An Intertextual Study of the Advertising Campaign of the Film The Day after Tomorrow: Corporate Structure versus User Agency

1) Introduction

When you pick up the June 2004 issue of the British movie magazine Empire, the first thing you notice is, well of course Brad Pitt, but when you turn the magazine over it says “It’s the End of The World…But don’t panic, we’ve saved you a front row seat!” followed by the title The Day after Tomorrow. For the people who haven’t heard anything about this film, The Day after Tomorrow is a film by Roland Emmerich about the alarming effects of global warming and according to Empire; "The Day after Tomorrow is the blockbuster to END all blockbusters..." Filled with special effects, this big budget film tries to offer and idea of what will happen if we don’t do something about it now.

As what usually happens with so-called blockbusters, The Day after Tomorrow was and still is heavily advertised in the traditional media as well as on the Internet. Apart from the official Fox website www.thedayaftertomorrow.com, Empire gave this film a lot of attention in their printed magazine and even more on their website www.empireonline.co.uk. Additionally, this film was used for other purposed as well. For instance, fans started discussing it on the Internet and Greenpeace even used the film and its official website to make the spoof site www.thedayaftertomorrow.org. After seeing all this I thought it would be interesting to look at the different ways corporations like Fox and Empire try to promote a film and how others react to it. In other words, I want to make an intertextual study of the film the Day after Tomorrow and analyse the interplay between production and consumption. Consequently, the main question of this paper will be “What are the variations of corporate structure and user agency in the promotion of the film the Day after Tomorrow?”.   

Above all, I want to find out how different corporations try to promote the film The Day after Tomorrow, how they make use of the Internet and to what extent users can participate. For starters, I will give some general information about the film The Day after Tomorrow and my research material. After I have done this I will do a textual analysis of the traditional Empire magazine and its newer form www.empireonline.co.uk as well as the official Fox website www.thedayaftertomorrow.com and Greenpeace’ spoof site www.thedayaftertomorrow.org. I will pay special attention to how the attributes and affordances of the Internet are used to promote the film The Day after Tomorrow, how the space is used and what kind of entertainment formats there are. Furthermore, I will try to find out what the overall aim is of the particular company and if they offer possibilities for participation. In other words, what is the interplay between production and consumption? After I have done this, I will evaluate these analyses and try to formulate a conclusion.     

In general, the Internet can help advertise a film in a newer and sometimes more challenging way than traditional media and many corporations count on Internet to help brand online communities for commercial purposes. With this in mind, I think this research paper can be related to issues like intertextuality. Different media, for instance, film, the printed press and the Internet all influence each other, sometimes in a good way and sometimes at the expense of one another. Besides this, the issue of functionality seems relevant as well. (Film)websites are usually created for different reasons and apart from commercial reasons, many websites try to offer entertainment, give information or a form of education or criticism.

The relevance of a research like this one is that it can hopefully provide new information to magazines, film companies and advertising (or marketing) companies. For instance, if people are more inclined to go to the cinema if they are able to see or read extra information about it on a website, or discuss it with other people, then it’s probably a good idea to continue with it. If not, maybe it’s best to try something else. In other words, does film advertising on the Internet really offer something new? Furthermore, this research could also offer some new insight in what ordinary people and different organisations (like Greenpeace) can do with an advertised film on the Internet.

2) The blockbuster to END all blockbusters

Before I go any further, I will first give some general information about the film The Day after Tomorrow. As mentioned earlier, The Day after Tomorrow is a 20th Century Fox film by Roland Emmerich about the catastrophic effects that global warming can - and possibly will - have on our living environment.  It is a big budget film which focuses on climatologist Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) who tries to warn the US Government for a coming ice age. Of course, nobody listens to him and it doesn’t take long before the whole world is struck by disaster, with tornadoes, floods and snowstorms everywhere. Amidst this all, Jack must try to stay alive and find a way to help his estranged son (Jake Gyllenhaal).[1] The film is partly based on the book The Coming Global Superstorm by Whitley Strieber and Art Bell and it sets up a worrying scenario that if we don’t anything about the greenhouse effect fiction can turn into fact. Even so, there are some people who criticise the film for being a “lot of hot air”. For instance, it only takes a few days before an ice age completely takes over the earth.[2]  

The Day after Tomorrow had its worldwide premiere at the end of May 2004 and in its opening weekend it grossed $85,807,341 in America alone. Apart from the production costs of about $125,000,000, approximately $50,000,000 was spent on prints and advertising.[3] In other words, advertising plays and important part in the overall production process of blockbusters like The Day After Tomorrow and partly because of this I believe it can be an interesting phenomenon to study.

2. II) Research Material  

My research material will consist of the film the Day after Tomorrow and four advertising resources. Since my main question is: “What are the variations of corporate structure and user agency in the promotion of the film the Day after Tomorrow?” , I will pay special attention to the participatory culture within these commercial structures. Moreover, I want to find out if these different websites offer possibilities for interaction and if people do something (innovative) with the official material. The first two resources are the British movie magazine Empire and its online version www.empireonline.co.uk. At first glance, the website is a combination of the actual magazine with extra information about numerous films and some form of interaction. However, I will only focus on the promotion of the film The Day after Tomorrow. Another corporate website I will use for this research is the official Fox website www.thedayaftertomorrow.com. As a matter of fact, Empire Online even offers a link to this website. Since it is possible to select a language I have chosen the “English outside America” version. The last website I will analyse is the spoof site by Greenpeace called www.thedayaftertomorrow.org. At first glance, Greenpeace mainly uses the film and its official website to make people more aware of the dangers of pollution and the greenhouse effect and to protest against corporations like Esso.

3) Theory

Since the majority of the resources I intend to use are film websites, I believe the following articles can be relevant for my research. The first one is Harries article Watching the Internet. In this article, Harries mentions that a lot has changed since the arrival of the Internet. Apparently it took some time, but nowadays the film and television industries spend millions of dollars on creating (appealing) online content. According to Harries, many of them now see the Internet as having the potential to reach a vast and global audience. Indeed, as I just mentioned, approximately $ 50.000 was spent on prints and advertising of The Day After Tomorrow. Even so, his main argument is that there now is a convergence of the ways in which viewers and users interact with media screens and he mentions three different modes in which people watch the Internet. The first one is ‘viewing’, the second one is ‘using’ and the third one is a combination of the two, which he calls ‘viewsing’.[4] With this in mind, I want to find out to what extend this can be applied to the web sites I am going to analyse. 

            In their article More Movie Advertising Moves from Newspapers to Internet which can be found on www.adage.com, Friedman and Fine claim that ‘movie-studio research has shown movie newspaper ads don't encourage people to see a specific wide-release film, and that by the time a consumer reads an ad in a newspaper, consumers already have made up their minds what to see’. Moreover, it seems that movie advertising is moving away from print, since approximately 71% of the advertising budget is now spent online.[5] However, Friedman and Fine also mention that movie advertising in the printed press will probably never completely disappear, because of ‘ego’ and ‘competition’.[6] The film industry still likes to see printed advertisements of their films and many film companies try to compete with each other whichever way they can.

Likewise, on www.exhchange4media.com the Mumbai Bureau has contributed to this discussion with the article Is Internet Eating into Print’s Share? One of their spokesmen, Nair believes that it is important for mass movies to still be present in the traditional media, but that movie advertising on Internet does have numerous benefits. For instance, it is relatively cheap and it can offer a multi-mediated experience. According to Rajnish, the growing importance of online advertising can be directly linked to ‘Internet penetration and changes in the film industry itself’.[7] This statement is further explained by Krishnamoorthy who claims that nowadays ‘there is a lot of synergy between movie going and Internet audience’.[8] In today’s information society, people want to be able to choose and to be entertained. Not surprisingly, nowadays many movie websites decide to partner up with other relevant (corporate) websites and try to offer extensive information and challenging options.

            This development is further explained by Marshall in his article The New Intertextual Commodity. According to Marshall, the cultural industries nowadays actively try to create ‘intertextual commodities’, to catch people’s attention, to enrich their experiences, and ultimately to sell as many products as possible. According to Marshall, blockbusters possess something which can be called an ‘event-effect’ or a ‘multimedia event’.[9] For starters, this means that many film companies create websites with extensive information, making-offs and trailers, as well as games and other collectibles, to deepen the significance of a film for the audience. Also, by offering links to related material, these companies try to surround people with everything they could possibly want and to persuade them to visit similar websites. Often, these websites offer related merchandise or relevant information. Or in his words, the audience ‘learns’ about a product through its associations in other cultural forms.[10] Consequently, there is not really one end product that companies try to promote, but a series of related products that are linked through a network of ‘cross-promotion’.[11]

Furthermore, Marshall claims that nowadays people expect to be able to interact and participate, so most film companies try to incorporate this into their official websites. Even if they don’t, many people will find a way to do something creative with the available material.

According to Marshall, these official websites usually serve as an ‘anticipatory platform’ for a particular film. And no matter how you put it, the film itself still plays a crucial part in the overall network.[12] All in all, most official film websites not only try to make people aware of the film, but also of its merchandise. Some even try to offer extra information and links to get their message across. To accomplish this, Marshall believes that it is usually important that they create an appealing environment, where people can participate and interact with others and where it is possible for them to do something with the material themselves. 

4) Method

In their paper “Testing Web site design and promotional content” Dreze and Zufryden have constructed ‘an analysis based methodology to evaluate the design and effectiveness of promotional content on the web’. According to Dreze and Zufryden promotional content can be defined at two levels. First of all, it can be seen at the level of a web page which may include specific product information or other promotional content. Or it can be seen at the level of a web site that consists of a collection of web pages which may include specific product and promotional content as well as potential purchase transaction information.[13] 

At first glance, I believe www.thedayaftertomorrow can be best seen at the first level, while www.empireonline.co.uk is more the latter. However, because I don’t intend to use any test subjects, my method will be somewhat different.

Like I mentioned before I want to do a textual analysis of the different websites and with that I mean that I will start with the lay-out. First of all, I will define how the attributes and affordances of the Internet are used for promotional purposes, how the space of the particular website is used and what types of entertainment formats there are. Then I will try to find out what the overall aim is of the company regarding what they want to promote. In other words, how is The Day After Tomorrow promoted? And is it this film, or is it something else that they want to promote? After I’ve done this I will take a look at the mode of participation. First of all, I will try to answer questions like: are there possibilities for participation? Can people give feedback? Can they write their own reviews? And are there messageboards with moderators e.g. Furthermore, does the site make use of viral marketing? For instance, can people send articles to their friends? And lastly, can people do something with the material?    

Furthermore, for my analysis of the spoof site www.thedayaftertomorrow.org I will take into consideration the four key questions that are mentioned in the article Fwd: This Made Me laugh. How viral Ad Parodies Impact Your Brand by Harvest. First of all it is important to find out who or what the target if the parody is. Furthermore, what is the intent behind it and what is the impact or breadth? And lastly, what is the source of the parody?[14]

5) From Traditional to New Ways of Advertising

My main motivation for selecting the Empire Magazine and www.empireonline.co.uk is because I like films and I wanted to combine this to Internet and advertising. Since I used to read the British magazine Empire quite often, I already knew it offers lots of information about films and that it even has its own website. At first glance, www.empireonline.co.uk is a combination of the actual magazine with extra information about all sorts of films, recent and older, interviews, trailers and the possibility for interaction. For instance, it has a message board where people can talk about more than just films and where they can form communities. But before I go into this website, I will first make a textual analyse using the method I’ve described in the previous chapter.

The June 2004 issue is packaged in a shiny cover and it promises their readers “a front row seat!”. According to Empire, The Day after Tomorrow is “the END of all Blockbusters”. And my first impression is that by using exclamation marks and dots it tries to heighten people’s expectations. Inside the magazine, the first two pages are entirely dedicated to the film The Day after Tomorrow. It’s an announcement of the - then - upcoming film with a picture of the statue of liberty being covered with snow and in big letters the question “Where will you be? The Day after Tomorrow. In cinemas may 28”. The film The Day after Tomorrow is number 3 of the main features of this issue, after the film Troy and something which is called the ‘Laws of Attraction’. According to the index “the freak weather pick is here” and Empire has a 6 page story of the film, with numerous photographs from the film, interview with the filmmakers and the actors and a short article by O’Hagan who tries to answer the question “could it happen?”. Two of the three enlarged quotations focus on the message of the film, while the other one is a quote from Quaid who mentions that “this is going to be every disaster film you have ever seen thrown into one”. Thus, I get the impression that Empire tries to emphasise the blockbuster potential of this film, while also trying to include some information about the message behind it. However, this information is limited and there is also no review of the film yet. Therefore, I think that the Empire Magazine is only trying to catch people’s attention, make them aware of the film and hopefully curious to find out more about it. Even though there isn’t an actual review of the film, at page 39 of this issue, they mention that if you “can’t find the reviews you came looking for? Check online for…” followed by the online address of Empire Online. In other words, the magazine sees their website as complementary to their magazine and tries to stimulate people to find out more about a film, like The Day after Tomorrow.  

5. II) Empire Online

The first noticeable thing of the website www.empireonline.co.uk is the clearly structured lay-out. It is divided in different frames and at the top of the page it says “the UK’s No. 1 Movie Website”. This is in line with the magazine which calls itself “the UK’s No. 1 Movie Magazine”. On the website there are eleven different options and one of those gives a sneak preview of the next issue of the Empire Magazine and offers more information about the magazine, for instance, how to subscribe online. Because of the frames and different advertisements, the website somewhat resembles the magazine. However, in here the advertisements constantly move and when clicked on, a new window opens.  

For my research, I believe the options ‘In Cinema Reviews’, ‘In Depth , 'Movie Trailers', 'Movie Must Buys' and ‘Messageboards’ are the most relevant, because those are the options in which the film The Day After Tomorrow features the most. Since it has been almost a month after its release, the film The Day after Tomorrow no longer is ‘The Week’s big release’, but a film which is ‘Still on Release’. In this section visitors can read ‘film details’ with general information about The Day after Tomorrow, the synopsis of the film and the opinion of Empire followed by a rating of four out of five stars. Furthermore, there are some film stills, which can be enlarged and the possibility to read ‘the full Empire review’.

The attributes and affordances of the Internet are particularly noticeable in the options ‘In Depth’ and ‘Trailers’. For instance, in ‘In Depth’ there is a so-called ‘Premiere Report’, with a review of the European premiere of The Day after Tomorrow, interviews with cast members and a photo gallery. Furthermore, there is a link to the trailer section of this website where it is not only possible to watch the actual film trailer, but also scenes from the film and interviews with the actors and filmmakers. All in all, this can enrich the experience of the readers of Empire, because most people appreciate it when they can read or watch something that they wouldn’t have been able to obtain before. In other words, the affordances of the Internet enable people to read articles, enlarge photographs and watch related trailers etc.  

However, Empire does not just promote the film itself, but also related merchandise.

For instance, there is a section called ‘Must Buys’ which offers a link to www.amazon.co.uk, so that people can buy the soundtrack and the book of the film and there is also a link to www.moviemarket.co.uk for the film poster(s). Both websites are partners of Empire Online, along with www.sendit.com, www.ebay.co.uk e.g. As far as I know this is also known as ‘synergy’. Furthermore, when visitors click on the name of an actor, they get a list of the ‘At Home’ section with (related) DVDs and soundtracks of previous films of that particular actor. This way it becomes clear that the overall aim of Empires Online, is to try and sell their magazine and to hopefully persuade people to go to the cinema, buy or rent DVD’s, videos, soundtracks, posters etc. In the end this is what they most likely want to accomplish. 

            However, they do seem genuinely interested in films and in offering people useful and appealing information. This may also be the reason why there are indeed possibilities for participation. First of all, visitors can become a member and create something which is called ‘My Profile’. Besides general information, it lists the top 5’s of people’s favourite films, DVD’s soundtracks and books. Everybody who is a member is allowed to rate films and submit their own reviews. This way, people can read what others like and compare tastes. Furthermore, there are messageboards where people can talk about ‘the world of film’. Although these messageboards are moderated and have certain rules, visitors are relatively free to talk about all sorts of things and I believe that people who visit this site often probably feel as though they belong to a community. They can share their views and advice each other and they can even leave comments what they would like to see changed about this website.

            All in all, I think the target market of Empire Online is young people who enjoy the world of film and who spend quite an amount of money on it. Partly because Empire Online wants to be appealing to people, they have created something which can be seen as a ‘multimedia event’. Like Marshall said in his article, most of these websites try to surround people with extensive information, to persuade them to not only go and see the film, but to visit other websites that sell related merchandise as well. In other words, Empire Online tries to please its readers by offering extensive information and the best possible service in the hope they will return and feel compelled to buy the magazine, movie tickets and merchandise. Moreover, in the case of The day after Tomorrow, they try to promote the film by writing a raving review and by giving people the choice to read and watch special reports, photographs, videos and other downloads. In addition, they enable people to participate in the discussion of the film, and last but not least, make it easy for them to order related merchandise.   

Lasica, J.D. Blogs and Journalism Need Each Other

As the title suggest, in his article Blogs and Journalism Need Each Other Lasica voices his opinion that ‘blogs and journalism need each other’ (Lasica 70). According to him many journalists are needlessly critical of people who act as journalists on their blogs. Instead, Lasica believes that weblogs aren’t really competing with or trying to replace the work of professional journalists. Rather, they can complement it and offer a fresh angle on the news. In other words, bloggers and professional journalists can learn from each other (Lasica 73).     

            My question here is, “is it true that blogs and journalism complement each other? And is it a positive development that anybody who wants to (without a journalism degree) can write about news?” Nowadays, it’s impossible to ignore weblogs. More and more people create their own personal web diaries and start writing their own stories about things they find interesting or important, and personally I think that this is a positive development. I also think that it’s very likely that bloggers and journalists can learn form each other, however, I do think the words ‘need’ is a bit too much. There still are loads of areas where it’s very hard for bloggers to participate. For instance, war reporting is not something that most people will enter lightly, which means that there’s very little they can complement the actual war reporters with. Also, I get the impression that in general webloggers offer information that they find interesting or funny, but that they don’t really write complete articles. In other words, if journalists want to find out what is going on in a certain community, I believe that weblogs can offer useful information, but I’m not sure that they really complement each other. They’re both important in their own way.

Gillmor, D. Moving Toward Participatory Journalism

In his article Moving Toward Participatory Journalism, Gillmor talks about ‘the power of blogs that is central to the participatory journalism of the future’ (Gillmor 79). In other words, he believes that the possibilities of weblogs are endless(ly important). For instance, partly because of weblogs, everyone can let their voices be heard and participate, read different angles and gather news collectively (Gillmor 80). Even so, according to Gillmor there still are some difficulties that need dealing with, like developing a new set of rules and making sure that power is not misused. Otherwise it could all end up badly (Gillmor 80).

So, my question here is “is the worst-case scenario that Gillmor mentions plausible, or is it more realistic to hold on to the more optimistic view he also offers?” I agree with Gillmor that weblogs won’t disappear any time soon and that they have lots of benefits. I also agree with him that we should make sure that big organisations don’t misuse their power. However, I’m not certain that that these organisations won’t find a way to control the technology. In a way Gillmor is right in believing that people will continue to tell stories, because they like doing it and as long as there are many bloggers, it will be difficult to control them (Gillmor 80). But, I also think that some organisations will continue to sue people and that they do have a leg to stand on sometimes, for instance when it’s about copyright. In other words, they will always come up with something. Even though I believe that the struggle will continue, I also think that anything is possible as long as people keep trying (and don’t worry too much about the consequences).

Middelaar, L. van. On Logos and Grassroots: The Anti-Globalisation Movement between Morals, Economics and Politics

In his paper On Logos and Grassroots: The Anti-Globalisation Movement between Morals, Economics and Politics, van Middelaar focuses on the Anti-Globalisation Movement and ‘how this movement theorises about the changing relationships between economy and politics’ (van Middelaar 3). As far as I know van Middelaar believes that this movement sees capitalism as the source of all evil, but are too much involved with economics themselves and that they might even be counterproductive (van Middelaar 4).

            At one point van Middelaar says ‘these protests are naïve and sterile; there is now way out of the world of money, not even for those people who think they’re fighting against it’ (van Middelaar 20). Overall, van Middelaar is quite negative about consumer activism and their attempts to change anything about the current situation. So, my question here is, “is van Middelaar right in believing this?” Even though he might be right that the Anti-Globalisation Movement doesn’t have all the answers, this doesn’t mean that the problem isn’t there. At least people like Naomi Klein make people aware of certain problems that most people just don’t see or want to see. I believe that this awareness can be quite helpful. However, van Middelaar does have a point that boycotts may not be the best answer and I also agree with him that it’s important that ‘a legal frame work and a political will’ is created (van Middelaar 36). But who says that the Anti-Globalisation Movement doesn’t want that as well? I also disagree with van Middelaar when he says that they want to escape from ‘the world of money’. As far as I know they just want money to be distributed more equally and I for one am behind this idea.  

Warde, A. Production, Consumption and ‘Cultural Economy’

Warde believes that before we do anything else, we have to find a better definition for the economic and the cultural and in this essay he wants to pay more attention to the concept of ‘consumer culture’ and the idea that consumption is deeply cultural (Warde 186). According to him there are two different approaches to consumer culture. The first one revolves around Featherstone’s idea that ‘contemporary culture is drenched in culture’. In other words, in today’s society people use the style and aesthetics of cultural products to help form their identities (Warde 193). The second approach has more to do with the idea that ‘the way of life of societies is shaped primarily by the activity of consumption’, which more or less means that people live to consume (Warde 195).

I had some difficulty reading this text, but if I’m not mistaken Warde doesn’t agree with either one of the approaches. On the one hand he believes that people often consume without really thinking about it (Warde 193). And on the other hand he says that ‘economic activity is always meaningful and culturally embedded’ (Warde 197). So, my question here is “which one is it?” I believe that most people use cultural products the way they see fit and that it depends on the product and the person to what extent they will do something meaningful with it. Especially nowadays many people buy certain products because they like the images it portrays. And although some people only buy it to belong to a particular group and they might not even use the product, I think in general people consume cultural products because they like them and they like to apply meaning to them. (I’m sorry for this lame Q&A, but this is all I could come up with right now). 

Tybout, A. and Carpenter, G. Creating and Managing Brands

In their article Creating and Managing Brands, Tybout and Carpenter try to describe what a brand is and how brands are created and maintained. According to them, ‘for a brand to be successful, it’s very important that the associations that can be attached to a product become part of buyer’s lives’ (Tybout and Carpenter 77). In other words, every (marketing) decision that is made will have an influence on the success of a brand and the way it is perceived. Tybout and Carpenter mention three types of brands, respectively functional, image and experiential brands, which can be related to three branding strategies; corporate, family and product branding (Tybout, Carpenter 98).        

            So, my question here is, “are these different brand(ing) categories useful? And does every brand fit neatly into one of these categories?” For instance, is it possible for a brand to be a functional, an image and an experiential brand at the same time? Overall, I think the categories Tybout and Carpenter mention can be very useful, because they offer a convenient way to compare different kind of brands. However, I also think it’s possible that some brands can be more types at the same time, and I’m not sure Tybout and Carpenter agree with this. For example, I think mobile phones, like Vodafone can be seen as a functional brand as well as an image brand (and maybe even an experimental brand). In their advertisements Vodafone not only emphasises on the many different - and improved - options, but also on the people who use it and all the wonderful things/experiences it can bring people (like sharing moments with friends). If I’m not mistaken, Tybout and Carpenter do believe that brands can change (type) over time, but that they can only belong to one type. And like I said, I’m not sure about that.  

Dafermos, G. Blogging the Market: How Weblogs are Turning Corporate Machines into real Conversations

According to Dafermos, weblogs are ‘the embodiment of online self-organising social systems’ and more importantly, they ensure that ‘the power will shift to where knowledge resides’ (Dafermos 2). In other words, everybody can create their own weblog and is able to participate and offer their (un)wanted advice. Besides this, more and more companies begin to realise that weblogs have a lot of potential and that things like 'collaborative filtering' can help both them and their clients (Dafermos 30). According to Dafermos, nowadays it’s important for corporations to try and communicate with their market, instead of only focusing on selling their products (Dafermos 47).

At one point, Dafermos claims that ‘there is credibility to the business case for blogging’ (Dafermos 46). So, my question here is, “is this true?” In a way I think he’s right in believing this and as far as I know Macromedia is a good example for a corporation that successfully uses weblogs. I also agree with Dafermos that it’s important that people believe these weblogs are made by people who speak with a ‘true voice’ and even though these weblogs mostly exist to benefit a company, I think most people won’t mind this. Overall, weblogs (will) increasingly play a big part in people’s lives and since weblogs seem to encourage openness and participation, I think they can indeed be useful for corporations.    

However, Dafermos also mentions that blogging-for-money is still a bit unsure (Dafermos 36). And if I’m not mistaken he doesn’t really give a satisfactory answer to how people can make money out of blogging. Apparently, some inventive people like Sullivan have found a way to earn money and I also think the people who maintain the weblogs for corporations like Macromedia have a normal salary (just like the other people who work for Macromedia), but most bloggers don’t make money out of it. Even so, Dafermos believes that most bloggers do it for fun and don’t really feel the need to get paid for it, and I guess he’s right about that.

Nixon, S. Re-imagining the ad agency: the cultural connotations of economic forms

Nixon is someone who believes that economic and cultural processes are interdependent on one another and in his article Re-imagining the ad agency he claims that nowadays advertising agencies face a lot of challenges (Nixon 134). For instance, often advertising agencies have a negative image of being unaccountable and somewhat conservative, so now many of them are trying to redefine their image. Not only that, they are also rethinking the way they work and want to get paid (Nixon 146). According to Nixon it’s important to have a proper financial agreement and apart from commission-based payment, project fees and royalties, he also mentions the ‘salary concept’, which may be the best option for the future (Nixon 144). Overall, agencies should try to make themselves ‘a trusted business partner and ensure a good relationship with their clients’ (Nixon 145).

            My question here is, “have advertising agencies really changed that much?” I’m not very familiar with the way advertising agencies work, but I’m sure things like globalisation and the emergence of new media technologies have had a big impact on these agencies. Personally I think Nixon is somewhat vague when he claims that ‘advertising agencies are redefining their image’, but I guess by that he means that many of these agencies are now trying to be more flexible. He also mentions that many of them now work in ‘multi-disciplinary project teams’ and that they try to have a better relationship with their clients (Nixon 138). If I’m not mistaken, above all he believes that advertising agencies must pay more attention to their financial agreement. Like I said, I don’t know enough about all of this, but it just seems to me that these things have always been important to advertising agencies. Maybe I’m missing the point, but I think (redefining) ideas like ‘be more flexible’ and ‘think more broadly’ seem a bit empty.

Shirky, C. What is p2p… And What isn’t?

Not surprisingly, in his article What is P2P… And What isn’t?, Shirky talks about p2p. According to him, p2p involves Internet-connected PCs on the edges of the Internet. In other words, nowadays people increasingly make use of previously untapped resources on ordinary computers that operate outside the DNS System (Shirky 1). Shirky and many others believe that p2p can have a lot of benefits. For instance, it encourages decentralisation and it is designed to handle unpredictability (Shirky 3).

Because there still isn’t a clear definition for p2p, Shirky proposes a Litmus-test. This means that (1) ‘it must treat variable connectivity and temporary network addresses as the norm’ and (2) ‘it must give the nodes at the edges of the network significant autonomy’ (Shirky 3). So, my question is, “is this Litmus-test sufficient (enough)?” And why is it so important that you can decide whether something is strictly peer-to-peer or not?” In the end, Shirky himself says that most likely, ‘users will adopt those applications that use just enough decentralisation, in just the right way’. In other words, the fact that p2p encourages decentralisation is important to a certain extent. Still, sometimes - and for some people or companies - it is convenient to know when something is p2p, and for them I do believe this Litmus test can be useful. However, I also think that most people use p2p without really thinking about it and don’t really feel the need to find out more about its exact definition.      

Rutherford, E. The p2p Report

In her article The p2p Report, Rutherford (also) talks about p2p. However, she pays more attention to what p2p has to offer and what it can mean for companies. Rutherford believes there are three basic divisions of p2p and these are ‘collaborative computing’, ‘instant messaging’ and ‘affinity communities’ (Rutherford 3). Overall, according to Rutherford, p2p promotes the exchange of ‘intellectual property’ and can help save time and money. All of which seems very important in today’s society. So, in a way p2p can be very useful for companies, but it can also cause some problems. For instance, it is not easy to control and often ad-hoc (Rutherford 4).

            At one point Rutherford says that ‘some Industry watchers predict that some commercial e-commerce will start using p2p technology’, and that they may ask money for their service (Rutherford 3). So my question is, “can you still call it peer-to-peer when a company does something like this?” I thought the whole idea of p2p was that different people share all sorts of resources - for free - and information and that there is no central server or database. In other words, although there’s nothing wrong with companies using p2p, I just don’t think you can do this and still call it peer-to-peer (in the strictest sense).  

Boase, J. and Wellman, B. A Plague of Viruses: Biological, Computer and Marketing 

According to Wellman and Boase biological, computer and marketing viruses all behave in the same way depending on the form of network, which is either ‘densely knit’ or ‘ramified’ (or usually a combination). So, in other words, they compare computer and marketing viruses to - real life - biological viruses and believe that different kinds of networks influence how these viruses operate (Boase and Wellman 1). Above all, according to them the spread of these viruses depends on ‘the nature of interpersonal relationships’ and ‘the structure of social networks’. For instance, people known as ‘brokers’ and the way computers are linked to each other play an important part (Boase and Wellman 4).

My question here is, “to what extent can you compare computer viruses and viral marketing to biological viruses?” In a way, Boase and Wellman have a point that all three of them can spread and mutate rapidly, depending on the network. They also say that these viruses often spread without deliberate human intent. To a certain extent this is true. However, computer viruses are deliberately made, and companies often use viral marketing on purpose. As far as I know, this is - hopefully - not the case with biological viruses. Besides, I think viral marketing differs quite a lot from the other two. For instance, biological and computer viruses can be very harmful, but I don’t really see how viral marketing can cause (real) damage. Also, in the end, Boase and Wellman even say that ‘the cultural element of viral marketing sets it apart from biological and computer viral exchange’ (Boase and Wellman 10). 

Benkler, Y. From Consumers to Users.

In his article From consumers to Users, Benkler talks about the importance of regulatory choices that occur at the physical infrastructure layer, the logical layer and the content layer (of the Internet) in today’s information society. Benkler believes that some regulation is necessary, to ensure that different kinds of resources, or commons, are available to all and that everybody is allowed to participate and to expressive themselves (Benkler 568). In other words, the wrong choices can have very negative consequences and Benkler fears that regulatory choices, that assume a producer-consumer model, often perpetuate it, for instance by increasing the costs (Benkler 575).

So, if I’m not mistaken, Benkler gives examples of what happens when people make decisions with a producer-consumer model in mind. All in all, Benkler hopes the Internet will develop into a ‘peer-to-peer’-model in which commons are sustained and where there is access for all (Benkler 579). However, “How exactly do people make regulatory choices in a ‘peer-to-peer’-model?” Somehow, somebody has to make the decisions, and how is decided who that somebody is? I don’t really know much about this, so maybe the existing government or the owners of websites already make these decisions. But in a way this means that somebody is still in charge. I guess as long as they don’t misuse this power, it will work out fine (most of the time).    

Lessig, L. Innovation from the Internet

In his article Innovation from the Internet, Lessig mentions a few new products, and their relationship to the architecture of cyberspace. These new products, like HTMLBooks and mp3, form new - and bigger - markets and new - and cheaper - forms of distribution. Lessig finds it especially interesting that some programmes on the Internet can now learn what people want. Although some people find this development scary, he sees a lot of potential for this development. For instance, it makes data about people’s preferences much more ‘usable’ (Lessig 14). Besides this, nowadays people, or ‘peers’ can be used to process and forward data (Lessig 16).

Although Lessig seems to prefer a distributed and flexible architecture of the Internet with a mix of control and freedom, he claims that the architecture of the Internet is changing and that nowadays more emphasis is placed on control and regulations (Lessig 21). So, my question is, “Is this really happening? And what will this mean for innovation?” I agree with Lessig that that freedom is very important and that some control is necessary to ensure that all people can participate. Many creative people don’t have a lot of money, and it’s important that they’re not excluded from the creative process just because they don’t have the money for it. But, if what he claims really is the case, than I’m afraid that this can make innovation on the Internet more difficult. However, I’m (still) not sure this is really happening. I think, for instance, that actually controlling the Internet will remain a difficult task.

Another question is, “whether it is a positive development that some Internet programmes can now ‘know’ what people want.” I think in a way it is, because it can be very convenient when you visit websites like amazon.com and it gives you whole lists of books and DVDs you might like. And besides, for the most part, the information it ‘knows’ is quite harmless. I can only speak for myself, but I don’t mind if other people know my preferences in books, films and music.

Harries, D. Watching the Internet

In his article Watching the Internet, Harries talks about the Internet and the different modes of spectatorship. According to him you can now speak of a convergence of the activities of the first and second mode, respectively ‘viewing’ and ‘using’. Harries calls this new development ‘viewsing’. In other words, a true viewsing experience combines the ‘realness’ of cinema, the ‘liveness’ of TV and the ‘connectedness’ of the Internet. Overall, Harries sees ‘the creation of immersive experiences within a context of interactivity’ as the future (Harries 181).   

            However, earlier he said ‘viewing’ on the Internet often lacks the quality, while the interactivity of ‘using’ makes immersion more difficult. However, don’t these problems also affect ‘viewsing’? In other words, my question here is “Is a ‘true viewsing experience’ always possible? And will it replace the more traditional forms of media?” In his article, Harries uses the programme “the Runner” as an example for ‘a true integrated media experience’. The format of this programme means that people can not only view this programme, they can also log on to their computer, where they can actively participating and might even change the events. This way, most people will feel as if they’re ‘in’ the programme. However, this programme is a game, which leaves me to think that maybe ‘viewsing’ only works with games like this. Besides this, I believe that many older, more traditional media experiences, like watching films, don’t really need interactivity and will remain the same. So, overall it’s very likely that more ‘viewsing experiences’ are created in the near future, but I don’t think it will be all there is.

Negus, K. Identities and Industries

In his article Identities and Industries, Negus tries to offer an alternative view of cultural production that looks at the broader cultural - and social - contexts. According to him, ‘culture’ and cultural processes not only shape economic practices and beliefs, but they also have a big influence on the way creativity can be realised and is judged (Negus 116). In other words, Negus believes that social divisions in the ‘real world are (still) an integral part of the cultural industry and to support his claims he uses the British and American music industry (Negus 118). Besides this, according to Negus, many record companies believe that an inviting ‘culture’ within their organisation is very important (Negus 120). 

So, my question here is, “is it true that the existing ‘culture’ in a society often has a – negative - influence on industries, like the music business? And is the music business really such a fragmented system, with certain division and separations?” I think Negus is right in believing that the white, middle-aged, male still has a lot to say in the music business and that this can be worrying. And it also sounds reasonable that language, geography etc. can play a role in what kind of music people like and produce. However, I don’t believe there are strict boundaries. For instance, a white person in Europe can like R&B just as much as a black person in America. Besides this, Negus himself says that collaborations are possible and indeed happen, with often very interesting results. To an extent, I think the music business itself does have certain divisions, with people who are specialised in a particular kind of music, but these divisions are not static, or at least I hope not.    

Küng-Shankleman, L: What is Organisation Culture?

According to Küng-Shankleman an organisation’s culture consists of a set of basic assumptions that are shared by all its members. These cultural assumptions enable an organisation to form a strategy and react appropriately to changing situations. Furthermore, Küng-Shankleman  believes that national cultural processes have an influence on an organisation and that the cultural assumptions can often be traced back to the founder (Küng-Shankleman 14).

My question here is “Are these assumptions always clear for everyone?” It seems like everyone is supposed to know them, but most of the time they remain implicit. However, Schein's model offers a method to uncover and access these assumptions by numerous discussions between members of an organisation, for instance, about their believed mission and core competencies (Küng-Shankleman 17). But do organisations really use this method? Overall, I think that most members indeed know these assumptions and strategy processes, but if not, I think Schein’s method can be very helpful. 

Besides, what if “it’s just a small Internet organisation, with only one, maybe two members?” Can you still speak of an ‘organisation’s culture’ then? I think you can, because it doesn’t really matter whether an organisation is large or small, people need to know their strategy and shared believes to function properly. Besides, on the Internet you often have frequently asked questions pages, and in a way these pages explicitly show what the makers of the site believe and assume.

De Mooij, M. Global Marketing and Advertising

The first thing that de Mooij mentions in his article Global marketing and advertising, is that in advertising it’s very important that something ‘fits’. Therefore a lot of effort must be put in understanding different cultures and apparently Hofstede has developed a model that distinguishes 5 dimensions. This model makes a systematic comparison of cultures possible. The first dimension is power distance (PDI), which means that some cultures believe in equality, while others have some sort of hierarchy. The second one is individualism-collectivism (IDV). In de Mooij’s opinion individualistic cultures are often universalistic, low-context cultures (de Mooij 79). Furthermore, he mentions masculinity/femininity (MAS) and uncertainty avoidance (UAI). And the last one is long-term Orientation (LTO).  

All in all, according to de Mooij ‘classification of cultures is necessary to develop marketing and advertising strategies in the global market place’ (de Mooij 91). “But is it always this simple?” Even though I understand that a model like this can be very helpful, especially for advertisers, I’m not sure that it’s always possible to classify people. Besides, isn’t it true that people from the same culture can give very different meanings to the same product? Also, what about the product itself? Sometimes a product just isn’t successful. Overall, I’m sure that a lot of things said about cultures in this model are true, but I don’t think it’s wise to make everything depend on it.

Nixon, S. Advertising and Commercial Culture

According to Nixon today’s society is a ‘commercial society’ in which consumption and commercial expertise play an important part. In his article, Advertising and Commercial Culture, Nixon mentions the work of a few researchers. The first ones are Lash and Urry who believe in ‘reflexive organisation’. In other words, the fact that people are expected to be more reflexive and creative. The second ones are Scase and Davis who talk about trends within the ‘creative industries’ and four ‘general ideal type kinds of organisation’. And the third one is Featherstone, who talks about the ‘new cultural intermediaries’, or the ‘shapers of tastes’ (Nixon 11).

Apparently, Nixon has a few problems with all three analyses, but my question is “what does he himself propose?” I still don’t really have a clear vision of what his ideas are. He says that he’s especially looking for frames to better understand advertising, and that it’s likely that advertising can be more effectively explored through ‘commercial culture’ (Nixon 2). But how exactly? In the end he says that commercially produced cultural goods and services can be interpreted in more than one way and that people - including commercial practitioners - can use them to shape their (cultural) identities (Nixon 22). This sounds reasonable, but it’s not really a frame to better understand advertising, or is it?

McRobbie, A. From Hollyway to Hollywood: Happiness at work in the New Cultural Economy?

In her article From Hollyway to Hollywood, McRobbie states that nowadays almost everything revolves around work. Especially in the creative industries, more and more people are self-employment and work on a freelance basis. More importantly, youth, ‘permanently transitional’ work and creativity are the key features of this sector (McRobbie 98). However, these key features have quite a few negative consequences. According to McRobbie many people lead very insecure lives and in today’s society it’s as if ‘work replaces the social’ (McRobbie 99). While Sennett and Beck also believe that neo-liberalism weakens the social ties, Leadbeater embraces this ‘talent-led economy’ (McRobbie 107)

            Overall, McRobbie believes that many people have to go to great lengths to be able to keep their jobs and that not everyone can make it (or participate for that matter). So, my question here is, “do people really need to work this hard? And is age really such a decisive factor?” I guess, in a way it is. In the creative industries working hard and having ‘a talent’ is often very important and there are only a few people who really ‘make it’. So, most people work hard because they have to make ends meet, others do it because they just like the work and some do it because they want to be famous. Although I think it’s true that in certain areas of the cultural industry, age can be very important, I do believe that if you are very good at what you do, it is possible to continue working for quite a long time. All in all, I hope McRobbie is mistaken in believing that ‘work replaces the social’, but I’m afraid that nowadays many people do live the way she describes it.