Month: February 2013
The importance of story in cinema is crucial. I do think that producers keep that in mind when making a movie with the aide of new technology. Our world is evolving along with the technology that is shaping our culture. I feel that as though technology is advancing the story in cinema. Directors and producers are taking full advantage of ever growing technology around us to enhance the “story” and cinema experience. I think that technology should be taken full advantage of when creating a film and take the audience to a place where they will not forget. Technology enhances the viewers experience and hopefully overall ratings of a film.
When a movie comes out with the newest technology, I feel that as though consumers and more encouraged to go and see it. The Harry Potter movies are a AMAZING example as in the article. I felt as though when watching these movies I got to escape reality and pretend I was in a magical world (Hogwarts). The Back to the Future movies are another prime example. People love to see things that they think could be a reality or just a dream. It is cool to experience the movie as though you might be in it as well. The 3D technology also broadens the viewers experience; it makes it as though you might be in the movie. This emotional appeal is what hooks consumers in any medium. When you have this wonderful experience due to technology, why wouldn’t producers and directors keep using the newest and best technology to reel the audience in?
When entering the world of Hogwarts or the future, I start to imagine why can’t the world I live in be more like that? The movies are creating worlds that real life people dream to encounter. Movies are just the life version of books. If authors can write about fictional places, why shouldn’t movie producers try to illustrate the fantasies? It is brilliant to use the progressing technology to make our wildest dreams a reality.. even if it is only for 2 hours via movie theatre or television. People want to view or read movies and books that make them feel as though they can escape the real world and into a fictional world to experience something unreal or new. I cannot wait to see what will be the next big technology in movies, or better yet in the world alone. I think more and more people are going to see movies because of the advancing technology used in the films. It is just a factor that is increasing ticket sales. This is good for consumers and producers. Technology is vital to this culture and will not go away in this lifetime.
Digital signage is a new and quickly growing technological trend happening today. The world of technology has evolved rapidly since the 1950’s. Digital signage, the “fifth screen”, is a newer technology that is being seen more and more. I personally think that the idea based behind the digital signs is brilliant. The fact that a business can have four screens displayed in the bank that run ads, information, promotions, basically anything is very eye catching. Businesses are looking to draw in more customer interaction, engagement and overall satisfaction.
I do not think that this is just another instance of someone cheering on a new technology. I think this man is smart and embracing a new technology to benefit his banking company. If the digital signs were increasing numbers and business then why would this not be a good idea for a company to use? It makes common sense to use them!!! I think it is wonderful to use the digital signs as an interaction piece between the consumers and business. Whether the digital signs be a conversation piece of a reference, people are looking at them. The signs are drawing noticeable attention. That is the key point – getting your consumers to pay more attention to you or what you have to offer.
Digital signs are going to be prominent in our generation. They already exist in airports, schools, places of shopping, and are just expanding to more locations. I think that it might be risky to use a digital sign in a small bank, but in the case of the article this was a bigger bank with over 700 employees. Obviously the digital signs work well in places with high traffic flow to serve a bigger crowd of consumers. Maybe with this growing technology, we will no longer see plain signs without the benefit of customer interaction. I would love to see more digital signs in the area I live in. I think they would work really well on the University of Louisville’s campus. Yes, the university already has basic digital signs, but not the signs that encourage consumer interaction. That is something that I think is more beneficial. When the consumer has to stop and either work on the sign or through their cellphones is something that I think would greatly generate interaction and business.
Technology is always evolving and newer devices are always being made. I look forward to see the evolution of digital signs during my lifetime. I hope to interact with a digital sign in my future. Maybe the University of Louisville with adopts an interactive sign that could be beneficial for student feedback or for some other purpose. We live in an advancing society that is progressing to newer and better things. All in all, digital signs are unique and constructive inventions in my eyes.
I think that at first when reading this comment that it is hard to follow. The wording should be adjusted, in my opinion. I feel that advertising has evolved since its first days. Obviously, times change so advertising changes along with the evolution. The interactive television chapter is confusing when it comes to television to me. Television needs advertising to thrive and to continue. However, I could see networks trying to sell content at a higher price without the ads yet and receive higher revenue. Even though that backfired when people would refuse to pay a higher price.
Consumers are not ever going to enjoy watching ads/ commercials when watching TV. Let’s face that!!! I think that there needs to be some more experimentation with advertising and the television to find a happy medium. There are obviously different types of advertisements, so maybe we can do away with commercials? But commercials are what greatly fund television networks and the whole business. I think the standard way of advertising should be put ads in the programs and give them away for free. Why would people pay money for the exact same program with they can get it for free with ads. Ads are a annoyance, but not enough to make me pay, lets say 5 dollars for a movie just to get rid of the ads. All in all, I personally think this should remain the standard of advertising, but who knows what will happen. Advertising has evolved just like everything has, and we will all see what the future of advertising will become shortly…
Before reading these two articles, I was totally unaware of what was going on with these two companies. My initial reaction to this issue was, “I need to get this feature on my TV!” I know that CBS would frown upon my wishful thinking, but come on.. Who would not want to skip pointless ads in order to continue watching a program? I can see the viewpoints taken by both companies. They both have valid stances, in my opinion, but what will it come down to? That is the million-dollar question.
Okay, so it is obvious to all why CBS is pissed. I am sure that advertisers are even more pissed. Why give money to this corporation if people are not even seeing the ads, they are just out of sight for viewers who have this feature on their television. This directly affects CBS. If the advertisers are paying CBS to run their ads, and the ads are not being viewed, then CBS is going to suffer penalties. DUH! However, I wonder how many consumers are using this ad-skipping feature? Also what comes to mind is if this ad skipping feature continues on, will there be a lost of advertisements on television all together? Yes, I do think ads are annoying but that is one major strategy companies use to reach out to their audiences/consumers. I cannot imagine being able to watch a television program and not have to see any advertisements.. Just does not seem like TV to me.
However, I see why Dish is enabling this feature to its consumers. IT IS GENIUS! People love to be able to skip ads and continue to watch their programs without any disturbances. Like I have said, I wonder if this feature has generated more revenue for Dish. Also, I wonder if more networks will pull away from Dish because of this feature. The ads are not being played so in correlation the networks are loosing advertisers business, right? This is the only logical reasoning to me over this whole matter.
Ultimately, I agree with both sides. I see a problem with the advertisers relationship with the networks, which is a causation of networks pulling from Dish. Yet, I see why Dish promotes this feature that is a benefit for consumers. I honestly feel like this feature will become abolished because of all the controversy arising. Dish will most likely loose all of the networks, so people will not be able to view their shows they want to watch.. Dish will most likely loose this battle. However, I really would like to have this feature as a consumer. There should try to be some compromise, but in reality the networks will have the final say in what goes down.