Internet killed the CD?

We all know that music industry is (by their opinion) in trouble especially with the rise of the internet. They have money loss and as RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is writing, these losses are not small.

"One credible analysis by the Institute for Policy Innovation concludes that global music piracy causes $12.5 billion of economic losses every year, 71,060 U.S. jobs lost, a loss of $2.7 billion in workers' earnings, and a loss of $422 million in tax revenues, $291 million in personal income tax and $131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes." (Source: http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php)

Surveys in all major markets prove that internet is a major factor for the fall in world music sales, down 7% in 2003, and down 14% in three years. Yes, internet has a great influence on music industry. At beginning music industry did not know what to do. But then finally they acted and move their bussiness to internet. So we got albums online and we could just download them.

And so is today. A small number of artists have still old fashioned CD's. Well CDs have become collection pieces. A lot of people buy CD just when their favourite artist release it. All other people download albums. And this downloading is not every time legal. Why is internet music piracy so popular? Some say that because it's cheaper. Some that is less time consuming (you do not even have to leave home). Some say that is positive because with this kind of music listening you can widen your music taste. It can be treated positive. But could we say that the negative point about music sharing on internet is "murder" of CDs?

I think that internet has brought to us democratization of music. Now every band, group or artist can record themselves and put their songs to Youtube. So the music is no longer reserved just for those who have some acquaintance in music industry. In that way music industry is also loosing it's main role in connecting music to money. Music has become more important. But back to the question if internet killed the CD. In my opinion internet has made CD a boutique product. It is more valued (on symbolic level) and has more exclusive role. And like video did not kill the radio star, also internet will not killed CD and video stars. Even more. On internet video and presentation of artist is even more important. And what do you think? Will internet kill the CD or not?

Cloud computing

For new post I wanted to write something about privacy on internet. But when I was searching for material I run into this website: Privacy Rights. Although is American it has some really interesting documents on privacy in new media context. When I was checking their website I run to really interesting concept. Cloud computing.

"In general terms, it’s the idea that your computer’s applications run somewhere on the “cloud”, that is to say, on someone else’s server accessed via the Internet. Instead of running program applications or storing data on your own computer, these functions are performed at remote servers which are connected to your computer through the Internet or other connections." (source: http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs18-cyb.htm#cloudcomputing)

For every day use cloud computing is very handy and for business companies is really money and time saver. For example very known cloud computing service is Gmail or Picassa from Google. But the main question for me is in this context risk of this kind of services for regular user. When the user puts their data on cloud site he or she does not have anymore control on this data. The security of data fall on to cloud provider. Some examples what can happen with your data (everything from: http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs18-cyb.htm#cloudcomputing):

"Government investigators or civil litigants trying to subpoena information could approach the hosting company without informing the data's owners. The hosting company generally does not have the same motivation as the user to defend against disclosure of the information."

"Some companies could even willingly share sensitive data with marketing firms. So there is a privacy risk in putting your data in someone else's hands. Obviously, the safest approach is to maintain your data under your own control."

And the main problem here is that technology is so much more ahead then the law. This problem has two relevant things to think about. First is the ease with which we use computers and internet. So cloud computing can be rally the good guy. But on the other hand what about our data? How we can secure them and why we are not worried about them. In my opinion today cloud computing is somewhere between good and bad. I think that really is a good guy but only if users know how to use it and be aware of it's rights.

What do you think? Is cloud computing the bad or the good guy?

Power of Facebook: user vs. profile

Few days ago I watched an episode of Southpark. It was interesting, because it was about Facebook and obsession with number of friends (you can watch episode here). But the question mentioned there give me a lot to think about: Who is more powerful on Facebook? The user or the profile?

As we know, Facebook is currently number one in social network sites. And the question is, does the profile on Facebook say who you really are in real life. On that topic I found an interesting article from Sonia Livingstone: "Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression". It is about the presentation of teenagers on Facebook and how they present themselves who they are. She is writing:

"While younger teenagers relish the opportunities to recreate continuously a highly-decorated, stylistically-elaborate identity, older teenagers favour a plain aesthetic that foregrounds their links to others, thus expressing a notion of identity lived through authentic relationships."

This is very interesting point because through interviews she did, she discovered that for example older teenagers prefer Facebook to Myspace, because the first is more "sophisticated" and they feel more grown up. They can really show who they are through various profile information but they also admit that this kind of identity is shaped by peers.

Another interesting discovery was that teenagers, no matter how many Facebook friends they have (here we are talking about hundreds of friends), they still can separate those friends so they realise which of them are real one and which of them are just "virtual" living on Facebook. So for conclusion, answer on question of power user versus profile is not so easy. Users have power to manage their profiles but this is actually done under the pressure of self-representation. So in the battle user vs. profile, the score is indecisive.



Source: Livingstone, Sonia. 2008. Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media and Society 10 (3): 393-411. Available on: http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/3/393

Socialnomics

I was searching on internet articles about relationship between social networks and business, because I want to know, how social networks can be (and already are) used for marketing. So I came across this video on Youtube (it will take you 4 minutes for watching :)



Video is about Socialnomics, the word which is composed from two words: social + economics. And is describing that social media can make positive ROI (return of investment) and the payment is almost free. I think that social networks are good for different brands and are new channel for marketing. All the "big" companies are making the best of social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Netlog, Youtube etc (check this site about report of engagement of different US brands; currently the winner of engagement is Starbucks). But is this the future? Does that mean that all brands will have more and more precise campaigns for selling or does that mean that brands will finally become listening to consumers and adjusting to them?

I have positive and also negative opinion about this kind of marketing. Positive about that kind of engagement is that consumers have more and more information about brands, they can also feel more connected with them and they have feeling that companies care about them. But I think that kind of marketing is not done for better selling (this is just old thinking) but for better recognition (we all know Starbucks don't we, but have many of us drink it?). Companies must be friendly with consumers and make new social network with them. And I think that they are doing this very successfully.

But my personal reserve is about personal data (people do not realize how many personal information give on internet and what others can do with them). Socialnomics can allow companies that they get data about consumers and they get this data free. If traditionally they had to pay to certain marketing research agency today they can collect (if they have resources) it on their own and free. And the most problematic thing here is, that consumers do not realize that.

But I feel that socialnomics is the future and can bring so many positive things not only to companies but also to consumers. And it would be interesting to know opinion about this kind of marketing from scientific point of view. So what do you think? Is socionomics positive or negative?

I am mayor of 4sq

Last week I found a new application (or I do not know how to name it) called Foursquare. It is "a cross between a friend-finder, a social city-guide and a game that rewards you for doing interesting things. We aim to build things to not only help you keep up with the places your friends go, but that encourage you to discover new places and challenge you to explore your neighborhood in new ways." It is mobile application and through mobile phone you are checking-in on different places. You can also write tips (like bacon in xy restaurant is very good) or can collect badges (you become mayor of certain place, when you check-in more then anyone). You also collect points (for which is not yet known how to use them in real world) and it is interesting that some companies (like coffee shops or restaurants) are offering for example free coffee for those who become mayors of this place. So this application can be personal or can be another tool for different companies for making promotion. Oh and did I mention it is also compatible with Twitter and Facebook?

Of course this kind of application raises many different questions. Mostly questions about privacy and personal data. Maybe for some people this kind of real-life/on-line game is intriguing and funny to play but for me is a whole leap for making our real lives more and more compatible with on-line. Why would you share information where are you with everyone (well with your friends but if you share this also on Facebook and Twitter this "friends" become more loose concept)? Location is very sensitive personal data and should not be shared with everyone. So I think that 4sq is just another application which is pushing the limits of our real life. And also it is interesting that concept of gaming which is traditionally connected with online world and identity is becoming more in more interwoven with real life. If we think that Second World was new and controversial, 4sq is even more because of our personal data and security.

What we have in common?

Like every medium also internet has large, unconnected audience and members are divided by space and time. So internet can be a very useful tool for maintaining existing relationships and also can be used for making new friendships. In both we use computer mediated communication (CMC) which is closely connected with virtual reality. So we can say that internet is connecting people in communities and that is what we call virtual communities. Very simple definition of virtual community is that it is consequence of CMC where communication flow between unknown people which has in common some similar interests, needs and wishes. So for one virtual community there must be just one thing that participants have in common. This can be anything, from hobbies (like photography), music or film to parenting, gender (like female or male virtual communities) or studying. But the main question is how virtual communities are really created in comparison with offline communities?

I will use some ideas from book (which is actually MA paper) Skupnost, identiteta in komunikacija v virtualnih skupnostih (in English this is Community, identity and communication in virtual communities) from Tadej Praprotnik (he is professor of communication and new media on Institutum Studiorum Humanitatis (ISH) – Ljubljana Graduate School of the Humanities). And I also recommend this book for all who are interested in virtual communities or wish to write paper about them. Unfortunately this book is not translated in English.

Author is suggesting that virtual communities have two features that are copied from offline culture to virtual. First is that virtual communities are never created as something new, because they are founded on basis of preliminary formulated communities. The main motive for participation is wish for belonging to group and this wish is same also in offline life. Second (and in my opinion very important) is that virtual identity is not as free as we all think (you know the famous "On the internet nobody knows you're a dog"). Virtual identity is shaped with values, biases and meanings from everyday offline life so this all have impact also on virtual life. So virtual communities are somehow just derivatives of ideological pre-virtual setting.

But why are virtual communities so attractive, not only for users but also for researchers? In my opinion the main attraction is anonymity and lack of social pressure. People on internet can be what they are. They can be happy, shallow or even racist. If one community does not accept them, the other will or even they can make their own virtual community. Entrance in virtual community is so much easier then in real life, so much quicker and also even exit from it is possible. All you need is computer, interest and people. Commonalities can emerge later.

If you're not on Facebook then you don't exist?

Today I read an interesting article about Facebook (you can find it here and in Slovene here) which is called In the world of Facebook (well actually is interesting review of two books).

First the article is describing to-us-all known beginnings of Facebook in 2004 but what I didn't know and was new to me, is the exclusivity of it and starting elitism of it. Yes I knew that primary it was intended to Harvard students but I never thought off that kind of exclusivity the author is describing, that major attraction of the early Facebook came from its snob appeal and its high selectivity. Bourdieu was somehow right with his aesthetic gaze and class although I didn't think that also new technologies can become so stratificated and under that influence. Author is also comparing Facebook with Myspace, because the idea for both is somehow the same (social networking) so the question is, why is Facebook so special? Author is suggesting that Facebook was connected with education and higer class, when Myspace was connected with working class. Also pages of Myspace were more connected with popular culture and were more urban, while Facebook was more aesthetic and was like planned community in suburb.

Author is raising some interesting questions also regarding to privacy, politics, advertising and communication on Facebook. But for me most interesting is idea of "second internet" and Facebook connect function. It is somehow interesting and also intimidating that all your personal information and also all your clicks on internet are noted in huge database and you do not know who sees yours information and who is using and paying for them. This metaphor of "second internet" is really well-placed because all our data and information are in other "virtual world," which is not known to us. I think that debate around privacy on Facebook (and also internet) will be very relevant in future but users should know that like real communities also virtual communities has risk that everybody will know everything about you. Facebook is special in its functions and its consequences on every-day life, but the question remains, it is really indicator of our online existence.

If you're not in group of people in real life, that does not mean that you don't exist, but if you're not on Facebook that just mean that you can relatively safely use internet without being considered who has your information - and yes, you still exist. :)