Blog 2: The Persuaders

One of the issues talked about in the video was the fact that less and less people are watching the TV ads, so the advertising industry needs to develop better ways to deliver their message. It talked about how some companies were working with the show creators to insert their ads directly into the TV shows. The video talked about how it was semi-successful depending on how obvious it was that the ads were placed in the show with a purpose. I personally feel that blatant ads in TV shows and movies would be a bad move for creators because it'll wind up degrading the story and viewing experience. The video also talked about how some companies are reducing their advertising on TV but increasing it on the internet. I feel that this is a better move because everything in society is merging into the internet, but at the same time I don't think it will be very effective. All those banner ads in the margins of internet sites and pre-roll commercials are quite easy to get rid of with a simple ad-block extension. It only takes a few clicks and one browser restart to get rid of all those ads. It's so easy even your grandma could do it! Because of this I feel that advertising will either out program the ad-block programmers or the entertainment industries will have to evolve to find new ways of generating a profit.

Another topic brought up in the video was the need of advertisers to stand out in the clutter of advertisements. The advertising companies are developing new ways to get people's attention and connect with people so they're more likely to buy the products. One man mentioned that he was doing research on how religious cults are formed, so he could apply the same knowledge to advertising to get people hooked on a certain brand of products. I find this particular approach quite disturbing, because it seems to have the goal of teaching people to ignore logical reasoning and instead choose products solely because the person belongs to a specific kind of brand or wants to be a part of that brand and feel like he belongs.

Blog 1: Response to "Fast Entertainment"

S. Craig Watkins begins his article by discussing the proliferation of media in our lives. He builds a case that media permeates nearly every aspect of American life and is "always on" and readily available. He uses media sharing sites like YouTube and Yahoo! to demonstrate that short video clips and other bits of media are becoming more and more prominent in our lives. He also covers the rise of Apple as its devices shift from portal music players to multi-media devices able to stream video, maintain news feeds, and access social networking sites like Facebook.

Watkins then goes on to explain how people are constantly media multitasking these days. People are focusing on multiple screens or media while they play or work. I was amused as I read this because I was listening to my iPod at the time. To support his claim he provides evidence that more and more children have access to multiple media sources in their bedrooms. He also cites several testimonials from average college kids who discuss the multiple media sources they access while doing homework.

Finally Watkins gets to his actual argument: media multitasking isn't true multitasking and has negative consequences. For media multitasking to be truly multitasking we would have to be focused on two different stimuli. However, Watkins provides several scientific studies where the ability of the human brain to focus on two different stimuli was tested. The scientists concluded that there was a bottleneck in the frontal lobe which  prevents us from truly focusing on two different stimuli. Watkins argues that we must choose what to pay attention to and there are varying degrees of paying attention. He ends his argument by taking a negative stance on media multitasking providing evidence that a train disaster was caused by a man trying to read and respond to text messages at work. He cites Linda Stone who says that continuing to split our attention results in "'a feeling of being overwhelmed, over-stimulation and to a sense of being unfulfilled.'"

Now as for my thoughts on his article, I don't disagree with his first premise. Technology does seem to permeate every little nook and cranny of our lives. In a personal note I would like to point out that he is wrong about Apple actually selling songs to people. They actually lease you the songs until the day that you die, so technically no one can legally inherit your iTunes collection. I also don't disagree with his second premise that people are media multitasking more and more these days. I do disagree with his argument though--or rather I would modify it.

While media multitasking can have negative consequences when used inappropriately, it is perfectly fine in appropriate situations and can prove beneficial when used properly. Media multitasking at work is obviously a bad idea because work should be your primary focus and you should strive to perform your best. When you're on your own time (and not driving a vehicle) and seeking purely to entertain, media multitasking is a perfectly fine. It can also be a good way to keep a healthy balance between consuming entertainment in your room and maintaining your social relationships with friends and family. Often times lyricless music helps students to study or work on their reading assignments. Music blocks out other distractions; and if there are no lyrics, the student pays little attention to the actual music. The songs become pleasantly productive background noise. So when used at appropriate times, media multitasking generates virtually no hazardous situations.

To address Linda Stone's argument that splitting our attention when media multitasking leaves us overwhelmed or overstimulated, I feel that this can greatly depend on what media you are accessing and the content of that media. I do believe that watching television can generate some stress. This is because you are forced to fit your schedule around times when your shows are being aired. Likewise watching television can leave you feeling unfulfilled if the content is especially poor or you miss parts of your show while trying to text friends. I suffer from none of these because I do not watch television.

I draw nearly all of my entertainment from the internet. I watch videos on YouTube; I read books on FanFiction.net and FictionPress.net; and I play flash games on numerous gaming sites. I've found that the internet is a vastly superior medium to television. By centering my interests around YouTube videos I am able to set my own schedule. I watch videos when I want, not when the content creators decide to air them. Thus there is no stress involved in consuming video content. YouTube offers a wide selection of content that can range from highly intellectual and thought provoking to amusing entertainment. Because I have access to such a wide selection, I never feel unfulfilled watching the videos because they're exactly what I want. I can go to my subscription feed and pick out some amusing videos; of if I'm in the mood to think, I can click on some educational videos and learn interesting new facts. It's difficult to miss content in a YouTube video as well because you can pause or rewind the video very easily. Also since most socializing on the internet is done via Facebook, you actually have to pause the video and open a new tab if you want to quickly send a message to a friend.

Ultimately I find these negative aspects pointed out by Stone to be irrelevant because of the flexibility of the internet. Furthermore, the internet is the way of the future and will likely replace television. The number of web shows is always increasing. Several of them are beginning to resemble true TV in quality and style. Check out Video Game High School or The Lizzie Bennet Diaries. VGHS is about a fanciful future where students attend a high school designed to prepare them to become pro-gamers and programmers. The Lizzie Bennet Diaries is a retelling of Pride and Predjudice in an innovative vlog-like (video blog) fashion. Shows like these can attract large followings very easily. Funding them is just as easy as setting up an Indiegogo or Kickstarter page. YouTube content creators like The Young Turks, PhillipDeFranco, and SourceFed create daily news shows for their viewers. Essentially what I'm getting at is that Stone's negatives apply to television, but the internet is quickly usurping the television as the primary source of entertaining videos and news.

Related Items

Kill Your TV (Regarding the superiority of the internet)

Bruce Willis vs. Apple (Regarding Apple's policy on "purchasing" music)