Adapted from http://www.webaccesscontrol.net by Robert Francis Cantrall.
PORTALS
TO WHERE?
Portals are one component within the larger institutional framework, reinforcing and reflecting social conditions in the larger society. The economic realities of the socio-political environment are illustrated in the construction and burgeoning power of portals. They are designed to be sources of information on the Internet, targeting the type of information that “consumers” presumably desire, thus providing revenue as they deliver these consumers to advertisers. In the sections that follow, I include a brief history of several major portals while examining existing definitions and constructing my own definition of portal as well as access to Internet technologies.
In addition, the objectives of portals will be examined and deconstructed, for their intended all-out pursuit of capital serves to construct a technological environment that has very specific possibilities and impossibilities. In particular, the goal of creating “sticky” web sites for the target advertising audience(s) works to create a medium that does not completely service the demographic population within which it exists. Subsequently, I consider the specific implications for viewers and users of the Internet, for the domination of capitalism within a racist, sexist, and classist society, among other injustices, promotes a technological setting that furthers these inequities. Clearly, for those without adequate economic resources, the Internet is not available in any reasonable way. Furthermore, under-representation is consistent across marginalized social positions, particularly along lines of race, ethnicity, nationality, and gender. The under-representation is intensified in terms of who develops web technology as well, as we have seen that information technology workers generally come from specific, privileged subject positions. This ultimately leads to a lack of availability of different experiences; in particular, the current construction of technology does not often allow significant individual or collective agency to determine whether or not technology is even useful at all. Rather, the dominant society accepts the notion that continued technological evolution is desirable and even necessary so that belief becomes pervasive. Portals represent one facet of this attempted domination, as we shall see, for they serve to delimit the options available online.
Definition of Terms
Given the relatively recent emergence of portals and their associated variations, it is important to begin with a discussion of the assorted definitions utilized in different contexts. In addition to examining these sources individually, it is also useful to analyze how they contrast with each other. In particular, the self-definitions employed by sites such as AOL.com and Yahoo.com prove instructive in terms of how these spaces are intended to function by their producers and authors. Prior to looking at these corporate sources, let’s begin with perhaps the simplest definition available, Webster’s.
Portal
Webster’s: “a door, gate, or entrance, esp. one of imposing appearance.” A similar definition appears at Dictionary.com: “1. A doorway, an entrance, or a gate, especially one that is large and imposing. 2. An entrance or a means of entrance: the local library, a portal of knowledge” (Dictionary.com, 2/17/2001).
It is easy to see that both of these more traditional definitions, each unrelated to technology, focus on the portal as a means of access to another place. It is not a place of import in and of itself, only a means of passage to a location, presumably one of significance.
Now let’s consider definitions that lean more toward the technical, ones that specifically address the portal as it is characterized in the context of the Internet.
Webopedia:
http://webopedia.internet.com/World_Wide_Web/Web_portal.html
A Web site or service that offers a broad array of resources and services, such as e-mail, forums, search engines, and on-line shopping malls. The first Web portals were online services, such as AOL, that provided access to the Web, but by now most of the traditional search engines have transformed themselves into Web portals to attract and keep a larger audience (Webopedia, 2/17/2001).
Auburn University Helpdesk Glossary:
http://www.auburn.edu/helpdesk/glossary/portal.html
An entry point or starting site for the World-Wide Web, combining a mixture of content and services and attempting to provide a personalized "home base" for its audience with features like customizable start pages to guide users easily through the Web, filterable e-mail, a wide variety of chat rooms and message boards, personalized news and sports headlines options, gaming channels, shopping capabilities, advanced search engines and personal homepage construction kits. Examples are AOL, Excite, InfoSeek, MSN Internet Start, Netscape Netcenter, CNet Snap, and Yahoo (Auburn University, 2/17/2001).
The Institute for Telecommunication Services, Boulder, Colorado:
http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/projects/t1glossary2000/_portal.html
A Web page that serves as a point of entry for surfers of the World Wide Web. Note: Most of the popular portals are designed to optimize their compatibility with one or more Web search engines. Many portals also offer value-added services such as e-mail accounts, Web page hosting, or filtered information flow, with the costs of these services being underwritten by advertising. Loosely synonymous with Web-page search engine (ITS, 2/17/2001).
These definitions are particularly interesting, as they stray significantly away from the Webster’s definition that focuses on the portal as a gate or entrance. In each of these three definitions, although they mention the portal as a “point of entry” or “starting point” for the Internet, specifically the World Wide Web, each devotes more time and attention to the description of other services offered. These services obviously conflict with the notion of an entrance in key ways, because although the portal offers a search engine, the majority of its functions seek to contain the user. In effect, the portals are designed to be more than a “home base,” they attempt to draw viewers/users in with customizable (personalized) features that completely satisfy the viewer/user, negating the perceived need to travel to other web sites. In this context, it is significant that the Webopedia definition notes the portals’ desire “to attract and keep a larger audience.” Essentially, the entrance has become the destination and, moreover, tries to eliminate from the viewer’s/user’s perspective even the existence of the larger possible destinations.
How Do They Define Themselves?
Before considering the self-definitions that AOL, Yahoo, and MSN use, it is informative to consider the history of these ventures. Their development has been in and of itself eventful and demonstrates the emerging power of portals. The history of America Online has been one of many peaks and valleys, as it struggled for several years to achieve stability and profitability. Taken as a whole, however, its rise has been meteoric, as has been that of the other major portal sites, Yahoo.com and MSN.com. A chronology of AOL’s history up through January 2000 can be found at http://www.it.fairfax.com.au/breaking/20000111/A18322-2000Jan11.html. It has remained busy ever since, continuing to expand its service offering and growing its subscription base.
Yahoo, the last remaining major portal that has not been subsumed as part of a larger corporation, has taken a slightly different path, as it has continued to focus on its viability as a portal. A history of Yahoo by Yahoo can be found at http://docs.yahoo.com/info/misc/history.html. Although clearly self-justifying in nature, as it lionizes its founders in an overly heroic fashion, it does succinctly describe the evolution of Yahoo from its grassroots college beginnings to the major online company that is has become.
MSN is quite different from AOL and Yahoo in that it was a new service added by the most dominant computer company in the world, Microsoft. It was launched in 1995 as a competitor to AOL’s subscription service. Ultimately, Microsoft developed into the full service portal that AOL eventually became, as it sought to position itself as a major player in the world of the Internet. It has been quite successful in this respect given its high ranking in surveys of the most visited web sites (Swisher, 1999).
America On-Line
The self-definitions of AOL, MSN, and Yahoo, among others, prove even more illuminating as to the purpose of the corporate portals. AOL, which receives the most attention throughout this thesis, is perhaps the most self-reflective with respect to its capitalist undertaking. Its self-identified mission is “to build a global medium as central to people’s lives as the telephone or television…and even more valuable” [emphasis added] (www.corp.aol.com, 2/17/2001). The AOL Anywhere site, its universal portal, is described by AOL as follows:
AOL members can now access their e-mail, instant messages, news headlines, stock portfolios, and other key features while watching television through the AOLTV service; over any telephone using simple, spoken commands and AOL By Phone; on wireless devices such as Sprint PCS and AT&T Digital wireless phones, Palm Pilots and other personal digital assistants, and the new AOL Mobile Communicator; and on any PC with the personalizable AOL Anywhere Web site (http://www.corp.aol.com/whoweare.html?, 2/17/2001).
Yahoo
Clearly, AOL seeks not only to provide universal access to a wide variety of services, but to do so in numerous technological environments, as evidenced by its mission of providing Internet services on wireless, telephone, and television. Yahoo seeks a similarly comprehensive, monopolizing vision of its product:
Yahoo! Inc. (NasdaqNM:YHOO - news) is a global Internet communications, commerce and media company that offers a comprehensive branded network of services to more than 180 million individuals each month worldwide. As the first online navigational guide to the Web, www.yahoo.com is the leading guide in terms of traffic, advertising, household and business user reach. Yahoo! is the most recognized and valuable Internet brand globally, and is ranked the No. 38 leading consumer brand worldwide. The company also provides online business and enterprise services designed to enhance the productivity and Web presence of Yahoo!'s clients. These services include Corporate Yahoo!, a popular customized enterprise portal solution; audio and video streaming; store hosting and management; and Web site tools and services. The company's global Web network includes 24 World properties. Yahoo! has offices in Europe, the Asia Pacific, Latin America, Canada and the United States, and is headquartered in Santa Clara, Calif. (http://docs.yahoo.com/info/investor/, 2/17/2001).
This information, available on Yahoo’s investor site, quickly demonstrates its goal in providing the usual variety of services to customers: “www.yahoo.com is the leading guide in terms of traffic, advertising, household and business user reach.” The message here is that Yahoo attracts, and can deliver to advertisers, purchasers for both households and business. Interestingly, Yahoo also offers evidence that the control and content of the web is not entirely dedicated to pro-capitalist endeavors. It recently agreed to make $3 million of ad space urging racial harmony and tolerance available near racist chat rooms and clubs on its web site. This is largely a response to criticism leveled at Yahoo for allowing racist and hate groups to have their communities on Yahoo (http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2001-04-02-tolerance.htm, 4/5/01). Actions such as these provide convincing evidence that the web is not as monolithic as it may at times appear.
MSN
To look more specifically at the portal aspects of MSN, the Microsoft Network portal, one need only consider its services; this comprehensive portal offers Hotmail email service, a shopping center, a financial guide, a Web directory and the latest MSNBC headlines. A review at lookoff.com provides the most specific description of the services MSN.com provides.
Microsoft generally does a good job of anything that they decide they want to succeed in. Their portal is no exception. Although it does not have any tremendously unique features, it has done a great job of mixing the best of many Internet sites while providing a very comprehensive and customizable set of information to you. MSN is not the best search engine interface, but as far as a general purpose start-page or portal, it is a great choice. (http://www.lookoff.com/tactics/reviews.php3?entity_id=27, 2/17/2001).
In this review, it is clear that Microsoft continues with MSN a tradition that many believe it began with its Windows operating system by copying the design of the Macintosh OS. Specifically, Microsoft copies aspects and functions of others’ work, incorporating these into a unified product that can instantly compete. Regardless of one’s personal opinion on that subject, it is evident that MSN.com is a portal in the same vein as AOL.com and Yahoo.com. Each seeks to develop a unified viewer/user experience that creates a contained online environment.
Creating a cohesive online experience that serves to effectively confine viewers/users to a single set of web sites is an impossible task. As Douglas Rushkoff notes in his book Media Virus, “no one—at least not yet—can regulate the tremendous flow of information” (Rushkoff p.238). However, portals such as AOL.com can achieve significant degrees of control with their ability to deliver desirable content. To this end, and in combination with the progression of mergers and acquisitions that we saw in Chapter 1, many of these commercial portals are developing partnerships with other corporations to deliver content with more breadth and depth.
Click-and-Mortar Effects
The brick-and-mortar connections of these online companies, particularly AOL and MSN, are numerous and significant. To take AOL as an example, consider its corporate site’s identification of a “sampling” of partners: http://www.corp.aol.com/whoweare/partners.html. The brand names available in this long list are incredible, demonstrating the enormous breadth of AOL’s connections to all manner of industry in the United States. Furthermore, consider the “Our Brands” list on the same web page. This list represents products that AOL has either developed, or companies that it has purchased, including its former competitor, CompuServe. In addition, this site does not even make mention of the purchase of Time Warner that AOL completed in 2000 (see http://zaplet.zaplet.com/servlet/Z?m=2_QAJY_tLw8vH2uCyP2W_eZ8TA). The comprehensiveness of these connections defines AOL as a very powerful entity. Given its merger with Time Warner, creating a 350 billion dollar company, it is primed to make decisions and take actions that have large, sweeping impacts across a variety of social positions.
One example of this that can be seen as a strong-arm tactic is AOL’s reaction to the software application Gnutella, created by programmers at Nullsoft, one of the companies AOL purchased in the summer of 1999. After the programmers put this Napster-like clone on their website in March 2000, AOL had it removed within a day. An AOL official was quoted as saying, “The gnutella software was an unauthorized freelance project and the Web site that allowed access to the software was taken down yesterday” (http://www.salon.com/tech/log/2000/03/15/gnutella/index.html, 2/18/2001). Although AOL is well within its right to limit the activities of its subsidiary companies, this move exemplifies corporate, capitalist control…particularly so given that Gnutella was designed to be an open-source, free application. AOL wanted this application taken down because its file-sharing purpose conflicts with the media content that Time Warner owns. Gnutella allows users to share all kinds of files, including music and movies, which makes it similar to Napster in terms of functionality. Interestingly, this controlling move is also evidence of the inability for marginalized activities to be completely suppressed, as the Gnutella software continues to exist online. In fact, a search for “gnutella software download” at Google.com yielded search results numbering 33,000 (http://www.google.com/search?q=gnutella+software+download&hl=en&lr=&safe=off, 2/19/2001). Thus, when the author in the article cited above asks, “will AOL choke its wayward programmers into submission?,” the answer seems to be a definitive no, although its strong-arm tactics will continue to have a significant dampening influence in the online world. This form of subversion is not sufficient to completely resist the corporate nature of the web, however, operating as it does within the relatively limited context of music file sharing.
To construct a working definition of a web “portal,” one has to first acknowledge that the notion of the portal as an entrance with an imposing appearance has no practical value when applied to sites such as AOL.com and Yahoo.com. Rather, the definition must focus on the nature of how these sites operate, with special attention given to their purpose. Furthermore, the definition has to acknowledge the capitalist nature of the portal, emphasizing that they are not constructed as some valueless, objective resource of online information, but rather represent purposeful efforts to attract consumers that are in turn delivered to advertisers.
Working Definition of Portal
Therefore, I define a portal as:
“A web site that seeks to create and define the online experience with an all-in-one set of services, typically including but not limited to search, email, shopping, ‘community’ functions such as chat, news, entertainment/games, auctions, messaging, financial services. Its purpose is to attract and retain viewers with the economic resources and demographic positions that advertisers seek. It attempts to organize the online experience in a way that excludes some accessibility while creating an appearance of total access.”
This definition includes the most significant factors from those examined above, including the relatively obvious features such as search, email, and shopping. In addition, it illuminates the objective of portals as instruments of capitalism in that it focuses on the economic goals that have little to do directly with customer satisfaction, and that are motivated purely for acquiring advertising revenue. Thus, portals, as identified in this definition, have little concern for the needs, wishes, and access of viewers/users beyond that of motivating them as targeted consumers. This is, of course, consistent with the principles espoused and required by capitalism, which focuses solely on profit margins, irregardless of the needs of workers and consumers and their social positions. As the definition at dictionary.com makes clear, in capitalism, “development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market” and has no regard for the welfare of the people who operate in the system (http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=capitalism, 4/2/01).
The profit-driven nature of commercial portals does not occur in a vacuum. Rather, it is constructed within a very specific set of circumstances that it impacts and which also effect the driving of profits. In particular, the ways in which access to technology is constructed is very much inter-related to the commercialization of the web. Thus, to fully understand the impact of portals, one must also analyze the ways in which technology is and is not accessible to various populations.
Access to Technology
Access to technology, specifically that related to portals, is very much a disputed and debatable issue. The definition of the term itself is contested, and definitions ranging widely can be found in a variety of sources. As access to technology is fundamental to the discussion of portals, given their status as “starting points,” and all too often endpoints, it is crucial to my argument to include an analysis of the different definitions of access. Subsequently, I develop the meaning that I work from throughout this project. Before doing so, however, I first examine others’ usage of the term.
MSNBC.com
At msnbc.com, a joint venture by NBC and Microsoft, an article announcing that over half of adults in the United States have used the Internet proves instructive in understanding how NBC and, by extension, other traditional media sources define access to technology. The article proclaims that “nearly three-quarters of children ages 12 to 17 had Internet access,” and noted “continued gains among women, minorities and adults in households earning $30,000 to $50,000” (http://msnbc.com/news/532656.asp, 2/19/2001). In addition to describing the continued growth in certain demographic populations’ Internet usage, the article also notes that a divide remains for households making less than 30,000 dollars per year and for seniors age 65 and older.
The social locations that the article describes in summarizing the Pew Internet & American Life Project statistics can be used to demonstrate the way in which access is defined. It is evident from the description that lines of age, income level, gender, and race represent the points of demarcation in access for NBC. Notably absent are indicators of nationality, geographic location, level of education, and sexual orientation. In addition, the lumping of all people of color into the category of “minorities” obscures the possibility that access to Internet technology is impacted by a variety of racial locations, rather than simple white/non-white status.
U.S. Census
Similar methodology can be employed in analyzing how the United States government defines access to technology. A report issued in September of 1999 entitled “Computer Use in the United States,” described and analyzed access to computers and the Internet for October 1997. The description of access was similar in this report to the msnbc.com article, although a bit more extensive. In particular, it had a greater degree of differentiation within categories. For example, it broke age down into 10 year brackets, rather than just 12-17, 18-29, “adults,” and over 65, as did the msnbc.com article. It also used three different racial categories: Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic (of any race). Although this is still insufficient in that it does not consider Asian Americans, American Indians, among other subcultures, it does provide more information than the article.
The 1997 Census report similarly partitions educational attainment, by less than high school diploma, high school diploma, some college, and bachelor’s degree as well as family income, by under $25,000, up to $49,999, up to $74,999, over $75,000, and not reported. In addition to these characteristics, the report also considers household size and geographic region. As before, nationality and sexual orientation do not receive any attention. In sum, we can see that age, gender, race, educational attainment, family income, household size, and region are the variables that the U.S. Census Bureau utilizes to define how access to technology is stratified. [Link to numbers in Chapter 1]
America Online/Roper Starch Worldwide Adult 2000 Cyberstudy
The America Online/Roper Starch Worldwide Adult 2000 Cyberstudy demonstrates a much less extensive set of criteria by which to judge access. This report, prepared for America Online and focusing predominantly upon questions of online behavior with respect to commerce, communications, and media habits, pales in comparison to the Census report with respect to its characterization of online viewers/users. The only criteria that it uses are gender, education, income, and tenure online at home. To be fair, it is an adult study, and thus its scope does not include children. This report assumes homogeneity where there is none. The fact that it ignores race, age, sexual orientation, and geographic location leaves its definition of access to technology quite limited and relatively useless as compared to the other work cited above.
As we have seen in these definitions, access to technology is frequently defined by one’s race, gender, socio-economic status, age, and geographic location, but rarely considers the multiple intersections of these. These are all critical factors that must be incorporated into any useful definition of access to technology. Access is certainly socially constructed in that it is (de)limited by social location. Consequently, it is evident that social position largely defines the level of access a person has to Internet technologies.
Working Definition of Access to Technology
This access can be further deconstructed into a series of layers of access, as it is never so simple as male or female, black or white, categories which are themselves very much contested. Rather, there are many levels of privilege and resources that contribute to determining, in the current social construct, whether or not one will have the opportunity to use technology in useful and/or interesting ways. Furthermore, there are multiple intersections across each of these subject positions, adding additional layers of complexity to access to technology.
|
Input Condition |
|
Result of Absence |
|
Food/shelter/clothing/safety/other essentials |
|
No access |
|
Economic resources, available time, desire |
|
No access |
|
Own computer, or one able to use |
|
No access |
|
Internet connectivity is available |
|
No access |
|
Technical know-how and resources |
|
No access |
|
Speed of connection, browser capacity |
|
No access |
|
Subject position |
|
No access |
|
|
||
|
BASIC ACCESS TO
INTERNET TECHNOLOGY |
||
|
|
||
|
Technical know-how and resources |
|
Less access |
|
Ability and know-how to produce web content |
|
Less access |
|
Ability and know-how to produce applications |
|
Less access |
|
Resources to distribute web content/applications |
|
Less access |
|
|
||
|
TOTAL ACCESS TO
INTERNET TECHNOLOGY |
||
This diagram demonstrates, in a somewhat simplistic way, the conditions that are necessary for one to have access to Internet technology and thus serves as my definition of access. First, we must recognize that this is not a universally absolute definition; there are specific conditions and circumstances that contradict the model as it is constructed. However, it should be adequate for the purposes of this work. It is self-evident that some of these conditions must exist before access to the relatively superfluous Internet technology becomes a possibility, let alone a reality. After these needs have been secured, adequate economic resources, time, and the desire to use technology represent the next level of necessary pre-conditions.
Once an individual has established the circumstances necessary to provide the comfort and leisure to use computers, the next levels of access are related to the computer itself. First, the individual must have access to a computer, meaning that the person owns a computer or has a relatively stable opportunity to use one (e.g. at school or work). Given this, the Internet itself must be available. This means that it is available in the geographic area (or the individual can afford the constant long-distance charges), and that the computer is equipped with adequate technology (e.g. modem, LAN, or other network hardware and software) to access the Internet. Directly following, and perhaps even working simultaneously with, the physical equipment is the technical knowledge to use the Internet. This may include configuring the computer to use the Internet, and certainly includes knowledge of the software and how to use it within the context of the Internet.
In addition to technical knowledge, there is a certain amount of knowledge specific to one’s subject position that is necessary for one to truly access the Internet and related technologies. By this, I mean the recognition that one is able to use this form of technology. This recognition is most often denied by an absence of role models. For example, girls and women may not see using the Internet as a possibility, given that the mythology of technology is very much male dominated, with few female role models. Similar logic can be applied across lines of race, age, class, nationality, and geographic location. Seeing the Internet as interesting or potentially useful is also very much implicated in this cultural knowledge, as we cannot assume that using the Internet necessarily should be or is important or vital, even as we must acknowledge its increasing grip on the dominant society. These are the requirements that I see as necessary for basic access to the Internet.
This basic access, of course, does not address the issues related to actually developing and distributing content and applications. These require multiple layers of resources beyond those needed for basic access. First, to produce content for the web or, especially, to write computer programs requires a great deal more knowledge than simple access does. Aside from the knowledge specifically required for designing and producing the content or application, one must know other technical skills. For example, in producing a web site, one must know not only web design, but also file transferring and how directories are structured on the particular web server. Finally, to be truly effective, one must have the resources to distribute the content or application so that it can be seen and used by others. For instance, if I create the next “killer app,” but cannot distribute it to users, then my program is effectively marginalized. Thus, my definition of access to technology encompasses several unfolding layers, each predicated upon economic resources and, ultimately, social position.
Access to technology is clearly complicated by social location, and certainly by socioeconomic status. One’s ability to use forms of technology, and especially to create and development technology, is largely confined by one’s subject position. The complicity of capitalism in these restrictions in reflected in a multitude of ways, including in the construction of web portals. These web sites construct access in a manner that coincides with capitalistic principles, as they are themselves capitalist sites with profit-seeking motives.
Objectives of Portals
The objective of portals is clear—capitalism’s purpose is always already to generate profit, and continually more of it. To that end, how do portals make money, given that they have no tangible, saleable product? There are a number of revenue sources that portals draw upon; I will focus upon America Online here as a representative example, given that it is one of the leading brand names in the Internet world (Swisher, 1999).
In AOL’s case, the largest source of revenue the past three fiscal years has been subscription services. Providing income in excess of 4 billion dollars, this consists of the fees that AOL members pay to use the dial-up service that has been AOL’s cornerstone feature for the past decade. The second largest source is “advertising, commerce, and other,” valued at close to 2 billion dollars in 2000. Although this is an extremely high figure, it might pale in comparison to the subscription services that double it in value. However, the rate of increase the past three years is a key factor in analyzing this data. Subscription services doubled in value from 1998 to 2000, but the income provided by advertising revenue nearly quadrupled. This suggests that AOL is increasingly moving toward a model that values advertising proceeds, which suggests a de-emphasis on customer subscribers (http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/20000922/aol/ti.html, 2/17/2001). These subscribers remain relevant, however, for they represent the sellable audience.
The obvious question prompted by this analysis is, “who benefits?” And the answer is equally obvious: AOL and the advertisers that it covets. Although part of a 4 billion dollar revenue stream, the customer base is being incrementally, rapidly de-centered and marginalized. This is a consistent component of capitalism, as the consumer is rarely a primary consideration in and of her/himself, as the corporation constantly seeks higher and higher profit margins. Thus, this simply means that AOL continues to search for more profitable focuses, and is increasingly finding that advertising revenue is a steadier and more desirable form of income and more lucrative. AOL’s large base of subscribers provide it with an edge of over its competitors, particularly companies such as Yahoo that are more purely portals, but advertising revenue remains the focus.
Sticky Sites
Of course, advertisers do not simply give their money away; they also seek to constantly improve their earnings. Consequently, companies such as AOL must find ways to deliver a customer base that meets the criteria advertisers covet. The question is simple, how does a portal attract and retain the targeted consumers in a measurable way so as to draw in advertising revenue? To do so, a portal has to be a “sticky” web site.
What is Stickiness?
Stickwebsite.com
Stickiness is the degree to which you compel people to stay on your site.
If your site is packed with content and links that overtly demonstrate that you're on the web not merely to just be interesting, but to actually be interested in your visitor's needs, your visitor will stick around in your site far longer.
Focused sites that let people with similar interests communicate are the stickiest sites on the Web, no matter how big they are. (http://www.stickywebsite.com/, 2/17/2001).
Wall Street Journal
‘Stickiness’ refers to a Web site's ability to attract engaged, repeat visitors who spend more and more of their time on a given site instead of briefly alighting and then flitting off to some other corner of cyberspace…Increasingly, the main sticklers about stickiness are portal sites -- firms like Yahoo! Inc., Excite Inc. and Lycos Inc. -- that started out offering simple search services for helping Net surfers find information. (http://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB912480957466065000.htm, 2/17/2001).
Techweb
Refers to an application or service that keeps you on a Web site. For example, stock quotes, glossaries, educational material, chat rooms and similar offerings give you reason to remain on the site, while it allows the company to show you more banner ads or more of its own messages. [emphasis added]. (http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/defineterm?term=sticky, 2/17/2001).
Clearly, the notion of stickiness is crucial to a portal’s existence, particularly one such as Yahoo that does not have the subscription service revenue of AOL. As noted in the techweb.com definition, stickiness is what gives a company the opportunity to demonstrate to advertisers that it generates and retains a high volume of traffic. This is reinforced by the stickywebsite.com notion that stickiness is “the degree to which you compel people to stay on your site.” Recalling the Webster’s denotation of portal, this certainly strays far away from the notion of an imposing entrance to another place. Again, this demonstrates the intent of the corporate portal as almost purely capitalistic in nature, seeking to create itself and be seen as a place to be, not a jumping off point.
Implications for Viewers/Users
The construction of portals illustrates in a newer, yet recognizable, form the power and reach of capitalism. The pursuit of the almighty dollar to the detriment of many cultures and individuals within USAmerica is made clear within the context of the Internet, as specific needs of people can be ignored in favor of the bottom line. The content owners thus seek to minimally meet expectations, without working toward creating agency and furthering empowerment. The Internet is not available in any context to those from lower socio-economic strata in a manner that even approximates equity with those located within more privileged positions. Furthermore, it is inaccessible to those who do not value the Internet as it is currently constructed, choosing to value systems that they perceive as offering other, more useful characteristics. Alternatives such as http://www.fair.org/ do exist, but they are progressively more difficult to reach as portals become the primary means of finding information online. This is particularly problematic given the current trend toward technology’s increasing integration into the offline world. The degree of access is important as well. For instance, as Benjamin Shepard notes, “Filtering software in community access centers…can only serve to silence” Latinas/os (http://www.glaad.org/binary_data/GLAAD_PDF/pdf_file/2.pdf, 4/1/01). Shepard is identifying one of the barriers that exist for Latinas/os whose only access is in community centers. This serves as but one example of how specific needs are unmet in the online world as it is currently constructed.
In addition, the information offered at these portals sites is not value-free; it is offered with the specific intention of drawing viewers/users in sufficient numbers so as to create a marketable population. Specifically, it is limited to commercially viable sources of information and services. As an example, alternative news sources are not available, and the information presented as news comes from the same dominant sources as traditional news media. Returning to Chapter 1 of this thesis, we have seen that a few powerful corporations own much of the media, thus representing a very narrow vision of information and entertainment that is restricted to these corporations. Consequently, it mirrors the conventional party lines, offering watered-down information that works to reinforce current systems and institutions. The idea of the Internet as a medium for self-expression and counter-dominant positions is more mythology than fact, since it works more to reinforce current systems of inequity than to subvert them. In this sense, it is very much controlled by what Gramsci labels hegemony, as it acknowledges rule through “the combination of force and consent” (Gramsci, p. 210). Even though the numerical majority of web sites are not specifically corporate, most viewers/users spend a great deal of time at sites such as AOL.com. These viewers/users are complicit in their own domination, as their activities contribute to the maintenance of the current system. This conceptualization of domination is relevant to the Internet, as it is an area that is constructed of both specific, purposeful control as well as seemingly random productions from individual entities. Of course, in the case of entities such as AOL and Yahoo, these non-random constructs perpetuate the ideology of the dominant forces and classes in society.
These corporate portals contribute to the hegemonic forces in that the experience they offer is primarily limited to the conventional norms of capitalist society. For example, the likelihood of being able to link directly to a site on “How to Create a Marxist-Feminist Society” from the main pages of one of these portals is quite low, to understate the matter dramatically. [To illustrate this example, click on http://www.yahoo.com or http://www.aol.com and attempt to find a site that is not complicit with capitalism without typing. This author hasn’t yet been able to accomplish this seemingly simple task.] Again, Gramsci provides a useful concept with his notion of the intellectual class as ‘organizers’ of the system, working to create coherence and apparent homogeneity in the attempt to normalize the framework. This is a helpful idea to apply to the construction of the Internet, as it is a complex network of connections between various economic, social, and political forces. Interestingly, the role of intellectuals, such as the Stanford alumni who developed Yahoo—Jerry Lang and David Filo—in framing and describing the Internet serves in various capacities to both support the dominant ideology as well as to undermine its intent. For instance, in the case of Yahoo, the way that Lang and Filo support mainstream ideology is obvious with the capitalist intent of their portal. However, there is also some evidence of counter-cultural thought, as evidenced by their resistance to being subsumed by a larger corporation. Although this would likely be a financially lucrative move, they have resisted the effort in order to remain autonomous and avoid the powerful bureaucracy inherent in large, capitalist companies. These “intellectuals” thus work within the structure of larger society, unconsciously creating products that work not only to their own economic benefit, but also to the advantage of the greater currents in the institutional system and to the detriment of marginalized positions that are swept aside by these forces.
The example that Lang and Filo provide at Yahoo is also mirrored at other sites. Although the intent of these capitalist, corporate portals is specifically to generate wealth and revenue, the reality is that subversion of this objective also occurs. Furthermore, as James L. McQuivey reminds us in Bosah Ebo’s Cyberghetto or Cybertopia?, the notion that "business interests have combined in a conscious effort to reduce the promise of [Internet] technology" to create a monolithic experience, online or off, is not accurate (McQuivey p. 85). If this was the objective of businesses, we can assume that they would not be entirely successful. An article at Wired.com describing the propagation of ‘gamer humor’ makes this clear. It reports a phenomenon where “a flash file with screen-shots from an outdated arcade game accompanied by clumsy subtitles conquers the world” as it is rapidly forwarded all over the Internet (http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,42009,00.html, 2/23/01). In describing this event, Wired.com notes that “marketers toiling for years can't figure out how to grab Web-users' attention” (http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,42009,00.html, 2/23/01). This example demonstrates the unpredictability of how any online episode may be interpreted by viewers/users within a myriad of contexts.
Power to Shape the Net
Corporate portals are an integral component within the overall framework of the Internet, as it currently is structured. They seek to be “sticky,” that is, to encompass all of a viewer’s/user’s experience in any given online session. In so doing, they reflect and reinforce the larger socio-political structure, reconstructing the conditions and inequities of capitalism in the context of the Internet. These economic realities are illustrated in the construction and power of portals, as they are among the most frequently visited sites on the Internet with extended session times. In surveys conducted in June 1999, December 1999, and April 2000, Yahoo, AOL, and MSN/Microsoft were the top three most visited web portals (http://www.referencedesk.org/topsites.html, 2/19/2001; http://cyberatlas.internet.com/markets/advertising/print/0,,5941_297851,00.html, 2/19/2001). Thus, it is no stretch to acknowledge these sites as the dominant locations on the Internet, with the power to shape and control the online experience in ways most other sites cannot.
As with more traditional mechanisms in capitalist societies, it is all about power: who has it and who does not. We know who is marginalized in capitalist societies, and have seen here how portals contribute to these pre-existing conditions in reinforcing ways. In addition, advertisements, news, music, and other forms of media are all funneled out of and back into portals to construct the viewers’/users’ experience. [See chapter 1, section 2 for extended discussion of this idea]
Within the context of these capitalist mechanisms, it is important to acknowledge the cracks and fissures that sometimes contradict the intended messages of the dominant corporations. As Gramsci notes, even “the leading group should make sacrifices of an economic corporate kind” (Gramsci p. 211). These sacrifices may be accomplished in certain ways, intentionally as well as unintentionally, and must be made to maintain equilibrium with non-leading groups. One can see these sacrifices in the counter-hegemonic activities of individuals located both within and outside of the leading group, the corporate capitalists. An example of this is the hacking of Microsoft’s new Office product, Office XP. In spite of the fact that “Microsoft has added security features to make the next versions of Windows and Office the toughest ever to pirate,” Office XP has already been circulated in pirated software channels (http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,42402,00.html, 3/14/01). This situation is truly amusing because the software was leaked a full month before becoming commercially available to business users! This example suggests that even a corporate giant such as Microsoft does not have the resources nor ability to completely secure its assets and mitigate activities that counter its capitalist mission.
In these sections, I presented a methodology for analyzing the usefulness of web sites from a perspective that reflects upon their degree of complicity with corporate capitalism. In particular, this analytical tool is useful for application to commercial portal web sites, as it specifically seeks to illuminate the objectives of sites of this nature. In the chapter that follows, I demonstrate how to use this tool by applying it to AOL.com. For the purposes of this investigation, I provide a succinct, printable summary of the tool, which is a step-by-step procedure that the reader can use to analyze any web site.
I designed this tool by considering the questions that I ask in analyzing web sites for their usefulness to me from a position of social justice and awareness. In particular, I think it is crucial to examine the purpose and objectives of the web site, and to what degree it seeks to be sticky. These are important issues, for they offer insight into the intentions of the site’s designers. The tool next considers the site’s production, the site as a text, and the possible audiences that may receive it. Issues such as these pointedly illustrate the choices the developers made in designing the site as well as the ultimate design and how this object may be interpreted in various, potentially conflicting ways. The tool concludes with questions regarding who benefits from its current construction, as this is its ultimate impact.
This tool should be useful, at least as a starting point, for anyone looking to analyze the construction and impacts of any web site. It should be particularly useful for those that are new to the web and are searching for a way in which to analyze the intentions of sites within this new medium. I demonstrate how to apply the tool in Chapter 3, which should help reduce the degree of familiarity and experience one requires to be able to use this tool effectively.
In many ways, America Online’s AOL.com is the leader in the portal experience economy. Its development and methodology ultimately define the online session for nearly 27 million subscribers to its connectivity service. Therefore, it would be difficult to exaggerate AOL’s impact in the online world on the Internet experience, and exactly what it seeks to do as a portal, which is to attract and retain as many viewers/users as possible. We examine it next as one example of the corporate portals we have analyzed, although beyond its specifics, MSN.com, Yahoo.com, and other such portals are easily comparable to AOL as dominant portals in their own right.