We as Americans are immersed in a society solely based off advertising. Everywhere we are, advertising makes every possible effort to meet us and to persuade us to at least pay attention to their product, organization, service or idea. Television is one of the two mediums (the other being the Internet) I expose myself to day in and day out. ESPN and MTV are the two channels which have the most effect on me in terms of catching my attention. The Internet plays the same role as television on a much broader scale through various websites including YouTube, Facebook, and Pandora, which are all websites I visit daily. Throughout this 24 hour process, I have noticed and have become much more in tuned with how much these organizations use their products, ideas and services to their advantage.
You lay down in bed, grab your laptop and hit the power button. You then grab the silver Service Electric remote (which by the way promotes its deals and sales on demand) and hit the power button and follow up by hitting channel 77. Music Television has a variety of commercials, although that variety attracts a much younger demographic, ranging from the early teens to mid to late twenties. From Gillette Fusion Proglide razors and Gillette Odor Shield, to facial cleanser by Clear&Clear, Sonic jumbo popcorn chicken and Gatorade commercials galore, I instantly was hit and persuaded to buy, buy, buy at 10 A.M. What I find most ironic is one particular Gatorade commercial starring Michael Jordan which made me want to buy Gatorade, which I did. (Talk about an impulse buy) Throughout the day, Ridiculousness, Cribs, Jersey Shore, and Parental Control owned the prime-time slot. Advertisements consisted of Proactiv cleansers during Jersey Shore, Chevrolet Sonic commercial starring Rob Dyrdek during Ridiculousness (who would have guessed) and Xenadrine commercial starring Ronnie from Jersey Shore. Many of the advertisements including Gatorade and Proactiv popped up multiple times and even the term "name recognition" helps you understand the commercial could be a bore or ridiculous and the brand will still help it sell.
Repetition can be a blessing and a curse. The Internet uses much more subtle yet obnoxious approaches. Ever enter a website and notice as you scroll down, an advertisement follows you blocking your view. The only way to rid yourself of this Nat is too click and consume or refresh. Many people can understand the irritation I have and emphasize with me when I say both Pandora and YouTube have sold out in terms of advertisements interrupting viral videos. You click through a few songs on Pandora and you have no choice but to pay attention. "Thanks Pandora listeners!" YouTube allows you to skip on certain advertisements but that depends on how much money YYouTube receives for that advertisement. The reason I do not give a specific time for these examples is because this is random, repetitive, and a common occurrence. Facebook is much more subtle in its approach of advertising. On your home page, you have one sponsored picture however, you may click a "see all" link and buy a Gibson guitar, create your own anime, or mark a travel map of every city you have ever been in. From here you can even create your own ad!
You yourself can be the Nat. You have the power now too approach and be your own medium. It is the world we live in today. It is the reason the US spends $263 billion on advertising as of 2004. Through this 24 hour process, you notice just how much you consume advertisements, show much so that it just becomes a huge blur. Therefore, nowadays, advertisers will do whatever it takes to get at least a snip of your attention throughout the day. That's not even including the fact that not all mediums are consumed during the day. That is just the world we live in today. We all are consumers, it is inevitable, and the exposure of advertising again can be a blessing and a curse.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
SPE 210 - Blog 2
Should College Football players be paid? An ongoing debate which has good information and evidential support to both agree and disagree. I read to articles by Michael Wilbon and DJ Gallo, both on ESPN.com, who gave specific point as to why it is both moral and immoral or legal and illegal.
Gallo used a statistical, although hypothetical, mock lifestyle of your average college football player. "A report published this week by an advocacy group for college athletes claims the average FBS player would be worth $121,000 a year. None other than Steve Spurrier supports the report's reasoning." After stating the worth, Gallo then caught fire in terms of statistical proof of what any college football would need if instead of getting a scholarship, but a net worth of $121,000 compensation. "An annual salary of $121,000 works out to about $10,000 a month. Take approximately 35 percent out of there immediately for federal, state and local taxes and that's down to $6,500 per month. Of course, college athletes aren't going to get paid AND still get full scholarships, so they'll need to pay their way through school. Take out $1,500 a month for tuition and books and we're down to $5,000 a month. Cool. Still good money." Gallo then went on to the most minuscule of money situations from electronics, clothing, food, money and even a miscellaneous category which all seemed plausible in terms of a college student. In the end, Gallo, upon tallying up the numbers decreed that your average college football player would be $450 deep in debt. Ultimately, you as a college football player are better of receiving your full-ride rather than asking for compensation.
On the other hand however, Michael Wilbon made a compelling argument in terms of how much money college athletes as whole should receive due to the revenue stream of the NCAA, conferences and even schools receive. "The best college athletes in the two revenue-producing sports (Football and Basketball) have always been worth much more than tuition, room, board and books. The best football and basketball players in the Big Ten have produced to the degree that a television network has become the model for every conference in America, a network worth at least tens of millions of dollars to the member institutions. Yet, no player can benefit from that work. The players have become employees of the universities and conferences as much as students -- employees with no compensation, which not only violates common decency but perhaps even the law." Wilbon argues that student athletes as a whole, not just football players (despite the fact that football players produce the best ratings and the strongest revenue pool) deserve to be compensated with so much money being thrown around. Understand that yes between the NCAA and CBS/Turner Sports struck a deal between 2011 and 2024 for March Madness worth $11 billion for three weekends which is an incredible amount of money under the circumstances, but college athletes are "COLLEGE" athletes.
It is true that college athletes come for certain sports, whatever one in particular it may be, but people need to realize that its an institution of higher learning and education that we as students are here for. Its not about the camaraderie of the entertainment of the sport, let alone participating in it.College athletes help revenue streams for universities therefore they receive a big enough piece of the pie by receiving a full ride, let alone a scholarship even at all. Student athletes as a whole are being help up on a pedestal when they should appreciate the fact that they receive and education for free. Understood that they put forth countless however of practice and studying while trying to enjoy college and what social life they may have, but to demand money for numbers you are putting up for a university that ASKED you to come, not DEMANDED it is completely irrelevant and ridiculous. No more money need to be spent on entertainment. Why don't we actually put money towards education, the real life saver in today's society?
Should College Football players be paid? An ongoing debate which has good information and evidential support to both agree and disagree. I read to articles by Michael Wilbon and DJ Gallo, both on ESPN.com, who gave specific point as to why it is both moral and immoral or legal and illegal.
Gallo used a statistical, although hypothetical, mock lifestyle of your average college football player. "A report published this week by an advocacy group for college athletes claims the average FBS player would be worth $121,000 a year. None other than Steve Spurrier supports the report's reasoning." After stating the worth, Gallo then caught fire in terms of statistical proof of what any college football would need if instead of getting a scholarship, but a net worth of $121,000 compensation. "An annual salary of $121,000 works out to about $10,000 a month. Take approximately 35 percent out of there immediately for federal, state and local taxes and that's down to $6,500 per month. Of course, college athletes aren't going to get paid AND still get full scholarships, so they'll need to pay their way through school. Take out $1,500 a month for tuition and books and we're down to $5,000 a month. Cool. Still good money." Gallo then went on to the most minuscule of money situations from electronics, clothing, food, money and even a miscellaneous category which all seemed plausible in terms of a college student. In the end, Gallo, upon tallying up the numbers decreed that your average college football player would be $450 deep in debt. Ultimately, you as a college football player are better of receiving your full-ride rather than asking for compensation.
On the other hand however, Michael Wilbon made a compelling argument in terms of how much money college athletes as whole should receive due to the revenue stream of the NCAA, conferences and even schools receive. "The best college athletes in the two revenue-producing sports (Football and Basketball) have always been worth much more than tuition, room, board and books. The best football and basketball players in the Big Ten have produced to the degree that a television network has become the model for every conference in America, a network worth at least tens of millions of dollars to the member institutions. Yet, no player can benefit from that work. The players have become employees of the universities and conferences as much as students -- employees with no compensation, which not only violates common decency but perhaps even the law." Wilbon argues that student athletes as a whole, not just football players (despite the fact that football players produce the best ratings and the strongest revenue pool) deserve to be compensated with so much money being thrown around. Understand that yes between the NCAA and CBS/Turner Sports struck a deal between 2011 and 2024 for March Madness worth $11 billion for three weekends which is an incredible amount of money under the circumstances, but college athletes are "COLLEGE" athletes.
It is true that college athletes come for certain sports, whatever one in particular it may be, but people need to realize that its an institution of higher learning and education that we as students are here for. Its not about the camaraderie of the entertainment of the sport, let alone participating in it.College athletes help revenue streams for universities therefore they receive a big enough piece of the pie by receiving a full ride, let alone a scholarship even at all. Student athletes as a whole are being help up on a pedestal when they should appreciate the fact that they receive and education for free. Understood that they put forth countless however of practice and studying while trying to enjoy college and what social life they may have, but to demand money for numbers you are putting up for a university that ASKED you to come, not DEMANDED it is completely irrelevant and ridiculous. No more money need to be spent on entertainment. Why don't we actually put money towards education, the real life saver in today's society?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)