Thursday, December 12, 2013

Revised conclusions and implications

To bring a sense of completeness to this project, it is important to give a sort of challenge or applied meaning to those who might be interested in this research. For the most part, I see this information as important as a means of analyzing in which direction new media is headed. With the rise of YouTube, Vine, Podcasts, and other means of fan produced media receiving more attention, there is a switch in the way we consume media occurring. This switch is characterized by fans being able to openly and immediately interact with the media they are consuming. Furthermore, this has changed the way traditional media operates.

For example, some of my classmates have looked at similar projects focused on not only fan produced content but also focusing on how fans are now more able to interact with traditional media as well. These interactions happen usually in forums and in the comment sections on the sites in which the media is uploaded; however, it would seem that my examination of Sowerby and Luff's Fully Optimised Social Media Network and one class mate of mine examining Tumblr in conjunction with a media site,  that social media is not being examined closely enough for fan interaction with media. At this point I think it is reasonable to say that there needs to be more examination, like this research project, of the role social media is playing in shaping new media and traditional media.

Many TV shows, movies, musicians, and writers have official Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and sometimes even Tumblr and Instagram accounts for fans to dirtily interact with either the show or the show's related media. Despite these efforts to put the power into the hands of the fans to shape their media, this merely allows them to interact within a constructed space designed by the show: by having such confined ways of interacting with the media, it is hard to tell how much fans really do shape the media itself versus shaping the way other people derive meaning from the media the group is examining.  In Contrast, with smaller  productions like the different podcast Sowerby and Luff produce, fans can more easily shape what content they are consuming.

Thus, this research helps show the trends happening in the shift to a social media based interaction with media construct. With people like Shane Dawson from YouTube, Grumpy Cat, Annoying Orange, and other internet personalities receiving TV shows and merchandise collection, we can see that fans are helping shape the media they consume, and often the support of these individuals and their products comes through the form of social media. This research shows a small sample of a fairly unknown show that receives a similar, much smaller scale, fan support that these entities receive.

As mentioned in this research, Sowerby and Luff produce their show "Fat Chance" independently with mostly fan support. They have some sponsors, but those sponsors are usually products that they use on the show recognizing their work (it is very different then say a google partnership or doing advertisements for large corporations like iRobot). Sowerby and Luff maintain their show through keeping very open lines of communication with their fans and making sure that the show is shaped the way that fans want it to be. In fact, now that Fat Chance is coming to an end, Sowerby and Luff have been soliciting requests from fans of what they would like to see in the next series they put out.

With the increasing presence of internet and media in our lives, it behooves media production to focus its attention more closely on the connected consumer. With the popularity of reality TV shows having fans vote on their favorite contestants (American Idol, X-Factor, RuPaul's Drag Race etc), it makes sense for media to become more focused on how fans can help shape the content of the show. However, American mass media, has too large of an audience for this to really work as openly as Sowerby and Luff have their show working. Audience size is the reason why mass media has to have constructed fan interaction spaces: the larger the audience the more narrow the interaction has to be. If all of the fans were allowed to put in their own opinion absent of controlling filters, the work load of processing the content would be a monumental task. That is the beauty of small media, fans have a better opportunity to interact and shape what they are watching. Moreover, fan interaction is encouraged and is often necessary for the media to operate.

To specifically address who would be interested in this research, I think people who are interested in fan shaped content, not to be confused with fan made content, would be very interested in this research. Furthermore, I think this research is another great real world example of the ideas of Gee (Affinity Spaces) and Jenkins (Interactive Media shaped or made by fans). Moreover, I think anyone interested in growing the social media presence or fan interaction of their Podcast or YouTube channel would be interested in this research because it presents them with a model of another show that has done the same thing they are trying to do.


(expanded, and edited for clarity and preciseness)

Data memo 2 revised


In this data memo, I looked at one week of activity on Sowerby and Luff's Fully Optamised Social Media Network. I examined from October 5-10, 2013. Though I only examined five days, it was quite a lot of data to process (26 posts, 25 comments, 9 comment likes, and 11 post likes). This was a particularly active week. All data was gathered at 12:43 pm Alaska Standard Time on October 10, 2013. The reason for choosing these dates was because of a deadline, but also included the fact that Sowerby and Luff released epsiode 92 of Fat Chance early: the episode was released on Friday instead of Sunday. Interestingly enough, this fact was not discussed by the community. The post that Brian Luff made the post announcing the new episode's release, it receive several likes but only one comment. This post to me seems really important, and would potentially merit more discussion, such as people coming back to it after listening to the episode and discussing things, but few people acknowledge the post and move on to discuss other things in the group.

As the pie chart below shows, over 72% (37% of which are posts and 35% are comments) of the communication that happened in the group this past week happened actively: no passive liking.
This pie chart shows the percentage of what activity was from October 5 to October 10, 2013
I view liking as a passive form of interaction, because it does not fuel conversation in the group. The act serves only as a means of showing approval or support for a post or comment in the group, and as can be seen by the data from the pie chart, the majority of the discourse happens with new posts and comments. Though, as can be seen in the percentages, posts are the largest amount of activity in the group. There were several posts during this period that received no attention (no likes or comments) and there were some posts that only received likes. In general, the group chooses many ways to communicate about the material being presented in the group.

Active communication in the group, even if it was of a sarcastic nature, shows not only the interplay of audience with the show, but how the audience interacts with each other. If someone is repeatedly ignored or is infrequently recognized, this may point to the fact that this person does not post or comment much and is not an active part of the group. There is often a larger attention paid to the members of the group who post frequently or have posts featured on the show, or posts concerning the show. This attention, may point towards the idea that the group is seeking attention from Sowerby and Luff, or that they are merely commenting on an advertised story. Furthermore, it may show that the people who are posting the most and receive the most attention, may be more in touch with the subject matter that this particular affinity group is attracted to.

Furthermore, the people who post more and receive more attention, increase their activity, and form, in a sense, a perceived identity of more "in-tuneness" with the group. This act forms a sort of prestige for these people, despite the fact that they are interacting in a fan group on Facebook for a comedy podcast. In fact, I found myself when reading through the posts, more tempted to look at the links and posts made by people who's names reoccured several times. I may have simply been searching for more data, but it also felt more important to look at their posts, perhaps in the misguided belief that the stories they posted would be featured in the show.

(I revised to update my data and discuss it more, and for general clarity) 

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Conclusions and Implications

To bring a sense of completeness to this project, it is important to give a sort of challenge or applied meaning to those who might be interested in this research. For the most part, I see this information as important as a means of analyzing in which direction new media is headed. With the rise of YouTube, Vine, Podcasts, and other means of fan produced media receiving more attention, there is a switch in the way we consume media occurring. This switch is characterized by fans being able to openly and immediately interact with the media they are consuming. Furthermore, this has changed the way traditional media operates.

For example, some of my classmates have looked at similar projects focused on not only fan produced content but also focusing on how fans are now more able to interact with traditional media as well. These interactions happen usually in forums and in the comment sections on the sites in which the media is uploaded; however, it would seem that my examination of Sowerby and Luff's Fully Optimised Social Media Network and one class mate of mine examining Tumblr in conduction with a media site,  that social media is not being examined closely enough for fan interaction with media. At this point I think it is reasonable to say that there needs to be more examination, like this research project, of the role social media is playing in shaping new media and traditional media. Many TV shows have official Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and sometimes even Tumblr and Instagram accounts for fans to dirtily interact with either the show or the show's related media. Despite these efforts to put the power into the hands of the fans to shape their media, this merely allows them to interact within a constructed space designed by the show. In Contrast, with smaller  productions like the different podcast Sowerby and Luff put out, fans can more easily shape what content they are consuming.

Thus, this research helps show the trends happening in the shift to a social media based interaction with media construct. With people like Shane Dawson from YouTube, Grumpy Cat, the Fine Brothers, Annoying Orange, and other internet personalities receiving TV shows and merchandise collection, we can see that fans are helping shape the media they consume, and often the support of these individuals and their products comes through the form of social media. This research shows a small sample of a fairly unknown show that receives a similar, much smaller scale, fan support that these entities receive.

As mentioned in this research, Sowerby and Luff produce their show "Fat Chance" independently with mostly fan support. They have some sponsors, but those sponsors are usually products that they use on the show recognizing their work (it is very different then say a google partnership or doing advertisements for large corporations like iRobot). Sowerby and Luff maintain their show through keeping very open lines of communication with their fans and making sure that the show is shaped the way that fans want it to be. In fact, now that Fat Chance is coming to an end, Sowerby and Luff have been soliciting requests from fans of what they would like to see in the next series they put out.

To specifically address who would be interested in this research, I think people who are interested in fan shaped content, not to be confused with fan made content, would be very interested in this research. Furthermore, I think this research is another great real world example of the ideas of Gee (Affinity Spaces) and Jenkins (Interactive Media shaped or made by fans). Moreover, I think anyone interested in growing the social media presence or fan interaction of their Podcast or YouTube channel would be interested in this research because it presents them a model of another show that has done the same thing they are trying to do.

Thursday, November 28, 2013

Polished Analysis

In the last forty years, media has been going through many shifts. With the rise of the internet and reality television, interactive media has been on the rise. The idea of interactive media has created the idea of the active consumer and in-turn an interactive consumer. The internet has enabled creative people to shuck off the ties of mass-media companies, and has provided an accessible market for independently produced media such as Sowerby and Luff's Fat Chance (Fat Chance) an independently produced comedy podcast. Moreover, with the advent of the internet, users can now more freely interact with their media choices through social networks, email, comment sections, forums etc. This interactivity allows people to shape the media they are consuming. Furthermore, consumers are actively encouraging this new wave in media and are being encouraged to participate.

To encourage audience participation, Brian Luff and Georgina Sowerby structure their podcast much
like a talk radio show. However, instead of taking calls from the audience, the audience sends in emails, tweets, and post to the Facebook group "Sowerby and Luff's Fully Optamised Social Media Network" (SLFOSMN). Sowerby and Luff then feature the audience participation on their current podcast, Fat Chance. By encouraging people to interact and help shape the show, Sowerby and Luff are participating in what is known as interactive media, sometimes also called new media. Though this point is important, what is more important at this time is discussing the social network surrounding the podcast.

Though Fat Chance is a fascinating show feature news stories of odd occurrences, strange products, and other phenomena that make the listener question if an occurrence being discussed could have happened, the social network, SLFOSMN, is by far a more interesting phenomena. On SLFOSMN, audience members are able to post new stories of bizarre happenings. For example, this morning (November 28, 2013) the news story about a drunk man being swallowed by a python was posted and discussed, an audience member explained it was a hoax and posted a link to another story carrying the same image and story of a different occurrence in another country. The audience is then able to read a story before it is featured on Fat Chance and are able to discuss it amongst themselves and engage it more directly and immediately; as opposed to, waiting a week for the podcast to be released. Moreover, SLFOSMN acts not only as a place for the audience to interact about stories not covered by Fat Chance it also provides another way for the audience to engage the stories besides emailing in responses to the show. Audience members can post similar stories that are being covered in the weekly episode of Fat Chance while listening to the podcast.

This concept of simultaneous listening and interacting and delayed listening and interacting, is discussed by Carrie Heeter in her article Interactivity in the Context of Designed Spaces." Heeter discusses the fact that both the media, even interactive media, and the media consumer are both situated in time and that the media has to be designed to consumed after production. Fat Chance is designed to solicit post-production responses. Audience members are not able to immediately call in or email while the show is being made, therefore all of the interaction happens post-production. This fact  is important to understand because unlike a face to face conversation, a live webcast, or radio show, this media is being designed to solicit response after the fact to extend the conversation show to show. Sowerby and Luff, essentially, built themselves a show that will maintain content  for an extended period (usually their podcast series last 100 or more episodes) that maintain a cohesiveness of content.

To maintain the show and the show's content though, Sowerby and Luff had to create an affinity space. Gee defines an affinity space as a place were people share ideas around common interest. Before the advent of the Facebook Group, the affinity space was centered around the show and the fans were not able to interact one with another. The conversations were mediated by Sowerby and Luff because all of the information was passed through them. When Sowerby and Luff launched SLFOSMN, they then were able to have the audience members build the groups collective intellect. As Pierre Levy posits Collective Intellect is what is formed by a group, often participants in an Affinity Space, that helps shapes what the group knows and what the values of the group are. Furthermore, the group is then able to individual create meaning by participating in the affinity space because they know what the values of the group are thus what they appreciate. The creating of SLFOSMN, allows Sowerby and Luff's fans to expand the collective intelligence of the group through direct individual participation.

Despite the ease of participation in SLFOSMN, very few fans actually participate by posting or commenting or even liking.
A post made to the SLFOSMN showing the tight nature of the group
and how the content posted on the SLFOSMN is related directly to
Fat Chance.
The group has a very tight nature and can seem very off-putting to someone who is very new to the group. The group has a very well constructed collective intellect that one has to, at this point, accept or reject because the group is so well established. This established group intellect is both a benefit and detriment: the group has such an established collective intellect that the participation of the group seems directed in one way. It seems at this point that the collective intellect of the group is unchangeable. Michael Emme discussed this phenomena in his piece "Going
Nowhere: Exploring the Cyber Space Between our Ears" where he discusses the good and bad of collective intellect. He found that collective intellect and affinity spaces often create stereotypes that often people do not fit in and that often a group's collective intellect becomes so concrete that it becomes unchangeable.

 Before moving ahead into this piece, it is important to first define active participation and passive participation in SLFOSMN. Active participants are those few people who post items to the news feed and those who comment, thus furthering the conversation of the group and generating content for the show. Liking a post or a comment is passive participation because it only denotes that one approves of the content being posted to the group. The act of liking does not move the conversation forward nor does it help build the collective intellect of SLFOSMN other than to say this content is something the group approves of or at least one person in the group approves of. The group habits can be seen, to an extent in the graphic below. As can be seen in the graph most of the people who participate in SLFOSMN posted content or commented on posts making up 72% of the groups activity with only 28% of participation being passive participation in the form of liking. This data shows that group is heavily focused around generating discourse not simply showing support for what is being posted.
























Furthermore, the importance of what Sowerby and Luff are doing with Fat Chance, and all of their other podcasts that follow the same format, is they are participating disputing mass media through audience participation. Henry Jenkins discusses this phenomena in in his pieces  "Interactive Audiences? The 'Collective Intelligence' of Media Fans" and "Quentint Tarantino's Star Wars: Grassroots Creativity Meets the Media Industry" where he examines how groups of people in affinity spaces take images, films, and other forms of media, rework them or reinterpret them and create new meaning. Moreover, as Jenkins explains, are now more able to interact with media more immediately than ever before because of the internet. Therefore, the fans of Fat Chance are able to send corrections to stories or items that Sowerby and Luff present in their show or simply add to the story, thus changing the collective intellect of the group, through active participation through email and Facebook posts, and thus also create meaning beyond what they are intended to get from Sowerby and Luff.

This project has been very interesting. I will depart from the standard from of academic writing and engage with a bit of personal narrative and reflection on this study, here in the conclusion. I have been a fan of Sowerby and Luff's podcast and media projects since I was 16 years old. I had stopped following they podcast a few years ago, but remained in the Facebook group. When I was told I would have to examine an internet community for this project, I did not first think of this group but went to other groups I am a member of instead. I remembered this group after awhile and decided to select this because I noticed active participation in a digital sphere I did not see in other areas. As I have said before in this study, SLFOMNS acts as a microcosm of Facebook. It not only undermines big media by giving media consumers a voice, it creates a safe environment for fans of Sowerby and Luff to express their interest.

The research for this project was fairly easy, though gathering information for that particular pie chart was rather grueling, thus why it is the only graph in this piece. There were some difficulties finding sources that discuss this phenomena because it seems that a lot of research into this particular field is fairly new. I think that media outlets should be looking more closely on how to get their viewers involved and Sowerby and Luff's projects are a great example of how effective audience participation can be. Furthermore, their series create more consumers of media. I found my self looking for stories that I could post to the group so I could participate because it looked like a lots of fun. Sadly, I never found anything that had not been posted already and felt that my voice was not needing to be added to the already existing discourse in the group. This feeling is, I believe, one of the issues facing  large affinity spaces: how can all the people feel encouraged to participate when already so much is happening? I have no answer to this question; however, I am sure other people have looked into this subject, but it has very little baring on what my research project is. I must say that I found it very enjoyable to engage one of my interests in an academic light, and feel that this research has uncovered a new depth to what is otherwise a fairly silly show.

Lit Review

In the last forty years, media has been going through many shifts. With the rise of the internet and reality television, interactive media has been on the rise. The idea of interactive media has created the idea of the active consumer and in-turn an interactive consumer. The internet has enabled creative people to shuck off the ties of mass-media companies, and has provided an accessible market for independently produced media such as Sowerby and Luff's Fat Chance, an independently produced comedy podcast. Moreover, with the advent of the internet, users can now more freely interact with their media choices through social networks, email, comment sections, forums etc. This interactivity allows people to shape the media they are consuming. Furthermore, consumers are actively encouraging this new wave in media and are being encouraged to participate.

To help situate my study of the Facebook group "Sowerby and Luff's Fully Optamised Social Media Network" it is important to situate this research in the greater conversation about digital literacies.

Affinity Spaces and Collective Intellect
I looked at James Paul Gee and Pierre Levy because they are instrumental in explaining the specific phenomena of Facebook groups. Gee developed the idea of "Affinity Spaces." Essentially,  "Affinity Spaces" are areas, specifically digital spaces in this research, where people go to share ideas about common interests. In turn, these  "Affinity Spaces" give rise to the idea of "Collective Intellect" that Levy developed. Levy proposed that "Collective Intlellect"is the idea that people begin to share meaning making processes and memories the more they participate in groups, and that their thoughts then become filtered through the ideals of the groups in which they participate.

 Michael J. Emme, furthers Levy's idea that the internet is great for interacting, but in concert with that it is also a place of representation. Emme developed an exercise to challenge representation on the internet by using terms that a person identifies with (gender, marital status, hair color, etc) and put them into a search engine. He found that often the internet stereotyped identifying terms (parenthood is associated primarily with women in his searches) and did not allow for as much freedom in identification. He questioned the system because it closes and tightens Levy's idea of "Collective Intellect": if one associates with a term then one must associate with the stereotype. Admittedly, Emme is writing from an artist perspective but that is his argument, the internet jointly with "Collective Intellect" and "Affinity Spaces" narrows perspective and can damage
discourses.

As Dr Padma Rani and Shivam A Rai explains in "A Study of Emergence and Implications of Collective Intelligence on the World Wide Web" collective intelligence operates on the internet in a way to aggregate knowledge on specific subjects, and relies on individuals to input tho knowledge and create meaning from it. Dr Rani looked at several different places that provide knowledge that is is contributed by users and list social media and Wikipedia as the ultimate sources of this knowledge aggregation.

Interactive Media 
Carrie Heeter examines the idea of designed interactive media in "Interactivity in the Context of Designed Spaces." Essentially, Heeter argues that no matter what happens, the participant (audience) and the media are anchored in two different spaces and time. Heeter does concede that the internet has broken down some of these barriers allowing participants to inexact with media more closely; however, there is still a barrier. Designed media has to be thinking about future participants and cannot remain statically in its own time but has to be able to be interacted at intended time of interaction and past the intended time (Heeter uses the examples of Television programs that can be recorded and watched at a later time, and messages that can be ignored and looked at later).

Henry Jenkins examines Levy's idea of "Collective Intellect" through the lens of emergent interactive media, in his article "Interactive Audiences? The 'Collective Intelligence' of Media Fans." He examines the idea of how people use the internet to disrupt the idea of passive media consumerism and choose to add their own voices to the "Collective Intellect," and blogging/the internet allows people to add meaning to the media they are consuming almost instantly. Furthermore, in "Quentint Tarantino's Star Wars" Jenkins examines how media and consumers interact in fan spances and how media producers dictate interaction with media.

Lankshear and Knobel discuss affinity spaces and interactivity in their article "Digital Literacy and Participation." They examine how social networks focus on individuals as opposed to solely focusing on interest, though people can associate with each other based on interests. They also examine the idea of collocation, which situates a person by their participation and or interests.

References

Emme, Michael J. "Going Nowhere: Exploring the Cyber Space Between Our Ears." Real-world Readings in Art Education: Things Your Professor Never Told You. Ed. Dennis Earl Fehr, Kris Fehr, and Karen T. Keifer-Boyd. New York: Routledge, 2000. 147-54. Print. 
Gee, James Paul. "Semiotic Social Spaces and Affinity Spaces: From the Age of Mythology to Today's Schools." Beyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power, and Social Context. Ed. David Barton and Karin Tusting. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. 214-32. Print. 
Heeter, Carrie. "Interactivity in the Context of Designed ExperienceS." Journal of Interactive Advertising 1.1 (2000): 4-15. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. 
Jenkins, Henry. "Interactive Audiences? The 'Collective Consciousness' of Media Fans." (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. 
Jenkins, Henry. "Quentin Tarantino's Star Wars? Grassroots Creativity Meets the Media Industry." Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York UP, 2008. 131-68. Print. 
Lankshear, Colin, and Michele Knobel. Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices. New York: Peter Lang, 2008. 251-78. Print. 
Levy, Pierre. "The Art and Architecture of Cyberspace Collective Intelligence." Multimedia: From Wagner to Virtual Reality. Ed. Randall Packer and Ken Jordan. New York: Norton, 2001. 335-34. Print. 
Rani, Padma, and Shiva A. Rai. "A Study of Emergence and Collective Intelligence on the World Wide Web." (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.