Fan Power!
Fan Power focuses on the cultural power of fans during the post-network era, particularly facilitated by multimedia avenues beyond the television set itself. Fans now have the ability to connect with one another on a larger (national and global) scale, foster fan communities, share facts about the television show, and ultimately interact with the show even when they are not actually viewing it. As media scholars, the contributors to this online journal look at fandom through a critical lens and analyze the places where fans directly influence the circuit of television culture. Ultimately this journal aims to share knowledge with other television viewers that do not necessarily look at television from a scholarly viewpoint. Through this online journal, the main goal is to facilitate new and innovative thinking about fans for fans and by fans. By directly relying on the interactivity of Fan Power, the articles not only teach readers through the written word, but also through the actual practice of interactivity and connective media.
Having missed the Glee Live! In Concert! Tour, Gleeks (Glee fans) were presented with the opportunity to experience the musical experience through their local movie theater with the production of Glee Live! 3D! which offers a 3D immersion experience of the actual live concert series, complete with backstage footage and stories of the influence the Glee television show has had on three teenage fans: a homosexual, a female with Asperger syndrome, and a cheerleader who happens to be a little person. These three stories serve to represent the larger fan community of Glee by allowing a common fan to be glorified on a global scale. This glorification comes simply because they are avid fans of the show and connect with Glee because they previously felt like they were misfits. Yet, through Glee, they have found confidence and inclusion because Glee takes misfit characters and gives them a voice, a community, and power despite the hierarchy that labels them.
The idea of the Glee brand as acknowledging and including the misfit becomes increasingly validated by the fact that this message was explicitly formulated and executed by the Glee brand producers. In speaking about the production goals behind the film adaptation of the concert, 20th Century Fox chairman Gary Newman attributes the concert movie largely to brand extension. In an interview for Variety, Newman explains: “What is special about the series is it works on a number of levels…and some of the themes that run through the series—like inclusion—lend themselves to what teens are feeling. Some of the values and themes will be seen in the concert.”[1] Directly from the one of the brand creators comes the major theme: inclusion. And directly related to that theme he views brand extension. In other words, fans become extremely invested in the brand, which essentially involves consuming anything that is not the television show itself, because of this idea of the misfit finally working in a space of inclusion and being represented in a positive manner.
Glee is at the forefront of what interactive television looks like presently. The show is indicative of a new wave of post-network interactive TV facilitated by multimedia access which relies on the threading of one common theme throughout the entirety of its brand to foster an intense connection between brand and fan.
Glorifying the Misfit: Affective Economics and Interactivity
Slushies and the hand-made “L” on forehead notably dominate the images produced by the Glee branding machine, visually representing the overarching umbrella motto of the Glee brand. The pilot episode of Glee, crucial in that it is the foundation of the development of the entire season, features Rachel (the female lead of the glee club) getting a slushie thrown in her face by people wearing lettermen jackets. Laughter ensues from passersby and the posse surrounding the slushie thrower. This immediately solidifies a popularity hierarchy within the McKinley High School setting and deems Rachel a misfit in relation to the popular, lettermen jacket wearing social elites.
By extension, the rest of the members of the glee club are cast with this same label, as judged by Sue Sylvester, successful coach of the cheerleaders, the occupiers of the top of the social pyramid. She explains that high school is a caste system and that the glee kids are the “sub-basement.”[2] In essence, Sue calls the glee club losers, hence the “L” on the forehead image. Yet interestingly, the “L,” which should be derogatory and a put-down, becomes transformed into an image of uplift central to the Glee brand. The advertising surrounding Glee subverts the normal connotations behind these misfit symbols and portrays the characters as above the negativity, challenging the stereotypical social hierarchy by accepting and utilizing their misfit label to fuel their success.
For example, on the official Glee website controlled by the professional crew associated with the Glee brand, the “About Glee” page features a top banner photo of three glee characters with smiles plastered on their faces, about to throw slushies at the viewer. This usage of the slushie is two-fold. On one level, the slushie (originally a signifier of their inferiority on the high school totem pole), is transformed into merely a prop within a positive, happy setting. The characters can be interpreted as not necessarily ashamed of the fact that they have been slushied before, which suggests that they are well above and beyond the confines of the traditional hierarchical contest that is high school. Second, the characters are in the process of throwing the slushie at the viewer, which creates a like relationship between the viewer/fan and the character. The fan is categorized as a misfit too because they are being hit with a slushie, but they are also being entertained and interacting with the glee brand, which subverts their misfit status. They can directly connect and identify with the characters in the show and this solidifies brand loyalty through affectivity.
The implicit slogan again is: glorification of the misfit. This basis for the Glee brand clearly capitalizes on Henry Jenkins’s theory of affective economics, which essentially means that television producers attempt to tap into the emotional underpinnings of the consumers to pull on their heartstrings. Further Jenkins asserts that “the new marketing discourse seeks to mold those consumer desires to shape purchasing decisions…marketers seek to shape brand reputations, not through an individual transaction but through the sum total of interactions with the customer…new models of marketing seek to expand consumer’s emotional, social, and intellectual investments with the goal of shaping consumption patterns.”[3] In other words, an effective marketing plan for a television show as a brand involves multiple means through which the fan/consumer comes into contact with the brand. Brand loyalty and connection comes from the fan’s overall emotional attachment to the show, and consequently consumers become invested in the brand.[4] Based on this, I argue that the Glee brand capitalizes on affectivity in new ways by establishing and continually reinforcing the main Glee theme through every multimedia endeavor, fan targeted aspect of the Glee, validating fans through providing a continual space in which fans can relate to the brand and feel included in a fan/brand community.
Modern-Day Sing-A-Long: Making Meaning/Money through Music-TV Synergy
Perhaps the most important and quite unique aspect of the Glee television show is the musical numbers. The songs are fully integrated into the show, as they inform and fuel the plot of each episode and thus serve as a crucial part of the text itself. But more importantly, fans/consumers can access, listen, and re-listen to the songs removed from the show. Fans can download songs from iTunes or purchase CDs (produced by Columbia Records) containing selected songs featured in the episodes. Further, fans can access songs on YouTube, which provides free interaction with the songs. Thus, the Glee music brand is a text that functions within and outside of the show itself, allowing for avid fans to become even more invested in the brand and solidify their brand loyalty by purchasing the songs and continually listening to them while also allowing space for other consumers who may have never seen the show itself to interact with the brand and form a sort of loyalty to the music alone. Also, fans can purchase a Glee Wii karaoke videogame, which encourages them to sing along with the Glee characters and act as though they are a part of the glee club as well, forging yet another emotional connection between fan and character in that the fan can essentially become a part of the glee club. Also, the video game provides an avenue through which knowledge of the songs on Glee becomes of value in achieving success within the game.
In this way, the Glee brand intentionally capitalizes on modes of convergence. John Caldwell defines convergence television in terms of a relationship between push media (television) and pull media (digital media and the internet).[5] He recognizes that “television has long been making itself a pull medium (through interactivity)…TV continued with its tried and proven success at programming, production, and marketing, even as it simultaneously invested in an array of start-ups and new technologies that could—if successful—ultimately cripple television.”[6] Modern television interactivity has sprung up from this convergence of push/pull media. Now television relies on other forms of digital media in order to further the success of the television show through added viewer interaction with the show beyond the weekly-televised episode. Viewers are now able to avoid time constraints and access the show and it’s associated forms at their leisure. Because viewers are investing more time in the show, they become more connected to the show because they want to see their investment of time pay off. It is inevitable that viewers also forge an emotional connection through this interactivity simply because they are consciously deciding to follow the show. An illustration of this can be seen in the Glee wiki fan site, which posts various polls for fans to vote on, including the likeability of the songs featured in the week’s episode, the favorite song featured in the episode, the overall quality of the episode, and other emotionally charged questions.[7] In this way, the fan is prompted to assess the show based on an emotional scale, again relying on affectivity to get fans involved via the Glee fan community. This exemplifies the ways in which interactivity fosters a space in which fans come to realize how connected and invested (emotionally and time-wise) they are in the show and in the Glee brand.
You Can Be On Glee Too!: Glee as Accessible through The Glee Project
An important extension of the Glee brand comes in the form of the Oxygen spin-off show The Glee Project, in which everyday fans of Glee are selected to compete for a role on Glee itself. The message of this show is clear: Glee is accessible to everyday fans. In other words, the common misfit fan can become glorified through fame and talent simply by becoming even more involved in the Glee brand. The idea of the misfit is again heavily present within this Glee endeavor as well. This is exemplified by the cast bios on the official website for the show. One competitor, a mousy, awkward, shy girl named Ellis, is described as follows: “Ellis has been performing in amateur shows for four years. Always the outcast in high school, Ellis used her vocal talents and musical theater to find friends and express herself.”[8] Here, the Glee brand is extending the core ideas of their characters into real-world people, illustrating that through music the outcast can find a voice and a social space in which to be accepted, just like the characters on the actual Glee show. Now the glorification of the misfit is no longer a fantasy, but a reality, at least for Ellis. Further, the website offers cast blogs, in which another contestant expressed his feelings after the show ended: “For most of my life I thought I would never be able to fit in anywhere, and for the first time, I felt like I finally fit in somewhere.”[9] Again, this real-life, everyday person fuels the motto of the Glee brand and shows fans that Glee provides an outlet in which the misfit can realize his/her dream. In this way, yet another emotional connection to the brand is solidified through avid investment in rooting for a certain contestant and then wanting to watch Glee to see how the contestants appear on the actual show and by the fact that the misfit is truly experiencing conclusion on a very real level. Ultimately though, the show is a competition, which suggests that only the most talented, most charismatic, and most suitable misfit/fan/contestant will be selected, implicitly favoring and enforcing the exact same hierarchy that the Glee brand works so hard to subvert in order to solicit fandom.
Gleeking Out: Re-creation of Social Hierarchy
Perhaps the most telling aspect of the success of the Glee brand is that fans have self-identified themselves as “Gleeks.” The original word “geek,” which carries a negative connotation and is low on the social ladder, has been transformed into a label that fans take on with pride. Even though it directly equates Glee with being geeky, Gleek becomes an empowering descriptor in that it again glorifies the misfit by utilizing the Glee brand to reform geek into a positive term. Further, in identifying as a Gleek, a fan becomes part of a larger social community. Through fan blogs, websites, forums, Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, and other forms of social media, Gleeks communicate and identify as a fan community. This interactivity between fans (that could only be so because of multimedia outlets) becomes a crucial factor in extending the brand motto in that Gleeks find other Gleeks and are no longer the outcasts/misfits simply because they have found each other, creating a new group outside of the traditional popularity hierarchy. Glee thus promotes ownership of identity, any identity. Through connection with multiple Gleeks, the theme of inclusion is realized, individual identity is validated, and the consumer credits this to increased interaction with the Glee brand.
In identifying with Glee and the clearly labeled characters, the viewers-fans-consumers-Gleeks are acknowledging their own status as misfit. Yet, by participating in the fan community, they are acknowledging themselves within a larger group that is not necessarily un-popular. They fit in somewhere and are no longer misfits. Again, affectivity is in effect here, as fans become even more indebted to the Glee brand because it has single-handedly subverted their place within the social hierarchy. Complicatedly though, the Glee brand encourages fans to create a hierarchy of fandom through consumption. Take, for instance, a weekly competition via the Glee Facebook page called “Gleek of the Week.” The selected winner has a chance to win a shout-out on air during an episode. All fans have to do is write a short quip explaining why they are the ultimate Gleek.[10] The more knowledge the fan has, the more the fan interacts with the brand on numerous levels, the more merchandise the fan owns, the more times a fan has listen to Glee songs, all contribute to the status of the number one Gleek. This encourages fans to strive towards being the best in order to be rewarded with recognition on television as superior to other fans and thus no longer a misfit. Ultimately this goes against what the entire Glee brand works to promote: the idea of inclusion and unity through the glorification of the misfit. But, this competition is highly intentional in that it is the main way that the brand makes money. The more the fan consumes, the higher up on the hierarchical ladder of Glee fandom can they move which directly contradicts the abolishment of hierarchy advocated by the Glee theme of inclusion.
And then it all comes back to consumerism. The only way that a fan can be an ultimate fan is through a high socioeconomic status. The “common” fan can only afford to watch the television show, listen to the songs on YouTube, and maybe buy a CD or two. The ultimate fan has the means to purchase various merchandise, all of the CDs, the DVD series, and the concert tickets. The Glee brand, while overtly advocating equality, ultimately undermines this by limiting access to the brand based on a consumer’s socioeconomic status. While the brand may certainly be all-inclusive on some levels, clearly fans with money are favored, catered to, and are given agency to become the un-misfit, while those less monetarily fortunate fans remain the misfit on the hierarchy of fandom/consumerism.
No matter how progressive Glee’s text is, branding is ultimately about making money. Glee and the new wave of interactive, multimedia branding takes this one step further by creating a community of fans and utilizing the Glee motto to implicitly suggest that everyone should aspire to be on the top of the social hierarchy, and the only way to do that in terms of Glee is to often and excitedly consume, consume, consume.
Bibliography
Caldwell, John. “Convergence Television: Aggregating Form and Repurposing Content in the Culture of Conglomeration.”
Facebook Glee Fanpage. “GLEEk of the Week.”
Glee Live! 3D! 2011. 20th Century Fox.
Glee Live! In Concert! 2011.
Glee The Complete First Season. DVD. 2009; CA 20th Century Fox, 2010.
Glee Wiki. http://glee.wikia.com/wiki/Glee_TV_Show_Wiki
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: When Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006.
The Glee Project Website. Blogs. Matheus. http://thegleeproject.oxygen.com/gleeproj/blog/matheus-gleeproj/matheus-on-the-glee-project-110#fbid=4YnAm90V-cu
The Glee Project Website. Meet the Cast. Ellis. http://thegleeproject.oxygen.com/meet-the-cast-gleeproj/ellis#fbid=4YnAm90V-cu
“To boldly go where no man has gone before…” was the slogan of the first and largest fandom phenomenon in the history of television. Star Trek began in the 1960s as a contribution to the “space age” feeling of the time and has kept drawing audiences with its promise of a utopian future. The show and its sequels are a tribute to the benefits of the development of science and technology as it allows its characters to travel through space discovering new planets and races[1]. Due to its socially relevant topics, it is no surprise that the show reached a large number of people. The main difference between Star Trek and other television programs of its time is how the audience, and especially the loyal followers, started to interact with the show.
Today Star Trek fans, also known as Trekkies, are known for holding Star Trek conventions and learning languages of fictional species. Overall, they are currently the most stereotyped group of fans[2] and are viewed as geeks or nerds in the public’s opinion. Due to their unconventional image Trekkies are often made fun of such as in the sitcom Big Bang Theory. This Emmy winning sitcom features two extremely intelligent and geeky roommates, Sheldon and Leonard, as well as their friends who are all highly invested Star Trek fans. Their fandom is one of the main sources of humor in the show. After all, one of Sheldon’s questions for Leonard when he was considering him for a roommate was “Kirk or Picard?” Apparently the answer “That’s tricky. Original series over Next Generation but Picard over Kirk” was enough to convince Sheldon to let him move in right away.
Despite the stereotypes and humor about Star Trek fans, one must remember that they play a relatively large role in the history of television fandom. As Roberts states “the decade old series has always relied on fan interaction.”[3] This interaction was achieved through conversation and dialog as well as fan expressions which include art, fan-fiction and costumes.[4] These first attempts at fan participation were the beginning of audience interactivity as it is discussed today.
Sadly, the newest addition to the Star Trek franchise, The Enterprise, which was a prequel to the original show, was canceled after its first season finally bringing the Star Trek television phenomenon to an end. However, the Star Trek fan community did not die out along with the end of the show, leaving the fans with no current television program to engage in. In order to fill this gap within the fan community, the television industry, specifically CBS and Chuck Lorre Productions, decided to introduce a new show about Star Trek to the media in 2007: The Big Bang Theory.
However, the industry did more than just pick a theme for the sitcom that could elicit a few laughs when it decided on Leonard and his friends. The premise of fandom and how fans interact as an audience has been a topic media scholars have discussed immensely, sometimes coming to very different conclusions. According to Henry Jenkins, the media industry is shifting towards a new model of marketing which is called affective economics. This model is derived from the idea that consumer viewing and purchasing is based on emotional rather than rational decision making[5]. Therefore, it has become especially important for the television industry to cultivate a strong emotional relationship with its viewers.
However, as the examples of Trekkies already illustrated, fans are a type of viewer who has already formed this emotional connection with the show and are highly invested in their relationship with the show. In the past, fan communities were built by a coming-together of people who shared a mutual appreciation for television show. But as the television industry is starting to understand the value of fans as viewers, there has become a greater trend towards trying to create fan communities among audiences. With The Big Bang Theory the industry has an opportunity to promote fandom in a way that will benefit them by increasing audience consumption and free audience research[6]. In order to see if this promotion is having the intended effect, it is essential to see how fandom is being promoted in the show and whether this type of fandom is being imitated in the available fan discourse.
In popular reality television shows, such as American Idol, fandom is being promoted by having the audience actively participate in the voting process. This fosters a deeper connection with the show, since viewers believe they are influencing the outcome of the program[7]. The Big Bang Theory on the other hand takes a more subtle approach to fandom promotion. It accomplishes its goal by demonstrating ideal fan behavior to the viewers of the show. By making Star Trek fans the main characters of the sitcom, the industry has the opportunity to use stereotypical fan behavior not only for its entertainment value, but also to provide the audience with a more devoted approach to fandom. The benefit of doing this in an inherently humorous sitcom is that the audience perceives the depictions of fandom as self-critical, while simultaneously being influenced by the type of fandom the show is promoting.
The first hint at ideal fan behavior in The Big Bang Theory is seen the wardrobe of the characters. Most of them dress in what we would call nerdy outfits including T-shirts with smart but sarcastic slogans or fan-shirts. Fan-shirts are t-shirts that have the logo of a certain television show or movie printed on them; in other words it turns the wearer into a walking advertisement. Along with their day to day clothing choices, the characters like to dress up in costumes of their favorite television shows or comic books. In one episode, The Bat Jar Conjecture, Sheldon designs team costumes for the University Physics Bowl that are exact copies of the Star Trek uniforms from the original series. In another episode, The Justice League Recombination, Leonard and his friends decide to dress up as characters from the Justice League comic books for a New Year’s celebration. They even convinced their trendy neighbor Penny to accompany them as Wonder Woman.
A more explicit form of fandom promotion in the show is revealed in its “stunts”. While “stunting is traditionally used to spike audience ratings for a particular episode”[8], in The Big Bang Theory it serves a greater purpose. The sitcom continuously invites characters from series Star Trek: The Next Generation to make guest appearances. While Brent Spiner, who plays the robot called Data in the Star Trek series, only makes a brief appearance in The Russian Rocket Reaction, the second guest start of the episode has practically become a regular on the show.
In Star Trek: The Next Generation Wil Wheaton played the character of Wesley Crusher the son of the head doctor on board the ship. While his role in the series was a minor one, a few episodes can still be found that devoted mainly to his character. Wil Wheaton has been a guest star several times on The Big Bang Theory acting as none other than himself. These guest star appearances on The Big Bang Theory invite Star Trek fans to tune into and to develop a stronger connection to the show. On the other hand, one could argue that by inviting guest stars from the Star Trek series onto a show about Star Trek fans, the industry is figuratively promoting a personal relationship between fans and the characters of their favorite shows. After all, Sheldon’s intense love-hate relationship with his idol Wil Wheaton directly reflects how strong a personal relationship with the object of one’s fandom can become.
The most important aspect of fan behavior that The Big Bang Theory shows its viewers is that of the interactive audience. While the concept of interactive fandom existed before the internet was popular, the changes in technologies over the past few years have made audience interactivity a much larger phenomenon than it initially was. Interactivity can be understood as the different ways audiences actively and critically engage with the television programs they are consuming. Today, this occurs mostly through dialog and information sharing on fan-sites and blogs, where viewers from all over the world can connect over their shared love for a television show.
While the internet has let audience interactivity develop into a large phenomenon incorporating sometimes thousands of people, we must remember that actively and critically engaging with the content of a television show can still occur in a smaller context such as among friends. In The Big Bang Theory one dialogue in particular demonstrates the how active and critical fan discourse works, by exemplifying knowledge exchange and a critical analysis of Leonard and his friends’ favorite show[9]:
Howard: Oh, more details about the new Star Trek film. There’s going to be a scene depicting Spock’s birth.
Rajnesh: I’d be more interested in a scene depicting Spock’s conception.
Sheldon: Oh, please. For Vulcans, mating – or if you will, pon farr – it’s an extremely private matter.
Leonard: Still, I’d like to know the details. His mother was a human, his father was a Vulcan. They couldn’t just ‘conceive’.
Of course, this dialog was intended to be funny, but behind the humor we can find elements of audience interactivity. As Jenkins states “Fans inform each other about the program’s history or recent developments that they may have missed.[10]” This dialog does exactly that. Howard is informing his friends about a piece of information about the new movie he has just received, therefore informing them about recent developments they have missed. Secondly, Sheldon is informing the group about program history when he reminds them of the name of the Vulcan mating ritual, pon farr, as well as that it is a private matter. However, this conversation takes audience interactivity to a higher level than just the exchange of knowledge. It introduces the idea of questioning and critiquing the content of the television show. Leonard points out that there is an inconsistency in that a Vulcan and a Human could not naturally conceive. In other words, he critically analyzed the show and pointed out how it could be improved; in this case by explaining the sexual compatibility of Vulcans and Humans.
Although all these examples might seem trivial and just part of the comedy of The Big Bang Theory, they are actually painting the picture of the ideal fan: A fan who buys products of the show such as fan t-shirts or even costumes. A fan who tunes in especially to see a guest star from another television show such as Brent Spiner or Wil Wheaton. And lastly, a fan who actively promotes the show to their friends through transfer of information and most importantly critically analyzes that information to point out how the show can be improved. Therefore the question remains, are fans of The Big Bang Theory exhibiting the same fan characteristics that are being promoted in the show?
Theoretically, the answer should reflect the audience of the show. After all, one of the niche audiences of The Big Bang Theory are Star Trek fans who already have shown great fan potential and consumer power in the past. Therefore, the logical conclusion would be to find a strong fan community for the show, consisting of these fans. Since Star Trek fans alone are only a relatively small portion of the targeted audience of The Big Bang Theory, fan discourse should be relatively small. However, if the promotion of interactive fandom on the show is accomplishing its goals, there should be a growing interactive fan community which includes other niche audiences as well.
According to Deery the new technology of the internet has enriched our television consumption in that it creates new platforms for public, many-to-many, online communication.[11] Therefore, in today’s culture the best place to investigate the fandom culture and fan discourse of a television show is online. Potential sites for fan discourse are blogs, fan-sites and industry generated promotional sites.
At the beginning of my research of the internet based fan communities, I was surprised to find a rather limited pool of participation. The forum comments that I found were rather lacking in depth and the program’s episode and character guides were practically non-existent. However, I soon realized that these findings only applied to industry owned and supported websites. While these provide a second medium for viewers to watch the latest shows, they do not seem to promote audience interactivity, at least not to the level of commitment and dedication I expected.
My expectations were fueled by Andrejevic’s descriptions of fan discourse found on the internet today. He indicated that most televisions shows are topics of discussion for their viewers who post their opinions frequently and with much detail to websites such as TWoP. Even though many of the comments and dialogs contain a great amount of humor and sarcasm, they are still representations of “two forms of audience participation: the effort viewers put into making the show interesting to themselves and the effort they devote to taking on the role of production assistant and attempting to provide feedback to writers and producers.[12]” Specifically, the second form of audience participation is that which the industry is looking for, since it provides free and current audience research as well as plot ideas.
To see if audience interactivity for The Big Bang Theory provides these services to the industry, I broadened my search to include all types of fan-sites like blogs, communities on Livejournal, fan-fiction websites, and YouTube. When examining fan generated websites rather than industry generated websites, I found that fan participation is extremely important to The Big Bang Theory. I will demonstrate this by using the three potent examples of The Big Bang Theory Wiki, a Livejournal community named Big Bang Fans and the blog The Big Blog Theory.
Two pages on The Big Bang Theory Wiki promote the consumerism aspect of fandom: Nerdvada and Geek Chic. The first is a tribute to all the collectable and nerdy items that can be found on the set of the show or even as part of one of the characters costumes. Some examples of these are a Batman and Robin comic book, Star Wars sheets, and even a toaster with a picture of one of the Cylons from Battlestar Gallactica on it. The second is a detailed description of each of the main character’s clothing style along with pictures of what they wear. Not only do these pages show the extreme amount of dedication to detail and time the creators put into this show, it also allows for fans to imitate and buy the products that are being placed in the show. It is no longer necessary for industries to do blatant product placement, when fans will take the time to find and point out all of the purchasable products in the show. Some sites even go so far as to tell viewers where certain objects can be purchased.
The Big Bang Theory Wiki website however also offers a vast amount of information about every aspect of the show. According to this site, fans put most of their efforts into developing and understanding the personalities and behaviors of the main character. On the main page we can find links to what are called: Sheldon-isms, Penny-ology, Howard’s Guide to Women and Dating. These pages provided detailed descriptions of clothing, quotes and actions of the character they focus on. Such information not only shows how much thought and research is being put into creating such sites but it also allows for fans to research their favorite characters and learn more about them in a more specific way than cast and crew biographies do. Viewers now have the opportunity to identify with certain aspects of a character, such as Howard’s lack of success with women, rather than trying to identify with the character as a whole. This fosters an even more personalized relationship with the characters of a television show than has been seen in the past.
Finally, this site also provides polls and quizzes for audiences to take, allowing fans who do not want to dedicate as much time to the program as others to still actively participate and state their opinions. Quizzes such as Are You Really A Big Bang Fan? further challenges viewers to re-watch certain episodes and research the program’s history more in order to score well on the quizzes and prove to themselves that they really are knowledgeable about the show. Additionally, polls about which character is the favorite of the show, allow fans to find their existing opinions about the characters to be confirmed or reestablished.
Andrejevic argues that even though fans are enjoying their new interactive role in the television industry, at the end of the day all their efforts are playing into the hands of the industry. This is evident in the information found on The Big Bang Theory Wiki. The detailed analyses done on this website of behavior and personality of the sitcom’s characters is ultimately benefiting the industry. The fans are developing the characters of the show which “does not just add value to the product, but it doubles as audience research[13]”. The research is done by audiences themselves on themselves, when they comment on how they like the show, its characters and its current developments. After all, Penny-ology is a tribute to how the viewers see Penny and how they expect her to act in the future. Therefore, if the industry pays attention to the fan communication and fan-sites they will be aware that changing Penny’s character will result in alienating the viewers and therefore loose valuable ratings.
The industry also is benefiting from the consumer potential gathered on fan-sites. On The Big Bang Theory Wiki, Nerdvana and Geek Chic are promoting brand products and therefore are telling audiences that they must spend money in order to identify more closely with their favorite characters. This phenomenon is even more apparent on the CBS or industry owned fan-sites where one can by the exact shirts that the characters where on the website itself. I need not mention that they are extremely overpriced for a simple t-shirt.
Even though the information provided on The Big Bang Theory Wiki is a compelling example of Andrejevic’s argument of how interactive audiences are being exploited by the industry, I believe that there are also fan-site that promote a more positive view of audience interactivity. Jenkins states that through online participation in a show “audiences are gaining greater power and autonomy as they enter into the new knowledge culture”[14]. By sharing information and critically analyzing the content of television shows, audiences are promoting the importance of easily accessible knowledge as well as not simply taking texts for granted.
This is most apparent in the Livejournal community Big Bang Fan under the section of fan art. Here people can find fan produced icons, fiction, wallpapers, drawings, videos and much more. These products are fans expressions of their love for the show as well as creative forms of critical analysis. By creating art or fiction, they are taking the time to mentally work through the content of the show as well as present their opinions to others in a creative fashion. This illustrates Jenkins’ description of a knowledge culture, as well as adds an artistic and creative component to his argument. The participatory nature of the knowledge culture seems to also be promoting the value of new and artistic interpretations of television texts.
Even more compelling evidence of audience interactivity as a form of information and knowledge exchange can be found on the blog The Big Blog Theory. This blog is dedicated to scientifically explaining some of the concepts of physics and the other natural sciences mentioned on the show. In the individual blogs entries explain and expands on topics such as how a combustible engine works, combinatorics, and what a cryogenic centrifugal pump is. By giving viewers explanations of such topics that are discussed in the show, the blogger is not only increasing comprehension of the show, but is also giving the audience the opportunity to learn more about the natural sciences in a fun and engaging way. This use of The Big Bang Theory’s text is a strong example of how television and audience participation are being used to create a knowledge culture that gathers vast amounts of information.
Overall, I think there is evidence that the phenomenon of fandom has come a long way since its beginnings on Star Trek. It has even developed into a theme of its own in the sitcom, The Big Bang Theory, in which its audience is encouraged to become a fan or a loyal. After all, in today’s niche market, it is more important to cultivate viewer loyalty than causals or zappers. We can also see that this promotion of fandom is tainted by the goals of the industry: to increase ratings and to promote brand consumption. These aspects of fandom are not only visible in the show itself but they have translated into the online fan communities.
On the one hand, this demonstrates the influence a television show has on the everyday life and activities of their viewers. It promotes the idea that in order to cultivate loyals one must show the audience exactly what a loyal is. After all, in today’s niche market, it is of great importance to the television industry to cultivate viewer loyalty. This is due to the fact that loyals are more beneficial to the industry and therefore the success of a television program. After all, loyals have been found to have higher brand recall rates, are less likely to be lured away by other networks, and are much more likely to remember advertisements than casuals or zappers, making them very sought after by the television industry[15].
On the other hand, it is not completely clear if the fan culture online is the type of interactive audience the industry is looking for to make their shows profitable. Even though we have seen that the audience is performing free audience research and consuming brand products, we find that there are still pure forms of fan art to be found on the internet. This provides support for the new idea of a knowledge culture as Jenkins provided. The distribution of information about television shows, as well as the critical analysis of their content, has become increasingly important to fans. Interestingly, the knowledge culture has also provided a forum for artistic interpretations of television texts, indicating the potential for artistic as well as critical development within fan communities. However, as of today we must wait to see what the future brings to television in order to determine whether audience interactivity will be used primarily for industry purposes or as a new medium of the new knowledge culture.
Bibliography
Andrejevic, Mark. “Watching Television Without Pity: The Productivity of Online Fans.” Television and New Media 9, no.1 (2008): 24-46.
Caldwell, John. “Convergence Television: Aggregating From and Repurposing Content in the Culture of Conglomeration” In Television After TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition, edited by Lynn Spigel and Jan Olsson, 41-74. Duke: Duke University Press, 2004.
Deery, June. “TV.com: Participatory Viewing on the Web.” The Journal of Popular Culture 37, no.2 (2003): 161-183.
Jenkins, Henry. August 15, 2011, (5:50 p.m.), “Aca-Fandom and Beyond: Roberta Pearson and Alexis Lothian (Part Two)”, Confessions of an Aca-Fan (blog), http://henryjenkins.org/convergence_culture/fan_culture/
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006
Jenkins, Henry. “Interactive Audiences?: The ‘Collective Intelligence’ of Media Fans.” In The New Media Book, edited by Ben Harries, 157-170. London: British Film Institute, 2002.
Roberts, Robin. “Performing Science Fiction: Television, Theater, and Gender in Star Trek: The Experience.” Extrapolation 42, no.4 (2001): 340.
Sharp, Sharon “Nostalgia for the Future: Retrofuturism in Enterprise.” Science Fiction Film and Television 4, no.1 (2011): 25.
As American citizens, we are all familiar with the phrase “by the people, for the people” describing our government; but with new developments and constant changes in the television industry, our constitution may not be the only matter that this phrase describes nowadays. New practices in the television industry are leading the way to a new revolution in which audience members and fans play an active role in the survival and development of television programs. The industry has called upon fans to step up and actively interact with shows in order for them to get what they want out of television; “Remote control has transformed itself from a passive activity to a hyperactive one.”[1].
The reward for this interactivity is the power to share their take on their favorite shows with people who will listen, as well as the power the contribute something to the television industry. With this being said, the Internet has become filled with an abundance of worship for all types of shows; but how much can we really trust these cyber celebrations? Henry Jenkins argues, “These new technologies provide the information infrastructure necessary to sustain a richer form of television content while the programmes reward the enhanced competencies of fan communities.”[2] The claim of this paper contradicts this theory; I argue that an increase in opportunity to share may be correlated to an inflation of a show’s popularity within modern society. With positive posts advertised more frequently on the web through an overflow of fan sites and posts, individuals’ perceptions towards a show may be skewed towards the word of the loyal viewer taking the time to actively praise the show. The phenomenon of posting on the web and the social tendency to believe what’s in front of us leads us to draw to the conclusion that fan sites are exaggerating the fame of particular shows.
Although a wave of online criticism tends to allocate alongside the praise of television shows, there is not always an equal balance of online publication for each show. An example of this imbalance exists in the fan discourse surrounding ER. In cases such as this, it requires more than a simple Google search to get a full understanding of what’s going on in the show. With advertisers basing their placement strategies off of shows’ popularity and viewers being swayed by what the rest of America is watching, the effects of falsely advertising these shows as more popular than they are can be dangerous. So exactly how much can online fan forums be responsible for the exaggeration of a show’s popularity?
Modernization of communication among fans has taken fandom beyond conventions or group meetings and brought them together online in forums, fan sites and pages. Jenkins describes this shift in his piece “Interactive Audiences”, explaining how letters and phones have been replaced with the Internet while discussing a show in the modern age.[3] Technology has developed since this shift to share information even faster than ever before, so much so that international fans are complaining that episodes are spoiled through the existence of online discussions before they actually get to experience the episode themselves.[4] The progression of technology has been found to increase the expectation of timeliness among television spectators but the relationship between this technology and popularity has yet to be observed.
Official websites for shows have been the traditional method of broadcasting a show’s popularity. Because of their direct sponsorship of the show, viewers tend to take information from these sites with a grain of salt because of their obvious bias towards getting people to watch the show and their power to monitor content published on their site. In recent years these sites have expanded beyond their once simple structures to include more opportunities for interactivity from quizzes and merchandise shops to a place to re-watch episodes to capture and sustain participants’ attention while simultaneously familiarizing them with particular aspects of the show. These steps towards more interactivity have attempted to encourage and draw more viewers to visit the sites.
To gain a more accurate perspective of audience reception to a show we should look at message boards, which have become more densely populated with fans in recent years. The increase in responsibility assumed by viewers in becoming more active and discussing shows publicly has lead to an eruption of fan sites that are dedicated from everything to characters, relationships and storylines of particular shows. Audience reviews of these shows online allow feedback to be shared with a large number of viewers as well as sustaining the site and encouraging others to participate as well, “As the community enlarges and as reaction time shortens, fandom becomes much more effective as a platform for consumer activism”.[5] With the ability to post whenever and however often they want fans have the power to express their opinions to more people than ever.
The emergence of the active viewer has not only helped build the television through establishing occupied message boards, but it also challenges the industry as well. Producers need to keep updating their sites to occupy the attention of viewers by establishing new forms of interaction. For example, one of NBC’s newest tactics to encourage viewers to interact and participate in public about their shows has been the creation of a segment titled “Fan it”. This feature requires users to construct an account so they can participate in challenges about their favorite shows and collect credit points that can be redeemed for everything from merchandise to set visits.[6] The rise of interactivity has lead to changes in both website structure and audience participation as time goes on, but the real question here is how is effects perception of popularity.
ER’s long run on television gives fans a large range of information to pull from on message boards. Fans analyze everything on the show, from the role of Dr. Kovac, the death of Mark Green to the relationship between Dr. Ross with nurse Carol Hathaway. Sites dedicated to ER contain polls about and quizzes about the show in order entertain fan site viewers and promote interaction around the show. The fans posting on these ER fandom sites are labeled as loyals, people who buy into the show and enjoy participating in any and everything ER. Jenkins quotes another scholar to say, “within a knowledge community, ‘no one knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity’”[7] explaining how members of the fan site community return to the site to either contribute or gain new perspectives of the show. Jenkins himself also highlights how the fan site reproduces its own purpose, “The knowledge culture, [he suggests], serves as the ‘invisible and intangible engine’ for the circulation and exchange of commodities”.[8] Fan communities idolize their show and attempt to replicate their attraction to the show in others by posting in hopes of impressing others. A committed ER fan named Sandra from Hollywood, CA even argued the real world application to the program in the medical community, “What I love about ER is that they address very complex ethical issues with all the nuances we face in our daily lives. The next day after that episode aired, 150 surgeons were gathered in New York to talk about safe surgery protocols and the organizers made them watch the entire episode.”[9] Fans on these sites are individuals who seek to broadcast what they find most appealing about the program in hopes of influencing others to see their view and support the show as well. The presence and involvement of these fans in their communities can skew the perceptions of popularity to posters in reality due to their experience within the community. When looking at the numbers the series attracted fewer numbers of viewers as it neared the end of its run and as the technological age escalated. So while people had the opportunity to post more than ever and participate and interact with others, the show was actually less popular than years before but after a while, “the show is no longer the final product but rather the raw material to which value is added by the labor-some paid, some free- of recappers and forum contributors.”[10] It didn’t matter than long time fans were arguing the show has lost its appeal in later seasons, the very fact that they were logging in to talk about ER shows the episode meant something to someone, and that has become enough to count a show as successful in terms of advertising because it means eyeballs were watching it. But does that really mean that it was popular, or just that it was on and someone saw it?
This paper cannot make such a large accusation against such a historical show without anything to compare it to. In order to get a fair comparison I chose a show that is know to be a direct ancestor to ER, a show from before the age of interactivity titled St. Elsewhere. ER and its predecessor share many of the same qualities: strong characters with exciting storylines and a well-built following. Perhaps the most obvious, and broad similarity between the two was their standout success in the field of medical soaps. Each of the shows addresses controversial social issues present in the everyday world with a dramatic twist. The shows also cast an attractive crew to play relatable characters that viewers connect to and grow to love. Many of the storylines and character arcs bear a resemblance to each other (such as the drug addicted doctor or when some type of disease plagues a school bus full of kids). Even the titles of the finales resemble each other; St. Elsewhere’s finale was titled “The Last One” while the finale of ER was “And in the End…”
One large difference between the two however, is the increased difficulty in finding fan sites on the earlier program because of the time of its run. However, after doing some research it is indeed possible to find loyal fans to the show that have taken the time to go back and contribute to the St. Elsewhere online community. The postings shared about St. Elsewhere resemble those posted about ER to a certain degree in the sense that they celebrate the show far more than they criticize the show. Both report details about characters or what part of the plot really excited them. Due to the scarcity of information already it is even more rare to find criticisms on the fan sites; St. Elsewhere sites however do take the time to criticize ER. It is a general theme among St. Elsewhere loyals to assert that ER would not exist without St. Elsewhere; one fan posts, “Though ER has probably ‘done more’ it’s only been able to because of St. Elsewhere. I think S.E handled the issues and the black comedy much better than ER ever has, and although they are two different eras of television, I’ve always preferred S.E.”.[11] Since a large number of ER fans are from after St. Elsewhere’s time they fail to ever reference the predecessor. Through investigation it becomes clear that both shows are very similar yet fans have clear, and what seem like justified reasons in their minds for supporting a particular program.
The difference in the time in which the shows aired is very important because of the role of interactivity. As stated before, ER’s following is easy to find due to the large role of technology during it’s run. Fans had the opportunity to reflect on the show immediately after watching or before next week’s episode and it became a cultural practice to do so; but St. Elsewhere fans were not given the same opportunity. This is why it is so much more common to find ER fan sites than St. Elsewhere sites. The abundance of ER literature on fan sits has been credited to the ease of posting online, but it is the loyalty of ER fans who have produced the polished appearance that everyone in America loved ER. The opinions of the active fanatics have found their way to inundate the web.
A perspective can easily be skewed by the number of fan postings about a show because people tend to believe if thousands of people like the show then they will be inclined to like it as well. The large point these cyber-users tend to ignore is that the individuals posting about a show like ER are the ones most invested in it. A counter argument can be developed based off of a point made in Andrejevic’s piece that some individuals participate in forums for the sake of mocking the show being discussed[12]. In order to prove a show’s popular we must study both its praises as well as its criticisms. The argument in Andrejevic’s article is that some people are so against a show or a particular part of a show that they log in just to ridicule it as well as its fans. In the same article however, some individuals admit to watching shows simply because they are discussed among other members of the same society[13]. When explaining the effect of a site known as TWoP, which summarizes shows while simultaneously poking fun at the them, he explains how a certain degree of familiarity with an episode is needed to understand the humor in the posts, “So yes, TWoP can get me to watch bad TV, at least for a short period”[14] Both the presence of these fans on sites, regardless of their intention, and the eyeballs watching the show just to mock it inflate the number of viewing believed to be following the show and in turn inflating its popularity. This gives a show like ER an upper hand in terms of popularity over St. Elsewhere because either way viewers are being drawn to the show. With so much praise surrounding ER any viewer who is not educated in the realm of media criticism can fall victim to believing ER is in fact better than St. Elsewhere based off of the discourse surrounding it. Although this is not true, its what the digital evidence leads us to believe and with no clear contradiction to this idea, it will simply replicate itself through television history that the better shows are the ones that are talked about. So while a show like St. Elsewhere falls into the shadows due to the unavailability of fan sites during it’s run, ER will forever live in glory aiding survival through its loyal, active fans. Two shows are that almost exactly alike will acquire different status because of the availability of a computer instead of being based off of actual content from the program.
At first glance interactivity between audiences and television programs seems like a great idea. The fans express their loyalties to the show and its characters and, at times, even stand united against the critics and producers when things defy the attitudes of the fan base. But in reality, ER is really not much different than St. Elsewhere regardless of what the fans think. Everything from the fundamental basics of the shows to some story or character lines of the shows are the same, and yet everyone recalls ER as the more popular show. This is why I argue that interactivity tends to inflate the perception of popularity among society. The show is a nearly nothing more than a replica of an earlier work and yet with the addition of fan discourse it stands out as a high quality show among so many more viewers. If our aim were to declare which of the two series holds more cultural significance, by looking at the texts alone we would be unable to declare a winner. But with the addition of fan discourse we are lead to believe that ER captured the hearts of more viewers because there is so much more evidence readily available now to support that people love ER. The inflation of ER’s popularity will help it go down in history as a monumental show, when really it is not much more than a replica of a show from years earlier.
The purpose of this paper was not to put ER down and declare that it has been given undeserved credit over its time as a tv cultural icon. I am simply saying that a show like ER is set up to be a lot more popular among people when they can easily share it with others or persuade others to believe their praises through the Internet. With this in mind, I think the rise of interactivity continuing, viewers should consider what is really being produced out of fan discourse. We are not necessarily getting better shows now than in years past, although it may seem like it due to their online popularity. The responsibility of active viewership is not limited to us simply going online and participating or buying into the first forum we see, we owe it to ourselves, the shows and other viewers to explore the show at a deeper level than what fanatics say.
References
[1] Mark Andrejeveic, “Watching Television Without Pity: The Productivity of Online Fans,” Television & New Media, 9, no. 24 (2008): 24-25.
2 Henry Jenkins, “Interactive Audiences? The New Media Book, 158-170.
3 Henry Jenkins, “Interactive Audiences? The New Media Book, 158-170.
4 Henry Jenkins, “Interactive Audiences? The New Media Book, 161.
5 Henry Jenkins, “Interactive Audiences? The New Media Book, 161
6 NBC. “About Fan it” http://my.nbc.com/fan-it/challenges/
7 Henry Jenkins, “Interactive Audiences? The New Media Book, 159
8 Henry Jenkins, “Interactive Audiences? The New Media Book, 165
9 Young, Susan M. “’ER’ closes doors, leaves satisfying legacy.” MSNBC.com, March 24, 2009.
10 Mark Andrejeveic, “Watching Television Without Pity: The Productivity of Online Fans,” Television & New Media, 9, no. 24 (2008): 24-25.
11 “St.Eligius VS County General” on “St. Elsewhere vs. ER”, Digital Spy, June 2007, http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=777017
12 Mark Andrejevic, “Watching Television Without Pity: The Productivity of Online Fans,” Television & New Media, 9, no. 24 (2008): 24-45
13 Mark Andrejevic, “Watching Television Without Pity: The Productivity of Online Fans,” Television & New Media, 9, no. 24 (2008): 32
14 Mark Andrejevic, “Watching Television Without Pity: The Productivity of Online Fans,” Television & New Media, 9, no. 24 (2008): 32
Marc Andrejevic explains how the website Television Without Pity reinforces the responsibility of viewer interactivity.
ER: one of the case studies chosen as a focus of this journal
A medical-drama running from 1994-2005 focusing on the personal and professional lives of the doctors and nurses at in the emergency room of County General Hospital in Chicago, Illinois. With 23 Emmy awards under its belt and spanning over 331 episodes ER has become a highly celebrated American pastime throughout television history.
