From Prosumer to Produser: Understanding User-Led Content Creation

Alvin Toffler’s image of the prosumer (1970, 1980, 1990) continues to influence in a significant way our understanding of the user-led, collaborative processes of content creation which are today labelled “social media” or “Web 2.0”. A closer look at Toffler’s own description of his prosumer model reveals, however, that it remains firmly grounded in the mass media age: the prosumer is clearly not the self-motivated creative originator and developer of new content which can today be observed in projects ranging from open source software through Wikipedia to Second Life, but simply a particularly well-informed, and therefore both particularly critical and particularly active, consumer. The highly specialised, high end consumers which exist in areas such as hi-fi or car culture are far more representative of the ideal prosumer than the participants in non-commercial (or as yet non-commercial) collaborative projects. And to expect Toffler’s 1970s model of the prosumer to describe these 21st-century phenomena was always an unrealistic expectation, of course. To describe the creative and collaborative participation which today characterises user-led projects such as Wikipedia, terms such as ‘production’ and ‘consumption’ are no longer particularly useful – even in laboured constructions such as ‘commons-based peer-production’ (Benkler 2006) or ‘p2p production’ (Bauwens 2005). In the user communities participating in such forms of content creation, roles as consumers and users have long begun to be inextricably interwoven with those as producer and creator: users are always already also able to be producers of the shared information collection, regardless of whether they are aware of that fact – they have taken on a new, hybrid role which may be best described as that of a produser (Bruns 2008). Projects which build on such produsage can be found in areas from open source software development through citizen journalism to Wikipedia, and beyond this also in multi-user online computer games, filesharing, and even in communities collaborating on the design of material goods. While addressing a range of different challenges, they nonetheless build on a small number of universal key principles. This paper documents these principles and indicates the possible implications of this transition from production and prosumption to produsage.

User behaviours and intentions with digital news media in Australia

This paper summarises findings from a survey of user behaviors and intentions towards digital media and information in Australia. It was undertaken in the first quarter of 2009 by the Queensland University of Technology Creative Industries Faculty and was funded by the Smart Services Cooperative Research Centre. The survey targeted users of 2 news and information sites that are available online only. Findings highlighted differences between the 18-24 year age segment and older users. Social networks (specifically friends and family) were rated as the least reliable, relevant and accurate sources of news. Other findings indicate online news sources that are associated with an established newspaper are highly valued as reliable, relevant and accurate news sources by most people. While most people prefer to use online news sources, there is a great deal of variation in the ways in which people actually use online news. From a total of 524 respondents to the survey it was possible to identify three main types of online news consumers: convenience, loyal and customising users.

Vom Gatekeeping zum Gatewatching : Modelle der journalistischen Vermittlung im Internet

Traditionelle journalistische Prozeduren der Inhaltserstellung und -vermittlung lassen sich in Presse und Rundfunk in erster Linie durch den Prozess des Gatekeeping charakterisieren. Im Internet findet sich jedoch zunehmend ein anderer Ansatz, der in Analogie zu dem traditionellen Begriff als Gatewatching beschrieben werden kann. In diesem Text werden die Besonderheiten des Gatewatchings herausgearbeitet, vor allem die multiperspektivische Form der Berichterstattung, und die wichtigsten Implikationen einer Bewegung vom Gatekeeping zum Gatewatching im Nachrichtenjournalismus analysiert.

Integrating Creative Practice and Research in the Digital Media Arts

Research is often characterised as the search for new ideas and understanding. The language of this view privileges the cognitive and intellectual aspects of discovery. However, in the research process theoretical claims are usually evaluated in practice and, indeed, the observations and experiences of practical circumstances often lead to new research questions. This feedback loop between speculation and experimentation is fundamental to research in many disciplines, and is also appropriate for research in the creative arts. In this chapter we will examine how our creative desire for artistic expressivity results in interplay between actions and ideas that direct the development of techniques and approaches for our audio/visual live-coding activities.

A strategy for making media

It’s never been easier for rights advocates to create and distribute their own media productions, using text, audio, video and the internet. Rights advocates can make media to raise awareness about an issue, to convey new information that is not in the public domain, or to mobilise people to take action. However, careful planning, in the form of a strategy document, is essential to ensure that the media you make genuinely contributes to reaching your advocacy goals. Whether you are an individual rights advocate, a group or an organisation, this chapter will take you through the steps involved in creating a strategic plan for making any kind of media as part of a campaign or project.

The passionate critic

It's hard to be dispassionate about Reyner Banham. For me, and for the plethora of other people with strong opinions about Banham, his writing is compelling, and one’s connection to him as a figure quite personal. For me, frankly, he rocks. As a landscape architect, I gleaned most of my knowledge about Modern architecture from Banham. His Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, along with Rowe and Koetter’s Collage City and Venturi’s Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture were the most influential books in my library, by far. Later, as a budding “real scholar”, I was disappointed to find that, while these authors had serious credibility, the writings themselves were regarded as “polemical” – when in fact what I admired about them most was their ability and willingness to make rough groupings and gross generalizations, and to offer fickle opinions. It spoke to me of a real personal engagement and an active, participatory reading of the architectural culture they discussed. They were at their best in their witty, cutting, but generally pithy, creative prose, such as in Rowe’s extrapolation of the modern citizen as the latest “noble savage”, or Banham railing against conservative social advocates and their response to high density housing: “those who had just re-discovered ‘community’ in the slums would fear megastructure as much as any other kind of large-scale renewal program, and would see to it that the people were never ready.” Any reader of Banham will be able to find a gem that will relate, somehow, personally, to what they are doing right now. For Banham, it was all personal, and the gaps in his scholarship, rather, were the dispassionate places: “Such bias is essential – an unbiased historian is a pointless historian – because history is an essentially critical activity, a constant re-scrutiny and rearrangement of the profession.” Reyner Banham: Historian of the Immediate Future, Nigel Whiteley’s recent “intellectual biography” (the MIT Press, 2002), allowed me to revisit Banham’s passionate mode of criticism and to consider what his legacy might be. The book examines Banham’s body of work, grouped according to his various primary fascinations, as well as his relationship to contemporaneous theoretical movements, such as postmodernism. His mode of practice, as a kind of creative critic, is also considered in some depth. While there are points where the book delves into Banham’s personal life, on the whole Whiteley is very rigorous in considering and theorizing the work itself: more than 750 articles and twelve books. In academic terms, this is good practice. However, considering the entirely personal nature of Banham’s writing itself, this separation seems artificial. Banham, as he himself noted, “didn’t mind a gossip”, and often when reading the book I was curious about what was happening to him at the time. Banham’s was an amazing type of intellectual practice, and one that academics (a term he hated) could do well to learn from. While Whiteley spends a lot of time arguing for his practice to be regarded as such, and makes strong points about both the role of the critic, and the importance of journalism, rather than scholarly publishing, I found myself wondering what his study looked like. What books he had in his library. Did he smoke when he wrote? What sort of teaching load did he have? He is an inspiration to design writers and thinkers, and I, personally, wanted to know how he did it.