Media in \"The Work of Being Watched:

Media

In "The Work of Being Watched: Interactive Media and the Exploitation of Self-Disclosure," Andrejevic (2002) critically analyzes interactive media in terms of labor economics. Being watched is a form of work, Andrejevic (2002) claims. Because consumers are not typically paid for their services, the relationship between consumer and enterprise is a parasitic one. Enterprise is exploiting consumers by watching their online behavior, tracking that behavior, and tallying that behavior as marketing data. That marketing data has inherent value, which is why large investments are made into online and other forms of high-tech surveillance. If Andrejevic (2002) had his way, each and every consumer would be paid for surfing the Web and even for watching television. Andrejevic's (2002) claim is of course absurd and completely unfeasible. Moreover, Andrejevic (2002) is completely ignoring the potentially positive effects of consumer surveillance. Contrary to what Andrejevic (2002) has to say, consumer surveillance has a net positive effect on social, economic, and political empowerment.

As Andrejevic (2002) points out, DotComGuy did not fail. DotComGuy might not have made his $98,000 but he did highlight the relevance of electronic consumer surveillance. High-tech consumer surveillance takes many forms, as Andrejevic (2002) also shows. From TiVo and interactive television to Facebook and Flickr, consumers are willingly and voluntarily submitting their personal data to impersonal electronic databases, more personalized company profiles, and to other enterprise-level entities. Often, the dissemination of personal information is mediated through a social networking facility such as Facebook. The Facebook user becomes a fan of their favorite movies, books, and musicians primarily as a means of sharing their likes and dislikes with friends. A Facebook user often becomes a fan of products, services, and local businesses. High-tech surveillance enables complex algorithms to amalgamate such fan data, taking into account geographic location, age, gender, and other demographic characteristics. With fascinating speed and accuracy, the algorithm helps to create personalized advertisements for each user.

Andrejevic (2002) finds all this too scary and denounces it in terms of its being potentially exploitative. However, the author fails to understand that consumers voluntarily give away their personal information. Any consumer that wants to remain completely anonymous can choose not to use Facebook to connect with friends, or not to use Flickr to manage photographs. The television viewer can also remain anonymous by opting out of conveniences like TiVo. The fact that the surrender of personal data occurs on a voluntary basis is alone sufficient information to disprove Andrejevic's (2002) critique.

Another reason why Andrejevic's (2002) falls short is that the author fails to acknowledge the incredible potential of high-tech surveillance in solving some major social, economic, and political inequities. For one, high-tech surveillance is not just for the giant multinational corporations. Although the giant multinational corporations can certainly afford to capitalize on the benefits of high-tech surveillance, local and small businesses growth can also be stimulated by its use. For example, a small business can create inexpensive advertisements on Facebook, using its consumer surveillance techniques to reach a target market. Stimulating small and local business growth benefits everyone, creating opportunities for social, economic, and political empowerment. Thus, consumer surveillance has the opposite effect of what Andrejevic (2002) suggests.

Similarly, high-tech surveillance ensures that consumers do not see advertisements for products that do not interest them. Advertising becomes more efficient, thereby cutting costs in all sectors. Consumers are going to be exposed to advertising whether they like it or not; they might as well view ads for products they actually like, use, or are willing to try. Consumers potentially have more control over their online experience because of surveillance, and should actually be grateful for the new technologies. More control equals empowerment, not exploitation as Andrejevic (2002) assumes. The third section of the film Zeitgeist is reminiscent of Andrejevic's (2002) fears, which are unfounded.