A local market, globally

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/11/pandora.ipo/index.html?iref=obnetwork

This CNN article discusses how Pandora Radio is looking to expand globally and reach markets outside of the United States. Currently, it is an internet radio program that categorizes music like DNA and develops playlists specifically designed for an individual’s personal taste. In expanding, the company is looking to add to its content and provide sports and news and talk radio as well as music content. When it expands to broader regions, it will add a feature for users to enter zipcodes so that they can receive local news. I really like the idea of adding the location element to designing the radio stations. While so much technology is centralizing to reach a global market, this does reach a wide audience but also enables them to stay connected to the local space around them. This feature could promote local music to people who are close to them, and it can help people interact with their physical community.

Coupons Everywhere

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/15/technology/foursquare_revenue/index.htm

Companies like Foursquare have seen Groupon’s success and are trying to mirror it and capitalize on the Groupon strategy. This CNN article discusses what companies like Foursquare are planning to do as they follow the Groupon model. They have launched a phone ap that lets companies send coupons to your phone depending on your location. The location-specific deal feature is designed to “provide us with a better experience of the real world.” For this ap to be successful, Foursquare needs to attract a large audience. To gather people to their service, they plan to offer rewards once someone passes a certain number of check ins. This will encourage people to use their service and also provide them with extra information to help them determine where are good check in places to target.

I appreciate the convenienve of this service. It would be nice to be standing in line at Chipoltle or the grocery store and have a coupon delivered right then to be there. But it is also a little bit creepy. I don’t know that I like the idea of phones and salespeople being able to track my every move. Maybe it’s being too private of a person, but I don’t see how it is Foursquare’s business to know what I buy, when I buy it, and where I buy it. But since the technology is there to check in places with phones and mark locations, then it makes sense to capitalize on it, and if that’s the case then I don’t mind saving some money while I shop.

Net Worth Conference- Compensation and Creative Labor

The speakers on this panel were very concerned about piracy- they referred to it as “stealing” and “theft.” Their repeated use of those terms framed just how awful they consider access to digital downloads to be. Their word choice is very accusatory and directed at the people who are seeking out their content to watch. While they have a valid point that their work should be paid for, I believe it would be better if they attacked the technology that enables content to be stolen instead of the people who are possible consumers.
One issue addressed by the panel was the development of transmedia content that is beginning to emerge around television programs. Companies produce the show, and also provide extra content on the website or other places for fans to interact and engage with the show. An issue for comensation is defining whether this added material is promotional or content. Depending on how it is defined determines who will be paid, and this is a current issue for debate among the creatives and the networks.
The present has the potential to be the golden age of independent television because of how the new media structure creates a space for the little guy by eliminating financial barriers to entry. While this is exciting for the little guy who has been kept out of the current model, it is threatening to those who have been flourishing with that model. In trying to maintain control, these more traditional figures attack the easiness of new media through economics. It is easy for independent producers to create and distribute content, and it is also easy for consumers to find content on their own for free. Jay Roth claimed that new media is a small base, and the currently established base is much more successful and profitable. He claimed that the challenges of new media include theft, and chasing things that we have no idea of what the business model looks like. If new media takes off, his proposed solution to prevent theft is to produce programs live, which means the quality will go down but people won’t be able to steal the content for their own individually preferred release. I think that Jay Roth underestimates the potential of the new media base. It has potential to be a platform for new product, and if fans lifestyles are shifting to suggest a desire for a new way to interact with content, then it might be wise for to provide entertainment in a way that fits that desire.
I doubt the sustainability of the current models, and I challenge some of the thinking of this panel. Is it worthwhile to defend an old model, or would the creatives be better off thinking of ways to adapt with the changes? It could be possible to end the threat posed by new media by finding a way to work with it instead of working against it. Yes, it is a risk because it is an unknown market model, but there is so much potential for growth across a new frontier. There is a possibility for untapped creative potential by developing new products and experiences for consumers to engage in and want to spend money on, and creative potential for complete new platforms of expression.

What do I Own? Networth Conference: DIgital Strategies of Media Conglomerates

Discussion in this panel focused on defining content and establishing ownership. The panelists talked about how to sell content to audiences in an age of digital streaming. How do you make someone pay for something that they will not physically hold? What gives content its value? What strategies can companies use to encourage and reward people for buying content- how can companies make buying content make sense to audience?

Because streaming a video online is a similar experience to playing a movie on a computer or dvd player, companies are working to create added experience to purchasing material, so that when someone buys a product, they are paying for something special and valuable. Consumers are confused at the difference between buying content to own and watch versus a one time online stream. It is hard to understand ownership in the digital world where the product is not tangible. One strategy to enhance ownership includes socializing the viewing experience and connecting people together through and around the content they are watching. Another strategy is the concept of windowing a product’s release. Windowing something means that it is most expensive when it is first released, but then lowers in price with time and rerelease. This would encourage consumers to buy product so that they could see it early before later releases. A problem with the windowing model is that technology has enabled people to see content for free even before it should be released everywhere in all forms. To combat the piracy and content leaking, a global day and date release model is coming in the future. A third strategy to establish ownership desire is to focus on content and increase depth of content. Distribution is cheap and easy. Older models valued the ability to control distribution, but a new era is coming. In focusing on content, producers can sell deeper or extra parts of the story to dedicated fans who care to want the extra information to enhance their viewing experience. This idea has been seen with ABC’s LOST that was paired with extra content online to explain and add to the story, and also seed with Disney when they use content to sell other things (such as theme parks and children’s toys). A fourth model involves ultraviolet and the ability to view purchased content in different spaces on different screens. For conglomerates, hopefully they will find a way to establish a valuable experience around content to increase its monetary worth.

Promoting a Product? Prank People.

This Monday a man posted a pretty sweet video on youtube of him projecting his image from is iPhone to a bunch of screens at Times Square in New York. In two days, the video has gotten over 1,000,000 views from curious people posing the question of whether or not it's real.

The answer is, it isn't.

The video is intended to promote an upcoming film called "Limitless," and the two men who posted the video are marketers that are effectively tapping in to retaining viewers on YouTube in order to gain awareness of the product being promoted. The point of the ad is to subtly promote "Limitless," while having more emphasis of the possibility of the video being a real viral video. The certain "YouTube grittiness" to it adds a level of realism that keeps viewers asking. The idea is to keep it low quality and keep it gritty in order to attract people.

This type of marketing is very interesting in light of the fact that many of us are film students at UCSB with the means to make stuff like this. All it takes is an iPhone camera, some experience in after-effects, and a great idea to get started. This could put viral marketing into the hands of pretty much anyone who is willing to invest the time and effort into making a realistic-looking hoax short.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/business/media/17viral.html?ref=technology

Spring Break Savings? Groupon Wars.

As finals are wrapping up, Groupon is being met with a good amount of competition from all sides. Facebook, Google, and many small startups are jumping into the location-based app market in direct competition with Groupon. Facebook is updating its Deals program so that users can check in via mobile device, while Google is experimenting with a "Groupon-like app for Android phones" (Sweeeeeeeet). While Groupon is going strong in acquiring new merchants, start-ups are targeting new customers on a basis of retention by providing a variety of interactive approaches to keep the customers coming in. Google Deals, for example, is implementing a rating system based on the number of uses of their program, which provides better deals as you go along.

It's pretty cool to see all of these companies fight for customer retainment. Perhaps this means that there will be an increase in the number of fun deals we students can take advantage of over Spring break. One thing that comes to mind, though, is what happens when a location-based savings market gets saturated? Or is such a thing even possible? Moreover, will Groupon be taken down by the emphasis on customer retainment? Time will tell. In the meantime, I plan to check out these new ways to save.

http://mashable.com/2011/03/16/facebook-groupon-turf-war/

http://adage.com/article/digital/groupon-envy-clutches-sxsw/149394/

Assange: Web Is Massive Spying Machine

After finishing my final paper on the kill switch cyber governance and having spent much time researching the controversy surrounding WikiLeaks, I find it very interesting that this was posted today on The Huffington Post. "While the Web holds great promises of increasing transparency in government operations, it will more likely be used by officials to spy on their own citizens." Wow. While I can easily see this happening in other countries with communist governments and dictatorships, its scary to imagine this as the future of the internet in the U.S. Obviously this would greatly challenge our freedom and our rights established in the Constitution and we as Americans need to actively hold our government to it if we hope to ensure promises are kept. At the same time, if the government and the people expect to earn each other's trust, both need to prove they are trustworthy, specifically in what manner they use the internet and conduct themselves accordingly.

(NEWSER) – The Internet is the "greatest spying machine the world has ever known," WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has warned in a speech. While the Web holds great promises of increasing transparency in government operations, it will more likely be used by officials to spy on their own citizens, he told students in a rare public appearance at Cambridge University. The Internet is "not a technology that favors freedom of speech. It is not a technology that favors human rights," he warned. "Rather, it is a technology that can be used to set up a totalitarian spying regime, the likes of which we have never seen."

Assange boasted that diplomatic cables leaked on his website helped foment the unrest in Tunisia that is sweeping across the region, reports the Guardian. And documents revealing support for torture by ousted Egypt leader Hosni Mubarak made it impossible for US officials to publicly support him, easing the way for the Egyptian uprising, said Assange. As for Bradley Manning, the soldier suspected of leaking masses of secret cables to WikiLeaks, he is "in a terrible situation," said Assange. For more on Manning's treatment, check out another Newser story here.

Extending Privacy Rights as Users

( And I don't like it one bit!)

Summery: The Obama Administration will attempt to ask congress Wednesday to pass a bill the gives more privacy to internet users. This would make companies such as Facebook have to ask individuals whether they want their information shared over the internet. There are also discussions going on that would allow the user to access the information companies have obtained and be able to control the contents and how secure the information is stored. This also includes a "do not track" tool that would allow you to avoid any online targeting. This push in privacy reflects shifting attitudes of the government in regards to internet regulation which has traditionally been a hands off approach.

Opinion: In my opinion I am a little uneasy of this bill and don't think that it will be as awesome as it sounds. I am all for the government protecting my personal information such as credit card and social security number over the internet but there are already laws set up to do so. The reason websites like Facebook are free is because they can provide information about their users to advertising companies. One way or another the consumer has got to pay and I would rather it be with the ability of advertising companies to find out if I am into Yoga or Fishing or whatever I may be into, rather than out of my pocket. If advertisers want to do their detective work and find out what I like in order to market more efficiently to me thats fine I don't see it hurting me. Many questions must be answered on the degree of government involvement in regulating such a law for me to jump on board. I am a huge skeptic of any government involvement in the internet because in my experience so far I love how the internet is... why change it in hopes it could be a little better. I have never had any problems that made me feel that my privacy or security was truly at stake so why would I want to waste it on a trail and error process that could potentially jeopardize my ability to get free stuff. The internet is a give and take domain and in order for me to have things that I want free I need to give a little information about myself. I have come to the realization that's just "the world we browse in."©JJ Nugent inc.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576202971768984598.html

Netflix...The New HBO

http://www.deadline.com/2011/03/netflix-to-enter-original-programming-with-mega-deal-for-david-fincher-kevin-spacey-drama-series-house-of-cards/#more-114184

Netflix has just bought the new Series "House of Cards" which is Executive Produced by Kevin Spacey and Directed by multiple Academy Award Nominee David Fincher. This news is huge!!! It marks the first original programming by Netflix and may turn the streaming company into the next HBO.

Back in the day, HBO only had movies that they showed commercial free. But then they started airing original programming that soon became the channels #1 attraction. Showtime and Starz soon followed HBO and now it looks like Netflix will enter the competition by gambling (haha get it? Because the show is about card games?)

And not only did they buy House of Cards, they bought two seasons of it off the bat. In the ever competitive tv market where shows can sometimes get cancelled after one episode, buying 26 episodes is pretty ballsy. But with Fincher attached, it will most likely be pretty good.

Good News Congloms! End Piracy with Cheaper Pricing!

Nate Anderson’s article in Ars Technica this week reported on the findings of the Social Science Research Council’s Media Piracy Project, a three year cooperation between 35 researchers whose “mission was to examine media piracy in emerging economies, which account for most of the world's population, and to find out just how and why piracy operates in places like Russia, Mexico, and India.”

What did they find?

“Their conclusion is not that citizens of such piratical societies are somehow morally deficient or opposed to paying for content. Instead, they write that ‘high prices for media goods, low incomes, and cheap digital technologies are the main ingredients of global media piracy.’”

So, people in “emerging economies” buy pirated goods because they’re cheaper? Probably could have guessed that. Although this is hardly ground breaking, the research also finds that often the only legitimate copyrighted options are “only distributed by huge multinational corporations whose dominant goals are not to service a large part of local markets but to protect the pricing structure in the high-income countries that generate most of their profits.’” This becomes a problem when the Russian worker is asked to pay $15 for a legal version of The Dark Knight. In terms of percentage of wages, that same $15 would be “equivalent to a US consumer dropping $75 on the film.” I’m a huge Christopher Nolan fan, but all the bonus features and blu-rayness in the world wouldn’t get me to pay $75 for that movie.

Anderson also reports that the “authors have seen ‘little evidence – and indeed few claims – that enforcement efforts to date have had any effect whatsoever on the overall supply of pirated goods. Our work suggests, rather, that piracy has grown dramatically by most measures in the past decade.”

Anderson’s article doesn’t include any industry perspective but I doubt these findings come as a surprise to the “multinational corporations,” and I also doubt that they’ll stop seeking stricter enforcement. In fact, it appears that Victoria Espinel, the Obama administration’s IP Enforcement Coordinator, is seeking harsher penalties for and greater authority in intellectual property crimes. Of course, this isn't directly related to piracy in developing economies, and Espinel is an appointed government official, so any connection to the interests of private corporations would be silly. (But, oddly enough, it does seem like these guys run in the same circles from time to time.)

These issues remind me of our Lawrence Lessig reading, “The Future of Ideas,” as well as his Wall Street Journal article, “In Defense of Piracy.” As we know, Lessig is all about copyright law reform, but I think his call to “Decriminalize Gen-X” could also be expanded to the people in these developing countries. The industry could at least give them a chance to purchase legal copies at a lower price instead of continuing a losing war to eradicate piracy.

This discussion is also reminiscent of the “Media Distribution in the Digital Era” panel during the Net Worth Conference a few weeks ago, where we saw Kelly Summers from Disney talking about the company’s piracy concerns. Summers confirmed that a major concern is the professional pirates in these developing countries that are making businesses off of Disney’s creative property. As the research suggests, I wonder if lowering the price of a Disney DVD would dramatically curb piracy. I’m sure as Disney lowers their price, so too will the pirates, but it would certainly test the SSRC’s contention that these economies are willing to pay for media content at a lower price.

If anything I think this research should point out the appetite for content. As James Earl Jone’s said in Field of Dreams, “If you build it, he will come.” And if you’re a media corporation, I think it’s a safe bet that people will consume your media…it’s just a matter of who gets paid and for how much.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to get back to re-watching Following on my friend’s Netflix account.

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg – First minister to be overthrown by the internet?!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/books/merkels-possible-successor-resigns-in-plagiarism-scandal.html

I have to admit that while studying in the US for the last 7 month I really lost sight of almost everything that was going on back home in Germany during this period of time…almost. There was at least one specific German topic that could not be ignored even abroad due to its overwhelming presence in newspapers, magazines, on Facebook, as well as on every other possible media platform (although it seems like it hasn’t made it across the pond until recently). Of course I talk about the Guttenberg-affair.

The trouble started last month when Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, Germany’s (now former) minister of defense disclaimed having plagiarized parts of his 2006 doctoral thesis. The public discussion about this issue began mid-February with an article in the newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and initially led to the deprivation of Guttenberg’s doctor’s degree one week later, followed by his recession from all of his political functions on the 1^st of March due to the extreme political pressure. The University of Bayreuth is still analyzing his thesis with regard to intentionally borrowed and not indicated passages from other authors. In addition to these charges, the department of public prosecution in Hof is still investigating the case because of the suspicion of copyright infringement.

After following this affair for over a month by reading various articles I hold the opinion that Guttenberg’s recession can be seen as an evidence for the increasing impact of the collective information processing that occurs with the internet (thereby also having in mind the introductory story of Shirky’s book Here comes everybody). For me, this medium significantly structured the course of action against the minister. The meticulously gathering transcription register “GuttenPlag Wiki” has not only visualized his copy-paste “orgies”, but also was omnipresent within the whole debate as well as its major reference point. Furthermore, the ten thousands of signatures of doctoral candidates which were collected through the internet did not miss its effect either, as well as the call against Guttenberg by Lutz Hachmeister on carta.info with more than 3000 Facebook-likes was part of the successful counter movement.

In my opinion, the pressure on the former minister of defense would never have been so massive without the internet. The commonly accessible facts had the effect of displaying a gash in the flawless self-presentation of Guttenberg. Without coming to his defense I think that Guttenberg became the victim of the new public that came into being through the internet. His case did not only visualize the structure of this public, but also - and that is the important point - its capacities. Therefore I believe that Guttenberg will not stay the only person to be overthrown due to this medium.

Btw: Thanks to all of you guys for having me in your class! I really enjoyed the discussions with you and wish you all the best for your future!

The People Have Spoken: Electronic > Paper

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366052/Internet-popular-news-platform-use-smartphones-electronic-tablets-grows.html

For the first time ever, the internet has become the number one place for Americans to get their news. With the rise of the Ipad and other electronic tablets, people are no longer in need of buying physical copies of newspapers. Local television stations have also lost a substantial amount of viewers now that audiences can access news on their computers, tablets, and cell phones.

I don't think that the newspaper companies are doomed yet because the majority of the larger news corporations have already created subscriptions to electronic tablets. But once people realize that they can get all this news for free, that might be a different story.

I found this article when I was reading news on the internet.

Look Out Facebook!

There are rumors revolving around the idea Google will be creating their own type of social network in which they are calling "Google Circles". This social network is going to be expected to be a more private type of format than which you see on the web today such as Facebook and Myspace. In the article the Googlization of Everything by Siva Vaidhyanathan it talks about how Google has made many powerful enemies in a very short period. Well it looks like they are about to make a couple of more with companies like Facebook and im guessing Linkedin as well.

My prediction is that this type of social network is going to be more business orientated due to the vast amount of software services they have to offer and can see it as a place that is more collaborative rather than just sharing information. Because of the fact Google owns companies like Youtube and Blogger I am sure these will be very heavily incorporated into this social network. I can see this replacing Linkedin and people like myself posting my resume as well as film projects I have worked on to show future employers and really believe if successful Google has all the right tools to capitalize in the business side of social networking. I think it is important that they are emphasizing a more private and closed social network but I am skeptical because I already use the Google search engine as well as email and it makes me uneasy putting all my eggs in one basket, but then again it is beginning to look like Google is a really nice basket. http://gizmodo.com/#!5781456/privacy-could-headline-google-circles-social-network-reveal-later-today

Age in Advertising

Two articles this week focus on a minor point that repeatedly came up in class yesterday: age. Most of the media we have been studying use a business model based on advertising, and one of the most important demographic bits of information for advertisers is an audience’s age.

In her article, Amy Chozick of The Wall Street Journal talks about the baby boomer generation’s recent inclusion in network TV. Chozick notes that although the TV industry has traditionally focused on creating programming that appeals to 18- to 49-year-olds, “networks want to charge advertisers more to reach” the “80 million baby boomers” (47- to 65-year-olds) who “still watch a disproportionate amount of TV, and […] control half of all U.S. consumer spending.”

As a point of comparison, an article this week in Los Angeles Times by Meg James points out that Comedy Central has found a huge young male audience with its Tosh.0. The perception is that the show’s web savvy has made it hugely popular with a difficult to grasp audience. She also points out that “Despite its success, Comedy Central has been unable to charge the same premium ad rates as NBC does because, despite the show's popularity, it lacks prestige and is frequently full of bathroom humor. But that’s what fans like.”

These articles show that some networks have trouble getting premium rates for an older audience, and some networks are having trouble getting the most from their younger audience. It is interesting to watch the rhetorical back and forth between advertisers and networks regarding the value of different audience demographics. There seems to be lots of speculation as to who is the most difficult age to get, and then what the value is for that age group as an audience.

My question is how will this continue to affect programming? Chozick points out that more television shows are appealing to baby boomers by re-imagining series from the ‘60s and featuring mature actors. James mentions that the Tosh.0 format has existed before, but its participation and understanding of web culture is likely to be replicated. It seems to me that whatever advertisers are will to pay top dollar for will be what most networks try to program. Only time will tell…

WB Launches Movie Rentals on Facebook

Netflix and iTunes seem to have a strong foothold in the movie rental market. I am interested to see how this pans out but I initially have a bad feeling about this.

There are a number of factors that make me think that this may not work. Netfix is doing extremely well in this market. Also this is a big budget film, it was hyper promoted and did well in the box office. A lot of people already saw it and most probably own the DVD so why would they want to rent it....on facebook?

A lot of the comments express how much people like the film and how many times they have already watched it. Out of 3,952,778 people that like The Dark Knight so far only 1,196 like the fact that they can watch it on facebook.

I think big budget studio films will not benefit much from this but documentaries can. Documentaries and independent films need exhibition outlets big budget films do not.

Comments on the Net Worth: Media Distribution in the Digital Era Conference

There were a few topics that I thought stood out in the discussions of how digital distribution is affecting the media industries.

Piracy
The digital revolution has made it much easier to distribute illegal content and no one on the stage was more visibly concerned than Kelly Summers from Disney. She was very articulate at making Disney a victim of not only piracy but also of Silicon Valley who she claimed didn’t value their content enough, all of which sounded like carefully tailored talking points. Even thought Disney does lose money from pirating, this is partially their fault. Thomas Gewecke from Warner Bros and Serra Tinic from the University of Alberta both were clear that in this digital age, studios need to make their content available legally to avoid people using illegal means to get it. As Horst Stipp said, people want content to be easy to get and I believe people would be willing to pay for easy content. Disney has been slow to move away from the model of false sacristy that has been the standard for decades. However, I did ask Mrs. Summer if Disney was going to keep their business model of keeping their films “in the Vault” and to their credit she said that they are in the process of phasing that out for a marketing campaign encouraging people to build their own metaphorical “vault,” or collection, of Disney films.

Lack of Interoperability
There are so many devices and distribution services vying to get into consumers homes right now that it is hard for people to choose which one they should invest in, and everyone recognized this at the panels. There are many new opportunities for profit, but as Max Dawson from Northwestern University pointed out, there are also many fingers in the pie trying to get that new profit. Everyone has their own method of getting content to consumers and in doing so there is an incentive to limit content licensing to competitors. Richard Berger of Sony Entertainment made this clear when he compared the situation to a fictional analogy of having only Best Buy DVDs play on Best Buy DVD players and not on WalMart players. This is forcing consumers to make content decisions based on technology and devaluing content because of its lack of interoperability.

Consumer Ownership
Another topic that came up was consumer ownership of media (as in buying DVDs). I agree with Mr. Gewecke that there is very little distinction between owning something on iTunes and streaming it online (with the exception that the bought video will never expire). But the solution that I think makes a lot of sense (from my consumer perspective) came from Aaron Dignan, which was to create more depth to stories and sell extra content to expand the canon world. I think it would be interesting to have digital DVDs like what Warner Bros is experimenting with now, which is like an application-like product that offers everything that a DVD does and can update with new content other over time.

Independent Online Distribution
Along with being an outlet to expand the stories of popular entertainment on other media platforms, the internet has incredible distribution promise for its own content that is (hopefully) just getting its roots. Felicia Henderson, a WGA member, said that it opens doors for content producers who are unable to get studio attention regardless of their talent. Few online productions have been able to get enough attention to be successful and most have roots in other media for promotion, like Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog and Sanctuary who both had initial following from the producers’ established fan base and the machinima Red vs Blue who had a die hard niche video game audience to spread the word. What I think would be interesting to see in the future is a website that is run by established film and television producers that distributes worthy independent films and television (like a modern United Artists). There would be no competition for time slots or release dates and so ideally anything worth attention could be distributed.

Windowing
Recently, the windowing traditions that have existed since the standardization of the studio industry have been called into question and digital media is a major contributor to this. Studios like Warner Bros and Disney are participating in the shortening of the window by making deals with cable providers for Video on Demand options. This is obviously strongly opposed to by the Theater owners who feel like they would be shorted profit and I think it would have been good to have someone representing them on a panel. There is a lot of money riding on this and it is going to be interesting seeing how it unfolds in the future.

In conclusion,
There are so many questions and so many possibilities for the future that any prediction is futile, yet I will still try to make one. It seems that consumers have more power to influence how they consume media now than they probably ever had. The conglomerates are not able to fully push their products and services onto the consumers because they are working, for the most part, independently instead as an oligopoly, investing in what they believe is the future they want to be a part of. Their competition to be the future standard will for some turn out to be a bad investment when the dust settles and only one (or a few) are endorsed by the consumers. Who the winners will be is a mystery but they will probably be the companies with the most content rights and (at least one of) the best consumer products or services.

The Controlled Publics

The article:"Will facebook replace company Web sites?" touches a lot of concepts about which we have talked about in class. Some of which are; the walled garden, the publics, business models, privacy, etc.

I really see Goggin's concept of the publics used to their advantage by facebook. At the end of the article Haines is quoted stating what he knows about the public that consumes facebook.

AND directly related to the article and to the copyright issue, Sony has launched "The Priest in 3D Trailer Challenge."

The way to enter the contest is by going to the SONY facebook page, not the official SONY web site.

This is an interesting way of advertising and sort of promoting a distorted usage of the commons. SONY is letting anyone on facebook have access to parts of their content for free even before the release, encouraging equal opportunity for creativity but they are getting so much information (you have to register to participate), and free labor out of it.