For the most part, media users are blind to the fact that media companies exploit them. This statement holds true even when users are proactively using media to accomplish something that would have been thought impossible otherwise.
When a team of scientists attempts to collaborate with researchers on the other side of the globe, chances are that they are communicating through a well-established media company such as Skype. From an inside perspective, Skype is seen as a nothing more than a tool used to accomplish the task at hand. However, from an outside perspective these scientists are succumbing to Skype simply because it’s owner, Microsoft has enough money to make it the most readily available resource. In reality there are plenty of alternative options when it comes to selecting video conferencing software; Companies such as, ooVoo, Tinychat and Voxox come to mind. Skype is effectively exploiting it’s users because it has a stranglehold on the rest of the competition.
Unfortunately, the exploitation goes even further in the form of data mining. Thanks to Google and other analytic tools, almost everything that is searched, typed or clicked into search engines like Google or social media sites such as Facebook is stored in a database and sold to advertising companies. The result of this is ‘personalized’ ads on your Facebook account as well as coupons being sent to your email account and front door. Consequently, media users may feel like they are using the Internet and media applications free of charge. However, in reality I believe we’ve been paying all along using our personal information as currency.
The same rationale can be applied across all forms of media. A great example would be YouTube. As one of the most frequently visited sites in the world, YouTube has undoubtedly proven to be the most effective way to spread videos online to as many people as possible. Even for those who do not upload videos or subscribe to different channels on YouTube, surfing through endless amounts of videos can elicit the feeling of being an active member in a community and cultural phenomenon
On one hand, this can be seen a great thing. By effectively pigeonholing the market, media users are almost forced to rely on the site as a resource to be heard and to listen in. In turn, this encourages a continuously growing community to use the site to spread a message to millions of people that it may not have reached otherwise.
On the other hand, I believe that beneath it all, data mining is running the operation, attempting to exploit it’s users to the fullest extent. In it’s early days, YouTube was seen as a free-haven for user-generated content, absent of any overbearing corporation. When Google bought out YouTube for 1.65 billion dollars in 2006, this all changed. Now everything you click on and watch is stored in a database, resulting in ads before videos and ‘recommended videos’ for one to watch afterward.
In short, users who take advantage of media technologies are indeed being active. However, many media users unknowingly give up their personal information or provide free advertising, even when actively using the software to it’s fullest extent. Make no mistake, media corporations are aiming to exploit its users at every turn in the road.
In terms of the spectrum of convergence culture players, I would consider myself primarily a user. Jenkins (2006) argues on his personal site that media technologies give the audience the necessary tools to “achieve, annotate, appropriate and recirculate content.” This change has effectively given the audience the ability to become the user as well. Primarily, I spend the majority of my time using the Internet and mobile technology admiring the work of others. For instance, I am much more inclined to read someone’s blog than I am to post a blog of my own. The same can be said about videos and memes as well. The only media technology that I would consider myself an active producer of content would be Instagram. Yet, the bulk of my time spent on this application is spent genuinely admiring talent works of others (rather than fallow the daily squabbles of my old high school friends.)
Generally speaking, I do not interact with fan communities over the Internet. The only exception being when I was in middle school and the TV series, “Lost” was at it’s peak. This was a time when everyone had his or her own theory on what was actually happening on this fictional island. With the help of the Internet, I naturally gravitated toward a “Lost” fan site where you could post theories and comment of others. Even though I never participated in an online fan clubs afterwards, I would say confidentially that being a somewhat active member of the fansite, I felt a level of involvement that I have not gotten from a television series since.
Once my degree certifies me as a full-fledged media practitioner, I intent to always be mindful of the influential power that tech-savvy users have on a product a the message behind it. However, Shefrin, (2004) states, “consumers may believe that they are operating with free choice when, in fact, they are generally unable to change any of the cultural products being offered.” This statement held much more truth before the days of the Internet. Nowadays, the producer may still be in control of what content is offered to the audience, but they are in no control whatsoever of how that message transforms once it is passed along the Internet by tech-savvy users. Additionally, Andrejevic (2011) points out that the tech-savvy users have the resources and ability to “influence media producers” by building communities around the brand. Products must be tailored to encourage Internet interaction among the tech-savvy users in the audience. Keeping this in mind will be vital for my career once it develops.
Work Cited
Andrejevic, M. (2011, September). The Work that Affective Economics Does. Cultural Studies, Vol. 25.
Jenkins, H. (2006, June 19). Welcome to Convergence Culture.
Shefrin, E. (2004, September). Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Participatory Fandom: Mapping New Congruencies between the Internet and Media Entertainment Culture. Critical Studies in Media Communication, Vol, 21.
RSS Feed