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?
No comments:
Post a Comment