George N. Dafemos (2003) – Blogging the market

Dafemos writes about how weblogs are turning into real conversations and if blogging-for-profit is viable. My question about this text is whether the power of engaging the market in a real conversation indeed depends on things like the personality of the editor(s), more then it depends on the information.

            The most constructive comment, according to Dafemos, is that weblogs have other aspects then just information that make them compelling. The example is given that Gizmodo has no personality or character at all, just info. ‘Weblogs should have opinions. Weblogs should have character.’ I totally agree with this statement. I think that a weblog without a steady stream of fresh content and without the personal emphasis is nothing more then a regular static, unchanging website. Weblogs need their own true voice, else there is nothing to trust on, or to recognize, what makes it worth to come back for and thus succeed. Off course this character alone is not enough, this has to be combined with good information to make sure people come back.

Tybout and Carpenter (2001) – Creating and managing brands

Brands are the symbols of the value that the company creates. Tybout and Carpenter discuss three sorts of brands; functional, image and experiential brands. Functional brands differentiate from their competitors, which offer much if not all of the same functionality, by offering superior performance or superior economy. My question is whether there is also superior performance or economy in image branding.

            You could say that, for instance with clothes, the Hennes & Maurits offers superior economy, because people buy their clothes their not for the superior quality, but for the low prices. But I agree with the writers that it’s about something else when it comes to image branding, because those brands are often created in categories where products are relatively undifferentiated or quality is difficult to evaluate, or where consumption of the product is highly visible to others (Tybout and Carpenter, 2001). It’s much more important there what kind of image the brand has, then how it functions or how much it costs. When it comes to clothes, the functionality of it, is for the majority much less important than how it looks and what kind of image the brand has.

Ik weet dat ik nog het één en ander heb in te halen en ik doe mijn uiterste best! Dit weekend had ik daar geen tijd voor vanwege lustrumgala van Veritas in Brussel....was echt geweldig!! maar nu dus weer aandacht voor de studie:) Hier alvast een klein beginnetje...laatste tekst van vorige week:

Jeffrey Boase and Barry Wellman (2001) – A plague of Viruses: Biological, compuer and marketing.

This text is also just like the first two easy to read. The main idea is that the way a virus spreads depends on the kind of network it’s in. It’s important to take the structure into account to understand how the networks operate. Boas and Wellman discuss biological, computer and marketing viruses in densely knit and in ramified networks. For this course off course the marketing viruses, the viral marketing, is most interesting. So I was wondering what kind of network, densely knit or ramified networks are more appropriate to promote a particular product.

I believe ramified networks are the best ones to use viral marketing on, because then it will be spread around in a much bigger area. Especially nowadays with the use of the Internet. The Internet had brought its own novel forms of viral marketing because the technology makes it easy to pass on messages. Weak ties in a ramified network don’t matter any more, because the Internet allows people to maintain weak ties with little effort (Boase and Wellman). Off course you can also say that the best networks to apply viral marketing are glocal networks, because then probably even more people will spread the word. No matter what the product is, the way information will flow, depends on the structural position of people in networks.

Both Shirky and Rutherford try to answer the question; ‘What is P2P?’.

Rutherford: P2P environments consist of computers with equal capabilities that share resources (such as processing power and memory), communicate exclusively with each other and do not connect to servers or central databases.

Shirky: P2P is a class of applications that takes advantage of resources – storage, cycles, content, human presence – available at the edges of the Internet. It treates variable connectivity and temporary network addresses as the norm and it gives the nodes at the edges of the network significant autonomy.

They both were very easy to read but I did have some problems because of terms I never heard of (CIO, DNS, ISP, AOL). CIO for example appears to stand for ‘Chief Information Officers’. And in the text of Shirky DNS appeared to stand for ‘Domain Naming System.’

Besides this the only thing for me what could use some extra information was when both writers talk about ‘unused’ bandwidth and resources.

‘Why are these resources unused when P2P is about the free sharing of each others resources?

I didn’t really came clear to me why these resources should not be used (before?). Shirky writes about this: ‘(…) they are all leveraging previously unused resources, by tolerating and even working with the variable connectivity of the hundreds of millions of devices that have been connected to the edges of the Internet in the last few years’ and Rutherford writes: ‘Messaging tools and affinity communities can open up intellectual property and data that are otherwise hidden in departmental offices and servers. So because of this connectivity of all the peers in the network, resources which used to be unused are now used.

Shirky also writes: ‘Over time, though, as hardware and software improved, the unused resources that existed behind this veil of second-class connectivity started to look like something worth getting at.’ So I guess that if the word ‘previously’ would have been there the first time the writers mentioned ‘unused’ it already would have made more sense to me, and these ‘untapped’ resources just are what is present at the computers of the peers and are fueling P2P.

<sup>Rotisserie assignment

We talked about the commodification of time related to our dedication of time to various online spaces. Some of these virtual communities are becoming commodified and function solely by the mechanisms of participation. Some people argue (e.g., Jenkins, Adrejevic, Uricchio) that participation may be a form of labor. Please try to argue whether you agree or disagree. Please think about the various uses of the notion of 'participation'.</sup>

Benkler writes in his text ‘From consumers to users: shifting the deeper structure of regulation toward sustainable commons and user access’ that the focus must be on assuring that the digitally networked environment evolves into a stable system for peer users, rather then towards a system in which commercial producers and passive consumers are the primary players. He also writes that small groups of constituents and individuals are being enabled to become users, in other words; participants in the production of their information environment. It may be obvious that Benkler is a proponent of virtual communities to be functioned by the mechanisms of participation. I agree with Benkler that it’s important to value the unmediated conversation of the many with the many and that the prize is not the great shopping mall in cyberspace. Can this participation in this ‘great Agora’ be seen as labour?

Off course this depends on how you define ‘participation’, but I think it also depends on how you define labour. A lot of people think of labour as something negative, because they associate it with their everyday job, which most people are compelled to do, because they need the money. I think labour can just as good be seen as a positive thing, when it’s for your own profit and then I don’t mean just the money you can earn. I mean the profit you as a user and the producer can get out of your participation. When I would use the example of the music industry online again it’s easy to demonstrate these profits. Through the Internet the producers will get more insight on the demand of the users, this helps them to adapt their collection to the bestselling music and it simultaneously is a good thing for the users because now the online selling company will better connect with the users demand.

So when this time the user spends online, giving the companies knowledge of their demand, is seen not just as free time but as time with a special value because of the effect, participation cán be seen as labour. As may become clear from what I just wrote, I believe participation online can only be seen as some kind of labour when it involves participation in school or work projects (like this project) and the commercial sector of the Internet (this also involves programmes like MSN Messenger, because there is no better way then advertising it then advertisement through the users self, by telling their friends about it and inviting them to use it.) When it comes to the other sectors of the Internet I don’t think there is any form of labour present. And overall I believe ‘labour’ isn’t the right word to indicate this form of participation with. Making this assignment online, indeed can be seen as labour, because it is obligatory. But when the free time online is of any (usefull) effect to commercial goals, eventough the users are unaware of this, this kind of participation shouldn’t be compared to labour but be called something like ‘commercial participation’ or some creation on Harries’ ‘viewsing’.

Further, we talked about 'mods' (modifications) as user-created content ('participation'). What are the implications of the institutionalization and appropriation of mod culture e.g. by charging money for mods complicating the current notions of participation and blurring the boundaries of the production, distribution, and consumption.  

Off course it’s very difficult to say what the exact implications are, but I do believe that there is a bigger advantage for the producers then for the consumers. Off course the consumers now can also produce, what for them is a nice matter, but I believe that the way the original producers can use this blur between for example production and distribution, is giving them bigger profits then it gives the users.

D. Harries (2002) – Watching the Internet

This text was very easy to read. First of all I liked the quote from Jenkins about the converging of movie-, television- and computer screens: ‘Because digital media potentially incorporate all previous media, it no longer makes sense to think in medium-specific terms.’  

         ‘What has changed in the way we value entertainment nowadays?’ is the question I would like to ask on the basis of the third emerging mode of spectatorship ‘viewsing’ Harries discusses. What Harries also already writes is that it’s not just about what is seen and heard anymore, but also what impact your participation in the media possibly has. So what had changed is that beside viewing and using, you can also change a developing narrative. Because the strengths of each medium are combined (the illusory ‘realness’ of cinema, the ‘liveness’  of television and the ‘connectedness’ of the Internet) new options and a interactive experience are created.

         Harries writes that websites often are couched within a desperate need to make links to the cinematic and the televisual for their larger framing as ‘Hollywood entertainment’. He gives an example of a computer game, what experience would look like a popular computer game trying to attain value of either film or television, but falling short. He gives this example in his part about ‘using the Internet’. If there are links inserted to television and/or cinema, this game would be a viewsing mode….and besides that I don’t think it’s necessary to combine using and viewing modes at all costs. Harries makes it look like ‘viewsing’ is thé best media form and I don’t think that’s necessarily the case.

Y. Benkler – From consumers to Users: shifting the deeper structures of regulation toward sustainable commons and user access.

As I said, I really found this text really hard to read. Maybe after class I understand it better and make a question and answer likewise. For now I only know the writers finds it important that the digitally environment will involve a system for peer user instead of passive consumers and commercial producers. Besides that Benkler writes about enabling small groups of constituents and individuals to become users and about enabling access to the resources that cannot be sustained as commons….who can help me out here? What exactly is mend by ‘commons?’

The fourth text will be online later, have to work now…again L

"Anyone who thinks my story is anywhere near over is sadly mistaken."
-Donald Trump, about his future-

Mr. Trump’s portfolio of holdings:

I’ll write this part in a telegram style, because there is so much written about al his holdings I could write like a whole essay just about all the companies and building he owns. I very likely don’t mention everything he ever owned and owns right now, but I think that what is mentioned below will give a nice view of his holdings in the economics.

Trump got his start in his father's New York real estate business, and by the 1970’s had made himself a deal-maker in Manhattan, somehow getting city government and banks to finance his ambitious developments. This resulted first of all in The Trump Organization being one of the world’s largest operators of hotels and casinos. The Trump name stands proudly on three world-class casino hotels in Atlantic City, New Jersey. They are also the only five star, five diamond rated hotels in Atlantic City:

-         The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino on the Boardwalk.

-         The Trump Marina Casino Resort in the Marina District.

-         The Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort, home of one of the world’s largest casinos and one of the most luxurious casino-hotels ever built.

Besides those he owns:

-         Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue (1982).

-         The Trump International Hotel and Tower (1998).

-         The fabled Delmonico Hotel, located at 59th Street and Park Avenue (2002).

-         Trump Grande Ocean Resort.

-         The Trump Casino at Buffington Harbor, Indiana. This is the first casino riverboat among Mr. Trump’s holdings.

-         Most recently, Mr. Trump entered into an agreement with the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Luiseno Mission Indians to manage the Trump 29 Casino in Palm Springs, California, his first foray into gaming on the West Coast.

Trump also owns a the Trump National Golf Club in Briarcliff Manor, New York, a signature Fazio golf course/housing development, and a 250 acre estate known as the Mansion at Seven Springs which will be developed into a world class golf course and housing development.

And besides all his real estate holdings Trump and the NBC Television Network are partners in the ownership and broadcast rights for the three largest beauty competitions in the world: the Miss Universe, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA Pageants. The last Miss Universe pageant substantially beat the NBA Playoff Game it opposed in ratings, and a new five-year television contract was just signed with NBC.

Last but not least Trump wrote a few successful autobiographies. His books include Trump: The Art of the Deal (1988), Trump: Surviving at the Top (1990), Trump: The Art of the Comeback (1997) and Trump: How to Get Rich (2004).

Mr. Trump’s first autobiography, The Art of the Deal, has become one of the most successful business best-sellers of all time, having sold in excess of three million copies, and being a New York Times number one best-seller for 32 weeks.

Business approach

Many people wonder how he managed to earn so much many. Off course it’s not to say in a few words how he did that. It’s obvious that he’s driven, arrogant, intelligent, and that he understands the psychology of real estate speculation. His great talent as a businessman is turning bad real estate properties into gold mines (though he overpaid for some properties that resulted in his near complete downfall). Even though he studied business, he often went against the basic principle behind economics, what says: ‘lower prices when there's competition.’ When Trump had competitors, not only did he not lower prices, but he also raised them. Despite his knack for making deals and recognizing a good investment when he saw one, Trump's billion-dollar empire crumbled in 1990, when he was forced into bankruptcy for over $2 billion bank loans that he couldn't pay. But ever the dealmaker, he rebounded; by the year 2000 he was again worth over a billion dollars.

Trump also knows the power of branding, and makes sure his name is on his property. He even licensed his name to a Seoul building for a cool $5 million. This is also what we talked about in class, about how a special branding can have established a certain image. In this case Trump’s name has created an image of class and luxury through the years, which attracts a lot of well fortuned people.

Organisation structured as culture:

It’s not totally clear what I’m supposed to do here because I still haven’t got to read the texts. When I take a look at the three levels of culture on the PowerPoint you have the artefact, the espoused values and the basic assumptions. The artefact of Trump are very various. It’s for example not just one kind of technology. It are hotels, casino’s, books en model pageants. What can be said about this artefact is that it’s very easy to connect the name ‘Trump’ to his property’s. Then what values are being encouraged with a Trump-product? I think the espoused values are for the biggest part, and then I mean his real estate business, about luxury and wealth. The basic assumptions are what is taken for granted, but I’m not quite sure what that should be in this case..

Compared to the American and European way:

When I take a look at what Hofstede wrote in 1991; ‘Culture is collective mental programming of the people in an environment. Culture is not a characteristic of individuals; it encompasses a number of people who were conditioned by the same education and life experience’, it’s no more than logic that the business approach in the US is so much different from the European approach, because both cultures are so incredibly different. As William told us in college in the US there is a market place versus a public sphere in Europe. Trump’s approach is therefore really American because it’s really not about culture. It’s just about the branding, the package and the advertising. According to the Gallup Organization, 98% of Americans know who he is, so his name kind of becomes a tacit assumption. Using just his name for his new project drives the organisational behaviour.

Used websites:

http://www.who2.com/donaldtrump.html

http://www.nbc.com/nbc/The_Apprentice/bios/Donald_J._Trump.html

http://www.askmen.com/men/business_politics/38_donald_trump.html

Te laat omdat ik dus ziek was/ben....ga maar meteen verder met de opdracht voor vrijdag:(

I believe the affordances of the Internet are enormously. Because there are so many capabilities connected to the Internet, they afford many different ranges of meanings. I will now in short tell how both websites have used attributes and space to let their visitors participate and in what way they differ from each other.

I think the website of Coke Music is really disorderly. It’s not clear on the first sight, what the options are within the website. Everything is flashing and moving and it’s not very clear what to do and where to start. Coke Music encourages you to become a member: ‘Membership is the difference between a ticket and a backstage pass. When you register you get a Coke Music Pass. As a pass holder you get scoop other site visitors won’t get. It’s the only way to earn decibels or vote, and only pass holders get to hang out in Coke Studios.’ So I started with customizing my Digital Self. Which officially is only an option for US-residents, but with making up a zip-code that problem is solved. It looks like they used almost every entertainment format, because you can play games, mix music, listen music, chat, watch video’s etc. When you can participate in so many way’s there must be something for everyone, but it is also very messily, as a said before. The mode of participation is not about getting’ to know each other. Off course there are options were you can chat, but the sense of community is more a virtual settlement, were it’s just about the active members then about the affective relations in a virtual community.

On fox.com/24 the layout on the first place is also busy but much orderly as on the coke music site. There are eight options you can choose on the homepage, but once you’ve chosen one, those options appear in a menu on the left, so you don’t have to return to the homepage every time. On the homepage are three extra commercial options, where you can buy official 24-things, subscribe to 24-news and subscribe to fox-news on you cell phone. The option ‘community’ opens a new window with a 24-forum, were you need to login to talk about the series with other people. There are not as many entertainment formats on this website as on the coke music site, because you can’t play games or watch video’s, but I think the forum option is a very welcome replacement.

I think both the websites have the overall aim to sell a image through a virtual world. I didn’t know the series 24 and never heard of coke music either. But on fox.com.24 it becomes clear what the site is about, and what the series is about. This in comparison to the Coke Music were I still don’t really know what product is being advertised and I also couldn’t find out what I could do with my 67 earned decibels by winning a game. It both aren’t websites were a product can be bought, but they both focus more on advertising and making their product more popular through these virtual worlds. As I already mentioned about the Coke Music site, also the soc of the ‘24’ website isn’t about a shared emotional connection. On Coke Music.com I believe there is more feeling of membership and belonging because the login possibility were you can create your own Virtual-ego. I liked the TV-commercial of Coke Music, with the guy, Brian who online calls himself deluxe_247, wants to be like the famous, rich people on MTV-cribs. Then some examples from the website are showed and the voice-over says ‘try to keep it in perspective’. I thought the clip was very funny, and although it’s clear it’s about music and about Coke, but I still don’t know which product exactly is being advertised here, who can help me out?