Anderson, Can We Not?

I feel as though we have talked about this topic several times over the semester, but I think we can all agree that there are certain limits to free and in some cases the customer will value a product/service so much that they are willing to pay. To be frank, I’m quite tired of all these tech/media gurus telling news corps that they’re dead, dying, outdated and costly. The three articles assigned are pretty entertaining and give a good debate so I’ll follow similar suit with Anderson’s response to Gladwell’s review of “Free.”

Anderson writes:

“There may be more of them, not fewer, as the ability to participate in journalism extends beyond the credentialed halls of traditional media. But they may be paid far less, and for many it won’t be a full time job at all. Journalism as a profession will share the stage with journalism as an avocation. Meanwhile, others may use their skills to teach and organize amateurs to do a better job covering their own communities, becoming more editor/coach than writer. If so, leveraging the Free—paying people to get other people to write for non-monetary rewards—may not be the enemy of professional journalists. Instead, it may be their salvation.”

Naturally Gladwell attacked this point of view by prosing how does one get another to work for non-monetary rewards?

Nonchalantly, Anderson went into this semi-altruistic story about his friend Ken, who is a civil engineer (basically, Ken makes good money already), and got him to write for his blog GeekDad. Ken is happy. GeekDad is happy and all in all Anderson gets enough credibility to propose a new business model for the newspaper industry? Not quite. To be fair, Anderson did state:

“Is it the model for the newspaper industry? Maybe not all of it, but it is the only way I can think of to scale the economics of media down to the hyperlocal level.”

What I think Anderson fails to understand is that professional and trained journalists don’t start blogs like GeekDad to earn a living. Therefore, the economics of community blogging or responsibility doesn’t require the attention of making a business model for it. 

In fact, personal blogging is an entire profession on its own these days. I follow a couple bloggers myself, so take Sazan Hendrix for example. You can learn more about her background from this interview: http://www.contiki.com/six-two/10-contiki-questions-with-fashion-blogger-sazan-barzani/

She’s a fashion and beauty blogger, posts weekly YouTube videos and describes herself as a “young influencer.” Sazan recognized that social blogging is a business venture and it has obviously served her bank account well.

There definitely isn’t a formula to success in blogging, but she did blog about being a full-time blogger and how she has been successful. Read here: http://sazan.me/blog/2014/07/10/blogging-faqs/

In short, can we please stop trying to predict grandiose business models for the newspaper corporations and continue to let them to do their civic duty to democracy without undervaluing their work?

Crap

 In Robert Capps’ article, The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Fine, Capps’ article can be summed by his use of the word “crapification.”

Based on Capps’ use of the word I created my own definition:

Crap•i•fi•ca•tion

verb

The process of producing “lower-quality” goods and services in order to meet high levels of convenience for the consumer.

The consequence of such a process is known as what Capps calls “the mp3 effect.” Basically, we as consumers have a different idea of what “high-quality” means to us. The question isn’t which product is better, but which product is easier? This is probably best exemplified by my love for instant chocolate cake mixes.

If you were to find the best chocolate cake recipe on Pinterest, use fresh ingredients from your own Austin urban farm, make it from scratch and asked me whether I liked your cake or a Great Value instant chocolate cake– I’d crush your little DIY heart.

Now it’s not that I have bad taste (maybe I do) or that your cake wasn’t delicious. I just love instant cake mix for two reasons:

           

1)    It’s so easy to make that even my mom can make it and not to be rude (I love you mom), but my mom isn’t exactly a whiz in the kitchen. So when she did make my favorite sweet treat it was always quick and delicious.

2)    It’s cheap as hell. This came in super clutch when begging my mom for it at the grocery store. We didn’t grow up poor by any means, but we were definitely working to make ends meet.

So I am a victim of the mp3 effect. I prefer the lower-quality chocolate cake because it’s what I grew up on; therefore I’ve built a preference for it and it was/is convenient for my mom and I to make.

Like Capps’ said this kind of trend started as a result of a souring economy. Sure you’ll always have the few who will pay more money for a better product, but when you’re limited financially all you really need is something that fits your budget and honestly that really is “good enough.”  

So, where is the line, in which quality trumps convenience? Is it independent to the consumer? More importantly, is there any hope of saving my affinity towards instant chocolate cakes? Perhaps, but most likely not.

A-B-C Easy as 1, 2, Siri

In this class, we certainly like to use younger siblings as anecdotes to our ever-changing world with technology, so I’ll follow this same method.

Bella, age six, loves Peppa Pig, soccer, and baking. Unlike me, she enjoys math and science. I was more of a reading and writing student. She also is an avid iPad user and cannot sit through a car ride without using some sort of mobile device/tablet to occupy her time. I’ll attach a picture below:

NOTE: Let’s be clear. I’m not here to talk about the “good ol’ days” during my time in school and what is the “right way” to maximize success in education. I lack the credentials to do so.

Whenever I’m home I spend as much time with Bella as I can because the transition of having me there full-time to maybe once a month was challenging for her to say the least.

This past week I had the opportunity to help Bella study for her spelling test, but I had no idea how she processes information best so I’ll list the steps I took below:

1.    Write words on flash cards.

a.    Have Bella say the word out loud. Spell the word out loud. Say the word again.

2.    After all the words have been said/spelled, quiz Bella and have her write out the words.

3.    Repeat 3 times.

After this, there were about 3 words Bella consistently misspelled. So I then had her write each word 10 times, then quizzed her again.

She spelled every word correctly.

Now I would randomly ask her to spell a word just to make sure she was retaining what she learned, but in no way did we need an iPad or iPhone to help her how to spell better.

Now with that said I do think there is a benefit to having technology in the classroom. There are benefits to personalized learning and the article did make mention of that.

“In not too many years, it might mean using sophisticated pattern-recognizing algorithms to analyze data from homework, games, leisure reading, social media and biometric indicators to determine that one student should be guided to an interactive simulation of coral-reef ecology, another to an essay exercise built around a customized set of coral-reef-related vocabulary words and concepts, and others to something else.”

Not every student learns the same and in a world where technology is a large component of about every industry, it’s important that students are prepared and competent with tech products. In fact, this is how school systems were first developed. Have you ever noticed that a typical school mirrors work hours and is set on a strict time schedule?

This isn’t a coincidence. Schools were made to follow factory-like schedules because industrialization of the workforce was evident.

However, there is flawed logic with the idea that technology will somehow solve education in America.

Rotella articulates this best when he writes:

“Still, if everyone agrees that good teachers make all the difference, wouldn’t it make more sense to devote our resources to strengthening the teaching profession with better recruitment, training, support and pay? It seems misguided to try to improve the process of learning by putting an expensive tool in the hands of teachers we otherwise treat like the poor relations of the high-tech whiz kids who design the tool.”

I currently have an aunt who is a principal at a DISD middle school. It’s your typical “failing inner-city school,” but the problems she runs into the most aren’t getting grants for technology in the classroom, but un-interested and dispassionate teachers. Many teachers, specifically older in her case, lack the patience and compassion it takes to connect with the kind of students her school has.

Yet, school systems have been dumping money into technological advances despite the data showing the U.S. still behind in education than its global peers China and India.

In fact, there is no data that decisively concludes that the addition of technology to classrooms amounted to higher test scores or comprehension.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there is about 66 percent disparity of internet access between schools where 75 percent of greater are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch than schools with a student body where less than 35 percent are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.  So, how exactly will a tablet bridge the education gap in lower-income school districts where most homes lack Internet access?

It won’t.

Therefore, I believe technology should be used to enhance the education system not solve it.

Google if you're reading this it's too late

Google whether we like it or not has a lurking presence in our every day lives. Admittedly, I use a Google service every day considering its e-mail service has an amazing amount of storage capacity and has efficient work school/work functions such as Google docs or Google drive.

But just how big is Google?

According to a 2014 report by ZenithOptimedia, not only is Google the world’s largest media owner but also its share has increased by 136% of the second largest media owner, Disney.  ZenithOptimedia based its rankings on media revenue– revenue that comes from businesses to support advertising.

Now, this comes at no surprise considering an important component of Google’s business is its ability to display targeted ads based on search inquiries.

In fact in 2015, Google’s ad revenue amounted to a whopping 67.39 billion dollars.

But despite all the convenience and innovation Google offers it’s consequently tracking and storing all that data. Now this isn’t exactly jaw-dropping information and Google of course offers you a tool called Dashboard to allow for some transparency. However, in some respect Google’s new ventures such as self-driving cars may prove to be entirely too invasive.

In an interview with the Atlantic, Google chairman, Eric Schmidt said, “We don’t need you to type at all because we know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less guess what you’re thinking about … Is that over the line?”

Yes. That is over the line.

Schmidt went on to say, “Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it. I would argue that implanting things in your brain is beyond the creepy line … at least for the moment until the technology gets better.”

Google’s subjective view of privacy is entirely disturbing and I would argue that it’s over achievement “moon shot” culture is somewhat evil.

In an interview with Wired magazine Google’s, Larry page embodies and explains this moon shot culture; the idea that Google should be “doing more” or shooting for the moon. Google’s new division, Google X does just that.

Google X is considered to be semi-secret, but a couple of projects include self-driving cars, rapid delivery services through flying vehicles or balloon-flying routers to bring the internet to everyone.

In hindsight these ideas are fairly utopian and “world-changing,” but any firm with that much reach and power is bound to create fear. Is Google’s incessant need to save the world, evil?

At the cost of my own privacy, I would say sure.  Technology and innovation is useful has indeed saved lives in respect to health and medicine sectors, but I believe Google’s idea of a privacy “line” vastly differs from my own.

Google’s hyper-heroic culture has villain-esque qualities. It’s not enough to provide a quick, efficient search engine in the name of knowledge or education, but also to store that data to make it profitable for the engineers of said engine. Google is a marketer’s/advertiser’s dream. It takes something as complex as the human brain: its dislikes, like, loves etc. and quantifies it based on clicks, impressions and various user behavior tools.

Google not only wants to save the world but save it better than anyone else.

Below are some attached videos of some interesting Google projects.

Long Tail and Chill

Chris Anderson’s article explaining the long tail was extremely enlightening and although he wrote the article in 2004, there are still some eternal truths that could be applied today in 2016.

In summation, Anderson believes in a digital economy there is no such thing as too much. That the analog of media sees “hits” as the only profit makers due to scarcity in physical space. Anderson argues that in a digital economy the “misses” also have a profit because there is an abundance of shelf space. Moreover, Anderson’s three rules  of utilizing the long tail can be used today.

Rule 1: Make everything available

Rule 2: Cut the price in half. Now lower it.

Rule 3: Help me find it

All three can be used in my everyday life as a consumer. In respect to my major, journalism, I’ll tell you a story as to how this is true.

I, Alexiz thoroughly enjoy documentaries (as mentioned in the article). I honestly do–they’re thought-provoking, insightful and the list goes on so where can I find a constant stream provider of all things movie and TV? Netflix. For just $7.99 a month I can watch all the documentaries to my little heart’s content (Rule 1 and 2). Alternatively, I could go to a rental video store back home in my suburb near Dallas, which I should add is going through some financial trouble, and rent about two documentaries for 5 days. Now Anderson’s rule 3 is what allows me the consumer and the supplier to deepen our relationship. Let’s say after binge-watching and finishing CW’s The Vampire Diaries that I just can’t seem to get out of bed and decide to emotionally invest in another series. As I go back to the homepage there are a “Top Picks for Alexiz” section and voila! Netflix now has a plethora of suggestions as to what else I might enjoy based on my affinity to The Vampire Diaries. It could be something as mainstream as Gossip Girl or a little more obscure like The Secret Circle, which was cancelled after one season because of its poor viewership (Rule 2). 

Finally, I’d like to add that while rule 2 might seem a little scary for suppliers to cut prices, Anderson notes that cutting prices allow the consumer to buy more. If songs were between 20 to 79 cents I’d forgo my Spotify account altogether, to be honest.

As Senior Fellows and potential suppliers, we need to recognize that the digital is inevitable and so should our marketing and pricing tactics.

The following is a TED talk about the future of TV in respect to streaming services like Netflix and Hulu.