Author: Jiahui Wen

Week 8: Digital Labour in Platform Economies

Swiping through Instagram, adopting posts in Facebook, and sharing information in Twitter might look like meaningless leisurely and informal actions. However, all these actions are core business within the multibillion-dollar digital economy. Across one day, I kept a diary of how often I used the platforms and how much information I was producing. Controlling, monitoring and leveraging my every interaction with the Web through every post I liked, the comment I made, the video I watched was controlled, analysed and then monetized by these platforms. What I liked, I did for free essentially all the while I thought I was only watching content. This is where Dallas Smythe’s “audience commodity” theory comes handy in comprehending this sort of dynamic. Smythe has opined that audiences have always been a commodity being sold to the advertisers in the media. In the age of digital media, this concept has evolved: The social media services buy and sell users’ engagements based on the data collected and analysed to deliver more relevant advertisements. They are all converted into data points and fed into the advertising process Every click, scroll, and share is an ingredient in the advertising ecosystem. It is a clear example of platform capitalism exploitation, when users, themselves, contribute to the creation of massive revenue for Meta, Google, and Twitter while being unaware of it.

Another group that supports this ecosystem is social media influencers whom we have added another layer to the ecosystem. Influencers represent pure examples of work-leisure integration as personal branding goes commercial. They generate contents with the purpose of getting followers and brands, turning them into business and income. However, the era which is identified by the influencer economy is not without its problems. Achievement in this sphere is rather unstable and depends on the algorithms, policies, and reactions of the audience rather much. For the majority of users, potential gains are considerably more abstract. While the influencers get the money, the rest of the common users are rewarded by the platform and the pleasures of interaction – forms of value that are meaningless economically. The difference between gross earnings of the platforms and the user remunerations directs important questions of equity. The social media platforms generate billions of dollars yearly through ad sales backed by users’ information, however the users who contribute to the system’s revenue do not benefit from the same. It is important to increase credibly drivers for accountability and protest value distribution. Perlmutter mentions one such proposal – data dividends in which participant companies have to reimburse the users for the data. Another possible solution is called the cooperative ownership of the platform, where platforms belong to people and are managed by them, which means that profits will be divided fairly.

In my opinion, specific social media participation is not a way to spend time as a leisure activity – it is work. That is the reality we must acknowledge for it to be possible to begin demanding a better and fair digital economy. When it comes to platforms, we cannot afford to allow wanton use of our data and can, therefore, only accept equity in value exchange. By joining our forces in claiming for a systemic change we are able to open the process of erasing the signs of platform capitalism and to guarantee that the money generated by digital work belongs to all the participants willing to contribute, but not to the owners of the platforms.

Week 6: The Digital Economy

The video titled “Introducing Airbnb.org” tells the story and unfolds the idea of Airbnb from one community to another. It focuses on raising awareness of the ways the company provides help to both response to catastrophes and support humanitarian actions, demonstrate how hosts and guests can help make a positive change in the world. At a glance, the video portrays Airbnb as a friendly and even civic player in the digital periphery economy. In a way, storytelling is sincere and emotionally engaging, positioning the platform as the advocate of people’s unity and local initiatives, and enlisting people’s trust in technology as a solution to global problems. Nevertheless, what is hidden behind this well-glossed picture, and which relations are embodied therein, speaks not only about platform capitalism but also about the dominant ideology behind it. On balance, this work is quite compatible with what had been termed “California ideology”, nicely described by Barbrook and Cameron. Airbnb still locates itself beyond mere commerce and instead frames its product as having meaningful positive impacts. Airbnb.org provides meaningful opportunities to hosts and guests to be a part of the relief-process underlining the belief in technology as a fair resource distributor. These messages are particularly beneficial for the target audiences that appreciate social justice and novelty; therefore, they make Airbnb’s identity clearer: it is a progressive platform.

But this narrative conceals the fact and conditions of platform capitalism that have a determinant structural role and the economics of platforms. In their view, self-represented platforms such as Airbnb aspire to democracy by designing themselves as distributing power and money across numerous users. Airbnb’s business strategy indeed essentially lies in the monetization of interpersonal encounters – hosts post apartments, guests select homes and Airbnb takes substantial commissions for it. Though, such connections are made through the platform, most costs and financial responsibilities are borne by the hosts. Those are the expenses on property management, adherence to local regulations, and variations holding and even loss, while Airbnb benefits, often with little to no responsibility. The social and economic aspect of Airbnb has also been criticized by different scholars as follows. For instance, problems around housing shortage in a number of cities have been associated with such platforms as Airbnb. From the fact that Airbnb provides rooms and apartments, where people live permanently, for tourists, the availability of rooms for ordinary citizens may increase the price per room and become less available. These matters evidence a worrying gap between the Airbnb representation of the company as friendly and culturally diverse and its financial effect. Although it describes itself as a community-oriented platform, more often than not, it weakens the position of minorities and displaces them outright.

But the arrival of the message ‘Introducing Airbnb.org’ is not simply an addition to this picture: it is an appeal to the emotion. Essentially what the video discards is any criticism towards structures because it fixes its attribution and concern on the people, hence, what it does is humanize the platform. This strategy is consistent with a pattern observed in other parts of the digital economy where local control and individual agency are celebrated, and where companies avoid Collective accountability. Airbnb builds a story that emotionally resonates with viewers while presenting the elements of systemic issues present on the platform. Finally, thus, Airbnb’s story illustrates that double-edged sword which the digital economy often appears to represent. On one hand, the platform offers potentialities for people to join global networks and help important initiatives. The programs like Airbnb.org show the role an advancement in technology plays in driving growth of positive effects in the society where resources and people are connected in moments of need. At the same time, the relation between Airbnb and other platforms only strengthens these dynamics because it creates a centralized concentration of the power in several overwhelming platforms. This concrete tension between platform utopias and the economics of platform work is tremendously indicative of platform capitalism in general.

Week 4: Media, Ideology, and Hegemony

Of all the topics pertaining to contemporary advertising, feminism remains a hot one due to the overall society’s push for change. Some examples of using the strategy include Dove’s ‘Real Beauty’ and SK-II’s ‘Change Destiny’. Most of these campaigns can be empowering, defying cultural roles and boosting the morale of women through multiple verbally enforced and in some cases violent instructions. However, they act as commercial enterprises and this aspect generates pertinent issues regarding the real authenticity. In these adverts, are these brands really trying to effect change or are they merely co-opting feminism for a publicity stunt to increase sales? Commodity feminism analysis, we understand to what extent advertising appropriates feminist discourses for profit. Once again, consider the Dove’s Real Beauty campaign. The campaign started in 2004 after targeting women for objectification and presenting unreal models of beauty that the beauty industry offers to the public. The principal message of the campaign was associated with the concepts of self-acceptance and set out the new definition of beauty. At first glance this appeared as a huge step forward in an industry that has fed off women’s doubt for years.

However, if we take a look at the example of Dove’s advertisements, we can see apparently conflicting messages. Unilever the company behind Dove also owns Axe and now Glow & Lovely formerly Fair & Lovely which also promotes rather stereotype and traditional standards of beauty. For example, Axe, which for many years implemented commercials and advertisements that depicted half-naked women hinting at the, get your Axe today and get laid. The beauty soap brand has also been made famous for advertising skin-lightening creams, which perpetrate colour discrimination in countries where skin light coloration is a measure of success. The following contradiction brings out the fact that corporations trump real advocacy and the phenomenon that Gramsci referred to as hegemony: While in Gramsci’s concept it means that the ruling groups come up with liberal policies and practices not in the process of striving to create a new civil society, but in a bid to strengthen their dictatorial rule in society. Dove’s campaign also leaves one questioning the tactics that brands use to fight the fine line between activism and advertisement. Through the appeal to emotions, the campaign comes nearer and builds a credible relation with its public. On that basis it establishes symbolic association between the brand and end-goal of gender equality thus nurturing a deep emotional bond that exists between the brand and its consumers. Yet, the motivation persists in being mercenary. What is suggested by these campaigns are said to be empowering women for purchase, translating social issues into commercially acceptable brand slogan and brand-images.

However, this commercialisation of feminism has an impact as we next discuss. As helpful and thought-provoking as these campaigns are in ensuring that the popular reception of the idea of beauty or sexuality is changed to reflect the author’s view on the subject, they water down the possibility of change that feminism could bring into society. They do this by portraying empowerment as an individual decision rather than a structural problem meaning they do not have to really solve any problems that are structural. This is in line with neo liberal political rationality where individual subjects are said to be capable of managing their own affairs. For this reason, the depicted campaigns may just serve to perpetuate the oppression they are fight against. Still, one can not neglect the potential advantages of such campaigns in the same way. To some, campaigns such as the Real Beauty of Dove bring in feminism into the popularity culture through discussions with the aim of making women aware. For some consumers, they are the first exposure they have to anything remotely connected to feminism. Tinged as it is with the potential for manipulative exploitation of megapixels and manufactured illusions of perfect skin and hair, which remains at least partially true, Dove made a determined effort to for inclusion which would not have been otherwise made in the advertising and media landscape. That being the case, this potential should be exercised carefully in order not to turn important social causes into mere marketing expositions. Some brands all in the name of making profits embarked on campaigns that end up reinforcing a caricature activism that does not address systemic issues. For example, while promoting self-esteem as a personal matter, Dove tends to omit such structural realities of society as gender inequality, prejudice on the job, and media misrepresentation of the female body.

Week 3: Economic Systems and the Organization of Media Industries

The media in my home country functions within the general capitalist setting influenced by free market features. This market is highly oligopolistic with a few large firms that are mainly motivated by advertising and subscription income bearing significant impacts on both creation and delivery of content. Nevertheless, the outlined picture does not exclude state interference in the industry’s work. In a way, due to legal regulations especially in the broadcasting field, public accountability is absolute, thus a blend of capitalistic economy and governments norms. An example of state influence is a requirement that a certain amount of the content to be broadcasted be originated from within the state. This regulation helps to evaluate and to state the importance of local tradition and orientation together with globalization tendencies in media industries. However, this cross-over between public and private influence naturally creates questions about the divide of power. Hyping free market intensity, competition, and innovation at the same time results in oligopoly, wherein only several large companies dominate the market.

An interesting example is Li Xin of Caixin, which is an organisation that operates primarily for the public good and not for the benefit of editors’ or owners’ pockets. Through democratized media the general public is able to become an opposing force the corporate colonization of media ownership. While reporting the incidents independently, some of the media houses perform the critical role of giving diverse views to the society. Nevertheless, their sustainability is often under pressure in such a context, mainly related to the financial business models most dependent on advertising revenues. The transition from “Fordist” to “post-Fordist” modes of production has most further divided media audiences. Flexibility, niche targeting as major features of post-Fordism therefore has led to emergence of digital media service such as Weibo. These are contained in specific demographic targets and deliver content based on the client’s preference. This can be seen as the globalization process of media “culturalization” where economic structures become oriented to the production of meaning instead of commodities.

However, there are limitations to the developments. Este include reduces the range of information sources, therefore primarily focused on business development instead of serving the public interest. However, this has also been translated to fears on ideological consolidation and the sovereignty of journalism. In order to overcome these problems, the government needs to rethink methods to finance independent media, for instance, subsidies or grants to diversify and develop them. Interestedly, the media industry in my home country is a perfect example of the tension between Capitalism and public interest. If left unregulated the free market encourages innovation and development however it must be monitored and controlled to allow access to fair amounts of diversity. It can only then facilitate what Becker starts to bring out: Media as a democratic space.

Week 2: Media, Culture, and Economy

Netflix has revolutionized how people watch films and shows by making what once was a niche market a global streaming service. Yet, its selection differs depending on a country or area since licenses and laws can be different. From my home country’s perspective, getting to Netflix is fairly easy for any subscriber. Most homes have adopted the platform due to cheap prices for subscription services behind the streaming platform’s flexibility. However some user use experience frustration when they discover that some titles available in other countries particularly the US are unavailable in their region. To overcome these restrictions people turn to Geo-spoofing Virtual Private Network (VPN) services which allow users to appear that they are in a different nation and thus access more content.

Netflix content my home country has also both the aspect of cultural renewal and also the regional licencing strategies. Most available television and movie content is either a local Netflix commissioned show/movie or is produced within the same region, hence meeting region-specific demand and depicting regional identity. Such productions tend to reflect societal norms and, based on local storytelling, increase the show maker’s pertinence to the audience. On the same note, popular series like Stranger Things and The Crown are set on their screen, popularity being experienced cross boundary as the series depicts life and is shot with high quality. Thus, the pursued approach enables Netflix not only to strengthen its international brand image but also adapt to locality. Netflix provides a perfect example of media globalization due to its transnational nature. To address variability of needing content that will appeal to different regional audiences, the platform deliberately commissions translations so that the content is all similar, globally. This approach also shows how Netflix uses its complex algorithm to predict and set the trend across its viewers. Through the identification of user behaviour patterns, the platform then suggests content that allows the user to continue with the consumption behaviour of products corresponding to its dual-sourcing strategy.

In terms of its form, their strategy also shows the underlying nature of global media. On one side it breaks contents barrier making it possible to have local stories go round the world. On the other hand, it contributes to the elucidation of the overrunning of the global markets of media products by Western cultural discourses. Although local content is a growing trend, the general layout of the platform remains to be dictated by capital’s primary motive of making as much profit as possible. This is a typical paradox of multicultural and globalizing media culture which reflects the opportunities and risks of the current media business environment. The growth of Netflix’s part in the internationalization process will continue in the near future. Its model enlarges space of local artists and performers to advance their work on the international level, but it gives rise to criticism on the globalization process and merchandising of culture. Seeking for further expansion for local content programs and testing for new distribution models, Netflix has a potential to strengthen its position on the global media market even more.