 |
| Please excuse this subtly-placed logo! |
In Chapters two and three of Henry Jenkins' "Convergence Culture," the author explores the worlds of both American Idol and the Matrix franchise, in continuing to explore the world of converging media- specifically from the angle of the trans-media franchise. One is looked at from the angle of changes in corporate marketing and branding strategies, while the other is looked at trans-media franchises from the angle of changes in story-telling. Specifically, Jenkins used the example of American Idol to illustrate his concept of "affective economics," and the marketing theory that focuses less on "impression" and more on building a "long-term relationship" between a consumer and a brand. With the Matrix, Jenkins focused more on the franchise's exploitation of multiple media formats and platforms to enhance the storytelling experience for the (devoted) consumer.
First, with regard to this concept of affective economics, branding and product placement- I understand the growing presence of these things and the growing significance as well; however, I would have to say that personally, my response to these methods would fall more on the "backlash" side of the fence. To me, the corporate-driven American Idol has felt more like a force-feeding of different brands, rather than an invitation for me to be invested in and care about those brands. I am invested in and loyal to American Idol- and the product placement that is a part of the show, I would equate to pock marks on an otherwise attractive face. While reading, I asked myself if any of this product placement (i.e Simon Cowell drinking out of a Coca-Cola cup at the judges' table) played on my investment to the show itself, and I honestly do not think I feel any more connected to Coke based on how much exposure it gets in my tv show. If I am loyal to Coke in any way, it is because of the quality of the product, not the placement. If anything though, I am more prone to drink Pepsi- based on nothing more than the annoyance factor that comes with my awareness of this "hypercommercialism" that is taking place.
With that being said, I did come away from this chapter with a glimpse of the potential that is here. As producers and brands continue to interact with the consumer in more and new ways, I feel that a more balanced approach (compared to Idol) might be found. One that gives the consumer, as a part of the "brand community" a voice to be heard. When the focus is on giving the consumer a voice, that is when I feel like I, at least, would be more apt to become invested in different brands. Toms Shoes is on example of this- where I buy a pair of TOMS and a pair gets donated to a child in a third world country. Because I'm able to actively participate, I feel more invested in that brand than I do the Nike brand, simply because my favorite football team wears "cool" Nike jerseys.
As for the Matrix, and the trans-media story, I have a few scattered thoughts in closing. For one thing, I completely understand the appeal of having multiple entry points and added depth to a story/world/franchise that I care about. Between Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and the tv show LOST- I have a few examples in my life of worlds that I would invest in at a deeper level than a 400 page novel, or a 3 hour movie, or a 45 minute episode. The distinction I make though, is that I lose interest when I begin to perceive that I am beginning to be exposed to non-canonical information or back-story. The Lord of the Rings franchise, as mentioned by Jenkins, has been explored deeper through video games than JRR Tolkien ever went. The fact that I wish Tolkien were alive to add depth to his world through all the platforms available today speaks to my position- one concern I have with story telling across platforms is this idea of having multiple authors and expansive canon. While I see the appeal, my big question for the future of trans-media storytelling is how authenticity is established. For myself, I am not invested or very interested in anything that is de-centralized from the creative minds of Rowling, Tolkien, and Abrams/Lindelof/Cuse respectively. However, as the Wachowski brothers and the Matrix franchise showed, it is very possible that stories of the future will be told across many platforms, and from the perspectives and minds of many. It will be interesting to see how it develops.
Questions:
 |
| Look at me! |
- Does audience participation (in a series like AI) foster consumer loyalty to brand sponsors? Specifically, if you were invested in American Idol, would you also feel emotionally invested in Coca Cola, AT&T, Ford?
- What types of marketing appeal to you or catch your eye?
- What is your exposure to trans-media storytelling? Do you feel that spreading a story across multiple platforms (and perhaps even multiple story-tellers) could water down the integrity of the story, and what is considered canonical?
Images:
No comments:
Post a Comment