Re-Gifting Media, Part 1
“Spreadable Media” (aka “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter!”)
To the uninitiated, Henry Jenkins is about to blow your mind. This post is the first part of a series I’m writing about his 8-part series on convergence culture titled: Spreadable Media: If it doesn’t spread, it’s dead.
This post is about the changing definition of “viral” marketing as Jenkin’s sees it. And, in my take, one particular aspect of it that has grabbed my attention lately: the gift economy.
What is spreadable media good for?
In part 8 of the series on “Spreadable Media” Jenkins poses the following question:
Is it a good idea to allow or enable my consumers to spread my brand message or my copyrighted content?
For copyright holders this is a big deal. With two big media clients, we ourselves have learned to respect their value of their copyrights. Though copyright may at times seem to create friction for us as product developers, copyright is essentially what keeps our clients in the black. They create content that they and only they have the right to sell. What, then, can they do to be more spreadable and not lose money in the process?
That’s a trick question. The result of spreadable media is not a loss in otherwise redeemable value of for-pay-media. In Jenkin’s argument, just because we chose to publish a TV show online at the same time as over the air, the two are not competing with each other for attention. On the contrary. They are meeting the consumer where they prefer to be met.
In Jenkin’s words:
So what is spreadable media good for?
- To generate active commitment from the audience,
- To empower them and make them an integral part of your product’s success,
- To benefit from online word-of-mouth
- To reach niche, highly interconnected audiences,
- but most of all, to communicate with audiences where they already are, and in a way that they value.
The answer? Understanding Spreadable media is the key to monetizing it.
The New Codec: What is Spreadable Media and How is it different from Viral Media and Sticky Media?
Grok this:
Messages are encoded into media. Meanings are decoded.
And now grok the difference between Pop and Mass Culture:
…[W]e produce culture when we integrate products and texts into our everyday life. When we hear a song in a music video, it is part of mass culture. When we sing it in the shower, we turn it into popular culture. When it is under the control of its producers, it is mass culture. When it is under the control of its consumers, it is popular culture.
In short, Spreadable Media is different from Viral Media in that the former is “spread” by people whereas the latter is seemingly spread whether the person has a choice in the matter or not. As yet, we have no way of spreading a message involuntarily, so when you hear “viral” think “spreadable.” New codec, new name.
We also need to distinguish “spreadable” from “sticky” media. The key difference here is that sticky media attempts to bring the viewer into a specific venue for consumption of the media product. Their site, for example. Spreadable media, on the other hand, is perfectly content to meet the viewer wherever she may be. Mobile phone, TV, social network, whatever. In fact, the same message isn’t so much broadcast across many different channels, but interpreted and spread actively among people via “architectures of participation.” Spreadable media is by its very nature morphable and borderless.
It’s butter!
N.B.:
Henry Jenkins is simply the best commentator and researcher on media culture. I was invited to the convergence culture conference held back in November, but I was busy with client work. I hope one day our paths will cross.
