But more important, when a market value is assigned to every utterance, we’re acquiescing to the premise that no other sort of value matters as much.
There is no easy way to resolve this tension. Selling an NFT of a tweet isn’t about fostering an audience or creating a sustainable source of income to support a creative life. It’s the newest, most direct way of converting attention into money, and of plucking a unit of content out of its cultural context—the conversation it was part of, the historical moment that made it significant, the people who saw it and got excited about it—and presenting it for purchase.
It’s appropriate to give credit to people for their creativity and compensate them for their labor. It’s empowering to siphon value from the social-media companies that have been making billions off our personal lives. But it’s also a kind of giving up.
The thing about assigning monetary value to more and more of one’s expression isn’t the act itself. There’s nothing wrong there. After all as long as one other person believes something has value, that’s most certainly true to them, at the very least. But money is all about numbers. And all of us have a natural tendency to compare such values in absolute terms, just like we compare product specifications. And when we do, it’s not that we reject the intangibles, more like we push them aside as weighing intangibles is simply harder and less efficient.
So by giving everything a number to convey value, I’m concerned we make it harder and harder for ourselves to focus on those intangibles. It’s a philosophical argument, surely. How could it not be? Anyone can come up with a number. Not everyone can accurately define an idea’s or a work’s overall, lasting and final influence and importance.
Blaston faced review bombing on both the Oculus Store and Steam as players critiqued the addition of advertising to a game that didn’t have it at the time of purchase.
It only took a couple of days for things to turn sour. People seem to have taken issue with the fact that a paid game, a game that came with a business model that didn’t rely on advertising but up front payment would put ads on top of that. Of course that’s nothing new. Neither is the teams failure to anticipate backlash. Remember that VR is dominated by core gamers with more income than average to burn as VR —actually good VR— doesn’t come cheap. So we’re talking of a lot that is bound to take such things a lot more seriously than the average gamer of today.
As an alternative, we are looking to see if it is feasible to move this small, temporary test to our free game, Bait! sometime in the future.
The team must have learnt its lesson here as its next move is to try this out in a F2P game, where it’s tougher for people to feel slighted or take the move as some kind of bait and switch.
My favorite example is The New York Times — by all accounts a reputable and trustworthy company. Subscribe to the Times in-app, where Apple gets a cut, and you can easily unsubscribe at any time with two taps in the Settings apps. Subscribe to the Times on their website, and you literally have to call them on the telephone and argue with a Times rep whose job is to talk you out of unsubscribing.
What value would you, dear reader, assign to that?
The letter purportedly cautioned leakers that they must not disclose information about unreleased Apple projects because it may give Apple’s competitors valuable information and “mislead customers, because what is disclosed may not be accurate.”
Apple purportedly grabbed screenshots of Kang’s Weibo as evidence, which included him talking about problems he experienced with the iPhone, product release dates, and purchase suggestions for his followers, as well as more casual posts.
This here is Apple’s legal going bonkers, as if leakers are legally obliged to protect anything they come across, despite not being under an NDA themselves. Those who leak information to those leakers that then pass it along might be fair game but anything beyond that is overreaching and most definitely not a good look.
And including critical tweets as evidence of… something in such a case? That’s just a dick move.
There’s a flag that says “Trump 2024: The Revenge Tour” flying on the main building, which almost makes me get back on the bus. It’s a pretty hostile message to send to everyone who uses this facility, military and civilian alike. Between that and being told that no one here will be wearing masks, I have my guard up immediately.
What could possibly go wrong?
“Amazon is the only company I’ve dealt with that has directly lied to me,” said one tech writer, recalling instances when Amazon boasted of warehouse safety guidelines in ways that journalists who had spoken with rank-and-file employees had found not to be true.
“They’d often lie about things we had proof of,” said another reporter, citing times they had visual evidence contradicting the communications teams’ claims. “There will be videos of these big walkouts and they’ll say only a few workers participated.”
This is a very interesting story and you should read it in full. It highlights how a company may choose to pressure media and it’s important to note that even Amazon, with all its might and size, doesn’t have to “buy” anyone to play this game.
There’s always going to be some tension, implied or otherwise, between then Press, PR and, by extension, the public. But a good PR department knows how to push without lying. This is a surefire way, certainly in my experience, to distinguish the good PR professionals from the bad. Good PR is about putting the spin on things, reframing facts and conversations, not lying your way through to success. Because, sooner or later, you’ll be caught in a lie. And when you’re the type of person that will pretend you haven’t been caught lying, even when it’s evident and provable that you have, the problem is you don’t really understand what PR is or is supposed to achieve.