facebook

Home media studies

result from students assessed 2010. Exemplar pass 7466

See below.

I. Bogost.[]

Students research 2010

7466 media studies. level 3 2010 Achieved. 9/11/10 BH

Students: Louis Dyer and Eden Persad

**__element 1__**

Identify strategies by which media target their audiences.

**__performance criteria__**

1.1 General strategies by which media target two different audiences are identified. pass Range: may include but is not limited to - programming, advertising of particular products, promotions, use of celebrities, meme marketing

1.2 Strategies by which specific media texts target different audiences are identified. pass Range: may include but is not limited to aesthetics - style of text, subject matter, point of view, choice of language.

**__element 2__** Investigate the ways media audiences are identified and sampled. <span style="display: block; font-family: ArialMT; line-height: 19pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">**__performance criteria__**

<span style="display: block; font-family: ArialMT; line-height: 19pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">2.1 At least two methods of audience sampling are identified and described .pass

<span style="display: block; font-family: ArialMT; font-size: 11pt; padding-bottom: 4pt; padding-left: 0cm; padding-right: 0cm; padding-top: 0cm;">2.2 The uses and limitations of such sampling are discussed. Pass

This research indicates thoughtful and considered research skill. Conclusions drawn give sounding of some possible accuracy. The two methods in element 2 appear to be appropriately employed. Note.Performance criteria for future students has been extended in red highlights.

7466

Investigate strategies by which media target their audiences and the ways media audiences are identified and sampled. By Louis Dyer and Eden Persad - 2200 words

= =

In choosing social networking services as a topic we were exceptionally fortunate in that all observational research was categorically organised and logged previous to the beginning of the research assignment on the actual website of Facebook. All our data on audience, left conveniently in chronological //chat logs//, all information on the aesthetic left on the site itself, the only job left was to extract meaningful information from it. Using this method we were able to observe and discuss how our peer group interacted with the social networking service, and each other on the website. On top of this we were able to source our years of experience with the site and build strong impressions built up over time. Aside from that, we referred to texts and essays as evidence, to first confirm and secondly support and reinforce our assertions. Once any data was collected, after any extended reading, our knowledge went under peer debriefing recorded in audio logs for later reference. We chose this method as it seemed obvious, we were immediately given access to usage data of over 400 people (the combination of our ‘friends’ lists) and could begin work almost straight away. The data extracted was perfect for a starting point, giving us an impression of what was necessary to be discussed and vice versa whilst also helping us refine our future quantitative analysis in order to create a useful survey. However the process did have it’s setbacks. Immediately we were struck with the issue of //confirmation bias[6]//, that is with all our preconceived notions we would look for only data that confirmed our suspicions concerning the website. To get around this further reading was done on any statement we considered disputable the task in itself pushing us to achieve a wide variety of writers and perspectives giving us information without bias. With this we assert that our impressions created due to this process are entirely credible and dependable.
 * Qualitative observation**

For our quantitative data we used a survey ( //Fig 4.//  ) We chose a more straight forward means to collect data. After our initial analyses could be seen as skewed we needed a more formal approach to support our conclusions. By mixing these two measures of audience sampling we were able to ensure more reliable results and less opinionated evaluations “More good can come of social science researchers developing skills in both realms than debating which method is superior.”[7] We began the process by discussing what our qualitative analyses lacked, followed by researching ways of filling these gaps. After deciding on a survey for the aforementioned reasons we further our research into the art of cluster sampling, reading over surveys that had been done in the past on Facebook usage, advertising and security. After culminating all these surveys into one, and refining it to the questions that we deemed useful we had our fully purpose built survey. From here we distributed it to over 100 different facebook users in hope of getting at least half of them back and filled in. The means we used was, as stated, cluster sampling. We used this method after all others were out of the question. That is, rather than a representative sample of all Facebook users we only had access to our ‘friends’ constituting as our peer group. For this reason all conclusions had to be made about our peer group and not applied to all Facebook users. However, with in our sample we had two distinct groups of which to make conclusions about; long terms users and short term users. Continuing with our method, only 30 users replied with surveys, fortunately split roughly down the middle into our two categories. Finally, after being inspired by Hans Rosling’s TED talk[8] we converted most of our data into “easily referenced, visual representations” and were able to make comparisons and conclusions. Of course our methods had just as many issues here. The conclusions, by themselves were some-what unreliable in that the sample was not random and incredibly prejudice causing a higher sampling error and increased likelihood of outliers. Our sample was limited to one age group, on nationality, one social group of teenagers from one city. This meant, as previously stated our conclusions - even after our data was averaged – could not be applied in a general sense to the wider population, our study would have to be considered a case study. Another setback was deciding on a way to word questions so that they would give us data relating to the wording of our media studies assignment. The assignment originally intended to be about “programming, advertising of particular products, promotions and use of celebrities” had to be warped to fit with our new subject matter. This was particularly hard in that Facebook, as a corporation does not divulge in an overt advertising campaign exterior to their product like the media targeted in the raw 7466 standard. Because of this our study had to be geared to find the effects of the form and function of the service and how that in a way was used as advertising.
 * Quantitative observation**

//Fig 4.// 1. Age? 2. Gender? 3. How did you first hear about Facebook? 4. How long have you been using Facebook? 5. How many hours a week do you spend on Facebook? 6. How many Facebook “friends” do you have? 7. How many photos do you share? 8. How often do you use these Facebook functions: Wall posts/Status updates - Never / Rarely / Fairly often / Nearly always Games/Applications - Never / Rarely / Fairly often / Nearly always Facebook chat/Mail - Never / Rarely / Fairly often / Nearly always Photo/Video sharing - Never / Rarely / Fairly often / Nearly always Photo/Video viewing - Never / Rarely / Fairly often / Nearly always Surveys, Groups and Like pages - Never / Rarely / Fairly often / Nearly always

9. What information do you include on your profile? Email address Home town or City Mobile phone numbers Photographs Political/Religious views Real name Relationship status Sexual orientation Dating history Financial information Gossip Intimate secrets Lifestyle related information Work related information

10. Who do share this information with? Real name - No one / Friends / Friends of friends / Everyone Email address - No one / Friends / Friends of friends / Everyone Wall posts - No one / Friends / Friends of friends / Everyone Photo albums - No one / Friends / Friends of friends / Everyone Biography - No one / Friends / Friends of friends / Everyone Relationship Stat - No one / Friends / Friends of friends / Everyone Birthday - No one / Friends / Friends of friends / Everyone Current City - No one / Friends / Friends of friends / Everyone

11. Who do you speak to most using Facebook? Close Friends - Never / Rarely / Fairly often / Nearly always Co-Workers - Never / Rarely / Fairly often / Nearly always Family - Never / Rarely / Fairly often / Nearly always Friends - Never / Rarely / Fairly often / Nearly always Distant people - Never / Rarely / Fairly often / Nearly always Strangers - Never / Rarely / Fairly often / Nearly always

12. How often are Facebook’s “Suggestions” helpful to you? Never / Rarely / Fairly often / Nearly always

13. Do you actively use any social networking sites other than Facebook? =Conclusion= In conclusion, we have found Facebook has become so revolutionary from sheer simplicity. In originally being limited based on the funds and time available of the developers[9] Mark Zuckerberg created a social networking service accessible to all demographics, launched the second most popular website on the internet and pioneered Web 2.0. Where Bebo and Myspace target musicians and teens[10] [11] Facebook caters to each generation with its minimalism.

[1] www.mostpopularwebsites.net

[2] Don Tapscott, //Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation// (New York: McGraw Hill, 1998)

[3] Diana Oblinger, //EDUCAUSE// (North Carolina State University, July 2006)

[4] Aiden Henry, //How Facebook is bringing Web 2.0 Mainstream// ([|www.mappingtheweb.com] July 2007)

[5] www.clickz.com/clickz/stats/1701594/facebook-continues-growth-uk-bebo-myspace-losses-continue

[6] []

[7] Miles & Huberman, //Qualitative Data Analysis// (1994)

[8] []

[9] Nicholas Carlson, //The Origins of Facebook// ( [] March 2010)

[10] Manoj Jasra, [|MySpace Demographic Gets Younger, Facebook Grows Older] ( [] February 2010)

[11] ( Brian Chappell, [|//Social Network Analysis Report - Geographic - Demographic and Traffic Data Revealed//] [|http://www.ignitesocialmedia.com] / 2009)