I recently watched Douglas Rushkoff‘s video presentation, “Whose Story is this Anyway? When Readers Become Writers” from the 2008 O’Reilly Tools of Change Conference.
As Rushkoff points out, consumers of content often move from simple, passive consumption to an interactive mode over time. This leads to consumers using content in ways not desired or even envisioned by the creator/owner. As a result, owners of content are increasingly losing control over how their content is consumed/used, particularly if they release it over the Internet.
There are many implications to entertainment creation/consumption as a result of technological advances, but I want to focus on one aspect that I believe will become critical to media companies seeking to engage and retain interaction with fans of entertainment franchises: how to encourage and support the shift from passive consumer to active co-creator.
By active co-creator, I don’t mean posting forum comments on a website or being allowed to make mashups without being sued. I mean having a seat the the Table of Canonicity that comes with monetary and legal benefits. I mean being able to truly interact with the franchise content in a way that lets everyone benefit. I mean participating in a business model that leverages the inherent qualities of the Internet, harnesses the creative community’s passion and abilities, and takes a collaborative approach to world narrative. I outlined one such new model, the renewable entertainment franchise, in an earlier post.
There are lots of reasons why media companies eschew the idea of letting fans sit at the Table of Canonicity. Content owners view each additional seat at this table as being both expensive and fraught with legal risks.
However, most of these arguments stem from a mindset that believes (a) digital content piracy can be realistically fought, (b) fans are incapable of producing quality content, and (c) all revenue dollars must come from direct monetization of digital content. This mindset is based on business-as-usual presumptions which are no longer necessarily true.
Digital content piracy cannot be realistically fought. Content owners would be better off removing the reasons for piracy and finding ways to engage their audience than wasting millions of dollars on whack-a-mole approaches to stamping out digital piracy on the Internet.
Fans are capable of creating quality content. Where else does all the new talent come from except from former fans turned professional?
And the idea that digital content must be directly monetized in each and every case is out-dated. Pure digital content is shifting to the realm of advertisement. Sure, the markets for plastic discs and books (even television) are showing signs of decline, but they’re not going to disappear altogether. Sure, advertising may still be sorting itself out in the online world, but it’s not going away, either. And don’t forget merchandising. Don’t ignore the $600M industry of virtual goods. Don’t write off the potential for future revenue streams that haven’t been discovered yet.
The digital content landscape is still shifting, and it’s unclear where traditional media companies will be standing. But one thing is certain: companies that continue to pretend they can lock up their content, criminalize the consumers who are their most ardent fans, and dictate the terms under which fans interact with their content will find themselves fighting for attention. As Tim O’Reilly wrote back in 2002, obscurity is a far greater threat to authors than piracy.
Scott, you say you don’t agree with letting audience members have a seat at the table of canonicity, but the above essay is neutral to positive on the subject. We know that issues such as laws and rewards for fan labor are being solved even now, and that dozens of projects large and small are currently in preparation (including several that I’m working on), which will allow for creative input from members of a mass audience. Isn’t that part of what transmedia narrative is all about? It seems every time I leave this aspect out of a discussion (or it gets cut from an article covering my work) the academics and transmedia purists jump all over my case. Sellout! You’re forgetting audience participation! Certainly I agree that you can have transmedia without canonical contributions, but I think the day when guided user-generated content becomes a piece with beautiful, artful storytelling is soon to come and it will be an exciting one for me personally.
Jeff,
First, thanks for commenting!
Second, we’re actually in violent agreement on the topic of collaboration.
I think you miscontrued a comment I made on twitter about your definition of the Holy Grail of transmedia storytelling, causing you to believe I’m against collaboration at the canonical level.
If you poke around my blog, take a look at my company site – http://braincandyllc.com – and spend some time at Runes of Gallidon – http://runesofgallidon.com – you’ll quickly see that I’ve been beating the collaborative drum for some time.
In fact, Brain Candy has developed a model ideally suited for letting the creative community participate canonically and monetarily with commercial IP. And it’s been doing so for a year (Runes of Gallidon went live in November of 2008).
My objection to your definition of the Holy Grail of transmedia storytelling is your emphasis on the me v. you aspect that plagues most content creation today.
Your twitter was: “The Holy Grail of transmedia storytelling is when YOU contribute a substantial creative element to the canon of MY vast narrative.” [your caps, not mine]
Commercial content producers talk mightily about interaction and letting fans get close to the material, but that never translates to revenue sharing or meaningful participation in the creation of canon.
Your emphasis on “MY vast narrative” and its implications of traditional “you can play in my world but only on my terms” was what I objected to.
It’s a philosophical one but an important one. Brain Candy views itself as a Steward of the Runes of Gallidon world. We see the creative community as peers in helping us explore the world narrative. Gallidon isn’t “our” world or “my” world in the sense of Brain Candy or me personally. In fact, it wouldn’t be much more than a vanity project if we didn’t open the doors and invite the creative community in.
I happen to take the stance that the creative community collectively has more skill, talent, and creativity than the entertainment industry typically gives them. You don’t need to look much further than YouTube to see hundreds of examples of commercial IP remixed by fans that is clearly better than what came out of the original production studio.
I know you hew to the belief that good transmedia offerings must come from a single person or a small group of people (at least, that’s what you stated in Henry Jenkins’ course earlier this year).
I happen to disagree; I think you’ll begin to find more examples of crowdsourced transmedia offerings (for lack of a better term) that are popular and of good quality.
Starlight Runner has done a lot to get transmedia into the mainstream of content creation, and I’m looking forward to hearing more about your projects that allow the creative community to participate.
But here’s my question: will your model offer the creative community the right to make money from their works, and will you let them retain ownership of their works even if you allow them to become canon?
You want to let the creative community pull up a chair to the table of canoncity? Great. What’s on the menu?
Ha! Indeed we are in agreement, but thanks for clarifying your position. I know all about Gallidon, I’ve been following it for quite some time now and am delighted to congratulate you on such an ambitious and idealistic work.
To further explain my little Twitter comment, recently Tim Kring stated that the Holy Grail of storytelling is for the narrative to jump from one platform to the next. It got forwarded at least a dozen times, and every time it did I got annoyed. You and I know, of course, that this will not be the Holy Grail, but the norm as transmedia narrative continues to evolve. It is step one toward the Holy Grail.
So my comment was a (perhaps too) subtle jab at Kring’s noob stance, and at the notion that Kring would be loathe to consider the alien notion that fans have the wherewithal and creative capability to contribute substantially to the canon of a mass media universe.
Indeed I do feel that this is going to happen, and yes I’m working on it as it applies to major global rollouts. This entails wading through tremendous legal issues and the paranoia of networks and studios. There are also myriad technical considerations, and yes, I do believe that audience participants who do contribute “fan labor” that is accepted into canon must be rewarded in some fashion.
It will be a long time before models exist that allow fan contributors to retain ownership of their contributions. If such is the case with Gallidon, for example, there would be little that I or anyone could do to move the property into mass culture without figuring an accounting system that rewards hundreds if not thousands of creators on an ongoing basis. If you have this aspect licked somehow I’d love to know it.
In the mean time, I will be developing and advocating absolute clarity with the fans and clear definitions for the process of accepting, integrating and rewarding fan labor.
Much clarity is lost in twitter’s brevity… ; )
I’m as disappointed as you are in what appears to be unending confusion about the difference between transmedia and multimedia. You’ve been beating the transmedia drum for years, so I’m guessing it’s even more frustrating for you.
We’re definitely in the same camp regarding collaborative IP, but I’m going to take you to task for your statement that “It will be a long time before models exist that allow fan contributors to retain ownership of their contributions.”
Brain Candy launched Runes of Gallidon a year ago.
Creative and independent innovators have already developed such models. We’re currently using such models.
Brain Candy rolled out Runes of Gallidon as an extreme version of the collaborative model we developed. Gallidon pushes the envelope in almost every direction. That was on purpose. We wanted to demonstrate the possibilities.
But the model can be customized on a case-by-case basis. It’s flexible, and it can easily be adjusted for a more conservative approach to ownership, scaled up or down for specific properties, and adapted for new/active/dormant IP’s across a wide range of media (movie, TV, novel, video game, etc.).
You’re no stranger to creating original IP. You’ve worked with the major players, Jeff. You understand transmedia and its potential. You recognize the true Holy Grail of transmedia. As a result, I hold you and Starlight Runner to a higher bar. I expect more from you, so I’m going to call you out if I think you’re equivocating or hedging your position (even if I miss a subtle reference or two!).
And not to put too fine a point on it, but, yes, Brain Candy has solved the ownership and revenue-sharing problems for collaborative IP ventures. Feel free to contact me if you’d like to team up on a new one.
I’ve waited a long time to find my Malcolm X! Perhaps we’ll have a game of chess in a giant plastic chamber! Well, unlike my goody-two-shoe predecessors, I appreciate your radical notions and know that one day they’ll come to pass on the scale at which Starlight Runner operates. I just keep them in the back room to prevent the suits from having heart attacks — I have a whole bunch of people to feed! :)
If by “radical” you mean anticipating the inevitable, well, then, I’ll gladly wear the radical hat. ; )
Rest assured, our model is flexible enough to avoid giving the suits any coronaries, though. I mean, it isn’t terribly helpful if your position pushes you so far outside the mainstream that you can’t effect any change in the status quo, is it?
Looking forward to that game of chess in a giant plastic chamber…in the mean time, keep fighting the good fight.