New Music Trends: Pandora & Spotify

Stephanie Griffin

 

           The music industry has been affected by the increase of the internet and technology over the past decade. A growing trend we are seeing is the popularity of streaming music programs now available on computers and smart phones. They are changing the way we purchase (or do not purchase) music, what we are listening to, and where we can listen to music. According to one of our readings this week, "At least 33 million people have tried Spotify, more than 150 million have registered for Pandora" (Sisario). Although Ben Sisario's article demonstrates some negative aspects of these programs through a financial standpoint, this blog focuses on how programs like Pandora Radio and Spotify may have positive affects on both the music and radio industries.
 

Spotify in particular allows us to connect our listening history to Facebook. Eliot V. Buskirk of Hollywood Reporter mentions the increase popularity of Spotify through the social media connection. He states, “Facebook integration seems to be working well for Spotify based on its September numbers. Whether it can keep that up next month is another story -- and from where we're sitting, largely depends on whether Spotify can convince people to use its upcoming Private Listening feature when they don't want to share, rather than disconnecting Spotify from Facebook permanently” (Buskirk). In most cases, people are not ashamed to share what they are listening to on Spotify. Furthermore, anything that is easily connected to social media can readily become an active part of our online activity. Therefore, think if you have been using these programs to listen to music. Why are you using them and where are you using them the most? Furthermore, in response to the trade publication analyzing this combination of programs and social media, do you feel these programs are a good or bad technology for today’s musicians? Considering how accessible computers, smart phones, and even tablets are becoming, we are able to take our information anywhere we go- this includes our music. Not only has technology changed the way we listen to music, but the music industry itself has also been forced to modernize to stay in business.

We have established how these streaming programs are forcing the music industry to become digital. NY Times writer, Eric Pfanner, writes in his article, "Music Industry Braces for the Unthinkable,” about how the music industry has certainly taken a financial hit with the increase of online piracy and illegal downloads. Yet, the streaming programs of Spotify, along with Rdio and Deezer could save the music industry. He writes,

 

“Around the world, 10 million people have already signed up for subscription-based online services from Spotify, Rdio and Deezer, some of which have attracted additional millions of users with free, advertising-supported services. Many executives hope the growth of offerings like these can reduce the industry’s dependence on sales of individual tracks through digital stores like Apple iTunes, a model that has attracted little interest from young music fans, particularly outside the United States. Music executives say Internet service providers hold the key to solving the piracy problems and helping the music companies recoup lost revenue” (Pfanner).

 

In response to Pfanner’s statement, why do you think the online streaming programs target specifically young music fans like our generation through aspects like social media? Does this mean we will affect how the music industry works in the future? As the music industry adapts to such technological changes, the radio industry may not be far behind.
             Not only are programs like Pandora and Spotify affecting the opportunities for audiences to buy music since these programs are free, they are also competing against today’s radio industry. According to our Arbitron reading from this week, radio is still listened to frequently amongst audiences ("Radio Today 2012”). Even with the streaming programs of Pandora and Spotify, “Americans depend on radio as a reliable media companion” (“Radio Today: 2012”). Do you agree with the Arbitron research study even with these programs growing popularity? Why or why not?  Although we’ve learned how radio was forced to change its format upon the arrival of television, it is important to consider the future of the music and radio industries with the increase of online music programs like Pandora and Spotify.

            With the enhancements of streaming music programs, the future of the music industry will inevitably be affected. According to the journal article, “The Future of the Music Industry” by Bohdan and Anastasia Pikas, along with Candice Lymburner, music programs like Pandora and Spotify are a benefit for the music industry since they allow audiences to discover new artists. The authors state, “As more music downloads become available at little or no cost, and file sharing continues to grow, people will be exposed to a much larger array of bands, artists, and even genres of music. With the opportunity of increased exposure at the expense of lost song profits, artists all over the world may reap the benefits in other ways, including that of larger audiences at their live concerts” (Pikas, Pikas, and Lymburner 142). In other words, even though music listeners can now listen to most music online free, they are still likely to contribute to the artists’ revenue through attending concerts and buying merchandise. What do you think about this idea of the future of the music industry with Pandora and Spotify program offering this newly digital service of listening music?

 

Works Cited:

 

Buskirk, Eliot V. "Spotify Usage Explodes After F8, Facebook Integration." The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 23 Feb. 2013.

 

Pfanner, Eric. "Music Industry Braces for the Unthinkable." The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Jan. 2011. Web. 23 Feb. 2013.

 

Pikas, Bohdan, Anastasia Pikas, and Candice Lymburner. "The Future of the Music Industry." Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness 5.3 (2011): 139-49. North American Business Press, June 2011. Web. 23 Feb. 2013.

 

"Radio Today 2012: How America Listens to Radio." Www.arbitron.com. Artbitron, 2012. Web. 23 Feb. 2013.

Sisario, Ben. "Pandora and Spotify Rake In the Money and Then Send It Off in Royalties." Media Decoder Pandora and Spotify Rake In the Money and Then Send It Off in Royalties Comments. N.p., 24 Aug. 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.

Film Sequel Success for Hollywood- Kim Rizzitano

The film industry has been one of the leading hubs in entertainment throughout the years. The public’s fascination in drama and stories of the unbelievable has been due to the creation of  worlds thought up by Hollywood.  At one time, more movies seemed to equal more revenue but in recent years, Hollywood has found a way to get more people to the theaters and increase sales with fewer movies annually.  The answer was sequels and remakes.  By producing films with familiar themes and characters, more global movie-goers are lured to the theaters by the promise of a superior film because they were satisfied with the first. In a way, you could think of the first movie as positive advertisement for the following sequels or remakes. 

The article “Hollywood Eyes Record 2013 With ‘Star Trek,’ ‘The Hobbit,’ ‘Hunger Games’ Sequels”, highlights the fact that making films that attract broad global audiences, like “action films, comedies, and historical dramas which all broke $100 million in sales during the past year”, create the most steady increasing revenue (Advertising Age).  Top grossing films of the year included “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 which saw a long stream of success over the past few years of release.  Twilight fans and Harry Potter fans, though different in taste, share the common characteristic that they were successful long running sequels.  They brought familiar characters and plot for viewers to hold onto and become enamored with.  The article “Movies, Myths, and Messages: How Entertainment is Creating a Global Brand Culture” supports this idea with the statement, “Simply put, movies are mythic messages that bond culture. They imprint a dialogue of images on our emotions. We trade on their meaning. They echo our existence, express what we see, think we know, or wish to be,” (Ken Markman, The Licensing Journal).  Esentially, the films become part of our culture.  They bond together fans internationally with the common interest of these long running characters and plots.

Aside from ticket sales, Hollywood also benefits from sequels because movie paraphernalia is produced and sold in mass quantities. The Harry Potter series exemplifies this especially with not only the production of t-shirts, mugs, and wands, but also a whole theme park at Universal Studios dedicated to the story.  The park only further creates that global cultural bond over the film by creating a common meeting place for all Harry Potter fans thereby equally strengthening the successful formula of film sequels. 

The “Hunger Games” series is expected to soon follow a similar sequel success path as Twilight and Harry Potter, its first film being the third top-grossing film released in 2012. It similarly has taken on a huge fan base from the similar tactics of its predecessors.

One of the most influential and especially Oscar-worthy sequels has been The Lord of the Rings trilogy.  The release of The Hobbit this year has furthered the success of the trilogy with this sequel of a different sort.  The film essentially has many familiar characters yet follows a different storyline.  By keeping the same setting and many familiar characters, Time Warner has been successful in reaping the benefits of The Lord of the Rings trilogy.  Past fans have come again to the theaters to continue the stories of the lovable hobbit characters which resulted in $84.6 million in box office sales in the opening weekend (Advertising Age).

Like sequels, “reboots” of popular films have seen similar success due to familiarity and character popularity.  The remake of Spiderman brought fans of the superhero and the first Toby Maguire film back to theaters to rate and reviews it in comparison.  This method is also successful because it causes fans to not only want to see if the film improves but also what fails, and the subtle changes in plot.  The New York Times article “Familiarity Breeds Hollywood Sequels” notes remakes as more successful in 2011 due to familiarity in film winning out. “One after another the more original studio films in a variety of genres failed to draw a really large number of viewers this year.” It continues on by mentioning though many films like The Help saw great profit, they failed to break the top ten due to popular familiar sequels and remakes (Cieply).

Though the film industry will continue to turn out both remakes and sequels along with original pictures,  familiarity will most likely continue to win out in box office sales due to a stready fan base already established.

           

Works Cited

 

Cieply, Michael. "Familiarity Breeds Hollywood Sequels." New York Times: C.1. Dec 29 2011. ABI/INFORM Complete; Hartford Courant; Hoover's Company Profiles; National Newspapers Core; New York Times; ProQuest. Web. 8 Mar. 2013 .

 

"Hollywood Eyes Record 2013 With 'Star Trek,' 'Hobbit,' 'Hunger Games' Sequels, Record 2012 Comes Despite Continued Improvements in Home Viewing." Advertising Age ( December 2012): Blackboard. Web. 8 Mar. 2013.

 

Markman, Ken. "Movies, myths, and messages: how entertainment is creating a global brand culture." The Licensing Journal, June Vol. 25, Aspen Publishers. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 Mar. 2013.

 

 

 

 

Crowdfunding: the Future of the Film Industry?

 

There are countless film projects that never quite make it into production, usually due to lack of funding and support. But, thanks to sites like Kickstarter, audiences can make donations to a project to get the film into production. These sites, and the users that support these projects, have the power to change the film industry.

According to the article “Crowdfunding: The Future Of The Film Industry? ”by Ilya Pozin, crowdfunding not only brings to donations to a film project, but also attracts early viewers who would generate early interest in a project and help market it. Crowdfunding sites offer incentives to those that donate. The incentives could be anywhere from your name in the opening credits, to a signed DVD, or even credit on IMDB. Offers like this have never been given to those that have donated in the past because opportunities to invest in an artistic project have been illegal until the passing of the JOBS Act, which allows people to make small donations to companies or projects like a film.

According to Ilya Pozin, “This combination of potentially infinite resources and independent filmmaking is an important change of tides for the future of film… it could pave the way for a new model of film production, one that more closely aligns the moviegoing public with the films they choose to see.” Kickstarter, and companies like it have the power to overthrow Hollywood in the sense of giving people the power to choose what films they want to see by only supporting those that they are interested in seeing come into fruition. The film industry tends to focus on putting out the best movies leading up to awards season. However, the rest of the year, all the lesser worthy films are put out and audiences have to suffer through them. What if crowdfunding was away to put out films that we actually want to see? It seems that Hollywood is catching on. According to the article, “Who needs an Oscar? Hollywood basks in industry’s comeback” Glover states that “Tinseltown might just be striking the right balance between making what people want to see, getting it to them in a way that works and letting them share their buzz over social media. According to the article, “Crowdsourcing success: Veronica Mars movie raises over $2.5 million with Kickstarter “ Suis states that “So much has been said about how social media has turned opening weekend into opening day.  Word-of-mouth can destroy bad movies much quicker than they used to. As this Kickstarter campaign shows, it can also work in reverse. Good programs may be subject to cancellations by executives or declining ratings despite a rapt fan base.”

Currently the biggest success Kickstarter is having with bringing a film into fruition is the Veronica Mars movie. After the popular television show was cancelled, its creator Rob Thomas had talked about turning it into a movie. This could finally come true. If they reach their goal $2 million they will start shooting this summer. Well, according to Suis, the campaign has already reached $2.6 million dollars. They met their goal of $2 million in just eleven hours. It also shows that the Internet and social media play a crucial role in getting projects noticed and funded.

According to the article “How crowdfunding is changing the way movies are made” Geist states that “By the end of this year, over 100 Kickstarter-funded films will have been released theatrically in North America. In 2012, three Kickstarter funded films ranked among the best reviewed films of the year with six films – two documentaries, a live action short, and three documentary shorts – garnering Oscar nominations.”

Could crowdfunding help underfunded films succeed? Though the studio has the final say in whether or not a film project get the green light to be shown in theaters, could more indie film make it mainstream? Could crowdfunding hurt the film industry after it has just seen so much gain in profits?

 

Works Cited

Geist, Michael. "How ‘crowdfunding’ Is Changing the Way Movies Are Funded: Geist." Thestar.com. The Star, 01 Mar. 2013. Web. Mar. 2013.

Glover, Ronald. "Who Needs an Oscar? Hollywood Basks in Industry's Comeback." Reuters

Pozin, Ilya. "Crowdfunding: The Future Of The Film Industry?" Forbes 20 Dec. 2012.

Suis, Sarah. "Crowdsourcing Success: Veronica Mars Movie Raises over $2.5 Million with Kickstarter." 'Screener' Screenerblog, 14 Mar. 2013.

Your Magazine Follows and Friends You

With the Internet still being so new each of the more traditional media outlets have had to adapt to the web in order to insure the survival of their medium; magazines were not immune to the side effects of the Internets ever-increasing power. When the Internet was still new, but it was clear the immense impact it would have, many magazine industry professionals worried that subscriptions to magazines would decrease so significantly over time that the Internet would essentially be responsible for the death of the magazine. 

In an article in Advertising Age as part of the “Ad Age Special Report “ author Keith Kelly notes “The Internet has grabbed the spotlight from publishers in sharp contrast to a decade earlier, when magazines were among the hottest of all media. ``From a sex appeal and a buzz on Madison Avenue point of view, there is nothing to compare with the front-of-mind impact that new media are creating,'' says John Suhler, president of Veronis Suhler & Associates. ``It's a new field with new thinking, new tools. Everyone is trying to understand it. `Magazines can't compete with that, but the fundamental, enduring value of magazines is still there.'' This article as published in 1996 documents the concerns of media professionals at the very early stages of the Internet. Magazines were still attempting, as was the rest of the world, to see what the Internet really was and what it could be. As the Internet has developed we have seen the ways in which magazines have utilized the Internet and even Web 2.0 to sustain their presence in everyday life. Kelly reassures the readers with the opinion of a media professionals confirmation that, `` ‘Magazines are not dead,’ Mr. Bibb agrees. `They have a different kind of sex appeal-more like the woman who turns 40. She can still be attractive but she has to recognize that she's not an ingenue anymore. [Magazines] are more like Jane Fonda or Raquel Welch. They don't have to take off their clothes to generate heat.' “  Much like Mr. Bibb suggested, we are now seeing a way that magazine generates heat by using the power of the Internet.

The class reading, “Magazine Media Readers are Social,” outlined research that suggests that magazines have surged because of the Internet, more specifically social media. The article concludes that of the respondents of the study 68% “believe technology has improved the experience of accessing various media.” Moreover, an astonishing 81% of avid magazine readers also agree that technology has improved their experience. The article suggests that the Internet and social media sites have given magazine readers a much more personal connection with their favorite publications. Through Twitter, Facebook and other sites, “They [magazine readers] also interact to a much higher degree with magazine content and even directly with magazine editors via Twitter exchanges.” “Avid” magazine readers also use social media platforms to share magazine articles/content with their friends “and they do it to a high degree using social devices,” according to the reading. Personally, I don’t follow magazines on Twitter because I don’t find the content to be that pressing but I was wondering if anyone in the class follows magazine publications on Twitter? We discussed in class one night the likelihood of clicking on a link on our Twitter feeds and this YouTube video I found suggests that people are less likely to click on a link as opposed to an image or video on Facebook, so if you share content are they images? I know for me, I am more likely to follow a magazine publication on Instagram because I find that magazines are very much an image driven media and I would rather see the image on Instagram than an article on Twitter or Facebook. Going along with that, Mashable had an article outlining the ways that magazines are able to use the internet to not only sustain their readership, but advance the relationships they have with their readers, and one of the things the article mentioned was National Geographic’s use of Instagram. Mashable suggests that, “The tactics adopted by these marketing-savvy publications generate relationships and conversations around their brand — on and offline.” Another use of the Internet and social media for magazines is the advancement of editorial pieces. Mashable outlined ways that, “magazines are successfully employing social media to create an editorial journey for readers, rather than just a linear reading experience.”

According to these publications, magazines have turned to social media to advance the industry, but do you think this can sustain the magazine? Are subscription numbers too important for the industry to allow the magazine industry to rely so heavily on social media and the Internet? The Internet certainly hasn’t “killed” the magazine but has it compromised what it used to be by making it too social?



http://mashable.com/2011/02/09/social-media-magazines/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8JeLGz6ArA

Kelly, Keith J. "Magazines." Advertising Age 67.42 (1996): S1. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 1 Mar. 2013.

“Magazine Media Readers are Social”, Magazine Publishers of America

,

Niche Advertising and Minorities

Niche Advertising and Minorities

            They are inevitable and almost impossible to avoid, and whether you like them or not, advertisements will find their way to you as a media consumer. As we have been changing the way we consume media recently, advertisers have adapted. What has also changed in our media consumption is the amount of platforms we have to choose from, as there are now an endless amount of TV networks, magazines, apps, and websites through which we consume. With this increased specialization in media, we create these niche communities of consumers who share a common interest. For instance, it’s fairly obvious that all the loyal readers of SnoWest, a popular snowmobiling magazine, are all avid snowmobilers and consider it one of their passions.

This has allowed advertisers to know exactly who is consuming specific forms of media, making their job infinitely easier. This also makes us as consumers much more susceptible to making (or at least considering) a purchase based on how well the advertisement connects with our needs and wants. An article from Inspirationfeed.com talks about how brands are capitalizing on using niche advertising to hone in on trends in the world of media consumption.

“Today, most companies and their advertising partners are more concerned about niche marketing and advertising. This is just one of the corporate strategies employed to maximize ad spending that effectively reach a specific market. This is backed by various market researches, demographic studies and consumer statistics.” The article goes on to discuss how advertisers communicate to specific audiences, and what are some ‘rules’ niche advertisers should follow. One of these rules advises that niche advertisers should “speak the language of your niche market. Creating brand strategy includes in-depth studies on words that trigger great response from target audiences” (Inspirationfeed.com)

This rule of niche advertising comes into play especially with how advertisers attempt to communicate to minorities. Sarah Banet-Weiser’s article discusses how brands first capitalized on the implementation of minority-positioned advertising during the 80s.

“The influx of racial representations in the 1980s media landscape did not necessarily reflect a progressive political consciousness about the politics of race but were the result of a convergence of political and cultural dynamics, including the increase of niche channels on cable television, the rise of brand culture, the marketing tool of lifestyle demographics, and the politics of the Reagan administration” (Banet-Weiser).

The section of this article is entitled “No More Cosby Show: Generational Struggles over Race in the New Economy” and goes on to discuss how African-American culture was first affected and economically exploited by brands and their use of niche advertising. Banet-Weiser notes the work of Herman Gray, who conducted a study of race representation on American television. Gray remarks how corporate America used diversity as a marketing tool in the 1980s. We still see this tactic used today as advertisements attempt to attract minority audiences, much like a political candidate would do. McDonalds has been notorious for having such advertisements, most often showing ads that attempt to appeal to African-Americans. They typically show a humorous scene amongst a group of black friends and have an urban theme complete with hip-hop music. Some people may regard these types of advertisements as racist, as the advertisers are seemingly using stereotypical elements of African-American culture. As Gray mentioned, brands seem to use diversity as a marketing tool to appeal to their niche audiences of minorities.

Brands annually invest millions of dollars into market research and psychological studies to better understand their consumers for advertising purposes. Tying back into the rule of knowing your consumer, intensive studies have been done by corporations to better understand how people feel, and thus what products they are more inclined to buy. One industry that has taken this approach to an impressively in-depth level is the auto industry. An article from Advertising Age looks at how auto marketers are studying the psychographics of each ethnic group and assigning emotional traits to them. Auto Consultancy Strategic Vision found that “Latinos look for an enhanced sense of security; blacks are more attracted to models that reflect the success in their lives and express their individuality; and Asian-Americans showed stronger interest in balanced, complete vehicle performance and style to match their lives” (Halliday).

In turn, auto marketers use this information to highlight certain functional benefits of their cars in advertisements. This attempt to gain sales among minorities is among the ways niche advertising is used on the most miniscule scale, completely oblivious to us as media consumers. Thus, the strategy of niche advertising has been used for brands to communicate to specific audiences and communities, especially with minorities. Ethical conversations have been brought up about whether or not it is exploitation, however it is a tool brands will continue to use and one we will continue to see (or not see) as media consumers.

Tina. "Niche Advertising and Marketing: Zeroing in on Your Target." Inspirationfeed.com. N.p., 26 Dec. 2012. Web. 01 Mar. 2013.

Higgs, Bronwyn. "Imported advertising: imported culture." Marketing Magazine (2007): 80-83.

Halliday, Jean. "Automakers Must Get 'Emotional' to Sell to Minorities." Update Your User Profile. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2013.

Cody Fuller

Targeting Children as an Audience

Targeting Children as an Audience

Whether its movies or TV, the media attempts to empower children when targeting them as an audience.  By using females as lead protagonists or ethnic characters it helps open a child’s mind to what is out there. But are popular movies and television shows successful in doing so or does the idea backfire and come off as racist?

            In Sarah Banet-Weiser’s article, “What’s Your Flava” she discusses the common ideals that the media uses in their plots. She argues that gender and ethnic representation help define children’s shows, especially on the channel Nickelodeon. In a post feminist world, shows like Dora the Explorer on Nickelodeon do help to promote “girl power” which is a theme frequently seen in today’s media. 

Disney is another company that helps promote girl power.  While in the past Disney tended to rely on stereotypical pretty white princesses, they now have broadened their horizons with movies like the Princess and the Frog and Brave.  Tianna is Disney’s first African American princess. In a NY Times article titled “Her Prince has Come, Critics Too” the author delves into the possibility that the movie actually promoted black stereotypes. While some critics said that “finally here is something that all little girls, especially young black girls, can embrace” others said that Disney should be “ashamed” and that while they did have a black princess the majority of the movie she appeared as a frog and she was also a poor black waitress living in New Orleans.  In the article, a psychologist Michael Baran pointed out, “People think that kids don’t catch subtle messages about race and gender in movies, but it’s quite the opposite.”  While Disney did give children a black princess to look up to and idolize did they also inflict stereotypes about black people on the young susceptible minds of children?  The movie was set in New Orleans, which recently experienced tragedy and is home to many poor African Americans as a result.  It even featured a white princess that was rich and was looking for a husband, while Tianna was just her poor seamstress’ daughter that came to be her friend when she was brought along with her mother.

 Disney had more success with empowering young girls in their movie Brave.  The main character, Merida, was actually Pixar’s first female protagonist. Merida is very different from Disney’s typical princess with perfect hair and perfect mannerisms – Merida has fiery red hair, which “came to reflect her untamed personality” (Hollywood Reporter).  In the movie, Merida defies her parent’s wishes by sneaking off to play archery on her days off from princess training.  When her parents arrange for Merida to marry one of three bachelors presented to her she chooses to pick her own destiny and tells the suitors she wishes them to pick their own wives just as she wants to pick her own husband.  Merida even beats all her suitors in an archery contest, proving her strength is better than the boys’.  Disney’s Merida is a symbol for feminism and girl power as she is a strong female lead with a free spirit that teaches young girls they don’t have to always conform to society but instead can challenge the stereotypes and norms that are set in place.

            Not only was Merida pictured as strong, but also she is relatable.  In a NY Times article titled “Evolution of a Feisty Pixar Princess” Brenda Chapman, the movie’s director said “I wanted a real girl not one that very few could live up to with tiny, skinny arms, waist and legs. I wanted an athletic girl. I wanted a wildness about her, so that’s where the hair came in, to underscore that free spirit. But mainly I wanted to give girls something to look at and not feel inadequate.”  With so many images of skinny perfect females that are already in place in the media, it is progressive and positive for young girls to see a character like Merida.

            In today’s society the media features more ethnic characters as well as more female leads but they still have to be careful in the way they picture these characters. Do they help open up the minds of young children that are so susceptible to the images they see or do they just help reinforce stereotypes?

Works Cited

Barnes, Brooks. "Her Prince Has Come. Critics, Too."

Nytimes.com. New York Times Company, 29 May 2009.

Web. 3 Mar. 2013.

Murphy, Mekado. "Evolution of a Feisty Pixar Princess."

Nytimes.com. New York Times Company, 15 June 2012.

Web. 3 Mar. 2013.

"Pixar's Braintrust on the Making of 'Brave' and the Studio's First

Princess." The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar.

2013.

Sarah Banet-Weiser, “What’s Your Flava?: Race and Postfeminism in

Media Culture” in The Media Studies Reader, Laurie Ouelette, ed.

(New York: Routledge, 2012), 379 - 393. 

Tucker, Neely. "A Fairy Tale Beginning." Washingtonpost.com.

N.p., 19 Apr. 2009. Web. 3 Mar. 2013.