#n8577161

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup8]

#TweetingTelevisionAudiences - Carly Ryan

New media and its technologies triggered a massive change within the television industry. Convergence has meant content is no longer only viewable through television; limitations of the past, including space and one-way communicative methods are no more (Harrington, 2013, 237). New media has, as Harrington (2013, 238) stated, transformed “how, where, and through what technologies television can be experienced.” Viewers are afforded access to a “digital library of television content in their own time.”

Some have suggested this has caused a “post-broadcast” era (Turner & Tay, as quoted in Harrington, 2013, 238), however many believe these claims have been made too soon—television and new media have converged in a mutually beneficial fashion. 

Television is a social, cultural resource and watching it with others enriches the experience, so much so that individuals endeavour to increase their “sense of community” (Harrington, 2013, 239-240). Social media has become a “second screen”—60 per cent of people actively use it whilst watching television and this is increasing exponentially (Harrington, 2013, 240). It presents viewers with an incredible, interactive space, enabling audiences to be active. Networks can, “in real time,” connect with their viewers and individuals can communicate with networks as well as fellow viewers. As Harrington (2013, 240) highlights, they are afforded the opportunity to engage in a “live, effectively unmediated, communal discussion of television programs.” 

Social networks, particularly Twitter, have become what Harrington, Highfield, and Bruns (as quoted in Harrington, 2013, 241) call a “virtual loungeroom” where audiences can discuss their experiences. This is commonly done through hashtags and key words that connect ad hoc publics. Television networks have tapped into this. They are promoting official hashtags for certain programmes, stimulating discussion with ‘conversation starters’ and are incorporating tweets into the programmes (Harrington, 2013, 242).

In March, ABC Family’s show Pretty Little Liars effectively used Twitter to connect with its audience for the season finale. Twelve main cast members and three executive producers took to the social network to live tweet along with fans and answer their questions. The network centred talk of the show around the hashtags #PLL and #AliTellsAll, and users could use the hashtag #PLLChat to chat to the cast and producers. 

The BIGGEST Twitter chat in #PLL history is TONIGHT! Use #PLLChat to tweet with the ENTIRE cast at 8pm EST!

— Pretty Little Liars (@ABCFpll) March 18, 2014

While the episode aired the cast and producers provided a running commentary on the episode, posted photos and answered fan’s questions.

this scene took hours and hours to film #PLLchat #AliTellsAll

— Ashley Benson (@AshBenzo)

March 19, 2014

.@Brazilian_Liars I think so! #AliTellsAll #PLLChat

— Sasha Pieterse (@SashaaPieterse)

March 19, 2014

Pretty Little Liars’ use of Twitter was very successful—the Nielsen Social Guide (as quoted in Lee, 2014) recorded “1.45 million Tweets” were sent about the show; these tweets were “seen 63.45 million times by 6.29 million people.”

The popularity of social networks has presented organisations with the opportunity gather masses of ‘big data’ on the television audience. Given its availability, data can be obtained efficiently at a low cost Harrington (2013, 245). Interpretation of the data can provide great incite into television audiences.

New media has not only enabled audiences to be active through social media, its convergence with ‘old’ media, like television, has allowed for greater network/audience and viewer/viewer relationships as well as creating new opportunities for television audience research. However, new media and its correlation to big data does not stop there. Twitter and other social media platforms can be used not only for interaction but gain an incite into different audiences through big data.

References Harrington, Stephen. 2013. “Tweeting About the Telly: Live TV, Audiences, and Social Media.” In Twitter and Society, edited by Katrin Weller, Axel Bruns, Jean Burgess, Merja Mahrt and Cornelius Puschmann, 237-248. New York: Peter Lang.

Lee, Grace Chu. 2014. “"Pretty Little Liars" holds pretty big live-tweeting event.” The Twitter Media Blog, March 24. Accessed May 6 2014. http://blog.twitter.com/2014/pretty-little-liars-holds-pretty-big-live-tweeting-event

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup8]

Activism or Slacktivism - Carly Ryan

New media has altered social activism. Its participatory nature has resulted in “the networked population is gaining greater access to information, more opportunities to engage in public speech, and an enhanced ability to undertake collective action” (Shirky, 2011). Social media is a commonly used tool by activists. How influential social media can be in inciting change has greatly debated, and this is the focus of this blog post.

Gladwell (2010) in his article Small Change says that he believes society has a blurred sense of activism. Society is confusing ‘slacktivism’— “actions performed via the Internet in support of a political or social cause but regarded as requiring little time or involvement” (Oxford University Press, n.d.)—with activism.

Last year when the American Supreme Court was evaluating proposition 8 the Human Rights Campaign, an organisation that campaigns for equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, encouraged Facebook and Twitter users to change their profile pictures to the below picture in support of the cause (Yang, 2013).

Many did, and the image spread across social networking sites. However, is this activism? Sure, individuals were actively supporting the cause, however changing a profile picture requires little to no effort. Sure, it is raising awareness of the issue, but is it to an effective extent? It is slacktivism and it is becoming more common. 

Society’s confusion over slacktivism and activism means that some, not all, individuals settle for just changing their Facebook profile picture in support of a cause and not contributing further because they already have. As Gladwell (2010) highlighted, social media “makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact.” This begs the question, could slacktivism be harming activism and reducing societal change?

Shirky (2011) notes that it is becoming more common for people to use social media “not as a replacement for real-world action but as a way to coordinate it.” This is what social media should be used for; it is a tool and as Russwurm (2010) states in her blog, “a tool is only as good as the use to which it’s put.”

The Arab Spring demonstrated how social media including Facebook and Twitter could effectively be used as a tool to coordinate activism. One activist (as quoted in Kassim, 2012) highlighted this, “We use Facebook to schedule the protests and [we use] Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world.”

Social media has undeniably changed how people partake in activism. As highlighted by Gladwell (2010), “it easier for the powerless to collaborate, coördinate, and give voice to their concerns.” However, relying solely on social media to create change is insufficient. Social media should be used as a tool to encourage and coordinate real life action.

References Gladwell, Malcolm. 2010. Small Change: Why The Revolution will not be tweeted. The New Yorker, October 4. Accessed April 24, 2014. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell Kassim, Saleem. 2012. “Twitter Revolution: How the Arab Spring Was Helped By Social Media.” PolicyMic, July 3. Accessed May 4, 2014. http://www.policymic.com/articles/10642/twitter-revolution-how-the-arab-spring-was-helped-by-social-media Oxford University Press. “Slacktivism.” Accessed May 3, 2014. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/slacktivism Russwurm, Laurel. 2010. “Tie Theory.” Woah! Canada, September 30. Accessed May 2, 2014. http://whoacanada.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/tie-theory Shirky, Clay. 2011. “The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change.” Foreign Affairs 90:1. Accessed April 24, 2014. Yang, Mackenzie. 2013. “What Is the Red Equal Sign All Over Facebook and Twitter?” TIME, March 26. Accessed May 2, 2014. http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/03/26/what-is-the-red-equal-sign-all-over-facebook-and-twitter/

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup8]

New Media Communication - Carly Ryan

New media’s communication technologies have created different means of interacting with society, individuals and self. They have become domesticated; they are integrated into our lives and more and more individuals are “always on,” continually connected through networks. The effects these technologies have had on how individuals share material and communicate are evident; prosumers are using abbreviations and emoticons to simplify and enhance messages. Termed ‘netspeak’ by Crystal (2006), computer-mediated communication is a contentious topic, and whether it has diminished, or bettered language, communication and relationships is something to consider.

Netspeak tends to be informal, casual and amendable; letters are omitted, words are misspelt, grammar is deemed irrelevant and punctuation is scarce. Justifiably, questions of whether netspeak is undermining literacy skills are raised. One in particular is, are individuals forgetting the “rules for word construction and sentence mechanics” (Baron 2008, 7), or is it that they simply do not care? Baron (2008, 7) argues “the sheer amount of text that literate Americans produce is diminishing our sense of written craftsmanship,” but does this even matter?

 Alternatively, the way individuals use computer-mediated communication can be viewed as innovative—prosumers are creating new ways of engaging and communicating. Baym (2010, 59) states individuals “appropriate media characteristics as resources to pursue social and relational goals.” Moreover, individuals show “immediacy” online through activities that focus on relationships and limit emotional detachment (Baym 2010, 61). With Twitter capping tweets at 140 characters, messages and thoughts have to be expressed succinctly. Users commonly use minimalistic methods like abbreviations and fragments to condense their messages. This minimalism is used so frequently that it has translated over into everyday life, something that was illustrated in 2010 when ‘BFF,’ ‘LMAO’ and ‘TTYL’ were added into the lexicon of the Oxford American Dictionary (Oxford University Press).

Emoticons are another result of computer-mediated communication. The issue with written communication is that individuals can interpret messages in different, sometimes unintended ways; the use of emoticons rectifies this. Crystal (2006, 41) identifies how emoticons can have “pragmatic force”—individuals use them to indicate how messages should be translated. Used regularly in tweets, iMessages, emails and more, they have become entwined with every day media communication. Emoticons began as simple combinations of keyboard characters like ‘:-)’ and are now, given their popularity, graphics and ‘Emojis’ of almost everything, from foods to animals and wide variety faces.

How individuals appropriate emoticons, abbreviations and other devices to align with social norms shapes their self. Baym (2010, 62) highlights, “as people appropriate the possibilities of textual media to convey social cues, create immediacy, entertain, and show off… they build identities for themselves, build interpersonal relationships, and create social contexts.”

New media and its technologies have changed the way people communicate; it is increasingly more common for people to be “always on,” always connected. While it is questionable if netspeak is weakening literacy skills, it has become the social norm. New communication methods assist, and computer-mediated communication methods assist in shaping individuals sense of self and devices like abbreviations and emoticons show prosumer innovation.

References Baron, Naomi. 2008. “Email to Your Brain: Language in an Online and Mobile World.” In Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World, 3-10. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baym, Nancy. 2010. “Communication in Digital Spaces.” In Personal Connections in the Digital Age, 50-70. Cambridge MA: Polity Press.

Crystal, David. 2006. “The Medium of Netspeak.” In Language and the Internet. 2nd ed., 26-65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford University Press. 2010. “My BFF just told me “TTYL” is in the dictionary. LMAO.” OUPblog, September 16. Accessed April 12, 2014. http://blog.oup.com/2010/09/noad3/

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup8]

New Media and the Entertainment Industry - Carly Ryan

New media has greatly empowered audiences and created numerous opportunities. New media has impacted on and changed the entertainment industry. Sauter (2014) proposed ten concepts regarding new media and entertainment: convergence; inclusionary vibe; forming alliances with audiences; participatory fandom; symbolic and economic capital; vernacular creativity; audiences as entertainers; entertainment as self-formation; blurring of distinctions and ‘new’ vs. ‘old’ media. Some of these will be discussed below. 

Convergence is an important aspect of new media entertainment as engagement must be through multiple platforms. This has led to ‘cross media’—the distribution of the same, only specialised content across varying platforms and ‘transmedia’—producing different material across multiple platforms, to merge into one ‘story’ (Sauter, 2014). One example of cross media can be seen with popular television show, The Walking Dead. As the end credits roll after each episode a preview for the following episode is shown and viewers are encouraged to log on to the network’s website to access additional content including bonus videos and more. Cross media allows producers to engage audiences and bridge traditional media with new media.

Burgess and Green (2009, 25) state ‘vernacular creativity’ encompasses “the wide range of everyday creative practices practiced outside the cultural value systems of either high culture or commercial creative practice.” New media entertainment provides individuals with the opportunity to interact with new creative outlets. Video blogging through platforms like YouTube is seen as a form of social networking—productive play—rather than a “mode of cultural ‘production’” (Burgess and Green 2009, 26).

Through YouTube the ‘blurring of distinctions’ between producers and consumers, experts and amateurs (Sauter, 2014), is evident. Millions of videos uploaded to the website were created by individuals, not institutions or ‘experts.’ Moreover, consumers are producing their own videos to upload; they have become prosumers.

Entertainment in new media is also seen as a ‘sense of self-formation’ with individuals creating and developing their self through engagement. Sauter (2014) highlights how entertainment can be a relational, mean-making activity. How individuals present themselves reflects on their understanding of self, and interactions with others develops and improves it, again this can be seen on YouTube.

“YouTube has been mythologized as literally a way to ‘broadcast yourself’ into fame and fortune” (Burgess and Green 2009, 22). While millions of people upload original content to the website, most videos are scarcely viewed. There are however many, many ‘ordinary’ individuals who have made a name for themselves and established a following through YouTube; Tyler Oakley is an example. 

Labelled a “YouTube sensation” (Bloomberg L.P., 2011) and depicted to have “one of the loudest voices on YouTube” (Romano, 2013), Tyler has uploaded almost 300 videos to YouTube since September 2007; he has amassed over 4.2 million subscribers and more than 155 million total views (YouTube n.d.). Tyler has many endearing qualities that attract viewers: he is hilarious, relatable—he is a self-proclaimed professional ‘fan-girl’, talented, is commendably honest about his identity as a queer man and regularly supports great causes. Tyler’s weekly videos are reflective of pop culture and he regularly involves his fans and audience through ‘Q&A’ videos (see below).

The entertainment industry has transformed as a result of new media and through convergence, vernacular creativity, a blurring of distinctions and sense of self-formation audiences are more empowered and able. YouTube and user Tyler Oakley are examples of entertainment within new media and how the landscape has changed.

References Bloomberg L.P. 2011. Lady Gaga Honored With Google Inc. at 'Trevor Live' Presented by Audi of America and ING. [Press release]. December 5, 2011. http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2011-12-05/a5wTe6Q35C7M.html

Burgess, Jean and Joshua Green. 2009. “You Tube and the Mainstream Media.” In YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture, edited by Jean Burgess, Joshua Green and Henry Jenkins, 15-37. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Romano, Aja. 2013. “Tyler Oakley Is A Bigger Fangirl Than You.” The Huffington Post, February 2. Accessed April 5, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/02/tyler-oakley-is-a-bigger-_n_2599750.html

Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “KCB206 New Media: Week 5 Lecture slides - New Media and the Entertainment Industry.” Accessed April 1, 2014. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_4_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2FcourseMain%3Fcourse_id%3D_108110_1

YouTube. n.d. “Tyler Oakley.” Accessed April 5, 2014. http://www.youtube.com/user/tyleroakley/about

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup8]

New Media: Empowering Audiences, Or Is It? - Carly Ryan

Through technological advancements the role of the audience within new media has changed. Audiences no longer just accept messages that are presented to them; they have become more active and are able to take part in new media and choose their level of engagement. As Rosen (2006) states, “the people formerly known as the audience are simply the public made realer, less fictional, more able, less predictable” meaning the public has always been there; however new media has enabled them. New media has unquestionably had a profound effect on the audience and while it is empowering them, are audiences disadvantaged through the resultant exposure to exploitation?

The concept of content ‘going viral’ or “spreading through audiences, not via purposeful sharing but by infecting person after person who comes into contact with it” has become “popular culture logic” (Green and Jenkins 2011, 114). A recent example of something having gone viral is the ‘First Kiss’ video (see below). The video depicts 20 strangers meeting for the first time and being asked to kiss. It’s awkward, intimate, funny and beautiful at the same time.

The video was uploaded on Monday, 10 March and within 48 hours it had taken the Internet by storm, amassing over 24 million views on YouTube (Dodds 2014). The video was shared countless times on Facebook, Twitter and various other social media outlets. Almost two weeks on and the video has been viewed over 68 million times.

What many—myself included— failed to realise was that the video was in fact an advertisement for women’s clothing company Wren. Granted, the opening sequence of the video does inform the audience “WREN presents,” however it dissolves in and out of the screen within a second. Most people were unaware when they were sharing and spreading the video that it was in fact an advertisement. Users were unknowingly assisting in marketing and promoting Wren’s products by spreading the video. 

This begs the question—if people knew the video was an advertisement, would they have spread it? Critics of new media argue that audiences are more open to exploitation by companies for financial gain. Green and Jenkins (2011, 114) highlight “…people are duped into passing a hidden agenda while circulating compelling content.” Arguably, this is an example of the audience being exploited by Wren. However, as Dodds (2014) states, “we really should have seen this coming.”

 The video has inspired its viewers—the audience—to use the same concept and create their own parody. Some of the more successful parodies are the Jimmy Fallon’s ‘First Lick’ and the Gay Women’s Channel’s ‘First Gay Hug (A Homophobic Experiment)' (see below).

As discussed in ‘Spreadable Media’ (Green and Jenkins 2011, 116), “spreadability assumes a world where mass content gets repositioned as it enters different niche communities. …As content spreads, it gets remade.” Individuals have not just been empowered to recreate content in their own, unique way; they are sharing and spreading it. 

While the case of the ‘First Kiss’ video it can be used as an example to argue that new media is exposing audiences to exploitation from companies for financial gain, audience empowerment from new media overshadows this. New media is enabling and empowering audiences to be more active, and this cannot be a bad thing.

References

Dodds, Eric. 2014. “Why That ‘First Kiss’ Video Now Feels Like A Bad First Date.” TIME, March 12. Accessed March 22, 2014. http://time.com/21332/why-that-first-kiss-video-now-feels-like-a-bad-first-date/

Green, Joshua and Henry Jenkins. 2011. “Spreadable Media. How Audiences Create Value and Meaning in a Networked Economy.” In The Handbook of Media Audiences edited by Virginia Nightingale, 109-127. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 

Rosen, Jay. 2006. “The People Formerly Known as the Audience.” PressThink: Ghost of Democracy in the Media Machine, June 27. Accessed March 20, 2014. http://archive.pressthink.org/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html