Rushkoff Definitions

Neuromarketing- marketing that is focused specifically towards a group based on their thinking patterns. The goal is to try to make the consumer make unconscious decision making with their buying. These are your impulse buys, things you are convinced you absolutely need and don't question it. These would be your buys that you see in the final checkout line, things you don't actually need but get anyways.

Emotional Branding- branding a product based on the emotional tendencies of the buyers and making them feel trusting of the brand. This can be seen in your over dramatic medicine commercials where they show how much this generic medicine will help you in extreme ways making whatever symptom your having cured by the product.

Creating a Culture around the Brand- this one is somewhat self explanatory. This is where you try to make a lifestyle that the buyer will feel they are partaking in while using the product. Obviously this is a good and positive lifestyle usually. The example used in the film is the Song Airline, which was heavily culture based around the brand.

Narrowcasting- the one-on-one persuasion done with specific messages being sent to specific persons within specific demographics. This was shown in the film when they showed a person polling citizens door to door during the 2004 election where depending on the information the government had on each home they could give each home a different message focused directly at their interests.

Rhetorical Marketing- persuasive marketing that is focused on the specific words used in each ad. Every word is seen as extremely powerful and can change the success or failure of a message easily. The example used in the film was the change of referring to Global Warming as Climate Change (which really is the scientifically more accurate name anyways to describe what is truly going on).

Under the Radar Marketing- unconventional marketing placed where the consumer will not be looking or will overlook easily but still recognize it. An example would be real brands and their ads being imbedded in video games and viral videos where the consumer or watcher doesn't realize that they are seeing ads while enjoying their entertainment.

Across Media Marketing- this is your marketing seen in many different forms and translates well over all different mediums. An example would be television shows or movie ads, which you see everywhere other than the big screen seemingly.

Product Placement Across Media- another one thats pretty self explanatory. This is where you see brand name products seen in other ads or mediums. This is seen all the time in your movies where everyone is only using one brand of phone or drinking one brand of drink throughout the entire film.

Guerilla Marketing- an unconventional system of promotions that relies on time, energy, and imagination ranther than a big marketing budget. These are usually agressive and very intriguing ads that are not what the viewer is expecting. The example here would be the group that projecting graffiti up onto buildings to send their message, but didn't actually permanently damage the buildings.

Viral Marketing- marketing seen online. This could be the ads that you now have to sit through before watching some youtube videos or the ads all over the margins of facebook.

Vector Image

The Original 

My Rendition

The Internet and Democracy

1. Based on this debate and previous readings What Definition of democracy do you feel is most fitting for us to use in-conjunction our growing reliance and integration of digital networked technologies?


I feel that the original dictionary definition of democracy still applies even with this new integration and technologies. That definition is somewhere along the lines of, a political system where the thoughts and opinions of the people are the core source of power for the community expressed through the representatives elected by the people.


2. How does your answer to #1 fit into the unchecked nature of Web 2.0 technologies, and what are some tangible examples of this? Do you feel this is an important issue that needs to be addressed further? 


The unchecked nature of the Web 2.0 technologies definitely makes it harder for politicians to successfully represent their people the best they can because of the openness of the media now. With no control over how one opinion can be counter argued or see a good rebuttal and the exposure that it can gain and receive makes everyone just as capable to make their opinions be heard as much as the politicians elected. So now when a person is not satisfied with the decisions being made by their elected persons they can make their voice heard much louder than ever before. This can be good because it can expose the true opinion and make people think about their government, but at the same time it can create extremist points of view that can develop much easier now, which can offset the normality of our government and lifestyles. 


3. Define and describe the phenomenon of the Media echo-chamber as described in the Internet Debates. What are some examples of this silo effect, and do you believe it is an issue that needs to be addressed? Why or Why not?


The media echo-chamber phenomenon that is suggested to be occurring is where this new form of media has made it far to easy to find people that already agree with you and then get all of your information from that group, instead of exposing yourself to many different arguments and opinions to make your own opinion more well rounded and therefore stronger. This can be seen in many blogging sites as well as fake news sources such as The World Weekly News. Completely falsified information that is intended to be funny, is taken seriously by some and therefore is seen as "the news" and fact. This is definitely a problem that could arise but I have to agree with Jimmy at the moment, I don't feel we have enough research and facts to prove that it truly is or is not occurring yet. There are hints that it is or isn't occurring but I don't feel there is enough to prove one true and the other false quite yet. 


4. What are some ways that expertise and authority could be (or is being) enforced on the Internet? Who would be behind these forces? Why do you believe are they are needed or not needed?


Farhad touched on this in the debate and I believe explained this well. Farhad said that while yes, there are ways and sources for people to check the facts they see online, the problem is that people don't. He gave some examples of websites such as factcheck.com, where you can check your sources and information for it credibility and value. I think these are definitely needed but need to be encouraged more for their use because honestly I had never even heard of said site before. 


5. Give a through example of an adaptation or improvement made by a social, political, or cultural group, government, business or individual to keep up with changing nature of the internet.


I really think that Jimmy has created something that has adapted to the changing nature of the internet through Wikipedia. I feel that he has realized that it gives the opportunity for anyone to rewrite the facts on a topic, but at the same time they are consistently checking and advising viewers of said pages that the neutrality or credibility of these opinions or words have been skewed or cannot be fully trusted. With this constant adaptation and editing of this highly used source of information, I feel that Wikipedia is making itself more and more of a credible and reliable source of information, which is now harder to come across online with all of the other competitors and sources. 


7. Is democracy threatened by the unchecked nature of the internet?


I have to say that I am still uncertain about the amount of threat democracy has by the unchecked nature of the internet, I feel like you cannot deny that there is some threat. I do not believe that it will ruin our culture and our society like Keen, but I do not think that it is doing wonders for us and won't cause any negative impacts on our future like Micah may believe. But I do feel that it is threatened by the openness and overload of opinions and information that it has created for us without any sort of filter, but I do believe that it has created some incredible opportunities for success and valuable information to be created. Like Micah said, these trusted experts that were once the only source of information in the world are often wrong. The internet allows there to be more questioning of said sources and for opinions to be debated and changed. But at the same time this is still such a new concept for society to grasp, that I feel it is not handled well by all of its users. Not everyone understands this concept and allow extreme opinions with no credibility to be viewed as fact. In time I feel that there will be some filter, some way for the user to decipher what is credible and what should really be valued as truth from the internet and what is just garbage. As of right now we are still stuck in the overload, somewhat drowning in our own pool of information we created. 

Digital Nation Paper

 After finishing Digital Nation, I found myself continuously replaying the scene with the war veteran using virtual reality technology to help him cope with his post traumatic stress disorder he was suffering. Coming from a military family in which my own father has done multiple tours overseas I have seen the effects that PTSD can have on a person. My father complained about hearing noises that actually weren't occurring during the night because he was not used to the calm sounds of the forest that are more prevalent at our home. Also if he heard a gun shot remotely within close to our home he would be down on the ground instantly in the ready position looking for his gun. Both of these are examples of the things that coming out of the high stress environment that is the warfront and into the western civilization can do. These actions were involuntary and ruined his everyday life back here stateside because his mind was still on the warfront. And so since this topic is of relevance to me I wanted to investigate it further to see what the military is doing to aid these soldiers within the realm of the virtual technology discussed in the documentary.

In an article written by Salvatore Salamone on the new virtual reality therapy for soldiers he states that, “using the system, the medical professionals can re-create a combat situation such as an attack, an explosion or an ambush, and help the veteran work through the elements of that situation that triggered the stress.” By recreating the traumatic event the therapists are able to confront the problem head on. All of the patients were severely scarred mentally from a traumatic event while fighting in the war, which is the root of the problem. This confrontational method may seem like it may cause more pain to the patient when in reality it is the most effective way to help them realize the event and move on. In the article Salamone uses an example of another experience that my require this type of therapy to get through. He describes an event where a child may be bitten by a dog and therefore develops a fear for all dogs. And so instead of avoiding them all together the therapist has the child interact with dogs in a controlled safe environment until they are comfortable with them again. By placing a soldier in a virtual environment they hope to replace the traumatic memory with a less stressful one.

But is this method working? In another study conducted by Cornell University Weill Medical College instructor Joanne Difede, Ph.D., she used virtual reality to help victims who survived the 9/11 attacks to cope with the PTSD symptoms they were experiencing. In her studies she found that, “there was an 83 percent reduction in depressive symptoms and a 90 percent reduction in PTSD symptoms.” And so these patients used this type of therapy in a non war related setting and also saw successful results. This seems to be a very successful and logical program for the military to use. In Salamone's article he states that there are already dozens of these types of labs and recovery centers using virtual reality at VA's across the nation. But what does this say about our dependence on technology to fix our problems?

If we require technology to recreate a traumatic experience just so we can get over it, is that necessarily the smartest investment for our society to be making? While it is helping veterans work through their problems it also in some ways eliminates jobs and or requires our psychologists to pick up an entirely new way of doing business. The military is almost always one step ahead of society with its technologies since they have the resources. But does this mean that this virtual reality therapy will soon enough be commercialized and soon be seen in offices and homes around the country? Only time will tell that but it would not help us to be less dependent on technology that's for sure. If we let our technologies take care of our mental states as well we are allowing them to control what we remember and what we suppress. With PTSD the virtual reality is bringing back a suppressed memory and trying to replace it with a less stressful one. Just as we saw in the documentary with the child swimming with the whales, the technology has the power to replace our truest memories and give them a new version. There is no way this can be healthy for us, is it?

As for my father, he is doing fine now but he went through traditional therapy to get to this point. I personally believe this is the best type of therapy because it allows the therapist to understand the full spectrum of what is going on in the persons mind on a personal level. While the virtual reality method may be quicker I'm unsure if I believe it is as effective or long lasting as traditional treatment. In my opinion technology is working towards making us a lazier and faster world community. Is this necessary? That is my question. What was so wrong with the way the world was before the iPhone, before this virtual reality therapy, before all of this excessive technology overload? It didn't seem that bad to me. All of these machines are trying to make a mundane task easier for us, but why does it need to be easier. So we save time to get to doing other mundane tasks? To get to use some other form of technology to help us there too? When do we slow down and take a good look at our lives to evaluate what is necessary and what is just in the way of the natural thought process. If this is the way our world is headed and inevitably will end up I think I am going to find it harder and harder to live life in a technologically controlled world and still find time to see the world for its natural beauty as well. Everything is being replaced, every task, every type of work, every word is being shortened, reworked or reinvented to fit this newer society that I'm unsure is a better one than what we had before. And wasn't that the intention of reinventing it in the first place?

Articles I got my references from:

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/39/13/45.1.full

http://www.smartertechnology.com/c/a/Smarter-Strategies/Its-No-Game-DOD-Uses-Virtual-Reality-to-Treat-PTSD/

The Mob

As one draws further back from looking closely at a small grain of sand, slowly but surely the sand all becomes unified and looks more like a solid mass than individuals. The same concept can be applied to the connectedness created by online profiling and relationships. While the individual does exist in the internet world, quickly you get lost in the masses of information and popularity of the internet lifestyle. This can bring both positive and negative affects upon a person, but I feel the negative outweigh the positive greatly. The mob the internet can create by its sea of users has unintended negative effects on persons lives in multidimensional ways. While it is intended to bring us closer and keep in contact easier, it has become a breeding ground for misbehavior and negative use which some have taken advantage of.

Security is of great national concern in these troubled times, yet our connectedness online has set us back substantially in protecting ourselves, our neighbors and others around us. By being allowed to post, blog and upload images, texts and ideas online labeling them as ours or anonymous we are putting information out there for others to use and twist in their own interpretations. This freedom can easily be taken advantage of and breaks down the personal security we hold so dear. By posting your opinions online, creating a profile of yourself and uploading images, you are handing your identity, ideas and values over to the public eye. While you are given the option of who is allowed to view certain things perhaps on your facebook wall or profile you cannot hide or protect the fact that you are uploading this information to the internet. You may be protected under the realm of facebook, but that has no means of protection on the world wide web in general. And so, we need to understand and choose wisely what we post on the internet because once there it is near impossible to fully rid of that history altogether. There will still be repercussions and remnants of this information online for anyone to access with the right knowledge of how to receive it.

Anonymity may seem to be the most safe way to post or express your opinions online. While this may be true for your own self it does not control the actions it can inspire another person the follow through with. For that matter, what that person then posts in response to your anonymous one can cause a ripple effect outwards and create much more negative energy then you may have intended in the first place. While anonymous posts don't always end in misbehavior or negative actions, they all have the potential too. Understanding this concept is key in successfully expressing your opinions properly online.  

Today many TV shows and advertisements try to look amateurish or "homegrown" to emulate what is often seen on the Web. Do you think professional production values will continue to drop, or do you think amateur user-generated content will get better over time? WHY??


Professional production values aren't necessarily dropping all around. I think what this new "homegrown" advertising view has done is just create a new style for advertisers to use. Understanding that the viewer likes things such as Youtube and the amateurish videos, advertisers and TV shows have taken this to their advantage and made this a style of production. This way the viewer thinks it was easily created or maybe spur of the moment like many Youtube videos are, while there was actually till a lot of production value going into the work. And so I don't think the production value is dropping at all, I think that it is getting smarter and adapting to what the consumer wants to see, which for right now is something that seems to be of lesser production value. Amateur user-generated content probably won't get any better just because even though technology will continue to try to make it easier for the everyday person to create professional media they still won't take the time out to actually create a professional product.


What social media sites do you find yourself using the most, and why? In your opinion why is Facebook so much more successful than MySpace, and do you think Facebook is "here to stay" for the long term.


I really only use Facebook. I have never joined any other social media sites because at the time I didn't think it was necessary. But as I entered college I joined Facebook as a way to keep connected with my friends at home. And I have to say it works amazingly well. When I go home I still feel very connected to all of my friends because Facebook can keep me updated on their everyday life or struggles. I honestly think there are only two reasons Facebook has been more successful than MySpace. One would be the timing, it came out or at least got well known after MySpace had already paved the way of what a social media site could offer you. Second they appealed to the college kid therefore making Facebook seem like the cool "older sibling" kind of site that quickly became the desire of many different age groups. These two things fell into place and then Facebook just took off running. I am unsure if Facebook is here to stay. While part of me thinks it is because it has already seemingly stood its ground against other sites trying to take its consumers away such as Twitter, another part of me feels it will eventually grow out of pop culture. But then again people want to keep those connections to their friends and Facebook is the best way to do that, so I guess I am unsure if it will be here for a long term stay. 


Why is transparency such an important concept in the Social Media world? Is it MORE or LESS important in the offline world? Why?


Transparency is such an important concept in the Social Media world because persons opinions of one another and their activity is a vital part of how we trust them or not. When a person associates themselves with a brand that is untrustworthy then you immediately begin to look through that persons personality and begin to question if you can trust them since they associate with such an untrustworthy brand. I feel that many people have trust issues with the people around them, some worse than others, either way transparency in the social media world is a game changer in their relationships with others because it plays with their trust issues. You can be someone you are not on a blog or a facebook account, promote things that you shouldn't online and then this is the only representation you have of yourself on the web that people are going to judge you by. Transparency was more important in years past in the offline world because there simply was no online world. Therefore a person was judged on your interactions with them in person. But with the online world it is becoming more and more important as our society is growing to be very dependent of the online world itself. 

In Class Photoshop Work