The Very Last One (hopefully not though)

This will be the last required blog for our communications class..... But hopefully not my last blog entry. It has been 1 full semester and 1 long semester it has been.

Rather than just talk about this week's last class discussion I'd rather talk about how comm made things different for me. Comm class has given me another dimension of thinking and reacting. Normal conversation with friends, family, and others go differently when you know comm theories. Meeting strangers means so much more given the ideas of uncertainty reduction and social exchange. Cooperating and deciding in groups become more "interactive" being able to predict what they want. Dealing with irritated people and being irritated yourself becomes more understandable with cognitive dissonance theory at the back of your mind. Even while watching television seems so different with all the media theories swirling in my head. Organizations give off a different feel to me now because of the organizational theories like organizational culture and adaptive structure. Two-step is now something I observe being careful where to look for advice.


But probably one the best lessons I got from comm was the importance of technology to us. The last set of theories really emphasized on the changes brought about by technology to us. Media ecology showed technology not as a tool to us but rather an essential part already. Specially with the media deprivation project the wonders of technology truly shined. I saw my reliance on technology be it good or bad will forever be a part of me. Technology has evolved our means of communication by so much that we have the virtual realm to move in now. What's astonishing is that even with the new technology introduce the old theories will still hold up to the human reaction and interaction. After this semester's comm class I will never look at technology the same way again.

Communications class just made everyday life a bit more interesting!

Welcome To The (New Age) Public Sphere

I remember playing this game back from my elementary games. I picked up the game at a shop just because its box cover was quirky and colourful. This game was very unusual and very weird.  You played the tiny prince of the cosmos out to return all the destroyed heavenly bodies. How you say? The king of the cosmos has given you a ball, a super sticky ball. You will roll and roll the ball from the most insignificant of things until finally you can roll up the largest of ridiculous things. If you know this game you are awesome (like me) but if not it is titled “Katamari Damacy”.

You might think I chose to write about a favorite old game of mine and try to link it to the public sphere just because it involved a “sphere”. Of course I won’t be simplistic as that. It just so happened that the game did involve a sphere.

This game was only a low budget game and did not hold much hype prior to its release unlike other Bandai Namco game productions. You see….this game was inspired by two things. It was inspired mainly from a submitted school project sponsored by Namco. Next it tried to invoke an issue still being overlooked… the idea of littering. At first people were very reluctant to buy the game upon its release but over the weeks after its release sales increased exponentially until it became a top grossing game of its time.

The talk it generated amongst the public was more than enough for people to notice the problem of littering. Forums, talks, advertisements, it was everywhere. The Japanese people became more aware of the littering around public areas just because of a game representing a thought of some individuals. This for me was a prime example of the public sphere with a twist of new age media of course. From a few individuals who wanted to speak up but were left unnoticed to a whole mass of people looking and giving importance to what was once unseen. The once unnoticed issue of littering has now been put under the spotlight for all to see as the game slowly pulled in more and more people. First the ones who championed the idea, next are the people who share the similar idea, now once there are enough people came the masses seeing that it was of a pressing issue. Welcome to the world of the public sphere where no idea is overlooked.

Scandals FTW

"Scandals over everything else"

The sad truth.... The media always did have the power to choose what to show and this is where the agenda setting theory comes from. People will value what the news and mass media presents to them of value. The mass media is such a powerful influence and the agenda setting theory tries to further enforce this idea of the mass media's ability to control the public subliminally.

I agree that mass media is indeed a powerful tool BUT is a tool wielded by the people being controlled themselves. It may sound weird that the ones being controlled are also the controllers themselves but it is true. Mass media may mean mass but not forced. Meaning that people choose what media to consume. People may choose watch abs-cbn, gma, some obscure station, or choose to avoid any television. People may choose to read of what newspaper, what magazine,  what tabloid, or choose to not read at all. My point is that media may be able to set the agenda for the public but in reality the public really chooses what agenda they want to. Admittedly people will only consume what they want to consume. If you are interested in serious stories and news of course you won't watch news that are just full novelty or read a feature magazine thereby making the media lose its power.

Even the public influences what the media will present for public consumption. This is where the sad truth comes in. People will choose sex scandals over national achievements. People will choose something more frivolous that concerns a famous celebrity over something of national or global importance (unless it is about a global celebrity). People will choose a car crash or massacre above "the good news". People are interested over sex,violence, and gossip. That is the sad truth. Corruptions in the government, national security, economic downfall, etcetera will always be buried upon by the most frivolous of news and updates because people already chose!

Brand and Logo Power!!!!!

Signs, logos, brands, and insignias are some really powerful stuff people. This are examples of just one of the organizational symbols that form cultures within groups.

Organizational symbols as the logos and signs are what you associate with a particular entity. Although technically not a group, superheroes all bring with them an insignia and logo. Who does not know the the famous "S" symbol of superman or the bat insignia of Batman. See how powerful symbols are? If I were to show you some of the famous symbols of heroes you would already know that hero and immediately an image of that hero would pop into your mind. The power of symbols comes from the power of association. How many times have you seen that big yellow "M" sign up in the city horizon and quickly think of a famous fast food chain?

Even in simple products you see in the grocery. Brand messaging is most effective if the people are frequently exposed to that products logo or company logo. Familiarity urges people to choose a certain product over another. The company logo of Uniliver brings with it a sense trust from its buyers. Even though logos are just mere drawings they bring with them the whole image of the company. It is important to have a logo or brand image that sticks to minds of its consumers for better brand messaging.

The age old phrase of "A business without a sign is a sign of no business."
 and look away from the logos and brands!!!!! They have hypno powers!!! @_@

Not Enough Resources... (ARGGGHHHH)

"Not enough resources..."

A line so familiar to me. I would always keep hearing this lines in 2 of my favorite games namely Starcraft and Warcraft (yes I'm a Blizzard fanboy). This games are what you call Real Time Strategy games or RTS for short. in this 2 games you act something similar to a leader or general. You order units or your people around to make buildings and other military based units to fight the opposing team. One of the key strategies in this games are proper management of your resources. You should be able to have resources to build and make what you want but you also shouldn't let your resources be stagnant meaning just pooling up not being invested into a unit.

While I was listening awhile ago during class the part about resources being a major element in the adaptive structure theory got me interested. Being the game fanatic I am, the 2 games above quickly popped into my mind. I saw the the various resources even played a role in the RTS games I played. For example The allocative resources appeared in the games via the management of the various units and buildings in forming a robust structure of your army.  The various authoritative resources were also very apparent in the games. I think of these "authoritative" resources as the special units that grant various bonuses and rewards to the other units. Not only do some reward but some also debilitates or punishes other units. Other units even get stronger the more they spend time with other units and some become expert units one upgraded making them more specialized. The technological resource also play a role in this kinds of games via upgrades making your units stronger and more efficient in combat (stimpak for marine!).

Just like in reality. The various resources we use,not only the materials but also the people,determine the structure of the organization or group. It is not just enough to just have all "marines" as units you also need "medics" and "thors" (if you understood what I meant...kudos to you). We need a proper mix of all resources for the structure to function efficiently. Theories in comm class not only apply in the real world but also in the virtual world as we develop more advancements in technology. I hope one day they can fuse gaming and work together :D hahahaha.

Bring on the marines! (and the other units too)

Breaking Down, Building Up, Breaking Down, aaaaaaaaaand Building Up Again -.-

      Have you as a kid ever tried playing with Lego toys? I use to remember playing with Lego pieces and even up to this day whenever I walk by a toy store I would go in and check new Lego toy sets. I think my deep love for the toy came from the idea of building my own creations and then breaking them down to make new creations again. 

Lego Cycle! Wish I could make this.

      Listening to the structuration theory during class kept reminding me of the Lego sets I used to play with. Building the various Lego creations I envisioned and imagine ( I would usually make big robot Lego creations.... go figure! :D ) At first whenever I made any of my creations it would always be wobbly but I would eventually fix it given a bit of time and experimentation. As I got used to making similar creations to the previous ones I made it got easier and easier to create sturdier creations right of the bat. Like the structuration theory says the organizations create the structures that give order to the group. 

      Passing through some paragraphs of the reading for structuration theory it kept talking about the use of structure in an organization. Like the Lego pieces I used, people use structures in organization to make it sturdy. With the passage of time in an organization the "rules" or rather the agency (the behaviors and actions we perform) further fortify the structure in the organization much like how got used to making the various Lego creations back then. Another quality I found in this theory that I also found in my Lego childhood toys was that I was able to recycle the creations by taking apart and using the pieces again for a new creation. Structure can also be broken down and be reformed into something new just like transitioning from the high school environment to the college environment. Structures may be sturdy enough but not indestructible but cab also be rebuilt.

Finally Out of Hiatus :D

Finally! My blog is out of hiatus! That was a sure long week of no communication class discussions so no blogs at that time :/ But now comm class is up again meaning blogs are starting up again :D


     This week's single meeting (although a short one with the announcements of midterm grades and the photo contest which btw was won by Gabriel Dionglay! Grats!) held an interesting theory. We are done with some of the more personal theories and are finally moving on to group theories. Stepping up to the plate to bat first for the group theories is "GroupThink".
     GroupThink has a nice ring to its name don't you think so? Not only does it have a nice ring to it but it also has a pretty intriguing idea. GroupThink in a nutshell refers to how one actually thinks like the group in other words you the individual who belongs in a group will think in the same way as the group. Still a bit too complicated? Well have you ever been in a group that you just give in to one decision despite knowing you have a better idea yourself? GroupThink is like that making you decide for the sake of the group and just going with the flow.
     Here I think is a prefect example of GroupThink at work that should be more common to everyone.

Friend 1: Saan tayo kakain?
Friend 2: Kahit saan na lang basta okay yung pagkain.
Friend 3: Sa _______ na lang! Masarap doon!
Friend 4: Ayaw ko doon, sabi nila hindi daw masarap.
Friend 2: Eh... Saan mo gusto ngayon?
Friend 4: Ummmmm.....Kahit saan....
Friend 1: Wala na tayong ibang maisip eh....
Friend 4: Sige na nga doon na lang.
Friend 3: YESSSSSSSSSSSSS!

     A common "barkada" dilemma that even we experience. Despite #4 having different thoughts about ______ in the end he just gave in to the decision of one in order for the group to even continue with their plans eating out. The idea suggest that you would just "rather go with the flow" to preserve the group rather than throw it into disarray.
    Here are some of my personal thoughts as to why this happens different from the creator of the theory. My first idea was to avoid alienation by the group. Rather than actually trying to preserve the group itself my opinion is people do this because they want to preserve their membership in the group and not the group itself. People are naturally social beings and they need companions so being alienated from a group is not a desired possibility. Honestly if I were in the shoes of #4 I'd rather eat a place I hate with my friend than eat a place I like all alone. You can relate this to cognitive dissonance that you see companionship as the minimal justification in your choice. The above example situation is what you call "peer pressure" that you view it better to just give in rather than lose the companionship of the group you are in. See GroupThink doesn't only have a nice ring to it but also a hell darn good of an idea as well :D