Tag Archives: consumers

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
14
2012

Leia as the new Disney Princess?

Posted by

We couldn’t have planned a more timely reading of Jenkins’s article on grassroots versus Lucasfilm. Now that Princess Leia is the newest Disney Princess, I can now buy my bun earmuffs and my Tinkerbell wings together at the Disney store. What makes the Star Wars franchise so successful, other than its complete understanding and implementation of merchandising (see attached clip from Mel Brooks’s Spaceballs), is its ability to inspire fans. This inspiration has spurred fans to create extensions of Lucas’s world, and not always to Lucas’s liking. The internet, for its part, has brought forth these creations into the light. What once existed under the radar for only a few friends and family members can now be distributed to a mass audience by uploading your creation. As Jenkins points out, our modern system of industrial arts requires the financial support of a wider audience, but from my view, we must learn to balance this with the large number of artists and creators that exist outside of those being bankrolled by the industry (Jenkins, 2012). It is those artists that aren’t being bankrolled that are bringing this full circle. From their Star Wars inspired works, they are the folk culture re-emerging.

Then comes the inevitable discussion of labor and economics. Oh why couldn’t we just continue reading about culture? Because someone has to pay the bills. So the internet has changed labor and production. Shock! I’m glad that Banks and Humphreys are not going overboard in the way that Marxists look at voluntarily produced work as exploitive. I appreciate that they are attempting to look at this type of user production in economic terms. While encouraging us to think of user feedback and production as more than “a refined form of focus-group testing”, the authors give us the applicable example of a group of users currently providing constructive criticism and content to the market, gamers (Banks and Humphreys, 2008). Since the advent of the Atari brought gaming into the homes of middle class families, gaming has become a staple of home entertainment for many. By providing constructive feedback to game companies and engaging in content creation, the gamer is also getting something for their labor, a better gaming experience. This is not to say that those contributions are not worthy of monetary reward, but it does merit pointing out that there is already value returned to the consumer. Even the authors point out that gamers are aware that their contributions have value, and that perhaps they are willing participants in their unpaid contributions. I also appreciate that the authors recognize that companies must find a balance is their use of paid versus unpaid labor, quoting from Fox, “without making non-money feel like a sucker” (Fox, 2007:33).