Readings for 9/29/11: Sociable robots: Simulated stand-ins or full-time friends?

Source:

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.

Excerpts:

Part One: “The robotic moment: In solitude, new intimacies"

Overview & Synthesis:

Part one discusses the “robotic moment” and sociable robots and how they are creating new unsettling relationships and instabilities in how we understand privacy, community, intimacy, and solitude. Interactions with robots like ELIZA, Tamagotchis, Furbies, AIBO, My Real Baby, Cog, Kismet, and Paro illustrate certain bonds, deep emotional connections, and the creation of feelings of pseudo-parental attachment. Turkle poses a troubling observation that robots are filling gaps in the society and we hope to use them as a solution to our own imperfections, as an easy substitute for the difficulty of dealing with others.

Turkle (2011) describes technology as the “architect of our intimacies” and seductive when offering what meets our human vulnerabilities (p. 1). We are drawn by the illusion of companionship with convenience and without the demands of intimacy. However, this presents risks of emotional dislocation.  In her examination of the relationship between humans and robots, Turkle suggests we don’t mind giving human qualities to inanimate objects and are content to treat each other as things.

In chapter one, “Nearest neighbors” she uses the phrase “alive enough” to describe a relational readiness when speaking about sociable robots (Turkle, 2011, p. 28-9). She argues that robots are evocative objects because they prompt people to think about them and in turn people think about themselves. Chapter two, “Alive Enough,” continues this conversation about how we are at the point of seeing digital objects as both creatures and machines. Computers and robots no longer ask us to think with them, but ask us to feel for and with them as they become more sociable, affective, and relational (Turkle, 2011, p. 39). She argues that robots are a slippery slope because they take advantage of our instinct and capacity to project human traits on to inanimate objects. For example, children are able to empathize with the “needs” and “feelings” of the Tamagotchi and Furby, who in reality have no intelligence but can fake attachment. This interactivity prompts our minds to start projecting consciousness and we compensate by filling the gaps. A machine only needs to act clever and people will play along. Additionally, she points out that this simulation is enough to provoke empathetic urges, as shown by the test where subjects are asked to take a Furby, a Barbie doll and a live gerbil and hold them upside down.

AIBO, the robotic dog

In chapter three, “True companions,” Turkle points out that since we already filter companionship through machines we now look to accept machines as companions. Robots have the power to dramatically alter our social lives by offering contact. However, they pose psychological risks by making us vulnerable to simplicities that may diminish us. In her discussion of AIBO, a robotic dog, Turkle points out that it is not the practice for the real, but a possible alternative that is not necessarily second best. There is a possibility that after robots serve as a better-than-nothing substitute; they might become equal or even preferable, to a pet or person (Turkle, 2011, p. 64).  So what are we sacrificing when we look to robots as electronic companions? Turkle (2011) says “Dependence on a robot presents itself as risk free. But when one becomes accustomed to ‘companionship’ without demands, life with people may seem overwhelming” (p. 66). Chapter four, “Enchantment,” elaborates on how AIBO and My Real Baby “encourage people to imagine robots in everyday life” and serve as evocative objects to “give people a ways to talk about their disappointments with the people around them” (Turkle, 2011p. 68). As we think about robots with artificial feelings and intelligence, we reflect differently on our own and use them to practice our own relationship skills.

Paro, the therapeutic seal

Chapter five, “Complicities,” brings up the idea that robots and people are not so different from each other. Turkle (2011) argues that the new relationships we have with robots create a loop, drawing us into the complicities that make it possible; but we are playing along, willing to defer to what the robots are able to do (p. 100). Chapter six, “Love’s Labor Lost,” brings up the startling possibility that if the robots are at all successful they could replace people. The interactivity and reactivity of robots can serve as a therapeutic process ramping up our emotional involvement. To the objection that robots can only seem to care or understand, Turkle (2011) points out that people too feign caring or understanding (p. 123). While we are somewhat relieved by the prospect of robots coming to the rescue, this raises certain moral issues. Turkle (2011) says “As we learn to get the ‘most’ out of robots, we may lower our expectations of all relationships, including those with people. In the process, we betray ourselves” (p. 125).

Chapter seven, “Communion,” describes an encounter between Rich and Kismet, providing an example of how robots can offer a fantasy of near communion and we can thus imagine a meeting of the minds. Robots offer what meets our human vulnerabilities. Turkle (2011) points out that we can interact with robots in full knowledge of their limitations, but are still comforted by what must be an unrequited love (p. 133).

Turkle’s consideration of the robot for real opens up daunting philosophical and psychological conversations. As society gradually seems to be growing more “machine ready,” it seems less shocking to put robots in places where people used to be (Turkle, 2011, p. 146). This prevalence of robots makes us unwilling to put in the work required by real human relationships, which presents certain risks. Section one describes how the boundaries between people and things are shifting, but makes the reader question which of these boundaries are worth maintaining.

Questions & Reflections:

Is a machine “alive enough” to die? Or does it just break/stop working and need fixed? Do we mourn the loss of this artificial life? Think about things that may be important to you like your phone or computer. How would you feel if it “died”? Is it okay in our society to “mourn” technology?

Do we attach ourselves to particular machines? Like how the children attach to their Furbies and Tamagotchies, where even an identical one cannot replace the original. Think about how you have personalized your own technologies like your laptop or cell phone. If you lost or broke one of them, can it ever be the same again? Would you feel differently towards a replacement? 

Is using robots as “stand-ins,” such as care for children or the elderly, morally wrong? Does this substitution pose ethical problems? On one hand it frees up people to devote their time elsewhere, but at the same time does it neglect these people from receiving a human touch in their lives? What is the balance and which is more important in our society? 

Readings for 9/22/11: The three P’s of convergence culture: Politics, pop culture, and participation

Source:

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.

Excerpts:

Chapter Six: “Photoshop for democracy: The new relationship between politics and popular culture”

Conclusion: “Democratizing television? The politics of participation”

Overview & Synthesis:

Chapter 6:

            In chapter six, Jenkins examines the shift of the public’s role in the political process through the introduction of new outlets such as blogs, Photoshop, and games, in this new era of media convergence and collective intelligence. He discusses how changes in communications systems and cultural norms have expanded the range of voices that are heard and how they have shaped the way in which people process and act in today’s political discourse. Additionally, he introduces the idea of the monitorial citizen and some of the challenges that consumers face in terms of media and democracy.

            Due to the mainstream media’s use of exclusionary practices, the need arose for participatory media channels, and this is where blogs came in. Jenkins uses a good part of the chapter to discuss blogging. He mentions how the Web’s low barriers to entry have expanded access to innovative and revolutionary ideas (Jenkins, 2006, p.  221). The chapter also mentions how this new technology is helping power to shift into a new paradigm that is more democratically distributed and shared by all (Jenkins, 2006, p. 222). Blogging helps to assert a counterperspective on mass media by providing prolonged conversations and interactions about certain topics; and while they don’t claim objectivity, they still allow consumers to decide for themselves by providing them with this wealth of information. This evolving system of media convergence, through the use of blogging and other similar methods, is making the media more democratic by contributing new checks and balances. Jenkins mentions how this adversarial relationship between the mainstream media and blogging world may provide an opportunity to correct many mistakes.  

A screenshot from Jib Jab's "This Land" video

            The chapter then goes on to discuss how new software, such as Photoshop, has allowed citizens to appropriate and manipulate images to make a political statement (Jenkins, 2006, p. 231). New programs and technologies have democratized media by providing citizens with materials at low cost that allow them to produce and circulate powerful images. Jenkins (2006) mentions how the logic of convergence politics uses the idea of “grassroots media to mobilize and mainstream media to publicize” (p. 231).  If consumers are able to produce these powerful statements, all they have to do is somehow get them introduced into the mainstream media to get big attention. Lawsuits, media coverage due to their banning, nothing is bad publicity to get attention to these ideas of political activism.

            Jenkins also introduces the idea of the monitorial citizen. This is a consumer who engages in environmental surveillance more than information gathering, and also tends to be defensive rather than proactive (Jenkins, 2006, p. 237). However, he advocates that this monitoring citizen needs to develop new critical skills in assessing information both on the individual and collaborative levels with the help of knowledge communities.

            One more way in which Jenkins addresses this shift is through the gaming world and ‘playing politics.’ He discusses how games, such as Alphaville in The Sims Online, have allowed people to play with power on a microlevel through the world of video games. He mentions, however, that for democracy to function here there needs to be a social contract between participants and a sense that their actions have consequence within the community, just as there should be in real life (Jenkins, 2006, p. 239).  Games allow these people the opportunities to exert leadership and influence, which might carry over into their role as a citizen in real life where they can extend these experiences into actual political culture.

            Jenkins concludes chapter six by discussing how passionately consumers feel about popular culture and how through it we have found a new power to shape our media environment. He again brings up the idea of knowledge cultures and the possibilities they pose through the quality and diversity of information they could hold. Yet he poses the challenge they face due to consumers seeking out ideas that reinforce their beliefs instead of confronting and experiencing different ideas. He advocates to the reader that we might be able to move forward if we deliberate together and it may be possible to find commonalities through our fantasies, which is why popular culture matters politically (Jenkins, 2006, p. 250).

Conclusion:

            In the conclusion, Jenkins focuses on the politics of participation in today’s culture; namely how the introduction of the Internet has allowed for new ideas to be heard while television has remained closed off. He begins by illustrating the difference between the Web, where many can share what they create, and the broadcast media, where many can consume what a few create (Jenkins, 2006, p. 253).  He then transitions into the politics of participation and what it means in convergence culture.

Wikipedia as a knowledge community

            Jenkins elaborates on what he means by convergence. Namely that it represents a paradigm shift mainly driven by economics and not some broad mission to empower the public (p. 254). Nevertheless it is still changing the ways media industries operate and the relation between them and consumers. The biggest change is the shift from individualized and personalized media consumption toward consumption as a networked practice, which is where his ideas of participation, collective intelligence, and knowledge communities come into play. Popular culture provides us with prototypes and is a way for people to connect, play, and apply their newfound skills. It gives us new ways of thinking about citizenship and collaboration.

            Despite all of the new opportunities arising through technologies and this shift of ideas, consumers are still fighting to define the terms under which they are allowed to participate. Jenkins (2006) argues that the potentials of a more participatory media culture are worth fighting for and that we may have greater collective bargaining power in the politics of participation if we form consumption communities (p. 260).

            Convergence culture allows for experiments to thrive, whereas regulation impoverishes culture. Jenkins (2006) describes how the intersection of this convergence culture provides great power because grassroots media is able to diversify, while broadcast media is able to amplify (p. 268).

            Overall, he describes participation as an important political right, and advocates that the emergence of new media technologies supports a democratic urge to allow more people to create and circulate media (Jenkins, 2006, p. 269). Despite the challenges surrounding participation, he argues that it is worth it. Jenkins (2006) says that consumers will be more powerful within convergence culture, but only if they recognize and use that power as consumers and citizens as full participants in that culture (p. 270).

Questions & Reflections:

Chapter 6:

Jenkins (2006) states, “No one citizen can be expected to know everything about even one core debate let alone the range of issues that shape national politics” (p. 237). But can we know everything together through the collective intelligence and knowledge cultures he talks about? Would news be better through collective intelligence? Wouldn’t this have more sides to every story making the news further objective? Or does this just leave more sorting for the consumer to do? Overall, as Jenkins (2006) asks, “what would happen when the sharing of knowledge and the exercise of grassroots power become normative?” (p. 246). What could we accomplish if we were to achieve that?

Jenkins focuses on blogs and the strides they have made previously in terms of confronting the mainstream media. However, I feel like blogs have done even more in recent years since the book has been published. Since then, what are some of the advancements they have made to contribute to this power shift? Also, how have we seen the relationship between mainstream journalists and bloggers develop and work over the years? Also tying this discussion in with the conclusion, Jenkins (2006) asks, “in a society where blogs – both texts based and video enhanced - were thriving, why would anyone need to put their content on television? (p. 252) Is this web power enough? Or should we fight to get our rights on television and other forms of media as well?

Conclusion:

Is it really possible to ‘democratize the media’? Isn’t the media already supposed to be democratic, at least as far as news? Is the average consumer even really interested in this? Would the application of the idea of knowledge communities and collective intelligence in media achieve this democratization? Could we ever achieve this ideal of Levy’s as the utopian knowledge communities? What could it potentially bring to society in the long term? Could it be harmful in any way?

Jenkins (2006) asks, “But what would it mean to tap media power for our own purposes? Is ideological and aesthetic purity really more valuable than transforming our culture?” (p. 260) I would like to explore his question further.

Links to pictures:

http://pyanse.ru/img/9a/9aa/JibJab_com_This_Land_.jpg

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/wiki1.png?a14544

Readings for 9/15/11: War in the convergence world: Fan creation and participation versus the media industry

Source:

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.

Excerpts:

Chapter Four: “Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars: Grassroots creativity meets the media industry”

Chapter Five: “Why Heather can write: Media literacy and the Harry Potter wars”

Overview & Synthesis:

Chapter 4:

            In chapter four, Jenkins explores new forms of cultural production, specifically those associated with the Star Wars franchise, to examine the shift in the visibility of fan culture and how convergence is cultivating the intersection of grassroots creativity and the mainstream media industry.

            Initially, Jenkins compares convergence culture to folk culture to illustrate this intersection, drawing an analogy between grassroots convergence as the folk process accelerated and expanded for the digital age (Jenkins, 2006, p. 141). He points out how new technologies have allowed for the reemergence of grassroots creativity by enabling the public to archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate media content. However, these new transactions have created a conflict with media producers by representing a threat to the absolute control the industry has asserted over intellectual property rights. Unfortunately, this conflict is hard to solve given that there is no case law to determine what degree of fan creation is protected under fair-use law.

            Throughout the chapter, Jenkins explores how new technologies and materials have helped facilitate amateur film culture and improved the overall quality of work emerging from it. Films that were once documentarian, technically flawed, and of marginal interest are now more easily edited and enhanced with special effects and various commercially available ancillary products and are also more easily distributed through the Web. Digital filmmaking has allowed fans to do something significant in the medium with a limited budget. While fan culture films do not generate revenue, creators are motivated by shared interests in the franchise, the possibility of being hired or promoted by mainstream media, or the chance to provide inspiration or push popular culture in new directions. Jenkins (2006) uses these points to illustrate how the Web represents a site of experimentation and innovation to test the waters, develop new practices and themes, and generate materials (p. 152); and also that new digital tools and networks of distribution have expanded the power of ordinary people to participate in their culture (p. 162).

            Following this, Jenkins moves on to discuss how the media industry is trying to figure out its response to fan creativity. He illustrates two opposing sides of this dilemma, those that embrace or are tolerant of fan culture and those that react aggressively and attempt to suppress or control this creativity. He discusses problems of copyright and other legal issues in terms of fan empowerment and the power of fans’ collective moral authority.

            Neither producers nor consumers are sure of how to handle their interactions and are currently locked in a power struggle. While fans’ interest is clear, producers also have an interest in enfranchising and empowering consumers as a means of building strong brand loyalties. Satisfying fans’ interests and respecting their creativity may be challenging but in the end necessary. Jenkins (2006) states, “media producers need fans just as much as fans need them” (p. 173). It is clear that they both need each other and must work together, but the question is how. Jenkins argues that ultimately, the prohibitionist position is not going to be effective and producers must respect the growing public consensus and allow them to participate in culture in a meaningful way, taking on more of a collaborationist approach. The solution to working with fans, he says, would include giving them stake in the survival of the franchise, making sure content reflects their interests, giving them space to make creative contributions, and recognizing quality work (Jenkins, 2006, p.173).

Chapter 5:

            In chapter five, Jenkins uses the conflicts surrounding the Harry Potter series and media literacy to illustrate the struggle some groups are experiencing with the immersive nature and expansive quality of new entertainment franchises in the age of media convergence. The chapter examines how consumer investment and participation has surfaced as a problem, creating wars between those who want to allow consumers to construct their own culture and those who would rather maintain the use of traditional ‘gatekeepers,’ holding on to the control of cultural content. It also takes a look into how this interplay and tension is driving many of the changes occurring in today’s media landscape.

            In the first part of the chapter, Jenkins looks at specific fan communities, such as The Daily Prophet, and how these help to foster literacy in children and promote other healthy aspects in their lives. He discusses how these communities can serve as an outlet where children can immerse themselves into an imaginary world but still feel a real sense of connection. This jointly produced fantasy, which lies somewhere between a role-playing game and fan fiction, helps participants to develop a richer understanding of themselves and the culture around them, providing important cultural competency. Here, participants can escape from or reaffirm aspects of their real lives, work through their feelings, expand their literacy, and acquire the skills needed to be full participants in culture. These skills include some of the things Jenkins mentions in previous chapters, such as: the ability to pool knowledge with others in a collaborative enterprise (chapter one), sharing and comparing value systems (chapter two), making connections across scattered pieces (chapter three), expressing interpretations and feelings (chapter four), and finally, circulating creations via the Internet (chapter five) (Jenkins, 2006, p. 185).

            The chapter moves on to discuss these communities as informal learning cultures or “affinity spaces” where people are able to learn more, participate more actively, and engage more deeply with popular culture than they would be able to anywhere else (Jenkins, 2006, p. 186). Here adults and children coexist and collaborate, entire communities foster newbies, and participants receive help and experience they could not get anywhere else. These factors plus a deep emotional investment in the content make learning in these communities very different than learning in the classroom.

            As in the previous chapter, again pops up the issue of intellectual properties, fair use, and legal battles over fan content and cultural participation. However, in this case, Jenkins points out the success certain groups in relation to the Harry Potter franchise have had in defending themselves. He again argues that the solution to this is more likely to occur through shifting the way studios think about fan communities rather than reshaping the law (Jenkins, 2006, p. 199).

            Taking a slightly different approach to examining the Harry Potter wars, the chapter then takes a look at the opposition or promotion of the series by religious or civil liberties groups. For example, Jenkins mentions the strong opposition of conservative Christians and their struggle to police the culture in their community. He mentions that these conflicts have arisen due to these groups having lost their power to define cultural norms as the range of different media and communication channels have expanded (Jenkins, 2006, p. 208). Yet at the same time, other groups have embraced this change in media as a way for people to enhance their own values when they encounter popular culture, such as the discernment movement that advocates the agency of consumers to appropriate and transform media content.

            It is obvious that there are a variety of conflicts and concerns involved in the Harry Potter wars. Some people might look at these Harry Potter wars and think that fighting over such books is silly. But this conflict is not just about the books. This chapter points out that it is also the culture around the series and what it promotes and influences in society. It doesn’t just help children learn better reading and writing skills, but also helps to foster their exploration into legal and political rights, civil discourse, social skills, and other areas of life. Jenkins (2006) argues that children are not passive victims but active participants in these new media landscapes, finding their own voices and asserting their rights in participation through fan communities (p. 216). Additionally, they are in turn aiding the consumer side of convergence issues by developing new strategies for negotiating globalization, intellectual property struggles, and media conglomeration (Jenkins, 2006, p. 216).

Questions & Reflections:

Chapter 4:

Where is the line between flattering and copying?

Obviously there is a point to these fan creations, however, is all of this effort and money with no revenue in return worth all of the hassle/battle that accompanies it?

The media industry needs the fans, so how do they make them happy and still keep them within their preferred boundaries? Where is and how does one achieve this optimal balance? Is this even possible? Today, just five years after the publication of this book, technologies have changed greatly. With these new technologies and those that are sure to come in the future, is it even possible to suppress fan culture and creation? Or will the fans overcome the power of the industry and no longer be threatened or directed by their interests?

If fans create by imitating, should this be property of the company who originated the basis of the story or the individual who created it (the fan)? How is this determined fairly? Who gets to decide this?

Is it possible to apply copyright laws to grassroots/folk culture productions? Can these copyright regimes of mass culture even be applied to this different kind of cultural production in a way that makes sense?

On similar terms, do intellectual property rights restrict or suppress participatory culture and the collective intelligence that associates it? Does this have bad implications for moving forward in the future?

How far can fans go with these new technologies? Will there ever come a point where the difference between fan creations and mainstream productions are so close that we cannot differentiate between them? Are we close to this now?

Jenkins (2006) defines a parody as being “appropriate and transform[ing] the original for the purposes of critical commentary’ (p. 160). However, how far can this be stretched for legal protection? It seems that this could vary greatly on a case-by-case basis. Who is this interpretation up to? Is this fair?

Chapter 5:

Who gets to determine who has the right to participate in culture and on what terms?

Jenkins (2006) mentions that in jointly produced fantasy, participants draw on each other’s personas and ideas to create their stories (p. 184). Is this building of information similar to the knowledge communities and collective intelligence he mentions earlier in the book, just in fantasy terms? How so?

Shouldn’t children have the right to imagination? Isn’t that normally what society encourages from them anyway? Is the creation of fantasy on the Internet just another method of fostering imagination and creativity?

Jenkins (2006) poses an excellent question, asking “What difference will it make, over time, if a growing percentage of young writers begin publishing and getting feedback on their work while they are still in high school?” (p. 187) How will the peer collaboration, mentoring, and beta readings of such communities help provide advantages to students in the long run? What implication does this have for the future of education? Is this good or bad?

Is it fair to deprive children of learning through these communities if some may cross certain legal boundaries but have good intentions?

Who is stronger, the fans or the corporations? Are they stronger in different respects, i.e. legal power, numbers, money, etc? Who has the greatest power to win? How do you foresee the struggle between consumers and producers playing out in the future?

Links to pictures:

http://www.bellasbookshelves.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/kids-reading-hp.jpg

http://somethingaboutengland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/darth-vader-reading-harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.stylelist.com/blog/media/2008/10/star-wars-yoda-pet-costume,-$18.99-buycostumes.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/GeorgeLucasInLove.jpg

Readings for 9/8/11: Transmedia franchises: Marketing, entertainment, and creating a whole new world

Source:

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.

Excerpts:

Chapter 2:  “Buying into American Idol: How we are being sold on reality television”

Chapter 3: “Searching for the origami unicorn: The Matrix and transmedia storytelling”

Overview & Synthesis:

Chapter 2:

            In chapter two, Jenkins uses the American Idol series as a platform to explain the relationship dynamics between producer, consumer, and marketer in television and as a way to demonstrate the power of old and new media intersection. As media are converging, so are networks and sponsors who are joining forces in an attempt to combine entertainment and marketing.

            According to Jenkins, the public is becoming increasingly more difficult to impress in the convergence era due to the proliferation of media options and the creation of new technologies that change viewing practices, such as the DVR. In order to combat these challenges, he presents alternatives such as extending brands across multiple distribution outlets and product placement in entertainment as ways to respond to new media and convergence. Jenkins illustrates reality television as a marketing opportunity and uses American Idol as an example of a transmedia franchise that appeals to a variety of sources such as networks, advertisers, and consumers. The viewing and subsequent discussion of American Idol has been known to be a social experience containing many interactions. It can be a shared ritual with mutual evaluations where each of the participants reinforces others’ affiliation with the show. Jenkins sees this kind of social viewing as the driving force behind brand and content extension.

            Jenkins divides consumers into three separate types of viewer. The zappers, who constantly change channels and have a short attention span, the loyals, who faithfully follow shows that satisfy their interests, and the casuals, who fall somewhere in between. While he points out that no viewer is exclusive to any one category and that loyals are the most valuable to marketers. He uses American Idol as an example of programming that is able to pull in every possible viewer, targeting all three.

Coca-Cola product placement in an episode of American Idol

            In discussing the use of reality television in terms of marketing, he makes several key statements. He points out that due to convergence and the resulting increase in empowerment of consumers, there is a demand for a new approach to connecting with audience. Jenkins (2006) introduces the idea of “affective economics,” which aim to mold desires to shape purchasing decisions by first understanding the emotional context of consumer decision-making. He also presents a “convergence strategy” in which there is greater collaboration between content providers and sponsors. This relates to television because when people are watching a show they care about, they tend to pay more attention to the commercials. By shaping the total entertainment package to include marketing, sponsors are able to expand the variety of interactions with consumers to build a relationship. According to Jenkins, the promise of participation in reality television builds consumers investments in the show, and can lead to great marketing opportunities through emotional capital. However at the same time this is risky since it can also lead to misunderstandings or disappointments. Additionally, he introduces the concept of “inspirational consumers,” who serve as promoters and advocates for a brand, and “lovemarks,” which are more powerful than traditional brands and play on consumers’ emotions. Jenkins also discusses “brand communities” as carrying out necessary functions and providing social structure between consumers and marketers. These tie into the knowledge communities he mentions earlier in the book, but just applied instead to consumer decision-making.

            Despite all the possibilities and opportunities illustrated by the combination of entertainment and marketing, there are still hazards to utilizing this tactic. While Jenkins points out that viewers are more accepting of product placement in reality television than any other genre, he warns that it still poses significant risks. Product placement can either help public perception of a brand or damage its standing, serving as kind of a ‘double-edged sword.’ According to Jenkins, high consumer awareness also brings high consumer scrutiny, running the risk of fan backlash and resentment.

Chapter 3:

            Jenkins uses chapter three to illustrate how entertainment can, or possibly even should, operate in the age of media convergence and collective intelligence by integrating multiple texts across different platforms using The Matrix as an example.

The cover of a video game as part of The Matrix franchise

            He introduces the idea of “transmedia” storytelling, which in other words means telling a story across multiple platforms. For example, this could include film, television, novels, comics, games, and many others. The advantage to using this method to tell a story is that it motivates more consumption from the audience, refreshes a franchise, and even sustains consumer loyalty. Jenkins also discusses “synergistic” storytelling, where there are gaps and excesses in different media and one can only see it as a whole after indulging in various outlets. 

            According to Jenkins, collaborative authorship and co-creation is central to the success of the transmedia story. He describes it as “a vehichle for expanding their potential global market” (Jenkins, 2006, p. 111). However, there are challenges in co-creation. Jenkins points out that in order for this to work, the story needs to be conceived in transmedia from the beginning and integration and coordination must be carefully planned. Co-creators should also be known or have their own sort of cult following to attract more of a potential audience. This way they can also explore their own work and how it intersects with the world of the franchise.

            Jenkins presents the concept of the art of world-making and describes the world of a franchise as a place where artists can experiment and fans can explore. He points out that the world is able to attract three types of consumers: real-time viewers, long-term viewers, and navigational viewers. This is due to the fact that the world can never be fully explored or exhausted and can expand in a variety of directions.

            Jenkins points out that ultimately creators can’t control what an audience takes from transmedia stories. However, through what he calls “additive comprehension,” they can still attempt to shape interpretations. One of the dangers associated with this is divulging too much, running the risk of adding an excess of information and stifling imagination or speculation from consumers.

Questions & Reflections:

Chapter 2:

Jenkins (2006) says that a changed model of consumer behavior is shaping programming and marketing strategies (p. 61). While I agree that consumers do have some influence on what ends up being aired, isn’t it possible that what is aired also plays a role in shaping consumers’ tastes? I see it as sort of a two-way street. Consumers would not have a way to choose their tastes without being exposed to programming first, so wouldn’t they in turn reciprocally influence each other?

In terms of marketing, which is more desirable, the quality of audience engagement or the quantity of viewers? Is it better to invest money behind shows that have high favorability or high ratings? Which viewers should marketers target, the zappers, loyals, or casuals?

Relating to the topic of social interaction and discussion around reality television, Jenkins brings up the idea of collective intelligence. He mentions that some critics argue that the process of consensus formation tends to decrease the diversity of perspectives that any community member encounters and over time this leads to less disagreement about core assumptions (Jenkins, 2006, p. 86). I wanted to relate this to the spiral of silence theory of mass communication that I encountered in my undergraduate studies. This theory basically assumes that a person is less likely to voice their opinion if they feel it in is the minority or separate from the consensus of the majority, and that over time less popular opinions stop being voiced and eventually disappear altogether. My question is then, how do knowledge communities and collective intelligence play into this spiral of silence? Is this a good thing – does it weed out ‘wrong’ opinions or ideas? Or is this bad – does it kill diversity and stifle development in new directions?

Chapter 3:

In reference to The Matrix, Jenkins (2006) speculates that “The sheer abundance of allusions makes it nearly impossible for any given consumer to master the franchise totally” (p.101). However, I wonder if it is possible for knowledge communities master it together through collective intelligence? Is it not the point of working together in these to discover and conquer knowledge? Jenkins (2006) himself says that there is “…more, to be found if the community put its collective mind to work” (p. 102). However, if there is almost an endless amount of information to be discovered, such as suggested by the Wachowski brothers for The Matrix, is this possible? What about in other franchises? What about applying this perspective to other aspects of life?

How difficult is it to coordinate co-creation? The creation of different types of media involves a meticulous process and varied timings. What would it take to be able to co-create a transmedia story properly to ensure its success?

In the chapter, Jenkins (2006) comments “Could any film have matched the fan community’s escalating expectations and expanding interpretations and still have remained accessible to a mass audience? There has to be a breaking point beyond which franchises cannot be stretched…” (p. 131). This causes me to ask, how far can franchises go? As media becomes more converged, can they go further? How do you balance out between the fans and the regular mass audience?

Viewer. Audience member. Participator. Collaborator. Consumer. Producer. All different terms, but all can apply to those who interact with the transmedia story. So what do you call them? They are viewers through watching the films, collaborators and producers by playing the games that help construct the story, and they participators in all aspects. So how should we refer to them?

How does transmedia storytelling play a role in convergence culture? What are its prospects for the future?

Does society need collective intelligence? Could this play a bigger role in the future?

Readings for 9/1/11: An Introduction to Media Convergence and Knowledge Communities

Source:

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.

Excerpts:

Introduction: ““Worship at the Altar of Convergence”: A New Paradigm for Understanding Media Change”

Chapter One: “Spoiling Survivor: The Anatomy of a Knowledge Community”

Overview & Key Points:

            In the introduction, Jenkins (2006) introduces the idea of convergence as the flow of content across multiple media platforms, cooperation between media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences. He then proceeds to explain different aspects of what convergence is, what it isn’t, how this ties in with culture, and what he we cover in the book. Central to the introduction, Jenkins points out several instances where balance is hard to find. A lot lies in the middle with convergence. For example, people disagree whether media is too controlled or not controlled enough, or whether it is corporate driven or consumer driven. While some things are diverging (specialized equipments/technologies), other things are converging (media platforms). And then there is the balance of old media and new media; the continuing use of newspapers and television alongside the relatively newer Internet and Web forums.

            In chapter one, Jenkins uses the case study of Survivor and its online spoiling forums to explain knowledge communities. Jenkins quotes P. Lévy, “No one knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity” (Jenkins, 2006, p.27). This ties knowledge communities into his idea of collective intelligence. If we can’t know everything alone, surely we can know it together. These knowledge communities can work together to seek out new information for the common good and exchange knowledge mutually through discussion, negotiation, and development. However, not everyone comes to a community for the same reason. Overall, the chapter talks about how the traditional assumptions of expertise are breaking down thanks to this more open-ended communication in cyberspace. Jenkins (2006) describes knowledge communities as “central to the process of grassroots convergence” (p. 57).

Synthesis & Reflection:

            A point that I found particularly interesting and was drawn to due to my public relations background was how the advertising industry has been forced to reconsider consumer’s relations to brands. In chapter one, Jenkins discusses the use of message boards as marketing research and the economic value of fan participation. Companies monitor them to get an inside look at the audience and see what would be helpful with marketing. The Web and other various points of contact have become opportunities to promote series and sponsors. Producers have a love-hate relationship with knowledge communities such as the Survivor one. There is a desire to build a community around programs because it is a great corporate strategy to ensure viewer engagement with brands and franchises (Jenkins, 2006). However, at the same time these consumers do not share the same goals and interests with the producers so conflict occurs. 

            Throughout the reading, some of the other points that Jenkins brings up prompted me to think further and ask questions. Here are some of the topics I found particularly intriguing and believe could lead to further discussion:

In the introduction, Jenkins mentions the growing media concentration. How do we keep big outlets from monopolizing the media? Has convergence made it even easier for the media to be controlled by big outlets rather than by people? Has it just expanded the power of big media or has it given us new ways of expression? Do we even care if big outlets control everything?

What is the impact of convergence on culture? Political factors? Popular culture? Economics? How has and how will convergence affect the balance of power? More specifically through cultural shifts in political, economic, social, legal, technological, and other factors?

Jenkins (2006) says “…convergence refers to a process, not an endpoint” (p. 16). Will the phenomenon of convergence ever end? Ever? And how will we know? Will we grow bored of the process? When will we be satisfied – as consumers, producers, creators, etc.? If there is no end, what goals are we really working toward? There has to be something in mind as we go along with this process.

In the introduction, Jenkins (2006) asks “How much participation is too much?” when it comes to convergence (p. 20). When does it become interference? When is it too little and the power becomes too controlled? This ties in directly with the Survivor situation of chapter one.

Continuing with the idea from above, Jenkins discusses how spoilers would hack into resources and track down information on the personal lives of potential Survivor candidates. When it comes to the act of spoiling, where is the line drawn? How far is too far? When does the process that contributes to spoiling become invasion of privacy or stalking? Is this too intrusive or obsessive? On the same token, how much spoiling is too much? When does spoiling become ruining?

How do misconceptions and the introduction of untrue or misleading information play a role in knowledge communities and collective intelligence?

How do knowledge communities play a role in politics and democracy? In the United States? In international relations? How do they contribute to solving civic and social problems?

What is the scale of these knowledge communities? Image a knowledge community containing the whole world, where everyone mutually exchanged knowledge to attempt to benefit the common good. Is this utopia that Lévy mentions possible? Probably not considering the exterior motivations people have to lie and cheat to get ahead. However, how far can we go with them on a scale? Whole towns? Cities, states, countries? Fields of study?

At first when I consider all of this time that the people in these knowledge communities spend on the computer, I think that they must have no life. But in reflecting back on this rash assumption I realize that this IS their life. So I question how these knowledge communities and other areas of collective intelligence are changing relationships and interpersonal communication in our society? There is obviously less face-to-face interaction, as things are increasingly computer mediated. But what is next? How far will this go?