With Facebook lauching their IPO and making its creators billions of dollars I'm still wondering are advertisers really making money by advertising on Facebook? Or are advestisers really making money through any kind of social media site? I have looked on
the web and haven't found one success story where an advertiser advestising on Facebook has generated profits though they continue to throw billions of dollars at it just because of their large user numbers, numbers that show that over 80% of its users that
are on Facebook are not only overseas but is on a mobile device. Recently GM stopped advestising on Facebook and it makes me wonder as someone who uses the Internet I as I'm sure many do hate advertising on the web. From pop-ups, spam, and many videos on the
web forcing the user to watch an advestisement before the video I wonder how effective is online advestisement? Or is word of mouth still king? What I'm trying to say is what good is a user, fan or follower if they don't fully buy what you're selling and if
they don't what does it say about social media as a whole? How effective is social media really?
Why does everybody seem to be slaves to social media? The last thing I want is a business card with your facebook information on it, you know? Is nothing sacred. Tweets feel emotionless and anonymous and the majority of my fellow students seem to be stuck
to facebook like flies to sticky paper. So much so that they tend to not even pay attention in class. A site has that much hold on you that you can't wait 3 hours to log on? On one hand I love technology but on the other I'm wondering what is it doing to our
society as a whole.
Perhaps the lack of emotions in tweets has to do with how employers are scraping social media for bits of personal information? I know people who actually tweet their emotions, but the tweets are all protected. I’d say with the way potential employers would
treat this information, few would find it sane to tweet our real emotions.
I think you interpeted what I wrote quite differently but nevertheless its still quite an interesting response. When I wrote that tweets felt emotionless and anonymous it was more in the sense of how someone can have hundreds upon millions of follower or
be followed and with such a large volume of people you can't truely KNOW each and everyone of them. Speaking from example I had over 500 Facebook friends at one time before I logged off for good and I only personally knew about 30 of them. When you have so
many so called friends or followers are they really your friends or are they more so a form of bragging rights to boast of how popular you are because lets face it we all want to be apart of the popular crowd. We can only feel emotion or connectedness for
lack of a better word from those we see, touch and converse with in REAL life not through a computer and certaintly not through social media. Trending and social media really just plays on our most carnal desire to be popular, know whats happening at all times
and be considered one of the cool kids.
I think I agree with you on the need for real-life connections, but I don’t think I agree with your conclusion that it has to do with popularity (that’s on Facebook — on Twitter it’s a different matter and I really don’t “get” why anyone would, say, “follow”
me there). A few years ago I wrote something about this on my blog and I think this still describes my thoughts pretty much accurately:
“So let me postulate: i think, it gives you the feeling—you might even say illusion—that you are in constant touch with your friends.
“Oh, of course… isn’t the whole point of facebook to make it easier to keep in touch with your friends?
“But who, really, are your friends? What does it mean to be a friend on facebook? A close friend? a friend? someone you know? someone you might know? someone you “should” know, a.k.a. mere “contacts” (like “business contacts”)?
“[…] isn’t the most addictive thing to do to read about your friends, to see their photos, to watch their videos? to be like, just like being with them? especially if all—or most—of your closest friends are on Facebook? But isn’t
this, like, too faraway, too “impersonal”?
“So perhaps facebook’s addictiveness just means that you should be with your friends more often, or at least pick up the phone and chat with them…”
I get where you're coming from in terms of Facebook being a driving force to want to be with your friends more so to reconnect by "picking up a phone" but I disagree with your overall theory. The nature of addiction goes farther then the preconceived notion
of simply wanting to view or even watch what a friend is doing online. The desire to want to view what people post online via anything media has to do with the notion of how our society is a very voyeuristic society.
In terms of Facebook's or any online social sites addictiveness it's more so I believe has to do with how society as a whole has found new ways to communicate so we over consume these new forms of communication to unhealthy results. It happened with calls
when cellphones hit their boom and moved over to texting now it's social media. Our forms of communication are ever growing but at what cost?
I get how people getting mail or a text or even reading a friends post can make a person long and want to be with that friend more. To go back to my original post on this topic I spoke of how Facebook was addicting but didn't use that word exactly. By now
I see it wasn't about Facebook it was how my fellow students choose Facebook as the top priority instead of focusing on the classwork at hand in class and couldn't wait until the class was over to log on. It might have been because of their immaturity level
or Facebooks overall "addictiveness" who knows. I take education seriously and to see and have the professor stop the class to tell other students to log off of Facebook multiple times in the class and delay teaching was ridiculous.
There is a time and a place for everything but in the classroom there should be only one focus...on the topic at hand.
Oh and in my last post any time I used the term follow I was talking about Twitter not about Facebook if you got confused.
I don’t agree that voyageurism is the only conclusion one can make, but I think it’s best if I stopped here.
But by the way, “following” has been part of the Facebook vocabulary since a few months ago. It’s no longer just Twitter.
Hypocritical conjecture...misinterpetational fallacy of the main post.
A notable theme in Jay-Z’s book Decoded is objectivity, defined as “a focus on external reality.” In fact, this objectivity is a major difference between graphic design and traditional forms of fine art, which can be subjective without contest.
Our messages must give people what they need in a way they didn’t expect, while looking holistically at the client’s message. As designers, do we resist the urge to take a message at face value? Or simply absorb and move on, cranking out a predictable solution?
Though very different than graphic design, the music industry is deeply rooted in story telling. There are many supporting elements in this niche of the arts, but while comparing and contrasting the process, I think Jay-Z’s book deserves some
attention. His popularity and persona have been at the forefront of the rap scene for decades, and the release of his book is another way of gaining access to his charisma. Check out page 57 for the real story behind "99 Problems" - pretty interesting.
DESIGN READING: Joshua Foer’s book Moonwalking with Einstein describes his stumble into the weird world of memory mastery. What began as a casual interest rapidly sucks him into an existential crisis. The more intrigued he becomes, the more stumped he is: “I didn’t have a clue how my own memory worked,” he says. Foer finds himself shadowing memory champions and chatting with neuroscientists, who, eager to persuade, turn him into the subject of numerous psychological and intellectual tests. He hears repeatedly, “Anyone can do it. It’s memorization. It just takes practice.” So he dives in, emerging one year later in the finals of the USA Memory Championship.What I found most interesting about Moonwalking with Einstein is how quickly we all dismiss our “half functioning” memory. I wonder what our profession would look like if we began to explore the full capacity of our memories, especially since a designer’s work is always referential. Are we aware of these points of inspiration? What role does memory play in the design process? And if “our memories are indeed improvable,” should we be spending more time on improvement?
I am a senior design student graduating in May, and for my final portfolio class, the professor is requiring us to print 100 letterhead and 100 envelopes of our identity for the final project.
We, as a class, find this to be excessive, and wanted to get the feedback of the professional design community.
Is 100 of each excessive, since as emerging designers we are most likely to change out identity in a short timeframe, or should we just suck it up and waste the paper and money?
A listing of the 2007 "Design Journeys" board of advisors
Sanford Levinson asks: what’s the sell-by date for a constitution?
Section: Events and Competitions -
Conference , government, Gain conference
Long Beach, CaliforniaMay 23 2016
PS New York