The Ecommerce Revolution is All About You

This blogpost is centered around the Ecommerce Revolution and how even more personal data mining will put companies above their competition in the years to come. On the site TechCrunch.com, writer, Leena Rao discusses the origins of Ecommerce as well as what she predicts will occur in the future with companies and their customers via internet shopping. Leena Rao currently works as a writer for TechCrunch and she just completed graduate school at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, where she studied business journalism and videography. This article brings up many of the opportunities businesses have within internet shopping and individual data mining through email, social networks, shopper history as well as the issues that increased in-depth purchase data present to privacy.
Rao begins by mentioning that Amazon was the first to do personal recommendations for their customers. And since then data mining has been implemented in most all companies involved on the internet through their website, statistics trackers, etc. But as Rao states, “there is a whole world of social data, and even more-in-depth purchase data that can be mined by retailers to help increase sales.”Rao predicts that we are going to enter into the “next wave of a more personalized e-commerce experience as retailers and e-commerce sites move towards mining data to improve sales and conversions.”
Right now, data mining is dependent on previous purchase data, other consumer’s purchase history and more. But now companies are looking to expand personalization efforts. Paypal recently acquired  Hunch, which is a service that provides a “taste graph” of personalized recommendations based on users’ interests. Therefore Ebay has already moved in the directions of focusing even more on the individual’s interests.
The biggest challenge that retailers face now is getting these data points. Rao says that, “for most retailers, the toughest hurdle is to have enough data on an individual to actually help personalize the experience.” They have managed to get access to a lot of data that includes regular online-shopping routines, but they have no way of storing it then turning it around to personalize the customer experience.
Rao then explains that data comes in various forms:
Implicit data- which is gained from your everyday actions on a retailer’s site and Explicit data-which you offer to sites via surveys or quizzes.
Surveys help with understanding the customer’s need even more due to customers actually providing feedback rather than relying on the irregularities of searching in a retailer’s site, but surveys take time, and have become burdensome and drain time. What retailers need to do now is to bring conversation back into shopping somehow on the internet.
With social data like Facebook, people are sharing their likes and dislikes, comments, etc. of products.  But this data is still unstructured. Being able to file all of the social commentary is hard and therefore makes it impossible (as of now) to utilize this information in the most effective way. By partnering up with Facebook, developers and retailers will be able to grow by using keywords that help to track sales or as Rao says, “the ability to add targeted buttons [other than like and dislike] could be game-changing for social discovery in e-commerce.”
In regards to privacy issues, there needs to be give and take from both the consumer and the retailer. The consumer must be willing to give up their key data and the retail sites need to provide these statistics as well. The scary thing in my own opinion that Rao suggests, is that the key to a more personalized shopping experience just means a greater amount of openness so that a retailer can understand more data and in return will improve their shopping experience. We already (at least at first) accepted to the terms and agreements of social networks like facebook and twitter that essentially says our information that we provide is public information and can be used by the public. So how much more of our personal information going to be public? Or is what Rao suggests, that the information is already there, and now retailers and companies are trying to figure out how to use it as an advantage?”So shoppers, be prepared to give up your data. In the coming year, we’re going to see many more retail sites ramping up data-driven discovery. And e-commerce sites who aren’t thinking about how to mine social and other forms of data are probably going to be left in the dust by the Amazons and Netflix’s of the next wave of personalization.”

Article Link provided below:

Henry Jenkin’s Nine Propositions Towards a Cultural Theory of YouTube

This blogpost focuses on Henry Jenkin’s May 28th, 2007 web blogpost focused on YouTube’s

Henry Jenkins is the Provost’s Professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at the University of Southern California. This blogpost examined YouTube’s “future” effect on society and the possibilities and concerns that it presents to individuals and groups in 2007. In his blogpost, Jenkins presented nine propositions. Number 4 in particular interested me because I think that now, most of my navigation to YouTube is based on social networks sharing videos gaining more awareness and more circulation. Here is what he said:

4. YouTube’s value depends heavily upon its deployment via other social networking sites — with content gaining much greater visibility and circulation when promoted via blogs, Live Journal, MySpace, and the like. While some people come and surf YouTube, it’s real breakthrough came in making it easy for people to spread its content across the web. In that regard, YouTube represents a shift away from an era of stickiness (where the goal was to attract and hold spectators on your site, like a roach motel) and towards an era where the highest value is in spreadability (a term which emphasizes the active agency of consumers in creating value and heightening awareness through their circulation of media content.)

I find what Jenkins says to be very true. YouTube has changed the way videos are shared and how ideas are circulated on the internet. The most recent video craze in my knowledge is the YouTube video, “Sh** girls say” which has now caused this chain reaction of videos to “Sh** [insert any group or individual] say.” Personally, I think YouTube is dependent on the social networking sites in what Jenkins refers to as the highest value of spreadability. Most of the time I find myself encountering new YouTube videos via facebook, email and Twitter. Rarely do I go to the YouTube site and browse for popular videos unless I know exactly what video I have in mind that I want to see.

Example of social networking sharing (Facebook) below:

Here is the link to the first viral video to the series “Sh** [insert group or individual] say”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-yLGIH7W9Y

*Bloggers Note: I do not take credit for this video I am sharing. I am posting it merely as a fair use resource to reinforce my understanding of Henry Jenkin’s web blogpost.

Today, the internet provides endless possibilities to share information. Jenkins focused primarily on YouTube in his blogpost, but now it would be interesting to see responses or results on how media circulation on the internet is now, not primarily focused on how long the user stays on the site, but how many times the user watches the video or reads the information on many sites.


Commentary on Danah Boyd’s Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life

It is very well known that social networking sites have become an integral part of many young adults’ daily routine.  Danah Boyd begins her essay saying that, “during 2005, online social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook became common destinations for young people. Danah Boyd is a Senior Researcher at Microsoft Research, a Research Assistant Professor in Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University, a Visiting Researcher at Harvard Law School, a Fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center, and an Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of New South Wales. Her main research efforts are focused on examining social media, youth practices, tensions between public and private, social network sites, and other intersections between technology and society.

In this paper, Boyd investigates the social commitment and involvement within online social networks such as facebook and MySpace. Her goal is to find the intrigue for youths to practice “participant observation” meaning young adults, integrating themselves in the online world in a more open environment, but what issues come out of this type of participation in two competing social networking sites: Facebook and MySpace. While Boyd’s focus is primarily on MySpace, it can be argued, with statistical evidence that the switch from MySpace to facebook has rapidly increased and continues to grow forcing MySpace to concentrate their marketing efforts in a different direction with their most updated introduction, “Myspace is the leading social entertainment destination powered by the passion of fans. Music, movies, celebs, TV, and games made social.” Whereas Facebook’s introduction on the google search page is, “Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them.”

MySpace has become a music sharing site and Facebook more so to connect to friends. Nevertheless though, both sites are faced with some of the same issues such as class distinction on social networking sites which directly brings into the issues of the digital world and the haves and the have-nots. To dive deeper, there are young adults who may not have the opportunity to maintain or constantly participate on social networking sites such as those that are wealthier and can afford internet access 24/7. Another interesting topic that Boyd brings up are the four properties that fundamentally separate unmediated publics from networked publics :

1. Persistence: Unlike the ephemeral quality of speech in unmediated publics, networked communications are recorded for posterity.  This enables asynchronous communication but it also extends the period of existence of any speech act.

2. Searchability: Because expressions are recorded and identity is established through text, search and discovery tools help people find like minds.  While people cannot currently acquire the geographical coordinates of any person in unmediated spaces, finding one’s digital body online is just a matter of keystrokes.

3. Replicability: Hearsay can be deflected as misinterpretation, but networked public expressions can be copied from one place to another verbatim such that there is no way to distinguish the “original” from the “copy.”

4. Invisible audiences: While we can visually detect most people who can overhear our speech in unmediated spaces, it is virtually impossible to ascertain all those who might run across our expressions in networked publics.  This is further complicated by the other three properties, since our expression may be heard at a different time and place from when and where we originally spoke.

 A personal response to Boyd’s observations is a cautionary response. I say cautionary, because as I am soon to enter to my next stage of life, the working world, my past can easily be traced digitally, for good and for bad. Today, an individual’s presence on the internet is not only determined by his or herself. The advantage and disadvantage for young adults like myself is that I can now promote myself how I would like to and reach out to an even greater audience than my parents would have been able to. But with lack of knowledge, impulse or simply forgetting the internet’s capabilities, especially social networking sites, as public domains, I can easily write, post, click on something that can change my image or profile to something changed for the worse. In a society and a generation that has grown-up in a digital sharing era, we must really understand what Boyd calls “identity performance.” The public plays a important role in the development of an individual. And even more so than before, the balance between one’s social identity being defined by his or herself as well as being defined by others, is crucial. Public life now has an unimaginably wide possibility of publicity and the next step for young adults and the generations above us is to familiarize ourselves with issues that are to come in this digitally open society. Issues are already present, but I doubt there are even a handful of internet users that are effected by them. Unfortunately I feel that we will all have to come across situations of too much publicity on the internet in the near future.

Here is the Link to Danah Boyd’s Paper:

http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf

Citation:  boyd, danah. (2007)  “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.”  MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning – Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume (ed. David Buckingham). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

 

Commentary on Lawrence Lessig’s Part one: Remix

1/18/12

This blog post is dedicated to the movement that Wikipedia, Google as well as all other websites and individuals fighting against the PIPA and SOPA bills trying to get passed today.

My commentary will focus mainly on Part one of Lawrence Lessig’s Remix novel, however it will take into account the importance of today and what individuals can do to speak their minds about this issue on foreign piracy bills which aim to crack down on foreign websites that traffic in pirated materials such as videos, music and other goods. This blackout has stirred up the internet world as it very well should because these bills will impact every internet user out there. For good or bad? I am actually not entirely sure because I don’t know enough information on it truthfully. But if you search PIPA, SOPA, Remix Culture, etc. The internet will provide.

Lawrence Lessig is currently a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Lessig has become famous for his studies and influence in the 21st century on law and technology, especially as it affects copyright. He is an individual who is taking action on the issues of the boundaries on copyright law within the digital age and influencing those who wish to try and understand the progressive, technologically-savvy world we live in today and what complications follow. In part one of his novel, Remix, Lessig intertwines both the past and the present to create a “hybrid economy” where commercial business can actually leverage value and reap benefits from sharing economies. A hybrid economy is what Lessig believes the future should be, which will encourage a balance and profit for commerce and community. But the problem, Lessig states, is that now there are two extremes:

“One side builds new technologies, such as one recently announced that one will enable them to automatically take down from sites like YouTube any content that has any copyrighted content in it, whether or not there’s a judgement of fair use that might be applied to the use of that content…. (Blogger’s Note: This is already in place now, 1/18/12)

The other, “among our kids, there’s a growing copyright abolitionism, a generation that rejects the very notion of what copyright is supposed to do, rejects copyright and believe that the law is nothing more than an ass to be ignored and to be fought at every opportunity possible.” -Lawrence Lessig, TEDTalk 2007

While we are separating ourselves from one another into two extremes, our developing (technological) world is at a standstill. The government now is trying to fix this situation, but as Lessig says, “the law has not greeted this [remix] revival with very much common sense. Instead the architecture of copyright law and the architecture of digital technologies, as they interact, have produced the presumption that these activities are illegal.” In my opinion I agree with Lessig in his TEDtalk that the government, as well as artists, creators and individuals need to embrace the opportunity for a shared environment and community. In no way am I supporting pirated material and rejecting copyright and the advantages it brings, but like Lawrence Lessig says we need to “relearn the lesson” in which we continue to share ideas without exploiting them, using them solely for illegal profit or restricting them and instead grow and understand what it is that technology can do. I plan to try and understand both sides more, but hopefully this commentary can be yet another addition to sparking conversation.

Food for thought: “What is Original Creativity?” Thoughts?

This is also a video I watched in my sociology class that focuses on the Remix Music Mash-up culture. Lawrence Lessig and Girltalk are included: RIP: A Remix Manifesto

Response to Jonathan Lethem’s “The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism”

Jonathan Lethem is a well-known American writer whose article, “The ecstasy of Influence: a Plagiarism,” is a passionate defense of plagiarism and a call for a return to a “gift economy” in the arts. A “gift economy” focuses on the circulating and redistributing valuables within the community. But as societies become more complex, “gift economies” dissipate and ideas and values are copyrighted, restricted, banned for use by the individual and general public. Jonathan uses this term in this essay to describe “plagiarism” as actually inhibiting creative inspiration. If Disney’s Mickey is never going to enter into the public domain than how can sub-creations of an original creation ever exist?

A sub-creation, inspired or influenced idea may actually spark even more interest in the original piece of work. I agree that without Pyramus and Thisbe, Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet would not have been as successful as it was, and the many “knock-offs” that followed many centuries later like The West Side Story or even the movie Grease to some extent. Lethem states that, whether the monopolizing beneficiary is a living artist or some artist’s heirs or some corporation’s shareholders, the loser is the community, including living artists who might make splendid use of a healthy public domain.” I completely agree with this excerpt because an individual can utilize a previous idea, artwork, song, to create something else entirely unique and also in most cases, give a “nod” to the original creator. If Andy Warhol had not incorporated Marylin Monroe’s portrait and the Campbell soup can into his artwork, then regardless of their status before his paintings, they would not have reached an even greater audience. The issue with Plagiarism in my opinion, is awareness. How much of it is out there, and then whether or not the awareness has a positive or negative effect on the creator. It’s the ownership and nowadays living in our progressive, but very individualized society that lead us to believe that everything we make is ours and we don’t share it with anyone else (i.e. iphone, imac). It’s the greed that has become a social thing. It is now socially desirable to have your name engraved on your idea, not to better or benefit the society. Unless we can find a middle that actually allows the general public to access to previously-made ideas, then, as Jonathan so eloquently says, “The dream of a perfect systematic remuneration is nonsense.”

EXCLUSIVE EXCERPT: Wikileaks, Assange, and Why There’s No Turning Back

This excerpt is to focus on the how Wikileaks and information in the Internet society is changing how the individual can take classified information and share it to the public.

The Huffington Post is an internet newspaper available to anyone who has access to the internet. It offers syndicated columnists, blogs and news stories with moderated comments.  On February 9, 2011 The Huffington Post released an exclusive excerpt focused on Wikileaks, Assange and how information cannot be kept private anymore.  Micah L. Sifry is a co-founder and executive editor of the Personal Democracy Forum, which covers the ways in which technology is changing politics. With his input, Micah hopes to train organizations, people, political parties, etc. to adapt and thrive in a networked world. Micah L. Sifry wanted to be able to raise awareness of this possibility of highly important information breaches with the internet. In this excerpt from his book, “WikiLeaks and the Age of Transparency,” Micah first addressed the story of Assange and Wikileaks. Within this age of sharing information from one individual to the rest of the world, Wikileaks raised concern of being able to spread information in a public forum with information that should only have been seen or told by few people. Wikileaks, is an international self-described not-for-profit organization that publishes top-secret and classified information from anonymous sources, leaked news sources, etc. Unlike Wikipedia, which is a public forum and a true wiki- A website that allows collaborative editing of its content and structure by its users- Wikileaks takes information from others but leaves the editing and correcting of information anonymous. Therefore, yes, Wikileaks is an area in which people can publish information and is not controlled per say by one individual, but also that the individual now has more power in providing the “truth” to something.

Sifry’s main point is this: that although Wikileaks has unveiled information that should not have been discovered by the general public, “WikiLeaks is just one piece of a much larger continuum of changes in how the people and the powerful relate to each other in this new time–changes that are fundamentally healthy for the growth and strength of an open society.”  I think that now our society does have to face the truth that our information, whatever we leave on the internet, is out there for everyone to see, and as we continue forward, we will find ourselves facing even more privacy breaches. Sifry states, “It both helps and hurts that we are living in a time of radical uncertainty about the “official” version of the truth.” I agree with this statement that we are now bending the truth, but at the same time providing different perspectives on the truth. It is now up to us to really sift through all of the information to understand the real truth of something. With this transparency, we are opening up our personal lives to the world, it’s just are we as a society, and as individuals, ready for it?