subscribe to this page
Croft, Martin, and Nathalie Kilby. "Mortal Kombat Viral Is Tool For Bullying, Claims Charity." Marketing Week 16 Nov 2006: 3.
This article explains how an anti-bullying charity group is complaining about a video game campaign for Mortal Kombat. In this campaign people are directed to a website where they can upload images of their friends to be superimposed on the fighting video game characters. These superimposed Mortal Kombat characters are then sent to that person in the form of a “Death Diss” whereby the character is brutally murdered. The charity Bullying Online worries that real life bullies will upload images of their enemies to this site and it will only cause issues between the two parties in question. It states that the site has already seen examples of people using this viral marketing tool as a malicious way to insult somebody. A complaint about this advertisement campaign was made to the Advertising Standards Authority, the leading groups in controlling advertising. It is unknown if this campaign will cause the dreaded actions Bullying Online is worrying about.
This article relates to the thesis because violent media is being used in a manner that could potentially cause a movement to action by the receiving end of this viral marketing campaign. There are great worries by Bullying Online that such an advertising campaign might enrage somebody so much that they might react very violently against the opposing person. Just as The Warriors caused a few kids to act violently due to the violent media being viewed, there is a concern that this viral marketing campaign could cause the same response.
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).
This volume defines all important introductory economic concepts and terms. It explains why most mergers are unsuccessful (pages 14, 22, 38, 82 and 234), why joint ventures are so common and profitable (page 40), and all of the individual revenue streams of each of the different mediums listed above. This volume is accessible and very interesting. Moreover, when read in conjunction with Baker’s two books, it helps illuminate some of his points, specifically how conglomerates can be in the best interest for consumers in some ways while simultaneously detrimental to them as well. Namely this book gives a fair description of the state of the industry and allows one to draw his/her own conclusions. It portrays the situation without making overtly normative judgments.
Baker takes certain ideas touched upon in Bagdikian’s book, The (New) Media Monopoly and analyses them in much greater depth (Bagdikian has published many versions of his book, the first of which appeared when there were 50 major players in the media business… there are now only 5). He uses economic analysis to determine the efficiency of the current system (or lack thereof), and makes various policy arguments for remedying the current problem within our press. The structure is as follows: he illustrates the problem, proves it economically, introduces a policy proposal, compares it to programs implemented around the world, and then discusses the constitutionality of going forward with his recommendations.
Implicit throughout his book is that the media serves a distinct role in society and that given the current influence that advertisers can exercise, they prevent the media from fulfilling the needs of a democratic society. This idea is developed in greater depth in his book Media Markets and Democracy where he analyses a democratic society’s requirements of its press according to 4 different theories of democracy. He values diversity and that the media should work harder to meet the desires of its readers through content rather than from its advertisers by delivering the right readers.
Another key point of Baker’s argument is that advertising disproportionately hurts the poor. He points to the example of an English newspaper that had larger circulation than the other major newspapers combined, but not withstanding this fact, because the newspaper was read by people without a substantial disposable income, there were few (if any) advertisers who would subsidize the paper. Thus, the paper had to be profitable with only subscription revenues, and it eventually failed. Baker gives the case study and then explains why this is so on theoretical grounds and that this phenomenon most likely occurs rather often—advertisers seek a wealthy audience, and thus media products are disproportionately catered to their tastes, in terms of political leanings, interest pieces, and other editorial content.
Lastly, another interesting argument is that “objective” news in the sense that we currently read it has some insidious consequences, insofar as it removes (or tends to) partisanship and controversy from public discussion and mass media. Though this may not seem accurate with regards to magazines, when reading mainstream newspapers and news outlets (notwithstanding Fox News), this certainly seems like a rather valid argument.