In most recent years internet advertising has grown exponentially. Within the last 20 years alone the internet advertising market has grown 100 times over. It is estimated to reach a value of $517 billion by the end of 2023. This rapid growth of internet advertising can be explained by the convience of it. Television and billboard ads are very expensive. It is also hard for them to tap into the niche markets of consumers. However the ways of tapping into these niche markets brings in the question of internet security.
More than half of all internet users are concerned with the privacy of their data. Advertising programs were able to track the types of things that you like to watch, or read about. After collecting this data they would be able to understand what types of ads you would see while you are on the internet. However new programs are being introduced in order to add more restrictions to advertising, and promoting more internet privacy. In 2017 apple introduced a new program on their Safari browser called Intelligence Track Prevention (ITP). Which limited websites and advertising requiring of data. More programs like this are being implemented however internet advertising are still finding ways around this limiting programs.
I do not think Busch Gardens was wrong by not immediately acting on the situation regarding ISIS and the props in the Halloween event. This type of event is a large event to plan and was most likely prepared for months in advance. This being said, it would be difficult to act on the situation at hand on such short notice. The company could have acknowledged the type of props that would be included in the experience, and apology ahead of time by recognizing the ISIS issue. This being said, I think it was smart of Bush Gardens to keep the show as usual because they did not know how the public would respond. These types of headless props are not unusual to see at a “scary” event. I think the company was right in providing the typical Howl-O-Scream experience because it is what the customers are paying for. They could have received backlash for not providing the experience that so many know and love. Ultimately, this Halloween event and the terrible act of ISIS were not meant to correlate in any way, it was just unfortunate timing for these to take place in such a close time span. I believe the company did a good job of waiting to learn the public response and make up for it by acting on the situation immediately and removing the “insensitive” props.
A Huge actor was on set when he the prop gun went off and shot/ killed the videographer and also shot the director. The titles of all the journal articles that are being published sound like he is the bad guy. When really no one knows yet what has actually happened. As terrible as this event is, he is going to have to live with the fact that he killed someone on set for the rest of his life. Is it right that journalists are titling their posts to make him seem guilty? Or is he really just the victim? Here are some examples of titles being used… “Alec Baldwin was aiming the gun at the director when the gun discharged”. “Will Alec Baldwin be held liable?”. Alec Baldwin has to live with this for the rest of his life although it was an accident. There are so many other gun prop accidents that happen.
The public has questioned the COVID-19 vaccine since its introduction in December 2020. Its presence in advertising on television has been limited to general ads promoting vaccination in general. This is because until August of 2021, none of the vaccines had been officially FDA approved. The FDA prohibits the advertisement of drugs that havenâ€™t been approved entirely by them. Pfizer simply has not shared plans to promote their vaccine yet.
An Instagram user posted about the lack of TV ads claiming that it is because companies donâ€™t want to list all of the side effects of the drug. Tom Kertscher of Politifact discussed the false rating of this speculation in an article in the Tampa Bay Times. It is not because the advertising companies donâ€™t want to list the side effects, it is because they havenâ€™t had full FDA approval long enough to create advertisements.
Pfizer has been approved to advertise their vaccine, now marketed under the name Comirnaty, on television. However, they have yet to market the vaccine and stated they will take â€œa thoughtful approach to marketing and advertising.â€ This reveals their willingness to create ads and their intent to follow ethical and FDA guidelines in the process.
In order to adhere by all FDA guidelines, television advertisements for COVID-19 vaccines have yet to appear. Overall, there will likely be a Pfizer advertisement coming soon based on the company’s intent statement. Moderna still needs FDA approval, but if it is approved soon, COVID-19 vaccine commercials are sure to rise within the next year.
FDA rules have blocked COVID-19 vaccine makers from advertising on TV (tampabay.com)
Facebook is changing their parent company name in the midst of recent scandals like Frances Haugenâ€™s whistleblower testimony. The company will reveal Facebook’s new name on October 28th at their annual Connect conference. Oreoritse Tariemi writes about the name change in her article and discusses how this may be to “shake off” multiple scandals.
Public backlash has been noticeable since the news has come out about the name change. People believe the goal is to distance the parent company of Facebook from the media scrutiny of the recent scandals. Therefore, the Facebook app will likely be viewed as a product owned by the parent company.
Distancing the reputation of the company from the apps is a direct result of Facebook’s egoism. In order to preserve their public image, Facebook created an advertising smokescreen to urge the public to look at the innovative things they are doing and ignore the negative scandals going on. The company has been accused in aiding in misinformation about the 2016 election, fined for allowing a British firm harvest 87 million US profiles for political advertising information, and has been exposed for promoting divisiveness on the Facebook app.
Facebook is switching its name as a diversion from their trending media issues. It is likely an attempt to uphold Zuckerberg’s reputation from further damage under the name â€œFacebook.â€
Whether it is a smokescreen or not, Facebook will be going through with its name change. Do you think people are right to mock Facebook for this sudden advertising stunt? Will the public go along with Facebook’s ruse and continue to ignore the information coming out?
Fake news is something that is now just a normal thing that we see, especially in this generation, on a day to day basis. There have been numerous studies on different social media platforms that show that false news gets interacted with and spread more than the truthful information does. This has been very damaging to our society and this is a big part of why there is such a huge divide today.
There are a lot of reasons as to why people may spread false news. A lot of false news has been spread through politics, on both ends, and it has almost started to become a competition. All it takes is one false piece of news to dictate someones beliefs nowadays, which can lead to a lot of issues. Other people tend to spread false news knowing that it will get a lot of attention.
Fake news goes beyond just us, it can be used as a threat. The FBI is undergoing an investigation regarding Russians and other countries outside of the U.S., posted fake news regarding politics, knowing the damage it would cause.
The statistics of false news compared to the truth is outrageous. The truth has a thirty percent chance of getting reposted, while the false news has a seventy percent chance. One can imagine what that does to the society and how people perceive certain pieces of information. It is everyday users of social media that are posting these false statements, and they are making it seem very believable.
Tatiana Torres, Genevieve Chiaramonte, Daniela Jimenez
This article discusses that the founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, may have lied to Congress about Amazonâ€™s business practices. Recent news discovered that an investigation by Reuters claims to have found that Amazon has been copying products to boost sales for Amazon. Research also claims to find that Amazon has rigged search results in India to make Amazon have more sales by directing the consumer to itâ€™s site. Amazon has denied all of the claims. This article explains that Amazon might have lied to Congress and might have violated federal law. Recent reports found Amazon has been fined $886 million for alleged law breach and that Amazon is charged with abusing the EU competition rules. Investigations have been happening since 2019. The Judiciary Committee has been investigating digital markets and watching Amazon by investigating third party sellers to find out if they are favoring their own products. Nate Sutton, Amazon’s general counsel explains â€œThe firm never used data to create its own – branded products or manipulate its search results for private gain. The algorithms are optimised to predict what the customer wants to buy regardless of the sales.â€ Amazon will grow more and more due to itâ€™s fast and affordable products and fast shipping. Problems will continue to grow if Amazon does not own up to these claims or prove that this is not true.
While I can see where both sides are coming from in this case, I believe it is important to consider the time at which this was occurring. The â€œbattleâ€ of Googleâ€™s â€œfair use lawâ€ ended in 2013, a time in which the internet was nowhere near the level to which it is at today. So, in this case, I think it is justifiable for the authors not to see the potential compensation in their work, as they were probably unaware as to the magnitude that the internet would soon have. While Googleâ€™s digitization of the books upon their own authority breached levels of infringement rights, it certainly posed a â€œfree advertisementâ€ for the authors, which would have given them indirect compensation. As a college student, I am constantly using Google as a resource for different papers and projects. If I stumbled upon a reliable, credible source on Google that only provided me limited information, I would do everything in my power to obtain the book, which could ultimately involve a cost. I think many college students have this mindset, especially those born in the technological age. While I do think Google failed to gain consent from the authors, the authors also failed to see how they would benefit from the situation simply due to the timing of the case.
Social media is a great platform for you to stay in touch with anyone and everyone. By inputting certain likes and dislikes, you can connect with people with similar interests as you. The first time you join a social media platform making account is very simple. All you need to do Is input your name, email, and thatâ€™s it right? Wrong. Social media platforms can have access to copious amounts of your personal information including your address, who you are friends with, your phone number, you location at all times and many other personal things. These applications are supposed to be a safe place for you to explore the web however, social media apps such as Facebook and Instagram take your personal information and use it to select advertisements that would pique your interest. While this is smart on the companyâ€™s side, it is very invasive. Many Facebook consumers have tested out a theory that says that Facebook listens to what you talk about. This young couple who has never owned a pet before spent a couple days talking about cat food and how their cat needs more. To their surprise they started to receive advertisements for cat food. This is shocking because we know that these social media platforms have access to our personal information to create advertisements based of that but this situation is very interesting because all this couple did was talk about what they needed and they received an ad for it.