Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Matrix
I believe that media will continue in the direction it is currently in. It will continue to merge digital media with the online world. However, I don't think the online world has been fully realized by the vast majority of the world. Movies and the like have begun to access this huge resource, but they still tinker with it like a new toy they don't fully understand. Some, like The Matrix, spread themselves too thin all over the place in many different media forms and expect the audience to work to understand everything. That might work if your main product is something like a video game that requires some sort of activity or effort from the audience, but if your main product is something like a movie then your audience just wants to be spoon fed the plot. They don't want to have to research other media elements to understand what is in front of them. On this I can speak from personal experience. It's just like the bottom of soda bottle lids. We want instant gratification on somethings. When I screw off that lid and look underneath I want an answer right then and there if I won or not. I don't want to have to go online and enter some crazy code to find out. Through trial and error I believe media will get the hang of using the internet wisely to benefit them and their audience and not hinder the experience for people.
Monday, September 14, 2009
the persuaders
Are we in advertisement overload? Absolutely we are. In the Persuaders they argue that everyone is trying to break out of the advertisement clutter with their own advertising but in doing so they just add to the clutter. Because of this many companies are going minimalistic on their advertisments. Apple is a prime example of this. I don't think I've seen an Apple advertisement in the past few years with more than two colors and maybe three words. This uncluttered approach attracts attention away from the clutter of everything else.
As far as the primal instinct idea to advertising goes, I don't think that really factors into selling power that much. Primal instinct is no different than making consumers believe they need something to live. I believe there is a science to advertising but when you try and get that deep into it you lose sight of the real objective which is selling a product.
However, how things are worded does make a difference. I felt my feelings change on things during the show when it showed companies change their wording to better relate to consumers, but I think using different wording is most often used to obscure and confuse consumers instead of simply appeal to them more.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Collective intelligence is something people have relied upon for a very long time. With the introduction of the Internet it has become all the easier to use our collective intelligence to answer questions and provide information for just about anything. However, with this free collective intelligence the question comes as to whether who or what people get their information from is a source or person who actually knows what they are talking about or just some kid messing around on the computer. If I were trying to diffuse a bomb I would probably want someone telling me how to do it that actually knew how or had done it themselves. No where is this question brought up more than for the web source Wikipedia.
Why is Wikipedia not considered a credible source for just about any serious writer? Is it the lack of accredidation or the fact that literally anyone can change anything they want on Wikipedia? An article in Le Monde Diplomatique address this issue by discussing that almost everything on Wikipedia is sighted to more reliable sources. The article also found that the average time for correction of blatantly wrong edits on pages was around three hours. However, the article acknowledges that does not discount that there are continual fallicies throughout Wikipedia especially on emotional issues and subjects.
An article in Journal of Computer Mediated Communications called Cultural Differences in Collaborative Authoring of Wikipedia also brings up the issue of culture and nationality having an effect on the content and tilt of articles in Wikipedia. However, this occurs in just about any credible or noncredible source. If one was to read a history book about American Independence that was written in America and then read one written in England the differences would become extremely apparent.
True, Wikipedia is not accredidated and therefore not considered a reliable source but soon it may eclipse traditional means of gaining knowledge by its vastness alone.
Pfeil Ulrike,
O'neil Matthieu, Le Monde Diplomatique Wikipedia: Experts are Us.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
