WhoseTube?
by ishein1
Two years ago, Google paid a copious, $1.65 billion to acquire the incipiently profitless Web site, YouTube. This video sharing website’s meteoric rise was in part due to its software’s facileness and accessibility. In this light, anyone with access to a computer and some gumption could post their own video. In an effort to transform their costly addition into a revenue-producing agent, Google announced that it would begin selling space to advertisers on YouTube’s search results pages. As a result, an advertiser can bid on key word searches. Interestingly, advertisers pay based upon the number of clicks on their ads. This new profit-making addition coincides with a recently added “click to buy” feature, which directs users to an ancillary site that provides a purchasing opportunity. Sociologists have a perennial interest in media production and consumption. Utilizing the lens of the critical theorist Walter Benjamin, it is palpable that there is the potential of what Benjamin refers to as the democratization of the media. Within this paradigm the production and consumption of media is taken out of the hands of the elite. One can see the potential promise but augur the insidious nature of the now profit seeking YouTube. With Google’s attempt to create a profit-oriented advertisement model and change YouTube’s image, the possibility of democratization is precarious. The users’ power to weed out the detritus is weakened, and the power of those with more economic capital is increased. As a result, the greatest number of “hits” or views is of content provided by major media conglomerates, thus thwarting parvenus. The question remains, is it possible for a media source to make a profit while its democratic process remains unabated? If we are to take the quotidian torrent of user interactive Internet media seriously, then we must be careful not to have content adulterated by a profit-seeking motive.
Read More
Lincoln Dahlberg on Computer-Mediated Communication and The Public Sphere
 |
1475-682X/asset/akdkey.jpg?v=1&s=eef6c6a27a6d15977bc8f9cc0c7bc7fbe54a32de)
Great post! I think a point that might be made here deals with *what* is actually being “democratized”. The ability to produce content has, indeed, democratized to a large extent. But while the tools of production are democratized, the profit-potential remains fixed in the hands of the few (here, Google). From the point of view of capitalists, turning consumers into prosumers means that unpaid labor pay for their own means of production (in time, effort, ideas, etc), an endlessly efficient profit-model for, in this case, Google. Should the question be if companies can make profit while keeping media free, or, in light of user-generated technologies, should it be instead phrased in terms of keeping media free of profit to begin with? ~nathan