Me, Myself, and I

There is a force inside of all of us that drives us in a certain direction. Its that little voice inside your head deciding for you before you can decide for yourself. Its when you find yourself acting without thinking, without knowing what lie ahead. For some people this voice is influenced by family, others friends, and some religion; there are of course other more specific elements for certain individuals. I feel as though it is a combination of sorts. A combination of where you came from, who you grew up around, and most of all what you believe in. In my case I bow down to two voices, one in my head the other in my heart. Most of what comes from my heart is what I've learned through the years is right and wrong, and what can be successful and unsuccessful. However it is not always the educated decisions that produce the greatest end result. Sometimes one must follow their heart to a certain destination. For me my heart bases decisions on my religion, Christianity, and I am reminded of my religion and belief by a certain artifact; my necklace, more specifically my cross. It reminds me to think of more than just myself in regards to the outcome of my decisions. Even if there is no personal gain to be had it may not be necessary to reach the most positive outcome. What do you do though when you have both these voices arguing in your head? Is there any way to make the right decision all the time? The answer is no, I cannot make the right decision all the time and that is for a good reason. With failure comes knowledge and with knowledge comes a positive future. Every wrong choice I make, whether it is from my heart or my head, aids me in making better future decisions. The key thing is to never get down on yourself for making a mistake, embrace it, learn from it. Even after 19 years I still do not know whose opinion to trust, my head or my hearts, but I am confident that one day in the future I will understand how to take both sides and create the ultimate conclusion.

The Conspirators

Sorting through countless movies, trying to decide which to watch, my cousin and I came across one that I had never heard of: The Conspirators. The trailer and movie description presented it as the real story behind the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The movie presents eight potential accomplices of John Wilkes Booth, who are each tried in aiding in the assassination of the President. Although we didn’t watch the movie, the story the trailer tells has remained in the front of my mind. What interested me were the historic alterations; The Conspirators didn’t necessarily make me consider the validity of Lincoln’s assassination, but rather the validity of history in general. As we all probably recognize by now, everyone is shaped by their surroundings, and the past was no different. People’s choices are influenced by others, or current events, just as we saw in Kindred; by today’s understanding, those living in the 1800’s had a skewed perception of race, but at the time, slavery was standard.

Because we recognize how our surroundings influence decisions, and how the past shapes the present, it seems expected that we are intrigued by “what ifs” and “could have beens.” Why else would Hollywood spend the time and money to produce a movie like The Conspirators if not to capitalize on our desire to think about how one miniscule change in history could severely alter lives today? We are intrigued by movies like The Conspirators or The Butterfly Effect seemingly by natural curiosity, but the movie industry knows how to magnify this curiosity in order to make the movie successful. Trailers depict excitement, romance, plot twists, humorous scenes, favorite actors, good music and more to attract a wide variety of audiences. If assembled correctly, a trailer can make any movie look good, no matter the topic. I strongly dislike history as a subject, yet somehow, The Conspirators trailer drew me in, quite obviously so much so that it’s still on my mind and I can write a blog post about it.

“If you look good, you feel good. If you feel good, you play good. You play good, you win!”

I never would have guessed that I would get my inspiration for this week’s blog post while watching Thanksgiving Day football. I had actually completely forgot about the blog up until my dad said one of his favorite (and his only grammatically incorrect) phrases.

Through the years my dad has used this quote (by whom, I have no idea) to explain why many athletes fall into the marketing ploys used by athletic companies to sell the latest, coolest looking, trendiest gear. They claim, and many believe, that by buying the newest equipment and the coolest uniforms, teams and individuals will play at a higher level. I’ve always thought about whether this idea is merely of form of manipulation used by these companies, or a theory that could truly have some evidence backing it up.

Throughout my life, I have always taken the approach that the newest gear, equipment and fashion played no part on whether you succeed in sports. I have never been a very “flashy” person on the field and in a sport like lacrosse, which has created a very attention-grabbing atmosphere, I always seemed to clash with everyone else. I didn’t have the nicest, newest pads, never wore high socks or bought expensive helmets or cleats, but was always was able to do well. I actually think that the way I looked allowed me to benefit from being labeled as a “newbie”. As an employee at a local golf course, I also saw this idea (that the newest, best-looking gear made you a better athlete) be proved wrong. I can tell you that no matter how expensive your clubs are, you’re not a great golfer if you don’t play enough. The best members are usually the ones that have the same clubs their father used in the 50’s. So these are the reasons I believed the “look good, play good” ploy was merely a manipulation.

Then there is the other side. The other side believes that the more you feel that you look the part, the more comfortable you feel about how you look on the fields, the better you will play. This idea I completely agree with. In sports, one cannot compete well if they are not comfortable. If looking good in the newest gear is something that makes an athlete comfortable, because it allows them to feel as if the audience does not look at them mockingly (which for many athletes is the case), then this is definitely a quote that they live by. The question now becomes whether each individual athlete can feel comfortable in any gear, or only the “best looking” gear. This is what causes athletic company’s marketing strategies to shift between manipulation and the truth.

So really, manipulation used in marketing strategies for any company can be seen as manipulation, or can truly hold value based on the individual and how they react with that product. Ok, maybe certain foods won’t automatically lead you on a path to a healthy life, but for some people it actually does cause them to make different choices and to think about what they are doing. Maybe any old ibuprofen will do the same job as Advil, but maybe the extra comfort you feel from knowing that you’re taking a drug that is proven to work that many people use actually allows you to feel better then taking any other brand. These conjectures are what cause me to really think about the manipulation used in marketing. While it may be manipulation, it usually holds some amount of truth. Depending on who you are, this truth can range from a little to a lot. So the next time you don’t think your being manipulated, look deeper and maybe you will find that you are. More importantly, next time you think your being manipulated, look to see if there is truth to why you doing what your doing.

Black Friday Madness

Every day after Thanksgiving, thousands of shoppers wake up as early as 5 a.m. to participate in the madness we call Black Friday, the one day when stores have the “best deals” of the year. With so many shoppers in the same mall, the day can get pretty chaotic. My brother read an article on a guy that pepper sprayed four people in Wal-Mart for a video game. Seriously? That instance made me start thinking of how this single day turns people into crazies; it manipulates them into buying more items than they typically would buy.

The whole idea of a sale automatically puts you into a buying mood and faced with so many bargains, you will end up buying more things that you may not need. You may go in planning to buy a pair of jeans but when you notice there’s a “buy one get one half off” sale, you’ll end up buying a second pair of jeans simply because it seems like a good bargain. However, unless you were planning to buy two pairs of jeans, you just spent more money then you were originally planning to spend. My mom partook in this madness last year to “see what it would be like” and she ended up buying me a TV for my room, which was unnecessary because I already had a TV in my room. When I asked her why she bought it, she replied, “There was a really good deal on TVs, I had to get it.” I find it interesting how this entire day shows how easily people can be manipulated.

Not On My Own Just Yet

In response to Sade’s and Alison’s posts about the freedoms and limitations of college, I was surprised my first few weeks at college by the lack of responsibilities that I have experienced while studying at Hamilton.

Last year I lived as an exchange student in Finland so I have already spent a year living away from home. Although there were rules I was required to obey, I had a lot of freedom, and with it a lot of responsibilities. At the school I attended while abroad, students were allowed to come and go as they pleased. Students were not questioned for missing a class and were not even required to inform the teacher where they were going if they left in the middle (including if they didn’t come back). Cell phone use was also commonplace in classrooms and was rarely acknowledged by the teachers. Instead the students were simply required to learn the material and complete the work on time. Focus was placed on these activities over attendance and participation. In my home life it was expected that I clean up after myself, help cook the food, and help with the laundry.

When I came to college, I was expecting to have a ton of freedom and even more responsibility. While I have both of these, I do not have quite as much as I expected. Although it depends on the teacher, some teachers do not punish students for late work (as long as it is not turned in too late). In my biology class, some students forgot to do an assignment and the teacher simply let them turn it in the next day. The same thing occurred in my Spanish class. I was also surprised that when a student in my Spanish class missed his exam, the teacher asked a student to call him in the middle of the exam to remind him. A few of the students have missed many classes and the teacher reminds them of the importance of attending classes (although they are sophomores and should already know the punishment for missing more than a few). These students do not have as much responsibility as I expected they would, as they have our professor constantly reminding them the importance of coming to class (similarly to my mother reminding me when I was in high school). Before I started college I pictured colder professors who would say nothing to a student who slacked on their responsibilities, and instead would remain silent while lowering their grades. Although it’s a pleasant surprise that the professors are so nice and caring, I believe these students should take more initiative and realize their responsibilities.

In my dorm I was surprised by the lack of responsibility by some students who leave half-eaten food, dirty dishes and crumbs in the common room. The other day someone left a half-eaten piece of pizza and a half-empty bowl of soup in the common room for over a day before it was cleaned up (and I would bet that it was the cleaning lady, not the student, who cleaned it up). These students, however, do not have to clean up after themselves because someone else in the dorm, or the cleaning lady, will.

Also sports teams (I know freshmen on the baseball team have to do this) have to report their grades and how their lives are going to their coaches. Their coaches then guide them and let them know at what point they need to get a tutor. At first I thought students were completely on their own at college but its nice to know that everyone has someone looking out for them (I’m sure my advisor would help me in the same way a coach helps his players). I had assumed before coming here that I was completely responsible for my grades, and my life in general, while here but the truth is, there are so many people guiding us in appropriate directions I do not have as much freedom, and responsibility, as I thought.

The Science Behind Shopping

In light of the quickly approaching Black Friday I thought it would be interesting to analyze all of the subtle manipulating forces acting against consumers as they browse their favorite stores.

Wegmans, a grocery store that originated in Rochester, is the most popular grocery store in my town. At first not everyone was too thrilled about a new grocery store competing with our already existing Quality, but the company was smart and built its new location right next to our local elementary, middle and high schools. With its new prime location, Wegmans quickly became the go-to shopping spot for moms who were looking to quickly grab their groceries after dropping their kids off at school. Had the store been built away from the school, its popularity would have been slow coming and competition with Quality (which was located just on the outskirts of town) would’ve remained very competitive. Later, Wegmans gained popularity with the students themselves when it built a sub shop within its stores and attracted high school athletes who needed a meal in between school and games, but didn’t have time to drive to another restaurant or grocery store. Once inside the store the athletes would also feel the need to grab small snacks to bring with them on longer bus rides (since they were already within the store, they could quickly grab the snacks).

After establishing its prime location Wegmans became even subtler with its manipulation. Wegmans sells, and has always sold, the cheapest milk within twenty-five minutes of its location, and heavily advertises this fact. As a result, many shoppers will go into Wegmans for this great deal. The milk, however, is located in the very back corner of the store and there is no straight shot to get there. Instead, the store is designed as a maze (similar to Ikea) so shoppers have to wind down different aisles (with more expensive items) to reach the milk. By the time they reach the milk and get back to the check out lines, they have undoubtedly found more items that they need. Although these items may not be great deals, it is easier to get them with the milk than to go to Quality as well.

Shoppers in Wegmans may notice that not only are the aisles designed like mazes, but also aisles with more expensive items in them have tiny ridges in the flooring that make more noise as the cart passes over them and actually slow the cart down. This manipulation forces the shopper to spend more time in these aisles where the items are usually more expensive, and unnecessary. This is reported to slow the shopper down and cause a 6% increase in buys of items from these aisles.

Manipulation techniques such as these are not practiced only by Wegmans, although it was my prime example, but by other stores as well. Ikea is famous for its mazes, which shoppers become lost in and are then forced to spend more time wandering through the aisles looking for an exit. Malls employ this same technique. Stores that sell warm clothing reduce the air temperature inside, making the shopper cold and influencing them to buy warmer clothes. Manipulation of consumers is everywhere. Although it may begin with advertisements and brand names, it continues in store design.

Wisdom Teeth

Yesterday, I went to the dentist to get my wisdom teeth pulled. I knew that the operation would leave me in pain, but I was mentally prepared and unafraid...until I stepped into the operating room. As soon as I sat down on my chair, the doctor started hooking me up to a monitor while explaining the entire procedure to me. I was going to be put under via a needle and pass out for the next hour or so. When I wake up, my mouth will be numb and I will only begin to feel the pain a few hours later, once the numbing went away. I was going to be prescribed three different drugs to help with the pain and the swelling. Although I knew all of this and had spoken to various friends about their experiences so that I could better prepare myself, I totally lost it and began to cry. I’ve never been hooked up to a machine, which was intimidating, I have a huge fear of needle, they make me feel nauseous, and the idea of being put under scared me. I was about to miss an hour of my life without noticing that any time had past and no recollection of what happened within the hour.

The nurse tried to soothe me. She first explained that how I feel when the drugs are administered is how I will feel when I wake up. So, I should try to keep positive and calm. Then, she tried to assure me of her career experiences (she worked at the emergency room at some hospital, I wasn’t totally paying attention). But, her mini resume reminded me of the first day of class and how Professor Schwartz lied to us and asked, “How can you trust that I am the professor and that I have any credit?” Now, I didn’t think that someone had kidnapped the real doctor and the person talking to me was an actor, but I realized that she could have completely lied to me in order to ease me. At the time, I tried to forget about that possibility seeing as my surgery was in her hands.

The last thing my doctor said to calm me was, “This is a big experience for you, but we do this operation almost everyday,” which brought me back to perspective. It is funny how most professionals perform the same procedures everyday and routinize themselves with significant events for their clients. What was one of the most memorable days of my life thus far, or I guess non-memorable since I was passed out, for my doctor was just another day with another surgery with another patient.

May I have some Advil (ibuprofen)?

For my media(ted) art(i)FACT I brought in a Target brand bottle of ibuprofen. On the bottle it says “compare to active ingredient in Advil Ibuprofen tablets.” Advil is the name almost everyone immediately thinks of when they go to get a bottle of ibuprofen; I have many times by mistake referred to ibuprofen in general as Advil. But does that make it any different than the generic brands of the medicine? Probably not. But if you think that a brand of medicine works better than another then it might effectively do that for you as a result of the placebo effect. I previously wrote a blog post on the placebo effect and it’s pretty interesting; it has been proven time and time again that if we believe that a type of medicine works even if it is just a placebo, the placebo can affect us in ways that the real medicine would. Therefore if we think Advil works better than the Target brand Ibuprofen, it might for us even if the medicines themselves are exactly the same.

On the topic of name brands versus generic brands in general, Sabrina pointed out to me that the Target brand is really its own name brand. She told me that people actually want to buy the Target brand over other brands. Apparently the Target brand name is “up&up” which I didn’t even notice. Now that I look at the bottle again I do see the up&up logo; I had no idea previously that it was a Target brand though, I just knew that I bought it at Target. Because I didn't recognize the brand name and because it said compare to active ingredient in Advil, I just assumed that it was a generic brand, but it really isn't. When compared to a different brand of ibuprofen people may think that they should get the "up&up" brand instead, maybe even instead of Advil. The Target brand ibuprofen is cheaper than Advil and is probably a happy medium between an entirely unknown ibuprofen brand and the most well known. For many of us brand names do influence decisions to buy certain products over others. Though maybe some will prefer Target brand medicine over Advil itself, brand names often “mediate” buying decisions in some form or another.

Fair Enough to be Lovely?

For my media(ted) art(i)(FACT) I brought a picture off an online ad for ‘Fair and Lovely’, a fairness cream that’s sort of a cosmetic staple in South Asia. Fairness is traditionally considered a virtue in South Asia. Unilever basically endorsed a cultural cliché when it named its product as such. However, in doing so, it has mediated the idea of “loveliness,” which apparently means the same thing as “fairness.”

I feel like it’s been in the cosmetic industry since as far as I can remember. It has been so successful that now the market is swarming with fairness products that want to follow suit. However, it still maintains an upper hand over all the new products (in my opinion.) Naturally, Fair and Lovely has worked its way so comfortably into our natural vocabularies that now, ‘fair and lovely’ sounds like such a familiar idea. As such, what the artifact also mediated is the comfort level with which one can now associate fair with lovely.

The ads for the cream only reinforce the idea that’s already lucid from the name (this goes for all fairness products in general, to be honest.) One ad shows a young girl who dreams of becoming a cricket commentator but doesn’t even dare to go through with the selection process until of course she starts using the product. Once she does, she effortlessly makes it through the auditions. Another basically shows a marriage held together by Fair and Lovely. So, one more thing the artifact mediates is the idea of career and familial success.

Like I said, Fair and Lovely is only restating a culturally accepted notion. So, the roots to the problem trace back much deeper and it’s a problem that needs to be solved. But to sell the idea that this little tube of “loveliness” is the solution to the stigma that dark women face, how “fair” is it really?

Even Roger Wears a Rolex

Unfortunately I missed the class discussion on Thursday about Media(ted) arti(facts). However, I can’t stop thinking about how many things in our everyday lives are mediated. In my opinion, the definition of a Media(ted) artifacts are facts or objects that the media portrays in a way which the consumer is tricked into thinking facts are true, but are actually “artificial”. By true, I mean believing the claims that the producer boasts about are true.

For example, this morning I woke up and read the November issue of the ESPN magazine. I turned the cover page and there was a two page spread of Roger Federer on the red clay of the French Open, with a sparkling Rolex on his wrist. Not like he was posing of modeling, he was in mid-swing backhand. A quote under the picture in large white font read, “Roger wears one”

Rolex Watch Company prides themselves on being the best quality watch in the world, and who’s to argue? Marketing and advertising campaigns are meant to deceive the reader into really believing what is said, in this case the reader may walk away believing Rolex is the best watch in the world. This is obviously not true, because I am not a material person, and a watch is a watch and it tells time. But to some, a watch is not a watch, and quality matters. Not to say Rolex has this affect all the time, as I do not know much about the Rolex Watch Company, but sometimes objects are advertised so well on the market, they have a lasting affect in which even the replicas can sell for close to as much. For example, Jordan shoes, even the fakes can sell for $100 even $200 because the vintage Jordans are so valuable because the advertising and reputation values them to be.

Regardless if it is a Rolex, Jordan shoes, or TV shows all of these things are advertised on the market and cause the consumer to value them at much higher value than they really are. Jordan shoes are just a bunch of leather and other material sewn together, and Rolex is a bunch of higher quality metal constructed together. And TV shows such as Jersey shore are a bunch of people acting to a script, but the reality of Jersey Shore and the crowd that it draws automatically makes other reality television shows realistic.

Here a Bonus, There a Bonus

Nerf guns are, admittedly, a lot of fun to play around with. Despite everything we may say against it while talking about it in class, we know that we’re still going to point them at friends and bombard them with darts. There are a few things that come to mind, however, now that I look back at my Nerf gun that I didn’t really think of before.

When I first considered getting a Nerf gun, it was when my family visited me and took me to Target. My basic thought was “Hey, I need a Nerf gun for Humans vs Zombies. Let’s get one.” It was supposed to be simple. Of course, it didn’t turn out that way when the aisle was full of all the different types that the company had made. It took me a minute to look through all of them. Each had their own name that made me think of names of real gun models. And, of course, each box was emphasizing the good points of their product. They were all in competition with themselves.

I began to weigh the pros and cons of each. The big ones looked intimidating. The small ones seemed more practical. Each had something attached that made it “better” than the rest. Even the darts were different, from whistlers to suction cup ends. At that point, I started to feel overwhelmed and completely stupid. All I had wanted was something that would shoot Styrofoam darts at people who were pretending to be zombies. Instead, I had managed to stumble upon something that probably had a devoted fandom that knew the products as well as I knew Batman. (And I am quite the fan of Batman.) I basically gave up at that point, told myself I’ll ask my friends if they had any idea what was a good Nerf gun, and left.

The marketing strategy that Nerf had to convince people to buy their products had managed to backfire on me. The main point of the features of what made the gun “special” than the rest was to convince someone that they needed this toy to be superior to their other friends. It might even convince them to own multiple Nerf guns. If I hadn’t just given up in trying figuring out which one to get, I probably would have gotten one of the bigger ones. They had more, so the quick conclusion is that they’ll work better.

Well, it wasn’t the case. I won one of the big guns during a raffle. The rest of my friends had rented out the smaller, cheaper ones for Humans vs Zombies. We tested them both. If anything, the bigger gun was more of a hassle because it was bulkier. The longer barrel had improved accuracy, but it was such a small difference that it didn’t matter. In the end, I had chosen to strip away all of the extra parts and stick with the part that did what I needed: shoot Styrofoam bullets at my friends pretending to be zombies.

There’s a reason why the saying “less is more” is so valid. How many times have we agreed to get something that is over the basic just because it looks cooler and we could? Basic edition vs limited edition with features we’ll probably never touch. We’ll probably choose the flashier version. It just makes us feel good for that one instance to have something better than the rest. It’s one thing to get something because you know that you’ll use the bonus stuff. It’s another to get something with bonus stuff just because you can.

There’s always the nagging voice in the back of your head, telling you that you might possibly need the bonus stuff later on. You just don’t know when. Sometimes that voice is right: you’ll find a use to make all of the added stuff useful. But how often is that the case? Most of the time, you just feel good because you got more for your money. The question then becomes will you have actually used the “more” to make something enjoyable, or was it just instant gratification?

All I wanted was a basic Nerf gun. With the one I got, I manage to KISS (Keep It Simple, Sweetie/Stupid).

The Manipulative Nature of Games

For my media[ted] art(i)FACT, I brought in the rankings sheet of online turn-based strategy game that I used to play when I was in high school. To get a better understanding, the game plays a lot like chess; there is a board with spaces and 10 pieces on each side of the board. It differs from chess where each player chooses from about thirty different pieces and the pieces have different health, armor, and attack and defense points. The person who kills all the other person's pieces first wins. Even after two years of not playing, I am still please to check the website and see my username ranked as #2. It's this very video game that dictated a lot of my decisions in high school, as well as the decisions of many other the online users that I interacted with on a daily basis.

The game is manipulative, no doubt. It is purposefully trying to hook you in and make you abuse it as much as I actually did. When you first start playing the game, players are separated into two groups: greys and golds. The grey players (i.e. the standard, non-paying member) had limited pieces, could only stay in the lobby for a couple of minutes before being disconnected, and had their username and in-game chat text read in a grey color. The gold players (i.e. the $5-a-month paying member) had the all the grey units plus special gold-only units, the ability to stay in the lobby, the ability to make clans (which are like exclusive "fraternities" within the game), have access to an all-gold server, and have their name and in-game chat text read in a gold color. Obviously, once you get hooked onto the game (which is very easy), you need a gold account in order to stay competitive and relevant.

I was hooked and manipulated. Fortunately, I was good enough that the clan I was in would pay for me to have a gold account. Nonetheless, thousands of people every month would be pay to have this better "gold" status, which dictated much of the game politics.

It's not just this game that has this manipulative nature. It's all games. It's Halo 3, where you pay $50 for the game, $12 a month to play online, and $10 every 2 months when Halo comes out with new maps that you have to buy in order to continue to play online.

It's not even just video games. Think about all the casinos in the world! The casinos are obviously making the majority of the money, but many people get hooked and manipulated by the thought of winning-- and even better, winning real money. Many people have an gambling problem, and it's due to this manipulative nature of games-- the drive to win, in no matter what you do!

"It's just a game." Yeah right.

Parkside Whispering Pines

The item that I brought for class on Thursday was a free miniature golf pass for a course in Rochester, NY (of which, I keep around four in my wallet). Thinking of items we were to bring in, I immediately considered something that is essentially used by a company to increase its business. Looking inside my wallet, I was immediately reminded of the cards which I carry to increase its magnitude.

Analyzing the business practices of Parkside Miniature Golf, the deal they offer seems like a good one. As a result of getting a hole in one on the last hole, you are rewarded with a free game of golf. And with the slacker employees that they hire and merely a reliance on honesty, the free game cards are passed off rather quickly. The cards also seem to go because of the surprising simplicity of the 18th hole.

Yet, this practice of handing off miniature golf cards in exchange for a hole in one is a manipulation practice for the racketeers of Parkside Whispering Pines. Commonly, a group attends these miniature golf courses looking to have fun in a social setting. Of course, if you are just mini-golfing by yourself, that's cool too. Although I would have enough free passes to cover all of my friends, I doubt I would give them my passes. Therefore, out of the four people that are going to play golf, only one has a free pass. I ignore the inordinately high prices but my friends are forced to pay them. I'll suggest mini-golfing as an activity because I have the free pass. However, my friends continue to keep the course in business.

Meanwhile, the cost of keeping up a mini-golf course is practically nothing, perhaps taxes are the only thing that the course needs to pay. Therefore, they are able to profit through enticing consumers with free passes to continue to come back to the course.

Furthermore, on my ticket there is also an add for the diner located next door. Given a free pass and after a round of golf when I'm usually famished, the diner becomes a beacon of sustenance for my withering body. The free pass thus influences me to go the diner as well.

"For a limited time only"

For my media(ted) art(i)FACT, I brought in a 2-Disc Limited Edition version of Pirates of the Caribbean 3. Now I needed no motivation to buy this movie partly because it was a gift and partly because I love all the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and want to own them just on principle, but the “only available for a short time” gag has gotten me before. I loved Disney movies when I was a kid and sometimes I enjoy watching them again but that does not mean that I want to own all of them. But every time they take a movie out of the “Disney Vault” and claim that they are going to lock it up again soon, I have the urge to buy it. (This is how I ended up with both Sleeping Beauty and Beauty and the Beast, each of which I have watched exactly once.) I always ask myself, “what if I want it later and I can’t get it?”

Limiting the availability of a product is a great way to manipulate consumers. It makes the product appear special and more valuable and makes the consumer take into consideration whether they might want it not just right now but at some point in their lives. I would not have gotten those Disney movies when I did, if I had known I would be able to get them any time I wanted.

Sales use the same concept. Certain products cost less, but only for a limited time. This causes many consumers to stock up on items they might not have otherwise gotten because they feel they are getting “more for their money.” With Thanksgiving coming up, Black Friday is a perfect example of the effectiveness of this tactic. Tens of thousands of people get up ridiculously early and flood stores, trampling each other and generally acting crazy because this is the one day of the year that they can buy products at a drastically reduced price.

I had never realized quite how much power the retail industry has over the way we spend our time and money.

Sports and Choices

Since we all got to briefly present and discuss each of our mediated artifacts, I thought this would be a good chance to talk about the other object that I had considered bringing: a soccer ball. I decided against bringing this to class because I didn’t especially feel like carrying it around all day, but I think that it represents the pressures and choices that a lot of people our age make.

A soccer ball can represent the choice we make to become involved in sports. I know that when I was in kindergarten, I started playing soccer because my older sister played, and I loved to do everything she did. I found that I did actually love it, but later I also realized that I loved running. My decision to get involved in running was also influenced by someone else; the track coach who was looking for more members of the track team. My decision to join sports was not just my own, but I continued playing because I loved the feeling of a great workout, and having a close team of friends that enjoyed the same things I did.

People join sports for many reasons, although it’s often a decision that is influenced by some external force. Many people join sports because their parents want them to, some do it to make friends, some just love the sport, and others do it for all of these reasons. The external pressures to make certain decisions are not necessarily dictated by other people; hometown is also a major factor in the sports opportunities for athletes. Certain areas tend to have superior sports programs than others, for example high school soccer programs in New York and California tend to be better than those in Idaho. On such a large scale, the area you live in may dictate what sport you are pressured to join. If you live in Utah, you’re probably more likely to become a skier than if you live in Hawaii. Even on a smaller scale, the athletic opportunities can vary from city to suburb. The other night, I asked my friend, who plays squash, why she had joined squash. She told me that she grew up in a neighborhood that had squash courts at the country club down the road, so since her family had a membership and it was so accessible, she gravitated to that sport. I on the other hand, had hardly heard of squash before coming to college; I hadn’t realized that it could be a varsity sport at high schools or colleges. Growing up in the city, squash wasn’t a popular sport, and even now I wouldn’t even know where to find the nearest squash court.

This ties in an even larger, broader pressure in deciding the sports we play: socio-economic status. Although it would be nice to have the chance to play any sport, realistically, few have that opportunity. Not everyone can afford sports equipment, and although equipment prices vary (running is probably a lot cheaper than horseback riding), people’s opportunities are often very limited by socio-economic status. Equipment price or membership fees aren’t the only monetary pressure that potential athletes face. In high school, a lot of my classmates needed to have after school jobs, but still wanted to join a sports team. Practice flexibility limited their choices; track practice could be completed at alternative hours, although soccer practice couldn’t. The sports options these students had were limited because of their need for employment, while students of a higher socio-economic status did not have these limitations.

Can i has internetz?

In reply to Kristy's mediated artifact presentation on the internet and online identities, I have a few anecdotes to share about being on the "extreme" side of having online aliases.

#1 FANFICTION
As most of you probably know from my previous blog posts, I used to write fanfiction for anime and video games. At first I was virtually (haha, pun) a nobody on the site when using the third person, but once I switched to the second-person, reader-insert, which was in demand, my popularity rose to the point where I was suddenly being some readers addressed as -sama. -sama is a Japanese honorific that indicates a high level of respect and in the site I was on, it was an unofficial honor. It was cute. Until I started getting emails from readers that wanted to be friends on facebook. Or when readers started linking me to fanart they drew for my fanfiction (fan-fan-work?). But what hit my tolerance for internet creeping: when readers found and contacted me on other websites asking me if I were so-and-so on the fanfiction site.

But in the position of having (-insert obnoxious stats sharing-) :
-"favorited" by over 40 users
-stories "favorited"over 300 times
-over 700 reviews (comments, usually positive)
-an average of over 1,500 hits per chapter per story (hits being chapter views); one one-shot even had near 3,000 hits on its own.

I couldn't just be just "another" "regular" fan. I had to act with a purpose. I never outlined my stories and wrote chapters in one sitting, but to fulfill their image of an "authoress" I assured that there were drafts and conclusions already planned. I had to put in more research reviewing game scripts to make sure that there were no plot holes. I had to reread mangas to analyze characters to portray them as accurately as possible. Soon, writing fanfiction felt like an obligation to the reader. When I announced that I would be on hiatus because of college applications and later that I was moving on from my fanfiction writing, some readers wished me good luck and other expressed their sympathy in that "the real world" was interfering with the online reality we shared. To some readers, it hadn't even occurred to them that I was even a few years younger than them and had was a separate person IRL.

And as a quick tip I picked up: HOW TO GET POPULAR ON ANIME FANFICTION SITES FAST: ROMANCE, DRAMA, HUMOR, AND A NICE DOSE OF SEXUAL INNUENDOS/TENSIONS. I'm telling you... fangirls can get... pretty demanding. (I was once message if I would write a sex scene. I couldn't bring myself to even try, but if I did, I'm sure it would have added another few hundred hits.)

#2 BETTER OFF AS A GUY (THE AMANDA PROJECT AND SABASTIAN; GAIAONLINE)

In my sophomore year of high school, one of classmates was promoting her mother's recently published work, the Amanda Project. It was an interactive mystery, and readers were encouraged to go online and participate in how the story would unfold (quite literally as elements on the online forums would be integrated in later books). Many of my classmates made an account while it was a fad in my grade, and I decided to jump the bandwagon. On a whim, I decided to register as a male. Lo and behold, Sebastian, a male who liked occasional chick flicks, action movies, comics, rock and electronic music, and was single. The only thing that wasn't "true" was my gender. I wrote a couple of blog posts using my voice and girls adored how I was so well-written, romantic, and not a stereotypical "dude."

It was amusing UNTIL I started receiving messages from girls asking me if I lived in X and attended Y school because I reminded them of somebody they knew. OR when girls linked me to their facebooks and expressed their interests in being a friend. Some were even more straightforward and asked me if I would be interested in dating them (internet dates, idk). To some of them, I represented the "perfect boyfriend." The only lie I made up was that I played bass (I can't play instruments for my life) and was in a band; I only did so that I could share a poem under the guise of "lyrics." It only amped my fictional sex appeal. So, lesson learned, I dumped the site and broke some hearts.

But even before the whole fiasco on the Amanda Project, I had a second account on Gaia (a "mule") that was a male since I wanted to get male-items to sell on my female account. If you clicked on the avatar's profile it would have led to an empty page with only one friend, my main account. The usernames were literally Silent Departures and Silence Departed. It was OBVIOUS. Yet, I posted under the male account and posed as a twin with my best friend who also had a male account. We had our avatars resemble each others and we trolled around. Suddenly, we were getting in "bro-chats" in where other guys asked about which female video game characters we thought were the hottest and pursued by females who though it was "cool" that we were twins. It made for a great ongoing joke between my friends, but once I started getting hit on by other users, who according their profiles were as young as 13, I called quits and even posted on my profile that it was just a second account.

So, I've learned my lesson: the internet's a scary place.

What's your sign? Does it matter?

My mediated artifact is the horoscope section from Seventeen Magazine. With respect to advertisement, the page is clearly targeted towards teenage girls (if the title of the magazine did not give it away). The color scheme is an assortment of reds and oranges and the “genres” are: girl talk, hot parties, flirty fun, crazy drama and amazing makeover. These are many of the themes found in stereotypical teenage girl movies like Clueless (shocker). In addition, the horoscopes themselves are written for a heterosexual female because the “cutie” who is going to start flirting with you around the 15th is explicitly stated to be a guy. Also, the issues presented in each of the signs are mostly related to “girl” problems. For example, “Ever since your BFF started dating one guy seriously, you’ve been so jealous,” and “You and cutie outside your circle have been texting like crazy, and the messages are getting flirty! But when he doesn’t reply at the start of the month, you’ll begin to doubt your bond.” In the media, girls are presented as more jealous, nit picky, and insecure about dating situations and these horoscopes are re-enforcing those stereotypes. But, can I really complain? The horoscope section is usually the first thing I read when I get a new magazine, so clearly the writers have done something right. The double sword of stereotypes is that even though they are overly simplified, they do hold some value of truth. So, although I am poking fun at my own gender a bit, I do enjoy those movies and fall into the trap of what I am “supposed” to like.

I think there is some truth to horoscopes in the sense that your sign can reveal parts of your personality. But, the ones found online and in magazines have become horribly cliched and manipulated by the media to target a specific demographic (women) and play off of their insecurities. They don’t reveal any personality traits, they just make up vague events that can be interpreted so broadly that many of the horoscopes do come true. For Leo this month, a friend is complaining and by mid-month you are energized to help her. Well, who doesn’t have a friend that complains? Especially in October when midterms are coming up (and remember this magazine is for highschool/college women). And, as a friend, you should support and energize him/her. So, the Leo horoscope is able to apply to just about anyone.

However, not only do horoscopes mediate me, but I also mediate it. There have been times when I’ve manipulated my own life so that it fits with the horoscope given (disclaimer: this was at an earlier and more naive time in my life). So, if my horoscope of the day said, “Be adventurous! The rewards will pay off,” in the next decision I made I would strongly consider taking the adventurous route.

Are you a Boy? Or are you a Girl?

Most of the people I know have some experience with the Pokemon video game series. My own was mainly gained over the shoulder of my brother, although I inherited the Crystal version second-hand after my brothers had moved on to different games. To a certain extent, I view Pokemon like Harry Potter, as a staple of my generation's childhood. Pokemon affects even people who don't get into it themselves, just through some good ol' cultural osmosis.

So when every game since the one I started on has pretty much opened up by asking the player to choose their gender, one might say that there is a lot of cultural weight behind this set-up.

My mediated artifact was a screenshot of a playthrough Pokemon, asking the player if they are a boy or if they are a girl. This single decision affects how the character's sprite looks for the duration of the game, and at least in Crystal is pretty much the only question that will allow the player to determine their character's identity.

This particular question buys into a binary gender system, seeming to only acknowledge two different genders. In real life, of course, there are people who can't quite so neatly identify themselves, sometimes feeling male, sometimes feeling female, or feeling androgynous or simply confused. Furthermore, even people who can fit their self-identified gender to the binary system have a range of feminine and masculine traits (if we can even clearly define what is "masculine" and what is "feminine") and are not all uniform in their expression of gender.

Unfortunately, this game limits gender expression to two possible sprites. While understandable that video game designers can't supply an infinite number of options for the player, the phrasing of the question does indeed exert pressure on children to fit themselves to a very limited perspective of gender.

The gender question is one of the first in the game, and is the question that determines the most attributes of the player-character. This seems almost to imply that the most important characteristic of a person is gender. After all, why aren't the video game designers giving people different options in terms of the personalities of their sprites, or their family backgrounds, or other possible attributes? Presumably unintentionally, the game has prioritized gender as the characteristic people care about the most.

Media representations can affect not only how other people view certain segments of the population, but also how those people view themselves. Models in fashion magazines exert pressure on the idea of who can be considered beautiful; the lack of representation of certain ethnic groups in early television programming gave them a view of themselves as "outsiders"; and now, I have to simultaneously applaud the efforts to include female representation in storylines and cringe at the assumptions that the media makes in order to do so.

I look back fondly at games like Pokemon and am glad that I was lucky enough to be born in an era of such entertaining cultural staples. However, sometimes, I have to wonder what fingerprints these games have left on my perspective of the world... and whether or not I really want them there.

Our class on others' minds!

Here's that message I told you about... the email I received from a parent of one of my students from last semester: 

"You may recall me as the father of the student who blogged about your class. I spend a great deal of time thinking on this subject and its relation to CNF, that fuzzy place what led O’Brien to title The Things They Carried “A Fiction”, as a distinct class from memoir and novel.

Anyway, here’s something I came across on Maud Newton’s blog and just cribbed straight  onto ToulouseStreet.net, that you might find interesting as a handout if you teach this class again. Or not. It just put me immediately in mind of your class and our exchange and since I had your email, I thought I’d send it along."

http://toulousestreet.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/memory-imagination/

Clearly our discussions are thought provoking and potentially far reaching. So keep it up!

A Deterioration of Truth

As most people have probably heard, a scandal at Penn State University has been all over the media for the past week. An important part of the scandal took place back in 2002. The scandal involves Penn State’s Division I football coach Joe Paterno failing to report to the police incidents of sexual harassment by his former assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, of various younger boys. Paterno apparently reported the incident to his superiors, who barred Sandusky from bringing boys back to the football locker room. This incident, finally uncovered, illustrates how easily truth can be manipulated.

Everyone is reporting different stories to the media. McQueary, the man who originally informed Paterno about Sandusky’ s actions, said he reported the incident in detail to Paterno. Paterno claims he heard it was just something of a sexual nature. Eventually, the story is diluted to the point where an act of rape became just “horsing around” (pennlive.com). The tricky thing about this scandal is that it is all based on hearsay. It is one man’s word against another man’s word; determining the truth in this situation will prove to be quite difficult. With all the conflicting stories, clearly some people are lying.

It is interesting how the truth of a situation also depends upon who is voicing this truth. Technically, Paterno did nothing wrong by following procedure and reporting the incident to officials above him. So then why is everyone holding him responsible for covering up this heinous crime? Records show that there was a new janitor who, a couple years earlier, witnessed Sandusky sexually abusing a child in the locker room. Yet, no one is holding the janitor responsible for not reporting what he saw to the police. People are speculating that the reason for pinning responsibility on Paterno, and not the new janitor, is because Paterno was the only person from whom the police would believe this hideous truth. It was likely the new janitor could have reported the incident, but Penn State would have quickly covered up the incident by challenging the validity of a janitor and quickly firing him. Because Paterno was the most powerful man at PSU, police would have accepted the truth from him.

The implications stemming from this incident clearly illustrate the malleability of truth. As we see with this PSU scandal, too often the truth can get diluted when it is constantly retold. Not only does the truth change with every additional person who spreads it, but it also contains less and less value as it is spread, because such hearsay lacks credibility. Additionally, the same truth can carry different weight, depending on who is voicing it and how much power that person has. It is often said “with great power comes great responsibility”. This responsibility can sometimes be a burden, when it requires the revealing of a heavy truth, but it is necessary, because the power behind a person is sometimes what renders the truth to be credible.

While the legal culpability of Joe Paterno is uncertain; however, it is very clear that he failed in his duty, and therefore hurt many, by failing to speak out in the name of truth.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/who_knew_what_about_jerry_sand.html