Response to: “Cross-Platform Storytelling”

I personally don’t find any gratification in most cross-platform storytelling. Part of me always finds it sort of cheesy, and I feel like television producers only perpetuate cross-platform storytelling for their own financial profit. I think that it is more effective when used in moderation. When something doesn’t feel as original, it somehow loses it’s quality and seems over-marketed.

This sort of relates to when you are a child, and you want the cereal that is advertising your favorite cartoon character on the front. You only want it because you want that character to be part of your world more than it is on television. This seems too much like a marketing scheme. However, there are some gems that are released that have cross-platform storytelling. For example, the diary from Twin Peaks seems like one of those gems, but I think that these “gems” are relative to the content presented and to the target audience. In other words, multi-platform content that is made for Twin Peaks will be different from shows such as Dawson’s Creek.

I completely agree with the rules she established for cross-platform storytelling.

The cross-platform storytelling that Cheryl says NBC is doing is a lot like The Dark Knight viral marketing. There was incessant hype for this film, and I feel like there was always something new happening. They made a fake news site (http://www.gothamcablenews.com/), and what I love about it is that it feels completely organic. It doesn’t seem force-fed, and it doesn’t blatantly scream “SEE THE DARK KNIGHT” (because who wasn’t already going to see it anyway? haha). There were online puzzles to figure out the release date. There were also multiple interactive publicity stunts, including a scavenger hunt in NYC in which the end result was the bat signal shining in the sky. The point is to give people something they can experience, not something that will result in being caught in a web of consumerism.

Question: What sort of cross-platform storytelling do you participate in (if any)?

Response to: “The Daily Me”

I agree that fragmentation and extremism could occur if everything was filtered to our liking.  When you customize a website to feed you the news you want to see, you are choosing to avoid looking at any sort of opposing news site.  Without hearing an opposing side, how will one be able to discuss an issue in an educated way?  If nothing in the news is objective, then we must keep reminding ourselves that there is always an opposing view.  If we make that opposing view disappear, there will be a larger separation between subjective views.

It is arguable that this type of filtering is mostly for entertainment purposes.  It’s taking that idea of being bombarded with too much information and too many viewpoints, and allowing customization and filtering by the overwhelmed recipient.  This can be done with any sort of social, creative, and informational divide, and it perpetuates the expanding of those oppositional gaps.

A good example of filtering is the website Pandora. It allows you to customize your own radio station according to what music you like, making it so that you don’t hear a type of music you aren’t interested in.

Response to: “Web of Activism”

Viral marketing definitely works. YouTube can be a successful tool in distributing a message. I remember there was a viral video on YouTube not too long ago made by a regular YouTube user. It featured an old Apple advertisement that played off 1984. In this remake, the objective was to make Hillary Clinton look like Big Brother.

This received a lot of press as well as viral popularity.  This opens up whole new possibilities, which involves the ordinary public campaigning for their representatives.

Question: Do you think viral marketing could completely change how political campaigns and ads run?

Response to: “Why Democrats Rule the Web”

The internet allows for more participation for grass roots efforts.  For an undertaking that used to take dedication and laborious efforts, people are now able to find each other and organize so easily using the web.  This benefits political parties greatly.  However, it is becoming harder for political parties to control what is seen and heard by the public because the web allows for a greater exchange of information amongst people.  Perhaps this makes campaigning more honest.

Question: Do you think that with popularity of web campaigning and the convenience of organizing political groups and meetings, people will become less dedicated and rely on technology to provide them with political information? In other words, do you think they won’t put as much effort into their political parties? Or do you think the internet simply provides a convenience to perpetuate political party strength?

Advertisements