Google and Gadgets

A few weeks ago, I wrote about an Italian legal battle that might lead to the imminent death of Google. Don't worry too much, though; even taking into account this bothersome court case, my personal belief is that Google is here to stay. And it this post I'll tell you why: It's everywhere.

And soon it might get even bigger.

Picture this: You're in your living room watching the news when, during a report about a protest march, you see a full-screen shot of your friend's son, wearing a very large panda costume. With a click of the remote, you open your email on the bottom of the TV screen and then, with the miniature keyboard built into your remote, tap out a short message to your friend, including a link to this news segment. By the time you finish writing, a news anchor is talking about some recipe contest you don't care about, so with another click of the remote you open up your browser, Google Chrome, to surf the web.

According to a New York Times article, "Google and Partners Seek TV Foothold," Google, Intel, and Sony are joining forces to bring the Internet to your television set—Google providing the software (i.e., the web browser), Intel bringing the Atom computer chips that will give TV sets the power to run Web software, and Sony contributing the actual TV sets.*

Now, I didn't realize this, but apparently the technology is already available to run certain websites, such as Netflix, on your television. But what the Google-Intel-Sony consortium is planning is so much more than just a few websites—it's the whole Internet, right there on your TV, accessible with a click of the remote.

Folks, this is what's called "horizontal integration," when a corporation sinks its teeth into another industry. This is also "synergy," when those parts in different industries support each other (ex. Google using its Web browser in televisions). But it's also something else: It's the fusion of two different technologies.

We've been seeing this happen a lot lately. Look at cell phones, for example. In recent years, they've become "smart," integrating such technologies as Web browsers, widgets (little applications), and GPS and navigation systems. The line between a phones and computers is becoming seriously blurred. And the same thing is true of MP3 players, cameras, and a host of other gadgets. Basically, if it has a screen, it's being given as many different functions as it can handle.

At the rate we're going, will there come a day in the not-too-distant-future when, instead of owning a TV, computer, camera, video camera, MP3 player, and GPS all separately, we'll just have one device for them all? My guess? Yes. But I don't think that this will mean the end of any of these devices. For instance, photographers will still need cameras that are just cameras, with interchangeable lenses and whatnot. And portable computers like laptops and netbooks (miniature laptops) just aren't as powerful as desktops—not to mention that, the smaller and more portable you get, the smaller and more cramped screens and keyboards get—so I doubt that larger computers will be leaving us any time soon.

Still, I think we're going to be seeing a lot more integration of technologies in the near future. And that means integration of the media that go along with them: Entertainment news with viewers' comments in a scrolling bar along the bottom of the screen is just one of the concepts mentioned in another article, "Old and New Media Coexisting Nicely, Thank You," which discusses the emerging synergy between the Web and TV. (Apparently, although initial predictions had the Internet more or less replacing television, it's actually served to boost viewership by make TV a more interactive experience.)

Having said all that, I must say that I'm having this really weird feeling like time isn't working quite right. Is it just me, or does it seem like we're living in the future?


Peace,
blogdor





*Technically, this is all still speculative—there hasn't been an official announcement yet, and all of the article's quoted sources are anonymous because, they said, they aren't allowed to talk about this yet.

Tupperware... Sexy?

Yes, you read it right. The makers of the little plastic boxes we keep leftovers in are rethinking their brand image, so now Tupperware is—I can't believe I'm writing this—Tupperware is sexy.

According to a NY Times article with the foot-in-mouth title, "Using the Kitchen as a Happy Place Where Couples Bond," the idea is that Tupperware products are so easy to use simple that anyone can use them—even men. And men would get a lot of credit with their women if they picked up cooking (wink wink). So Tupperware really is quite romantic.

This new initiative is intended to promote Tupperware's relatively new range of kitchen products. Over the years, the company has become a household name for its line of food storage containers, but, having gotten bored with plastic boxes, Tupperware has since expanded to food preparation products. The Tupperware-is-sexy campaign, with its focus on the romance of cooking, is one of the many ways the brand is trying to get people to think of it as more than just a storage container company.

But here's the catch: Tupperware doesn't run advertisements. Over the course of its 64 years, the main way it's reached the masses has been through "Tupperware parties," making clever use of research that shows that the main factor in influencing people's buying decisions is not the media (i.e., advertising), but instead a few influential people—usually people right in the community—who function as opinion leaders. It's kind of a bandwagon effect: "Hey, if she's buying Tupperware, if she really likes their products, maybe I should get some." Not only is this marvelously effective, it's also relatively cheap.

So how does a no-advertisement company go about quickly changing its brand image? Well, it sponsors a lot of parties, for starters. And it holds outdoor publicity stunts in Manhattan where famous guys are shown how to "prepare a meal using only food, Tupperware products, and a microwave oven." Interestingly enough, the press invitations to this particular event mentioned that most women find it more sexy when their men make food than when they take them out to eat.

"It would seem," writes Andrew Adam Newman in that article I mentioned earlier, "that Tupperware is making a typical marketing pitch to men, promising to help them seduce women." (Newman then notes that the real target audience is women: The plan is for them to see an event like this and think, "Wouldn't it be so nice if my boyfriend/husband did that for me!")

But that's not all that Tupperware is doing. It's also sponsoring fashion shows. Seriously, for fashion week, Tupperware connected with model Irina Shabayeva, capitalizing on the shock factor of having a kitchen products company involved in fashion. Oh yeah, and Tupperware also made parts for the dresses. Take a good look:
If I'm understanding this right, Tupperware designed and made the stiff part of this skirt, various pieces of most of the other dresses, all of the jewelry and accessories, plus room decorations (hanging strands of black plastic "feathers").

So. Tupperware is sexy. Now you know.







(For more on the fashion show—info and pictures—check out "BeautiControl and Tupperware Take Fashion Week By Storm" on Gary's Blog, from BeautiControl, one of the other sponsors of the event.)

Bye, bye Blockbuster: Video on demand will take over

Like something out of a tragic film, Blockbuster, the once-popular video rental company, is facing the reality that it may have to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

On the surface, Blockbuster’s imminent erasure from the media rental business may seem like just another casualty of the recession. But more than likely, the factor which has contributed most is the change in the viewers' habits. The causes of the shift are explained in an article in the New York Times which quotes the senior VP at Comcast, Derek Harrar: “'Improvements in technology, the instant availability of the most recent box-office hits and thousands of library titles have fundamentally changed viewing patterns.'” Because the way information sharing is constantly changing, media companies have to keep up with advances in technology and viewing trends. While DVD rentals and sales have declined steadily, just last year, viewing of on-demand videos rose 20%.

The main concern for Blockbuster and the movie companies: turning a profit. There are two ways to make money in the media business: (1) to sell units (2) to sell advertisements.

Movie studios make their money by selling theater tickets and DVDs. Though the movie production industry is not ailing as much as Blockbuster, the drop in DVD sales motivated eight studios to collaborate in a cross-medium advertising campaign to promote on-demand video services called “The Video Store Just Moved In." Rather than pushing the public to purchase DVDs, movie studios are taking advantage of the new market niche created by the change in viewer behavior by marketing the on-demand service.

It may seem contrary to convention that competing companies would work together on this campaign; yet the companies are working toward a common goal and accomplishing more collectively than any single company could on its own. If the campaign causes an increase of on-demand views, they will all benefit. After all, most viewers don't care who produced the movie, so long as it is entertaining. Disney and Paramount, did not participate in the campaign; its likely that their movies will receive more on-demand views as a result of the ads even though they didn't pay up.

The on-demand video format is beneficial to the advertising mediums (as far as the promotion of the format), the movie companies, and the viewers.

A big portion of the $30 million movie studios are spending on the campaign is being raked in by cable companies (which make most of their money by selling the attention of viewers to the highest bidder, ususally without regard to the content of the commercial). To maximize the impact of their advertising investment, movie studios arranged for the TV advertisements to be strategically debuted during the prime-time broadcast of American Idol.
Even though DVDs are very inexpensive to produce, movie studios keep a greater percentage of profit from on-demand usage. Since the movie rental "middle man" (i.e. Blockbuster) is eliminated, in on-demand transactions 65% of profits are returned, in comparison to 25% from the traditional in-store rental.

The main benefit of the on-demand format for consumers is its convenience. Scrolling through a list of titles requires less time and energy than going to the video rental store to pick up a DVD; plus there is nothing to return (which means no late fees). Also, most new releases are available on-demand the same day the DVDs are released in the store. Although this practice has not been blamed for the decline in DVD sales, it provides an alternative to purchasing or renting a hard copy DVD.

In my experience with on-demand services, I've found the title selection to be limited. Certainly, this is an issue that will be eliminated as the services expand. Even though the number and genres of movies available on demand may be more limited than the selection available at a video store, growth of on-demand services has not been hindered. When it comes to media, consumers are conditioned to be satisfied with whatever is on TV, simply because TV watching is a habitual activity. If given the choice between going out to buy or rent a DVD and choosing from a more limited on-demand list, they're going to choose what is easiest.

The promotion of the on-demand format in advertisements on TV, in print, and online is sure to continue the trend toward its increased usage and the bankruptcy of Blockbuster.

~M.D.W.

Is the news reliable?

A September 2009 article in the New York Times titled, Trust in News Media Declines to New Low in Pew Survey, discusses the increasing lack of confidence in the news.

Results from a survey conducted by the Pew Research Company showed that since 2007 there has been an increase in negative perceptions about the news. Opinions regarding specific news organization such as FOX, CNN, and MSNBC differed depending on political affiliation, however Democrats and Republicans alike felt the news was inaccurate and biased.

Politics aside, there is some validity to these concerns. News is a socially constructed process that involves a lot more than just telling the truth. Media scholars Croteau and Hoynes (authors of Media Society) discuss the journalistic process and its unrecognized complexity.

Starting from scratch every day just isn't feasible for a newspaper. For this reason the general cookie-cutter outline for news coverage exists, with topics like sports, business, and international news highlighted regularly. The problem with this is that by default there are things that simply don't make the cut, and when we don't hear about those things, they don't have significance. It's as if those reject-topics aren't important, or even worse - don't exist. Past the initial inclusion or exclusion of a story comes further editing. News items will be reworded, or simply erased for a number of reasons such as:

1. to avoid controversy

2. to keep advertisers happy

3. to please the editor

Although there are many more aspects to the journalistic process, the long and short of it is that news is a business, and the bottom-line is a highly influential factor in its production. So the next time you read a newspaper or watch the news take a minute to think who the story is coming from and why. You may find that the truth has nothing to do with it.