A little over a week ago, on Easter Sunday, my niece died. Sorry to be maudlin, but thems the breaks. She was 24, a giggly, vibrant personality who loved her family and all things purple. She had been sick for a while, I’m not going to go into details, but we thought things were getting better. My immediate reaction, after a good cry and ordering food to bring up to her mom and dad’s place, was to go on facebook. Molly lived a good chunk of her life there when things were good. You could tell if she was in an upbeat mood because she would post a lot. For me, and for her siblings, cousins and friends, the wake virtually began on facebook. It continues today.

Oddly enough, “she” appears more on my facebook feed now than ever before as she is tagged in her friends photos. I’ve realized through all of this that the beauty of social media is not the connection piece, but that the participants are the media themselves. Each of Molly’s friends actively choose to post and tag her in photos, inspirational quotes or wall postings. Based on what they select, I see Molly through their eyes. They are a medium for getting to know my niece from the perspective of a party girl, an aunt, a friend.

What I’m going through, the constant combing of information on her reminds me of Walter Benjamin’s exercise of recreating 19th century Paris, as outlined in Huhttamo & Parikka’s Introduction. Benjamin used a variety media; texts, diagrams, pamphlets from public events, and “emblematic objects” (whatever those may be) to recreate the culture of a city he knew at a particular time. In my own way, I find myself doing an archaeological dig through the online media of my niece, whom I knew as a child, drifted away from in her teenage years, and knew as a family member, not really a friend, to understand who she was. In a way, we preserve personae of ourselves, a version, on social media. What’s interesting is that a fuller, richer picture appears through the media of our friends and family.

In terms of media archaeology, I hope in this case that technology does become timeless. I like to think that our personalities are preserved somewhere in the virtual world of the internet, so a spark of connection to memory remains.

Being an online user is now for everyone and social media use is no different. In class we had done quite a bit of conversing about cyber identities and the ability for people to exaggerate or lie about who they are. So never has there been a more fitting time for my precious grandmother to look at me and say, “Don’t use that picture dear, I look old.” EVEN grandmothers are trying to fib online.

Cyber Ethics is a website that states the importance of leading a transparent online profile. The say there are two main reasons that people indulge in fake online behavior, anonymity and distance. The feeling of being invisible to users makes it easier for them to be untruthful. The website findings show that users see the internet as a make believe place where there are no consequences to their actions. The world has become a much smaller place because of the access to internet. However, the distance put between users and those they interact with online gives users a sense of false safety. Many people who engage in using false cyber identities would not do so if it were a face-to-face environment.

Young teens, also known as Tweens participate in exaggerated cyber identities more than any other age category according to the article, ‘Social Interactions in Virtual Worlds: Patterns and Profiles of Tween Relationship Play.’ The article follows 10-13 year olds’ social interactions through an online game-like website. With nearly 1.5 million users, the avatars that were constructed, the information given and the relationships formed with other players were all measured. Findings tell us that Tweens are more comfortable giving away personal/financial information online than showing other users their physical appearance. It also found that Tweens engaged in flirting and relationship building through gaming.

Pop culture is also pulled into this realm as well. Class talk had mentioned the relevance and authenticity of celebrities online. In terms of social media cyber identities, whether we are exaggerating or down-playing something that happened to us, we all have the ability to become celebrities. The manner in which social media sites are created puts the user in the pilot seat to navigate any path they’d like. We all have that one person on Facebook that has the BEST husband ever, or the healthiest meals to share with the world and even those with the cutest cat you have ever seen. Twitter verifies celebrities for a reason, so that we can follow along with them and be an essentially a mini-stalker of their every move. However, some celebrities have sold out. Kim Kardashian for example was rumored to be paid for tweeting different company’s products to her nearly 18 million followers. A sense of false interaction is created through deals like this. Are we really getting to know Kim Kardashian and her personal tastes… or are we just seeing the hairspray she “uses” because it’s the brand that paid her the most money to use it? False cyber identities range from mild to extreme (poor Manti Te’o….).

As social media grows and as online profiles become even more popular, finding transparency will become increasingly challenging. As for my grandmother, she is now accepting friend requests and trying to find a cover photo that makes her look youthful.

http://www.cyberethics.info/cyethics1/

Social Interactions in Virtual Worlds: Patterns and Profiles of Tween Relationship Play
Michael T. Giang, Yasmin B. Kafai, Deborah A. Fields, Kristin A. Searle

CBC has gone zine. It’s a word that was adopted  by the Internet in the late 1990s (or five thousand years ago in Web years) after years of being small alt-magazines with limited distribution and even more limited funds. It is a modern-day example of Habermas’s notion of a public sphere, using an alternative form of press to reach a group of people with the same interests and motivation for speaking up and speaking out.

However, this particular zine, Generation Why, is a disappointing chimera*, or representative of one thing when it’s really another. As I was leafing through the magazine, I saw an interesting blend of media, blogs, articles, youtube videos, and thought that it had the potential to be a cyber-public-sphere for Generation Y. However, if you look at the links, they are all CBC content, most of the writers for the first edition are CBC reporters.

It’s like the CBC is cybertyping, but in an ageist way. Rather than assuming that people in their early 20s would go online and read the news as any other consumer, they seem to be using this “fun hip electronic magazine” as a way of drawing attention to their news stories. I personally find it, um, patronizing? Is it generalizing to a whole generation to think that one’s attention span needs short, digestible sentences to understand news?

*Chimera was a term used by our visual design professor at MSVU, Maurice Michaud, who taught us that some publications use the format and preconceptions that go with them to disguise messaging. An “informational” brochure can actually be selling something, a video PSA can be cleverly disguised as a news report.

Victoria Park is an example of why London, ON may be listed as one of the top four cities to live in Canada as ranked by MoneySense. What contributes to making London a top place to live? What this article stated was the average household income of $78,873, average home value of $247, 818, days above 0 degrees Celcius of 217.3 and an unemployment rate of 6.09 %. London has struggled with keeping downtown London safe and meeting the needs of many diverse people. For instance, London has focussed and conducted numerous studies on how to bring people back downtown. There are three major investments that have made a huge impact on London – rebuilding an old market into a modern day market where many of the old vendors could no longer afford the change in rent, building a new public central library and building of a high end entertainment complex called Budweiser Gardens where ISU World Figure Skating Championships was just hosted. These buildings have added culture, night life and entertainment and helped draw residents back to what was once a rundown core. Are these examples of revitalization or gentrification?

Gentrification is the process of renewal and rebuilding which can bring an influx of middle-class or affluent people into what were once deteriorating areas and this often displaces poorer residents. Two new two new apartment towers on Dundas St., west of Colborne St., and two more at King and Ridout streets have recently been completed in the downtown core.
In an editorial in the London Free Press printed on Friday October 12, 2012, provided these statistics, “Between 2006 and 2011 the core’s population grew an average of about 4.5% each year. In 1996, there were about 2,500 residents. Today, that’s grown to about 4,300.”

Not everyone is happy about the changes in London as many people have been uprooted as rents increase and middle-class people move downtown. Saskia Sassen, in an article called, The Shifting Meaning of Urban Condition, states, “… the impact of high-income residential and commercial gentrification, which generates a displacement that can feed the making of a political subjectivity centered in contestation rather than a sense of civic on either side of the conflict.” (2006, p. 21)

I find it interesting to note that Sassen points out the reality of these massive structures and semi-abandoned places and makes me wonder: does this show the tension between what was and what can be? Sassen also goes on to say that this physical displacement is a symbol of a power relationship – control of one side expressed by evictions through rising real estate prices over the other (2006, p. 21).

Many marginalized, disadvantaged, people feel like outsiders, and can gain a sense of community through being together to cope with this challenge of a power relationship. Sassen points out that “it’s more than whether power is had or not, but there’s a new hybrid base from which to act.” Everyone needs a public sphere to gather, a place to build a voice, for demonstration, fighting for the rights of: immigrants, homeless, gays, lesbians and the politics of culture and identity (2006, p. 22).

I’ve never considered how this intercity gathering of people in this open space enables them to socialize and build community. This has been made complicated with the entry of the Internet, as the access to technology separates individuals from becoming part of the global network of activism. The location of London’s downtown public library provides access to computers and the Internet allowing for another public sphere for these displaced people to build community. The discussion on how to urbanize open space is interesting to me. Some cities do it well, such as in Toronto where you see people playing chess on permanent structures in a park downtown and the same is true in New York City in Central Park. As already mentioned, London, Ontario’s Victoria Park is an example of an urbanized open space which is used both for planned events and for impromptu gatherings of people.

Sassen suggests the idea of involving architects in the creation of public space – to include and welcome the diversity and use their imagination where they may not see any shape, and to find space in unlikely places for all. After all, having a vibrant city means acknowledging the balance between investments, growth, value of diversity by multiculturalism and renewed rebirth or revitalization of city centres. It’s a challenging balance but essential in building a vital community.

References
Editorial in London Free Press printed on Friday October 12, 2012 retrieved on March 24 from http://www.lfpress.com/2012/10/12/no-time-to-be-complacent-about-core-revitalization

MoneySense retrieved on March 22 from http://www.moneysense.ca/2013/03/20/canadas-best-places-to-live-2013

Sassen, S. (2006). Public Interventions: The Shifting Meaning of the Urban Condition. Open 11: Hybrid Space – How Wireless Media Mobilize Public Space, (pp. 18-26) Retrieved from Skor Foundation: http://www.skor.nl/_files/Files/Open11_P18-26.pdf

Academic research on the topic seems to favour the position that citizen and traditional journalism both serve similar, and at the same time, unique, purposes that support their ability to evolve to a place to operate cohesively together. My own view on this topic reflects the research I conducted. Although, I posit aloud, perhaps that’s my own bias coming through the research I chose to reference. For the purposes of this relatively short blog, however, I won’t dive too deep into that, and will however, let the research speak for my position.

Barnes (2012) states that, “Blogs, forums, uploading of photographs or videos to the Internet, are now being labelled ‘citizen journalism’ as distinct from traditional, mainstream or professional journalism. The idea behind citizen journalism is that people without professional or formal training in journalism have an opportunity to use the tools of modern technology and the almost limitless reach of the Internet in order to create content that would otherwise not be revealed, as this kind of journalism goes far beyond the reach of professional journalism” (p. 16).

Research into both forms of journalism reveals that “both professional and citizen journalism have an effect on the political discourse, although the picture is complex” (Kaufhold, Valenzuela & de Zuniga, 2010, p. 522). “…News making, political consciousness, the media production process, consumption practices and the globalisation of information” are all impacted considerably by the evolution of citizen journalism (Mythen, 2010, p. 45). Like has never before been possible, citizen journalism through new media technologies connects individuals with “similar or alternative proclivities and interests across the globe” (Mythen, 2010, p. 48) and offers those people an avenue to disseminate and share news and information with one another — and others outside their circle as well.

We see citizen journalism also referred to as “alternative media,” where the media being collected and disseminated is considered more independent and wide ranging than traditional media (Barnes, 2012), which is often considered subjected to the gatekeeping practices of traditional media ownership.

“Mainstream journalism practices – shaped as they are by their host media institutions – have contributed to a broad disengagement of audiences with the political process,” argues Meadows (2013, p. 44), who also states that a sentiment now exists that “reporting news is too important to be left only to journalists” (p. 44).

Where the Internet has “become an established forum for interactive debate and discussion about the causes and consequences” (Mythen, 2010, p. 47), and a greater number of established media (e.g. CNN and the BBC) are integrating citizen journalism practices into their own broadcasts, citizen journalism is establishing its own credibility with broad audiences. In addition to supporting traditional journalism, citizen journalism practices are, “at times, fuelling the reportage in mainstream media” (Barnes, 2010, p. 25).

Audiences and two-way communication practices, I posit, are at the centre of the debate between citizen and traditional media. The lack of engagement in traditional or mainstream journalism is supporting the growth of citizen journalism and there is a belief that “independent community journalists are in an ideal position to offer audiences a real alternative by applying a more appropriate framework for making sense of the world” (Meadows, 2013, p. 55).

While citizen journalism offers a valuable increase in the opportunity for audience engagement and participation, traditional media are important to support political learning. “Those who consume news through professional news outlets—online and off—tended to score marginally higher in political knowledge than citizen journalism consumers. (Kaufhold, Valenzuela & de Zuniga, 2010, p. 522).  Meadows (2013) also explains that citizen journalism us not without its own biases, and while “they have changed the way we communicate but on the whole seem more closely aligned with celebrity rather than citizenship” (p. 55).

An important system of checks and balances also generally exists in traditional media that is largely missing from citizen journalism. Individual biases have a greater ability to influence what’s been reported in citizen journalism without disclosure. “In traditional media organisations, editors impose regulations on data collection, media professionals double check facts and lawyers are employed to check whether stories are libelous. Given the roaming geography of user-generated content on the internet, inevitable problems arise around informational credibility and accreditation” (Mythen, 2010, p. 51).

In the Netflix series House of Cards (Fincher, 2013), there is an interesting look at the  recentl evolution of political journalism in the series. A reporter is starting her career with a reputable and established newspaper in Washington, D.C., as she engages a source who affords her stories, her profile begins to rise at the newspaper. The report is a proponent of integrating new media communication practices into journalism. Running up against an “old-school” editor who favours traditional practices, she leaves the newspaper and joins a citizen-based political journalism website where she produces, edits and publishes her own stories. This practice of self-publishing, I posit, is an example of where the opportunity for reporting to open itself up to libel and inaccuracy, as suggested by Mythen (2010) exists.

Research on the topic (see Barnes, 2012; Kaufhold, Valenzuela & de Zuniga, 2010; and Mythen, 2010) largely suggests there are opportunities and challenges in both traditional and citizen0-based forms of journalism. There’s a benefit to the co-existence of both forms of journalism, as they both offer unique — and important — aspects to reporting the news.

References:

Barnes, C. (2012). Citizen journalism vs. traditional journalism. Caribbean Quarterly, 58(2/3), 16-27.

Fincher, D. (2013). House of Cards (Television series). Los Gatos, California: Netflix.

Kaufhold, K., Valenzuela, S., & De Züniga, H. (2010). Citizen journalism and democracy: How user-generated news use relates to political knowledge and participation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,87(3/4), 515-529.

Meadows, M. (2013). Putting the citizen back into journalism. Journalism, 14(1), 43-60. doi:10.1177/1464884912442293

Mythen, G. (2010). Reframing risk? Citizen journalism and the transformation of news. Journal Of Risk Research, 13(1), 45-58. doi:10.1080/13669870903136159

This was an interesting article by Nakamura and it really sparked some excellent conversation during discussion period!

This was quite a long and in depth piece but the main topics that have stuck with me over these past couple weeks is that of cybertyping and virtual communities.

Cybertyping is a term coined by Nakamura to describe the emerging epiphenomenon in new media.

This term describes “the distinctive ways that the Internet propagates, disseminates and commodifies images of race and racism” (Nakamura, 2006: 318).

Nakamura goes further to explain that cybertyping shouldn’t be merely understood as “stereotypes ported to a new medium” (Nakamura, 2006: 319) because their creation is as a result of peculiar collaborative efforts from users exercising their agency with machines, such as the Internet, which offers “identity prosthesis to redress the burdens of physical “handicaps” such as age, gender and race” (Nakamura, 2006: 319).

Nakamura identifies that the use of cybertyping is evident within many of our virtual communities. Even consider chatrooms for example: within our virtual “rooms” or sites we separate individuals into categories of race or gender based upon an obvious stereotype (asian, women etc).

Through her research on cross-racial impersonation in an online community, Nakamura identified that when users were free to choice their race; all were assumed to be white.

This evidence founded by Nakamura really had me thinking about my online encounters. Am I contributing to cybertyping without even realizing it? Would it be valid to say that the majority of people we encounter online we “assume” to be white?

I will definitely be asking myself these questions in the future.

Nakamura continues to further point out the fact that the majority of cybertyping happens here in North America. Why do you think that would is?

If you reflect on the western lifestyle we all enjoy I don’t think the answer is too hard to find. We live in a society where technology is created, controlled and distributed by the rich white male population. Why should we assume that people we meet online are of a different race when indeed they are more likely from our western society?

How can we ever expect to escape this trend of cybertyping if all the technological power is controlled by North American companies?

Nakamura also illuminates the concept of “identity tourism” which is a term that has really had me thinking about my online encounters. Identity tourism defines a social situation in which users of social networking sites obtain a persona other their own.

During our class discussion we mentioned the idea of social networking and the idea of corporate social media sites.

Would Nakamura’s term of identity tourism be a valid comparison with regards to “who” is in charge of a twitter feed?

When we receive a response or re-tweet from a corporation I never really consider the “who” behind the label. The fact is that we all fall into the trap of cybertyping through social media.

M.E made a great point during the class discussion; does it really matter or do we really care WHO is behind the twitter name?

I think for me personally, the answer may be that it doesn’t matter who is it. This question got me thinking about the twitter and Facebook accounts of our political leaders, do we honestly think that the things they say are really ‘their’ words?

Nakamura’s article has really opened the door to some new concepts that are appearing through the use of technology. Ultimately, I have learned a valuable lesson from this article and it’s that we truly never can know who we are actually encountering on our virtual communities. There may not be a solution to this problem with the internet being so uncontrollable, our only valuable weapon as a user is to proceed with caution.

References:

Nakamura, L. (2002). Cybertypes: Race, ethnicity, and identity on the internet. (10 ed.). Routledge.

What we need and
can now have is some genuine plurality.

The above quote comes from Bazalgette’s Public Service Narrowcasting article (2009, p.40). I was so excited reading this article because I really believe that niche markets with special and smaller audiences is the way forward. When was the last time any of us watched a PBS program? Why is there so much concern for the “broad” in broadcasting? Bazalgette (2009, pg.38) believes the internet is killing public service broadcasting especially with the wonderful phenomenon that:

…Organisations in the
world of the arts, media, education, museums and
so on, who can now create and distribute their own
content.

These organizations should be the leaders paving the way for the move to public service “narrowcasting”. Narrowcasting has to do with tailoring and disseminating information to a narrow (I prefer the word niche) audience. The idea of narrowcasting should be one we embrace with open arms especially when it comes to public service programs as many of them are specialized and specific so really do end up attracting this narrow audience more often than the mass audience television companies would prefer. Narrowcasting can also be an easy and first step someone like CBC can use to set themselves up in the world of digital media and the internet. The possibilities for narowcasting are endless, this can actually lead to even stronger audience engagement in the programs and their content. The spiral video ME showed us in class brought back the idea of creativity for me and how everyone has their own creative capabilities and so can be given the opportunity to express and play around with that capability.

I am in no way saying that PBS or PSB (as Bazalgette (2009) refers to it in his article) should be completely thrown out the window, but just like Bazalgette I am advocating for us to identify and take advantage of the new opportunities afforded us by the internet. Another idea that can be used to employ a form of narrowcasting is the Second Screen. Give the audience the chance to not just sit and be spoon fed information but to actively take part in the discussion while the program is on and maybe even direct a few programs as they are happening and have questions answered in real time. An opportunity for citizen engagement which will enrich the experience of PBS and in turn maybe even attract a bigger audience.

Bazalgette (2009, pg. 40) talks about the fact that most PBS programing is decided by a select few, with narrowcasting that decision is spread out especially if the interactive possibilities are fully employed and content is fluid and includes creations by the audience. Narrowcasting might actually bring the “broad” into reality for PBS.

What do you think about narrowcasting and programing for niche markets? Do you agree with my thoughts about the possibilities for citizen engagement?

Bazalgette, P. (2009, February). Public service narrowcasting. Prospect Issue 155: 38-40.
Retrieved from Prospect Magazine

http://www.thespiral.eu/

According to Kenny, this leads to having a fragmented identity: with every community you perform in, you have a daimon. The real you is called eudaimon, and that’s the goal of an ethical life, when you are truthfully yourself and can be whole. On the other hand, the opposite concept exists: disdaimon, which applies when you don’t act like yourself in each of these social spheres. We create facade in our performances and representations and simply continue to reproduce the pattern once it’s established. This is just another indicator of the complexity of our society that drives us to create fragmented identities since it’s so hard to commit to just one.

And surely enough he see this also with our 2.0 identities. All the different platforms we are part of, those that we daily interact with and that become an extension of our real life, they all have a distinct code of conduct that range from small subtleties (i.e. Twitter and Facebook) to significant differences (specialized platforms like LinkedIn). Jose van Dijck states “Facebook and other SNSs favor the idea of people having one transparent identity that they disclose online, releasing habitual behavioral data and personal information in the process of socializing. Platform owners have a vested interest in pushing the need for a uniform online identity to attain maximum transparency, not only because they want to know who their users are, but also because advertisers want users’ truthful’ data” (van Dijck, 200). Beyond the commercial point he makes, which is something we can’t ever leave aside, he brings into the table this idea of and idealized wholesome identity as a little utopian, thus leaving us to contemplate the idea of fragmented identity in this context too.

What makes data lucrative for these companies is the ability to trace information traffic between people (or institutions, or products), which lead to a shift that van Dick estimated around 2008 when companies stopped caring about creating communities and focused on promoting storytelling, narratives and any other way of self-representation they could monetize. We can see this attempt, in Facebook’s recent effort in adding hashtags, a communication code typically used in Twitter, which could potentially represent a violation to the user agreement regarding privacy because it would imply making them openly public (article cited in references).

But how aware are we of the identity we are constructing online? As opposed to the natural socialization process that occurs while we grow up and interact with society and its institutions, and our belonging groups through several years, in the online world we have the advantage of entering with an already established identity, so we can either mimic it or make a new one. Lots of kids and teenagers take on cues from their favorite celebrities, or friends, or anything else they see, to conform their own identity 2.0 and represent themselves. So the process hasn’t changed, just the medium.

In the article, van Dijck distinguishes between the social self presented via Facebook and the professional self presented on LinkedIn, but this happens in every other social platform: the savvy self in Twitter, the crafty self in Pinterest, and the artistic self on Instagram. And it’s necessary to question how uniformed is the identity we construct in all these platforms? Does the nature of each platform determine the way in which we represent ourselves?

Consider the phenomenon of multi-screening, in which users use not only different platforms, but different media at the same time seems to upscale our multitasking abilities to a new level: we can be watching an event on tv, chatting directly with friends on our phones, checking social media platforms on our tablets, and at the same time looking on Reddit to see if someone already made a gif or a meme of what just happened. Do we maintain a wholesome identity while precluding, sharing and interacting through these spheres?

This new ways of conforming and performing identity imply a necessary shift in the way we conceive communication as a strategy, as Curtin and Gaither also noted when they talked about a new model for public relations that includes identity as a crucial factor and contemplates the many different voices typical of postmodernism and takes on Holtzhausen’s premise of the circumstantial nature of the communicative act. The Circuit of Culture is an articulated circular model with five main components (seen as “moments” by the authors) that interact with each other simultaneously to produce meaning: production, identity, representation, regulation and consumption.

This implies that meaning is contained in cultural products (production), those socially constructed meanings are given to define something (identity), they engage in symbolic processes through which we give meaning to things (representation), this is mediated in the context of cultural activity (regulation) and finally the way in which the product is consumed determines its meaning. A direct link between the individual and what it’s meaningful to him is established, which opens a new era for audience breakdown and target configuration.

On a TED Talk, Johanna Blakley talks about rigid segmentation methods, old school demographics typically used to define us. It was believed that if you fall into one of these categories, they can predict how you will act and feel, and thus, paradoxically, a great deal of production itself comes from this superficial, biased “knowledge”. Let’s think how much the whole process changes if we filter it with the Circuit of Culture model, allowing meaningful information to change the way in which audiences are considered.

This allows us to connect differently, based on very specific interests; it’s ”the mass audience of the future”, Blakley says, and as mentioned before, media companies are trying to figure it out: it’s better for them to find out about preferences, taste and values than about age, profession or income. And once that segmentation is appropriately done we can consider how we reach that audience: narrowcasting methods claim to be more effective than other approach strategies with a wider target would allow. So, technically, this is what can make a difference in the way we engage audiences: if it reaches us directly and pertinently it can be like cupid’s arrow; but if not, that arrow can just cause a splinter in our butt.

References

Blakley, J. (2011, February). Social Media and the end of gender. Ted conferences, llc. Retrieved from

http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_social_media_and_the_end_of_gender.html

Bazalgette, P. (2009, February). Public service narrowcasting. Prospect Issue 155, 38-40.

Curtin, P.A. and Gaither, T.K. (2005). Privileging Identity, Difference, and Power: The Circuit of Culture as a Basis for Public Relations Theory. Journal of Public Relations Research 17(2), 91-115.

Goffman, E. (1990). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Herrman, J. (2013 March). How Facebook Hashtags Would Change The Meaning Of “Public”. Buzzfeed. Retrieved from

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/facebook-hashtags-and-the-meaning-of-public

Kenny, R. W. (2010). Beyond the Elementary Forms of Moral Life: Reflexivity and Rationality in Durkheim’s Moral Theory. Sociological Theory, 28, 2, 215-244.

Neuman, W. R., Just, M. R., & Crigler, A. N. (January 01, 1994). Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning. Media, Culture & Society, 16, 4, 702.

van, D. J., van, D. J., & van, D. J. (January 01, 2013). ‘You have one identity’: performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media, Culture & Society, 35, 2, 199-215.

One particular topic I enjoyed discussing in this module was narrowcasting. I think narrowcasting is a dream come true for individuals working in communications or public relations trying to market their messages. Having everything and everyone digitally available allows for these communications/pr people to reach citizens individually rather than projecting one big message which people often choose to ignore.

Just at the top of my head a great example of narrowcasting can be seen by YouTube. Every time I sign in with my Gmail ID and log into YouTube, YouTube will string videos that will cater to my liking. My YouTube account will recommend material for me that I will enjoy, and 4/5 times I will click on the link to watch the video (which means the method to their marketing is working)!

Narrowcasting is a great way to reach consumers because it is a specialized form of content marketing that targets specific audiences so that the messaging resonates more deeply with the audience (Albom, 2008). When you target specific audiences and get attention, you also get the attention of their friends, and peers. A YouTube video stated that 90% of people trust peer recommendations, whereas only 14% of people trust advertisements (Social Media Revolution, 2011). When narrowcasting is used to market messages or materials consumers feel dependant on the organization because organizations ‘know’ what they want. Empire Theatres, like YouTube is another name that highlights content marketing. The film distributors for Empire Theatres line their trailers up before movies to ensure they are targeting the right demographics for their upcoming films. For example, if you are heading in to watch a chick flick chances are the trailers before your chick flick will be light hearted, romantic, and comedic as opposed to horrific and dark. I have caught myself many times just watching the trailers and repeating “Oh, I want to see that, Oh I want to see that one too!” for every trailer in that specific movie.

In the end narrowcasting helps marketers get rid of content spillage. Money that used to be spent reaching a broad audience is now better spent communicating more frequently with a narrow target audience. You have the opportunity to really “engage with the right group of people” (Albom, 2008).

I know being a consumer; I tend to go for products or even television shows that come across my attention casually and not through big, bold ads. As the Bazalgette (2009) article states one phenomenon undermining public service media is the way people can ‘make and distribute their own content’ (p. 38). This article highlighted three key components that broadcasters had decades ago that individuals did not have and this was money, expertise, and spectrum. The latter two of these is available now to anyone who possesses a computer or mobile device. How can we go from broad to narrow? This could mean using second screening by letting people interact as experts in their own field like we see a lot today (Class Notes, 2013).  The internet also aids in educating individuals in society in a variety of areas. Our feelings now towards things we cannot attain or unhappy with result in creating them ourselves with our resources, or complaining about them. The audiences are now tweeting about the awe factor in reality TV through second screens, and choosing the ending they want for their favorite television shows (Miller, 2013). I think narrowcasting is so popular because organizations like to pick up interests and just roll them out to perspective audiences to see what they can reel in, and build on. Without wasting much money on publicity organizations can use trial and error on different ideas through consumer responses.

Narrowcasting is very helpful to people who live in a generalized demographic, but how about those people who are still interested in certain products and materials who are left out? Why should they be excluded? For example, I have lived in Halifax, N.S my whole life and I have just started hearing about Nocturne (Art at Night) in the last 2-3 years. How did this get passed me? Why haven’t I seen ads anywhere? Perhaps it was due to narrowcasting. I am not very artsy, nor do I understand some of the jargon, but this does not mean I couldn’t foster an interest in this field – I have never been exposed to it. I feel narrowcasting is built of generalizations of demographic, behaviour, and context but are we selling our products and material short if we are not getting them to a variety of audiences (Mandese, 2011).

The traditional method of broadcasting can attract mass audiences (Bazalgette, 2009), but the charm in narrowcasting rests on the fact that audiences can be focused in on, and targeted using online methods which saves more money. Broadcasting means investing a lot of money to produce a little amount of content for a large number of people, while narrowcasting means investing little money to produce a lot of content to a few people who then put the word forward (Mandese, 2011). What would you choose? Can we keep both methods? Do we have a say in the matter?

References

Albom, M. (2008). Narrowcasting: The future of content marketing. Website retrieved from
http://studioone.com/blog/narrowcasting-future-content-marketing

Bazalgette, P. (2009). Public service narrowcasting. Prospect Issue 155: 38-40.
Retrieved from Prospect Magazine (through library database system).

Mandese, J. (2011). You know broadcasting, now learn narrowcasting. Ignition Consulting
Group. Website retrieved from: http://www.ignitiongroup.com/cognition/guides/you-
know-broadcasting-now-learn-narrowcasting/

Miller, S. (2013). Hey, Twitter, Hawaii Five-o wants you to pick the killer. Website retrieved
from http://gigaom.com/2013/01/13/hey-twitter-hawaii-five-0-wants-you-to-pick-the-
killer/

Social Media Revolution. (2011). Website retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/ watch ?
v=3SuNx0UrnEo

Photo: https://www.google.ca/search?um=1&hl=en&newwindow=1&biw=1280&bih=699&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=content+marketing&oq=content+marketing&gs_l=img.3..0l9j0i5.37060.39058.0.39214.17.16.0.1.1.0.129.1605.8j8.16.0…0.0…1c.1.7.img.zvV-wvtu77Q#imgrc=T9_J6oUiae1r-M%3A%3ByBt4nr-47TbjCM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fjontusmedia.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2012%252F01%252FDougKessler-Quote2.jpeg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fjontusmedia.com%252Fcontent-marketing-copywriting%252F%3B768%3B492

To say that the world has increasingly become more tech-savvy in the last decade would be an understatement. Technology plays such a predominate role in today’s society, that most of us cannot go a day without updating our status on Facebook, tweeting to followers on Twitter, updating our profile on LinkedIn, or checking into Foursquare.

Taking a proactive approach and implementing these everyday habits into practical communications vehicles is a challenge many organizations must seize and utilize to their benefit. However, for some organizations, including memory institutions, technology has had the opposite effect. Libraries, museums, and archives are at risk of becoming obsolete with the advancement of the Internet, including social networks and online databases.

According to Aabo (2005):

The Internet is better than public libraries based on availability (‘open’ around the clock), convenience (don’t need to go out), the wide range of Internet resources, current update, and the possibility of acting immediately on the information found. In addition, the Internet is considered more fun to use and surfing, especially, is considered fascinating. (p. 206)

However, this does not take away the value or benefit of libraries for our communities. Memory institutions can remain a practical resource for the public if they adapt to our ever-changing society, provide current information, and prove their credibility.

In order to stay relevant, memory institutions must adapt to the times. This means that they must execute a social media strategy to maintain a relationship with the public, as well as create a website and databases that the public can access online. They must do this without damaging their mission of providing historical information and knowledge. “Libraries exist to preserve society’s cultural artifacts and to provide access to them,” (Chun, 2008, p. 151). It is critical that memory institutions do not lose their essence of promoting greater educational opportunities by trying to stay up to date with the latest technologies. Memory institutions could also adapt to the community by becoming more personalized with the public. “Each visitor should be treated as an active interpreter of a message and the producer of his/her own vision according to his/her expectation, interests, and background,” (Mancini, 2010, p. 61). “The idea has shifted from a place where there are just ‘things’ on display to a place of contact between humans and society that plays a central role in the education of people,” (Mancini, 2010, p. 61). This could evolve the traditional memory institution visit into an extraordinary experience.

Libraries, museums, and archives must strive to keep their repertoire of historical artifacts, books, articles, and objects available to the public, current. It is imperative that these institutions have material that is relevant today, in addition to historic knowledge. Having pertinent information appeals to researchers and the general public, alike. Although this type of information is generally searched for online, it should also be kept up to date, so the public can have the option to turn to memory institutions for such knowledge. It is important to remember that Internet use exists as a complement to and not a substitute for library use (Aabo, 2005, p. 206).

Memory institutions have an advantage over the World Wide Web as they have proven their credibility by providing the public with historical artifacts, books, articles, and objects for centuries. They do not need to defend their integrity or their reliability because it goes without saying. “Memory institutions have always been rooted in high culture,” (Pannekoek et al., 2010, p. 203). Their status is identified within society through the architecture of their buildings alone (Pannekoek et al., 2010, p. 210). This demonstrates the advantage that memory institutions will always have over the Internet. Also, the atmosphere associated with libraries, museums, and archives cannot be replicated online. “The public library is a public room and a physical place where people meet face-to-face and they also have more focus here,” (Aabo, 2005, p. 206). There is a certain sense of attention and individual concentration present when you are situated in a library; it is difficult to duplicate this focus when you’re on a computer at your home.

Memory institutions must cohesively exist with online forms of research accessible through the Internet. By adapting to our ever-changing society, providing current information, and proving their credibility, libraries, museums, and archives can exist in contemporary society. With history developing at lightning speed, it is important now than ever, for memory institutions to change with the modern world.

Is there a future for memory institutions? Do you think society will still use them in 10 years?

References:

Aabo, S. (2005). The role and value of public libraries in the age of digital technologies. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 37(4), 205-211.

Chun, W.H.K. (2008, Autumn). The Enduring Ephemeral, or the Future Is a Memory. Critical Inquiry 35.1, 148-171. Also see: http://video.dma.ucla.edu/video/wendy-chun-the-enduringephemeral-or-the-future-is-a-memory/19.

Mancini, F., & Carreras, C. (2010). Techno-society at the service of memory institutions: Web 2.0 in museums. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies, 2(1), 59-76.

Pannekoek, F., Hemmings, M. & Clarke, H. (2010). Controlling the Popular: Canadian Memory Institutions and Popular Culture. In B. Beaty, D. Briton, G. Filax & R. Sullivan. How Canadians Communicate III: Contexts of Canadian Popular Culture. (pp.199-215). Edmonton: AU Press. Retrieved from AU Press under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivative Works 2.5 Canada: http://www.aupress.ca/books/120167/ebook/09_Beaty_et_al- How_Canadians_Communicate.pdf

Photo retrieved from: http://www.bestmastersprograms.org/50-amazing-university-libraries/