CC2: Which One Are You?

Terms:
Zappers constantly change channels and watch pieces of shows instead of concentrating on one. (74)
Loyals pick their favorite shows and give themselves over fully to them. (74)
Casuals may have a favorite set of television programs but only watch when they have nothing better to do and actually remember. (74)
Concept:
The media industry must know its viewers in order to attract them.
Arguments:
-Interactive television should and will be designed for zappers. (75) –Phillip Swann
-On the contrary, loyals are more valuable than zappers. (76) –Jenkins
-Evidence: Initiative Media did a study that showed that loyals have a higher rate of brand recall, which means advertising is absorbed more by loyals. Because of this and other research, advertisers realize that they need to invest money during shows with high favorability and not during shows with high ratings. (76)
Therefore, new Concept:
The goal of the media industry is to attract loyals, slow down zappers, and turn casuals into fans. (76)
Example:
Concept: American Idol wants a large audience and must use knowledge of television viewers to appeal to their wants.
Arguments:
-Attract loyals to create a large audience.
-Evidence: Satisfactory entertainment experiences pull in long-time viewers. (77)
-Evidence: Serialization rewards those who keep coming back. (77)
-Evidence: Cliffhangers leave loyals hooked to tune in to the next episode. (77)
-Slow down zappers to expand large audience.
-Evidence: Short, highly emotionally charged units attract zappers’ attention. (77)
-Evidence: Sometimes an entire show is dedicated to recapping the season so that zappers can see what they have missed and get hooked on the remainder of the season. (77)
-Turn casuals into fans to expand audience viewing.
-Evidence: Short recaps and updates in every episode catch the casual viewer up and draw them into the rest of the season. (77)
-Evidence: Unresolved elements pull casuals to a more committed relationship with the show. (77)
Therefore, new Concept:
American Idol is designed to support and sustain multiple levels of engagement. (77)

...I'm a casual... and the marketing strategies work on me

CC3: I Want Both Pills

I wonder where the members of these knowledge communities find time to immerse themselves in a make believe world. I think it makes more sense for the people who participate to be children because they have the most free time. Jenkins asserts that "transmedia storytelling is perhaps at its most elaborate, so far, in children's media franchises" (128). Well I feel that this makes more sense, at least until critics start analyzing too much. Education professors David Buckingham and Julian Sefton-Green that children may watch cartoons as a way of gathering knowledge that they use later when playing video or card games. I don't agree at all. I think children play games and watch television according to how much they feel like participating at any given time and may access the same brand or group of characters through different sources because they like the characters or the scenario. I don't mean to say that kids don't learn as they play but most kids don't watch cartoons in the hopes that something they see will help them at a later time (unless something from the company has told them to tune in to a particular episode to get a code that can be used to unlock something in the video game). I thought back to when I was younger and had video games and video tapes with the same content (Little Mermaid) but I didn't assume they were connected--only that they had the same characters that I liked. But this could very well be completely different from the way kids now play, although I have done my fair share of babysitting and I don't think they gathered knowledge from one source to use in another. So I guess my question is how many people are really involved in these knowledge communities and uses multiple sources to live in a pretend world? I don't know any of these people.. do you?

The Rhetor

Every adult person has at some point been given the opportunity to become a rhetor, and I also think it is safe to say that everyone has taken this opportunity (except maybe hermits). Rhetors also vary in their degree of ability. It can begin with someone responding to an awkward silence on a date who tries only to make the situation more comfortable but who doesn't really have anything intelligent or interesting to say. The degree of ability would end at a person who specializes in rhetoric and who writes presidential speeches during times of emergency. The speaker's degree of ability is important to consider when critiquing rhetoric. It is likely that there isn't much to say about the guy on the awkward date because his only purposes are to make the date a success and get the girl to like him. He could be fumbling with words that really don't come together in meaning or he could be making up a fantastical lie to pique the girl's interest. Much of the analysis of this rhetoric would have to do with the ethos of the guy--whether he is trustworthy and looking for love or conniving and looking for a one night stand. In the case of the political speech writer, there would be a great deal more to analyze. Much of this was explained in the ALT reading on the speaker, but there are plenty of motivations for manipulating the audience to think, act, react, or judge in a particular way, which would benefit the president, the government, and the nation.

CC2: Behind These Hazel Eyes

"American Idol and many other reality shows may devote an entire episode to the season's highlights, designed to provide and easy entry point" (77). OOH! These episodes in the middle of the season (when I used to actually have time to watch my favorite shows religiously) used to make me so angry because I had already watched the season so far and knew what had happened. I always assumed that the producers couldn't come up with enough material for the amount of shows they planned to air or wanted to get an extra week out of the season without spending the amount of money usually needed for a normal episode. It never dawned on me that this was a ploy to attract more viewers. Now that I'm actually thinking about it, I wonder if this ploy really attracts that many more viewers. I don't think I would get hooked after a brief recap of the season because one half or full hour program can't present the full image of a season's worth of events. I think it would be different if there was a marathon of all the aired episodes because that would give the viewer access to all possible information previously broadcasted. I guess this could also depend on whether the viewer was a zapper who only looks for clips or a loyal who prefers to see the whole picture.

Jenkins also explained in this chapter how reality television often starts with a large cast that is reduced as the season progresses. He adds that some of the members of the cast become audience favorites and get more air time. He related these ideas to American Idol, because he related everything in this chapter to American Idol, but I want to push it a little further. I think MTV has embraced this idea with their Real World/Road Rules challenges. For those of you who don't know--MTV selects certain members of previous reality show casts (The Real World and Road Rules) and pins them against each other in crazy challenges to win great prizes and a large cash sum. I'm not sure about Road Rules, but I know the Real World has been on air since the early 90s and some of these early cast members participate in the challenge. These challenges are a way to attract all MTV Real World and Road Rule viewers from past seasons to watch MTV again. They can still relate with their favorite characters even if they were originally on TV fifteen years ago. It also attracts newer viewers from the seasons that aired in the past few seasons, even if these viewers are graduating from college and becoming "too old for MTV." By keeping cast members from the past decade, MTV brings back old viewers to relive their past and keeps other viewers from moving on to something else.

Not Really Pertaining To Class..

I just wanted to let you all know that there has been a death in my family this past week, which is why I was not in class on Thursday. I also wanted to apologize for my lack of posts, but I am hoping to be caught up as soon as possible considering the other work I also have to keep up with. If anyone has anything to say to update me on the class I missed I would really appreciate it. Thanks for understanding. :-)

CC1: Outwit, Outplay, Outlast

I had no idea this "spoiling" thing was a big deal. Crazy! The most interesting idea I came across when reading about spoiling came from Shawn the history student and Suckster/Spoiler. He related the skills he learned in class for his major to the skills used in spoiling. In an interview with Jenkins he explained "I like to dig. I like to look at primary source information. I like to find official manuscripts of an event. I like to find out who were the people there, what did they see. I want to hear it from them. That's part of my love of spoiling. I like to dig to the bottom. I like it when people don't just say here's who got booted--here you go, but elaborate a little bit about where they get their information" (52-53). Reading Shawn's motivation for spoiling changed my mind about it. When I began the chapter, I thought these spoilers had no friends and no social lives, but it really isn't about that. The process is a mystery and a treasure hunt where the tools aren't a magnifying glass or a shovel, but every form of interactive media available combined with brain power. If someone introduced me to Shawn, the nerdy history student with a crazy fascination with discovering information about Survivor, I would have judged him in a snap. But thinking about what I've read, Shawn is getting a head start on some graduate level research with a more current topic.

Outwit, Outplay, Outlast: How perfect is this slogan? The whole game of spoiling is about finding out the information about Survivor that is supposed to be kept secret before it airs. It's also about discerning real truth from fake truth by using any means of technology available, including thought. Can the producers outwit the spoilers by posting fake info? Can the spoilers outplay the producers and the spoiler spoilers by figuring out which info is fake? Can the spoilers outlast the series by figuring out all the answers? Or will the series outlast the spoilers? Will technology step up and provide better means for solving the problems? Just something to think about...

Convergence Culture Intro and Rhetoric Articles

I find the idea of a convergence culture interesting, but other than giving a definition to the term I did not find much new information in the introduction of Convergence Culture. Jenkins did give many entertaining examples in the intro but as far as information goes, I think I will wait until I read some of the actual book before praising or criticizing whatever Jenkins has to say.

The one major thing I did learn from the intro was the definition of convergence culture, or more appropriately Jenkins' definition of convergence culture. Before opening the book, I defined convergence culture as something along the lines of "the meeting of technology and media with information" on the information sheet we filled out on Tuesday. This definition is not in sync with Jenkins' definition, but I wouldn't call myself wrong. I think the two words put together form a vague compound that could logically be defined in numerous ways. In my own words, Jenkins describes a convergence culture as a society that lives in an environment highly influenced by the availability of content from numerous, differing sources. This includes the production aspect of content and media as well as the dispersal , use, and interactions that follow content.

After reading the articles on rhetoric from Blackboard, I am safe to say that I am decently confused. I first read The Rhetorical Situation and thought I understood it to be an instance that calls for discourse or rhetoric due to an event that occured, such as an unexpected death provides an instance during which someone needs to inform others of the details surrounding the death. Then I read The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation. Now I'm not sure which writer to trust. Vatz made valid points that some of Bitzer's ideas are contradictory or at least confusing. But after reading both articles, I am confusing the stipulations that must occur to create a rhetorical situation as given by each respective writer, so for now I will hope class discussion helps me sort these ideas, and I plan to stick by my first definition of the rhetorical situation.