Part One: Media Viruses and Memes
Jenkins concerned with the use of the terms “viral” and “memes” by those in the marketing, advertising and media industries creating more confusion than clarity. Both these terms rely on a biological metaphor to explain the way media content moves through cultures, a metaphor that confuses the actual power relations between producers, properties, brands, and consumers. Furthermore, just what counts as viral is unclear. In focusing on the involuntary transmission of ideas by unaware consumers, these models allow advertisers and media producers to hold onto an inflated sense of their own power to shape the communication process, even as unruly behavior by consumers becomes a source of great anxiety within the media industry. The infection metaphor is attractive in that it reduces consumers, often the most unpredictable variable in the sender-message-receiver frame, to involuntary “hosts” of media viruses and that it hold onto the idea that media producers can design “killer” texts which can ensure circulation by being injected directly into the cultural “bloodstream.”
Given the problems with these terms, Jenkins and his partners are proposing an alternative model, the idea of spreadable media which better accounts for how and why media content circulates at the present time. this model emphasizes the activity of consumers also called “multipliers” in shaping the circulation of media content, often expanding potential meanings and opening up brands to unanticipated new markets.
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in 1976 was looking for a way to explain cultural evolution, imagining it as a biological system. What genes are to genetics, he suggested, memes would be to culture. Like the gene, the meme is driven to self-create, and is possessed of three important characteristics. These are "fidelity — memes have the ability to retain their informational content as they pass from mind to mind, fecundity — memes possess the power to induce copies of themselves and longevity — memes that survive longer have a better chance of being copied."
The authors argue that this approach misunderstands the way content spreads, which is namely, through the active practices of people. They say that “memes” do not self-replicate and that people are not “susceptible” to this viral media
Part Two: Sticky and Spreadable- Two Paradigms
The authors prefer to think of media as spreadable. Spreadability as a concept describes how the properties of the media environment, texts, audiences, and business models work together to enable easy and widespread circulation of mutually meaningful content within a networked culture. This new “spreadable” model allows us to avoid metaphors of “infection” and “contamination” which over-estimate the power of media companies and underestimate the agency of consumers. In this emerging model, consumers play an active role in “spreading” content rather than being the passive carriers of viral media. Spreadability relies on the human mind to spread valuable content to others.
The term “sticky” first and foremost refers to websites which “grab and hold the attention of your visitor” (Meredian, n.d.). Stickiness seeks to attract and hold the attention of site visitor and depends on concentrating the attention of all interested parties on a specific site or through a specific channel. Stickiness typically tracks the migrations of individual consumers within a site.
They argue that for media companies to fully grasp the advantages of spreadability, they have to unlearn the lessons of “stickiness,” which is less effective than it used to be.
Reaction
I noticed that this was written in 2009 and since it is more than 5 years later, I was wondering if they have new ideas about the spread of media and if this piece has actually effected and changed the terminology of "viral media" to spreadable media in some circles. I agree that the term viral media doesn't give enough credit to the consumer who actively spread the media and change it to their liking. The work of the consumer or "multiplier" is too important to only give it a host role inferring that they don't have any influence on the spread what so ever. I like the idea of spreadable media, it is a more comprehensive term for the process that is commonly know as viral media.
Jenkins concerned with the use of the terms “viral” and “memes” by those in the marketing, advertising and media industries creating more confusion than clarity. Both these terms rely on a biological metaphor to explain the way media content moves through cultures, a metaphor that confuses the actual power relations between producers, properties, brands, and consumers. Furthermore, just what counts as viral is unclear. In focusing on the involuntary transmission of ideas by unaware consumers, these models allow advertisers and media producers to hold onto an inflated sense of their own power to shape the communication process, even as unruly behavior by consumers becomes a source of great anxiety within the media industry. The infection metaphor is attractive in that it reduces consumers, often the most unpredictable variable in the sender-message-receiver frame, to involuntary “hosts” of media viruses and that it hold onto the idea that media producers can design “killer” texts which can ensure circulation by being injected directly into the cultural “bloodstream.”
Given the problems with these terms, Jenkins and his partners are proposing an alternative model, the idea of spreadable media which better accounts for how and why media content circulates at the present time. this model emphasizes the activity of consumers also called “multipliers” in shaping the circulation of media content, often expanding potential meanings and opening up brands to unanticipated new markets.
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in 1976 was looking for a way to explain cultural evolution, imagining it as a biological system. What genes are to genetics, he suggested, memes would be to culture. Like the gene, the meme is driven to self-create, and is possessed of three important characteristics. These are "fidelity — memes have the ability to retain their informational content as they pass from mind to mind, fecundity — memes possess the power to induce copies of themselves and longevity — memes that survive longer have a better chance of being copied."
The authors argue that this approach misunderstands the way content spreads, which is namely, through the active practices of people. They say that “memes” do not self-replicate and that people are not “susceptible” to this viral media
Part Two: Sticky and Spreadable- Two Paradigms
The authors prefer to think of media as spreadable. Spreadability as a concept describes how the properties of the media environment, texts, audiences, and business models work together to enable easy and widespread circulation of mutually meaningful content within a networked culture. This new “spreadable” model allows us to avoid metaphors of “infection” and “contamination” which over-estimate the power of media companies and underestimate the agency of consumers. In this emerging model, consumers play an active role in “spreading” content rather than being the passive carriers of viral media. Spreadability relies on the human mind to spread valuable content to others.
The term “sticky” first and foremost refers to websites which “grab and hold the attention of your visitor” (Meredian, n.d.). Stickiness seeks to attract and hold the attention of site visitor and depends on concentrating the attention of all interested parties on a specific site or through a specific channel. Stickiness typically tracks the migrations of individual consumers within a site.
They argue that for media companies to fully grasp the advantages of spreadability, they have to unlearn the lessons of “stickiness,” which is less effective than it used to be.
Reaction
I noticed that this was written in 2009 and since it is more than 5 years later, I was wondering if they have new ideas about the spread of media and if this piece has actually effected and changed the terminology of "viral media" to spreadable media in some circles. I agree that the term viral media doesn't give enough credit to the consumer who actively spread the media and change it to their liking. The work of the consumer or "multiplier" is too important to only give it a host role inferring that they don't have any influence on the spread what so ever. I like the idea of spreadable media, it is a more comprehensive term for the process that is commonly know as viral media.
No comments:
Post a Comment