Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Dijital Emek ve Alışveriş: Kamusal Bir Deneyim ve Müştereklik Talebi Olarak Kullanıcı İncelemeleri

Year 2023, Issue: 63, 168 - 186, 28.09.2023
https://doi.org/10.47998/ikad.1288753

Abstract

Çevrimiçi kullanıcıların oluşturduğu içeriğin ekonomik bir değer olarak tasnif edilip ticari amaçlarla kullanımı, eleştirel kültür ve medya çalışmalarında önemli bir tartışma alanı haline geldi. Çevrimiçi içerik tartışmaları, sosyal ve ekonomik süreçler ayrımına dayalı kavramsal bir çerçeveyi takip etme eğilimindedir. Bu izlek, kullanıcının sosyalleşirken yarattığı içeriğin, temellük edilmek suretiyle sermaye birikim rejimlerine dahil edilmesini sorunsallaştırmaktadır. Sosyal ve ekonomik alan karşıtlığı temelinde tanımlanan bu ilişki, teknoloji kullanım pratiklerini üretici veya tüketici olmaya, dolayısıyla insanı da “veri üreten” bir varoluşa indirgeme riski taşımaktadır. Bu çalışma çevrimiçi içerik tartışmasını, sosyal alan ekonomik alan karşıtlığından ziyade, bu alanların buluştuğu kamusal bir etkinlik biçimi olan alışveriş üzerinden ele almaktadır. Bu noktada, bir deneyim aktarma etkinliği olarak kullanıcı incelemelerini ele alan bu çalışma, söylem analizi yöntemiyle bu metinleri incelemektedir. Söz konusu içerikleri yaratan öznelliklerin farklı anlamlandırma pratiklerine ve kültürel katılım taleplerine sahip olduğu varsayılmakta; bu varsayım, indirgemeci bir kullanıcı sınıflandırmasına mesafeli durmayı da beraberinde getirmektedir. Müşterilerin alışveriş deneyimlerinden pazarlama verisi devşiren şirketler, kullanıcıları satın aldıkları ürünlerle ilgili içerik üretmeye mütemadiyen teşvik etmektedir. Piyasanın olumsuz etkilerinden korunmaya çalışan insanlar da artan bir eğilimle, çevrimiçi satın alma işlemlerinde kullanıcı deneyimlerine başvurmaktadır. Bu ilişkisellik kullanıcı incelemelerini, kapitalizmin hedefleri ile insanların sosyal bir deneyim olarak alışveriş taleplerinin karşılaştığı gerilimli bir alana dönüştürmektedir. Dijital pazarların insansız alışveriş hedeflerine müştereklik talep eden incelemeleriyle itiraz eden kullanıcılar, dayanışmacı deneyim paylaşımlarıyla sanal pazaryerini yeniden tanımlamaktadırlar. Aynı zamanda, satıcı ile müşteri ilişkilerinin müzakere edildiği bu incelemelerde, alışveriş birbirini tanımayan insanlar için meşru bir karşılaşma imkanı olarak teyit edilmektedir.

References

  • Adorno, T. W. (2021). Kültür endüstrisi. (N. Ülner & E. Gen, Çev.). İletişim.
  • Arthur, C. (2006, Temmuz 20). What’s the 1% rule?. The Guardian. https://bit.ly/3xYPfFg
  • Barbrook, R. (2002). The hi-tech gift economy. Explorations in Media Ecology, 1(1), 31-40.
  • Baudrillard, J. (1998). The consumer society: Myths and structures. Sage.
  • Bourdieu, P. (2015). Ayrım. (A.G. Berkkurt & D.F. Şannan, Çev.). Heretik.
  • Brightlocal. (2023, Nisan 01). Local consumer review survey 2023. Brightlocal. https://www.brightlocal.com/research/local-consumer-review-survey/
  • Carrier, J.G. (1994). Gifts and commodities. Routledge.
  • Cockayne, D. G. (2016). Affect and value in critical examinations of the production and ‘prosumption’ of Big Data. Big Data & Society, 3(2).
  • Cukier, K. & Mayer-Schoenberger, V. (2013). The rise of big data: How it’s changing the way we think about the world. Foreign Affairs, 92(3), 28–40.
  • Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (2000). Anti-oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press.
  • Douglas, M. & Isherwood, B. (1996). The world of goods: Towards an anthropology of consumption. Routledge.
  • Enstad, N. (1999). Ladies of labor, girls of adventure. Columbia University Press.
  • Firth, R. (2016). Somatic pedagogies: Critiquing and resisting the affective discourse of the neoliberal sstate from an embodied anarchist perspective. Ephemera, 16(4), 121–142.
  • Fisher, E. (2012). How less alienation creates more exploitation? Audience labour on social network sites. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique - Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 10(2), 171-183.
  • Fuchs, C. (2010). Labor in informational capitalism and on the Internet. The Information Society, 26(3), 179-96.
  • Giesler, M. & Veresiu, E. (2014). Creating the responsible consumer: Moralistic governance regimes and consumer subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 840-857.
  • Güven, O. Ö. (2020). Entelektüel elden bağımlı ele: Deneyimin müsaderesi. Kültür ve İletişim, 23(1)(45), 142-164.
  • Hardt, M. & Negri, A. (2015). İmparatorluk. (A. Yılmaz, Çev.). Ayrıntı.
  • Hazari, S., Bergiel, B. J. & Sethna, B. N. (2017). Hedonic and utilitarian use of user-generated content on online shopping websites. Journal of Marketing Communications, 23(6), 572-591.
  • Hillis, K., Paasonen, S. & Petit, M. (2015). Introduction: Networks of transmission: Intensity, sensation, value. İçinde K. Hillis, S. Paasonen & M. Petit (Editörler), Networked affect (1-24). MIT Press.
  • Honneth, A. (2015). Tanınma uğruna mücadele. (Ö. Aktok, Çev.). İthaki.
  • Howard, V. (2015). From main street to mall: The rise and fall of the american department store. University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Humphreys, A. & Grayson, K. (2008). The intersecting roles of consumer and producer: A critical perspective on co-production, co-creation and prosumption. Sociology Compass, 2(3), 963-980.
  • Hyman, L. & Tohill, J. (2017). Shopping for change: Consumer activism and the possibilities of purchasing power. Cornell University Press.
  • Jameson, F. (2003). Future city. New Left Review, 21, 65.
  • Jarrett, K. (2015). Feminism, labour and digital media: The digital housewife. Routledge.
  • Jarrett, K. (2019). Through the reproductive lens: Labour and struggle at the intersection of culture and economy. İçinde D. Chandler & C. Fuchs (Editörler), Digital Objects. Digital Subjects (103-116). University of Westminster Press.
  • Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. NYU Press.
  • Kitchin, R. (2014). The rata revolution: Big Data, open data, data infrastructures and their consequences. Sage.
  • Lazzarato, M. (1996). Immaterial labor. İçinde P. Virno & M. Hardt (Editörler), Radical thought in Italy: A potential politics (133-147). University of Minnesota.
  • Lemke, T. (2001). Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Rethinking Marxism, 14(3), 49-64.
  • Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: The nature and future of creativity. Penguin.
  • Malthouse, E. C., Calder, B. J., Kim, S. J. & Vandenbosch, M. (2016). Evidence that user-generated content that produces engagement increases purchase behaviours. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5-6), 427-444.
  • Marcuse, H. (2008). Tek boyutlu insan. (A. Yardımlı, Çev.). İdea.
  • Marx, K. (2011). Kapital: Ekonomi politiğin eleştirisi cilt: 1. (M. Selik & N. Satlıgan, Çev.). Yordam.
  • Micheletti, M. (2003). Political virtue and shopping: Inviduals, consumerism, and collective action. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Miller, D. (1997). Material culture and mass consumption. Blackwell.
  • Negri, A. (1999). Value and affect. Boundary 2, 26(2), 77–88.
  • Paquet, L. B. (2003). The urge to splurge: A social history of shopping. ECW Press.
  • Ritzer, G. (2004). The globalization of nothing. Pine Forge Press.
  • Ritzer, G. & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer.’ Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13-36.
  • Rose, N. (1999) Powers of freedom, Cambridge University Press.
  • Schneider, D. M. (1980). American kinship: A cultural account. University of Chicago Press.
  • Sennett, R. (2009). Zanaatkar. (M. Pekdemir, Çev.). Ayrıntı.
  • Sennett, R. (2010). Kamusal insanın çöküşü. (S. Durak & A. Yılmaz, Çev.). Ayrıntı.
  • Smythe, W. D. (1977). Communications: Blindspot of western marxism. Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1(3), 1-27.
  • Spahn, A. (2020). Digital objects, digital subjects and digital societies: Deontology in the age of digitalization. Information, 11(4), 228.
  • Spinoza, B. (2011). Etika. (H.Z. Ülken, Çev.). Dost.
  • Streeter, T. (2011). The net effect: Romanticism, capitalism, and the Internet. NYU Press.
  • Terranova, T. (2000). Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy. Social Text 63, 18(2), 33-58.
  • Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. Bantam.
  • Van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 31(1), 41-58.
  • Van Dijck, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: A critical analysis of web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society, 11(5), 855-874.
  • Zajc, M. (2015). The social media dispositive and monetization of user-generated content. The Information Society, 31(1), 61-67.

Digital Labor and Shopping: User Reviews as a Public Experience and Demand for the Commons

Year 2023, Issue: 63, 168 - 186, 28.09.2023
https://doi.org/10.47998/ikad.1288753

Abstract

The classification of user-generated content as economic value and its use for commercial purposes has become an important area of debate in critical cultural and media studies. Discussions of online content tend to follow a conceptual framework based on the distinction between social and economic processes. This theme problematizes the incorporation of user-created content into regimes of capital accumulation through appropriation. This relationship, defined on the basis of the opposition between the social and the economic spheres, runs the risk of reducing practices of technology use to producers or consumers, and thus human beings to a “data-producing” existence. This study addresses the debate on user-generated content through shopping, a form of public activity where these spheres meet, rather than the opposition between the social and economic spheres. At this point, this study, which deals with user reviews as an activity of experience transfer, examines these texts with the method of discourse analysis. It is assumed that the subjectivities that create these contents have different practices of signification and demands for cultural participation; this assumption implies a distancing from a reductionist classification of users. Companies that collect marketing data from customers' shopping experiences encourage users to create content related to the products they buy. In an attempt to protect themselves from the negative effects of the market, people are increasingly turning to user experiences for their online purchases. This relationality makes user reviews a tense space where the goals of capitalism and the human demand for shopping as a social experience collide. In opposition to the unmanned shopping goals of digital markets, users are redefining the virtual marketplace through a solidaristic sharing of experiences in their reviews that demand a commons. At the same time, in these reviews, where the relationship between seller and customer is negotiated, shopping is affirmed as a legitimate encounter between people who do not know each other.

References

  • Adorno, T. W. (2021). Kültür endüstrisi. (N. Ülner & E. Gen, Çev.). İletişim.
  • Arthur, C. (2006, Temmuz 20). What’s the 1% rule?. The Guardian. https://bit.ly/3xYPfFg
  • Barbrook, R. (2002). The hi-tech gift economy. Explorations in Media Ecology, 1(1), 31-40.
  • Baudrillard, J. (1998). The consumer society: Myths and structures. Sage.
  • Bourdieu, P. (2015). Ayrım. (A.G. Berkkurt & D.F. Şannan, Çev.). Heretik.
  • Brightlocal. (2023, Nisan 01). Local consumer review survey 2023. Brightlocal. https://www.brightlocal.com/research/local-consumer-review-survey/
  • Carrier, J.G. (1994). Gifts and commodities. Routledge.
  • Cockayne, D. G. (2016). Affect and value in critical examinations of the production and ‘prosumption’ of Big Data. Big Data & Society, 3(2).
  • Cukier, K. & Mayer-Schoenberger, V. (2013). The rise of big data: How it’s changing the way we think about the world. Foreign Affairs, 92(3), 28–40.
  • Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (2000). Anti-oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press.
  • Douglas, M. & Isherwood, B. (1996). The world of goods: Towards an anthropology of consumption. Routledge.
  • Enstad, N. (1999). Ladies of labor, girls of adventure. Columbia University Press.
  • Firth, R. (2016). Somatic pedagogies: Critiquing and resisting the affective discourse of the neoliberal sstate from an embodied anarchist perspective. Ephemera, 16(4), 121–142.
  • Fisher, E. (2012). How less alienation creates more exploitation? Audience labour on social network sites. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique - Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 10(2), 171-183.
  • Fuchs, C. (2010). Labor in informational capitalism and on the Internet. The Information Society, 26(3), 179-96.
  • Giesler, M. & Veresiu, E. (2014). Creating the responsible consumer: Moralistic governance regimes and consumer subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 840-857.
  • Güven, O. Ö. (2020). Entelektüel elden bağımlı ele: Deneyimin müsaderesi. Kültür ve İletişim, 23(1)(45), 142-164.
  • Hardt, M. & Negri, A. (2015). İmparatorluk. (A. Yılmaz, Çev.). Ayrıntı.
  • Hazari, S., Bergiel, B. J. & Sethna, B. N. (2017). Hedonic and utilitarian use of user-generated content on online shopping websites. Journal of Marketing Communications, 23(6), 572-591.
  • Hillis, K., Paasonen, S. & Petit, M. (2015). Introduction: Networks of transmission: Intensity, sensation, value. İçinde K. Hillis, S. Paasonen & M. Petit (Editörler), Networked affect (1-24). MIT Press.
  • Honneth, A. (2015). Tanınma uğruna mücadele. (Ö. Aktok, Çev.). İthaki.
  • Howard, V. (2015). From main street to mall: The rise and fall of the american department store. University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Humphreys, A. & Grayson, K. (2008). The intersecting roles of consumer and producer: A critical perspective on co-production, co-creation and prosumption. Sociology Compass, 2(3), 963-980.
  • Hyman, L. & Tohill, J. (2017). Shopping for change: Consumer activism and the possibilities of purchasing power. Cornell University Press.
  • Jameson, F. (2003). Future city. New Left Review, 21, 65.
  • Jarrett, K. (2015). Feminism, labour and digital media: The digital housewife. Routledge.
  • Jarrett, K. (2019). Through the reproductive lens: Labour and struggle at the intersection of culture and economy. İçinde D. Chandler & C. Fuchs (Editörler), Digital Objects. Digital Subjects (103-116). University of Westminster Press.
  • Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. NYU Press.
  • Kitchin, R. (2014). The rata revolution: Big Data, open data, data infrastructures and their consequences. Sage.
  • Lazzarato, M. (1996). Immaterial labor. İçinde P. Virno & M. Hardt (Editörler), Radical thought in Italy: A potential politics (133-147). University of Minnesota.
  • Lemke, T. (2001). Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Rethinking Marxism, 14(3), 49-64.
  • Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: The nature and future of creativity. Penguin.
  • Malthouse, E. C., Calder, B. J., Kim, S. J. & Vandenbosch, M. (2016). Evidence that user-generated content that produces engagement increases purchase behaviours. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5-6), 427-444.
  • Marcuse, H. (2008). Tek boyutlu insan. (A. Yardımlı, Çev.). İdea.
  • Marx, K. (2011). Kapital: Ekonomi politiğin eleştirisi cilt: 1. (M. Selik & N. Satlıgan, Çev.). Yordam.
  • Micheletti, M. (2003). Political virtue and shopping: Inviduals, consumerism, and collective action. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Miller, D. (1997). Material culture and mass consumption. Blackwell.
  • Negri, A. (1999). Value and affect. Boundary 2, 26(2), 77–88.
  • Paquet, L. B. (2003). The urge to splurge: A social history of shopping. ECW Press.
  • Ritzer, G. (2004). The globalization of nothing. Pine Forge Press.
  • Ritzer, G. & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer.’ Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13-36.
  • Rose, N. (1999) Powers of freedom, Cambridge University Press.
  • Schneider, D. M. (1980). American kinship: A cultural account. University of Chicago Press.
  • Sennett, R. (2009). Zanaatkar. (M. Pekdemir, Çev.). Ayrıntı.
  • Sennett, R. (2010). Kamusal insanın çöküşü. (S. Durak & A. Yılmaz, Çev.). Ayrıntı.
  • Smythe, W. D. (1977). Communications: Blindspot of western marxism. Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1(3), 1-27.
  • Spahn, A. (2020). Digital objects, digital subjects and digital societies: Deontology in the age of digitalization. Information, 11(4), 228.
  • Spinoza, B. (2011). Etika. (H.Z. Ülken, Çev.). Dost.
  • Streeter, T. (2011). The net effect: Romanticism, capitalism, and the Internet. NYU Press.
  • Terranova, T. (2000). Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy. Social Text 63, 18(2), 33-58.
  • Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. Bantam.
  • Van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 31(1), 41-58.
  • Van Dijck, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: A critical analysis of web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society, 11(5), 855-874.
  • Zajc, M. (2015). The social media dispositive and monetization of user-generated content. The Information Society, 31(1), 61-67.
There are 54 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Communication and Media Studies
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

O. Özgür Güven 0000-0002-9927-7872

Early Pub Date September 28, 2023
Publication Date September 28, 2023
Submission Date April 27, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023 Issue: 63

Cite

APA Güven, O. Ö. (2023). Dijital Emek ve Alışveriş: Kamusal Bir Deneyim ve Müştereklik Talebi Olarak Kullanıcı İncelemeleri. İletişim Kuram Ve Araştırma Dergisi(63), 168-186. https://doi.org/10.47998/ikad.1288753