Commercial production, community produsage and the ways in which the two intersect...

Since the development of Web 2.0, it is becoming increasingly difficult to define the differences between commercial production and community produsage. As demonstrated in my previous post, the introduction of new media technologies that emerged with Web 2.0 allowed the roles of media producers and users to mesh and share responsibilities, with many users or fans producing and altering content, and many traditional media producers becoming fans or users of this content. Production is now collaborative and participatory, enabling all participants to become users and/or producers of information and technology. Axel Bruns describes this new hybrid of people as produsers, those who “engage not in a traditional form of content production, but are instead involved in produsage – the collaborative and continuous building and extending of existing content in pursuit of further improvement”. This collaboration between users and producers has blurred the differences between commercial production and community produsage; however there are still key differences between the two.

Traditionally, consumers had very little, if any, influence over commercial production. Content and distribution was solely controlled by producers and distributors, not necessarily adhering to consumers’ desires. Furthermore, content was produced and copyrighted in discrete versions, which were not to be altered by third parties and released at the decision of producers (Bruns, 2007). Generally, the main focus of commercial production is to make money. It is usually produced for a mass audience and created in a professional environment, developed and edited only by those directly involved in the production. Commercial production often involves an “all-controlling, coordinating hierarchy”, and has predetermined alliances with specific companies, social communities and audiences (Bruns, 2008).

Alternatively, community produsage is far more social and with very little boundaries. Community produsage is often driven by enjoyment and recreational factors, rather than industrial, money-making factors. Much community produsage takes place in social networking and open source environments such as YouTube, Wikipedia and MySpace. As mentioned earlier, Bruns describes produsage as “the collaborative and continuous building and extending of existing content in pursuit of further improvement”. Those partaking in community produsage alter, edit and contribute to existing content, collaborating with others in an online environment to create new and original content.

However, as commercial producers are beginning to recognise the growth in popularity and benefits of embracing community produsage, the two concepts are beginning to merge, developing user-led content ‘production’ (Bruns, 2008). User-led content ‘production’ is “built on iterative, evolutionary development models in which often very large communities of participants make a number of usually very small, incremental changes to the established knowledge base, thereby enabling a gradual improvement in quality which— under the right conditions—can nonetheless outpace the speed of product development in the conventional, industrial model” (Bruns, 2008).

Commercial production is now being influenced by community produsage, whether it be through fandom (as mentioned in my previous post) or through collaborative, user-generated productions such as A Swarm of Angels. Thought of as ‘Cinema 2.0’ or ‘Open source cinema’, A Swarm of Angels aims to bring filmmaker and fan together into entertainment communities, making a film based on artistic choices rather than marketing ones. It combines the concepts of traditional filmmaking and user-generated content, allowing anyone to contribute and influence the creation of a professional $1.8 million feature film. Using the flexible digital-age copyright of Creative Commons, the project encourages people to download, share and remix the feature film and all original media created for the project. The project is gathering a community of 50,000 people to assist in the funding and making of the film, and pushes traditional boundaries, refusing all offline media.

Although there are still key differences and separation between commercial production and community produsage, we are increasingly seeing projects emerging which combine the two concepts to create user-generated productions. As Web 2.0 and new media technologies continue to develop, we can only expect to see more collaboration between the two concepts, for both commercial and recreational purposes. As the two concepts begin to blur, it makes me wonder whether many of these productions are still ultimately about making money, or whether the idea of community produsage is used to embrace the wide variety of creativity it encourages? Is it about business figures, or quality of production and creativity?

Audiences and media producers.. who holds the power?

With the introduction and development of new media technologies, especially those revolving around the Internet and telecommunications, a significant change has occurred with the way in which audiences consume media. As Jenkins (2006a, 13) has observed in his studies of new media, "the roles between producers and consumers are shifting". Audiences now have a more considerable and noteworthy relationship with media producers, having more choice and influence over which media they consume and how they consume it. Fans of particular media products can now interact and discuss their opinions and suggestions with people interested in or involved with that product from all over the world, via online forums, chat rooms, fan sites, mobile phone alerts and more. Furthermore, media producers are redefining the way in which they decide what content to release, influenced more by quality of audience engagement rather than the quantity of viewers watching (Jenkins 2006b, 63).

The relationship between media producers and audiences is “undergoing a significant transformation”, and thus entities such as fans, consumers, audiences, producers and corporations are individually in the process of being “restructured and reorganised” (Banks 2002, 190). Traditionally, there was hardly a relationship between media producers and audiences. Media provided audiences with content in a one-way approach, believing that most audiences were not interested in interacting with the media content, and would prefer to just sit back and watch (Jenkins 2006b, 59). Although there have always been fans, the extent of fandom in the past was not necessarily significant enough to influence media producers. Historically, networks and producers ignored fan bases in regard to media decisions, considering fans as unrepresentative of the general public (Jenkins 2006b, 76). Before the introduction of the Internet, fans communicated on a friendship basis, via telephone or face to face; or through fan mail and newsletters via postal service. However, as Jenkins (2002, 189) argues, if fandom was already established before the Internet, why is it that upgrading to a digital environment has so significantly affected the relationship between the fan community and media producers?

Jenkins (2006a, 21) describes modern fan cultures as "a revitalisation of the old folk culture process in response to the content of mass culture". Within the new digital environment of the Internet, fans no longer need to rely on the postal service or telephones. The Internet increases the speed and range of fandom, allowing audiences to interact and discuss episodes or movies immediately after viewing, or even during commercial breaks (Jenkins 2002, 190). Fandom generates audience interest and takes their involvement to a new level, providing a platform for viewers to inform each other of recent developments, allowing them to keep up-to-date constantly, even if they happen to miss an episode. For example, Lost-TV is an unofficial fansite for the TV series Lost, which includes the latest announcements and exclusives on the show, information, episode-by-episode synopses, transcripts, spoilers, pictures, an online forum and much more. Media producers have embraced this, ensuring that audience loyalty remains even if they are unable to religiously watch the program. In addition to this, fan networks provide producers with an insight into how audiences feel about the content of the program, suggestions and speculations that are being made, and any other discussions surrounding the program. As a result of this, many fans expect that producers will now “actively listen to, engage with and support” their opinions and ideas, building a collaborative relationship with them (Banks 2002, 195). As fandom becomes increasing popular, it is becoming more influential over producers, and providing them a greater insight into audience desires and expectations.

The growth of fandom has resulted in audiences and media producers no longer being separate entities. Many producers are themselves fans, participating actively in fan networks on the Internet (Banks 2002, 195). This also works the other way, as many audience members and fans are now becoming producers, either of original content, or by editing and reproducing current media. Examples of this include A Swarm of Angels, Fan Fiction and 365 Tomorrows. Over the past few decades, emerging technologies such as home computers, video cameras and VCRs have “granted viewers control over media flows, enabled activists to reshape and recirculate media content, lowered the costs of production and paved the way for new grassroots networks” (Jenkins 2002, 167), the most common and simple example of this being the development of YouTube. Pierre Levy (cited in Jenkins 2002, 164) comments on the future of media, “The distinctions between authors and readers, producers and spectators, creators and interpretations will blend to form a reading-writing continuum”. Many producers support this theory, and by using fan sites they have identified audiences’ need to interact with, interpret and reproduce content. Therefore, room for improvisation and participation is being incorporated into many new media franchises, and television producers are becoming extremely knowledgeable about their fan communities, often responding and expressing their support through networked computing (Jenkins 2002, 164). In doing this, media producers have given audiences a degree of social control over media, allowing them the grounds to produce their own content. Thus the relationship between media producers and audiences has indeed changed, with the two entities meshing and overlapping responsibilities.

Personally, I feel that regardless of the extent of power or influence audiences have over media producers, in the end those with the final say will be those with the money - the media producers. Unfortunately, as much as people may try and think otherwise, we are living in a material world and money tends to equal power. Even fans fear that the role of media producers is still too controlling - Jenkins (2006a, 20) points out that American Idol fans "fear that their participation is marginal and that producers still play too active a role in shaping the outcome of the competition". In terms of professional media productions, which ultimately aim to make money, producers will ensure that regardless of whether audiences are involved or not, the final product will be whatever they believe will be most successful... and make the most money. Produsage, user-generated content and fandom have all provided audiences with much more power than they ever had traditionally, however I believe that ultimately, the real power will always lie with media producers (and their money).

For more info on fandom check out:

• Online Fandom -Nancy Baym's blog on fan communication and online social life
• Random Fandom - a podcast hosted by Joanna, sharing her thoughts and opinions on fandom including music, pop culture, movies, etc
• Fan Forum - as it suggests, an online fan forum allowing fans to communicate and share their thoughts on their fandom

References
Banks, J. 2002. Gamers as Co-creators: Enlisting the Virtual Audience – A Report From the Net Face. In Mobilising the Audience, eds. M. Balnaves, T. O’Reagan, and J. Sternberg, 188-212. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Jenkins, H. 2006a. Introduction: Worship at the Altar of Convergence. In Convergence Culture: When New and Old Media Collide, ed. H. Jenkins, 1-24. New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, H. 2006b. Buying into American Idol: How We Are Being Sold on Reality Television. In Convergence Culture: When New and Old Media Collide, ed. H. Jenkins, 59-92. New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, H. 2002. Interactive Audiences? In The New Media Book, ed. D Harries, 157-170. London: BFO Publishing.