This article had some really profound ideologies about the emerging topic of "iculture". The author breaks the article up into three sections: iCommerce, iCulture, and iMonitoring. For me, the section on iCommerce was most interesting. The beginning of the article is largely dedicated to big name advertisers and the interactive marketing campaigns they executed. Nike was a huge one and probably most dramatic creating a twenty-three-story-high interactive billboard in New York City's Time Square. People could call a number on the billboard and then they would receive a text message relaying where they could purchase, how they could customize and complete their shoe. At first, people were awestruck by this and the media was condoning and applauding a company for finally being interactive with consumers. However, what were they really trying to do? Large companies are always trying to bring in more revenue, and custimization costs more, and also, Nike could use that information sent in my consumers to track, market, and ultimately take that information and make products that are tailored to that feedback. "To the extent that this information can be traced back to individual consumers through their cell phone numbers, their credit card numbers, or online forms, the information can be personalized and aggregated". This custimization campaign was really an alibi for Nike to obtain consumer feedback and monitoring.
DQ: Being interactive with a brand is empowering, but it comes with a cost. That cost is privacy. How can consumers become more knowledgeable and media literate when it comes to interactivity and consumerism?