Website analysis

The site I have chosen for my website analysis is http://www.asos.com/, as seen on screen offers a wide range of clothing and beauty copied from the styles of different celebrities.

The homepage is updated regularly, featuring different clickable outfits that are available for purchase and offering different styles such as, “Peggy’s vacation: resort wear goes retro”. Along with adverts for various companies promoting to women 16-30, there are different hyperlinks to child pages taking you to different departments, such as women’s wear. Within those child pages there are other hyperlinks such as ‘day dresses’. ASOS allows for both specific searches or general browsing which corresponds with the real world shopping paradigm. There is also a search engine for convenience in which you can enter the magazine code from the corresponding magazine. When you find an item through clicking on a thumbnail picture which displays the price, you are taken to a page which displays a catwalk clip, pictures from different angles, size and colour availability, information about care and returns and also a section titled ‘complete the look’ in which shows the user clothes which the producers think would match the item they’re looking at.

It would be impossible to analyse a clothes shopping website without considering the consumer culture of our society. According to Goodwin et al, “The modern consumer society employs five cultural factors to promote the desire to consume: Social pressures, advertising, shopping, government and the mass market.” Focusing on social pressures, advertising and shopping, the new media cultures are a exacerbating these factors and perhaps increasing our desire to consume. ASOS regularly updates it’s photo’s and looks often naming them after personality traits, it also allows consumers to see what other people are buying in their product range in a small section “other customers also bought”. The internet has obviously revolutionised the way that advertisers reach a target audience. ASOS.com is advertised on similar sites and also on the hugely popular facebook.com. ASOS has tried to make our online shopping experience somewhat close to the experience we get in the real world. They use ‘view basket’ to let the user see the items they wish to purchase and ‘check out’ for the end of shopping.

There is a very low level of interactivity on ASOS. There is no kind of self identity or persona on the site, the only way to interact with the site is through buying clothes, and this comes with no personal message or feedback on how/what you’ve bought (this is consultational interactivity at it’s lowest level) . The user also has to put a high level of trust in the producer, passing over a large amount of personal information is difficult but people tend to feel better doing this with a well recognised brand which is what ASOS has established itself to be. They also allow the user to track their order and get in touch if they have any problems. The producer is in complete control and there is no level of ‘produser’-ism or web2.0. The users don’t get a chance to interact with each other.

The appeal of the site for the user is it’s quick and easy nature, convenience is a major factor in all online shopping. The site is very easy to navigate allowing for browsing as well as specific searches. People can often find real life shopping stressful with the queues and sizing issues, but the massive range and instant gratification of online shopping is appealing to many. The difficulty with online shopping is that the user can sometimes not register how much money they are spending, we associate spending with tills, and the seemingly harmless clicking of a computer screen can sometimes lead us into making purchases we wouldn’t have made otherwise. ASOS is constantly updated and use words like “trends” and “the look” to make the user feel like they are ahead of the pack. The shop is online and therefore have small costs compared to big highstreet names and often sell clothes cheaper than a real life shop would, which is a major factor in many people’s consumer choices.

Goodwin et al (1996) The Consumer Society Island Press

Week 5 - 5.3

In all honesty, before commencing semester B of this year, I thought blogging was completely self-indulgent and self-important. My only experience of blogging was perusing through peoples myspace blogs and their accounts of the week they had had (boyfriends, bitching and nights out appeared to be on the minds of the people in my particular network) I thought "Why does anyone care what my favourite food is and what music I'm listening to at the minute?" (of course this has not changed) but my perception of a blogger has in the broader sense changed dramatically.
I have looked at Lily Allen's blog. Lily Allen is known for being new media friendly (she started her career through myspace.com) and regularly updates her blog. She has famously used it to talk about other celebrities, but more importantly than that, she uses it to set the record straight as far as the paparazzi, papers and trashy magazines are concerned. For the first time we can have a regular updated view of celebrity and the stories that are true and their take on the ones that aren't. I understand that it would be easy for her or any other celebrity to put across a certain image of themselves which is not true either, however you get the feeling whilst reading her blog that she is simply speaking her mind, there are certain candid and tongue in cheek moments, but they add to her accessibility, and you seem to feel although you're getting the tales straight from the horses mouth. I'm not sure that many other celebrities could pull this off as well, and even if we are getting the view of her that she wants us to see, it must be better than having her persona shaped by a magazine reporter that would love some controversy?

Week 4 - Lister - Danger on the internet

p. 181 To what extent are ‘dangerous materials’ prominent on the Internet (or ‘junk and jerks’ as Kollock put it)? What do their existence mean in terms of the ‘freedoms’ the Net allows? Is freedom always positive?

A lot of my personal study in this unit has surrounded ‘dangerous materials’ on the internet. Lister et al outline, “A public sphere must by definition be characterised by maximum access.” (Lister et al, 2003: 180) And although this statement is challenged in the text, I think it highlights the freedom that we have on the internet, not just to say and do what we please, but also in getting other people to read it. I think perhaps the amount of dangerous materials is hyped up in the media somewhat, and I have personally, never come across anything I consider to be dangerous (perhaps I’m not writing anything exciting enough in the search bar) I think that this kind of freedom will inevitably come with risks like this, but does freedom of speech and the positive attributes of the web outweigh hackers and paedophiles?
There are many different dangers associated with the web such as cyber-bullying, hackers, identity theft, grooming, and paedophilia. The problem is the vastness of our internet freedom, and the fact that it would be impossible to censor without completely demolishing the freedom of the ‘innocent’ web users and other information on the web. What’s more important?

Lister et al. (2003) New Media: A Critical Introduction, London: Routledge.

Week 4 - Lister et al - empowering/disempowering

What do you think of the notion that online community can be empowering/ disempowering?

I think online communities can be empowering to a point. You are in control of what you produce, how you sell yourself and how you communicate. This could give you a sense of power that some people lack in everyday life, for example, a shy and retiring type in real life could go on to be the leader of an online group voicing opinion and fuelling debate. Also, there will always be people online, which may ease the loneliness some people feel in RL, “I found fellowship and comfort in this unlikely medium” (quoted in Rheingold 1995:62) (quoted in Lister, 2003:174) As Lister et al outline, “The reader/audience is able to reply with similar experiences, support, to offer direct interaction”. To feel like part of a group, like you belong, can be very empowering.

Perhaps when this medium becomes disempowering is when it leaks into your real life. Sky News Online's story “revealed how Amy Taylor, 28, was divorcing husband David Pollard after she caught him cheating on her in virtual reality game Second Life.” ... “Because the pair, from Newquay in Cornwall, spent so much time in the virtual world, she saw the online infidelity as every bit as real as if it had happened in real life.” (Watts, 2008) There are countless stories on the internet of people that have become so obsessed by the comfort and power that they find through being different people online, that they have jeopardised relationships, jobs and communication in RL. Personally, I don’t think online communities offer as much validation and happiness as real life, and although it can be argued that they are real because real people are communicating through them, I don’t see how they can be. In Lister et at, Barlow outlines how there is a lack of diversity “of age, ethnicity and social class” (Lister et al, 2003:174) in online communities. For example, people on a web forum discussing the goings on in American soap, The OC, are likely to be young, western females. This way, the group has no “common bonds of shared adversity” (Lister et al, 2003:174) this could render online groups disempowering. Another aspect of online communication that could make users feel less powerful is the distance between the interlocutors. Perhaps not physical distance, but the psychological distance of knowing they are intangible.

Lister et al. (2003) New Media: A Critical Introduction, London: Routledge.
Watts, A (2008) Sky News, Virtual Divorce Cases Set To Soar, http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Second-Life-Virtual-Reality-Divorce-Cases-Will-Increase-Say-Internet-Addiction-Psychologists/Article/200811215151635 [13/02/09]

Week 4 - file sharing

How and why could any band ‘make it’ through social networking/content sharing sites?

The internet is unique in its communicative characteristics, it allows free uploading of information and makes it available almost anywhere in the world. Some social networking sites allow bands to upload their music and tell other members about upcoming events. The biggest site that allows this is myspace.com, who have millions of bands added to their social network. This is free for the producer and the consumer of music, and is quick and easy to access. Myspace music rose to fame with Lily Allen as she used the site to promote her now internationally famous music. Many people now strive to find new and interesting music on the site which allows anyone and any band to join. On a personal level, my friends have a band on myspace and they attribute part of their success to myspace. They reach people in other countries and other towns and, as a local band, they couldn’t have done that before. They have also been in touch with venues and promoters through social networking sites and have gotten a few gigs from it. Before the internet, the only way to listen to new bands was on the radio or in different clubs, now success is only a click away.

How do filesharing, online downloading and the ‘networking’ of new material change the way music is consumed?

It is easy to see how much the internet has influenced our consumption through browsing through the diminishing CD aisles in shops like HMV. CD singles are restricted to top 10 and there are visibly less CD’s overall. This could be due to the ease of buying online, alphageek.com describes the benefits downloads as “Cheaper than CDs; instantaneous home delivery; most online stores have much larger selections than brick-and-mortar stores.” Purchasing downloads is instant, cheap and easy, and although the songs are often compacted to be lower quality, the effortlessness of it means that people will consume it this way anyway. It also allows consumers to find bands and artists that they wouldn’t have known before through forums or social networks. The problem with file sharing is that it enables people to share music online for free, illegally. This harms the music industry, threatening thousands of jobs

Week 4 - sense of community

A sense of community

Community is a polysemic word, there are many different definitions. Commonly occurring in these different notions are the related words ‘cohabitation’ or ‘living spaces’. This in itself challenges Blanchards definition of online groups. This could just be down to the definition of community not being updated to the ‘new’ media way of thinking, or it could infer that to be a community or have a sense of community you must meet people and interact with them face-to-face. I realise that there is a quality issue in certain online groups being called communities but I still feel that a sense of community can only really happen in RL.

If we are applying the word community to online groups, there are certain characteristics that I would place in more importance than others. Obviously, a group in which the members are friends in RL would be preferable such as msn or facebook, but in the age of the global village, a sense of some sort of community may be found in groups where there are “Shared emotional connections among members”. An example of this brought up in the lecture was medical support groups or charities, these sorts of groups are the only ones that I can really see of having a virtual community. Niche interest groups such as the wristwatch enthusiasts group were mentioned in the text and I agree to some extent that a shared interest would create a sense of community, but doubt it would be the same or as strong as a face-to-face interaction. Ebay was also mentioned in the grouping, but I have severe reservations that the millions of users find a sort of kinship on a site where animal rights merchandise can be sold next to fur and anti war CD’s can be sold with plastic guns and army costumes. The least important characteristic, I feel, is the use of “group symbols”. Just because the symbols you agree on and use are the same, doesn’t mean that you will have much else in common with the other users.

Do you think online communities can really exist ?

Week 4 - short blog on blanchard - lurkers

‘Lurkers’ – who needs them? Should they be booted out or should we embrace people’s differences (some people are readers more than producer/writers?). Can’t there be different roles for the members of a community?

Whilst I agree that for a community to be a success, it needs to be contributed to and nurtured, I think that when you put material onto the web, you are inevitably making it available for anyone in the world with access to the internet to read or listen to. After that, isn’t it their right to do what they want with the information, whether that is adding to it and commenting on it, or simply taking it in? One of the best things about the internet is that it makes it easy for people to browse or skim and scan. There isn’t a responsibility of the user to contribute, if you have taken the time to put something on the internet then you should trust that some people might want to write back and accept that the nature of the internet means that there will be lurkers who will not.

Week 3 Topic 1 - online persona

Do you think that assuming an online persona (via screen name/handle/avatar etc) encourages people to play with the identity they present online and take risks in the ways the express themselves?

Often the internet comes under scrutiny for allowing people to change persona and live as different people in a virtual world. I think that for the most part, this is a moral panic created by the media, focussing on the advantages of anonymity for paedophiles in internet chat rooms and grooming, which is a small drop of water in the sea that is the internet (not that it should be taken so lightly)
In the lecture we heard of some theorists who encourage playing around with different sides of your personality and embrace the internet’s anonymity. The idea that we have different sides to our personality is something that has often been discussed by communications theorists, it could relate to Erving Goffman’s theory that “All the world’s a stage and all the people are players” in which everybody is in control of their impression management and the way that we act is in reaction to the context. The concept of the self and identity should be considered when we examine our communication on the web because it is so unique in its characteristics, it is widespread but anonymous, and censorship is minimal. It allows for us to portray certain parts of our personality without being judged. It seems that there are no constrictions.
This, however, may not strictly be true. Brad McGehee outlines the danger of letting your wild side out on the internet. “More and more employers are using Internet search to find out all about you before they hire you. So if a prospective employer enters your name into a search engine, what will they find?” (McGehee 2008). In his article, he outlines the dangers of taking risks with your personality, as it is so easy to trace, not only by would-be employers, but anyone in your “real world” life too. Although his argument is based on the premise that your online persona would have a link to your real name, it does open up the idea that the virtual world and the “real” world are not completely separate.
I would agree that the internet allows people to “play” with their identities, but surely the desire to be more confident, more adventurous, louder, quieter, would have to come from a craving in your own personality? They cannot be unconnected.

The quote from McGehee was taken from the following article - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/blogs/aloha_dba/archive/2008/12/17/is-your-internet-activity-hurting-your-dba-career.aspx