Advertising

Advertising is a pretty scuzzy business, but the interesting thing about POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold is that it simultaneously educates us in the evils of the industry while shamelessly promoting it at the same time. Perhaps what sets it apart from typical corporate prostitution is its transparency. Morgan Spurlock is comical and very open about what the movie is. The really blatant ads that appear in the middle of the movie are so very obvious that it becomes laughable. I didn't leave the classroom feeling manipulated like I might for some other documentary, but instead educated and slightly more cynical.
Product placement can really be quite an insidious practice, but as long as it remains camouflaged, I don't really have a problem with it. I don't really care if a character takes a swig of Dr. Pepper and begins their dialogue. I don't even care if they say something like: "Hey, I'm thirsty, what's in the fridge?" "Dr. Pepper." "Awesome, toss me one." That's fairly benign and doesn't really detract from the narrative, but when you have characters actively and awkwardly pimping out products a la the cringeworthy ads seen in something like Bones, where the characters have (more than once!) been in their crappy Fords lauding the peachy keen navigation systems, it's too much. If it can be incidentally explained away, it's no problem, but stuff like that is just unacceptable.

Late Night Lunacy

I vaguely remember all the Team Coco drama from a few years ago. It did make me wonder who even watches late night talk shows anymore. Apparently, however, people still care about them. Honestly, for me, it's one of those things that, if I see it, I might watch it. I've been known to watch Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Chelsea Handler, and Graham Norton (who I confess is my favorite) if I happen to catch them. I've seen snippets of the programs, and they can be fairly amusing, but most of the time all you get is some okay jokes and celebrities showing up to pimp out their newest projects. That doesn't scream riveting, must-watch TV to me (although Stewart and Colbert have a more unique, amusing format that I would hesitate to call a late night talk show). The impression I get of Jay Leno is that he's something of a tool (and I'm sorry, Jaywalking is not funny. How does seeing the stupid people in real life not fill people with a sense of dread and shame for the human race? This is why I don't watch reality TV), but it's not like I've seen enough to really know. At least Conan has this hipness about him, a spark. Wouldn't it be kinda funny if this alleged retirement turned into another battle for this deteriorating program and Jay Leno was actually just a gigantic troll and/or often pretends to retire to reclaim some shred of relevancy?

Nielsen Nightmare

I think Nielsen's expansion is a much needed update. My fear is that, when the new data start rolling in, we will see a big skew towards non-cable based viewing. What will that mean for TV advertising and by extension television in general? I find myself also wondering about what exactly Nielsen will be measuring. A lot of people watch stuff on their computers, so how many of the services they use will be included? The article mentions Netflix and admits that Netflix data will really only be useful if the company decides to play ball with Nielsen, but, at least in my limited experience, Netflix doesn't tend to have new programming like something like Hulu would. Traditionally, advertisers and TV companies have only cared about the current season of a show. There are rare revivals, but generally, TV is always moving forward. For current shows, I think the networks get the data within a month of the airdate or something, but the further back the viewing data are pushed to accommodate the majority of the world that no longer watches live TV (including myself. I almost exclusively watch TV On Demand), the longer it takes to get the data and thus the less useful it is. Regardless, I have a feeling that these changes will amount to a hot mess as TV networks struggle to adapt to the new and puzzling numbers they get, so I will be watching the TV news this fall waiting for the inevitable catastrophe.

Music Streaming

While I suppose it's good that the recording industry is posting revenue growths after more than a decade of losses, the second article makes clear that artists are still getting screwed over no matter how the purchasing models change. I can certainly see the benefits of streaming services. They function like an entire library of music with no space usage on the computer. My main problem with both streaming and downloading services is the focus on big name artists. I have a large number of songs by popular artists in my iTunes library, but I am not a Hot 100 whore. I think streaming is great for those kinds of people who revel in listening to all of the pop music out there, but I like some obscurity mixed in. I don't, of course, expect any catalog to be comprehensive, but that doesn't mean I have to lower my standards because of it. I've always found it problematic that a universal iTunes catalog doesn't exist. I know there are all kinds of legal issues in sharing songs internationally, but many a time I have gone to the iTunes store looking for a foreign artist, been disappointed, and had to seek alternative means of acquisition. If iTunes UK, Germany, or Japan have access to this artist, why can't I? I think something like this would also help reduce the Anglo-centrism of American listening habits. Would it kill people to listen to a foreign language song every once in a while? Things are similarly difficult for English indie artists, who, even if they are on services like Spotify, don't have the fanbase needed to turn any sort of profit. And what about DJs who remix songs, do they make it onto such services? I can't imagine they make much money if so, especially if they have to share profits with the original artists. Full disclosure, I've only used streaming services sparingly, so I'm not entirely sure about the state of their catalogs, although I have strong suspicions. Until they develop broader catalogs, I'll be sticking to my old-fashioned (at this point) iTunes library.

Digital Library

As someone with a too large collection of books that are a pain to move anywhere, I can appreciate the appeal of having to lift less than a pound to access a digital library. However, while I think the concept of a digital library is intriguing, I, personally, wouldn't often use it. I'm trying to convert myself to e-books, but considering the scant frequency with which I visit the library now, I don't see myself going more often to get digital as opposed to paper rentals. I'm just a possessive sort who likes to own the books I read. I can see others using it to their advantage, though. I do see a lot of potential for abuse if patrons can check out e-readers as well as e-books. How are they going to police something like that? It's not like overdue book fines are a top police priority. Nonetheless, the reduced cost alone for both publishers and libraries is enough to give it serious thought. Plus, no more late book fees if access just expires after two weeks. I believe this is definitely more of a publishing/public policy issue, and I hate to sound callous, but we can't really be worrying about whether or not factory workers in foreign countries will be out of work. We have enough financial problems of our own. Besides, those who don't adapt to changing times are left behind; there's no use holding back progress for the sake of traditionalists.

Te'o's "Catfish" Scandal

It's a little pathetic that fact checking has apparently fallen by the wayside. How news outlets could have failed to expose a fake funeral is particularly mind-boggling. All that aside, the whole "Catfish" phenomenon of late is simply ridiculous. Many people complain about how easy it is to be duped online and fall into a fake relationship. I would agree...if this were circa 2008. Since then, something miraculous invented in 2003 has really exploded in popularity that virtually negates any chance of entering into fake online relationships. It's quite user friendly, and, miracle of miracles, it's totally free (or very cheap, depending on how you're using it). It's called Skype. If you don't live under a rock, and particularly if you spend enough of your time online that you've developed an online relationship, you've heard about Skype. I thus have no sympathy for anyone in this day and age who falls for a fake significant other. I know it happens, and that sucks, but a little bit of sense goes a long way here.

Numbers Don't Lie

People like to believe that they are unique little snowflakes, but a sample size of 1500 people can be used to predict the behavior of any population, such as the entirety of the United States, with 90% accuracy. The same thing holds true here, and it was used to great effect by the Obama campaign. The importance of digital media is not really the point of this article, but the case could potentially be made from it that digital media is nonetheless very relevant. That said, I don't think that most demographic groups put much stock in digital media, but that untapped quantity of 18-30 year old voters certainly does, and many say that the record turnout of young people won Obama the '08 election. More than anything, I think this article shows not the power of digital media, but how easily people are manipulated by it. Even if digital media had gotten Obama every single one of his votes, it still would not be because of the "power of the public," but through the careful calculations of statisticians cleverly coaxing people to do what they wanted. Thus, no matter how influential digital media may or may not be, it is really just another tool of those in power.