Author: skmatson

I chose this article because I think it gives us a good overview of the online child consumer.  Calvert discusses the differences between television and film, saying that:

knowledge is constructed through interactions between the knower and the known.  Although such interactions do occur as children view television and film, including advertisements, they are different in the newer interactive technologies, which allow for greater user control and interchanges. Interactive technologies are based on dialogue and turn-taking- a child takes a turn, then a computer responds and takes a turn, then the child takes a turn again.  In essence, a conversation is taking place in which each response made by a child leads to potentially different content being shared. (215-216)

Keeping in mind some of the principles of marketing that Calvert discusses in this article, I’d like if you took some time exploring these sites for children.  What age group does the site focused on?  What do you take away as the main messages from the site?  What are some of the more subtle messages?  Looking back on what we’ve already looked at, how do these sites play with consumer identity?  What kind of privacy issues stick out for you?  Also, try out some of the advergames on the sites.  How much time do you spend playing the game?

http://www.luckycharms.com/

http://www.hasbro.com/playskool/en_CA/

http://www.barbie.com/

http://www.gotmilk.com/

http://store.playmobilusa.com/on/demandware.store/Sites-CA-Site

http://www.teenvogue.com/

I will jump on the bandwagon here and agree with the gang about enjoying this article.  I also thought that the responses were really insightful.  So thanks to everyone for being really smart!  I spent yesterday thinking about the points brought up, and wondering about the cross-over effects of technology and literature.  On this front, I would say that Baym’s social constructivism plays strongly here.  Most books that discuss technology and its effects (utopic, or dystopic) are science fiction- a genre whose popularity does not generally extend to a wide population.  It’s even less discussed in children’s fiction.  The novel I’m reading right now is fascinating in its use of technology. The characters talk on their bluetooth devices, and drain their ipods of batteries.  It’s great, because it’s so up to date right now, but as a piece of literature, I feel it will likely fall out of print faster than a book that doesn’t have technology in it; it will soon be archaic and possibly seen as clunky  and boring.  So then, does this mean that the “standards” or “classics” of modern literature will never be an accurate voice for society’s views of technology?  This would be strange, since our understanding of ancient cultures, their norms, and values often stems from the literature of the period. I think this could be even more prevalent in children’s fiction “classics”, a genre that is often looked at to garner the values of a particular culture or time period.  Also of note here- we could argue that the internet or new technologies will host these views and values, however, paper is still the only medium that we know of  as permanent.  Just a thought on the unintended consequences of new media on classic literature.

I agree with Jillian that Tapscott is VERY pro Net Generation.  It’s neat to read; I think his unabashed love of the Net Generation is something that likely needs to be said.  And he’s not the only one saying it.  What I find so fascinating about Tapscott’s argument is how he seems to believe that companies need to adapt to their employees.  This is a theme that came up time and time again at my workplace; I sat through multiple training sessions on the recruitment and retention of the Y Generation.  There were a few key factors found in all of them.  1) Gen Y is me-centred and needs to feel that everything they do has a reason.  2) Gen Y has never really experienced failure (I don’t know how true this is outside of Ontario, but in the ON school system, no child can fail a grade).  On top of not failing, they should not fail.  3) Gen Y is all about teamwork and working collaboratively.  4) Gen Y needs to be able to modify their tasks and job as they see fit, or they will leave and go somewhere else.   All of this was tied into the digital world that they lived in- another thing that “a Gen Y must have in their job”.   All this to say that the focus of these workshops was to get companies to adapt their jobs to the people.  This must be a fundamental shift in thinking; up until now it seems that the idea of the workforce is that you enter it and adapt to it, not it to you.  In some ways, this is great, but it also has some major downfalls.  For example, what if your company/position can’t shift?  What if the idea of flexibility or teamwork isn’t built in?  And aren’t we painting an entire generation with one brush?  I like also what Jillian pointed out, procrastination and lollygagging are central to the workday Tapscott demonstrates.  I wouldn’t want to see a doctor or a lawyer who has their Facebook open in their office, or who is texting my diagnosis to the lab.  I also think that Gen X will fight back a little; we Gen Xers are an indignant bunch- if we couldn’t have a pingpong table in the staff lounge, why should these kids?

As one who is on the cusp of generations- it all depends on what source it comes from where I land, I did find my identity as a digital user stood firmly in Rheingold’s article moreso than Tapscott.  I don’t know if that means anything since I could be Gen X, but it sure did make me feel better than I don’t really know what the youtube video of the day is.  What I do think is that it’s best to be familiar with the trends, even a little bit.  Each new variation has built upon the last variation, and if I don’t jump on board now, how will I ever even be able to check on what my kids’ are doing in the future?

What is my point here?  I don’t know, actually. I kind of lost track when my skype video rang.