Week Five: 'Prosumers' and their role on Web 2.0

In an era where we are increasingly engaging with and relying on online technologies and networks, the likelihood of acting as a 'prosumer' is high. During this post, I will examine the role of a 'prosumer' in relation to user-generated-content sites such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

According to Ritzer and Jurgenson (2010), 'prosumption involves both production and consumption rather than focusing on either one or the other.' In terms of sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, 'prosumers' are the lifeblood which ensures their ongoing popularity. These sites, which undoubtably rank as some of the most popular and profitable websites worldwide, rely on each individual producing and consuming content to continue their remarkable success. Ritzer and Jurgenson (2010) single out Web 2.0 (of which social media is a significant part) as the major area where a 'dramatic explosion in prosumption' has taken place.

The reason for this dramatic explosion is simple. Sites such as Facebook and YouTube rely heavily on the production of user-generated content and the subsequent interaction with this content. What would it mean for Facebook if no one bothered to produce their own personal profile? What would the future look like for YouTube if videos weren't produced and uploaded to the video-sharing site? The answer is simple, the lack of content would sound the death knell for these sites. Similarly, if the general public stopped consuming content from these sites, then their fate would also appear gloomy.

A growing culture of 'prosumers' has resulted in a remarkable level of success for social media sites. This is due to the fact these sites don't have to commit as many resources to producing content which will appear online. The notion of 'prosumption' has ensured sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are able to effectively reduce costs courtesy of the majority of content being produced by their users.

Every time you post or read a Facebook post, upload or watch a YouTube video, or 'tweet' or 'retweet' on Twitter, you are unwittingly acting as a 'prosumer' in the age of Web 2.0.

Reference List

Ritzer, G & Jurgenson, N 2010, Journal of Consumer Culture, Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital 'prosumer', retrieved 28/8/13, URL- http://joc.sagepub.com/content/10/1/13, p.14,19

Week Four: Continuing Battle Over File-Sharing

A serious problem afflicting industries such as the film or music industry, involves an argument surrounding ‘the injustice of file-sharing versus the injustice of restraints on file-sharing’ (Martin 2008). This issue pits large scale industries against numerous file-sharers worldwide with many tactics used to discredit the opposing party’s opinion and harm their overall objectives.

This blog post will focus on the tactic of devaluation versus validation. In this case, the tactic revolves around how the music or movie industries attempt to discredit those transferring or downloading illegal files. In response to these tactics, file-sharers attempt to validate their methods while arguing it is unfair to restrain people from transferring files.

One of the most recognisable campaigns designed to attack file-sharers, or ‘pirates’ was produced by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). I’m sure you are aware of the commercial screened before each movie you view, whether it’s in the cinema or you’re simply watching a DVD in your lounge room? The one which forcefully reiterates the message that you wouldn't steal a car, laptop or handbag, so why is it acceptable to ‘steal’ a movie? Of course by stealing, the campaign is referring to illegally downloading the movie via a peer-to-peer file-sharing service.

                                           Copyright: Image courtesy of famewiz.com

                    http://www.famewiz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/filesharing-comic.jpg

Martin et al. (2010) state that powerful organisations such as the film or music industry ‘often try to devalue targets by applying derogatory labels to them, disseminating discrediting information or setting them up in compromising situations.’ The purpose of the MPAA commercial, which has become so deeply ingrained in the minds of regular film-viewers, is to discredit file-sharers and compare them to criminals while strongly discouraging illegal movie downloads. It appeals to our conscience as well; asking why we think it’s acceptable to ‘steal’ content and potential profits from the pockets of producers, actors and film companies.

Alternatively, file-sharers will attempt to legitimise their methods while bringing into question the music/movie industry’s determination to curb peer-to-peer downloads. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an example of file-sharers combining to fight large scale industries. The EFF proclaim they will ‘protect your rights in the digital world’, while ‘fighting for a constructive solution that gets artists paid while making file sharing legal’. Words like ‘misguided’ and ‘irrational’ are also used on the foundations home page to describe the ‘war against P2P.’

The continuing fight between large scale industries and file-sharers will be intriguing to follow, with issues likely to continue as technology continually develops.

References:

Electronic Frontier Foundation website, https://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing, retrieved 21/8/13

Martin, B, Moore, C and Salter, C 2010, 'Sharing music files: tactics of a challenge to the industry', First Monday, vol. 15, no. 12, retrieved 21/8/13, URL-http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2986/2680

Martin, B 2008, 'The Henson affair: conflicting injustices?', Australian Review of Public Affairs (July), retrieved 21/8/13, http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2008/07/martin.html

Week Three: The changing face of media 'empires'

The changing role and complexion of media empires worldwide can be linked with the ideas associated with ‘informational flows’. The Oxford dictionary defines an empire as ‘an extensive sphere of activity controlled by one person or group.’ For Australian audiences, the vast majority of our news has been provided by two powerful media empires- Fairfax Media and Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited.

The theory of ‘informational flows’, which are ‘global flows of information linked to the instantaneous and almost unlimited access to information of all kinds’ using online methods (Srivastava et al. 2013), have unquestionably changed how the likes of Fairfax and News Ltd. deliver news and information in the 21^st century.

Before the introduction of internet, smartphones and tablets, media ‘empires’ relied on traditional media formats such as newspapers, television and radio to provide information and generate money for the company. As a result of audiences being able to access and share unlimited information online, media empires and their journalists were forced to shift their focus to a digital perspective. 

Kawamoto (2003) describes digital journalism as ‘the use of digital technologies to research, produce, and deliver (or make accessible) news and information to an increasingly computer-literate audience.’ Media empires such as Fairfax and News Ltd. have clearly embraced the importance of digital journalism, with this evidenced by the introduction of smartphone/tablet news apps and online newspaper ‘pay-walls’.

                                                      

The introduction of new and social media empires has also resulted in a greater diversity of opinions. While News Ltd. and Fairfax still have an extremely powerful influence in the media industry, their monopoly on moulding opinions of Australian’s has been diminished by scores of citizen journalists ‘having their say’ online.

Another significant difference between old and new/social media empires relates to audience interaction. Whereas old media empires were mainly concerned with disseminating information to their audiences, a major focus of new and social media empires revolves around interacting and communicating with their audience.

While I am sitting on the couch writing this blog post, an interactive poll has appeared on the Channel 10 nightly news bulletin, encouraging viewers to 'tweet' their approval for their preferred Prime Minister (e.g. #trustrudd, #trustabbott).  This illustrates the importance media empires now place on interacting with their audience using tools such as social media, as opposed to media empires of yesteryear who were simply focused on one-way communication.

With technology developing at a rapid rate, who knows how many evolution’s media empires will undertake in coming years?

References:

Kawamoto, K 2003, ‘Digital journalism: emerging media and the changing horizons of journalism’, Rowman & Littlefield, N.Y, p.4

Oxford Dictionary Empire definition, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/empire, retrieved 7/8/13

Srivastava, S, Warren, B & Moore, C, 2013 ALC215 Deakin University Study Guide ‘Global flows & scapes’, retrieved 30/7/13