#spreadablemedia

[valiantlycolorfulgalaxy]

Netflix, the end of Real-Flix?

https://www.netflix.com/au/

The entertainment industry, specifically film and television, has followed a particular ‘traditional’ distribution path since the incorporation of the television into consumers’ lives and homes. Generally the process begins with theatre showings, followed by DVD release, then cable television airing and finally airing on broadcast networks (Murphy 2011, 17). This process bound the industry to a designated production and distribution process, in turn limiting and controlling how entertainment is shared. The traditional nature of this process did not account for the technological affordances that would arise through new media, particularly the Internet, and social media. Netflix saw the potential of these affordances and positioned themselves in anticipation of a looming industry transformation. 

Netflix began as an online movie rental process, where consumers were able to rent films online and receive them through postal mail, to be returned after rental (Netflix, 2015). From here the company expanded and grew consistently anticipating the next trend in entertainment consumption. Now, Netflix is a dominant force in the entertainment industry, delivering and producing its own content, as well as other popular content, online (Castillo 2013, 12 & Ault 2014, 35). The dramatic change in the entertainment industry, and the communications theories underpinning this move, can be explained through examining Netflix and its expansion. Netflix has broken the mould in terms of entertainment delivery, converging industries and technology to produce and distribute content. This raises the technological determinism debate, has Netflix adapted technology to meet social needs or does technology define our social needs and values pushing Netflix to constantly transform its delivery methods (Baron 2008, 4)? Finally the combination of these concepts highlights the presence of spreadable media in the entertainment industry through platforms such as Netflix. 

The article ‘37 Things You Probably Didn’t Know About Netflix’ provides a great insight into how Netflix has become and continues to remain a dominant force in the entertainment industry. Netflix, in following the convergence trend, has diversified and demassified media content opening up a vast range of opportunities for consumers to interact with and control what and where entertainment is received (Flew 2014, 76). Netflix works through service subscription, a monthly charge gives consumers access to all available Netflix content, including their original productions (Ellingsen 2014, 107). The convergent nature of Netflix has allowed the repurposing of entertainment content and encourages the social side of consuming (Flew 2014, 87).

Original Netflix productions, such as Orange is the New Black, publicised solely through the platform and social media are more dominant in the social media-scape than traditional linear network series (Ault 2014, 35). The ‘move to own content’ signifies the convergence of production and distribution in the entertainment industry (Ellingsen 2014, 108). The incorporation of social media as an advertising tool and communal space for consumers has changed the entertainment industry and moved entertainment into the technological era. No longer is entertainment a process bound by time and location, Netflix has allowed for multi-faceted consumption, from viewing, to sharing, to contributing (Netflix Launches New Social Features, 2013), further converging the production, distribution and consumption of entertainment. 2010 saw the introduction of Netflix onto Internet enabled devices (Netflix, 2015) meaning subscribers were now able to view entertainment of their choice at any time in any place. This move eliminates the need to have a DVD, DVD Player, Television or access to a theatre at the designated times. This is a significant step in the change in the entertainment industry; the control in this industry has shifted to consumers (McMillan 2014). Entertainment producers and distributers are now forced to explore different production and sharing platforms to keep-up with the ‘Netflix Way,’ (Castillo 2013, 12). Further, converging production and distribution through social media will cement a position in the market and keep up with current industry trends. Simply producing and distributing traditionally will leave companies in the wake of new accessible, direct and social entertainment platforms. This highlights how social media has changed the nature of the relationship between entertainment producers and audiences in the entertainment industry since the introduction of Netflix, and the cultural shift causing this change.

Pinning technology as the driving force in sculpting society and cultural values has been a common theme throughout the advancing technological age. There is no question technology has many affordances society, now, could not live without. However the underlying debate remains, does technology drive social change or is there a balance between societal needs and technological advancements (Roe Smith & Marx 1994, 2).  Netflix has appeared to be in front of the technological game in its business expansion and incorporation, confirming the idea technology, with its organic characteristics, grows with us (Schulz 2002, 45). This growth substantiates the idea of technological determinism in society, in anticipating technology will grow and expand alongside humans it is inevitable technology will influence society and culture (Schulz 2002, 45). However, Netflix growth can also be viewed as a responsive model. Netflix works to align consumer needs with available technological opportunities. Consumers naturally engage in conversation about experiences (Netflix Launches New Social Features, 2013), therefore incorporating social sharing options into an online entertainment platform is an obvious integration. This simple social strategy highlights Netflix has not initiated a cultural drive to discuss experiences, rather they have recognised a cultural value and incorporated it, through technology, to establish a virtual space reflective of the real world. Underlying this cultural value is the presence of a shift in behavioural norms and the removal of time and location boundaries that previously constricted communications (Baron 2008, 4). This shift is reflective of the global community and shared space technology has afforded users. Thus, technology and social media do not control or define cultural values rather values are established and technology is incorporated to facilitate these into society. In using these societal cultural values to underpin business practices, Netflix is also enabling the expansion of spreadable media.

Spreadable media has been facilitated by technologies that allow production, distribution and consumption all in one device (Nightingale 2011, 109). These technological affordances make it easier for media to be shared within your network or to the global community as a way of engaging with content (Nightingale 2011, 111). This idea underpins the social move from top-down distribution of content to consumer circulation of content (Ellingsen 2014, 109). Netflix exemplifies this consumer want through its integration of socially sharing content through Facebook. While the platform remains a distribution service, once subscribed consumers are able to modify their ‘Social Settings’ and participate in conversation and share suggestions with friends and fellow consumers (Netflix Launches New Social Features, 2013). This idea extends further to the concept of not watching entertainment next to someone but together online through ‘chatterboxing’ (Martindale, 2013). Chatterboxing encourages consumption at the time of release, rather than being left behind in the wake of social media spoilers, and pushes consumer chatter about new entertainment through social media channels (Martindale, 2013). 

The ‘chatterboxing’ phenomenon is likely to play out in mid-June with the release of the next season of Orange is the New Black, an original Netflix series. Netflix subscribers will jump-in to watch the complete season immediately on release and share their experience with others through social channels to ensure they are in the ‘first-to-watch’ bracket and avoid being left behind socially (McMillan 2014). This series has begun it’s advertising campaign to stir interest through a YouTube trailer release, which was then spread and shared through Facebook. The campaign incorporated the hashtag #sorrynotsorry and #orangeisthenewblack, which has gone on to spread virally through Twitter. 

From this simple trailer it is obvious how interconnected social and new media are, highlighting the potential for spreadability. The idea here is that social media has changed the entertainment game. Netflix has encouraged the idea of social screening, spreading the content virally and connecting with entertainment beyond simple consumption. The opportunity for spreadability through social media and the interconnected nature of all technology (Luckerson 2012) is encouraged and captured through Netflix.

Social Media clearly impacts Netflix as a business and the overarching bracket that is the entertainment industry. Netflix is the leader in changing and morphing the industry to what consumers’ want and need given the technological affordances experienced today. Converging technologies, the technological determinism debate and spreadable media all highlight how the entertainment industry has been changed in the context of Netflix. Importantly, recognising that these concepts develop on each other helps to identify industry changes. Convergence facilitated the move from television to Internet viewing of television programs. This process was instigated by the social drive to incorporate technological affordances into cultural changes. From this media has become viral and spreadable, moving away from direct distribution to content circulation in accordance with changing cultural values.

  References

Ault, Susanne. 2014. “Netflix’s Social Cache.” Variety, 324(16): 35.

http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/?accountid=13380

Baron, Naomi. 2008. Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Castillo, Jose. 2013. “The Netflix Way.” Streaming Media Magazine, 1: 12. http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/?accountid=13380

Ellingsen, Steinar. 2014. “Seismic Shifts: Platforms, content creators and spreadable media.” Media International Australia, 150: 106-113. http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/?accountid=13380

Flew, Terry. 2014. New Media. 4th ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press

Luckerson, Victor. 2012. “The Winners and Losers of the New Television Landscape.” Time Magazine, October 4. Accessed April 17, 2015. http://business.time.com/2012/10/04/the-winners-and-losers-of-the-new-television-landscape/

Martindale, Sarah. 2013. “Going live to going online, television is not what we knew.” Accessed April 16, 2015. http://theconversation.com/going-live-to-going-online-television-is-not-what-we-knew-16983

McMillan, Graeme. 2014. “Why Do People Still Watch Live TV?” Time Magazine, March 4. Accessed April 17, 2015. http://time.com/12431/appointment-viewing-spoilers-live-tv/

Murphy, Ian. 2011. “Netflix and Emerging Economies of Media Distribution.” Thesis Paper, University of North Carolina http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/?accountid=13380

Netflix. “Netflix Media Centre: Company Overview.” Accessed April 16, 2015. https://pr.netflix.com/WebClient/loginPageSalesNetWorksAction.do?contentGroupId=10477

Netflix Launches New Social Features. 2013. Entertainment Close-Up, Jacksonville: Close-Up Media, Inc. http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/?accountid=13380

Nightingale, Virginia. 2011. “ Chapter 5: Spreadable Media: How Audiences Create Value and Meaning in a Networked Economy.” In The handbook of media audiences, edited by Joshua Green and Henry Jenkins, 109-127. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Roe Smith, Merritt, & Leo Marx. 1994. Does Technology Drive History?. Cambridge: MIT Press

[dmnyu2014]

As material spreads, it gets remade: either literally, through various forms of sampling and remixing, or figuratively, via its insertion into ongoing conversations and across various platforms (Spreadable Media, 27).

This quote provides a good connection to last week's discussion of copyright and fair use.

[dmnyu2014]

Speaking of spreadable media, this video has been posted all over my Facebook and Twitter feeds within the past 24 hours. The video was posted only two days ago and already has nearly 1.5 million views. 

[dmnyu2014]

Participatory Culture: "A culture in which private persons (the public) do not act as consumers only, but also as contributors or producers (prosumers)" (2).

This video exemplifies the kind of participatory culture discussed in Spreadable Media. Today the concept of the "prosumer" is hugely relevant with sites such as Craigslist, Airbnb, and NeighborGoods to name a few.

[dmnyu2014]

Will Facebook's new privacy settings cause a decline in the spreadability of media?

http://mashable.com/2014/04/08/facebook-privacy-changes-groups/

According to this Mashable article, Facebook has plans to install new privacy settings on its site sometime in the near future. There will be changes to the current privacy "drop down menu" which allows users to select who they want to make their posts viewable to. Facebook is going to make this drop down menu more of a central feature of the site, and will provide descriptions that allow users to know exactly who they will be sharing their posts and information with. Currently, I think many people do not realize how much of their information is publicly viewable. 

I don't really watch the news, and seem to get most of my information from social media postings. Oftentimes, I see something posted on Facebook that is not from one of my immediate Facebook friends, rather, it has been posted by a friend of a friend. Yet, these news articles, links, and videos appear on my newsfeed because a friend has either "liked"or commented on it. I've come across many interesting news pieces from people who aren't actually my Facebook friends. Sometimes, I go on to share the link with my friends. When Facebook's new privacy settings are installed, I'm sure this type of spreadable media will dwindle down. People will be more aware of who is viewing their content, and thus they will try to limit their posts to being seen only by immediate friends. Do you think this will have an impact on Facebook's current spreadable media culture? Would you prefer these privacy changes or do you think Facebook's privacy settings are fine as they are now? Do you often click on links that haven't been posted by your friends, but by other Facebook users you don't know?

[kcb206group4]

Repurposed Audiences and Spreadable Media

Web 2.0 has dramatically shifted the way that media content is now produced, consumed and distributed particularly the role and purpose of the audience. The traditional, and now archaic model of top down media communication has been replaced by a far more lateral and participatory means of production. According to Green and Jenkins, “powerful new production tools and distribution channels are enabling the mute to speak and the invisible to be seen” by exploiting the “technologies of freedom. Consequently,  “the people formerly known as the audience” (Rosen, 2006) now have agency. They are able to actively seek out and distribute content that appeals to them and their peers. Thus it could also be seen that audiences are now empowered, able to produce, distribute and consume content as they please rather than being told what, how and when to consume.

However, there is also a valid claim that Web 2.0 merely gives the illusion that audiences have been empowered. According to Van Dijck and Nieborg 52% of users that make up the media landscape are ‘inactive,’ meaning they do not share, or distribute content, they simply consume it. If this is the case, surely the freedom web 2.0 has created is “by and large, consumptive behaviour by a different name.” I know that I would consider myself largely inactive on new media. I don’t post Facebook statuses, I don’t use Instagram or Snapchat and before this unit I’d never written a blog, and if I didn’t have to it’s likely it would have stayed that way. However, Green and Jenkins say there has been a change in “how we understand what audiences do, and how they fit into the networks of... the current media landscape.” There aren’t two distinct categories of producers and consumers anymore, rather everyone appraises and distributes content among their networks. This model, unlike the more rigid producer/consumer is one that I do participate in along with almost everyone who engages in social media. My friends and I often share music and videos amongst one another, taking on the role of appraisers and distributors within our own network, hence, contributing to creation process.

 This video demonstrates this shifting relationship between the audience, the distributors and the producers of content.

With this more lateral network obviously the spreadability of content also increases. The two way flow of media demonstrates how “the collective choices of audiences make content meaningful, and economically viable.” (Green and Jenkins) This can be seen in every piece of media that has gone viral over the internet. One such example is Rebecca Black’s viral hit Friday. This was a piece of media created in a top down format, however, social media allowed the audience to act as appraisers and distributors causing the video to receive millions of hits overnight and spread all over the world. Through this sharing on new media, the company behind the song, Ark Music Factory, generated millions in profit. It also facilitated the production of content in the form of numerous memes and gifs which were also distributed across the internet.

This is a perfect example of modern media production and  how top down media production was taken and distributed across a modern two way participatory platform of creation and distribution. 

Reference List

Lessig, Lawrence, (2008). Chapter 7: Hybrid Economies. In Lessig, Lawrence, Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy, (pp.177 - 224). New York: Penguin. 

Green, Joshua and Jenkins, Henry, (2011). Chapter 5 : Spreadable Media : How Audiences Create Value and Meaning in a Networked Economy. In Nightingale, Virginia, The handbook of media audiences, (pp.109 - 127). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gwilliam, Mike. 2011. Rebecca Black’s Friday Explained

Available: http://www.forgetthebox.net/rebecca-black/

Accessed: 22/3/14

4. Anon, 2012 Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning In a Networked Society

Available: http://video.mit.edu/watch/spreadable-media-creating-value-and-meaning-in-a-networked-society-8705/

Accessed: 22/3/14

[melissakcb206-blog]

Blog Post #2

Spreadable Media:

We’ve all pressed “send”, clicked “share”, uploaded media, or posted something for others to see in which we thought was funny or interesting, and in turn us media producers and consumers alike, become media appraisers and distributers (Greens and Jenkins 2011, 111); we ultimately spread our media. The idea of Spreadability discussed in last week’s lecture and featured in the Spreadable Media reading by Green and Jenkins, raises a lot of debate amongst people as to exactly how the content spreads. The first concept as (Theresa, 2014) explains is the idea that media spreads like a virus- a biological epidemic if you will. Giving meaning to the phrase “going viral” in a very literal sense, stating that just like a virus, the article of media catches on and spreads like wildfire. However (Dawkins, 1978) who is responsible for the meaning of the word meme proposes that memes, like genes, are in some ways connected to a cultural evolution. The third concept from last week’s Spreadable Media reading in which I myself am more inclined to agree with is that “audiences play an active role in ‘spreading’ the media content: their choices, their investments and their actions determine what gets valued.” (Greens and Jenkins 2011, 116). In other words, (Greens and Jenkins 2011, 116) say we need to see audiences as “grassroots curators” rather than “hosts” or “carriers.”

(Theresa, 2014) explains that it is in fact textual gaps that enhance the Spreadability of media, and therefore the content is often flawed and imperfect as this invites the opportunity for comment and reworking. Take the “Harlem Shake” YouTube sensation for example, the original version of the Harlem Shake was invented by my school friend and his mates after a long weekend skating, and as many would agree, it was nothing special... just a couple of guys busting some dance moves to loud music in their underwear. Regardless, as his friends we all spread the word and shared his video through social media and virtually overnight did this stupidly-funny video turn into a world-wide phenomenon, re-creating thousands of versions and creative parodies that rocked the nation for a short amount of time. This corresponds with (Greens and Jenkins 2011, 116) previous statement that audiences like myself play an active role in spreading media. Our thinking that it was funny and hence our sharing the video to others for the same amusement, lead to mass spread of media.

As (Greens and Jenkins 2011, 113) say, “choosing to spread media involves a series of socially embedded decisions: that the content is worth watching, that the content is worth sharing with others and that the content might interest specific people we know…” Taking everything into account, our ability to spread media with such speed and to an enormous population exemplifies the broader theme of this unit, that improving one’s self and social practises (as long as the content provides interest and appeal) is just a click away and now you no longer have to wait for your media profile to grow as the idea of Spreadable Media allows the content to spread instantaneously.

REFERENCES:

Green, Joshua and Jenkins, Henry, (2011). Chapter 5: Spreadable Media: How Audiences Create Value and Meaning in a Networked Economy. In Nightingale, Virginia, The handbook of media audiences, (pp.109 - 127). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell

Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “New Media and Society, New Media and Identity: Week 2 lectures notes.” Accessed March 16, 2014

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup9]

Power to the People!

Long gone are the days when major corporations ruled the advertising world! Today, any single mother with a six-pack and sizable Instagram account can become an online celebrity. Likewise, the guy who sits in an inflatable pool drinking VB’s all day can have his photograph spread through the masses and viewed by millions throughout various countries.

  Welcome to the internet. A place where pets can have their own social media site to connect with their human ‘friends’ and their potential unleashed unto a string of chain store tee-shirts (aka. Boo The Cutest Dog in the World), and power is placed in the able hands of regular citizens to actively participate in crime, humanitarian issues and the determining the shelf life of any particular product on the market.

  Audience appeal has gained phenomenal strength with the convergence of the internet’s social sites and participatory culture. The redistribution of power has allowed any average Joe the means and resources to become a valuable player within the online community, helping to decide the fate and popularity of products, events and determine their overall cultural and economic value. Because we are now living in a hybrid economy- a place where our online shares, likes and status’s play key parts in allowing targeted marketing to invade our small screens- big corporations need to rely on audience response, and therein, user generated content to deem their product a success. As an audience, the power of ignoring the social cues from corporations can become the stigma that leads to their own product failure.

  The collective; now being the people; who at one point we’re just an audience; determine what will be popular and what has cultural significance at any point in time. Social media has opened the door for clever marketing tools to infiltrate our small screens and ultimately social culture, by allowing users to share or like what they see. In turn, that user’s friends can view what their friend has liked or shared and so on and so forth. Memes are a great example of a trending marketing tool that has instant access for virility.

  Memes really define all great aspects of online culture. By harnessing a simple photograph and placing clever wording over top, (similar to a bad company logo with a large slogan at the forefront) they activate participation, replicability and engage social cues as sharing through various friends, networks and communities to circulate through our online networks.

  Similar to this are the viral videos that may incite laughter and bonding over a simple gesture to conversation and further exploration of more dramatic subject matters. These mediums gain attention quickly, not only because they are easy to digest, but because if they are done well and can connect on an emotional level they are easy to share without too many hindrances.

  In a nutshell, the people now have the power to create the world they want to see and determine the cultural and economic success of products. Commercial corporations have had to shift their traditional ways of marketing to find sway within the savvy internet dwelling communities, not only to access the profits from user generated content, but to even find their target audience who are no longer restricted to paper and magazine models.

  REFRENCES:

  Lessig, Lawrence. 2008. “Chapter 7: Hybrid Economies” In Remix: Making Art and Culture Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, 177-224. New York, NY: Penguin (Available on CMD)

Marwick, Alice. 2013. “Memes.” Contexts12(4): 12-13/ Available at: http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2013/memes/

Rosen, Jay. 2006. “The People Formerly Known as the Audience” PressThink: Ghost of Democracy in the Media Machine, June 27.(short blog post). Avaliable at:http://archive.pressthink.org/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html