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.