Two important questions to consider in today's world are, does globalization really exist? And if so, does it have a positive or negative effect? I think it is pretty difficult to deny that globalization is a very real thing that is happening and will continue to expand, thanks in large part to advancements in technology. Speaking specifically in terms of the globalization of the media, some argue that globalization isn't all that it's cracked up to be because there are many people in the world that do not have access to all the technology that allows them to view what the media has to offer. While this is true I believe that as time goes on more and more people will gain access to the necessary technology. It is true that we have not become a fully globalized world, but I believe we will continue to move in that direction. Where it will lead in the end, I am not sure. In some ways the globalization has a positive effect because it makes it easier to communicate more easily with other nations and share and exchange ideas. However, one major concern and downside of globalization is that, currently it seems to be more of a westernization. Because some countries are more wealthy and powerful then other nations it is inevitable that they have more influence on the media and where and how it is relayed to the rest of the world. The United States has the money to make all their products and media look really appealing and flashy. So, many people from other countries are attracted to it and want to be able to attain it also. The American media is so saturated with American ideals and advertisements that have started to have an effect on other cultures. The concern is that in the pursuit of the American ideals, other cultures will lose sight of their own ideals that could contribute so much to the world. Other countries that do not have the technology or the money are not able to put as much influential media out for the rest of the world to see. This world could use more diversity and openness, as opposed to more homogenization and closed-mindedness. I was really intrigued by this phenomenon of Korean women getting plastic surgery on their eye-lids so that they can have bigger eyes. Here's an interesting segment from CNN on the topic:
So I think that globalization has both benefits and disadvantages. Ideally globalization could be geared towards more exchanging and sharing of ideas. If different nations could learn from each other and incorporate new ideas into their culture, so that they can preserve their culture as well as evolve.
Earlier today I was thinking about by personal experience in Egypt as far as globalization is concerned and something that came to mind is Melody Tunes. Many small restaurants and shisha places in Maadi will several televisions that are all playing Melody Tunes which plays music videos of popular music. Melody Tunes has these commercials for many mainstream American songs, but with a very Arab twist to them. I think it is interesting how some cultures can take something from the western media, and poke fun at it and themselves, in order to put their own spin on it. Here are couple of examples for your viewing pleasure...
Many interesting phenomena of have arisen from the popular use of facebook, such as, the idea of "click-through activism". It might seem as though it's a good thing that it is so easy to join a worthy cause because there are always staggering numbers of people who claim they support the cause. But it also means that most of them are not as dedicate to the cause as those people who would have actually made the effort to join the group even if it wasn't so readily available on facebook. In these cases the number of people who are actually in the group does not equal the effectiveness of the group. People are able to join with just the click of a mouse, but then they don't actively participate in the group. This raises many interesting questions about why people join these groups and causes on facebook. Do they join out of some form of guilt? Do they not even think about and just accept any request that comes their way on facebook? Do they think it will make them seem "culturally sensitive"? Because we all know that once you join a group it's going to show up on every body's news feed.
This brings me to what I find most fascinating about facebook and other such websites where you create an online profile of yourself. This gives people a chance to pick and choose what parts of themselves they want the world to see. What profile pictures do people choose to put up? What status update do they choose to put up? What are they going to put as their activities and interests? Is it even a true representation of reality? Is there a disconnect between a person's physical self and their online self? I think that people to become very good at sort of subconsciously censoring what they are putting up online for people to see. People try and fit the complex person that they really are into this certain format that isn't really a fair representation of who they are. And maybe a lot of times their profile ends up being more of an image of who they want to be.
And then there are those times that having everybody see what you're up to on facebook, gets you in trouble...
Don't let facebook ruin your life. Real life is hard enough as it is.
If you are a Media Mover, you have a wide range of online and mobile habits, and you are bound to find or create an information nugget, such as a digital photo, and pass it on. These social exchanges are central to your use of information and communication technology. Cyberspace, as a path to personal productivity or an outlet for creativity, is less important to you.
In Douglas Holt's, "How is Cultural Branding Different?" he explores why certain brands become icons. Holt are argues that in order to truly become an icon advertisers need to understand what social issues are of the most significance of the time. This means that often times to remain an icon it means a company may need to change it's approach with the changes in social issues of the nations. Ads for iconic brands need to have strong ties with the point of utmost tension within a society. This then means a company can market the product as a way to solve the pressing problems of the time (Holt). Weather it be a time of war and people want peace or a time of division when people want to find unity, a company must be able market the problem as a healer. An example that Holt uses of an iconic brand was Snapple. At its outset the Snapple company was run by amateurs who had no real experience in business and they brought that out in their commercials. This was during the populist movement of the 1990s so Snapple jumped on the bandwagon and went against everything that represented the major corporations. Their original commercials were often times poorly made, but they were very real and natural. They used a woman who did clerical work at Snapple for their commercials instead of some paid actor (Holt).
However, eventually Snapple was bought out by the Quaker Oats company that instead tried to implement more traditional ways of advertising (Holt). Snapple no longer has the same cultural ties it use to have with the American people that used to feel empowered by drinking a Snapple and "sticking it to the man". If you watch more recent Snapple commercials they are much more polished, have real actors, and even make an attempt at humor, but it is not memorable and relatable like the old Snapple commercials use to be.
In an age when we are bombarded by thousands of commercials people are getting more and more sick and tired of hearing yet another one. Many commercials these days leave a negative impression on people because it is simply and annoying. It we have already heard something like it a million times before. That is why if a company really wants to sell their product and make it an icon they must go above and beyond mind-share branding, or emotional branding, or viral branding. They must make their product matter and seem invaluable to us. They need to manipulate their product to seem like it can heal a nation.
Citation:
Holt, Douglas. How Brands Become Icons. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 2004. 13-38. Print.
Glocal Scene is a documentary made by two young amateur filmmakers from Leeds. It is obvious when watching the film that they have no experience with filming. Their camera is often times very shaky, there are weird camera angles, and poor sound quality. The beauty of it, though, is that adds to the overall atmosphere of the documentary and the idea they are trying to get across. The film has a very organic feel because it is about struggling artists that have very little chance of getting much publicity and so it is up to themselves to get known. They are all very unpolished just like the film itself, but in this way, their true passion for their music shines through because it isn't just about the fame.
For this week I thought I would take a look at our own local news on how they cover stories on crime in the area. I don't often watch local news, but I remember one evening, a couple of weeks ago the local news station was on in my room and all I heard were stories about a pregnant teenager being shot at her birthday party or a little boy sharing drugs with his friends on the playground. However, I wanted to look more closely at coverage of crime on local Boston news and what form it took. Going on the website for WBZ TV Boston and looking through the video archives, it did not take much effort to locate plenty of the kinds of stories I was looking for. In Gilliam and Iyengar's "Prime Suspects: The Influence of Local Television News on the Viewing Public" they argue that almost all coverage of crime will follow a certain "script" that people can come to expect when watching the local news. It is probably the formula that news stations have found captures the biggest audience. In a way the news stations are forced to create this drama, that is not to say that they are making up the crimes, but that they need to portray it a certain way so that in a sense it is like all those crime scene TV shows that people love to watch. Gilliam and Iyengar suggest in their article that their are two crucial elements to the crime script are that the crime must be violent and it must have a suspect. They say the coverage must have a "cast" which you will see over again when their are reports on the same story. Like in TV shows the audience becomes familiar with the characters and sympathize with the victims while wanting to see the suspects brought to justice. Sometimes I wonder if people ever lose sight of reality always watching stories like these on the news because it is not just a show where things always happen in a clear cut way and in the same pattern every time. I found a story about the recent attack on a mother and her daughter, that resulted in the of the mother and hospitalization of the daughter. In watching the initial reports on the attacks it is all very well scripted as Gilliam and Iyengar might say. They give details about the violence and brutality of the crime and about the victims. There are also shots of the typical crime scene with area marked off with yellow tape. They show the responses of friends and neighbors who are all shocked that such a thing could happen in their picturesque little town. Then, there of course is the description of the possible suspect, or suspects in this case. It all seemed to fit this model that most local news stations seems to follow. To check out the actual video click on this link for: New Hampshire Town Reeling From Murder.
