The end is nigh, but the revolution is coming!

Well this is it bloggers, the final post... How depressing that sounds, but fear not. This constitutes simply the ending of my KCB201 academic blogging career, the assignment, now completed is in the past. But I have now been introduced to the world of blogging and like any true 'user' I am hooked. I hope my fellow colleagues in the subject are the same, for it would be sad to see them leave. The trials and tribulations can now subside (and let me promise you this, there have been some doozies! - maybe more on this at a later date). The therapeutic qualities of the medium have kept me sane, and I apologise for the random rants, actually scrap that, no I don't. You logged on at the beginning without knowing the monkey behind the keyboard, whilst you may still not know me perse, you certainly have some insight. The future of this blog may now lead anywhere, the possibilities are endless and that is both daunting and exciting at the same time. I may continue some of the ideas I explored in my previous blogs, because yes, I did actually become incredibly interested in some of the content, and the freedom I have to carry the ideas wherever I want. But I am willing to tap to the rhythm of the keyboard and see what scroll out onto the screen... I hope you wait with baited anticipation...

The Brendam Revolution is coming...

Are we all Pulitzer Prize journalists?

TEACHER: [To child] “What do you want to be when you grow up?”
CHILD: “A citizen journalist!”

I too was this child, if only for a moment, when first introduced to the concept of citizen journalism. It appeared as the future of reporting for the world, and I wanted to participate. But after reading an article by James Farmer of The Age I was gob-smacked to hear a professional’s opinion on citizen journalism. Farmer (2006) detests the naming of citizens as journalists, and I will discuss his issue in depth later. Initially however, I wanted to indicate the potentiality of citizen journalism, so that you too can make up your mind.

The established news brands have long held their oligopolies over news and current affair delivery, but no more. The citizen is now a formidable foe to the CNN’s, ESPN’s and the entire myriad of journalistic news outlets saturating the media. The YouTube video “New Media and Citizen Journalism” (a form of citizen journalism in its own right) exhibits why the practice of citizen journalism is so necessary in society.

NEW MEDIA AND CITIZEN JOURNALISM - George Dorrance


So what is citizen journalism and what does it achieve? Put simply, people are actively finding, evaluating and re-sharing information (Bruns 2008a). They are creating content and adding to the information that is widely made available to us; following the core principles of Bruns’ (2008a) produsage theory. The passive injection of information is no longer accepted. Willis and Bowman (2003) called it correctly when describing the new age citizen; “[who is] armed with easy-to-use Web publishing tools, always-on connections and increasingly powerful mobile devices, the online audience has the means to become an active participant in the creation and dissemination of news and information”. This epitomises the essence of the citizen journalist and their audiences, who may now switch and choose between the topics, and most importantly, the sources which most interest them (Negroponte 1995; WeMedia). The beauty of the citizen journalism process is openness, and with avenues such as blogs and wikis, where citizen journalists are achieving publication, there are varying levels of content control. Bruns (2008b) identifies the struggles that broadcasters of citizen journalism are facing, noting that Indymedia have long struggled to balance maximum content openness with content control. The problem with content control is that it can be taken too far, with the final product being so edited that it resembles “mainstream news media” outputs (Bruns 2008b).

So back to Farmer’s comments. Farmer (2006) is a strong believer in the profession of journalism, and states that once a citizen “collect[s], report[s], analyse[s] and disseminate[s]” information then they are no longer a citizen at all; they are now a journalist. Farmer (2006) challenges though, whether this is in fact “good” journalism (a concept Henry Jenkins explores well). He notes that sites such as Digg are simply “transparent forms of editorialising” and that OhMyNews employs “scores of editors and journalists [including students and amateurs]”; arguing that the content is no more ‘citizen’ than TV or print news. This I believe is a fair argument and perhaps we should indeed have adopted Farmer’s (2006) term “citizen media” over citizen journalism, but what’s in a name? Also Farmer’s prediction that citizen journalism will not prosper outside “uber niche areas” may be a little short sighted. Essentially we as citizen journalists are creating journalistic content, simply without qualification, and supposed objectivity that professionals must. But in no small way are we any less dedicated. The issues covered may vary significantly to those of professionals, but again we are catering to the niche, and this I feel is why citizen journalism will rise as a formidable force.

So are we “gatewatchers” as Bruns (2008c) calls it, honing in on what is in the mainstream media “repurposing… recontextualising, and reinterpreting” our own content? Are we journalists in the making? I think I am with Farmer on this one; we shouldn’t be ‘journalists’ (though the argument may be superficial), instead we should be ‘medialists’. Amateurs who have the capacity and drive to create a vast array of informative/entertaining or objective/biased or any number of binary opposed works, in text, video, audio or whatever else we choose; for the consumption (or even further use/production) of others. Citizen news is our news.

*NOTE: For further understanding I recommend following the links to Zeitgeist via the Chorazy Thoughts blog!

Bruns, A. 2008a. KCB201 Produsage. Week 8 Podcast. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 23, 2008).

Bruns, A. 2008b. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.

Bruns, A. 2008c. KCB201 Citizen Journalism. Week 10 Podcast. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed May 8, 2008).

Negroponte, N. 1995. Being Digital. New York: Vintage.

The source is open, so don't spill!

The edit function we are given in Microsoft Word is a completely different function to the edit functionalities of OpenOffice. Within Word we can edit our work, but the program remains static. OpenOffice on the other hand allows us to edit our creations; whilst at the same time is editable itself. This simple function is the beauty of open source software. The mission statement of OpenOffice was "To create, as a community, the leading international office suite that will run on all major platforms and provide access to all functionality and data through open-component based APIs and an XML-based file format." (Wikipedia 2008). It is under this principle that open source software is taking the world by storm.

Eric Raymond (1998) may just have it right; there's an itch to scratch, and this itch can only be satisfied by people making their input. So how is the itch satisfied? At the most basic level open source software is software production, created by users, which relates back to the notion of produsage. This software creation is achieved through giving people access to the programming, or source code, which 'makes' the software. But we cannot always reach this itch, and this is reflected by the closed source model (Bruns 2008). Under this production model the source code of a product such as Microsoft Word is closely guarded and protected under intellectual property. This protection prevents people taking the software product, which the company uses to make profit, and creating their own version and redistributing it, which in essence is still illegal (Bruns 2008).

But with open source software we suddenly have a back-scratcher to reach the itch. Open source software in its basic form is software which is distributed under a limited rights licensing system (Bruns 2008), instigated by the Open Source Initiative. With open source software we the users are allowed access to the source code to change and add functionality (should we possess the skills to do so) as we like. The only catch here is that what you create as an open software creator cannot be capitalised from, and it must be freely available to others on a free basis (Bruns 2008).

For some extra comparison on the differences between open source software and commercial production follow this link.

So what are the advantages of open source software? Put simply it is suitability. Even commercially available software may not suit your own specific needs, with open source functionality can be personalised and as such the software code can be changed and adapted for any particular individual's needs (Wheeler 2007). So what we fundamentally end up with is an abundance of software versions available to the wider community, with each version serving a slightly different purpose.

What I find interesting is the apprehension that some people feel towards open source programs. I know that I was personally reluctant to try Firefox, one of the most popular open source programs. However after trying it Firefox has fast become my favourite web-browser, and whilst I do not have the ability to edit the program myself I have noticed the sheer quality of the product. Linux (an open source operating system) has also been noted for its stability and reliability; it simply does not crash as easily as its commercial counterpart Windows does. Why, I hear you ask? Simple really, the bugs and faults are found and edited out by users, thus the beauty of open source, the best and strongest form is constantly, and freely, available. Though the big-gun commercial corporates may claim otherwise, open source software is truly the way of the future.

Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Open Source Software. Week 9 Podcast. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed May 1, 2008).

Which life are you living?

A funny thing has happened to my opinion whilst studying this subject, it has, wait for it... changed. Unbelieveable, I know, but true nonetheless, and for the better I think. So what is this thing that has changed me, and what opinion is it that has changed?

Online socialistation, I was one of the sceptics, I never believed that a person who was truly happy with their 'real-word' social life would feel the need to explore the online world to expand thier horizons. But the strangest thing happened, I myself began to become involved with online social networking and also the use of Avatars, not explicitly, but through MMORPG's. The game is called Grand Theft Auto IV and I am sure you have heard of it, you can play online and the game automatically assigns a character to represent you. But I wasn't happy with my selection, I was a short and giggly chick ---> sorry GTA but that's not me. And so the customisation process began. I am now a trim, athletic looking guy who surely is faster than the rest of the other Avatars in the game. So low and behold withing the space of 5 minutes I had developed a relationship with this character. And it appears that I am not the only one.

After watching a video in class (which I cannot seem to find the link for anymore), I was completely gobsmacked by the sheer success of the online world, literally another society, called Second Life. So the following are some points raised in the video and my reactions to these:

- I noticed a significant generation gap in interest of Second Life interaction. The average age of users is 32 years old, MIND BOGGLING, who would have ever thought the older generations would latch onto this technology so prolifically? Not me that is for certain. And yes I am sure there is a significant number of users that are younger but I noticed a general consensus in our class after watching the video and that is that we, Generation Y, are quite pessimistic towards the 'game'. We were worried about the effects of use, what people actually saw in it, etc. yet a great number of us also reflected an interest in at least trying out Second Life. The Boomer generation, those in the average age gap for usage, are quite optimistic and intrigued, reflected primarily in the video and by some outside opinions I have heard. So why the difference? This is something I will HAVE to explore at a later date!

- There is a real economy in Second Life, and the virtual world possesses a GDP that is the equivalent of some third world countries such as Bulgaria. WHOA. That's right people are actually spending real cash online. That's a scary thought, but the program is free to join and are we all not willing to pay for entertainment? Perhaps Second Life is onto something here, they may have just discovered a new age way for economic exchange. Third parties are developing content,form the individual, to the corporate business, a la produsage? And many venture capitalists realise that this is indeed a new economy investment.

- Back to the content production, it is simply amazing, no one asks users to create it. But they do nonetheless. Has living a Second Life become a labour of love? People's creativity is driven, and whether this be from their own knowledge, education, or interests in something appears irrelevant.

- So my concern appear unwarranted. I used to believe there was a major difference between living a 'real' life and living vicariously through a second one, such as in Second Life. I do still maintain some semblance of this notion, I believe these programs should be used to expand ourselves as people, but not as a substitutes. Explore yourself, and if it makes life easier and more enjoyable then embrace it. Consume it, produce it, but simply do not let it consume or produce YOU. What we can do in the 'real' world now appears re-creatable in the cyber world, so enjoy and explore.

The old saying "you only live once" now appears redundant? Just ask yourself, which life are you living? And does it really matter?

Online communities, and the offline hype!

Would you still be friends with people if you didn’t know them? Let me explain this. What I mean here is that you still actually know them, but not in the physical realm, you know only their virtual self (sometimes referred to as an Avatar). Is this person still a friend or acquaintance? Can this relationship even be called that; a relationship? Are virtual links even valid?

These are the questions that have faced those who latched onto the networking and community building aspects of the internet, which is now pervasive in so many of our lives. In the infancy of the internet these aspects were identified as solutions for global problems on many levels (Flew 2005). However this was unrealistic, instead the internet has most certainly provided a new take on community construction, rather than community absolution. Flew (2005) recognised the key drawing principle of the online realm. He states that the reason for members flocking to online forums was; “the decline in opportunities for democratic participation and community formation in contemporary industrial capitalists and mass-media societies”. Flew (2005) further acknowledges that the search for like minded people, a key socialisation act of all humans, have been accelerated and indeed easily facilitated by the internet. He continues to indicate that this online search is in fact an evasion of the human obligation to act on real-world democratic responsibilities; these include dealing with diversity differences, power relationships and inequalities in society (Flew 2005). I can see the validity of the argument, by using the internet to expose ourselves socially; we are really hiding behind the digital projection of ourselves (our Avatar), and can end up shutting out real-world physical relationships. Cuthbert and others (2002) reflect similar reservations as my own acknowledging the restraints that the cyber word is bound by, which at times can limit the ties that may be developed. This in-turn impedes the formation of social hierarchies. They continue to say that online interaction simply, and should only, act as a support function as opposed to giving full a sense of community. However they do note that once an online group seeks a common goal, their ties are fortified indeed mimicking real world community obligations and associations.
Though these outlooks are very pessimistic, the virtual world is indeed capable of exponentially expanding our social circles within the public sphere. I myself have noticed how integrated into my daily routine the internet has become and the social expansion capabilities it has enabled me, parallel to my real-life social capital. The internet acts as a compliment of my social life, not as a substitute. And oxymoronically, or so it seems, to be part of the real-world “in” crowd, we must also be part of an online community such as Facebook or MySpace.

Consequently we must perhaps look further into the possibilities of online communities. Once online and part of a community, as in real life, we find those who are similar to ourselves and have shared interests, a la internet dating. The internet is now a basically ubiquitous medium (at least in westernised society), and therefore the links created can become incredibly strong. Hartley (2002) takes the notion of online communities so far as to say that they are “self-governing” within their own social space, that is, they are cyber-democracies. This, I feel is the key successful aspect of online communities, communication is once again solely a democratic medium.
This re-socialisation of people around media creates new forms of culture, referred to as technocultures (Bruns 2008; Martin 2006). Willingly we find others who have the same interests as ourselves, and the exponential increases offered to our social circles by the internet allow us the ability to be accepted by and operate in fields “neglected by the mainstream” (Bruns 2008). It is this social acceptance which fast creates Netizens, or citizens of the internet (Bruns 2008). But I do wonder if this is in-fact corrupting to people’s lives, is this the best cure for those who are otherwise socially awkward?

Anyway when looking at online communities they do serve a predominant single purpose, and this is the “finding, evaluating and sharing” of information, much the same as the process you are reading right now (Bruns 2008). I have found this information, evaluated its concepts and am now sharing my thoughts to you. Online cultures or communities, whatever you decide to call them, are made up of the produser society. They are a forum for experimentation, where we can explore ourselves and our likes/dislike with the wider global world, and specifically those who fit into our niche. However with the capitalisation occurring with online networking sites, I hold the same reservations as Holmes (1998); are people simply “being sold the illusion of sociality for the price of an ISP?”

Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Online Communities. Week 6 Podcast. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 9, 2008).

Cuthbert, A., D. Clark and M. Lin. 2002. WISE Learning Communities: Design Considerations. In Building Virtual Communities: Learning & Change in Cyberspace, ed. K.A. Renninger and W. Shumar, 215-248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Flew, T. 2005. New Media: An Introduction. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Hartley, J. 2002. Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The Key Concepts. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

Holmes, D. 1998. Virtual Identity: Communities of Broadcast, Communities of Interactivity. In Virtual Politics: Identity and Communication in Cyberspace, ed. D. Holmes, 27-78. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Martin, F. 2006. New Media, New Audiences. In The Media and Communications in Australia, ed. S. Cunningham and G. Turner, 323-324. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Produsage! There, I said it!

As I sit here typing my Blog, I am one of two things. I am a producer, creating the content that is being streamed and published for you the reader. But at the same time, I am a user, using the medium of Blogs to further my education. The difficultly of classification now prevails, which one am I? And from an audience perspective, can an audience that is active with the content they use still be called simply an audience? The concept of audience implies some sort of passive consumption, a speaker (producer) sending out messages (products) to the masses (consumer), and there the link stops, or at most is reciprocated. So why is everything now more about the experience and interaction? I think the change started with the growth of the services industry, when marketers realised it was not a tangible product craved, but a wealth of intangible experience.

Since the conception of the internet the world has been awed, but what everyone craved was the chance to make their own mark, and now it is possible. The internet as we know it was not pumped out from raw materials by a conveyor belted manufacturer, instead million of users sitting in their offices, their loungerooms, in the park (on WiFi, of course) or in any other imaginable, and occupiable place has (or at least has the opportunity) to add to the building blocks creating the network of information that is the World Wide Web.

So here content in, equals content out. And the producer equals the consumer. The end result is of course the "produser", a term coined by Axel Bruns (2007), which accurately describes the dual functionality of the active consumer. But the process does not stop here. Each and every consumer adds to the content or information, building on and validating information. We are thus creating a collective knowledge base, maintained and improved by the users without centralised control (CSE 2008). The collation and re-communication of information was once thought of as the "bottleneck" that strangled information sharing. No more. The internet and its produsage capabilities have exponentially increased the ways that we can communicate and coordinate information, and at minimum has overcome the physical barriers blocking progress. The intellectual barriers are still to be addressed (CSE 2008).

So where is produsage actually operating in the real world? Take the social networking site that is SecondLife. Users of this software operate under an avatar, and their interactions within this online community build and enrich a virtual society. Effectively SecondLife is a funtioning and by all means legitimate community. The possibilities of what users can do is only limited by their imaginations and what they can actually create. And here lies the beauty of produsage, whilst all users are not equally skilled, they all have an equal opportunity to utilise and add to the community/system/project (Bruns 2007).

So, next time you log onto a web page, and have the chance to modify or add your own content; DO IT. Experience the produsage phenomenon. Chances are you already have. The consumer has always been right (so the saying goes), now the consumer can be king.

Passively progress through this thought if you dare!

Some random thoughts:

Mindlessness, that's the way I feel lately. Is mindlessness even a feeling? I mean it has no effect on the senses, and in fact if the senses were being stimulated it wouldn't be mindless now would it? Anyway where am I going with this? Probably nowhere so either bare with me or skip on to the next thought. Your choice. Ah, choice, what a grand concept. It gives us so many options yet simultaneously closes so many others. But choice implies thinking, and thinking implies use of the mind. So back to my mindlessness.

I had a revelation the other day, nothing that emancipates the soul, or achieved a Buddha like enlightenment for me, but a revelation none-the-less. I'm a passive progressive. (Axel gets his term, so this is my concept).

Contemporary life is so fast-paced nowadays that it seems to follow Moore's Law, as computer power doubles capacity every 18 months life itself seems to struggle to keep up. And when we try to slow ourselves down we inadvertently find ourselves living in the dark ages, and behind the times. So with all the new capabilities and wonders that are easing the stress of our lives are we actually achieving the opposite? With the capability to cram more into life, we do! Living life to the most we call it. But this has been my downfall, my brain, intrinsically linked to that of the apes (evolution, look it up!), simply cannot be upgraded, it does not run at a gigahertz speed and my memory is absolutely shot. I mean it certainly is Random Access Memory (RAM), but not in terms that electronics use... simply put it is random, not necessarily accessible. The pressures of life have overloaded my wires, and thus now I rely on my phone planner, my Facebook 'events', my digital calendar, and electronic alarm clock to keep me running. Half (or so it seems) of my life is stored on a USB 'nerd-stick' that takes up less space than a folded-up photograph. So I have become passive in my life, I live through my gadgets, they dictate what I do and where I go, when I go and how I work out how I'm getting there. My life is progressing passively. I'm a passive progressive, and finding the reigns again seems like a daunting task. I'm scared that the car speedo will no longer read as Km/h, but in volts or terahertz. I'm scared that my photos are stored as millions of 1's and 0's, and not on fading sepia-tone paper.

So am I bagging out technology here? NO! let me make that clear. The wonders that we are achieving are fantastic, and indeed life is improving, but we cannot do it all. Try, yes; but achieve not so much and perhaps this is the concept I need to understand. It is me, the monkey, controlling the keyboard, not the keyboard controlling the monkey.

The Internet Salesman, but wait, theres more...

I was going to take an advertising perspective within this blog, but it soon turenoud out that my tastes are so eclectic in this subject that the matter simply kept getting pushed aside. So here are some really interesting links to look at. They encompass the future of advertising as the world of promotion collides in an spectacular way with the world of the internet via convergence. Enjoy.

Web 2.0 and how YOU can advertise and win! Try YUWIE -its members get paid... A radical new age take on how to earn money, and how advertisiers are aware of decreasing foot-traffic, but increased 'click-traffic'.

Yuwie-Info.com, How to Make Money on a Social Network!


A professionals ideas on what Web 2.0 advertsing does for a business.

Boost your Business with Web 2.0 Advertising

This one is my favorite. I think it absolutely epitomises the effect of internet not only on culture but also advertising. A look at the real strategies that promoters can take in our new media world. An eye opening look at the future, Highly Reccomeneded.

Leo Burnett / Arc Predictions, Future Trends in Advertising

Not only did these give me some opitimism, they also spawned some pessimistic views aswell, which I hope to address at a later date, so unitl then. This is me signing out.

The Long-Tail, not to be short lived!

Do you like the hits? Do they dominate your playlist? Is the latest hit the only thing you care about? If you answered yes to all of the above then read no further, but you may be disappointed if you chose to stop now.
I am willing to bet that there is at least one song in your collection that falls outside the mainstream. Am I correct? Then if so read on and I shall explain the future of marketing, advertising and retail that is bound to get your attention.

Just this week I purchased a DVD that I had never heard of, and probably never would have, had it not been for a recommendation. But this recommendation came not from a friend, instead Amazon.com informed me that "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought". Intrigued I clicked and read on. Low-and-behold my vast DVD viewing experience horizons have broadened, and this is only because Amazon.com allowed me to dig through the bargain bin of hits, to reach the bottom of the pile. There are countless other ways that the "long-tail" operates.

So what explains this process?
It is the futuristic concept of a "long-tail" which exists within almost all products of popular culture and consumption. In basic form, the "long-tail" comprises of the misses which never got recognised by the masses. The never reached No.1 status and as such were overlooked and under supplied, but does this make them any less consumable, or of lesser quality or worthiness? No, it most certainly does not. The lack of recognition is merely a loss to the mass market, but the niche market opens up an entirely new realm to deal with. Chris Anderson has been a pioneer in the exploration of the 'Long-Tail'.

According to Anderson, the hit driven market requires shelf space and market prominence. So, it is perhaps the internet which allows the "long-tail" to operate at its most effective. Without the need for shelf space, maintenance, sales promotion and lacking in actual physicality; digital commerce expands our choices immensely. The internet has a capability that is only dreamt about within the physical realm. The vast collating and databasing capacities of the internet links everything. So now you or I can say "I like this, this and this", the data is collated and virtual 'tastes' are created. People can now be informed of what others who liked this product, also liked. So the virtual world is limitless, or at least in conceivable terms. There is a plethora of content on the internet, essentially a click away, and if the right mechanism directs us down the correct path, we find the products we probably weren't looking for but we want, or at least are interested in. We find our own niche.

So back to my original example on the music community. The masses are not to be the dictators any more, the eclectic and non-average consumer is king. The demand for the obscure has always been there, but only now do we have a platform to service that demand. Whilst the bricks-and-mortar retailers deal with the masses, the "long-tail" handles the rest, and the rest is a big market, whilst sales volumes may not be high for each item individually, on aggregate the misses match and sometimes even outsell the hits. Does this make them Number 1? Quite possibly.

Facebook faux par!

To truly understand the context of this rant I suggest you read Axel's Snurblog:
Social Networks on Ning: A Sensible Alternative to Facebook
And the comments attached.


I'm noticing a trend with Axel and Facebook, he hates it and its popularity, and he believes that there are many better alternatives out there... Ok, yes that is probably true and a very valid argument has been made. By no means do I mean to sound cynical of Axel's argument. But in-fact at first I did indeed disagree quite strongly with his viewpoint. I felt that he simply was not 'into' the whole social networking scene, and therefore did not appreciate the software for what it is. But since my first viewing Elyse has fronted the issue of Facebook friendship, much in the same manner that I too would have tackled the issue. She posted the comment that I was too busy (perhaps read gutless) to do. But, and here is the clincher, I was not prepared for the come-back that Axel would post. He is right. Facebook simply is not the 'best' out there, it's damn close, but still it misses the mark. I am sure that other issues like limited profiles, and friend groups and the likes all come into play but it simply doesn't reach the mark of where we want to be. But can you blame it, I mean really both Facebook and MySpace are really fledglings in the great online social networking sphere, so who are we to get angry at them. Instead it is us the merely need to develop the better alternatives or additives that these programs need, ahh the beauty of open software and web 2.0. Anyway I could rant for hours here and this is not where I first imagined this blog taking me, so now I digress to maybe one-day come back and finish this part... another one of the great capabilities of produsage and the internet... its never finished! So how do we know when we're done?

Anyway what I really wanted to bring to light here is what I think is the main reason behind the success of Facebook and MySpace, and the failure of the rest (that I am sure are out there). They lack flair! Attention and marketability. Sadly that is what everything is about nowadays, unless its marketable, then sorry it ain't gonna sell. No way will anything unmarketable find its way into the hearts and minds of those who care. Sad but true; or so it seems. Facebook and MySpace have it made, they don't need to identify the niche markets, we do it for them! Our demographics are plainly and nakedly laid out for the corporate promoter to purvey, and exploit as they see fit. And the great thing is they know it is going directly to their identified target market. Any social networking site that doesn't have this, the ones that are truly designed for the users, are left in the 'bargain bin'. They are perceived as cheap and inferior quality alternatives that should be avoided in case they carry germs. Without promotional backing, sheer prominence cannot be achieved.

People, it's time! I love my Facebook and my MySpace, but perhaps it is time to start searching for greener pastures. Lets just hope the sheep-like promoters don't follow.

(Can anyone else notice the irony here, especially given that I am an advertising student???)

So yes I feel to avoid claims of hypocrisy, YES, I do also think this is an amazing advancement in the advertising world, and if, and only IF, it is used correctly, I think this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship... Do you accept?

The Hyper(active) Local

The neighbourhood was once a network of streets. Then telephony bridged the gaps and brought us closer. Then the internet. And now with Wi-Fi capabilities there is no single section of the grid that has been left untouched, or inaccessible. Alex Iskold (2007) notes that users now interact with their local environment in ways never thought possible. They will blog about what it "feels" like to be in a particular locality, people will record "countless hours" and bytes of photography and video of their surroundings.

The content is uploaded and something very peculiar is happening with it. Users are tagging their information, geotagging to be precise, and very precise it is. Information can now be pinpointed down to its exact latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates. The national news no longer covers our thirst for local information; the newspaper is too broad also. So locals are now turning to information that is truly local, hyperlocal in fact. This hyperlocalisation of information possesses one particular quality that other information simply cannot mimic. Relevance. And it is this capacity which is seeing its surge in popularity through the wires.

Advertisers too, have noticed the relevance factor of hyperlocal information. Iskold (2007) notes that the humble classified adverts have long joined the local community, but the online world is fast catching up; it applies these principles to not only sales, but information, image, video, and text alike. Information now reaches the community who most need it, or find it relevant. The process is now taken even further still, and with the capacity to include vertical lines of research, linked to the data we are looking at, hyperlocalised information is our one-stop-shop.

With the creation of local media, there must of course be the local network of creators and users adding to the log of available data. But these creators no longer wish to operate in isolation. And so we have sent he rise of social networking sites; but these too are now hyperlocal, and rather than connecting the masses, they connect the proximate community. Take StreetAdvisor for example; users are able to rate their street and neighbourhood, exposing their thoughts, and be notified of events. They are truly involved in their community. Gone are the days of the bickering and private neighbour, and here is the day of the active and localised citizen.

Boyles (2008) recognises that the traditional sender/receiver communication model has been redefined, and that this is to do with the blurring of the lines between the “publisher, producer, distributor, consumer and reviewer”. No longer are these separate entities but individuals one in the same. Bruns (2008) describes the rise of the active consumer as “produsage”; the trend for consumers to create the content that they wish to use and interact with, which lies at the heart of the hyperlocal media surge.

As the globalisation phenomenon continues, the networks proliferate, and data and information is consistently barraged to the online environment. But with the spread of our connections, comes the hyperlocalisation of media. We crave what is relevant, we crave proximate information, and we crave localised involvement. So as technology breaks down the walls of geographical segregation, we maintain at least figurative boundaries, tying ourselves and our information to a specific geography. Becoming hyper(active) locals.

Round one is Web1.0 vs. Web2.0!

So this time the question posed is: How is Web 2.0 different to Web 1.0? And this time the question is not posed by me, but to me, and instead I shall endeavour to explore an answer.

Perhaps first of all we need to define a way to think about the two variables. Web 1.0 is better considered a delivery medium, something we can sit and passively consume. Web 2.0 on the otherhand is an environment, in every definition of the word. Web 2.0, as the numbering system suggests, is the next level in Web interaction and development. Rather than being user-read information, Web 2.0 supports the concept of "user-led content content creation" (Bruns, 2008). Axel Bruns terms this interactive relationship we have within the Web 2.0 environment "produsage", meaning that we, as consumers and users, are also the producers of the content. A specifically useful example is that of social networking software such as Facebook and MySpace, the content is created purely for the use and consumption of their users, by their users. Web 2.0 is a platform for development, so to speak, entrusting creation to the users, and merely provides the functions for them to do so. It is widely believed that such collaborative mediums have germinated the spread of creativity and information sharing. Jenkins (2008) believes that such platforms are leading to the collective intelligence of society.

At essence Web 2.0 stands above Web 1.0, not merely in numerical ranking, but also in usability. Web 2.0, we truly do use, that is we interact and create AND consume, not simply consume. The debate that 2.0 is not a new World Wide Web, but simply utilises the technology and concepts of 1.0 are warranted; this is essentially true, but in doing so Web 1.0 has slipped into the world of the obsolete. Web 1.0 is dead, as a new media medium anyway. It serves merely the purpose to deliver our Web 2.0 capabilities to us. Long live the possibilities of 2.0, and oh the possibilities that Web 3.0 could deliver should it ever be considered and conceived.

We're all online, and we are a community, so we've socially networked right?

It was a funny realisation I had today, and that is that we have created an online community here in blogger.com. The KCB201 class has been duped, and in a very clever way. MySpace offers a section for us to post a blog and it never took off, but here in a community where we are forced, or at least guided to embrace the technology, we thrive. Strange. What has made us so adept and quick to sift through the billions of bytes flying around on blogger.com to come together? I think it's because the electronic networking gene has symbiotically attached itself to our DNA, and that has created this phenonmenon. Or perhaps we just like to see what everyone else thinks. Will blogger.com now takeover Facebook etc???... Doubtful, but the possibility is there, and scary all at the same time. How quickly we appropriate a technology for our own means. Ahh the beauty of the online-kingdom. That's all I have, it's just an observation.

Is it all about laziness?

So once again I open with a question. Is it all about laziness?

What? I hear you ask. The social-networking phenomenon comes my reply.

I was having some thoughts while lunching, so here comes another purely personal opinion theory post. I promise the academic posts will come soon.

But back to my point. Social networking sites. MySpace and Facebook. Laziness I tell you. That's why we love them. The academic arguments often focus on the new media aspects, creative and participatory nature of these platforms, but this is not what has caused their worldwide success. NO. Sure we love what we can do on these things but more on that later.

Everyone craves the attention and interaction of friendship, in some form or another. And in modern times we have the classical face-to-face, mobile, email, telephony and many, many other means of communication. But why use these when we can simply stay in the one place and accomplish it all. Humans at essence are lazy, and this boils down to economics (not the monetary, but the time based economics). The computer, it's the multi delivery platform. Who needs to move from that one magic spot in front of the widescreen flat panel monitor, when here you have it all at your fingertips, literally? Why order takeout over the phone, online ordering and delivery eliminates being put on hold and annoying message repetition and confusion? Why go find the mp3 player, or switch on the radio, when it streams directly and your hard drive holds some 200GB of song which can play for weeks without repeating a single song, not even once? Why watch TV at the times set by the station? Just YouTube it, or stream you favourite program over the net.
Anyway to come to my main point why SMS your friends (that's somewhere in the vicinity of 20cents your spending right there), or calling them (either on the mobile, or the landline - more money and time)? Why webcam them, putting up with the lag and embarrassment?

WE DON'T! No need to anymore, the social networking site has covered it all. We can keep our butt firmly planted in the highback leather chair that is our throne infront of the portal. With a simple click we are part of our friends lives. Don't really feel like talking? Don't worry, send a pre-programmed message, emoticon, picture or anything. Forget having to exert yourself. Update your status and let them know how you feel and what's going on in your head. All the while we can multitask, do the homework, book some flights, listen to a new album (from iTunes of course) and watch lasts nights episode of the current popular TV series. We haven't even moved from our desk, or wherever we so happen to be with our laptop. And do our friends care, NOPE. They are happy you used that small amount of effort to contact them, and when they could be bothered they'll get back to you. A beautiful relationship, don't you think? And don't forget we do still have face-to-face contact whenever we want, so the love is definitely not lost. But as busy individuals, laziness prevails.

Any why? Time poverty, that why. Who has enough time*?. But I also ask you this. If I gave you 10 words to associate with social networking sites, what would those words be? I'm willing to almost guarantee that 'youth' and perhaps 'student/university' fit into these words, if not explicitly then at least via association with one of your choice words. That's right we are the lazy-busy generation. An oxymoronic mix of time guided individuals. We need ways to stay in touch.

* See my theories on time in "Brendam's Theorem of Consideration"

Sure, the new ways we can communicate on these things are all amazing and cool, but in the end they are just a bright and shiny new toy. What really grabs us, what their drawing card is, is their ease of use and time saving capabilities. We can expose ourselves, or who we want to be, and interact when the time suits us and when we could actually be bothered. And then even if we couldn't be bothered why not do a generic "Hi, how are you?" and 'send to all'. There everyone is happy. I just hope the happiness prevails.

I hope this did not come across overly pessimistic, for that was not my intention. It was just a crazy thought that popped into my head and I wanted to express it. (Therefore I have completely ignored my own theory on laziness). I took time out to complete this. But nonetheless I think laziness fuels our addiction. And soon the cliche interview reply will be "Don't call us, we'll MySpace you".

Brendam's Theorum of Consideration

Well what to write here?...


That is a most interesting question!

As I sit here the possibilities race through my mind. Do I start with the boring old introductory stuff that seems to pre-empt an AA meeting, like, "Hi my name is Brendan and I'm a first time blogger"...
Or do I begin with something smart, witty and cool? So that you feel the need to read on, and develop an addiction for the fantastic words coming out of my mouth, via the keyboard. Or any other number of weird and wonderful things that could just crazily pop into my often bipolar and eclectic mind.
Then of course there is the consideration of relevance, do I run with something about my mundane life-chores, and perhaps convert it to a small screen epic? Which of course you as the reader may find interesting at most and completely utterly boring and lost time at the least.
Then again I could of course become all nerdy and answer the questions of life, or at least something academic, analysing and developing theories (which could be conspiracy in nature) and discussing their relevance, credence or trash worthiness.

But alas I still sit here and wonder, why can I not seem to find anything to write when the possibilities are endless. The medium is here and teasingly offering to be the vector to convey my messages. Is it because this is part of a university assignment (yep you read correct), and I as a 'creative industries' student feel bound by rules and parameters? Or is it merely writers block, have I lost the drive and passion once felt? I guess this is something only uncovered from delving deep into the subconscious fogs of my mind through self-analysis, or extreme therapy! Preferably an option that should be avoided at all costs. Is it that the timing is just not right yet for inspired written word?

Time, its an interesting concept. Does it only exist because we as humans need a basis to organisational structure. Is it an all guiding phenomenon and pursuasive power that either pushes us into the inescapable forward motion of the future; never allowing for an exit on any enjoyed platform, a one-way eternal train ride running express? Or is it a mean presence, stealing from us the opportunity of something that could have been done or enjoyed or experienced, for if this is not the case, then why do we have time wasted?

But now i digress, and the mind once again fall into blankness. What is blankness of the mind? Does the mind (different to the brain) actually momentarily stop working, like a surge in the power grid? Or is it a state of uncertainty, a moment of seemingly perpetual confusion? This I suppose is a debate of personal opinion, and therefore limitless in its answers.

So now I ask, how like you this?
Was this in fact that 'something' that I longed to write about? But how could you answer 'yes', when it is mere consideration of what to write, and without actually reaching a conclusive point? Does that not make this all speculation, and something that the mind works through in preparation of actually writing that 'something'? Surely we cannot consider poignant deliberation a worthy entry? For writing about what to write does not actually achieve that written thing. Therefore is this a pointless process? I hope not, but the answer is somewhat ambiguous.

Ambiguity. Can anything actually be ambiguous? Because we as readers, or responders depending on the format, draw our own conclusions. Generally we successfully acknowledge the point of where the messenger is heading. That implies clarity does it not? Yes, though the process is longer it is certain clarity in the end. Or am I talking crap? That is another consideration of personal contemplation. Without social comparison we lack the confirmation we desire to gauge accuracy. Once again I have digressed, which brings other questions... These I think are far more easily answered and considered.

Through contemplation of what to write; we digress and find other things to mull over. Are these in fact what the mind wants us to explore, and thus we have found our muse, though we consciously ignore and miss these signs? I think yes. But the mind is complex, and at times distracted, so relevance often lacks, which is why we miss these flashing and fluorescent indications, ignorance of distraction sifts this as useless information.

So in what was supposed to be a small introductory offering to you, the reader, I think I have exceeded guided word limit by at least 300 words, one of those pre-mentioned parameters, stunting creation. And yet I never did reach an actual conclusion of a worthy topic for this, nor did I actually introduce myself. You may have made assumptions about me but they were never confirmed, and after all this could all simply be an act. For all you know I am a monkey locked in a room randomly hitting letters on a keyboard; who through sheer luck of probability is creating readable data . Only further blogs may expose the entity on the other side of the digital wall separating us, and only then the information is what I choose to expose, thus is it my true self that you get to know? We shall have to wait and see. So having ignored the purpose of this activity does that mean I have failed?

Failure, is this interpretation of knowing how people should interpret, and thus, answer a question? Now that is something that opens many more questions... Questions... Are these all I shall offer? I guess that is something that will be answered as time goes by... Whatever time is of course.