Cookies. And not the edible kind.

My little sister looked up ‘Ferret harness’ on Gumtree. We don’t have a ferret, but seeing as I’m highly allergic to animals, of course the only thing she really wants in the world is a furry pet. Her 13-year-old logic tells her that if she bought ferret accessories, we would have no choice but to buy a ferret.

Around 5 minutes later, she was on Facebook and she noticed that all the ads on the side of her screen had changed. There was an ad for Gumtree, and a seller that sold ferrets for $500, an ad for eBay for a ferret cage, and an ad for a local pet store that sold ferrets.

The ads on the side of my Facebook are all for clothing boutiques. But before seeing my sisters Facebook, I never gave the ads a second thought – I just figured everyone else was also seeing women’s fashion.

Even though you may be looking up something on your personal computer, or watching a program on TV alone in your lounge room, people somewhere know exactly what you’re doing. But is this a problem? I personally don’t mind that an advertiser knows that I’m on the hunt for a khaki anorak jacket, because who knows, maybe their ad on the side of my screen will feature the perfect jacket from a boutique I hadn’t even heard of.

TV advertisers do it too, and they feature ads that are specifically targeted at the target market of the TV show. Information they find out through audience measurement, and with help like companies like A.C Neilson. But again, whilst watching the Bachelor I’d much rather watch ads for the new Maybelline lipstick, not the newest 4×4 turbo diesel car.

However there may be gaps in the audience measurement process at the moment, like a lacking of qualitative data, I think in the future they will have figured out how to make audience measurement even more specific. Although they may know that my household watches Home and Away every weeknight, they wouldn’t have information on which members of my house watched it. Or what about all those times you’ve just left the TV on as background noise? (Sorry mum, I know you pay our electricity bill). So the system isn’t 100% accurate at the moment. But they can still get a pretty good grasp on the ratings of a TV show, at least enough to do a comparison across other networks.

I’ve heard many people complain that there are too many reality TV shows, but reality is that’s what gets the views. I’m happy for the industry to know my TV viewing habits because it may well mean new terrible, (but great,) entertainment reality shows.

Neilson in the US proudly claim that “In addition to capturing what channels viewers are watching on each television set in the home, our meters can identify who is watching and when, including “time-shifted” viewing—the watching of recorded programming up to seven days after an original broadcast.”

Although it sounds very Big Brother, all this information they’re gathering is to provide to the marketing and advertising industry so they know exactly what/when/where to target us. But how is this a bad thing? I like hearing about new products which I could buy. And even boys like hearing about the new 4×4 turbo diesel whatever.

Am I playing right into the industry’s hands? Yeah probably.

But who cares. I like a new lipstick as much as the next girl.

 

 

Update: This ad just popped up on my Facebook, and yes I work at Bunnings.

This ‘cookie’ stuff just got way too personal.

Media Spaces and Nomophobia

I’m back again and blogging for BCM240! For anyone new to my blog, my name is Sarah Plowman and I’m in my second year of Communication and Media Studies, doubling majoring in Journalism and Professional Writing and Marketing and Advertising.

In our first lecture for BCM240, we discussed the concept of ‘Media Spaces’ – a concept which meaning has changed substantially over the years. In 2014, technology and media is unlike never before.

While typing this blog post onto my laptop, I’ve got the TV on in front of me (naughty), Facebook open in another tab, and my phone sitting in arms length. It’s such a surprise we ever get anything done!

Whilst searching the web for an appropriate photo, I came across the definition of ‘Nomophobia,’ – the fear of being out of mobile phone contact.

We find ourselves addicted to, and needing to constantly check all of our social media outlets. It’s not only because we have a fear of missing out, but because it’s through these social media outlets that we stay connected, and are able to receive information (about anything) instantly.

It’s no question that our media audience has changed. Many times I’ve been out with a friend, and tweeted something funny they’ve said, or used it as a point of conversation with someone else. I wonder how many times the ‘visible’, or assumed audience really is the only audience to our conversations.

Photo Credit – Android Headlines

 

‘Social Activism’ or Slack Participation?

The way in which we interact with the media has changed dramatically. Before the internet was invented, the only media was monologic, and the only way to interact with media (such as television, radio and newspapers) was to go through a screening process by ‘gatekeepers’ – whether be publishers, government censor or mainstream media, to decide which questions/views or comments would be shared.

Internet however, is dialogic by design, and encourages people to voice their opinions and views. And hence, since the introduction of the internet, people have been more connected. And not just with media itself, but with other people from around the world with similar interests, views and passions.

The internet is fuelled by individual participation; people starting blogs, creating and commented on forums, people sharing websites and videos; the types of interactions on the internet are endless.

This in fact, has changed the role that we play in the media, as Jay Rosen states, ‘The People Formerly Known as the Audience’ are now prosumers; as we are not only able to actively participate but have the ability to broadcast media – instantly and without ‘gatekeepers’ or a filtering system. However this isn’t always a good thing. There are many consequences of having no ‘gatekeepers’ – and that is that the veracity and quality of content can be questionable, and that there’s no filter to what a person can view online.

The power of many is also greatly evident within the internet, and helps certain issues to be shared around and brought attention to within a short period of time, something that wouldn’t have happened before the introduction of the internet. A key example of this is Kony 2012, when the world was knocked into a frenzy after watching the video on Youtube. However people started to believe they were being social activists and helping this cause by ‘liking’ a page on Facebook, or tweeting about it on Twitter. This notion is referred to as slack participation, where participation to stop issues like these becomes so easy and free that there is no real action done to find a solution. As Tory Shepherd comments, “I love Australian democracy and isn’t it wonderful that we have the choice to click on this link to make us feel better.”  But like the quote suggests, the power and connectivity that we can feel through social media websites can be phenomenal, but can social issues such as Kony 2012 really be eradicated using people power generated through social networks?

Furthermore, as well as political issues, there can be other worldwide phenomenon’s which catch on through the internet. And due to the nature of the internet, this information being posted can be about ANYTHING, no matter how weird, wacky or inappropriate.  A good example of this is Gangnam Style or other more random entertaining videos such as Taylor Swifts I Knew you were a goat parody (below) – which also proves how really anything can be posted on the internet!

Thanks for reading! Please post with your comments!