Critical Perspectives on Social Media
While the theorist Jenkins had a positive view of the Web 2.0 and its participatory culture, other theorists such as Fuchs, Van Dijk and Nieborg argue that economical aspects of social media platforms should be taken in consideration. Their general idea is that these platforms exploit their own users for profit by making them believe they have a part of involvement in the creation of culture and content (Fuchs, 2014, p.54).
Fuchs demonstrate his argument by pointing out how Wikipedia would not exist without its users’ participation in the uploading of new content and knowledge. Yet, it is also viewable on the American video-sharing website Youtube, where users can upload and share their videos with the rest of the community Fuchs, 2014, p.54). It is also the case of the corporation BIC which is known for its production of four color Bic pens and ballpoint pens. Last October, the brand asked to its customers on its Facebook page (My Bic pen) to vote for their favourite new four colours pen design. The contest was named #PickYourBic! and people had to use Facebook’s new like buttons in order to vote.
Social media has changed the way traditional mass media engage with their audience. Effectively, consumers are now placed on the foreground of the platforms, able to share what they find valuable. This participatory culture is somehow what makes the Internet so democratic.
But a democratic system viewed with such a culturalist approach – as Jenkins did – ignores the economical tools hidden in these social media. Fuchs points out that Jenkins’ argument neglects aspects of participatory democracy: “it ignores questions about the ownership of platform/companies, collective decision-making, profit, class and the distribution of material benefits” (Fuchs, 2014, p.55). According to him, it is not possible to give the power to every member of a democratic system, no matter if they have the right to vote for their political leaders and if they have rights within the system. Every democracy is owned by an elite group that controls and exploits its subjects. If we look back at our previous example, Youtube is a corporate ownership which earns most of the money generated by its video uploaders and not the other way around. Fuchs believes Jenkins’ argument is too weak in the sense that it only focusses on the positive aspects of the Web 2.0 instead of looking at other negative aspects as well.
Besides, Van Dijk’s and Nieborg’s (2009) earlier work already criticized the naïvity of Jenkins’ positive notion of participatory culture, which stated that all users contributed to the Web 2.0 in a collective and equal manner. They wrote a response article to Jenkins’ manifestos entitled Wikinomics and We-Think. Firstly, they argued that participatory culture is not quite true since only 13% of social media users are creators, which means that 87% of the Internet population does not have any impact into the creation of cultural content: “the majority of users are in fact those who watch or download content contributed by others.” (van Dijk, Nieborg, 2009). Thus, although social media could be seen as democratic, it foremost marks socio-economical differences between users and creators, where users provide free labour without noticing it by reacting to the creators’ posts. Yet, although their interaction makes the posts successful, users still do not have any control over what is on the media. Moreover, when users do so, they also share personal information – or not – with the producers who use it for marketing strategies. Users do not even know which information are saved by ones in power.
Besides, as Fuchs also noticed, the authors saw participatory culture as a way to make profit out of users’ interests. Effectively, the creators of high-priced advices manage a great business, selling their projects to companies and still gaining from them afterwards. It was perhaps their main critique of the manifestos, judging that Jenkins masked this digital commerce to his readers.
Then, they critiqued the way in which Jenkins wrote manifestos which support this business hold by social media ownerships. Moreover, the theorist would have received money from media corporation which would explain why his judgment is so positive and not critique at all.
Many theorists such as Jenkins saw participatory culture as a positive system where users and producers had the same influence on what is being uploaded and viewed on the Web. However, Fuchs, Van Dijk and Nieborg have successfully showed how the system also had negative aspects, letting their readers know that the Web 2.0 does not really belong to them and that producers use them to enhance their digital business.
Sources:
Fuchs, C. (2014). Social Media: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage.
Van Dijck, J., & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its Discontents: A Critical Analysis of Web 2.0 Business Manifestos. New Media & Society, 11(5), 855- 874.
From Viral Media to Spreadable Media
Nowadays, it is not that easy to not be on track about Rihanna’s new hit, Kim Kardashian’s love story or Apple’s latest product. How is it that so? Considering the fact that we spend more and more time on cyberspaces and that we keep liking, sharing and reacting to our friends’ posts, it is not surprising to notice that we create our own network, which is connected to the ones of our relatives and then their own contacts… This giant network does not have any real limit. Yet, without you and me, information about our favorite brands and stars wouldn’t spread so fast; we have the control over what should be seen – or not. But what exactly makes a video so special that it goes viral?
Back in 1994, Rushkoff already saw media as “the only place left for our civilization to expand” and the datasphere as our territory for human interactions and economic expansion (p.4). He also remarked that messages did not come to us innocently. Rather, they come disguised like a Trojan Horse, which means they enter our houses in a particular form and then behave a different way than initially expected (1994, p.7). Rushkoff goes further in his argument by stating that these media are viruses, comparing it analogically with organic viruses:
The “protein shell” of a media virus might be an event, invention, technology, system of thought, musical riff, visual image, scientific theory, sex scandal, clothing style or even a pop hero – as long as it can catch our attention. (1994, p.10)
Once this protein shell intrudes our houses, it liberates an ideological code known as “meme” which influences our social interactions. The most provocative the image is, the faster and the further it will travel on the data sphere. The author still underlines that the appellation “virus” does not mean that media viruses are bad. Actually, he argues, these viruses are positive for society and lead to some kinds of evolution. They are created by media activists who fight against injustices.
Among these media viruses, there are three categories which can be drawn. Firstly, intentional viruses are spread intentionally as a way to share an ideology or to promote a product. Secondly, bandwagon viruses are not launched intentionally but some people re-share it for their own ideas. Thirdly, self-generated viruses are the ones which are launched “by themselves” because they touched upon societal matters. For instance, if a white policeman was to shot a black civilian, then a spectator might launch the video because the scene goes against his values and the ones of the country.
Although Jenkins (2008) agrees with some of Rushkoff’s points, he argued that using the word “virus” to address spreadable media was ambiguous and could lead to misinterpretations. Thus, he came up with two models: spreadable media and sticky ones.
Sticky media, on the one hand, refers to the old form of marketing used in order to promote brands and products. This model stresses control over distribution and did not put consumers on the foreground, they were passive consumers which had to be seduced by the ad and were pushed by markets. The message linked to the ad had to be pure and obvious.
Spreadable media, on the other hand, directly target consumers. In this model, consumers are on the same level than marketers and the brand, perhaps even a little bit higher. If they agree with the message hidden in the media, then they will be more likely to “like” it or to “share” it with their friends. Therefore, the success of a media depends highly on consumers and on the message contained in the ad. If it pleases the masses, then it becomes an Economy gift, which means that “community members use [them] to express shared meanings or to reaffirm social ties with each other”, they “function as gifts and thus acquire worth within particular contexts” (2008, p.5). Most of the time, spreadable media contain absurd humour, parody, feelings of nostalgia or else, require an active participation of the viewer.
The Belgian artist Stromae – from “Maestro” in “verlan” – is well-known for his international influence on hip-hop and electronic music. The young singer and composer got noticed with his first hit “Alors on danse” in 2009. He is very active on the Youtube platform, providing “lessons” to his fans about how he created each of his songs. Each video contains English captions as a way to reach more communities than only French ones.
19th lesson
Stromae touches the heart of many people not only because of his particular style and his charisma, but also with the themes of his songs. He always sings about societal issues which touch a lot of people, such as cancer, love, losing a father, depression, social media, AIDS… But in 2013, the artist came back with a new strategy: creating a buzz video, an intentional virus. At the beginning of the video clip, “This is not a lesson” is mentioned, which already generates curiosity to the viewers because Stromae never made any video which wasn’t a lesson. Then, Stromae appears on the tramway stop “Louise”, completely drunk and desperate, singing his disarray without any filter. The images were retrieved from the cities’ cameras, thus it made it appear more real than it would have looked like with professional material. Once again, the theme touched the heart of many people. He seemed to be drunk and to have been dumped by his girlfriend, being really mad at the world in general, blaming himself about it. As if it did not look really enough, police men come to see if he is all right and if he needs help because he looks like his night was rough. People on the street seem to be worried for him too, many of them took videos of him as the situation was exceptional.
Within three days, the video had been watched 3 million times. A few days after, he was the guest of the French program Ce soir (ou jamais!) and announced the release of his new (and until then secret) album and interpreted in live the mysterious Formidable song. This viral spreadable media promoted his album in the best way possible, people were so amazed by this fake video which still contained a common reality that the album became platinum and best seller (both in France and in France) in two months only. Yet, the spreadability of this video is undeniable thanks to its fast success and to the nostalgia it evokes.
Here it is:
Sources:
Jenkins, H., Li, X., & Domb, A. (2008). If it doesn’t spread, it’s dead. Creating Value in a Spreadable Marketplace. Retrieved from: http://www.convergenceculture.org/weblog/2010/04/conver gence_culture_consortium.php
Rushkoff, D. (1994). Media virus! Hidden agendas in popular culture. New York: Ballantine Books.
The Art of Persuasion
Previously, we have seen how semiotics can be used as a way to analyse TV commercials. But, according to Simons (2001), when advertisers make use of the power of persuasion, the best way to decode the trick is to practice and analyse how they make use of it. It can either be a behavioural approach, that is, “treating human judgments and actions as in some sense akin to the predictable, controllable behaviour” (p.15). Otherwise, it can be a critical one which focusses more on details such as the style, concepts, the language used in the text or what is absent in the text (p.17). Besides, the author wonders if persuasion is something unmoral ethically or not.
First of all, it is important to understand that Simons (2001) refers to persuasion as “human communication designed to influence the autonomous judgments and actions of others. (…) it seeks to alter the way others think, feel, or act, but it differs from other forms of influence.’’ (p.8) He then insists that persuasion is in no case a type of coercion, pressure or threat imposed by individuals over others. To put it in his own words, ‘’persuasion predisposes others but does not impose’’ (p.8). A simple example of this art is how any brand tries to convince us to buy their product. In the following image, the famous Coca-Cola brand suggests to people who are warm to refresh themselves with a delicious coke. If it is really hot outside or you’ve just ran 10 miles, then you might get persuaded by it very easily.
Yet, does it mean that persuasion is an unmoral tool per se? If we listen to Socrates, then it is unethical, it is “an art of gulling the ignorant about the justice or injustice of a matter, without imparting any real knowledge” or also that it ‘’does great damage to the world by making the worse appear the better argument and allowing the guilty to go free’’ (p.4). Of course, in this context, it can hardly be argued that it is used for good ends. Yet, we do not know the story behind it. On the other hand, Aristotle argued that although persuasion could be used by guilty people to get exonerated, people still have the right to defend themselves when they are brought to court. Thus, persuasion can be moral or unmoral, depending on the situation but also on our own perception of it. Usually, when we are tricked by persuasion, we tend to find it outrageous. But when we don’t or worse, when we make use of it, then we find it legitimate. Learning how to decode persuasion might help us not only to identify it more easily, but also to learn how to think and act like a persuader.
Sonesson (2013) provides two examples in which persuasion was used by Swedish companies in order to boost their brand: the famous furniture designer Ikea and Absolut Vodka. The author first focuses on Absolut Vodka’s ‘European serie
s’ campaign, which, as its name says it, was based upon European cities and used each cities’ features to design the bottles. So for instance, they would integrate the image of a Vespa for Rome, the one of Big Ben for London, or yet the Atomium for Brussels. It is interesting to discover why the Swedish company, which was not in the E.U. at that moment, identified its product with European cities. In fact, advertisers tried to demark their vodka from Russian ones by linking it to the whole history and traditions inked in the Old Continent – Europe. This inkage highly contrasts with the targeted customers’ country – USA – which is considered as the most modern part of the World (p.16). The author later suggests that it might also have created the feeling that Sweden was more European – for other cultures and especially for Americans (p.17).
Controversially, Ikea used its Swedish origins as a tool of persuasion – although mostly all their production is created outside the country. Therefore, any country associates Ikea with Sweden stereotypes, even though Swedish people do not recognize these features as part of their patrimony. Sonesson then explains how it was also crucial to use stereotypes to target their own population. In order to do so, they have used the stereotype that:
people from Småland are very thrifty, or, perhaps, rather extremely miserly. IKEA explicitly makes use of this stereotype, selling their products as being from Småland. This is made to explain that IKEA products are so inexpensive in spite of being of such high quality (p.20).
Persuasion can be used in many domains such as politics, advertisements, private lives, brotherhoodrelations, but also for security purposes. On this Belgian preventerpanel, usually located on motorways, is written in French: “who’s gonna pay the bill this week-end?”. In this case, the authors of the caption want to persuade the driver not to drive when he has been drinking, otherwise he might not even be able to pay the next bill or, in another sense, his relatives will pay “the bill” by losing him if he does an accident.
Sources:
Simons, H.W. (2001). The Study of Persuasion. In: H.W. Simons with J. Morreale & B.E. Gronbeck, Persuasion in Society (pp. 3-24), Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sonesson, G. (2013). Two strands of rhetoric in advertising discourse. International Journal of Marketing Semiotics, 1(1), 6-24.
Noxzema’s “Take it off” advertisement
In the previous articles, we have touched upon the necessary theoretical background in order to analyse logos, imagos and any kind of advertisements with the help of semiotics and discourse analysis. From now on, the following articles will mainly be analysis of diverse advertisements, starting with the 50’s-60’s onwards. As I was surfing on the web for a source of inspiration, I found a TV ad which amused me by its extreme contrast with what we are used to watch nowadays. I would like you to first watch the video without reading my analysis and then re-watch it afterwards, so that I do not influence you in your personal interpretation of it. The semiotical analysis will be based on Machin’s (2007) Introduction to multimodal analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho9XNfy6JBM
According to Machin, visual communication can be analysed in terms of social relations, that is how we as viewers relate to “the participants in the image, how we are encouraged to relate to them and how we are encouraged to assess them.” (p.109). The very first step of the analysis is to look at how the viewer is positioned in relation to the represented people. Firstly, we need to observe the gaze of the participants. Do they look at us or not? In this advertisement, there are two participants: a beautiful blond woman who is directly talking to us and her man who is shaving. The woman does look at us with an intense and seductive gaze, which goes with the charming connotation of her speech. The main functions are namely to acknowledge the viewer and to produce an image act; that is to ask us something. Machin argues that other factors determine this request, such as the way she plays with her natural assets to seduce the viewer. Indeed, the actress bites her necklace with sensuality to then drop it and letting appear a charming smile, full of tenderness, while holding the product in her hands as if it was an object of desire. If we listen to her discourse, she says that “Nothing takes it-off like Noxzema” to later continue with “Take-it off… Take it all off”. I guess the demand here is very explicit! The man, on the other hand, does not stare at us but at the imaginary mirror which supposedly stands behind the camera. However, he nearly looks at us, which creates a kind of link between the viewer and him. This kind of “not looking at the viewer” image is called an offer, which means that there is no request asked by the participant. Machin argues that it might be an invitation to get into the thoughts of the actor. Here, by looking at the satisfactory expression of the man, it is clear that men are more likely to “feel” the comfortable shaving the actor is having. Both actors more or less look at the horizon, even a little bit up, which emphasize the positive feeling and high status they have by using this lotion.
Then, Machin suggests the angle of interaction creates power relationships or also involvement. The camera is placed in front of the woman during the entire ad, which is done in such a way that it provokes a kind of tension to the viewer. In regard to the man, he is taken from a front angle as well, but this angle changes a few times in order to show the entire process of shaving. There is one moment where the angle is moving around him, which let us better observe the action than before. Ultimately, the distance between the viewer and the participants might either suggest intimacy or remoteness. In this advertisement, the camera only takes close shots, which create on the one hand intimacy with the seductive blonde woman, and a sense of identification with the male on the other hand.
The second step is to analyse the participants in the advertisement. In this case, there is a strong individualisation of both protagonists, which draws us closer to them. Also, there is a “positive” connotation in the sense that the woman is depicted as a kind of femme fatale, who seduces her man and is being seduced by him, whereas the actor is shaving to please his wife. Another factor, which is the third step of the analysis, might help us to better understand the social relations in the ad. Machin calls it the functional semiotic of images; that is the agency in the images (who does what) and actions (what gets done) (p.123). In this ad, the agency is clearly to use the woman and her charms to convince the audience to buy the shaving cream, inducing that a man shaved with this product will be more likely to seduce his wife.
Source:
Machin, D. (2007). Introduction to multimodal analysis. London: Hodder Arnold
Marchand, R. (1985). Advertising the American Dream. Making Way for Modernity, 1920 –1940. Berkeley etc.: University of California Press.
Tungate, M. (2007). Adland: a global history of advertising. London and Philadelphia: Kogan Page Publishers
Discourse Analysis II – Power relations and Institutions
In the last article, I have introduced Foucault’s notion of discourses and how he wanted to understand how power relations were constructed and maintained in institutions through these discourses. Besides, the methodology “discourse analysis I” created by Rose upon Foucault’s work was described as a method which’s first aim is to understand how language is used to refer to social differences. This method focusses on visual images and verbal texts. As promised, this article will deal with the second methodology Rose constructed, that is “discourse analysis II”.
In contrast to the previous methodology, this method aims to understand the construction of social differences and power relations maintained by institutions, analysing their institutional apparatus and technologies. Rose defines the later as such:
An institutional apparatus is the forms of power/ knowledge which constitute the institutions: for example, architecture, regulations, scientific treatises, philosophical statements, laws, morals, and so on, and the discourse articulated through all these (Rose, p.166).
Institutional apparatus is more abstract, it is more related to the bigger picture of the institution and one must look beyond what is physically in the space in order to find them.
The institutional technologies are the practical techniques used to practice that power/knowledge. Technologies are `diffuse, rarely formulated in continuous, systematic discourse . . . often made up of bits and pieces . . . a disparate set of tools and methods’ (Foucault, 1977: 26). An example might be the design of the windows and blinds in the panopticon ; the techniques of effecting meanings (Rose, p. 166-167).
Controversially, technologies can easily be detected, they are part of the smaller picture and are more concrete. It can be considered as the way to put the ideology of the institution – apparatus – into the physical space.
Discourse analysis II is as eclectic as the previous method, the sources analysed can be written texts, interviews, visual images, the architecture, the design, the observation of the place… In order to discover the social subjectivities of these sources, it is important to look at it from a broad perspective (apparatus) to a narrower one – technologies. Rose dresses a list of four helpful steps which can be applied in a discourse analysis II:
- examine ways of describing the apparatus of the insititution as a whole
- examine ways of describing the technologies of the institution
- examine how this second kind of discourse analysis argues that these institutions produce and discipline their visitors
- assess the strengths and weaknesses of this type of discourse analysis of institutions (reflect on the limitations of the paper and the methodology)
(Rose, p.169)
In order to understand how this discourse analysis could be applied, I have decided to take some notes while going to Delhaize – a Belgian supermarket – in Chaudfontaine. I tried to look at the supermarket without paying attention to the organization of the shop in itself to grasp the ideology and architecture of the supermarket. First of all, it is interesting to notice that Delhaize has constructed a small shopping gallery around it when building the supermarket a few years ago. It is not possible to access it without passing by all the other shops of the gallery, half of them being a property of the chain. Thus, the architecture is an apparatus which was carefully studied to tempt the customers to buy more products than they initially planned to.
In red, the main entrance of the gallery. In green, Delhaize.
One of the values held by Delhaize is its emphasis on health and lifestyle quality – it is written on the main page of their website. However, when I entered into the supermarket, the first shelf on the left was dedicated to alcool and wine. This technological apparatus is a trick. Since the customer has just entered the supermarket, he will be more tempted to buy a bottle or two of wine because he did not buy anything else – it’s only 6 euros, right? Just behind it is the fruits and vegetable area. So even if you go to this green and healthy spot, the alcool is still just next to you, it is impossible not to see it. I do not know if it is the case in other countries, but in Belgium this organization is very frequent. To go along with this healthy and bio idea, the company has recently shifted its plastic bags into paper recycling bags. Another interesting technology is the way in which they place products on the shelves. Yet, in the sweets department, they have placed the Delhaize products on the three racks which are in the direct sight of any adult consumer. The other racks are dedicated to other brands. Therefore, the consumer will more likely take one of their product, even more if he is in a rush.
Of course, there are a lot of other institutional technologies that I haven’t mentioned. However, it is important to acknowledge that these technologies are not meant to be detected by consumers. The costumer thinks that he is totally free in his shopping, regarding the way in which he choses a product or the way he goes into the shop. In fact, his actions are shaped by these apparatus and technologies; the institution controls its consumers.
Sources:
Rose, G. (2001). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. London: Sage.