It’s that time of year again… the time when we shake our collective heads and try to have some magical moment where we suddenly all understand what transmedia means. Scratch that. We all understand what transmedia means just fine. This is the time of year when we try to agree on what it means… and, in so doing, prove that the word has meaning and that we understand it more than they do.

They may be marketers or filmmakers, indies or not indies, franchisers or not franchisers, world builders or storytellers…. Maybe we’re talking to the students, to the future… trying to make our mark while we still can. I don’t know.

But once a year, we have The Talk.

Now, it would be easy to argue that this is an exercise in futility. Heck, we’ve heard that argument for years now. We had it when we called this stuff “crossmedia” and we had it when we defined Alternate Reality Games. And generations before us, the creators of their days likely had the same discussions. With every round of discussion there’s always the few shouting: “Less talk! More do!” and “Didn’t we already discuss this?! Move on! Move on!” “Who cares?” As if these talks are a pointless exercise in wankery.

They aren’t. They can even be good. These discussions, as frustrating as they may be, allow us time to reflect on where we (individually and collectively) see things. Under the vast umbrella of transmedia, these discussions can help us find direction for our work by seeing how we fit in with the greater community where our work fits in with the collections of work out there. We can find issues with where things are going and how others may be approaching those things.

No. These discussions are most certainly not futile even if we are making like Sisyphus and rolling the same boulder up the same hill over and over and over and over again.

“Transmedia is a lie.”

That was my tweet last year. I adopted and advocated the word early on. For 5 years, I was a passionate defender of the term. Yet, suddenly, I felt so strongly about it that I returned to twitter after a long absence just to make it and promptly left again. The funny thing is, I couldn’t tell you why I felt that way. Clearly, I was frustrated with the idea of transmedia and, I’m sure, much of that came from the annual post SXSW buzzwordfest. But a lie? That’s awfully harsh.

I don’t think that’s true today, but I do think that transmedia has done what it came to do, as my grandmother would say.

Transmedia served a great purpose – it gave guidance to thoughts, defined work, and inspired projects. More importantly, it brought those thinkers, doers, & creators to the same table. It helped us find each other online and at conferences. It led to meetups and collectives and who knows how many fantastic collaborations.

Through all these discussions and gatherings, we inspired and were inspired. We could talk platforms or philosophies. We could debate and argue over the tiniest details and the biggest ideas. We came together. We formed friendships. We built a community.

We did not build that community around a word. We built it around our works, our thoughts, our ideas. It was built around our desire to share and to learn… our desire to push ourselves forward. Sure, a word brought us together as we googled and followed those using it, but it was never about the word. Any other phrase could have had the same effect.

Any phrase that said: I’m doing things that don’t fit into a neat little box. It’s not exactly a television show or movie or video game. It’s not a book or a comic. It’s not any of those things but it might be some of those things.

It might be highly interactive and social or maybe it’s not. It may be a standalone story or vast storyworld made up of a dozen individual stories. It may be told live or produced well in advance. It may be any number of things. But the one thing it is, for sure, is something that doesn’t fit in a box.

In many ways, we’re angsty teenagers so adamant that we are different and, yet, so desperate to fit in… somewhere.

Fitting in is important. Not just for the sense of community, but because making work that fits into a box means that it can be supported. The supporting organizations, the ones with money and acclaim to give, have to be able to put your project in a box in order to support it. If we want to move away from marketing & promotions, we need to fit in a box. Is “Transmedia” that box?

Things get tricky here because we need to start thinking big. There are a gazillion different supporting organizations out there and getting them all on the same page (or at least a similar one) is a difficult task. There has been a lot of outreach to these groups with the word “Transmedia”. For better or worse, it’s what we were using. Some are beginning to adopt it while others are rejecting it flat out.

In the US, for example, the Producers Guild created a Transmedia credit. A whole new box! Just for us! This was a huge step forward in recognizing projects that never fit into the established boxes. Still, there was strife. The initial limits on work were so strict that much of what had been held up as seminal work did not seem to apply. Over the last three years, they’ve been working to address those concerns, but clearly, creating a whole new box is not an easy task. It is not always the answer.

Last month, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, aka the folks behind the Emmys, updated and greatly expanded the awards for Interactive Media. This is a pretty big deal and they did some great work – and a lot of great work will be able to be recognized because of it. The notable bit, as far as this post is concerned: the word transmedia never appears. Not once.  The criteria definitely allows for work that we would all consider to be transmedia, but they never defined it as such.

The Interactive Emmys lack of the word does not negate the use of the word by the PGA. It just means that the two organizations are labeling the boxes with a different word. Some organizations will find it easier to adapt existing boxes. Other organizations will find it easier to create a new box – maybe they’ll use “Transmedia” or maybe they’ll call it “Interactive” or “Multi Platform” or, please oh please “Crazy Shit”. I would so love to apply for a “Crazy Shit” grant! I’d settle for “Crazy Stuff” or, heck, just plain ol’ “Crazy”.

Transmedia has done what it came to do.

It brought us together. It let us find one another. It let us form a community. Through that community, we broadened our horizons and narrowed our focus. We found a few commonalities amongst our many differences. And we’ve amassed a great deal of work that can be used as examples to show a need for funding and support. What it’s called and what box it fits in is irrelevant.

What does “transmedia” even mean now that someone can experience the same television show on a half a dozen different devices… all at the same time, if they so desire! Whether you’re putting together a tv show, video game, movie or book, you are repeatedly told to consider expanding your work to other platforms. This is true whether you are creating a killer storyworld or a cookbook.

True story: A friend who spends all of her time in the kitchen and very little of it online is putting together a family cookbook. In addition to all the standard creating, testing, and writing of recipes, her agent has put together a comprehensive media plan including a complementary website (with a food blog, natch) & YouTube channel. The book alone, much to my friend’s disgust, is not enough. People need to get to know her family; they need to learn and understand the food & techniques.

Everything, it seems, is moving between platforms these days.

Transmedia doesn’t define any piece of work. All it does is beg more questions. It’s a redundant phrase for creators and always has been. We still need to answer what we mean by it – what platforms? what sort of story? interaction? performance? social? solo?

If it’s redundant, why are we using it? Can we not just skip right to the good stuff? “X is a great little project… Fun story world, highly relatable characters. Told mostly through video, but a good dose of social media and I’ve been talking to someone about a comic. Currently it’s set to last about a year with new material once a month, but I’m thinking of ramping it up.” I am so much more interested in you than if you had said “X is a transmedia blahditty blah.” Blah!

Yes. Transmedia has done what it came to do. That doesn’t mean it’s time to throw it out, which is how Grandma always used the phrase. “Brooke,” she’d say looking at my well-worn shoes, “those shoes have done what that came do!” Now, those shoes were well-worn because they had a purpose and a fit. They may be ready for the trash, but I might not be ready to let go.

And so it is with transmedia. With all of the transmedia meetups and supporting orgs who have adopted the use, it is certainly not going anywhere soon. Yet, its use is limited. Depending on the crowd, it’s either a buzzword or not at all understood. Amongst fellow creators, it’s utterly meaningless and, yet, it brings us together. Much like my well-worn shoes, there’s a time and a place. The word has a purpose and a fit, but may not make the best of impressions.

Girls are repeatedly demeaned in games. So much so that websites such as Fat, Ugly, or Slutty exist. As a gamer, I’ve heard the jabs for years and there is something terribly wrong by the fact that we have grown to accept and ignore the behavior. It’s especially upsetting when I think of all the teen girl gamers who are at a sensitive age when it comes to confidence and body image. Both are things that games should be able to help with, but not when the are bombarded with these attacks.

I was particularly shocked by such an attack last night in the facebook game CivWorld. As it has a partial lack of anonymity and  is a strategy game (which should have less aggression), particularly,  one that relies on cooperation, I was under the illusion that I’d see less of this. And, perhaps there is less, but it still happens. It is usually a quick one-liner and often in private chat. Last night, however, was a 20-30 minute long attack that took place in the global chat. Below is the meat of it – there was more, earlier, but it was interspersed with actual game talk so it felt more like typical trash talk. Perhaps the most disturbing bit, as far as how much we accept this as OK behavior,  is the girl chiming in suddenly in the middle of the attacks to ask us to wait so she can grab some popcorn.

ChrisH: erik yhu fukkin that fat girl huh
ChrisH: or shuld i say heh
AnthonyG: hells yea he is lol
AnthonyG: hes feeding her cheetos
EricP: at least i don’t have my nose up a stank azz
AnthonyG: her stank ass lmao
BrookeT: again. nice. mature.
EricP: thats strong
AnthonyG: no one said i was mature
AnthonyG: I bet the stench IS strong eric
BrookeT: talking about my weight when you can’t make a sensible argument
BrookeT: have fun France
AnthonyG: listen pudge you were running around in circles lying so bad you couldn’t keep track
AnthonyG: and the ONLY one eating that shit up was eric
ChrisH: fat girl go eat a kupkake
BrookeT: fuck off
AnthonyG: no way dont use fuck anywhere near me in a sentance lol maybe 4 eric though
AnthonyG: u know fear of being crushed and all
ChrisH: yhu prolly fat elf n WOW
AnthonyG: hahaha
AnthonyG: surprised her civ isnt a farming civ with tons of food production
AnthonyG: nah she eats fame points like their slim jims
ChrisH: she sweats n her sleep
AnthonyG: LMAAAAAAOOOOOOO
SerenityW: wait, pause pls, i got to grab another popcorn
AnthonyG: hahahaha
ChrisH: lol @serenity
EricP: damn chris aint u got a raid tonight… o u r a lame guildie who is under geared and carried
ChrisH: i told yhu they played WOW 2gether
AnthonyG: pork rinds and cheetos with mountain dew
BrookeT: i do not play WOW
ChrisH: yhu shuld play wii fit
AnthonyG: when they see you in the supermarket people SAY wow
BrookeT: hahaha chick weighs 180 lbs* funny stuff! point and laugh!
AnthonyG: they say the camera adds ten pounds… judging by your pciture looks like you ate about 5 cameras
ChrisH: stop lyin i weigh 180 lbs yhu look like yhu ate a babii
ChrisH: brooke got titties on top of titties n they sweight insulin
AnthonyG: nah shes not fat shes just 4 feet too short
ChrisH: she prolly eat when she shittin
AnthonyG: when she goes to a restaurant she doesn’t get a menu… she gets an estimate
ChrisH: will swallow for ham sandwhiches
AnthonyG: shes so fat on hallowee she says “Trick or Meatloaf”
SerenityW: that is too much even if she is bad :(
AnthonyG: ok ok lol
ChrisH: she roseanne badd
ChrisH: damn son yhu aint need to go that hard on her she prolly listeinin to her adele cd now

* my weight in the picture (my facebook profile pic), give or take a few pounds.

I feel strongly that something needs to be done about this sort of behavior. But what? What can we do?

As players, there’s the option to ignore & report. I did that – I muted the coversation, (mostly) ignored it, and reported it. But that only goes so far – heck, it’s been 12 hours and I haven’t heard a peep from a mod or admin about my report. (I also submitted a trouble ticket to 2k games and did hear back from them. Unfortunately, it wasn’t an issue they could deal with directly but I was told it would be sent to the correct team).

What can we do as designers? Clearly creating names (internal or not) for powers such as Feminist Whore is not the right approach, but how do you encourage a safer, more civil environment? Do you even consider this in the design? There’s a lot of talk about grabbing the girl market (and there’s a very large share already had – more women over 20 play games than guys under 17), but why is it such a surprise that games are viewed as a guy thing when this is how we let girls (and women) get treated.

I don’t have the answers, does anyone? But I would love to have a discussion about this. What’s your experience? What are you doing to combat this? What worries and concerns you? Have you just accepted it? Shout off in the comments… (boys welcome, too!)

That’s the refrain of the day.

Will any of us forget what happened that day? I can remember the tiniest of details and, I’m sure, you can too. We aren’t going to forget, so what is it that we’re supposed to remember? How we came together, as a country, immediately after the attacks. How, no matter religion or politics, we cared about one another. How the first thing we asked someone is how they were and we honestly wanted to know the answer. How we listened to what our friends and family and, even, strangers thought and needed. How we would have moved heaven and earth to help someone we didn’t know in another city if it would do something, anything, to make their lives just a bit easier. How, for the days after the attack, we were a powerful nation not because of our weapons, but because of our compassion and our ability to work together.

Is that what we’re supposed to remember? Because that is something we have all forgotten. We forget every day. And every day, we become more divided and more filled with hatred and fear.

Our politicians have gone so far as to create vows to not compromise… to not work together. They would rather tear the country apart, in hopes of winning an election, then work together to make us stronger.

Our neighbors say dirty, hateful things about one another because they disagree with someone’s politics or are scared of their color, religion, or wealth (or lack of it). Rich vs. Poor, Black vs. White, Christian vs. Muslim, Democrat vs Republican. And, when we can, we go even further… my Christianity is better than your Christianity or I’m more Republican than you. Instead of coming together, we set up battle lines.

Everything is an attack… an attack on wealth, an attack on services, an attack corporations, an attack on the middle class, an attack on health care. When someone disagrees with you, they aren’t just disagreeing with you, they are attacking America and American values.

I never felt more safe or secure as I did the days after 9/11. Sure, there were terrorists out there, but together we could do anything. We might not stop them, but it didn’t matter – we would be there for each other. We would stand united. Nothing could tear us apart. Nothing could destroy us.

Today we live in fear. We all do. What’s worse is that we fear each other.

Never Forget?

It seems like we have all forgotten. And that makes me sad. And angry.

Never Forget!

I almost wish I didn’t remember.

In the spring and summer of 2001, 7000 people worked together as “Cloudmakers” to unravel the mysteries of “The AI Web Game” (now known as “The Beast”). It was a remarkable experience for those of us that were a part of it and many felt a sense of power at what a community of people can do. In fact, I owe my career to that very idea. In June, a message was posted to the Cloudmakers list mourning the upcoming end of the game and pointing out that we were a smart and talented bunch and that we could probably create something on our own. A group was formed and the first game I worked on, Lockjaw, was the result.

The Beast ended in July 2001, but the experience was so special and so magical that many stuck around. Conversation ranged from reminiscing about The Beast to similar games & geekery, such as Majestic. And then 9/11 happened.

Like many online communities, Cloudmakers galvanized in new way. The posts about games gave way to concerned calls to make sure the New Yorkers were alright and questions about what others had heard and all of the general disbelief and overwhelming shock that we all felt. And then someone posted The Darkest Puzzle:

I think a bit of SPEC and puzzlepiecing would be good to do. But we MUST show some dignity, respect, decorum, and compassion. No wild SPECcing that might cause more hysteria than we all feel.

We have the means, resource, and experience to put a picture togetherfrom a vast wealth of knowledge and personal intuition. We may not have all the clues, and we may not find the absolute answer, but the Cloudmaker may develope a better idea of what’s happening.

The Darkest Puzzle, Cloudmakers Yahoo! Group, September 11, 2001

Two or three others also wondered if, as a group, Cloudmakers may be able to find some answers. Most others, however, recognized that was beyond our scope and the group moderators reminded us all that we had come together over a game with puzzles and clues designed to be solved and played, and not something as nebulous as 9/11 with forensic evidence and the like that we would never see. For the most part, that put an end to it.

It resurfaces on occasion when academics and others decide to make it bigger than it was as an attempt to show that gamers want to solve real world problems through collective intelligence and what not. But as I felt then (and still do), with perhaps one exception, those posts were driven less by the idea that Cloudmakers could or should “solve 9/11″ and more from a personal need to do something… anything.

This was not unique to Cloudmakers or to gamers. Another online community (non-gaming) I was involved in at the time had several members who lost family in the attacks. This provided that group with some very specific goals such as shuttling a young family from the middle of the country back “home” to the east coast because there were no flights and they could not drive. And it wasn’t just people online, I remember groups in my Orlando neighborhood struggling to find the best ways that they could help. In fact, most of the people that I talk to about 9/11 remember, after the shock, the profound sense of community and nationalism that they felt just after the attacks. We, as a nation, were a family. We were hurting. And we all wanted to help.

Which is why, whenever The Darkest Puzzle posts are mentioned as this exceptional example of something, it’s a bit cringe-worthy for those of us who were there. It’s not the fact that the posts were made. That’s understandable. It’s the way the story has been embellished over time to imply that Cloudmakers, or a significant subset, believed they could use their skills to “solve” 9/11. It moves the story from a general desire to come together as a community in a helpful manner, as most of the nation was doing (and as Cloudmakers had been so proud of doing in the months prior), towards one where we cast ourselves as potential heroes with delusions of grandeur and a paranoid mistrust in the government’s ability to handle the situation.

In the case of The Beast, the lines became so blurry that when terrorists took down the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, a forum dedicated to solving the game’s puzzles began to buzz withplans to “solve” 9/11 as well. According to McGonigal’s paper, one typical post argued that “this sort of thing is sorta our MO. Picking things apart and figuring them out.” Eventually, the founders of the group felt obliged to intervene, pointing out the difference between “clues hidden that were gauged for us” and the clues left in the wake of the attacks.

At least the would-be terror sleuths knew that 9/11 really wasn’t a game: Because ARGs are frequently launched unannounced, with tempting trails left waiting for players to stumble into their mysteries, fans spend a lot of time combing the Internet for contests that might not exist, sometimes insisting they’ve uncovered a game even as their hapless discoveries insist they haven’t. It’s a fine line between clue, coincidence, and synchronicity—something the rest of us learned in the aftermath of the same attacks, as a rap album cover, a folded $20 bill, and some font wingdings seemed to offer unanticipated echoes of the atrocities. The difference—one difference—is that the Beast player deliberately seeks a state of paranoia, of searching for hidden patterns left by a shadowy cabal, while the rest of us had that state of mind thrust upon us.

Games People Play, Reason.com, August 29, 2005.

To be cast as these delusional beings in academic papers, popular press, and on websites such as Reason is an insult that has left some Cloudmakers defensive over the entire situation. Just reading through those paragraphs, which are fairly typical of most discussing this, you can see the judgements and innacuracies. The “buzz” was a handful of posts out of several hundred that were made in the days after the attack. The “eventual” interveneing by the founders first happened within 10 minutes by a single mod (a united post from the group of mods was made the next day). We deliberately seek a state of paranoia? Really? At least they decided we could tell 9/11 wasn’t a game and, perhaps, were better equipped than a lot of Americans who weren’t so sure – what with looking at old wingdings and the like.

Considering how it’s so often handled, it’s no surprise that whenever the situation comes up it’s met with grumbling, jokes, and eye-rolling by Cloudmakers. This is not a source of pride. It’s a source of embarrassment that, through all the remarkable things we did, we may be remembered for something that we were absolutely not… 9/11 conspiracy theorists out to “solve” the mystery.  So, this past month, as an ARG launched using those Darkest Puzzle posts as the basis of a story, it’s understandable that the harshest reactions come from those who were involved with Cloudmakers and, in particular, those who were the most involved.

The Darkest Puzzle Series

1. The Darkest Puzzle: A History
2. The Darkest Puzzle: The ARG (coming soon!)
3. ARGs as a medium for Artful Expression (coming soon!)

Reclaiming Transmedia Storyteller

This is the epic facebook post. I say epic because after over 300 comments, it can’t be considered anything but epic. Seriously… 300 comments on Facebook. That’s just insane.

If you haven’t seen the original post and aren’t on Facebook, you can read it here. To paraphrase: Brian proposed a distiction between transmedia methods & transmedia storytelling where the deference lies in creative control. If you have creative control over the project, you are able to tell a transmedia story. Without that control, you are only utilizing transmedia methods because all that you are able to do is extend or adapt the story.

This was, of course, rather controversial and, to a degree, relies on intent. Even if you have creative control over the story if, years later, you decide to extend it, is it “transmedia storytelling”? Others question what that means for transmedia stories that stand on their own that are a part of a larger universe (for example, many marketing ARGs).

It’s difficult to summarize 300+  comments, but here are some of the themes:

• Does intent matter?
• Creative control is tricky – how can we know?
• There’s something about transmedia from inception – but what’s the line?
• integration vs extension
• single story vs many stories (also, what is a ‘single story’ or, even, ‘story’)
• Does story matter?
• What are “transmedia methods”?
• Who is the storyteller? (credits on a transmedia design team)

The Transmedia Definition Chat

A handful of people gathered in IRC to chat about the definition issue. I was somewhat disappointed in that it was mostly made up of folks with an ARG background. I think we see transmedia differently from many both because we come from a “net-native” world and we’re so very comfortable with deeply integrated experiences. That said, it was a pretty good chat and with some folks who haven’t really dipped their toes into the public debates.

It started off by looking at projects that were “hands down no-controversy” transmedia… which, personally, I found a bit difficult as I’m not sure such a thing exists between all the various definitions and ideas I’ve heard over the last few months. The common examples, however, were Year Zero & Heroes. I’d agree with both, though I’m not sure the folks that look at Year Zero as an Album & an ARG would agree (and, as a single integrated story, it certainly doesn’t fit any definition based that requires 3 stories & extensions… but we weren’t there to discuss other definitions, but to look at it as a whole). From there, a number of themes were discussed:
ARGs, whether or not it’s a part of a larger transmedia universe, are transmedia

• integration: to what degree does the story move between platforms & what is that impact
• fragmentation: pieces of the story are broken up & spread about
• ergodic: the need to put some effort into reading (or exploring) the story
• platform, channel, & format: how do these fit (if at all) in an iPad world
• story: does it matter? is it required?
• transmedia: noun or adjective?
• tricky edge cases: video games, series, cthalloween

The conclusion of this was a start at a definition: “A network of closely related pieces of content”

Going Forward…

It was clear, towards the end of both the Facebook thread & irc chat, that we’re close to a definition. However, the nature of both of those made it difficult to manage the various discussions that were coming together – funding, business models, why we need a definition, roles & credits, etc. A single threaded conversation was just not going to manage it and, so, I set up a forum at We Create: Transmedia to continue the discussions. Please join in!

I’ll be checking in the forum now & then, but I’m somewhat crippled on an iPad & ancient PC while my Mac is off for a few days at the service salon getting all prettied up with a new logic board & case. Please don’t let my apparent absence stop you! And, if you have any suggestions as far as improvements to the forum (a bbpress install), let me know :)

Inspired by the Planner Survey that the various planner folks have been tweeting about, I am putting together one for transmedia folk.

Unlike the annual Planner Survey, I make no promises of ever doing this again. We’ll have to see.

I have a good deal of experience in surveying folks, but not so much surveying about actual jobs & working experience. I know what I would like to know, but I might not be like you… what would you like to know?

Do you have questions that should be included in the survey? Let me know!

The survey will be kept short, but there’s definitely room for a few more questions. They can be open ended and specific to certain folks (by job type or location, for example).  I can’t guarantee that I’ll use them (remember: short survey), but if they don’t get used in the survey, perhaps they can be used to start some conversations post survey.

Let me know. Comment here or, if you’d rather, send me an email (brooke at giantmice) or ping me on twitter @imbri. I plan to put the survey out soon, so get any questions you would like included to me ASAP…let’s say by Thursday. If all goes as planned, I’ll have the survey out next week sometime.

Thanks!

edit: Sorry for some of the confusion earlier! I edited the post to make it a bit more clear. I’m looking for questions now, I’ll be looking for answers soon. You’ll know. I’ll try not to be too annoying with the tweets about it ;)

First of all, it’s important to remember that there are freelancers and self-employed folks in just about every industry. The overwhelming majority of these folks, when they see PGA, think golf before they think production. Yet somehow, they survive. Many of them even thrive. They do not need to belong to the PGA just to get insurance and neither do you.

Now, things aren’t perfect and a lot of freelancers struggle with the insurance issue in the US. It’s a confusing process made all the more complicated by the fact that it’s expensive to get on your own. And the fears and doubts come…  Should I just go for the hit by a bus plan? Can I afford a $10,000 deductible? What if I get sick… like really sick? What if I go through a dry spell, can’t pay my insurance for a month, and get dropped? Will it be harder to get? More expensive? What will that mean for preexisting conditions? I know the fears that freelancers have. I’ve lived with those fears for 10 years – many of which I’ve spent uninsured, stressed out by and sometimes terrified of the what ifs.

The thing is, the PGA isn’t just about insurance. It’s a trade association. That trade is production. It is not transmedia storytelling. It is not freelancing. It is not self-employment. They may have some resources for freelancers and some of their trade information may be relevant to transmedia, but their focus is on production and, more specifically, “full length, nationally-broadcast television shows (network or cable); widely released theatrical feature films; direct to home video features released by a national distributor; or established, major new media productions.” (link)

Another thing to consider is that the PGA is not cheap. It is at least $550 to apply and then an annual fee of $150 (link). There are a number of less expensive options which not only provide access to group healthcare but may actually have benefits better designed to fit your needs such as MediaBistro’s AvantGuild which is only $55/year and the Freelancers Union which largely NYC based but is free to join & has partnered with Golden Rule for health insurance in 30 states. Both of those are fairly general, but there are also other, less expensive, professional organizations which provide membership benefits (for example, if you work with games, there’s IGDA which is only $48 a year).

If all you are interested in is health insurance, you might be surprised where you can find group plans. For example, a number of colleges & universities offer a alumni insurance plans and most of those big wearhouse clubs (Costco) have brokered group plans. Another thing to look into is whether your state allows self-employed individuals to qualify as a group (Kaiser’s info). Even if they don’t, don’t be afraid to apply as an individual – you don’t have to take the plan if it is too expensive, but if you are denied insurance as an individual, you will likely qualify for PCIP or State High Risk Pools. All of these options are, certainly, more expensive than getting insurance through an employer (who covers some of the costs) but don’t forget when you’re pricing plans that, if you are self-employed, there are various tax deductions which can help ease the burden (which depend, in part, to how you’re set up… talk to an accountant!).

There are reasons why you might find the PGA beneficial. I’m not a member so I cannot attest to the networking opportunities they provide. You might also be willing to pay the membership fee for a sense of accreditation or legitimization. I have not felt the need for either, but your experience may be different. And that’s OK and a better argument for the PGA than the need for insurance… because there are insurance options out there and ones that don’t come with $550 application fee and $150 annual membership.

Having consulted on transmedia projects for almost a decade now, I’ve had the pleasure of working with a wide variety of teams on a wide variety of projects. I’ve worked with huge agencies who have massive in-house resources and small studios where nearly everything has to be contracted out. Some teams have an incredibly casual structure with job descriptions that are mere formalities and some have roles and duties that are strictly monitored and enforced (and, not surprising, most are a mix of the two extremes). As long as the team is communicating and comfortable with the setup, there seems to be no right or wrong approach – I’ve seen incredible successes and some near devastating failures (I’m often called in once problems arise) across the spectrum. What does seem to matter is whether or not the team is balanced with equal respect shown to production, writing, & design. None is more or less important than the others.

Sure, teams need other folks as well. Some of whom will depend on the nature of the project but you’ll likely be looking at graphics, technical folks, editors, etc. While it may be important for them to understand the nature of transmedia and the importance of continuity, their roles in a transmedia environment are not all that different from what they would be doing in a more traditional environment. So this post is not about them it’s about the core team: the producer, the experience designer, and the writer (or the production team, the design team & the writing team, if the project is large enough).

Writers

For all the talk of how story is the key, it’s quite depressing that there’s so little talk about the writers. The writers, as may be obvious, are the ones who write the story. Not all writers are suited for the task – many writers thrive under the constraints that a single platform provides. The lead writer needs to be able to create a compelling story without those constraints. They also need to be able to share the act of telling the story.

Depending on the size, scope, and design of the project, you may also require character writers. The skills necessary for your character writers vary to a degree. For example, if your experience includes text based interaction (say, blog comments or twitter), your writer should have performance skills, especially improv.

Experience Designers

Experience designers are responsible for designing the experience that the audience is going to have. They work closely with the writers and, together, they tell the story the writer has written. Not only are experience designers responsible for helping the audience navigate to (and maybe through) the various platforms and story pieces, but they are tasked with creating and maintaining the overall design of the experience and making sure that the thematic feel, audience activity, and overall presentation are consistent and maintain the integrity & continuity of the story.

Experience designers need to have a fairly broad understanding of everything from user experience to game mechanics to narrative structure (and a whole host of other things depending on the project). Most experience designers I know don’t realize the scope of their skillset – it seems to be something that is just innate and built from a lifelong curiousity of the world and how people interact with and experience it.

Producers

Producers are the ones that bring the experience to life. They are the planners & coordinators. They are the ones who actually get things done. Actual responsibilities vary on the size of the team & scope of the project but, generally speaking, they are the do-ers and the ones that make it happen.

Like experience designers, transmedia producers need to have a broad skillset. Like writers, not all producers are suited for a transmedia environment. Some producers thrive on a single platform that they know well while others are energized by the opportunities that a transmedia environment presents.

The three make up the core team and work together to make sure that the overall vision for the story experience can be executed successfully. Ideally, they’re brought together early in the project life cycle and work in unison throughout bringing in others as needed. As someone who is frequently brought in just before a project goes live to offer everything from analysis to insight & support, their relationship and the way that relationship is treated outside of the project is one of the first things I look at because it is not only a fairly reliable predictor of a project’s success but often indicates where some of the biggest problems will lie. This is especially true for ARGs, but it’s not unique to them and has held true for every project I’ve worked on whether as a member of the core team or as a simple consultant brought in to do a bit of cheer-leading & hand-holding. So nurture this team and get them together as soon as possible. Everyone (the team, the client, the audience…) will have a better overall experience because of it.

Many of my fellow creators believe it’s a futile exercise in wankery… that art isn’t defined by words but by works. I don’t disagree with that sentiment*.

Creators create. They don’t define and they don’t let definitions define their work.

However, there are people who need to define transmedia. They need to make judgments on work to decide whether to fund it or to support the creators of that work.

I pick on the PGA credit. A lot. It was the first big public example of a transmedia definition in the US. As such, other organizations are looking at it. If it is flawed, and those flaws are not addressed, they may be carried over into other organizations. The fact that a number of prominent examples of transmedia don’t fit the posted definition & things that many wouldn’t consider to be transmedia do indicates that there is, in fact, a flaw. It is one that I would like to see fixed and, more, I’d like to help others avoid making.

My picking on the PGA credit shows my bias. I live and work in the US. I’m most familiar with what is happening here. This is not, however, an issue that is unique to the US.

Evan Jones  added a wonderful comment to the amazing discussion happening on Brian Clark’s Reclaiming Transmedia Storyteller post that points to the need for a definition (or, at least, a clear idea of what transmedia is).

The fact is that internationally, these definitions really do matter. In Canada and many other countries, there are departments set up to support arts & culture. Not just schools but organizations that distribute taxpayer dollars (or mandated industry levies) to independent creators – often millions of dollars every year. Because these are taxpayer dollars, each organization must be transparent about how it distributes their funds – what do they fund and how do you get it?

He later writes:

I struggle with the idea that early-adopters have better authority to define terms, but I relate to the need to hold firm against the dilution of terms. The problem I see is that transmedia storytelling is still so new that someone who claims it for different purposes will probably find an audience that has never encountered the term – the first experience sets the definition for them and the worry is that the ‘wrong transmedia’ will reach more people than the ‘right transmedia’, thereby making sure that all the people doing it the ‘right’ way get the door slammed in their face when their audience decides they hate ‘wrong transmedia’.

That was the heart of my rant last week, Transmedia is killing Hollywood will kill Transmedia. Without a definition, ‘right transmedia’ and ‘wrong transmedia’ is merely opinion. Once something is defined, as with the PGA credit, we can point to examples of ‘right’(to be included) and ‘wrong’ (to be excluded) from that definition’s perspective. The challenge, then, is to make sure that it isn’t excluding works that should be included and vice-versa. Because, as Evan points out, “there are literally millions of dollars hinging on our ability to define what we do against what we don’t.”

If you are interested in this discussion, I strongly encourage you to dive into the Reclaiming Transmedia Storyteller post & the 100 comments (so far!). I have also set up a storify page on the PGA Transmedia Credit, which I will try to keep updated and pointing to discussions on this topic. If you would like to talk to me, feel free to get in touch, but understand that I do not have “answers” or, even, an “ideal definition.” I do, however, have opinions and an ever-growing understanding of this stuff that we do and the many things people call transmedia.

* Though I do think that art can benefit from critical discourse and part of that does include things like debating what is and is not transmedia.

They would just pat me on the head… silly little Brooke dreaming of world peace when there’s money to be made!

There have been plenty of examples over the last few years, but I have never seen my thoughts summed up as well as in this ad. (bonus: goosebumps)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7skPnJOZYdA

As some of you correctly observed, my rant was directed to Jeff Gomez. Well, that’s not entirely true – I was thinking of him as well as all of those who do similar work. However, as Jeff is leading the conversation, Mr. Transmedia Producer effectively referred to him. So, Jeff, I am sorry for calling you out in such a way. I still stand by what wrote, but hope that you can understand the spirit in which it was written.

I am angry and frustrated. I’m worried by how so many working in transmedia feel marginalized. I’m bothered by the fact that people who have done amazing work, seminal work, are abandoning the term. Now, I don’t care what people call their work or how they promote themselves, that’s a personal decision, but I do care that good work and innovative work may be overlooked or overshadowed because of it. I’m saddened by the fact that much of this is because of the way you defined transmedia for the PGA credit.

I’ve talked about this before, but there is something wrong when a professional organization systematically denies a significant portion of the people working in the field.

That changed much of the conversation from why and how to what. It took support and turned it into debate. It turned advocates into defenders and denyers. It created confusion when it should have provided clarity. And it gave birth to a whole slew of gurus who have a limited view of what transmedia is.

It’s time to reboot the conversation, to go back to where we were while still building on what we’ve done. It’s time to change the definition to something that we can all share and understand…. a definition that is as useful as it is usable.

In the comments and conversations spawned by my rant, Mike Monello & Brian Clark proposed an important distinction: transmedia vs. transmedia method. I encourage you to read (and contribute to!) the comments there, but here’s an overview from Brian (@gmdclark) on twitter.

transmedia storytelling: telling a story across multiple platforms by original design

transmedia methods: the tools transmedia storytellers use that others can use as well

He goes on to explain that most of the “transmedia” out there is really just using transmedia methods to extend an existing property. And you know what, that is ok. It doesn’t change the quality of the work.

It’s a brilliant distinction and something that I think many of us were thinking on some level. I’m so grateful that they were able to distill it for us. What I appreciate the most about it is that it changes the conversation from “what is transmedia?” to “what are the methods we’re using and how can we use them to bring stories to life?”

And, really, isn’t that a much better conversation to have.

This was a followup to Rebooting Transmedia
and I have since followed up with Defining Discussions

This was not what I had planned on posting today. I’ve got a post in the making taking a look at various things transmedia is used to describe and what is great (and difficult & challenging & wonderful) about each. It’s a good post. It’s a useful post. It helps to clarify transmedia without defining it and it encourages folks to consider what transmedia can mean (and do) for their projects on a several different levels.

But then I read this. And I got angry.

With that in mind, let’s look ahead to what’s on the menu for this year: four adaptations of comic books. One prequel to an adaptation of a comic book. One sequel to a sequel to a movie based on a toy. One sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a movie based on an amusement-park ride. One prequel to a remake. Two sequels to cartoons. One sequel to a comedy. An adaptation of a children’s book. An adaptation of a Saturday-morning cartoon. One sequel with a 4 in the title. Two sequels with a 5 in the title. One sequel that, if it were inclined to use numbers, would have to have a 7 1/2 in the title.

Mark Harris, The Day The Movies Died

I can hear the arguments now… “Brooke, you just hate franchises!” “You know adaptations are not transmedia!” “Hollywood has to make money and, in this economy, they just can’t take the risks! Transmedia can help!”

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Actually, no. You are correct that adaptations are not transmedia, but you are not correct if you think that’s the issue.

The issue is that the loudest proponants of transmedia will point to all of these properties as successful examples of transmedia. Why? Because that is what Hollywood wants to hear. For decades now, Hollywood has relied on franchises to make money. They are low risk and help to keep the brand alive. Not the story. Studios are a business and franchises are a brand. Brands that, hopefully, make money.

The one thing businessmen love as much as money is a buzzword. Especially a buzzword that they can use to describe exactly what they have always done but make it sound fresh and oh so hip. They don’t have to grow or adapt, all they have to do is change a word.

Enter Transmedia.

The big loud voices will tell you that this is storytelling for the 21st century. They may even be so bold to tell you that they are reinventing storytelling… as if they aren’t doing exactly what Hollywood has been doing for decades.

They aren’t creating change. They are providing justification for the status quo. They are encouraging Hollywood to continue with what it has been doing – whether it is working or not.

They’ll tell you that transmedia is all about the story (which it is) but then go on to provide examples of… franchises. Franchises are not stories. Franchises are brands.

They’ll give you advice about how to build a universe or spin off a character into a comic book. Great. Sounds cool. But how is that adding to the story? All you are doing is adding to the franchise. Building the brand.

So, Mr. Transmedia Producer, if transmedia is all about the story and you are creating a new story… how exactly is it transmedia?! How is it different from what has always been done?

But for now, let’s just admit it: Hollywood has become an institution that is more interested in launching the next rubberized action figure than in making the next interesting movie.

Mark Harris, The Day The Movies Died

Transmedia is so much more than the next rubberized action figure. The concept of telling a story across platforms is powerful. The freedom that it provides the storyteller is a difficult challenge but the rewards are plentiful. It enhances the story by removing platform constraints and lets the storyteller engage the audience in a variety of ways which can be used to provide meaning and context in a manner that a single platform just cannot replicate.

I don’t blame you, Mr. Transmedia Producer, for not taking advantage of that potential and, instead, just encouraging your clients to produce a new, albeit related, story to help extend the brand, err, universe.

It’s not an easy thing to do. Plus, you are probably not involved early enough in the creative process to make it happen. Nor are you likely to have the rights to make such changes to the original. So creating something all together new and different is, really, your only option.

I do, however, blame you for selling snake oil. Your bottled solution is made up of nothing more than the same tap water they’ve always been drinking. Oh, sure, there may be some placebo effect – the idea that they are being innovative may create a bit of excitement which could effect how the movie is marketed. But soon the villagers will catch on. They’ll realize they don’t need you and they don’t need this transmedia, their franchises are just fine.

And what happens then? What will Hollywood think of the actual transmedia out there…  will they take the risk or just decide it’s nothing more than another bottle of snake oil?

I’ve written a followup post: Rebooting Transmedia
and another: Defining Discussions

As you look through this, keep in mind that none of these are absolutes. People are complex beings and they are not going to neatly fit into a box. So when I distinguish between story & experience, I understand that someone who is focused on the experience may also be keenly interested in the story. It is not an either/or situation for the vast majority of the audience.

FOCUS:  Story & Experience
Is the focus of their participation based on the story or on the experience? So, someone who writes fanfic or creates some funny tribute video is, yes, inspired by the story but their focus is experiential in that they are creating something new that is inspired by the story.

DRIVE:  Proactive & Reactive
In addition to proactive & reactive are the Spectators – these are Bystanders who are interested in understanding what’s happening with the experience but may not want to be involved and Readers who may be deeply engaged with the story but not actively participating with it.

Proactive & Reactive refer to whether someone is trying move ahead with the story/experience or whether they are just reacting to what has already happened.  Entertainers & Information Specialists are both socially motivated and focused on the story. The Information Specialists are driven by what has been done – they’re interested in what has already happened with the story. The Entertainers, on the other hand, are actively attempting to drive the story forward. They’re pushing buttons and trying to create change.

MOTIVATION:  Social & Personal
Is their participation socially motivated or personally motivated? For example, Story Hackers want to touch & interact with the story. The social Story Hackers are Entertainers. They want to change and impact the story in a way that everyone can enjoy. Interactors, on the other hand, are the personally motivated Story Hackers. They just want to have a bit of a personal relationship with the story, not necessarily change it for everyone to see.

Here’s a chart that I whipped together to help visualize this – so much easier than writing it all out. It’s a bit busy, but the personality types are listed in bold. If you have trouble reading it, you can click on the image to get a bigger version.

So far I’m really happy with this revelation. It doesn’t really change anything for me – audience engagement comes naturally to me and while I consider personality types in my design process it’s not on an overly conscious level. It may, however, impact the way I talk about, analyze, and present stuff on audience engagement. The problem, really, and why I’m reaching out to y’all to see if I’m on to something is that there’s a missing personality and I feel like a few personalities that I’ve come to know & love after talking about them for five+ years seem a bit forced (here’s a link to my old audience types used in 2005-07 … not many changes).

Missing:
You’ll notice in the chart that there wasn’t any personality type listed for personally motivated Story Specialists. Have I been ignoring this personality? Do any of you refer to type that might fit this description? Would any of you consider yourselves that sort of personality type?

A Jumbled Mess:
My current list of personality types include three types that feel forced into this setup: Explorers, Problem Solvers, & Collectors. They all seem to react to the experience and, I think, are personally motivated – but never felt that closely related to me.

Explorers derive satisfaction by working through the experience. They enjoy the story, sure, but they are focused on the experience. When they talk about the experience to others, they don’t tell them the story of the narrative, the tell the story of their exploring. So they talk about how they saw a url on a tv show that led them to this website where they found an email address.

Problem Solvers solve problems. When I was solely focused on ARGs, these were my Puzzlers. But they do more than just puzzles – they’ll solve any sorts of problems and find all sorts of patterns. For example, if there’s a series of live events, they’ll find out exactly when & where events are happening and post, link to, or create google maps of the locations. If the issue in the community is where folks can meetup before or after, they’ll probably be the ones to create a list of nearby places where meetups can happen – not because they want to organize the event, but because it’s a problem they can solve.

Collectors derive pleasure through collection – whether it’s SWAG (virtual or physical) or leaderboard accomplishments. This would be closely related to the Achievers/Diamonds if you’re familiar with the Bartle Test. Though, because most transmedia projects lack specifically attainable goals, achievers is a bit of a misnomer here. However, the desire to get it all and be on top is similar.

I made Explorers the the “parent” of Problem Solvers & Collectors, but I’m just not sure about that. I’m also not sure about Problem Solvers being socially motivated. Is this showing that the model is broken or are my descriptions of these personalities just off a bit? I do not know.

What do you think? Am I on to something here? Do you describe personality types? I’d love to know what they are, if you don’t mind sharing.


Geoff recognizes that but countered with the Producer’s Guild credit…

A Transmedia Narrative project or franchise must consist of three (or more) narrative storylines existing within the same fictional universe on any of the following platforms:  Film, Television, Short Film, Broadband, Publishing, Comics, Animation, Mobile, Special Venues, DVD/Blu-ray/CD-ROM, Narrative Commercial and Marketing rollouts, and other technologies that may or may not currently exist. These narrative extensions are NOT the same as repurposing material from one platform to be cut or repurposed to different platforms.

ARGs, he argued, are single story experiences and, thus, they are not transmedia.

While I can respect his argument, it fails for me because I do not agree with the PGA’s definition. I have always been bothered by the “three storyline” requirement and I am not the only one. When Christy Dena first questioned it, Jeff Gomez (who was instrumental in getting the PGA to create the transmedia credit) provided clarification that it needs to contain “three narrative threads, not necessarily three completely different and separate stories.”

The problem is that the definition is just not clear. Geoff is more aware of this stuff than most, and he was not aware of that clarification. The PGA continues to state “three storylines” which completely favors media franchises (in my opinion, the least exciting application of transmedia there is). Not only that, but by only excluding the repurposing of material from one platform to the next (think adaptations & novelizations), it’s as open to simple world-building exercises as Henry Jenkins’ “provide backstory” example while seemingly excluding large swaths of native transmedia projects (including ARGs).

Whether true or not, it seems the issue comes down to money. For better or worse, Hollywood lives off of franchises. Franchises bring in the big bucks. Most native transmedia is still struggling to find financial models that pay the bills let alone rake in millions. This will not always be the case. Things are changing.

The most commonly known native transmedia is alternate reality games. Critics like to point out that they are for geeks & kids. Not coincidentally, the biggest franchises are also for geeks & kids. Geeks proudly wear their passion on their sleeve (a Star Wars geek, for example) making them an easy audience to find when awareness is low and their passion leads them to want to explore their geekdom… they want to know everything they can and enjoy the thrill of the hunt (ask any collector why they collect). Kids are natural explorers who will not only follow a story across media, but find it natural to do so and are comfortable with technology.

Increasingly, they are not the only ones. The number of people using social media is rising at an incredible rate. Few people had heard about Facebook 5 years ago and, today, it is one of the most used websites in the world. People are connecting and sharing at an unprecedented level and it’s not just kids & geeks doing it… 96% of 18-35 year olds are on a social network. And people over 35 (and 55) are taking up a greater share of the social media population every day. While social media may not be an integral part of transmedia, what we’re seeing is an increasing comfort level with connecting, exploring, and sharing through media which is an important element.

The PGA definition, though valuable because it acknowledged the field, is short-sighted. Not only has it supported old-media ways and thinking (franchises are nothing new and they are, certainly, not new media which is the heading transmedia falls under), but it has diminished what is truly exciting about transmedia: building a media experience from the ground up with the goal of telling the story how it wants to be told through the media that best tells it.

And that is a shame.

Here’s a big chunk of what he had to say on franchises:

The entertainment industry has long developed licensed products, reproducing the same stories across multiple channels (for example, novelizations). Increasingly, broadcast content is also available on line. And many films are adopted from books (or now, comic books). None of these necessarily constitute transmedia storytelling. In transmedia, elements of a story are dispersed systematically across multiple media platforms, each making their own unique contribution to the whole. Each medium does what it does best–comics might provide back-story, games might allow you to explore the world, and the television series offers unfolding episodes.

There’s little to disagree with there, but it leaves the door wide open for very superficial relationships. It is not enough for stories to just be set in the same world or contain the same themes. They need to interact and impact one another – changes made in one should effect the others. If they don’t they are just supporting materials that anyone with a universe bible can produce.

That does not mean that the supporting materials aren’t great or that they aren’t important pieces of the universe. Nor does it mean that transmedia properties can’t contain relatively stand alone elements or that they have to be as complex as, say, most alternate reality games.

Yesterday, in a fit of frustration after reading yet another article holding Star Wars up as the first best example of transmedia storytelling, I vented on twitter.

It’s not that I’d hold Dr. Who up as a first best or best first example, but they are both well loved sci-fi franchises with an enormous amount of merchandising and officially sanctioned media extensions. The general response or justification was that, in early Doctor Who, there was little interaction between those extensions. Star Wars, on the other hand, introduced a character (Boba Fett) on one platform (a made for TV movie) before he appeared on the core platform (feature films).

So there is a clear and strong distinction being made based on the way that the various platforms interact with one another. While I’m not sure that the introduction of a character in a supporting platform is enough to qualify a project as transmedia today*, the implication is that there needs to be something more.

A year ago in a rather over-written attempt at defining transmedia, I stressed the complexity of the relationship as distinguishing transmedia from non-transmedia. (And made a failed attempt at keeping crossmedia alive by using it to define multi-platform projects with simple relationships. A point I wouldn’t mention if it wasn’t in the header of the image.) In that post I compared Harry Potter with the Matrix.

Harry Potter is one of my favorite franchises and universes, but I do not consider it transmedia because, despite the richness of the universe and number of bits & pieces that extend from it, the various platform do not interact. They lack that something more. The relationships are all one way.

Compare that to the Matrix where events occurring on one platform impacted events in the others. It was possible to fully enjoy the movies, video games, shorts, or comics without consuming the other. For example, if you played the video game, you not only got key bits of back-story, but one of your first tasks was to help deliver a very important message and you saw the message being received (and the impact of it) in the movie. People who only enjoyed the movies didn’t suffer from a lack of understanding, but people who participated on a deeper level were rewarded.

When writing, designing, and/or producing transmedia there are approaches and considerations that need to be made that go beyond just thumbing through a universe bible or scanning a canon-filled wiki. That’s why suggesting that transmedia is little more than providing backstory and exploring a world is, really, a bit offensive to those creating and producing transmedia.

* Transmedia is like porn. Not only do you know it when you see it, but how you see it depends on contemporary community standards. Let’s value our work by keeping the standards high.

There’s a follow-up to this post: More on Media Franchises & Transmedia