#n8840598

[kcb206group15]

Sports : the numbers game.

In today’s world, computing technology has reached levels that, not that long ago, were only mentioned in science fiction. Due to the ever increasing power of computers; data and statistics are able to be collected and analysed in a matter of seconds, allowing organisations to execute strategies and increase productivity; from marketing ploys to staff management. Big data, telemetrics and predictive analytics have transformed the way the majority of contemporary organisations do business, “from the front end of stores to the upper levels of management” (Woodward, 2014). In this blog I would like to discuss how big data and new media have influenced the business of sport, both commercially and from a fans perspective.

The author of Moneyball, Michael Lewis, states in Siegel (2013, 11) that when “people operate with beliefs and biases to the extent you can eliminate both and replace them with data, you gain a clear advantage.” Whereas in years gone by young players were chosen to represent teams purely at the discretion of a coaches instinct, the professionalism of sports now demands young players be subjected to rigorous athletic testing, with every result collated and analysed to the nth degree. These results are then compared to data from as long as 15 years ago in order to gain an understanding of a prospective players ability. Therefore, predictive analytics “actually learns more about your next likely action by studying others than by studying you” (Siegel 2013, 15). Brousell (2014) further explains that once in the professional sporting arena, data from wearable technologies can help in the rest and recovery of players, as well as identify and increase the productivity of the athletes.

Predictive analytics is defined by Siegel (2014, 11) as “technology that learns from experience (data) to predict the future behaviour of individuals in order to drive better decisions.” In Australian sports, Champion Data is the leading sporting data and analytics company. Each team and individual is rated every time he or she performs, and certain predictions are made before each match or even season. This data enables fans to further engage with games and allows online social competitions such as “fantasy football.”

“In sports, analytics means not just performance on the field but also the marketing required to fill stadiums by retaining season-ticket holders and attracting new fans” (Bluey, 2013). Recently, the Australian Football League came under heavy scrutiny via social media as a result of suspending a player (Jack Viney) that was seen by the majority as acting in the spirit of the game. The hashtag #freeviney quickly began trending nationwide, clearly exhibiting the fans displeasure at the League. The AFL was then persuaded to appeal the decision and Jack Viney was cleared to play, exhibiting Brousell’s (2014) argument that “analytics can advance the sports fans experience – the better they (the sporting organisation) knows their fans, the better they can cater to them.” Data is also collected on other issues of concern to fans, which can then be on sold to organisations to increase marketing or public relations.   

REFERENCES:

Siegel, Eric. 2013. “Introduction : The Prediction Effect.” In Predictive analytics : the power to predict who will click, buy, lie, or die, edited by Eric Siegel, 1–16. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Bluey, Rob. 2013. “From ‘Moneyball’ to money bombs: What sports analytics can teach political nerds.” The Atlantic, March 8. Accessed May 9, 2014. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/from-moneyball-to-money-bombs-what-sports-analytics-can-teach-political-nerds/273824/

Brousell, Lauren. 2014. “8 Ways Big Data and Analystics Will Change Sport.” CIO, March 13. Accessed May 9, 2014. http://www.cio.com/article/749650/8_Ways_Big_Data_and_Analytics_Will_Change_Sports

 “Jack Vineys two week suspension sends football community into social media meltdown.” Herald Sun, May 7, 2014. Accessed May 9, 2014. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/the-fallout-from-jack-vineys-twoweek-suspension-sends-football-community-into-social-media-meltdown/story-fni5f91a-1226907937769

McFarlane, Glenn. 2013. “Champion data list analysis has reigning AFL premiers Hawthorn ahead of the pack.” Herald Sun, December 7. Accessed May 9, 2014. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/champion-data-list-analysis-has-reigning-afl-premiers-hawthorn-ahead-of-the-pack/story-fni5f8ge-1226777876749   

Siegel, Eric. 2013. “Introduction : The Prediction Effect.” In Predictive analytics : the power to predict who will click, buy, lie, or die, edited by Eric Siegel, 1–16. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Woodward, Darryl. 2014. “Week 9: New Media, Big Data and Telemetrics.” Accessed May 7, 2014. https://lecturecapture.qut.edu.au/ess/echo/presentation/11dcf106-e7c9-44eb-a753-74dfff689043?ec=true

[kcb206group15]

The Two Sides of the Coin

Whilst Flew (2014a, 41) argues that online media policy settings are designed “to acknowledge and respect the rights of authors, artists and other creators, including their moral rights”, Gillespie (2007, 5) notes that copyright laws are essentially “designed to regulate the movement of culture by making it a market commodity.”

“Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head” (Banksy 2005).

This quote from English street artist Banksy typifies what many feel about the redistribution and remixes of copyrighted content on online digit platforms. These consumers believe that once any piece of content is distributed into the public sphere, it is theirs to do what they wish with. Gillespie (2007, 5) explains that “copyright now faces a technology that dramatically reimagines how and by whom culture is produced, sold, distributed and consumed.”  The ease in which new digital formats enables media users to remix, redistribute and essentially become media producers (“Produsers”) has created a legal grey area of what content belongs to whom, and who has the right to change it. As a hypothetical example, if one company creates an online advertisement on Youtube in the hopes of going viral, it is harnessing the power of participatory culture, redistribution and sharing amongst peers. However, if one decides to alter the content in which they are given (perhaps to the detriment of the company), does the company have the right to censor such material? One must think that the artists would be pleased that their audience is participating and engaging in their work. Historically, however, “copyright has privileged not the authors of cultural work but its distributors” (Gillespie 2007, 11).

Source: Gini Detrich

Gillespie (2007, 10) argues that “If the personal computer and the Internet are and will continue to be fundamental tools for cultural participation-the "new media"-then the institutional arrangements bent on pressuring hardware manufacturers to embrace restrictive, techno regulatory control systems warrant significant concern.” It is complicated legal issues such as these that have “significant implications for both the production and circulation of culture, for the digital networks upon which that culture will move, and for the practices and institutions that will accommodate decisions made in the courts and in the marketplace” (Gillespie 2007, 10).

As Flew (2014b, 186) highlights, all “media policy has been dramatically transformed by digital convergence. Previous media content could be easily governed and controlled by mass media organisations, adhering to governmental legislation and policy. Furthermore, local production and distribution of media content before the online era meant that media policy could be controlled by local governments. The globalised nature of the internet has led to challenges in policy making regarding “uncertain territorial jurisdiction” (Flew 2014c). Further complicating the matter of media policy and governance of online content is the high level of anonymity the internet affords its users, as well as the ease in which “evidence can be deleted” (Flew 2014c).

REFERENCES:

Banksy. 2005. Wall and Piece. Michigan: Century.

Detrich, Gini. 2012. "Fourteen Social Media Must Haves." Spin Sucks. October 29. Accessed April 17, 2014. http://spinsucks.com/social-media/fourteen-social-media-policy-must-haves/

Flew, Terry. 2014a. “Fair use and the future of copyright.” Internet Law Bulletin 17 (2) : 41-43.

Flew, Terry. 2014b. “Chapter 11: Internet Law, Policy and Governance.” In New Media, edited by Terry Flew, 178 – 197. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Flew, Terry. 2014c. “KCB206. Week 7 - New Media Policy, Law and Governance.” Accessed April 17, 2014. https://lecturecapture.qut.edu.au/ess/lti/v1/launch/BLACKBOARD/90e0f566-3969-40ff-8600-e7cac2c2e219

Gillespie, Tarleton. 2007. “Chapter 1:The Technological Fix.” In Wired Shut: Copyright and the shape of digital culture, edited by Terleton Gillespie, 1- 20). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[kcb206group15]

What do you read into it?

As Sauter (2014) highlights, “engaging in online communication practices shapes selves.” Perhaps subconsciously, the way in which we present our online content is reflective of our gender, culture and personalities as a whole. Baym (2010, 67) notes that our gender “influences mediated interaction just as it influences unmediated communication.” It is mentioned that women, when writing and responding to texts, inflict a more emotional tone, whilst men present in a more factual sense.  She gives the example that “women are more likely than men to keep mobile phones on at night, suggesting the see them as relational tools while men tie them to information that ends with the work day” (Baym 2010, 67).

The 1:30 mark of Arj Barker’s stand up comedy clip perfectly exemplifies the arguments set forth by Baym (2010, 64) that online dialogue as written speech lacks the face to face communicative  qualities of “facial expressions, gestures and body language”. Here, Barker suggests that perhaps, in the future, different fonts can be used to inflect tone and personality into mediated conversation, supporting Sauters (2014) statement that “technologies afford and propose certain ways of thinking”. Even in today’s digital generation, font selection plays an integral role in the meaning behind certain texts. Fonts such as Comic Sans give any text a light hearted personality, whilst times new roman or Ariel project a certain formality or informational vibe to online written text.

Whilst “metacommunicative minimalism” flourishes in an online environment, it is by no means a new phenomenon. Symbols, abbreviations and fragments have been in use long before online forums and status updates. Pre 21st century written letters are filled with such communicative devices, such as signing off a letter with ‘xox’ to indicate hugs and kisses, or adding a post script (P.S). Perhaps the catalyst for such abbreviated communication came in the form of the now archaic communication tool, postcards. Not unlike todays social media, postcards were sent to friends and loved ones from faraway places, complete with a visual representation of the location as well as a short synopsis of events (constricted by space constraints). The overwhelming difference with post cards and social media however, is the immediacy that one can deliver their message, leading to what Baron (2008, 7) terms “the end of anticipation”. Baron argues that this phenomenon could lead to a disintegration of face to face communication, as “our cumulative experience with communication technologies has gradually altered behavioural and social norms” (Baron 2008, 4). It is suggested that with real time updates (as well as historical cataloguing) of people’s lives, there is little left to discover about an individual’s life or lifestyle. However, peoples increasing engagement with “writing, self-reflection and creativity” (Sauter 2014) can also lead to an enhancement in communication and self-formation as a whole.

REFERENCES:

Baym, Nancy K, (2010). Chapter 3 : Communication in Digital Spaces. In Baym, Nancy K, Personal connections in the digital age, (pp.50 - 71). Cambridge: Polity Press.

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

Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “KCB206 New Media Communication. Week 6 Lecture”. Accessed April 11, 2014. Available from: https://lecturecapture.qut.edu.au/ess/lti/v1/launch/BLACKBOARD/90e0f566-3969-40ff-8600-e7cac2c2e219

[kcb206group15]

Embrace, Create and Engage.

There is no doubting that new media technologies have had a profound effect on the entertainment industry as a whole. Perhaps most significantly, the influence of online media on the entertainment industry has allowed the audience to be engaged and participate in media content like never before. The week five lecture by Theresa Sauter highlighted the new media proposition of “trans media convergence”, defined as “content generated on different platforms (and) combined into one story line.” (Sauter, 2014). This new form of new media content has been embraced by Australian media corporations and is exemplified by the Australian television series, Secrets and Lies, which premiered on Network 10 in 2014. Throughout the series, viewers are able to access webisodes of the program featuring exclusive content that helps to solve the mysteries portrayed on their television screens. Referring to the program, Network 10’s Rick Maier states that “For the first time, you will be able to piece together the puzzle and work on your own conspiracy theory through several layers of brilliant multi-platform content” (if.com.au, 2014). The programs links to social media also allow viewers to engage with each other and discuss topics relating to the show. This creates a higher “buzz” for the program and its distribution network, thus enabling the program to achieve greater “social capital” (a key factor in digital new media entertainment).

The ease of which the audience can become entertainers in the new media environment is best summarised by Burgess and Green (2009, 21), who state, “raw talent combined with digital distribution can convert directly to legitimate success and media fame.” In other words, content creators are now able to bypass the large corporate distributors and upload their own talents in a matter of minutes, exposing themselves to a global audience. Interestingly however, old media still plays a significant part in the economic success of these creators, as success is “measured not only by their online popularity but by their subsequent ability to pass through the gate keeping mechanisms of old media – the recording contract, film festivals or television pilots” (Burgess & Green 2009, 24). This has led to the present power struggle between the top down communication forces of corporate entities and the bottom up model of communication from these new media platforms. Involved in this struggle are issues such as copyright, distribution and advertising revenue. Despite this fact, it presently remains that these two entities are inherently dependant on one another in order to succeed.

Finally, I was reminded of this YouTube video of Ben Folds when Theresa was discussing the notion of the audience becoming the entertainer. Using social chat room website “Chatroulette” via a laptop upon his piano, Folds engages with random people during his sold out arena shows and proceeds to perform individualised songs to these un/willing participants, much to the delight of the physical crowd present at the show. To me this is a novel and original way of the audience becoming the entertainers.

REFERENCES:

Burgess, Jean and Joshua Green. 2009. “You Tube and the Mainstream Media.” In YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture edited by Jean Burgess, Joshua Green and Henry Jenkins, 15-37. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press

HollyWOOD. 2010. “Ben Folds Ode To Merton LIVE Chatroulette Piano Improv During NC Show.” YouTube Video. Posted March, 21. Accessed April 4, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEYxiK0kpEw

Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “KCB206 Internet, self and beyond: Week 5 lecture notes.” Accessed April 4, 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

Secrets and Lies Launches Online. 2014. If.com.au For Screen Content Professionals, February 10. Accessed April 4, 2014. http://if.com.au/2014/02/10/article/PJEGFOPZSI.html

[kcb206group15]

Digital Communities

Whilst discussing the topic of successful online operators versus the unsuccessful; Tapscott and Williams state in Lessig (2008, 221) that, “The losers launched websites. The winners launched vibrant communities. The losers built walled gardens. The winners built public squares. The losers innovated internally. The winners innovated with their users.” To me, this comment exemplified what Theresa mentioned in the lectures as the new model of communication. The new digital media environment is increasingly controlled by the mass user population, rather than media corporations (who previously supplied content to be consumed by the masses), and this is no more evident than in websites such as Twitter and YouTube. To elaborate on the quote above by Tapscott and Williams, the creators of Twitter and YouTube did not create these websites to supply content to their users, but rather to allow the users to create and supply their own content, creating a community where users are able to share ideas and collaborate together.

These forms of new media (and specifically viral content) are also able to be exploited financially if handled in the correct manner. Discussing vial content, Green and Jenkins (2011, 115) explain that “for advertisers and those in the creative industries, this is an especially attractive idea: create a designer germ, and turn the hapless public in the unknowing carriers of your message.” As mentioned in the tutorials last week, the case of the “first kiss” video is a perfect example, in which a viral video was exposed to be a publicity stunt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpbDHxCV29A

Lessig highlights three types of hybrid communities that have flourished with the expansion of digital new media. The first he entitles “community spaces”, defined as “virtual places where people interact, share information and interests” (Lessig 2008, 186). Whilst the value of these sites comes directly from the users who interact with it; these spaces are able to function financially in a variety of ways, such as through banner advertising or charging for exclusive content (as is the case with craigslist and its high end classifieds).

The second hybrid community is known as the “collaboration space”, where users are drawn together to serve a common action or purpose (such as political activism). Lessig (2008, 196) gives the example of “Declan – a journalistic website to fight censorship, politics and laws”. The financial benefit of this site comes in the form of discussions and ideas, which can then be formed into freelance publications and able to be sold on to newspapers and magazines.

The third hybrid community is simply entitled “communities”. Whilst “community spaces” may operate as a type of bulletin board for sharing interests and information, this version of the hybrid community encapsulates every aspect of society: a virtual life. Such is the seriousness of these communities, physical money is able to be reproduced into the virtual world, allowing users to buy expensive houses, clothes and cares and even have affairs. These communities enable the user to live any life they choose, thus “both creating and satisfying demand” (Lessig 2008, 214).

REFERENCES:

Green, Joshua and Jenkins, Henry, (2011). Chapter 5 : Spreadable Media : How Audiences Create Value and Meaning in a Networked Economy. In Nightingale, Virginia, The handbook of media audiences, (pp.109 - 127). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Lessig, Lawrence, (2008). Chapter 7: Hybrid Economies. In Lessig, Lawrence, Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy, (pp.177 - 224). New York: Penguin.

Revealed: The 'other woman' in Second Life divorce... who's now engaged to the web cheat she's never me. 2008. Accessed March 20, 2014. Available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085412/Revealed-The-woman-Second-Life-divorce--whos-engaged-web-cheat-shes-met.html

Tatia Pllieva. 2014. “First Kiss”. YouTube video, Posted March 10. Accessed March 20, 2014. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpbDHxCV29A