#internetselfandbeyond

Social media has become an increasingly prominent component of contemporary political practices both in Australia and around the world. Politicians are using various social media platforms in an attempt to promote their identities and, of course, advance their own political goals. Traditionally, politicians primarily communicated through traditional, one-dimensional media platforms such as television and print. Though, the social media phenomenon is mediating a new communications process that is impacting on the identities of politicians.  The 24/7 media cycle, changing participatory culture and availability of self-promotion being driven by social media are testing the relationship between politicians and the public and is rapidly shaping the new professional identity of politicians.

24/7 Media Cycle

Arguably one of the biggest impacts new media is having on the political profession is the emergence of the 24/7 news cycle. For years politicians have had an endearing relationship with the traditional media, albeit at arm’s length.  The linear communication style available within traditional media platforms allowed politician’s to exercise a high level of control over their message. However, the rise of social media has now created a truly 24/7 media cycle. Moreover, the rise of new media has seen the 24-hour news cycle become an opinion cycle. Opinion journalism is financially cheaper than research reporting. Having a social media platform in which to pontificate allows politicians to communicate message which carry far more status and weight than actual reporting on policy debate (Turnbull, 2012). By and large, this is having a significant impact on the professional identity of politicians.

New media has now seen the coverage of federal politics focus on the personalities of politicians and the game of politics. Social media has provided an infinite range of platforms that cater to the interest of every opinion. With forums such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram any member of the community can voice their opinion at any time and, more importantly, at any place. The technological convergence of social media networks means that politicians are subjected to public opinion all the time (Sauter & Burns, 2013). Coupled with the 24/7 news cycle the identity of politicians is being publicly tested through means that would otherwise have not been available before social media

The speed and unremitting pressure of the 24/7 news cycle that is fuelled by social media has been instrumental in the rise and fall of politicians. In particular, the use of social media by the then leader of the opposition, Kevin Rudd, in 2007 was effective in harnessing public opinion to result in a landslide victory for his party. The Rudd campaign team were able to exercise a degree of control over the media and were relatively unaffected by the 24-hour media cycle (Ricketson, 2010). However, the fluid nature of the social media landscape and rise in public opinion was viewed as a contributing downfall for Kevin Rudd some three (3) years later (Ricketson, 2010). This example demonstrates that the mediated nature of the political profession is continuing to decrease due to the 24/7 news cycle. Political agenda-setting through online public opinion via social media is changing the political profession.

Source: Youtube Super Best Friends - Round and Round, 2013.

Participatory Culture

Participatory culture has often been at the forefront of the social media movement. A participatory media culture is one with relatively low barriers to civil engagement where members believe their contributions matter and feel some degree of social connection (Jenkins, et al 2009). The breakdown of the traditional one-dimensional style of communication has encouraged participatory culture and citizen journalism, and has allowed members of the community to play an active role in political/social debate. However, the extent to which participatory culture within social media has had on crafting the identities of politicians is open to interpretation.  

The degree to which once-passive audiences are able to engage with media producers and fellow consumers has been linked to the democratisation of the media (Chen & Vromen, 2012). The expanded interaction of all members of the community allow social media users to have greater editorial roles in shaping the content they consume (Chen & Vromen, 2012). The inherent benefit of this is that now constituents and general members of the public can engage in a strong, political dialogue with their elected officials, were once this interaction was constrained by the exclusive relationship shared by political figures and the traditional media institutions.

In the political environment social media is extremely effective in engaging citizens in new non-traditional forms of political participation such as single ‘issue politics’ and direct action (Macnamara, 2010). Nevertheless, recent research has indicated that social media is less effective in engaging citizens in traditional forms of political participation (Macnamara, 2010). These results foreshadow that of the 2010 federal election which found that, with a few notable exceptions, politicians used social media primarily for one-way transmission of political messages rather than listening to the electorate (Macnamara, 2010). To this end, it appears that politicians are finding it hard to genuinely engage with the new media. Despite the diversification of the media, politicians continue to operate within the conventional hierarchal standard. Moreover, despite the herald cries from members within the political profession that the mainstream media is biased towards how they are portrayed publically; politicians have not properly capitalized on the emergence of participatory media culture (Jericho, 2012). Indeed, despite the tendency to endorse the connectedness offered by modern technology, the political profession continues to use new media primarily for self-promotion, largely ignoring the other benefits these platforms offer. In doing this, there is a greater level of exposure to the public identity of politicians being shaped by online extremist whose views are indicative of their own political ideologies.  

Source at: http://nervespark.com/2014/05/obama-caught-in-benghazi-web-of-lies/

Self-Promotion

The self-promotion of politicians has been an unexpected benefit to the political profession. Social media platforms have become popular channels for self-expression and self-promotion. Promoting and branding the self has long been a normalised custom but, until now, the identity of politicians has often been at the whim of traditional media and the interest of the platform owners. There has always been a struggle within politics surrounding whether the identity of politicians is shaped by the individual or the traditional media. When traditional forms of mass media were the only platforms available to politicians for marketing, it was inherently difficult for political leaders to create their own identity. However, the advent of various social media platforms now provides an instrument for political figures to control their own brand (Dijck, 2013). Undoubtedly, new media allows political figures to shape their own identity with greater autonomy.  In reference to professional networking site LinkedIn, Jose van Dij from the University of Amsterdam opined that “each profile shapes an idealized portrait of one’s professional identity” (Dijck, 2013). It is the very nature of politics that requires politicians to promote either themselves or their political parties. Politicians often pre-eminently exploit the possibilities of marketing individual personalities as products through various social media platforms (Dijck, 2013). The idealized portrait of politicians is generally consistent across most social media forums – the candid portrait seems to be a crowd favourite across the political divide. In the context of other social media forums such as twitter, where most if not all Australian politicians communicate through, the idea of self-promotion takes an interesting turn.

Twitter, unlike Facebook and LinkedIn, has little focus on the individual profile and provide minimal information about the user (Papacharissi, 2010). The emphasis twitter plays on public interaction makes active interlocutors a more significant indicator of social capital than follower counts (Papacharissi, 2010). Conversational mediums such as twitter are significant for identity construction as followers will draw conclusions on the contents of the various tweet messages (Papacharissi, 2010). This is particularly important for politicians as it is now incumbent on political leaders to create their own identities. Whilst social networking sites such as LinkedIn are somewhat rigid in their ability to convey one’s identity, forums such as twitter are advantageous in their ability to craft an online identity through more substantive means (such as tweeting issues that affect the user personally). It is disappointing that the available research on politician’s use of social media is purely limited to self-promotion, with most largely opting to use these channels as one-way streets rather than platforms to host two-way conversations. If politicians continue to use social media as simply a platform for self-promotion and not a resource for entering into a dialogue then the professional will have wasted an opportunity to truly engage with the public  (Harvey, 2014). Likewise, it will be difficult to find solace in any argument that suggests the mass media is the only forum in which a positive professional identity can be created.

Final word

There is little doubt that new media is having an impact on the relationship between politicians and the media. The phenomenon that is social media is continuing to challenge the political profession and politicians are being forced to absorb this new force or be changed by it. The relationship between politicians and the general public have been significantly enhanced through the increase in participatory culture and the 24/7 news cycle. The identity of politicians is continually changing through social media forums. No longer are the identities of politicians crafted by the media elite and now social media is mediating the opinions of all audiences through various platforms.

  Bibliography

Brito, J. (2008). Hack, mash, & peer: Crowdsourcing government transparency. Colombia Science and Technology Law Review, 119 - 157.

Chen, P. J., & Vromen, A. (2012, November). Social Media, Youth Participation and Australian Elections. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Dijck, J. v. (2013). 'You have on identity': performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media, Culture & Society, pp. 199-214.

Harvey, K. (2014). Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics, Volume 1. Washington DC: SAGE Publications.

Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robinson, A. (2009). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Jericho, G. (2012). The Rise of the Fifth Estate: Social media and blogging in Australian Politics. Australia: Scribe Publications.

Macnamara, J. (2010). E-electioneering 2010: Social media uses in the Australian federal election. Sydney: University of Technology Sydney.

Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Cambridge: Polity.

Papacharissi, Z. (2011). A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York : Routledge.

Ricketson, M. (2010, July 1). How the 24/7 media cycle helped kill off Rudd. Retrieved April 4, 2015, from Crickey: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/07/01/how-the-247-media-cycle-helped-kill-off-rudd/

I recently discovered that three of the shows I’ve been watching are going to be cancelled by The CW, The Carrie Diaries, The Tomorrow People, and Star Crossed. In watching these shows I’ve become attached to the characters. I still want to know if Carrie and Sebastian can ever make it work on The Carrie Diaries. But alas, I’ll never know. However, in Siegel’s reading he investigated predictive technology and the ways in which it was possible due to big data. In the entertainment industry this predictive technology is used in order to, predict the success of a film or TV series, the audience it will resonate with, and how much revenue it will draw. In order for content to be made this predictive technology would have indicated a success. So, if success was predicted, why did my shows get cancelled? 

Due to Web 2.0 significant changes have already occurred within the film and TV industry. Producers of content are relying more upon audience opinions. Big data gives these producers access to these opinions and thus allows them to make decisions based upon what the audience wants to watch. In some cases, as with House of Cards, the producers have used comments and responses from other shows to create original content which embodies the themes, ideas and concepts which have garnered a positive response (IndieWire 2014). The correlation of big data further allows producers to learn what specific scenes people are looking at. They can use this information in future projects to combine the strong ideas and create content which further speaks to their audience. The big data allows the production companies to see where and who their audience is. This again, enables them to better target their audience (Sinz 2013). Finally, multi-screen entertainment is becoming more popular. Whilst watching TV an individual will most likely have a second screen in front of them. Production companies are aware of this change and so encourage individuals to interact with the content across these different screens. Big Brother is an example of this as people are encouraged to tweet whilst they watch the show. Therefore they are interacting with both the televised show and the online twitter conversations (IndieWire 2014). 

With all this information available to producers it makes it easier for them to see which types of shows and films will become successful. “That’s right, Hollywood is using big data to determine the best way to market, cast, and produce creative films and series that appeal to the masses.” (Idea to Screen 2014) When new content surfaces the predictive technology, which Siegel spoke about, has been used to determine whether audiences will respond to it. If it has been produced, then the research based upon big data has predicted it will be successful. Despite these predictions however, many shows are cancelled after a few episodes and many films still bomb at the box office. Siegel (10) explains that this is due to the fact that these predictions are just that, predictions. We have no real way to see what will actually happen in the future. Therefore, it happens quite often that shows or films will not deliver what was expected of them due to the inaccuracy of these predictions. 

References: 

Idea To Screen. 2014. “Big Data: Hollywood’s New Rising Star Is Influencing Creative Decisions.” Accessed May 11, 2014. http://www.ideatoscreen.com/big-data-hollywoods-new-rising-star/ 

IndieWire. 2014. “Infographic: Here’s How Big Data Is Revolutionising the Movie (and Music) Business.” Accessed May 11, 2014. http://www.indiewire.com/article/infographic-heres-how-big-data-is-revolutionizing-the-movie-and-music-business 

Siegel, Eric. 2013. “Introduction - The Prediction Effect.” In Predictive Analytics, 1-16. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley and Sons Inc. 

Yes They Can

I first heard of Barack Obama during an English class when my teacher showed us the music video of Obama’s speech ‘Yes We Can’.  It is this speech in fact which many believe greatly contributed to his election win in 2008. It became a viral hit, and to date has over 50 million views (Edgar 2013). The more this video spread the more the public learnt about Obama and his political vision. 

The reading by Gladwell explains that political movements use social networking as a way to generate change within a political system. Gladwell states that, “The Internet lets us exploit the power of distant connections with marvellous efficiency.” Basically, the internet provides individuals with the ability to interact with a large amount of people online. This has provided politicians with the tools to successfully campaign their candidacy.  

Jerpi (2014) made the statement, “Creating a social media strategy for use during political campaigns has become an essential part of every candidate’s plan to get into office.” This is a notion which many politicians are aware of as more and more of them are using these new media tools to promote themselves and their ideals. (Top 5 Politicians on Instagram) Social media is a great way to do this as it helps to stimulate citizen engagement in political life. Politicians use social media as a way to communicate their policies to their potential voters. The way in which the internet works allows these messages to reach a larger audience at a faster rate. The participatory fashion of the Internet allows them to see reactions, feedback, conversations and debates around their policies, feedback which could strengthen their campaigns. The use of social networking also allows politicians to personalise themselves and reveal more about their individual personality. It is more likely for a person to vote for a candidate if they feel like they know them on a more personal level. (EPRS 2014) Finally, social media specifically involves the younger generations who would otherwise be uneducated on political happenings. 

Obama is a perfect example of a political figure using new media to promote himself, his polices and his vision for his country. His 2008 campaign was digitally driven, and since his election he has maintained his online presence. During his reelection campaign he joined Reddit and hosted an ‘Ask Me Anything’ session where he answered the public’s questions about his campaign. He appeared on Jimmy Fallon where the pair created a music video entitled Slow Jam the News which  further promoted his campaign. He’s shared personal photos online, involved his White House staff in a dupstep commercial  and has enlisted YouTube celebrities to promote his political policies (Luckerson 2014).  

In this new media age, social media sites would generate more traffic than an official campaign website. Obama understood this and integrated himself within new media technologies in order to garner more positive results from our digitally driven society. Looking to the success of Obama one wonders; if politicians used social media tools could they too reach a similar level of success? Well, in a rewording of the man himself, yes they can.

Reference List: 

Edgar, David. 2013. “Yes we can’ - Barack Obama’s lesson in American rhetoric.” Accessed May 4, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/nov/04/barack-obama-lesson-american-rhetoric 

EPRS (European Parliamentary Research Service). 2014. “The role played by social media in political participation and electoral campaigns.” Accessed May 4, 2014.  http://epthinktank.eu/2014/02/12/the-role-played-by-social-media-in-political-participation-and-electoral-campaigns/ 

Gladwell, Malcom. 2010. “Small Change: Why the Revolution will not be Tweeted.” The New Yorker, October 4. Accessed May 3, 2014. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all 

Jerpi, Laura. 2014. “Political Campaigns and Social Media - Tweeting Their way into Office.” Accessed May 4, 2014. http://source.southuniversity.edu/political-campaigns-and-social-media-tweeting-their-way-into-office-106986.aspx 

Week 5 took a look at how new media is reshaping the professional practices of the entertainment industry through journalism, television, film and music. For this blog I will be discussing participatory fandom and new media campaigns in film and television. New Media campaigns I think really excites the audience about an upcoming movie or television show. For the season finale of Breaking Bad Aaron Paul led his follows on a hunt for exclusive screenings randomly tweeting the location of the tickets. Thousands of people where involved in this hunt for tickets and this created even more excitement for the final episode. Not only where Aaron Paul’s twitter followers talking about it but it was reported in papers and made even more free advertising for the final episode. I know this story really engaged me as an avid fan of the show. Image Source: http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/9.png The web 2.0 revolution has effected the way that audiences interact with movies. Now more then ever is it crucial to have an online media campaign. The technology has changed where now the audience has a voice about what they want to see in upcoming film and television. With this new advent of participatory fandom, a new wave of “consecrating agents” are introduced to into Bourdieu’s “circle of belief” (1993b, 77). These fans conduct enthusiastic critical analyses, show extreme dedication and growing numbers they are “finally being recognized as important contributors to the formation of collective belief” (Shefrin, 2004). “I believe that entertainment producers that embrace this concept of ‘participatory fandoms’ and include their fandoms more in the production process will be much more successful than those that don’t” (Jenkins, 1992). If we look at lets say, George Lucas “Star Wars” franchise the lack of internet and fandom participation in the creation of the last few movies have left fans with raised expectations which where not meet. Something that would have been fixed by simply listening to what the audience had wanted. Nowadays the audience decides on what they want to watch and are very vocal when their needs are not meet. If we look at the success of Peter Jackson’s trilogy “Lord of the Rings” we can see that the fans have been actively courted by Jackson and New Line Cinema throughout all aspects of authoring, casting, film and marketing the trilogy. This ensured that the already large fan base of the book was happy with the product. To do this Jackson conducted interviews where he would answer question that where compiled from over 14,000 submissions. McKellen highlights his alliance with fans in a Newsweek interview: “Although it’s not made exclusively for the fans, it’s made by fans. We’re all allies” (Giles, 2001, p. 4). Lord of the Rings still currently has a huge fan base which still make the content there own. Creating them into memes they put more meaning into the films and lengthen the online life of Lord of the Rings.

Remember this meme? This is what happening to us in this era. I supposed the meaningful rhetorical question that I will be asking is this, have you pirated a movie before? We all know the answer. So in fact, can you imagine yourself back in the mid-19th century, that you actually don’t have that benefit and have to drag yourself to the cinema? In this week topic of discussion, the field of “new media” versus “old media” will be explored to find out whether had the new media entertainment completely dominate the old media. Throughout the reading, I will also provide sufficient evidence to support my thought.  Furthermore, model of new media and entertainment industry will also be exemplify to further provide “food for thought”

Almost 20 years ago, if you bring the idea of “media” to the people, they will ultimately relate it to print, radio or even television. But in this uprising era, we conceptualise media as a whole different element. As defined by (Koch, 2013), it is how we consume information through a broader, looser context and a newer elements that never existed in the past.  For example, such as the recent tragedy that involve the disappearance of Malaysia Airline Flight MH370, I learned it from Facebook post rather than acknowledge it through a newspaper or even a radio. By contradiction, the argument of reliability still emerge as a certain group of audience do find that able to hold a newspaper in their hand feel more authentic and the reliability of the content are much more trustworthy as the reporters are more experienced that citizen journalist (Ibold, Hans Peter and John Adams, 2012). In my own opinion, I do question the reliability of the info that posted on the social media. I often do check online comparing sources and credible reporting agency to authenticate the credibility. Still with these citizen journalist surfacing, Chase (2014) concur that trend of citizen journalism are naturally devolve into a fierce, empower virtual bullies. The characteristic of user of YouTube are often being appeal to choosing videos that had the most view count and insert a strong sense curiosity into unknown viewer. By contradiction, Twitter user behaviour are much tend to “retweet” information that are ground breaking and had a strong foundation of value within it (Pew Research Centre's Journalism Project Staff, 2010).

Although “old media” is still being favour by a certain age group in our society but will it completely dominate our way of consume information in the future? Yes, I think as the generation evolving, new media will be consume will be involve in a different way. Last, using Netflix as an example, I would actually agree that Netflix do make a very considerate yet empowering move from “old media” to “new media”. People are more opted to choose from digitalise content rather than having days to receive a physical copy of the content when you can actually press a button then the content will be present itself. I salute to that!

  Reference List

Chase, Brad. March, 2014. “Federal Shield Bill: A New Hope for Old Media.” The Huffington Post. Accessed on 6 April 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-chase/federal-shield-bill-a-new_b_5086155.html

Ibold, Hans Peter and John Adams.  August, 2012.  “Social vs. Traditional Media.” The News-Journal. Accessed on 6 April 2014. http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20120318/ARTICLES/303189974

  Koch, Copper Smith. October, 2013. “ What Is Media? It’s Everything, That’s What.” The Huffington Post. Accessed on 6 April 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cooper-smith-koch/what-is-media-its-everyth_b_3750807.html

Who Reaps the Rewards of Your Success? 

In 2008 the video entitled Beached Whale was uploaded to YouTube by three Australian filmmakers. It quickly became popular receiving over 8 million views. The success of this video launched merchandise sales and spawned its own cartoon TV series on the ABC entitled Beached Az. (SunriseOn7 YouTube video 2010.) Without Web 2.0 these opportunities would not have been available to the creators of Beached Whale. The user-generated system of Web 2.0 makes it easy for individuals to publish their content and has lead to the success of various new media users. It can be said that Web 2.0 is there to purely benefit the individual.  

However, this week’s reading by Fuchs suggests that the large corporations offering these platforms for content publication are the ones really profiting from the success of an individual’s work. He likens Web 2.0 to that of a capitalist regime stating, “Users facilitate an ideology that celebrates capitalism and does not see how capitalist interests predominantly shape the Internet” (2013, 102). In order to understand this claim one needs to understand capitalism. The World Socialist Movement (2013) defines capitalism as a governmental system in which a country’s trade industry are controlled by private owners for profit rather than by the state. These private owners are known as ‘capitalists’ and they control the means for producing and distributing goods and services. Everyone else, the ‘working class,’ sell their ability to work in return for wages. The capitalists are essentially exploiting the working class much like, Fuchs suggests, the multimedia corporations are exploiting internet users. (2013, 102) 

Anyone who publishes their content on new media platforms are expressing their ideas for free. This can be likened to the capitalist system as internet users are ‘selling’ their work in order to receive the exposure new media companies can provide. However, Fuchs claims that even when content becomes popular it is still these companies that bring in the highest profit. This idea is especially evident in the way advertising revenue is distributed. Advertisers pay not the creator, but the company that allows the content to be distributed for advertising space. (Catherall 2013) The majority of the money made from advertising will go to the advertising or new media companies whilst only a small portion goes to the creator. Just like in a capitalist system the users are selling their abilities, whilst the ‘capitalists’ are earning the greatest profit. 

Most believe that Web 2.0 is a system which greatly benefits its users. However, Fuchs argues that Web 2.0 is a capitalist system that benefits solely the companies creating these portals for users to publish their content. So which argument is true? Quite simply, neither of them are. Yes, the new media companies make a larger collective profit from the successful content. However, individual users also draw in a personal profit from their successful content. Psy became internationally famous when his video for Gangnam style went viral, Jenna Marbles has a net worth of 2.5 million dollars (Celebrity Networth 2013), and YouTube user Lucas Cruikshank’s successful videos of ‘Fred,’ have landed him his own Nickelodeon show.  The users and corporations are both essentially working together in order to reap the rewards from the Web 2.0 system. Without one another, the other would be obsolete.

Reference List:

Catherall, Sarah. 2013. “How to make money from YouTube.” The Sydney Morning Herald. Fenruary 5. Accessed March 29, 2014. http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/how-to-make-money-from-youtube-20130205-2dv8l.html 

Celebrity Networth. 2013. “Jenna Marbles Net Worth.” Accessed March 30, 2014. http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/producers/jenna-marbles-net-worth/ 

Fuchs, Christian. 2013. Chapter 5: The Power and Political Economy of Social Media. London: Sage Publications. 

Graham, Jefferson. 2005. “Video websites pop up, invite postings.” Accessed March 30, 2014. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-11-21-video-websites_x.htm  

SunriseOn7. 2010. “Makers of Beached Az tell all to Sunrise.” YouTube video, posted November 7. Accessed March 30, 2014. http://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/cite/qutcite.jsp#harvard-online-video 

Do you had the habit of thinking how your action would impact the social media, whether in a small way or a more significant magnitude? This week topic we will be looking at new media audiences, how they contribute or eventually disadvantaging the social media. Whether or not new media audiences interpret their roles and represent it the best way possible. How are our action of “clicking” and “sharing” spread content? In the reading by Joshua Green and Henry Jenkins (2011), it introduced the concept of “technological freedom” which mean that the audience have the power to produce content and share their content through the vast social network.

According to Josse Van Dijck and David Nierborg (2009), they proposed the idea that the content that produce by active participant does not often attract the intended audiences hence it is a consumptive behaviour in another form. It is used to express that the producer does not always invite positive behaviour from the participant and often misleading mass audiences as well. In my opinion, that new media audiences served more empowerment present rather than disadvantages to the social media. Without the mass creativity that being produced, professional or big industry producer will dominate the market hence created difficulties to the minor producer. In reconceptualising the audience, the best example would be Susan Boyle. The audience served as important roles in the multi digital platform era. Statistically, researched conducted by Green and Jenkins (2011) showed that Susan Boyle performance in Britain Got Talent attract more viewers in YouTube rather than in TV network. I think that showed how mass media audiences throughout, the action of “like and share”, people make attention of the content that they share along and created wide interest within their social surrounding. In different perspective, that no all viral content are actually what they seems it is. A great example will be the “famous Oscar Selfie”, it was revealed that host – Ellen is actually an Iphone user in which she was seen using backstage. Samsung being the sponsor requested Ellen to advertise their product by using famous celebrity and famous social media sites (Vranica, 2014). In my view, that whether it is a marketing ploy, it is still and interesting and creative way to engage with wider audience through necessary means. Sure, to some it may seems lying and trick that use on unconscious audiences but this is the marketing strategy that I would certainly applied. Audiences still represent actively in deciding what content they are producing and sharing as well. Such as the viral “First Kiss” video is original a marketing content but through the power of audiences it was not delivering the intended messages that were supposed to (Hooton, 2014).

The phenomenal such as “meme” which were created by famous anthropologist Sir Richard Dawkins (1976) are defined as something similar to genes and spread through evolution. In my own experience, I will definitely admit that this served as a great way for audiences to spread their thought and experience and invited people to comment on it. Even I do so as well. So the ability of sharing sometimes welcomed negative statement and subsequently stopping the producer to generate content. But it is a common phenomenal that present in the social world.

      Reference List

Dawkins, R. 1989, The selfish gene, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Green, Joshua and Henry Jenkins. 2011. “ Spreadable Media. How Audiences Create Value and Meaning in a Networked Economy.” In The Handbook of Media Audiences edited by Virginia Nightingale, 109-127. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hooton, C. 2014. "First Kiss viral video was just a clothing advert starring actors.” Accessed 23 March 2014. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/first-kiss-viral-video-was-just-a-clothing-advert-starring-actors-9188967.html

Van Dijck, J. and Nierborg, D. 2009. “Wikinomic and its discontents: a critical analysis of web 2.0 business manifestos.”, New Media Society, 11:855.