Oct 2007

Getting more focused

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Thoughts on thesis, part 7
Posts in a series of commentaries on my thesis project for the Master of Arts in Communication.

I haven’t posted about my thesis in a while, so here is a summary proposal of what it looks like now. I will be meeting with my advisor, and this will likely get curtailed a bit—but I wanted to map out the possibilities on all the ground it could cover.

But first, a fun fact from my research: Rocky punches out his message to churches. No commentary—just read the article and visit the web site. Then think some more about audience commodification (see the last post).

Personally, I’m waiting for the Saw IV evangelism kit to come out.

Okay, here is my project outline so far:

Overall the project idea is to investigate how The Church is becoming a commodified audience for commercial media: Movies, Music, Books and consumer products. The project would seek create a program of media literacy for churches specific to audience commodification, as well as advocate churches adopting a posture of resistance to commercialization within the church community.

While this is not an outline of the project/thesis per se, it is helpful to break this down into all of the (potential) parts. Some of these may be omitted or combined in the final written paper.

Part 1: The Commercialized Church, and the Commodified Body of Christ. This portion of the project paper would cite examples of churches that are in some kind of partnership with commercial enterprise, whereby the community becomes a target market for both spiritual goods, but consumer goods at the same time (most specifically commercial media: movies, books, music and consumer products). These could be handled like case studies in a journalistic fashion using personal interviews, published articles, etc. to provide examples in the different areas of commercial media.

Part 2: Review of literature A - Works critical of the commercialization of the Church. There are several works in my initial prospectus that are critical of the commercialization of the church. These would be drawn upon for this portion.

Part 3: Review of literature B - Communication theory related to audience commodification through advertising. This would draw upon Sut Jhally, Dallas Smythe, and other communication theorists. Relevant Marxist and postmodern criticism could be incorporated, as well as audience-centered mass communication theorists.

Part 4: Review of literature C - Explore works of theory and research related to communication ethics, advertising ethics and media literacy approaches.

Part 5: Biblical and Theological reflection on the cross purposes of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of capitalism. This is where we exegete the scripture relevant to the mission of the church, the nature of the kingdom and places where scripture--and Christ--make references to money, capitalism, marketplace, trade, economics, etc.

In all, the complete review of literature and the theological portion would provide a basis for part 6 and 7

Part 6: A theoretical and theological basis for resisting the commercialization and commodification of the church. Formal covenant commitments for church leaders to create, preserve and expand communities of faith as “sanctuaries from commercialization and commodification.”

Part 7: A proposed group study curriculum for commercial media awareness, literacy and ethics for church leadership and laity. This would focus on commercial entertainment media and product marketing.
TSAWWT Bookmarks:

 del.icio.us |  Digg |  Technorati

Commodify me, oh Lord, part 1

Friday, October 26, 2007

When giving my elevator speech on my thesis topic, I’m sure to get this question: What do you mean when you say audience commodification? So, I thought I’d post about it to answer the question and thereby help me get my thoughts together in cogent form. After all, from a communication theory standpoint, this is the crux of my project.

The most common way this has been understood is by considering the Television audience. Television is an entertainment medium that is driven (largely) by commercials. Whether it be 30 second spots, product placement or infomercials, the audience is a product that content creators (TV networks) sell to product marketers. The value of this audience is measured by TV ratings and priced by what the market will bear. So, as a monitored and measured audience sitting in front of the boob tube for an average number of hours each day, we are transformed into a commodity sold in an economic transaction. We are the end product that networks sell.

This idea translates to other mediums. Newspapers and magazines commodify their readers for advertisers, as well. As does radio with music.

As an avowed capitalist, audience commodification isn’t necessarily a moral evil. The audience gets an entertainment product in exchange. In a consumer society, this has been how media has functioned successfully and evolved in the past 50 years—farther back if you consider radio and print media. Its wild success in growing American consumerism is why we’re exposed to more than 3,000 advertising messages a day.

But my focus is not on audiences in a personal entertainment context, but on participants in a religious context. Specifically, I’m investigating how this process of commodification has shifted (or expanded) from living rooms to churches in the past few years, as commercial entertainment media has sought to get their messages into the Christian context by facilitating sermons, music and outreach. It seems the film industry in particular has fed us the notion that current movie tie-ins are the table stakes for cultural relevance in church ministry.

Unlike evaluating audience commodification purely on economic grounds, the work screaming to be done (in my opinion) is to look at this phenomenon from a Kingdom perspective. The conflict of interest is found at the crossroads of commercial media interests and the mission of the church. This is a story of two kingdoms with competing goals.

Next, in part 2, the Quasimodo factor….
TSAWWT Bookmarks:

 del.icio.us |  Digg |  Technorati

Leopard leaps ahead

Friday, October 26, 2007

I’m just full of Microsoft criticism today. But I can’t help myself. With Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard shipping as of tonight, I had to include this video clip of Walt Mossberg at the WSJ highlighting the most significant features, along with clearly proclaiming its superiority over Windows Vista. And for all those who may make the (sometimes valid) economic argument, please note this fact: Leopard, priced at $129 for everyone, bests Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate Edition, priced at $319 (price from Amazon.com). (Pictured: Mossberg w/Gates and Jobs.) Enjoy uncle Walt’s highlights:

TSAWWT Bookmarks:

 del.icio.us |  Digg |  Technorati

Ads in your face

Friday, October 26, 2007

Color me cynical, but I’ve never thought there was a long future in the walled garden social media approach of Facebook and Myspace. I’ve always been irked by visiting personal websites that require registration or membership to experience fully. This bias has kept me out of the game and out in the wilds of the Internet with my own site. At the same time, I totally get the excitement over what these platforms offer and how people use them. But the big business question has always been, how do you monetize it? This leads to a theory of mine about social media: The more you monetize it, the less people like it.

Yesterday it was announced that Facebook cut a deal with Microsoft, accepting a cash infusion/investment of $240 million to carry it into the glorious future of profit. This deal, while not an acquisition, is significant in the battle to monetize (read: profit from) facebook, with Microsoft outbidding Google for access to the faces of Facebook.

As Google’s market cap approaches Microsoft’s, this deal makes social media the battleground in internet technology. News Corp’s acquisition of MySpace and Google’s grab of YouTube, both in big money deals, had put Facebook on the watch list. While CEO Mark Zuckerberg may think a less audacious investment deal allows Facebook to retain its autonomy, we’re talking about Microsoft. Don’t count on it.

As the monetization of social media commences in earnest, I’d be interested in hearing how users react over time. Like my Thesis is investigating, this is the first steps in audience commodification in the Web 2.0 context. With the boundaries of personal privacy so fluid in the Facebook world, it’s hard to predict how deeply impacted the audience will be, and how they will react.

Here’s a great quote from the San Jose Mercury News story:
“To meet Microsoft's lofty expectations, Facebook must not only expand its audience but also change the nature of the site, said Keith Benjamin, managing director at the venture firm Levensohn Venture Partners. People today go to social-network sites to catch up with friends and keep track of events - not to buy products, he noted.”

In other media coverage, I’ve found reports that most Facebook users drop out of the network once college is over. What will Microsoft’s investment be netting when the party’s over—or shifts to the next new thing?

Will the walled gardens become more like virtual ghettos of targeted marketing, will most users simply adjust and cope, or will a backlash take hold?

TSAWWT Bookmarks:

 del.icio.us |  Digg |  Technorati

You can skype if you want to.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

It’s true. I’ve had issue getting video chats to work via iChat, and I think this has to do with my home network setup (which needs an overhaul). But I can’t wait to fix that, so I’m trying skype just to see if it works. If you have skype and video capabilities, look me up and let’s test it out. Someday I hope to do video chats like a real grownup techno geek. (Although I’m sure it’s more exciting for me than it is for anyone else that will see my mug online). You can now see my skype status in the sidebar.

Get your skype here.

TSAWWT Bookmarks:

 del.icio.us |  Digg |  Technorati

Stealing music from Jesus

Friday, October 12, 2007

The thought occurred to me after reading an excellent feature in BusinessWeek by Justin Bachman that the woes of the music industry haven’t necessarily been visited on the genre of Christian worship music.

With Radiohead’s name-your-price direct release of their new record, along with a landmark $200,000+ legal judgment against a low income, single mom for stealing music last week (nice PR move, RIAA), the recording industry has been abuzz over the digital shift.

“Digital is the new paradigm. Who needs a record label to handle marketing and public relations anymore? Musicians can just set up a MySpace page and talk directly with their fans. Record labels used to help court radio stations, too, to get music on the air. Now you can zip MP3 copies of your first single via e-mail to anyone in the world.”

So what’s different about Christian music? Well, mostly that the lion share of the Christian music business has gravitated to a worship music orientation. In this genre, stealing has different implications. Along with getting sued by the RIAA, there’s the Ten Commandments, of course, and the ongoing guilt of worshipping with stolen art.

Of course, I have no stats on this, so I am just making a broad supposition. But let’s grant this assumption for the moment: most Christians don’t steal their worship music.

This would leave the entire burgeoning genre, which generates a good deal of revenue for the big four record labels, as the sole survivor of the old label paradigm. (How long did we suffer paying $18 for CDs at Christian bookstores when secular music was competing for dwindling market share at Target, Best Buy and Walmart at around $12.)

Digital music changed all that. But Christian worship music, because of the ethical standards of its audience, currently stands as an anachronism in the music business. Here are my thoughts about how this works, and they way it may change:

I’ve written about this a little in the past, but I’ll cover some of my assumptions again to set up my hypothesis. Today, CCLI creates a de facto ratings and revenue system in worship music, akin to radio airplay. This keeps the royalty engine flowing for record labels every weekend—something radio, with its limited commercial reach in Christian music, could never accomplish consistently.

There are a few reasons why CCLI can create a conflict of interest for the church, but let’s focus on how digital music and participatory technologies could disrupt this tidy arrangement, and subsequently end major label dominance over the worship music market. In other words, the labels may see Worship music as a boon—and drive even more marketing resources to squeeze more commercial revenue from the old model. But they should be looking ahead to what’s happening in The Church. The party won’t last.

If we take new church models seriously at all (House, Simple, Cell, New Monastic, Community, etc.), you have to think about more and more worship music moving into smaller and smaller contexts. That means informal small groups playing worship tunes with no CCLI reporting and, therefore, no revenue drivers (is this stealing?). Add to this the movement to create and share original music in these church communities, and you can see where this is headed.

Connect these trends to digital sharing and creation of new music across small church communities online, and you have even more music being used and created off the label grid. This can’t be music to label executives’ ears. It works against the very things the big labels are good at—large scale distribution, promotion and mass royalty generation.

While the megachurch movement has driven the old label model to new heights in worship music, the micro church slowly chips away at the foundation. The strongest market demographic for worship music is, to a large extent, the same people at the forefront of re-imagining the church—and worship music along with it.

It’s clear from the BusinessWeek article that the labels are looking for new and innovative ways for their marketing engine to make the music business profitable again. They should not be under the delusion that their Christian worship music "industry" will forever be a mighty fortress of steady revenue in the digital, participatory technology age. Especially if more and more people opt out of the system.

Of course, I think that’s a good thing. Your mileage may vary.
Let me know what you think.

TSAWWT Bookmarks:

  del.icio.us |  Digg |  Technorati

Touching off the podcomputer revolution

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

The iPod moment. Sounds a little pretentious, I know. But bear with me. As a student of communication and journalism, this is a fascinating time for media. So pardon the commercial--because it's really more about what it is changing in media.

I recently got my hands on my nephew’s new iPod Touch. Getting it functional required upgrading his long-in-the-tooth eMac running 10.3 to a current 10.4.10. Mission accomplished. This allowed me to spend some time with the Touch.

Now, I’ve used Palms and Blackberries. And I would define them as computers. But comparing these to an iPod Touch or iPhone is like comparing a desk calculator to a PC. Both are computers with screens, but they are worlds apart.

Holding the iPod Touch in my hands and navigating its functions made me realize that the “real” podcomputer had indeed arrived. And it’s going to change everything for traditional media. I’m not alone in this realization.

The linked article by Jeff Jarvis, writing in The Guardian, gets at the media implications of this new class of devices: “These new devices represent the next generation of the computer: small, sleek, powerful, portable. Everything that the computer, the web, and the browser have done to content - enabling it to become infinite but personal; instantaneous yet permanent; unrestricted by medium because it offers all media; and enriched by the conversation around it - is now in the palm of your hand.”

To that, I would only add, everything is now at your fingertips. The implications for newspapers and TV are enormous. As an editor of The Guardian newspaper (UK) is quoted as saying of the impending ‘iPod moment’ for his medium, “the world of newspapers will shudder on its axis.”

I highly recommend the whole article. Jarvis is a professor of journalism at City University in New York. He blogs here.

TSAWWT Bookmarks:

 del.icio.us |  Digg |  Technorati

How do you do this live?

Sunday, October 07, 2007

Okay, I've seen the video (which is amazing). But how do you pull this off live (although, I know it's not really live)? Mute Math on Jimmy Kimmel:

TSAWWT Bookmarks:

 del.icio.us |  Digg |  Technorati

Songs of mass destruction found

Sunday, October 07, 2007

I've missed Annie Lennox.

So glad she's back--back in an explosive way. To be honest, this is a perfect time for me to show my egalitarian cards. How could anyone forsake the artistry and power feminism of Ms. Lennox? While some anger management drop-out nut jobs from rainy Microsoft land may rant and rave like men's men to keep "women in their place," Annie L. is locked and loaded. Sing it, sister!

This record is another amazing chapter in an already amazing lexicon. I've lifted a video from her new single, as well as one just especially for complementarians. Peace out.

Feel free to flame me for what I said up there in para. 1. I totally deserve it.

TSAWWT Bookmarks:

 del.icio.us |  Digg |  Technorati