Twitter, YouTube, News and Everyday Conversations.

I found the article ‘How Twitter Will Change The Way We Live’ to be very interesting. As a new Twitter user, although I often forget to Tweet when I’m not concentrating on my DIGC enterprises, I have definitely found myself immersed in following interesting people and trending topics. The ease of which you can skip from one persons thoughts to anothers and follow their conversations and topics to other peoples conversations and topics is astounding, however I too was very apprehensive about the platform when joining. The most apt quote for me within the piece is ‘we don't think it at all moronic to start a phone call with a friend by asking how her day is going. Twitter gives you the same information without your even having to ask’.

From a DIGC perspective, I could relate to the notion of the ‘open conversation’ explored throughout the reading in regard to our tutorials every week. Although Twitter allows for us to interact and participate in the conversation throughout, does this somewhat replace actual spoken conversation? Often two very different discussions will be taking place aloud and via Twitter. We have no problem Tweeting the person sitting next to us, but asking for a pen or about the course content? Noo sir, that’s a bit confronting. I agree that social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter can be very useful and entertaining to be engaged in, however we must ask ourselves what this replaces within our daily lives.

According to Neilson (as shown), Australian users spend the most time visiting social networks and blogs. Perhaps this is because we are marked on it? Doubtful. ** However, as noted in the lecture, many of us have come to consider blogs and social networks to be valuable news sources. Although many of us (myself included) believed these sources often lacked credibility, due to scalability and the short feedback loop available to non-traditional news sources, often information is first dessiminated through these platforms. Yes, often I will Google the news to make sure the ‘news’ is not just rumours, and I definitely do not believe everything posted upon Facebook or Twitter, however often the rumours are confirmed. Living away from my home town, often I first hear local news from their on Facebook, and as such I do consider the information valuable. Although very open to global news, in this way social networking sites (SNS) are reflective of the very first newspapers, which were seen as hyper-local and important to that community.

Communication and news-sharing between many members of many different communities occurs daily via SNS, most broadly through Twitter. I believe Johnsons’ notion of ‘bridges made of pebbles’ is demonstrated nicely through a case I followed a while back. Up and coming Melbournian musician Ben Abraham (http://twitter.com/#!/benabrahammusic) created a YouTube video performing a song he wrote asking Canadian musician Sara Bareilles (http://twitter.com/#!/SaraBareilles) if he could perform a song with her on her forthcoming tour to Melbourne. To quote Sara ‘I received a video on Twitter, from like ten billion people’, and so they performed together. Very cool, and nicely demonstrates the impact an aggregation of Tweets can have, joining two previously completely unrelated people together.

Check it out; they’re both very cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG8cvlhKcYQ

**Interesting to discover Evan Williams, co-creator of Twitter also launched Blogger; coincidence we must use these platforms Ted?

Scarcity and Value in the Attention Economy.

The shift to a digital economy has had many adverse effects on various aspects of life which we have discussed in previous weeks. Shown through the ‘long tail effect’, it is clear to see how retail frameworks, processes and marketing efforts have been significantly effected by a shift to ‘e-tail’ and online shopping. As discussed in the lecture, content aggregators such as Amazon, Google and Netflix have come to dominate the market online, as well as offline. The Borders vs Amazon case clearly demonstrates the huge impact an online service provider can have on a more traditional ‘physical’ retailer, and how digital and hybrid retailers can break through the ‘tyranny of physical space’. The logistical aspects of digital retail demonstrate how this can occur; the Amazon warehouse does not require neat presentation, counter-staff or ordered shelf space, and instead can be utilised so that consumers pay the lowest possible price for their desired products. This is important as price transparency is increased online, with prices easily comparable. Through lower prices and recommendation engines (such as Google), users are driven down the long tail to find obscure products you cannot find anywhere but online.

Long-tail effect for retailers

The shift from the ‘hit-driven model’ to a ‘mass market of niches’ allows more obscure products and trends to become popular, with memes and social networks helping to spread awareness of alternative music, fashion, movies and art amongst other things. One of the most interesting concepts I have found over the course of DICG202 is the importance of scarcity, and its impact on demand and value. In regard to this week’s discussion, I believe the notion that ‘abundance of information leads to scarcity of attention’ needs to be bought to be highlighted, as this is extremely important to consider in a digital economy. Compared to traditional media, the internet providers easy access and no risk, zero entry or user costs, no quality filters, and free publishing and access for users. Although this is seen by many as huge benefits of the internet, for companies wishing to gain attention or sell their products (whether tangible or intangible) this can be a major problem. With scarcity comes attention (and value); using more literal examples, this can be seen through water and bananas. Prior to drought, water is considered necessary and precious, however to a much higher value when it is scarce than when it is abundant. Bananas are the same; few people considered them as a highly valuable product until there was a shortage. Now a quick search for bananas on Facebook leads to groups such as ‘showing off your banana at school coz you’re a rich ****’ (with 46 000 fans).

The same can be said for many other tangible products, as well as information. In regard to scarcity, I believe Kelly sums up the paradox well, stating ‘when copies are super abundant, they become worthless. When copies are super abdundant, stuff which cant be copied becomes scarce and valuable’. I would be interested to hear your opinions on whether you agree with this also?

Convergence Culture.

Convergence is a topic I have discussed in many subjects, focusing on many different aspects. Jenkins (2006) and Deuze (2007) are both highly regarded academics on the subject, and these two readings have provided even further insight into convergence for me. First of all however, I would like to discuss my own thoughts on the matter.

In today’s digital society, I definitely consider myself to be a prosumer/produser. I own an iPhone, and tried to narrow down the importance of its functions for me for the purpose of this blog. The list was not short. I think this is mostly due to the fact that since I have owned the iPhone, many other products have become obsolete to me. Pre-iPhone I owned a mobile (Samsung flip phone, worked fine), an iPod (again, functioned well) and a camera (not so reliable). Now, I am totally reliant on my iPhone for music listening and photo taking purposes. Prior to owning it, I was completely sceptical and somewhat condescending toward ‘those people’ who always raved on about them, but I often find myself wondering what I used to do before it. For example, during a trip to the supermarket this week I: had the list of items I needed in the ‘notes’ application, looked up a recipe, called a friend to check what I needed and transferred myself some money. All while actually in Woolies. Although the SmartPhone is only one example of convergence, it is clear the impact this has had on my life (and organisation skills).

Web 2.0 is probably the largest example of convergence, with a plethora of different uses available. You know the drill; tv and radio, movies and music, blogs and news, encyclopaedias, tutorials, textbooks, rah rah rah…. Social media platforms echo this, with Facebook used to share photos, videos, links and news, chat to friends, and organise events. During exams my friend asked me to temporarily change her Facebook password so she would not be distracted (a sad but effective practice). Although she did not feel she was very disadvantaged or disconnected for the period of time without it, it was clear that the events application in particular was pushing her out of the social loop. Constantly people would be talking about events happening that she had not yet been invited to, because invites were issued solely through Facebook.

Although these are just somewhat superficial examples of convergence, it is clear that convergent medias are considered to be the norm in this day and age, often pushing products with one sole into obsolescence. Adverse to this, Jenkins (2006) states ‘old media are not being displaced. Rather, their functions and status are shifted by the introduction of new technologies’. I would be very interested to hear which of these ideas you agree with?