I have to admit, that much of my experience was wiped away, because the video’s on the X-Factor site won’t play on my Mac. But other than that the site is cluttered with information, banners and NO user interaction at all! I can rate video’s but that’s it. How is that still possible in this day and age?
Much to the praise of its creators though, they have started a channel on YouTube and are releasing all the video’s (so maybe all of it is intentional?). This is truly a place where people can interact and meet other like minded people. Some of the video’s gather as much as 4000 comments. So yes, people are engaged. Furthermore, all the video’s are easy to find and play instantly. Do we mind the quality is not all that? Not really, as the experience people are looking for is much different.
Previously on this blog, we’ve had discussion on the value of putting your content out there and maintaining an archive. Archives, we seemed to think, need a specific goal for them to be effective. I think, the video’s of the X-Factor on YouTube are a great example of a good use of an archive and a new way of telling a (non-linear) story in an online environment.
The competition is still in its first phase. This means that the judges are still auditioning thousands of people and are hoping to find that new star. Online almost the same experience is created. I now have the ability to search for those people, because they are online. True, not all of them are online, but it is the excitement of finding that one who can really sing brilliantly. Having no information on what I’m about to watch is thus adding to the experience. And by browsing through all of those auditions I’m experiencing a non linear story, but I do get the vibe none the less.
Finally. This example also shows that there is value in the creators hand (in some ways this is the rhythm that is being created as a whole). Surely, the auditions are out there, but they have been edited in short clips that build the tension towards a climax (most often Simon Cowell’s opinion).
So, is this co-creation? I think so. At least I am partly creating my own experience with the pieces of the story that are handed to me by the producers. Which I think is an essential ingredient to having a co-created experience.
Image
Jorgen, I totally agree… the first clip is truly brilliant and you are totally sucked into the YouTube Player! and what a shame the X-factor site is today… WHY? I guess since such a format is still (over)-produced as a TV show… but is it a TV-show? or is it a search for the best talent, also brought to you on TV? What would happen if people massively would support this ABBA-to-be in your clip via all media etc etc..?!
Who is the publisher of this content… judging by the URL in the screen & the bumper, most of them are published/ edited by the production?? So what is the issue here… is it lack of understanding, lack of interest, broadcasters-tunnelvision, lack of integration of media (flow/ interaction design)?
Too many times we experience that a website is ‘just’ seen as another advertising-slot and that things like ‘youtube’ are not part of the creative process/ format but are part of the marketing plan (free publicity). This is a direct result in talking about Multi-media which tends to focus on MULTI = QUANTITY… better to focus on CROSS-MEDIA or even better INTEGRATED-MEDIA: an integrated experience and story where each of the media is used with its own merits and contributions to a bigger total.
About the co-creating…. although I do think that the pieces of the story handed to me by the producers are an ingredient of co-creating, I don’t think the whole of the you-tube channel is about co-creating. I don’t actively play a roll in the experience other that being able to pick the video’s I am watching. It’s like zapping television with your remote control where all the channels are filled with X-Factor content. Only now it is filtered by voted indicating which are the best and the worst singers. (I don’t like the mediocre material, I want to be amazed). But by watching the filtered content, I don’t create any new value or add something to the story. Therefore I am having trouble seeing this as co-creating.
It’s funny, I tried to define why the YouTube channel has a better experience to me than the website, but can’t really seem to pinpoint where the pain is. I do agree with Arjan that the website seems over-produced. But also, I can’t stop thinking (and this might be my personal experience) the website feels limited in relation to the YouTube channel because the website is put in a specific domain, where on YouTube I can roam around freely on the network-domain as a whole. The X-Factor channel in YouTube is within the YouTube domain, where I can find any kind of video and where I have a lot of previous experiences. I guess, to me, just the notion of being able to roam around freely feels like enough freedom to focus me on one place. :-)
Why can’t you add value to the story? This time I’ve directed you to a specific episode or YouTube clip, that I found very interesting. However, I can also create a playlist in my own YouTube domain, in which I can select specific clips and order them according to my own preferences. I can share that playlist (make it publicly available). If I had directed you to that playlist, you would be watching my ‘order’ of events. I believe that that is adding value. Even more so: YouTube has made it possible for the clips to appear everywhere: even on this blog we can use the clips and place them in a different context (which is exactly what this post is about and what I have done). In my experience I have now added value to that specific clip in this post and have thus co-created with the producers of that single clip (our discussion about it is totally different from the discussion on YouTube about it). Or compare it to Arjan’s example: I could set up a place to support these would be ABBA’s and create stars out of them within that specific domain, or for that specific audience/community.
When thinking of playlists: it is a shame that the pieces of content don’t carry their own ‘independent’ titles: they carry the ‘producers’ abbrevations of element from one of the episodes. If I would now want to change the order, for ‘my’ audience that would feel really weird as they would be watching a clip first that says: “X Factor 4, Ep 3, title” and after that maybe: “X Factor 4, Ep 1, title”. So, if they had thought it through and would have meant for these episodes to be used in co-creation, they should have left out there ‘ordering of events’ in pieces of content that can not be changed by the user. Why not just use the titles?
Still don’t think this is co-creation. Co-creation is about a dialogue between at least two parties. Decisions or results are based upon this dialogue. I don’t see how you are co-creating by referencing to material UNLESS you add value to the material. By placing content in a specific order or by rating it, is still a one-way street of communication. It would be the same as if I would built a music playlist on my computer. I could even rate the individual songs (like in iTunes) …. I don’t think that’s co-creation. However, if the produced material or order I placed it in would talk back to me, that would be the start of co-creation I think.
We usually make a distinction by PASSIVE - ACTIVE- AN INTERACTIVE. This kind of content would be ACTIVE content (you can do stuff with it. But is it co-creative? That probably depends who CO is. Is that producer/ consumer - than I would say this is not co-creation since there is no dialogue. If this is consumer-consumer co-creation, than I would say maybe… although if you make your own player you become a new producer with the same level of co-creativeness as the old producer, so that would mean a NO.
So maybe we would say this is OPEN (you can use it freely), ACTIVE (you can comment, shuffle etc) CONTENT with USER GENERATED CONTEXT?
I guess it doesn’t just depends on the CO but also on the unit. Meaning: if all the material of X-factor were to be released unedited and I was able to put it together would that be called co-creation? What defines the dialogue? Do I have to give it back to the ‘producer’? Is a program such as ‘Funniest Home Video’s’ co-creation? Or is it impossible for producers of content previously known as TV-content, to be co-creative with their audience? What would they have to do to become co-creative?
I totally agree with your conclusion that this is open, active content in a user generated context.
I think it’s import to emphasize the process of co-creating personal value and community value. Trying to distinguish conversations from collaboration and co-creation is a never ending story (to many grey areas). Even though this guy tried: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davegray/524742931/
How does Youtube creates more personal value the x-factor website? In this case I think it has much to do with choice and control. At Youtube you’re in the driver seat not the website. You decide where you want to go, what you want to see and most important how you want to interact. Youtube supports all levels of participation: leeching, aggregation, discussion, content creation, etc. This stimulates people to create their personal experience matching their needs (level of participation).
“I don’t actively play a roll in the experience other that being able to pick the video’s I am watching. It’s like zapping television with your remote control where all the channels are filled with X-Factor content.”
Experiences are personal. Visiting Youtube is no guarantee for the creation of personal value but it does a great job in handing you the ‘tools’ for the creation of such an experience.
Great visualization in your link Paul!
But: in your opinion, is this YouTube/X-factor example communication, conversation, collaboration or co-creation? Or is participation another level?
What i tried to say is making that distinction isn’t that important.
Participation is the active involvement in a social process. The participant creates value through meaning making. Each person chooses his own level of involvement. The value derived from the participation may create an experience depending certain factors. Anna Snel (also ‘friend of the lab’ ) created a great framework for the analysis of experiences, describing those factors. Maybe she can write a little piece about it one this blog one day..
So maybe I’m communicating by just watching and rating some clips or just having a conversation by placing comments, then again maybe I’m co-creating by remixing and uploading content. All are forms of participation and all can produce an personal experience.