In this essay Philip Nel argues that when analyzing the Harry Potter series one must separate the literary text from the “marketing juggernaut” that surrounds it.  The first third of the essay, then, is an account of why one need not conflate the Harry Potter books and J.K. Rowling with the marketing campaign surrounding it, and the final two-thirds of the essay focus on the literary merits of these texts.  So, in Nel’s attempt to separate the Potter books from the extraordinary marketing campaign surrounding it, he employs two basic arguments.  Firstly, Nel claims that the books have generated so much marketing attention simply because of the way American copyright and trademark law works.  Secondly, Nel asserts that Rowling is not really a part of the capitalist marketing regime surrounding her books because she donates a lot of money to charity.  (Seriously, that is his argument.)  Then the essay shifts to the literary merits of the Potter books, which are, bafflingly, almost as naïve and uninteresting as the arguments already mentioned.  He begins this roughly twenty-page defense of the literary merits of Rowling’s books with a paragraph briefly describing the criticism that has been raised against the aesthetic merits of the works (this is by far the most interesting paragraph in the entire essay).  Nel then says that these critics have simply not read “slowly” enough, and proceeds to tell us what we will find were we to read more slowly.  I will not go through all the reasons he cites for why the Potter books have literary merit, but I will mention a few.  One is that Rowling claims to have read Jane Austen’s Emma “at least 20 times,” and as a result shares Austin’s satiric charm and “narrative misdirection.”  Also, Nel claims that Rowling’s series are “anti-rascist novels,” and he defends this claim by comparing them to boarding school novels written in that late eighteenth-century through the mid nineteenth-century.  He points out that these novels were blatantly racist, whereas the Potter books once criticized the notion of “pure-bloods,” thus making them anti-racist novels.  (Again, these are really the arguments Nel employs.)  Another reason the Rowling books possess literary merit is the names that are used.  As Nel points out, Rowling “uses names to connote character traits, as do Austen, Dickens, and Tolkein.”  She then points to a few significant names as evidence of this, and concludes that this is further proof of the literary merit of these works.  Nel provides a few more arguments in defense of the literary merit of the Potter series that I will not go into here (one is based on the fact that Rowling uses a lot of prime numbers, which are “mystical”), but I think the overall thrust of the essay has been captured.  In order to do justice to the Potter books it is imperative that we separate them completely from the marketing surrounding them.

    This essay hinges upon Roland Barthes’s distinction between work and text, proposed in his essay “From Work to Text,” in which he distinguishes a work as a “fragment of substance” (i.e. a tangible item, like a book, DVD, etc.) from a text which is “experienced only in an act of production” (i.e. the content of a book, DVD, etc.).  This is an oversimplified description of exactly what Barthes means by these two terms, but it does represent the ways in which Cubbison employs these two terms.  These terms are important for Cubbison because she wants to understand how a work (in the case of this essay a DVD or VHS) can alter the text (the program contained on the work).  Further, she wants to examine how fans, particularly anime fans, are able to influence the work, and thus in turn influence the text.  Finally, she wants to relate all of this to a notion of an “authentic text,” a notion that she feels is bound up with fans, the form of a work, and ultimately the text.  This essay, then, looks closely at how hard-core anime fans, known as otaku, are able to dictate the form that a work takes through debates on “authentic” modes of viewing anime, and how this fan intervention ultimately effects the text.  All of this technical cant may seem a bit austere initially, but this is really a very simple, coherent essay.  Put most simply, Cubbison thinks that anime fans exert influence on how their anime commodities are produced, and this in turn influences the content of these commodities.
    This is a somewhat informative essay, particularly if one is interested in the production and distribution of anime films, but the argument it makes is an exceptionally simple one (although it dons the clothes of profundity).  Cubbison’s essay basically wants to say that form effects content, and that now consumers are allowed to dictate (to a certain, very limited extent) form.  She also adds that the form consumers desire is based on an idea of authenticity, but this aspect of the essay is only explored through the relation of a few contrasting anecdotes and resulting in the conclusion: nobody is really certain what an authentic text is but there are lots of opinions about what it may be.  To get back to form, content, and consumers, though, one must admit that her argument is not a very novel or complex one.  Form and content have always been interrelated, and have always been seen to mutually affect one another.  Cubbison’s argument that anime fans have some control over the form (or work) of the anime VHS or DVDs they buy is interesting, but as she herself admits, the debate over what form the work takes is moot at this point since DVDs are now able to provide dubbed and subtitled, original and edited versions of any given work (whereas before VHS had to make formal judgments that often upset fans).  DVDs have rendered the debate amongst fans about the most authentic form an anime work can take irrelevant because they can now offer every potential “authentic text.”  Anyway, this essay is an interesting look at the way that anime fans have been involved with the distribution of anime films historically, and how these debates have been waged over “authentic” anime texts, but as you will find if you read this essay the tensions and squabbles surrounding the distribution of anime films has been squelched by the capacity of DVDs to provide all possible “authentic texts.”  So, for a historical glimpse of the debates about form amongst anime fans definitely read this article, but beyond this the essay is little more than a rehashing of a now dead debate.

    This article discusses how Super Bowl advertisers did a poor job managing the post-game viewing of their ads.  Apparently people are using an “array of video sites and blogs” to view the Super Bowl ads after the fact, and relatively few are actually viewing them on the sites provided by the advertisers themselves.  This is due to entertainment sites and bloggers using these ads to “capitalize on ad revenue generated from the traffic,” and essentially being more successful at making the ads accessible.  A major flaw of the Super Bowl advertisers, as the article points out, is that they did not provide search advertising for terms like “Super Bowl ads.”  The article mentions that this is not necessarily a bad thing, since the advertisers are still reaching millions of people, but that in the future they need to work with aggregator sites in order to “build relationships and promote their content” in more effective ways.  Finally, the article mentions that one advantage the aggregator sites had was that they allowed for feedback, a feature that the article suggests that marketers employ on their own sites in the future.
    This piece seemed to lament the fact that the Super Bowl advertisers were not able to monopolize traffic to the ads post-game.  It sympathizes with the disappointment these giant companies must be feeling over only getting several hundred thousand hits (instead, presumably, of the several million which they no doubt deserved).  Then the article goes on to give the companies tips for how to increase traffic next year, and strategies they should employ if they want fully capitalize on the online branding opportunity.  This article testifies to the corporate interests of many media outlets, and can only be of interest if read for what the article is doing, not saying.
    For my project, though, this piece is very relevant.  It shows the way that commercial interests are sometimes subverted, and how in order to “set things right” (i.e. stop subversion of corporate interests) plans are being made to integrate the very thing that was the cause of subversion.  Thus we see how the article calls for the companies to “work with” (i.e. subsume) those aggregator sites that so wickedly usurped their web traffic.  This, then, is another example of how commercial interests appropriate more independent forms of media distribution.      

    This article came out in Wired magazine (perhaps simply in the online version, I am not entirely certain) shortly after Google bought YouTube.  Naturally this was big news for a magazine such as Wired, as well as for millions of users of the YouTube site.  The article discusses a small array of differing perspectives on Google’s acquisition, from mildly skeptical YouTube devotees to supremely confident YouTube and Google marketers.  Some think that the shift in ownership may strip YouTube users of the “freedom” they once enjoyed on the site, while others feel that Google is a “cool” company that will undoubtedly support the “freedom” some are already lamenting.  The article also discusses the fact that YouTube has already made deals with companies such as CBS, Universal Music, BMG Music, NBC, and Warner Music, which allows these companies to actively distribute marketing videos on YouTube.  The article perceives this as a positive thing, because it “lets amateurs stand on equal footing with the professionals.”  Finally, the article concludes with the concern that Google will allow advertising to take over the YouTube site.  It mentions the fact that the YouTube homepage is already selling “top front page real estate” to advertisers, and the question then becomes: how much advertising will “YouTubers” tolerate?  This question is not answered in the article.
    This article is an interesting, albeit dated, piece.  It brings up some relevant concerns about what happens when community based sites like YouTube are bought up by giant corporations, and does a mediocre job of reporting the ambivalence surrounding this issue.  On the other hand, this article lacks a good deal of information that seems critical for understanding exactly what it means that Google has purchased YouTube.  For example, it mentions that YouTube is already selling homepage space to advertisers, and this will only increase under Google’s control, but it does not explain what space it is talking about.  Are these advertising videos parading as user generated content, or simply banner ads asking you to join Match.com or other such ubiquitous internet advertisements?  This would be good information to know since advertising is such a protean, mutable form.  Also, the article mentions that YouTube has already made deals with several other large companies (e.g. CBS, NBC, etc.), but does not explain what these deals entail.  Do these companies post fake user generated videos that are truly advertisements, or do they simply get to advertise on YouTube in some other manner?  So, while this article does touch upon some interesting issues surrounding both the dot.com universe and marketing, it also fails to provide sufficient information to make it a truly useful document.
    This article relates to my own project in its focus on corporate conglomeration and marketing.  Similar to how Google subsumes a digital community like YouTube, companies like Dorito’s are appropriating the work of independent, non-professional individuals.  While this article expresses some fear about the implications of a company like Google buying YouTube, my project will express a good deal more skepticism about what happens when companies like Dorito’s start soliciting user generated content.              

    This article is about how CBS is now attempting to incorporate user generated content as a means to attract fans to its website.  For the upcoming NCAA Basketball Tournament, also known as March Madness, CBS is inviting fans to produce videos that support their favorite team and/or denigrate other “rival” teams.  The article then goes on to list other companies that are incorporating this type of user generated content, citing the Dorito’s Super-Bowl commercials that were created by consumers and the Unilever ad that ran during the Academy Awards and was also created by consumers.  Also, the article mentions Anheuser-Busch and their efforts to create a promotional program that will allow consumers to create their own commercials which can then be posted on their website.  Finally, the article concludes with a description of CBS-created “sample commercials” that are supposed to serve as a model to March Madness fans who want to create their own videos.  CBS is hoping to attract and instruct consumers through these sample ads, and the article concludes by mentioning how this will attract more online advertisers for this year’s basketball tournament.
    While this appears to be a fairly innocuous article about the future of user generated content and the marketing that companies are putting into attracting consumers to create their own video content, there are many insidious implications in this piece.  For one, the article mentions how YouTube will soon be providing “branded channels,” which are essentially user generated video channels that are intended to attract consumers by allowing them to create advertisements for a certain company.  Companies see this interactive opportunity as a great way to raise “brand loyalty.”  Also, the article mentions the six “sample commercials” that CBS created, which are intended to “be as close to authentic” as possible.  Authenticity, then, simply becomes something that can be created and produced by companies like CBS.  Finally, the article mentions how CBS will be screening every video submitted “for language and appropriateness of content.”  The article assures the reader, though, that CBS will “preserve their [the videos] reality and spontaneity.”  There are many troubling things about this form of tacit (sort of) censorship, one being that CBS is now the arbiter of what is and is not “appropriate.”  Also, the notion that “reality and spontaneity” need to be screened for is blatantly contradictory, but ultimately very telling about this so-called democratizing force known as user generated content.  Read this article with skepticism and ire (i.e. critically), though, and it can be very illuminating.  For this reason I think it can be useful for my project that deals with exactly what this article addresses (although approaches it from a much different perspective).