å Monday, September 28th, 2015

In Chapter 6, Astra Taylor takes a close look at advertising in the digital age. One of the most disturbing new developments in the digital age is the ability for advertisers to zero in on the people they are trying to reach because of the vast information they have on that person. Before the Internet, companies placed their ads in a particular magazine or TV show according to the supposed demographics of the reader or viewer, hoping that they would reach the consumers they wanted to target. In the digital age, advertisers are able to gather such specific information about us from our online behaviors that they can directly target us individually. By gathering such detailed information, they are sorting us into “reputation silos,” a term used by Taylor (190) to describe the online label that we acquire and that can be difficult to shed. Taylor warns of “a new form of discrimination, one led by companies you cant see, using data you didn’t give them permission to access, dictating what you are exposed to and on what terms.” (191) It is very disconcerting to imagine someone watching your every move and deciding what you will or will not be exposed to based on what they see. But advertisers today do exactly that and we accept their right to do so every time we are online. We have become so used to the onslaught of online advertising that we may not even be able to distinguish ads from editorial content. The term “native advertising” describes a form of paid media that follows the design and function of the content in which it is situated, essentially blurring the line between ad and editorial. Taylor says Buzzfeed leads the pack with this type of advertorial, where “Staffers (creative strategists) concoct posts designed to maximize audience engagement while incorporating messages from brands”(194). Even print publications like the New York Times, the Washington Post and Forbes participate in native advertising on their online sites. The Times rolled out its first “paid post,” as they call them, in January of 2014, albeit with a prominent disclaimer. But most sites use more ambiguous language such as “branded” or “sponsored” content (Sebastian, M., Ad Age, 1-8-14) which is much more likely to catch readers off guard. Exactly what the marketers are hoping for.

The term copyleft is used to describe the opposite of what copyright law was intended to do. While copyright law was intended to protect the work of artists, musicians, etc., those who support copyleft support the ability for users to redistribute information without consequence. These free culture lobbyists believe that an open society will result in equality for all. There is an entrenched belief that culture should be free and the creative works of others should not be owned by the creators, but rather, the public. However, the text highlights the problems with copyleft, stating:
“it offers a limited political response to entrenched systems of economic privilege, and it does not advance limits on profitability or promote fair compensation. Free culture, with its emphasis on access, does not necessarily lead to a more just social order. To pay to watch an independent movie does not mean capitulating to the privatization of knowledge, but rather recognizes the work that went into making it and provides some support so that the effort can continue.”
In our current society, the lobbying for copyleft has also resulted in the rationalization of the “struggling artist” in my opinion. We often look for ways to obtain free music, books and other creative works, and we justify our position for not wanting to pay for these items by romanticizing the idea of the struggling artist. We act as though it is a rite of passage, and perhaps it was in the past, however, if our society continues in the way it does, those in the creative field would be forced to create in their spare time since they are not being compensated for their work, and will be forced to look to other means for a source of income.

(more…)