#hannnahgibb

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup9]

Where does big data sit in the digital ecosystem?

Man generated 5 exabytes of data up until 2003 (Intel 2014). In 2012, data grew 500x more data than all data ever generated:  predicted to grow 3 times bigger by 2015 (Intel 2014). The internet has facilitated measurable and organised approaches to harvesting this data. Big data (as it’s called) is bought, sold and traded as the currency of modern business (D Woodford 2014). As such, we must readdress notions of fact and fiction, as more businesses creep into our daily lives. How big data is utilized to generate knowledge? What industries are capitalizing over others?

If you know what to look for, you can make the most of big data (G Bell 2014). In this respect, data is in the eye of the beholder, not the machine that processes it. Part of this process means understanding the core components of facts, analytics, visualisation and algorithms (D Woodford 2014). Facts are complicated, and always partial from the start (G Bell 2014). In fact, when I signed up to Myspace, I was technically too young to use the site. My friends and I claimed to be obscure ages such as 105, which was the case with 15% of users (J Bullas 2014).Similarly, power distances become important in how we determine fact from fiction. The context and relationship with another (person, organisation etc.) encourages us to think differently about the data we provide.For example,I'm probably going to be honest when talking about new work policy opinions to other staff, probably not when talking to the manager.According to Mark Vincent (from Shelston intellectual property) Data comes with responsibilities and challenges, which calls to mind the position of the Government on issues such as privacy and misleading information (2014).

Visualization provides new frameworks for presenting facts, while analytics means discovering and communicating meaningful patterns (D Woodford 2014). As facts move along the chain, we start to inject our own opinions, interpretations and ideologies. This means data continues to change, especially in the algorithm phase (G Bell 2014).  In the digital age, in such a cluttered environment, which facts are the most relevant to study? Social media is a clever tool for tracking customer buying, viewing and consumption habits to determine a brands impact. Hashtags can work as markers of a topic, issue or event, allowing data to be organised in online communities (Bruns & Moe 2013). The point is here, that algorithms are about making comfortable, preferable truths that we can handle and resonate with. When you type a search into google, it automatically populates the rest of the answer (Siegel 2013) just as netflicks recommends movies based on your personal data (G Bell 2014).

(screenshot: google, 2014)

Humans hate change and the feeling of cognitive dissonance. These recommendation algorithms are successful because they capitalize on the familiar (Intel 2014). The content television ecosystem is well aware of this. As such, there are more housewives than ever, with reality TV booming. Game of thrones producers were clever, they saw opportunity for narrative based drama, and it became the most popular show released in 2013 (IMBd 2014).

(game of thrones, 2014)

Only 10-15 percent of organisations fully capitalize on big data (Gartner group 2012), and will outperform competitors by 20% (Gartner group 2012). So, there is potential to gain insight and competitive edge from big data. Innovative approaches are required to sift through mountains of data to uncover the golden nugget of knowledge and insight. The challenge is to use algorithms so they deliver familiar and novel, exciting experiences. Ultimately, technology doesn’t make facts; it can’t control emotions, as technological determinism would beg to differ. Humans are the ones in control, and we are only limited by our own intellects and imaginations.

  Bell, Genevieve. 2014. “The secret life of big data” Inside HPC accessed 07/05/14 http://insidehpc.com/2014/02/23/video-intels-genevieve-bell-keynotes-sc13/

Bullas, J 2014. “22 social media facts and statistics you should know” Jeffbullas.com Accessed 29/04/14 http://www.jeffbullas.com/2014/01/17/20-social-media-facts-and-statistics-you-should-know-in-2014/

Gartner Group, 2012. “The importance of big data: a definition” Gartner Accessed 02/05/14 https://www.gartner.com/doc/2057415/importance-big-data-definition

 IMBd, 2014. “Most popular TV series” IMBd accessed 29/04/14 http://www.imdb.com/search/title?title_type=tv_series

Intel, 2014. “How Big Data works” Intel IT centre accessed 07/05/14 http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/big-data/unstructured-data-analytics-paper.html

Siegel, Eric. 2013. “Introduction – The Prediction Effect.” In Predictive Analytics, 1-16. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Vincent, M. 2014. “Australia: the application of traditional legal rights in a big data world” Mondaq Accessed 07/05/14 http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/290666/Copyright/The+application+of+traditional+legal+rights+in+a+big+data+world

Woodford, D, Prowd, K & Bruns, Axel. “Telemetrics: Towards Measuring Social Media Engagement with Television.” Accessed  April 24, 2014. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-5234702-dt-content-rid-2118244_1/courses/KCB206_14se1/Woodford%2C%20Prowd%20and%20Bruns%20-%20Telemetrics%20Towards%20Measuring%20Social%20Media%20Engagement%20with%20Television.pdf

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup9]

Propaganda, new media and the political sphere

  Power relations are intrinsic to how relationships are formed and society is structured. Commonly perceived as being coercive, power should alternatively be analysed in terms of its balance in society, between the people and the Governments. “for political communicators, long used to attaching value to their capacity to manage flow of information, the internet poses immediate threat and longer-term opportunity’ (Blumer and Coleman, 2010, 144) .The networked population continues to gain greater access to information, presenting both a challenge for power struggles and opportunity for increased engagement. (Shirky Clay 2011) .New media’s role in the political sphere continues to grow, regardless if it’s seen as a menace or a beacon of hope.

“To politicians, the third age media system must look like a hydra-headed beast, the many mouths of which are continually clamouring to be fed,” (J Blumer and D Kavanagh 1999). Politicians can no longer expect audience’s instant attention; rather they must fight for it. (E Chorazy 2013). As such, it’s no longer about whether politicians have social media, rather how they use it. Involvement through empowerment was the mission of the Barack Obama campaign. The first political campaign in history to truly harness the power of social media to spread the word, garner support and get people engaged (The dragonfly effect 2013). The campaign didn’t simply create accounts on social media and sitting back to watch.  Rather, energy of involvement, participation and a purpose in their supporters was ignited. To reiterate Coleman and Bulmer, it is only through civic forum having prominence that power can be balanced and everyone can contribute to the issues of the day. Social media is at least, a step in this direction. This perfectly conceptualizes the power of new media in terms of enhancing empowerment. 

Perceptions of politicians are constantly evolving, so maintaining a favorable image is crucial. Political PR is the key to doing so, using a strategic management function.    “…public relations has evolved from … the public be fooled, to the public be damned to the public be manipulated to the public be informed to the public be involved …” (Hutton 1999 201). “Access to information is far less important, politically, than access to conversation” (Shirky 2011). (Shirky 2011). In this sense, new media in politics can empower the people, and reinvigorate civil society. However, PR in any sense, typically is shunned due to its attachment to propaganda.

Propaganda’s roots derive from Aristotle’s time with the rhetoric of persuasion. Events in history (such as the world wars) have attached negative connotations to this term, but persuasive information is its simplest form. Convincing the legitimacy of your views should be thus acceptable, providing they have moral and beneficial substance (E Chorazy 2013).  “We should consider… how (the internet) enables governments to produce better and more effective propaganda “(Morozov 2011). According to Valentine Bonaire (political analyst), the 2008 Obama campaign recycled presidency tactics from past political regimes to create himself an ‘army’ (V Bonaire 2008). He argues negative propaganda techniques were embodied, similar to those used by Hitler with his Nazi army. It is the ‘glittering generalities’ like ‘PROGRESS’ or ‘HOPE’ (as shown in the poster below) and their association with voting that causes alarm bells (M Martin 2013). Marisa Martin from WND believes the campaign was a giant, social experiment on American citizens. New media was the vehicle for controlling perceptions and emotions exploiting behavioural psychology (V Bonaire 2008).  In this sense, the public was seen to be manipulated and exploited into making emotional voting decisions over informed rational ones. This foregrounds the impairment critique of new media and it’s harnessing of exploitation in the political sphere.

However, looking at propaganda in its purest form again, Obama potentially was elected by the American people with the belief he could lead the country with its best interests. Further contemplation can seek to address whether the campaign (and others alike) evoked true involvement through empowerment, or illusionary participation shaped by the Government with a set agendas. Although, is agenda setting an awful thing? Or is it just part of the way the world works?

Bulmer J.G & Coleman, S. 2010. “Political communication in freewill: The British case-and others?” The international journal of Press/Politics 15 (2) doi. 10.1177/1940161210362263

Blumer J.G &Kavanagh, D. 1999. “The Third age of political communication: influences and features” Political communication, 16(3) doi.10.1080/105846099198596

Chorazy, E. 2013. “Political PR” Week 3 Lecture KCB302 Accessed 02/05/14 http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-4984244-dt-content-rid-1176982_1/courses/KCB302_13se2/KCB302_Wk3 politicalpr%20%26%20Politics.pdf

Hutton, J.G . 1999. “The definition, dimensions and domain of public relations” Public relations review Volume 25 (16) Accessed 2/05/2014 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/03638111/1999/00000025/00000002/art80162

Martin, M. 2013. “The art of Obama’s propaganda” WND Diversions Accessed 1/05/14 http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/the-plan-the-propaganda-obama/#2QmQPZMalEZKkXor.99

Shirky, Clay. 2011. “The Political Power of Social Media.” Foreign Affairs, 20 Dec. 2011. Accessed May 1, 2014. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67038/clay-shirky/the-political-power-of-social-media

Bonaire, V. 2008. “Propaganda, politics, election 2008 and the problem of Obama’s target-marketing tactic. Is this the American way to attain the presidency? Valentine Bonaire Word Press accessed 04/05/14 www.vbonaire.wordpress.com   

The dragonfly effect. 2008. “How Obama won with social media” The dragonfly effect Accessed 03/05/14 http://www.dragonflyeffect.com/blog/dragonfly-in-action/case-studies/the-obama-campaign/

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup9]

The perils and perks of forming relationships in a digital era

Up until recently, if you met an attractive person in public, the goal was to get their number and ring them the next day. Yes, this means actually speaking to someone, full sentences, no security blanket: It’s a chilling thought isn’t it? The advent of mediated communication, e.g. texting allowed tongue-tied youths everywhere to express interest using replacement social cues such as smiley faces and other symbols (T Chivers 2010).

Mediated communication is the use of technologies to record information across time barriers and spaces. Computer mediated-communication and texting e.g. are major interaction tools in today’s world (Sauter, 2014). They have become so ingrained into our cultures that they have tweaked social and behavioural norms (Baron 2008, 4). If someone called me asking to go on a date, it would feel bizarre; I would wonder why they didn’t add me on Facebook first.  This this is the modern dating scene in a nutshell, it’s further critiqued here

Mediated technology is the foundation for building relationships (Gregoire, 2013). Today as a whole we are dubbed as living in a ‘global village,’ where different people unite on a common platform (C David 2006). This is the essence of ‘net speak’ (C David 2006) which is problematic with disregard for context i.e. language, medium and information. So what does this mean for our interactions?

Interpretation influences the value of CMC and texting for human communication.  Texts are limited in conveying words without "prosody”, the sound of voices (S Heitler 2013).’If I say ‘I am great’ you might believe it, but I might be crying as I’m typing…texting allows me to mask’ (T Chivers 2010). Similarly, emoticons may successfully convey emotions, but a sent crying face (:’() doesn’t guarantee the person is actually crying. This highlights some of the alleged impoverishing qualities of mediated communication: ‘shallow, untrustworthy, inadequate for interacting’ (Baym 2010, 51).

Many young people get nervous when transitioning from texting to talking in person (J Bohannon, 2013). This causes concern that digital communication exposure results in ‘dumbing down’ conversations (S Turkle, 2012). The erosion of written or spoken language is feared by people who see such technologies as destructive (Baron, 2008). In this regard, digital communication lacks the nuanced understanding and intimacy gained when you are in someone’s physical presence (N Baym 2010). Rather, it gives an illusion of connection without the responsibilities and demands of intimacy (S Turke, 2012). Is it impossible to form a relationship without a lack of social cues? Can you really know someone based on images and instant messaging?  Apparently you can. Online dating gained widespread attention a decade ago, when many people considered it weird (J Bohannon 2013).  But after the exponential growth of websites such as ‘e harmony, online dating has almost become a domesticated activity. (Read about online dating success here).

Alas, the paradox of the modern era: What was once seen as the norm (calling someone to date them) is now considered creepy, and what was once considered creepy (online dating) is now a norm for the dating scene.

Nancy Baym suggests digital communications enhance relationships, stating that ‘the more you communicate with people using devices, the more likely you are to communicate with those people face to face’ (N Baym 2010). New technologies in history have fretted over the lessening of human connections (N Baym 2010).Adaptation is eventually leaned, as conceptualized by online dating.

We are quick to pick a side in the empowerment/impoverishment debate surrounding mediated communication. However, should this be the focus? Perhaps everyone in society will soon learn to adapt to ever-present mediated technologies. So although dating online, and using mediated communication may not be a viable means to build a strong relationship with someone, it can be a useful way of establishing a short term connection, a way to ‘test the water’ before you take a leap into the unknown and get to know them in the flesh.

   Baym, Nancy. 2010. “Ch 3: Communication in Digital Spaces.” Personal Connections in the Digital Age, 50-70. Cambridge MA: Polity Press

Baron, Naomi, 2008. Chapter 1 : Email to Your Brain : Language in an Online and Mobile World. Baron, Naomi, Always on : language in an online and mobile world, (pp.3 - 10). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bohannon, John. 2013. “Online marriage is a Happy marriage” The Age accessed 9 April 2014 http://www.theage.com.au/comment/online-marriage-is-a-happy-marriage-20130606-2ns0b.html

Chivers, Tom. 2010. “How technology has changed dating” Telegraph.co.uk Accessed April 10 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/7165295/How-technology-has-changed-dating.html

David, Crystal .2006. “Chapter 2 : The Medium of Netspeak.”  Crystal, David, Language and the internet, (pp.26 - 65). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gregoire, Carolyn. 2013. “Too Much Texting Could Be Harming Your Relationship, Study Finds” Accessed 11 April , 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/too-much-texting-could-be_n_4192051.html

Heitler, S 2013. “4 ways technology is ruining your relationship” Your Tango, Accessed 9 April 2014 http://www.yourtango.com/experts/dr-susan-heitler-creator-of-power-of-two-marriage/4-ways-tech-connecting-may-be-disconnectin/page/2

Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “KCB206 Internet, Self and Beyond: Week 6 lecture notes.” Accessed April 9, 2014. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_4_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FlistContent.jsp%3Fcourse_id%3D_108110_1%26content_id%3D_5232447_1

Turkle, Shelly, 2012. “Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other” 40-50 Basic books NY

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup9]

‘The contemporary possibilities of a valued fan network'

The Harry Potter Fan Fiction phenomenon inspires exploration of fame, including fan’s input in creating circulating, and giving meaning to cultural products in society. Through famous use of transmedia storytelling and fan engagement, Potter is seen as a benchmark in participatory culture (Clayton, Nick 2011).Similarly, Elaine Sheffrin argues Peter Jackson inspires a new perspective on producer-consumer alliances in media production (E Sheffrin, 2004). George Lucas contributes yet another means of approaching fandom to the mix, arguably discouraging and denying fan contribution to Star Wars. J.K Rowling can be compared and contrasted against George Lucas. Specifically, concerns surrounding ownership and fame can be arisen here. A delicate balance of personal fandom exists for Star wars fans and those of Harry Potter (M Jackson 2014).This observation will foreground the concept of ‘the double edged sword of fandom.’

George Lucas frequently and unapologetically revisited scenes in his movies such as the infamous Greedo shooting (P Damien, 2014). His alterations through time have ignited debate as to whether he should have the power to do so; because in the eyes of fans the story belongs to them once it is released (Sydney Morning Herald, 2014). Similarly, recently, debate has arisen over a statement made by J.K Rowling, confessing Hermione should have ended up with Harry. Fans have been outraged, they see this as fundamentally changing the way they’ve come to know and understand the franchise they’ve loved for years (P Damien, 2014). In one respect the outrage is unjust, because Rowling did not act as George Lucas. She did not pull all her books off the shelves and re write them to suit her revelation; rather she was just expressing an opinion (Sydney morning herald, 2014).

Sampling and appropriation practices mean fan’s involvement in a textual universe is dependent on how it’s circulated and consumed, not the original development of the narrative (H Jenkins, 2006). Several fans argue George Lucas’s fortune is due to them: through years of buying tickets, merchandise, video games for example.(M Jackson, 2014). The phrase ‘unwritten contract,’ becomes relevant, where fans believe they are integral to the success of a franchise (M Jackson 2014). As illuminated in the week 5 lecture: considering audiences as ‘agents of consecration’ is crucial (T Sauter 2014).  In doing so, fans may begin to see themselves in new ways, which taps into ‘entertainment as self-formation ‘(Burgess and Green 2009). New media can therefore be: rational and constructive, while giving people a sense of purpose.  This is exemplified by a complaint from a Star wars fan… “…its fans like us who’ve made you and your family millionaires many times over’(E Sheffrin 2004). Clearly, the self that is invested in the creation of content feels denied and misused. This view can be challenged: Lucas’s original ideas and efforts ultimately made the star wars saga a reality. Without it, fans would not have spent money in the first place (Clayton, Nick 2011).

Similar criticism was hurled at J. K Rowling with the Harry Potter franchise. Undeniably so, fans made her one of the wealthiest writers of the 21t century (J Bethan, 2011). This would not be possible without the time devoted by Rowling to write whilst being a busy mother of three, with little income (M Humphrey 2011).  Just as the fantasy and glory of Star wars is embedded with Lucas, the magic and mystery of Potter lies with Rowling. So: If creators are entitled to credit for their unique mass appraised creations, should fans also be accountable for their support and contribution to fame? Ultimately, both fans and creators obtain ownership of the product. As a result, Rowling has the same rights as fans to speak up about tweaks she wishes she could have made to her franchise.  Participatory fandom is embarking into new realms of questioning the authorship of content, especially as fans become even more entwined in the production of franchises. If fans can respect the rights to creators and creators the same, participatory fandom can ultimately act as a democratizing balance in society.

Sheffrin, Elana.( 2004). “Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Participatory Fandom: Mapping New Congruencies Between the Internet and Media Entertainment Culture.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 21 (3): 261-281

Clayton, Nick (2011)  “Harry Potter and the art of transmedia story telling” accessed 19 March 2014 http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/07/29/harry-potter-and-the-art-of-transmedia-storytelling/

Jackson, Matthew (2014) “J.K Rowling, George Lucas, and the delicate balance of personal fandom” Accessed 23 March 2014 http://www.blastr.com/2014-2-11/jk-rowling-george-lucas-and-delicate-balance-personal-fandom

Sauter, Teresa(2014) “Week 5 Lecture: New media and the entertainment industry” QUT Blackboard Accessed 24 March 2014

Jones, Bethan (2011) “Pottermore: encouraging or regulating participatory culture?” Accessed 20 March 2014 http://www.academia.edu/4230743/Pottermore_Encouraging_or_Regulating_Participatory_Culture

Sydney Morning herald (2014) “JK Rowling admits Harry Potter should have ended up with Hermione Granger” Accessed 01 April 2014 http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/jk-rowling-admits-harry-potter-should-have-ended-up-with-hermione-granger-20140203-31vq1.html

Humphrey, Michael (2011) Pottermore: expert explains how Harry Potter’s Website will transform online storytelling Accessed 01 April 2014 http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhumphrey/2011/07/29/pottermore-expert-explains-how-harry-potters-website-will-transform-storytelling/3/

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup9]

Gamification: the good, the bad and the ugly

Gamification has been touted as a software update to fix a bug in human motivation, packaged into a salvo of talking points for the ‘insight industry’. (J vincent 2012).  Games are about fun, and finding fun is hard. It combines effort with serendipity, and technical knowledge with whimsical experimentation (N Lovell 2011).In one respect, gamification is a cheap and wholesome tonic, a ‘quick fix’ for the dull and uninspired. The week 4 lecture touched on the notion of gamification expanding capitalist production into new contexts (T Sauter 2014). Arguably, “Society has become a factory” (Fuchs 2014, 118). A two fold approach arises: products are made where the only fans are those making profits from it. On the contrary, gamification can yield long term mutual benefits, and can even change behaviours. What influences both of these perspectives is the merging of work and play.

The basic idea of gamification is to inject game-like elements into something previously game unrelated. Collecting points and competing are commonalities carried across all game platforms. A release of dopamine is triggered, a hormone in the brain that encourages us to explore and try new things. This feeling becomes a craving and addiction, and many people will do whatever it takes to keep it going. (J Vincent 2012) Gamification is big business, tapping into these fundamental elements of human behaviour. As such it is pursued to capitalize on a cultural movement, bringing about profits to last until the next trend is discovered ( A Penenberg 2013).

Game mechanics can be properly used to assist guiding ideal user behaviour. Airline rewards programs utilize game techniques to win customer loyalty. Miles can be redeemed for free travel, hotel stays etc. yet many points accumulated are not cashed in, according to professor Jonah Berger. He questions why people are thus so passionate about racking up miles: because it’s a fun game. (J berger 2013).  Frequent flyer programs are based on our natural inclinations toward achievement and competition. Airline miles incentivize customers even when they are meaningless (N Francis 2013). Ultimately, gamification can transform an average customer loyalty program into one that is long lived.

Dropbox encourages product engagement by creating tutorial levels earning extra space for each completed task. The benefits: gamification helps people understand the product’s benefits, yet it doesn’t use external factors to push them towards a particular way of usage. Gaming mechanics can ignite behaviours, not always sustain them. However evidently when done right, as the extrinsic motivator wears thin users will self-internalise the value of the behaviour and keep it going.

below: image of how drop box uses gamification (sourced from dropbox)

Excess extrinsic rewards can kill intrinsic joy and motivation, thus preventing a behaviour to be adopted (N Francis 2013). Zappo rewards customers on facebook with badges, points, and levels, which provide no benefit to them (A Kleinberg, 2012). Many corporate social media platforms accumulate capital with the help of targeted advertising tailored to individual’s behaviour (C Fuchs, 2013). It can be assumed that zappo attempted to give fake value to consumers with the hopes of getting real value in return. Zappo provided basic game characteristics without a purpose or substance. Attention is diverted away from product benefits and usability, and no long term benefits occur. Instead, consumers are seen as passive agents for big corporation’s success.

below: image sourced from zappo's facebook page

Playbour(Fuchs and Sevignani 2013) is changing the way we see the digital labour debate.  Due to game mechanics and tools applied to daily tasks, it is harder to polarise work and play. As highlighted by the week 4 lecture, crowdsourcing using gamification is a popular way of gaining benefit for corporations without us realizing it. ‘Playbour is an actual control strategy of humans that aims at enhancing productivity and capital accumulation…it’s an ideology that postulates the democratization of work and thereby wants to create the illusionary impression that we have entered an age without exploitation’ (C Fuchs 2013).All the bright lights, badges, buttons, enchanting characteristics of gamification that we become engrossed in are distracting us from the reality that many uses of gamification are indeed exploitative.  

True game mechanics have been proven to have a psychological impact. The gamification apps that will live past 2014 will apply smart game design to encourage a particular person or group to perform a particular behaviour. Done correctly, business gamification will create self-motivated habits that align with business goals. Potential exists for gamification to become a positive by product of society, where those playing are not entirely being played. 

Vincent, James (2012) “Gamification: does it make business more fun, or is it just exploitationware?” Accessed March 19 2014, http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2012/11/gamification-does-it-make-business-more-fun-or-it-just-exploitationware

Fuchs, Christian, (2013). Chapter 5 : The Power and Political Economy of Social Media. In Fuchs, Christian, Social media : a critical introduction, (pp.97 - 125). London, UK: Sage Publications. 

  Lovell, Nicholas (2011) “Gamification: hype or game changer?” Accessed March 20 2014, http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/05/04/gamification-hype-or-game-changer/

Berger, Jonah. (2013) “Contagious: why things catch on” pg. 234 New York , New York Times company

Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “KCB206 Internet, Self and Beyond: Week 4 Lecture.” Accessed March 21 2014. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-5273479-dt-content-rid-2228834_1/xid-2228834_1

Francis, Nicholas (2013) “Gamification and customer loyalty: the good, the bad and the ugly” Accessed March 26 2014. https://www.helpscout.net/blog/gamification-loyalty/

Kleinberg, Adam (2012) “the mistake: being pointless” Accessed March 27, 2014 http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/32281.asp#multiview

  Benenberg, Adam (2013) “How gamification is going to change the workplace” Accessed March 26, 2014 http://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2013/10/07/adam-penenberg-how-gamification-is-going-to-change-the-workplace/

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup9]

What spreadable media means for everyone

The hybrid economy of today (L Lessig, 2008) has increasingly seen web 2.0 as a business model, capitalizing on societies’ desire for participation. The concept of spreading information as a form of currency has come into existence because of multi-directional communication (Nightingale, 2011). User empowerment prevails as a result, and the hypodermic needle model of corporate influence is no longer valid (T Sauter, 2014). Although corporations can’t manipulate technology, they can utilize influential individuals in a community to spread their word correctly. People frequently trust peer opinions of experience with products and services, further impacting their own consumption. Corporations should identify influential individuals who themselves have influential friends, and these could potentially be super spreaders in a network. It could thus be beneficial to reach these people first to spread the message by word-of-mouth communication. For example, a similar approach was adopted in the 2008 and 2012 Barack Obama political campaigns . Obama capitalized on the previously apathetic youth vote, using young people as a vehicle to carry his message through social media, arguably contributing to his success.

Web 2.0 has provided some key affordances which have helped to expand the communicative capacities of everyday people, but it has also restricted or extracted profit participation in highly destructive ways (H Jenkins, 2013). In an era of downward cost pressures, corporations are seeking the biggest bang for the smallest buck. Typically, this means producing viral content, which is a problematic concept. Firstly, many views are passive. In 2009, Evian posted their “Roller Babies’” ad featuring babies performing roller-skate tricks. Over 55 million people viewed the clip. But, when analyzing sales, there wasn’t much of a bump. In fact, Evian lost market share and sales dropped almost 25% in the US (J Berger 2013). Just because someone clicked the link doesn’t mean they watched or took any subsequent action. Perhaps instead corporations should be analyzing percentages of viewers who shared a video to reap benefits.

For Henry Jenkins, this (viral media) is often a way for corporations to maintain an illusion of control when centralized organizations are exerting less control over how their content travels through society’ (H Jenkins, 2013). Crowd sourcing has capitalized on this participatory culture, enabling companies to produce profit from user generated content. However, academics raise the issue of "free labor," where the public is not fairly compensated for their contribution they bring to these platforms: raising issues of exploitation. Turking is a phenomenon where people perform simple tasks online such as picking out details from images. It’s a sweet deal for companies as they have access to a 24 hour workforce, such as Amazon Mechanical Turk  . It has been critiqued as the future of online labour, where individuals are exploited because they earn so little (M Benenson 2010). A controversial aspect is that employers can stop payment if the work is not satisfactory, proceeding to use their work anyway (M benenson 2010). This could raise regulation and social considerations in the future as the trend accelerates, provoking questions of the longevity of crowd sourcing.

Gamers increasingly participate in the process of making and circulating game content. Spore was released in 2008, where more than 155 million player created creators have since been uploaded to the online site. (Spore, 2014) Players can upload content directly to the Spore you tube channel: spreading content is arguably the core feature of the game. Spore is a social network generated from player creativity, where spread ability is not content alone but sharing of ideas, skills, and media literacies (J banks, 2009).This taps into week 3 concepts: audiences have power to give content new meaning, establish new interactions whilst shaping the self, and form new relationships (T Sauter 2014). Spreadable media networks blur the professional-amateur divide and emphasize the co-dependent relationship between “producers” and users (J Banks, 2009). This re engineering of relationships challenges professional expertise, authority and control that have dominated media production throughout the industrial era (Hartley 2009, 131–135)The challenge of spread ability is to develop frameworks and models of co-creative expertise that facilitate mutual benefit for gamers and professionals (J Banks, 2009). Having a model that moves toward acknowledging their contribution will harness a clearer insight into how they can better occupy the media ecology. In doing so, this will better align the interests of the media industry with consumers.

Nightingale, Virginia. 2011. “Chapter 5: Spreadable Media: How Audiences Create Value and Meaning in a Networked Economy.” IN The Handbook of Media Audiences, edited by Joshua Green and Henry Jenkins, 109-127.

Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “KCB206 Internet, Self and Beyond: Week 3 Lecture.” Accessed March 18 2014. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-5273479-dt-content-rid-2228834_1/xid-2228834_1

Benenson, Fred. 2010. “Crowdsourcing: innovation and/or exploitation?” Accessed March 14 2014. http://schedule.sxsw.com/2011/events/event_IAP6333

Banks, John. 2009. “Co-creative expertise in gaming cultures” Accessed March 14 2014 http://spreadablemedia.org/essays/banks/#.Uy45WoWWFBl

Hartley, John. 2009. The Uses of Digital Literacy. St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland Press.

Jenkins, Henry 2013 as cited in Rose, Frank. 2013. “ Henry Jenkins on Spreadable media how Web 2.0 went wrong, why ‘viral sucks’” Accessed March 20 2014 http://www.deepmediaonline.com/deepmedia/2013/01/henry-jenkins-on-spreadable-media-part-2.html

Berger, Jonah. 2013. “Contagious: why things catch on” pg. 234 New York , New York Times company

Lessig, Lawrence. 2008. “Chapter 7: Hybrid Economies” In Remix: Making Art and Culture Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, 177-224. New York, NY: Penguin (Available on CMD)

Spore.2014. accessed 18 March 2014 http://www.spore.com/ftl

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup9]

IS FACEBOOK REALLY PULLING THE STRINGS?

Modern society across the world is becoming increasingly dependent on communication networks. We depend on them for the smooth operation of economic and social activities. Society indeed lives and breathes the internet and social media. But at what point do we stop engaging with a technology and start becoming its puppet?

Technological determinism simply put, is the idea that technology has important effects on our lives. This idea figures prominently in the concept that the Internet is revolutionizing economy and society. So in this sense a technology enters life from the outside and impacts social life (N Baym, 2010). It advocates that technology and society change are simultaneous, with technology affecting our emotions, actions and thoughts. As explored by week 1, utopian and dystopian perspectives frame this notion. They do not tackle the technology itself, rather provide a window to view how they are perceived and used (N Baym, 2010).

A dystopian view can be applied to the use of various media. Much of this perspective echoes the characteristics of a moral panic, and a critique of the media affects model is seen here. As highlighted by Nancy Baym, there is a fear of loss of control, dependence, this perspective is firstly problematic because it assumes society is docile, impressionable, and essentially duped masses to begin with. However, recently I almost bought 2 dresses off ASOS. I decided against the purchase, until later logging into Facebook. The exact clothes were featured in an advertisement for the site subtly in my newsfeed. This was the case every time I logged into Facebook for a week, until I decided to purchase the items. Had that advertisement not been there would I still have bought the clothes? Sometimes the media’s influence in our lives goes undetected, and it can be difficult knowing whether a decision is conscious or subconsciously made like in my case.

 Online socialization really can’t entirely replace face-to-face interaction, so a dystopian view would assume that increased use of social networking causes increased feelings of isolation, even though people who are social online are also social offline.

From a dystopian view, technology is seen as a control mechanism by elites. The paradox of this is that social media provides more knowledge than ever before and thus power to the consumer, making it difficult to be manipulated. Facebook provides the perfect platform for debate, sharing and rallying which ultimately contradict this argument. For example, social media became the key for spreading awareness and action for the 2010 Arab spring protest . This highlights a utopian view perfectly: The prospect is that technology liberates, diminishes marginalisation and acts as an equalizer. Yes, social media has a pervasive influence in everyday life. Mark Deuze states that our lives are lived in, rather than with, media (2011, p. 138). But to claim that it is manipulating and brainwashing society is an invalid assumption. This situation is tackled backwards; instead the causes of isolation for example should be examined in regards to other factors in life besides media usage.

Deuze, M. 2011. Media Life. Media Culture Society, pp. 137-148. doi: 10.1177/0163443710386518.

Baym, Nancy. 2010. “Ch 2: Making New Media Make Sense.” In Personal Connections in the Digital Age, 22-45. Cambridge MA: Polity Press

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup9]

kittens

yo sup