As the iPad makes it's grand debut in the technology scene, so do the advertisers who want in on the new media. (For those unaware, the iPad tablet is Apple's newest venture- a type of laptop crossed with a smartphone). Within the advertising space in the iPad applications, companies such as FedEx, Chase Sapphire credit card, Toyota and Capital One have all bought space. Stephanie Clifford, author of "Advertisers Show Interest in iPad", (click the blog's title to view the entire article on nytimes.com) says that while it "should provide a nice boost for publishers" at first, she goes on to discuss whether that enthusiasm will fade or not over time. These companies all showed an early interest in the advertising space partly because they would then be included in the in-store demos. Along with the ad opportunities, though, comes some questions, problems and concerns.

Pricing is one problem currently being faced. Many advertisers have been arguing for a cheaper price than it is to advertise in print, the article says, and should be so as it is cheaper for ads to be electronic than it is to print them (states Steve Sturm, now former VP of Toyota Motors North America). At the moment though, prices are higher than print. No one knows how well the iPad will actually sell, despite all the hype towards it. Nothing is certain, so for now advertisers are being charged flat rates until buying and viewing patterns emerge. Advertisers are, of course, show concerns toward these high prices as no one knows how much their ads will really benefit; certainly not as much as they do when advertised during Dancing With the Stars, Clifford asserts.

Technology has been pointed out as another concern. Because the iPad doesn't handle Flash, a program used by many for moving ads, both Apple (creator of the iPad) and the ad-designers are having to work harder to get around that. It is also uncertain of how an ad will look, format-wise, on the iPad, and whether or not it will even appeal to the iPad users.

With so many uncertainties and issues, I ask you, is it worth it for advertisers to venture into the world of the iPad at all? It seems to me that television, both broadcast and cable, are at least more stable than that. With the costs of really everything fluctuating as it is, I believe companies wanting to advertise should stick with the medium most consumed by potential buyers at once (so maybe they should take another look at Dancing With the Stars, for instance). Use the money they would be paying for the iPad advertising for more ads on TV, and not only would they get more for their money but also have the continued assurance of enough viewers to make it worthwhile. It would also support television programming, as advertising is their main source of revenue. In this uncertain economic time, should advertisers really be focusing so much on new, potentially risky adventures? There seem to be so many questions and concerns regarding advertising on the iPad- is it worth it?

-sheila.

John Calipari is the Head Basketball Coach at Kentucky. He is currently preparing his No. 1 seed Wildcats (34-2) to play No. 12 seed Cornell (29-4) this Thursday in the Sweet Sixteen of the N.C.A.A Men’s Championship Tournament. He is also probably telling you what is happening in his practice via Twitter and Facebook. Okay – so maybe not what is happening in practice at this present point, but Coach Calipari is an avid user of social networking sites. Calipari has 1,113,746 followers on Twitter, 138,747 fans on Facebook, and his Coach Cal application for the iPhone and iPod touch sold more than 6,000 applications in its first month, making it the top paid sports application on iTunes less than a week after its debut last month, the author (Thayer Evans) explains. Coach Calipari says social networking keeps him in touch with Kentucky’s fans (and anyone else who is interested). His web site, CoachCal.com, which went up in July, receives more than 100,000 page views each week. People have visited it from more than 100 countries, even Kyrgyztan, which borders China. Some of the money made from the Coach Cal application and his Web site go to the nonprofit Calipari Family Foundation for Children. His technological platforms have also been instrumental in his other philanthropic ventures like the “Hoops for Haiti” telethon in January, which raised $1.3 million.

The results of Calipari’s efforts to raise money through technology have been a step in revamping his often-controversial image of a coach who took Memphis and Massachusetts to the Final Four, but both programs were ordered to give up their victories in those seasons because of N.C.A.A. violations. “He’s using it (social networking, web site, and application) for good, not evil,” said Dave Scott, who helped co-write a book with Calipari and dealing with his website and social networking accounts. During the season, Scott often spends 18 hours a day on Calipari’s Web site and overseeing his Facebook page. He also assists with Calipari’s Twitter feed, but Calipari himself makes a majority of tweets. Calipari is a good example of being a news assembler. He transfers promoted occurrences through publication (Twitter, Facebook, CoachCal.com, etc.). For example, when he posted in past weeks, how to buy tickets to the East Region, raved about eating barbecue shrimp, escargot and an “unreal split pea and shrimp soup” in New Orleans, and asked his followers to send text messages to vote for point guard John Wall as Naismith Player of the Year. These are all examples of promoting occurrences through publication that lets Kentucky fans (and whoever else is following him), what is occurring in his life at the most current or recent moment through social networking.

When Kentucky was in New York earlier this season, Calipari tweeted that he planned to attend mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. He did not specify which service he would attend, but when he showed up for the noon Mass, a teenage fan that had waited through three earlier services to get his autograph greeted him. “Hey, I knew you’d be here,” the boy told Calipari. This can be seen as a news consumer in some ways because Calipari attend a certain occurrence – he said he be at thanks to his tweet– to create a sense of public time in an area (New York), where he is normally not around. And although Calipari said he was not sure how much of an effect his social networking has on recruiting, his players have taken notice. Forward Patrick Patterson said he was shocked when Calipari tweeted that he had missed an appointment with the Grammy-nominated rapper Drake. Drake said he admired Calipari’s social networking presence, noting that he has only 526,017 followers on Twitter. “He’s way bigger than me,” Drake said. “He’s a legend. He’s a leader of the Blue Nation. I bow down to him and his followers. I’m just one of the many.”

Being green sells… Right? Since this is common knowledge we can assume that producers in every arena has picked up on this and usinging it to boost their profit. This is exactly what Sara Amandolare is writing about in The Truth About Green Advertising. Though the National Advertising Division, The Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Trade Commission has put into place some guidelines for companies that report environmental claims Congress is still determining how to solve this problem. She found that a study was done by Terra Choice (an eco-consulting firm) to see just how many claims were true. Out of 4,000 products almost all were found to be false! Greenwashing is a rising problem and little has been fully developed to penalize these deceiving companies.

Feeling helpless amongst these large corporations? An unexpected heavy-weight joins the conversation and creates a solution themselves! Wal-mart. Yup, Wal-mart has come to save the day... or even the future...? Wal-mart has announced a new policy that is requiring their suppliers to calculate their environmental costs and will be put on the products in the store with the price tag. Media scholars say that this can exponentially amplify public action and create a green competition between competitor companies. Though Wal-mart may have a huge impact on the way their personal product suppliers are regulated there is still a large amount that is being overlooked.

Different agencies regulate the advertising industry as I previously stated before. These regulatory agencies have two basic concerns. ONE, they protect fraudulent or deceptive ads and TWO, they are concerned about ads that have potentially harmful and dangerous products. In her artical Ms. Amandolare finds that, "companies are not required to disclose the use of some substances believed to be dangerous." A regulation is not a requirement, though companies may face consequences for getting caught there is no requirement or law that helps to eliminate this issue.

In obvious ways, this affects us all. I love buying organic or environment friendly products because I see this as a major issue and something worth striving for. Expect to see some changed in the next few years. While Wal-mart is changing their efforts and product labeling we can plan to also see some of the other competing large companies following suit. As for you personaly... be cautious of product advertising and ambiguous claims.

A tip from the Federal Trade Commission: "Look for claims that give some substance to the claim-the additional information that explains why the product is environmentally friendly of "environmentally safe"

-Hope

Many of us have heard of the recent emerging Chatroulette craze and some of us may have even caught on. If you haven't, it's pretty much just a glorified chat room, made more "personal" by the use of webcams. In an article for trueslant.com, Todd Essig seeks to explore why so many people are logging in. What is the fun in exposing yourself and spending hours talking to complete and utter strangers? Is this just another example of a passing Internet fad or is this proving that the Web is not only catering to everyday practical needs but also probing psychological ones?

The article continues on to say that Chatroulette "exploits two powerful psychological realities: our need for connection and our fears of connection." People need people. We crave closeness with other human beings. We like having someone to talk to, someone with which to spend time. However, there is so much risk associated with letting someone in. We fear being judged if we allow them to see who we really are; we are terrified of being hurt because we let somebody else in. Chatroulette offers a risk-free temporary connection with other human beings. We can talk about what we want and be whoever we want and know, that the second we log off, we never have to see those people again. Todd Essig argues, although he is not a fan of CR himself, that the site is an easy way to combat loneliness without the danger or drama of a real-life relationship.

How will this sort of website affect our future? Is this really the path that we want to travel down? The Internet provides us with so many endless and important resources. Social networking sites definitely have their place. They are an enjoyable and easy way to connect with friends, both new and old. However, what happens when we stop meeting new people because we can just find them on Facebook? What happens when we stop calling our friends? I mean, we already know what they're doing- we read it on Twitter, right?

Perhaps we should just take strides to ensure that websites like Chatroulette take a backseat to real life. We can appreciate how fun and innovative they are, but we should never let such things take the place of real in-person relationships.

"'When digital [shows] came in, people said, "No one is going to watch TV," ' said Gloria Rosenberg, president at Market Fusion Analytics in New York, a consult firm that helps advertisers develop growth strategies."

In Stuart Elliot's article "Old and New Media Coexisting Nicely, Thank You," it is clear that Web view of television and advertisements has not replaced TV, but is complimenting it. ESPN in particular is experiencing the benefits of the corroboration between television and Internet.

This is not an example of horizontal integration among TV networks.

"'I’m a big believer in using all the tools in the toolbox,' said Mary O’Keefe, chief marketing officer at Principal in Des Moines. 'People can get the information however they like to.'"

Each series is gaining popularity on television, and retaining viewership on the Web-- each network involved is gaining its own ratings. No networks have started sharing resources, becoming a single monopoly (part of what was feared).

However, there are some series on the Web that do not exist on television (such as "Undercover," by the Onion).

So far, there is a healthy relationship between these two outlets of media. How much longer can this relationship go, not threatened? I suspect that the amount of independent Web series will increase, and perhaps they may become more popular than those on television. It's important to keep track of media growth and decline because the bottom line effects us-- the viewers (the consumers) are the ones that control the ratings.


Click here or on the title to read the article
Gina

Yet another decision regarding the ruling of keeping the term “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and also the motto “In God We Trust” on U.S. coins is discussed in Terence Chea’s article “Fed. Appeals court upholds ‘under God’ in pledge.” Beginning back in 2002, Michael Newdow, an asserted atheist, claimed that the term “under God” violated the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion. The appeals court in 2002 ruled in favor of Newdow, yet the Supreme Court in 2004 denied the claim on the grounds that he did not have full custody of his daughter. Newdow filed a similar claim in 2005 which was approved by a federal judge to be reviewed, yet again, by the appeals court. Nevertheless, the appeals court upheld their previous decision claiming that Newdow’s argument did not violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

Let’s take a closer look at the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Prohibiting and abridging mean to limit, or basically interfere, with an individual’s freedom of speech. Students that attend public schools are not required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. With regards to “respecting an establishment of religion”, Greg Katsas, U.S. government representative regarding the currency case, has this to say: “I think these two phrases encapsulate the philosophy on which the nation was founded. There is a religious aspect to saying ‘One nation under God,’ but it isn't like a prayer. When someone says the pledge, they're not praying to God, they're pledging allegiance to the country, the flag and the ideals of the country.”

Newdow claims that the reason for his petition is that “the government [is] not treating people equally on the basis of their lawful religious views.” Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” The battle is about whether or not I, as an American citizen, have the ability to remain free, including my speech. By removing “under God” or “In God We Trust”, no one’s freedom is being honored. But keeping these phrases allows individuals to decide whether or not they want to acknowledge and say them (in the case of saying the Pledge of Allegiance). The freedom remains to say “one nation under God”, but the freedom also exists not to say it, as long as the phrase remains in the Pledge of Allegiance. Remove the phrase, the freedom is essentially removed as well.

~Kimberly

Do they ruin your internet experience?

If you're reading this post, you're presumably familiar with online advertisements. Whether they're on the side of your screen, at the top or popping up right in the middle of a page, ads seem to be taking over the internet. I found Jennifer Valentino-DeVries' blog on The Wall Street Journal's website on this subject particular interesting. In it, she discusses the technology news site Ars Technica and the experiment they recently tried: blocking the content of the site for all those users who block advertisements. This experiment ultimately resulted in confusion, apologies and ingidnation, says Valentino-DeVries. The website's editor, Ken Fisher, ended up writing an article called "Why Ad-Blocking is Devastating Those Sites You Love" to explain this little experiment and the reasons behind it.

So then the question still remains; to block, or not to block? Both Mr. Fisher and David Croteau and William Hoynes' book Media Society explain the reasoning for online advertising. Advertising is the key source of revenue for mass media channels such as newspapers, television and the internet, explain Croteau and Hoynes. Fisher states that unless a site is a subscription-based model, the majority of sites solely rely on advertising to survive, and while some ads are on a pay per click system, more are pay per view. Therefore, those who utilize ad-blocking tools are denying the revenue to the sites kept alive by those ads.

Some people block ads because they just don't want to see those annoying, often flashing or otherwise moving ads on their screen when they know they'll not likely buy anything because of them. Others block because it distracts and interferes with their web-surfing. Why should we care about this? Well, think about your favorite, most visited (non-subscription) sites online. Take out the ads and they have very little to no money to continue the upkeep of these sites for your viewing pleasure. (Example: No more Facebook?! Nooo...!) So, to echo Valentino-DeVries' enquiries, do you use any ad-blocking tools? If so, how often? And my own questions, are there more effective ways to promote online advertising without 'annoying' web surfers, or perhaps as of yet unheard of ideas on funding for sites without advertising? What do you think?

peace and love,
sheila.

20th Century Fox TV and Fox appear ready to end the long running hit of “24” after this season, the show's eighth. Studio and network executives declined comment, but the decision isn’t a big surprise. The cost of producing “24” has continued to increase, while ratings have dropped the author – Michael Schneider – explains. Critics have been busy this year with their share of kicks and knocks about the series eighth season (airing Monday nights at 9pm on Fox). But even as the bell tolls for “24” in primetime, the franchise is far from dead (which is great news for loyal watchers like myself). In the media mindset where there is a guarantee to lose money, producers will do anything to avoid that. Kiefer Sutherland (Jack Bauer and executive producer) and the “24” team have been eager on adapting the show as a feature film, and have made major strides in recent months toward making that long-term goal a reality.

News has always covered subjects that catch people’s attention and differ from their ordinary lives. News is also often used for escapism and thus every day occurrences are not newsworthy. You’re probably thinking: “Why are you talking about the news when this blog is about ‘24’?” In my eyes, “24” is similar to newsworthiness, and I’ll tell you why. Newsworthiness can be seen as a subject having sufficient relevance to the public or a special audience to warrant press attention or coverage. I know “24” isn’t the news you watch at 11 o’clock when you’re crawling into bed, but “24” is different from any other thing you watch on television and it catches people’s attention because it is not ordinary. “24” targets a special audience in the public, and enters real life scenarios, problems, and drama. Sure, there isn’t a nuclear bomb about to blow up in America – but, “24” presents what America (and CTU, Counter Terrorist Unit) would do in a one in a million chance that scenario would come about.

Although it was developed before the attacks of 9/11, which bowed Nov. 6, 2001, in many ways began to mirror the changed world, given real-life fears of terrorism and debates over torture methods. Skein's depiction of an African American president was seen as a groundbreaking precursor to the 2008 election of Barack Obama. The show’s depiction of a female president currently, shakes up some thoughts too since Sarah Palin was running for Vice President in that same 2008 election against Obama and Biden. “24” might not be exactly the news, but it is similar given these examples. In the end, newsworthiness of the story of “24” depends on the audience – as you decide what you do or don’t have an interest in.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118016256.html?categoryid=14&cs=1

-Andrew

Reported in an article by Richard Perez-Pena, the LA Times is challenging traditional limits on advertising via the newest front page ad from last Friday. The LA Times has previously used the front page for advertising in bold ways, receiving harsh criticisms: the first back in April when the southland series ad was made to look like a news article and the second was of the full page wrap around ad for true blood. Though highly controversial, these former ads were less disturbing than the “Alice in Wonderland” ad this is due to the fact that for this new ad actual pieces of the Los Angeles Times were lent over to the advertiser. John Conroy, spokesperson for the times, explained that the unorthodox ad in print, mirrors the online approach that will flash an ad over the entire main page. Whether this concept is the answer to financial need or just a fresh new idea that may change the newspaper industry, ads and the delivery of them have breached the limits.

This controversial concept has many factors and views regarding its solid "newspapering." Of course many media critics have attacked this concept that is new, unconventional, extreme, and shocking, but what does it all really mean? Well, if everyone knew the complex rigamarole of choosing front page stories, a degree of understanding may be gained as to the importance of that location. Writers’ stories are passed through the web of gatekeepers and editors, offices and additional editors, to determine the importance and news worthiness of the story. After further analysis and juggling of stories the decision is finally made as to which story reaches the sacred space of the front page. To change this conventional process disrupts an entire system that is based on routine and tradition. Placing Johnny Depp’s face as the Mad Hatter on the entire front page, while pushing back the front-page-worthy-stories to then follow was a bold move.

Does this really matter? Is it really THAT important as to what goes on the front page of a news paper? Well… This new trend for The Los Angeles Times may become a trend for more and more news papers due to financial burdens and losses. To put it plainly, this change could weaken the importance of not only front page news but how the news is delivered and disseminated to the readers. Will hard news and good stories fall to the wayside? What will this look like 10 or 15 years from now? Perhaps these are farfetched ideas, but in an era of fast paced change maybe they aren’t so distant.


The article used was found in New York Times, access my clicking here