Jenkins optimistically envisions the emergence in contemporary society of a convergence culture, where space is contested between media institutions and individual consumers. Jenkins, with 20 years of fan-based research, as a former industry insider, and the Head of Programs for Comparative Media Studies at MIT, provides an insider’s look at fan subcultures, network executives, and how each influences the other’s enterprise. His basic argument is that convergence is emancipating. His focus is primarily on popular culture, leaving politics and economics aside, with a slight suggestion at the end of his book as to how lessons learned in pop culture might be applied to presidential elections.
Jenkins’s research on this convergence culture and its clash with media executives and providers are presented in case studies of such media artifacts as American Idol, The Matrix, Harry Potter, and Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. The cases show how fans of such media content construct virtual “communities” in which knowledge about the artifact at hand is discussed and constructed in a democratic fashion. Jenkins describes how contemporary media is shaped by two contesting trends: (1) consumers are gaining more agency in the manipulation and distribution of content, and (2) media ownership is becoming more concentrated; thus, control is becoming centralized. Jenkins alleviates fears of a future with a straightforward look at how media and consumers interact in ways that no totalizing force could manage. Jenkins sees this paradox as a positive dialectical exchange that forces traditional institutions to rethink their approaches to media consumption and even forces them to emulate how media is formed by grass-roots communities.
The initial five chapters detail how participatory culture mediates between consumers and traditional media institutions, suggesting that free play between network communities allows great creativity and reward. An implied claim is that we should not fear the domination of huge media conglomerates because no media institution can sustain the constant barrage of network communities reshaping the constant supply of content. Furthermore, Jenkins suggests that media concentration is economically self-defeating because it lets media companies ignore consumers’ demands for diverse content.
Somewhat problematically, though, Jenkins describes television’s customers as viewers. He thus misinterprets the buyers, sellers, and product in this market. Noting that advertiser support is the dominant source of revenues for media corporations, I would instead identify the main commodity manufactured by media as the commodity audience. Networks use programming to attract viewers in order to sell them to advertisers that ran their commercials during the programs. A powerful, private research firm, A.C. Nielsen Media Research sells only a target audience to advertisers that is constituted especially by white males, between 18–34 years old. Nielsen justifies this demographic as a target audience because it is seen as one with the most disposable income and therefore, most likely to purchase the products seen in advertisements. This sample, obviously, leaves out entire segments of the population who actually act as television audience. This later group is considered less valuable to advertisers. The Nielson ratings, then, do not reveal which programs are most popular. Jenkins’s notions about micro- markets become problematic, then, as he lacks an analysis of television’s market structure and of advertisers’ role as consumer. For political economists focusing on commercial artifacts such as television programs, or on strategic communication such as advertising, the concept of an audience commodity contextualizes the objects and practices under study within the larger industrial systems from which they emerge. Understanding the concept of an audience commodity positions researchers to appreciate how media companies and media-buying corporations work, how they produce the menu of media artifacts, and how we get what we get from the media. Television shows, then, assemble (certain) people for sale to advertisers; in other words, television content does not reflect viewers’ demand. Discovering the institutional frameworks within which folks interact with mainstream media falls outside of the scope of Jenkins research, but his analysis could nonetheless benefit from this perspective. His idea of convergence culture suggests a utopian future for avid fans who have the time, knowledge, and resources to make them appealing commodities for advertisers. However, I believe the institutions themselves, and their ability to control messages, their hierarchical structure, political power, and general practices that make convergence culture possible are unfair and undemocratic.
1 comment:
Jenkins optimistically envisions the emergence in contemporary society of a convergence culture, where space is contested between media institutions and individual consumers. Jenkins, with 20 years of fan-based research, as a former industry insider, and the Head of Programs for Comparative Media Studies at MIT, provides an insider’s look at fan subcultures, network executives, and how each influences the other’s enterprise. His basic argument is that convergence is emancipating. His focus is primarily on popular culture, leaving politics and economics aside, with a slight suggestion at the end of his book as to how lessons learned in pop culture might be applied to presidential elections.
Jenkins’s research on this convergence culture and its clash with media executives and providers are presented in case studies of such media artifacts as American Idol, The Matrix, Harry Potter, and Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. The cases show how fans of such media content construct virtual “communities” in which knowledge about the artifact at hand is discussed and constructed in a democratic fashion. Jenkins describes how contemporary media is shaped by two contesting trends: (1) consumers are gaining more agency in the manipulation and distribution of content, and (2) media ownership is becoming more concentrated; thus, control is becoming centralized. Jenkins alleviates fears of a future with a straightforward look at how media and consumers interact in ways that no totalizing force could manage. Jenkins sees this paradox as a positive dialectical exchange that forces traditional institutions to rethink their approaches to media consumption and even forces them to emulate how media is formed by grass-roots communities.
The initial five chapters detail how participatory culture mediates between consumers and traditional media institutions, suggesting that free play between network communities allows great creativity and reward. An implied claim is that we should not fear the domination of huge media conglomerates because no media institution can sustain the constant barrage of network communities reshaping the constant supply of content. Furthermore, Jenkins suggests that media concentration is economically self-defeating because it lets media companies ignore consumers’ demands for diverse content.
Somewhat problematically, though, Jenkins describes television’s customers as viewers. He thus misinterprets the buyers, sellers, and product in this market. Noting that advertiser support is the dominant source of revenues for media corporations, I would instead identify the main commodity manufactured by media as the commodity audience. Networks use programming to attract viewers in order to sell them to advertisers that ran their commercials during the programs. A powerful, private research firm, A.C. Nielsen Media Research sells only a target audience to advertisers that is constituted especially by white males, between 18–34 years old. Nielsen justifies this demographic as a target audience because it is seen as one with the most disposable income and therefore, most likely to purchase the products seen in advertisements. This sample, obviously, leaves out entire segments of the population who actually act as television audience. This later group is considered less valuable to advertisers. The Nielson ratings, then, do not reveal which programs are most popular. Jenkins’s notions about micro- markets become problematic, then, as he lacks an analysis of television’s market structure and of advertisers’ role as consumer. For political economists focusing on commercial artifacts such as television programs, or on strategic communication such as advertising, the concept of an audience commodity contextualizes the objects and practices under study within the larger industrial systems from which they emerge. Understanding the concept of an audience commodity positions researchers to appreciate how media companies and media-buying corporations work, how they produce the menu of media artifacts, and how we get what we get from the media. Television shows, then, assemble (certain) people for sale to advertisers; in other words, television content does not reflect viewers’ demand. Discovering the institutional frameworks within which folks interact with mainstream media falls outside of the scope of Jenkins research, but his analysis could nonetheless benefit from this perspective. His idea of convergence culture suggests a utopian future for avid fans who have the time, knowledge, and resources to make them appealing commodities for advertisers. However, I believe the institutions themselves, and their ability to control messages, their hierarchical structure, political power, and general practices that make convergence culture possible are unfair and undemocratic.
Post a Comment