Author Archives: Alexa

Nov
27
2012

Traditional and New Media: Can They Play Nicely Together?

Posted by

Right off the bat, two things mentioned in Marshall (2004, chapter 6) made me pause and reflect. The first is that film is actually a series of still images that give the viewer the effect of motion. I knew this already, but sometimes, movies can be so compelling that it is very easy to forget. Secondly, I thought about the way Toy Story made me feel when I first saw it in theaters. Digital animation was unlike anything I had ever seen before – it looked so real! It’s true that most animated films are now assisted by computer imaging and while I think it’s visually very appealing and realistic, I have to say that I am happy that I knew a time before digital animation, so that I can better appreciate how far filmmaking has come.

It’s interesting that The Blair Witch Project cost only $45,000 to make, but made $145 million at the box office, while Titanic cost $250 million to make and generated $1.3 billion at the box office. The handheld camera techniques used in The Blair Witch Project were unfamiliar to many viewers at the time, yet it captured the essence of the storyline well. However, if filmmakers had tried to produce Titanic on a small budget, it wouldn’t have been worth it. The special digital effects, the digital animation, and – let’s face it – James Cameron, are what made the movie great and did justice to the dramatic story.

Marshall (2004, chapter 7) connects new media with the evolution of television in an interesting and succinct way. As he points out, “new media is very much connected to the development of something beyond the active audience into various forms of cultural production.” Television has attempted to embrace this new media culture by incorporating the audience into television programs – thus, reality television shows were born. If anything, the popularity of reality television shows indicates that new media and prosumption are, indeed, what interest many consumers.

von Lohmann (2012, chapter 12) clearly distinguishes between the ways that traditional media and Internet intermediaries handle copyright laws. For traditional intermediaries, the expectation is that permission must be obtained for every copyrighted work that appears in a video. On the other hand, Internet intermediaries do not have to be consulted before a video is uploaded; they only need to get involved if complaints arise. In this way, von Lohmann likens traditional intermediaries to “doormen minding the velvet rope”, while Internet intermediaries are like “bouncers at the bar.” This is a great analogy that represents the differences between the more bureaucratic ways of traditional media and the faster-paced ways of new media. As traditional and new media stake their claims and evolve in modern society, it is certainly an exciting time to be a scholar or practitioner of new media technologies.

Nov
15
2012

Consumers as Producers: Can (or Should) We Draw the Line?

Posted by

I must start off by saying that I had a moment similar to one that David had last week when he read about the Tamagotchi. I cannot remember the last time I thought about the TV show Action League Now! or about the The Sims videogame (and I will admit, there was a time when I couldn’t get enough of The Sims).

That said, I was continually reminded of the concept of control throughout this week’s readings. As mentioned by Jenkins (2012), companies want consumers to use the physical forms of their logos, but as soon as they use the digital forms, companies get nervous. Perhaps the ease of reproduction that is possible in the digital world threatens their sense of control over their brand. Similarly, Andrejevic (2010) mentions that while consumers own computers and software, they do not own the networks that make social networking possible, so ownership issues could become fuzzy. However, McCracken (1998) stresses that media producers must accommodate consumer demands to participate as well as consume media, otherwise, consumers will lose interest and move on to media that is more tolerant of their participation. In order for consumers to contribute to a media such as a game, they must feel that what they offer makes a difference in their own experience and in the experience of other players (Koster 1999), which makes me consider user-generated content in a broader sense. As we have discussed, consumers do not usually receive compensation to create user-generated content. Not only do they still create such content, but also the content they create is often high quality. Perhaps they are driven by the desire to make a difference in their own media experience and in the experience of others.

Andrejevic (2010) offers an interesting view of social networking sites that we’ve discussed throughout the semester. Although a small percentage of users read and understand the privacy agreements offered by social networking sites, users continue to sign up for and use these sites. Furthermore, users agree to submit to these sites monitoring their actions and manipulating their data and, according to Andrejevic (2010), as long as users enjoy the benefits of social networking, why shouldn’t Facebook too? I have to agree that users willingly submit to these conditions, but I still contend that the presentational mode of the privacy statement could make a difference (thus the topic of my trend analysis). Users, however, could simply be affected by social norms. As mentioned by Andrejevic (2010), it is likely that people who avoid social networking sites will soon seem outdated and overly protective of their privacy. Perhaps it all goes back to Laufer and Wolfe’s (1977) risk calculation: If perceived benefits of sharing one’s personal information (connecting with others) are greater than the perceived risks (exposing personal information), users are more likely to disclose their information.

 

Nov
07
2012

Technology Adoption & New Media Participation

Posted by

As I started on this week’s readings, I was reminded of a conversation I had with a friend several years ago about using the iPad for work purposes. This person was complaining that he couldn’t get the apps to work exactly the way he wanted them to. He was expecting several features to work like technology he was used to. For instance, he was frustrated that he had to adapt to the way the files were stored and retrieved because it differed from how he was used to storing and retrieving files on a computer. Furthermore, he was frustrated by the limitations of an app’s pen tool because it did not work exactly like a traditional pen works on paper. I explained that in order to use most technologies, you have to adapt to its capabilities. But he told me that he would have to consider the costs required to adopt the technology, including the time and energy it took to learn it, and whether it would be worth the benefits offered by the technology.

At the time, I thought this was a silly response because, as a technology enthusiast, I couldn’t imagine who wouldn’t think such adoption was worth it. But it occurred to me that some people might actually prefer to stick with old technologies because adopting a new technology could stifle their creativity and productivity. After all, as pointed out by Marshall (2004, chapter 2), new media apparatus is highly structured and often asks us to identify with someone else’s mental structure. In this way, new media could be viewed as more of a detriment than a benefit.

Correa and Jeong (2011) put an interesting twist on studies that examine how consumers use online participatory tools. By distinguishing among diverse racial and ethnic groups, they demonstrated that not all college students have the same opinions about such tools. In my opinion, their most interesting finding was white and Asian students’ discouragement with the uncontrolled nature of participatory web applications. I was surprised that members of the generation that everyone says has no limits when it comes to new media actually refrain from creating content and even stop using certain online participatory tools due to negative discourse.

Finally, I was intrigued by Blank and Reisdorf’s (2012) quest to define and examine Web 2.0. I’ve had a difficult time finding a “good” definition of Web 2.0 in the research I’ve reviewed for the trend analysis and for other academic papers I’ve worked on. They identified two components of Web 2.0 that I found useful: 1) that it takes advantage of network effects and 2) that it utilizes platforms, or simple environments where users can do what they want. While I do not necessarily like the authors’ definition of Web 2.0 (“using the Internet to provide platforms through which network effects can emerge”), I think that the Web 2.0 components they identified will be useful as I continue to develop my own definition of and thoughts about Web 2.0.

Oct
19
2012

Private Information in a Social World: An Exploration of Consumers’ Concern for Privacy on Social Networking Sites

Posted by

It is well understood that consumer transactions are operationalized in terms of a single utilitarian exchange where goods or services are given in return for money or other goods (Bagozzi 1975). But with the advent of commerce and other consumer activities on the Internet, a secondary exchange occurs, in which consumers also make a non-monetary, intangible exchange of their personal information (Culnan and Milberg 1998) and therefore, put their personal privacy at risk (Culnan and Bies 2003). Hence, while the Internet offers consumers access to a vast quantity of information at minimal effort and cost to enable better, more efficient decision-making (Alba et al. 1997; Bakos 1991; Widing and Talarzyk 1993), consumers are vulnerable when it comes to their online information. Many are unsure of (Sheenan and Hoy 1999) and have little control over how information is collected, stored, shared, purchased, stolen, and/or misused by government, corporate, public and private agencies, beyond the original purpose for information collection (Nowak and Phelps 1992; 1995; Milne and Culnan 2004; Buchanan et al. 2010).

Some academic studies have considered consumers’ privacy in various online settings such as web browsing and online commerce (e.g. Sheehan and Hoy 1999; Malhotra, Kim and Agarwal 2004; Buchanan et al. 2006; Eastlick, Lotz and Warrington 2006; Pan and Zinkhan 2006; Tsai et al. 2011). However, new media technologies are radically altering our social environments, including fundamental understandings of concepts such as privacy (Baym et al. 2012). Despite the rapid growth of social media in recent years, little academic research has explored consumers’ concern for privacy when choosing to sign up for and participate in social networking sites. Since Facebook’s inception in 2004, the popular social networking site has grown from just one million registered users to one billion (Zuckerberg 2012). During these eight years of explosive growth, marketers have started to realize the lucrative opportunities for brand presence and advertising on social media platforms such as Facebook (Foster, West and Francescucci 2011). Indeed, many marketers consider user information to be important in creative a competitive advantage in online environments (Andrade, Kaltcheva and Weitz 2002; Schoenbachler and Geoffrey 2002; Sijun, Beatty and Foxx 2004). The media has drawn much attention to the idea that consumers are concerned with their online privacy (Milne, Labrecque and Cromer 2009), but consumers continue to readily share their personal information. Consumers disclose personal information to social networking sites in exchange for membership and the opportunity to connect with other members. In this way, one commodity (personal information) is traded for another (membership).

Given that a major concern of many consumers is that the Internet is likely to violate users’ privacy (Maignan and Lukas 1997; Benassi 1999), it is unclear whether consumers are truly aware of, understand, or are concerned about how their personal information is being used by these social networking sites. Although the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has established the Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising (FTC 2009), which provide suggested information disclosure policies for companies to follow, companies are not required by federal law to abide by these Principles; they are merely suggestions. The state of California has enacted the California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (Cooley Godward LLP 2004), which requires commercial websites that collect personally identifiable information from users of the site who live in California to post and comply with a privacy policy. However, for websites that do disclose such information, it is unclear how the presentational mode of the privacy policies affects consumers’ perceptions of the security and usefulness of the social networking site.

The purpose of this research is to understand consumers’ concern with their privacy on social networking sites and how this concern affects consumers’ acceptance of such sites. Such research is relevant to marketing and communications scholars, in order to better understand consumer privacy, as well as to policy makers who seek to protect consumer well being.

Consumer Privacy

Consumer privacy is rooted in the work of Westin (1967), who defined privacy as individual control over disclosure and subsequent uses of their personal information. More recently, privacy has been defined as “consumers’ ability to control when, how, and to what extent their personal information is to be transmitted to others,” (Goodwin 1991; Phelps, Nowak, and Ferrell 2000; Milne and Culnan 2004). Given the above definitions, it appears that privacy can be considered a two-dimensional construct that deals with 1) control over information (i.e., disclosure) and 2) information use (i.e., intrusion). Although many consumers are unsure of how retailers collect, save, and use their personal data (Sheehan and Hoy 1999), most consumers are willing to give up some privacy simply to participate in a consumer society (Milne 2000; Phelps, Nowak, and Ferrell 2000). As such, it is increasingly apparent that personal data have become a commodity, which makes it more susceptible to exploitation.

Privacy Disclosure

Privacy disclosure can be defined as marketers’ notification of consumers about what information is collected from them and by what entity appears to allay privacy concerns (Sheehan and Hoy 2000). Marketers should disclose the uses of the information they ask consumers to provide and should provide consumers the opportunity to opt out of lists to reduce privacy concerns (Nowak and Phelps 1995). Often, marketers include privacy notices on websites to help the consumer decide whether or not to disclose information to an online marketer or to engage with the website at any level (Culnan and Milberg 1998). Such notices provide consumers with information about the organization’s information practices in attempts to reduce their perceived risk of information disclosure and build their trust (Milne and Culnan 2004).

However, privacy statements are generally written “with the threat of privacy litigations in mind rather than commitment to fair data handling practices” (Pollach 2007). In other words, companies’ privacy policies are written so that they will be covered in case of a legal dispute, not necessarily so that consumers are able to understand them. For instance, Google is a well-known search engine that organizes information and is used by Internet users in 181 countries to this access information (Google 2012). Google’s privacy policies frequently use the modality marker “may” to downplay the frequency of how many times something occurs (Bodle 2011). For example, “We [Google] may combine the information you submit under your account with information from other Google services or third parties.” Such a statement can be misleading to consumers because the use of the word “may” makes it sound like Google may or may not consumers’ information, although in reality, it is likely that they will.

Furthermore, Google articulates its privacy policy using educational, user-generated videos on its own video-streaming product, YouTube. In doing so, Google attempts to replace the official, legalistic language often used in privacy statements with a language more familiar to the average Google user. However, it can be argued that the added simplicity does not thoroughly articulate the details of Google’s privacy policies (Bodle 2011). The question remains whether the presentational mode of privacy statements and policies on social networking sites truly makes a difference in users’ awareness and understanding of the effects of sharing personal information on a social networking site.

References

Alba, Joseph, John Lynch, Bart Weitz, Chris Janiszewski, Richard Lutz, Alan Sawyer, and Stacy Wood (1997), “Interactive Home Shopping: Consumer, Retailer, and Manufacturer Incentives to Participate in Electronic Marketplaces,” Journal of Marketing, 61 (July), 38-53.

Andrade, Eduardo B., Velitchka Kaltcheva, and Barton Weitz (2002), “Self-Disclosure on the Web: The Impact of Privacy Policy, Reward, and Company Reputation,” Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 350-353.

Bagozzi, Richard P. (1975), “Marketing as an Exchange,” Journal of Marketing, 39 (October), 32-39.

Bakos, J. Yannis (1991), “A Strategic Analysis of Electronic Marketplaces,” MIS Quarterly, 15 (3), 295-310.

Baym, Nancy, Scott W. Campbell, Heather Horst, Sri Kalyanaraman, Mary Beth Oliver, Eric Rothenbuhler, René Weber, and Katherine Miller (2012), “Communication Theory and Research in the Age of New Media: A Conversation from the CM Café,” Communication Monographs, 79 (2), 256-267.

Benassi, Paola (1999), “TRUSTe: An Online Privacy Seal Program,” Communications of the ACM, 42 (2), 56-59.

Bodle, Robert (2011), “Privacy and Participation in the Cloud: Ethical Implications of Google’s Privacy Practices and Public Communications,” in The Ethics of Emerging Media, Bruce E. Drushel and Kathleen German, New York, The Continuum International Publishing Group, 155-174.

Buchanan, Tom, Carina Paine, Adam B. Joinson, and Ulf-Dietrich Reips (2006), “Development of Measures of Online Privacy Concern and Protection for Use on the Internet,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (2), 157-165.

——–, ——–, Thomas M. Heffernan, Andrew C. Parrott, Jonathan Ling, Jacqui Rodgers, and Andrew B. Scholey (2010), “A Short Self-Report Measure of Problems with Executive Function Suitable for Administration via the Internet,” Behavioral Research Methods, 42 (3), 709-714.

Cooley Godward LLP (2004), “California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003,” (accessed October 1, 2012), [available at http://www.cooley.com/files/ALERT-Cal_OPPA.pdf].

Culnan, Mary J. and Robert J. Bies (2003), “Consumer Privacy: Balancing Economic and Justice Considerations,” Journal of Social Issues, 59 (2), 323-342.

——–, ——– and Sandra J. Milberg (1998), The Second Exchange: Managing Customer Information in Marketing Relationships, Unpublished manuscript.

Eastlick, Mary Ann, Sherry L. Lotz, and Patricia Warrington (2006), “Understanding Online B-to-C Relationships: An Integrated Model of Privacy Concerns, Trust, and Commitment,” Journal of Business Research, 59, 877-886.

Federal Trade Commission (2009), “FTC Staff Report: Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising,” (accessed October 5, 2012), [available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/02/P085400behavadreport.pdf].

Foster, Mary K., Bettina West, and Anthony Francescucci (2011), “Exploring Social Media User Segmentation and Online Brand Profiles,” Journal of Brand Management, 19 (1), 4-17.

Goodwin, Cathy (1991), “Privacy: Recognition of a Consumer Right,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10 (1), 149-166.

Google (2012), “About Google,” (accessed October 7, 2012), [available at https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/].

Maignan, Isabelle and Bryan A. Lukas (1997), “The Nature and Social Uses of the Internet: A Qualitative Investigation,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31 (2), 346-371.

Malhotra, Naresh K., Sung S. Kim, and James Agarwal (2004), “Internet Users’ Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, The Scales, and a Causal Model,” Information Systems Research, 15 (4), 336-355.

Milne, George R. (2000), “Privacy and Ethical Issues in Database/Interactive Marketing and Public Policy: A Research Framework and Overview of the Special Issue,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 19 (1), 1-6.

——–, ——– and Mary J. Culnan (2004), “Strategies for Reducing Online Privacy Risks: Why Consumers Read (or Don’t Read) Online Privacy Notices,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (3), 15-29.

——–, ——– Lauren I. Labrecque, and Cory Cromer (2009), “Toward and Understanding of the Online Consumer’s Risky Behavior and Protection Practices,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, 43 (3), 449-473.

Nowak, Glen J. and Joseph Phelps (1992), “Understanding Privacy Concerns: An Assessment of Consumers’ Information Related Knowledge and Beliefs,” Journal of Direct Marketing, 6 (4), 28-39.

——–, ——– and ——– ——– (1995), “Direct Marketing and the Use of Individual-Level Consumer Information: Determining How and When ‘Privacy’ Matters,” Journal of Direct Marketing, 9 (3), 46-60.

Pan, Yue and George Zinkhan (2006), “Exploring the Impact of Online Privacy Disclosures on Consumer Trust,” Journal of Retailing, 82 (4), 331-338.

Phelps, Joseph, Glen Nowak, and Elizabeth Ferrell (2000), “Privacy Concerns and Consumer Willingness to Provide Personal Information,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16 (3), 2-16.

Pollach, Irene (2007), “What’s Wrong with Online Privacy Policies?” Communications of the ACM, 50 (9), 103-108.

Schoenbachler, Denise D. and Gordon L. Geoffrey (2002), “Trust and Customer Willingness to Provide Information in Database-Driven Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16 (3), 2–16.

Sheehan, Kim B. and Mariea G. Hoy (1999), “Flaming, Complaining, Abstaining: How Online Users Respond to Privacy Concerns,” Journal of Advertising, 28 (3), 37-51.

Sijun, Wang, Sharon E. Beatty, and William Foxx (2004), “Signaling the Trustworthiness of Small Online Retailers,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (1), 53-69.

Tsai, Janice Y., Serge Egelman, Lorrie Cranor, and Alessandro Acquisti (2011), “The Effect of Online Privacy Information on Purchasing Behavior: An Experiemental Study,” Information Systems Research, 22 (2), 254-268.

Westin, Alan F. (1967), Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum.

Widing, Robert E. and W. Wayne Talarzyk (1993), “Electronic Information Systems for Consumers: An Evaluation of Computer-Assisted Formats in Multiple Decision Environments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (2), 125-141.

Zuckerberg, Mark (2012), “One Billion People on Facebook,” (accessed October 4, 2012), [available at http://newsroom.fb.com/News/One-Billion-People-on-Facebook-1c9.aspx].

Oct
14
2012

Social Capital, Social Norms, and Social Networks

Posted by

I was intrigued by Ellison et al.’s (2011) distinction between social networking sites (i.e., Facebook) and other computer-mediated communication sites (i.e., online dating sites). Although I never really thought of such sites as similar, it’s true that they both facilitate communication between users. But it’s also true that for the most part, SNS members use the sites to enhance existing, offline relationships rather than create new ones with strangers. In fact, the social norms that have established around Facebook might even consider connecting with people we don’t know to be “creepy”. But the whole point of using online dating sites is to connect with someone you don’t already know offline. After all, if members used such sites to connect with people they already knew, they would probably already be dating, rendering the online dating site useless!

However, this distinction between SNSs and other CMC sites caused me to reflect on what I’ll refer to as “the early days of Facebook”…back when users had to have a .edu account to join. I can remember receiving friend requests from other students at my small, private university who I had never met before. At the time, I accepted their friend requests and we conversed by posting on each others’ walls (because, of course, commenting on wall posts was a feature that was still several years away) until we met in person, usually by chance at some common event. Then, it came time for my first official “I have too many friends on Facebook…I should probably go through my friend list and get rid of some of them” moment, which came sometime after the foundation had started to be laid for the aforementioned social norms surrounding Facebook. Throughout this purging process, I thought to myself, “Wow, I remember becoming Facebook friends with so-and-so, but we never ended up becoming friends offline.” It was, and still is, a strange feeling to watch Facebook norms and etiquette change in such a short period of time. I can only wonder…what do the next five years, one year, even just six months hold for the ever-changing norms surrounding SNSs?

Burke, Kraut, and Marlow (2011) related News Feed content to small talk, which I thought was quite the interesting analogy. Knapp and Vangelisti (2003) argue that small talk is “a proving ground for both new and established relationships”. These points made me consider some of the Facebook friends who I used to be close to but have grown apart from in recent years. I figured we grew apart due to distance, and while that may be true, I realize that often, when I read their broadcasted information on SNSs, our interests are no longer all that similar and we have grown apart in more ways than just distance. While I realize that growing apart from friends as your life progresses is nothing new, it’s interesting how an innovation such as the Facebook News Feed can bring it to your attention. SNS profiles reflect what is important in the lives of users, and as users take on new phases in their lives, the information they share will reflect such changes – and their connections are likely to notice.

Oct
09
2012

“…while the outfits and locations change, the types of events documented and the nature of the poses do not.”

Posted by

boyd (2012) kicks off the discussion about identity and self-presentation with the idea that it’s no longer about being “on” or “off”; an individual may not always be on the Internet but increasingly, he or she is always connected to the network. This reminded me of our class discussions about how younger generations no longer think of using the Internet as going online because, really, they are always online. boyd mentions that “being always-on” works best when the people around you are always-on, and this makes sense, given the constant “need for connectedness” that younger generations seem to have. I appreciate her view that being always-on is not an addiction, but that technology offers humans new possibilities to understand and interact. Unfortunately, I feel that this desire to understand and interact is rooted in malice, in that many people are interested in connecting with others (a) to brag about themselves and/or (b) to compare themselves to and gossip about others. In my opinion, this is one of the daunting aspects of the publicness of exposing oneself online, and a good reason to manage one’s online identity accordingly.

Furthermore, it is increasingly apparent that professional and personal identities blur in electronically mediated environments (Andrejevic 2004; Luders 2008; Papacharissi 2009). As such, Papacharissi (2009) suggests that social networking sites represent a confluence of identity roles, spaces where users must adjust their behavior so as to make it appropriate for a variety of different situations and audiences. In other words, while social networking sites are meant to be a place to express oneself, users are starting to realize that there must be some restrictions on this expression, and that it is important to actively manage one’s personal brand or identity online. This was apparent in Gilpin’s (2010) findings that positive opinions are prevalent in professionals’ Twitter activity, which suggests that negative opinions are expressed offline or on a more “traditional new media” such as blogs.

Now, for college students, this does not seem to be the case. New media allow people to present various forms of themselves to others at a distance (Mendelson and Papacharissi 2010), which might be one reason why college students find social networking sites to be so attractive. Furthermore, young people have a wider range of opportunities for photographic self-representation due to the availability of cheap cameras (Tinkler 2008). While it is true that social norms impose limitations of what is acceptable to post on social networking sites, college students’ desires to share and present themselves seem to push those boundaries to the limits at times, as shown by the lack of effort to hide underage drinking and the racy comments that often accompany the photos. What never ceases to amaze me is that college students’ overabundance of photos usually capture the same types of activities over and over again, yet their desire to share the photos never seems to dwindle. As noted by the Mendelson and Papacharissi (2010), it would be interesting to follow a group of students as they photographically move through their college years and beyond, to see which photos are untagged or how their photo posting and commenting behavior changes. But as we’ve discussed all semester, once anything is on the Internet, it never really goes away…so in many cases, the damage is already done.