Jenkins articulately describes convergence as the process “where old and new media collide, where grassroots and corporate media, intersect, where the power of the media producer and the power of the media consumer interact in unpredictable ways” (Jenkins 2). In a few words, where those who create the media and those who consume the media connect. in a very real sense focus groups have always tried to understand the relationship between consumer and product.
From the dot com burst and forward (to the time of this book) Jenkins describes media users as wary of the next technological paradigm. And, he goes on to discuss how gradual the notion of convergence is. When we spoke of the “digital revolution” in the past, it seems that Jenkins took that to mean a very quick process. If thats true, then the dot com bubble popped and people were unsure of how monetize media.
Jenkin’s says that panels were held at a conference to discuss how the music industry could close the door on a barn that most of the animals have already stampeded out of. Much of the discussion that Jenkins mentions at this conference has to do with how the producer can continue to produce the all might dollars. Producers can make all of the content they want, but, if the consumers do not support the product, or if the producers cannot find an alternative way to support the product then the process is not sustainable.
Of particular interest to me was the notion that many producers of media are part of the same corporate conglomerate, but that they were ultimately unwilling (in some cases) to share with one another.
Jenkin’s credits Ithiel de Sola Pool with first describing convergence. Pool argues in his 1983 book that convergence blurs the lines between media, and even between other kinds of mass communication. While others argued that the time was ripe for the “digital revolution”, Pool argued for a slower transition.
Jenkins argues that the notion of one device where all of our media outlets converge is a fallacy. While Jenkins mentions many devices on his home television, a few years into the future I am observing a large number of devices around my television. But, the interesting part is that some of the devices do “old” things and “new” things. Hulu, Netflix, all of these things can be streamed through the gaming console. Convergence at work.
Convergence has to do with the way that media is produced and the way that it is consumed. I love the idea that the consumer ultimately dictates what happens to media. In the end, the dollar rules. Whatever brings in the money keeps coming. I suppose that the coroporations try to produce technology and hope that the consumers will latch onto it and incorporate it into their lives.
Who serves as a gatekeeper for media? Ultimately the media serves as a gatekeeper, but, the media is out to serve the consumer so whatever they feel that the consumer is likely to consume will be produced.
The case study about survivor highlights an interesting occurence which begs the question when does participation become interferance and when do producers exert too much power over the entertainment experience. The purpose of entertainment is to be...entertained. However, many new marketing trends circle around getting people to actively engage in marketing.
From the dot com burst and forward (to the time of this book) Jenkins describes media users as wary of the next technological paradigm. And, he goes on to discuss how gradual the notion of convergence is. When we spoke of the “digital revolution” in the past, it seems that Jenkins took that to mean a very quick process. If thats true, then the dot com bubble popped and people were unsure of how monetize media.
Jenkin’s says that panels were held at a conference to discuss how the music industry could close the door on a barn that most of the animals have already stampeded out of. Much of the discussion that Jenkins mentions at this conference has to do with how the producer can continue to produce the all might dollars. Producers can make all of the content they want, but, if the consumers do not support the product, or if the producers cannot find an alternative way to support the product then the process is not sustainable.
Of particular interest to me was the notion that many producers of media are part of the same corporate conglomerate, but that they were ultimately unwilling (in some cases) to share with one another.
Jenkin’s credits Ithiel de Sola Pool with first describing convergence. Pool argues in his 1983 book that convergence blurs the lines between media, and even between other kinds of mass communication. While others argued that the time was ripe for the “digital revolution”, Pool argued for a slower transition.
Jenkins argues that the notion of one device where all of our media outlets converge is a fallacy. While Jenkins mentions many devices on his home television, a few years into the future I am observing a large number of devices around my television. But, the interesting part is that some of the devices do “old” things and “new” things. Hulu, Netflix, all of these things can be streamed through the gaming console. Convergence at work.
Convergence has to do with the way that media is produced and the way that it is consumed. I love the idea that the consumer ultimately dictates what happens to media. In the end, the dollar rules. Whatever brings in the money keeps coming. I suppose that the coroporations try to produce technology and hope that the consumers will latch onto it and incorporate it into their lives.
Who serves as a gatekeeper for media? Ultimately the media serves as a gatekeeper, but, the media is out to serve the consumer so whatever they feel that the consumer is likely to consume will be produced.
The case study about survivor highlights an interesting occurence which begs the question when does participation become interferance and when do producers exert too much power over the entertainment experience. The purpose of entertainment is to be...entertained. However, many new marketing trends circle around getting people to actively engage in marketing.
To that end, Burnett’s “game playing” with the “brain trusts” on the Survivor spoilers website was brilliant marketing. The people that are “spoiling” this show are also telling their friends and getting more people to watch. The book also asks the question of the spoilers winning by “spoiling” the show actually ruins the game of spoiling. From the producers view the answer seems alluring and dangerous. Will the spoilers ruin the show for the general population? Or, will they encourage consumption.
Being a part of a community aids those who are not “experts” but those who have emerging competencies begin to do things without the added difficulty of working in a hierarchically classed, highly structuralized environment.
Walsh’s notion of the “Expert paradigm” argues that there are those who know things and those who do not. This means that those who “know” things are in power and those who do not lack power. However, if you assume that the Spoilers “ruin” the game by “winning” then in a sense the experts or those who “know”--Lose.
Collective intelligence assumes that each person has something. It is a social process more about acquiring the knowledge and less about who “has” the knowledge. It seems like a bookshelf, if information is needed, or requested, the information comes off of the shelf from one who knows the information. In this sense there is no need to have an “expert”.
Questions:
Is the black box truly impossible?
Is the expert paradigm rendered obsolete by the notion of collective knowledge?
No comments:
Post a Comment