Fiascos like these, coined flogs (faux blogs), are largely the result of a failure to be transparent, whether intentionally or not. Given the highly traceable nature of internet technology, it is hard to imagine how one could hide footprints like server names, admin names, email addresses, and company profiles. On the net, information is so easy to obtain, and with very little expertise. Advertisers and marketers must not forget that they are now subject to much greater scrutiny than possible for a 30-second television spot.
Clearly, the Wal-Mart and SCEA debacles were attempts to revitalize an aging industry, using the emerging arena of interactive marketing. An unavoidable difference between the successful blogs of Sun Microsystems and GM, and the disasters of Wal-Mart and SCEA, is that the former were not created as specific marketing attempts. They are CEO’s communicating directly with their consumers, conversationally, in a natural blogging style. Wal-Mart and SCEA, however, hired peons to represent the brand, without making the financial connection or purpose immediately clear.
Now, startup companies are emerging to capitalize on these mistakes, offering blog creation and consultation services to inexperienced businesses. One such company, Fortune Interactive, claims:
We can help guide your company through the intricacies of the blogosphere and provide everything your company needs to take advantage of the marketing, branding and public relations benefits that come from managing a corporate blog.
While technically hiring others to represent your company, this may not be a bad tactic for businesses that would otherwise embarrass themselves. Understanding that blogging is more of a community than a tool is essential, and becoming fluent in the language and customs is imperative to creating a lasting blog. Because the blogging community is still relatively unregulated legally and financially, consequences for an offending blog is generally bad press and blogger disdain. But as the blogosphere grows in influence, more and more companies will have to take consumers seriously, talking with them instead of at them. Blogger organized boycotts, hacks, and bad publicity will have more power as their popularity rises.
Monday, December 25, 2006
And Sony Screws Up Too
In an effort to push holiday sales of the Playstation Portable, Sony Computer Entertainment America hired interactive marketing firm Zipatoni to create a blog supposedly created by two friends in an effort to get another friend’s mother to buy him a PSP (and help others in the same tragic PSP-less situation). A posting on the now-defunct site AllIWantforChristmasisaPSP.com read:
Consider us your own personal psp hype machine, here to help you wage a holiday assault on ur parents, girl, granny, boss - whoever - so they know what you really want.
This site too, was quickly revealed to be an artificial attempt at viral marketing (see Dec. 5th post on ILoveBees.com), and it’s lifespan also lasted only about a month. Before being pulled completely, an apology was issued, stating:
Busted. Nailed. Snagged. As many of you have figured out (maybe our speech was a little too funky fresh???), Peter isn't a real hip-hop maven and this site was actually developed by Sony. Guess we were trying to be just a little too clever. From this point forward, we will just stick to making cool products, and use this site to give you nothing but the facts on the PSP.
Clearly, SCEA and Zipatoni entirely missed the mark. Again, thanks to traceable origins, an obviously fabricated persona, heavy product pushing, the blog came under scrutiny and was heavily lambasted by the very people they were trying to appeal to.
Consider us your own personal psp hype machine, here to help you wage a holiday assault on ur parents, girl, granny, boss - whoever - so they know what you really want.
This site too, was quickly revealed to be an artificial attempt at viral marketing (see Dec. 5th post on ILoveBees.com), and it’s lifespan also lasted only about a month. Before being pulled completely, an apology was issued, stating:
Busted. Nailed. Snagged. As many of you have figured out (maybe our speech was a little too funky fresh???), Peter isn't a real hip-hop maven and this site was actually developed by Sony. Guess we were trying to be just a little too clever. From this point forward, we will just stick to making cool products, and use this site to give you nothing but the facts on the PSP.
Clearly, SCEA and Zipatoni entirely missed the mark. Again, thanks to traceable origins, an obviously fabricated persona, heavy product pushing, the blog came under scrutiny and was heavily lambasted by the very people they were trying to appeal to.
That Wascally Wal-Mart
For corporations providing goods and services, blogs provided yet another channel for promoting a product. Some, such as Sun Microsystems, General Motors, and Stonyfield Farms, have successfully managed to integrate their blogs into their website offerings. Others, such as Wal-Mart, Sony Computer Entertainment America (SCEA), and McDonald’s, have made major blunders. The main difference in their handling may be rooted to opposing attitudes about the nature of blogs. Successful corporate blogs recognize a savvy community with a recognized code of ethics and etiquette. Offending corporate blogs overlooked this aspect, choosing instead to treat their blogs as blunt marketing efforts, little more than interactive commercials.
In September 2006, a blog titled “Wal-Marting Across America” appeared, which followed Laura and Jim as they drove across country in their RV, interviewing happy Wal-Mart employees and customers along the way. A month later, site’s posts were removed, save for one goodbye and one explanation post (neither of them an apology). In what turned out to be the leading blog scandal of 2006, Wal-Mart, Edelman, and numerous others learned first-hand about the repercussions of a bad corporate blog.
Edelman, one of the premier firms in the PR industry, is actually a governing member of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA). As a governing member, they evaluate and help craft the ethical word-of-mouth marketing guidelines across a range of mediums, blogging being one of them. The objectives of their “Ethical Blogger Contact Guidelines” are listed as follows:
--Help marketers work honestly and ethically within the blogosphere.
--Promote disclosure by marketers within blogs.
--Protect consumers by establishing ethical standards for marketing to and within blogs.
--Protect marketers' reputations from the damage that unethical behavior will cause.
While this is still a draft (see link item #6), the core components of the guidelines are there. The question is, how could Edelman, a leader in interactive marketing, have so blatantly disregarded them? From the explanation provided by Laura, the intent of her blog was not meant to be another insidious marketing effort. A fan of RVing, she and her partner had discovered that Wal-Marts allowed RVs to park overnight for free. Already planning a major trip, she thought:
We would take vacation from our full-time jobs and drive across the country in a rented RV, from city to city, spending the night in a different Wal-Mart parking lot every night. And, of course, I’d write an article about it and may be able to sell a story to an RV magazine, with photos, of RVing in America and only staying at Wal-Marts.
Utilizing her connections to Edelman, whom she knew handled Wal-Mart’s PR, she attempted to obtain permission to write such a story rather than risk litigation afterwards. To her surprise, Edelman quickly pitched her idea to Working Families for Wal-Mart, and they agreed to underwrite the trip. (Wal-Mart, in its own defense, has distanced itself from this decision by Working Families as it is an independent organization, though it receives funding from them.)
So far, all is well and good by the guidelines. But the problems began when the bloggers failed to disclose that the blog was now technically a commercial entity, no longer representing the sole interests of Laura and Jim. The scope of their original project was altered by the contract with Working Families, even though it was a direction the bloggers enjoyed taking. Telling the (mostly positive) stories of people encountered in Wal-Marts is not a sin in the blogging community, but failing to make your affiliation apparent is considered deceptive. Edelman, in charge of the site, is responsible for failing to apply its own WOMMA guidelines of transparency.
It was anti-Wal-Mart watchdog bloggers who first discovered the connection, which was then massively exposed by BusinessWeek.com. The unveiling of the blogger’s identities made the situation seem more deceptive. Laura St. Claire was a freelance writer and employee at the U.S. treasury, and her partner, Jim Thresher, was a staff photographer for The Washington Post. Professional journalists, writing on behalf of Wal-Mart, ought to have realized that they represent more than ‘Laura and Jim, average Americans.’
THE FINALE (part 1 of ???)
The blogging phenomena is still a young one; the blogosphere, as a recognized community, is still less than 10 years old. Many of the activities which could be argued as early blogging, went nameless before then, still too mixed up in early websites to be considered a separate entity. Yet the growth of the community has been staggering: as of December 2006, Technorati has been tracking some 60 million individual blogs.
The rules governing this rapidly expanding community are still being framed. At best, there is a recognized code of conduct and etiquette, but no enforcement other than social backlash. This rarely extends beyond the blogging community; there are occasional cases of a firing or bad press, but no blog-specific legal or financial penalties currently exist.
Now that bloggers have started to go commercial, the guidelines governing these will have to become stricter and better enforced. The Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA), is a collection of companies who promote an ethical framework for commercial blogs. For the most part, however, the blogging community still relies on a kind of internet ‘neighborhood watch’ to identify and punish offending blogs.
The blogosphere can be described using a number of worthy metaphors, including that of ‘the wild west.’ I think that in evaluating corporate blogs, Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point players could also be valuable. He identifies the following 3 characters as setting off marketing epidemics:
Mavens – Individuals with a wealth of information in their chosen field.
Connectors – Those with unusually large social circles.
Salesmen – Highly influential people whose behaviors are more likely to be mimicked.
The rules governing this rapidly expanding community are still being framed. At best, there is a recognized code of conduct and etiquette, but no enforcement other than social backlash. This rarely extends beyond the blogging community; there are occasional cases of a firing or bad press, but no blog-specific legal or financial penalties currently exist.
Now that bloggers have started to go commercial, the guidelines governing these will have to become stricter and better enforced. The Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA), is a collection of companies who promote an ethical framework for commercial blogs. For the most part, however, the blogging community still relies on a kind of internet ‘neighborhood watch’ to identify and punish offending blogs.
The blogosphere can be described using a number of worthy metaphors, including that of ‘the wild west.’ I think that in evaluating corporate blogs, Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point players could also be valuable. He identifies the following 3 characters as setting off marketing epidemics:
Mavens – Individuals with a wealth of information in their chosen field.
Connectors – Those with unusually large social circles.
Salesmen – Highly influential people whose behaviors are more likely to be mimicked.
Bloggers generally fall mostly into the maven and connector categories, naturally inclined to find information and help it proliferate. As discussed in class, bloggers tend to be tech-savvy, information addicted, opinionated, vocal, and tribal, all qualities which equip them with forming and governing various social communities on the internet. Many also consider themselves proud members of a subculture that is skeptical of mass media, government, and big business machinations. These are not apathetic people. They are highly engaged with their community.
They are also, young, affluent, high-tech, and increasingly popular. According to an August 2005 comScore survey of blogs and bloggers:
50 million U.S. Internet users visited blog sites in the first quarter of 2005. That is roughly 30% of all U.S. Internet users and 1 in 6 of the total U.S. population.
Five hosting services for blogs each had more than 5 million unique visitors in that period, and four individual blogs had more than 1 million visitors each.
Of 400 of the biggest blogs observed, segmented by seven (nonexclusive) categories, political blogs were the most popular, followed by "hipster" lifestyle blogs, tech blogs and blogs authored by women.
Compared to the average Internet user, blog readers are significantly more likely to live in wealthier households, be younger and connect to the Web on high-speed connections.
Blog readers also visit nearly twice as many web pages as the Internet average, and they are much more likely to shop online.
Now that Google, Yahoo, Technorati and others have made blog searches possible, it is easier than ever for marketers to assess general attitudes about their brands. For example, GoogleTrends is a new tool that tracks the number of searches over a span of timeline, represented by a graph with certain points corresponding with highly relevant (in Google assessment) website and article appearances.
The growing number of bloggers and blog visitors is starting to affect mass media outlets, too. “In fact, Blogspot.com now reaches more visitors than NYTimes.com, USAToday.com and WashingtonPost.com -- clear evidence that consumer-generated media can draw audience on par with traditional online publishers.” (comScore report ‘Behaviors of the Blogosphere,’ 8/2005) Instead of turning to mass media, the masses are creating new media.
Some companies have gone so far as to create projects in which crowdsourcing is implemented, inviting knowledgeable participants to contribute to research efforts or product construction. Proctor&Gamble rewards independent researchers and scientists for valuable contributions to ongoing challenges posted on Innocentive.com. While not technically of the blogging domain, the behavior falls into the category of consumer-generated material that also encompasses blogs and YouTube videos.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Corporate blogging caught red-handed
This blog, called AllIwantforXmasisaPSP, was an attempt by Sony to generate some kind of faux-viral marketing. Obviously, they pissed off the genuine bloggers and would-be consumers along the way. Whoops! At least they made an apology, though I doubt they'll get much more traffic in the future.
There have been successful corp-born viral marketing efforts, like ILoveBees.com. Microsoft initiated this webpage to promote Halo 2 shortly before its release a few years ago. Irreverent and engaging, it quickly became a meme and spread like wildfire. A Wikipedia article on the site actually does a pretty good job of explaining it, but nonethelesss it's fun to click around since ALL the links work, even the 'bee' related ones in the background.
Know this is all after-the-fact, but I'm kind of into this stuff. I used to be a closet nerd, and now I've been outed.
There have been successful corp-born viral marketing efforts, like ILoveBees.com. Microsoft initiated this webpage to promote Halo 2 shortly before its release a few years ago. Irreverent and engaging, it quickly became a meme and spread like wildfire. A Wikipedia article on the site actually does a pretty good job of explaining it, but nonethelesss it's fun to click around since ALL the links work, even the 'bee' related ones in the background.
Know this is all after-the-fact, but I'm kind of into this stuff. I used to be a closet nerd, and now I've been outed.
Monday, December 04, 2006
MySpace: big and getting bigger
Apparently MySpace is the second biggest site on the internet after Yahoo! Clearly I'm incapable of seeing the appeal that 50 million users do, which is unsettling. Will work on that.
I do get the corporate appeal though. More on that can be found in this BusinessWeek article. A quote: "'Eighty of the top 100 brands advertise on MySpace. It's a who's who of marketing,' Barrett says. Brands with a presence on the site include music companies and consumer products companies from Jeep (DCX) to Procter & Gamble (PG)." Power in numbers, huh?
I do get the corporate appeal though. More on that can be found in this BusinessWeek article. A quote: "'Eighty of the top 100 brands advertise on MySpace. It's a who's who of marketing,' Barrett says. Brands with a presence on the site include music companies and consumer products companies from Jeep (DCX) to Procter & Gamble (PG)." Power in numbers, huh?
Sunday, December 03, 2006
More on Facebook
I've been thinking about why we pick up certain social-technological behavior, and I keep coming back to the magic number of 65 from my Facebook study. That number was the average number of friends added over the course of a semester by a freshman on the Facebook. Its a staggering number, especially for most of us who don't meet 65 new people we'd consider friends every 13 weeks. Inside that number, however, is the key to social technology. As long as we desire or are compelled to expand our social networks, we will make efforts to learn the communication behavior of the pack. If you need proof of this, think of the adults who turned to computer dating a few years ago; our desires for social contact will drive our adoption and uses of new mediums.
- Fred Stutzman in his post on Adopting Social-Technical Communication Behavior
This is just one of a few good thoughts he's provided on social networking sites. A more complete list of his Facebook research posts can be found here.
- Fred Stutzman in his post on Adopting Social-Technical Communication Behavior
This is just one of a few good thoughts he's provided on social networking sites. A more complete list of his Facebook research posts can be found here.
SNS sites
Once, for a brief moment of weakness, I considered joining MySpace. Thankfully, that feeling was quickly overcome by the riots staged by the logical part of my brain, and all was well once again.
MyProblem with MySpace, is that it is not really worth MyTime, or MyEffort. I realize I'm probably about to alienate a lot of people with the following statements, but I'm gonna throw them out there anyhow. Aesthetically, I find the layout of the site and the profiles to be sloppy, crowded and distracting. Philosophically, I just don't get it. For an example, I'm using this girl's profile who came up under "Cool New People" on the main page (though DocManJay works as well.) Almost 99% of the profiles I viewed were similar to this one, in that images and phrases are tacked onto the page like some kind of ugly digital scrapbook that is supposed to give the viewer an idea of the person's values. Half the comments are variations of "Thanks for the add!" The problem for me there is that whatever social network that is created ends up being purely superficial and fairly vapid. My roommate has deemed the entire site "Slutty" and from my own impressions, I'd say she's not far off. I feel like these people are virtually pimping themselves out.
Now, I am a member of Facebook, and I'm ready for the onslaught of criticism for joining that. Come on, bring it. For me, Facebook is much more representative of my social network. I don't have 5 million friends, I won't pretend to. I actually have met and genuinely like almost everyone listed. It's a way for me to keep in touch with people who I don't see very often, and (very importantly) remember their birthdays. Sorry guys, but I don't really care what TV shows you like, but I do enjoy seeing your set of pictures from the same party we went to. And I like that I can make my profile as public or private as I want. I admit, I preferred when it was exclusive to colleges, and before newsfeed was introduced, but I think the Facebook team has managed the additions well enough that it is still a worthwhile tool and distraction.
To summarize: I need Facebook's framework to help me function, and to filter out a lot of crap that MySpace indulges in. Just a personal preference.
MyProblem with MySpace, is that it is not really worth MyTime, or MyEffort. I realize I'm probably about to alienate a lot of people with the following statements, but I'm gonna throw them out there anyhow. Aesthetically, I find the layout of the site and the profiles to be sloppy, crowded and distracting. Philosophically, I just don't get it. For an example, I'm using this girl's profile who came up under "Cool New People" on the main page (though DocManJay works as well.) Almost 99% of the profiles I viewed were similar to this one, in that images and phrases are tacked onto the page like some kind of ugly digital scrapbook that is supposed to give the viewer an idea of the person's values. Half the comments are variations of "Thanks for the add!" The problem for me there is that whatever social network that is created ends up being purely superficial and fairly vapid. My roommate has deemed the entire site "Slutty" and from my own impressions, I'd say she's not far off. I feel like these people are virtually pimping themselves out.
Now, I am a member of Facebook, and I'm ready for the onslaught of criticism for joining that. Come on, bring it. For me, Facebook is much more representative of my social network. I don't have 5 million friends, I won't pretend to. I actually have met and genuinely like almost everyone listed. It's a way for me to keep in touch with people who I don't see very often, and (very importantly) remember their birthdays. Sorry guys, but I don't really care what TV shows you like, but I do enjoy seeing your set of pictures from the same party we went to. And I like that I can make my profile as public or private as I want. I admit, I preferred when it was exclusive to colleges, and before newsfeed was introduced, but I think the Facebook team has managed the additions well enough that it is still a worthwhile tool and distraction.
To summarize: I need Facebook's framework to help me function, and to filter out a lot of crap that MySpace indulges in. Just a personal preference.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
So after reading bits of Dr. Crazy's blog, she really got me thinking about our online personae, and not just on blogs. When I created my own blog for the class, I didn't bother to come up with a pseudonym, I just post under Kristen. I figured that my in-class contributions would pretty much echo what my blog was said, so there wasn't really an alter-ego being created. I suppose I could have had fun confusing people by being one person in class and another online, but chose not to for a variety of reasons.
And yet, like Gabe, I like posting under my own name. Now, I don't really have anything to protect at this point that my blog might threaten, but I think that also has to do with the intended utility of a blog. For my own sake, it serves me better to be publicly accountable for what I've written. It doesn't make me less raw, I just think more. It makes me try to develop my argument better, I try harder to maintain a decent and painless style of writing.
Sometimes, there will be posts like this one which are more emotional than intellectual, but that's okay on this space because I don't feel (at this point) that I've misrepresented myself. I'd welcome anyone to come up and talk to me in person about what I've written here. I don't feel the need to force people to comment solely on my blog, admiring or despising from afar under their own pseudonyms. It seems too easy to just smile knowingly as people chitchat by the watercooler about you, or be invisible and protected if the comments are disparaging. If you've got so much to say, why shouldn't you allow people to talk to and about you freely?
This may not apply to people like Dr. Crazy, because, as she's said, hers is an alter-ego. She doesn't seem to believe the blog represents her completely, just a part. There really is no other way to allow discourse that isn't filtered through her blog, because that's the only level the alter-ego exists on.
And then there are the people who have so many alter-egos, you'd think they have a personality disorder. I won't even go into that, because for the most part I think it's a load of rubbish and I'm not about to waste your patience venting.
And yet, like Gabe, I like posting under my own name. Now, I don't really have anything to protect at this point that my blog might threaten, but I think that also has to do with the intended utility of a blog. For my own sake, it serves me better to be publicly accountable for what I've written. It doesn't make me less raw, I just think more. It makes me try to develop my argument better, I try harder to maintain a decent and painless style of writing.
Sometimes, there will be posts like this one which are more emotional than intellectual, but that's okay on this space because I don't feel (at this point) that I've misrepresented myself. I'd welcome anyone to come up and talk to me in person about what I've written here. I don't feel the need to force people to comment solely on my blog, admiring or despising from afar under their own pseudonyms. It seems too easy to just smile knowingly as people chitchat by the watercooler about you, or be invisible and protected if the comments are disparaging. If you've got so much to say, why shouldn't you allow people to talk to and about you freely?
This may not apply to people like Dr. Crazy, because, as she's said, hers is an alter-ego. She doesn't seem to believe the blog represents her completely, just a part. There really is no other way to allow discourse that isn't filtered through her blog, because that's the only level the alter-ego exists on.
And then there are the people who have so many alter-egos, you'd think they have a personality disorder. I won't even go into that, because for the most part I think it's a load of rubbish and I'm not about to waste your patience venting.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
P.S.
I'm sure you've all seen it already, but Colin's assessment of the bipartisan future is hilarious.
So where do we go from here?
"As the extent of the shift of power in Congress and state capitals around the country becomes increasingly clear, Americans want to believe that the country has turned a page, that the election's decisive verdict in favor of change will elicit a different course, not only from the victorious Democrats but also from the defeated Republicans in Congress and the White House." - Edward P. Haley in his article "Replacing Rumsfeld: an opportunity missed" published 11/012/06 in the San Francisco Chronicle
It's true. I really want to believe that, I'd really like to.
It's only been a wee 5 years since I started following contemporary politics, and yet, since I can remember, imagining a bipartisan future was equivalent to believing that communism actually worked. Nice in theory, a joke in practice. If anything, the shift in Congressional power just signals a reaffirmation of the checks-and-balances system, which has been been somewhat undermined by the Bush administration's abuse of the executive branch. I wouldn't go so far as to say that America as a whole has turned a page. When Haley says Americans want to believe that, he really means liberal Americans.
Speaking of liberal-conservative-independent...
I've always known where I stood in the lib-conserv gradient. But as a student who doesn't really have much of a hand in policy-making, that stance matters little compared to the one taken by a certain senator. Or not, since I find it hard to figure out exactly what stance that is lately. Independent-Democrat, to me, seems like an oxymoron, but then again I'm only an English major. And we all know rhetoric and labels really don't mean anything in the grand scheme of politics.
I'm hoping everyone can tell that my tongue has burst through my cheek.
It's easy to make fun of Lieberman for a lot of things, but let's take another look in relation to the new Democratic face of Congress. I'm not sure Lieberman stands as the best example of this bipartisan ideal; most of the time he seems like he's just trying to save his own neck. But in the absence of anyone else, he'll have to do. Wouldn't the embrace of bipartisanship mean trying to satisfy as many Americans as possible, so that more people are happy with legislation than ever before, and the country could be considered more unified, or at least better represented by its government domestically and internationally? If his new brand of politicking inspires his peers, and leads to more compromise between parties, then he might be on to something. In this most recent election, Connecticut, by sticking with Joe, might be championing this new approach.
Too bad it's only good in theory.
It's true. I really want to believe that, I'd really like to.
It's only been a wee 5 years since I started following contemporary politics, and yet, since I can remember, imagining a bipartisan future was equivalent to believing that communism actually worked. Nice in theory, a joke in practice. If anything, the shift in Congressional power just signals a reaffirmation of the checks-and-balances system, which has been been somewhat undermined by the Bush administration's abuse of the executive branch. I wouldn't go so far as to say that America as a whole has turned a page. When Haley says Americans want to believe that, he really means liberal Americans.
Speaking of liberal-conservative-independent...
I've always known where I stood in the lib-conserv gradient. But as a student who doesn't really have much of a hand in policy-making, that stance matters little compared to the one taken by a certain senator. Or not, since I find it hard to figure out exactly what stance that is lately. Independent-Democrat, to me, seems like an oxymoron, but then again I'm only an English major. And we all know rhetoric and labels really don't mean anything in the grand scheme of politics.
I'm hoping everyone can tell that my tongue has burst through my cheek.
It's easy to make fun of Lieberman for a lot of things, but let's take another look in relation to the new Democratic face of Congress. I'm not sure Lieberman stands as the best example of this bipartisan ideal; most of the time he seems like he's just trying to save his own neck. But in the absence of anyone else, he'll have to do. Wouldn't the embrace of bipartisanship mean trying to satisfy as many Americans as possible, so that more people are happy with legislation than ever before, and the country could be considered more unified, or at least better represented by its government domestically and internationally? If his new brand of politicking inspires his peers, and leads to more compromise between parties, then he might be on to something. In this most recent election, Connecticut, by sticking with Joe, might be championing this new approach.
Too bad it's only good in theory.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Still Thinking (ouch)
So after tonight's discussion about ethics, advertising, and whatnot with blogs, I happened to wander over to my guilty pleasure Penny Arcade. For today's post/comic he brought up an issue that resonated with me not only because of the class, but because of my interest in publishing, which I hope to go into. He touches upon a poor review for a specific video game posted to a prominent gaming website, its subsequent pull, and the effect that it had on the editors. It made me think about the evolution of media and technology, and what would have happened if the article just came out in old fashioned print form. Never having read that magazine, odds are that I never would have heard about the review controversy, or even the game. But in the blogosphere, not only can I learn about all that, I can hear about the editorial process and response in a timely and direct manner that I'm less accustomed to hearing from a corporate-type production. Jeff Green's blog on the matter, and the subsequent responses, creates a really interesting account of how a journalistic 'my-bad' turned into a blogger conversation on editing, deleting, and apologizing.
REALLY OFFENSIVE
Digging around for some random funny blogs, I also encountered some really, horrible, gutwrenching ones. I know that's such a tease, but I'm not going to link because I think they should be left with as little attention as possible. Think generally, cruelty to animals, rape, racism, ransom.
This is why I turn to traditional media outlets more than blogs in order to get my fill of the outside world. I'm not going to have to see concoctions like that. There are regulations. Yes, I know in a way I am limiting my information intake, and that will give me a skewed world view yada yada. Is it really wrong to self-filter like that? Am I doing a disservice to the community in general if I do not address the very real (and frightening) potential of some of my peers?
What the internet as a whole, and the blogosphere in particular, have done, is make the circulation of such material a popular way of garnering attention. Dealing with it puts you between a rock and a hard place. Incendiary material of this nature doesn't deserve to be pushed into the limelight, but how do you make people care enough to get to the root of it without that attention? Or should you just let it lie and hope people have enough good sense to ignore it?
This is why I turn to traditional media outlets more than blogs in order to get my fill of the outside world. I'm not going to have to see concoctions like that. There are regulations. Yes, I know in a way I am limiting my information intake, and that will give me a skewed world view yada yada. Is it really wrong to self-filter like that? Am I doing a disservice to the community in general if I do not address the very real (and frightening) potential of some of my peers?
What the internet as a whole, and the blogosphere in particular, have done, is make the circulation of such material a popular way of garnering attention. Dealing with it puts you between a rock and a hard place. Incendiary material of this nature doesn't deserve to be pushed into the limelight, but how do you make people care enough to get to the root of it without that attention? Or should you just let it lie and hope people have enough good sense to ignore it?
Freedom of Blogging and Freedom of Speech
I'm not about to go into the ethics of changing a person's post, because offhand I think it's practice that the blogging community should (and for the most part does) decry. More important, I think, is framing the rules of a particular blog, or whether or not that should be done at all.
I think people (bloggers being particularly prone) forget that while the blogosphere is NOT the real world, it does play a part in it. Blog flamers, MMORPG bullies (this is probably a terrible link), or even road rage - without a face, it's hard to remember the humanity. It's easier to revert to savageness in that state, or become a vandal.
If you don't claim to be someone worth paying attention to, then I guess you can be as much of a jackass as you like. But the very nature of blogging would suggest that you'd like at least a little bit to be in/famous.
This site that Brenda linked was a good jumping off point, I think. He tries to make the distinction between personal blogs and journalistic blogs. Many of the most popular blogs though, are simply purveyors of information, like those old-fashioned newsies, shouting at the top of their lungs. But now, there's no telling what stories they're selling, or for who, or why they're doing it.
Going back to the whole wikipedia debate, the same dillema is being played out. Wikipedia, pure and simple, is not an encyclopedia in the old fashioned sense (duh - but wait, I'm not done). It's an amalgamation of the collective knowledge that the community it attracts has put together. By trying to give it laws and police it, the Wikileaders suggest that it could be managed enough to be a credible source to curious minds. However, doing so undermines the nature of the collective effort - as if to say, "We value the promotion of the collectively understood truth, except for yours and yours and yours..." I get why, I hate trolls and flamers and idiot population in general too. But they're still part of the group. By taking the stance they have now, Wikipedia fails as a perfectly democratic outlet, and also a highly credible information source.
But I'm still going to read it.
Because it doesn't fail at being proponent of information. I'm of the opinion that you can only value freedom if you also value respect. And the thing is, a lot of people don't. So there is a need for rules. Even the most frustrating of arguments ought to be allowed in a public forum, so long as it is in a respectful and articulate form. Yeah, that's really subjective. But I also believe that there are people who are capable of making that distinction - it's just that finding them can be hard. I think these guys have done a decent job over the years, even if they don't get it right the first time. Blogs, in theory, should try and conduct themselves under the same general guidelines.
I think people (bloggers being particularly prone) forget that while the blogosphere is NOT the real world, it does play a part in it. Blog flamers, MMORPG bullies (this is probably a terrible link), or even road rage - without a face, it's hard to remember the humanity. It's easier to revert to savageness in that state, or become a vandal.
If you don't claim to be someone worth paying attention to, then I guess you can be as much of a jackass as you like. But the very nature of blogging would suggest that you'd like at least a little bit to be in/famous.
This site that Brenda linked was a good jumping off point, I think. He tries to make the distinction between personal blogs and journalistic blogs. Many of the most popular blogs though, are simply purveyors of information, like those old-fashioned newsies, shouting at the top of their lungs. But now, there's no telling what stories they're selling, or for who, or why they're doing it.
Going back to the whole wikipedia debate, the same dillema is being played out. Wikipedia, pure and simple, is not an encyclopedia in the old fashioned sense (duh - but wait, I'm not done). It's an amalgamation of the collective knowledge that the community it attracts has put together. By trying to give it laws and police it, the Wikileaders suggest that it could be managed enough to be a credible source to curious minds. However, doing so undermines the nature of the collective effort - as if to say, "We value the promotion of the collectively understood truth, except for yours and yours and yours..." I get why, I hate trolls and flamers and idiot population in general too. But they're still part of the group. By taking the stance they have now, Wikipedia fails as a perfectly democratic outlet, and also a highly credible information source.
But I'm still going to read it.
Because it doesn't fail at being proponent of information. I'm of the opinion that you can only value freedom if you also value respect. And the thing is, a lot of people don't. So there is a need for rules. Even the most frustrating of arguments ought to be allowed in a public forum, so long as it is in a respectful and articulate form. Yeah, that's really subjective. But I also believe that there are people who are capable of making that distinction - it's just that finding them can be hard. I think these guys have done a decent job over the years, even if they don't get it right the first time. Blogs, in theory, should try and conduct themselves under the same general guidelines.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
History Matters
I MADE HISTORY!!!! My entry is the stuff of dreams... and only because it will put you to sleep.
Sadly, I have every expectation that this will not be a particularly fascinating day, but it's my day nonetheless. So far I have spoken Japanese (sheepishly and incorrectly) in class at uni. More importantly, I was on time, and even better had actually cared enough to get dressed nicely. Maybe it's just an American thing, but many of us don't care enough to spruce up for morning classes. Now I'm blogging for class and later will be taking photographs for yet another assignment. Work work work. Perhaps later still coffee with a friend, or drinks if I'm lucky. I'm really bored with Hartford and am so ready to move somewhere new. Maybe just for the sake of the blog I'll do something REALLY amazing and noteworthy today. Most likely not. It's only a Tuesday.
Sadly, I have every expectation that this will not be a particularly fascinating day, but it's my day nonetheless. So far I have spoken Japanese (sheepishly and incorrectly) in class at uni. More importantly, I was on time, and even better had actually cared enough to get dressed nicely. Maybe it's just an American thing, but many of us don't care enough to spruce up for morning classes. Now I'm blogging for class and later will be taking photographs for yet another assignment. Work work work. Perhaps later still coffee with a friend, or drinks if I'm lucky. I'm really bored with Hartford and am so ready to move somewhere new. Maybe just for the sake of the blog I'll do something REALLY amazing and noteworthy today. Most likely not. It's only a Tuesday.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Google and YouTube Dilemma
I originally posted most of this as a response to Colin's "Blog Like a Pirate Day" post. But I'm not as naturally prolific so I'm going to regurgitate this.
Although the copyright issues at hand here are very very old (within the digital world timeline), I am still surprised by the lack of creativity media companies have shown in responding.
First off, I don't think YouTube is in any serious danger of being dismantled as Napster was, primarily because it offers a much more valuable service to the community. It is significantly easier to distribute information for single or multiple uses, without the threat of acquiring viruses along the way. Used positively, it could be a great tool for distance-learning, marketing, and a myriad of other purposes. Partnered with Google, its audience will skyrocket.
As for running it, I agree that YouTube administrators should be held to their responsibilities of complying with requests to remove materials. However, much like on eBay, it is incredibly hard to police as effectively as most of us (non-fraudulent people) would like. Personally, I like ABC's response to taking away traffic from YouTube and still retaining advertisers and viewers. Nearly 24 hours after a premiere showing of a featured show, they post the episode on their own free viewing site, with only about 90 seconds worth of commercials. Now, the quality is diminished from on TV, but with so few commercials and the ability to access it for free anytime and anywhere I want is priceless. Plus, the quality and speed is still far better than on YouTube.
Anyhow, I think that's the direction more media companies ought to take if they're smart. I doubt it will really hurt DVD sales in the near future when the technology online is still catching up. But as technology becomes more and more sophisticated, businesses will have to react faster and smarter when it comes to protecting media and intellectual property.
Smirnoff seems to have embraced the trend of recycling video for its Raw Tea campaign. You should watch because its just absolutely hilarious and maybe just a little frighteningly familiar. But anyway, this has gotten really popular and serves as another way outlets like YouTube can make a positive impact on sales (but not on our minds...)
Sip Sip Gangstas.
Although the copyright issues at hand here are very very old (within the digital world timeline), I am still surprised by the lack of creativity media companies have shown in responding.
First off, I don't think YouTube is in any serious danger of being dismantled as Napster was, primarily because it offers a much more valuable service to the community. It is significantly easier to distribute information for single or multiple uses, without the threat of acquiring viruses along the way. Used positively, it could be a great tool for distance-learning, marketing, and a myriad of other purposes. Partnered with Google, its audience will skyrocket.
As for running it, I agree that YouTube administrators should be held to their responsibilities of complying with requests to remove materials. However, much like on eBay, it is incredibly hard to police as effectively as most of us (non-fraudulent people) would like. Personally, I like ABC's response to taking away traffic from YouTube and still retaining advertisers and viewers. Nearly 24 hours after a premiere showing of a featured show, they post the episode on their own free viewing site, with only about 90 seconds worth of commercials. Now, the quality is diminished from on TV, but with so few commercials and the ability to access it for free anytime and anywhere I want is priceless. Plus, the quality and speed is still far better than on YouTube.
Anyhow, I think that's the direction more media companies ought to take if they're smart. I doubt it will really hurt DVD sales in the near future when the technology online is still catching up. But as technology becomes more and more sophisticated, businesses will have to react faster and smarter when it comes to protecting media and intellectual property.
Smirnoff seems to have embraced the trend of recycling video for its Raw Tea campaign. You should watch because its just absolutely hilarious and maybe just a little frighteningly familiar. But anyway, this has gotten really popular and serves as another way outlets like YouTube can make a positive impact on sales (but not on our minds...)Sip Sip Gangstas.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Political Blogging Post-LL: Sidekick, Scene Stealer, or Heckler?
After reading some of the issues raised by my devoted classmates, and having had a vague late-night talk with a friend about Republican vs. Democrat campaign organization, I started wondering to what kind of capacity bloggers could be organized to make even more of a contribution to their chosen party.
Many people have talked about the double-edged sword of blogger sidekicks, as in the Lieberman blackface incident. Yes, it certainly put Lamont between a rock and a hard place, and he was criticized for his half-baked response. Yet nonetheless his role as an outsider, as a newbie to the political rhetoric game, made him much more sympathetic despite his answer being fairly unsubstantial. Lieberman's group, coming out guns firing, didn't really make Lamont look bad or himself look any better. The very fact that his team was so quick to harp on the image seemed to work against him. It seemed to reinforce the common notion among his detractors that he was so caught up in the political game that he'd forgotten his foundation as a Democrat. (Whether or not that notion is valid notwithstanding.) This tried-and-true method he'd employed successfully in the traditional political realm is exactly what held him back here. His spin, being far too calculated, comes off as slimy, whereas the spin generated by independent Lamont bloggers is far more effective, in part because of their rawness. It makes it seem more sincere.
However, back to the organization issue. I'm told that a great chunk of Republican campaign coffers are actually rather small donations made by individuals. Interns are employed all over the country expressly to nurture relationships with like-minded voters and encourage them to contribute. Bloggers have already started to operate in a similar way, independent of any official party program. Now that I've been outed as a closet nerd, I can freely admit seeing something similar happen on Penny Arcade. Before hiring a business manager, began doing contract work, started selling merchandise and hosting conventions, there was about a year or so where the two of them lived on the voluntary donations of their readership.
Anyhow, I just wondered if the political blogosphere will continue to be unpredictable and difficult to manage, or if it will evolve over the years. And if it does, will its appeal diminish? Will the blogs who manage to organize be considered insiders, a status contrary to the current essence of blogging? Will that make them more or less trustworthy? Maybe this is why official blogs have a hard time finding a voice, because they haven't identified their own persona, as insiders trying to replicate the behavior of outsiders.
Many people have talked about the double-edged sword of blogger sidekicks, as in the Lieberman blackface incident. Yes, it certainly put Lamont between a rock and a hard place, and he was criticized for his half-baked response. Yet nonetheless his role as an outsider, as a newbie to the political rhetoric game, made him much more sympathetic despite his answer being fairly unsubstantial. Lieberman's group, coming out guns firing, didn't really make Lamont look bad or himself look any better. The very fact that his team was so quick to harp on the image seemed to work against him. It seemed to reinforce the common notion among his detractors that he was so caught up in the political game that he'd forgotten his foundation as a Democrat. (Whether or not that notion is valid notwithstanding.) This tried-and-true method he'd employed successfully in the traditional political realm is exactly what held him back here. His spin, being far too calculated, comes off as slimy, whereas the spin generated by independent Lamont bloggers is far more effective, in part because of their rawness. It makes it seem more sincere.
However, back to the organization issue. I'm told that a great chunk of Republican campaign coffers are actually rather small donations made by individuals. Interns are employed all over the country expressly to nurture relationships with like-minded voters and encourage them to contribute. Bloggers have already started to operate in a similar way, independent of any official party program. Now that I've been outed as a closet nerd, I can freely admit seeing something similar happen on Penny Arcade. Before hiring a business manager, began doing contract work, started selling merchandise and hosting conventions, there was about a year or so where the two of them lived on the voluntary donations of their readership.
Anyhow, I just wondered if the political blogosphere will continue to be unpredictable and difficult to manage, or if it will evolve over the years. And if it does, will its appeal diminish? Will the blogs who manage to organize be considered insiders, a status contrary to the current essence of blogging? Will that make them more or less trustworthy? Maybe this is why official blogs have a hard time finding a voice, because they haven't identified their own persona, as insiders trying to replicate the behavior of outsiders.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Americans for Informed Democracy
So I've just returned from our first meeting of AID, which left me with a good feeling for its future at Trinity. AID's goal is to provide a forum for people to learn, debate, and better understand problems ranging from nuclear non-proliferation, the AIDS epidemic, U.S. foreign policy, to global climate change. Nationally and internationally AID organizes summits that bring academics, government representatives, and field experts together to talk about these issues, as well as put on town-hall style discussions at individual campuses. Here is the link to their website if you'd like to take a peek: www.aidemocracy.org. A friend and I are in the process of starting a formal chapter at Trinity, and so far have received a warm welcome and plenty of support. If you'd like to become a part of this new organization, please feel free to contact me and I'll put you on our mailing list. I'll be announcing future events here in the future as well. We're really an inclusive group and would love to have as many people involved as possible. P.S. They have a blog too!
Tonight we hosted Peter Beinart, who gave an eloquent and impassioned talk about the history of U.S. foreign policy, the underlying problems Democrats face in finding a message, and the importance of strengthening international organizations and NGO's, among other things. Peter is editor-at-large of The New Republic and author of The Good Fight: Why Liberals – and Only Liberals – Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great. He writes TNR’s weekly TRB column, which is reprinted in the New York Post and other newspapers. He also writes a monthly column for The Washington Post. And he is a contributer to Time magazine, where he regularly writes the “Essay” section of its back page. Peter has appeared on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopolous,” “Charlie Rose,” and “Nightline.” He has been a political commentator on MTV. In addition, he also appears frequently on on a variety of radio shows on NPR and has a regular slot every three weeks on Air America’s “The Al Franken Show.” For such a young guy, he has quite a few credentials. He even brought up blogging at one point as a new form of mass media, with a huge potential as a political machine. He did have reservations about tendency of the blogosphere as a whole to be overly partisan and less informationally grounded.
More important than the talk though, was the question and answer session. Students and professors were both asking thoughtful questions which indicated informed backgrounds about the topics at hand. Considering this is AIDs biggest goal, to encourage such conversations, this was a great indication for the future. It can be really easy to succumb to life in a bubble here at Trinity, and forget that there are still pressing problems as far away Darfur and as close as our doorstep. My hope is, through AID, we can make it harder to forget. If you attended tonight's event, I would LOVE some feedback about it. Always looking for ways to improve.We're not sure what our next event will be, but I'd love to have some input about what issues people care about most right now. We'll be having a meeting next week to hash this out, though we haven't figured out a time. I'm really optimistic about the whole endeavor. Anyhow, that's it for now.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Memetics and Stuff, not necessarily in that order
The first posting seems to me an inherently intimidating one, since I take it to be an introduction to a beast that has not yet fully evolved. How do you introduce something that doesn't yet exist, and is ever-changing once created? My answer? I won't. My blog will probably reflect my fairly fractured thinking. You've been warned.
ANYHOW on memetics. I was thinking about how the nature of blogging seems to be somewhat narcissistic, and although its negative and grand generalization, I can't seem to reject that personal association with the word. Thus, memes spread through blogs are somewhat narcissistic by default. By latching onto a particular phrase or idea, you indicate that it has some kind of personal importance to you. Fair enough, you want to become part of a club, an aesthetic, or whatever, because that community makes you feel more right in your own skin. It's as if you're given liscence to spread a particular aspect of yourself because you're backed by a larger community. The survival and proliferation of that meme suggests that that aspect of you is also entitled to survive. As time goes on, you will evolve (emotionally, intellectually, socially...) and so your values and tastes will change, and the old memes you associated with will either die or evolve with you. It's the basis of successful branding. It's like t-shirts for blogs! The very term 'meme' has become a designer logo of sorts, suggesting that the site that brands it offers some kind of worthwhile information to be spread. And of course, that designer logo has created thousands of cheap and worthless knockoffs sporting the same brand.
ANYHOW on memetics. I was thinking about how the nature of blogging seems to be somewhat narcissistic, and although its negative and grand generalization, I can't seem to reject that personal association with the word. Thus, memes spread through blogs are somewhat narcissistic by default. By latching onto a particular phrase or idea, you indicate that it has some kind of personal importance to you. Fair enough, you want to become part of a club, an aesthetic, or whatever, because that community makes you feel more right in your own skin. It's as if you're given liscence to spread a particular aspect of yourself because you're backed by a larger community. The survival and proliferation of that meme suggests that that aspect of you is also entitled to survive. As time goes on, you will evolve (emotionally, intellectually, socially...) and so your values and tastes will change, and the old memes you associated with will either die or evolve with you. It's the basis of successful branding. It's like t-shirts for blogs! The very term 'meme' has become a designer logo of sorts, suggesting that the site that brands it offers some kind of worthwhile information to be spread. And of course, that designer logo has created thousands of cheap and worthless knockoffs sporting the same brand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)