As I read Three Dimensions of iCulture, by Mark Andrejevic, I was immediately able to relate. The nike iD part first caught my attention, because I considered getting them actually. For an price of about $100, I would be able to get my own customized shoes, but I realized it wasn't worth it. Just as much as it'll satisfy me with my own personalized shoe, I would also be helping Nike as a walking billboard. Wearing that shoe would show that someone actually did the Nike iD and how positive it turned out, also nike would soon learn that me as their consumer like these kinds of designs as their show, it gives them an easier job of seeing what the public likes. People often don't see that something may be for the benefit of the commercial. A smaller example I can relate to is that a lot of companies give out stuff at expo's and shows, (such as pens, water bottles, lanyards, flashlights and more) all free, yet with exception of their logo printed in big font of whatever that free thing was, also maybe a short conversation with that representative. As the form of interactivity grows in media through politics, culture and commerce, there may be benefits, yet more hazards. Tough we may think that these new inventions are beneficial, they are used in manipulative ways as well. Andrejevic gives the great example of the GPS systems on our phone where parents could track their children, yet if this is what the world has invented, what stronger and confidential things are they using without telling us. (Big Brother is watching us..) People could use this in criminal methods, such as to rob a house by tracking when someone leave, kidnapping somewhere when they are alone, people spying on others and more. Our interactivity with companies may be fun but they benefit from our time and fun. DQ- Are people aware of this trade off between interactive methods and the users?