Author Archives: 77sas

Final Blog


The media-industry is controlled by a higher power called the web giant. It has many aspects that control specific areas. The reason why they are in control is because they created such great monopolies which great names like Amazon Apple and google, to be ahead of the game all the time with whoever wants to go against them. Of course, the government wants to intervene as usual. They want to see whether they should stop these things from happening or whether they should let it be. Google for example, however, plays a big role with this. The government asks google to give them information about the people they are searching and looking for. In that case, its a win win situation for both google and the government to work hand in hand together, so I doubt that the government will intervene within this market strategy. Many people find google dangerous because they can access peoples information and that would not be secure for anybody. (The Guardian, ´´From Google to Amazon: EU goes to war against power of US digital giants.) Some giants don’t pay taxes. For example, Netflix has come to Europe, but they set their base in Belgium, not in France, escaping the taxes and the problems that come with these tariffs. I think they are trying to interfere because they just need any excuse to protect themselves from anything that has the potential to be stronger than them. Also, they just cannot deal with anyone or any company who has made a lot of money, being a threat to them (speaking about the government). The government tries to ban these things then again need them to get information from people. So, I don’t understand whats wrong with them and they can’t be appeased by anyone or any company. I honestly believe that its a decoy in front of people to see something that isn’t there. They’re jealous monsters. Haters gonna hate.



Digital Monopolies. (n.d.). Retrieved December 9, 2014.


Books VS Ebooks


    Article 1: “Required Reading: as textbook prices soar, students try to cope   Students are striving between collage fees and textbook fees due to the expensiveness of these materials. “With the average student shelling out $1,200 a year just on books, students, professors and policy groups are searching for ways to circumvent the high cost of traditional textbooks” (Required Reading: as textbook prices soar, students try to cope, by Martha C. White). This shows that students are clearly spending a lot on books. Some students are falling behind in learning due to their lack of textbooks. This strongly affects their class grades and education level. Some students also tried borrowing and renting books, but didn’t find that as practical as owning a book of their own. Article 2: “EBooks and cost pressures push college students away from textbooks   Many students and teachers are switching from printed textbooks to digital ones. Since digital textbooks are cheaper, more easy to transport, and yet efficient to many students out there. Unlike printed textbooks, which are much more expensive and physically heavier. “Local schools around the U.S. have started experimenting with digital textbooks and resources” (EBooks and cost pressures push college students away from textbooks, by Ellen Lee). This clarifies that schools are trying to work around their students’ needs in order for them to have the best education. In addition, it shows that schools are also willing to take chances and risks in order to make it fair for all of the students. The production of interactive textbooks is taking place too. This does not only allow students to read the material, but also watch videos, listen to audios, write sample quizzes, and share notes with each other. “A survey released last year by the Pearson Foundation found that 63 percent of college students and 69 percent of high school students believe that traditional textbooks will be phased out in the next five years” (EBooks and cost pressures push college students away from textbooks, by Ellen Lee). This shows that students are not interested in printed textbooks anymore; however, they are much more interested and look forward in digital ones. Also, many organizations are switching to digital textbooks due to their realization that students prefer it better and no longer have any interest in the traditional textbooks. Article 3:Why college students still prefer print over e-books A couple of Universities have tried EBooks instead of printable textbooks for a semester. The students have showed many interesting results concerning this change. “Students reported problems with readability, complained of eyestrain, and said the e-books were not fully compatible with all mobile devices” (Why college students still prefer print over e-books, by Katrina Schwartz). This basically clarifies that the students were suffering instead of being helped. Aside from all that, students claim that they’d still choose e-books over textbooks due to financial costs. Also, it’s a much easier transporter than textbooks.   Article 4: Academic e-books: Will they ever take off?   This article talks about students that use e-books as reference or as a quick review guide. They always go back to textbooks due to the physical appearance of it. Also, this makes it easier for them to read and study from. “The invention of this technology doesn’t mean that people don’t want physical books. They just want digital copies as well” (Academic e-books: Will they ever take off?, by Roberta Wiafe). Basically, e-books are used just as a second choice. Unlike textbooks, have more impact on students. My Opinion:   In my opinion, I think that e-books will replace printed textbooks in schools and universities. EBooks are cheaper, lighter, and more practical to students. Due to advanced technology, it would be much easier for students to use e-books since technology is already being apart of their daily lives. Also, many students suffer from loosing their textbooks, but that will not be a problem with e-books because with technology you can put apps that can find your other devices. Textbooks will also be replaced because technology is expanding fast and people are getting used to electronics more than books, which leads to students being more interested in e-books than printed textbooks. Also, the whole paper industry is suffering due to these ebooks, as well as huge newspapers like the New York Times have offered their newspapers on iPads and apps, because everyone is moving towards technology where more than one book and newspaper can be held in the same place without having one to move.

Streaming and the Future of Music


Streaming and the Future of Music

I think that music streaming using players like Spotify and YouTube have and will continue to transform the music industry. Based on Taylor Swift’s major move to remove her old albums from Spotify, record labels are clearly worried about the negative impact of record sales. This is also shown when Adele’s manager suggested that Spotify “may need to change its policy of insisting all albums be made available on both its free and premium tiers.” To my understanding, if you have Spotify premium, you can download music, listen without interruption, and get better quality recordings. I don’t think that those are big enough incentives for many people to pay for Spotify premium, however it appears that the company is doing very well in Europe, as Lauren Davidson’s article in the Telegraph showed that Spotify made more money than iTunes in the first quarter of 2014.
One point I found very interesting is why Spotify is seen as the villain and not YouTube, as Adele’s manager also mentioned: “On the one hand, labels are trumpeting YouTube as a marketing tool: 10 million views on YouTube and it’s a marketing stroke of genius. But on the other hand they’re looking at 10 million streams on Spotify and saying that’s x amount of lost sales.” Spotify may seem worse because you can instantly download using their site, whereas with YouTube you’d need to go to another online source that turns YouTube media into mp3s (the recording is usually awful). It seems rather odd that Spotify can allow users to download music for a monthly fee, instead of a by album or by song purchasing system like the one in iTunes. I understand from these articles that artist do get paid each time someone streams their song, pennies If I recall correctly, but that is obviously a lot less than getting a 10 dollar purchase of the album from iTunes. So artists can either take their chances with record sales, or hope that enough people stream or download their work on Spotify in larger numbers so it offsets the lower royalty payment, or their “cut”.
I think the main question that will determine to what extent services like Spotify change the music industry will come with analysis of cases like Taylor Swfit. Did she make more money with or without Spotify? The article by Nicholas Carlson on Business Insider spoke very strongly against the more traditional view of record sales and making money off of musicians, held by people like Taylor Swift’s record label CEO Scott Borchetta. He has the plain view that if people can download the album, why would they buy it in stores? Of course the article points out that people in general don’t buy CDs anymore, especially not the younger audiences of Taylor Swift. However, it appears that Swift is so extremely popular that she can choose where her music is available, and the people will follow. Looking at how much she made on Spotify over a period of time versus how much she makes when a record launches analysts might be able to find the raw numbers to answer the question. Yet, Swift is an exception to the rule, so what she does is up to her and she probably won’t lose a cent or any sleep over the decision, but for other less known artists, Spotify seems to open new and potentially lucrative doors.



​Netflix is an on-demand entertainments platform that offers streaming of media at a monthly cost to its providers. It offers a faster chance to the viewer of getting to watch their favorite programs as compared to the cable sets. It also gives the viewer the luxury of watching whatever content they want to acquire at a given time. The advantage of this over cable is what has prompted its growth in the local American market. Ever since its creation, it has continually increased in the number of subscribers it has. This has been further enhanced by the quality of products as well as the wide range of products that it offers its clients.

​The company has set itself on trying to out muscle the already set up cable providers and has to some extent won the battle. However, the franchise aims at venturing in not only securing rights to movies but also venture into their production. The organization has set its sights at trying to produce original content that can help it in rivaling the already recognized producer. In aiming at fulfilling this, the company aims at going and investing into the international market. The aim of this is to search for a wider market that they can offer their services. The advantage of this is that it aims at increasing it profitability from the services and a wide range of media that they provide.

​Furthermore, the idea of the company venturing into the international market is one that is of high interest. The fact that the company has been able to revolutionize the industry in the American market has been one of its strongest attribute. With the wide range of cable providers, the company has been able to expand its viewer base through its wide range of operations. It has been offering its viewer not only online streaming of media but also delivery of DVD content of some of the media. The number of those subscribed to the DVD subscription has been on the decline because of the improvement on the internet industry. Moreover, the decline does not mean a reduction in its customer base because the viewing of online content is on the increase.

​Considering the international market, it lacks a provider of online content that is accessible at different geographical locations. Different countries have a different provider for their media depending on the producer of the movies. Therefore, in order to access the different movies and series from other countries, one needs to have access to this different cable providers. Moreover, the viewer can also wait to access the media at a later date after it has been available in the different sites online. The lack of a sole player that offers the viewer such a service means that this is a niche in the market that is yet to be fulfilled.

​Therefore, the fact that Netflix has already built a large viewer base in the United States means that is has a history background that can be considered as it aims at venturing in the international scene. Furthermore, it also possesses a wide customer base that can help motivate them to venturing into offering these viewers content from other countries. The availability of an available market into which they can market the different films is an bonus for them. They only need to exploit the opportunity and enjoy the benefits that will arise from them.

​Furthermore, the American market is also filled with films that have been redone from their original versions to suit the current market. The company in venturing to exploit the international market will be offering their viewer the opportunity of getting a taste of the original version of the media. However, the fact that some of the original movie version are not broadcasted on cable TV because of some of the content, Netflix will offer their viewer an unlimited access to this content at their disposal (Thomas, 2013).

​From the articles, it can also be seen that some of the viewers also try to whatever means to access media from the different countries. This can be attributed to their interest in a variety of products or by the high quality offered by producers in those countries. Therefore, this in mind and considering that Netflix offers it viewers a wide range of viewing means that by venting into the international market, this will be reduced. The organization will in turn gain an increase in the number of viewership, and this will help them fight off their competition. The competition in the industry is very stiff as each provider aims at offering their clients the most viewing as compared to their competitors.

​Therefore, Netflix venturing into the international market will bring into the beginning of a golden age in viewing. The availability of media from the different countries at an affordable price will be a revelation to viewers from the different countries.

“Fame” blogpost


1. The production and marketing of mass media fame (and celebrity)
Fame and celebrity are now easier to achieve for anyone, and it is no longer just a question of luck, and sometimes not even a question of talent. The articles that talked about the consumption of celebrity news speak as though it is a sign of something negative, and maybe that is the case, but it is just an opinion. The way celebrities are marketed now in celebrity news is entertainment in a similar way to novels centuries before today. Novels were written to excite audiences and even to discuss taboo subjects in an open way. So when David Beckham’s affair got out, like the Fame Machine article said “ordinary folk make for more colorful copy”, it is like how people flocked to read Madam Bovary when it came out. It’s all entertainment, and it has always been there to make a profit. Mass media has simply made it more accessible and easier to consume.
2. The impact of the Web on fame and celebrity
In the article about 16 people made famous by the internet, I appreciate that people are pushed to think of new and innovative ways to be better people. From making make-a-wish stories more elaborate, to making audiences laugh, to inspirational stories of being a better parent. People can now become “famous” for things other than being beautiful or rich. YouTube and Vine etc. have made the process of stardom more democratic, so that people get to decide what they like instead of being given pre-packaged stars that they are forced to like.
It is scary though, like in the article about Ms. Cinkle, that young people are more interested in online fame than other things like studies or even just developing real-world social skills. It is still hard to say if generation “like” is going to show psychological or emotional problems later in life, but the amount of connectivity to the virtual world will at some point have to take some toll. The Web has definitely invaded the lives of people, and so celebrity social media accounts and things force their way into the daily lives of people, so it makes sense that celebrity news consumption is on the rise.
3. Do I think this is positive or negative?
Positive or negative can be understood in at least two ways: morally, or economically. I assume this asking if this impact is morally negative or positive, to which I would still probably say it is not so different from how things operated in the past, it is simply an evolution of fame and stardom. The question could really become do I think that celebrity in itself is positive or negative, and what is the impact on audiences who want to be these famous people or spend time and money wanting to praise them. This is a much different question, and the answers are so personal that what I say doesn’t really matter. Celebrities exist and they are profitable, Brangelina at 270 million, so the fame machine will press on and adapt to the newest ways to make the machine more efficient and profitable.
One thing that I really see as negative though, as discussed in the J-Lo performing for dictators article and the piece by Tyler Cowen, is that people can and do look to celebrities for their political and moral beliefs. As Cowen put it, “the famous often fall short of desirable moral and aesthetic standards.” He also described how people did not know about the politics of Reagan, but rather voted for him because of his earlier fame. When I saw some celebrities taking a stance about the Israel-Palestine conflict, I instead formed opinions about the celebrities’ integrity and worth instead of forming my opinions to match theirs, even when a celebrity I really liked said something that was against my beliefs. With all the money and stardom going around, it’s one thing to denounce the economic potential involved, but there need to be limits on the power that fame can have on people. If there are no limits, people will believe whatever their favorite celebrities tell them to, and a lot of the time, celebrities don’t make comments themselves, but are used as mouthpieces for larger companies and agendas to make their messages acceptable.

Final Blog


Article #1: Campaigns Use Social Media to Lure Younger Voters

​In 2012, candidates were expected and needed to be posting funny little animations on the blogging site Tumblr in order to grab the attention of the younger generation. Social media became the most popular place for the candidates to share song playlists, add food recipes, and posting pictures of beautiful moments at home with their children. These were all done through Spotify, Pinterest, Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and Instagram. Most campaigns believe that the voters are particularly younger citizens who may not read the paper or watch television, but spend most their time on social medias. Mr. Obama’s team had posted on Tumblr to remind the users about the first presidential debate, and Mitt Romney’s bodyguard posted on Instagram a picture of the candidate’s family playing together before the debate. Also, the Web has its cons too. A well-intended picture or post on social networks can quickly change into a disaster. Campaigns also battle against each other through their posts on the social media. Posts posted by campaigns attract close to 70,000 likes and reposts from users. Each kind of social network has its own uniqueness and different kinds of users with different interests. Campaigns try to interact with different kinds of social networks to grab the attention of many people with different interests.

Article #2: 5 Unforgettable Social Media Election Moments

​There has been a lot of social media activity regarding elections. Social media activity has started since 2008 when 1.8 million tweets were sent on Election Day. Today, 1.8 million tweets are sent every six seconds. There are five moments that really stand out as defining features of the 2012 election. These moments are: Mother Jones’ Romney Video, Big Bird Goes Viral, Binders Full of Women, Clint Eastwood at the Republican National Convention, and Sergey Brin’s Google+ Plea. The first moment happened in mid-September when a video footage of a private Romney fundraiser was published that included the candidate saying stuff about Obama. The video was sent everywhere from news to social channels that had spread criticism which lead to predicting that Romney had lost the election due to that incident. The second moment was when Romney said, “I love big bird” during the first presidential debate. Social networks sky rocked with more than 200,000 tweets and many posts and comments. The third moment was when Romney requested “binders full of women” when he was governor of Massachusetts. Many different kinds of social media satires were made, more than 13,000 users in twitter were sharing comments, and Tumblr had also built momentum around this moment. The fourth moment was when Clint Eastwood had addressed an invisible President Obama in an empty chair on stage at the Republican National Convention. The moment soon went viral and also, Obama’s team had joined the conversations by posting pictures of Obama sitting in a chair and saying “this seat’s taken”. The last but not least moment, was when Google had posted a calling for elected officials to withdraw from their parties, and govern as independents. Brin, co-founder of Google, hated the elections because no matter what happens, the government will still be the same. He also says that the elected officials have focused on sticking to the other party instead of themselves. Brin had made a very good point that goes viral. This sends a strong message that leaders can leverage social media to insert themselves into political conversations.



​My opinion on the use of social media in future election campaigns, in the United States and in other countries is that I agree. I agree because every year, more and more people join social networks and become addicted to them. For most people, the only reading they do is through social media. This allows the candidates who are running to share posts and keep people updated. In the future, it would be easier for both the people and the candidate because almost everyone will be on social networks and everyone will know about the elections. Therefore, their will no longer need to advertise campaigns through television and newspapers, everything will be through social media. I think that in the future, when social media is used in this case, no parodies or violent posts should be posted. Also, I agree with the use of social media in future campaigns because, the younger generation will get used to social networks, which allows many campaigns to grab their attention.



Article #1: Social Networks in Battle for the Second Screen



On Sunday, “Breaking Bad” had drawn millions of viewers to one of the most enjoyable finales in the history of television. Finding out that people had shared their instant reactions to this TV show, Twitter and Facebook rushed to tell the news media about it. Both companies were seeking bragging rights and more. Twitter and Facebook’s point of view on all of this is that the social chats and communications about television increases the use of it and makes them win a larger piece in advertising, Although the ridiculously large numbers of users that chat about television in Facebook and Twitter, choosing the site that deserves the top prize is difficult. Each of these companies has their own way of being certain about social TV conversations. On Twitter, about hundreds of thousand people had shared more than a million tweets about the “Breaking Bad” finale in only ten hours. On Facebook, three million users had shared and liked posts about it. Mr. Nielsen discovered that the number of users who just view tweets about a TV show is fifty times the number of users who actually tweeted those tweets. Also, people are dragged more into both Twitter and the TV show due to heavy Twitter activity.



Article #2: Facebook and Twitter Wield Little Influence on TV Watching



Most people think that Americans continue chatting a lot in social networks while watching TV shows. Advertisements in the social media are far stronger than regular conversations about other things. About sixteen percent of people agreed that they had used the social media while watching TV. Facebook was the most popular of all social networks for people sharing conversations during and about shows. Twitter and Facebook have impacted people a lot by driving them to tune into TV shows. About six percent of the people claimed that something on a social network had convinced them into watching a new show. About forty said that they were pushed to watch new shows by the TV commercials.


Is “social TV” just a fad or do you believe it’s the future of television? Why?


In my opinion, I strongly believe that “social TV” is the future of television. Also, by being the technology that supports communication and social interaction in either the context of watching television or related to TV content. Most of the people today watch television and use social media at the same time to keep them updated on latest shows. “Social TV” started a long time ago and had spread to many different places. It also increased rapidly and continues to increase month by month. Because people now-a-days can multi-task and use social networks while watching television, it brings out the urge for them to share about what they are watching. I think that this will continue and the amount of users and “social TV” will expand. People will begin to get used to “social TV” and use it even more often. Personally, I agree with the fact that “social TV” is the future of television because it makes people close to each other and share their thoughts about TV shows. Also, it updates us whenever there’s a new show.