Zeiner, bog 27, American Idol fans

American Idol is the most successful reality show on American TV. It has run many seasons, and the ratings tend to grow and grow. They experienced a little down period for a couple of seasons, but are back on top at the moment. American Idol is concerned with maintaining their current viewers, as well as doing what they can to get new ones.  They give detailed recaps of what’s happened earlier, and they allow people who aren’t very familiar with the show to learn more about it. And what makes American Idol to be American Idol is the significant audience participation. Idol would certainly not be the same today if the audience didn’t decide the outcome of the show. The audience basically forms the show. But who is this audience? Who watches American Idol? Who are their core fans?

            The media divides the consumers into 3 different categories: zappers, casuals and loyals. Zappers watch several snippets of different shows, loyals watch less TV all though they tend to stick with a few shows that are their definite favorites, and the casuals fall somewhere in between. Loayls are described to watch series, while zappers watch television. Of course, American Idol wants to appeal to all these groups, in order to keep and increase their ratings and popularity.

            The unique thing about American Idol is that the show appeals to all ages and all groups of people. The strong diversity within the show drags fans from all groups; that being young and old, black and white, minorities and so forth. I have done some research, and different sites have different core audiences for American Idol. Some sites say it’s the ages of 10 to 20, while other sites claim the gap to be even bigger. American Idol is a family show that the whole family enjoys together, and therefore different ages are dragged to the show. Personally, I would assume their core fan base to be from about 10 to 20, and then the parent’s group is a good number two. But as stated earlier: the uniqueness about American Idol is its diversity, and the amount of diversified fan groups that watches it!

Zeiner, blog 26, media convergence

So far in this ”introduction to mass media” class, we have mostly discussed the so called “traditional media”. Arthur Berger mostly sticks to the traditional media use the way it has been for last years. But Henry Jenkins, on the other hand, sets the media in a new perspective, in which we can understand how it works in the contemporary society. He talks about media convergence, and a synonym for convergence is meeting. In media convergence, multiple media coexist, and a flow of content circulates between them.

            The chapter “buying into American Idol” in Jenkins’ book paints a picture of advertisement, advertisers, consumers and programmers/producers that places each entity in a media convergence type of model. They all work together, and converge with each other.

            Programmers and producers rely on participation culture – a culture in which the participation of the consumers is significant. The old media model places producers and consumers on two different sides, and the viewers has no further interaction but tuning in their TV, and then watch passively. But the new model explains the importance of audience participation, and converge producers and consumers together. You can both produce and consume at the same time!

A show like American Idol is a perfect example of media convergence. First of all, the audience actively takes part in the show. They are the ones participating in the contest, they vote, and they decide the outcome of the result. Also, they become huge fans, who all discuss online, speculate, upload videos, write blogs etc. They promote the show by making such a big deal out of it. Newspapers write as well, and there are also shows on TV only about American Idol. At the same time, advertisers have a big part of the show to. Coca Cola sponsors the show, and they use this promotion for all its worth. They have product placement, a red “green room” and so forth. At the same time, Coca Cola uses Idol in a lot of their advertisements and campaigns to get even more positive publicity. And this benefits American Idol further more – it all works in a circle. So: what we can see from all of this is how it all converges together. American Idol has TV presence, online presence, the songs go on the radio, and the newspapers write about it. With other words: it flows between multiple media. It also converges producers and consumers, and the participatory culture is significant. There is a lot of interconnectedness. And last but not least; the advertisers and producers converge together, and use each other for all its worth. So as you can see: this one show called American Idol converges an entire culture together!

Jenkins writes that the American public is becoming harder and harder to impress for advertisers. $ 8 billion a year is being used on commercials, but do these really have the affect the advertisers are hoping for? Digital Video Recorders are the next phenomenon in our culture, and allows the viewers to skip all commercials on TV. This only means that the convergence is even more important to the advertisers! Jenkins refers to a convergence strategy, in which content providers and sponsors have greater collaborations in order to shape the total entertainment package even better. And this is really important!

In the past, media producers spoke of making an impression on their audience, while they today are working with “expressions”. And the marketing community has moved towards an established “brand community”, and increased brand loyalty. The loyal consumers are the most important ones; and in the sense of media consumption – the biggest fans. Fans can literally go crazy some times, and have a significant meaning to the shows. For example, the drama show Jericho was taken off after their first season because a misunderstanding about its ratings. The show didn’t have high ratings on TV, but was one of the most viewed shows online and through TiVo. Its active fans protested, took initiative, and actually had the producers make a second season. However, now it’s seems as if it’s being taken off again. But the fans still know what to do – they go to other networks and try to make them continue the show! With other words: the participatory culture is really showing an extreme effect.

I think we have only seen the start of media convergence. It is most definitely the next phenomenon which will dominate our culture, and collaboration between all entities grows significantly. What had American Idol been without the participatory culture? What had it been without its producers? What had it been without its sponsors? Or most importantly: what had it been without the media convergence?

Zeiner, blog 25, TV interaction

A few weeks ago, I talked with my grandmother back home in Norway on the phone. I hadn’t talked to her in a long time, therefore the talk went on and on. Suddenly, she told me that she for the first time ever had actively participated in a television show. I became surprised, and didn’t really understand what she was speaking about. I asked her if she had been in the show, or worked behind it or something like that, but that was not it. She told me she had participated actively together with millions of people in this one show. I still didn’t really get it, but finally she told me what she meant: she had voted for one of the singers in the Idol final!  

            To my grandmother, this was a huge deal. She told me how she had called, and how they had responded to her phone call. She seemed surprisingly excited about the whole situation, and was satisfied that she had been able to accomplish such thing. And that is also what made me think.

Television consumption has changed rapidly the last years; only a few years ago, most of us preferred a relaxed and sit-back possession in front of the TV, watching a show from the beginning to the end, with no further interaction. But today, all kinds of reality shows rely on the active participation of its viewers! What had shows such as Idol been like if there wasn’t for high interaction from the people? Either as contestants, or as voters in the final rounds.

Now, even my grandmother has decided to join this new form of watching TV. For most people, casting a vote in such a show isn’t a big thing at all, but to my old grandmother who didn’t even grow up with a television at home this is a great deal. I can understand her excitement, and finally she will be able to participate in this new culture. The way of watching TV has changed from real-time interaction to an asynchronous participation.  

Zeiner, blog 24, Media manipulation

Today in class we watched a movie about the relationship between the US government and the Media. And the focus was on the whole situation that arose during the start of the Iraq war.  I was not aware of this situation at all, and became very surprised from what I saw. It certainly is a serious issue. The months before the US went to war against Iraq, the Bush administration literarily used the media, and the news papers in specific, in order to confide the people about the decision of declaring war on Iraq. The US administration stated they had proof saying that Saddam Houssein was creating illegal weapons; biological, chemical and nuclear devices. They saw Houssein as a threat in multiple different ways, and wanted to do something about this situation. And in order to give the people a good kind of confidence that this was the right thing to do, the administration manipulated the media, so that they would write the articles which supported their case. Journalists wrote about the reports they had seen which more or less proofed that Houssein carried and developed illegal weapons, and these reports were the same as were sent to the White House. Therefore, they trusted these reports, and wrote about what they saw. What the journalists did not know, was that some of the reports and the sources they used were false. The US administration had developed something like a conspiracy to manipulate the press. The press wrote what the administration wanted them to write, so the people would have more confidence in them and their decisions. It all developed like a loop that kept on going. However, US failed to find what they were looking for during the first months of invation in Iraq. And this became clear to the people, and strong reactions started to come. The Administration was under a high pressure, and after a while it also became clear that some of the sources the journalists had used several months ago were false. Slowly, but surely, the press understood they had been manipulated. The discussions were loud and clear, and most people made up their own opinion about the matter. It even came to court, and it all became very serious. Many claim that this situation has damaged the credibility of the media. Others say that the way the US administration manipulated them in order to achieve public confidence in their decisions is way out of line. We did not get to the end of the film during class, so I do not know how this whole issue ended. But it definitely is an interesting case. On the one hand, you can say journalists are required to be positive of their sources. On the other hand, having sources used by the US administration shouldn’t make it necessary to be as critical as usual. There is a lot to this case, and I don’t think there will be a straight right and wrong. Both sides did something out of order, and it will be interesting to see who will be the ones to blame for it.

Zeiner, blog 23, “A More Perfect Union”

In class on Wednesday, we saw the speech ”A More Perfect Union” by Barack Obama, made march 18^th. This is one of the greatest speeches made about civil rights ever made, and is likely to be an important part of Obama’s election campaign. He spoke to the American people as if they were grown up and mature people, and he presented some great thoughts and theories in a pleasing way.         It is 221 years since the “Declaration of Independence” was formed, but there is still an issue about racism in the United States. Numerous people have tried to fight this problem, and during this whole period of time, we have witnessed strong improvement. But as stated earlier, racism is still a big problem in this country. Obama talks about this problem in a great way, and really make us believe that solving this problem is possible. He believes that we must stand together, and that we have to fight for a better freedom for our children and grand children. He says: “We cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together”. And this is exactly what we have to do. The segregation between the different races in this country is still big, but the only way of improving this situation is if we all go together to try to improve the union.          After having been here in the States for about 8 months, I see the racial issues very clearly. I honestly did not expect the differences between the colors and races to be this big when I first entered the country, and I have become surprised by the situation. It is really a big segregation between the African-American population, and the white population. And I cannot understand why this is still going on. I realize that this goes far back to history, and many people still feel humiliation and fear from years of oppression. Many blacks were ultimately defeated by discrimination. But the world is changing in all kinds of ways, and we are continuously moving towards a more global and united world. Why should we then face such racial problems here in the US; the greatest superpower in the world?         All texts can be analyzed. “A More Perfect Union” can be analyzed as well, and first and foremost, this speech is a fresh media text. It is made by creators wanting to inform the viewers, and includes several narratives; stories. Obama refers to several different stories and happenings throughout his text, in order to exemplify and make his point even clearer. You can also look at his text as pragmatic art; a text that has certain functions. This text certainly has a function to inform and persuade the viewers of what Obama’s view upon the racial issues is, at the same time as persuading the viewers that Obama is the right person to take the role as president of the United States. Also, the text has enormous power, and Obama says this out to the entire world, exemplifying the racial problems the US currently are facing, and stating what he thinks can be the resolution. Obama knows that he reaches out to the entire world during this election campaign, but by doing such a speech, he will also make an impression on those who actually hear what he says.          Obama has a lot of good points, and he has made a speech about civil rights which will remain in history as one of the great speeches about this particular issue. Being an African- American himself, he certainly has a good knowledge and background for making such a speech, and he really make us believe that we can solve this problem. I particularly liked one sentence of his: “This union may never be perfect. But, it can always be perfected”. And this is exactly to the point. We can’t expect racism to disappear next week, next month, next year or might even next decade. But we can go up the lather step by step, and try to unite this union slowly but safely. Integration will begin with communication among blacks and whites, and among people of different backgrounds and races. We should start today, maybe we’ll see some improvement tomorrow. As an ending to my text, I quote Obama saying: “All men and women of all backgrounds and colors should live together, work together, fight together and bleed together”.

Zeiner, Blog 22, Political commercials

Today in class we watched one of Hillary Clinton’s campaign commercials. It is called “3 am”, and shows how defenseless we can be. But she explains how she will be there to protect us, and she says she is ready to take the role as president of the most powerful state in the World. It is a strong commercial, and uses different techniques to make a strong impression on the viewers. It shows small children being asleep, and really tries to hit our emotions.

            This commercial is art. It is appealing to us, it is intentional, it lets people interpret it in different ways, and artists have worked behind it to make it into what it is. The commercial can also be said to be a “convention”; which refers to a reuse of something; it’s kind of like a recycling process put into the art. Because the clips of the sleeping children are made several years ago, and were used in another situation. And one problem with this commercial is that one of the young girls in the commercial is now grown up, and helps Obama with his campaign! And obviously, being used in a Hillary commercial is then not a preferred thing for this lady.

I think the commercial actually is good; it plays with my emotions, and I feel I understand the text it carries. The narrative is meaningful and has a purpose. However, I would like to see it a bit more inventional; that it was a new approach – used something that was brand new, and could not be connected back to the previous. I think those commercials can be more meaningful, and shows that this all really is the candidate’s idea, and something which is well thought thorough.

To me, the whole thing about watching political commercials is weird. I come from Norway; a country in which political commercials through media is illegal. I personally think this is good – then the campaign is less about money, and more about the actual politics. The political campaigns here in the States spend serious amounts of money. Imagine what we rather could have used this money on, than making commercials and approaches through media! Back to the Hillary’s “3 am” commercial; I like it and I find it appealing, however; I wish I hadn’t seen it at all. I find this media war between the candidates rather ridiculous and a waste of money, and think the focus should have been more of what you have to offer your country as a president – not comparisons so that you can emphasize your opponent’s weaknesses.

Zeiner, blog 21, the world in change

Currently, I am studying a year in America, as an exchange student from Norway. I absolutely love it here, and have the time of my life. But I am a person who is very close to family and friends at home, and was wondering about how it would be being so far away from those I love more than anything in the whole world for such a long period of time.

            Before I came, I downloaded the chatting program “skype” to my computer, bought headset and a web camera, and did the same on my family’s computers. Also, I have the chatting program MSN Messenger, which a lot of my friends use. Skype is a program which lets you chat or talk with friends live through computers. MSN Messenger basically offers the same services, but what extinguishes Skype from MSN is that it lets you call out from your computer to cell phones and home phones, as long as you have an account with “skype credit” on. With other words: these two programs, together with multiple other ones, let you stay in touch with the entire world just with a few clicks.

            It is quite unbelievable how this has developed; that it is possible to do such a thing. I can talk with my family and friends and see them on my screen, and practically feel that I am there with them. I stayed here in the US over Christmas Break, and on Christmas Eve I was talking with my family at home for a couple of hours, to be able to be a part of the traditional celebration that I always have been a part of. The time difference allowed me to take part both in the Norwegian celebration as well as the American one. Just a few years back, most people didn’t even have a cell phone to call their friend on the other side of town. Now, computers and internet allows you to practically physically be a part of two different Christmas celebrations on two different sides of the world, only with a few hours in between. I find it very interesting to think about, and to see how media and technology has shrinked the world into one large community. Being here in America for a year, far away from my family and friends is not really any problem these days. We can all communicate with each other, no matter where in the world we might be. Technology is there to help you – technology is there to be used.

Zeiner, Blog 20, The world of blogging

A blog is an online dairy which is frequently updated, and it’s a way to communicate with the rest of the world. You can express your feelings, thoughts, concerns, experiences or whatever you might want to share with everyone else. About 1/3 of the American population knows what a blog is, and 32 million in this country read blogs close to daily.

            I personally don’t read a large amount of blogs, but every once in a while I find myself reading something published by private citizens. It is interesting to see what people “like you” have to say about certain themes, and either find yourself strongly agreeing or disagreeing. Reading blogs can be valuable, and present you to new aspects of certain issues. But they can also be disleading, and at certain times not verifying the sources being used can get serious consequences.

            The bloggers build up a community and large network. In each blog, you can make links to other blogs. That way the readers can move throughout the world of blogs like a cyclone – and you can start reading one thing, while ending up reading something completely different. They can blog about whatever they want, and there aren’t a lot of restrictions for them. There are different opinions whether blogging should be included in the media, or if bloggers just should be considered private citizens. After all, bloggers do write for an audience, on the other hand: most blogs are only read by a small amount of people, and normally don’t reach out far.

            However, bloggers have a lot of power. They can reach out, convince people about their theories and thoughts, and every once in a while a blog turns out to get serious consequences. If one person finds extravagant information which he blogs about, and several people pick this up, the ball starts rolling. One blog can lead to another, and suddenly a large amount of people can be concerned with this exact topic. For example, the whole issue in which Barak Obama was presented as a Muslim. The blogging started, and people thought he was going to take over the White House and be dressed and act like a Muslim once he got in there. Obama had to use a whole week of his election campaign on sorting this out, only because a person posted a picture of him dressed like that, and because of all the blogging that started.

            All in all: the power of the cyberspace only grows, and becomes a bigger and bigger part of our lives. Journalists aren’t the only people who have a strong power while writing about daily themes and issues – today practically everyone can act like a journalist throughout writing for an audience through blogging. Most blogs aren’t being read by a large amount of people, while some get serious consequences. The world of blogging is in a strong, publishing power.

Zeiner, blog 19: Just because we can do it, does it mean that we have to do it?

In today’s world absolutely everything develops and changes. Media, industry, economics, politics, you name it. The world has never stood still, and will never stand still in the future either. But with these changes, growing responsibilities come along. With today’s inventions, humans can do practically whatever they want, and our possibilities of affecting the world grows, as well as our chances of changing the natural order of things. But just because we can do something; does that mean we have to do it?

            The answer to this question is no, of course. If we had taken the most out of every single invention and every single idea, the world wouldn’t have been what it is today. Human kind has learnt to control our desire of exploring and taking control of things we aren’t really supposed to be in control of. But is this trend changing? Is the development of media contributing to a negative change of how we use our inventions and devices that are in a constant change? In the example on page 128 in Berger, we get a representation of the deeper meaning of video games. They’re not only a toy we use to play with – they have an underlying meaning in several different ways. Can videogames simply be some sort of substitution for the desire of control that is within us? That we get to control people around, make them do what we want them to do, and simply take charge? Make changes and do imaginary things?

            This is a critical question to ask. Maybe the answer is no, but this whole control that humans experience to have in a somewhat fake way through media devices such as videogames and other devices can contribute to a change of perspective. As stated in Berger – they can simply enough make us focus more upon ourselves and forget about our social obligations. And moving on – this can affect our values and morals, and also have an impact on our inner desire of control and exploring. With the change we are facing in the world today, it is important to realize that we cannot make the most out of every single device and every single invention coming into this world. Just because we can do it, does NOT mean we have to do it!