From Commercial Production to Produsage

In order to evaluate the differences between traditional forms of commercial production and the new idea of 'produsage' (Bruns, 2008), it is necessary to consider the reasons such a comparison is beneficial to our understanding as members of the information age. That is, we must analyse in some way the reason for the introduction of the new term produsage, and why it is one that is likely to squeeze its way into the ‘words for regular use’ section of our vocabularies.

It would seem that an important step in the comparison between production and ‘produsage’ would be to define the term ‘produsage’. However, when attempting to do so the very nature of the term proves this to be somewhat problematic. Bruns (2008) explains that the need for the term ‘produser’ comes from the fact that,

“…users are always already necessarily also producers of the
shared knowledge base, regardless of whether they are aware of
this role—they have become a new, hybrid, produser.”

As an active participant in producing content, mainly through social networking web sites, I can appreciate the role that I play in contributing to the ‘product’ that is user-lead software. I put this term in inverted commas to highlight the ‘terminological dilemma’ (Bruns, 2008) posed by the existence of opportunities for content to be user-created. That is, that because people can participate in and contribute to virtual cultures and online communities, the ‘product’ as such is never finalised, but is instead being constantly developed and arguably improved.

Bruns (2008) suggests that, “… not the adjectives and qualifiers which we may attach to the term ‘production’ are the problem, but the very noun itself.” From this, it can be plausibly deduced that it is certain behaviours exhibited by consumers when participating in online communities, or contributing to something like open source software, that fuels Bruns’ (2008) suggestion to describe what is occurring as ‘produsage’. Therefore, the differences between commercial production, which Bruns (2008) suggests will never be completely replaced, and produsage lie simply in the opportunity for users and consumers of the ‘product’ to adapt the content to their own personal interests and needs. Traditional commercial production involves the development of products that are offered to consumers to use, but not to broaden or contribute to. Therefore, the problem as such only lies within the terminology used; welcome ‘produsage’.

In order to add consequence to this shift in terminology through my own personal interpretations, I feel I must connect the importance of amending said terminology to the journalism industry. As a traditionally print industry, and one which I hope to enter, I appreciate not only the shift in terminology, but the act of produsage itself. That is, through the opportunity for me to contribute to sites such as this one, Blogger, I am connecting with a potentially global audience through the medium of the internet. Although the credibility of blogging is somewhat debated, I see it as an opportunity for my creative practice as an aspiring journalist to thrive.

Is there a Method to this Madness?

In chapter 4;Virtual Cultures, of his publication New Media: An Introduction, Terry Flew suggests that "[o]ne of the most interesting elements of the development of the Internet as a global communications network has been the rise of virtual communities, or virtual cultures, based around ongoing interactions among those participating in computer-mediated communication (CMC)" (Flew, 2004). When discussing the existence of virtual communities, Flew cites Howard Rheingold as defining virtual communities as “social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on … public discussions long enough … to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace” (Rheingold, 1994). My personal interpretation of the term virtual communities or virtual cultures relates to groups of people who gravitate toward each other in an online environment due to similar interests, study areas, or attributes. It is then through these similarities they communicate and collaborate in order to form a community alternative to any they experience physically.

Having defined what exactly it is we’re talking about, we must ask ourselves how these online communities organise themselves. That is, we must consider the motivations behind participation in online communities; consequentially evaluating the impact this participation in online communities has or will have on physical society as we know it. Additionally, a more serious question of whether people stay true to their physical identities when contributing online must be pondered, as well as the notion of exclusivity and the digital divide. That is, whether people in general are becoming more connected through the opportunity to contribute online or whether society is becoming fragmented by the existence of various individual-specific communities, allowing for people to only communicate with others in their 'comfort zone'.

Flew (2004) argues that online and offline communities are no longer separate, and that online communities now form a part of our everyday physical lives. This argument comes with the challenge that online communities are only available to people with access to them; which sparks multifaceted debate concerning the digital divide. Flew (2004) goes on to suggest that offline communities are traditionally restricted by geographical or physical boundries, and are regulated by social norms and practices. However, online communities allow us to break through these, allowing for what is arguably a more integrated, connected society. Further to this side of debate, Bruns (2008) suggests that 'consumers' of online content do not contribute individually to these communities, but are continually collaborating, and thus enhancing and enriching each others content to develop it further. From this, it can be argued that the journey from Data to Wisdom (DIKW) is fostered through this process, thus connecting society in a way which would be restricted by any offline means.

On the other hand, some may argue that online communities, by virtue of their selective nature, fragment society. This argument depicts a valid traditional argument, while also portraying signs of ‘moral panic’; a term coined by Stanley Cohen (1972), which provides a topic for discussion somewhat superfluous to the topic at hand. This argument is fuelled by the notion of the digital divide, which acknowledges the availability or unavailability of technology to varying socio-economic classes, and thus the exclusion of certain societal groups.

For me personally, I feel that the latter of these arguments is representative of a 'you can't please everyone' paradigm. As an aspiring journalist, this phrase is one which I anticipate to become a mantra of mine in the process of building a career. Whether online communities will connect or fragment 'society' in a general sense is a question which will inevitably fuel constant and evolving discussion.

Til Next Time,
Sarah D

The New Kid on The Block

The buzz word status of Web 2.0 has fuelled a multifaceted debate surrounding the differences between this 'new' development and Web 1.0. It can be put to rest, according to Tim O'Reilly (2004), that the re-branding of the Web 1.0 simply aims to illustrate the changes in the ways software developers and consumers employ the World Wide Web, rather than referring to any technical specifications or changes in technological elements. Furthermore, O'Reilly (2004) describes Web 2.0 as a business which embraces the web as a platform by using its strengths, such as a potentially global audience. Bruns (2008) predicts that "the rise of what is now described as social software or Web 2.0 environments stands to have a profound impact on social practices, the media, economic and legal frameworks, and democratic society itself...". This illustrates that Web 2.0 acts as a catalyst for how consumers are fast becoming producers of their own content, leading into Bruns'(2008) term produser.

Bruns (2008) delineates the need for the term produser by ascertaining that “… the distinctions between producers and users of content have faded into comparative insignificance”. In my opinion, the increasing democracy of the internet, through increasing participation in Web 2.0 environments, will have an impact on not only the things Axel Bruns' (2008) mentions, but also on communication in its most basic form. That is, I agree with what Wesch (2006) points out in his video The Machine is Us/ing Us (see Video link on right hand side of this page); that this participatory manner in which people approach communication via the internet will not only have an impact on social practices, but make society totally rethink values and beliefs, such as family and love, not to mention ourselves as individuals. As a member of a physical society, community and family, it may prove difficult to identify ourselves with the same connection in an online environment. It is my understanding that it is this process which is not only helped but encouraged by Web2.0 environments.

As for how this approach differs from the approach widely employed for Web 1.0, the dissimilarities speak volumes about how produsage (Bruns, 2008) has grown throughout this shift, and thus how the shift from unquestioned consumerism to user-created content has been embraced and utilized. Whilst the products of Web 1.0, Bruns (2008) gives the example of Microsoft Windows, are offered to consumers to use, they are not given to be extended or contributed to (Bruns, 2008). Thus, comparisons can be drawn between this traditional approach to media content as produced by others, and the contemporary and expanding approach of user-created content, or produsage (Bruns, 2008).

To conclude this web log on this particular issue, it must be acknowledged that 'participatory culture', a term coined by Henry Jenkins (2007), is what is being supported by Web2.0 as a thoroughfare into produsage (Bruns, 2008). Bruns (2008) suggests of production and produsage that one will never completely take over the other, but it is this idea which must be questioned by consumers, in order for them to ever fully participate in produsage. That is, if this 'new' way of living and communicating is never going to become the only way, then why must we embrace it? Just some food for thought....

Til next time,

Sarah D