WTF is Transmedia?
Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 6:38PM Last year, I looked at the (nearly) decade-old question WTF is an ARG? I'd like to reflect on that topic a little more, now that some time has passed and new words are afoot in our shared lexicon.
Last time, I made this pretty diagram, and wrote:
We're looking for a name for all of the cool stuff that falls into that white circle in the center, which seem to ring our bells in a lot of the same ways. That white circle... that's what I'm interested in making. It's definitely bigger and more diffuse than that classic-ARG triangle, story + gameplay + community. I've been guilty of trying to expand 'ARG' to mean all of that stuff, but that's ultimately a bad idea, because people think they know what an ARG is... and it isn't that, not quite.Lately I'm reduced to calling it "Cool stuff on the internet." And that's why we keep going in circles about what an ARG is. We sort of know -- it's the stuff in the very center, but not all of the stuff in the center -- but we don't yet have a good name for whatever ARGs are a subset of. Digital culture? Guided pervasive experiences? It may be, in the fullness of time, that we need several names to accurately describe what the heck we mean.
Lately, we have a new contender for that whole "cool stuff on the internet" thing. If you've been following along at home, you already know that word is "transmedia." Is transmedia our umbrella term? Is that the magical word we've been looking for?
Well... yes and no.
WTF is Transmedia?
There is increasing inertia behind the word and its use to apply to ARGs and all its diverse cousins. No Mimes spoke at SXSW about the 10-Minute Transmedia Experience, which one might have called, not very long ago, a 10-Minute ARG. And I spoke at the MIT Story 3.0 workshop just a couple of weeks ago billed as an expert in transmedia storytelling, alongside Nina Bargiel and Brent Friedman of Valemont fame -- another experience you'd be hard-pressed to say was not an ARG.
So what do people mean when they talk about transmedia storytelling? It depends on who you're talking to.
In one definition, admittedly the one I favor, a transmedia story is one that uses multiple media to tell disparate pieces of a single cohesive narrative. I call this the spiderweb definition. This is one of thousands of possible configurations for such a story, each using different elements:
But there's another definition in play, too, and it heavily favors entertainment franchises. Under this model, a transmedia story is one that uses multiple media (generally three or more) to tell distinct stories in a consistent and unifying story world. Let's call this the sequential model. Taken to its furthest extreme, the Smurfs might qualify as a transmedia story because it takes place in a single universe, and there are comic books, films, and of course the cartoons, each with their distinct stories.
Can the two definitions coexist peacefully? Hells yeah. This is actually my preferred outcome. I want to make narratives that are a hybrid of spiderwebbed and sequential elements linked together. But it's also possible that in the war for the word "transmedia," there will be a winner and a loser, and the fallout might not be pretty for the loser.
Let's put it this way. There's a reason we can't use, say, "interactive fiction" as our umbrella term. When was the last time you heard "interactive fiction" and thought of something substantially different from an Infocom game? That's because the consensus definition narrowed so tightly that it now excludes anything that isn't, essentially, a text adventure. Likewise, transmedia might eventually collapse to exclude the spiderweb definition.
So am I really a transmedia designer? Uh, I... guess? For now, anyway.
Defining Is A Process
Earlier today, there was a big announcement out of the PGA (the producers, not the golfers). They introduced a new credit for transmedia producers to qualify and join up. It's great news! Except for the places where maybe it isn't so great (but here's hoping).
Christy Dena quickly addressed the topic (though some of her points have already been answered; for example, video games were missing from the list by accident and not by conscious omission). There remain some concerns. It's fabulous that transmedia producers are getting this validation, but the PGA's definition of transmedia might wind up excluding a lot of the amazing work out there... including ours.
To qualify, a project must have three stories told via three distinct media. It skews heavily to the sequential model, and doesn't explicitly account for the spiderweb model.
Now, it's my understanding that this is just a first step; and you do have to start somewhere, with some definition. So I'm definitely not lighting the torches and sharpening the tines on the ol' pitchfork. From everything I know of Jeff Gomez, his heart is in the right place. He certainly isn't planning a campaign of exclusion.
And let's not forget that this is by far the biggest validation our craft has received from a traditional media organization yet so far. We've received a lot of awards, sure, but this is the first step in turning transmedia from a gimmick into an accepted industry. This is our big break.
We shouldn't turn our backs on the party because the invitations didn't spell our names right. If it turns out that the lines haven't been drawn in the right places, then the PGA will redraw them. Or maybe they won't, and we'll wind up in exactly the same place we were a year ago.
And in the meantime, we just keep doing the work.
Why This Matters
To a very meaningful degree, this is all still wankery. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, yes? But like it or not, it's important wankery, because I need to know what to call the work I do... so that I can get more work doing it. It's sheer practicality. To wit, people know what an ARG is, or they think they do. As a freelance creator, this can actively work against me and my career.
If I tell somebody I'm an ARG designer, they might think "Oh, I don't want to do anything with puzzles," or "I don't want to do anything with live events," or worst of all, "But I'm not marketing anything!" Never mind the fact that I am very interested indeed in exploring all kinds of different forms and the stories you can tell with them. If I only ever call myself an ARG specialist, I promise you the opportunity will never arrive.
If I call myself a transmedia creator, opportunities might blossom that would have been otherwise unavailable to me. But if the word collapses toward a definition that explicitly excludes me and my work, then I've lost a big fight in selling myself and... well, my work. And folks, I rather like having a career. It brings me joy to bring you joy telling stories using these crazy new tools and techniques.
So is transmedia our umbrella term? I think so, I hope so, I'm working for it. But I'm not sure yet. Only time will tell. Maybe in the 2011 edition, we'll have our answer.
Reader Comments (14)
....umbrella embracing/advocating of "transmedia" places the emphasis squarely on the product/outcome of a merge/melange of known platforms + variables [the media part is the stick-in-the-eye/elephant-in-the-faux-pas-room bit] or cobbled 2gether "old media"/known forms of entertainment vs a embryonic/unquantified/intersectional modes [ref: ur 1st purdy graph above].
i've [satellite] written previously about this [see here: http://bit.ly/cR2sR7 + here: http://bit.ly/afpaXk + here: http://bit.ly/15IOvT ] + try 2 suggest the necessity of creative movement 2wards terminology developed in tandem with the emergence of forms [ie template cracking] rather than narrowing down towards industry-standard based definition(s) [tho i do kno that concrete lingo adoption = moolah].
There's no way out of here alive!
..ie it is indeedily a conundrum. so how do we ensure a realistic industry development path while making sure the intersectional doesn't get squashed in2 oblivion? any ideas?
As someone who has spent their career 'telling stories' around consumer products/services and nonprofits (in other words, no entertainment franchises), I'm also optimistic for an outcome where "transmedia storytelling" encompasses both spiderwebbed and sequential narratives, both Hollywood and everywhere else.
The way the definition process plays out eventually will have consequences for all of us (as you observed, in ways such as potentially determining roles and opportunities). For that reason we all are invested - voluntarily or otherwise - in this definition process. But in the meantime, our everyday work on ["insert ultimately agreed upon umbrella term here"] projects continues. And ultimately (as I keep reassuring myself), the quality of the work we do today and tomorrow is independent of how the field is defined.
So from where I'm sitting, we need to find a position of authority from whence to support our own definitions, as creators. Hijack transmedia so it means what we want it to.
...does this mean I'm going to spend even more time giving talks now?
I guess I am moving toward facing a similar dilemma. This year, I am working toward combining my software and film companies into one...er...not sure. But the two are really starting to inform one another, and it suddenly dawned on my how important one can be to the other. Am I a film producer? Or a software developer? I see the two blurring for me down the road...
So I have no answer except that I don't see anything wrong with a resume that shows both. When I'm hiring, if the resume is interesting enough, I would see that person and ask them to expand on whatever I didn't get about the resume.
That means that what I call myself has to be pretty snappy. If I'm calling myself an 'ARG designer' by any stripe, that's the more concrete thing, and it's more likely to stick in peoples' heads.
Then, when they're talking to people THEY know who are commissioning or pitching projects I'd be interested in working on, they might say "Hey, why don't you hire this ARG designer, Andrea?" and they'll get back "But I don't want to make an ARG." It's a very limited and limiting thing to call myself, and definitely narrows the scope of work I'd be considered for.
That's why I'm looking for an umbrella term that more accurately reflects the true breadth of work I'm interested in and capable of doing. ARG means a very specific thing, and I want to do a lot of things that you would never call an ARG.
It's a reunion year for me and as I reacquaint myself with my old classmates, I find myself jealous at their ability to say "Oh, I own a restaurant" or "I'm doing mergers & aquisitions". You are facing the problem of having to chose between "film producer" and "software developer." Those like Andrea and me, essentially, have nothing.
What we're left with boils down to, "I work in 'transmedia' and I make these strange experience sorts of things that are kind of like games but more like stories and they're really good at engaging an audience which is awesome and fun and a total blast."
Which is to say, it's difficult socially, but it's even more difficult professionally where we don't have the luxury of being able to expand on whatever it is that we do or where our focus is.
Transmedia is huge and broad and covers so many things and, more over, unlike "film x" or "software y" we don't have the luxury of people understanding the first term. So saying transmedia producer is meant with blank stares. And those that understand transmedia - they understand that the term could mean, essentially, anything. If I present myself as a "transmedia writer" that could mean (especially under the PGA definition) that I just extended some original IP by writing copy for a comic book. Something that is so far removed from what I actually do (or, perhaps, just a little part of it) that it's meaningless.
This is (slightly) easier to deal with when you are a part of a larger company than when you are a freelancer and, as Andrea pointed out, have to rely on a quick and easily grasped title. As freelancers, our titles are a part of our "brand." When you're associated with a company, your company carries the burden of branding and so your title of "President" or "CCO" or "Marketing Manager" or whatever is important but in a completely different way. In this way, the definition issue is always going to be felt more by freelancers than others.
But personally, when I am hiring people, and they come recommended, I will give them a look no matter what because they were recommended. So I assume that the recommending person had a reason why this person might be good for my project.
Have you given any thought to changing to a company? Instead of hiring "so and so, Transmedia producer", form a company called:
"TRANS-PHAT"* Transmedia Services.
*If you don't use TRANS-PHAT, I want to use it for my transmedia company...:)
For me, I'm probably going to try to call it some kind of "media company." I might say transmedia in there, since I'm considering creating software tools that might help transmedia storytelling in some ways.
But that might be a better "umbrella" solution...
Or alternately, have you ever considered breaking your resumes up based on the gig you're going for?
As for the reunion, I have little/no concern about what high school people think about me, so that doesn't weigh into my decisions...
I've considered starting up a formal company, but the tax implications of starting an LLC or C-corp don't do well by me. I could do a little branding around my sole proprietorship and just call myself something different, but I worry that it would put me in a position where my existing clients might not feel comfortable doing business with me anymore. Tricksy!
Hells yes.
The term "shockwave rider" comes to mind...I think it's pretty clear that the only way Transmedia will live on as a term is if it always stretches to encompass the most creative and original forms of the work, the things that will be Old Media in 10 or 20 years. But that won't happen if the definition is left to the hands of a deep establishment, and certainly not to organizations like the WGA or the PGA that primarily do something else entirely.
To echo your sentiments, Andrea, I don't want the label to lose steam, especially if I plan to be working under it for the next 20 years.
But if we keep expanding the definition into the future (where new transmedia projects will probably look nothing like what we're doing today), maybe we should consider of the "trans" in transmedia to mean "transcendent." ;)
I'm really interested in definitions and the importance of really working out ways of defining who you are and what you do for both non-monetary or monetary value. I live in Ireland and work in theatre mostly and some of us have been pushing for the use of the word theatremaker for a few years now because like every other art form, things are changing and companies are working in more collaborative ways so in the production of any one piece, each member writes, directs, produces etc. We really needed to set this work apart from the traditional roles of actor, director because as someone who also works in a very traditional way as a an actor for say, the national Theatre, I work more often with companies that hire me specifically for new work that needs actors who devise, who write who can do many things but most of all are responsible for the whole piece as a group and not just their own "part". Last year in an artists residency, this caused a huge argument with the facilitator who refused to list theatremaker as a category! But we fought and were stubborn and ignored the detractors and now the word is gaining popularity and popping up in official Arts Council documents, which means everyone else will soon follow cos they are the main funding body!! So, it seemed wanky at the start but it's really important. So, thank you for writing about it. (oh and sorry, we spell theatre differently!)
I haven't heard of this 'theatremaker' title before, but it's really interesting how the same kinds of issues are cropping up across just about every established medium/artform.
And no apologies for the spelling. Different doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong. ^_^