podcast...it's not a spaceship.

I have to admit that when I first read that our assignment was to blog about “podcasting” I was a little bit apprehensive. I’ve never downloaded a podcast and have never even looked into it. This is sad to admit as a musician, but I do not even own an mp3 player. Upon researching what a podcast is all about though, it seems pretty cool and is definitely something I want to use in the future. I was amazed to find out how much stuff is out there for the taking.

A podcast is basically a show (either audio or video) that is available for free download to your computer or iPod. Its name is derived by combining the words (i)Pod and (broad)cast. Because you can download the podcast, you don’t have to be connected to the internet to view whatever you want to watch. You can take it with you on your computer or iPod.



This technology is especially useful for people who want to broadcast their own radio show or put music or shows they have created out there for people to get a hold of. It makes it easier to gain a fan base or garner attention, instead of relying on production companies to back you for promotions. With podcasts, you can promote yourself without the industry telling you what to create. This is an exciting advancement for people wanting to express uncensored creativity and opinions.

It’s also exciting for people who love certain shows or music and want to take clips with them. You can subscribe to a certain podcast and whenever that podcast posts new material it will be downloaded for you, kind of like the way a DVR works. This is nice if you have something you are really interested in and would like to be continuously updated on it.

If I were to subscribe to a podcast, I think I would start with The Soup starring Joel McHale. Even though it is just clips of his TV show, which I watch religiously, I would still be interested in watching them over again or sharing them with friends (that is if I owned an iPod). Some other ones that I found that looked interesting were Dawson’s Creek reruns (when I feel like kickin’ it old school) and a podcast devoted to movie and music reviews.

I can see that this might be a problem if I get into this, because so much of my time is already devoted to keeping up with my favorite shows on DVR then reading the reviews of the shows on fan sites, watching YouTube weekly broadcasts, and keeping up with my social media outlets of course. This is just one more thing to add to my already technologically dependant life. That is part of the reason why I refuse to get an iPod or internet on my phone. I know I would lose all touch with the physical world around me if I had music and videos and at my disposal any moment I wanted to.

Maybe it’s time to jump on the bandwagon though because I have to admit, podcasts seem pretty awesome :)

Scavenger Hunt...

• Where is the job/internship located?

The job I am interested in is located at the news station KCTV in Kansas City, MO...only three hours away from home :)

• Who is the parent owner of the agency/station?

The station is a CBS station owned by the Meredith Corporation.

• What interests you about the job?

I really enjoy the graphic design aspect of multimedia and would love to work in a position that combines elements of journalism and design. Being a web managing editor, I could control both the content that is put on the site and the physical look of it.

• What can you be doing while a student at Lindenwood University to prepare for a career in your chosen industry and at this station or agency?

As a student I can continue learning design software to prepare for the graphic design elements of the job. I could submit work to be used in school promotions to develop a portfolio. I could also improve my writing skills through journalism classes and try to submit stories to the newspaper. Another good thing to do would be maintaining a blog and promoting it so other Lindenwood students would read it.

Let's be Honest...

Marketing to Gen Y is a lot more difficult than it has been in the past. This generation does not respond to advertising the same way as generations past and we get our media in different ways. The way companies advertise has to change to fit our new standard, or they will find themselves to be yesterday’s news.

One of the major changes in marketing to Gen Y is that we do not want to be lied to. We can tell when an ad is over the top and we do not appreciate something that tries to deceive. In order to market to Gen Y you have to be direct and honest. Gen Y feels like they can do whatever they imagine and they know a lot. You cannot belittle us by trying to make us buy into a false or misleading ad. We are too smart for that.

Another change is the way we get our marketing. Media for Gen Y is different from past generations. We watch less TV (especially less commercials thanks to DVR) and we read less printed material. We spend a lot of time on the internet, but pop-up ads are annoying and usually ineffective.

Many companies are straying from traditional advertising methods like TV commercials, print ads, and billboards and opting for more of a word of mouth technique to marketing. If a member of Gen Y hears first hand that some product is hip or cool, it seems honest and genuine. They are much more likely to tell their friends and pass the product along.

One company using this technique is Red Bull. They have a Red Bull truck that drives around places where Gen Y hangs out and pass out free cans of Red Bull. They associated themselves with the environment of Gen Y until eventually they just became a part of it. Now they are known as the cool energy drink company that gives away free stuff and does not BS you.

I think that is the most important thing. We are sick of used car commercial ads and companies that promise the world, but do not deliver. We just want to see the product in an honest light- no hype, no false build up.

So are companies changing to meet our new demands? I think it is still a discovery process. Marketers have figured out what we do not like, but the right way to reach us still is not completely perfected. One of the most annoying new trends in marketing is product placement in movies. There is a particular scene in the movie Talladega Nights where brands are all over the place and of course, we notice them.




Will Ferrell jokes about the products to let us know that they are not trying to trick us, but it is still just annoying. I would rather watch a 30-second commercial for Powerade than have it in the middle of a movie.

Ultimately, I think advertisers are moving in the right direction. It is not all that difficult. Say your product is environmentally friendly, promote a cool concert, and give away some freebies and with Gen Y you are golden.

Well I guess I'm off to Davy Jones' Locker...

Pirating is such a funny word to describe how people get music and movies illegally. It makes it sound like we are attacking the RIAA with cannons and taking their songs as our plunder. In reality, pirating is something done by almost everyone in Gen Y and there are no cannons involved…at least I hope not.

I first learned about pirating music in high school. When I got my own laptop I learned how to take music off CDs and rip them onto my computer. Then I expanded to ripping my friends CDs. Eventually we were all passing music around from laptops, jump drives, and iPods. It never really occurred to me that this was wrong.

If my friend buys a magazine or a movie, there is nothing wrong with me borrowing it. In the same way, if my friend buys music, can’t I listen to it too? I use this justification to make myself feel better about stealing music, which is essentially what I am doing.

It gets even worse when I take music from my very large network of friends on a little program called Limewire. It is just like sharing music with my buddy, except my buddy lives half-way across the world.

I really do think Limewire is wrong, yet I continue to use it. I guess I am just cheap and I use my justification of sharing with a friend to help me sleep at night. I also use the justifications of supporting music and spreading the word about artists, so they can gain more fans. Of course, I could support a band even more by paying for their music, but that would be crazy, right?

Actually, I do support my favorite artists by purchasing their CDs. There is just something about owning a physical copy of a record that illegal downloading just doesn’t capture. I like to read the thank-you’s and look at the liner pictures. However I must admit the amount of music I buy, compared to the amount of music I pirate is insignificant. In the past year, I have bought one CD.

So I cheat the music industry, but what I take from them I make up for in support of the movie industry. I buy so many movies it is ridiculous. I have never even tried to download a movie illegally.

Movies are more difficult to download because of the file size, and in most cases there is a loss in quality. I think movies are meant to be seen on a big screen with good quality sound and picture. It is not worth watching a movie if it is pixilated and dubbed incorrectly. In addition, you usually download a couple viruses along with the stolen movie (I guess it is more like pirates than I originally thought.)

Ultimately, I don’t think that pirating music or movies will stop until the authorities make us walk the plank…err pay fines or go to jail. Gen Y is used to getting what they want at their fingertips, and if they can get it free that’s all the more reason the pirate. ARRR! I feel like watching my legally owned copy of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” now…

A Re-touchy Subject

Photo-Retouching is a widely practiced and highly criticized movement in magazines and other print media. Hardly any publicized photo reaches the masses without at least a little retouching.

Photo-manipulation has had a rather interesting history dating way back to before computers were even imagined. I was very surprised to learn that some iconic photos were doctored including a portrait of Abraham Lincoln and Pulitzer Prize winning images. So is it wrong?

Now I probably should mention that I plan to be a graphic designer, so I probably do not have an entirely fair opinion on this issue. I think that playing around with photos to remove imperfections or create entirely different compositions is a lot of fun. I have to admit that just about every one of my facebook profile pictures is enhanced or perfected in some (usually very minor) way.

I started manipulating photos when I was in junior high and had a rather ridiculous obsession with a certain male singer (it’s too embarrassing to post his name). I would photoshop my head into pictures of him hugging another girl, print out the picture, and hang it in my room. It was rather sad, but introduced me to the world of photo-retouching and in my case total manipulation.

Photoshopping in this capacity is pretty harmless. Everyone knows I did not really meet the singer. In the same way I think that most photo-retouching is not really a problem. Fixing little things about a celebrity’s image does not bother me. I see real people everyday and I like to appreciate the beautiful people, even if it is not what they really look like.

I realize that this is a rather controversial opinion. Many say that the manipulation of women in magazines has led to a standard of beauty that is unrealistic and unattainable. This is especially damaging to impressionable young girls with low self-esteem.

I definitely see the argument, especially when looking at the process of photo-retouching seen below.



Manipulating someone to be completely unrecognizable from reality is definitely taking it to the extreme. I think it would go a long way, especially for girls, to put real women on billboards and magazine covers, but I still love to look at beautifully perfected images every now and then too.

Ultimately, I think it is about doing retouching in small quantities. If a photoshopping job can enhance the aesthetics of a picture without completely changing the image, I think its fine.

On the flipside of the issue, an argument was recently made for photoshopping when an issue of Newsweek featured an un-altered image of Sarah Palin (remember her?) and her facial blemishes and upper lip hair. Newsweek claims they were emphasizing her platform of being a “real woman” but supporters of Palin argue that it is purposefully unflattering and embarrassing. Either way, it does not really matter now, unless of course everyone voted for Obama because they were scared of Palin’s moustache.

This incident just goes to show that photoshopping will continue to be a touchy subject in the media. In the meantime, I will continue editing photos and enhancing pictures…no more pictures me and Clay Aiken though, I promise. Wait…dangit!

Anyone who knows me well enough knows that my greatest vice is a little store called Target. To me it is like a high class Wal-Mart where everything is cuter, more stylish and still inexpensive. The people at General Mills must agree with me because they chose Target exclusively to premiere their retro-style cereal packaging.

According to AdAge.com’s article, General Mills is trying a month-long exclusive promotion with Target using nostalgic packaging for cereals like Cheerios, Honey Nut Cheerios, Lucky Charms, Cocoa Puffs, and Trix. The promotion also includes a free t-shirt with a few proofs of purchase.

I think this is a great promotion. Doing something different to attract consumers attention is always a good idea. I know I noticed it right away when I was walking through the aisles of Target a few weeks ago.

Adults like it because it reminds them of their youth, and anything that can evoke a sense of nostalgia is a good selling point. It works with Gen Y too, because we are always looking for retro or vintage style. For all of our technological advancements and progress, I think Gen Y really relates with anything old-school. It brings a sense of comfort to know that some things will never change.

The article pointed out some negative aspects of the retro box covers. First off, it is obviously not directed at kids. Kids like flashy and fun designs to attract their attention and these boxes don’t really offer that. Another problem is that the more simplified designs might look too similar to the cheaper off-brands and confuse customers or make the boxes blend in with the other boxes in the cereal.

Ultimately, I do not think these are big concerns. Kids are going to eat Trix no matter what is on the box. In addition, parents are the ones buying the cereal so for the most part it does not really matter. As far as the packaging looking too similar to off-brands, once again the consumer is smart enough to know the difference, and they can tell the difference between Cheerios and Grainy-Os.

The throwback packaging is cool and a perfect fit for Target, so I say “job well done General Mills.”

Extra! Extra! Nobody's reading about it...

“Without newspapers what will we know?”

Guest speaker Bob Wigginton used this quote numerous times in his presentation on Friday to stress the importance of newspaper journalism. This is a man who is obviously very passionate about newspapers. After an hour of hearing what he has to say about the future of the newspaper industry, it is easy to see why.

According to Wigginton, the forecast for newspapers is bleak. With six-thousand journalists laid off at major newspapers within the last two years and more layoffs likely to come, the future of journalism is certainly questionable.

So what’s the difference? Why does it matter if newspapers go under?

Well, like Wigginton said, “without newspapers what will we know?” According to him, newspaper journalists are the source of most, if not all, of the news we receive through the various media outlets. Without newspapers we might not get an unbiased perspective on politicians and government actions. There may be no investigative reports to uncover corruption or crimes.

Newspapers have shown through their history that they can certainly make a difference. Wigginton gave examples of journalists uncovering the Watergate scandal with President Nixon and Clinton’s shipping prisoners to other countries for torture. Without investigative newspaper reporters, would we have ever found out about these scandals? Probably not.

So where does that leave newspapers? With all the cutbacks right now, newspapers are moving to backpack journalism where the reporter must also control any video and audio aspects of reporting. This makes it difficult for the reporter to focus on the story and the important issues.

This is not the only change expected in the newspaper business. With fewer and fewer people reading the physical paper news it is likely that newspapers will move to be solely online. Some see this as a scary change or a bad thing, but it’s obvious that the whole world is moving in that direction. I really don’t see the difference between news in a paper and news online. It’s easier to get a hold of and environmentally friendly to read news on the internet.



Wigginton summed it up best when he said, “Journalism will never die, we will continue to seek information it will probably just change form.”