MySpace Officially Surrenders to Facebook

This week, MySpace officially threw in the towel. On Thursday, MySpace and Facebook announced a deal that would allow for people to go on MySpace using their Facebook account while bringing all their information from Facebook with them. Once they are on MySpace, they can gain new likes and interests as if they were on Facebook. MySpace is calling this "The Facebook Mashup".

Although this signals the official end for MySpace as a Facebook competitor, the signs of the end have been coming for a while. In September, MySpace relaunched itself with a new logo, saying that they are no longer a social network. Instead, they are now involved with social entertainment by promoting online media. Even though MySpace has fallen off the map as a place for conversation, it still pulls its weight in music promotion, and that is why Facebook was so interested in MySpace. With the launch of Ping, an iTunes music social network, two months ago, Facebook wants to ensure that they will be ready for any possible competitions in the future. 

I’m not really sure about this move for Facebook. I’ll admit that MySpace does do a good job of being a venue for music, and I actually go on some bands’ MySpace pages every once in a while. Yet, Facebook is Facebook, and I expect them to create a far superior music community on their own without the help of another site.  So if Facebook was looking to impress me, I don’t think that accepting the white flag of a now beleaguered website was the best way to do it. 

Is Zynga's Dirty Secret Really That Bad?

In my presentation last week, I concentrated on online gaming, which included covering Zynga. Zynga is the largest and most well-known developer of Facebook game applications. With hits like Farmville and Mafia Wars impressing dozens of brands to invest in them, Zynga is making large profits and ensuring their future financial viability. Yet, they are still trying to maximize their profits by selling user information to third parties. Not surprisingly, these sales have caused lawsuits and other troubles for the company.

In this article by Coffee Today, it discusses the latest major lawsuit against Zynga. This class-action lawsuit is by a group of people who had their information sold by Zynga to third parties. Interestedly, Zynga is not worried about their legal troubles, and seem to shake it off like it’s no big deal.

Is Zynga entirely wrong by doing this? Sure, they definitely should be more open to the fact that users’ information is being sold, but should users really expect the game to be entirely free? After all, Zynga should be able to make a profit somehow. Although people are worried that the information could end up in the wrong hands, this information will most likely be used for advertisements and nothing worse, and advertisements that are targeted directly from the users’ information will most likely be integral in the future of Internet surfing. As long as the information is going towards better targeted online advertisements, I think that it is acceptable for Zynga to profit from their non-paying users if they accept to the terms and conditions. 

What do you guys think?

Vloggers: The Narcissists of New Media

I can't stand it.

Do you know when someone stands up in a room like they are more important than anyone else, and says something like they are God's gift to all of us, just so they can have all the attention? I call it grandstanding, and I hate it because it makes the rest of us feel like we are all lesser beings.

I feel the same way about "vlogging." When we were watching the Lonely Girl video in class, I almost wanted to turn away because watching her just aimlessly talk to me got on my nerves. See, I am a big believer in the phrase that some people are "all style, no substance," and I feel that if you have nothing worthwhile to say, just don't say it. No matter how well you can say it or how cute you think you are when you say it, please just avoid talking. Reserve those random thoughts for a lame Twitter account, or a Facebook status... Sorry, but I had to get that rant out of my system.

Ok, I'll admit that I may be over exaggerating and over generalizing people that "vlog." I am sure that there are a lot of people that enjoy following and watching vloggers. Also, I am sure that a lot of vlogs have great content that people are interested in learning more about. Yet, you have to understand where I am coming from. I am a person who likes to be low key, and I can't stand when someone always has to be the center of attention. One thing that I love about the Internet is that it is based on pure substance where your content has to be authentic and interesting or else people won't pay attention to it. I feel that vlogs represent the complete opposite, and promote personalities that are unauthentic and tailored to a specific "invisible audience," which Nussbaum referred to in "Say Anything." These people will do anything for people to watch their vlog. Whereas, I feel that a traditional blog is more likely to show the authenticity of the author and his work. Even though blogs and other new media are not free of bloviation, I rarely feel that like I am being talked down to when I read a blog. In my opinion, I think that most vloggers are just looking for more attention than everyone else.

In the end, I know that this is really just my own personal vendetta against vlogs. Some people love them, and perhaps, I just haven't found the vlog that was right for me. Yet, I don't think that time is coming anytime soon. I'll continue to blog, post, tweet, and even check-in, but if you ever expect me to vlog, don't hold your breath.


(Seriously, buddy, you made me smirk, but do you really have nothing else to do?)

Sesame Street Goes Social

Last year, my sisters and I randomly asked my mother a question, “Did you ever get sick of watching Sesame Street with us when we were young?” Her answer sort of surprised us. She said that she did not really mind watching the show with us because it always had an uncanny way of making her laugh. That's exactly what I was reminded of when I saw this article. Through bringing in big name celebrities and telling jokes that go way over the heads of children, Sesame Street has always had it’s ability to still entertain a more mature audience. Now, Sesame Street has taken another step by using social media to connect with their older base.

The numbers speak for themselves. The Sesame Street Facebook page has over a 125,000 likes, and their Twitter account has over 268,000 followers. All of these numbers pale in comparison to Elmo’s Facebook page, which has over 457,000 likes. Also, Elmo is all over YouTube.

YouTube is really where Sesame Street succeeds with social media the most. They post some of their clips from the show so that everyone can see them at anytime. Many of these clips have gone viral. Here’s one video where Grover gives his own take on the well-known Old Spice commercial.

It's really cool how a child and adult could both watch these videos, and enjoy them for different reasons. Here’s another one that parodies HBO’s hit show TruBlood…

Furthermore, Sesame Street is yet another brand that has used social media to reach out to a different audience than they normally wouldn't be able to engage with. By creating content that is entertaining for all ages, Sesame Street continues to not be just another "kid show." I am sure that by maintaining their current strategy, they will keep on growing their popularity with an older audience, achieving a kind of a "cult following" on the Internet. I for one can personally guarantee that with their funny jokes and lighthearted humor, they got a 'like' and 'follow' from me.

Can Twitter Replace a Website?

Kamchatka Site Demo from Kamchatka on Vimeo.

Twitter is becoming an important part of every business's attempt to market their brand online. But has Twitter become so important that it can replace an actual website itself? That is exactly what a company called Kapchatka Digital Locro of Buenos Aires, Argentina has done to their website (http://www.kamchat-k.com/index_en.php). They have one main Twitter page as a homepage and then several other Twitter pages as the content sections of the website. By using the new Twitter, people will be able to search for the things that they are looking for. As more people get on Twitter, this could become useful since people will have no need to leave Twitter to learn information about them. Also, websites are expensive, and for some small businesses, they can be a very heavy burden to run.

So all of the positives considered, I still think that this is one risk not worth taking. By doing a little research (yes, I had to literally research), I've come to the conclusion, or even better, educated guess, that Kapchatka is a social media communications firm, not much unlike the one I intern for. I guess that this new Twitter website is supposed to show that they are "cutting edge," and that they think out of the box. Obviously, they are cutting edge, but I believe that they may be too cutting edge for their own good. The fact is that even though Twitter is continuing to grow in popularity, it is no where near popular enough to be able to reach out to everyone online. Getting acclimated to Twitter takes time, and a person who would be interested in their services would need to be a Twitter user himself to be able to fully understand what products they offer. I consider myself to be very acclimated with Twitter, and even I was confused. Also, far more people are on Facebook than Twitter. If they really wanted to make it easier for potential clients and their selves, they would have created a very in depth Facebook page using custom tabs. Therefore, although their idea is creative, I believe that it is just way too far ahead of its time.

Coping with Death on Facebook

Lately, we have been discussing the role of death on Facebook. Fortunately, I have never had a very close friend die and have their Facebook memorialized. Yet, I can tell a story about an interesting occurrence for the senior class at CUA when a student who had left after first semester freshman year passed away.

Charles Genner lived on Spellman 2 with a lot of us freshman year. Although I was not really close to him, I knew that he was a really good guy, and that he was very well liked by everyone on the floor. I am not really sure why he left after first semester, but I know that a lot of us were sad to see him go. Well time passed, and unfortunately, no one from CUA really kept in touch with him. Therefore, when Charles passed away on March 14, 2009, no one from the CUA community knew, and it was not until more than a year after his death did people realize that Charles had passed. In complete shock, I looked at his Facebook profile, and especially his wall, which was now being suddenly flooded with condolences from CUA. The thing that surprised me the most was that people from CUA had wished him Happy Birthday a few months earlier not knowing that he had died.

Looking at the big picture, I am not really sure what can be taken away from this story besides that you should try your best to stay in touch with people. Yet, in terms of Facebook, I can see the benefits of keeping your Facebook after you have passed. If not for Facebook, no one from CUA would have ever found out about his death, and I think that having a place to visit and recall memories is a great way to remember someone who has died.

This also raises an interesting question. How will Facebook remember deceased users? Will they list the anniversary of someone's death just like they would someone's birthday? Will they do a better job at notifying friends of a death? These questions will likely continue to press on as Facebook continues to grow and gain more users, especially among the elderly.

New Social Network or New Facebook Groups?

Last week, our class got into lengthy discussion about the possibility of creating a new social network for the Media Studies Department at CUA. During this conversation, I was very skeptical of any potential success especially in the face of the all mighty Facebook. Ironically, with the launch of Facebook's new Groups just a few days ago, it seems as if Facebook was listening to our conversation.

Facebook's new Groups product does everything that we were discussing in class. It allows people to make private and closed groups where only people who are invited can participate. People can chat, share documents, email members, and much more. Also, people are able to control all aspects of the privacy. Here's a story about the product:  http://www.insidefacebook.com/2010/10/06/group-email-chat-api/ 

I believe that it is better to stay within the Faceboom frame because everyone is already there, and all the work is done for you. In the past, groups have tried to start their own social networks, but have utterly failed. In 2008, the College Republican National Committee created their own network called "Storm," which was supposed to organize all College Republicans across the country to help the GOP cause, but it failed due to the fact that it had the glitches of many early social networks, and many college students didn't want to join a network and use it to do just one thing. I feel that the same would happen to the Media Studies' social network.

Yet the whole conversation did bring up an interesting question. What will be the next trend in social media? Perhaps, social media's rate of sharing grew so much that people will want to return back to a more private life on social networks. If people preferred to share less and with fewer people than they do on Facebook, then I think that CUA Media Studies social network could actually succeed. Yet until that trend begins, Facebook will always have the advantage over small social networks.