Transmedia Planning

I've been reading Convergence Culture by Henry Jenkins. It's brilliant - lots of great ideas to steal and required reading for anyone with an interest with how the relationship between consumers and media is changing.

One of the forms of convergence he covers is something we've discussed before - the flow of content across multiple media platforms. He dedicates a chapter to The Matrix as a transmedia narrative - a story that unfolds across different platforms.

Rather than there being a film narrative that has spin offs, key elements of The Matrix story are in the video game, the animations, the comic books. He argues that few consumers will be able to dedicate the time required to get the whole picture, which is why transmedia storytelling drives the formation of knowledge communities - communities that share information – and triggers word of mouth.

Since there are so many elements to the story, every member of the community is likely to have something to share, some social currency to trade, so communities form and information is passed around the network.

This got me thinking about how brands might operate in this convergence culture.

The model that has held the industry's collective imagination for the last few years has been media neutral planning. In essence, this is the belief that we should develop a single organising thought that iterates itself across any touchpoint - this was a reaction against previous models of integration that were often simply the dilution of a televisual creative idea across other channels that it wasn't necessarily suited to.

Media Neutral Planning then looks a little like this:

 

Let's not get hung up on disciplines I may have missed out - the important point is that there is one idea being expressed in different ways. This is believed to be more effective as there are multiple encodings of the same idea, which reinforces the impact on the consumer.

Now then, let's think about transmedia planning. In this model, there would be an evolving non-linear brand narrative. Different channels could be used to communicate different, self-contained elements of the brand narrative that build to create an larger brand world. Consumers then pull different parts of the story together themselves.

The beauty of this is that it is designed to generate brand communities, in the same way that The Matrix generates knowledge communities, as consumers come together to share elements of the narrative. It has a word of mouth driver built in.

So transmedia planning looks something like this:

I think alternate reality games, like Audi's Art of Heist, are early examples of this form of communication. And while I accept that some brands lack the depth that this model requires, or simply don't require engagement on this level, I think that in a convergence culture, this is how converged brands will engage with a new kind of active media consumer. 

Comments

[Paul Wilson]

With transmedia planning doesn't the sequencing of your channels become really important. So although someone can experience a brand narrative in a non-linear fashion you still need to have a linear idea about how they are deployed over time.

The challenge is then how do you coordinate this tight integration of channels and how you know when is the right time to deploy them.

(BTW I like your diagram style - it has a roughness and rawness that invites comments. Nicer than clean, but sterile charts)

[doug]

Hi Faris,

One of the key reasons that I like this model is that the campaign success lies in the fact that consumers have to go out and actively engage with the various channels to get the full picture (which in turn becomes a form of social currency within the brand community). Active participation is good!

Much better than just shouting and hoping someone will hear, which even 'media neutral' planning will sometimes try and do.

I wonder how you could apply the transmedia model to the brands that fall into the two camps that you highlight? I have a feeling there must be a way... I reckon it all lies in the value that the brand can provide, which can of course manifest in a plethora of ways

NB. I've had this book for a couple of weeks, but have been too tied up in 'Brands & Measurement' to get in to it yet... will have to get cracking!

Doug

[Faris]

Paul - absolutely - it's crucial that installments are released over time to keep the narrative progressing.

Integration is ever the challenge - but in my head this would require crafting like Star Wars or The Matrix - you create the entire thing, you build the whole world and then work backwards with relevant specialisms to ensure the works is all aligned.

Not easy I grant you...

Hey Doug - Yeah I think we need to be saying things that are interesting enough for people to make the effort to get involved. Make it fun and there's value right there - I'm all about fun.

As Richard Huntington would say: there are no low interest categories - so even washing powder can develop interesting narratives - the question is then making sure they are the right narratives for your audience...

[beeker]

Lovely post. I do wonder a bit about Persil / Bounty kitchen roll etc., though. It does seem like techy brands with techy audiences recommend this model more. Didn't Playstation do something very similar with PS2? This model might assume a certain consumer mentality (keeness, diligence, discernment, passion) that just isn't realistic for some brands. And although I wouldn't call these brands low interest, I'm not sure if I'm keen on a whole new Persil world, for example. Dunno, very good food for thought.

[Leland M]

Look into the idea of "bricolage." It's is very relevant to these thoughts. It's the true co-creativity (not this user generated stuff) because it's about giving building blocks (many little ideas) of brands over to people and letting them put them them as they see fit.

[Ed]

Epic brother Yakob.

"Here's some stuff I made

You go look at it and talk amongst yourselves...."

Transmedia Planning 101.

[Francis]

This is a great piece. And Faris - the "low interest" brands aren't necessarily ruled out. Look at what Brawny Paper Towels did in the US http://www.brawnyacademy.com
It ended up a slightly paler version of what we'd envisaged, but took the brand from "cleaning up mess" to "improving women's lives"... Well, a bit.

[giles]

Err isn't this just 360 planning: a brand idea at the centre delivered across multiple channels. Each plays an important and complimentary part but each also exists in its own right and stimulates thought, conversation and perception of the brand from your collective brand audience. Doves' campaign for real beauty is a great example of this.

Transmedia planning surley a case of the emperors new clothes? For all those social bandwagon jumpers surely a better name would be Media 2.0.

The 360 model aint broke just they way people have been deploying it.

http://interactivemarketingtrends.blogspot.com/2006/11/transmedia-planning-my-arse.html

[Faris]

Hey Giles,

I guess the point here is the difference between simplicity and complexity.

I've argued before that brands are inherently complex, that brand narratives are made up of a number of interconnected parts.

So for me the difference here is that in your 360 model, one idea is iterated in different ways, each iteration suited to the channel that delivers it - this is what I would call media neutral planniing.

But the transmedia model require more of both the consumer and the advertiser. It requires us to craft more complex brand worlds that consumers want access to, and it requires consumers to asemble brands themselves from different parts.

Importantly, part of the model is the tendency for transmedia narratives to drive the formation of brand or fan communities. This is only viable if the volume of content is substantial enough to be beyond the individual's ability to realistically consume and process AND if the story is interesting and rich enough for people to want to understand more of it.

I think Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty is brilliant. Instead of talking about a product, they have taken a cultural postion and tried to own it. I believe brands need to have a point of view and should use their communication to express it. But I don't think that means that different iterations of the campaign can be assembled into a greater whole - they work via re-inforcing the core idea in different ways, not providing pieces that are pulled together.

[Bill J]

Here's another vote for things not needing to be assembled into a greater whole. The complexity of engineering a cultural imprint almost by nature prevents the meaningful work on the different vectors from being a coherent whole. Furthermore it's just BS most of the time, no better than trying to make a corporate mission statment fit a poorly conceived acronym. Most people don't even have the time/will to see it as the big picture that the company wants them to see.

[john dodds]

My only disputes would be with

1) Your assertion that some brands don't require this degree of engagement. In my eyes, any brand that doesn't have it will ultimately die because a competitive brand will come along with just that degree of engagement.

2) The idea of an imposed message. Increasingly those messages are going to have to be implictly or even explicitly co-created and the consumer will choose to relate to the brand in whatever way fits with their worldview. The same brand will mean different things to each customer.

[mike]

check out interview with faris on rm116

http://www.rm116.com/2006/11/transmedia_plan.html

[Richard Buchanan]

Alternate reality gaming is amazing. I think the idea of having a fragmented narrative design to create transactional social currency is totally right. The lost experience is one that has totally dominated for about 6 months. they even have a lostopedia....people get into in a serious way....a whole new level of dedication!

ARGs are getting bigger and bigger...Maybe this might interest you

http://opensource.typepad.com/opensourcelondon/2006/10/arg_and_the_rab.html#comments

Rich

[daniel joseph]

I love this. With some holiday thinking time a belated couple of points:

Beck's championing a transmedia approach to music: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/beck.html

I reckon there's some interesting thinking to be done on what makes the idea (not just the comms planning) transmedia. My starter for ten is the thought that the idea has to be able to generate Kinetic Energy. So, the more it moves around, the more energy it amasses to keep on moving (reducing the need to rely on additional investment at source).

Finally, love that you still loving the Jungle. From my experience, advertising is not too bad a place to find a good old school Jungle fraternity. So there’s hope.

[Faris]

Hey Dan,

Like the kinetic idea a lot - there's definitely something in what factors make an idea inherently more transmissable - I think you've hit something with the maleable aspect - in my reply to Jenkins I was trying to say something about that - the idea has been taken and changed by every conversation about it, but that's what has made it transmissable.

[john]

Shouldn't your arrows on diagram two be double-headed?

After all thousands (millions?) have seen this...

http://www.tysonibele.com/Main/Animations/Sony/sony_style.mov

... on this...

http://www.current.tv/

...and yet they're not, nor never will be part of a Sony community, whatever form that takes.

John

[Faris]

Hi John,

Do you mean that there should be a two way dialogue from channel to individual - as well as between individuals?

Not sure that a film can function as a transmedia piece - except in the complexity sense of additive compression that Jason blogged about over on Fruits.

F

[john]

Faris,

Maybe I'm missing the point here, or maybe you are, I'm not sure.

Let me just explain why I think it fits your story then you can tell me where I've gone wrong again.

That film I directed you to wasn't part of a 'linear brand narrative'. What's more it wasn't made by Sony or their advertising agency. It was made by a bloke in his kitchen. A bloke who likes Sony. A member of a Sony community, I suppose.

He then stuck it on his website for anyone with an interest to see. And a lot of people did. (Including me and now you.)

He then submitted it to Sony via Currenttv, who ran it as a UG Commercial and paid him $50k for the pleasure of doing so.

I don't know whether you'd count yourself as part of a Sony community, I certainly don't, except in the loosest terms - I have a Sony TV. And yet my perceptions of Sony have been shaped by that ad.

That's what I meant about the double-headed arrow.

John

[Faris]

Hi there!

Ah - I get you. Sorry I didn't realise that this was consumer generated - the current tv thing should have been a clue ;)

So yes, absolutely - double headed it should be.

Cheers!

[Bayo Adekanmbi]

The interconnectedness of the consumer world as an evolving TRANSUMER who is largely driven by experiences, discovery and fighting boredom (TrendWatch) supports the possibility of “smashing” the brand story into an unending soap opera perfectly integrated as a continuum deployed through different media aperture

The sustainability of this multi-channel integration is the holding power created by the wildfire effect of the big idea narrative within social communities

I commend this great thought.

[Steve Poppe]

Campaigns come and go, but a powerful branding idea is indelible. (One can substitute the word "media" for "campaigns.)

[Isa]

Hi Faris

Quick question - been reading your essay for IPA excellence award and has been a helpful citation source for my MA in creativity.

In your model for an ideas agency - would this become the new role of the media or creative agency - or neither?

Thanks lots