Gamers

Video games have long been a bastion for the male 18-34 year old group. It is no wonder that large corporations with significant cash reserves have begun to advertise within the games themselves. In 2005, video game advertising was $56 million, a figure that is expected to grow to between $732 million and $1.8 billion by 2010. Many companies see video games as a less expensive alternative to other forms of advertising such as television or print ads. Furthermore, many in the 18-34 year old group are shying away from television (viewership was down 7% last year) and becoming more involved in video games giving advertisers a more direct route to their purchasing power.

Video game advertising has gone through many evolutions from ads such as static billboards in sports games to full interaction with products that can be updated live through the internet. This dynamic form of interaction has taken off in the past few years. Features developed by game coders allow companies to buy advertisements even after games have been released due to features of the code which allow for continuous updates of the ads. This is particularly useful for movie or product release ads which can be incorporated right into the game. Examples of these dynamic ads can be changing billboards in sports games, car brands in racing games, actual home products you can use in slower first person games, or voice ads than can be even be recorded and replayed within the game. Furthermore, the amount of information that advertisers can obtain from these ads within games is staggering. In previous game advertisements, little more than the amount of games sold would be known. Now, advertisers can tell who has viewed their ads at what angle, how long they looked at it, if they interacted with it, and demographic criteria that is relayed back from the game developers.

With all the features of modern day video game advertising it is no surprise that companies such as Microsoft have signed large deals with game advertisers. Microsoft recently signed a two year deal with video game creator EA for a variety of product placement ads within their video games. Second Life too is being seen as a massive platform for advertisements. Starwood hotels recently created a hotel called “aloft” within the game baring its name that users can stay in. Other companies such as Lego’s, Toyota and Pizza Hut are entering the Second Life advertisement space. Such large product placement deals can only be obtained with significant resources. This is something many smaller businesses do not have. While this is how modern day capitalism functions, it nonetheless blocks out access to smaller companies and lower their sales, while increasing the sales of already large companies such as Microsoft.

Not all response has been positive however. In a recent game released by EA called BattleField 2142, it stated in its manual that certain amounts of advertising data would be retrieved from gamers playing habits. A backlash ensued in which gamers were posting on forums stating that the game was “spyware”. This has hurt sales of the game. Perhaps companies are becoming a little too intrusive in their attempts at product placement. The idea of a company constantly gathering data on you in an attempt to sell you more stuff is a little disconcerting. Furthermore, it all seems to be the Fortune 100 companies with the resources to manipulate things like this. It makes you wonder if there should be more regulation in this field to protect our privacy.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3154522

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9304254

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/51825

A Necessity?

Perhaps the best way to address the topic of corporate power in the current media atmosphere is to first look at the present state of corporate influence on the internet and silmultaneously envision an alternative state of affairs that eliminates any semblance of corporate control over either content or network structure. While this approach focuses heavily on online content it is not intended to ignore the role of corporations in determining content in other mediums, such as cable, radio, or print. These issues will be examined separately.

At one time the internet was imagined as a purely academic resource, a crucial purpose of the technology was the dissemination of peer reviewed information. However, during the web’s proliferation into the home it became abundantly clear that the content produced was not purely academic or in many cases accurate. This fact begs the question of whether or not corporately produced content was a driving force behind the adoption of the internet by individuals. Did corporations fulfill a niche for professionally produced content? And furthermore, if true, does this indicate that the internet is subject to the same types of concerns that consumers have about any media technology (i.e. the quality of the content, the number of users, etc)?

Many times the role of corporations in cyberspace is classified as detrimental in regards to the ability of smaller users to produce relevant content, but if we can demonstrate that corporations have an important role in the adoption of a media technology, such as the internet, it adds a layer of complexity to our investigation. This proves important with respect to our overall goal since we are not attempting to make normative statements about corporations and media technology but rather observe and document the ways corporations change and shape new media.

Before we delve into the ways that corporate power presents itself today online I would like to ask if you think this point is valid. Could the internet be what it is today without the investment of private entities? And if not, in what way would it be different? Clear answers to these questions will help direct us towards a better assessment of the most prominent uses of corporate power on the internet and why it proves effective given the historical context. What do you think?

-Eamon

The Internet: A corporation in and of itself?

Perhaps before we consider the significance of corporate power in new media, such as the Internet, we should examine the increasingly corporate nature of the internet itself. The major corporate players in the Internet arena include Google (owns DoubleClick and YouTube), Yahoo (owns Blue Lithium), AOL/Time Warner (owns TACODA and Quigo Technologies), and Microsoft (owns aQuantive). The online revenue for these companies is generated primarily by delivering online advertising, as demonstrated by the smaller companies that each has acquired. Google basically has a monopoly on online search, which is their most monetizable form of online inventory. According to an analyst report from Merrill Lynch, over 98% of Google’s revenue is generated from online search advertising. Yahoo’s revenue is drawn from its stronghold in online banner and graphical advertisements.

What this means for Internet consumers is that much of the content that they come across is determined by these corporations and those that advertise with them. There is a place for user-generated content, especially on sites such as YouTube, but how often is it subordinated to the corporate determined content? Is this necessarily a bad thing? The idea behind Google’s search and its products is

to make the world’s information accessible to people on the Internet. Perhaps this corporate determined content eliminates the “noise” of the Internet. Google has perfected the art of the search engine – enter any query and it is likely that the information you’re looking for will be one of the top sites returned. If there wasn’t a corporation looking organize information and make it accessible would the Internet be the important new digital technology that it is? How long would the Internet have been able to grow and thrive organically? Have corporations like Google and Yahoo actually allowed user generated content to stand out from the corporate generated content?

I would argue that these corporations have given user generated content a stronger place in which to exist on the Internet. Content that would have been annoying “noise” in a communication process is now legitimate content in its own right. In buying YouTube, Google has acknowledged that user generated content has a place in this new media environment. Google plans to aggressively promote YouTube to advertisers in the near future, which is a clear illustration of the intersection between user generated content and corporate power. Advertising dollars are the driving force behind traditional media forms, such as TV/radio/magazines/newspapers, and it seems that the Internet is not radically different in this respect.

Interesting article.

I just came across this article – it is an interesting example of the conflict between corporate practices in traditional media versus new media.

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer

NEW YORK – Breaking with standards widely followed by the mainstream news media, the celebrity Web site TMZ posted a story Wednesday about a 14-year-old who’s a movie star’s son and an alleged sex crime victim, and it ran the boy’s picture.
…
Almost all news organizations refrain from identifying sex crime victims, let alone show their picture, because of the stigma often attached to it, said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the journalism think tank Poynter Institute. The Associated Press’ policy is not to identify people in such cases.

The story was not reported on the Web site’s syndicated television show.

TMZ is owned by Time Warner Inc., the media conglomerate which also owns Time Warner Cable, Warner Bros., the magazine publisher Time Inc. and a group of cable channels that includes HBO, CNN, TBS and TNT. A Time Warner spokesman referred calls on the matter to the company’s Telepictures division, and a spokeswoman for Telepictures did not immediately return a call for comment.
…
The Internet means that the gatekeepers who traditionally control the news are no longer in charge, said Jay Rosen, a New York University professor who runs the Web site Press Think.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080501/ap_en_ce/tmz_sex_crime;_ylt=Ah4hKrh4E0_8e_tsRV0xhxtxFb8C

Although in recent years there has been an undeniable consolidation of ownership in all media forms, including the Internet, Rosen’s quote to me implies that corporations have much more difficulty setting agendas online rather than through traditional means. Where television requires very little activity from its users, the Internet is a highly active medium that gives people ample opportunity to question what is being disseminated to them. While corporations are definitely getting more involved in the Internet sphere through ownership, it seems that this lack of control has led them to view the Internet solely as an ad revenue source, rather than as an outlet for cultivation of certain ideologies. I believe that the fact that the story was reported (and never retracted) online but never broadcast on the TMZ TV show supports this theory.

Copyright and New Media

So I came across this documentary film titled “Good Copy Bad Copy” last night and I think that it does an excellent job of addressing some of the issues we are trying to dissect in this blog.

http://www.goodcopybadcopy.net/

Check it out when you have some time.

-Eamon