Note: you should read Andrea Phillips’ post on this topic
before reading my response below, and be sure to check out
Carrie Young’s expanded thoughts on the topic!
Earlier this year at the StoryWorld Conference, Andrea Phillips approached me and proclaimed, “You know, I really, really, really hate the term, ‘value co-creation!'” It was not the first time a female had approached me unsolicited and delivered a scathing remark, but it was the first time anyone had directly attacked this phrase.
A phrase I’ve taken to use a lot in the last two years (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
I know Andrea and her work. I like her, and I respect her creative instincts. Hearing her trash a term I’ve embraced and promoted for two years was a bit of a shock. Bruised my ego a bit, even. Why did she hate the phrase so much?
I replied, “Well, you know, I’m really, really, really going to keep using it, but I’d love to know why you think I shouldn’t!”
We had a quick chat about our different opinions on the term but ran out of time. Then I suggested we take the conversation to the streets (and by streets, I mean the Interwebz), as I thought it would actually be a constructive experience worth sharing with others. Might even encourage other creatives to weigh in.
As I told Andrea, I’m working with the best models and vocabulary I can, and I’ve spent a long time searching for the just the right phrase and just the right words (as proof of how far I’ve come I submit the following abandoned phrases: “renewable entertainment properties,” “collaborative property model,” and “evergreen entertainment models”). I don’t claim “value co-creation” is ideal in every case, but it’s the best I’ve come across so far.
Andrea was kind enough to take up my challenge, and she wrote an eloquent, thoughtful post about her objections to the term.
I still disagree with her conclusions, but she raises valid points about the issues surrounding frameworks where fans, UGC, and money mix. In fact, I acknowledged this thorny situation in a post earlier this year at Shared Story Worlds.
So where, precisely, do we disagree?
Andrea’s post takes aim at two things. The first is the phrase, “value co-creation,” and the second is the question of whether you can allow fans to profit from their UGC without creating an unpleasant community culture.
First, the phrase.
Andrea says value co-creation “glosses over what it actually is, and worse…misleadingly implies an equitable balance of power where there is none.” She suggests either of the following as better alternatives:
- Fan-curated profit-sharing
- Creator-curated audience collaboration
I disagree that the first option accurately describes what I mean when I say “value co-creation,” as it implies fans are doing all of the curation, which is not the case. Furthermore, it explicitly includes the phrase profit-sharing, which is not a requirement for all value co-creation scenarios (some do not involve money changing hands or are non-commercial – see my post here).
I reject the second one because it’s clunky and not much more accurate. As I read it, “creator-curated audience collaboration” doesn’t explain the role the creative has, and it doesn’t differentiate whether the audience is collaborating together or with the creative. Besides, others have been using value co-creation for a while (C.K. Prahalad wrote an entire book on the topic), and it nicely conveys what I mean when I use the term. I could have called it “super awesome audience play time” and defined it how I preferred, but I thought it best to build on an existing term.
As for value co-creation implying an equitable balance of power, well, that’s Andrea’s opinion, not an objective fact.
“Co” doesn’t mean or imply “equal.” Together, jointly, mutually – yes. But it doesn’t imply equal (if it did, why would we need the word “coequal?”).
I still don’t see a compelling case to abandon “value co-creation,” though Andrea is making me aware that I maybe haven’t done a good job of defining the phrase.
Fans are perfectly capable and willing of co-creating value. They already have the power to do so, and they exercise it every day. Each fanfic story, each fan art piece on Deviantart.com, each mashup, video, etc. based on someone else’s IP *is* value co-creation, whether the intellectual property (IP) owners acknowledges it or not.
Said actions do not, however, translate to commercial rights (ever had your YouTube-hosted video remix taken down via a DMCA notice?).
I see the concept of value co-creation as recognition that fans can create things of value based on others’ IP. The shared story world model I advocate builds a bridge between fans and IP owners, with value co-creation being a cornerstone of that model. It acknowledges the critical role fans play in commercial entertainment, and it offers a non-traditional way for fans to contribute to commercial entertainment (by recognizing certain UGC as official/canonical work and/or monetarily compensating fans for their UGC).
But we can quibble over terminology ad nauseum. Vocabulary alone is rarely the final stumbling block, and it isn’t Andrea’s underlying contention.
Andrea’s post reveals her true concern to be this: introducing a framework where fans can make money from someone else’s commercial IP and where the IP owner retains full commercial control over the IP will automatically result in an “unpleasant community culture” that becomes “toxic to the fan culture overall” (the implication being this kind of culture will have a fatal effect on the success of the IP).
Andrea then offers two solutions to avoid this situation: (1) never invite fans to contribute, but if you do select UGC for inclusion, do not pay fans for it; and (2) remove the IP owner as commercial gatekeeper (essentially stripping the owner of all rights to limit others’ commercial exploitation of the IP).
I agree with Andrea that these two options would limit what she calls “a community of freelancers all doing spec work in direct competition with one another.”
I disagree with her view that value co-creation models where fans are paid for their work (i.e., commercial shared story worlds) automatically create a toxic community which will necessarily lead to the failure of the IP.
Could it happen? Sure, just ask the people behind Fanlib’s spectacular demise. It’s sooooo easy to screw over your fanbase and reap the rewards of eternal derision and mistrust. So easy.
But not inevitable.
The kind of train wreck Andrea warns about isn’t a foregone conclusion due to some inherent flaw in the value co-creation concept for commercial shared story worlds. I just haven’t seen that to be the case. In fact, with the exception of Fanlib, I haven’t seen a fractured fan community destroy a value co-creation entertainment IP (and Fanlib’s failure is arguably a result of their disrespectful and tasteless handling of their target audience).
Andrea applauds the co-creation concept but hates the idea of seeing it fail due to terminology. I fear failure, too, though I suspect it takes a very different form.
Failure of value co-creation in a shared story world model is more likely to be a result of poor execution (mediocre storytelling, bad world design, ineffective marketing, missing legal components, etc.) or inappropriate community outreach. To paraphrase Whitman, “fandom is large, fandom contains multitudes.” Creatives should, indeed, tread lightly when dealing with large multitudes.
I guess my glasses are a bit rosier than Andrea’s when it comes to value co-creation and shared story worlds. I see shared story worlds surfacing in increasing frequency over the next few years, and no single phrase or injection of money into the mix is going to stem this tide. My optimism is buoyed by new projects like Angry Robot Books’ Worldbuilder project, where fans will be compensated for their creations.
How did the fans react to this news? Well, if the comments are any indication, the fans find the concept anything but toxic.
And notice how Angry Robot doesn’t mention shared story worlds or value co-creation? They don’t label it at all, actually. Just like when a new ARG is launched, it’s not plastered or marketed as an ARG? The people playing in these spaces don’t care that the rabbit hole they fell in to is an ARG any more than fans care about whether their favorite transmedia property is explicitly marketed as a “transmedia” experience. They just want to have fun.
We can have the internal debate over value co-creation just like we’ve been having for transmedia (and hasn’t that turned out wonderfully?), but our efforts really ought to be channeled towards creating cool, fun experiences for audiences. I doubt Andrea would disagree on that point.
So, yeah, I’m damn optimistic on value co-creation and shared story worlds. Color this typing monkey very optimistic, indeed.
I’m not saying such a train wreck is inevitable — but that’s it’s possible. The blanket term (as I understand it, in creating pathways for fanon to become canon) can’t differentiate between structures where fans create works out of love and are sometimes rewarded for it, from structures where an IP owner has an explicit RFP and payscale published, and shared-world experiments where the whole is a fabrication of combined efforts from the get-go.
It’s inadequately specific in a way that can let the great stuff and the exploitative stuff get lumped together. That’s what makes me uneasy.
Also, I would argue that ‘coequal’ shouldn’t be a word. Other nonwords: ‘utilize,’ ‘orientate.’
I’m still not following your logic, so please help this monkey connect the dots.
What do you mean by “exploitative stuff?” What’s getting lumped together – great and exploitative stuff in a shared story world or great and exploitative shared story worlds under the value co-creation umbrella?
The danger I see in shared story worlds – from an exploited viewpoint – has nothing to do with fan motivation or compensation. It’s actually shady creatives who are opaque about the rights fans have with the IP and their fan works. But again, that’s got nothing to do with the phrase “value co-creation” or the shared story world model itself. That’s a reflection of the creative behind it.
Every day, bad books, movies, TV shows, and games get made. That hasn’t caused these words to fall out of favor or made us question the process that generates these mediums and content.
Your approach feels like throwing out the baby with the bath water based on a belief that a bad fan community situation *may* arise. But I may not be understanding your logic at all or misunderstanding you – I’ve been known to assume the mental density of granite.
We’re 100% in lockstep about the potential pitfalls, but we’re definitely drawing different conclusions about the impact of those pitfalls (and, I would argue, I’m worried much more about a very different set of failure points than the ones you’re raising).
And I’m not defending coequal, by the way – just pointing out that it’s a word in the dictionary. : )
The exploitative stuff I’m talking about is the same as with bad crowdsourcing (see http://www.deusexmachinatio.com/blog/2011/7/5/crowdsourcing-gone-wrong.html). I am in general unenthusiastic about spec work — that is, asking creators to spend time and effort on something that could not legally be sold to another market on the off chance that they MIGHT be paid for it. I get skeeved out by “You might make money” becoming the flagship incentive to participate in a fandom, basically.
That’s a substantially different dynamic from ex. Star Wars Remix, where there’s a gatekeeper (though how much gatekeeping you do I couldn’t say) but no promises of payment, canon status, fame or fortune exist. It’s also a substantially different dynamic from Gallidon, where there’s no transfer of ownership and the artist is free to exploit their own work however they see fit. So… I know it’s not what you’re doing, not what you’re advocating, not what you’re describing. This isn’t about *you.* ^_^
But at the same time, if we’re using “value co-creation” to mean “methods where fans can get paid for fanworks,” that means it does cover stuff like my hypothetical exploitative case. And — I recognize this is catastrophizing, here, but just for my point — I can too-easily see a big IP owner (or their lawyers) seeing the term and making that exploitative structure, where you can submit stuff and maybe get paid, but they’ll prosecute the hell out of you if you don’t go through proper channels or if you’re rejected and post it someplace anyway. I think you’d agree this would be short-sighted, but that’s legal departments for you…
Anyway, that’s the crux of my argument. The actual descriptor implies two or more parties creating something of value to both parties. But it’s being used to describe a practice where that might not always be the case. I’d prefer the nebulous term to be phased out, in favor of one that actually lays bare who’s getting what value out of the deal.
Hmmm. We might be more in agreement than you suspect.
I’m going to make a statement below that will likely come back to haunt me later. But first, I need to be clearer than I have been about the phrase, “value co-creation” (I tried to elaborate on it in the post above, but I need to take another swing at it).
I use value co-creation to refer to what fans are already doing – what you generally think of when you hear the word, “fandom.”
The philosophy behind that phrase is that fans are already co-creating value with creatives. And to be *very* clear, the value of UGC that’s shared inevitably pools to both fans and the creative (I enjoy the World of Warcraft fan art, for example). I reference C.K. Prahalad’s work specifically because it proposes a framework where customers and companies work together to create the value customers enjoy. More precisely, Prahalad says this kind of framework will actually yield a substantially more valuable proposition for customers, as it is their input that allows the company to customize and tailor the offering (product, service, etc.) to the specific customer’s needs. Mass customization of one, facilitated by companies and enabled by customers. And, of course, the company sees value from this framework in the form of profit.
Value co-creation, then, has nothing to do with monetary compensation, canoncial creations by audiences, etc. It simply points to fandom and says, “this has value.” Personally, I think fandom yields a ton of value to the IP owners, with residual value being enjoyed by the entire community who can, say, enjoy one fan’s Star Wars/Muppets mashup on YouTube.
I apply that principle to the shared story world model, which starts with the premise that fans are equally capable of co-creating value in someone else’s IP and takes the next step of finding ways to acknowledge and reward that value. The shared story world model lays out the various iterations and variations on that theme, ranging from non-commercial to commercial models (and with a dizzying array of legal, monetary, and creative aspects – all of which, taken together, define the unique attributes of that shared story world).
In *some* shared story world implementations, the invitation to come play includes the potential to be monetarily rewarded. This particular example is, I think, the source of your concern – that it leads to a spec situation where fans can be taken advantaged of.
And here’s the statement I’ll likely regret:
Fans are ALREADY being taken advantage of.
Let me repeat that another way: IP owners of commercial entertainment take advantage of fans in ways that are at least as bad as the spec scenario you’re describing. And they do it every day.
How many Warcraft fans get compensated for their art being featured on Blizzard’s website? Yes, they created the art because they love the IP, perhaps wanted to share their work with other friends and fans. And they had no illusions about being paid for their work. Was there an implicit contract, however, offered by Blizzard? Absolutely. They set a precedent of posting fan art and stories, and they continue to do so on a regular basis. The actions of Blizzard communicate to fans that if they create some very cool work, it *might* show up on Blizzard’s site.
Is that any different from Blizzard dangling money in front of fans?
I would submit that the spec world you fear is actually all around us, already here. IP owners are enjoying the fruits of fans’ labor without lifting a finger or writing the first check to fans. They aren’t even asking for fans to come play.
The commercial shared story worlds at least give fans the *chance* to be compensated for their works in ways that are (hopefully) spelled out. The honest IP owners will lay out the conditions, rights, and responsibilities in clear terms, and they’ll provide parity in the invitation to participate. The dishonest ones will make it harder for the rest, but then, that’s always the case, isn’t it? ; )
I haven’t had time to dig into this entire discussion but I want to address your World of Warcraft example, Scott.
When Blizzard puts fan created art on their site, is Blizzard taking advantage of that art for marketing purposes? As someone who doesn’t play World of Warcraft, I can promise you that no piece of fan art is going to make me start, and they aren’t repurposing that art in paid communications.
I suggest that when Blizzard posts fan art they are actually tipping their hat at the work they respect most. It’s more like a “retweet” than a commercialization — “Respect to you, this is a badass piece of fan art.”
I don’t believe for a second that someone is creating WoW fan art in the hopes that Blizzard will post it on their site. I do think that getting your art posted on the site might feel good, but not so good that it becomes a primary driver, the way profit sharing or contest winnings do.
That being said, it’s one thing to say that fan art/fiction, etc., adds “a ton of value” but if we are going to talk money then I think you need to be able to get specific. Tell me, how much “value” did Star Wars fan fiction add to the release of the Star Wars Blu-Ray set in dollars? How much less would it have made if fans were not making fan art and mash-ups? What’s the split there? And where is the break between riffing on a pop culture landmark and adding actual creative value?
I don’t like the phrase because it is entirely far too ambiguous. I would suggest that Blizzard tipping their hat and showing respect to fans by posting their favorite fan works is exactly the proper amount of payback for the value added by that work, not taking advantage at all.
First off, Mike, thanks for taking the time to comment! I would really be flattered if you took some time, read through Andrea’s post and everything on this page, and let me have it right between the eyes if you still believe I’m crazy. Seriously.
Not saying I’ll automatically agree with you, but you’re another creative I respect professionally and like personally. I’d be stupid not to at least listen to your opinion!
In the mean time, here are my responses to your comments.
I would submit that fan art at Blizzard’s site drives additional clicks/views on their site. I don’t think Blizzard’s motivations are evil, but the reality is that they post fan art on their website, which has links to their entire portfolio of games, merchandise, etc. I didn’t call that marketing (and I’m not sure I would) – but I *would* say there is value to Blizzard in hosting fan art on their site.
I haven’t seen all of Blizzard’s paid communications, so I’m not qualified to say whether any fan art has been repurposed in paid communications.
But the terms of the invitation to post fan art are quite clear: “…you hereby grant to Blizzard a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty free, perpetual license to exploit, commercially or otherwise, the drawing/illustration based upon Blizzard Property that you submit to Blizzard’s ‘Fan Art’ program (“Licensed Materials”) for its business purposes in all media, in whole or in part, distorted in character or form, including but not limited to, the right to use the Licensed Materials on its websites, as well as for its internal, trade, and advertising purposes.” (http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/community/fanart/rules.html)
Certainly, they *can* repurpose it. And they explicitly ask for fans to submit their art.
Your point about how many additional Blu-Ray sales could be attributed to SW fan fiction misses the point (and the one I made above, though I know you said you haven’t had time to read the whole post).
To reiterate my point above: “Value co-creation, then, has nothing to do with monetary compensation, canoncial creations by audiences, etc. It simply points to fandom and says, ‘this has value.'”
Think of it this way: value co-creation is a product of fandom.
What the IP owner chooses to do with that value is up to them. One of Blizzard’s choices is to invite fans to submit art, and Blizzard posts selected pieces. Another IP owner may create a shared story world model, where the possibility of canonical contribution and/or monetary compensation is offered. Other owners may choose to completely ignore the value produced by fans (or actively shut it down in the form of cease-and-desist notices).
The value co-created by fans is usually in the form of a deeper or closer relationship a fan feels with a particular IP or in the way that sharing fandom increases the connectedness of a fan community. An IP owner creates something cool, a fan responds, and taken together, value is co-created.
Now, I can’t say – and neither can you – how many net additional dollars that kind of phenomenon generates, but would you say that fandom has zero value (monetary or other)?
I’m surprised you don’t believe anyone’s motivated to create art in the hopes that Blizzard would post it at their site. Perhaps you meant no one would create art for the sole reason of getting it posted on Blizzard’s site? Again, that’s not something I can empirically prove/disprove, but I’d be inclined to agree.
My point about relating fandom to the kind of freelance spec situation Andrea objected to is that I don’t see much difference between a fan creating something out of love and hoping it might make them money v. a fan creating something out of love and hoping it might get posted on a website somewhere.
Fans have to actively submit their art to Blizzard. The work has already been created, so their love or passion motivator has already done its job. Why would a fan take the additional step of submitting it to Blizzard? What’s the reason for doing that? Publicity? Getting noticed or acknowledged by Blizzard? Maybe get a job?
Whatever it is, it isn’t love or passion.
And as soon as you introduce any motivator besides love or passion, you have the potential for sliding into what Andrea called the spec market. My point was simply to say, “Hey, wait a minute – fans *are* producing art and taking actions that point to a motivator beyond love or passion, even when there’s no money involved.”
As for the term “value co-creation,” well, you may still hate it after reading my entire post and comments. If so, give it to me straight, doc, but that’s really not what I’m worried about (a term is a handle – it’s the definition – what it’s attached to – that concerns me).
If the whole idea of mixing fans and funds is something you see as doomed from the start, please let me know why. Angry Robot Books should probably get a heads-up and save themselves some money. : )
OK, I have read Andrea’s post as well as everything above and have a couple of comments (or rants, depending on your perspective). First, obviously I have enormous respect for both you and Andrea, so none of this should be taken personally. To quote my favorite Coen brother’s film, “I was just speculatin’ about a hypothesis.” I don’t have an issue with the definition of “value co-creation,” I’m skeptical of the term as it applies to or suggests potential business models.
In particular, I think the squishy meaning of “value” is extremely problematic, particularly once you try to apply it to models. You can’t say on the one hand that Blizzard is exploiting fans by demanding a full legal release on fan art submissions because it is somehow depriving them of potential income/profit but then on the other say that “value” doesn’t necessarily mean money. If value can mean anything from “respect” to “attention” to “fame” then that must also apply to the term “compensation,” in which case I don’t see Blizzard exploiting fans in your example.
But I can say from my experience that money, or the potential to make it, fundamentally changes everything, and the volume of frivolous lawsuits on the dockets is proof of this.
But I believe very strongly that the main reason fan communities exist is because fans want to connect *with each other,* and that shifts the meaning of “value” enormously in a way that I have not seen addressed in this discussion. Having your art highlighted on Blizzard’s page brings you attention as a fan of WoW which in turn connects you with other WoW fans. The value of that is destroyed if money is brought into the mix, because now there will be professional illustrators and artists submitting work, hoping to get a little cash on the side. They aren’t fans, they want a payday and once they are in the mix then there might not be any more value to having your fan art posted on the page if you are actually just a passionate fan.
Let’s look at the Angry Robot Books project. I’m unfamiliar with the publisher, the title, and the author of that particular book, but the structure of that project means they *will* get people who are not necessarily fans of the IP to submit stories. Perhaps young writers looking to get published. This is not a “fan” motivation, and an influx of this activity, as Andrea has pointed out, will fundamentally change fan’s attitudes about this fan fiction and even about what defines a “true” fan of the property from someone looking to get published or make a buck. And what happens when a writer of a story that does not get selected for publication decides to self-publish?
Scott, you wrote: “I don’t see much difference between a fan creating something out of love and hoping it might make them money v. a fan creating something out of love and hoping it might get posted on a website somewhere.” The problem with this statement is that you assume the word “fan” in the first example. As soon as the *potential* to make money or earn any tangible compensation is entered into the mix, you will have people who are not fans participating for reasons that have nothing to do with a love of the IP, and that will affect the fan community around the IP. Whether it is a disaster or not remains to be seen, but you cannot argue that there is no difference.
This is a huge topic, and I am a slow writer so I cannot cover it all in this forum, but we should definitely pick it up at the next conference. My opinions are colored by my experiences around Blair Witch Project where I experienced everything from fans creating incredible works for the love of the story to filmmakers and distributors releasing and profiting off of Blair Witch “parodies.” it’s an incredibly complex issue to say the least.
As a final aside, I do think the discussions over the definition of transmedia have been and are valuable for the same reason this discussion is — not to have a debate over meaning but to understand the extent to which the use and loose understanding of the word encourages or marginalizes certain behaviors, funding, and business models. I’ve loudly proclaimed my distaste for any and all variations of the sentiment “we should just focus on making/doing and stop this discussing” because we should actually always be doing both. In the words of someone much smarter than I, “The life which is unexamined is not worth living.”
“This is a huge topic” – biggest understatement of the year. : )
Okay, you and Andrea are raising great points, and while I have a lot of responses I want to make, my brain is currently mush. I just got through with a three-hour design meeting for an upcoming LARP, and I’m heading into jury duty early tomorrow.
We agree on some things (shared story worlds are more challenging than traditional entertainment and the chance for abuse is higher), not on others (but I won’t open any more cans of worms right now!).
Here’s the real question at the bottom of all of this: is a commercial IP that offers money to audiences members if their UGC is accepted necessarily and fatally flawed by design?
Oh, and yes, balance the doing with the discussing (I submit this post as exhibit “A”). I object to discussions that never come back to practical applications or get bogged down with unproductively splitting hairs. : )
Thanks again for your time and thoughtful responses, Mike!
So, I come from this discussion from a very odd place. I make fan art.
I’ve made fan art for my own enjoyment, for friends, and for charity. Game art is a fantastic source for turnarounds and reference images when you want to focus on constructing something. When I’m making fan art for myself – and this is sort of cold, but it’s the truth – the intentions and desires of the original artist don’t really matter. My fan art is none of their business.
UGC is a brand’s attempt to make it their business, usually through some incentive that creates value for me. If you are competing with other artists for an incentive, and the IP creator or one of their representatives is judging, then you are doing spec work, and the IP owner is a client. But that’s not the sole reason I’m hesitant to create once I get in an IP holder’s sandbox. One of the reasons I create fan art in the first place is to take control of something I love, to explore it and play with it in my own space, for my own amusement.
I haven’t yet seen a way to preserve that ability when the IP owner is in the room, because in the back of your mind you’re always pitching your work. Regardless of how open they may be to what I’m doing or how much they might like it, I don’t even consider showing my fan art to the IP owner until it’s done and released for whatever other purpose I made it for. The initial impetus to create is never, ever, to impress the IP owner. That would put me in the role of a service provider, and basically at that point I’m doing unpaid spec work again.
Even when I’m making fan art for charity, I’m gearing it toward the people who are buying it at auction, not to the IP creators. The creator is already framing the discussion. They MADE the source material, after all. But the creative decisions I make when I respond as a fan are mine. That dynamic is valuable to me. I consider it part of the value of any IP.
I also have a weird take on this because I actually make a modest amount of money creating fan work of an IP that’s very fan-craft friendly. Our “co-creation” deal is emergent. They don’t sue me and may even promote me – facilitating a conversation with my fellow fans. In exchange, I make sure someone out there gets a piece of merch that the franchise wouldn’t otherwise be able to offer. I’m basically a tiny branch of an underground merchandising empire. Luckily for me, the franchise has decided to invest nothing, make no money, and reap the promotional value of having that body of fan work out there, rather than lawyer up on a bunch of crafters.
I can’t say I would blame them if they did decide to lawyer up, though. As Mike pointed out, there’s no way to tell a skilled and thriving fan artist with an Etsy account from a shrewd businessperson with an Etsy account. The only difference between non-fans crowding Etsy and non-fans crowding a value co-created system, is where the money comes from.
Thanks so much for your comments, Haley!
I get that fans often create for themselves, not the IP owner. I understand that money on the table and the specter of the IP owner over your shoulder will affect what you make and how you make it. That’s not something I can change, but neither do I see a need to for the purposes of a shared story world. They aren’t incompatible in my head.
If there’s a consistent theme running through the feedback from you, Andrea, and Mike, it’s that “fans” don’t belong in a shared story world model. Maybe I’m overstating it, but that’s the sense I’m getting: you aren’t a fan if you’re motivated by money, and if money is on the table, then chances are the only people you’ll attract are non-fans.
Fair enough, and I’m fine taking fans out of the equation for the sake of this discussion. Doing so seems to negate something I’ve been saying for a long time, though, which is that UGC/fandom has a lot of value, both to fans and to IP owners.
So is the answer, “shared story worlds work fine as a model, but don’t call the contributors fans?” Does that clear the air?
Heading off to bed now before I totally lose coherence. : )
Haley, I think you are saying a variation on my central point which is that the reasons for most fan created works has nothing to do with a desire to change canon or to enter into some kind of financial relationship with the IP owner.
I think fan behaviors and cultures bear this out consistently. A big example is “official” forums – the most vibrant fan communities rarely, if ever, exist on the official forums of an IP owner, band, artist, etc., because fans want to connect in spaces that they control and own. They love the IP, but as Haley says their fandom has nothing to do with the desires and business model of the IP owner. I have found that “official” forums serve a very important purpose, however – they are a gateway for new fans to find each other and lead to the larger fan sites, a jumping off point, if you will.
I don’t think you can ignore this behavior when talking about shared story worlds and particularly “value co-creation” because the definition of value becomes personal. The IP creator received one type of value in the creating of something and receives an entirely different kind of value in releasing it publicly and a different kind of value in the continual exploitation, whether by licensing continuation, or extension, of that IP.
I strongly believe that IP owners do not and have never controlled or had a say in what fans do with their IP. That doesn’t mean creators can’t influence or that fans are always cold to the desires of an IP owner, but they cannot control the fans and what they do.
This means any business model based on UGC is always walking a thin line. What will Angry Robot do if several people write amazingly compelling but graphicly hardcore erotica in their shared story world? Will they publish those stories, or will they ignore them because they do not fit within the taste boundaries of the publisher? What happens when the fans decide the erotica is better than the published collection of fan fiction and decide to make their own compilations? As an IP owner, you would now find yourself in a very difficult position – if you ignore this compilation or accept it as an expression of how much fans love your work, then you are also allowing fans to exploit your IP in areas that could be confusing to the general public and worse – if selling repackaged fan fiction is a business model you legally have to clamp down on it in order to be able to defend yourself against other publishers coming in and publishing their own fan fiction compilations, as the law doesn’t differentiate between an individual and a publisher – you cannot selectively fight or defend rights.
I’m not saying fans don’t belong in shared story worlds, only that I’m not sure if a shared story world is actually a viable business model or simply an amazing collaborative expression of creativity.
I agree that fans, and fan created works or UGC do have a lot of value, I’m just not sure there is a business model to be made from it.
Wowwwww is there a lot going on here. But I’m identifying at least three separate discussions:
1. What value does fandom have for fans and for IP owners?
2. Are there workable business models around shared worlds and similar kinds of collaborative storytelling?
3. Is ‘value co-creation’ a good way to describe that?
On 1, I think the value for fans is, as Haley’s described, more to do with community and relationship-building than anything to do with the IP owner. It’s all about finding your tribe and feeling like you belong somewhere. Creating fan art can also be a way of accumulating social status in a community; but that’s a payoff that can and does happen regardless of whether the artist gets a hat tip from the IP owner.
The IP owner, on the other hand, gets to benefit from all of that attention and community keeping their stuff top of the mind. As long as I remember how much I love Harry Potter, and as long as Harry Potter reminds me of my friends and the fun times we have together, I’m a lot more likely to shell out $80 for an authentic, certified reproduction of the Elder Wand (not to mention the Blu-Ray).
For #2 — Like Mike, I’m a little skeptical of shared-world business model. I feel like they probably only work on a limited scale, simply because of Dunbar’s number. But I’m willing to admit I could be very wrong; Wikipedia doesn’t look like it would work on paper, either, and somehow it does. So this might be me and my old-media gatekeeper mentality simply not seeing the new order until it’s a done deal. I salute Scott for trying it all the same, and I think any such efforts are supremely interesting.
And finally — the last question is the only fight I was trying to pick, though I recognize that I’m the one who brought all of this other stuff into it in my inciting essay. Of course my whole initial tenet is that co-creation isn’t a great phrase to describe monetizing fandom; but Scott, if it’s meant to describe fan activity even outside of an IP owner’s explicit sandbox, then that makes it even less suitable a term in my eyes, because (to piggyback on Haley’s point) there’s not necessarily any co- going on at all. If you make a movie, and then I write a snarky recap of it for my friends, it’s definitely a derivative work, it might well be an act of fandom, but it’s not working *with* you to create value. So… basically, my objection is that the term is on the face of it inaccurate about describing the things that it’s used to mean. MOAR SPECIFIC! GRAR!
And at the same time: I never expected to persuade you to abandon the term, Scott. It’s much too entrenched already, and frankly it would be bad for your career to kill it now, just like it would be bad for my career to come out against the word ‘transmedia.’ But there’s no reason you can’t think up other, more highly targeted phrases to also use in describing specific structures. I mean, what’s wrong with ‘shared worlds’? ^_^
I don’t think I’m saying that there are no fans in a co-created system. I’m just picking apart my own motivations for participation. But I do think its important to realize that any traditional community you can point to to demonstrate participation is actually a fan community, and participation in that community is driven by a set of forces that may not work for co-created content.
There are other motivations, of course, that are neither fandom nor reward-seeking. Take a look at open source software. The vast number of contributors are either paid members of open source companies, or hobbyists who believe in the cause.
The cause of open source is a completely separate mythology from the goals of any individual project. The idea is that when you contribute to a piece of open source software, you help others, AND you’re fighting back against the establishment. The latest Microsoft IP scuffle is related to browser usage statistics is related to the display code you’re writing. To go completely meta on you, I think that’s the kind of mythology we’re trying to build right now with this conversation. But that has nothing to do with love for the individual project. It’s sort of one level above everything else.
I think we can agree that having people exhibit fandom is a valuable thing for IP owners. I think it’s a promotional value. Fan art radiates authenticity, specifically because it wasn’t commissioned by the IP owners. It amounts to a personal recommendation – but one that can be broadcast. Of course that has value.
Fan art can also signal the collective identity of the community. I’m more likely to take a look at a given IP if I see people creating interesting art based on it, and I read all sorts of cues out of the types of art I see. Is the art romantic, adventurous, creepy, adorable? What’s the style? What’s the medium? Portal fans make cakes, build props, and create their own high tech plush dolls, so of course I want to check out Portal.
And the shared identity of the fans is important. Consider My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. That IP has a much bigger cultural and commercial impact because of the way that its older fans have chosen to identify themselves. But again, that identity has to come primarily from the fans for it to have promotional value, which means that as an IP owner you can neither initiate nor control it. At the end of the day, how the heck do you quantify that?
Wowwwww, indeed, Andrea! There are multiple conversations going on, and each new comment spawns another level. There’s so much on the table, I’m not sure where to start.
Reading all this feedback indicates a couple of things to me.
First, I’ve already addressed most of the concerns/objections raised by you and Mike at some point over the past couple of years (either in a presentation, a post at my personal site, at sharedstoryworlds.com, etc.). I don’t honestly think more than a handful of people on this planet have read every word of all of them, but the responses from you and Mike indicate that my statements here are being taken in isolation and not viewed in the context of everything I’ve already said.
That’s a reflection of how many moving pieces there are under the hood of what I call shared story worlds. As we’re seeing, there’s a lot to cover, and it’s all pretty much integrated. Talk about one part without covering all of the bases, and someone’s going to get misunderstood.
Second, we agree more than we disagree. For example, Mike’s totally right that IP owners can’t control what fans do. They never will, even in shared story world model. I’ve held that opinion for a very long time, and I cover it in one of my presentations from 2010. My exploration of shared story worlds is one response to that fact: how can IP owners better connect with fans/audiences/etc., ideally in a manner that begins with the premise, ‘fans add value to my IP,’ without sacrificing the necessary commercial control required to support the on-going IP operations (if the IP owner goes broke trying to maintain the collaborative sandbox, everyone loses)?
Third, we could continue to hash this out in the comments thread, with me having to respond to objections I’ve already addressed elsewhere, taking each new objection in a piecemeal fashion…or I can write a short book that lays out the core principles on which I build shared story worlds and my reasonings for doing so. Basically, I could assemble all of the various points I’ve made separately over the years into a larger, denser but more comprehensive document. One massive, easy-to-hit target, as it were. : )
This exchange has been immensely helpful, as it points out not just where I’m failing to communicate the ideas that seem so obvious to me, but it aids me in figuring out how to correct that.
Again, big thanks to you, Haley, and Mike. I truly appreciate your time and thoughtful responses!
I started to comment on Andrea’s post and then that comment got ridiculously long so I turned it into a ridiculously long blog post THAT IS CRUCIAL TO YOUR EXISTENCE TO READ. http://kulturvulturz.tumblr.com/post/13938799012/authorless-arthur-whereby-i-start-out-by-giving-you