Sunday, March 25, 2007
Damn You, Food!
As we move into the Winter months I cannot help but fear the oncoming onslaught of hunger cravings. I am a genuine sucker for hot food in any season, but when the thermometer heads south I just throw myself at anything that steams. Unfortunately, most of the hot food available to me has a high fat content, or is cooked in a fat-filled process. The second bane to my fitness cause is the temptation of chocolate, made only worse as Easter approaches. Already I’m being subjected to barrages of chocolate advertising, and it is oh so hard to resist. I really want to achieve and maintain fitness with a two-pronged regime of exercise and healthy eating, but I’m officially warning everyone that if you offer me food I will accept without hesitation.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Political Statement or Entertainment?
A radio national correspondent’s report that aired this morning claimed that “the Internet is becoming increasingly influential in what's already a long US presidential campaign season” and suggested that the Australian election campaigns due this year will be similarly influenced by the possibilities presented by the internet. The main focus of the report was on an anti-Clinton ad posted on the online video-sharing network YouTube (shown below).
“[The ad]’s a clear sign that voter-generated content will affect the course of the 2008 Presidential election.”
But how great will the effect be? The average user-generated (and I would particularly like to distinguish between users and voters, as not all YouTube users are voters) YouTube video does not make any strong political statement – in fact, the majority of “political” videos document George Bush’s blunders, or take ever-increasingly generic jabs at conservative Christian principles. Videos such as “Evil Monkey a.k.a. George Bush” (shown below) or “George Bush Saves a Baby” (a cartoon in which George Bush eats a baby). Are voters (and bear in mind that 40% of Americans didn’t vote in the last presidential election) really so impressionable that their votes are based on cheap, home-made parodies. Please, give the Americans some credit.
The anti-Clinton video was created by a website designer who worked for the company that created Barack Obama’s website; however the Obama camp denies its involvement with the video’s creation. I wonder as to whether the issue of the ad, regardless of his denial of affiliation with it, will reflect poorly on Obama. Would voters be deterred by that kind of slanderous knock-out-the-competition advertising? Again, I point out that Americans are not necessarily as simple-minded as the George Bush Monkey video would have you believe.
The actual content of these ads is comparable to the political cartoons that appear in most newspapers. Just as different cartoonists choose to represent politicians differently, so will online-video makers. YouTube and other such programs allow for a greater expression of political statements, and each one will be slightly different. We will see a great quantity of these videos as we come closer to elections. In fact, it is likely that we will become swamped with such videos. But their main purpose is entertainment. Viewers are not swung this way or that by what they see on YouTube. If anything, the overwhelming number of videos will turn people off of political videos long enough for them to make up their own minds.
“[The ad]’s a clear sign that voter-generated content will affect the course of the 2008 Presidential election.”
But how great will the effect be? The average user-generated (and I would particularly like to distinguish between users and voters, as not all YouTube users are voters) YouTube video does not make any strong political statement – in fact, the majority of “political” videos document George Bush’s blunders, or take ever-increasingly generic jabs at conservative Christian principles. Videos such as “Evil Monkey a.k.a. George Bush” (shown below) or “George Bush Saves a Baby” (a cartoon in which George Bush eats a baby). Are voters (and bear in mind that 40% of Americans didn’t vote in the last presidential election) really so impressionable that their votes are based on cheap, home-made parodies. Please, give the Americans some credit.
The anti-Clinton video was created by a website designer who worked for the company that created Barack Obama’s website; however the Obama camp denies its involvement with the video’s creation. I wonder as to whether the issue of the ad, regardless of his denial of affiliation with it, will reflect poorly on Obama. Would voters be deterred by that kind of slanderous knock-out-the-competition advertising? Again, I point out that Americans are not necessarily as simple-minded as the George Bush Monkey video would have you believe.
The actual content of these ads is comparable to the political cartoons that appear in most newspapers. Just as different cartoonists choose to represent politicians differently, so will online-video makers. YouTube and other such programs allow for a greater expression of political statements, and each one will be slightly different. We will see a great quantity of these videos as we come closer to elections. In fact, it is likely that we will become swamped with such videos. But their main purpose is entertainment. Viewers are not swung this way or that by what they see on YouTube. If anything, the overwhelming number of videos will turn people off of political videos long enough for them to make up their own minds.
Friday, March 23, 2007
New YouTube Competitor
It has been reported that media empires News Corp and NBC are collaborating on a project to counter Google’s YouTube website[1] – the number 4 most visited site as of Friday 23rd of March, 2007[2]. Clearly there is a huge market, into which the new video website will hope to tap. One potential problem facing the project is YouTube’s current popularity and its associated assimilation into popular culture. The brand is known by arguably all internet users, and is becoming more and more part of the new internet vernacular. The process of uploading videos onto YouTube is now referred to as ‘tubing’, in much the same way as using the search engine Google is called ‘googling’. So strong is YouTube’s hold on their audience that the success of the rival website will depend so vitally on its proper marketing. There will be very little room to differentiate the two websites, as both perform the same role free of charge, so marketers for the new website must attain a certain ‘cool’ factor if they are to thieve the loyal YouTubers. However, this loyalty to YouTube may begin to dwindle somewhat, as Google consider the possibility of advertising on YouTube, using 15 second pre-roll ads. A survey conducted by Harris Interactive found that 73% of frequent YouTube users said they would visit the site less if pre-roll advertising was used[3]. Google will somehow have to pay off the US$1.65 billion that it spent in acquiring YouTube, and unless Larry Page and Sergey Brin consider the suicidal possibility of user paid access, then it is likely the YouTube bill will have to be financed by advertising. Another weight on Google/YouTube’s back is the current lawsuit presented against them by Viacom, on grounds of massive copyright infringement[4]. Is it possible that all this trauma could bury YouTube, leaving the door open for the News Corp/NBC project to take over? Or is it more likely that the new project will actually push YouTube over the edge? Either way, it will be far more entertaining than any of the featured videos on YouTube!
[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1879375.htm
[2] http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_500
[3] http://www.lostremote.com/2007/01/30/survey-one-third-youtube-users-watch-less-tv/
[4] http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ViacomYouTubeComplaint3-12-07.pdf
[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1879375.htm
[2] http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_500
[3] http://www.lostremote.com/2007/01/30/survey-one-third-youtube-users-watch-less-tv/
[4] http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ViacomYouTubeComplaint3-12-07.pdf
Sunday, March 18, 2007
TV: Broadcast vs. Narrowcast
In all the discussions I have so far read on the conflict between broadcasting and narrowcasting in terms of television, each method has been defined by its examples: free-to-air television in the case of broadcasting and pay-per-viewing television in the case of narrowcasting. The argument mounted in most of these articles was that narrowcasting is becoming highly popular, thanks primarily to websites such as YouTube, but also due to the ever-growing efficient internet culture, encapsulated so clearly by the phrase: ‘I want it and I want it now’. Video on demand, as provided over the internet in narrowcasting form, allows users to access the content at will. This is also seen in conventional non-internet television narrowcasting in the form of pay-per-viewing television on pay-tv networks. I began to wonder, however, as to whether this system should be exclusively for pay-tv networks. Are there any reasons why free-to-air TV could not use a selective system, whereby individual viewers choose their desired programs but do not necessarily pay for it?
I immediately come to the problem of costing when I ponder the possibility of free-to-air selective viewing. The foremost and obvious difference between pay-tv and free-to-air is that the former generate their income from subscriptions and from actual viewers, whereas the latter’s income is generated by selling advertising time. Narrowcasting presents an interesting and potentially problematic issue with regards to advertising. Because viewers are not necessarily viewing at a particular time of day, advertisers cannot – as they would have been able to in broadcasting – select a time slot that would be most effective for advertising their product. In broadcast TV advertisers choose particular time slots to target a particular group of people who would be viewing at this time, such as late-night advertisements for SMS match-making companies, who target lonely men who watch TV at this time. These viewers are not defined by what they watch, rather by when they watch. In narrowcast TV the audience cannot be targeted in this way, and so advertisers may seek other methods, outside the realm of television. However, most viewers can be classified by what they watch, which could in turn allow advertisers to target even more specific groups. For instance, different shows may attract different demographics of viewers. The average viewer of Bert’s Family Feud may come from a lower socio-economic standing than the average viewer of 60 Minutes. In such a case, advertisers of high-cost products would prefer to advertise during 60 Minutes rather than during Bert’s Family Feud. In broadcast TV, advertisers could also take advantage of particular emotions felt at specific times. For example, in the 10 minutes or so leading up to a season finale or some other type of climactic program, there will be many viewers feeling a lot of tension and anticipation. They will be more alert than at other times of viewing, and will therefore be an attractive audience for advertisers. However, if this program were narrowcast then it is impossible to advertise in the same way.
Overall, a shift from broadcast to narrowcast television would result in less interest from advertisers as the effectiveness of tv advertising would dwindle. The loss of revenue in this way would need to be made up somewhere else, and the obvious avenue for this would be to charge viewers per program that they view. In such a way, it seems unlikely that we will see any kind of selective viewing on free-to-air television anytime soon.
I immediately come to the problem of costing when I ponder the possibility of free-to-air selective viewing. The foremost and obvious difference between pay-tv and free-to-air is that the former generate their income from subscriptions and from actual viewers, whereas the latter’s income is generated by selling advertising time. Narrowcasting presents an interesting and potentially problematic issue with regards to advertising. Because viewers are not necessarily viewing at a particular time of day, advertisers cannot – as they would have been able to in broadcasting – select a time slot that would be most effective for advertising their product. In broadcast TV advertisers choose particular time slots to target a particular group of people who would be viewing at this time, such as late-night advertisements for SMS match-making companies, who target lonely men who watch TV at this time. These viewers are not defined by what they watch, rather by when they watch. In narrowcast TV the audience cannot be targeted in this way, and so advertisers may seek other methods, outside the realm of television. However, most viewers can be classified by what they watch, which could in turn allow advertisers to target even more specific groups. For instance, different shows may attract different demographics of viewers. The average viewer of Bert’s Family Feud may come from a lower socio-economic standing than the average viewer of 60 Minutes. In such a case, advertisers of high-cost products would prefer to advertise during 60 Minutes rather than during Bert’s Family Feud. In broadcast TV, advertisers could also take advantage of particular emotions felt at specific times. For example, in the 10 minutes or so leading up to a season finale or some other type of climactic program, there will be many viewers feeling a lot of tension and anticipation. They will be more alert than at other times of viewing, and will therefore be an attractive audience for advertisers. However, if this program were narrowcast then it is impossible to advertise in the same way.
Overall, a shift from broadcast to narrowcast television would result in less interest from advertisers as the effectiveness of tv advertising would dwindle. The loss of revenue in this way would need to be made up somewhere else, and the obvious avenue for this would be to charge viewers per program that they view. In such a way, it seems unlikely that we will see any kind of selective viewing on free-to-air television anytime soon.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Second Life
I just finished reading the article entitled ‘Revealed: ABC chief's virtual alter ego’, which introduced me to the Second Life website. This site is a virtual reality existing on the internet, and currently maintains 4.6 million registered users. The ‘game’ is played by human users, who create avatars – virtual characters, which can be representative of their users or of what their users desire to be like – and participate in the online community. This concept raises a number of questions, not asked entirely in terms media, but also in terms of social frameworks and interaction. Although I have not yet been involved directly in Second Life (I am planning on creating an account as soon as I finish this report), the general concept of the website seems quite similar to the popular computer game The Sims. In this game the user would create their own family of one to eight members, who participated in various aspects of life, including school, work, dating, recreation, physical requirements, house maintenance and so on. I myself admit to an addiction to this game, which lasted about six months. The end to my addiction came at the same time as the realisation that I was ignoring the aforementioned aspects in my own life. The Sims, despite its lifelike structure, will always be a computer game, and not a realistic simulation of life. There are certain essential elements that are lacking, such as interaction with other human beings, and so in a way provide the final frontier that prevents total obsession with the game. What we have in the case of Second Life is an entirely accurate virtual reality, simulating life to a high degree, in which users can be themselves, or someone else if they so desire. Users can create their ideals, can improve their own flaws, or can create an entirely new persona with which to interact on the website. My fear is that some users will become possessed by the game, and will live out their lives as their avatars on Second Life.
Another possibility is that phoney accounts may be set up to parody or to put down others. We have already seen this occur on the Myspace website, as prominent public figures, such as George Bush, Osama Bin Laden and Jesus are both hailed and jeered in profiles created for them by Myspace users. This can sometimes provide an avenue for witty criticism, but is mostly used for mindless rants. I see no major contention with such public displays of critique for public figures, even when they are singled out in this way; however I have also seen Myspace profiles created in order to single out not-so-public figures, made by haters who feel an urge to mock and humiliate them. Sometimes this is done in jest, but other times it is done out of spite and hatred. Phoney profiles, in which their subjects announce warped sexualities or admit to small genitals, have sprouted up all over the Myspace universe. It is likely that Second Life will result in a number of similar abuses. This should not deter users, however, and by no means should Second Life be removed. At the same time, strict regulation by administrators (which could potentially be easier than the regulation of Myspace) would allow for the maintenance of a safe and friendly environment for all users.
I believe that Second Life is a very intriguing concept, and that anybody even mildly interested should visit the site, whilst remaining cautious of its possible addictiveness. Hopefully there will be no need for a virtual Second Life rehab centre.
Another possibility is that phoney accounts may be set up to parody or to put down others. We have already seen this occur on the Myspace website, as prominent public figures, such as George Bush, Osama Bin Laden and Jesus are both hailed and jeered in profiles created for them by Myspace users. This can sometimes provide an avenue for witty criticism, but is mostly used for mindless rants. I see no major contention with such public displays of critique for public figures, even when they are singled out in this way; however I have also seen Myspace profiles created in order to single out not-so-public figures, made by haters who feel an urge to mock and humiliate them. Sometimes this is done in jest, but other times it is done out of spite and hatred. Phoney profiles, in which their subjects announce warped sexualities or admit to small genitals, have sprouted up all over the Myspace universe. It is likely that Second Life will result in a number of similar abuses. This should not deter users, however, and by no means should Second Life be removed. At the same time, strict regulation by administrators (which could potentially be easier than the regulation of Myspace) would allow for the maintenance of a safe and friendly environment for all users.
I believe that Second Life is a very intriguing concept, and that anybody even mildly interested should visit the site, whilst remaining cautious of its possible addictiveness. Hopefully there will be no need for a virtual Second Life rehab centre.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
School Reunion
This evening I chose to attend an old scholars' function run by my high school's old collegians association. The event was aimed to introduce the new old scholars to the association and its various sporting branches and its administrative team. Many students were enticed into attendance by the promise of free food and refreshments, or by the hope of seeing new old school friends. I, however, attended primarily to receive my old scholar's tie, which is a dashing mix of red white and gold in a pattern of diagonal stripes. About one hour into the evening, with my tie under my belt, I decided it to be departure time. However, I chose to make a number of key obvservations of my surroundings and in particular my fellow old scholars.
Firstly, the president of the association wore a bowtie but no tuxedo. He also had a very bushy moustache. In my eyes he epitomised the idea of an 'old red' (my school's colloquial term for an old scholar). Also, his name was Rex (unasahmedly mutated into Rexy the minute it was announced), which fitted his image like a glove. Rex seemed contentedly at home in the chosen venue: a secluded lodge facing the East parklands, with a faux timber veneer adorning the walls, and various portraits of the Queen gazing approvingly down upon us.
The only thing tackier than the wannabe-wood wallpaper was the feable attempt made by so many of my former colleagues to be "ocker". Here I saw a bunch of private school boys (not necessarily snobs, I might add, so don't you go and peg them that way) in Ralph Lauren shirts, with RL trousers and Italian loafers, and even an occasional kashmir vest or jumper; attempting to maintain the most transparent Aussie accents whilst holding discussions of footy and cricket over a few pints of beer (sparkling ale was the preferred choice). The entire culture made me feel uncomfortable, and I was happy to sit away from the group. NB this also allowed me a good vantage point to make such observations. In most social situations, such fakeness is so often shunned, and in such a way is eventually eradicated from each group. However, this delusion of Australianism, of a working-class set, of true-blue shoot-a-roo blokes, is realised and maintained without any kind of social repercussions. This occurs because every single "bloke" in this set is equally deluded. They seem to be so swept up in constructing their own characters that they fail to see through everyone else's. I left early, unable to bear the situation much longer after I received my tie.
Despite my criticism, it is only fair to point out that these lads are more than happy to exist in their world. Although their talk was hollow, their smiles were sincere. The group presents a supporting network, an opportunity to relive memories, and even to make new ones. This said, the old scholars' culture is one that I have no intention of joining. It certainly is a case of whatever floats your boat.
First old scholars' event, last old scholars' event.
Firstly, the president of the association wore a bowtie but no tuxedo. He also had a very bushy moustache. In my eyes he epitomised the idea of an 'old red' (my school's colloquial term for an old scholar). Also, his name was Rex (unasahmedly mutated into Rexy the minute it was announced), which fitted his image like a glove. Rex seemed contentedly at home in the chosen venue: a secluded lodge facing the East parklands, with a faux timber veneer adorning the walls, and various portraits of the Queen gazing approvingly down upon us.
The only thing tackier than the wannabe-wood wallpaper was the feable attempt made by so many of my former colleagues to be "ocker". Here I saw a bunch of private school boys (not necessarily snobs, I might add, so don't you go and peg them that way) in Ralph Lauren shirts, with RL trousers and Italian loafers, and even an occasional kashmir vest or jumper; attempting to maintain the most transparent Aussie accents whilst holding discussions of footy and cricket over a few pints of beer (sparkling ale was the preferred choice). The entire culture made me feel uncomfortable, and I was happy to sit away from the group. NB this also allowed me a good vantage point to make such observations. In most social situations, such fakeness is so often shunned, and in such a way is eventually eradicated from each group. However, this delusion of Australianism, of a working-class set, of true-blue shoot-a-roo blokes, is realised and maintained without any kind of social repercussions. This occurs because every single "bloke" in this set is equally deluded. They seem to be so swept up in constructing their own characters that they fail to see through everyone else's. I left early, unable to bear the situation much longer after I received my tie.
Despite my criticism, it is only fair to point out that these lads are more than happy to exist in their world. Although their talk was hollow, their smiles were sincere. The group presents a supporting network, an opportunity to relive memories, and even to make new ones. This said, the old scholars' culture is one that I have no intention of joining. It certainly is a case of whatever floats your boat.
First old scholars' event, last old scholars' event.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Review: 'Life in Cartoon Motion', by Mika
If you have listened to any radio in the past week or visited any shopping centre worth visiting, tt is likely that you have heard 'Grace Kelly', the overwhelmingly popular first single of this extraordinary debut album by Mika. Achieving satisfying irony, this song (written as a 'fuck you' to record labels who wanted to change his image to be more commercially viable) has had conspicuous mainstream success in both Britain and Australia. It should not be long before follow up singles are released to satisfy the Mika cravings on everybody's lips.
His style is difficult to peg. Naturally one label's him as pop, but his exact creative wavelength is somewhat ambiguous. It is perhaps easiest to outline his musical profile in terms of his influences, of which Queen (in particular Freddy, as referenced in 'Grace Kelly') is most noticeable. Many music critics draw this comparison with considerable scorn, but to be compared to one of pop music's greatest performers is hardly an insult. The two virtuosos share a refreshingly broad range, which they can traverse almost effortlessly. Also, on a more personal level, they both moved to Britain after being born in other places (Freddy in Zanzibar and Mika in Beirut). Mika even borrows lyrical ideas from Queen in the song 'Big Girl (You Are Beautiful)', as the listener cannot avoid noticing the similarity to Queen's 'Fat Bottomed Girls'. Unfortunately, such similarities, in addition to other notable ones, such as that between Mika's 'Relax (Take it Easy)' and Cutting Crew's 'Died In Your Arms Tonight', provide plenty of fodder for his critics. However, any discerning listener will naturally ignore critics and make their own judgement on this young and talented (not to mention incredibly cute) man.
The most refreshing aspect of this album is its up-beat feel. I fail to remember any recent music that has physically moved me in the same way as Mika. I frequently end up bopping in my seat on the bus, and I once caught myself conducting with a spoon in one hand and my yoghurt tub in the other. With irresistably catchy refrains splashed liberally in every track it is nearly impossible to get Mika out of one's mind. The songwriting and lyrical attitude is also refreshing, as he serenades the listener with tales of a happily married man who suddenly decides to pursue a homosexual relationship and then travels to a foreign land (in 'Billy Brown'), or of a character with a preference for larger women (in Big Girl (You Are Beautiful)). Whilst these are bouncey, fun-filled songs, they also address issues of current social concern, namely homosexuality and false physical ideals for young women. He presents them in such a simple sing-song way that the weight with which these issues are debated is instantly broken down. It is almost as though he presents the straightforward and honest perspective of a child, which is so often much clearer than that of the adult social commentators.
It is Mika's childish charm (and perhaps his wonderfully silly hair doo) that draws listeners in and does not dissapoint them. A stunning debut album that you will find yourself listening to over and over again, both on your stereo and in your head.
His style is difficult to peg. Naturally one label's him as pop, but his exact creative wavelength is somewhat ambiguous. It is perhaps easiest to outline his musical profile in terms of his influences, of which Queen (in particular Freddy, as referenced in 'Grace Kelly') is most noticeable. Many music critics draw this comparison with considerable scorn, but to be compared to one of pop music's greatest performers is hardly an insult. The two virtuosos share a refreshingly broad range, which they can traverse almost effortlessly. Also, on a more personal level, they both moved to Britain after being born in other places (Freddy in Zanzibar and Mika in Beirut). Mika even borrows lyrical ideas from Queen in the song 'Big Girl (You Are Beautiful)', as the listener cannot avoid noticing the similarity to Queen's 'Fat Bottomed Girls'. Unfortunately, such similarities, in addition to other notable ones, such as that between Mika's 'Relax (Take it Easy)' and Cutting Crew's 'Died In Your Arms Tonight', provide plenty of fodder for his critics. However, any discerning listener will naturally ignore critics and make their own judgement on this young and talented (not to mention incredibly cute) man.
The most refreshing aspect of this album is its up-beat feel. I fail to remember any recent music that has physically moved me in the same way as Mika. I frequently end up bopping in my seat on the bus, and I once caught myself conducting with a spoon in one hand and my yoghurt tub in the other. With irresistably catchy refrains splashed liberally in every track it is nearly impossible to get Mika out of one's mind. The songwriting and lyrical attitude is also refreshing, as he serenades the listener with tales of a happily married man who suddenly decides to pursue a homosexual relationship and then travels to a foreign land (in 'Billy Brown'), or of a character with a preference for larger women (in Big Girl (You Are Beautiful)). Whilst these are bouncey, fun-filled songs, they also address issues of current social concern, namely homosexuality and false physical ideals for young women. He presents them in such a simple sing-song way that the weight with which these issues are debated is instantly broken down. It is almost as though he presents the straightforward and honest perspective of a child, which is so often much clearer than that of the adult social commentators.
It is Mika's childish charm (and perhaps his wonderfully silly hair doo) that draws listeners in and does not dissapoint them. A stunning debut album that you will find yourself listening to over and over again, both on your stereo and in your head.
A New Beginning
The inspiration for the creation of this blog lies in the exemplary quality of sez roger’s blog (www.sezslife.blogspot.com) and her ongoing dedication to it. I hope that my own blog will serve as an insight into the happenings of my life, and any interesting and zany things that I may see around me. Despite my devotion to my myspace (www.myspace.com/hughville), I feel that this blog will provide an apt avenue to lash out with some expansive wads of text that wouldn't necessarily fit the myspace environment.
This first post will focus on my transition into university life in terms of appearance. Although I can’t even hope to aspire to Joelle’s status of university student – as he in fact is the entire university – I look forward to perfecting my ideal image of a uni student. Jeans are a must. Humorous t-shirts in summer and threateningly rebellious hoodies in winter both command the uni look. But, above all, my new converse shoes encapsulate all that is uni. I have no pictures of my own shoes, but I have a google image below showing the design. The picture below shows hi-tops, but mine are actually low-tops. For any Adelaide uni students reading my blog, you will probably have the pleasure of seeing them on me tomorrow.
‘Til next time,
Toodles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)