Week 1:
Jenkins, H. (2002) Interactive Audiences? The ‘Collective Intelligence’ of Media Fans
Question: Would the input of fans and or ‘bloggers’ create a substantial difference in the amount of consumers?
In this article the positive and some negative aspects from fans, ‘bloggers’ and ‘jammers’ are being examined broadly and their freedom of expression, due to modern technological circumstances, seems to be great. However, what I did miss in this article was that the ‘help’ from fans is to be assumed as positive, although it could have it’s negative effects. This thought occurred in my mind when I thought about Theo Maassen. He is a very popular comedian and he has much affiliation with his soccer club PSV. But, at some point, Theo Maassen, being the biggest fan, gave him a bad impulse too. While PSV wasn’t doing so good anymore, he couldn’t stand the sight of his club losing and losing and to get rid of all his frustrations he stole the biggest prize PSV won some time ago, which caused great dismay of lot of other fans.
This gives me the idea that the input of fans may sound great, but isn’t that only for a very small group who think the same. Wouldn’t there be many other fans, who think differently and so just get to see what other fans would like to see, regardless what minority opinions might be? Add all the opinions of people who actually don’t care what the features of the commodity might be. For example: if there is a television show where some fans helped creating it, a lot of not-fan viewers might not really care about all kinds of possible positive fan-involvement, they just want to be entertained. That would mean that all the ‘help’ from fans doesn’t make a difference to the non-fan viewers. Also, fans who want to be involved in the making, but share minority opinions would be left out. For only a selective group all the input of fans would help so that’s why I ask my self, would the input of fans, and or ‘bloggers’ make a substantial difference in the amount of viewers? I would say not. Producers of any commodity might look at fan sites for advise so they can prevent mistakes that probably no one would like, but I’d say that a big input wouldn’t be worth to create a audience growth. I mean, the fan-participation doesn’t necessarily mean the commodity becomes better. The power of fans and ‘bloggers’ might seem great, but not everyone would be aware of their input, nor would everyone be appreciate of their additional input.
Marshall, D. (2002) The New Media Book (Londen: BFI) Commodity
Question: Aren’t the words ‘intertextual commodity’ just other words for ‘sponsored by’?
In this article different aspects and layers of intertextual commodity are given. But I have the feeling that all the time there is dealt with ways on which different products can be linked to each other or with the question what strategy could be used for the same basic reason: to create a big appealing crowd of consumers. This is nothing else than marketing strategies, in whatever form they may appear. For instance, the Tomb Raider example just states it wants to sell more than the movie itself. For Erricson as well as Pepsi, bigger audiences are trying to be created by using these ‘micro commercials’, another word or excuse to appear in the movie. The only thing that would happen by these intertextual connections, is the branding of the companies. So the movie is ‘powered by’ or ‘sponsored by’ appears to be practically the same ‘intertextual commodity’. The only righteous way ‘intertextual commodity’ should be used is on commercial websites that state what other consumers liked as well. For example www.cdnow.com has a category ‘consumers who bought this also liked’ where different albums or videos are provided by consumers who just want to note others who enjoyed the product. That way isn’t (as far as I know) based on companies’ branding, but aims at providing information. In that fashion I’d prefer the to use a term as ‘intertextual commodity’ instead of the manner in which the article used it.
Week 2:
Vogel, H. (2001) Economic Perspectives.
Question: Couldn’t work be leisure and vica versa?
Vogel states that leisure is the time we don’t have an obligation as we have it with work. The way Vogel uses these terms sounds like work isn’t fun and leisure is, because in leisure time we have the option to spend money. So basically, as Vogel puts it, when you can spend money it is fun, leisure and when you can’t spend money it’s work.
I don’t agree with this. For instance, when I look at myself, I hate shopping. Although it might provide me with a commodity I’d like to own, it is an obligation to buy cloths for instance. Furthermore, I believe that some people like earning and saving money better than spending it in their leisure time. Work can be great fun too, when you’re a disc jockey for instance, playing all the tracks you like yourself and making the crowd go wild might be the best feeling leisure time can’t buy.
Castronova, E. (2003) On virtual Economics
Question: Isn’t a virtual world just a distraction?
Although I fully agree with all the positive arguments Castronova makes, I missed all the negative arguments. A virtual world provides you temporarily with fun as long as you enjoy it. But keep in mind that you are aging and you’re avatar isn’t. At some point in time, perhaps when you’ve gotten RSI and you realize how far you have become in the virtual world, while at the same time you might be lacking much knowledge of the real world. A virtual world is nothing more than a distraction of the real world I would say. Although such distraction might give you the power, strength and focus to strike back in the real world, you can’t become a great athlete when you’re good at FIFA 2004. It only provides relaxation. So the game industry might still be growing, I don’t believe virtual worlds will overthrow the real world, especially when you have a power cut. 
