Posts Tagged ‘convergence’

New Media Narrative and Gemini Division (coming soon…)

-

Last Friday, I was lucky enough to be invited to the Gemini Division preview screening and phone conference with executive producer and creator Brent Friedman. After watching the first two episodes (which are now posted on the website), I got a chance to ask Brent some questions about the show’s narrative structure and aesthetic value. More on that later.

Set five minutes into the future, Gemini Division is the story of Anna Diaz (Rosario Dawson), an NYPD undercover cop, who investigates a global conspiracy involving “simulated soldiers.”(kind of like replicants) These SIMs were created to fight in the Iraq war but then mysteriously went AWOL. The Gemini Division is an agency formed to hunt the renegade soldiers and destroy them…before it’s too late. Meanwhile Anna, after discovering her fiancé was not human, becomes caught in the middle of the war.

It is too soon to tell whether Gemini Division will actually be any good. The first two episodes had their highs – seamless product integration, stylized CGI effects, and of course the stunning Rosario Dawson – but also their lows – the cliché creepy-stalking-stranger and some objectionable acting from Justin Hartley. Gemini Division has been labeled the ultimate test of web video because it boasts all the ingredients for success – big time celebrities, high profile advertisers, and a major studio distributor. As NewTeeVee writes, “if a web show like Gemini Division fails, why bother investing in online video at all?”

Yet whether Gemini makes or breaks web video history will not come down to any of aforementioned ingredients, but something far more essential to the final product – the story. Without a compelling story, there is no breakout hit. And Brent is very conscientious of that.

In my next post, I’d like to focus on the Gemini Division’s narrative construction (it may be too early to do so, but I will update as the season moves forwards). Because web video is very much in experimental form, there is no precedent to follow. As a result, the show is a blend of old media and new media, a mixture of narrative ingredients already proven to be effective and new Internet-based elements yet to be mastered. Gemini Division can thus be seen as an amalgamation of narrative devices from a variety of media, including comics, video games, novels, and TV Shows, all of which allow the show to potentially branch out into any of those platforms. For Gemini Division, the web series could be the perfect incubator for a transmedia franchise. But like I say, it all comes down to story.

I’m going on vacation tomorrow so I won’t be able to return to this post for a little while. (Consider this the teaser trailer) Until then, if you want more info on Gemini Division, head over to Prime Time For Change, where Tim provides a nice summary of what went on in the Q&A with Brent.

On a completely different topic, I plan on blogging about this article from the Boston Globe, which I found quite interesting. Bye for now!

Advertisements

Hollywood and Web Video Follow Up

-

Soon after blogging about Hollyood’s potential to have a strong, profitable relationship with web video, I came across Beet TV, a video blog by Andy Plesser. Plesser posts interviews with media executives and clips from various conferences, focusing on the “rapid emergence of online video and its impact on industry and society.” As I browsed through the site, I found many videos which related to my previous arguments.

In the post “Creative Producers will Grab Advertisers with Original Sponsored Videos“, Saul Berman, strategy partner of IBM, discusses a few of the issues surrounding web video monetization. At one point he mentions IBM’s global CEO study, which found that outperforming CEOs have a knack for “disrupting the market before someone else disrupts it for them.” Now, a growing trend in the digital age is that consumers are expecting higher quality content on the web, in terms of production value and level of engagement. That is exactly why I argue Hollywood needs to be more aggressive in the web video marketplace. While the studios have begun experimenting with digital media creatively and economically, in general, they have yet to effectively distinguish their content as superior online entertainment. Here’s the interview:

Berman also talks about a product placement business model, which has become increasingly viable. I’m going to take a look at this in more detail as Gemini Division unfolds, but it seems like a popular approach for producers, advertisers, and consumers, as long as the brand is subtly integrated within the story as a realistic element, not a distraction. Jigar Thakarar of CBS Interactive sees this brand integration as a much more profitable business strategy than offering pre and post roll ads. Here’s his interview from “CBS Sees Sponsored Web Video Programming as Viable Model“:

Because viral videos don’t carry advertisements as they travel through YouTube and other video hosting sites, I can see why product integration would be a practical solution. But it will be interesting to monitor exactly how producers handle a brand’s identity within the context of a story. Will the narrative, mise en scene, and characters always be faithful to the integrity of the show, or will they be heavily adjusted and obscured to land sponsorship? Ultimately, it comes down to finding a balance, but I still wonder if both parties will always be open enough to compromise.

As far as the consumers go, on the one hand nobody wants to feel as though a studio’s production is an excuse to advertise. That perception ruins all credibility. But on the other hand, young adults (ages 18-34) have become trained to avoid and ignore brand messages. So often the best way to reach them is through highly innovative, seamless product placements, allowing a brand to be more easily absorbed. It’s just another example of convergence – branded content and unbranded content merging together. And hopefully, when done correctly, everyone involved will win.

Another interview comes from the Dmitry Shapiro, co-founder of the Internet TV site, veoh.com. Shapiro argues that the future of television is in fact Internet TV. Using veoh as a “virtual digital video recorder,” viewers can consume Internet TV as they do broadcast TV, sitting back on the couch eating potato chips. Take a look:

Shapiro contends that users can get the same experience from Internet TV as they do with broadcast TV. However, unlike TV programs, web shows typically do not enable viewers to sit back, relax, and watch. They are designed to be seen on the fly, as a daily installment. But what if they were both? If there is one complaint I had with Afterworld, it’s that I was not able to plow through the episodes quickly and easily, since every 3 minutes I had to select the next video. Given the show’s twists and turns, I wanted the option of getting comfortable and sinking into the story. It may sound ridiculously lazy, but returning to my computer so often detracted from my suspension of disbelief and the overall immersive experience. (Not to mention the annoyance of hearing, “My name is Russel Shoemaker, I sold technology to the world..” for 130 episodes.)

Web shows do need to be short in length, no doubt about that. For many people, after about four minutes, streaming quality diminishes and their attention dwindles. But I’m a viewer who wants to watch the story as a “couch potato.” That’s why I think it’d be useful to fuse 10 episodes or so together in a half an hour format so that I can have more options: watch it on the go or on the couch. In this way, web shows could function as a medium independent of TV (in terms of style, format, and distribution) but also function, courtesy of Shapiro’s veoh application, as an extension of TV, as Internet TV.

To date, there has not been a breakout mega hit in original web programming. Web content still only appeals to fragmented audiences and studio executives still worry web content will cannibalize their audiences and revenue. Perhaps those problems will be mitigated when more consumers watch Internet video on their 42 inch flat screen TV in addition to their iPods. The bottom line is this though: Hollywood should not be complacent and wait for the future – they must disrupt it before someone else disrupts it for them.

Chapter 2: Advantages and Challenges in the Business of Transmedia Storytelling

-

Transmedia storytelling is such a new concept; neither a concrete economic model nor an artistic model exists yet. This is both exciting and terrifying for entertainment franchises. The emergence of new technologies and new consumers has created a market primed for cross-media stories, but how to exploit these opportunities continues to be a question, one that the entertainment industry has yet to answer. Transmedia storytelling is a high-risk, high reward business. Many media companies simply cannot afford the risks involved with launching such a demanding campaign, both economically and creatively. But those who do break free of traditional business constraints, armed with an idea for a compelling world and a manner in which to present it, are often rewarded with a long lasting, flourishing franchise.

1.) Advantage: The domination of mainstream media outlets by corporate conglomerates makes maintaining a crossover market relatively easy. Through media consolidation and synergy, entertainment franchises have become increasingly marketable and sustainable. Large companies can attract diverse audiences into their franchise through various entry points – films, magazines, TV shows, news programs – and continue to barrage them with content in virtually every other medium. But rather than using this power for promotional purposes, why not encourage ‘hunting and gathering’ by distributing original content across platforms? That way, the ancillary content would not only promote the primary property, (film or TV show) but it would add depth to it as well. Fans are less willing to dismiss ostensible marketing content if they know viewing or interacting with it will add to their experience of the world. In short, the horizontal integration of the media lends itself to producing transmedia stories.

1.) Disadvantage: It is extremely difficult to coordinate and collaborate with individual sectors of a media conglomerate. Rather than working together to form a unified story, the major TV networks and movie studios place limits on what other media sectors can create. These constraints often do not take advantage of the capabilities a particular media form can offer. As Jenkins describes:

Even within the media conglomerates, units compete aggressively rather than collaborate.
Each industry sector has specialized talent, but the conglomerates lack a common language or vision to unify them. The current structure is hierarchical: film units set licensing limits on what can be done in games based on their properties. At the same time, film producers don’t know the game market very well or respect those genre elements which made something like Tomb Raider successful. We need a new model for co-creation-rather than adaptation-of content that crosses media. (Technology Review, January 2003)

Jenkins summarizes this nicely on his blog:

Most media franchises, however, are governed not by co-creation (which involves conceiving the property in transmedia terms from the outset) but rather licensing (where the story originates in one media and subsequent media remain subordinate to the original master text.)

It seems like media conglomerates don’t realize that a movie plot is not going to work well in a videogame. Each medium is designed to tell a certain kind of story. Using co-creation, each media sector can discuss what their medium’s strengths can do for a story rather than awkwardly fitting the story within the medium.

2.) Advantage: Transmedia stories cater to fragmented audiences, increasing the chance advertisers will reach their target consumer. Because loyals are willing to spend the time, money, and energy to investigate all kinds of media produced by one franchise, rather than casually explore many, advertisers increase the chance that they will reach their specific, target audience. For example, superhero merchandise can be advertised on the Incredible Hulk online comic. Or sports ads can be displayed before Friday Night Lights. Rather than pay 100,000 for a 30 second spot, advertisers can penetrate small interest communities. Thus, transmedia storytelling creates avenues for advertisers to increase control over who sees their commercials.

Of course, as a result of the fragmented audiences and the Internet, competitions arise not only between mediums but across mediums. NBC is not only competing against ABC for eyeballs but Google and YouTube as well. (Television 2.0: Reconceptualizing TV as an Engagement Medium (pdf) Askwith)

3.) Advantage: Transmedia stories offers different entry points, expanding the potential market. One type of niche audience may be willing to experiment with a different type of medium because it involves their favorite character or story. A Lost fan, for example, who would otherwise never be caught playing an alternate reality game (ARG), might decide to try out The Lost Experience because the game promises to answer some of the show’s mysteries. Cross platform franchises have great power to draw fans out of their typical media ‘comfort zones.’ In doing so, “if each work offers fresh experiences, then a crossover market will expand the potential gross within any individual media.” (Jenkins, Technology Review)

2.) Disadvantage: While entry points may entice a range of consumers, they also provide many points to push consumers away. If one text does not fit with the others or if it is just bad, it may be enough to turn many people away. Especially for transmedia campaigns designed from the outset, one mistake (a redundant or inconsistent text) can lose massive fan support. A bad movie may be endurable, but a bad transmedia story is a nightmare.

3.) Disadvantage: A.) With so many creators of content, it’s hard to understand the entire dynamic of a franchise. Creating a time frame for each touch point of a property becomes problematic since TV shows, movies, and videogames have such different production and distribution models. For example, producers must carefully plan when the video game will be released: either before, during, or after a movie’s time in theaters. Designing transmedia stories around television shows is even more dangerous, since the lifespan of a show is so unpredictable.

B.) With so many creators of content, it’s hard for fans to understand the dynamic of a franchise. Understanding a franchise is not only difficult for the producers, it’s hard for the fans as well. How can they distinguish between content that is canon with the franchise and content that is fan fiction? It is awfully difficult to keep track of what stories are official within a world and which aren’t, especially with all the inconsistencies out there. (Think Batman. How do the animated cartoons fit within the world vs. Christopher’s Nolan’s interpretation?)

Geoffrey Long, in his MIT thesis Transmedia Storytelling: Business, Aesthetics, and Production at the Jim Henson Company (pdf), proposes that there be a “Hub” which allows people to download and organize various aspects of the transmedia world, all in one place:

An official website would provide consumers with tools with which to track each component in the franchise…there would be software which digitally manages how each extension relates to every other extension, and where each one fits into the larger story world. (143)

He continues: Being able to download even the most obscure content quickly not only removes the stigma that is often attached with comic shops (giving people anonymity), but also opens up rural markets that might not be able to get that content from a local store and facilitates impulse purchases that trade on the instant gratification principle. (146)”

It may seem that having a central website is anti-thetical to the consumers’ desire to hunt and gather story information. Perhaps, there is some truth to that. Some people want that sense of discovery, as many ARG players do. They don’t want all the content to be placed in their lap. Nevertheless, I think Long’s Hub idea would work well for most consumers who want to work for their story information, but not work so hard they might miss out on crucial story information. Such a development would certainly fit well within the digital age.

4.) Disadvantage: “What counts the most is what can be counted.” – Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture.. As I have previously mentioned, executives who resist transmedia storytelling point to the lack of a consistent and dependable business model. How do you monetize a property with so many touch points? The complexity involved with formulating a transmedia experience makes dividing return of investment (ROI) difficult. How do you decide who deserves the credit for a franchise’s popularity when the content is all so interconnected?

In addition, no one knows what constitutes a successful transmedia project. Is it purely generated income? Is it fan enthusiasm? How do we know what works and what doesn’t?

4.) Advantage: Expanding platform for content also brings in a larger global audience. The Internet allows for people abroad to stay connected to their favorite TV shows, movies, and videogames.

5.) Disadvantage: A.) It is difficult to create a world suitable for transmedia storytelling. As I mentioned before, not every story can be transmediated. There is no artistic model in how to create a world, one that consumers will engage with. There must be a sufficient amount of open-endedness, however. Long draws on literary theorist Roland Barthes to describe the intertextual bonds between extensions. (I will provide definitions in italics)

In transmedia narratives, the key is to leave a number of the hermeneutic codes (elements in a text that introduce, further, and conclude mysterious elements running throughout the text) unresolved to serve as potential migratory cues (signals towards another narrative path in another medium) , relying upon the audience’s capacity for negative capability(gaps in the story to generate mystery and imagination), to fill in the gaps until an extension actualizes one or more migratory cues. (67)

By using these devices which invoke mystery, a transmedia story has many narrative options, many potential story lines. These stories can either be developed after a successful TV show or film (Long calls this soft transmedia) or planned out before the release of the central media text (hard transmedia). Hard transmedia often has more consistency but soft transmedia is less risky because it does not depend on the success of the primary media text.

B.) Balancing between hard core fans and casual fans is a daunting task. Transmedia storytelling has the potential to appeal to both, but it is not easy. The primary media has to stand on its own while simultaneously allowing for migratory cues, negative capability, and hermeneutic codes. The story must include enough for casual fans to understand but mysterious enough for loyal fans to want to know more. This is indeed a tricky balance.

5.) Advantage: Transmedia storytelling facilitates collective intelligence and enhances fan involvement. Because it inherently leaves gaps in the world, fans actively seek other forms of media to fill them in. They work together to solve mysteries and no one fan knows enough that he/she does not need to discuss their findings with others. I discuss the behaviors of these new kinds of consumers in Chapter 1.

As I will discuss in future posts, a transmedia story must incorporate certain aesthetic and logistical elements to be effective. I have touched on the basic advantages and disadvantages of transmedia storytelling but it is by no means all encompassing. If I think of any major ones, I’ll edit this post. All and all, one thing is clear: it is an exciting time to see transmedia storytelling develop in the digital age.

Transforming the TV and Film Industry in the Digital Age

-

In today’s technologically savvy world, the role of the media consumer is evolving. The availability, mobility, and practicality of media convergence have enabled infinite possibilities in consuming media. No longer is it realistic for the media industry to deliver content through one medium and expect mass audiences to passively consume it. Instead, media executives must cater to a different kind of audience, one that has fragmented into millions of smaller interest communities and one that will not be satisfied in merely consuming, but also producing, sharing, and interacting as well. According to media scholar Henry Jenkins in the MIT Technology Review, “younger consumers have become information hunters and gatherers, taking pleasure in tracking down character backgrounds and plot points and making connections between different texts within the same franchise.” However, despite the strong economic incentives to embrace this “consumer 2.0,” many media companies remain hesitant to launch franchises reliant on transmedia storytelling. Certainly, the lack of a consistent and dependable business model makes constructing and executing a multiplatform story risky. But as long as media companies cling to old production and distribution practices, they will never reap the benefits from delivering more complex, interconnected narratives across multiple media to consumers who demand more involved, engaging experiences.

In this paper, I begin by explaining why the television and film businesses need to transform their business model to adapt new technologies and new consumers. I then argue that transmedia storytelling, when done correctly, successfully fulfills this need and promises many economic advantages. However, while a transmedia story franchise has potential to be highly lucrative, I recognize there are economic and creative challenges that remain problematic. I conclude by exploring what the entertainment industry can do to overcome these obstacles and benefit from everything that transmedia storytelling has to offer.

Chapter 1: Harnessing the technology and the consumer

-

Undoubtedly, all of the entertainment industries—dance, theatre, gaming, comic books etc—have had to adjust to technological and cultural convergence. The music industry’s decline exemplifies the power of such phenomena. But the television and film industries, though primed to fully transition into the digital age, have neglected to make the quantum leap for two reasons. First, media executives have viewed the development of new technologies as threats to the industry, rather than gateways for new possibilities. And second, the television and film business traditionally expects the consumption of their content to be passive and non participatory, an assumption which sharply contrasts the socially connected, collectively intelligent, and increasingly empowered audience of today. In this chapter, I apply these criticisms to both the television and film industry.

Within the last ten years, the shift towards digital video, compounded with the proliferation of personal computers, iPods, and mobile phones, has allowed viewers greater autonomy in deciding when, where, and how they want to view their favorite TV shows and movies. A scary thought for television executives. No longer can advertisers be assured that consumers are up-holding their end of a long standing transaction. As Ivan Askwith describes in his MIT Master’s thesis Television 2.0: Reconceptualizing TV as an Engagement Medium:

At its core, the television business has always served as broker in an unspoken, but well understood, transaction between viewers and advertisers, wherein the advertiser provides free television programming, and the viewer agrees to watch commercials. Over time, the models have become more sophisticated, of course (leading to the development of Nielsen ratings, audience shares, viewer demographics, and so on) but this implicit contract has remained at the heart of the television business…Executives, advertisers, and audiences alike are beginning to realize that the conditions that once made this contract possible have all but collapsed. (Askwith, 14)

Askwith re-examines the term television itself ; as shows flow through a range of channels and devices, one must wonder whether we can still categorize an episode of The Office on an iPod as a ‘TV show’ in the traditional sense. With many network executives calling themselves not television producers, but content producers, it seems the television industry is adjusting and even embracing multiplatform technology. Well, partly.

The accessibility of the internet and its high speed, wireless connection has enabled consumers to stream and download content illegally at their leisure. Pirating and illegal DVD burning continues to be a huge concern. And of course, the television industry must contend with the dreaded digital video recorders (DVR). Not only can consumers easily acquire free content, but they can also store TV shows and films for subsequent viewings while dodging advertisements completely. Sounds like the apocalypse for the entertainment industry, doesn’t it? But just as television survived the VCR, so too has it endured DVRs. Jason Mittell discusses the effect of such new technology in his essay, “Narrative Complexity in Contemporary American Television:”

Using the new technologies of home recording, DVDs, and online participation, viewers have taken an active role in consuming narratively complex television…audiences tend to embrace complex programs in much more passionate and committed terms than most conventional television. (32)

To adapt to television as an active medium, franchises like Heroes and Lost encourage fans to seek, collect, and aggregate character and plot information through multiple media platforms. No longer do TV shows have to rely on re-runs and DVD sales for newcomers to catch up. Instead, time shifting technologies allow fans to fill in narrative gaps at their leisure. Beyond that, hard core fans make full use of their DVR or high speed Internet connection by scrutinizing shots lasting only seconds and re-watching crucial scenes. Nothing goes unnoticed. So while new technologies make it easier to tell serialized stories, the need to maintain a consistent narrative becomes all the more important.

To say the television industry has not adjusted to the digital age would be inaccurate: television companies have given consumers access to content via network homepages or iTunes, where they can download shows and movies legally. But rather than competing against DVRs and online downloads to persuade viewers to watch their TV programming in ‘real time’, why not embrace these technologies, utilize them as tools for consumers to explore more complex narratives and share their discoveries with fan communities? Henry Jenkins writes in Convergence Culture:

Right now, people are learning how to participate in such knowledge cultures outsides of any formal educational setting…the emergence of these knowledge courses partially reflects the demands these texts place on consumers (the complexity of transmedia entertainment, for example), but they also reflect the demands consumers place on media (the hunger for complexity, the need for community, the desire to re-write core stories).

Thus, while the framework exists for the television industry to escape their restrictive business model, the industry must experiment further by producing and distributing content which facilitates consumer ‘hunting and gathering.”

Another part of the problem is that networks rely so heavily on quantifying engagement and commoditizing it through one dimensional measurements (i.e. Nielsen ratings), that they fail to recognize the need for a new conceptual model, one more suitable for the multiplatform media environment. As Askwith writes,

The problem is that the industry is attempting to understand, define and express a new concept (viewer engagement) primarily – and in many cases, exclusively – in terms of its ability to preserve an old end (the advertiser-supported model of television). Engagement is not a process that happens in front of a television set. Nor is it a simple description of how a viewer watches television, or feels when watching television. Instead, engagement describes the larger system of material, emotional, intellectual, social and psychological investments a viewer forms through their interactions with the expanded television text. (153-154)

But with the traditional advertiser supported business model, the television industry fails to understand and take into account all of Askwith’s five logics of engagement: entertainment, social connection, mastery, immersion, and identification. Instead, it utilizes misleading definitions for engagement, such as the oversimplified Nielsen Ratings and the inconsistent Ad*VIZR New Media Audit, to determine whether a show is popular or not. Askwith concludes, and I agree, that the industry has largely viewed extensions of television as a means to promote a program’s scheduled broadcast, thus preserving the “old” business model, rather than regarding expanded content as an opportunity to generate new forms of engagement.

The Film Industry

While not as conspicuously in need of a new business model, the film industry certainly has room for improvement. Upon glancing at the MPAA 2007 Entertainment Industry Statistics, it may appear that 2007 was a historic year. After all, the domestic box office grossed a record 9.63 billion dollars. Twenty eight movies made 100 million dollars or over and four posted over 300 million. Yet when the report is examined more closely, other statistics jump out. Ticket prices increased 5% and there was no change in the amount of tickets sold from last year (1.4 billion). Thus, the record setting figures at the box office were not a product of more movie goers, but more expensive tickets. Not only that, it now costs an average of 107 million dollars for a major studio to produce and promote a movie in theaters, a record high. While I understand theater exhibitions are just one line of revenue for a studio, that is a lot of money to pay for a movie no one wants to dish out ten dollars to see.

Certainly I am not proposing that the film industry needs to lower its ticket prices, minimize production costs, or even make better movies. The studios are money bloodhounds. They know how to generate profit off their blockbusters at every level of traditional distribution (theatrical, home video, TV) and at every possible stream of revenue (including merchandise, videogames, book). In this digital age however, the industry has yet to maximize the power of the web community. Many, if not all, blockbusters today are an extension of a franchise with an existing, passionate fan base. (superheroes and children’s books.) I contend that movie studios can do more to produce online content which would generate excitement from die hard fans as well as provide entry points to those who may not be familiar with the story. Thus, just like television, the film industry must adapt to consumers who engage with content in very complex, different ways.

The MPAA Entertainment Report in 2007 revealed the enormous influence of the Internet on movie going:

A forthcoming study conducted by the MPAA and Yahoo! found that 73% of U.S. moviegoers use the Internet to conduct research before going to the theater. Also, moviegoers who research online are more likely to see a movie on opening weekend, go to the theater more often, and see some movies more than once in the theater. (9)

The report provides compelling evidence that the Internet is the primary source for determining whether or not to see a movie. Yet studios have responded half-heartedly, allocating only 4.4% of the ad dollars to Internet marketing. That is too small of a percentage considering that the average person spends more time on the Internet than any other medium, with the exception of TV. (24) This is especially true for people under 30, who are the movie industry’s target audience.

Of course, it would be easy if the film industry just had to pour more money into online advertising. The real problem is that they are funding marketing campaigns which are overly dependent on traditional advertising tactics. Studios toss movie posters and banners on popular websites while sometimes forcing users to watch a trailer before an online video. These display and pre-roll advertisements are too similar to offline forms of advertising (print, TV), which consumers already find annoying. The difference on the web however, is that users have more choices than any other medium and they exhibit little patience for anything that takes away from their desired content. An article from BBC in May, 2008 reported web users to be exceptionally task driven:

Now, when people go online they know what they want and how to do it, [Jakob Nielsen] said.

This makes them very resistant to highlighted promotions or other editorial choices that try to distract them.

“Web users have always been ruthless and now are even more so,” said Dr. Nielsen.

“People want sites to get to the point, they have very little patience.”

As with any marketing campaign, a studio’s goal is to generate word of mouth so that people voluntarily spread awareness of their brand. But unlike the one way street of the old business model, which relied on studios bombarding consumers with advertisements in traditional media, today, a successful viral marketing campaign can best be initialized and sustained via online social communities. Through online social networks, blogs, email, video hosting sites, virtual worlds and many other web related technologies, connecting to an online community is not only incredibly easy, it’s practically unavoidable. These social media make it possible for word of mouth to extend across a local and global platform, where fans can voice their excitement about a brand in public arenas and formulate discussions with total strangers.

Accordingly, to spark ‘word of mouse’, studios have recently realized that their web presence must consist of more than a simple poster, trailer, and website. Such advertisements do not take advantage of today’s active, technologically savvy, information-hungry consumer. Similar to Askwith’s criticism of the television industry, the film industry must improve their understanding of our convergence culture and the new ways in which consumers engage with media.

It is not enough for a studio to produce new media content. Branded content that fails to be compelling will quickly be written off as a contrived marketing ploy. I will tackle what makes a transmedia campaign a success or a failure later, but in general, it is safe to say that there needs to be a sense of discovery for the consumer, either to expand the movie’s fictional world or to reveal a hidden part of it. The content must leave people wanting more so that they search for other branded content, rather than the other way around. Effective viral marketing can only occur when a studio trusts their fanbase to do the marketing for them and generate hype themselves. If studios can provide intriguing content, then fans will gladly discuss, theorize, and report their findings with their online communities, thus forming a word of mouth tidal wave.

Chris Thilk, on his blog Movie Marketing Madness, comments on the remarks of David Kosse, President of Universal Pictures Interntion. While he commends the executive’s instinct to embrace audiences with online tools, he asserts that Kosse is going about it in the wrong way:

Kosse mentions the MySpace site for Knocked Up and a YouTube clip of Rowan Atkinson for Mr. Bean’s Holiday as two ways the studio engaged in a “two-way dialogue” with the audience.

Except that those aren’t really conversational executions. You can tell because while the visitor and viewer can leave comments and “friend” the page or add the clip as a favorite, there’s no reciprocal communication. The studio talks to the audience, the audience has a mechanism to respond and the conversation ends.

That’s not an engaging conversation, that’s call-and-response.

Thilk’s remarks highlight the way marketing has changed in the digital age. The power has shifted from the studios telling consumers what movies they should see to audiences deciding on their own. Imagine if you could communicate with a character of a movie on AIM or Facebook? Or if studios encouraged user generated content and contests for best trailer remix or fan video instead of sending ‘cease and desist’ orders for such work? Studios must engage in an online dialogue to give fans a reason to blog, email, and chat. They must become part of the community.

Perhaps I have gone too far. Communicating directly with fans may be too big a step for movie studios…but upholding their end of the conversation by providing valuable story information is not. To accomplish this, many movies entice fans by blurring the real world and the fictional world. Take for instance, Christopher Nolan’s upcoming Dark Knight. Transmedial content includes the WhySoSerious alternate reality game, The Gotham Times, and the Gotham Cable News. These marketing devices are completely consistent with the film’s realistic and dark tone. The content not only includes the real actors from the movie and sets up the core themes, but it also invites potential movie goers to discover background story information leading directly up to the film’s explosive beginning. In this way, consumers become immersed in Batman’s world; they experience his adventures as a citizen of Gotham City, rather than as passive observers of a fictional place.

Thus, to adapt to the digital age, studios must find a way to reciprocate their side of conversation and provide content which tells the consumer that their efforts to enter a fictional world will be rewarded with valuable background story information or character development. When studios do launch online campaigns, they either become too dependent on old marketing strategies or their new media content is unoriginal and tonally inconsistent, limiting consumer enthusiasm.

Chapter 2: “The Economic Advantages of Transmedia” coming soon…

Introducing Asmedia

-

Welcome to Asmedia, a blog about new technologies, the entertainment industry, and our changing culture in this digital age. While I plan to write about a broad range of media topics, I’ll mostly focus on a specific interest of mine: transmedia storytelling.

When I say transmedia storytelling (aka multiplatform, cross-media, or enhanced storytelling), I’m referring to what Henry Jenkins calls in Convergence Culture, “a story which unfolds across multiple media platforms, with each new text making a distinctive and valuable contribution to the whole.” (96)

I’ll elaborate extensively on this definition, but that is the basic idea. Next spring, I’ll be analyzing this type of storytelling when I officially begin work on my honors thesis. Rather than writing a critical essay however, I plan on creating my own multiplatform narrative. Thus, this blog primarily acts as a virtual workspace where I can present my ongoing research, as well as formulate, discuss, and develop creative ideas for the project.

Secondly, digital media and storytelling have always been a passion of mine. It’s about time I launched an academic blog where I can write informally and formally about narratives across media and connect with people who share that interest. So stay tuned….