Water-Cooler Effect: Internet Can Be TV'S Friend- By Brian Stelter

"You've Got A Friend In Me" ....How many of us in our day-to-day ritual of Web surfing and TV surfing do this surfing simultaneously? I know I do! I sit on my computer as I watch E! News or re-runs of The Office. I am actually doing exactly that, right now. When Internet came along, people thought it was going to be the end of Television. We can watch movies, listen to music, chat with friends, do our homework, all at the same time when we use our computers and browse the endless amounts of Internet site. It is the greatest creation ever made. I seriously, honestly, truthfully, do not remember life without the Internet. How sad.

In this article, we find that, alas! The Internet and TV go hand-in-hand. With the Internet at the tip of our fingers we can find out the latest information about show/series and games (such as the 2010 Olympics) and award shows (Grammy's, Oscars, Emmy's, Golden Globes). What is great is that we can chat with our friends and fellow Internet junkies about what is going and surprising events that have happened. Stelter writes in the article that NBC aired the Golden Globes on the East Coast and West Coast at the same time, which allowed everyone on the Internet to gab about it at their leisure. This is a first for something like this to happen, and I have always wondered why they would not air things at the same time. Since the Internet is all of the rage these days, and sites like Facebook and Twitter are always in use, East Coasters could spoil endings of a show, like LOST, or the ending of a football game for the West Coasters.

In the article it goes on to say that although spoilers can happen due to the Internet chat rooms, FB and Twit, people still want to view something for themselves. If you see a status on Facebook or a Tweet on Twitter that says, "OMG! I CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED ON THE BACHELOR!!" That will set off people to say, "What HAPPENED??!" And they will want to see it themselves.

I do not think that it is shocking that ratings have shot up for TV because the Internet has advertisements about anything and everything. You see an advertisement for the new season of Gossip Girl and you cannot wait for it to start; The advertisements keep popping up and they remind you of your favorite shows, games, etc. which makes you tune into the boob tube. I think that it is great that Television and the Internet can bring people together and they can bring on more viewers and new viewers, because once something is out in the open and is being talked about, it attracts people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/business/media/24cooler.html?hp

Von Furstenberg: 'Beauty is health', By: Tom Evans

Magazines and advertising have a big influence on the way people, especially females, view themselves. Every magazine on the newsstands usually shows a beautiful woman posing with her hair and makeup done to the 9 and she is usually pin-thin; but is what we see what we are 'supposed' to be? No, because in the article, Valerie Boyer, a French Lawmaker states, "Today we are forced to imitate bodies that do not exist, and this affects people, especially women." I completely agree with this statement because every magazine cover you see has been touched up. They want us to believe that this what this model or actress or singer looks like, but they have been retouched, their eyes, their lips, their necks, their arms, their legs, their stomachs have all been altered to make them look 'perfect'.

I find that the media, whether it be high-fashion advertisements, magazine articles, television programs, commercials etc. no matter what, always promote that thin, thin, thin is in, in, in. No matter how many times people say: "Love yourself, love who you are, every one is beautiful", the truth of the matter is that what we see in the world is that thin is always beautiful and we should all be just that. (Not my feeling) We are forced to believe that we need to be a stick to get somewhere in life.

In this article, fashion designer Diane Von Furstenberg believes that there should be no censorship when it comes to magazine and advertising photos. I however, disagree. I am on Boyer's side, the French legislator, who believes that all photos that have been altered in any way should have some type of disclaimer telling the consumer that these have been touched up and this is not the actual photo or body of the person. Advertisements affect people in every aspect of life, from what we listen to, eat, wear, drive, anything and everything. With this law, we know that these photos have been tweaked and that it is not the real thing so we don't have to feel that bad about ourselves.

I think Von Furstenberg contradicts herself as she says, "Beauty is health -- health, beauty," she added, "My whole philosophy in life and in my work and everything is to enjoy the woman that you are and to believe in it." If she believes in that, then she would not have her photographs tweaked to falsely advertise her designs or models. She does not believe in the law of censorship. She also states, "The pictures, the snapshots that you take of your family -- you crop them, you take something away. That's just part of what we do automatically" But the pictures we crop and adjust of our families are not being plastered all over the world, they are for our personal use and I do not agree with how she makes the comparison to the high-fashion advertisements. The advertisements which are tweaked that are covering our newsstands are sending bad messages about self-image, not our family photos.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/02/10/fashion.photos/index.html?iref=allsearch

"Is Twitter the Next Second Life?"- Todd Wasserman

Tweet. Tweet. Twitter was all the hype in the beginning of 2009. Everyone was jumping on the Twitter bandwagon, celebrities, small companies, big companies, news stations and the regular ol' human race. Twitter gets mixed reviews. Some people love it, live for it, like the Kardashian sisters and Perez Hilton, and others think it is biggest waste of time and don't care for it.  Most people are a fan of following celebs; getting to read what they are doing at every hour, of every day makes us feel as if we're their best friend. (Okay, I  will admit, I am a victim of following the celebs, but I SWEAR I am not an avid twitterer or tweeter(?)) 

But anyways, in the article "Is Twitter the Next Second Life?", Todd Wasserman explains that the big companies such as GEICO and Verizon are not amung the top people to follow. Even the smaller,lesser known companies have gathered more followers than these larger companies. That makes me think back to "The Long Tail" article by Chris Anderson. The lesser-known create a larger following than these world-wide corporations. Also, these huge companies are at the bottom of the tree, while celebrities such as funny man Ashton Kutcher and the infamous Oprah Winfrey have over 3 and 4 million followers. So what is it this all about? Wasserman explains that the best way to get your name out their is to latch on to one of these ever-so popular personalities such as Kutcher or Winfrey. 

What I think is smart about that idea Wasserman shouts out is that I have seen it done through Kim Kardashian's twitter page. I actually heard through the grapevine that Kardashian was being paid an absurd amount of money to advertise through her tweets promoting new products to try or something of that sort. But, Twitter is not as popular as it was a year ago. The tweets have dwindle which could be a reason for the lack of followers for these companies. But who knows how long Twitter will be around for. Maybe these companies don't have to worry about the downfall of their twitter followings. 

http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/direct/e3i2a2383a07ad64ff8a8e8473f0cd169a1?pn=1

Long Tail Article

We always think the most popular hits, flicks and read's are the bestsellers, but what happens to the one-hit wonders? Well, they make their fairy-tale comeback and sell bigger than those so-called “bestseller’s”.  In the Long Tail article, Chris Anderson explains a concept in the entertainment industry that the less popular media, whether it be movies, music, video games, etc. rakes in more dough than the raving box office hits or #1's do.  Just because a song, movie, book or even television show is not being talked about in the national media, does not mean that it is not being bought and played over and over again. It just so happens that these items are bringing in more sales than the leading film or #1 bestseller’s do. 

 If we think about it and take a look at our ITunes catalogs we can find that we have over 1,000 different songs from every different artist out there. I know that for me, since ITunes came out I have not bought a CD since I was in middle school and Sam Goody was open on Greenwich Avenue. It was the "thing" to do to go to your local record store to buy that new CD from Britney Spears or Nsync (favorites of mine) and play your favorite songs over and over and skip over the ones that didn't strike your fancy. With ITunes, I can conveniently go on and download a song or two from one artist without having to spend $15.00 on the whole CD. 

With all of the access we have today at the tip of our fingers, it is hard not to find what we are looking for. "You can find everything out there on the Long Tail. There's the back catalog, older albums still fondly remembered by longtime fans or rediscovered by new ones." (Chris Anderson) I think that is such an important statement that Anderson makes because every day people are rediscovering music or movies that they remember from their past, like their childhood, and are even discovering things from decades ago. I can definitely agree with Anderson that the Long Tail is a true existing concept because if you think about it, our generation has discovered music and movies that date back to our parent's and grandparent's generations. We hear a song on the radio or watch a movie on-demand and it triggers a memory of another song or movie which makes us go out and find that these items that we have not heard in years. We may even go on the Internet to research and find things that are similar to what we know but never got the chance to hear or see.

Something else that I thought about while reading Anderson's article is that every single person in this world has different taste in anything and everything there is. We may have similar taste in music with some people, and we may find joy in something that is totally out of the ordinary. We are all our own person, which means that not everyone is going to go out and see that #1 hit film of the year just because it is up for an Oscar. Some of us may find that a small Indie film that most have never heard of is what makes us weak at the knees compared to another overrated Brad Pit-Hollywood-Hit. What I really love is when I can hang out with friends who have a different taste in music or movies than I do, and they can introduce me to a new song or film that I have never heard of or would have known about without their knowledge, which will make me want to check out more of what I heard or saw. This is the type of thing that helps the “lesser-known” rise in sales. 

We hear, see, or read things that have not been plastered all over our TV sets or billboards off the highway and it is like a breath of fresh air. I think that the radio stations, television stations, and tedious commercials play a large part in why these popular items are not the actual "best-sellers". When we hear and see things over and over every 5 seconds it gets played out, we get bored, and we move on. But when we can discover and rediscover new or old things, it opens up a new world to things that we may have never known and it is so much more interesting and exciting than the things that we feel we have to drown out.

While reading this article I did not think I was going to be able to comprehend what this man was talking about, but I think now it makes sense to me and I think what he is saying is definitely something to give attention to. I understand this concept he talks about and I can say that I fully agree with him.