THE MOST INTERESTING thing I heard on the subject of "new media" and storytelling last week was relayed to me by someone who attended the first World Congress of Screenwriters in Athens, Greece last month.
Apparently there was this presentation, see. All about the British networking and social media site Bebo. Bebo is a UK Facebook for Under 18's. In 2007-08 they an original web series called "Kate Modern." This was basically a Brit Lonely Girl15, made by the same producers for the British audience and premiered on Bebo.
Because it's viewable and eminently trackable, the makers of Kate Modern could see how the viewers interact with the material. (Oh, yeah, it's interactive -- cause everything has to be interactive, right? Because this newfangled generation, they demand it! Their minds are wired differently!)
So there should be all that juicy data about who was doing video blogs, sharing clues, theories, and "taking part in" the world, right?
Well apparently what they found out was that about 1 - 2% of the users were "highly interactive" with the material.
...about another 9% or so were "somewhat interactive" with it.
...and 90%? Watched it completely passively. Just like TeeVee.
Oh Brave New World that has such people in it!
8 comments:
Ah, but Denis, that's STILL an ARG.
And the percent of those kids playing at home on the ARG are the same as the adults playing at home on the ARG - 1 per cent. And 10 + that play sometimes.
But look at the format, what's going on then compare and contrast with a phenom like Total Drama Island Interactive (http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/tdi/) and check the numbers on that. It's an inverse - 90 per cent that go hard and play all the time.
Interactive, like TV, like any platform, has to fit its audience - and an ARG for tweens and teens? Not entirely the general population.
I completely agree with Elize. This show's interaction looks boring as sin, whereas Total Drama Island Interactive draws you in *instantly*. Someone there understood that interactive shows need to be at least as much games as they are shows.
I was there in the early days, Denis, with a piece of shite called "Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future." Conceit was, you go to the local Radio Shack or whatever and buy a ray gun to shoot the bad guys on your TV. They had these cheesy flashing vests. All the killing didn't have an impact on the story, but Mattel was very much into creating an "interactive" experience...and this was over twenty years ago when the OS of choice was MSDOS. Needless to say it went the way of betamax and the Edsel. This isn't to say somebody won't come up with an effective interactive model. But storytelling? It's here for the long haul.b
Y'know Elize, respectfully, 15 years. Been hearing about this stuff for 15 years now. And now we're at the point where there's an interactive conference piping up the same microwaved talk; and Banff and NextMedia are supposed to merge, and the interactive part of the CMF is supposedly poised to cannibalize from the TV side.
TV works. It works for all age groups. It works, and it's robust, and it's enjoyable and it's fun.
And the stuff I keep tabs on in the interactive world is still all about "what's coming."
And I have not for the life of me seen one thing that lives up to the hype.
After 15 years and a NextMedia Casecamp Interwhoovy Fuckalatotawit stuff every minute and a half, it's time somebody showed some steak.
Haven't seen it yet. Have been asking. And am still waiting for the answers to my "what's it look like?" questions to sound different than they did in 1994.
Granted Denis - though I think the answer to what works is still being worked out (since, y'know, tech changes in leaps and bounds).
But yes - TV still works. The people that are flailing about claiming that the sky is falling? Confused. It ain't falling. There's no shell shock goin' on down here.
But. And here's the thing - you can't ignore your interactive. That has changed - you need something kicking around, but like when you get a good TV show kicking around it needs to make sense for your show, and no - it doesn't need to be a crazy, off the wall "experimental stream" style thing to work.
All this "make it crazier, make it experimental" to get monies from the OMDC/CMF is just splitting hairs, and honestly not making the best product. And that's what it's about - is finding a platform that makes it work at the end of the day - not something that makes it the shiniest, but completely ignored because it's too complex/campy/not good/etc., pitch.
Yes, but Elize, MY point is that the Cart is leading the horse... again.
"NextMedia & Banff to merge!" ---> I've been at these combined events four or five times now. It's ugly. It's all new media types talking out of their rectums telling people who make TV how they're going to be replaced and how they better get with the...er...thing..that...er um...they haven't quite worked out yet.
The cart leading the horse is not a great strategy when no one has even decided what the horse looks like, or if it's even a horse at all.
If I could get through one -- ONE --- article about interactive stuff without bullshit hype, then maybe.
...instead, I talk to L.A. guys who laugh how every studio -- the same studios worried that the sky is falling out of the TV industry -- has money to burn for interactive projects where literally they ... are... burning... the ... money.
My tolerance has expired. I can abide no more sizzle.
I know what good TV looks like...
...somebody needs to show me good interactive, or they need to dial down the bullshit. Either one.
How do these numbers compare to, say, the number of people who watch a conventional show vs. the numbers posting about it on related web forums or something?
I mean, is it just a new avenue for the uber-fan? What percent of people who watched Star Trek buy Star Trek collectible items or tie-in novels? If it was essentially free to do so, would you get around 10% "somewhat" interested?
Post a Comment