Media Studies Exam Prep (Weeks 9-11) PDF

Media Studies Exam Prep Concepts from weeks 9-11 1. Broadcasting vs. Narrowcasting Broadcasting:  The focus on mass audience  GOAL: Largest audience possible  Reaching mass audience as much as possible Logic= “least objectionable programming” (broadcast appeal) Narro...

Media Studies Exam Prep Concepts from weeks 9-11 1. Broadcasting vs. Narrowcasting Broadcasting:  The focus on mass audience  GOAL: Largest audience possible  Reaching mass audience as much as possible Logic= “least objectionable programming” (broadcast appeal) Narrowcasting:  Focus on niche audiences desired by advertisers  GOAL: produce content for a niche/sell access to that niche to ads  Reaching mass audiences for that niche Logic= divide the audience into categories useful to marketers. 2. Audience Segmentation:  Media products targeted to reach different groups of people  Target audience= desire segments producers want to reach  Valued b/c they spend money and time in similar ways 3. 4 Forms of Segmentation: 1. Geographic: not that useful in age of national brands 2. Demographic: categories like gender/age/education 3. Lifestyle: interests/hobbies 4. Psychographic: personality characteristics 4. Data Collection:  Profile= a collection of "data points” on an individual consumer  Databases= constantly updated collections user profiles soarable by relevant information desired at a particular time First-Party data-collected by the site/platform Third-party data-purchased from data brokers Interactive Microtargeting (Einstein):   Programmic media buying= algorithm buys ad space targeting you at a cost based on the data in your profile  Touchpoints= ads follow you across your web browsing  Converting= user purchases product (if you see an ad for VS, then go buy VS u converted)  Lookalike modeling (2-step process) aggregates all shared data points btw converters/targets others sharing all those data points. Two Understandings of the child audience: 1. Media industry (distribution outlets/advertisers/marketers/app creators/producers) - WHO: producers, distributors, advertisers, etc.... - Children are desirable and lucrative demographic - Kids are high frequent media consumers - Kids are valued because of their consumerist mentality/appeal/understanding - Media foster brand loyalty early on to kids. (conditioning technique) 2. Protectionist - WHO: parents, watchdogs, educators, and regulators - Blank slates - These people understand kids as innocence/fragile - Kids lack taste distinction and ability to choose - Consumption is viewed as passive activity (just sitting there watching/doing nothing) Children & TV: WHY? - ASSUMPTION: consider the idea of consumption is passive - AND: why do kids really engage in the tv they watch? - TV can provide a window to a larger world (see the depiction of) the world around them. - Studies have found that kids can use tv as a teaching tool. - Ex: learning math, words, behaviors, etc.... - So: kids tv focus on educational curricula or and social emotional curricula - SUPER WHY? YO GABBA GABBA NOW WE ASK; Children & TV HOW?  - Assumption: they consume media as adults do but w/o critical skills - BUT: how do kids “really” engage in the TV they watch? - Direct participation =answering questions, repeatable songs, etc... - Problem solving narratives require multiple views to grasp (mickey mouse clubhouse prime example “mystery MaskTools”) - Repetition = learn to understand storytelling conventions “Screen Content” for children (Potter & Steemers):  b-cast programming blocks (now only on PBS)  Narrowcast cable channels (targeting children) remember when baby cartoons would play in the morning before big kid shows that were not cartoons  SVOD added-subscription appeal (diversity of content)  Video sharing services (U.S. & global//long & short// pro & “user generated”// from adults & from youth)  BUT: “Protectionist” tensions over content, commercialism, data spaces  Predictions 1: emphasis on curation/safe spaces  Prediction 2: global over national properties  AND STILL RELEVANT: digital divides Online Affinity Networks (Pfister & Martin): Youth online participation - “Friendships-driven” = re: offline relationships and experience - “Interest-driven” = interests/affiliations outside their local community Three common features of OAN’s (Pfister & Martin): 1. Specialized − Centered on an affinity/interest − Increase status thru niche engagement 2. Intentional − opt in, opt out − Outside offline relationships, status, stigmas − Can also be “exclusionary & unforgiving” but “easier to escape” 3. Open − Discoverable, easy to observe and join − Easy to share − Content & communication visible & searchable Productivity Practices of Consumption:  Interpretation  Speculation  Projection  Discussion Defining Fandom: − High engagement − Close Scrutiny − Social practice − Public display (displaying posters/clothing's) − AND: they’re heightened examples of typical behaviors and pleasures Black Fandoms: − Intervention: academics focus on white fandoms make it normative and examine black fandoms can decenter it − Black fandom’s three interlocking discourses 1. must-see blackness (consumption as “civic duty” support for blackness) − 2. economic consumption (monetary support) 3. pedagogical properties (teaching tools and role models) AND: this is applicable to other fan groups and their desire for greater visibility Fandom online: − The internet makes it easier to engage in “fannish” behavior − Info seeking − Consumption − “Backstage access” − Social media/OANs − Community/social media participation − Cultural production Cultural production: − Fans can build upon/ transform texts − Products of art and craft  − Enabled by new techs of production, distribution, (across the internet), and exhibition (via social media, etc.) − Can express underserved audiences and needs Cultural Production vs. Copyright (Gwenllian Jones): ??? Industrial utility of fandom (Gwenllian Jones): − Fandom is an industrial construct and not a community − The industry's “adoring offspring” not its nemesis − Based on consumption, not critique 1. Transmedia consumption 2. Heavy consumption 3. Brand advocates//free promo Critical media policy: “Not a technocratic exercise in problem solving but a lens through which to explore countless questions about media, power, and society” Interpretative policy analysis= how “values, meanings, and systems of power” influence policy Ex= who gets to decide what's “sexual content”? Political economy= economic powers influence on policy Ex= how do wealthy doners set the policy agenda? (who has a voice for advocating for copyright extensions) Cultural Policy Studies= policy re: cultural forms to manage behavior Ex: How sexual content regulation can model “appropriate sexuality”? BUT: hard to study because decisions made “behind closed doors” Media Policy (Kirkpatrick): “Formal and informal rules and regulations that shape or influence the production, distribution, and consumption of media” Regulation by the state Self-regulation by the industry (adopted industry standards) Pressure on both thru citizens and groups Regulations vs. Deregulation: How can policymakers ensure competition between media businesses? PREVIOUSLY: regulation (government oversight to prohibit anticompetitive practices) NOW: deregulation (removal of ownership rules) THE GOAL: let “free market” competition increase choice and lower costs Esp. Thru cross-media ownership (e.d. b-cast stans can own cable stn; cable providers can be IPS Media Mergers: Response: rather than compete, media companies merge thru buyouts Media Conglomerate: company that owns several media divisions under a single corporation's umbrella. Vertical Integration: Production+ national distribution+ local exhibition within a single media division Keeps profit in-house // decreased costs Increased efficiency Getting the movie to you in front of your eyeballs Think of apple TV ORIGINALS or Netflix ORIGINALS Horizontal Integration: Owns many different media divisions Spreads risk (underperforming doesn't ruin profit/avoid putting all Ur eggs in a single basket) When company has a lot of media operations across media (think of Disneyland) Turning something into intellectual property Synergy: when coordination across media divisions so that the whole in greater than the sum of its parts (1+1=3) EXAMPLE WOULD BE AVENGERS FETURED ON JIMMY KIMBLE Being across the dif forms of media (one company owns many corporations) Each corporation would make more money from content convergence than the divisions working separately to create their own brands BUT: synergistic “mismatches” lead to a loss of efficiency and drain on profits Media Studies Exam Prep on Week 12 Conglomerate Power Critics: Conglomeration leads to oligopolies that favor their own interests/partnerships and make it difficult for outsiders to complete. So: While media grows, the #’s of speakers shrink Result #1: illusion of diversity: (more choice/ but not more voice) Result #2: “power is knowledge” (power to control circulation of ideas) VS. Free Market Defenders: ▪ They argue the media industry is dynamic and changing ▪ Corporations must grow/ lose market sahre in abundant marketplace ▪ Corporations must also absorb losses, afford innovation ▪ They argue that while companies are getting larger, and have an even larger capacity to connect with views online (Internet allows more production/ sharing more than ever) ▪ Companies self- regulate content Self-regulation: ▪ Industry put policies on themselves to keep competitive positions in the marketplace thru pressures from: 1. Lawmakers (threat of regulation) 2. Collective audience pressure 3. Advertisers 4. Critics: this problematically equates capitalism with/ democracy Media Globalization: ▪ Instantaneous (crosses time + space) ▪ Interconnected (communication/ relationships across cultures) ▪ Independent (global economies) BUT: globalization is uneven due to inequalities Rise of Media Globalization: ▪ Political: end of cold war/ opening a new foreign market ▪ Economic: deregulation, loosening ownership regulations, and trade treaties ▪ Technology: satellites, digital networks ▪ Culture: new migration patterns/ motivations of people Globalization of Film: ▪ Small studios = increase # of films ▪ Major studios = creation of high budget blockbusters ▪ Maximize the investment capital ▪ Economies of scale (easier to promote/distribute) ▪ Free publicity as “media events” ▪ Allows synergy and tie-ins 4 obstacles for Hollywood in China (Song): Lure: China is currently the world’s 2 nd-largest film market But: Hollywood faced w/ obstacles not found elsewhere Import quotas Censorship review Short window for promo Must “share review” with/ local distributors + exhibitors “5 key relationships to manage” (song) Governments = show China in a positive light; all ages; invest in China General audience= visual spectacle + animation; including “Chinese elements”; special premieres, promo, and versions. Partner relations= collab w/ Chinese media in production 1. Importation: US TV producers are in a position of power b/c their: - Broadcast strategy works internationally as well - Primetime dramas are $$$ to produce and have wide appeal - Shows performance in the US predicts international success Overall: advantage for buyer= cheaper, less risky than local production BUT: US faces competition from international producers - Home= non-US media find more success in the US as niches - Abroad= US facing increasing competition from other markets 2. CO- production: - Co-op between producers from different markets Advantages= shared costs (including for international sales) Tailored to the cultural specifications of both Get tax credits/funding incentives from all countries Disadvantages= language & Industrial differences create conflicts Ad/program structure, scheduling, etc... Needs of stronger partner usually win out 3. Formatting: - Importing premise to adapt to/ in local contexts - Cheaper to buy ideas then finished products - Enables local cultural specificity - Tailoring hit ideas to US audiences/ worldwide audiences - attractive to programmers because they are proven successful Multiple Proximities (La Pastina & Straubhaar): Cultural specificity of domestic media fosters “primary cultural proximity” w/ the national Language Experiences/ examples of Values Reflect Cultural Forms BUT: people can feel “secondary cultural proximities” to other nations/ experiences thru media imports - Appealing to audiences/ additional proximities (e.g. religion, region, localism, migration history) - From countries w/similar/ shared cultural specificity) Technological determinism: - A discourse that tech is the primary driver of change in a society - “What tech is doing to us” - AND: can be utopian or dystopian - I FORGOT MY PHONE (clip) “The medium is the message” (McLuhan): - The sensory experiences of new media shape our thinking - Sensory extensions afforded by medium are more important than the content - Ex. = electric light (a medium w/o a message) Development of new techs (Newman): Tech guided by human stakeholders at every level 1. Invention/development 2. distribution (including. Business models) 3. Government regulations 4. Domestication - First: new techs met w/ combo fascination & fear - Then: techs became “invisible” as they integrate into our lives Changing discourses on mobile media: Previously - Media use based at home/work Late 90s - Tech can encourage people to go out - Ex. Mobile phones, laptops, cybercafes 2000s - Free Wi-Fi - “haptic” & customizable mobile techs (especially smartphones) - Location-aware apps reliant on location to function Spatial Convergence: Blurring of boundaries between public & private// physical & virtual spaces - Nintendo Switch ad (mobility) 1. Privatized mobility = bring your home w/ you 2. Ambient awareness = common tech’s “ubiquitous connectivity” to maintain a sense of connect 3. Net locality = “location-aware” mobile media merges www + local, influencing mobility and “character of locations” (de Souza e Silvia) Mobile Kits (Ito et al.): What “mobile kits” do we take with us to fill our time and needs? - Primary = always take w/ us (primary mobile kit to secondary kit) - Secondary = when we work/ study in away from home “Forms of place making” (Ito et al.): 1. Cocooning Shelter from engagement or for killing time 2. Camping Temporary workspaces in public 3. Foot printing Public place that tries to create relationship w/ person Planned Obsolecence: Design logic = making a product w/a limited useful lifespan requiring consumers to buy a new version Marketing logic = encouraging consumers to upgrade to a newer version - PRO: incentivizes improvement and innovation  - CON: added expense/frustration/ and waste (spending more money/ frustration with learning new tech/ wasteful bc u getting rid of it when it's still good) Media Studies Exam Prep for Weeks 13-15 Components of mobile gaming (Steller & Barnes): - Gameplay accessibility (story & gaming mechanics) - Software accessibility (available thru a variety of devices) - Everyday ubiquity (encourages daily play) - Variable monetization (esp. “free to play” w/ adds &/or in-app “microtransactions”) - AND: reduced barriers to entry for developers Game & Player Spaces: Gameplay simultaneous exists in two spaces - Game space= virtual world of the game (the map/like how Mario cart has different tracks to race on) - Player space= environment where person is playing Console Games & Spatial Convergence: Focus on immersive play & the game space GOAL: fully absorb your attention RESULT: “avatarial introjection” of identity in game space -avatar as “me”, “I” “mine” “You killed me” (referring to the made-up characters in the game that play against yourself through game) - status & pleasant things for avatar - feeling a personal connection to other characters - killing game used (in game you see fake enemies you need to fight off) Video Game Spectatorship (Witkowski): Esports= institutional, regulated elite gaming tournaments - Video games always about being player + spectator of play - Adopts “spectacle” of trad sports + other media events - Live streaming a means of monetizing spectatorship & sustaining career thru drawing power - SO: esports pleasure = reminder of gameplay + team loyalties Web 2.0: Uses a three-prong definition It operates: 1. Technology - Open platforms geared towards interacting and sharing - If it’s the users that create the content, the platform only gives us the template 2. Socially - A result of the desire to create and circulate knowledge/ culture - Sharing connects you to create with others/ the connections between people. 3. Economically - To do all of this in a way that if monetizable - For-profit businesses; for them to earn $$ from... Promise of Web 2.0 Access to production + peer-to-rear sharing= participatory culture - Content is easy to share/ modify - Changes understanding of authorship E.g., Recreating someone's TikTok Demystifies the production process (because people can make content/ and they know what is behind the scenes). - Less reliance on traditional media For entertainment, info, etc...  - Democratization of authorship, info, culture Can mimic traditional media or step outside of it Participatory culture – more diversity of perspectives/ culture VIRAL VIDEO (Burgess): *Showed us the video for chocolate rain* - a video that grows popular through radius user-led network distribution commercially/ non-commercially motivated - can be professional or user-generated - can start non-commercial and become commercial (vise-versa) Viral Videos have “hooks” that encourage spreadability (incl. replica ideas) - Hooks explains why people share the videos and make their own videos SO; viral videos (and memes) are networked practices, not separate texts Costs of Web 2.0: - Participatory culture is framed as fun but it's a form of work under corporate platforms Other corporations can take advantage of if user-generated content is - Convert user content/ attention into profit - Turns their labor into money 1. Users are unwaged/ mandatory content licensing 2. Subject to ads/ data collection 3. Recommendation features steer users to promoted content SO, Users may be participatory, but that does not mean they are powerful at the institutional level - What they get vs. What they give up Influencers: Definition: small-scale, entrepreneurial content producers ▪ Top influencers with fewer resources than professionals sometimes do better than companies ▪ Author consistent, popular content (in views and subscribers (subs)) ▪ Views= watched ▪ Subs= approval ▪ Relatable “microcelebrities” with intimate, DIY Aesthetic ▪ More connected to the audience can influence purchase decisions ▪ Must navigate web 2.0 technology + social + economics Intermediaries as Productive (Lobato): - MCN’s can shape YouTube as a “textual space” - Tools of MCN help normalize/ narrow the type of content we see 1. Sign and professionalize YouTube from easily monetizable genres (and ignores other) 2. Metadata application expertise 3. Cross-promotion (collabs) between clients 4. Partnerships with brands a. Help reach out to brands, help brands, help with partnerships b. Extra profitable bc they do not have to split profit with YouTube SO: intermediaries privilege some video makers / types of content and not others Definitions Surveillance: - Sell info about us/ to us. - Surveillance is the act of watching without seeing/ without seeing the watcher. - Surveillance= to see w/o being seen// to be seen w/o seeing the watcher Personal traces: - the “footsteps” people leave behind (surveillance cameras, browsing histories, etc.) “Sensor society” (Andrejevic & Burdon): 1. Techs are sensors tracking events and states - Always on (record/ track/ states (temp/loc/phones always on) - Passive interactivity 2. New form of data collection and storage (for powerful institutions) - Immediate needs+ info for future analysis - Specific individuals+ larger usage patterns AND: current privacy laws unequipped to handle such pervasive, undirected data collection use. “Cryptopicon” (Vaidhyanathan): “An inscrutable info ecosystem of massive corporate and state surveillance.” Is about data gathering both massive at scale/ - Massive & precise data gathering on people thru less-than-visible means. - GOAL: abstracted from the mechanisms of surveillance people are comfortable sharing their interest and activities - RESULT: people “reveal themselves” to commercial and state interests - We don't know what these massive data collectors are doing/ selling our data to. State Surveillance: (State= referring to the government) GOAL: monitor potential crimes (+dissidents and critics in authoritarian governments) Direct surveillance= screening, tapping, and tracking programs, etc.. Indirect Surveillance= laws that compel private companies to save and hand over user records and communications. Reputation management: Managing our privacy in different social contexts thru controlling self-exposure -BUT: one’s persona/reputation varies w/ diff intended audiences - AND: many platforms encourage maximum contacts and sharing - SO: managing our privacy/ audiences online can be fraught + time-consuming