The Essentials of Marketing

What I derived from both the Movements.org was that the group was motivated to engage the youth through new media technologies such as Facebook, Twitter and Myspace. I felt that this was a good approach to target youth for social justice, and that in today's society, utilizing these networks to reach out to the youth was a very effective technique. As for the combination of different top named companies at the summit, such as Pepsi, Youtube, and Google, at first I viewed the adjoining of these companies to have a positive effect on the community, showing that they can help out for a cause. However, it never slipped my mind that these companies would use their marketing strategies in order to benefit their own companies, which can be viewed as a good and bad thing. These companies are using the youth since we are the largest demographic for marketing and Public Relations, and they know how to catch our attention by finding new strategies to sell projects. 

If the money that companies make is going towards a beneficial cause, then it it should be fine. However, it is certain that their goals are not solely based on spreading awareness, yet hopefully these companies are using this movement to help society, not just as marketing gimmicks in order to obtain revenue for their companies. One idea that I agree with that was mentioned in class on Tuesday is the reality that there are needs in our society and corporations are filling those gaps and fulfilling these needs. 

I do believe that what drives most successful companies are their business strategies which are key components of good marketing. What bothers me, however, is how these websites may not actually be driven by young people, but mainly the marketers who are just engaging in these websites in order to advertise their products, so it is slightly biased. I also found it interesting that people’s own revolt for social change or awareness is repackaged, remodeled, and sold pack to an entrepreneurial elite. This idea actually reminds me of the music industry, specifically, where record companies collaborate with organizations in order to support a cause. One example I can think of are Live8, a movement in 2006 whose mission was to "make poverty history" in Africa by holding a variety of concerts. With this approach however, there is still poverty in Africa that has not been fully eradicated, and the record companies (and some artists) still made a profit from this movement. The big-name companies who were involved in this movement were AOL, BBC, and Nokia, who most likely benefited from this event and used their clever marketing tactics. Nevertheless, Live8 also claimed that, "The beneficiary of excess revenue after the costs of the concerts were donated to the Band Aid Charitable Trust." Therefore, the reality that companies fill the gaps in our societies towards our needs is still relevant today. Even through campaigns such as the Peace Iced Tea,  consumers are still being manipulated  into buying the Arizona products. Thus the Arizona company obtains revenue while advocating a cause. But like I said, it's all in the marketing strategy. You gotta do whatcha gotta do...

Today's Presentation - Debate on Open Source

I appreciate everyone's participation during today's debate. As we deliberated on each of the groups that were for or against open source, we found that there had been some very interesting points about open source.

The For Group: It was great how you all explained that open source provides the internet with open forum for "revolutionized" information, easy access to that information, and how there is a network harmony that is associated with open source. Also, I enjoyed the peer-to-peer interaction advantage of open source. As mentioned by Tuomi, open source "recruits developers from all over", thus bringing an array of ideas in order to improve software.

What I derived from Raymond's article was that the cathedral ideology involves carefully structured software, where the bazaar ideology contains:

1)      Different agendas and approaches
2)    Allows users to communicate efficiently with developers. Also, open sources are more effective in producing better, less time-consuming results.

3)      Linux world is more free and open to searches that are available.

I can also agree with Raymond's views that though there may be a community of geeks that may develop software that is challenging for some users to utilize, there are many users that can be hackers, effective hackers who can shorten the debugging time for applications. Raymond also states, "Given a bit of encouragement, your users will diagnose problems, suggest fixes, and help improve the code far more quickly than you could unaided. I also commend the For group for using the iPad example, where the iPad develops new improvements of established software, and that the Bazaar ideology engages thousands of developers who swallow bugs and help applications to work better.

Along with Raymond, Koch, who is also for open source, views it from a research perspective. Koch claims that open source allows researchers to "have complete data sets and provides much historical information through large quantities of projects." I also agree with Koch because through the public availability of information through open source, any group can "come back" and reproduce the study, which reminds me of many psychology studies that have been conducted that replicate older studies. Therefore, like psychological studies, open source reproduces information that can also be improved, and has a great impact on validity and results. 

As for the Against group, I also sided with some of the statements claimed about open source, such as how wikipedia is not respected in the academic community. Lanier talks about this idea through his analysis of wikipedia, where there are anonymous authors and editors who produce all different types of information, and that our intellect and productivity is flawed and decreased as a result. I personally would argue that though closed sources are more valid, they are less accessible for some users; not everyone has a Mac, or even access to GarageBand. More notably, the Audacity program (open-source) is just as useful as GarageBand, and can be used for everyone.

Overall, I felt like everyone did a fabulous job in presenting their arguments. After today's class, even as an advocate for open source information, I could admit that Wikipedia has its flaws with editing information. I have, along with many others, come across situations where even celebrity information (i.e. birthdates, place of birth) has not been validated (they show different birthdates of Mariah Carey, yet the same month and day). Nonetheless, open source software is still an outlet that is used to provide necessary information, even if there may be some negative effects to it. 

Today's Class Discussion: Chapters 6 & 7

At first, when I entered the classroom, I was completely lost in translation about what was about to occur during the next hour and 20 minutes. After I got settled, my mind finally began to marinate the numerous discussions about Chapter 6 and 7. For me personally, I can usually multitask, but when it comes down to listening to and understanding everyone's views about Andrejevic's points in the chapters, I realized I had to listen and comprehend first, then write a blog. Honestly, I felt that some views did go around and were not consistent until about 10 minutes later. Nonetheless, I thank everyone for sharing their views and ideas to help me write this blog. What i basically derived from both the discussion and the readings about iWar and iPolitics were that:

The efforts of war are turning into profits. Also, Andrejevic states,"...Anxiety is especially productive, and risk can be leveraged for profit" (p. 184) I agree with these statements because the more that we become anxious about what is to occur, be it terrorism or any attack, the more that we are vulnerable to the government investing in weaponry in order to incite fear.

Some of the other ideas that were discussed were that the government tricks us into giving up our privacy, and that in order to be prepared, we are giving up every ounce of our privacy. Another idea that was brought up was the idea of a feedback loop of fear, where the government manipulate us into thinking that in order to not be afraid, we must be prepared. However, this motive of preparation is provoked through heightened fear. Also, because we are afraid of what can potentially happen, they can make us feel as if letting go of our privacy can contribute to preparation.

Another idea that was discussed was that technology is being used by politicians to gain voters. Also, if politicians have access to target companies and distribute personal messages, they can influence voters into thinking the politicians are sympathetic towards their issues and control. Also, it was also mentioned that social networks such as Facebook are being transferred into our physical lives, where people are buying into gated communities, yet people have limited control of what is being discussed or determined by the higher officials of those social communities.

Lastly, what was also brought up was that we do not recognize what the real source of terrorism is, and even if we attack a targeted terrorist, there is distributed network of terrorists. In addition, the internet could make us more engaged in democracy, but in reality there is still a higher force of political authority that places limits on what we can access and determine, yet the government can access all aspects of our privacy.

iSpy: Our Privacy's in Jeopardy

We have 4 lives: Our public life, private life, secret life, and digital life.


Andejevic states that "Contextual advertising" (pg. 1)  is seen as google using users' locations to give time and location for specific ads to pop-up, whether it be through our browsers, smartphones, or applications through Facebook and Google. There were many instances where I  have encountered contextual advertising. One particular experience involved listening to the online unlimited radio station which we all know as Pandora. While tapping into my musical space, one specific ad struck me as annoying yet fascinating. It was a St. John's University advertisement about enrollment. What really puzzled me about this ad was how Pandora was able to use my location to advertise local restaurants and schools that are popular in NYC, seeing that St. John's is in Queens, and I reside in Brooklyn. My point, which Mark Androvick touches bases on, is that different internet services, most notably Google, are taking advantage and control of internet users' location in order to provide ads. In the case that Androvik discusses involving users receiving free wi-fi in San Francisco, my case is similar in that in return for providing free musical enjoyment, Pandora is utilizing my input of information on my account including my location in order to provide local advertisements. I would not be surprised if in a couple of years, or even months I should say, instead of us Pandora-lovers having the freedom to develop our own stations based on our personal music interests, we might instead be faced with completely automated playlists (which has already been generated with several company promotions such as Macy's and Facebook) or even have out personalized playlists be exploited through third-party servers without us even knowing.


I agree with Andrejevic when he states that digital enclosure involves a creation of an interactive realm, where every action and transaction develops information about itself within a physical space. The internet provides digital enclosure where the more we post on social networks, the more we and other services are able to locate our information. Thus our private information is not really private, but there should be a limit as to what personal information can be accessed through different anonymous services, although there is not a physical, contractual agreement between the user and the service provider stating and confirming that they cannot access our private information. In addition, although shopping services claim our transaction information would not be used for third party purposes we really cannot take the risk of jeopardizing our privacy...

Blog Theory: The Last 2 Chapters

Seeing that I am currently in the process of writing out answers for the midterm, I decided to spend the last 2 chapters writing out some points that I took from the reading, and placing it into this post. Here it goes:

1)      Blogging is a practice that includes multiple forms of media integration, and provides a space where people can express themselves. It’s whatever.

2)      Blogs are not as personalized as much as you may think. Yes it allows for unique expression, but there are still limitations. 

3)      Whatever is such an interesting word. The term “Whatever “ suggests apathy, lack of interest, and/or the disposing of someone else’s thoughts or feelings., and much more.  Whatever is unsettling, and for blogging, it’s communication without any communicative effort. As Professor Dean mentioned in this chapter, “whatever”  takes no side, and “neither rejects nor accepts.” When I think of the word, “whatever”, not only do I think of today’s society and my generation, I also think of pop culture entirely. Honestly speaking, for instance,  when I think of most of today’s pop music and how it is received,  I think about how the messages that some music puts out is not based on the true content or meaning, but perhaps intent to make you dance or flaunt your lavish spending,  but not to make you feel.

4)      When it comes to blogging, people can blog “whatever” their heart desires, but the response of content goes unresolved through “whatever.”

5)      The supplying of blog services such as layouts and other features, makes blogs virtually indistinguishable from one another. I agree because although we have the option of personalizing our own blog, there is still a standardized structured that is followed with blogs, as well as other media networks (facebook, twitter.)

6)      We can almost control what we put out, but not how many people receive or react to what we put out. It’s whatever.

7)      There are two types of fantasy –

a)      Exposure without exposure – telling your info to the world without having an exploitation of your information, leaving room for easy monitoring,

b)      The f.a.m.e.  – (fantasy allowing mutual exposure), where people share their life with friends, and also add friends just to gain popularity (say, 1000+ friends). I’ve actually become a victim of this F.A.M.E. fantasy. However, you have no full control of what you are putting out because the info you put out to you network also feeds into advertisements and third parties.

8)      What I derived from Chapter 4 was that users gain a sense of attachment through these affective networks. When the blogging system was down due to a virus, I could not help but think about the idea of blog anxiety, where at that moment  I realized my excessive enjoyment for writing blogs as soon as the system went down, hoping to seek fulfillment in writing yet another blog. 

Blog Theory: My Understandings

I know I've been on hiatus for quite a while, but I have been quietly intaking all of these thoughts and ideas, trying to fully understand it, and also develop my own argument. Bare with me. From what I learned about Chapters 1 & 2, there were numerous points that were discussed that I want to briefly ensure I am on the right page with. First off, I want to begin with:

Social Acceleration/Mediation

Current media trends are constantly accelerating as we know it. Because we are constantly bombarded with new technological ideas each day, what I grasp is that we just go along with the new technological innovations without really appreciating it for what it is. We can utilize technology,  yet we cannot think about how it is developed due to social accelerations and we cannot think about the other prior innovations we had. This also relates to the idea of mediation. Through the outlet of mediation (i.e. facebook, twitter, etc.) we have displaced our prior functions, and implemented our activities through these mediations.

** On the bottom of page 2 (the portion that talks about multiple-recombinant ideas), I grasped that these different ideas that circulate throughout the media may lead us to think that they are all equally valid, but they are distracting us from society, and prohibiting us to think. If all ideas were equally valid, wouldn't that would that lead to the  stability of symbolic efficiency, seeing that all thoughts would be similar? Also, there was an interesting point about e-books, articles, and blog posts being convenient ways to store and share ideas. At first I thought that these media outlets would stimulate thought, but perhaps these outlets are instead stimulating interest in and curiosity about the subject. 

Communication Capitalism

My understanding of communication capitalism is that it is the idea of capturing users though several contemporary communications of enjoyment. By people putting out several forms of communications, thought processes are lost. I feel that because of all these plural ideas, we become lost in the variations of ideas, and allow these new technologies to think for us and also to provide the necessary resources for us such as keeping in touch with friends, etc. 

Symbolic Efficiency 

From what we discussed in class about this idea, I think symbolic efficiency is practically a source of ambiguity, where there are different types of symbols, and different ways to interpret these symbols. I also saw the decline of symbolic efficiency as an imbalance of interpretation, where things we symbolize become lost or misinterpreted by new ideas that form. 

**One thing I am still unsure of: How is communicative capitalism reliant on the suspension of narratives, patterns, identities and norms (pg. 31)