Agenda-setting

McCombs' agenda-setting theory quotes I believe are an accurate or at least valid description of the current agenda-setting landscape of journalism today. The public puts their trust into the media and news editors and directors have massive amounts of power. The choices they make can greatly affect the public's perception of issues and therefore can create bias easily. The public must be very well informed, check other sources and follow stories carefully in order to ensure they are getting the complete story. This can prove to be much more work than your average news-consumer is willing to provide. Most news-consumers have no problem just flipping to Fox News or skimming the headlines of cnn.com to get their daily dose of news. In these cases, the public is really who is losing out because they may not be fully understanding the real issues or getting a different perspective.

State of the News Today

After considering our discussion in class about what issues are covered by the media in what form, one would believe unless you're interested in covering war stories or politics there is little hope for aspiring journalists. Part of this doubtful future for journalism lies in the weakening of the newspaper as the essential source for news. I do believe that the future for journalists who are looking to "broaden their horizons" by writing about *gasp* more than just war and politics is grim. Open a newspaper. The majority of the news section is devoted to these issues. However, what about opinion, lifestyle, science, business, technology, entertainment, etc? If the newspaper dies (which, sadly, looks like a definite), these writers will most likely have to write for online or magazine, which can mean a complete change in writing style and spirit. The death of the newspaper will only affect journalists but business, as well. As a marketing student, the death of newspaper means an ENTIRE MEDIUM is gone. For advertisers, that will be a sad day.

News News News

With the conclusion of one class- Audience Research- comes the beginning of another, hence, the change of name and purpose of this blog. I will no longer be posting about my reactions to social networking and its impact on media and marketers, but rather on national and international news. Now aren't you excited?

Wrapping it all up

When proposed the question “what have you learned this semester from my blog reading and writing?” as well as “what is going on in this part of the field, how does it relate to class, and how will it affect me in the future as I look for a first or second job?,” I felt a bit lost. At first, I thought, well I've learned that there are a lot of people out there online, talking about stuff. And, as one of those people talking, just because I'm talking doesn't mean anyone's listening.

However, from reading blogs and getting immersed in blogging by doing it myself, I suspect I have learned more than can be seen at first glance. For instance, I have learned a great deal about the integration of marketing into new technologies.

The marketing world is ever-changing and unique. New concepts, ideas, programs, techniques and models are constantly being created and used, critiqued and evaluated, implemented and discarded. It's the nature of the beast, so to speak. This could be considered a reflection of the communications world itself, as well.

From a students perspective, an ever-evolving field of study is perplexing. Why? Because what I learn today will not be what is used tomorrow. But it's the basics that students are learning, right? And, since new concepts are constantly coming out, students need not only the resources to be “in the know,” but they need to know how these new concepts came about. The new ideas are only based off older ones that have been successful, or in some cases- tweak some that haven't.

Similar to the continually changing marketing world, technology is not a static entity. Marketing and communication are dynamic in the same way, perhaps because of their dependency on technology as a progressive vessel for media. With new technologies, new media form and new ways to use “old” media are created.

The emergence and popularity of social networks is only a natural step. Considering our move towards this over-arching idea of convergence of media, using media and new technologies to communicate in a more personalized, simplistic and direct way is what marketers strive to do best.

Social networking solidifies three major entities with the mass public- technology, communications and marketing. With the public’s growing interest, experience and general knowledge of new technologies, integrating these other worlds with advances in technology is a good way to reach the mass public. If we could call technology the platform for which communication and marketing emerge, then communication is definitely the cornerstone. Though communication infiltrates every aspect of daily life, its the communications professionals who are thinking about it, talking about it, working to improve it, studying it and making progress for better communication for all. Therefore, marketing...it's like the new coat of paint. You might think you don't need it, but you do. It is a necessity that people think they don't need. It's the last part of this equation; marketing uses both technology and communication to better reach publics.

Now that we've established that these three worlds are interdependent on each other, at least in the social networking sense, what has social networking done for these three worlds?

Well, social networks utilizes technology and communication to a great degree, but it's the marketing that's different. It's a little backwards in this sense- with marketers using social networks to better understand and reach target and niche markets. It's a good combination, too, because social networks inherently provide target markets. Specialty social networks also provide niche markets, whereas the bigger more “conglomerate” type social networks generally reach....well everyone. If marketing, communications and technology were little kids, then social networks are the public playgrounds.

Adult only?

In the blog post Networks for Children posted by Nick O'Neill on the Social Times blog, the statement is made that social networks are for children and blogging is for adults. I agree and disagree, both. Here's why.
First of all, let's clarify. It's not really children we're talking about, it's young teenagers. Because when I think children, I think kids under the age of 11. Which, perhaps they are on social networks. Those little liars, telling Myspace that they're 13. But there are PLENTY of adults on social networks, as well. I mean, they're the ones who have people to connect with. Kids just don't know that many people to be able to have the same social network experience. If I was 11 and I had a Myspace account, my friends would be limited to a few friends from school, my 2 cousins, perhaps my sister and if I'm lucky, some camp friends. And that's it. But I'm not going to say that kids aren't on social networks, because they definitely are.
As for the blogging, I think that it's very similar. Adults have stuff to blog about. Kids, in general, don't. They might have some good insights here and there, but for the most part, adults are the ones who have the power.

Niche Marketing

If you pay attention to some of the new (and even older) social networks that are popping up, you can see that their topic of interest or commonality differs greatly. Some social networks are simply set up to keep people in touch or to meet new people (Facebook or MySpace), but some have very specific target markets. Take for example Handbaggers- a social network for *gasp*- you guessed it- handbag lovers. Or what about meandmybicycle- for *big surprise* cyclists and cyclist enthusiasts.
Social networks are staking the claim of the "magazine market" of the online world. This can be awesome for marketers because once you find your niche market, there's probably a social network for that market. Could it be any easier? Silver platter, your target market.
I guess one issue that could arise is that even though these niche social networks exist, does that market use those social network. What I mean is, are people who buy $1,695 Dolce & Gabbana handbags using the network, or is it people who just like looking at the bags? Same goes for cyclists- I mean, wouldn't they rather be outdoors, riding their awesome bikes, rather than hanging out posting pictures of themselves online?

Monopolization of Social Networks

Social Times is a blog that used "as a way to leverage social technology to build local entrepreneurship communities." In the post Ma Bell the Social Network, blogger Anthony LaFauce writes about social networks are slowly being bought and will eventually be owned (pwned) by one conglomerate. And that's when all the trouble starts, apparently. Because then the government will come in because our market is against monopolies.

Personally, I don't think the government would ever find a reason to break up social networks due to the monopolization of the market. Why? Because it's not a necessity. We use social networking for socializing, for fun and a little for business. However, we can certainly get by without it. The difference between social networks and the monopolization of the phone system is that phone service is not so much a "just for fun" system. It's necessary for business. Now, I guess you could say we could become just as dependent on social networks as we have on the telephone. But right now I think that our dependency on email, telephone and other forms of communication make social networking still a non-necessity.