I've, personally, never heard of that analogy... a "water cooler" effect. I had to do some research, if you will, to understand the context.
But this water cooler analogy gives perfect meaning to the relationship between the internet and television; how informal conversations and exchanges through social media can encourage more people to view television.
The internet is like a type of breeding ground for the spreading of rumors and as the article explained, many television executives are crediting the rise in television ratings to this buzz.
I agree. People don't like to feel out of the loop, and the internet is one more way to be in the loop, which boosts the television business and vice versa; internet and TV have a symbiotic relationship.
I feel that one example of this internet/television interplay is Battle at Kruger, which began as a YouTube video posting that, after receiving 21 million views, turned into a National Geographic documentary.
I found this article very relatable to myself because I often connect my interests in television with the internet. Now thanks to advances in technology you are able to watch television shows through the internet at your own leisure. I share the same viewpoint as Rachael Velonza, because even when I may know the outcome of a event that does not stop me from tuning in after the fact to see it for myself.
It only makes sense for both networks to come together and pool their resources for promotional reasons. Huge events, such as the super bowl and Olympics are prime examples of benefiting from in the water-cooler effect that has been taken place. Many individuals have formed obsessions with the internet. These people are constantly checking the latest updates on sites and twittering their opinions. The internet allows accessibility to the information you want right at that second, as opposed to television where you must wait for a report on it.
Hopefully this trend continues linking the internet and television simultaneously because not only can this benefit the networks, it also benefits the viewers by having multiple sources of accessibility.
I agree with this article. Many people surf the web and watch tv simultaneously, myself included. Creating buzz with the internet on a specific show can definitely cause more people to watch the show. If I read something on the internet that is going to happen on a TV show and it interests me, I will tune into the show to see what is going on.
Being able to watch tv and then blog about it makes people be able to relate to others. It acts as a sort of language with people who are interested in the same things. Celebrities are also twittering while they are at events, saying what they think, and that could also help boost ratings for awards shows and such other things.
With the audience and viewers being able to interactively connect with the show they are watching, it makes the content much more interesting. Viewers are now able to not only watch shows, but to engage with other viewers about what is happening and their own opinions.
While twitter and facebook gets bigger and more popular, I'm sure that TV shows will continue to grow and make watching these programs more fun and engaging.
I agree with this article that the internet is a place for people to connect and talk about what's going on in the media. I personally always find out important entertainment news through twitter. It is a place I found out about the passings of Brittney Murphy, Michael Jackson, and Farrah Fawsett. When everyone is talking about one topic on Twitter, it becomes important and news worthy. Twitter is like a HUGE water cooler.
But...I don't agree that the internet is taking away from water cooler chat. I don't have a full time job and never experienced the "water cooler" conversation, but I don't believe that people are work don't still interact in fun conversation about the newest episode of The Bachelor or the person who won the gold medal in the olympics. People still want that escape during the workday, so they will continue to do it.
I actually think that because of the internet, it is bringin for more conversation around the water cooler. Now people can say "Oh, did you see on that blog what they thought about who the bachelor kicked off last night". It enhances the conversation and gives more opinions and viewpoints.
As long as there is work, there will always be room for water cooler conversation.
NBC’s The Office has made reference to “water cooler gossip,” where news apparently travels quicker than office memos. Now, with the increase in social networking, this gossip can be at anyone’s disposal whenever they’d like. I do agree that the availability of news and media on the internet has made it easier to hear about happenings and what’s going on in the news. This is how I found out about things such as the USA hockey team lost to Canada, or Jake from The Bachelor chose the “slutty girl,” Vienna. I also agree with the statement made by the chief executive of the CBS corporation, Leslie Moonves, that the internet is television’s friend. People don’t have to choose the TV over the internet; they can have the best of both worlds. And they can all connect together about it over the social networking sites by saying things like, “JAKE YOUR SOOOO STUPIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD.”
Internet has become a huge part of the average person's daily routine - we hit up facebook or twitter (or both) each day. It's a way to communicate with friends, colleagues and families. Online communication, as the article discusses, does not hinder television viewership. Instead, people are more likely to watch TV to keep up with everyone else's comments. If you see a facebook status about an Olympic event, you may be intrigued to tune in for the replay.
I think the "water-cooler effect" can be summed up with NBC Alan Wurtzel's statement: "People want to have something to share."
The Water-Cooler Effect has been taken over by social networking sites, such as Twitter and Facebook. I remember when people would watch a television show one night and was excited to met up with co-workers or friends the next day to discuss what happened on last nights television program. Now, all you have to do is look at the live posting of viewers’ thoughts on any social networking site regarding a particular television program. As stated in the article, the physical Water-Cooler talk is now online. But, viewers remain loyal to watching the television tube and is now able to express there thoughts on the internet at that very moment. With the new age of media technology, one is able to enjoy surfing the web and watching television at the same time.
The water-cooler effect is evident today more than ever. With the success of social networks such as facebook, status updates and wall posts about TV episodes and sports events become a common ground among friends to interact. Without even watching the Canada versus U.S. hockey game I immediately knew who won thanks to friend’s instant status updates. Does this mean I won’t watch the game if it aired again? No, if anything this attracted me more to find a means of watching the game because now I was interested in why the game was so good or how they won. The Internet is definitely a good way to get information across and it is obvious that the Internet and TV stations need each other to stay ahead of the game.
This article was really interesting, but more obvious than anything. The internet really is boosting television ratings- after someone sees their friends discussing it, they're more likely to tune in to join the conversation. I don't watch the super bowl or know anything about football, but I knew what was going on and probably made a comment or two because of all the status updates and comments on Facebook. I've also been more in tune with the Olympics accidentally because of my roommate's interest in the hockey and curling segments and commenting on her comments about them. The final sentence, “In the future, I can’t imagine a major event where the audience doesn’t become part of the story itself,” Ms. Sladden said," was great because not only is feedback instant now, but there's also so much information and opinion that can be taken from it. We have noticed this happening, but the article made us sit down and think about it.
Every form of media these days has some sort of a water cooler effect. Revealing rumors and spreading gossip is very intriguing to a lot of people and can create a larger viewing scene for these different forms of media. Each form of media spreads rumors, whether it is TMZ or some blog site that a random person created, rumors will get out there and cause people to ask questions. This is what the media wants. Often times media will develop rumors just for the idea that they will get more viewers or attract a certain demographic that will then follow whatever media they use. Magazines such as Us magazine relies entirely on the rumors of celebrities to expand their number of viewers. They know that it is a quick attraction and will provide an instant cash flow. But now that we have all of these forms of media working together it is a much quicker process of how fast these rumors stay or hold the attention of viewers. When something is talked about on facebook, someone can then look on the rest of the internet, tv, and magazines to find out the truth relatively quick. which leads media to have to come up with more and more outlandish rumors so that they stay in the eye of the viewer for a longer period of time. This idea of a water cooler effect is very prevalent today and is causing a lot of false media.
I feel that the internet today has only helped to increase interest in certain televised events. The fact that there are such things now as twitter and facebook only gives people more reason to view something that everyone across the world can also view so that afterward, they all can have an educated discussion about the entire thing. Many today say that if you aren't advertising on facebook, you aren't advertising at all. I find this to be an incredibly true statement because of the fact that you constantly see a new advertisement on the side for an upcoming premiere of a tv series. Than that night the moment that series is done or even before the episode has finished you see status's and wall comments exploding from people who have watched the show and are voicing their opinions about it. Essentially what are they doing? They are advertising for that show now by saying, "Wow so and so is a great new show. Everybody needs to be watching it." The internet and television are only helping fuel each other.
First of all, I had no idea that the M.A.S.H season finale had the record for highest viewers in TV history. That really says something about our country in the 80s. Secondly, I can relate to this article. I chat with my friends about live TV programs all the time. And any person on Facebook during the gold medal hockey game was sure to see at least a dozen “AAAAHHhhHHh YEAH!”’s on their news feed when the US sent the game to overtime. And just as many “F**K Sidney Crosby!!!”’s when they lost. Americans really do have short attention spans, and we make up for it by multi-tasking. We watch tv, chat and snack. That’s just how it is. As for the article itself, I kind of lost interest about two-thirds the way through. I understood the point they were making and just got bored. Other than that though, nice piece of work. Seemed to be universally relatable.
This article was interesting and it really begs a good question. Maybe the Internet is taking some of Televisions thunder. I do however think using the Internet can be more beneficial than sitting in front of a TV. If you are on the Internet, you are reading about current events and essentially learning new things. Using facebook and twitter may not be the most constructive things but I don’t see the Internet as a large threat.
Browsing the internet and watching TV has definitely become two things that many people do at the same time. There are still things that TV can provide us that the internet cannot. In the article it mentioned that this year’s Super Bowl had the highest number of viewers for a show ever. The first thing that needs to be taken into account is how many more people are watching TV. I’m not sure of any statistics around it, but there are definitely more people watching TV each year because of factors including the reduced cost of televisions, the suffering economy and people’s inability to go out, and internet marketing. They say in the article that the internet has become a friend of television and I couldn’t agree more. Weeks leading up to the Super Bowl, all you saw on web sites were advertisements for the event. Facebook was littered with groups and events for the Super Bowl which probably motivated people to watch it even more. The television will never be replaced by the internet, entirely at least.
With technology advancing in massive strives each year, each month for that matter it is getting harder and harder to tell the difference between your television, computer, or even your cell phone. As the article is taking about a take over or strong arming of one of these devices I see it as more as a mutual adaption I believe in the next coming years all of are electronic media, T.V.'s, computers, and cell phones will all serve the same function, the only difference will be are we using them from? On the go, at work, or while relaxing at home? If you look at the new technology coming out you will see that you can and will be able to use your t.v. exactly like your computer or cell phone, and for the computer you can watch t.v. shows on hulu, download torrents to watch missed episodes heck their are even programs that broadcast live T.V. to your computer. The same can be said for our cell phones which in a sense are now nothing more than a scaled down laptop, which can surf the web, watch tv, or play games. So to me the real question is not what media device you believe is the most efficient or usable. The real question is where do you intend to use your media device as they will all be able to do the same things pretty soon.
I've, personally, never heard of that analogy... a "water cooler" effect. I had to do some research, if you will, to understand the context.
ReplyDeleteBut this water cooler analogy gives perfect meaning to the relationship between the internet and television; how informal conversations and exchanges through social media can encourage more people to view television.
The internet is like a type of breeding ground for the spreading of rumors and as the article explained, many television executives are crediting the rise in television ratings to this buzz.
I agree. People don't like to feel out of the loop, and the internet is one more way to be in the loop, which boosts the television business and vice versa; internet and TV have a symbiotic relationship.
I feel that one example of this internet/television interplay is Battle at Kruger, which began as a YouTube video posting that, after receiving 21 million views, turned into a National Geographic documentary.
-Tillman
I found this article very relatable to myself because I often connect my interests in television with the internet. Now thanks to advances in technology you are able to watch television shows through the internet at your own leisure. I share the same viewpoint as Rachael Velonza, because even when I may know the outcome of a event that does not stop me from tuning in after the fact to see it for myself.
ReplyDeleteIt only makes sense for both networks to come together and pool their resources for promotional reasons. Huge events, such as the super bowl and Olympics are prime examples of benefiting from in the water-cooler effect that has been taken place. Many individuals have formed obsessions with the internet. These people are constantly checking the latest updates on sites and twittering their opinions. The internet allows accessibility to the information you want right at that second, as opposed to television where you must wait for a report on it.
Hopefully this trend continues linking the internet and television simultaneously because not only can this benefit the networks, it also benefits the viewers by having multiple sources of accessibility.
-Samantha Cook
I agree with this article. Many people surf the web and watch tv simultaneously, myself included. Creating buzz with the internet on a specific show can definitely cause more people to watch the show. If I read something on the internet that is going to happen on a TV show and it interests me, I will tune into the show to see what is going on.
ReplyDeleteBeing able to watch tv and then blog about it makes people be able to relate to others. It acts as a sort of language with people who are interested in the same things. Celebrities are also twittering while they are at events, saying what they think, and that could also help boost ratings for awards shows and such other things.
With the audience and viewers being able to interactively connect with the show they are watching, it makes the content much more interesting. Viewers are now able to not only watch shows, but to engage with other viewers about what is happening and their own opinions.
While twitter and facebook gets bigger and more popular, I'm sure that TV shows will continue to grow and make watching these programs more fun and engaging.
-Grace Luoma
I agree with this article that the internet is a place for people to connect and talk about what's going on in the media. I personally always find out important entertainment news through twitter. It is a place I found out about the passings of Brittney Murphy, Michael Jackson, and Farrah Fawsett. When everyone is talking about one topic on Twitter, it becomes important and news worthy. Twitter is like a HUGE water cooler.
ReplyDeleteBut...I don't agree that the internet is taking away from water cooler chat. I don't have a full time job and never experienced the "water cooler" conversation, but I don't believe that people are work don't still interact in fun conversation about the newest episode of The Bachelor or the person who won the gold medal in the olympics. People still want that escape during the workday, so they will continue to do it.
I actually think that because of the internet, it is bringin for more conversation around the water cooler. Now people can say "Oh, did you see on that blog what they thought about who the bachelor kicked off last night". It enhances the conversation and gives more opinions and viewpoints.
As long as there is work, there will always be room for water cooler conversation.
-Daniella Fusari
NBC’s The Office has made reference to “water cooler gossip,” where news apparently travels quicker than office memos. Now, with the increase in social networking, this gossip can be at anyone’s disposal whenever they’d like.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the availability of news and media on the internet has made it easier to hear about happenings and what’s going on in the news. This is how I found out about things such as the USA hockey team lost to Canada, or Jake from The Bachelor chose the “slutty girl,” Vienna.
I also agree with the statement made by the chief executive of the CBS corporation, Leslie Moonves, that the internet is television’s friend. People don’t have to choose the TV over the internet; they can have the best of both worlds. And they can all connect together about it over the social networking sites by saying things like, “JAKE YOUR SOOOO STUPIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD.”
-Charlotte Whedon
Internet has become a huge part of the average person's daily routine - we hit up facebook or twitter (or both) each day. It's a way to communicate with friends, colleagues and families. Online communication, as the article discusses, does not hinder television viewership. Instead, people are more likely to watch TV to keep up with everyone else's comments. If you see a facebook status about an Olympic event, you may be intrigued to tune in for the replay.
ReplyDeleteI think the "water-cooler effect" can be summed up with NBC Alan Wurtzel's statement: "People want to have something to share."
-Amanda Price
Water-Cooler Effect: Internet Can Be TV’s Friend
ReplyDeleteThe Water-Cooler Effect has been taken over by social networking sites, such as Twitter and Facebook. I remember when people would watch a television show one night and was excited to met up with co-workers or friends the next day to discuss what happened on last nights television program. Now, all you have to do is look at the live posting of viewers’ thoughts on any social networking site regarding a particular television program. As stated in the article, the physical Water-Cooler talk is now online. But, viewers remain loyal to watching the television tube and is now able to express there thoughts on the internet at that very moment. With the new age of media technology, one is able to enjoy surfing the web and watching television at the same time.
-Quinetra J.Cromuel
The water-cooler effect is evident today more than ever. With the success of social networks such as facebook, status updates and wall posts about TV episodes and sports events become a common ground among friends to interact.
ReplyDeleteWithout even watching the Canada versus U.S. hockey game I immediately knew who won thanks to friend’s instant status updates. Does this mean I won’t watch the game if it aired again? No, if anything this attracted me more to find a means of watching the game because now I was interested in why the game was so good or how they won.
The Internet is definitely a good way to get information across and it is obvious that the Internet and TV stations need each other to stay ahead of the game.
-Christal Ceithamer
This article was really interesting, but more obvious than anything. The internet really is boosting television ratings- after someone sees their friends discussing it, they're more likely to tune in to join the conversation. I don't watch the super bowl or know anything about football, but I knew what was going on and probably made a comment or two because of all the status updates and comments on Facebook. I've also been more in tune with the Olympics accidentally because of my roommate's interest in the hockey and curling segments and commenting on her comments about them. The final sentence, “In the future, I can’t imagine a major event where the audience doesn’t become part of the story itself,” Ms. Sladden said," was great because not only is feedback instant now, but there's also so much information and opinion that can be taken from it. We have noticed this happening, but the article made us sit down and think about it.
ReplyDelete-Gina Moccio
Every form of media these days has some sort of a water cooler effect. Revealing rumors and spreading gossip is very intriguing to a lot of people and can create a larger viewing scene for these different forms of media.
ReplyDeleteEach form of media spreads rumors, whether it is TMZ or some blog site that a random person created, rumors will get out there and cause people to ask questions. This is what the media wants. Often times media will develop rumors just for the idea that they will get more viewers or attract a certain demographic that will then follow whatever media they use. Magazines such as Us magazine relies entirely on the rumors of celebrities to expand their number of viewers. They know that it is a quick attraction and will provide an instant cash flow.
But now that we have all of these forms of media working together it is a much quicker process of how fast these rumors stay or hold the attention of viewers. When something is talked about on facebook, someone can then look on the rest of the internet, tv, and magazines to find out the truth relatively quick. which leads media to have to come up with more and more outlandish rumors so that they stay in the eye of the viewer for a longer period of time. This idea of a water cooler effect is very prevalent today and is causing a lot of false media.
-Ryan Lowe
I feel that the internet today has only helped to increase interest in certain televised events. The fact that there are such things now as twitter and facebook only gives people more reason to view something that everyone across the world can also view so that afterward, they all can have an educated discussion about the entire thing. Many today say that if you aren't advertising on facebook, you aren't advertising at all. I find this to be an incredibly true statement because of the fact that you constantly see a new advertisement on the side for an upcoming premiere of a tv series. Than that night the moment that series is done or even before the episode has finished you see status's and wall comments exploding from people who have watched the show and are voicing their opinions about it. Essentially what are they doing? They are advertising for that show now by saying, "Wow so and so is a great new show. Everybody needs to be watching it." The internet and television are only helping fuel each other.
ReplyDeleteMarch 2, 2010 5:13 PM /\ is Alex Bass
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I had no idea that the M.A.S.H season finale had the record for highest viewers in TV history. That really says something about our country in the 80s.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I can relate to this article. I chat with my friends about live TV programs all the time. And any person on Facebook during the gold medal hockey game was sure to see at least a dozen “AAAAHHhhHHh YEAH!”’s on their news feed when the US sent the game to overtime. And just as many “F**K Sidney Crosby!!!”’s when they lost.
Americans really do have short attention spans, and we make up for it by multi-tasking. We watch tv, chat and snack. That’s just how it is.
As for the article itself, I kind of lost interest about two-thirds the way through. I understood the point they were making and just got bored. Other than that though, nice piece of work. Seemed to be universally relatable.
This article was interesting and it really begs a good question. Maybe the Internet is taking some of Televisions thunder. I do however think using the Internet can be more beneficial than sitting in front of a TV. If you are on the Internet, you are reading about current events and essentially learning new things. Using facebook and twitter may not be the most constructive things but I don’t see the Internet as a large threat.
ReplyDeleteC. Campo
Browsing the internet and watching TV has definitely become two things that many people do at the same time. There are still things that TV can provide us that the internet cannot. In the article it mentioned that this year’s Super Bowl had the highest number of viewers for a show ever. The first thing that needs to be taken into account is how many more people are watching TV. I’m not sure of any statistics around it, but there are definitely more people watching TV each year because of factors including the reduced cost of televisions, the suffering economy and people’s inability to go out, and internet marketing. They say in the article that the internet has become a friend of television and I couldn’t agree more. Weeks leading up to the Super Bowl, all you saw on web sites were advertisements for the event. Facebook was littered with groups and events for the Super Bowl which probably motivated people to watch it even more. The television will never be replaced by the internet, entirely at least.
ReplyDeleteWesterlind
With technology advancing in massive strives each year, each month for that matter it is getting harder and harder to tell the difference between your television, computer, or even your cell phone. As the article is taking about a take over or strong arming of one of these devices I see it as more as a mutual adaption I believe in the next coming years all of are electronic media, T.V.'s, computers, and cell phones will all serve the same function, the only difference will be are we using them from? On the go, at work, or while relaxing at home? If you look at the new technology coming out you will see that you can and will be able to use your t.v. exactly like your computer or cell phone, and for the computer you can watch t.v. shows on hulu, download torrents to watch missed episodes heck their are even programs that broadcast live T.V. to your computer. The same can be said for our cell phones which in a sense are now nothing more than a scaled down laptop, which can surf the web, watch tv, or play games. So to me the real question is not what media device you believe is the most efficient or usable. The real question is where do you intend to use your media device as they will all be able to do the same things pretty soon.
ReplyDeleteMatt Brown