Ad Exposure Observation

Advertisement is all around us. Each and every day, we see it pass by us without even giving it a second glance, or do we? Do we really see the ads that are in front of us, or do we choose to ignore them? Some of them we take notice to, either showing interest in them or not. For all of April 20, 2010, I chose to take the day to monitor how much advertising I was exposing myself to on a daily basis, regardless if I noticed the ads or not. Other than focusing on all the different advertising I was exposed to that day, I made it my goal to determine whether or not I’d make a conscious effort to pay attention to each one or not.

At the start of my morning, I read a magazine while eating breakfast, which included ads for television shows and other entertainment items that were now on the market. While getting ready to head out to school, I noticed all of my posters for concerts and other sports events that had went to in the past, which I still counted as advertisement. After I left my house and on the way to school, I listened to a podcast involving PC gaming and different venues where you could play it, while also passing buy a plethora of billboards and picket signs advertising different events going on at KU and in the mediate area. Surprisingly, I didn’t see any type of ad when I went to my only class of the day, even going as far as looking at people with possible t-shirt advertising. Sadly, this did not occur. On my way back home, more billboards followed.

Getting ready to head out to work, I went online and visited advertisement rich sites such as: Major League Gaming (MLGpro.com), which mainly focused on gaming related products, their own trademarked items, and other types of sponsored advertisement, like Old Spice deodorant and Dr. Pepper; Google.com, which I used to do a bit of research for my science class and gmail; and Amazon.com, which was heavy with advertisements wanting me to buy related products. This showed me that these ads were triggered by certain cookies or spyware that were trying to determine what I liked to buy and do; my demographics. I work at GIANT foods, which basically surrounded me with just food and ads. They advertise new deals for cheaper prices on goods, a sign for hiring new employees, discounts on certain products, etc. It was all surrounding me. Here, the company made it their goal to focus on selling the products at all costs, luring the customers into buying things with all sorts of tactics. Afterwards I headed home and did homework, which lead me back to the sites I previously mentioned. Before heading to bed, I played a little bit on Xbox LIVE, which showcased new titles coming out, as well as upcoming gaming events that would take place over LIVE.

Overall, I’d say I was pretty exposed to the world of advertisement. On a scale of 1-10, I’d give myself an 8 ½. For one, I wasn’t exposed too much advertisement as I thought when I reached KU for class. Second, I didn’t watch any TV, nor did I listen to the radio the whole day, which is chalk full of advertising. I did notice, however, that much of the advertising I was exposed to fit my age group, demographic, and/or my community. I was amazed at how much my target audience was a part of my daily life, but then again my activities also chose the audience. Lastly, I took account of what I would normally notice and pay attention to in terms of advertisements I’d be exposed to. I learned that I would most likely pay attention to things that pertained directly to myself, such as what I liked to do for fun, like gaming, or am directly a part of, like GIANT. Whether I choose to take notice or not depends on whether or not my interest level is achieved, mainly something that will entertain me.

Although ads surround us all the time, it takes real work to make sure the target audience is correct for the ads to do their job. If the ads aren’t chosen for the right demographic or target audience, they won’t attract possible customers, and that is the true battle in advertising.

Article Blog Post #2: Freedom of Speech

Free religious speech for students in school?

By NAT HENTOFF Monday, April 12, 2010

Leave a Comment Default Large

Like Jefferson and Madison, I strongly believe in separation of church and state. And if a principal were to mandate school-directed prayer in classrooms, then that would be a violation of that separation. However, if at commencement, a valedictorian speaks of what God and Christ have meant to her life, that is her First Amendment right to free speech! The Roberts Supreme Court does not appear to agree.

Last November, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by Brittany McComb who — as a 2006 valedictorian at Foothill High School in Nevada — had her microphone cut off by school officials when she started to speak about how God and Christ had taught her to experience something greater than herself, inspiring her to rise above her early high school failures.

Brittany had been forewarned. Her high school required a prior draft copy of commencement speeches, and censored all references in hers to her religious faith. She went ahead anyway because, as a student of the First Amendment, she knew she was speaking as an individual — and not on behalf of the state as represented by officials of her public high school.

With the help of the Rutherford Institute, headed by John Whitehead — a premier protector of all rights in the Bill of Rights — Brittany appealed the literal cutting off of her First Amendment rights (“Brittany McComb v. Gretchen Crehan”).

The “liberal” 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals supported the school’s censorship because she was “proselytizing.” But Brittany was speaking for, and about, herself. She was not trying to convert anyone.

When I often write that the Constitution is my only Bible, I’m telling the reader where I’m coming from — not that he or she should join me as a non-believer in God. I’m not proselytizing either.

Brittany’s appeal came to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear it. There was no written dissent by any of the Roberts’ Court justices.

Thomas Jefferson, in his “Notes on the State of Virginia” (1782), emphasized that the government has no authority over the natural rights of conscience: “The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

The censored Brittany McComb did not injure anyone, but her public high school unconstitutionally deeply injured her free-speech rights — an injury in which the Supreme Court has become complicit.

Here is another case that came before the Supreme Court in March of this year. At the Henry M. Jackson High School in Snohomish County, state of Washington, the senior members of the school’s woodwind ensemble are allowed to choose a song from their repertoire to perform at graduation ceremonies. In 2006, they unanimously chose “Ave Maria” -- in a purely instrumental performance, with no lyrics.

The superintendent of schools refused to permit the performance because “Ave Maria” is religious in nature and its presence might have offended members of the audience. Welcome to Political Correctness (a.k.a.: Discarding Free Speech) 101.

Kathryn Nurre, a member of the school’s wind ensemble, fully aware that school authorities had violated her free-speech rights, contacted First Amendment warrior John Whitehead and the Rutherford Institute. In September, 2009, the “liberal” 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals again upheld the censoring school system’s invoking a right that cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution — the “right” not to be offended.

Dissenting Judge Milan D. Smith declared that “if the majority’s reasoning on this issue becomes widely adopted, the practical effect will be for public school administrators to chill — or even kill — musical and artistic presentations by their students in school-sponsored limited public fora where those presentations contain any trace of religious inspiration, for fear of criticism by a member of the public, however extreme that person’s views may be. The First Amendment neither requires nor condones such a result.”

When I first heard of this case, “Nurre v. (Superintendent Carol) Whitehead,” I was sure that at least the requisite four members of the Supreme Court would vote to hear Nurre’s appeal. But John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas (who has a sound record on the First Amendment), Sonia Sotomayor and Chief Justice John Roberts were silent.

The only dissenter from the “conservative” Roberts Supreme Court’s refusal to even hear “Nurre v. Whitehead” was Justice Samuel Alito, who channeled Jefferson and Madison, saying:

“When a public school purports to allow students to express themselves, it must respect the students’ free speech rights. School administrators may not behave like puppet masters who create the illusion that students are engaging in personal expression when in fact the school administration is pulling the strings.”

I was greatly heartened when, after the fear generated by 9/11 led to government assaults on the Bill of Rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy went to a number of high schools to warn that “The Constitution needs renewal and understanding each generation, or it’s not going to last.”

With regard to the First Amendment, from which all our individual liberties against government flow, Justice Kennedy and seven of his colleagues need a renewal of their understanding of the First Amendment in our history — including its vital role in teaching students why they are Americans.

I’m sure Kathryn Nurre would be glad to assist the eight justices in their remedial education. Meanwhile, in how many public school civics classes will “Nurre v. Whitehead” and “McComb v. Crehan” be discussed? I’m not optimistic.

And where is former constitutional law professor Barack Obama? He is also among the silent. And where was the ACLU in these two denials of who we are as Americans? John Whitehead deserves the ACLU’s Medal of Liberty.

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. He is a member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Cato Institute, where he is a senior fellow.

__________________________________________________________________

I found this article on www.timesanddemocrat.com, which really struck a chord with me. It amazes me that people are still given problems towards their right to free speech, and especially for small instances such as these. I understand that people have different views on religion and are more passionate about it than others, but when it comes to prohibiting the expression of oneself just because the governing body doesn't like what they say, it becomes a manner of social ethics. People will still challenge what it means to have the freedom of speech in America, which is what it means to be American.

New Media

Magazines and Their Web Sites

A Columbia Journalism Review survey and report

By Victor Navasky with Evan Lerner

CJR recently conducted a survey of standards and practices at magazine Web sites. The full report can be viewed here.

John Perry Barlow, a lyricist for the Grateful Dead and a founder of The Electronic Frontier Foundation, once observed that where the new (i.e. digital) media are concerned, “we are immigrants in the land of our children.” Nowhere is this more true than in the no-man’s land between print magazines (old media) and their Web sites (new media).

Virtually every significant magazine in the United States—and increasingly abroad—either already has, or is in the process of establishing, a Web site. These interactive Internet offspring speak to a new generation of magazine readers, and often reach audiences well beyond those of their parent publications. But their rise has also created a vast set of ethical, culture, legal, and business issues. Although those involved with magazines and their Web sites have varying levels of knowledge and sophistication about their métier, it’s fair to say that the proprietors of these sites don’t, for the most part, know what one another is doing, that there are no generally accepted standards or practices, that each Web site is making it up as it goes along, that it is like the wild west out there.

It was against this background, and with funding provided by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, that the Columbia Journalism Review undertook the first comprehensive study of online practices of print magazines. The survey had various goals: to identify some best (and worst) practices; clarify journalistic standards for new media; and guide journalists and media companies towards a business model that allow revenues not only to be allocated more efficiently, but also channeled back into the kind of news-gathering operations that are essential for democracy.

Among the questions the Columbia Journalism Review survey asked: What fact-checking and copy-editing standards apply to magazine Web sites, if any? Who oversees the editorial content of online material, and with what consequences? And what business model is applied to these Web publications, and with what consequences for profitability?

http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/magazines_and_their_web_sites.php
________________________________________________________

In short, this article goes exactly with what the media is constantly going through: change. Companies are still trying to figure out what they should do to compensate for the change in technology and resources that our generation is rapidly obtaining. Advertising, business, commercialization, social ethics, norms: all of these things are being re-written by the day. In this case, magazines branching out to their websites has become sort of a new front in journalism, which really hasn't been a huge deal until recently. The thing is, no one really knows how to do it properly yet; things keep on changing so much, that no one really has the formatting of a website for newsprint/magazines yet. It's a new thing for people to perfect in this digital age of electronic media. If print media wants to compete in the digital market of our today's society, it needs to learn how to adapt to the internet to be successful. With that, a whole new can of worms is opened up in how to regulate and standardize it.

My discussion question is this: With new forms of print media breaking into the online scene, can and should the government be allowed to control what content and information the website contains, regardless if the content is allowed within the physical print itself?

Blog & Discussion Assignment

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1004060171

*I know that we weren't supposed to post links, but my blog won't let me copy and paste into a new blog post, so yeah...I made sure the link worked though. I apologize for technology being dumb!

OK, so as more and more search engines, such a Google, begin to post more news headlines on their webpages, the news corporations are losing readers and viewers of their own companies to these generic internet search giants. It doesn't suprise me, because most people are online about 1/4 of each day and they can find all they need to find on the internet. Synergy becomes a big part of this because these search engines promote the articles found from these news corporations, which also bring people to find the articles using the search engines as well. It's mutually benefitial that doing it separately. The targeting of the audience also becomes a big part of how news is now distributed too. Since the majority of Americans are online, it would be better for the news to be posted and distributed throught it. Internet searching is the new 21st century lifestyle. Also, since the written word (a hard copy) will never go away, the movement from the written press to the internet/electronic press will never be absolute. Just like the Kindle (sp?), books will always be prefered.

So, my discussion topic is this: When older mediums begin to lose their significance, should we omit them from the media picture completely or try to adapt them to new ways of usage? If we scrap them forever, what would we need to do to compensate for the loss of that medium? If we keep them, how could we use them in new, productive ways?

Media Journal Assignment #1

Obviously, I check my phone every other 5 minutes. In terms of other uses of media, I’ve used books, my Ipod, school computers, my home television and computer, magazines, pictures on power points, my flash drive, and bought a t-shirt with writing on it. I knew from the start that this assignment was going to open my eyes up to how much media I use in one average day. I already knew that I involved myself in the media practically 75% of my entire day. However, what I didn’t realize was how many different mediums I actually used, which really isn’t that many.

Since most of my time was spent on the computer or playing video games, many things I used the media for were for my personal entertainment. I have an Ipod I use to keep myself entertained on the drive to and from school, a computer at home for surfing the web and watching videos, and my Xbox for playing loads of hardcore gaming. What I’ve learned from this journal was that I check my phone WAY too often. I mean, I don’t text very much and I use it for looking at what time it is and such. This journal showed me that I do use my phone more than I think I do. It’s a bad habit that most of us could agree we have as well. Granted there were other things I did which involved the media, nothing compared to the video gaming and the computer use.

I did this journal on Friday, which should say a few things about why I used the media in the ways that I did: I wanted to relax and just have a fun end of the week. All of the things I used the media for were for my own relaxation and relieving the stress developed over the course of the week. I used the media in forms of school books and homework sheets also during the day, but they obviously weren’t for entertainment. I wanted to take a break from school and whatnot from the week and have some fun on a Friday, and I did just that. I noticed that the media I used mainly had many different media forms already incorporated into them. Xbox Live and Google have many different advertisements and products shown to viewers that aren’t even a part of their subject. This sort of involves synergy, where multiple companies work together to have an influence on the consumer rather than try to have that same impact on the consumer by themselves. Exhibition was really the key here, advertising their products through mediums so that everyone can get an eyeshot of it.

What I learned through this experience is that I use a very small amount of mediums, but through these I experience a ton of media through them. These days, you can use your phone to do your taxes, or watch movies from your gaming consoles. I now see how I am involved in the media, even if I only involve myself in it through a little number of mediums. It’s amazing to realize how much we don’t think about this: that we still think we need more and more ways to experience the media when it’s all designed to be put in products that can fit inside your pockets.

Get Out of Jail FREE

I personally didn't see this coming (joking). What do companies with broad influence and money want more of? More influence and money. It's no suprise that Comcast wants a chunk of NBC in their empire, nor does NBC wanting to stop them in their tracks. Owning practically the whole media doesn't bode well for business to flourish, that's why the Teapot Dome Scandal lead to the Anti-Trust Acts in the first place. More smaller companies and Washington are doing things to make the proposal as fair as possible, but we all know that Comcast won't go down without a fight.