Response to 3 Dimensions of ICulture & DQ

| No Comments

This is my kind of article! Very interesting read, obviously an article someone in my generation can relate to. Andrejevik addresses how many corporations (Nike mainly) uses interactivity and customization in order to create this direction of democratization for consumers. Throughout the article the author mentions that this notion is deceptive to consumers; furthermore, the real purpose of allowing consumers to customize products is to conduct free consumer monitoring.

First off, I don't necessarily think this is wrong nor am I surprised by it. Businesses exist to make money, point blank period. The fact that Nike, Second Life and other companies use this technique in order monitor how consumers buy is just fine to me. I find myself thinking "DUH" when reading this article because I always thought of companies as innovative money seekers. Also, I strongly disagree with the author's pessimistic view that we as consumers merely possess democratic potential. Maybe there was potential in the 90's but in 2013, democracy lives.

Discussion Question: The author points out that, "The promise of interactivity is that viewers can be cultural producers as well as consumers- that, furthermore, their participatory consumption can be creative and fulfilling." Seeing that we are all part of this generation where interactivity is possible, do you agree with the author's apprehensions toward interactivity or do you disagree? Why?

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by MrAshtonP published on May 2, 2013 11:17 AM.

Three Dimensions of iCulture Response was the previous entry in this blog.

iCulture is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.