When it comes to telling story I prefer to think of it as a contractor would think of building a house. A contractor uses the plans that have been put in place and determines the tools that are going to be necessary to complete the job in the most efficient and effective means, and with an eye to solving problems that can arise during the construction process. A contractor does not think about the specific hammer that will be used to put a nail into the wall, but does think about how to plan and utilize the tools properly.
As storytellers we need to know what tools are at our disposal, and how we can best utilize them to engage with audiences effectively. That a means of distribution can be called transmedia, multimedia, crossmedia (or x-media), matters not at all. None of these terms are new, I’ve been hearing all of them for well over a decade, and they all generally mean roughly the same thing, what is important is not what they are called, but how we can use distribution methods that are engaging, interactive, immersive, and educational to tell story in a meaningful way, oddly enough, all of the words I just used are buzzwords and synonymous with one simple word that can be used to describe what everything we create should be, and that is interesting.
To be honest I have an almost instant negative reaction when I hear some of these terms being thrown around. Most of it has to do with the fact I work in what is essentially a marketing organization of a fortune 60 company, and all I hear day in and day out are these really ambiguous terms that making marketing people feel like they are on the bleeding edge of what is important. I don’t see any difference between trans, multi, cross, x, or any of the other forms of media, and getting caught up in that terminology tends to disrupt the discussion about how to best use the tools of distribution to present story to audiences.
I will admit there is a difference between tradition media and it’s forms of distribution as opposed to what has been happening in the last decade, but that line is becoming more blurred as technology drives distribution methods to become more immersive across the board. I will save my soapbox rant about how I loathe the second screen experience as it relates to TV shows for another day.
I’ve sat through numerous discussions about what *insert word in front of media*-media is, and across the board I feel much the way Ingrid Klopp does, which is that I don’t want there to be a barrier to creation defined by what media is now, but that I want that media to be crafted, and used in ways that will benefit our audience, and serve the story. To go back to my poorly put together analogy at the front of this post, I want to focus on the architecture plans (story) and use the tools (distribution methods) to get the job done using the most effective tools to create the greatest impact.
Or…I could stop being a curmudgeon about buzzword media, but that’s boring.
You hit on exactly what my thoughts were coming into this with transmedia being the buzzword. It gets thrown around with all the other terms so much that I think sometimes we lose focus of the real intent – to tell a story – and instead spend time trying to understand all this “new” media and the various forms of it. It’s similar to social media and when people tell you that you MUST be on all forms to be successful. Baloney! says this guy. Use what works best for you and reaches the audience you want to connect with. Most importantly, don’t let terminology or media “rules” control you – control them as tools to do what you need/want to do.
Damn straight, and put waaaay more concisely then I was able to!
I don’t like buzzwords either. However, I noticed at the end that Henry Jenkins makes a point to distinguish transmedia from crossmedia. From how I understood it, crossmedia means across different media. Simple. Transmedia, however, is more complex and involves audience engagement. It transcends the media by which the story was delivered. It becomes an experience when the audience is engaged.
What I don’t understand is whether transmedia is defined by BOTH being delivered on multiple platforms (via multiple media) AND audience engagement. If it’s an in-person experience and the audience is engaged, is that transmedia? Or is transmedia only a digital thing?
(Um, how do I do tags?)
Jerry – well said! I’ve experienced first-hand, the “ambiguous terms that making marketing people feel like they are on the bleeding edge of what is important.” I don’t know about you, but lately people love to throw around the phrase “make it look sexy.” Ugh…we already have enough buzzwords to deal with, now we have to listen to old executives talking about making a building look “sexy.”
I have similar frustrations with marketing terms, and especially trends. Every six months or so there seems to be a new “best practice” that sweeps through the marketing blogs and gets marketing practitioners agitated (think SEO tricks, guest posting as a content strategy, new social media platforms, link building). I think all the disruption can be damaging to developing consistent marketing strategies and storytelling practices that will have a much more lasting impact than jumping on the bandwagon.
Going back to that distinction about critical age (where everything is evolving faster than we can understand and the age which we are apparently in right now) and the organic age (where standards are stable), all these mishmash of terminologies about transmedia, crossmedia etc are but a reflection, I guess, of our puny attempts to pin down the reality of what’s happening around us.
Because naming something is a start in being able to control it and maybe set some standards, right? The convergence of media platforms is not just a technical development but is also re-shaping our lives, our culture. So those who obsess over terminologies maybe partly just being geeks about it, or they may want to be able to sort out for everyone else how to experience, how to deal with the evolving big picture.