Lotion Puts A New Touch On Volleyball

Today I came across an article that really caught my attention on the New York Times website titled Beach Volleyball to Float in Oceans of Lotions. Apparently the Association of Volleyball Professionals is getting a new title sponsor for its tour. It’s no longer shoes, volleyballs, or cars, but rather lotion. Nivea line of skin-care products for women and men, sold by Beiersdorf, is going to have the new title. On top of a secret financial deal, Nivea will also be the official product for those who play in the league. This sponsorship makes sense since there is “a lot of skin showing” at the tournament. Nivea is also excited that AVP promotes the healthy lifestyle which adds appeal towards the sponsorship. AVP is also changing its colors to match that of Nivea blue and white instead of their previous colors yellow and black. The contract between AVP and Nivea is for many years to come, although how many years that entails was also left undisclosed to the media.

Previously in class we have discussed advertising in the Media. Advertisements play a vital role. This sponsorship that AVP set up with Nivea is a wise decision. Volleyball players as previously stated do show a lot of skin, especially when it comes to beach volleyball. To advertise Nivea, is an example of product placement. Many times volleyball players live a healthy life as well. They have to be in shape for their sport. This too sets off positive advertisements for AVP volleyball as well as for Nivea. As consumers watch they will see the products they need to buy in order to obtain the skin that the players will be showing. It goes back to Goffman’s theory; Advertisements depict for us not necessarily how we actually behave as men and women but how we think men and women behave or eve look. We see what the men and women look like, how healthy they are and we will want to buy Nivea as well. It is the both positive, yet negative trickery of advertisement.

So maybe you do watch volleyball, maybe you do not. I, myself, am a volleyball player and therefore will be turning the channel to watch the AVP tournament. I will find myself being the told that Nivea will help me look like volleyball players I am watching, but this is what advertising is meant to do. However, no matter how many advertisements you see, consumers do have one huge power they possess. Consumers have the right to choose. Whether we actually buy the products or not is ultimately up to us. So weather I end up buying Nivea and joining the trend of “Oceans of Lotion”, will be up to me.

Apple iPad vs. Amazon Kindle

Once again Apple has created another technological device to add to its list of iPods, iphones, and itouches. The iPad is just the latest of Apple’s long list of technological devices to be found on the market today. The iPad is already caused much controversy and competition prior to its April 3rd release date. One of the iPad’s fiercest competitors is Amazon’s Kindle. The Kindle is a handheld device that is designed mainly for reading. The Kindle is a black and white screen and starts around $259, compared to the iPad which has a colored screen and runs about $499. Besides the obvious differences in price and color quality, what are the real differences between the iPad and the Kindle?

The iPad contains an LED-backlit touch screen that contains incredible high resolution and picture quality. The screen is about 9.7 inches in length and width and uses technology similar to that of the iphone. The weight of the iPad is only about 1.5 pounds and its size is equal to that of a small magazine. It is extremely portable and easy to handle and carry around. The iPad has excellent battery life that can last up to 10 hours of exploring the internet, watching movies, or various other activities. Wireless internet with 3G capabilities is just one of the many perks to the iPad. The iPad includes an A4 chip which makes it better for games, movies, and saving pictures. These are just a couple of the perks and capabilities to the brand new iPad.

The Amazon Kindle is a much more simplified version of the iPad with fewer capabilities and less features. The main purpose behind the Kindle is for reading books electronically as well as newspapers, magazines, and other online journals. Similar to the iPad, the Kindle is very light in weight, only weighing 10.3 ounces and is 7.5 inches by 5.3 inches. The Kindle has a high resolution 6 inch screen that makes reading very easy and enjoyable. In addition, the Kindle has a built in dictionary as well as wireless capabilities and an extended battery life. The Kindle also includes a keyboard which creates easy access for searching and typing.

In Rachel Metz’s article “iPad could be Kindle’s first big threat in e-books”, she compares the differences between Apple’s new iPad and Amazon’s older Kindle. Metz describes the iPad as being the Kindle’s biggest threat due to its ability to read electronic books as many other different functions. Metz believes that the iPad may force the Kindle “out of existence” and soon replace it as the next tool used for reading books electronically. As Metz points out there are several setbacks to the iPad that may keep buyers away for the time being. For example, the average price for books for the Kindle is around $9.99 compared to $14.99 for the iPad. The Kindle also has a longer battery life and can download books from anywhere, something that the iPad is not capable of doing. Ultimately it will come down to the buyer who must decide whether the extra $250 dollars is really worth it.

After reading through Metz’s article and doing some research on both the Kindle and the iPad I have come to some conclusions. First, I don’t believe that the iPad is worth the extra $250 dollars just for the extra applications or more advanced touch screen. If a person simply wants to read electronic books then the Kindle is clearly the better choice. It has a longer batter life, lighter, and is a lot cheaper then the iPad. There are many things a person can do on a laptop, itouch, or even iphone that one can do on an iPad. It seems like a better investment to buy the Kindle then the iPad. In addition to the reasons stated above, the iPad is a brand new device with many kinks still to be worked out. That is why I believe that the Kindle is the better and more economical choice for the person looking for an electronic book reader.

Samantha <3

Reality Isn't Reality After All

18-year-old Alicia Gustaffaro is asking for $100 million from ABC-Disney as recompense for psychological damages from participating with her family in the show Wife Swap. Wife Swap is a reality TV show where two families (different often in social class and general manner of conducting life) literally switch wives for a short period of time, and both families are observed to see how they handle the situation. As can be assumed, there is much chaos and discomfort as the families try to cope with such a drastic change and the difference of personalities. Gustaffaro's family participated in the show in 2008, when Gustaffaro was 15. She complains that the show gave her lines to say which made her seem immature and bratty. She claims to suffer from "post-traumatic stress disorder, panic attacks, depression and suicidal thoughts." She says that her reputation is damaged beyond repair because of the show, and she is treated poorly by her peers, who apparently believe that her character on the show reflected her character in real life. She was previously an honor student involved in many extra-curricular activities, but after the show she finished her junior and senior years of high school in a separate school program.

.

Such trauma Gustaffaro suffered was from a "reality" show. Not only did the show affect the viewers who, as a result, treated Gustaffaro poorly regardless of what they knew of her before. the show's effect was felt on the other end by Gustaffaro, who through making the show and feeling the aftermath suffered psychological damage and a damaged reputation.

.

Although claims are made saying that shows such as Wife Swap influence and change people's opinions about characters and reality, others will counter such claims by arguing that such shows are not actually representative of reality and should not be regarded as such. The argument is furthered by saying that the media does not force viewers to think in a certain way, but, through agenda setting, the media simply tells people what to think about. In this case, the show wants people to become interested in and be entertained by the humor that comes from two families switching wives for a time. It is (or should be) common knowledge that this is not representative of reality although the show is termed a "reality show." Therefore, viewers have the agency to think of what they see as fictional and entertaining.

.

However, people are not entirely immune to the possible effects the media may have on them. In this case, Wife Swap is evidence of the "hypodermic/silver bullet model" which states that the media directly and pointedly promote a message to viewers. True, political messages were not represented in the show, but Gustaffaro says that the producers intentionally made her character worse than it realistically was, framing her as bratty, rude, and ungrateful, a disposition that her peers attributed to her after the show aired.

.

This is yet another example of the detrimental effects of the media. Having said this, viewers must be aware that reality TV is not actually reality TV. the characters and messages portrayed do not necessarily represent actuality. Gustaffaro said that she was treated differently by her peers. This show that these youth rely more on fictional media to tell them about reality than they do on their personal observances and experiences.

.

Such influence can be referred to as the "mainstreaming effect." This means that people who watch TV on a regular basis may begin to believe that the things portrayed in the shows are accurately representative of reality. In this case, the youth who treated Gustaffaro poorly probably did so because they were influenced by the show to the point that they believed her personality on an off the show were unchanging. According to ustaffaro, this perception of ther character is obviously unwarranted and unrealistic. This goes to show that if people want to know about reality, they should experience it for themselves, not rely on fiction to tell them what it is.

Who's got the rights?

We've all heard about the Google-China conflict over the past few months. Should governments regulate internet content? In America, the First Amendment allows for freedom of speech and of the press-- so we can read and say what we choose. But should all governments conform to the rights of the United States? Google claims that governments that filter the Internet are infringing on international trade and human rights.

The New York Times online recently published an article that is dealing with increasing tension between Google and China for freedom on the Internet. Alan Davidson, the public policy director for Google, told a joint congressional panel that the United States should "consider withholding development aid for countries that restrict certain Web sites." Not only is regulation of Internet restricting human rights, it is also decreasing the profit these Internet sites would make from foreign countries and their citizens. Davidson is claiming that the fight is not only with China-- it is with any government that forces internet regulation.

Now, more websites are closing their ties with China. Go Daddy Group is going to halt registration in China because they are concerned for the privacy of their users. A member of the general council of Go Daddy Group said they began questioning the privacy of their customers when Chinese officials requested photo identification and signatures of all the Chinese members. The more companies that receive these requests, the more likely the internet companies available to the Chinese will diminish.

My Communications class just finished talking about government regulation of mass media. Many Americans think there should be some regulation of content, but nothing that would infringe on the privacy of its users. As discussed above, the First Amendment allows for freedom of speech and the press. This gives Americans the right to have almost unlimited freedom when it comes to these actions. The government does, however, regulate certain aspects of mass media. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates content for television, movies, and radio broadcast to the American public. There are not many (if any) laws regulating the content on the Internet-- as long as it is not illegal (child porn, etc.).

So should companies be pulling out of countries like China in order to protest their strict Internet regulations? I'm not convinced. Although I fully believe in natural rights for humans, can these really be left to the United States to make the decision over what these rights entail? Yes, each company has the right to do as they please, but should the government get involved? I think the second the government gets involved, they are killing their own argument. Can we make a law against countries that have too many laws?

Hopefully the Chinese government will see that their regulation will end up hurting their economy and citizens because most Internet domains will pull out. Until they do, I don't think we can force our freedoms on the government (although I wish we could). All humans have certain natural rights and I eagerly await the day that all can enjoy these rights.

Violent Beginnings

In the wake of the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings, people struggled to find answers as to the causes of such horrific acts of violence. Because, if the causes could be identified, then perhaps something could be changed to prevent other tragedies. One re-occuring theory has been that the prevalence of media violence influences people towards violent actions. Is this really the case? What are the effects of media violence, especially on children and teens who are the most susceptible?

An article from ABC News earlier this month cites some recent studies done on the relationship between media violence and viewer aggression (among other effects of media). The media industry is an important influencing factor for children and teens because, on average, this age group spends at least 6 hours (25% or more) of every day using media products. That time in front of the TV adds up. By the time a child reaches adulthood, she will have seen about 200,000 violent acts! That's more than 10,000 violent acts a year. But does watching this violence have any direct influence on aggressive and violent acts?

Studies have shown that there is in fact a relationship between violence and aggression. Children who have aggressive tendencies tend to watch TV with more violence. The trouble, though, is the same as the "chicken and the egg" question: which comes first? Is it that children become more aggressive by watching media violence OR is it that aggressive children are attracted to shows with more violence? Another thing to consider is the fact that children are imitators: they tend to repeat what they see. The well-known Bobo doll experiment indicates this. Children watched an adult beat up a giant clown toy and then modeled their behavior after the example. Imitation is especially prone when there is some kind of reward for the violent or aggressive act; the opposite is also true, that if there's a punishment shown children are less likely to imitate the act. Lastly, the type of violence is important to consider, too. Is it a violent act that illustrates a point, such as 'good triumphing over evil,' or is it merely gratuitous?

So, to sum things up a bit, violence in the media is prevalent, and it certainly has effects on people, particularly children. With that being said, we can't 'prove' that media violence 'causes' people to be more violent. In other words, media violence may or may not have contributed to tragic shootings. But, it's certainly important for us to realize the fact that media are influential for children's socialization. Since children spend 1/4 of the day with media products, we should be aware of the content they're watching - which does include a lot of violent acts. And we certainly need to be aware of how the media could shape 'violent beginnings' in someone's life.

Text From Last Night; meager beginnings to success and fame

The new website “Text From Last Night” (TFLN) has created much excitement, but also controversy in the media world. Lauren Leto and Ben Bator both dropped out of law school at Wayne State University last year to create their website that would later famously become known as “Text From Last Night”. This small website has quickly become a huge success and receives around 4.5 million hits per day. So what is “Text From Last Night”? The purpose of the website is enable users to post amusing, embarrassing, or outrageous text messages that received. The original purpose of the website was for Leto and Bator to be able and keep in contact with their friends who had graduated from Michigan State University. However, it quickly became apparent that the website had the potential to be a huge success.

In Stephanie Goldberg’s article, “Web site’s funny texts lead to app, TV show” she discusses the rise of “Text From Last Night” and compares it to other websites with similar functions. One of the more popular websites compared in the article is FML. This website was created in France in 2008, but soon switched to English. Just like “Text From Last Night”, FML exploded and became a world wide phenomenon. The article reveals how Leto and Bator went from being law student drop outs to creating one of the most popular websites on the internet. In the interview between Goldberg and Bator and Leto, it became apparent that their intentions were to keep it small, but after the book contract the whole website took off.

After reading through this article I feel like my understanding of “Text From Last Night” has become increased and I have a better grasp on its origins. I found the interview to be very helpful in creating a more personal perspective on the creation of the website. The thing I find most striking is how quickly the website took off and became so popular in such a short amount of time. The article was very informative in explaining to the reader more information about the website. Specifically it mentioned that tee shirts, a book, I Phone application, and a television show are all things either being created or already available to fans. After reading the article I feel challenged to go out and create my own web site. Hey, maybe some day it will be the next “Text From Last Night”.

Samantha <3

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/03/17/texts.from.last.night/index.html?hpt=C2">

New Face to Kotex

The 90-year-old feminine care brand, Kotex, Is saying, "out with the old clique tampon ads" Kotex is fed up with the conspicuously euphemistic menstrual product ads and are ready to stop playing games and start telling the truth. Along with the release of their new product, U by Kotex, Kotex is launching a whole new series of ads. This ad campaign is designed to poke fun at the average yoga instructor, white horse riding, dancing girl that is the center of most tampon ads. Mr. Meurer, of Kotex stated, “We’re changing our brand equity to stand for truth and transparency and progressive vaginal care.” The hope of Kotex is to show women that they are sick of the ambiguous tampon-talk, and they are read to get down to business and have a conversation that matters.
This advertising campaign is refreshingly counter-cultural to most ads and ad campaigns. Kotex is basically saying with these ads that,"we're sick of making stupid commercials in order to sell our product. In fact, our commercials have nothing to do with the issue we are addressing." They are a company that is starting to go beyond selling a product and is standing up for something. They think it is about time to stop beating around the bush and say what everyone already knows. Media scholars contend that a bulk of networks get revenue from T.V advertising. Likewise, these advertisements are put in place to sell a product. They both rely on each others interests and most of the time the interests of the general public get put aside. Kotex, in their new ad campaign, is saying," screw the networks, lets think of the American people, girls in particular." I think this is highly commendable and it would be nice if this trend caught on.
So you might be saying, why should I care? Especially guys out there. Yeah, I don't even buy tampons. Well lets hope not! The point is this, rarely do advertising companies develop an ad campaign with the best interest of the people in mind. They normally make campaigns with the best interest of peoples wallet in mind and the wallets of the company. Kotex is stepping out on a limb and making a statement. WE DON"T CARE WHAT PEOPLE THINK! Lets all stop these ambiguous claims and get to the heart of the matter. Sure tampons are gross and having your period sucks, so why the white yoga pants, fake smile, and dancing shoes? This isn't the way women feel on their period. You know were full of B.S, we know were full of B.S, so why don't we just cut the B.S and start telling the truth. I commend Kotex for this and hopefully they are the first of many companies to feature truthful, non-bull ads.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/business/media/16adco.html?ref=media

Amazon vs. Apple...A Battle for the Writes

With the expansion of technology come the battles to control the future. Recently I came across an article titled, “Amazon Threatens Publishers as Apple Looms” on the New York Times Website. It is about the fight between Amazon and Apple. Both are fighting for the rights to e-books. Since the arrival of the ipad Apple now has their hands in the pricing of e-books. Apple wants to require that “publishers not permit other retailers to sell any e-books for less than what is listed in the iBookstore” (the program that will be offered on the ipad). Amazon makes their money by selling books in bulk from publishers, then selling them at their own prices. However now, both Apple and Amazon want to control the pricing of the books offered by publishers. The conclusion that seemed to appear is apple will stay with the four large publishing companies and Amazon will keep contracts with the small. But this may not stay the way in the future as Apple hopes to expand to include the small companies.

Recently in class, we have been discussing freedom of speech and freedom of the press. How the government is regulating the press more and more today. I couldn’t help but think of what our founding fathers would think when they heard about the argument between companies fighting over e-book rights. I do not think they thought of how much the press would really expand. In the textbook by Croteau and William Hoynes it discusses the concentration of ownership of book publishers. They are becoming more and more concentrated. If this continues to be that case, how do Apple and Amazon expect to keep control of many companies if there are only a few powerful ones?

So where does this lead the consumer? Well for one, I know I along with many buy textbooks off of Amazon, because of their great prices. However, they are threatening to not allow anyone to buy from their site until they reach a common agreement with publishers. But, it also helps out Apple lovers out there, because Apple is setting up relations with book publishers. I’m sure we can all expect to see a price differential in the e-books we buy, until an agreement is made between Apple, Amazon and book publishers. With three powerful companies trying to make an agreement that everyone is happy, may be harder then it seems, but hopefully it comes sooner rather than later.

Porn Sites of a New Domain

It is now highly probable that the long-debated domain name for pornography sites will soon be put into place. ICM Registry applied to have all porn sites contain the suffix “.xxx” as part of their URL. This proposal has been rejected by ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) three times since 2000. ICM Registry believed that there was no reason for their application to be rejected, as they had fit the criteria required to create new domain names. In response to the rejection, ICM Registry challenged ICANN in court through the Independent Review Process. The decision was reached just two weeks ago that ICM Registry does, in fact, have the right to have their domain name established. ICANN and ICM Registry are meeting in Nairobi, Kenya to discuss the contract and eventually begin to create the domain.

ICANN said that their initial rejection of the .xxx domain name was made because the company did not want to be forced into content regulation. This is a reasonable concern for those who want to keep obscenities to a minimum. Media regulation is known to help one party but hurt another. This is proof of that point because while the .xxx domain name will help those looking for porn to easily find it, it consequently makes it easier for youth and others to find it more easily. It is also possible that this name will become mandatory, not just optional.

There has been controversy about whether ICANN should even be controlling the domain name process. Some fear that if the .xxx name were to be put into place, it would legitimize and promote porn sites. Although this may help parents know exactly what sites to block, critics say that porn sites would keep their original .com URL in addition to their new .xxx name as a way to increase the possibility of viewers coming to their site. It will also make porn sites more accessible – an unfortunate disadvantage to those who wish to stay away from such temptation.

No More Cable!

With growth in technology, high stream internet, and the price of cable bills, millions of Americans are turning from cable boxes to the internet for their television fix. As a college student, I am very aware of the beautiful convenience of online-streams. In fact, later tonight I am going to watch a live college basketball game, free of charge, in the comfort of my dorm room (Rock Chalk Jayhawk!). But why the sudden shift and how do media outlets and producers feel about this cable exile?

An article in The New York Times stressed the recent decline of cable consumers that have made the switch to now being online television consumers. There are now a multitude of ways to get online news, television shows, sporting events, and even commercials. Sundance McClure, a Web developer from Lakeside, Calif., gave up cable as his bill was approaching $100 a month. Now, he watches hours of television on his PlayOn, a software download that cost him $40. His PlayOn streams internet content onto his Xbox360, which he connects to his television. This one-time $40 purchase allows him to watch almost any television show he desires.

How does this affect the television agencies? Aren’t they concerned for their dissipating viewers and will this affect how they make money? Maureen Huff, a spokeswoman for Time Warner Cable, says they are not concerned. The fad of television streams online is “not new.” Although cable bills are going up, the number of television users seems to be increasing. In the last three quarters of 2009, the multichannel video industry added 1.7 million new subscribers.

Many of the cord cutters (viewers turning from cable to internet) see themselves as “taking power away from cable companies”; they are doing this to help their families. Lauren Reinhold of Lawrence, Kan., cancelled her cable subscription to reduce the advertisements her children saw. Since television is the most prominent (and easy) way to see advertisements, Reinhold believes internet-streams will help regulate those seen by her children.

This sounds like a good idea, but what will happen if cable television gets shut down due to the internet? For one, the advertising industry will probably be hit hard. It is easier to regulate consumers—and their interests—on TV, and much harder online. If cable networks decline in popularity, advertising industries will have to widely expand their networks of use. However, this will endanger the views of parents like Reinhold.

In Mass Media class, we talked about how the advertising industry affects us in all sorts of places. We also discussed how the internet has altered the way consumers view commercials. There is no guarantee that audiences will actually see the commercial, since we are able to pause, mute, or click to a new window website. TiVo brought about some similar challenges for the advertising industry. Advertisers have already shifted to thirty second commercials and adapt to the changing industry. I have no doubt that the advertisers will find a way to make money and grab consumer’s attentions even in this new internet-savvy world; according to our text, they always have.

Personally, I like the idea of saving money and time with internet-streams. Americans are used to sitting on the couch for hours, watching nonsense and flipping through channels. Watching television online is harder and takes more effort from the viewer. It also allows the viewer to watch their desired show at a convenient time. As a college student on a campus where cable is not available, I am thankful for the Internet so can catch up on my shows—The Office and 24. Most importantly, though, I am able to cheer on my Kansas Jayhawks without leaving my room, as I skip commercials and check my email at the same time. And probably the most exciting part is that I can save money and still enjoy all the shows others are paying almost $100 to enjoy as well.

Betsy

The News Face of Facebook

Wall posts and status updates have changed the way we communicate information. Facebook has, on so many fronts, affected the way we communicate. Instead of giving your old friend a call to catch up and see how he's doing, you can just post on his wall. Or instead of waiting to talk to your best friend about if she indeed has a new boyfriend, you can just check out her profile and read the relationship status. One of the great appeals of Facebook is that all of the latest news from your friends is handy at your finger tips.
.
Some may think that the 'news' side of Facebook doesn't go beyond the realm of high school gossip. But the truth is that Facebook has become a source (albeit, maybe not the best one) for local, national, and even global news stories. Just as one example, after the earthquakes hit Haiti, there were constant posts and updates via Facebook about the crisis. In the wake of the event, among people's thoughts and concerns were news updates and ways to get involved by donating time or money. In fact, it was through a friend's Facebook post that I found out about the occurrence of the second devastating quake.
.
Facebook as a 'new' news source has caught the attention of the journalistic news media industry, including CNN. An article from The Guardian on March 10th indicates that Facebook is seen as competition, in the sense that CNN and Facebook are both places where people derive news information. And the fear is that more and more people are going to the latter without bothering to go to the former. Jon Klein, president of CNN, expressed concern that a good portion of the millions of Facebook users are now turning to it for news to some extent rather than merely traditional news outlets. "People are depending on their friends as news sources," he says. CNN has a commitment to, in Klein's words, be "the most trusted news source." But sites like Facebook are jeopardizing the mantra of CNN and others to deliver "straight news" by leading many people to take status updates at their word.
.
Facebook is an interesting phenomenon because (as is obvious) it connects us to the goings-on of our friends. It allows us to find out at any time and from anywhere about what sociologists Harvey Molotch and Marilyn Lester call 'private events.' But, because the world of Facebook is vast and ever-growing, it's no longer simply an outlet for sharing private events (if it ever was soley that). It's also becoming an acceptable source for, on some level, news about 'public events.' News, whether true or not, can spread like wild fire through Facebook's network. It's also interesting to note that Facebook can be a source for generating interest about events - whether it's furthering existing public events or creating new ones. And, in as much as Facebook is a home of news promoters, it's also home to millions of news consumers. That, according to Klein, is where the danger lies.
.
In their article about "News as Purposive Behavior," Molotch and Lester also discuss the fact that the news media shape our perception of reality by changing how we view the events that make up that reality: the way we remember the events and even if we remember them at all. NEws journalism also shapes our view of reality by telling us what stories are important. If it's not in the news, then we tend not to think about it.
.
The bottom line is that we need to make sure that we're getting news from reliable sources. Try to find news sources that you can trust. And be extra careful when reading the 'headlines' on Facebook.