Media Refelction

     I always knew media was a huge part of my life, but I never looked so far into it as I have now. My new awareness of media ploys has caused me to not only be tentative around things that seem too good to be true, but also to be able to categorize exactly what these messages are. Like I said in previous posts, I have always seen media messages, but usually I was never one to react to them. Now, I am able to see exactly why I don't respond to some media messages; because I am not the target psychographically or demographically. Mostly what these lessons did for me is draw lines to my younger brothers, who are media suckers that believe or play into large amounts of marketing and entertainment. For myself, I have noticed that the amount of media I consume is very high, but it usually doesn't make me go out and buy or do something. In an average day, I probably spend seven hours consuming media, my usual platforms being movies and television, social media, books, and the internet. I can't say that my own media consumption has had any changes in the past year, I simply consume more and more every day. The reason I haven't changed my media habits is because I don't see them as a problem since I am able to fit it all into my schedule, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
     However, it is important to be educated in media. If someone can't use the habits of a critical thinker when consuming, they can be susceptible to lots of messages that they can be mistaken about. These mistakes can cause someone to lose time, money, or other things. Therefore, an individual has to be able to distinguish the real meaning of a media message so they can react appropriately. My own ventures in media this year have caused me to more quickly and accurately notice when media might be trying to trick me. In total, media literacy is very important, and learning it this year will probably serve me very well in the future.
     This blog itself has been alright for me. Sometimes there are things I want to talk about but not necessarily write. Often it's hard to find something to write about that I am comfortable handing in for a grade. Thus being said, I still really liked the idea of media blogs and particularly enjoyed seeing what others thought about certain topics. I also liked that I had lots of creative space for most of the things I was allowed to write about. I enjoyed this project because it helped me increase my media literacy, discover new things, and be able to write about what I thought was interesting.

Neko Atsume

     One of the latest media obsessions has been with the cat-collecting game from Japan called Neko Atsume. With several million downloads, even its creator is baffled at how popular it's gotten, but in reality, it's the media that surrounds and is part of the game that helped spread it internationally. Like other Japanese trends that made it to America, such as Hello Kitty and Pokémon, the cute characters and interactive abilities draw people into the game. Then Neko Atsume is spread by pictures (the game encourages photo-taking of your personal backyard and cats) on social media outlets and the like. Even I heard of the game from a friend. Players aren't disappointed either, Neko Atsume is an addicting and fun game to play on the go and to share and compare with friends. The endless possibilities keep audiences wanting more and more of the cute kittens.
     Neko Atsume also reflects real life. The cat game is basically run like a business, where the cats thank the players for their hospitality by paying in fish, which can be used to buy food, toys, furniture, and yard upgrades. It makes the player feel like they are making all of the decisions, that they are in control. This could be another theory as to why the app has such high acclaim.
    Neko Atsume is one of the many examples of how media can spread all over the world by other media. It makes me think of how many American things have made their way to other nations. Having these cross-cultural bonds help bring people together in a positive way. This game has become so popular due to how people can connect to each other with it as well as its appeal. It's so simple yet so intriguing, and can bring the concept of a kooky cat lady right to your pocket and/or screen.

Miss Representation

     Women in most Western societies have almost always been treated as less than men. In this day and age, it should be something that is long gone by now, but a big part of why sexism is still around is because of the media. The documentary "Miss Representation" explained that whether it's companies that want money, gossip mags that want stories, or political parties wanting more support or votes, any and all can find some way to treat a woman with less respect than a man would get. The media's messages that it sends to all genders targets women, and it has a detrimental effect on society. It makes girls think less of themselves and guys think of them as their inferior. Comments in the "news" about Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton's looks and not the policies they are sharing discourages ladies from being part of politics. The photo-shopped ads and magazine covers and the high expectations for girls to look exactly like that makes them self-conscious about goals they can't even attain. Not to mention hyper-sexualization in companies' promos. It's fine for women to be confident of their sexuality, but using it as a grab for cash and acting if as though women exist purely for sexual favors is a big no-no. All of these things can lead to violence against women, depression, discrimination, and more. This cycle is also very hard to break, as there are hardly any women at the head of any operations, and their words aren't usually taken to heart because of their sex. If everyone truly took what "Miss Representation" said and worked for change this problem could probably be fixed very quickly and easily, but until the sexists of the world stop being that way, women and other minorities will have to fight to prove that they are- and be treated as- equals.

The Golden Globes

     Last night the annual award show known as the Golden Globes was aired. Events like these are chock full of media, and even cause a ripple effect into what people might be talking about the next day, week, or until the Oscars (I mean come on, let's be realistic here). The thing that sets the Golden Globes apart is that it also recognizes TV shows in addition to films. The manic media fest all starts at 4pm PT with the red carpet. Designers and the actors and actresses wearing their clothing get their small amounts of screen time and try to make as much of an impression as possible. The red carpet outfits are what always show up in tabloid magazines, meaning more markets are affected. Then the show begins (I'm just going to skip over Ricky Gervais' monologue for everyone's sake). The awarding process of these forms of media can increase consumption across the board. Viewers take note of stars that do well, and may become fans and see more of their work. Movies and shows are also promoted in a way... those that win awards usually use them as reason for others to watch, and it actually does work. Then there's all of the acceptance speeches, funny moments, and maybe even feuds that cause spectators to get further involved in the buzz. The Golden Globes are a great award show, as long as you are willing to stand over two hours of constant media in your face (not to mention the commercial breaks!). Even for myself, there are definitely some things I am adding to my list of things to watch before the Oscars comes on next month. Award shows in general are such large events that there can be both good and bad media influences in them, and that's part of what keeps them entertaining.

Marketing to the Teenage Crowd

     The documentary Merchants of Cool went deep into how adolescent consumerism is something all its own. One thing it focused on was how the life span of a teen-directed product only lasts as long as its cool factor. The law basically states that once something in the young adult world becomes too big, it wears out very quickly and is left in the dust, but if it is too small it won't pick up any momentum to achieve success. This piece of information tells marketers everywhere some very important tips that now dominate teen products. There are only a few brands that have attained a lasting reputation of cool with teens, and who knows if they'll die out in the next few years? Nike and Apple are the examples I think of, not that they'll go extict or anything, but we all know (and remember) that there are many things that had their run before dying out, usually leaving the company in a bad state. Examples within the last few years are Abercrombie, Myspace, Blackberry, Aeropostale, and more. If we look back, we can see that these things were the epitome of cool, but with every teenager using the same product, they eventually had to move on to the next commodity. If I had to predict the next thing to leave the teen scope, it would be Chipotle. With all their problems and overexposure in the media, I think it might lose appeal with my generation. But who knows what will cycle in and out this year? All I know is that companies should try to keep up with the changes in order to stay alive in the cutthroat teen world. Merchants of Cool touched a lot on how hard brands have to work to be able to sell to teens, but I think it's something some marketers could do a better job of.

How Reliable is Wikipedia?

     Most kids today can say that about 90% of their teachers advise against or prevent them from using Wikipedia as a source. The reasoning behind this is that the site can be edited by anyone and can contain false information. But as someone who reads Wikipedia articles to find out bits of information, I feel like it's not all made up, it just depends on the subject. If I want to know the basic facts on someone like Bill Gates, looking that up on Wikipedia would be fine in my view, because a few mistakes is something I can live with. But if I wanted to write a case study on a rare disease, Wikipedia might not be the place to go because things that are outside the gauge of common knowledge could be false. It also depends on the reader, and how much they actually choose to believe and use as fact later on. A lot of articles actually can link to other sources, so someone could trace things back and find out how accurate they are. The other factor (which I am kind of on the fence about) is that anyone can edit Wikipedia. From what I know, editing articles is very tricky but still possible. In an episode of the show "Mr. Robot", a character used his long-term status as a Wikipedia editor to create a fake page for another character, claiming he was someone he wasn't. Lots of people in the real world edit articles as pranks, but I don't think I've ever seen one myself. So no, Wikipedia is not a website whose word is law, and I think it acts more as a source for people to read over things so they get the gist of the topic and a little more. I just don't like to see it squandered for a few allegations of misinformation when the amount of useful information is much higher. Because of this, I like to treat it as a "Based on a true story" type deal. It's not 100% exact, but it's not way out of the ballpark either (unless someone's messing with it). If we were conscientious about how reliable an article might be, we could probably spot a hoax, too, so Wikipedia (in my view) is a safe website to use if the user is doing so defensively. After all, these forms of media are based on collaborative data, and although flawed, can provide an adequate amount for someone trying to get some interesting statistics on things around the world.

   

An Issue with Anti-Smoking Ads

     The media is filled with anti-smoking PSA's, and some of them stay with us long after we see them. For me it's the TV commercial with a woman named Terrie who basically smoked herself to death (may she rest in piece) and is telling viewers not to make the same mistake she did. These federally-funded organizations try to make their messages stick with us by using the tactics of fear or by trying to target young people by using their trends. The Terrie commercial and the Real Cost commercials with people paying for cigarettes with parts of their body (below) are using scare tactics, which try to push people away from smoking because of what it can do to a person's body. The other form that is used to target youths (because smoking typically starts in adolescence) is by trying to infuse the message with trends so kids will remember it and respond to it better. For example, the commercials below by the Truth Campaign use things like hip-hop songs, Tinder, young people, internet "memes", and popular young stars like Becky G, Grace Helbig, and Ryan Higa to get into kids heads in other ways than fear. Although these campaigns are making these commercials in our best interest, how do people actually receive them? I myself have seen multiple occasions where people have made fun of these PSA's, and I kind of agree. The ads make it less about smoking and more about the fear or the cool factor, neither of which seem realistic. Even when these companies try to insert popular things from teen media, they do it in a bastardized way. The ads go to ridiculous extremes and I think they would be received much better if they made them like the one from Thailand (below) because it hits on the true sadness of smoking instead of trying to force or appease teens into not using cigarettes. This form of media is very valuable, but it can still be done it better ways than current American ads are doing it.