brother. And my parents. Awkward. I feel like that should bother me more than it does. We have become accustomed to broadcasting information about ourselves and receiving tiny pieces of (possibly) insignificant feedback. What is the thrill behind telling the world about your plans for Friday night? Do they really need to know? Probably not. But then, someone might comment on your status and suggest something even better. Or just say they are jealous. Maybe we are just curious to see what other people think of us. My question is, does it really even matter what they think? Do all those little status comments and wall posts that may or may not make me smile or reminisce for 15 seconds accumulate to the equivalent of a face to face conversation with my best friend? She's probably the only person who could have actually told you all those random facts about me five years ago. Don't get me wrong, I still cherish those face-to-face conversations, but sometimes I wonder if our friendship would mean more if she were still the only one who knew some of those things. Are we slowly giving up our ability to have unique, deep relationships? Maybe we are compensating for it in other ways. But still, it's like a leak in security...the more people who know a piece of information, the less important it seems to become. We know the musical preferences and favorite books of people that we've met once. That is pretty creepy. It still throws me off when even a good friend texts me about something I posted in my status. How the heck did they know that? Oh wait...Facebook. It feels so personal when I'm deciding what to say in my status or who to tag in my note...I often forget how many people can ACTUALLY see it. Approximately 600, to be specific. How many actually care? Maybe 30, give or take. I guess my biggest question is, are relationships as we know them, with ourselves AND others, going down the tubes? Are we past the point of no return?
How has being someone's "friend" changed with the advent of the Internet and especially, Facebook? We now have our private lives plastered on the web for almost anyone to see. The girl who was in my Intro to Anthropology World Sim group second semester of freshman year is now privvy to information that probably only 15 to 20 people knew about me five years ago. Does this make me feel more special? Not really. Well, maybe. She probably doesn't even care that I've decided to go skydiving this summer. But now she knows. If she really wanted to, she could figure out who my ex-boyfriends are and which of my "friends" are actually related to me. Including my brother. And my parents. Awkward. I feel like that should bother me more than it does. We have become accustomed to broadcasting information about ourselves and receiving tiny pieces of (possibly) insignificant feedback. What is the thrill behind telling the world about your plans for Friday night? Do they really need to know? Probably not. But then, someone might comment on your status and suggest something even better. Or just say they are jealous. Maybe we are just curious to see what other people think of us. My question is, does it really even matter what they think? Do all those little status comments and wall posts that may or may not make me smile or reminisce for 15 seconds accumulate to the equivalent of a face to face conversation with my best friend? She's probably the only person who could have actually told you all those random facts about me five years ago. Don't get me wrong, I still cherish those face-to-face conversations, but sometimes I wonder if our friendship would mean more if she were still the only one who knew some of those things. Are we slowly giving up our ability to have unique, deep relationships? Maybe we are compensating for it in other ways. But still, it's like a leak in security...the more people who know a piece of information, the less important it seems to become. We know the musical preferences and favorite books of people that we've met once. That is pretty creepy. It still throws me off when even a good friend texts me about something I posted in my status. How the heck did they know that? Oh wait...Facebook. It feels so personal when I'm deciding what to say in my status or who to tag in my note...I often forget how many people can ACTUALLY see it. Approximately 600, to be specific. How many actually care? Maybe 30, give or take. I guess my biggest question is, are relationships as we know them, with ourselves AND others, going down the tubes? Are we past the point of no return?
Monday, February 16, 2009
Protecting & Reinventing Our Identities...
While media and marketing have learned to influence our identities with personalization in advertising, we have also become more aware of ourselves and our own identities. Marketers can reach out to us with personalized messages, but we have more control over what we accept and what we reject. As Clive Thompson discusses in "Web ushers in age of ambient intimacy," Internet tools such as Facebook and Twitter have given us new levels of control in our lives. We can easily portray ourselves to our friends and acquaintances exactly as the person we want to be. This new realization comes with its setbacks. There will always be someone who knows who you really are and calls you out on your fraudulent attempts to be "cool." This is where protecting our identities comes in. In a way, we must protect our identities from people we know, while also protecting them from marketers who might portray us in a false light. It's a little more complicated than having someone steal your credit card. I think that for many of us, this task has become all-consuming. We are constantly thinking about what our next Facebook status will be; who might have looked at our profile before we took those pictures down; why that person invited us to that weird group. At the same time, as Thompson mentions, we have begun to learn more about ourselves through things like Facebook statuses and Twitter posts. Through all the superficiality, we might begin to uncover what is really important to us.
Monday, February 9, 2009
reading reflections: numero uno
While reading Hines, the part that stood out to me the most was the discussion of a virtual ethnography lacking face-to-face experience. While it will be difficult for a lot of us to have face to face experience in our research, the marketing aspect carries over from the Internet to the real world, so I think it will be important for me to get some personal interviews on the effects of marketing in today's society. It was also interesting that she talked about how a virtual ethnography is not necessarily unbiased. Since we are studying a culture that we are actually a part of in some ways, it would be pretty much impossible to leave out some opinion, no matter how hard we try. We are obviously trying to evoke a feeling in our audience, so we'll have to do our best to not intentionally sway them one way or another.
The networking article applied to a lot of aspects of my project. It brought up the point that with the creation of the Internet, media is now directed toward individuals, not groups. This plays a huge part in marketing. Companies can now pinpoint target audiences down to their hobbies and religious views. It is this personal "attention" that makes us feel special, as Anonymous says. There is a false sense of relationship created between the online ads and the actual person. More than likely, no one actually cares behind the ad, yet when we see an email that greets us by name, we are much more likely to at least glance over it. This technique gives the marketers just enough to catch our attention and draw us in. Next thing we know, we are clicking through to their website and buying those cute shoes that we never would have seen before if it wasn't for the email. In some ways, this new era of marketing has created opportunities we never imagined; but it also can waste our time and money, among other things.
I'm currently reading Mediated and I plan to garner some ideas from that as well. I'm thinking I'm going to focus on how the personalization of advertising/marketing on the Internet has affected us...and go from there!
The networking article applied to a lot of aspects of my project. It brought up the point that with the creation of the Internet, media is now directed toward individuals, not groups. This plays a huge part in marketing. Companies can now pinpoint target audiences down to their hobbies and religious views. It is this personal "attention" that makes us feel special, as Anonymous says. There is a false sense of relationship created between the online ads and the actual person. More than likely, no one actually cares behind the ad, yet when we see an email that greets us by name, we are much more likely to at least glance over it. This technique gives the marketers just enough to catch our attention and draw us in. Next thing we know, we are clicking through to their website and buying those cute shoes that we never would have seen before if it wasn't for the email. In some ways, this new era of marketing has created opportunities we never imagined; but it also can waste our time and money, among other things.
I'm currently reading Mediated and I plan to garner some ideas from that as well. I'm thinking I'm going to focus on how the personalization of advertising/marketing on the Internet has affected us...and go from there!
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
the effects of advertising
Within the past decade, Facebook, reality television and YouTube have all provided us with an opportunity at microcelebrity. Our Facebook profiles allow us to share irrelevant personal information with the world; reality TV produces “shooting stars,” who may be around for a season or two; YouTube gives users a chance at Internet celebrity. They allow us to brag about our accomplishments and show off our finest qualities. Other people notice, and we receive attention. We have found a way to create our own significance, or at least try. Is the significance that people had before not good enough? There must be a reason that our society is searching for more.
The media and marketing firms have picked up on this concept. They can now market things with incredible specificity to an individual person. Facebook allows advertisers to use keywords from a person’s profile to determine which ads that person will see. Marketers can practically see what we are thinking by viewing our click streams. We are unconsciously playing their game. They know what we will respond to and use it to their advantage. Because of this, we now describe ourselves primarily through the products we use and the brands to which we are loyal. They have become our identity. The question remains: will we able to find ourselves again?
The media and marketing firms have picked up on this concept. They can now market things with incredible specificity to an individual person. Facebook allows advertisers to use keywords from a person’s profile to determine which ads that person will see. Marketers can practically see what we are thinking by viewing our click streams. We are unconsciously playing their game. They know what we will respond to and use it to their advantage. Because of this, we now describe ourselves primarily through the products we use and the brands to which we are loyal. They have become our identity. The question remains: will we able to find ourselves again?
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
my proposal
Anonymity is easily defined, but not easily understood. As we have started researching the concept, I have become intrigued by the contrast between identity and anonymity. I think that a study of Facebook will provide a unique perspective into anonymity, or the lack thereof. I would like to research the phenomenon that Facebook has created in our society. Facebook is changing the way we communicate, the way we think, the way we advertise. This networking device has united people and allowed us to have the most personal details of people’s lives at our fingertips in a few clicks of the mouse. However, Facebook could also be the downfall of relationships as we know them. The intimate, face-to-face conversations of the past have been reduced to writing on an acquaintance’s wall or tagging them in a note. Facebook may have brought us together, but is it also tearing us apart?
At the same time, Facebook and other networking systems have provided all of us with an opportunity at microcelebrity. Our Facebook profiles allow us to share irrelevant personal information with the world. They allow us to brag about our accomplishments and show off our finest qualities. Other people notice, and we receive attention. We have found a way to create our own significance, or at least try. Is the significance that people had before not good enough? There must be a reason that our society is searching for more. What is the draw of Facebook? Is it proving that you fit in? Or trying to stand out?
Sunday, January 18, 2009
numero uno!
So, I finally figured this out :)
Right now, I'm thinking my project might focus on the irony of being nameless, yet labeling yourself. We'll see what happens!
Right now, I'm thinking my project might focus on the irony of being nameless, yet labeling yourself. We'll see what happens!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
