Archive | ENGL 806 RSS feed for this section

Visual Rhetoric_Reflection

As the spring semester finally winds its way down, my professor asked each of us to to reflect on how the things we have learned can connect out to our own work in academia.

GIF hosted on Tumblr.

GIF hosted on Tumblr.

I’m not really sure that my understandings of visual rhetoric and document design have really changed since taking this class because of my experiences last year in the Networks course. The Networks course was so different from any kind of classroom environment and from any kind of work that I had been required to do in the past, that every week was me trying to overcome my reservations about how to submit my work, what I could include (strictly text vs. incorporating reactionary gifs), the kinds of content I would be studying (neurobiology still haunts me),  and how to present my understandings and connections between those kinds of content. I realized that as I was moving through that class, I attempted to use humor as a way to convey the material I was reviewing or synthesizing and as a way for me to understand it myself. With the blog, beyond my peers, I was never sure who was stumbling across my blog, so I always tried to keep in mind that I needed to try and present information in a way that anyone could understand, even the really science-y stuff that flustered me.

In terms of this class, though, I feel like I have been gaining a little more vocabulary about how to talk about the things I am doing when I produce content, but also in how I talk about games and the visual culture surrounding the gaming community and industry. I still have a little trouble talking about rhetoric (this is my first rhetoric-centered class) and rhetorical strategies/canons, so the project I am working on and the research I am doing for it are letting me explore how people talk about the use of visual rhetoric in advertisements. For me, seeing something in a practical application helps me understand concepts far better than just theory (which is probably why I suck so badly at math), so getting to read about how the advertising industry is doing certain things in order to lure in customers, to make certain brands appeal to different groups of people, and to see the kind of cultural rhetoric in play makes a lot more sense to me.

In regards to the invention process, I think that I have become a bit more visual because the projects I have been working on in the last two years have required me to map out connections and ideas and goals in a way that I am not used to. My internship has done a lot to pull me out of my comfort zone because video games are very visual things nowadays, with text often acting as a supplemental element. My internship director is a very visual person (he’s an artist), so my invention process was no longer strictly me working on my own things. He and I meet almost every week to discuss details and to work through issues with the content, and it helps to have visuals available to make sure that we are imagining things in (mostly) the same ways. When I am working, I am not very visually driven (I tried to avoid having to do anything but type words and find gifs) because I lack the skills to get what is in my head onto paper beyond rearranging words into sentences, so having to do mindmaps for class and my internship and learning how to blog have been really good in getting me to branch out in how I approached projects and how I maintained the visual components rather than scuttling back to my purely textual bubble.

A little Music to Help the Reflection Process

Digital Design Experiences Timeline

For my Visual Rhetoric class, we were asked to create timelines of our digital design   disasters experiences. The picture below is a screencapture since I can’t get the embed code to work, and there is a link to my actual timeline below that.

Digital Design Experiences Timeline

 

When you don’t know where you’re going, the music is always fun.

Visual Rhetoric_Annotated Bibliography #3

Kitami, Kodia, Ryosuke Saga, and Kazunori Matsumoto. (2011). “Comparison Analysis of Video Game Purchase Factors between Japanese and American Consumers.” Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume, 6883, 285-294. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-23854-3_30

 Kitami, Saga, and Matsumoto’s article looks at psychological factors, going beyond the usual factors of genre and console, that go into consumers’ purchases of video games. The authors begin by constructing “a purchase factor model using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), which [they] use [to] analyze the influences of factors quantitatively” in an effort “to clarify the latent purchase factors of Japanese consumers” (p. 286). They also mention that, while constructing the SEM, they attempted to avoid the subjective nature inherent in constructed models by proposing “a factor model construction process that uses KJ method,” claiming that, with this method, they “can perform a comparison analysis of Japanese and American consumers’ purchase factors in order to develop a game that will be a best-seller in both countries” (p. 286).  The authors state that the KJ method, “developed by J. Kawakita in 1951,” has four steps: “1) Create cards: Establishing a theme and writing ideas and facts related to theme; 2) Make groups: Grouping related cards and labeling groups; 3) Create diagram: Arranging the labeled groups according to directions for casual relationships; and 4) Summarize: Synthesizing the meaning of the completed diagram via text” (p. 288). The authors then break the rest of their article into four sections: 1) “the transition and characteristics of the Japanese and American game industries,” 2) “the creativity technique and proposed process,” 3) a description of the “environments and results of the experiment,” and 4) a discussion of the results.

Figure of the process used by Kitami, Saga, and Matsumoto. Located on page 289.

Figure of the process used by Kitami, Saga, and Matsumoto. Located on page 289.

For their experiment, the three authors “formed three Japanese groups and three American group…[and] asked these groups to form KJ method, construct six factor models, and analyze purchase factors,” which they then used to “compare the differences in psychological factors between Japanese and American consumers, with their future focus being on university students (p. 289). The authors record that they collected data on 1083 video digital games, “which were evaluated by consumers on the user review site ‘PlayStation mk2’ to analyze purchase factors of Japanese consumers [using] 16 parameters (platform, maker, genre, price, rating (target age), userrank (game rank), playnum (number of players), median (comprehensive evaluation), reviews (number of reviews), originality, sound, excite, amenity, graphics, satisfaction, and difficulty)” (p. 290). And they “collected data on 5764 video games on the user review site ‘IGN Entertainment Games’ to analyze purchase factors of American consumers…[using] 11 parameters (genre, publisher, month (release month), price, platform, rating, graphics, sound, gameplay, lasting appeal, and overall)” (p. 290). The authors concluded that “Game content has a large influence on consumers purchase motivation in both countries; Japanese consumers have strong brand consciousness and conservativeness; Japanese consumers have little consideration for genre and platform; Series information and games expansion strongly affect American consumers’ purchase behavior and overall evaluation; and American consumers prefer education games and games involving physical activity to other games” (p. 293).

I was really excited when I found this article because I was expecting the authors to really hash out the differences in Japanese and American consumers’ values and beliefs that affect the kinds of games that they purchase, which would help me think about the localization efforts of the PlayStation 4 campaign advertisements. However, this text has so many flaws that I am now looking at it for what not to do in the future. The authors left so many gaps in their explanation of their study, leaving me wondering how they chose the three groups of Japanese video game consumers and three groups of American consumers? How many people were in each group? Were these people biased towards different genres? How were they chosen? I also questioned their data collection about video games, as there is a huge difference between collecting data on 1038 games to analyze purchase factors of Japanese consumers and collecting data on 5764 games to analyze purchase factors of American consumers. Why the difference in parameters used for analysis? How did they choose which parameters for each of the countries? And then there is the issue of the sales ratios of video games genres (see below), where the genres are mostly different. Unlike the image of these two countries’ video game markets, both countries’ video game industries have quite a market for all of the genres listed on both pie charts. The family entertainment that is listed so firmly in the American market is predominately from the Nintendo games, with many of them being developed by Japanese studios. And as someone who is a huge role-playing game fan and deeply aware of the culture that surrounds such games, I am deeply wary of that genre not being listed as one of the main genres for the American market. I am not quite sure how the authors really broke down their data to come up with such results, though I am curious about the SEM and KJ method they used, but their study raised more questions than could ever be answered by their text. However, I may be speaking from a staunch source of gaming bias and ruffled RPG feathers.

Kitami, Saga, and Matsumoto included two figures breaking down popular genres in Japanese and American video game markets, respectively. Located on page 287.

Kitami, Saga, and Matsumoto included two figures breaking down popular genres in Japanese and American video game markets, respectively. Located on page 287.

To fan or not to fan shouldn’t even be a question

Visual Rhetoric_Annotated Bibliography #2

Bogost, I. (2010). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bogost’s research question is to “suggest that videogames have a unique persuasive power” that is made possible through procedural rhetoric as this type of rhetoric is “tied to the core affordances of the computer,” but that “videogames are computational artifacts that have cultural meaning as computational artifacts,” unlike “‘ordinary software like word processors and photo editing applications [which] are often used to create expressive artifacts” since “those completed artifacts do not rely on the computer in order to bear meaning” (ix). Unlike some other game scholars and the gaming community, Bogost (2010) games can “disrupt and change fundamental attitudes and beliefs about the world, leading to potentially significant long-term change,” but that “this power is not equivalent to the content of videogames…Rather, this power lies in the very way videogames mount claims through procedural rhetorics” (ix). Bogost (2010) frames the foundation of his discourse within the evolution of rhetoric, but he applies and expands rhetoric to fill in the gaps left by traditional and visual and digital rhetoric through the technological difference of video games. His belief is while visual and textual rhetoric are still relevant, video game rhetoricians need to understand how procedural rhetoric functions in games. He defines procedural rhetoric as “the practice of using processes persuasively, just as verbal rhetoric the practice of using oratory persuasively and visual rhetoric is the practice of using images persuasively. Procedural rhetoric is a general name for the practice of authoring arguments through processes…its arguments are made not through the construction of words or images, but through the authorship of rules of behavior, the construction of dynamic models,” with the rules of computational arguments written in code (p. 28-29).

Bogost (2010) concludes that “we must recognize the persuasive and expressive power of procedurality. Processes influence us. They seed changes in our attitudes, which in turn, and over time, change our culture…we should recognize procedural rhetoric as a new way to interrogate our world, to comment on it, to disrupt and challenge it. As creators and players of videogames, we must be conscious of the procedural claims we make, why we make them, and what kind of social fabric we hope to cultivate through the processes we unleash on the world” (p. 340). While his “social fabric we hope to cultivate” comment is a bit grand, his exploration of the ways in which processes underlying both society, business, education, and digital games, among other activities is a fascinating one but it takes into account that for every procedure that was included, another one had to be excluded, and the choices that were made reflect cultural and societal influences and norms. An example of this would be when Bogost (2010) talks about procedural rhetoric and political structures: “Procedural rhetorics articulate the way political structures organize their daily practice; they describe the way a system ‘thinks’ before it thinks about anything in particular. To be sure, this process of crafting opinion toward resignation has its own logic, and that logic can be operationalized in code” (p. 90).

Bogost’s (2010) text is useful when approaching my topic because he has a chapter devoted to “Advertising Logic,” applying visual and procedural logic when looking at how advertisers, like “marketing guru Seth Godin,” had to reevaluate the way they delivered advertisements to consumers with the rise of DVR and selling television shows on DVD allowing viewers to skip over commercials (p. 150 and 151). Bogost (2010) points out that, by targeting a demographic of males between the age of 18 to 34, “Marketing has shifted away from a focus on the procedural rhetoric of media technologies — integrating ads into rules of network programming formats. Instead, advertisers focus on the procedural rhetoric of the frames themselves — integrating ads into rules of consumers’ perceived cultural station” (p. 151-152), with even video games becoming a space in which advertisers can reach audiences through what has been coined “advergames” by J. Chen and M. Ringel (2001). While I do find it fascinating that digital games can be used to deliver advertising messages, the section of Bogost’s chapter that is going to be the most useful to me is when he describes three types of advertising — demonstrative, illustrative, and associative — and ties each of the strategies into how they are used within the video game industry. Before reading this section, I had no idea that there were different types of advertising and had no idea about how each of these types of advertising affects the ways in which consumers are approached and the types of rhetoric that are employed. For my particular project, it looks like I will be delving further into associative advertising as it is what Sony is using for their PlayStation 4 campaigns in the US and Japan by attempting to parallel players’ lives with the actions and achievements that are a part of in the games. By looking at his discourse on the associative advertising and then at the advertising rhetorics with “its own internal logic that informs and structures the attitudes” he describes with the three advertising types: “Advertising agencies develop strategic ‘campaigns’ based on a sophisticated understanding of a company’s products or services, their target audience, and their incremental goals for the near future” (p. 164).

As for the overall questions being asked in the class, Bogost (2010) has a conversation that looks at the move from visual to procedural rhetoric in advertising, and how “advertisers are applying existing rhetorics to the videogame medium, despite the latter’s fundamental focus on procedurality. Advertising has always focused on the visual. Advertisers synecdochically refer to consumers as ‘eyeballs,’ whose attention they strive to capture” (169). Bogost’s desire to alter/expand how and which rhetorics are applied to advertising within video games fills in the gaps for me that I have been feeling when looking at the theories we have read so far in class. Video games do not operate the way commercials or print ads, so there need to be different ways of looking at how the rhetorics for advergames operate in a way that is beyond just the visual.

As the winter storms keep coming


Visual Rhetoric_Annotated Bibliography #2

Bogost, I. (2010). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bogost’s research question is to “suggest that videogames have a unique persuasive power” that is made possible through procedural rhetoric as this type of rhetoric is “tied to the core affordances of the computer,” but that “videogames are computational artifacts that have cultural meaning as computational artifacts,” unlike “‘ordinary software like word processors and photo editing applications [which] are often used to create expressive artifacts” since “those completed artifacts do not rely on the computer in order to bear meaning” (ix). Unlike some other game scholars and the gaming community, Bogost (2010) games can “disrupt and change fundamental attitudes and beliefs about the world, leading to potentially significant long-term change,” but that “this power is not equivalent to the content of videogames…Rather, this power lies in the very way videogames mount claims through procedural rhetorics” (ix). Bogost (2010) frames the foundation of his discourse within the evolution of rhetoric, but he applies and expands rhetoric to fill in the gaps left by traditional and visual and digital rhetoric through the technological difference of video games. His belief is while visual and textual rhetoric are still relevant, video game rhetoricians need to understand how procedural rhetoric functions in games. He defines procedural rhetoric as “the practice of using processes persuasively, just as verbal rhetoric the practice of using oratory persuasively and visual rhetoric is the practice of using images persuasively. Procedural rhetoric is a general name for the practice of authoring arguments through processes…its arguments are made not through the construction of words or images, but through the authorship of rules of behavior, the construction of dynamic models,” with the rules of computational arguments written in code (p. 28-29).

Bogost (2010) concludes that “we must recognize the persuasive and expressive power of procedurality. Processes influence us. They seed changes in our attitudes, which in turn, and over time, change our culture…we should recognize procedural rhetoric as a new way to interrogate our world, to comment on it, to disrupt and challenge it. As creators and players of videogames, we must be conscious of the procedural claims we make, why we make them, and what kind of social fabric we hope to cultivate through the processes we unleash on the world” (p. 340). While his “social fabric we hope to cultivate” comment is a bit grand, his exploration of the ways in which processes underlying both society, business, education, and digital games, among other activities is a fascinating one but it takes into account that for every procedure that was included, another one had to be excluded, and the choices that were made reflect cultural and societal influences and norms. An example of this would be when Bogost (2010) talks about procedural rhetoric and political structures: “Procedural rhetorics articulate the way political structures organize their daily practice; they describe the way a system ‘thinks’ before it thinks about anything in particular. To be sure, this process of crafting opinion toward resignation has its own logic, and that logic can be operationalized in code” (p. 90). The implications of Bogost’s argument is that it gives rhetoricians a way to to look at the rhetoric that underlies processes and codes that are usually invisible to society and individuals, except for people like computer programmers who work explicitly with code.

Bogost’s (2010) text is useful when approaching my topic because he has a chapter devoted to “Advertising Logic,” applying visual and procedural logic when looking at how advertisers, like “marketing guru Seth Godin,” had to reevaluate the way they delivered advertisements to consumers with the rise of DVR and selling television shows on DVD allowing viewers to skip over commercials (p. 150 and 151). Bogost (2010) points out that, by targeting a demographic of males between the age of 18 to 34, “Marketing has shifted away from a focus on the procedural rhetoric of media technologies — integrating ads into rules of network programming formats. Instead, advertisers focus on the procedural rhetoric of the frames themselves — integrating ads into rules of consumers’ perceived cultural station” (p. 151-152), with even video games becoming a space in which advertisers can reach audiences through what has been coined “advergames” by J. Chen and M. Ringel (2001). While I do find it fascinating that digital games can be used to deliver advertising messages, the section of Bogost’s chapter that is going to be the most useful to me is when he describes three types of advertising — demonstrative, illustrative, and associative — and ties each of the strategies into how they are used within the video game industry. Before reading this section, I had no idea that there were different types of advertising and had no idea about how each of these types of advertising affects the ways in which consumers are approached and the types of rhetoric that are employed. For my particular project, it looks like I will be delving further into associative advertising as it is what Sony is using for their PlayStation 4 campaigns in the US and Japan by attempting to parallel players’ lives with the actions and achievements that are a part of in the games. By looking at his discourse on the associative advertising and then at the advertising rhetorics with “its own internal logic that informs and structures the attitudes” he describes with the three advertising types: “Advertising agencies develop strategic ‘campaigns’ based on a sophisticated understanding of a company’s products or services, their target audience, and their incremental goals for the near future” (p. 164).

As for the overall questions being asked in the class, Bogost (2010) has a conversation that looks at the move from visual to procedural rhetoric in advertising, and how “advertisers are applying existing rhetorics to the videogame medium, despite the latter’s fundamental focus on procedurality. Advertising has always focused on the visual. Advertisers synecdochically refer to consumers as ‘eyeballs,’ whose attention they strive to capture” (169). Bogost’s desire to alter/expand how and which rhetorics are applied to advertising within video games fills in the gaps for me that I have been feeling when looking at the theories we have read so far in class. Video games do not operate the way commercials or print ads, so there need to be different ways of looking at how the rhetorics for advergames operate in a way that is beyond just the visual.

As the winter storms keep coming

Visual Argument Reflection

After looking at the comments I received from my peers (Maury, Megan, Laurie, and Jenny), I think they did a great job getting at the argument I was trying to construct with my visual, which was simply that we are humans regardless of any other identity factor placed upon us and that we suffer and cry and laugh and learn and work even when living in different conditions. The learning, the work, the hardships and the losses, and how we survive may take different forms, but humanness is our underlying factor. My peers pointed out that my visual was about “the richness of the human experience,” “the range of human emotions and actions,” about the “perseverance” of mankind, and the “human condition.” It was this range of humanity that I wanted my visual argument to show that gave me such a hard time. I spent quite a bit of time choosing images from around the world so as not to assume that humanity is restricted to the US and developed countries, but to show different cultures, social classes, races, ethnicities, and religions. Part of my problem was that I think I initially wanted too many pictures for one collage, thinking that I could show the beauty and ugliness of the human race if I made a virtual mural. But I then started to wonder how many pictures in one collage would lose the focus of my argument and be too much for people to take in? When I reduced the number of pictures, the next big question became, What would be my central point to link them all together? DaVinci’s diagram of the anatomy of a man has some cultural weight to it that I have seen used before to represent mankind (disregarding the fact that it only represents a male), so I placed it at the center, hoping that it drew attention to the humanness of each person represented in the pictures that framed DaVinci’s diagram (which two people commented on). The next obstacle was how to arrange the other images. Should it just be random placement, or should there be an order to them? I chose the latter because I wanted to show a cycle we go through as individuals and as societies, from conflict to resistance to joy to learning to work to death. I wanted my visual to represent different cultures moving through these moments in a way that it seems like we forget. So often there is the Us vs Them argument, setting barriers to protect us from the influence of the Other, when we forget the simple fact that the Them really mirror Us in a way that can be startling and uncomfortable to other people. When we think of the conflicts raging in other parts of the world, like the Middle East, we tend to forget that they bury their dead as we do; it seems like all we see is our “pain” and our grievances, unless noticing others’ hurting furthers our own righteous indignation. So yes, after my long-winded explanation, I think my peers were spot on in their interpretation of my visual argument, and it makes me happy that the pictures I chose in the end were able to capture humanness rather than the “versus” attitude that I see so often in news outlets and on social media.

As for where I stand on the debate on whether or not visual arguments are possible, I am a big believer in the fact that visual arguments can be possible. Not to say that every visual is an argument (ex. I will never understand those large canvases that hang up in museums with only a dot of paint in the center and would never consider one of those to be a visual argument), but I do think that people can use visuals to construct an argument, and an argument that speaks as sharply on a topic as the most impassioned speech. When I was first thinking about a topic for what I wanted my visual to convey, I thought a great deal about the Civil Rights Movement and how we use those pictures to reveal something about the nature of racism in America, with a story from this year’s Martin Luther King Day having inspired me to really think about how we use words and how we use pictures. The woman from the story was using MLK quotes to stand up against someone trolling the holiday, but her most poignant moment was when she used images from the movement to question the troll on what exactly he/she was mocking that day. For me, visuals can convey arguments and evidence in a way that not even words can truly underscore. A powerful image can highlight an event and an emotion that are not easily brushed off.

Taken from the article on DailyKos.

Taken from the article on DailyKos.

As for my own visual argument, it took a long time for me to think of how to craft a visual that could be used as an argument. But I don’t think that such long contemplation is necessary. I cannot imagine that during situations like the march in Selma in the 60s or riots happening in, say, Russia, that a photographer would sit there for thirty minutes agonizing over the perfect shot the way I agonized over choosing the perfect picture. For me, I was crafting an argument using images that already existed and piecing them together outside of their original context, whereas pictures like those on Civil Rights Movements websites or in Holocaust Museums, are crafting arguments with images where the power of the images in enhanced because they are placed within their context. I cannot imagine ever saying that visual arguments are not possible when I feel that emotional hit every time I look at pictures of war torn countries, of children starving in the streets, of people facing armored police/military figures in the streets while trying to protest peacefully or violently. I find that an argument is one that is attempting to persuade an audience towards believing something, whether through emotion, logic, through varying combination of the two. Many visuals are just as strong as what can be conveyed through words, written or spoken.

Let the reflection soundtrack commence!

 

Pre-Class Exercise for February 12th

For my Visual Rhetoric class, we were tasked with making a visual argument. I decided to make a collage.

Human

Images taken from: 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/peshawar-school-attack-pakistan-mourns-as-the-funerals-of-victims-of-taliban-massacre-are-held-9929982.html

http://deliveringhappiness.com/reasons-for-living-spontaneity/

http://affordablecremations.tumblr.com/post/100565543033/how-to-get-excellent-funeral-services

http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/vietnam-war-history

http://www.tutufoundationusa.org/2012/10/war-for-peace-the-moral-and-legal-case-for-intervention-in-syria-2/

http://www.ibtimes.com/field-dreams-7-reasons-why-you-dont-want-be-farmer-china-1394965

http://www.workandwellness.com/speakers/menshealth.htm

http://www.ibtimes.com/indian-women-get-back-work-faster-western-japanese-counterparts-report-1152053

https://hcih.wordpress.com/category/regions/middle-east/

http://contemporarycondition.blogspot.com/2012_09_01_archive.html

http://wanderdownunder.com/nz/maori.html

Because no collage should be without background music:

Visual Rhetoric_Annotated Bibliography #1

de Pedro Ricoy, R. (2007). Internationalization vs. localization: The translation of videogame advertising. Meta 52(2), pp. 260-275. Retrieved from http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/2007/v52/n2/016069ar.pdf

             [insert nifty annotation here] In regards to my own research, de Pedro Ricoy’s article is extremely useful as the author breaks down the global advertising strategies of the top three game companies — Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo — based not only on gender, but also on nationality, language, and cultural expectations. It is fascinating to think of all of the elements that have to be taken into account as the public relations and marketing teams plan the release of games and consoles, and how a misstep in any of the plans can lead to decreased interest in an entire country for the products associated with that console. One of the author’s examples that gave me pause was the lack of interest by Japanese consumers in Microsoft’s Xbox because Microsoft had chosen a date they thought would be auspicious without doing enough research to find out that Japanese employees would not be paid until a few days after the release date, leading the Japanese to doubt Microsoft’s ability to successfully localize their campaigns. As I move forward with my analysis of Sony’s “Greatness Awaits” campaign commercials in North America, de Pedro Ricoy’s article will give me a foundation through which to understand the rhetorical strategies that formed the basis of Sony’s approach to localizing their campaign to draw in an American audience.

A little music for the scholarship 


Visual Rhetoric_Annotated Bibliography #1

de Pedro Ricoy, R. (2007). Internationalization vs. localization: The translation of videogame advertising. Meta 52(2), pp. 260-275. Retrieved from http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/2007/v52/n2/016069ar.pdf

            For her article, de Pedro Ricoy approaches the topic of localization versus internalization and the rhetoric employed in global video game advertising through the lens of translation theory, marketing, and semiology. The main research question seems to be centered on what type of analysis would be best suited to exploring and evaluating the marketing strategies of video game console developers as they reach out to global audiences, and whether it is localization or internationalization that is most prevalent in these strategies. With regards to the methodology, the author establishes the target audience for video game marketers by moving through the demographics of the players and the buyers as well as discussing the importance of global marketing strategies to the success of the top three video game console developers— Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo — as they spend millions of dollars in their quest to draw in new players while continuing to cater to existing fanbases. As she moves through her analysis of global advertisings by Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, de Pedro Ricoy looks at examples of textual, static visuals (promotional images), and televised advertisements  to explore how the companies’ marketing teams attempted to either localize their advertisements to a specific country/culture they were trying to reach, or internationalize their advertisements in order to reach the greatest number of potential buyers/players with the belief that globalization has eroded cultural boundaries.

             The author highlights how certain advertisements were received in the countries they were targeting and notes how/why some failed (sometimes miserably) in those countries. de Pedro Ricoy (2007) concludes that “it seems that internationalizing strategies (which imply a degree of foreignization) are more prevalent than localizing strategies in the global campaigns for these products. Whilst different regions may have preserved their overall cultural singularity, certain demographic segments (young, relatively affluent consumers, in this instance) share a common identity that transcends geographical borders” (p. 273). She also lists four “examples of linguistic translation” that she uncovered while doing her research: “1) Literal translation, 2) Free translation, 3) gist translation, and 4) Generation of new text (based in a set of common features) in the context of copy adaptation” (de Pedro Ricoy, 2007, p. 273).

             In regards to my own research, de Pedro Ricoy’s article is extremely useful as the author breaks down the global advertising strategies of the top three game console companies  based not only on gender, but also on nationality, language, and cultural expectations. It is fascinating to think of all of the elements that have to be taken into account as the public relations and marketing teams plan the release of games and consoles, and how a misstep in any of the plans can lead to decreased interest in an entire country for the products associated with that console. One of the author’s examples that gave me pause was the lack of interest by Japanese consumers in Microsoft’s Xbox because Microsoft had chosen a date they thought would be auspicious without doing enough research to find out that Japanese employees would not be paid until a few days after the release date, leading the Japanese to doubt Microsoft’s ability to successfully localize their campaigns. As I move forward with my analysis of Sony’s “Greatness Awaits” campaign commercials in North America, de Pedro Ricoy’s article will give me a foundation through which to understand the rhetorical strategies that formed the basis of Sony’s approach to localizing their campaign to draw in an American audience.

A little music for the scholarship 

Visual Rhetoric_Theoretical Mindmap

Image of my Popplet mindmap

Image of my Popplet mindmap

 Link to Popplet mindmaphttp://popplet.com/app/#/2277361

First soundtrack for Spring: