Who's watching the watchdog

The Spinning Door: This refers to the fact that their are many former industry executives and lawyers who then go and work for the FCC and vice versa. This means that the people who are making the policies to regulate these industries once worked for them, meaning that it is possible that they will not do a fair and unbiased job. If someone was the head of a company, and then left that company to work for the FCC he will probablly try to help them out as much as he can even if its at the expense of public interest. Also, if someone from the FCC, then goes to work for a large company, it is likely that they will use their inside knowledge and pull to benefit his new company. With so much controversy still existing especially over consolidation of owvership it is a bit concerning to know that the very companies who need to be regulate could potentially have so much influence with the FCC.

Frequent Flyers: This has to do with the fact that the FCC excepts money from outside sources espcially in the form of free travel and entertainment. The report "On the Road Again- and Again," found that the FCC had accepted nearly $2.8 million from outrside sources over an eight year period. This was during Michael Powell's tenure and is especially troubling because he was a huge proponent of deregualtion, which favors the large media conglomerates, and at the same time he and fellow FCC members are accepting gifts from these same media giants. I guess that's just how America works; so much for serving the interests of the public.

Behind close doors: This part describes how many FCC meetings take place "behind close doors" in which they are not recorded and minutes are not taken. This causes me to be suspicious as to why they do this and what exactly takes place at these meetings. While these meetings aren't ilegal, it still makes you wonder if there perhaps some type of corrupt dealings taking place.

As far as if anything has happened since 2003 to change how the FCC works, if not entirely sure but I do feel that corporate consolidation is definitely still a problem as fewer companies continue to have more power and influence. I hope that the FCC will be able to step up and do what is best for the public, and what better time than now, during the era of "Change" that Obama is sure to usher in, or at least we hope he does.

Merchants of Cool

We live in an increasingly commercial society and as a result advertising is becoming more prevalent. Companies must continue to find creative ways to appeal to their potential costumers as we have seen a shift away from the simple catchy jingles of years past and towards more innovative techniques. It is not enough to just sell the items any more, these companies must try to sell a culture. Consumers often catch on easily to more traditional marketing techniques thus rendering them ineffective. Companies must now try to tap into their consumers’ sub-conscious and convince them that their products represent more than just their tangible worth, but rather they represent a culture that is cool and desirable and something they want to be a part of.

In the second video we saw how Sprite realized they were struggling and that their straight forward marketing was ineffective and seen as “lame” or “uncool” by their target consumers. They were then able to increase their sales and popularity by launching an unconventional campaign in which NBA star Grant Hill, then of the Detroit Pistons, made fun of celebrity endorsement and basically mocked other conventional forms of advertisement. This worked at first as consumers appreciated the staright forward approach and the credit that they were being given by Sprite in acknowledging they weren’t stupid. However after a while they grew tired of these ads and Sprite was forced to adapt again, and they did by attaching themselves to MTV and the hip hop culture. Sprite hosted a huge party featuring many popular hip hop artists and co branded it with a popular show on MTV. By doing this, kids were able to see something they already thought to be cool and identify it with Sprite which proved to be very effective for Sprite.

We also can see similar tactics being used in the fast food industry, especially by Taco Bell and McDonalds, as both companies try to associate themselves with a party lifestyle and show that they are cool. Taco Bell went from using the Chihuahua, which was extremely successful for a while, to their more current ads where guys say they are going “clubbing” and then go to Taco Bell to get some chilupas. They also make sure to emphasize that they are open late so when young people return from a night out they can have what Taco bell refers to as “fourth meal.” McDonalds launched a similar campaign for their McGriddle sandwiches, which they said can be breakfast for some, or a bed time snack for others, encouraging people to eat McGriddles when after a long night partying. Both companies are trying to appeal to the college lifestyle and in my opinion have been successful.

The first video also mentioned how political campaigns are starting to use more of these marketing strategies. I would agree, especially in this last election as I felt like these candidates were being presented to me as brands. The issues seemingly took a back seat as Obama represented hope and really targeted the young generation of new voters, while McCain was presented as guy who appeals to the common man. In politics in general it seems as if candidates try to sell themselves to voters rather than focus on what is really important. We saw more and more narrowcasting in the 2004 Kerry, Bush election as both candidates tried to appeal to specific groups with a more personal and specialized messages. I personally don’t like that these tactics are finding their way into the real of politics as it tends to obscure what the true issues are but it’s probably unavoidable as that’s just the way our society is these days.