3 posts from March 2008

I don’t know that we are actually going to have a class about this, but I am interested in this topic and I do think that kids should be given special consideration and when adults, parents and teachers discuss literacy, media literacy is an important component in education in the 21^st century.

I recently picked up a book from the library about Media Literacy by W. James Potter. (I know the irony is painful, but I actually like course textbooks as intros into different subjects.) It’s interesting because the point is made right off that it is not just kids that need to be taught to evaluate media and ask deeper questions, like what, how and why certain media is shown and the meaning behind it. Especially considering how much of the day is filled with media of every kind.

This book notes three important factors that impact ability to deconstruct media: experience, actively using skills to ask meaningful questions, and finally maturation. Children need time to cognitively develop. Again, according to Porter, “only 10% of children between 5 and 7 years of age have a clear understanding of the profit-seeking motives of commercials” (Potter, 22).

I remember my own personal love of Teddy Ruxpin and favorite childhood commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kc2HvjO8z4. I wanted this bear so much and remember my mom finally sitting me down to explain that Teddy wouldn’t actually talk to me, and wasn’t actually “worth it” – whatever that meant to my little 5 year old mind. I never did get my own Teddy, and at the time, I don’t think I learned anything about the difference between advertising and real life either. Marketing has come a long way in childhood toys, even from that time.

I think the current most infiltrated toy on the market right now is the Webkinz product line of animals that also come to life when you sign up for the online community at http://www.webkinz.com/.

Media literacy obviously needs a place in early childhood education, not to stop kids from wanting what they see on TV or in ads, because that will never happen, but to make them aware of what is actually happening. I’d be interested to know, as educators, who’s doing this successfully and what they are doing?

In the March 22 edition of the Economist, there was an interesting article published on the role of social networking in online business. The question is whether the actual sites used to connect individuals will simply become a function of preferred web portals. Is the social function the new search for leading sites like Google to maintain their favorable position in the market?

Currently you have to sign up to independent networks in order to link to friends, and after the initial buzz of linking is over the rate at which people are drawn to those networks is drastically decreased.

The idea is that social networking in essence should be a main component of what it means to be “online.” It is more than obtaining information, it is also about connecting with others.

Mimi Ito recently reported at a MacArthur gathering that one interesting difference she found among Internet users were the different ways people actually interacted with social networks within the Internet. Specifically, she found two types of social users, those who go online to connect to existing friends and participate in existing networks through a new medium, and those who go online to connect to new networks or participate in knowledge sharing networks found around shared interests. The full report should be released later this summer.

Currently, networks work independently of one another. And to join a new network you must re-invent your friend list to each new space. Linking social spaces or opening up platforms to create on log-in that transfers among networks seems to the Economist to be the upcoming place for business.

Even as it is, people will probably pick one network that they love and choose to post information there and then view other profiles from the shared locations once they go big.

The idea that there are investors, just waiting for great ideas to fund with the hope of getting a return is a strange, and yet delightful idea. Reading advice about everything from how to get in the door and then how to craft the perfect pitch are very interesting, but in many ways, it all seems to come down to common sense. The thing that I’m struck with is, what‘s the threshold that makes one idea worth it and another just a lot of time spent on a project. I would guess that is the million dollar question, but it seems like it should be quantifiable in some way.

To be specific, I think I might have an idea that could be valuable, but it would target a small, niche community – which doesn’t necessarily seem to be a bad thing, it just simply isn’t scalable in large terms. It is however, very sustainable and I believe it will be relevant and appealing for the next 3-5 years, easily - and depending on the shifts in technology, perhaps longer. So the question is, “Is it worth it?”

Arguments like the “long-tail” “world is flat” and “tipping point” are all very interesting, and yet somehow very trendy to me. Actually generating and sustaining profit, doesn’t seem that hard, and yet I know that many companies don’t last longer than 3-5 years. What does seem sustainable is a good idea, lots of work, and common sense these three components never change, but they are also very hard, even impossible to quantify.