Convergence Culture

Masudul Biswas

Convergence culture draws a territory “where old and new media collide, where grassroots and corporate media intersect, where the power of media producer and the power of the media consumer interact in unpredictable ways” (p.260). This is an appropriate summary by Henry Jenkins about Convergence Culture: Where the Old Media and New Media Collide, and we assume three dimensions of convergence culture from this statement. Media convergence has given industry leaders opportunities to place content in multiple channels for increasing revenue and expanding markets. At the same time, consumers visualize a public sphere, free of controls, in a decentralized media environment. Another observation is that media industry leaders and consumers sometimes reinforce each other, while sometimes they are in conflicts. That is why Jenkins focuses on three key terms - convergence, collective intelligence and participation, and he explores “enabling forms of participation and collaboration” in convergence culture throughout the book.

I like the ideas of “affective economics” and “collective intelligence” that have potentials to bind together participation and business goals, and serve the interests of both media industry leaders and consumers. Efforts of several network channels to utilize convergence technology and to engage consumers in content creation and gatekeeping processes are also encouraging. Thus convergence considers “both a change in the way media is produced and a change in the way media is consumed” (p.16). New media technologies have enabled the consumers to store, interpret and re-circulate media content. At the same time, media industry witnesses an “alarming concentration” of the ownership of mainstream commercial media. That is why Jenkins argues that convergence is “both a top-down corporate-driven process and a bottom-up consumer reception and creation” (p. 18).

Jenkins draws from Pierre Lévy's theory of collective intelligence. The theory looks into what happens when customers become so tightly networked with one another. He explains Survivor spoilers through the logic of collective intelligence. It shows how highly-engaged viewers were able to predict the outcome of the show by collaborating in online discussion groups. He argues that collective intelligence communities can also advance products or serious causes in the way they have done through popular culture. Convergence culture can promote not only popular culture but also public culture to make democracy more participatory. That is why many also see “collective intelligence” as an alternative source of media power. But Jenkins has not highlighted the disparity in participation among collective intelligence. All consumers are not participating equally. A small number of tool makers still supply a larger number of content creators, who create content on a larger number of web sites. Participation through collective intelligence still demands a very large base of ordinary consumers.

Reality television programs Survivor and American Idol have applied “affective economics,” a marketing technique that can appeal to consumers emotionally. Under this marketing technique, television networks fund programs largely through “high-value” sponsorships in which product brands are deeply integrated into the programming. Jenkins argues that this type of programming creates more viewer participation and brand "expression." This is how media convergence culture finds an increased collaboration between content providers and sponsors. Another goal of “affective economy” is to fuel gossip. The discussion of common experiences allows consumers to participate with media actively and personally. Through such process, the consumption community can also hold the sponsoring corporations accountable. In this case, the author refers to AT&T's sponsorship of American Idol. When AT&T was failing to handle the volume of voting calls from the viewers, the failure impacted both the network and the sponsor.

The BBC has opened up television content to encourage participation. The network has digitized large segments of its archive and made them available via web in streaming format. Alternative television channel Current’s path has led the web into the broadcasting industry. The stated goal of the cable news network (Current) was to ensure active participation of young people as citizen journalists. This can allow the viewers not only to consume programming but also to participate in its production, gatekeeping and distribution processes. When many are skeptical about the influence of political economy on the stated vision of Current, the web services are making it easier for amateur media makers like “participatoryculture.org” or “ourmedia.org” to gain visibility via the web without depending on corporate sponsorship.

New converged media have potentials to promote participatory culture that contrasts with the “passive media spectatorship” of old media. Media producers and consumers may have separate roles in the environment of convergence. But they see them as participants who interact with each other. Equal participation in such interaction is still a far cry. Individuals within corporate media exert more control than the consumers. Even at the level of consumers, all are not participating equally. As convergence culture is still shaping, Jenkins’ arguments have remained in the middle of the road; and, it is clear in his statement, “Some fear that media is out of control, others say that it is too controlled. Some see a world without gatekeepers, others a world where gatekeepers have unprecedented power. Again, the truth lies somewhere in between” (p. 18).

#