A Future for Transmedia

In an article over at GamaSutra the other day the author, Leigh Alexander, asked the very legitimate question ”where’s this glorious transmedia future?”, referring to his view that the gaming industry is leading the social media revolution, and televison and film are slow to catch up.

The 2012 Super Bowl had 17,5 million social
media imprints on one day. That's a lot.

He has a point. (On the other hand, looking at the 17,2 million social media imprints the Grammys generated during one day, and the 17,5 million the Superbowl generated a week earlier, television does make an impact in the social sphere (although not harnessed to any greater degree, more’s the shame)). Transmedia is not ”there” yet, wherever we envisage ”there” to be. We have experimental projects, we have big-budget marketing campaigns, we have art projects, we have crowdfunded projects and any mix between these. Very few of these will have a significant impact on other transmedia projects, as all new projects need to be handled from the ground up as unique challenges.

To the man (or woman) on the street, the term ”transmedia” means nothing. What means something is great stories. What means something is funny and/or interesting and/or exciting and/or engaging interaction with characters as well as peers around content and connected to content. What means something is the feeling that ”I matter in this context”, that someone is listening, that something is created for me, that I can participate if I choose to and I’m welcome to. What means something is to achieve that willful suspension of disbelief, with regards to the story being told as well as to the different media it’s told on. What means something is have different pieces of the content puzzle available on different platforms that I have easy access to. What means something is to have the feeling of discovery and the tools to share this discovery with my friends.

All this can be ”transmedia”, and the development, design, production and distribution (and marketing) of all this is made easier and better by using transmedia storytelling methods. Still, ”transmedia” in itself will mean nothing to the people taking part of the story. I will never sell something to a broad audience with the "transmedia" tag only - perhaps to acquisition people or sponsors, but never an audience - I can only do that with great content.

Lucas JW Johnson had a post yesterday over at Silverstring Media where he talked about transmedia not being a ”thing” itself, but rather could be viewed as an aspiring artform. Or, as Lucas put it: ”Transmedia is a way of thought, a way of conceptualizing storytelling and experience in a way that is not limited to a single form or medium, and at its best takes full advantage of that tack.”

What we have is a situation where we’re still looking at people in silos looking at each other, expecting something to happen. It won’t, not by just looking. Every project is a different one, and I’m increasingly starting to believe that any “best practices” that we will come up with, with regards to transmedia, will be pretty broad in shape. Definite definitions of best practices will be as rare as definite definitions of transmedia itself.

On the other hand, I’m increasingly of the opinion that this is nothing essential. As little as the term “transmedia” means to the man on the street, as little will it mean to all of us creating it in the future. Dennis Crow writes in the comments to the GamaSutra article that “ If a brand new IP could have a movie to tell the story, a game to immerse the player into the world, and a TV show to produce additional episodic content, then it truly could connect with a huge audience in a way that hasn't been done before.”

This is where we will end up. It’s just – as always – taking a bit longer than everyone hoped for.

Transmedia – it’s kind of everything

This weekend has been about recouperating from SXSWi, physically as well as mentally. Time zones are still playing havoc with my sleeping patterns, but slowly but surely things are settling into place again. Which is good, as there is much to be done.

In hindsight, SXSWi took the field of transmedia at least a couple of steps forward. I read this well written article in The Guardian, by Oliver Burkeman, on takings from this year’s SXSW festival, and one thing in particular resonates strongly with transmedia today, as I see it. Burkeman writes:

” It was the end of day two of South by Southwest Interactive, the world's highest-profile gathering of geeks and the venture capitalists who love them, and I'd been pursuing a policy of asking those I met, perhaps a little too aggressively, what it was exactly that they did. What is "user experience", really? What the hell is "the gamification of healthcare"? Or "geofencing"? Or "design thinking"? Or "open source government"? What is "content strategy"? No, I mean, like, specifically?

The content strategist across the table took a sip of his orange-coloured cocktail. He looked slightly exasperated. "Well, from one perspective, I guess," he said, "it's kind of everything."

The many requirements

That’s what transmedia is evolving into as well, in my opinion. No longer is it good enough to know one field well, like television, or film, or online portals, or how to write a good story, although all these are still important. It’s just that it’s not enough anymore. When writing a story, you need to have a notion of the possibilities that story can give to an online entry into your world, or as an ARG, or as a graphic novel. It's like a CEO of a trucking company; today he needs to know the basics about SEO as well, to keep himself in business. Or the florist who needs to get savvy in the ways of Facebook, just to pick up on all weddings being planned.

When in pre-production for your tv series, you need to have an understanding for how the interaction with viewers can take place on Twitter, Facebook and so on. Most people – great people at what they do – really do not have that inkling yet. This again leads to examples of bulky, unwieldy transmedia that does not connect logically and seamlessly, as it has been assembled from the same set of pieces but with everyone involved looking at their own blueprint that they themselves have drawn up, without talking to each other overly much.

TAG

Here is where I think the Transmedia Artists Guild has made a timely entrance onto the transmedia arena. Because we have to learn, each and everyone of us. And the best way to learn is by doing, and talking to people who have been there, done that and got a number of t-shirts. Whether it’s about best practises or how to engage an audience, about how to connect an ARG in the best way or how to use characters Twitter accounts for best effect, I see the TAG forums as a great place to interact with other creators and developers and get their invaluable insights. If you haven’t yet, do sign up – it’s a place to talk and a place to find other people to discuss with that you do not first have to spend 30 minutes explaining the concept ”transmedia” to.

See you there!

A guest post and a couple of questions

I wrote a guest post for ReedMIDEMs MIP blog; it's geared towards the typical MIP-goer; i.e. a TV executive with a fair amount of years in the biz, just hearing about the term "transmedia" for the first time and wondering whether this will be a hype that'll fade away in a couple of years time, or something that they should take note of and start acting on.

I'm for the latter, so that's the angle I'll try to take in my guest posts. Not in a "do-this-or-be-DAMNEDFORALLETERNITY!!!"-way, but rather just to tell people what I know and show good examples that other's have done. Transmedia - or whatever you want to call it (I came up with the term "Sansmedia" the other day, since I'm fervently waiting for the day when we get rid of all "platforms" and concentrate on the stories being told) - is in my opinion the way forward, and I hope many others will recognize this as well.

I do, of course, as everyone involved in the transmedia business probably does, welcome a discussion on the subject. I started thinking about the multitude of people who are not aware of transmedia, who do not care about transmedia and probably never will. So, is transmedia a fad that'll fade? Will it merge with something else? Is it a phase we will go through on the way to finding an even better way of telling stories and engaging people? What do you think?

(I'll put my 2c in, in just a bit :)

Good article on the future of the web

Steve Rubel has written an interesting article over at AdAge about the future of the web. Which, according to Steve, is pretty much non-consistent. See (and I find it hard to argue with him), with regards to mobile and tablet platforms - or screens, rather - Steve argues that "...we will need to rethink, remix and repackage information for an entirely different modality than platforms of yore."

Quite so. To do this, we need to think about not only the content itself, but also context, collaboration and adoption, as Steve says, and base it all on the all-important data, that which Brian Newman coined "the new oil".

It's an interesting read and well worth some minutes of your time. Found via a blog by Emily Chang and a tweet by @anitafiander.

Humanity and social media

These thoughts have been in my head for a while now. I thought it best to write them down, before they disappear :)


Humanity and social media

When I was ten years old I, for a brief moment, regained my faith in Santa Claus. See, it’d been a Christmas Eve like all others, with family and dinner and pestering siblings and watching traditional Christmas shows on TV, when there came a knock on the door. In stepped Santa – well, it was a neighbor in a Santa costume, but I did not pay any notice. My eyes were glued to the big Christmas present jutting up from the bag slung over his shoulder. As the presents were being handed out, I could barely contain myself. When the turn came to me, I tugged it from the hands of the Santa-wannabe and frenetically began to tear the paper wrapping off. Finally, there it was.

64K of raw processing power, a CPU of a stunning 1MHz, three (3!) channels of sound, it was the ultimate computer. This Commodore 64 would be my entrance to the world of computers. I wanted to shout my joy to the rooftops… or at least to my closest friends. I did not, however, call them on my iPhone. Nor did I send an sms via a battered Nokia. I didn’t open Skype or MSN Messenger or Gmail chat or even an IRC channel. I had no way of letting the humanverse know my excitement through Facebook, Twitter, Orkut, MySpace, Bebo or any other forum. I couldn’t take a picture of the shiny new toy with my mobile phone and upload it to Flickr. What did I do? I ran over to my friend and asked him to come over, of course.

Now, 25 years later, it is hard to grasp just what changes have happened during a quarter of a century. The birth and growth of the Internet, the development of faster-than-fast processors, graphic cards and hard drives, a quality we couldn’t dream of back then… Not to mention all the programs, all the social media and the goatxe hype, for instance.

A question that is constantly raised as humanity becomes more and more of an online race and less and less of a face-to-face race, is a simple one. Is it good or bad? Many have pointed out the obvious – with less “real” interaction, there is less of that which makes us human involved; touch, smell, facial expressions, closeness, social interaction. Others, on the other hand, point out the equally obvious; we now have possibilities previously unheard of, to connect with people around the globe who share the same interests, beliefs or goals as we ourselves.

So, it’s good in some ways, and bad in some ways. As life in general is, I’d argue.
One of the fastest rising social media forums, Facebook, has allowed us to get in touch with old friends, has let us be constantly updated with info, photos, thoughts and silly links, keeping us in contact with our friends (yes, and also our “friends” of course), which in most ways is a good thing. Another social media, Twitter, brings the matter even closer. Within a space of 140 characters anyone, from Britney Spears to a 12-year old in Kuala Lumpur can say whatever they want to say, to anyone who cares to listen.

As I’ve been following and engaging in Twitter, and gotten in touch with wonderful ideas like Twistori, I’ve started to lean more and more towards this being a good thing. No, it’s not good that people communicate only via computers and mobile platforms. No, it’s not good that there is so much noise that the few clear notes are hard to hear. No, it’s not good that anonymity gives spiteful and angry people the chance to spew venom at unfortunate victims. But there are upsides as well.

See, I believe that Twitter, in all its’ simplicity, is the first step towards the great equalization of the species. Twitter is the first media that lets everyone compete on next-to equal terms, where ideas and thoughts, art and prose, genius and creativity is given the exact same amount of space to thrive, and via ReTweets find bigger and bigger audiences.

Agreed, a simple Tweet is a scream for recognition in a sea of screams. But at least all the screams are 140 characters long, and in the same font and layout!
Furthermore, I believe that Twitter is a great possibility to promote understanding between nations, people, genders, religion and races. For every spiteful xenophobic, there are thousands of normal, loving, caring people. For every rash thought and provocative comment, there are many more thoughtful and considerate tweets. And when you look at any given hot Twitter topic, what strikes me the most is how similar we all are. We’re all the same, at least when constricted to 140 characters.

Such a realization can only be a good thing. Right now, I’m looking forward to seeing what the next step will be. I sincerely hope for a step in an even more equal and thought-provoking direction. I hope my hopes won’t be dashed.

Have a good summer everyone, see you in Twitterverse – or somewhere else!

8 hours of media consumption per day

I know I'm in the television and cross media business, and I should be thrilled that people are availing themselves of an increasing amount of media. I should, but in truth, I'm not.

A recent survey foretells that US citizens will consume an average of 8 hours of media per day by 2013. Of that, close to 50% will be traditional television, the rest web programming, games, DVD:s, mobile content etc.

The reason I'm not thrilled? I honestly believe that this is not the way to go. My firm belief is that we would need a healthy balance between entertainment and so-called Real Life. EIGHT HOURS per day spent consuming media means EIGHT HOURS less to live your own life, to meet people, to really DO SOMETHING, to create something MEANINGFUL... To be a human, not a consumer.

I realize I'm probably a hopeless romantic when it comes to this, but I would be quite happy to see what would happen would we turn off all television and Internet media, close all DVD-rentals etc for a week or two, and let people try to find out what they would do instead. I believe that media has its firm place in the world of man, but it shouldn't be the single most important thing by far.

Seeing as man in 99 cases out of 100 takes the easy way out - i.e. turns on the telly and wastes away - something else must happen. I hope it does.