Week In 5

I have always found it to be very interesting as to where advertisers place their ads in magazines/newspapers. I believe that were each advertisement is placed plays a key roll in the effect of the ad. For example, the idea raised in class about an advertisement for an airline placed in front of an article about plan crashes, isn’t going to be very affective. I do think the placement does play an important roll if the content following the advertisement is negative. I do not think that that Huggies placing and advertisement before a story about triples being born will affect the sales of Huggies. I think people would pass by the advertisement and not notice anything different. So overall, I believe that unless the content is negative it will not impact the advertisement near it.

Until today’s class I never realized how much media is influenced by advertisers. I knew that a large chunk of their money came from advertisers, but I didn’t realize that advertisers essentially ran them. The study by Soley & Craig really got me thinking that 71% of American editors had to kill a story because of an advertiser. As a reader, I want to know the truth. I don’t want the stories to be fabricated. I want to know the exact facts. I don’t care that Company X is paying money so that they can look good. Most people don’t buy magazines for advertisements; they buy them for the stories. I just wonder what news and stories would come out if magazines weren’t run buy advertisers. I also believe that it is wrong to use direct pressure. By telling a magazine that an editorial must be about a certain story that is completely wrong. An editorial is meant to be ones own beliefs on a situation or story. An outside source should not be telling that person how to feel. I can see limiting content to reach your audience, but not to just please the advertisers. For example, if you are running a magazine to reach middle aged women, I can see forgetting stories about male lifestyles and what not. I have begun to wonder if there will ever be a day when the media stands up to advertisers and really “works for the people.”

As for questions this week, I am still having some confusion on synergy. I’ve been reading the book, but I still am not certain on what definitely defines a case of synergy. Should our paper deal with a company or one situation where that company uses synergy?
Shira Cohen

Week In 6

I am a firm believer that companies donating to organizations mainly for public relations is a good idea. I feel this way for several reasons. The first reason is that it brings attention to that organization or cause. Oftentimes when large companies are giving money to the press is “all over the story” through photos, television, or radio. When people see or here stories about this it brings attention to that organization. Many times people are flipping though magazines and see a picture of that. Either these people flip right by the picture, or else they stop to see who gave to what. I believe that even if a million people look at that magazine and only one person stops to look and support that organization it still makes a difference. That is still one more person supporting their cause that they did not have before. Just the other day on the Today Show, there was an actress on television supporting a cause that I had never heard of. When I heard the about the organization I immediately looked it up because it sounded interesting. Oftentimes people don’t even know the cause of the organization they are donating to, but they know its “good” because “Company A,” who is a large company is donating there. I also think its important when celebrities give to organizations and are shown interacting with the organizations. Even though in reality they may only interact with the organization by giving them money or going on television shows for ten minutes, it still makes a difference. Someone sees such a thing and is inspired because that celebrity does it, and if he or she does it then I should do it.

I do not believe that America is a “Dewey Society.” I wish I could say that America was a Dewey Society, but we are not. I feel that right now our society goes along with the Whitman beliefs. Americans basically need to be told how to feel or act. Like the organizations belief that I have, in many situations Americans are used to forming an opinion based on what they are influenced by. I think American’s hands have been held for so long taking them in steps to reach a conclusion that it would be hard to form a Dewey Society. I think that a Dewey Society is what we should have because we are a democratic nation. “We the People” should be capable to make our own decisions. For so many years the media has done it for us and told the viewers who the “good people are and who the bad people are.” Its going to take many years for America to change, but I feel it is important in order for America to truly be a democratic society.

I was also wondering has there been studies done to see if by large organizations donating to certain causes have increased the popularity? I think it would be interesting to see a study done on that.

Shira Cohen

Daniel Boorstin

Greetings:

In addition to trying to find the most obvious example of PR-driven news coverage (try to find the least obvious, too), please read this short section of Daniel Boorstin's "The Image" for Thursday.

Do you agree with Boorstin that you can be "known for being well-known" and not much else these days?

What about the idea that there's simply not enough news to go around - which is why we see so many "pseudo-events" these days?

Good luck - see you Thursday.

Daniel Boorstin: "

Daniel Boorstin"

About Public Relations

For Thursday, please read Chapter 1 of Stuart Ewen's "PR: A Social History of Spin." It can be found at this URL: http://www.bway.net/~drstu/chapter.html.

Consider this question:

Do we know that much of what see in the media is public relations-generated? And does it bother us? Should it?

OK, that's three questions - I lost my head.

Catch you Thursday.

The Talk That Would Have Been

One of the major themes in "The Merchants of Cool" was the use by advertising and marketing folks of "anti-marketing marketing," which is just a flashy of saying "self-reflexivity."

Self-reflexivity occurs, at least for our purposes, when the media talk about themselves and their impact on us. It seems strange at first - ripping yourself - but the intent is the same as an ad or a news story - get the audience to pay attention.

So for example, when an ad pokes fun at the company doing the advertising, or the practices of advertising, or the excesses of the media - that's self-reflexivity, advertising-style.

When a movie like "The Truman Show" arrives on the scene - same thing. Or when a news reporter covers the "media feeding frenzy" that develops during a story like the Michael Jackson trial. Or a TV show like "Sports Night" - boy, was I sad to see that go off the air.

The problem with so much self-reflexivity is that it crowds more original, less media-oriented ideas. This happens, by the way, in all fields.

It sells us back our own skepticism of the media, of advertisings. We end up forgetting how to really experience things, how to grasp history and culture.

It's also insular - kind of "don't go outside the compound" mentality. All the answers are right here, in our own little world.

Our memories become cluttered with useless media references (trust me, I know this), and our collective memory includes far more than its share of media references.

More process, more "back stage" behind the scenes stuff pops up.

All of this, it should be noted, is easy - easier than coming up with challenging ideas, easier than thinking critically.

It also damages the distance between a work of fiction and the audience - it is necessary to create a sense of strangeness, alienation - an aura around the work. If you remind the audience of how artificial something is, it denies them the pleasure of escaping our crazy world for a time. In a warped way, it empowers us, too.

Now, the cynic is possibly saying: isn't more interpretation a good thing? Yes, if it's your own. If you take the direction suggested by a media content producer, then you're just being drawn into the dialogue. Let's go back to The Truman Show - what's the message of the film?

To me, it's "fame sucks" - not "we should lessen the importance of the media in our lives" or "isn't it nuts how everything we do is being recorded" but "fame sucks" - Yet, we're told by critics that the movie is an allegory for what happens when everyone wants fame.

The critical distance I spoke of earlier is thus actually created by the media.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

More in a few minutes.

Week IN # 4

I agree with the idea that advertisements manipulate minds. Many advertisements promote people to buy stuff that they really do not need. I don’t necessarily believe that advertisements make people want to run out to the store and buy the goods. I believe that instead it gets the person thinking about the product that they are interested in. Then that person goes around talking about it. Eventually, if the person comes across the product they will buy it. I think its also an interesting point that we buy stuff that we do not need. I feel that this is becoming part of the American culture. I believe this is part of “I need to have” idea. This is the idea that many Americans see something and need to have it. I have also been thinking about the celebrities playing a role in advertising. The more I think about it the more I realize that it does impact people to buy it. Just the other day I was talking to someone who said they made their mom buy a dress because Sarah Jessica Parker wore it on Sex in the City. It may not be directly though an advertisement, but it still occurs through mass media. When I played basketball in high school I knew a lot of people who would by specific basketball shoes because Shaq or Kobe were wearing them.
I have been thinking a lot lately about the idea of advertisers treating audience as a commodity. Being a graphic design student with a strong interest in print advertising I have mixed views. On the professional side of this I agree that advertisers need to treat customers as a commodity. When designing its important to think of the group that you are selling to as an object. It’s easier to give the group characteristics so that the advertisement is appropriate. Essentially it comes down to advertisers fitting over a group of people, which makes them at wanted good. In order for there to be that completion there needs to by that idea of commodity. On the other hand as a viewer, I do not necessarily like to be thought of as a commodity. I would rather walk down the street and see advertisements direct towards everyone. I don’t like having ads that are directed right at people my age or gender. I think in a way it takes away the personal characteristics of each of those members of that group. Because I am in twenty, a female, and white does not automatically mean that I am going to like a certain product. I don’t personally agree with the idea of treating audience as a commodity, but then again I feel it is important for the design aspects.
Are there many groups out there that use “cool hunters?” Also, for television shows for people in their 50s and 60s do they also use “culture spies?” How do they collect their information?
--Shira

Selling Lifestyle

In preparation for tomorrow's lecture/video, please check this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/magazine/10ECKO.html

It's all of the forces we'll be discussing brought together.

You Don't Know Psychiatry Matt - I Do!

OK, so that's a cheap way to get you to read this article on the evolution of the blockbuster - check it out now, or read it when we get to our discussion of the movie industry in a couple of weeks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/movies/10scot.html

Remember: it's free to subscribe online to the Times - but use my id (rcbsam) and my password (etifwe)if it's easier.

Will Your TV Soon Be Obsolete?

Beginning in 2009, broadcasters will be required to scrap analog signals and broadcast only digital signals. So, will your TV be made instantly obsolete? Read this article from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071300726.html

See you tomorrow.

Final Project - A Gentle Nudge

By the end of week 5, you should have picked a partner for your final project - remember that you have your choice of "media activism" or coming up with a plan to fix a media-related problem - like too much (or too little, as the case may be) obscenity on the public's airwaves.

Let me know if you have questions - please email me the names of the folks on your team ASAP.

Ron

The Medium is the Message

Hey there:

Please read the introduction and the first two chapters of Marshall McLuhan's Understanding Media - you can find it at this URL:

http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/overload/mcluhan/um.html

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Week In Review # 3

After the discussion in Tuesday’s class, about relating real life stories to movie and show plots, I have been paying more attention to it in my daily conversations. I agree with the class discussion that it is a good thing that American’s use plots to explain their stories. Relating television plots to ones’ story makes it easier for the receiver to understand. If the person in the conversation was not in the situation explained in the story, perhaps this is a way for them to understand exactly what the person is explaining. These shows serve as a common ground.
I disagree with the class on custom media being “bad.” I think that regardless of how many stations people have they still only watch the stations that interest them. For example, I only scroll through stations that I like to watch. These stations are the same station. Rarely do I scroll through all the stations, instead I instantly turn to MTV, VH1, CBS, TLC, NBC, and ABC. I think custom media gives the real purpose of what you said the media was there fore, “to serve the viewers.” By giving custom media, shows that people want to watch that are in their interest, the media is fulfilling their goals. This will also help with advertising. I support the coming about of custom television.
Ever since Thursday’s class I have been question why people do not see internet as a source of media? There are still groups sending a mass message out to large groups of people. Searching web pages is like searching television stations. The purpose of the internet is to spread a message to a large group of people. What would make the internet not a source of mass media?

Shira

Medium is Singular, Media is Plural

Medium is Singular, Media is Plural

The major part of our discussion that I agree with lies in the non objectionable content we are seeing in the movie industry. With major distributors too worried about not turning our a large profit every year, there has been a large decrease in the number of challenging material that comes out and really makes the audience think. Just looking at the movies that are being advertised, half of the good movies are all remakes. It appears that Hollywood is so unwilling to promote a movie that might be found offensive that not only do they have the same plot lines in all of their movies but now they even just remake past movies or do sequels to others. This development causes the American public to not get the information they need. Instead we only look at wars and events from our an American perspective and not from a European or an African one. Many times we don’t even see an unbiased American perspective, but instead a media oriented American perspective. For example, I’m sure everyone remembers 9/11 and the attacks of the world trade center. Now I’m not saying this wasn’t tragic, but why was it blown so out of proportion that at every phillies game for at least two weeks when the clock struck 9:11pm, there was a moment of silence. The answer was that when the terrorists attacked New York the attacked the media capital of the world. No one knows what kind of work happens inside of the world trade centers, but we know of their existence because of the media. This attack on American media was thus responded by the media declaring this to be the worst thing in history.

The part I disagree with is the push to have television programs move more toward the information aspect than the entertaining aspect. First I want to say that I would now watch a show that was more educational based than entertainment based for two reasons. First in order for me to get involved in a school subject I really have to get interested in it. When I take required courses at Drexel, I really don’t want to be there and so I really don’t do the amount of work I should. However, when a professor really gets me interested in the course by giving it real life applications or maybe just throwing in some humor and entertainment I find myself really wanting to learn the subject. This same outlook can be applied to TV but in an even more extreme. If you want me to learn a message through TV, than you have to make it entertaining. Because if I am not interested in the subject than I won’t pay attention and simply change the channel. And where in school I might be forced to sit through a class to get my degree, on TV I am not obligated to watch any show, so the only reason for me to stay tuned and learn the message would have to be to make the programming more entertaining. Second, I do almost all of my learning through school, reading books and reading the newspaper and I picture TV as a break. When I watch TV I am doing so to take a break from the influx of information to relax and laugh. So to rid TV of entertaining programming would to rid me of one of opportunities to take a break. And without taking any breaks, my momentum to learn new subjects will be decreased.

This week I was able to follow and understand all of our discussions and the readings.

Medium is Singular, Media is Plural

Medium is Singular, Media is Plural

Week 2 Blog

During week 2, the part of our discussion I disagreed with the most would have to be the demise of the author. To explain where I stand on the issue, I will use the IBM example given in class. IBM now allows everyone to get published, so everyone can sell there own book, not just the prestige authors. In this case, if we need to look for a book on frogs, we would find 100’s of books on the topic both by prestige authors and amateur authors. This would be very annoying and frustrating, because it will be harder to find out which book is telling facts let alone which is the best book to read. However if we do happen to read a book by an average author and one by a prestige author we would quickly notice which one is the better. Because the ability to publish doesn’t increase the ability to write. Thus we would give even more respect to the prestige author because not only did he/she write a good book, but by comparison to the amateur book, this author wrote a million times greater than what is expected. This would be recognized by the big name publishing companies and only the prestige authors will get picked up by these big names. Thus when we wanted a book, we would limit or search to only books published by big name companies to ensure we get the prestige authors work. This doesn’t demise the author, but, in my opinion, raises him up a couple of notches because of we see what books would be without him/her.

The part I most agree with is the death of the amateur. Using the same example cited above, I feel that amateurs will end up getting ignored. If I again, search for a book about frogs, I will again receive the 100’s of matching books. Then after proceeding to read through a couple and realize how the prestige author is much better than most amateur writers, I will ignore the all amateur work and only search for the prestige writers. However, there are probably a couple of amateur writers in there who write better books than the professionals do. But, if he hasn’t been signed by a big name (simply by chance of him not getting noticed), then I am simply going to ignore him because I would expect another horribly written book by another typical amateur. Maybe if I didn’t have to spend time and money on the book I would read through a couple, but as of now, I would simply ignore all the amateurs. This acts to end any amateur who is trying to make it big from ever getting recognized.

The part I don’t really understand comes from Turow Chp 19. In it he says, “the stress on unchallenging, feel-good pap in so much of the U.S. media is leading American society down the path toward a situation in which society will be too involved in entertainment to cope with serious problems, and so these problems will destroy it. After reading this, I was shocked at how disastrous this book feels the media is becoming. And I really don’t understand which serious problems that are being submerged by the media could end society as we know it?

Medium is Singular, Media is Plural

Medium is Singular, Media is Plural

Week 1 Blog Post

The subject that I agreed with the most would have to be our discussion on expectations from the media and our responses to the media’s deviations from our expectations. I see this most vividly in the portrayal of horror movies. As you may not know, I am an avid viewer of horror movies both past and present, both cheesy and well plotted. When I was younger my friends and I got into George Romero’s movies about zombies and the like, most importantly in “Dawn of the Dead.” In this movie we not only got accustomed to slow moving zombies but also a slow moving story and a slow moving camera. The plot was well thought out, but it took its time to develop and to reach a climax. Comparing this with the remake of Dawn of the Dead, me and my friends were shocked by the changes in technical presentation. The zombies were running with extreme athletic ability and the camera movements and frame shots were quite rapid. At first none of us enjoyed the movie because it offended what we became accustomed to, the slow pace of the horror movie. However, after watching it a couple of times we became really impressed by it. (Although we still maintain the best part of the movie is the introduction with the music provided by Johnny Cash.) We grew an appreciation for the fast moving pace of the movie to reflect how the characters were feeling anxiety and other heart pounding emotions. Even with this appreciation however, we can admit the remake is good, but we still feel the original was better. The new special effects and fast motions are cool, but we feel this takes away from the actual plot of the movie. Romero’s purpose of the movie wasn’t to make the audience jump or physically scare them, but rather to mentally scare them or scare them in the thought of the situations that is unfolding.

The subject that I disagree with the most would have to be our discussion on content expectation. Before I continue, I want to mention that I don’t fully disagree with this concept but only partially. For example, I am a huge fan of Family Guy. In this sitcom there is a certain content that many fans have come to expect. For example, Family Guy includes many flashbacks (“this is more embarrassing than the time I”), or family references (“like my great great uncle”) which add a lot of humor to the show. And in my partial agreement, I do expect this content to be there. However, I also would like new content to keep me a fan of the show. For example, after coming back to television, it seems that show is forcing in all of these flashbacks and family references. Its almost like every other sentence from the show contains a similar reference. This gets me bored of the references where I don’t find them as funny anymore. Thus although I do expect the references, I also expect a movement away from them so I don’t get bored of the humor.

The part of our discussion that I didn’t fully understand was in our description of mass media and how it is technologically discriminated. Maybe I missed it in lecture or in the book, but I don’t understand this concept of mass media.

What's the Impact of Product Placement?

Thanks to Stephanie Salerno for this article - if you have trouble accessing it, log in to the New York Times website with my user id (rcbsam) and my password (etifwe).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/movies/06herb.html?oref=login

Week In Review #2

Since Tuesday’s class I have been thinking about the question “who is included” in the media. Being a female I have started to think about the television shows that I watch and how women are portrayed. I agree with the class that woman have been portrayed as sex symbols in the media. Although, I do feel that this “vision” is getting better and women are starting to have more powerful roles. I have seen a lot of change since I can remember watching television. For example, when I was younger the show, The Nanny, was very popular. This portrayed women as being that household maid that slept with the owner of the house. I don’t think that women were represented fairly in that. I really feel that the media needs to start exploring different races and lifestyles that may not be “the common” person. If the media was truly there for the viewers they would attempt to represent as many people as possible.

I do not agree with the discussion that we had today about selling body parts on Ebay. I do not understand how people can do that. Why would a company pay that much to post something on one person’s body who may not interact with that many people, when they can put an ad on television. I don’t think that would get them any extra advertising. The only way I see that getting advertising is from the media coverage of such an act. Since it is a new way of advertising the media would probably constantly have reports and interviews with those people. Additionally, through word of mouth people would start talking about the company and the ad. I think that it is a smart way of getting the idea out, but I feel that it is completely wrong. I don’t understand why anyone would do that. Why not wear a shirt that said the slogan on instead of having it put on your body. People wear t-shirts that say the names of stores on them what’s the difference. What’s the need to have it on your body?

In class we were talking about advertising at the Superbowl. Do advertisers have a say in at what point of the show their ad is aired? If so are they more expensive at certain parts of the game? Who chooses the order? Also with the idea of supremacy, if you are an advertiser and pay for an ad on one station does it automatically get posted on the other 12 channels that company owns?
--Shira Cohen