Fisman, Ray. "Illegal Contact: Does watching football lead to domestic violence?" Slate. 23 November 2009. Slate Magazine. 7 December 2009. http://www.slate.com/id/2236426/.
This article, written by Ray Fisman, discusses the correlation between watching football and domestic violence. It discusses that there are usually two ways domestic violence occurs. One of these is that domestic violence is the "explosive result when years of simmering tensions finally come to a boil." Another way is more oppurtunistic in that it is "impulsive lashing out at whichever victim is close at hand in a moment of anger." An upsetting loss may provide the trigger for either of these to occur. It describes research conducted by Gordon Dahl and David Card, where they examined the effects of football team's loss. In their research , they found that "losses by favored teams—that is, painful losses—are associated with an 8 percent increase in intimate partner violence." Even though this data may prove a correlation between football viewing and violence, it does not prove that it is the root cause of the violence. It may prove as a trigger but this isn't to say it wouldn't have happened anyway. Violence, in some cases, just needs a trigger and in these cases, it provides the proper stimulus.
After reading this article, I was extremely shocked about these findings. But after examining it further, I wasn't that suprised, because I realized that for some fanatics football can be everything in their life. I think that it is absurd that someone would commit these acts over a football game, but I agree with something the author said, "rather than blaming football, we may be best off focusing on addressing the more fundamental problems underlying abusive relationships." There is obviously something wrong with these relationships in the first place, and football just serves as a catalyst for this underlying issue to be broadcasted in the form of domestic violence. This suggests that football isn't innately evil, and although it is sad that it may instigate violent events in some relationships, people shouldn't be blaming football for these events. The root of these problems is much deeper. As the saying goes, "it's better to drain the swamp then swat the mosquitos." We must look deeper and solve the woes causing the tension leading to domestic violence. It is interesting that football can instigate these happenings, but I'm sure that any number of things could trigger these events. Football, in this case, seems an arbitrary coincidence.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Video Game Jerks. Right?
Brophy-Warren, Jamin. "Et tu, Mario? Murder, Looting, Pizza Theft and other hazards of cooperative video-gaming." Slate. 13 November 2009. Slate Magazine. 15 November 2009. http://www.slate.com/id/2235587/pagenum/all/#p2
This article, by Jamin Brophy-Warren, discusses the problems with cooperative video-gaming. He starts with an introduction of him testing The New Super Mario Bros. co-op video game with 3 random strangers. One of the random strangers is an extremely annoying team mate in this game, and he "felt no inklings of team spirit and proceeded to stomp on my head, steal my power-ups..." He traces his angry feelings toward this team mate back to his feelings toward his brother, when they would play nintendo with each other. There aren't really any consequences for acts performed within the game. There may be some shunning of the people performing these heinous acts within the game, but "games allow us to act out the worst of human pathologies and encourage behaviors that would get us yelled at, arrested, or killed in the real world." With no no regulations within the game and no consequences in the real world, there isn't anything stopping people from performing acts in the game.
There isn't anything worse in this world than being shot by a team mate in a nintendo game. When it happens, there isn't much you can say except "what the heck?" It isn't really a big deal, but it sure does seem like it when you are playing the game. Nobody will be arrested for friendly fire within a nintendo game, but I think that it does show what kind of person the offender is. These type of people, the "win at any cost" kind of people are really lame to play with, because they don't make a good team mate at all. Video games give users the power to do what they want when they want, and it is what people do under these conditions that truly show the content of someone's character. These type of players drag the team down when they only have their own interests in mind. They may think that they are a valuable asset to the team, but in reality, they are the "Poseidon to my Odysseus—yes, it felt that epic—an enemy bent on ensuring that I would never reach the promised land." I am a pretty competetive person, but I can share the vision of a team and succeed. But this article truly shows that when some people are given the chance to do things without without real consequence, they take advantage of it. Nintendo gives people that oppurtunity.
This article, by Jamin Brophy-Warren, discusses the problems with cooperative video-gaming. He starts with an introduction of him testing The New Super Mario Bros. co-op video game with 3 random strangers. One of the random strangers is an extremely annoying team mate in this game, and he "felt no inklings of team spirit and proceeded to stomp on my head, steal my power-ups..." He traces his angry feelings toward this team mate back to his feelings toward his brother, when they would play nintendo with each other. There aren't really any consequences for acts performed within the game. There may be some shunning of the people performing these heinous acts within the game, but "games allow us to act out the worst of human pathologies and encourage behaviors that would get us yelled at, arrested, or killed in the real world." With no no regulations within the game and no consequences in the real world, there isn't anything stopping people from performing acts in the game.
There isn't anything worse in this world than being shot by a team mate in a nintendo game. When it happens, there isn't much you can say except "what the heck?" It isn't really a big deal, but it sure does seem like it when you are playing the game. Nobody will be arrested for friendly fire within a nintendo game, but I think that it does show what kind of person the offender is. These type of people, the "win at any cost" kind of people are really lame to play with, because they don't make a good team mate at all. Video games give users the power to do what they want when they want, and it is what people do under these conditions that truly show the content of someone's character. These type of players drag the team down when they only have their own interests in mind. They may think that they are a valuable asset to the team, but in reality, they are the "Poseidon to my Odysseus—yes, it felt that epic—an enemy bent on ensuring that I would never reach the promised land." I am a pretty competetive person, but I can share the vision of a team and succeed. But this article truly shows that when some people are given the chance to do things without without real consequence, they take advantage of it. Nintendo gives people that oppurtunity.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Death of the Avatars
Nicholson, Chris. "Virtual Estates Lead to Real-World Headaches." New York Times. 1 Nov. 2009. New York Times. 1 Nov. 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/technology/internet/02assets.html?pagewanted=1&ref=technology
This article by Chris Nicholson describes what happens to virtual assets when the owner of these assets dies. It shows examples of what happens to the assets of the avatar when the user dies. One of the examples of is of Leto Yoshiro and Enchant Jacques, who met in the virtual world Second Life. Their avatars got married and bought an island. Leto later died, and with that the island and all of their belongings were erased because of the contract he signed with the creators of Second Life. Another example is when a "Chinese teenager known as Snowly died of a stroke in late 2005 after spending three consecutive days in a game." The game was World of Warcraft, and after he died, his clan wanted to hold a memorial in his honor. During this memorial, a rival clan attacked and slaughtered the mourning game users. People were angry about this, because they compared this event to attacking mourners at a real life funeral. These examples are extreme, but all of us will experience something like this whether it be an e-mail or facebook account.
I thought this article was really interesting. I have never really thought about what would happen to my accounts after I die, and frankly, I don't really care. I mean I will be dead. I think that it is kind of pathetic that America and the world is coming to the point where virtual assets' importance is increasing to the point where they matter as much as literal assets. I guess I understand why they would be so important to people. These virtual worlds are some people's lives, as shown in the examples of the boy spending 3 days on World of Warcraft and on Second Life marriages. This world is shifting towards technology, and I think soon there will be much more debate about these "virtual wills." I think that the best solution for when some user dies is the "erasure or access--and if the choice was access, to name an executor." This executor receives the passwords for the person that has died.
This article by Chris Nicholson describes what happens to virtual assets when the owner of these assets dies. It shows examples of what happens to the assets of the avatar when the user dies. One of the examples of is of Leto Yoshiro and Enchant Jacques, who met in the virtual world Second Life. Their avatars got married and bought an island. Leto later died, and with that the island and all of their belongings were erased because of the contract he signed with the creators of Second Life. Another example is when a "Chinese teenager known as Snowly died of a stroke in late 2005 after spending three consecutive days in a game." The game was World of Warcraft, and after he died, his clan wanted to hold a memorial in his honor. During this memorial, a rival clan attacked and slaughtered the mourning game users. People were angry about this, because they compared this event to attacking mourners at a real life funeral. These examples are extreme, but all of us will experience something like this whether it be an e-mail or facebook account.
I thought this article was really interesting. I have never really thought about what would happen to my accounts after I die, and frankly, I don't really care. I mean I will be dead. I think that it is kind of pathetic that America and the world is coming to the point where virtual assets' importance is increasing to the point where they matter as much as literal assets. I guess I understand why they would be so important to people. These virtual worlds are some people's lives, as shown in the examples of the boy spending 3 days on World of Warcraft and on Second Life marriages. This world is shifting towards technology, and I think soon there will be much more debate about these "virtual wills." I think that the best solution for when some user dies is the "erasure or access--and if the choice was access, to name an executor." This executor receives the passwords for the person that has died.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Utilizing Important People in Commercials
Stevenson, Seth. "Enter the Big Cheese: is it Smart to Put Your CEO in Your Ad Campaign?." Slate. 12 Oct. 2009. Slate Magazine. 12 Oct. 2009. http://www.slate.com/id/2232188/
This article discusses how putting a company's CEO in their commercials influences the viewer's image of the company. The author mostly discusses the examples of Dan Hesse and Ed Whitacre, but he also throws in the example of James Dyson. In the case of Dan Hesse, the CEO of Sprint, "putting one sincere, appealing human face on the brand might be worth a thousand jokey little ads." This can be incredibly effective because Sprint, however subtly it may be, is putting a face or a personality to the company. Dyson vacuums use their CEO extremely effectively: "He's not just a guy who designed a vacuum and assures you of its quality. He also wears faded t-shirts and has nice pecs. He's cool! Which makes the brand cool." GM also employs this strategy, but the purpose is kind of different. These commercials, featuring the CEO Ed Whitacre, are kind of an apology for the fact that they haven't been doing well lately, and he demonstrates this by introducing an "earth-shattering money-back guarantee." The main purpose of these commercials is to show that "there's a person at the helm of the company who stands behind the product."
I think that these ads can be extremely effective. I don't know exactly why, but I think that the quote "putting one sincere, appealing human face on the brand might be worth a thousand jokey little ads" is really true. I don't really watch many commercials since the advent of the DVR, but there are some commercials I have seen that have no actual value. These commercials seem at least somewhat sincere, because the CEO is taking his time to convey this message. In the GM case, it just seemed kind of desperate to me, because GM is struggling, and everyone knows that they are struggling. The author did refute this by saying that "[Whitacre is] meant to look as though he's ducked out of his office only reluctantly, to spend a few minutes shooting this ad, all the while fiercely itching to get back to the hard work of improving GM." But when I viewed this add, I didn't see this at all. I don't think the Sprint or Dyson commercials sounded desperate. They just sounded like someone who supported their product and were willing to endorse it. Overall, I think these commercials will have a bigger impact than other commercials, because they actually show something of value; whereas some commercials, like the caveman or gecko Geico commercials, are funny but completely useless. I am getting tired of them and think they should be stopped forever because they are the scum of the earth. Commercials can be funny, but I think that these CEO commercials convey an actual message.
This article discusses how putting a company's CEO in their commercials influences the viewer's image of the company. The author mostly discusses the examples of Dan Hesse and Ed Whitacre, but he also throws in the example of James Dyson. In the case of Dan Hesse, the CEO of Sprint, "putting one sincere, appealing human face on the brand might be worth a thousand jokey little ads." This can be incredibly effective because Sprint, however subtly it may be, is putting a face or a personality to the company. Dyson vacuums use their CEO extremely effectively: "He's not just a guy who designed a vacuum and assures you of its quality. He also wears faded t-shirts and has nice pecs. He's cool! Which makes the brand cool." GM also employs this strategy, but the purpose is kind of different. These commercials, featuring the CEO Ed Whitacre, are kind of an apology for the fact that they haven't been doing well lately, and he demonstrates this by introducing an "earth-shattering money-back guarantee." The main purpose of these commercials is to show that "there's a person at the helm of the company who stands behind the product."
I think that these ads can be extremely effective. I don't know exactly why, but I think that the quote "putting one sincere, appealing human face on the brand might be worth a thousand jokey little ads" is really true. I don't really watch many commercials since the advent of the DVR, but there are some commercials I have seen that have no actual value. These commercials seem at least somewhat sincere, because the CEO is taking his time to convey this message. In the GM case, it just seemed kind of desperate to me, because GM is struggling, and everyone knows that they are struggling. The author did refute this by saying that "[Whitacre is] meant to look as though he's ducked out of his office only reluctantly, to spend a few minutes shooting this ad, all the while fiercely itching to get back to the hard work of improving GM." But when I viewed this add, I didn't see this at all. I don't think the Sprint or Dyson commercials sounded desperate. They just sounded like someone who supported their product and were willing to endorse it. Overall, I think these commercials will have a bigger impact than other commercials, because they actually show something of value; whereas some commercials, like the caveman or gecko Geico commercials, are funny but completely useless. I am getting tired of them and think they should be stopped forever because they are the scum of the earth. Commercials can be funny, but I think that these CEO commercials convey an actual message.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Steinberger, Mike. "We're all wine critics now: How the Internet has democratized drinking." Slate. 15 Sept. 2009. Slate Magazine. 27 Sept. 2009. http://www.slate.com/id/2229518/pagenum/all/#p2
This article discusses how the profession of expert wine taster is disappearing because sharing your opinion is becoming easier with the internet. Now, people aren't really trusting just one critic. They are exploring different websites and archives to discuss and rate different wines. One of these archives is "CellarTracker," which is a website with "a database of more than 1 million tasting notes." Although, "CellarTracker hasn't usurped professional wine critics," it is starting to make sharing your opinion easier. It is also "forcing them[wine critics] to justify their existences to an unprecedented degree," and this seems logical. If you can read many reviews for a wine, from many different people, why should one "expert's" opinion count over these views. "We are moving from a monologue to a dialogue." More and more people are contributing, and every person that contributes debunks official wine critics more and more. A good example of this is wine expert, Jay Miller, who gave a "Sierra Carche" a 96 score, when in all reality it was "terrible." "A decade ago . . . they [consumers] would have given his [Miller's] palate the benefit of the doubt. Now, though, consumers are far more confident in their own tastes and are no longer quite so deferential."
I don't care about wine. I won't ever care about wine. But I think this article represents the switch from "a monologue to a dialogue." This is occurring more and more in different areas of life. People are sharing their opinion on different subjects and expertise doesn't matter, in some areas. I think that this switch is good for society in some facets, but bad in other facets. I think that in areas like wine tasting it is good because "t is a matter of taste, and taste differs from one person to the next." But in some areas, such as in politics or science, I don't think that the masses should overrule the experts. This is because in some areas experts have specialized knowledge not available to regular people and really do know what they are talking about. They are educated in the subject matter. With anyone being able to share their feelings, someone who isn't educated in the subject matter can bring a lot of people to their side, if they have a convincing voice.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Customer Service via Internet
Farhad, Manjoo. Tweeting Avengers. 1 Sep. 2009. Slate Magazine. 13 Sep. 2009 .
In this article, Manjoo Farhad discusses the increasing use of Twitter and other websites to file complaints against different companies. Bob Garfield, founder of comcastmusdie.com, which later became Customer-Circus.com, declared "war" against Comcast after a mess with customer service. After he made this website, Comcast quickly responded to his complaint and to many other dissatisfied customers that posted concerns on this website. Comcast now has a "team [set up] to respond quickly to online grumbling." There is a similar example of this with Heather Armstrong, who complained about a Maytag washing machine she was having problems with. After tweeting, "DON'T EVER BUY A MAYTAG," a company executive hastily sent her the parts necessary to fix her washing machine. A competing company even sent her a new washing machine. Both these examples happened after long exchanges with customer service. So what exactly makes a tweet so much more powerful than a phone call? It is the ability to communicate a message to the masses, but it also may help that both these examples involve highly influential internet figures. This success doesn't necessarily translate to a regular consumer. The chance of being noticed by a company increases with the amount of "followers" one has.
I remember working at a call center the summer of my ninth grade year. I didn't work in customer service, but sometimes I would need to take customer service calls. When this happened, oftentimes, there wasn't much I could do to help the customer because it involved something much higher than me. This article is good because it shows that people are getting helped by filing complaints on different websites. It is quite similar to a call center in some ways, though, because for the regular person who doesn't have many "friends or followers," it probably doesn't make a difference if they post something online. It may influence some friends, but unless their complaint reaches a large market then the company won't really take much concern. This article also concerns me, however, because most people don't even think to post complaints on a website. Does this mean that eventually people who don't use the internet won't get served? Is this the beginning of the end for customer service by phone and the beginning of it by internet? Companies like Comcast and Maytag will answer complaints on line, but other companies like United Airlines and Directv don't answer complaints, even from people with a lot of internet influence. This shows that there is still a way to go till customer service is all online, if it ever will be, but it is a possibility that someday it will be. And right now, maybe it is a good think that both people can use both mediums to get help and answers from companies.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
One Immovable Object of My Life: TV
Carter, Bill. "Comedy Central Tries to Gauge Passion of Its Viewers". New York Times. 8/30/09 .
In this article, Carter discusses the loyalty of the viewers of the hit news report satires The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report. He reviews research performed by Harris Interactive, which proves that the viewers of these two shows "out and out love" them much more than the fans of any other shows. What exactly causes the viewers to love these shows? According to the Harris research, it is because of the "emotional connection" viewers have to these shows. It later discusses the application of these statistics that prove many things about the fans of these shows and about the shows themselves. The main application for this research is advertising. The director of media investments at Carat USA, Andy Donchin, says "'passion, engagement--that is so huge to us.'" And the research shows that the viewers of these hit TV shows are the most "passionate." So shouldn't these advertising companies be trying to exploit this by getting their product's commercials to air during these shows? Shouldn't these commercial spots be hot beds for advertising? Andy Donchin says "'I’d hate to say they can charge a premium,'" but in my opinion, according to this, they can.
As school progresses and the workload increases, there is one question in my life that is still lingering. This question is, "in which TV shows does my true allegiance lie?" I have already made some cuts to my summer television regiment, but I am starting to realize that these cuts aren't going to cut it. I going to need to narrow down my list even more. This is a very trying time in my life, because there is so much to be watched, but not nearly enough time. As I type this, I can think of countless shows burning a hole in my DVR. I'm starting to worry if I will be able to pay the accumulating debt of TV shows. This article made me realize that each of the shows that is competing for a place in my heart have advertising agencies competing for time slots. Of course, with the invention of DVR, I haven't watched a commercial in a long time. Before my full utilization of the DVR, I did watch commercials., and I can't remember how many times I saw commercials for a beer with a miraculous -10 calories or a car both luxurious and sexy. But now I just don't have the time to waste on watching commercials. There is too much precious TV to be watched. Even with my lack of commercial viewing, I am sure people do watch commercials, and it's to these people these agencies are trying to buy a place for their product in their hearts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)