Exploring Concepts...for the Fourth Time!

Chapters 10 and 11: VALS and Persuasive Advertising Techniques 

                Chapters 10 and 11 hold a lot of valuable information, and the entirety was a lot to take in. What caught my attention the most, though, were the eight consumer types listed in the Values and Lifestyles strategy (VALS) and the list persuasive advertising techniques. Singularly, these concepts are deep and interesting. The VALS strategy psychoanalyzes people into specific categories while various persuasive techniques apply advertising approaches to the common populace. What the book insinuates at but does not highlight are the relations between the two. This concept of merging techniques is quite interesting. In order for a company to sell its products, the company must first know its audience. Once the demo and psychographics are taken, the related consumers are divvied up into eight different types based on personality traits.

I found these categories to be fascinating, and pondered for a while over which type I (and those close to me) would be filed under. Once I thought this threw, I wondered what kind of advertising would most efficiently affect which personality group. I applied the different persuasive techniques to the matching VALS categories. For example, strivers would take well to the famous-person testimonial or snob appeal, seeing celebrities or fancy products and longing to be equivalent to such. The plain-folks pitch would favor better with survivors and experiencers while believers would pay more attention to the hidden-fear appeal. Intrigued, I will definitely pay more attention when viewing ads, careful to spot the VALS target audience and the persuasive technique used to try to real the audience in.

Killing Self-Image

A Case Study on "Killing us Softly"

In a world constantly consuming media, one’s self-image can be erected by the believed expectations of others that are portrayed by elements shown on television or in magazines. In “Killing us Softly,” Killbourne suggests that the media influences society’s view of women by objectifying their bodies and pushing impossible beauty standards. She believes that the skinny, submissive image and the selective, singular body parts portrayed by popular advertising ultimately warps women’s views of themselves and could potentially cause harm to young girls striving for acceptance. I agree with her hypothesis. If ads use severely thin models and pose them in subjective positions, the reflected appraisal of young girls viewing the ads will be one of self-doubt and submissiveness. The same goes for female body parts, hacked off from the face and used as objects for product promotion, most often in a sexual matter. When statistics are given relaying the increase in anorexia, depression, and other such social issues, it is easy to make the connection between the negative advertising described and the impossible standards it insinuates.

                Advertisements that piece together body parts to make a fake woman or turn women into beer bottles objectify and scrutinize women because they make the assumption that all women should look and act like such. Ads use hidden-fear appeal to play upon the self-consciousness of women, making them feel insecure about their looks, therefore driving them to buy products that vow to make them beautiful. The advertisers at blame would surely claim there was no actual malice that went into the creation of the images and would brush off the accusations with quips like “it was meant as a joke” or “it was chosen for the pure design factor and no further message was intended.” Companies can plead ignorance and try to remove the liability, claiming there is no evidence of agenda setting or otherwise harmful messaging interlaced with their products. Unfortunately, the intent in most cases cannot be proven, which neither refutes nor disproves the claims made against producers who churn out degrading or potentially harmful ads.

In order to understand how companies can get away with the use of ads that slander women, one must look at the rate of media consumption in our society. When something is forced down our throats from birth, we tend to accept it without thinking. The number of ads that objectify women is staggering, but the impact of these messages has not been a slap to the face—these images have been circulating through popular culture for decades, slowly seeping into society’s subconscious. Cumulative effects suggest that over time, the portrayal of women shown through advertising becomes the social norm. There has not been more outrage about the degradation of the female body in the media because society is just now realizing the harmful nature of such disrespectful and suggestive advertising.

Females are not the only gender abused by a manufactured media image. Advertising tells young men a variety of negative things. For instance, they need to be tough and rippling with muscles. The reflections of male models in magazines tell society that man is not a man if he does not look like a chiseled sculpture. The stereotype of macho-ness also includes the inability to cry and the annihilation of the feminine side. Men are portrayed as stoic flexors of strength, towers of tanned flesh that preform physical labor like fighting fire or herding cattle. The association principle links these traits to men and suggests to young ones that manliness is a virtue defined only by ridged media stereotypes. This takes all of the hope away from boys who are scrawny or like romantic comedies, among hundreds of other traits.

Although the effects may be harmful to society’s youth, the continuation of such advertising is not surprising. Sex, whether positive or negative, sells. Most companies have the same number one priority—to sell their products. But there are many more advertising options to be considered aside from sex or body image. If I were in such position of authority, I would try not to use any images that encourage negative views of women (or men) that could harm my audience. There are other socially loved things besides sex, an example being adorableness—the cute factor, once applied, tends to increase popularity. The problem with originality lies in resources. It is hard to create new ideas and images without being drab or crossing social lines. Innovation is more powerful than regurgitation, but it is much easier to be a copycat than a revolutionary.

Downloading Violation?

Case Study: Internet Piracy and Free Speech

I always thought free speech involved being able to speak without fear and had nothing to do with money. I never considered “free” as a monetary measurement. I recently discovered that cash becomes involved when one considers copyright issues. For this reason, I believe the only way that illegal downloading violates free speech is when one takes illegal tracks and tries to make a profit by multiplying and selling them. Advocates of such a trend use free speech to turn the Internet into a well of costless media while staunch opponents view the issue as theft. I believe the line should be drawn down the middle—feed both packs of dogs with a little free content and a little paid material.

The romanticized vision of free music implies that you became a musician to spread the word of your music without regard to monetary value. It does not matter if money is made; only that art is shared. But with no physical profit, artists would have to keep their day jobs and the struggle for inspiration would arise. This would either dampen the spirit of the music industry or open the flood gates for people who think themselves entertainers.

I believe that in a Utopian society internet downloading should be partially costless. Let the most famous material, which is leaked out anyway and often the material that is illegally downloaded, stand apart from lesser known work. The popular hits should be free, letting the masses obtain what is currently trending and enjoy prevalent music as a global village free of charge. Songs, albums, and artists that are not chart-toppers should be purchased. People can listen to a sampling of popular music for free and if they like what they hear, they can buy more. In the words of Lev Grossman, “The legit market feeds off the black market.” In this case, the paid market feeds off the free market. This also addresses the cash made by musicians and divvies it up more evenly, taking the money that famous artists would be making and handing it to aspiring newcomers.

CNN’s article says “In a culture without copyright, only the rich, or the government-sponsored, could be this culture's full-time creator.” I do not think that copyrighting is an issue if a handful of an artist’s songs are available for free. When you download a song the work still retains the signature stamp of the artist. If a few chart-toppers can be downloaded without cost, the music would still be protected under copyright law. Just because the copies are free does not mean that the original is ownerless. The downloader would not be downloading for distribution or to make a profit—the music industry can still watermark the art that comes from within. Many popular artists throw their names into their songs, referencing themselves as a trademark tool to claim their work.

No matter what the legalities, if people can download for free, they will. Why should one person be afraid of getting busted for illegal downloading when there are millions of people who do the same thing? Illegal downloaders justify their actions through availability and sheer numbers. If companies and artists chose a selection of music to offer for free then charge (at reduced rates, as offered in the Torrent Freak article—songs are expensive) for the rest, it might cut down on Internet Piracy.

My Art is Not Your Art

Week 5: Chapter 13

(On Obscenity and Censorship and What is Considered "Art") 

            I have always found the idea of obscenity intriguing and, at times, infuriating. But it wasn’t until I read chapter thirteen that I knew the actual qualifications. There is a fine line between what is and what is not considered obscene. The censors only cover the ugly and disturbing or the extremely sexual, and leave be everything else. One of the rules of obscene qualification is “material lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” If this were a real qualification, then Jersey Shore and Keeping up with the Cardashians should be censored for lacking any serious, quality value. However, society loves them. They make big money and don’t feature any homosexual, anti-religious, or anti-government strains, so they are allowed without even a second thought.

The judgment for which to define an object or thought as offensive is personal. Different ideas, images, and situations are offensive to different people. In order to make a decision, judgments must be based on society as a whole, estimating the feelings of a collective conscious. Some subjects, like religion and sex, are touchier. Sex is an intriguing subject when it comes to censorship. The porn industry makes millions and popular song lyrics are riddled with sexual content, yet the two first rules of obscenity state that something is offensive if it either “entices lust (in the average person)” or “depicts/describes sexual conduct in an offensive way.” How does this make any sense?

            Where I really get riled up when it comes to the idea of obscenity is when it’s impressed upon artwork. The television program The L Word does a fantastic job at showing the unfairness of art censorship. In a particular episode, enraged picketers demand an exhibit at the California Arts Center be shut down due to obscenity. The curator struggles with funding, acceptance, and pressure from competing museums as well as higher figures within her own. Her exhibit, which featured controversial works, had a short run and was shut down due to the unending protesting from concerned citizens. Are freedom of speech and freedom of paint the same entity?

In real life, The Museum of Censorship is a wonderful haven for banned artwork. Collecting pieces that were rejected and slandered, the organization honors the liberty that art should entail. I find it interesting how the gallery obtained a freedom of speech award when they are harboring museum-censored work—a skew to the rules of who can deem what obscene.

Here’s the entire episode of The L Word, as I could not find just the clip. If you skip to 13:00, it starts you out at the protest scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8APP0gl7HM

Also check out this amazing organization (The Museum of Censorship):

http://dontcensor.us/

A Menaj-arie of Feces

Hot Topic for Week 5: Obscenity and Censorship in Regards to Popularity

A song that I believe is offensive is Nicki Minaj’s “Did it on ‘Em.” Basically, the song describes her love of pooping on guys. If a work of art or an idea is considered offensive, that means it “entices lust (in the average person)” or “depicts/describes sexual conduct in an offensive way.” I’m pretty sure Nicki’s song is sexually offensive. Yet, it is not being censored. Any kid can look this song up on YouTube or read the lyrics on an online provider. Not only can it be accessed, but it is indirectly promoted by YouTube. When one arrives at their main page, an offer for channel watching includes Nicki Minaj. The song “Did it on ‘Em” is on the playlist and even includes an opening commercial, which means that enough people have watched it for it to qualify for advertisement. Enough people as in almost four million views—and that’s just this one particular version of the song. Why is Nicki’s obviously disgusting song allowed to be circulated, but pieces of art like “A Fire in My Belly” by David Wojnarowicz are banned from museums? Is Nicki’s song also considered art?

Singing about taking a dump on a guy’s chest and hollering “If I had a dick, I would pull it out and piss on 'em,” is, in my opinion, disgusting. However, Nicki Minaj is an artist, and freedom of speech dictates that she can sing about what ever she wants to sing about. I do not think this was a particular instance that was held in mind when the founding documents were written, but it is important to society for artists to be able to say what ever the hell they want. I believe it is good for a culture to be exposed to the good, the bad, and the very, very ugly. When it comes to child exposure, kids are going to come across things they are too young for no matter how many censors society throws up. But if “Did it on ‘Em” can be found this way, so should other risqué or controversial art. The problem I have lies in the fact that Nicki’s song is not censored because she is famous and loved by the masses.

Popularity dictates censorship. I don’t think that Nicki should be censored or controlled, but I do think that other artists in different media should be allocated the same equal freedoms. A good example of this, among many, includes the artistic video “A Fire in My Belly,” banned for inappropriate material. The so called horrible footage includes an eleven second clip of a cross covered with ants—nothing more. However, the artist was an openly homosexual individual who talked about his contraction of AIDS. Wojnarowicz’s work was picked up by another museum and fostered for its worth, but only after it was censored and spat on by the Smithsonian and only after his death. Further reading of “A Fire in My Belly” can be found at the bottom link bellow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtvAaGyIAqQ

http://www.metrolyrics.com/did-it-on-em-lyrics-nicki-minaj.html

http://www.glaad.org/2011/05/31/museum-of-censored-art-honored-for-showing-gay-artists-work/

Predestined Patterns

Case Study #2: Week 4

  On the Ownership of Five Friends'  Media Menus

          For this case study, I interviewed five people that had no interaction with each other in hopes of interesting results. I chose to question my closest friend, my boss, a parent, a fellow student, and a long-distance acquaintance. My friend recalled hearing about Macaulay Culkin’s heroin addiction via Yahoo! News, acquiring such knowledge via laptop. My boss regaled how the company Wells Fargo settled out of court for millions due to neglect, also found on Yahoo! News. My mother thought about how she read in the Missourian that the Krakow store was robbed. A fellow student informed me that a couple was caught in a romantic last kiss before being arrested, a charming story delivered by ABC.

            Entertainment wise, my friend indulged in a Facebook game on the computer. My boss watched House Hunters on HGTV while my mom watched Anthony Bordain: No Reservations on the Travel channel. The student popped in a VHS tape of Aladdin. Last of all, the long-distance acquaintance sought solace in Grey’s Anatomy.

The following is a chart recording the news, entertainment, and medium for each person interviewed.

Person	News	Medium for News	Entertainment	Medium for Entertainment
Friend	Yahoo! News	Online via computer	Facebook game	Online via computer
Boss	Yahoo! News	Online via computer	Television program (Scripps Networks Interactive)	Cable via TV set
Parent	Washington Missourian	Newspaper: print	Television program (Scripps Networks Interactive)	Cable via TV set
Student	ABC News (Disney)	Online via computer	VHS tape (Disney)	VCR via TV set
Acquaintance	Fox News (News Corp)	Online via computer	Television program (News Corp)	Cable via TV set

            Yahoo! populated the news field, taking two slots of media ownership. The Missourian is owned by the Missourian Publishing Company, a family owned business. ABC and Fox News, however, are corporate pups generated from the expanding bellies of Disney and News Corp. Disney and News Corp also have their fingers in the entertainment field of the study, owning Aladdin and Grey’s Anatomy respectively. Scripps Networks Interactive takes the lead in entertainment, owning two television stations (HGTV and Travel). Facebook trails along with its flash game.

I found it interesting that the same person that watched the VHS tape of Aladdin also got their news from ABC, both Disney-owned entities. The student, perhaps unknowingly, ingested his/her most memorable media material from the same producer. Even more interesting, my acquaintance also watched both news and entertainment that shared a media brand. Channel 2, KTVI is owned by News Corp, so both Fox News and Grey’s Anatomy are controlled by the same corporate brain.

Out of the ten pieces of media consumed by all participants, only six businesses owned the material. Yahoo! took over two slots and Disney captured two, as well. SNI and News Corp also held a count of two pieces of media each. As a consumer society, we are extremely limited as to our choice of media sources. Two of the individuals recalled their news stories and their entertainment coming from the same producer, a scary reality check that shows us just how much control media corporations can have over what we consume. 

Fox vs CNN

Hot Topic for Week 4: The Demographic Tendencies of Two Major News Corporations

            I do not normally receive my news content from one particular station, nor do I favor any newspaper or magazine over another when it comes to my consumption of news. I have the “Flipbook” application on my smart phone, enabling me to digest a variety of news stories from different sources. So for this hot topic, I investigated both Fox and CNN, trying to get different, perhaps opposite, media viewpoints. Instead of picking two single articles to dissect, I chose to look at the main pages of the official online publications and compare the attitude and range of stories covered by each company.

I was surprised to feel a more field-confident vibe from Fox and a more advertisement-hungry, pop-culture ridden desperation from CNN. For instance, CNN advertises its own programs in big banners at the bottom of the main page, reminding the viewer that there is a television program version that should be watched as well as the online site. Fox does not synergize itself like CNN, their website lacking as much self-promotion.

In addition, CNN has an option to play video games on their website. These games are barely related to CNN news story content yet encourage the viewer to engage with the website. An interesting convergence of news and commercial gaming, CNN uses the popular media of games to entice the reader into staying at their website longer. The feeling of games related to news in this way feels awkward and childish, a commentary in itself on how broadcasting companies will try anything to acquire a larger viewer population. Fox, again, does not apply these methods on their website.

To widen the gap between the representation of the two broadcasting companies, the most popular stories on CNN revolve around drug culture and violent hearsay suspicions ('Queen of Cocaine' killed in Colombia’ and ‘Key Afghan nominee suspected of torture’ being the top two most viewed/shared news stories). In this way, CNN creates a mean world syndrome through selective exposure to illegal or otherwise scandalous and often violent news coverage. The popular stories on Fox trend politics and sometimes social issues (three out of four top stories revolving around Obama and the election) and often feature propaganda. Either way, both news companies set agendas for their viewers/readers, selectively choosing which stories to cover according to the demographics and/or needs of each company.

As a final observation, CNN has options to choose to read their website in Spanish or Arabic, having global branches in television and online broadcasting. There are also links to CNN’s “International,” “Mexico,” and “Arabic” websites. This globalization of CNN’s media may be one of the reasons that the material covered by the company is so laced with drugs and violence. People from other countries may care more about these sorts of headlines than those that directly related to America. Fox, on the other hand, has no listed global affiliates on their website, tending to cover more American politics, focusing less on global issues and more on American concerns. 

Exploring Concepts..For the Third Time!

Week 4: Chapter 14

(On Disney and the themes of synergy, cultural imperialism, and global media expansion)

            While reading the chapter in our text book about media economics and the global marketplace, I was surprised by the intensity of Disney’s corporate power and ingenious company management. It was interesting to read about Disney’s slow climb up the conglomerate ladder. The explanation of what synergies are and how corporations like Disney use synergy to promote their products was quite fascinating. I’ve noticed while watching ABC (owned by Disney) that the company advertises a Pixar movie during the commercial break or shows an advertisement of excited children flocking to Disneyland. This media conglomeration enables businesses to create synergies to endorse themselves. Disney’s success has catapulted the corporation from the confines of American soil to countries overseas, nestling itself into Europe and Japan via theme parks and spreading its films and cartoon programs across the globe. It is easy to see after reading the background and media terms regarding the company’s rise to mass production that Disney has aided in the cultural imperialism of American products. The sheer amount of sub-branches and minor companies that make up the Disney media family is an eye-opening insight into the way media industries make money and, indirectly or directly, mold hegemony for the masses to follow. Personally, I will be paying extra attention when watching ABC or Disney related media to spot the synergies. 

Video Game Education

 Case Study #1: Weeks 2-3

On the Helpfulness of Statistics and Good Sourcing

Currently, our culture is in the midst of the postmodern period. One of the characteristics of postmodernism includes embracing technology. Children watch television, play on Iphones, cue up search engines on computers, and play video games, either at home or at friends’ houses. Kids are exposed to video games at an early age, the lure of fantasy realms and problem solving missions an inescapable draw. Even if the games seem pointless to parents, most simulate real-world problems and let the user solve them through the means of trial and error. Because they are already consuming video game time outside of school, it would not be a stretch to integrate digital games into the schoolhouse curriculum, and would be beneficial for both the students and the educational system.

I remember playing The Oregon Trail in grade school and not only enjoying it immensely, but learning, with my classmates, from the digital activity while having fun. The students, including myself, got into it, glued to the computer screen, little eyes moving rapidly across the inventory list. The game provided many learning opportunities as well as critical thinking objectives, like deciding whether to float, avoid, or forge a river depending on its speed and depth; quite impressive calculations for a fourth grader.

There are several benefits that can spring from video games being used for educational purposes. An obvious benefit lies in the fact that if a child is excited or interested by an activity, that child will do better at performing that activity. In this case, if kids enjoy playing video games they are more likely to succeed at a school activity that involves playing a video game. Also, “games can motivate passive students to contribute more than they would in a traditional learning environment” (Annetta). Shy or otherwise socially disabled children do not have to worry about speaking out in front of a class or being made fun of for performing a task incorrectly. Video games allow students to mask their identity with a fictional digital one, allowing the children to make mistakes through trail and error without real time repercussion, which motivates the students to try more combinations of answers and research different methods of solving without worry of being embarrassed by answering wrongly.

Video games in education is a topic that has been thought over and researched for years. For instance, in 2003, “a movement was started for using video games in teaching and training…known as serious games” (Annetta). This movement studied several different curriculum-based digital games and the responses of the students and educators involved with play time. An example of one such a game is Immune Attack, a human biology game that has the user fight bacterial and viral infections by training immune cell troops for combat. Another instance includes Wolf’s Den, an interactive game that allows both students and instructors to create an avatar, perform classroom activities, and talk amidst each other during real time via online communication. Students can enter a scientific lab and test water samples through a microscope, using chemicals that would be potentially dangerous in a real life situation. A game like the examples stated can also reduce tuition costs for both the school and the students by cutting out text book costs for the subject covered.

A study was conducted in Athens, Greece by two esteemed researchers for the Journal of Educational Technology and Society that delved into the question of video games in education. The interesting thing about their study lies in the fact that the two researchers used off-the-shelf games for their basis of analysis and not curriculum-based games. Using a sample group of 59 junior high school students (one control group of 29 and an experimental group of 30), aged 13-14 years old, the researchers first asked background questionnaires about their opinions on school and, separately, video games. After this, the study separated the children and had them each perform a series of curriculum tasks, the experimental group doing so via a commercial video game, namely, Sims 2: Open for Business.

After the experiment, students in the experimental group not only fulfilled the activity criteria but showed an improvement in performance and “indicated successful engagement in the evaluation of preformed actions’ outcomes” by being able to choose from several alternate paths to complete a task assigned, while the students not involved with gaming had only one child that “managed to develop more than one alternative solution to the given problem” (Panoutsopoulos and Sampson). To cap off the experiment, the researchers had the children involved fill out another questionnaire regarding their opinions on the activities they had just preformed. In this poll, 55.2% of students reported that the integration of The Sims helped them understand mathematical concepts taught therein. The other 44.8% did not see a benefit from the video game, but were not confused or hindered by it. The statistical differences are apparent, however, the validity of the evidence is too vague to use for the base of a full-hearted claim.

Off-the-shelf games, not meant to teach children in a classroom, have been seen effective in relaying curriculum objectivity and should therefore be researched further. If “leisure” games help students to perform and learn their schoolhouse tasks, games designed intentionally for students must have an even greater effect.

References:

Panoutsopoulos, H., & Sampson, D. G. (2012). A Study on Exploiting Commercial Digital Games into School Context.

Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 15–27.

Theory Into Practice, 47:229–239, 2008

Copyright © The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University

ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online

DOI: 10.1080/00405840802153940