Entertainment Architecture

Home , 42 Entertainment, John Foster (cartoonist), Kinetoscope, Transmedia storytelling

Constructing a Framework for the Creation

of an Emerging Transmedia Form

Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal

Dipl.-Kfm. European Business School, Oestrich-Winkel, Germany

A dissertation presented in fulfilment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation

Creative Industries Faculty

Queensland University of Technology

Brisbane, Australia

2011 Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Keywords film movie transmedia entertainment transmedia storytelling pervasive games ubiquitous games agency form evolution entrepreneurship business industry creative destruction marketing promotion

— II — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Abstract

This thesis investigates the radically uncertain formal, business, and industrial environment of current entertainment creators. It researches how a novel communication technology, the Internet, leads to novel entertainment forms, how these lead to novel kinds of businesses that lead to novel industries; and in what way established entertainment forms, businesses, and industries are part of that process. This last aspect is addressed by focusing on one exemplary established form: movies. Using a transdisciplinary approach and a combination of historical analysis, industry interviews, and an innovative mode of ‘immersive’ textual analysis, a coherent and comprehensive conceptual framework for the creation of and research into a specific emerging entertainment form is proposed. That form, products based on it, and the conceptual framework describing it are all referred to as Entertainment Architecture (‘entarch,’ for short). The thesis characterises this novel form as Internet-native transmedia entertainment, meaning it fully utilises the unique communicative characteristics of the Internet, and is spread across media. The thesis isolates four constitutive elements within Entertainment Architec- ture: story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue.’ That is, entarch tells a story; offers playful interaction; invites social interaction between producer and consumer, and amongst consumers (‘dance’); and all components of it can be spread across many media, but are so well interconnected and mutually dependent that they are perceived as one product instead of many (‘glue’). This sets entarch apart from current media franchises like Star Wars or Halo, which are perceived as many products spread across many media. Entarch thus embraces the communicative behaviour of Internet-native consumers instead of forcing them to desist from it, it harnesses the strengths of various media while avoiding some of their weaknesses, and it can sustain viable businesses. The entarch framework is an innovative contribution to scholarship that allows researchers to investigate this emerging entertainment form in a structured way. The thesis demonstrates this by using it to survey business models appropriate to the entarch environment. The framework can also be used by entertainment creators — exemplified in the thesis by moviemakers — to delimit the room for manoeuvre available to them in a changing environment.

— III — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Supplementary DVD

This thesis describes an emerging entertainment form that, really, needs to be engaged with to be fully understood. Unfortunately, a written description — as provided on the following 252 pages — does not make such engagement possible. The thesis is therefore complemented by a DVD (to be found on the inside of the back cover), which offers videos that have been created by various artists to better convey what their products based on this form are about. Of course, even such videos cannot make real engagement possible, but they make the form and the thesis a little more accessible. Whenever, therefore, a video exists that well illustrates an entertainment product described in the thesis, the DVD is mentioned — at first sparingly and then extensively throughout the thesis. The video files on the DVD are named after the in-text citations. Furthermore, Appendix D Mentioned Entertainment Products lists all entertainment products that are referred to in the thesis and mentions the DVD where appropriate. All of these videos can also be watched online under the URLs provided in the Bibliography, but the DVD makes watching the most interesting ones more convenient. All videos can be played back using the latest versions of Windows Media Player, Quicktime Player, or VLC Media Player. Windows and Mac installers of the latest VLC Media Player version are provided on the DVD or can be down- loaded from www.videolan.org — for those readers who wish to install one of the most versatile media players on their computers.

— IV — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Table of Contents

Keywords II Abstract III Supplementary DVD IV List of Figures VI List of Abbreviations VII Statement of Original Authorship VIII Acknowledgements IX Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Research Design 10 Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment 35 2.1 Evolution and Storytelling 38 2.2 The History of Storytelling 45 2.3 Internet and Storytelling 51 2.4 What is Entertainment? 69 Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) 81 3.1 The Four Elements of Entarch 84 3.2 Entarch Bible 94 3.3 The Entertainment Architect (EA) 114 Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models 119 4.1 Contractual Relationships 121 4.2 Freemium 138 4.3 Sale 140 4.4 Subscription 154 4.5 Rental 156 4.6 Free 157 Chapter 5: Entarch Industry 179 5.1 Entrepreneurship and Creative Destruction 179 5.2 The Young Entarch Industry 185 Chapter 6: From Movies to Entarch? 217 Chapter 7: Conclusions 229 7.1 Loose Ends? – Implications for Further Research 244 Appendices 253 A Interviews Round One — Questionnaire 253 B Interviews Round Two — Questionnaire 255 C Survey — Questionnaire 259 D Mentioned Entertainment Products 271 Bibliography 279

— V — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

List of Figures

Chapter 1: Introduction Figure 1: Movie, (feature) film, video, and motion picture 29 Figure 2: Entarch and related concepts 32 Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Figure 3: Photo of a photo of the Jewelled Nights film crew 42 Figure 4: The immense impact of sound 44 Figure 5: Comparison of communication technologies 52 Figure 6: “What is transmedia?” 56 Figure 7: What is (Internet-native) (transmedia) entertainment? 66 Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Figure 8: Entarch in relation to (Internet-native) (transmedia) entertainment 81 Figure 9: In-character preacher 86 Figure 10: Musicians scoring the screening live 86 Figure 11: Announcement before the screening 86 Figure 12: The entertainment process of International Mime Academy 105 Figure 13: The entertainment process of Colour Bleed 107 Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Figure 14: Cover of Level 26: Dark Origins 143 Figure 15: iPad version of Dark Prophecy 144 Figure 16: A visualisation of Perplex City 146 Figure 17: Purchasable poster map of Perplex City 146 Figure 18: Every purchased map is numbered 147 Figure 19: Cover of Cathy’s Book 148 Figure 20: Cover of Cathy’s Key 148 Figure 21: Cover of Cathy’s Ring 149 Figure 22: Cover of Personal Effects: Dark Art 149 Figure 23: Screenshot of Burnout Paradise 160 Figure 24: Hope poster 161 Figure 25: Screenshot of the first Old Spice Guy advertisement 167 Figure 26: Story Addict banner 176 Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Figure 27: Every time you torrent god kills a cinema 193 Figure 28: Economic cutoff points 195 Chapter 7: Conclusions Figure 29: Entertainment Architecture in relation to other concepts 234

— VI — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

List of Abbreviations

ARG Alternate Reality Game

EA Entertainment Architect

Entarch Entertainment Architecture

IP Intellectual Property

— VII — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

QUT Verified Signature Signature ______

Date ______

— VIII — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Acknowledgements

Like Google, Newton, and Bernard of Chartres, I’m a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants. Each one generously carried me for as long as I need it and let me hop onto the next one when the time was right. Had just one single giant refused to support me, none of what happened would have happened the way it did. And I very much like the result. Nonetheless, a few of you were exceptional. John Hartley appeared at the right time, took me along to the other side of the world, let me roam freely so I could attack even bigger issues than I originally had my eyes on, and still managed to keep the chaos under control (maybe because you unlike me always knew what I was doing). My parents bore me longer than anyone else and are still not bored with me. Jason Potts stepped in to introduce order when it was needed. My ten interview partners from all around the world granted me more time and openness than I thought possible. David Court, the Australian Film Television and Radio School, and their Centre for Screen Business helped guide my scholarly steps into movies and the movie industry. Jon Silver is the most comprehensive movie encyclopaedia ever walking this planet, and the best accessible one as well. QUT and CCI provided me with a fantastic environment of people and infrastructure, and made it possible for me to focus on my dissertation far away from home without financial worries. The Oxford In- ternet Institute invited me to their Summer Doctoral Programme, helped me sharpen my understanding of what I was doing, and deepened my appreciation of the breadth and relevance of Internet research. My close ones (luckily) did not cross me off their lists of cool people, despite me missing many an invitation to quality time. The last — and by some measures biggest — giant is Australia, a country and people who welcomed me, taught me a lot, and will always remain a part of me.

— IX — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

— X — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Chapter 1: Introduction

This thesis proposes Entertainment Architecture as a coherent and comprehensive conceptual framework for the creation of and research into a certain form of Internet-native transmedia entertainment — entertainment that fully utilises the unique communicative characteristics of the Internet and is not based on just one medium — that is currently emerging. This framework is a result of research that brought together interviews, a survey, what I call ‘immersive’ textual analysis, and a number of disciplines. Entertainment Architecture is characterised by combining four elements: story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue.’ Each of these four elements is later explained in greater detail,1 so for now suffice it to give a short introduction:

• Story and play, fairly self-explanatory, are both always present in this emerging transmedia entertainment form. • ‘Dance’ refers to the sociality of this form, to the interaction between creator and audience and among audience members, and to the leadership of the creator and the joining in of the audience. • ‘Glue’ refers to the interconnectivity of this form, to the way its entertainment experience is spread across media and time but still constitutes one whole and is perceived as one product by both creators and consumers. It is a key to monetisation.

Until the vernacular chooses a name for this emerging form, Entertainment Architecture (‘entarch,’ for short) is proposed to refer to the conceptual framework, to the form itself, and to entertainment products based on it. An Enter- tainment Architect (‘EA,’ for short) is a new kind of creator or group of them that is required for the creation of Entertainment Architecture, and becoming one is to answer the research question of the thesis:

How can movie entrepreneurs avail themselves of the opportunities that are emerging from the evolving forms of Internet-native transmedia entertainment to develop viable businesses?

1 See the last part of this introduction and the dedicated Subchapter 3.1 The Four Elements of Entarch.

Chapter 1: Introduction — 1 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Even though the term ‘movie’ is part of this research question, the dissertation is not primarily about movies, and specifically not from a film studies perspective. It is about a novel emerging transmedia entertainment form — Enter- tainment Architecture — and how this form is affecting existing forms. For three reasons, the movie is chosen as an exemplary existing one. First, addressing only one existing form frames the thesis and sets boundaries — every form has its particularities, and going into detail about all of them would run against the aim of composing a clear and logical text. Second, I am a dedicated movie fan, who has noticed that a novel entertainment form offering novel creative and business possibilities for movies is emerging — my interest and expertise simply lie with movies, and to a lesser degree with music, publishing, or opera. And third, the current movie industry is a good example of an existing entertainment form that is very popular, but nonetheless struggling more and more to turn this popularity into profit. Despite this certain emphasis on movies, however, the general framework of Entertainment Architecture and this thesis are just as relevant and applicable to other existing entertainment forms — only the detailed exploration of their relation with entarch is a task for future research. So the dissertation focuses on Entertainment Architecture first and foremost. Only as a second priority does it relate entarch to movies — and the logic behind that relation goes as follows. Current business models of the movie industry are under a lot of stress due to the emergence of the Internet. At the same time but in a different back yard, the Internet is proving fertile ground for a novel entertainment form — Entertainment Architecture — which, in turn, offers novel business models to movies. It is not entarch that is disrupting movie business practice, but the Internet — entarch may simply offer a way out. Therefore, since entarch does not inherently affect movies, it may not come as a surprise that it is not the current movie industry that pushes the development of Entertainment Architecture, but a constantly growing eclectic group of creators (including some moviemakers). These creators are responding to novel human communicative patterns and conventions that are emerging from the Internet. They — the Entertainment Architects — are striving to offer entertainment experiences that align well with the communicative experiences Internet

— 2 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture natives have become used to. The development of Entertainment Architecture is therefore treated as a consumer- not producer-driven phenomenon. Enter- tainment Architects are not immediately concerned with the viability of entarch in the context of existing entertainment industries, but with reaching audiences. They do pay special attention to their creative and business relations with existing entertainment, but always within the context of creating products that reach Internet-native audiences on their communicative ground. The primary focus of this dissertation is therefore not on the survival of En- tertainment Architecture within the contemporary Hollywood complex or any other existing entertainment industry. It is also not on the issues that existing entertainment industries may or may not be facing, or whether entarch offers solutions. This makes the approach of this thesis rather exceptional, as typically the focus is on the issues that existing entertainment industries are facing and how to solve them.2 And these issues are important. The long cultural history and sheer size of the entertainment industries — in monetary terms USD 1.3 trillion (PricewaterhouseCoopers 2010, p. 28) — simply command attention. To try to find ways to fix existing entertainment industries really is to be human — we tend to focus on the preservation of the existing, as nobody can guaran- tee the new will put food on the table (Schumpeter 1942; Beinhocker 2006). Let me therefore emphasise that there is nothing wrong with such an approach — it is just fundamentally different from what you see in front of you right now. This thesis sets out to identify, and analyse ‘on the fly,’ an emergent phenomenon (Sawyer 2005; Runciman 2009): a novel entertainment form that does not have its seeds in existing industries but in novel dynamic circumstances that have come into being as a consequence of the newest human communication technology, the Internet. The focus of this dissertation, therefore, is on the creative and business viability of a novel entertainment form and novel ‘entarch industry’ that are emerging as a response to novel consumer ex-

2 (Reiss 2010; Gray 2010; Caldwell 2008; Tryon 2009), or see the Media Industries Project, Carsey-Wolf Center, UCSB at http://www.carseywolf.ucsb.edu/mip. Of course, the approach of this thesis is not unique, just infrequent — Jean Burgess and Joshua Green, for example, investigate a novel moving picture breeding ground along with its own novel rules, i.e. motion pictures on YouTube (Burgess and Green 2009a).

Chapter 1: Introduction — 3 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture pectations of entertainment. In this context, the current state of existing forms is not directly relevant to Entertainment Architecture. It only becomes relevant in connection with the secondary priority of the thesis: to analyse whether or not there is potential for creative and business cross-fertilisation with movies as the chosen exemplary existing entertainment form, and with moviemakers as the chosen exemplary existing profession. But this analysis does not happen on the ground of the existing movie industry, but on that of the novel entarch industry. Let me present you with a simple example of what is meant by that. This research has shown that Entertainment Architects, the people who conceive and create entarch, represent a novel profession that neither stems from one specific entertainment industry, nor gels well with any current entertainment industry. They cooperate with all of them — but they are who they are and do what they do because they are not directly constrained by any of them.

The research approach of the thesis therefore goes — in short summary — like this. The Internet is a required technology for Entertainment Architecture to emerge. But entarch is not a settled form yet and is still evolving. Various kinds of developments follow from this evolution — technological, cultural, business, etc. — and present various kinds of new opportunities. Entrepreneurs are persons, and by extension firms, that seize these opportunities and develop viable businesses based on them. These entrepreneurs and the challenges they are facing are what this research is about — with a certain emphasis on entrepreneurs working at the intersection of Entertainment Architecture and movies. The thesis therefore researches form and how it leads to businesses. In a broader sense, it researches how it is possible to make progress in uncertainty, how forms can be developed, businesses established, and livelihoods secured in a world that is changing — it explores how people cope with change that follows from the emergence of the novel. And it does this by focusing on the ways in which moviemakers can deal with a novel emerging entertainment form.

— 4 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

A few more words remain to be said on this personal movie interest of mine as well as on the less and less stable ground the current movie industry is standing on. The immersive movie experience, preferably enjoyed in a cinema, has always been a passion of mine. But a decade or so ago, I began noticing that movies and the cinema were losing some of their shine. The world seemed to have moved forward while movies had remained the same. Something was not quite right. I was still enjoying the experience, but somehow it was becoming a little alien to my life and that of my peers — and it definitely did not have much in common with what I had heard about the Golden Age of Hollywood in the 1930s and 1940s. It felt like movies and the cinema experience were becoming less relevant or important, and I was starting to wonder whether they would still be there for me to watch in a few decades. My simple passion had become curiosity. So I decided to spend a while learning from moviemakers. And indeed, I learned a great deal about movies but nothing about what was happening to them. It was then that I decided to figure it out for myself, which ultimately led me to writing this dissertation. But beyond this personal passion, there are solid business reasons. Even though movies continue to be extremely popular entertainment when viewership across all legal and illegal delivery platforms is added up (Trevisanut 2011; Klinger 2006, esp. pp. 4-5; Jones 2011; Ernesto 2010), the movie industry is having trouble monetising that viewership. Its business model is facing challenges and needs to evolve — a situation other entertainment industries, most prominently the music industry, have been in for quite a while already (Panay 2011). There is, of course, no ‘movie industry business model’ as Hollywood is in a rather unique position compared to other industry segments. The rules of the game are different for US independent moviemakers and different again for the moviemakers of other countries. Data, however, is much more readily available regarding the US major studios than any other industry segment. And since the general trend is similar across segments, the following paragraphs focus on Hollywood as an example of the predicament of the larger industry.

Chapter 1: Introduction — 5 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

The current business model of movies is based on the sequential exploitation of distribution windows (Vogel 2011, pp. 126-127), which allows — or used to allow — for a gradual reduction of the movie consumption price without overly jeopardising the income from the more expensive windows. This means the earliest way to watch a movie is also the most expensive one: in a cinema. A while later, the same movie can be watched via a bought or rented DVD, which makes the experience cheaper (and repeatable) if watched with several people. Even later, the same movie can be watched via pay TV. The last and cheapest option is to watch it on free TV. In essence, the movie industry exercises price discrimination, which means the income from each distribution window adds up to the overall income of a movie.3 Interestingly, the box office is not the main income source of movies anymore. In 2008, “less than 15 percent of feature revenues [came] from theatrical box office income” (Caldwell 2008, p. 9). This figure undervalues the movie industry’s rule of thumb, but it is undisputed that by far most revenues stem from the DVD market (Amdur 2004), with the television market accounting for about as much as the box office (Waterman 2005, pp. 288-292). It is therefore clear that the financial backbone of the movie industry is the home entertainment market, not the box office (Vogel 2011, p. 95), and that stable or rising box office income does not by itself indicate a financially sound movie industry. So how have the distribution windows evolved? US-American Box office re- ceipts have been rising slowly but steadily (Motion Picture Association of America 2010, p. 5) thanks to rising ticket prices (McNary 2011). Looking at the number of tickets sold in the USA, however, 2010 dropped nearly to the level of 1996 (The Numbers n.d.), despite the population of the USA having grown by 15% over the same time period (U.S. Census Bureau 2011, p. 8; Central Intelligence Agency 2010).

3 The goal of price discrimination (or differentiation or segmentation) “is to capture more revenue from sales where value or cost to serve is higher, while accepting lower revenue where necessary to drive still profitable volume” (Nagle, Hogan and Zale 2011, p. 47). In other words, some consumers are willing to pay more, others are willing to pay less, and every business tries to extract from every single consumer the highest amount they are willing to pay in order to generate the highest possible total income.

— 6 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

In Robert C. Allen’s words, theatrical movie-going is becoming “a thing more remembered than experienced”:

More and more movie theatres now serve as haunted houses — places where, on Friday nights, Hollywood studios summon the ghost of a bygone epoch in an attempt to suffuse their products with an aura of cinematic glamour strong enough to survive for a few months in the decidedly unglamorous domestic settings where they eventually will be housed (Allen 2011b, p. 81).

Unfortunately, the important home entertainment market has been hit much worse. DVD income has dropped 15.6% in 2010 alone (Graser 2011b), and the entirety of home entertainment revenues dropped to the lowest level since 2001 (Graser 2011a), not accounting for inflation. Looking again at the number of home entertainment transactions (VHS, DVD, Blu-rayDisc rental and sale; TV video-on-demand; digital; not including pay-TV subscriptions) the 1980s were characterised by spectacular growth, the 1990s by stagnation, and the 2000s by strong growth between 2000 and 2002 thanks to the introduction of DVDs and then by a slow but steady decline until 2009, the date of the latest available figures (Gunnarsson 2010) — again despite the population having grown significantly over that time period. World statistics look slightly more positive as some regions of the world get wealthier, sell more movie tickets at higher prices, and compensate for the declining revenues in mature markets. In 2010 alone, box office revenues grew by 61% in China and by 30% in Brazil (Stewart 2011) — while the DVD market in Japan declined for the fifth year straight (Schilling 2011), and cinema admissions plummeted 17.4% in Germany (Stewart 2011) and 10% in Spain (Hopewell and Mayorga 2011) despite several massively successful higher- priced 3D movies, most notably Avatar (2009). The movie industry would clearly benefit from new business models, and this thesis hypothesises that En- tertainment Architecture — despite not being intrinsically or automatically movie-related — makes entirely novel ones possible. Entarch therefore has two applications: creation of entertainment and research into it. Creators are offered a coherent and comprehensive perspective on an emerging Internet-native transmedia entertainment form, while research-

Chapter 1: Introduction — 7 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture ers are given a tool to investigate it in a structured way. Both are enabled to handle present entertainment despite its evolving and dynamic nature.

But how does Entertainment Architecture relate and contribute to existing knowledge? Many aspects of this emerging form have already been successfully investigated from numerous angles, and the thesis builds on these foundations. Henry Jenkins’ ongoing work approaches the topic from a fan studies perspective (Jenkins 1992, 2006a, 2006b, 2006 − ongoing). Jonathan Gray approaches it from a television angle (Gray 2006, 2008, 2010). Jean Burgess and Joshua Green offer insights about online participatory culture and creativity (Burgess and Green 2009b, 2009a; Burgess 2006), while Green also researches the changing media industries as project manager of the Media Industries Project at the Carsey-Wolf Center, University of California Santa Barbara. Axel Bruns researches the changing producer-consumer relationship (Bruns 2008). Lawrence Lessig investigates this changing culture from a law perspective (Lessig 2008). Kristin Thompson shows how Hollywood is slowly being transformed through market forces (Thompson 2007). Chuck Tryon shows how innovation in movies often happens on the fringes (Tryon 2009). Jon Reiss writes about his experiences as an independent filmmaker today (Reiss 2010). Markus Montola et al. describe the change from ‘classic’ games to pervasive games and how this often entails transmedia phenomena (Montola, Stenros and Waern 2009b). And Frank Rose gives an overview of the sheer diversity of this emerging entertainment form (Rose 2011). The form’s economic and business aspects have not yet been researched explicitly, but knowledge from both disciplines can be applied to Entertainment Architecture in the same way this has been done for other entertainment products and industries (De Vany 2004; Caves 2000; Sedgwick and Pokorny 2005). What this thesis contributes to the above research is a unifying overarching framework and a business-oriented perspective, in which existing and future insights from both research and practice can be nested. More specifically, the thesis taxonomises and subdivides a wide variety of rather diffuse approaches to what is happening to entertainment into the three categories of transmedia entertainment, Internet-native entertainment, and Internet-native transmedia

— 8 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture entertainment. This makes currently emerging entertainment products as well as research into them comparable and therefore provides a common ground for discussion. Entertainment Architecture is, then, discovered to be one form of Internet-native transmedia entertainment, and is characterised by combining the four elements story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue’ in one product. Charting entertainment in this manner allows to dissect entertainment products in a way that was not possible before and is of great practical relevance to both researchers and creators. Another contribution of particular interest to researchers is a new mode of textual analysis that I propose: ‘immersive’ textual analysis. It is an approach that brings textual analysis into the world of Internet-native transmedia entertainment. Creators, on the other hand, may find Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models particularly interesting, as it provides an overview of current approaches to building businesses based on Entertainment Architecture. These achievements allow researchers to investigate Internet-native transmedia entertainment in a coherent and structured way, and allow for new — much more detailed — kinds of questions. To give a few examples, the following paragraphs lists some of the topics that are explored throughout the thesis thanks to the Entertainment Architecture conceptual framework. Sean Stewart, one of the interview partners, expects Entertainment Architec- ture4 to become “the dominant art form of the twenty-first century.” If this happens, what will become of other forms of art and entertainment? Can existing entertainment products, say James Bond, morph into Entertainment Architec- ture or is it a form reserved for new products? Talking about James Bond, what is the difference between entarch and a (media) franchise? If existing entertainment forms are to coalesce into entarch, what will happen to them on a formal level and what will happen to the people, businesses, and industries creating them? Asking from the opposite perspective: what professional and educational background do Entertainment Architects typically have and what are the business models of entarch? Is this emerging entertainment form a glob-

4 As explained in more detail later, no interview partner used the term ‘Entertainment Architec- ture.’ Nonetheless, it is used at times in relation to interviewee citations if the original meanings of those citations clearly allow for it.

Chapter 1: Introduction — 9 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture al or local phenomenon? Is it being developed by dominant entertainment companies, e.g. US-American entertainment conglomerates, or on the fringes? Does it appeal to niche or mainstream audiences? Is it already a large industry or is it a small one struggling to grow? The answers to some of these questions generate rather unexpected new ones. Why does Entertainment Architecture have such a convoluted relationship with advertising, promotion, and marketing? And why does this affect the prospects of entarch in the USA and in the rest of the world differently? Surpris- ingly, it is possible that entarch will evolve into competition to leisure activities instead of other forms of entertainment. It is also quite possible that entertainment and leisure products will merge and evolve in new and interesting ways, far beyond the confines of our current understanding of both.

1.1 Research Design

Before the framework can be filled with detailed knowledge, however, it has to be constructed. A research design has therefore been developed, that allows to bring together interviews, a survey, what I call ‘immersive’ textual analysis, and a number of disciplines to conceptualise a space where businesses built on this emerging Internet-native transmedia entertainment form can prosper. The foundation of such a conceptualisation has to be an understanding of the form itself. Only if the form is understood can businesses be built on it. Therefore, before the entrepreneurial and business aspects of the research question can be answered, the form itself needs to be analysed. But analysing it is difficult, for it is evolving fast and thus uncertain. A description of it remains valid only until it morphs into something new — which happens quickly and continuously at the moment. Instead of researching the form directly, therefore, the strongest driver behind its development was identified and became the focus of the research approach: the creators of Internet- native transmedia entertainment. They are the agents who actively shape the form. But this does not mean consumers are reduced to passivity. Quite the contrary: consumer empowerment, user generated content, and the democrati- sation of media (Hartley 1999, 2009c) in the widest sense are developments

— 10 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture that are embraced enthusiastically. But a focus on entertainment means these developments have to be seen in relation to commercial products. And in this context, consumers are indeed encouraged to contribute content and influence these commercial products — but always within the (subliminal) boundaries that creators impose. Often these products fail, not least because of poorly set boundaries. Creators then modify their products and present them to consumers once more. Creators, therefore, are the ones who mould this emerging form of Internet-native transmedia entertainment and consumers are the ones who either accept and breathe life into it or not. Creators are the ones to shape it first and they do it in a direct manner, consumers shape in a subsequent step and in an indirect manner. This thesis therefore focuses on the first step of shaping, on the creators. To put the matter more formally: it researches agency in order to arrive at an understanding of form, which leads to an understanding of business.

Research into an emerging Internet-native transmedia entertainment form is challenging as it is steeped in three levels of radical uncertainty:

• Entrepreneurial — This form has no history that creators can learn from and use as guidance while creating their own products. Turning to current entertainment creators can therefore hardly lead to future success (Stark 2009, p. 83). There is no proven business model yet. Experimentation is the only option for creators to get their products off the ground (Dopfer and Potts 2008) and is consequently intrinsic to the required entrepreneurial approach. • Experiential/Formal — Consumers do not know what to expect from this new entertainment form. Products based on it may have to explain what it is they offer; nonetheless, they often stay misunderstood. Producers do not yet fully understand the form either. Additionally, advertising has entered the playing field and begun to blur the distinction between itself and entertainment. • Disciplinary — Certain disciplines have been affected by the emergence of this form but have not yet been able to develop appropriate approaches to researching it. Other disciplines have an interest in uncertainty, but have not yet been applied to this form.

These three levels of uncertainty translate into the first three steps of the research process. The entrepreneurial level is explored through interviews and a

Chapter 1: Introduction — 11 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture survey. The experiential or formal level is explored through immersive textual analysis. And the disciplinary level is explored through extensive consultation of literature, leading to some innovations proposed by and pursued in the thesis. The fourth step, then, constitutes the synthesis of the previous three steps and consists of constructing the Entertainment Architecture conceptual framework.

Step One — Interviews and Survey

The aim of the conducted interviews and survey is to understand the reasons, motivations, and cultural assumptions of successful creators of this emerging Internet-native transmedia entertainment form as a step towards constructing a framework for the creation of such entertainment. Creators’ discourses about media and entertainment therefore take precedence over their behavioural actions or quantitative data about their sales or finances. Listening is at the heart of interviews (Livingstone 2010, p. 570), which yield, if done well, “in-depth responses about people’s experiences, perceptions, opinions, feelings, and knowledge” (Patton 2002, p. 4) and permit the researcher “to understand the world as seen by the respondents” (Patton 2002, p. 21) — exactly the kind of qualitative data this step is aiming for. Interviewing “is also a very convenient way of overcoming distances both in space and in time; past events or faraway experiences can be studied by interviewing people who took part in them” (Peräkylä 2005, p. 869). Since Internet-native transmedia entertainment is still very young, even the very first creators of it can still be interviewed about their original experiences, which I have done. Neutrality of the interviewer is impossible, which means “taking a stance becomes unavoidable” (Fontana and Frey 2005, p. 696). The following list therefore briefly summarises my worldview, more specifically the part of it that is relevant to the interviews and the thesis:

• Artists and producers (‘creatives and suits’) are equally important for the creation of entertainment and both deserve the attention of the researcher.

— 12 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

• It is a fact that form and industry of film and entertainment are changing, this process is unstoppable and resisting it futile. • The interview partners are harbingers and executioners of creative destruction (Schumpeter 1942, p. 83) — this is not a judgmental statement but simply unavoidable. • The thesis does not focus on preserving current forms and industries but aims to develop a viable framework that allows us to deal with change and creative destruction. • This worldview is not pro-progress or utopian but simply treats the current situation as given and looks for a promising way forward.

Knowing that no objective representation of an interview is possible (Wasserfall 1993, pp. 25-26), particular emphasis is placed on using any quotation according to its original context as well as possible. Some quotations reference Entertainment Architecture although no interview partner used the term itself. This is only done if the context clearly allows for such an extrapolation of the original meaning. The reason for doing so is that one goal of the thesis is a harmonisation of perspectives — and using different terms in different quotations while referring to the same phenomenon would run against this effort.

Two rounds of semi-structured open-ended face-to-face interviews were conducted. In December 2008, five movie professionals from diverse backgrounds were chosen for the first round. The aim was to profit from the knowledge of movie-experienced people, but for that knowledge to come from as many different perspectives as possible. The topic was the movie industry’s own strength and impulse to react to a changing and uncertain environment. The questions were clustered under three headings: what is a movie, what sets it apart from other media, and where are movies headed? Appendix A Interviews Round One — Questionnaire lists the exact topics and questions. The following people were interviewed in Sydney, Australia in the following order.

• An internationally very experienced movie distribution professional who wished to remain anonymous. • Katie Shortland, an emerging film producer.

Chapter 1: Introduction — 13 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

• Marian MacGowan, experienced film producer at MacGowan Films.5 • Jennifer Wilson, former Head of Innovation at ninemsn and Principle of Lean Forward, and presently Partner at The Project Factory as well as Execu- tive at the Australian Interactive Media Industry Association (AIMIA).6 • Mark Sarfaty, former Head of Dendy Cinemas, at the time CEO of the Syd- ney Film Festival, and now CEO of the Independent Cinemas Association of Australia.7

The emergence of a new form of Internet-native transmedia entertainment became evident as a topic shrouded in uncertainty but linked to movies in some unclear way. Between February and November 2010, therefore, five of the world’s leading creators of this emerging form were interviewed. The questions revolved around the form of Internet-native transmedia entertainment, the form of film and movies, the viability of movies as part of Internet-native transmedia entertainment, practical experiences in the creative process, and the entrepreneurial environment of Internet-native transmedia entertainment. Appendix B Interviews Round Two — Questionnaire lists the exact questions. The following people were interviewed in the following order.

• Christopher Sandberg, co-founder and Chief Creative Officer (CCO) of Em- my Award winning The company P, was interviewed in his office in Stock- holm, Sweden.8 • Adrian Hon, co-founder and CCO of three-time SXSW Interactive Award winning Six to Start, was interviewed in his office in London, UK.9 • Jeff Gomez, co-founder, president, and CEO of Starlight Runner Entertain- ment, was interviewed in his office in New York City, USA. Gomez is also a member of the Producers Guild of America (PGA) East Executive Committee, serves on the national board of the PGA New Media Council, and is the author of the PGA Transmedia Narrative and Transmedia Producer definitions.10 • Sean Stewart, founder and Head Writer of Fourth Wall Studios, was interviewed in San Francisco, USA. Stewart previously co-founded the highly successful company 42 Entertainment and, before that, co-created the

5 See www.macgowanfilms.net. 6 See theprojectfactory.com and www.aimia.com.au. 7 See www.independentcinemas.com.au. 8 See www.thecompanyp.com. 9 See www.sixtostart.com. 10 See www.starlightrunner.com.

— 14 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

world’s first alternate reality game The Beast (2001). He also wrote the New York Times Children’s Books Best Seller Cathy’s Book (2006).11 • Nathan Mayfield, co-founder and CCO of two-time Emmy Award and two- time BAFTA Award winning Hoodlum, was interviewed in his office in Bris- bane, Australia.12

The professional backgrounds of these interview partners are significantly more diverse than those of the interviewed moviemakers, with Jennifer Wilson from round one presenting a valuable link between the two groups. Before moving into Internet-native transmedia entertainment, they created LARPs (live action role playing), games, comic books, video games, novels, and soap operas, while none had an educational background in business — which may be a sign of the industry being young and specialisation not being fully developed yet. This eclecticism does not represent failure in choosing appropriate interviewees. On the contrary: it seems representative of the creators of this emerging entertainment form and therefore appears necessary for research into it. This representativeness is backed up by the fact that the interviewees tend to agree on most topics. There seems to be a cultural homogeneity (Höijer 2008, p. 290) among creators of this entertainment form at the moment. The reason for this may be that clear-cut subforms do not exist yet, which means that all creators tend to face similar obstacles when explaining to their clients or audiences what it is they create and that they all struggle with similar technical and cultural issues — which generates a perception of unity. This may change as soon as distinct subforms, and with it subcultures, of this Internet-native transmedia entertainment form emerge.

To verify the results of the second round of interviews, a concurrent online survey was conducted. It consisted of multiple choice versions of the second round interview questions plus the option of free form comments, which many respondents used. Appendix C Survey — Questionnaire lists the exact questions. The survey was hosted on QUT servers and took about five minutes to

11 See www.fourthwallstudios.com. 12 See www.hoodlum.com.au.

Chapter 1: Introduction — 15 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture complete. Most participants were approached directly via email, LinkedIn, Twitter, website contact forms, or in person at conferences. Some of them shared the survey link with their peers and in total 40 questionnaires were completed. Most respondents can be classified as dedicated creators of this emerging entertainment form. This may reflect a bias in the choice of people that were contacted, but it may also reflect this emerging industry’s keen interest in the topic and the lower reachability of creators of other entertainment forms. Some respondents were very new to this emerging entertainment form and are better understood as traditional moviemakers or advertising professionals interested in a novel phenomenon. Online surveys have several quite obvious advantages (low cost, speed of return) and disadvantages (no face-to-face interaction, no nonverbal cues) (Fontana and Frey 2005, p. 721). The disadvantages, unfortunately, make it very difficult to verify the honesty of respondents (Markham 1998). Neverthe- less, the survey yielded some interesting results. The survey’s responses are similar to those of the interviews, albeit less homogeneous — which may be ascribed to more diverse professional backgrounds and a higher range of experience with the creation of this emerging form, from novice to skilled. The main insight from the survey is directly related to that level of experience: the more experienced the respondents are in the creation of this form, the more homogenous their opinions tend to be — and the more they tend to agree with the participants from the second round of interviews. They do, for example, expect products based on this form to become more profitable and the market therefore to become more competitive as both new and established businesses turn their attention towards it. The survey also adds detail to several trends that were only hinted at during the interviews. Financing this entertainment form via advertising, for example, very clearly plays a much larger role in the thinking of the US-respondents than in the thinking of those from the rest of the world. Furthermore, while the interview partners were not sure whether this form should be created be a person or a team, the survey clearly shows that a team-approach dominates in practice — which, of course, may only be a current trend. And finally, most agree that the success of this form of entertainment does not at all depend on using the al-

— 16 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture ways-newest technology, just like it does not depend on the blurring of reality and fiction. The current emphasis of creators on both is simply the attempt of a young entertainment form to garner the attention of the rest of the world through doing new and unexpected things. Such attempts will always exist, but they will become less and less relevant as the form matures.

Interviews and survey are substantiated with secondary data. Many interviews and industry documents, analyses, and statistics are available online or in print. Trade publications were consulted extensively to keep current with general shifts and developments in the entertainment industries.

Step Two — Immersive Textual Analysis

Step one yielded many insights about the creation and shaping of this emerging entertainment form, but how do consumers experience it? This is what ‘immersive’ textual analysis focuses on, a novel mode of textual analysis that I developed for this dissertation — with substantial support from John Hartley. This method builds upon the long history of textual analysis, under which term a broad variety of approaches is summarised:

Textual analysis is a term used to refer to a variety of primarily qualitative methodologies or models. Research that focuses on the analysis of textual content will adopt either content analysis (both quantitative and qualitative approaches), semiotics, phenomenology, or hermeneutics. Research on textual structure and discourse employs different methodologies, including genre analysis, mise-en- scène analysis, narrative analysis, discourse analysis, structural analysis, post- structural analysis, or postmodern textual analysis (Lockyer 2008, p. 865).

Textual analysis has a long-standing interest in how imaginative worlds are constructed using verbal means. For example, hermeneutics as it is known today goes back to the eighteenth century (Gadamer 1976, pp. xii-xiii; Freeman 2008, p. 386) and as the interpretation of sacred and legal texts even back to antiquity (Grondin 1994, p. 17). The tradition of textual analysis developed for literature, however, was found less applicable to popular culture, where audiences do not encounter text as a bounded form anymore but in a double con-

Chapter 1: Introduction — 17 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture text that necessitates a study of producers and of audiences as well (Barthes 1972 [1957]; Eco 2005 [1972]; Hawkes 1973; Williams 2003 [1974]). In media studies, therefore, the critical analysis of a text has become a specialist component of a larger interdisciplinary approach that includes studies of both industry production practices and audience practices, to situate the text within its context. There is another context a text is situated in: that of other texts. A television text, for instance, cannot be seen in isolation and does neither begin nor end on the screen (Hartley 2008; Gray and Lotz 2012; Jenkins 2006a). Hence, a researcher needs to engage with other texts that frame that TV text13 as well with its paratexts (Genette 1997 [1987]; Gray 2010). And when analysing games, there is one more component that has to be taken into account: that of playing the game (Consalvo and Dutton 2006; Kennedy 2002). To research a game is to play it. Therefore, with ‘the text’ not solely referring to the written word anymore, but just as much to “films, television programmes, magazines, advertisements, clothes, graffiti, and so on” (McKee 2003, p. 1), its literary analysis has been complemented by the analysis of production and consumption context, and of both producer and consumer agency. And games have shown that some texts have to be played to be investigated. Textual analysis, therefore, evolves. It adjusts every time the fundamental characteristics of texts change — and with the emergence of a new form of In- ternet-native transmedia entertainment this is happening right now. This new textual form is not a settled object anymore, and therefore unlike a novel or movie. It really is only created collectively the moment consumers engage with it. Additionally, this engagement is spread across components, media, and time: a mere description of all components can be a major undertaking. To understand this new textual form, therefore, transmediality, ludic interaction, and producer-audience-dialogue need to be analysed in addition to its textuality, (producer, consumer, paratextual, and intertextual) context, and agency. Exper- tise as a user is required to explain and account for this emerging form — it has

13 That means intertextuality becomes important (Kristeva 1980; Jenny 1982; Allen 2011a).

— 18 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture to be played and not seen as a play since the process of experiencing it is an essential part of researching it. In other words, the researcher has to critically immerse themself in this form in order to research it — hence immersive textual analysis.

Hence, immersive textual analysis was performed on many Internet-native transmedia entertainment products in order to conceptualise an emerging form. The result of this analysis is my conclusion that all products based on this emerging form have four characteristic elements in common: story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue.’ The combination of all four in one product presents the beginning of a new Internet-native transmedia entertainment form. This form is not representative of all Internet-native transmedia entertainment, but it is a form that is emerging and has been chosen as the focus of this thesis.

Some researchers may note that immersive textual analysis adopts aspects of participant observation (Jorgensen 1989; Atkinson and Hammersley 1994; Hartley 2011, forthcoming; Tedlock 2005) and autoethnography (Tedlock 1991; Ellis and Bochner 2000; Spry 2001; Jones 2005). In a way this may be true, but does not mean these approaches present alternatives to immersive textual analysis. Both have drawbacks if relied on exclusively. It is, for example, not enough to observe, as may be suggested by participant observation; a researcher has to engage with a text to fully understand it. But it is also not appropriate to focus too much on the researcher’s experience, as autoethnography may suggest; the collective aspect of this new Internet-native transmedia entertainment form is sometimes its defining feature. Research into this emerging form therefore clearly benefits from combining methods.

Step Three — Consultation of Literature

The research question touches upon several topics: the form of film, movies, and Internet-native transmedia entertainment; business aspects of all three; industrial aspects of all three; convergence; producer-audience relationship; and how all these topics are caught in an evolutionary surge that intertwines them

Chapter 1: Introduction — 19 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture in new ways. 14 It cannot be answered without addressing all these topics, which requires the bringing together of several disciplines. But how have these disciplines been affected by this emerging entertainment form and why have they not yet responded satisfactorily? And more importantly, how can they be combined to formulate a satisfactory response and reduce the disciplinary uncertainty?

Textual analysis-focused film studies and theory offer a very specialised and thorough understanding of feature films and the cinematic experience (Eisenstein 1949; Deleuze 1986; Kracauer 1960; Bazin 1967; Ellis 1992; Bordwell and Thompson 2008; Braudy and Cohen 2008; Monaco 2009). But this thesis is about the profound change of both. Film used to be defined by the technology it was based on, and with the technology changing, the discipline is caught in a struggle to reorient itself. Efforts to do so — this includes those trying to reincarnate the discipline as screen studies — are wide-ranging and sometimes generate valuable knowledge (Caldwell 2003; Tryon 2009; Ryan and Hearn 2010; Harris 2007; Ross 2008; Luckman and de Roeper 2008; Kaufman and Mohan 2008; Connolly 2008; Reiss 2010), but their emphasis on the form of movies renders them largely inapplicable to a topic that focuses on formal evolution. Film studies are therefore, maybe surprisingly, rather peripheral to this thesis. In the future, however, when this emerging form is better understood and approaches like the Entertainment Architecture conceptual framework provide a solid basis for research into it, film studies may evolve and generate fantastic insights into the story element.

Media studies provide a solid framework for the “holy trinity of texts (by which is meant programs/shows), industry (production), and audiences (viewers)” (Gray 2008, p. 13) and the position of technology in this relationship (Barthes 1972 [1957]; Eco 2005 [1972]; Hawkes 1973; Williams 2003 [1974]; Fiske

14 Every one of these topics, again, touches upon many other subjects. Convergence, for instance, “is a word that manages to describe technological, industrial, cultural, and social changes depending on who’s speaking and what they think they are talking about” (Jenkins 2006a, pp. 2-3).

— 20 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture and Hartley 1978; Jenkins 2006a; Hartley 2009c; Gray 2010; Collis, McKee and Hamley 2010; Caldwell 2008; Dyer 2002; Rajewsky 2002; Burgess and Green 2009b). The disciplinary trend has, however, been to politicise that relationship and, thereby, to follow an agenda that may not contribute directly to the exploration of an emerging form of entertainment based on business practice.

Business and marketing literature provides a different perspective on that same relationship (Drucker 2007; Porter 1998; Bennis and Nanus 1997; Kaplan and Norton 1992; Magretta 2002; Kotler and Armstrong 2010; Belch and Belch 2009), sometimes directly applied to entertainment industries (Starkey, Barnatt and Tempest 2000; Eliashberg, Elberse and Leenders 2006). Future literature that directly addresses this emerging entertainment form may help illuminate the requirements of businesses trying to build on it. The steps required to arrive at a viable industry that gives employment to the creators of movies and Inter- net-native transmedia entertainment may, then, be better understood. The downside of this approach is that an emerging entertainment form is only of interest if it can, indeed, be monetised; the form itself is of no interest. At the moment, however, monetisation is often non-existent in this novel entertainment. Only a solid understanding of the form can lead to monetisation strategies and ultimately to viable businesses. Then, business and marketing literature will become more relevant.

Evolutionary theory supplies a generic framework for constant change (Darwin 2008 [1859]; Arthur 2009; Maynard Smith 1993; Dawkins 2006). Therefore, in contrast to all other disciplines, it does not focus on phases of stability and is instrumental in researching the radical uncertainty of this emerging form. It is, however, a rather conceptual and general framework that has to be applied to specific problems, topics, or domains if practical insights are to be gained. Evo- lutionary economics, for example, use it to ground the study of the economy differently from traditional economics. Traditional economics deliver knowledge about the relationship between products, markets, and agents offering or buying these products in these mar-

Chapter 1: Introduction — 21 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture kets — knowledge that is meant to be generalisable across all markets (Smith 1776; Marshall 1890; Keynes 1936; Coase 1937; Samuelson and Nordhaus 2010; Williamson 1975; Schumpeter 1954; Varian 1992; Mankiw 2011). To a degree, traditional economics have been applied to the entertainment industries (Caves 2000; Throsby 2001; Towse 2003; De Vany 2004; Waterman 2005). They are, however, focused on equilibrium states, which is a precondition the current entertainment industries, particularly the Internet-native transmedia entertainment industry, do not fulfil. Evolutionary and complexity economics, on the other hand, provide an understanding of the fundamental forces at play in industries that are changing — which they are presumed to be doing most of the time (Veblen 1898; Schumpeter 1934; Nelson and Winter 1982; Hayek 1988; Kirzner 1997; Metcalfe 1998; Potts 2000; Beinhocker 2006; Salzano and Colander 2007; Dopfer and Potts 2008; Cowen 2009; Herrmann-Pillath 2010; Hodgson and Knudsen 2010). Beginnings of an evolutionary economic analysis of the entertainment industries exist (Potts 2011, 2007). Evolutionary economics do not provide any insight into the form of entertainment and offer limited practical advice for entertainment creators. Both, however, are necessary for the formulation of business strategies in this changing industry.

Historical treatments of movies illustrate how a dominant movie form needed to evolve before a movie industry could be built upon it and how this industry alternated between phases of change and stability (Bordwell, Staiger and Thompson 1985; Balio 1985a; Harpole 1990−2000; Maltby 2003; Miller et al. 2005; Sedgwick and Pokorny 2005). These insights can be applied to the currently emerging form and the industry that is being built upon it. Evolutionary historical analyses of the relationships among various entertainment forms since the beginning of entertainment can be extrapolated to the present (Boyd 2009; Dutton 2009). Historical approaches to technology illustrate its often catalytic characteristics and its sometimes surprising longevity (Arthur 1989; Rosenberg 1994; Edgerton 2007). The shortcoming of all historical approaches in the context of this thesis is that they are, by definition, situated in different

— 22 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture times and circumstances that cannot simply be equated with the present evolutionary surge.

This third step, therefore, strives to combine the textuality and deep movie knowledge of film studies and theory, the social relationship between producers and consumers of media studies, the strategic approach of marketing and business, the dynamics of change of evolutionary and complexity economics, and historical knowledge to understand the potential of a novel Internet-native transmedia entertainment form that is emerging from changing technologies and social relations.

Step Four — Conceptual Framework

Interviews and survey reduce the uncertainty surrounding Internet-native transmedia entertainment practice. Immersive textual analysis reduces the uncertainty surrounding its form. The identified combination of disciplines and literature reduces the uncertainty surrounding its research. The final step builds on these foundations and constructs a conceptual framework around this emerging form of Internet-native transmedia entertainment and calls it Enter- tainment Architecture. Entertainment Architecture is not just a description of form — it is also a tool for the creation of and research into it. It enables creators and researchers to better understand the opportunities that are emerging in the evolving space of this form. Creators are provided with a coherent and comprehensive perspective on it: Entertainment Architecture turns the predominating implicitness of Internet- native transmedia entertainment into a graspable concept. They can use this knowledge to devise products based on this form — to become Entertainment Architects. They are, in other words, empowered to create Entertainment Archi- tecture. Researchers, on the other hand, can use the same knowledge to analyse En- tertainment Architecture that has been created. Most of the thesis is an example of this kind of research.

Chapter 1: Introduction — 23 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

The strength of this conceptual framework is that it has solid foundations in both the practical experiences of successful Entertainment Architects and thorough scholarly research. It therefore presents a strong synthesis of entrepreneurial praxis and academic theory, and ultimately enables the thesis to answer its research question.

Methodology

There is still no final agreement amongst researchers about the difference between cross-, multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary research (Wesselink 2009, p. 405). But clearly, the thesis combines several disciplines and doing this, although still far from a standard approach, has become easier:

Over the past quarter century, a quiet methodological revolution has been oc- curring in the social sciences; a blurring of disciplinary boundaries is taking place (Denzin and Lincoln 2005b, p. ix).

But such a researcher has to learn “how to borrow from many different disciplines” (Denzin and Lincoln 2005a, p. 3) and needs to become a bricoleur, a “Jack of all trades, a kind of professional do-it-yourself” (Lévi-Strauss 1966, p. 17). In practice, such a bricoleur faces hurdles that cannot be removed: some disciplinary conventions and methodological protocols are simply antithetic and the researcher has to accept that, as has the reader. The thesis, thus, follows a pragmatist approach (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2010), which “opens the door to multiple methods, different worldviews, and different assumptions, as well as to different forms of data collection and analysis in the mixed methods study” (Creswell 2003, p. 12). It allows to focus on the research problem at hand and choose a supporting philosophical position:

Pragmatism should not be understood as a philosophical position among others, but rather as a set of philosophical tools that can be used to address problems […]. One of the central ideas in pragmatism is that engagement in philosophical activity should be done in order to address problems, not to build systems (Biesta 2010, p. 97).

— 24 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Pragmatism is typically associated with mixed methods research, because it allows to choose methods according to the requirements of the research problem (Creswell 2007, pp. 22-23). While the thesis does indeed employ some quantitative methods, these are “nested” (Creswell 2003, pp. 218-219) within mainly qualitative research, which Denzin and Lincoln define in the following way:

Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or inter- pret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them (Denzin and Lincoln 2005a, p. 3).

Qualitative approaches attempt to find out how individuals “make sense of their surroundings through symbols, rituals, social structures, social roles, and so forth” (Berg 2001, p. 7). Research is typically triangulated via the use of more than one method to gain more than one perspective on it:

Every method is a different line of sight directed toward the same point, observing social and symbolic reality. By combining several lines of sight, researchers obtain a better, more substantive picture of reality; a richer, more complete array of symbols and theoretical concepts; and a means of verifying many of these elements. The use of multiple lines of sight is frequently called triangulation (Berg 2001, p. 4).

This thesis partly follows a grounded theory approach, one of the “most influential and widely used modes of carrying out qualitative research when generating theory is the researcher’s principal aim” (Strauss and Corbin 1997, p. vii). Even though generating theory is not my principal aim — solving the research problem has priority — arriving at a robust theory is an important intermediary step. And indeed the thesis exhibits characteristics typical of grounded theory research: it analyses qualitative data (Corbin and Strauss 2008, p. 1) to formulate the conceptual framework of Entertainment Architecture, which

Chapter 1: Introduction — 25 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture helps “explain practice and provide a basis for future research” (Creswell 2007, p. 63). It is, however, important to remember that “our conceptual categories arise through our interpretations of data rather than emanating from them or from our methodological practices” (Charmaz 2005, pp. 509-510). The Enter- tainment Architecture conceptual framework can therefore be expected to have been influenced by my own personal worldview. To minimise that influence, I continually reflect on it. And the reader can filter out my personal inflection by looking up my worldview description a few pages back. Furthermore, I put special effort into not letting it influence my interpretation of the interview results but, instead, to present the interviewees’ opinions in a way that reflects their own worldviews as well as possible.

Thesis Structure

After the introduction, five main chapters follow before the thesis closes with conclusions. Each of these chapters identifies and investigates in detail key parts of the answer to the research question. Consequently, different disciplines become relevant to and are reviewed in different chapters, and a dedicated literature review section is not provided beyond the Step Three — Consultation of Literature recount above. Similarly, the results of and quotations from the interviews and survey are woven into the thesis where appropriate as they span all chapters and disciplines. Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment investigates the developments that made the emergence of novel forms of Internet-native transmedia entertainment possible. To this end, evolutionary theory is applied to storytelling and its history, and the Internet is found to have radically changed the fundamental properties of storytelling. As a result, storytelling and play cannot be researched separately anymore but the focus has to be on entertainment that includes both because novel entertainment forms are emerging that unite both. The chapter finishes by investigating the meaning of entertainment and the implications of a focus on it. Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) introduces and explores the conceptual framework that allows a coherent and comprehensive perspective

— 26 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture on this novel entertainment form. The process of creating products based on it is likened to that of architecture — hence the name Entertainment Architecture. The four constitutive elements of this form and therefore of Entertainment Ar- chitecture — story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue’ — are described in detail and a distinction is drawn between them, the entarch elements, and the concrete experiential entarch components. One of these four elements is identified as essential for monetisation and therefore for viable businesses: ‘glue.’ The concept of an entarch bible is introduced, which can facilitate the artistic and business- related aspects of Entertainment Architecture creation as well as its execution. Finally, the highest creative position (be it one person or a team) behind entarch is explored and referred to as Entertainment Architect. Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models focuses on how Entertainment Architec- ture can be financed. To that end, it begins by exploring the requirements for an appropriate contractual structure behind the creation of Entertainment Ar- chitecture, which must fulfil creative, financial, and personnel requirements. Then freemium, a popular tactic combining free with paid business models, is introduced. The rest of the chapter clusters a number of entarch examples according to a rough distinction of four business model categories: sale, subscription, rental, and free — each explored in its own subchapter. Chapter 5: Entarch Industry explores how the Entertainment Architecture framework may assist in establishing a new entertainment industry based on this emerging Internet-native transmedia entertainment form. Evolutionary economic theory explains the tensions between existing companies and emerging ones, and an evolutionary historic account of the emerging movie industry is brought in for comparison with the current situation of the Entertainment Archi- tecture industry. The chapter then examines the reasons behind the small size of the entarch industry and how they can be overcome. In this context, the ob- scure relationship between Entertainment Architecture and promotion is examined, as well as the relevance of marketing for the entarch industry. Chapter 6: From Movies to Entarch? applies the insights gathered throughout the thesis to movies and moviemakers under the assumption that Entertainment Architecture will become a dominant entertainment form of the twenty-first

Chapter 1: Introduction — 27 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture century. The options of moviemakers are spread out on a spectrum from ignor- ing entarch to fully embracing it. Chapter 7: Conclusions draws inferences from the research, discusses them, and describes the implications for future research.

Clarification of Terms

But before moving on to Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment, several terms that are used in particular ways throughout the thesis need clarification: motion picture, video, (feature) film, and movie; (media) franchising; producer- consumer relationship terms; entarch element and component; and the four elements story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue.’

For the remainder of the dissertation, the terms motion picture, video, film, feature film, and movie are used to refer to highly intertwined but nonetheless distinguishable phenomena. The way motion picture and video are used is very straightforward: they refer to any kind of moving images. The use of the other terms merits a longer explanation. Although film and movie seem interchangeable in popular usage, they do have different histories and therefore slightly different connotations. Film stems from the thin layer of emulsion (the film) on a long plastic sheet that used to be the dominant medium for motion pictures. Movie stems from ‘moving picture’ and is a term predominantly used in the USA to refer to the most common form of motion pictures stored on that plastic sheet: the feature film (Oxford English Dictionary 2003; Zimmer 2007). In many other countries, movie is not cus- tomary, and film refers to both physical medium and content. This thesis ex- trapolates these connotations into two distinct concepts. Movie is used to refer to a self-contained experience that consists of a roughly 90 − 120 minute long motion picture created to be watched on a large screen while listening to high quality sound in a large darkened room filled with strangers — whether it ever is experienced that way or not. In other words, movie and feature film are interchangeable. In even different terms, movie is closely linked to the dominant cinema experience of the twentieth

— 28 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture and early twenty-first century. But it also includes direct-to-DVD or video on demand releases, TV movies, and many more varieties of motion pictures — as long as consumers would typically agree they would not be out of place in a contemporary cinema. Although this definition is subjective in theory, it is precise in practice — virtually everybody recognises a movie when confronted with one and knows what others talk about when they use the term. Film, on the other hand, is used to refer to all motion pictures that adhere to the filmic language of movies. A film does not have to be watched or even intended to be watched in a cinema and it can be of any length, but it does have to adhere to the filmic language in the widest sense. A 30-second clip can be a film if it feels like it could be part of a movie — be it a trailer for a blockbuster or a fake vlog (video blog) — but it is not a film if it is an accidental shot of the floor. Furthermore, it does not have to be created by a professional filmmaker. With recording technology being cheap and widely available today, talented amateurs often create compelling content — which, of course, does not mean every amateur film is a creative masterpiece. This is the dominant understanding of the term both among interview partners and survey respondents, and appears practical for the thesis as well. Movie and feature film are therefore the same subform of film: every movie or feature film is a film, but not every film is a movie or feature film. Motion picture and video, then, are interchangeable and include both categories. Im- portantly, it is the audience perspective that determines which term is appropriate:

Motion Picture / Video

Film

Audience

Movie / Feature Film

Figure 1: Movie, (feature) film, video, and motion picture, as determined by the audience.

Chapter 1: Introduction — 29 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

The terms franchise, media franchise, and Entertainment Architecture are used strictly according to their distinct meanings and are not interchangeable. Enter- tainment Architecture refers to an emerging Internet-native transmedia entertainment form, products based on it, and the conceptual framework describing it. Franchise refers to a contractual and business relationship. And media franchise refers to an entertainment product with all its ancillary products. Sub- chapter 4.1 Contractual Relationships explains the differences between the three in detail.

The terms producer, creator, artist, author, and practitioner are used synonymously. The same goes for consumer, audience, participant, and user. Produc- ers instigate a project that is meant for other people to enjoy and they have an overall creative vision for it. Consumers get involved later and for their own enjoyment. Consumer, as used in this thesis, bears no relation to the extremely negative Frankfurt School notion of impotent consumers (Horkheimer and Adorno 2002 [1947], p. 113). Subchapter 2.4 What is Entertainment? explains this approach in more detail.

The thesis continually refers to entarch elements and entarch components and it is important to understand how the two concepts differ. An entarch component is any more or less self-contained entertainment experience that is a building block for experiencing the overarching Entertainment Architecture. It can be a book, movie, music concert, 3-day scavenger hunt, or any other entertainment experience that would have traditionally been sold as a stand-alone product but now furthers entertainment that goes beyond this product. On the other hand, there are only four entarch elements: story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue.’ They are more conceptual terms that describe the fundamental formal aspects of Entertainment Architecture as opposed to concrete products and are explained in the following paragraphs.

— 30 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

The Significance of Story, Play, ‘Dance,’ and ‘Glue’

What makes Entertainment Architecture distinct as a form in its own right as opposed to being just a synonym for a currently popular term like ‘transmedia entertainment’? The thesis does, indeed, touch upon transmedia entertainment as well, but defines it differently from current popular usage. In this thesis, ‘transmedia entertainment’ refers to any entertainment that is not limited to one medium, while ‘Internet-native entertainment’ refers to all forms of entertainment that have only become possible with the emergence of the Internet, be they transmedial or not. ‘Internet-native transmedia entertainment,’ finally, refers to entertainment that is both transmedial and fully utilises the Internet — which is what popular usage often really refers to when it employs the term ‘transmedia entertainment.’ Subchapter 2.3 Internet and Storytelling describes all these terms as well as their interrelations in more detail. Unfortunately, researching Internet-native transmedia entertainment is not straightforward as it has yet to be represented by a unified scholarly field — researchers approach the topic from different directions according to their backgrounds and interests. But two emerging scholarly subfields are particularly relevant. The first one, transmedia storytelling, focuses on Internet-native transmedia entertainment that largely tells a story, while certain play-influences are acknowledged (Kinder 1991; Jenkins 2003, 2006a; Gray 2010; Producers Guild of America 2010b; Askwith and Gray 2008). The second one, pervasive/ ubiquitous games, focuses on games that are not based on a single medium and engaged with by consumers at a time of their choosing, but are with consumers potentially at all times and across any media (Montola, Stenros and Waern 2009b; Magerkurth et al. 2005; McGonigal 2006, 2011). These fields are relevant because one of the insights of the thesis is that En- tertainment Architecture combines story with play and therefore exists at the intersection of transmedia storytelling and pervasive/ubiquitous games. Not all entertainment products that combine story with play, however, are Entertain- ment Architecture — two more elements are required for that: ‘dance’ and ‘glue.’ Entarch is therefore fairly well approximated as a subset of the intersec-

Chapter 1: Introduction — 31 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture tion of transmedia storytelling and pervasive/ubiquitous games — which are both categorised by the thesis as Internet-native transmedia entertainment:

Internet-Native Transmedia Entertainment (umbrella term)

Internet-Native Transmedia Entertainment Entertainment Nawlz (2008 − ongoing) Lux Radio Theatre (1934 − 1955) Transmedia Entarch Pervasive/Ubiquitous Storytelling Believe (2007) Games The Matrix (1999 − 2009) PacManhattan (2004)

Figure 2: Entarch and related concepts.

But what is meant by entarch combining story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue’? What do these terms mean, why were they chosen, and why do two of them continually appear in quotation marks throughout the thesis? Story, of course, refers to the fact that Entertainment Architecture always tells a story — something we as humans have been doing for a very long time and that has become entirely enmeshed in our daily lives and actions (Boyd 2009). Play means a consumer has to interact with entarch in order to fully experience it — and this interaction happens in the playful way that is so intrinsic to human culture (Huizinga 1955). Whether story and play can be successfully combined is a topic of intense debate between narratologists and ludologists (Aarseth 1997; Murray 1997; Frasca 1999; Costikyan 2000; Juul 2001; Jenkins 2004; Crawford 2005a).15 It is, however, a characteristic of all entarch examples in this thesis that they do exactly that. ‘Dance,’ a term inspired by interview partner Sean Stewart, refers to the sociality and collectiveness of Entertainment Architecture — and being used figuratively it continues to appear in quotation marks. Stewart says that in his projects he holds out his hand and hopes an audience will join him for a ‘dance.’

15 For a more detailed overview of literature on this topic see (Cavallaro 2010, pp. 7-32).

— 32 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

This idea is developed further in the thesis: as with real dance, somebody has to lead — and that is the task of the Entertainment Architect. If further compared to real dance, then entarch is like a rave: a large crowd dancing to the music of the DJ. The Entertainment Architect therefore ‘dances’ not with just one but with many audience members, and those members ‘dance’ not just with the Architect but with each other as well. ‘Glue’ describes the interconnectivity of Entertainment Architecture — and being used figuratively, it continues to appear in quotation marks as well. The term was inspired by interview partner Sean Stewart’s colleague Elan Lee who originally used it to refer to a set of websites that collectively told a story over time, and through doing so were originally meant to hold several video games and a movie together (Kim et al. 2009; Elefante 2010). The project evolved very differently from its original conception and these websites, now fairly unrelated to any products, came to be known as the very first alternate reality game (ARG) that was unofficially named The Beast (2001). Lee’s ‘glue,’ however, really refers to two aspects of The Beast: its story and how that story was spread across many websites but still was perceived as one story and not many. The thesis separates out the story aspect into an element in itself (see above), and uses ‘glue’ to solely refer to the way Entertainment Architecture is spread across media and time but still constitutes one whole: ‘glue’ is the means that turns many separate entertainment experiences into one. It can be a hyperlink, an augmented reality smartphone application that recognises real-life objects and triggers the next entarch component, an actor sitting on a bench in a park passing on hints to participants, an announcement at the end of a TV show advertising the graphic novel to the show, and much more. With generating revenues from easily reproducible digital content being difficult, ‘glue’ may be a key to monetisation: even if a consumer has free access to all content, not knowing how to put the pieces together lowers their entertainment experience significantly. ‘Glue’ can assure a coherent experience — a service consumers may be willing to pay for.

The four elements work together in the following way: Entertainment Architec- ture tells a story, allows this story to be influenced directly by audience mem-

Chapter 1: Introduction — 33 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture bers (play), is experienced collectively by a potentially large audience (‘dance’), and despite being spread across media is perceived as one coherent product (‘glue’). Every project can, of course, emphasise different elements — and many do: one may mainly tell a story while another may accentuate the collective experience. No certain formula is prescribed by this thesis as an emphasis on elements or media has to follow from the requirements of the creator’s idea and the audience’s media use. And prescription is not the aim of this research anyway. Rather, it is the description of practice: how can the four elements be successfully combined to create a social and commercial entertainment experience? Interviews, survey, and immersive textual analysis of the many entarch examples presented in the thesis explore the formal part of that question and lead to the conceptual framework of Entertainment Architecture presented in Chapter 3, while Chapter 5 investigates how revenues can be generated and how ‘glue’ plays a key role in that regard. The combination of story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue’ allows for the creation of entertainment that can have the worldwide reach of broadcast-era mass-media but can also be fully dialogic and social in a way that those cannot. That such entertainment is transmedial simply follows from the fact that, thanks to the In- ternet, the distinction between media is less relevant than it used to be16 — both on the production and the consumption side — and that therefore an entertainment product can utilise the strengths of some media to circumvent the weaknesses of others. But despite all advantages of Entertainment Architecture, it must always be remembered that not all entertainment ideas will benefit from becoming entarch — a good stand-alone novel will remain a good piece of entertainment — but some will. This thesis is about these ideas.

16 Subchapter 2.3 Internet and Storytelling investigates how the Internet is fundamentally different from preceding communication technologies and how this leads to entertainment forms based on it being fundamentally different from preceding forms.

— 34 — Chapter 1: Introduction Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment

Having discovered that a new form of entertainment is emerging, this chapter investigates the origins of that form. Understanding them will enable creators to better understand the present evolutionary surge in storytelling and therefore to better adapt to it. This chapter suggests that the Internet allows for a radically new way of human communication, and that therefore storytelling and play, if fully exploiting these new possibilities, cannot be researched separately anymore. The focus has to be on entertainment that combines both. In other words, entertainment that fully exploits the communicative capabilities of the Internet, ‘Internet-native’ entertainment, can exhibit both story and play characteristics (hence the first two elements of Entertainment Architecture). As mentioned before, ludologists and narratologists debate the theoretical feasibility of such a fusion intensely. The thesis does not engage with this debate but, instead, follows an empirical approach: all examples of Entertainment Architec- ture presented throughout the dissertation combine story and play, so the theoretical deliberation whether or not this is possible appears futile. Forms of In- ternet-native entertainment that do not combine the two may emerge in the future or already exist — the Internet-native comic Nawlz (2008 − ongoing) is a fantastic example here — but these are not categorised as Entertainment Archi- tecture. The secondary focus of the research question is on movies in relation to In- ternet-native transmedia entertainment. Since movies are a form of storytelling, it may initially appear logical to focus the thesis on storytelling as well. This chapter therefore illustrates why the focus has to be broader — on entertainment instead of just on storytelling. To that end, it follows an evolutionary-historical approach. Storytelling and communication are treated as co-evolving social technologies (Day and Walter 1989, pp. 253-262; Boserup 1996, p. 506; Nelson and Sampat 2001, p. 40; Arthur 2009). This permits an analysis of the present phase of change in storytelling by looking at how aspects of previous storytelling generations were combined and recombined throughout history. Entertainment Architecture,

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 35 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture then, emerges as a hybrid of several entertainment and communication technologies. First, the notion of communication technologies is introduced as related to storytelling. Subchapter 2.1 Evolution and Storytelling then explains the evolutionary process of technology, how it relates to storytelling technology, and as an example of this process, how the communication technology 35 mm film and the storytelling technology movie co-evolved. Subchapter 2.2 The History of Storytelling applies this knowledge to the four storytelling generations that preceded the Internet: speech, writing, print, and broadcast. Subchapter 2.3 Internet and Storytelling then analyses the current evolutionary surge in storytelling caused by the emergence of the Internet, explains how this surge requires an investigative shift from storytelling to entertainment, and clears the terminological thicket that has grown from scholars and artists of various backgrounds coining their own terms to describe what it is that is happening at the moment. Subchapter 2.4 What is Entertainment? finishes by exploring the meaning of entertainment and what a focus on it implies.

Storytelling is, and has always been, part of human nature and culture; different cultures may have developed distinct aesthetics but all human cultures tell stories (Boyd 2009; Dutton 2009). Stories are important to us because they help us understand the world (Beinhocker 2006, pp. 126-127), they are a means to pass on knowledge in a captivating way. How human cultures tell stories, however, has been changing throughout history. The focus of this chapter is therefore storytelling form (cultural generality), not storytelling style or aesthetics (cultural specificities). And the form of storytelling — the formalised conventions around telling a story, for example, or the way a storyteller and their audience experience a story — has gone through major phases of change. The- se phases were not initiated by storytellers, but by the constant evolution of one of storytelling’s foundations: communication. Without communication storytelling cannot exist; a story is told after all. The way we tell stories is therefore related to the way we communicate, and the way we communicate changes all the time (Zelizer 2008). And since communication is the basal process of social systems (Luhmann 1984, p. 192), when it

— 36 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture changes, the effects can be felt in personal relationships (Baym 2010) or even cultures at large (Crowley and Heyer 2011). This chapter explores five phases of change in the history of communication following John Hartley’s categorisa- tion of the five historical ‘knowledge technologies’ speech, writing, print, broadcast, and the Internet (Hartley 2009a). This is not to suggest knowledge equals communication, but communication, nonetheless, is clearly a component of the dissemination of knowledge (just like it is a component of storytelling) if not even its generation. Hartley’s knowledge technologies are therefore referred to as communication technologies in the thesis. More precisely, they are treated as bundles of communication technologies that share fundamental characteristics. Broadcast, for example, includes film, radio, television, and all their incremental refinements. The following subchapters illustrate the fundamental characteristics of all bundles further.

But what is a technology and what is the advantage of treating communication as one? According to Brian Arthur, “a technology is an orchestration of phenomena to our use” (Arthur 2009, p. 53) and phenomena are natural effects that “exist independently of humans and of technology” (Arthur 2009, p. 49). Applied to the social realm, a social technology is “patterned human interaction” or the way “knowledgeable people act and interact where the effective coordination of interaction is key to accomplishment” (Nelson and Sampat 2001, p. 40). A communication technology, then, is an orchestration of natural effects to the human use of communication, and the various communication technologies differ in the effects they use or in the way they use them. Speech, for example, makes use of the fact that, among other things, “sound is produced when the air or other medium is set into motion by any means whatsoever” (Olson 1967, p. 3), that vocal chords can produce different sounds through different kinds of vibration (Titze 1988), and that sound waves can be transformed into neural signals in the ear (Schnupp, Nelken and King 2011, p. 51). The communication technology 35 mm film makes use of waves as well, but of different — visible — wave-lengths.

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 37 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

A storytelling technology, then, is an orchestration of natural effects to the human use of telling stories. All storytelling technologies make use of communication technologies — communication technologies are components of storytelling technologies (Arthur 2009, p. 23) — but also of additional natural effects like the fact that human brains are poised to detect patterns (Beinhocker 2006, p. 127). In the particular context of storytelling (and later on entertainment), ‘form’ and ‘technology’ refer to the same object of study — what differs are the tools used to research them. Treating storytelling as a social technology allows us to analyse the process of its evolution by taking advantage of the well-developed literature on technological evolution. This is important because storytelling is presently in the process of change, the outcome of which is not known yet: analysing storytelling today means dealing with an unstable object of study. Sub- chapter 2.1 Evolution and Storytelling therefore applies Charles Darwin’s concept of variation-selection-retention (Darwin 2008 [1859]) and Brian Arthur’s antecedent combinatorial step (Arthur 2009, p. 188) to storytelling in order to illustrate its process of change. In this chapter, therefore, ‘technology’ is the term of choice. The rest of the thesis mostly uses ‘form,’ as that term is more in line with the then-relevant literature.

2.1 Evolution and Storytelling

The evolution of technology follows a repetitive four-stage process: combination, variation, selection, and retention (or heredity). The variation, selection, and retention part of technological evolution is based on Charles Darwin’s concept of natural selection (Darwin 2008 [1859], p. 98): various technologies meant to fulfil the same use emerge and compete (variation), a dominant design wins the competition (selection), and that design is replicated throughout the system (retention) (Herrmann-Pillath 2002, pp. 325-326). Natural selection, however, is a blind process — nobody steers it — while technological evolution is “clearly not ‘blind’ or ‘natural’” (Ziman 2000, p. 6). Natural selection cannot therefore be the whole story; it explains the survival of technologies but not their emergence (Arthur 2009, p. 132). To explain their emergence, combi-

— 38 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture nation — the putting together of components, assemblies, or subsystems at hand (Arthur 2009, p. 23) — has to precede natural selection. And the strong relevance of combination in technological evolution is what sets it apart from biological evolution:

In biology, combinations do form, but not routinely and by no means often, and not by the direct mechanisms we see in technology. Variation and selection are foremost, with combination happening at very occasional intervals but often with spectacular results. […] In technology, combinatorial evolution is foremost, and routine. Darwinian variation and selection are by no means absent, but they follow behind, working on structures already formed (Arthur 2009, p. 188).

After combination, variation, selection, and retention, a new basic technology — a master-pattern for a technology (Herrmann-Pillath 2002, pp. 313, 331) — emerges. As orderly, however, as such a description of evolution appears, as unorderly it really is (Arthur 2009, p. 180): many technologies evolve in parallel and influence each other (Clark 1985, p. 238), and some of these evolutionary processes may be slow while others may be fast (Sood and Tellis 2005, pp. 162-163).

The whole of a technology and all of its parts develop simultaneously in parallel (Arthur 2009, p. 143).

Additionally, repetition is an inherent part of evolutionary processes, which, therefore, do not simply end after one cycle. Even the very concept of an orderly cycle is rather theoretical. In reality, evolutionary processes appear chaotic as many of them happen at the same time, run through potentially vast numbers of cycles, and influence each other — “there is nothing orderly about [them]” (Arthur 2009, p. 180). A technology is refined through every evolutionary cycle it is subjected to as well as through every evolutionary cycle of co-evolving technologies (Herrmann-Pillath 2002, p. 334). In other words, storytelling and communication evolve continually in their own processes. But these processes intersect when, for example, a novel basic communication technology — being a component of storytelling — triggers a new round in storytelling’s evolutionary process. This is explored in the follow-

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 39 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture ing example of film and movies. First, the evolutionary process is described that lead to the novel basic communication technology 35 mm film. Then, the evolutionary process is described that lead to the movie, a novel basic storytelling technology. And finally, it is explored how further incremental refinements of both evolutionary processes continue to influence each other.

35mm Film Emerges as a Communication Technology

The earliest efforts to display moving visual images in the form of shadow play — basically an elementary zoetrope — date back to around 180 CE (Needham 2004 [1962], p. 123). Early efforts to record visual images date back to the sixth century (Crombie 1990, p. 205; Huxley and Anthemius 1959, pp. 6-8, 44-46). Towards the end of the nineteenth century quite a few inventors all over the world worked on combining both ideas, in the following (rough) chronological order: Thaumatrope, Zoetrope, Praxinoscope, Zoopraxiscope, Électrotachyscope, Chronophotographe, Kinesigraph, Kinetoscope (Hendricks 1966), Mutoscope (Hendricks 1964), Phantoscope (Musser 1990, p. 100), Ei- doloscope (Allen 1985, p. 66), Bioskop, Vitascope (Balio 1985b, p. 66), Bio- graph (Hendricks 1964), Animatographe (Musser 1990, p. 167), Theatrograph (Musser 1990, p. 91), Vitagraph (Allen 1985, p. 58), and many more (Musser 1990, pp. 167-170). One of these was the Cinématographe, presented to the public by the Lu- mière brothers on 22.03.1895 (Chardère, Borgé and Borgé 1985, pp. 70-71). Its combination of features distinguished it from its competitors; some of which shared several features with the Cinématographe but none shared them all. Its simplicity and relatively small size and weight (Pearson 1996a, p. 14), combined with its reliability — 35 mm film, film perforations, intermittent film motion (Nowell-Smith 1996), etc. — meant it was easy to transport to shooting locations all over the world. Only one Cinématographe was needed to record and play back — and because played back images were projected, one appa- ratus could serve a large audience instead of just one person peeping into a hole (Musser 1990, p. 135). The Cinématographe was therefore much cheaper to operate than, for example, Thomas Edison’s Kinetoscope where one appa-

— 40 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture ratus per viewer was required (Balio 1985b, p. 5). This more than outweighed the downside that a dark room was needed during projection. The Lumière brothers’ business practice was another distinctive characteristic, but would turn out not to be as important. In fact, the Lumières left the American market after only one year (Allen 1985, p. 69-71). As a result of these advantages, a basic motion picture recording and projection technology for film had emerged and became the standard worldwide: 35 mm film. Even though the Cinématographe was replaced by newer cameras and dedicated projectors made its projection function obsolete, the basic technology stayed the same for over a century.

The Movie Emerges as a Storytelling Technology

Once this had happened — once a novel basic communication technology had emerged — a new round in storytelling’s evolutionary process was triggered. At first, the newness of motion pictures was exploited as was the case in the Lumière brothers film La Sortie des usines Lumière à Lyon (1895) which simply shows workers leaving a factory (Lumière and Lumière 1895). Then, the appeal of exoticism was exploited through screenings of footage from faraway places (Allen 1985, p. 70). With the Spanish-American war of 1898, news reached over 35 percent of motion picture output (Allen 1985, p. 74). As more filmmakers joined in, various possibilities were explored at the same time. Some, most famously George Méliès, experimented with special effects (Allen 1985, p. 76). Animation on film was invented (Klein 2011, p. 94) and the first cuts were introduced (Reisz and Millar 2010 [1968], pp. 4-7; Dancyger 2007, p. 3). At that time, movies were typically screened as part of vaudeville entertainment or in tents at fairs (Allen 1985, p. 77). But when nickelodeons — dedicated motion picture theatres that charged the very low admission of a nickel (five cents) and in doing so, broadened the appeal of motion pictures — emerged around 1905, they gained rapid popularity (Pearson 1996b, p. 36). The average length of motion pictures was still only a few minutes, although increasing continuously, and a regular evening’s entertainment consisted of a variety of short

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 41 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture narrative clips and actualities (early documentary films) that were repeated all day every day until a new reel arrived, which typically happened up to three or more times a week (Allen 1985, p. 78). The audience could come at any time of day not missing any motion picture that was on the reel; they simply had to stay long enough to see everything. As early as 1902, the content of these clips had begun to shift towards narrative forms (Musser 1991, p. 235) and by 1909, 97 percent of the American production consisted of narrative forms (De Grazia 1962, p. 419). At some point, as a result of various concurrently happening evolutionary processes, the feature film — the movie in the terminology of this thesis — emerged. Opinions, however, diverge as to which motion picture was the first movie in history — mostly because of diverging opinions on what constitutes a movie. The first entry in the American Film Institute’s Catalog of American Fea- ture Films is from 1893 (American Film Institute n.d.), some credit the Australi- an The Story of the Kelly Gang (1906) with being the first feature film (Robertson 2001, p. 9) and others give the honour to the Italian Quo Vadis? (1912), the US-American The Birth of a Nation (1915) (Pearson 1996b, p. 39), or the Australian Jewelled Nights (1925):

Figure 3: Photo of a photo of the Jewelled Nights film crew. I took this picture in Corinna, Tasmania, one hour’s drive from the next service station or store.

— 42 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Most of these early movies have not been preserved in their entirety, which makes it difficult to decide just how movie-like they really were. But the most reliable date for movies’ watershed moment seems to be around the year 1915: Candace Jones chooses The Life of Moses (1909 − 1910) as the first feature film and the year 1915 as the moment when feature films became the dominant product of the film industry (Jones 2001, pp. 919, 926), Janet Staiger chooses a similar timeframe (Staiger 1985), so does Eileen Bowser (Bowser 1990, pp. 191-215), and Roberta Pearson concurs (Pearson 1996b, p. 39). With movies dominating and being more expensive to produce than short clips, nickelodeons could not afford the reels anymore. By 1914 their era was over (Bowser 1990, p. 20) — after less than 10 years in existence — and the era of movie/ picture palaces began (Hall 1988). A basic storytelling technology utilising the basic communication technology 35 mm film had emerged: the movie.

35 mm Film and the Movie Co-Evolve

Since movies only emerged 20 years after 35 mm film had already become available, it turns out there was a time when a novel communication technology existed but no dominant storytelling technology utilising it had yet been invented. This may appear counterintuitive from today’s perspective — film, movie, and cinema are often used synonymously after all — but is not surprising from an evolutionary perspective: “the adoption of new technology,” in this case 35mm film, “is anything but instantaneous” (Hoppe 2002, p. 56; see also Schumpeter 1934, pp. 14-15; Mansfield 1968, p. 129; Jensen 1982, p. 192; Doraszelski 2004), at which point the evolutionary storytelling technology processes still have to follow. In the case of movies, the wide adoption of 35 mm film and its ancillary technologies (cameras, projection, film development, logistics, distribution, dedicated businesses, etc.) took time, and only then could storytellers develop their skills, build up audiences, and so forth. All this added up to a time lag of about 20 years.

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 43 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

But as mentioned before, evolution does not stop after a basic technology emerges. In the following, a few exemplary cycles of co-dependent evolutionary processes of 35 mm film and movies are presented. Projection, originally chosen simply because of its cost benefit, led to the emergence of cinemas and therefore to the communal experience of movies. The wide adoption of ‘talkies’ (sound movies) in 1927-1928 (Gomery 1985) readjusted the power structure in Hol- lywood (Sedgwick and Pokorny 1998, p. 198), ended the era of silent movies (Crafton 1997), launched careers of some actors and ended those of others (depending on how they dealt with the new requirements of sound) (Crafton 1997, pp. 489-509), and temporarily set back the quality of production until 1933, when sound technology and storytellers’ experience using it had Figure 4: The immense impact of sound. evolved enough (Bordwell 1985, p. 306), bringing about the Golden Age of Hollywood (Monaco 2001, p. 9; Mordden 1988; Jewell 2007). Television (and later on VCR, DVD, Blu-ray Disc, and the Internet) ‘stole’ cinemas’ audiences, provided a new outlet for movies, launched the diversifi- cation and concentration process that is still ongoing in the entertainment industries today, and profoundly changed the communal aspect of movies, making it possible to watch them at home (Wasko 1990). This and the later prolif- eration of high-quality home entertainment systems continuously puts pressure on moviemakers to provide something in cinemas that cannot be replicated at home — for example widescreen or 3D-projection, first in the 1950s (Bazin 2002) and then again in the 2000s. As a result, watching the director’s cut of the Avatar (2009-?) trilogy (hinted at by James Cameron in Finke 2010a) back to back in 3D with a total running time of over 500 minutes on the 8 stories

— 44 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture high IMAX screen in Sydney differs from watching Quo Vadis? (1912) or The Birth of a Nation (1915) in a nickelodeon.

35 mm film and movies went through two kinds of evolutionary cycles: the very first cycles that led to the two basic technologies on the one hand and the many cycles of continuous refinements on the other. These two kinds had very different levels of consequences. The first communication technology cycle led to the emergence of 35 mm film, which brought about the first storytelling technology cycle that led to the emergence of the movie, which brought about an entirely new entertainment form and industry. The following refining cycles had much less significant impacts: the communication technology was, for instance, upgraded with wider screens, which certainly had an impact on many aspects of movies (as touched upon above) but hardly brought about a new entertainment form or industry. A novel basic communication technology therefore brings about much larger shifts in storytelling, business, and other areas than its refinements do later on. Throughout history, in fact, each novel communication technology triggered the emergence of entirely new storytelling technologies and entertainment industries, which the thesis turns to now.

2.2 The History of Storytelling

As explained before, the thesis acknowledges five bundles of communication technologies — speech, writing, print, broadcast, and the Internet. History has shown that every time a novel communication technology comes along, we find ourselves, so to say, in a once-in-a-century high mountain snow storm, fighting it, trying to make it inside safely, and when we do, keeping the shutters closed so the wind does not shatter the windows, not being able to tell what weather is coming but expecting it to be as white as before. But when the storm blows over and we open the shutters, everything is green. And for the first time in a few generations, we may not need skis to get to work, but flip- flops and a bike — which we do not have. So we invent flip-flops and we invent bikes, along with shorts, iced coffee, and air conditioning. But there are

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 45 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture always some of us who do not hide from the storm, but try to understand it and find out what change it brings about. And these people come up with flip-flops and bikes earlier than those who were hiding inside. These people are entrepreneurs. There is a lot of evidence that the same way the entrepreneurs from this analogy invent bikes and iced coffee, real entrepreneurs invent new storytelling technologies during and after each communication technology storm. Stories are so important to human culture (Boyd 2008) that we constantly find new ways of telling them — and if a novel communication technology comes along, we use it to tell stories. This subchapter illustrates how this happened repeatedly throughout history and how wide the variety of storytelling technologies based on one communication technology can be. It also shows that this communication-storytelling co-evolutionary process takes time — how long exactly depends on each particular case. And it depicts how the storytelling technologies that emerge after a storm always struggle for legitimacy next to the more established competition. All this is in preparation for the next Subchapter 2.3 Internet and Storytelling, which requires the reader to understand that, right now, many of us are sitting inside with the shutters closed, waiting for the storm to blow over and expecting for the world to look the same it did before. The first storytelling storm came with the emergence of the first uniquely human (Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch 2002, p. 1578) communication technology — speech — about 40,000 to 100,000 years ago (Pinker 1994; Aitchison 1996, p. 4).17 Unfortunately, speech is difficult to relate to the basic storytelling technology based on it — oral storytelling — as it is hard to imagine telling a story before some kind of at least rudimentary speech existed. This co- evolution happened so long ago and is so poorly documented that we do not know much about it — even though it may have been the wildest storytelling storm there ever was. We do not even know how long it took for oral storytelling to emerge. But what we do know is that “poetry, tales, [and] recitations of various kinds existed long before writing was introduced” (Goody 1987, p. 78),

17 Some research even points to it being much older than that (Holden 2004, p. 1316).

— 46 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture hence a lot more than 5,300 years ago (Powell 2009, p. 3; Robinson 2011, p. 32). Writing, of course, caused another great storm. It enlarged “the potentiality of language almost beyond measure [and restructured] thought” (Ong 1982, p. 7). Communication could now be written down and preserved for future generations. This triggered evolutionary processes that led to the emergence of literature around 700 years later, when Sumerians began writing down their epic poems (Grimbly 2000, p. 216). The next storm arrived around the year 1450, when Johannes Gutenberg developed a working printing press with movable type (Briggs and Burke 2009, p. 13). This marked the beginning of the period of modernity (McLuhan 1962; Eisenstein 1979; Febvre and Martin 2000; Man 2002). Evolutionary cycles of storytelling technology began and have never really stopped since (the same goes, of course, for all storytelling technologies). Newspapers emerged in the seventeenth century (Weber 2006, p. 391); magazines in the eighteenth (Carlson 1938); serialised fiction by authors such as Charles Dickens, George Eliot, William Thackeray, and Joseph Conrad, as well as comics in the nineteenth (Altick 1957; Sutherland 1976; Sabin 1996, p. 11); graphic novels in the twentieth (Holston 2010, p. 10); and the process continues to this day. The broadcast storm began with the near-concurrent emergence of radio (Garratt 2006 [1994], pp. ix, 1, 75; Kern 2011, p. 211) and 35 mm film (Chardère, Borgé and Borgé 1985, pp. 70-71) in the years 1894/1895. Electron- ic television followed in 1929 (Abramson 1995, pp. ix-x, 226). Many storytelling technologies evolved based on these three broadcast technologies. Radio developed its own forms of comedy (Wertheim 1976, p. 501), soap opera (Lavin 1995, p. 77), radio adaptations of movies in the Lux Radio Theatre (1934 − 1955), music, news, sports, Orson Welles’ The War of the Worlds (1938), and many more. The evolution of movies was explored in the previous subchapter. And television developed TV series, miniseries, soap operas, cartoon series, anime series, TV movies, reality TV, and many more. Even though various kinds of narrative arcs already existed in earlier episodic storytelling technologies, television pushed this development and today often combines various kinds of arcs in one product (Mittell 2006): character arcs, episode arcs, multi-

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 47 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture episode arcs, season arcs, series arcs, multi-series arcs, etc. When exactly each of these broadcast-based storytelling technologies emerged is difficult to decide as so much overlapping evolution happened in the twentieth century, but the previous subchapter showed that specifically one technology has been documented quite well: it took 20 years from the emergence of the basic communication technology 35 mm film to the emergence of movies, the basic storytelling technology based on it.

The reason why every one of these four communication technologies led to distinct novel storytelling technologies is that their fundamental characteristics differ. Speech, for example, requires direct contact between storyteller and audience and is fundamentally dialogic. Oral storytelling, as a consequence, is very interactive and adaptive. In stand-up comedy, for instance, communication whizzes through the room from and to everybody who is in it (Oliar and Sprigman 2008, p. 1789), and the comedian has to account for that. Writing suddenly allowed for stories to be preserved for future generations, but it also locked them down. Communication could not whiz there and back anymore, and a once written story did not adapt to the audience anymore. Homer wrote down oral stories and turned them into his Iliad and Odyssey (both eighth century BCE).18 By putting them down in writing, he preserved them and made them accessible to future generations — but he also stopped them from changing, and those he did not write down became lost with time. Writing enabled storytellers to reach much larger audiences, but dialogue became more difficult. Print allowed storytellers to reach even bigger audiences, as stories did not have to be written down manually anymore, but could be mass-reproduced instead. Print made stories much cheaper and significantly democratised storytelling and -reading. If writing, however, still allowed for written answers, print did not provide for that anymore. Dialogue between storyteller and audience was not part of the technology. An audience member could buy a book or not — that was the only direct feedback a storyteller received. Furthermore, print

18 How much of these works was based on oral stories is debated (Boyd 2009, pp. 209-214).

— 48 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture introduced gatekeepers — publishers — who decided what would be printed and sold. Still, printing was not excessively expensive, and for hundreds of years now enormous numbers of books have been published.19 This changed with broadcast, the creation and distribution of which is a lot more expensive. Gatekeepers — radio stations, movie distributors and exhibitors, TV stations, cable channels, etc. — are very powerful in broadcast, and the broadcast industries typically tend towards an oligopolistic market form (Vogel 2011, pp. 526-527). Broadcast expanded storytellers’ potential audience beyond that of print and turned storytelling into a giant global industry (PricewaterhouseCoopers 2010). Direct dialogue between storytellers and audiences, however, does not exist in broadcast. Instead, storytellers monologise and intermediaries decide who is able to listen to that. An audience member can only choose to watch or listen to what is being broadcast, or not. This broadcast structure was quite compatible with the “modern value chain of meanings” but faces fundamental incompatibilities with the “global value chain of meanings” (Hartley 2008, p. 28). As the world gradually moves from the former to the latter — as the next communication technology, the Internet, gains importance and the storm grows in strength — more and more cycles of storytelling technology evolution are triggered. This is the topic of the following Subchapter 2.3 Internet and Storytelling. But before moving on to that, the next few paragraphs investigate the relationships among storytelling technologies.

History has shown that the fear of new technology devaluating one’s own skills evokes rejection of that technology (Herrmann-Pillath 2002, p. 338) — the nineteenth century, for instance, produced the quite prominent Luddite movement (Sale 1995). Storytelling technology is no exception in this regard: throughout history, older storytelling forms have looked down upon and actively badmouthed younger forms (Hartley 2009c, pp. 73-76). In Shakespeare’s time, theatres and players were expelled from the city of London’s limits (Ordish 1899, p. 30) and located in the same streets as brothels and pubs, indicative of their social standing for the time. Later, theatre became high art

19 See the English Short Title Catalogue (ESTC) at http://estc.bl.uk.

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 49 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

(Lubbock and Ewen 1962, pp. 753-756) and it was musicals that struggled with acceptance as a valid art form. Then, in the 1900s, movies were screened in tents at fairs and enjoyed about as much respect from the art world, and to this day, movie actors appear in musicals or theatre to gain prestige (Cox 2011). Meanwhile, movies have improved their standing and it has become a sign of distinction for TV actors if they ‘move up to movies.’ And finally, both TV and movie actors voice act in video games (Overclock.net Forums 2010), which are still struggling with artistic legitimacy. The youngest storytelling technology tends to be at the bottom of the peck- ing order — a situation the currently emerging Internet-native storytelling technologies are caught in. Existing technologies often either ignore or feel threatened by novel ones. Although this fear is sometimes justified — as touched upon above in relation to the turbulent introduction of sound in movies — technologies more generally tend to have very long lives (Edgerton 2007). The cultural standing of storytelling technologies, however, does indeed change over time (Vogel 2011, pp. 527-528). But instead of showing antagonism, existing storytelling technologies may fare better by showing interest in new ones. Ac- cording to Hartley, they have to choose one of three functions:

• The Taliesin20 function (‘I’m a bard and you’re not’). They can carry on doing what they do so well, and thumbing their noses at the ‘amateurs,’ for as long as the ‘top-down’ business plan allows it. • The Gandalf21 function (‘I’m a bard and this is how it’s done’). Or, they can shift, as educators have learnt to do, from the position of ‘sage on the stage’ to that of ‘guide on the side’ or even ‘meddler in the middle’ (McWilliam 2007). In other words, they can use their skills to assist the productivity of the storytelling system rather than seeking to dominate it, helping to make the intuitive skills of others explicit and goal-directed, rather than usurping them. • The eisteddfod22 function (‘We’re all bards: let’s rock!’). This third option beckons. It takes up the baton of the eisteddfod, proposing amateur and pro-

20 Taliesin was a 6th century bard and mythical figure all in one, who criticised “strolling min- strels” for their “evil, immorality, tastelessness, lies, exploitation of women, abuse of trust, hu- miliation of innocent citizens, time-wasting vanity and senselessness” (Hartley 2009c, p. 74). 21 Gandalf is a wizard in J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit (1937) and The Lord of the Rings (1954 − ongoing). 22 The National Eisteddfod of Wales is a festival of culture, music, and visual arts.

— 50 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

fessional as options within the same system, not as opposed paradigms; thereby leading to the possibility of co-creative collaboration that massively extends the capability of the system (Hartley 2009b, pp. 33-34).

Through understanding new storytelling technologies, existing ones may find ways to coexist with, cooperate with, or perhaps even benefit from them. The following Subchapter 2.3 Internet and Storytelling is a step towards such understanding: it explores the youngest communication technology, the Internet, which is not part of the broadcast bundle anymore and is triggering new evolutionary cycles of storytelling technology. The subchapter explains why the In- ternet is not a further development of previous technologies, but is, in fact, so radically different from everything else that came after speech, that it may represent the fiercest storm in 40,000 to 100,000 years. The subchapter cannot therefore claim to explain the basic Internet-based storytelling form or even how long it will take for one to emerge, but is merely an attempt to open the shutters just a little bit to hopefully get a glimpse of what is happening outside.

2.3 Internet and Storytelling

The Internet is the youngest communication technology. How young exactly, however, is elusive. Was it 1969 when ARPANET was conceived, 1991 when the World Wide Web became publicly available, the (future) realisation of the ‘Internet of Things’ (Sarma, Brock and Ashton 2000; Gershenfeld, Krikorian and Cohen 2004; Uckelmann, Harrison and Michahelles 2011; Foth 2009), or are we possibly still stuck with a temporary version and cannot even foresee what will one day be accepted as the basic communication technology Internet? This cannot be known in advance: it is a perplexing characteristic of technological evolution that although the next decade or so is reasonably predictable, the further future is not at all (Arthur 2009, p. 186). But we do know what the Internet of today is: a network of computer networks based on standardised protocols (Oxford English Dictionary 2001). The World Wide Web (WWW), email, many iPad Apps, and a lot more services are based on the Internet. In other words, the Internet is simply the largest comput-

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 51 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture er network on Earth. And this gives it radically different characteristics from all earlier communication technologies:

Communication Medium Dialogue / One / Many Egalitarian / Potential Reach Technology Agnostic Monologue Senders Hierarchy per Communication (ranking) Speech Yes Dialogue One Egalitarian 5 Writing Yes Monologue One Egalitarian 4 Print No Monologue One Hierarchy 3 Broadcast No Monologue One Hierarchy 2 Internet Yes Dialogue Many Egalitarian 1 Figure 5: Comparison of communication technologies.

Figure 5 compares the Internet with the communication technologies speech, writing, print, and broadcast in the following way:

• A communication technology is Medium Agnostic if it does not depend on the use of certain physical technology the way print, for example, depends on the printing press and paper. • Monologue means only one communication party is enabled to send, while the other party is restricted to receiving. Dialogue means communication flows both ways. • A communication technology can enable Many or just One party to send at any one time. • A technology is Egalitarian if all parties can communicate freely with all other parties. Hierarchy is introduced if some parties are in privileged positions, e.g. intermediaries who can decide what communication reaches which communication partners and when. • The Potential Reach per Communication of a technology is the number of communication partners a sender can potentially reach per communication sent, ranked from 1 to 5 with 1 having the highest reach and 5 the lowest.

Figure 5 shows that the first four communication technology bundles moved from being medium agnostic to being medium dependent, from enabling dialogue to providing monologues, from being egalitarian to introducing hierarchies, and from low to high potential reach per communication sent. And all of them only allowed for only one sender at any one time. The Internet breaks with all these trends except for the rise in potential reach: it is not limited to certain physical technologies, communication based on it flows both ways be-

— 52 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture tween communicating parties, many parties can send at the same time, and it does not intrinsically allow for hierarchy. This classifies the Internet as quite similar to speech, with the difference that many parties can send simultaneously with a much higher potential reach per communication. The other technologies differ more from both. Writing is less dialogic than the Internet, in the sense that even though a reader can answer, that answer can only influence future texts and not the existing one. Print introduces intermediaries: while the potential reach of print is higher than that of the preceding technologies, a publisher is required to achieve that reach. Dia- logue retreats even more; a reader would typically have to go through the publisher if they wanted to respond to a book. And broadcast strengthens the role of intermediaries to the degree that dialogue nearly ceases to exist.23 With the Internet being such a radically different communication technology, it is hardly surprising it is changing so many aspects of human life. Nor is it surprising storytellers are intrigued and experimenting with it — which simply means the next evolutionary cycle of storytelling technology is underway. The rest of this subchapter is dedicated to practitioners’ and researchers’ explorations of this cycle. It investigates the kinds of storytelling technologies that are emerging and how they are understood, described, and named. It is, however, not just storytelling that is affected by the Internet. Consequently, some practitioners and researchers presented in the following stem from areas that may, at first glance, seem unrelated to the topic of the thesis. The structure of the subchapter is as follows. First, the terms of practitioners are explored (for they were the first ones to realise something new was emerging and acted upon this hunch). Then, the terms of researchers are presented, who often start off by investigating practitioners’ projects, and, in the process, add great insight into what is happening. Sometimes a distinction between practice and research is, of course, difficult — but it facilitates the flow of the text, which is the only reason why it is introduced here. In the process of re- viewing these terms it becomes clear that creators’ and researchers’ attention

23 These insights are somewhat in line with those of (The Gutenberg Parenthesis Research Forum 2011), see also (Sauerberg 2009).

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 53 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture has to shift from storytelling to entertainment to fully grasp the present phase of change. Finally, all terms are categorised under three headings to enable structured research: transmedia entertainment, Internet-native entertainment, and Internet-native transmedia entertainment. This does not, however, imply that the evolutionary process of entertainment technologies based on the Internet has concluded. On the contrary, the first evolutionary cycle of entertainment technology using the Internet may or may not already be over and a basic technology may or may not already exist. We will only know in retrospect.

The Terms of Practitioners

The topic of the thesis is heavily linked to a description of practice. It can only be this way since no academically treatable novel basic storytelling technology and, consequently, no established academic field have been agreed upon yet. The following is therefore a compilation of terms and concepts used by practitioners to describe a broad variety of projects that make use of the Internet in a unique way, or that, in other words, could not exist without the Internet.

The evolutionary process of Internet-native storytelling only really started with The Beast (2001), the world’s first alternate reality game (ARG).24 The Beast was such a new concept that its creators didn’t even have a name for it — neither for the concept nor for this particular project based on that concept. The Beast was just a nickname given by its creators because the first list of assets they had to produce was 666 items long; there never was an official name. The concept behind it was only named ARG in retrospect. The Beast came into being as the answer to a very unique problem (Lee 2010). In 2001, Microsoft had formed a partnership with Steven Spielberg to create games about his soon to be published movie Artificial Intelligence: A.I. (2001). These games were to be held together by an elaborate backstory. But when the decision was made to not go ahead with the games, the backstory

24 All information about The Beast stems from a personal interview with Sean Stewart, one of its creators, and (Lee 2010; Stewart 2010).

— 54 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture became the product. A vast number of websites was set up — accessible via the regular Internet but set in the year 2142 — puzzles were devised that had to be solved to further the story, and over the course of 12 weeks, Sean Stew- art, Elan Lee, and their colleagues reached over 3 million people. The first ARG was born. It did not take long for others to imitate or expand on The Beast. More and more Internet-native projects emerged and, for lack of a better term, they were all called ARGs — ARG had become the only relatively widely accepted term referring to Internet-native transmedia entertainment. A definitional odyssey began and continues until today (see, for example, Jenkins 2006a; McGonigal 2006; Örnebring 2007; Kim et al. 2009; Dena 2009; Hon 2007a; Phillips 2009, 2010). A large community effort hosted on the wiki of the International Game Developers Association (IGDA) arrived at this temporarily well-received definition:

[Alternate reality games] take the substance of everyday life and weave it into narratives that layer additional meaning, depth, and interaction upon the real world. The contents of these narratives constantly intersect with actuality, but play fast and loose with fact, sometimes departing entirely from the actual or grossly warping it — yet remain inescapably interwoven. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, everyone in the country can access these narratives through every available medium — at home, in the office, on the phones; in words, in images, in sound (Martin and Chatfield 2006).

But even this definition did not last very long and when Elan Lee (another creator of The Beast) said “an alternate reality game is anything that takes your life and converts it into an entertainment space” (cited in Ruberg 2006), it had become clear that the ideas and projects of creators had outgrown an originally definable phenomenon. This had also been noticed by the community of practitioners, many of which rejected some aspects about ARGs they did not personally agree with. The term alternate reality game itself, for example, implied game aspects, and many creators simply did not see themselves as game designers. A vast number of names started (and continues) to emerge in an effort to come up with a better name or to differentiate certain kinds of projects from ARGs: virtually any

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 55 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture combination of interactive, cross-media, cross-platform, multi-platform, transmedia, transmedial, alternate reality, integrated, or 360 degree with storytelling, narrative, game, entertainment, programming, experience, extension, or communication is in circulation. The reason for this is summarised beautifully by Andrea Phillips in this comment to her own blog post:

It’s an awful conundrum, isn’t it? You have to use an accepted definition to sell your work most effectively, but those accepted definitions are by their nature probably going to exclude the most experimental, interesting work (Phillips 2010, comment No. 2).

At the moment, however, it seems like transmedia, or a combination of transmedia with another term, stands a good chance of becoming widely accepted. It has become the term of choice of several leading content producers and service providers and is featured heavily on their websites. Everybody, however, seems to understand the terms differently and consequently, the emphasis is placed on different aspects and on different outcomes. Some emphasise story or narrative, some participation, and others play. Some aim at niches and others at the mainstream. Some come from a marketing and advertising background, others from creative writing or film. Seize the Media,25 for example, use the term transmedia by itself and gear it heavily towards storytelling. They explain it via a definition and a diagram:

Transmedia is a format of formats; an approach to story delivery that aggregates fragmented audiences by adapting productions to new modes of presentation and social integration. The execution of a transmedia production weaves together diverse storylines, across multiple outlets, as parts of an overarching narrative structure. These elements are distributed through both traditional and new media outlets. The online components exploit the Figure 6: “What is transmedia?” social conventions, and social locations, of the in- (Seize the Media n.d.-a). ternet (Seize the Media n.d.-a).

25 See www.seizethemedia.com.

— 56 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Starlight Runner Entertainment use transmedia synonymously with transmedia storytelling and transmedia narrative:

Transmedia narrative is the technique of conveying messages, concepts and themes to a mass audience through systemic and concerted use of multiple media platforms. The implementation is designed to engage audience members in- dividually, validating their involvement and positively reinforcing personal participation in the narrative. The result is intense loyalty, long-term engagement and a desire to share the experience (Starlight Runner Entertainment n.d.).

The tipping point in popularity of transmedia over ARG, however, may have come in April 2010 when the Producers Guild of America (PGA) — a US- American trade organisation “that represents, protects and promotes the interests of all members of the producing team in film, television and new media” (Producers Guild of America 2010a, emphasis added) — ratified and defined a new credit: Transmedia Producer. That definition, which sparked a lively debate in the blogosphere (Dena 2010b; Phillips 2010; Jenkins 2010a), goes as follows:

A Transmedia Narrative project or franchise must consist of three (or more) narrative storylines existing within the same fictional universe on any of the following platforms: Film, Television, Short Film, Broadband, Publishing, Comics, An- imation, Mobile, Special Venues, DVD/Blu-ray/CD-ROM, Narrative Commercial and Marketing rollouts, and other technologies that may or may not currently exist. These narrative extensions are NOT the same as repurposing material from one platform to be cut or repurposed to different platforms. A Transmedia Producer credit is given to the person(s) responsible for a significant portion of a project’s long-term planning, development, production, and/or maintenance of narrative continuity across multiple platforms, and creation of original storylines for new platforms (Producers Guild of America 2010b, emphasis in original).

It becomes clear from this definition that the PGA expects motion pictures to amalgamate with other storytelling technologies — existing and yet to be invented — to a much larger degree than ever before. The PGA is showing a perhaps surprising degree of open-mindedness by not restricting the credit to, for example, movies or narrative media but by opening it up to all present and

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 57 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture future technologies — even marketing is explicitly mentioned. And this is the core of the change: narrative is allowed to leave the screen and sneak into even marketing. This can potentially have repercussions on any aspect of filmmaking. If even marketing is allowed to become part of the narrative — which, after all, is a movie’s foundation — the very form of moviemaking changes fundamentally. In other words, the PGA has put its understanding of what constitutes a movie or TV series up for discussion. The most fascinating aspect of this definition is therefore not that the movie industry is merging with other industries on an industrial level — this has been happening for a long time where media franchises regularly sell ancillary products such as video games or bed linen (Thompson 2007; Wasko 1990, p. 146) — but on the much more fundamental narrative level. Transmedia has arrived in Hollywood. One of the key people behind this change in Hollywood is interview partner Jeff Gomez, author of the above PGA definition and President and CEO of above-mentioned Starlight Runner Entertainment, the company behind the transmedia strategies and implementations of Mattel’s Hot Wheels toy line, Co- ca Cola’s Happiness Factory, twentieth Century Fox’s Avatar (2009), Walt Dis- ney’s Pirates of the Caribbean (2003 − 2011) and Tron: Legacy (2010), and Mi- crosoft’s Halo (2001 − ongoing), to name a few. His notions of transmedia, transmedia storytelling, and the development and production of transmedia content emerge out of post World War II Japan and the way narrative was disseminated across media platforms in a very broad and popular way, impacting all of Japanese society in the late fifties, early sixties, and until today:

So there is a little bit less of a demand for the consumer or participant in transmedia content to need to run around from one platform to the next in a game like fashion to assemble pieces of the puzzle. To me transmedia can also mean that each piece of the narrative is self-contained and can be enjoyed without necessarily jumping from one platform to the next. If you do so your experience is enriched but I vie for a little less alternate reality game kind of an attitude towards transmedia implementation.

Jeff Gomez believes in creating products that give consumers the option of deep additional engagement but stay easily accessible to large audiences.

— 58 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

The Terms of Researchers

Before we can get into the more theoretical concepts describing Internet-native storytelling, transmediality has to be defined — clearly a key term used by practitioners and researchers alike, but sometimes without a common ground of conversation. The prefix ‘trans-’ means “beyond, surpassing, transcending” (Oxford English Dictionary 1989c). If storytelling, then, is referred to as being transmedial, it is understood to be beyond media — to have transcended media — instead of being based on one or more specific media. Transmediality, however, is not just relevant to storytelling. It is a much more fundamental concept:

[Transmediality is] the appearance of a certain motif, aesthetic, or discourse across a variety of different media (Rajewsky 2005, p. 46; see also Rajewsky 2002).

In the following, however, only the storytelling-relevant influences are explored. Towards the end of this subchapter a few transmedia concepts will be named that may appear relevant to the thesis at first sight but turn out not to be.

Henry Jenkins, another key person behind the change that is happening, popularised the term transmedia storytelling (Jenkins 2001, 2003, 2006a). He published his first article on it the same year The Beast was created — perhaps without even knowing about it, definitely without mentioning it (Jenkins 2001). He defines transmedia storytelling as follows:

A transmedia story unfolds across multiple media platforms, with each new text making a distinctive and valuable contribution to the whole. In the ideal form of transmedia storytelling, each medium does what it does best — so that a story might be introduced in a film, expanded through television, novels, and comics; its world might be explored through game play or experienced as an amusement park attraction (Jenkins 2006a, pp. 95-96).

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 59 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Jenkins’ long-standing interest is fandom and fan cultures.26 Consequently, his research focuses on the empowerment and active participation of audiences, and thus often on niche products — in some ways the opposite of Jeff Gomez’ approach. He does therefore gear his take on this storytelling technology towards a very active audience:

To fully experience any fictional world, consumers must assume the role of hunters and gatherers, chasing down bits of the story across media channels, comparing notes with each other via online discussion groups, and collaborating to ensure that everyone who invests time and effort will come away with a richer entertainment experience (Jenkins 2006a, p. 20).

He also gives some normative advice on this emerging storytelling technology, which may or may not be a bit early in its evolutionary process:

Each franchise entry needs to be self-contained so you don’t need to have seen the film to enjoy the game, and vice versa. […] Different media attract different market niches. Films and television probably have the most diverse audiences; comics and games the narrowest. A good transmedia franchise works to attract multiple constituencies by pitching the content somewhat differently in the different media (Jenkins 2006a, p. 96).

Jenkins’ concept of transmedia storytelling is still as close as it gets to what is happening, even 10 years after he first introduced it. Jeff Gomez, for example, acknowledges it as a major contribution to the field. Other approaches, however, add valuable aspects to or carefully readjust its the overall direction. One such notable approach is Jonathan Gray’s work on paratextuality and its relationship to intertextuality:

Intertextuality27 is a system that calls for the viewer to use previously seen texts to make sense of the one at hand. […] No text creates its entire meaning for it-

26 See, for example, (Jenkins 1992, 2006b) or the Transformative Works and Fan Activism special issue of Transformative Works and Cultures (forthcoming) he co-edited. 27 Laurent Jenny characterises intertextuality in the following way: “it introduces a new way of reading which destroys the linearity of the text. Each intertextual reference is the occasion for an alternative: either one continues reading, taking it only as a segment like any other, integrated into the syntagmatic structure of the text, or else one turns to the source text, carrying out a

— 60 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

self by itself, as viewers will always make sense of a new text using structures and orders of meaning offered to them by other texts, genres, and viewing experiences. Intertextuality is always at work, with texts framing each other just as I have shown paratexts to frame texts. In this regard, paratextuality is in fact a subset of intertextuality. What distinguishes the two terms is that intertextuality often refers to the instance wherein one or more bona fide shows frame another show, whereas paratextuality refers to the instance wherein a textual fragment or “peripheral” frames a show (Gray 2010, p. 117, emphasis added).

Understanding paratextuality is important, he argues, because “film and television shows […] are only a small part of the massive, extended presence of filmic and televisual texts across our lived environments” (Gray 2010, p. 2) and paratexts constitute a large part of that presence:

If we imagine the triumvirate of Text, Audience, and Industry as the Big Three of media practice, then paratexts fill the space between them, conditioning passages and trajectories that criss-cross the mediascape, and variously negotiating or determining interactions among the three. Industry and audiences create vast amounts of paratexts. Audiences also consume vast amounts of paratexts (Gray 2010, p. 23).

Studying paratexts, consequently, becomes essential if current media practice is to be understood — just as any successful media franchise will have to create paratexts in order to stay relevant (Gray 2010, p. 221). But many creators have already realised that:

Some film and television franchises have embraced the creative and contributive capacities of paratexts and have moved toward a model of media creation that works across media, networking various platforms, styles, and even textual addresses to fashion a more developed text (Gray 2010, p. 206).

It is important to remember, however, that these media franchises cannot control all forms of paratexts to fashion a more developed text: they can hope, for example, that what is said about them around the water cooler or on Twit- ter is positive, but they cannot control or even significantly steer it. Gray ad- sort of intellectual anamnesis where the intertextual reference appears like a paradigmatic element that has been displaced, deriving from a forgotten structure” (Jenny 1982, p. 44).

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 61 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture dresses this distinction by introducing two categories of paratexts: “textually ‘incorporated’ and ‘unincorporated’” ones (Gray 2010, p. 208). Incorporated paratexts are the ones “adding to the storyworld and allowing viewers chances to explore that world further or even to contribute to it” (Gray 2010, p. 210). All other paratexts are unincorporated. But Gray also warns that “individual audience members may not care to make the distinction between paratext and show [and that] the desire to delin- eate exactly what is and is not ‘the text’ is often an analyst’s alone” (Gray 2010, p. 46). To consumers, it has become natural that a “text is now dispersed across not only the show, but also its multiple paratexts” (Gray 2010, p. 86).

Instead of distinguishing texts in any such way, Frank Rose investigates entire narratives, how they are spread across media, and how they become deep media:

Under [the Internet’s] influence, a new type of narrative is emerging — one that’s told through many media at once in a way that’s nonlinear, that’s participatory and often gamelike, and that’s designed above all to be immersive. This is “deep media”: stories that are not just entertaining, but immersive, taking you deeper than an hour-long TV drama or a two-hour movie or a 30-second spot will permit (Rose 2011, p. 3).

According to Rose, therefore, this new type of narrative is defined by transmediality, participation, and game aspects — characteristics that this thesis breaks down slightly differently into Internet-nativeness, transmediality, story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue.’ According to him, this kind of narrative is, above all, immersive — unfortunately a rather imprecise term. He goes on to provide a huge selection of examples, but without ever describing the characteristics of this “new type of narrative” any further.

Matt Hanson does not explicitly mention transmediality, but his concept of screen bleed clearly refers to similar phenomena:

— 62 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Originally a technical term (when non-broadcast safe colors, which are very bright or color-saturated, bleed into other areas of the screen), screen bleed is a useful term to appropriate to describe a modern narrative condition where fic- tive worlds extend into multiple media and moving image formats. […] Each part of this world works as a discrete unit, but adding the stories together com- pletes the narrative (Hanson 2004, p. 47).

Allusions or references to events or characters that appear in one form and not another, rather than making the active entertainment feel incomplete, add to a believable and convincing narrative world in motion. […] The increasing depth of understanding we do get is crucial to our progressively greater pleasure in experiencing the universe (Hanson 2004, p. 48).

Screen bleed seems to focus on the travelling of content, while the evolving relationship between content and audience is not addressed directly. Neverthe- less, it adds an interesting twist to transmediality, namely the new opportunity for “the fantasy moving image world [to meld] with reality and vice versa” (Hanson 2004, p. 116). He describes the same phenomenon as Jenkins, Gray, and Rose but explicitly extends it beyond ‘the media’: if content bleeds from a movie into a book, and then into TV, why stop there? From TV it can bleed into a poster, that bleeds into the photo camera of an audience member, and from there into Facebook. Content can bleed from media into real life and back ad infinitum. Why then Hanson chooses the term ‘screen bleed’ and therefore implies content has to originate on a screen or at least pass through one can only be understood as an inconsistency of the approach.

The concept of pervasive games approaches the matter differently: from a play and not a storytelling perspective. It is entirely medium-agnostic to the degree that its definition does not mention even a single medium or technology:

A pervasive game is a game that has one or more salient features that expand the contractual magic circle of play spatially, temporally, or socially (Montola 2009, p. 12).

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 63 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

‘Magic circle,’ here, refers to Johan Huizinga’s explorations of the play element of culture:

All play moves and has its being within a play-ground marked off beforehand either materially or ideally, deliberately or as a matter of course. […] The arena, the card-table, the magic circle, the temple, the stage, the screen, the tennis court, the court of justice, etc, are all in form and function play-grounds, i.e. for- bidden spots, isolated, hedged round, hallowed, within which special rules obtain (Huizinga 1955, p. 10).

And what makes pervasive games pervasive is that they permeate the mem- brane that separates the magic circle of classic games from real life so that:

Pervasive gamers inhabit a game world that is present within the ordinary world, taking the magic circle wherever they go. Unlike nonpervasive games, which seek to be isolated from their surroundings, pervasive games embrace their environments and contexts (Montola 2009, p. 12).

A concept that is often used synonymously, but according to Jane McGonigal should not be, is that of ubiquitous games:

‘Ubiquitous’ says nothing of boundaries; the concept of borders is less relevant when whatever is ubiquitous has located itself successfully in every possible space. ‘Pervasive’, on the other hand, very much recognizes boundaries. It associates itself with their active dissolution or rupture (McGonigal 2006, p. 48).

The pervasiveness or ubiquity of these games, however, is not a play- exclusive phenomenon. To put it differently: storytelling and play are often difficult to separate. This is one of the reasons why Christy Dena uses the term transmedia fiction:

I employ the term fiction […] to communicate the kinds of projects that will be studied, and to recognise modal complexity (Dena 2009, p. 19).

As mentioned before, however, not all concepts that refer to transmediality are relevant to the thesis. Some of these irrelevant ones are very briefly touched upon here.

— 64 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Transmediation, as introduced by Charles Suhor in relation to a semiotics- based curriculum, refers to the “translation of content from one sign system in- to another” (Suhor 1984, p. 250), which “increases students’ opportunities to engage in generative and reflective thinking because learners must invent a connection between the two sign systems, as the connection does not exist a priori” (Siegel 1995, p. 455). Transmedial narratology, also known as narrative media studies, explores “the question of how the intrinsic properties of the medium shape the form of narrative and affect the narrative experience” (Ryan 2004, p. 1). It shares its objectives with the Structuralists’ “approach that championed the study of narratives of all sorts, irrespective of origin, medium, theme, reputation, or genre” (Herman 2004, p. 47). When Jesper Juul writes about transmedial games, he refers to the fact that games are a transmedial phenomenon: “many games move between media: card games are played on computers, sports continue to be a popular video game genre, and video games occasionally become board games” (Juul 2005, p. 48). He gives the example of chess “as one of the most broadly implemented games, since [it] is available as a board game, on computers, and [is] even played blind, where the players keep track of the game state in their head” (Juul 2005, p. 49, emphasis in original). These three concepts refer to the same fundamental phenomenon of transmediality as the thesis does, but aim at entirely different aspects of it.

The Terms of The Thesis

Clearly, a panoply of competing terms exists, all referring to similar aspects of the change that the thesis is exploring. For the sake of clarity, therefore, three are chosen, distinguished from each other, and then used throughout the rest of the thesis: transmedia entertainment, Internet-native entertainment, and Inter- net-native transmedia entertainment. Figure 7 below illustrates how they relate to each other and assigns somewhat representative entertainment products to them.

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 65 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Internet-Native Transmedia Entertainment (umbrella term)

Internet-Native Transmedia Entertainment Entertainment Nawlz (2008 − ongoing) Lux Radio Theatre (1934 − 1955) Transmedia Pervasive/Ubiquitous Storytelling Games The Matrix (1999 − 2009) PacManhattan (2004)

Figure 7: What is (Internet-native) (transmedia) entertainment?

• Transmedia entertainment refers to all entertainment that is not limited to one medium, whether it exploits the possibilities of the Internet or not. Lux Radio Theatre (1934 − 1955), a series of radio adaptations of Broadway plays and Hollywood movies, often performed by the original cast (Billips and Pierce 1995), is an example of transmedia entertainment from before the emergence of the Internet. • Internet-native entertainment refers to all entertainment that would not have been possible before the emergence of the Internet, be it transmedial or not. Nawlz (2008 − ongoing), best described as an evolved comic, is an example of Internet-native entertainment that is not transmedial. • Internet-native transmedia entertainment is the intersection of Internet-native entertainment and transmedia entertainment, and is an umbrella term for several of the above-presented concepts of scholars and practitioners. To maintain clarity, however, only two of these concepts are included in figure 7. These two were chosen for of their emphasis on story and play, respectively, which relates back to the debate between narratologists and ludologists as well as two of the four entarch elements.

But before explaining which of the presented concepts beyond transmedia storytelling and pervasive/ubiquitous games are included in Internet-native transmedia entertainment, why choose the term entertainment over storytelling, games, text, bleed, and the like? In other words, where does this attention shift of the thesis from storytelling to entertainment stem from? One answer would appear to be that ‘transmedia entertainment’ is becoming a more and more popular term among both practitioners and researchers. Henry Jenkins, for example, used it once in Convergence Culture (Jenkins 2006a, p. 259), then welcomed a broadening of “‘transmedia storytelling’ towards something like

— 66 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

‘transmedia entertainment’ or ‘transmedia authorship’” (Jenkins 2006c) in his response to Ian Bogost’s review of Convergence Culture (Bogost 2006), and has been using it quite extensively throughout his blog posts ever since (Jenkins 2006 − ongoing). A quick online search also reveals a constantly growing number of websites and authors using the term. These authors, however, are sometimes in a rhetoric dilemma as they really intend to talk about Internet- native transmedia entertainment and have trouble explaining why products like the Lux Radio Theatre (1934 − 1955) do not fit into their category of ‘transmedia entertainment’ smoothly. The thesis, therefore, does not follow other authors but, on the contrary, asks the reader to keep in mind that it uses ‘transmedia entertainment’ in a wider sense than some other authors — specifically, their ‘transmedia entertainment’ may equal this dissertation’s ‘Internet-native transmedia entertainment.’ However, the real reason for this attention shift towards entertainment goes deeper and requires the following quick digression. We have seen that the Internet has triggered many concurrent evolutionary cycles of storytelling technology. From a different perspective, all presented concepts describe approaches of innovative practitioners that would not have been possible before the emergence of the Internet. With these practitioners stemming from various areas, it is quite natural that all of them bring their own cultural, educational, and professional origins to the discussion: some stem from a film background, some from TV, some from video games, some from role playing games, some from literature, some from a mixture of these, and some stem from different backgrounds entirely. This thesis is similar in that regard as, originally and ultimately most interested in the storytelling technology movie, it has learnt that the communication technology Internet is having an effect on storytelling that is different from that of earlier technologies: it is reintroducing dialogue to storytelling, and with dialogue it is also reintroducing a kind of play, and with play entirely new creative projects become relevant to the research question. It has therefore learnt that movies cannot be treated as just a storytelling form any longer, but that the horizon has to be widened, that telling a story and playing can no longer be separated in the realm of the Inter- net, and that the object of study can therefore no longer be storytelling, but must rather be entertainment. An overlapping shift in perspective that follows

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 67 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture from the Internet is that innovative creators can no longer think in terms of media, but have to think beyond them: their work has to be transmedial. But none of the presented concepts encapsulate this change of perspective satisfactorily: if storytelling, text, game, or extension is in a concept’s name, then it quite clearly puts an emphasis on some medium, form, or technology and must fail in describing the fusion of those. This fusion can therefore only be accounted for if the focus is on entertainment. And in the case of the thesis, and of the explored concepts, this entertainment is Internet-native as well as transmedial: the focus has to be on Internet-native transmedia entertainment. All Internet-native transmedia entertainment technologies that have already emerged or will emerge in the future are therefore included in this term, and all presented concepts, in fact, refer to sub-technologies of it. But to have some kind of understanding of what kinds of entertainment are included, Internet- native transmedia entertainment can be described as an umbrella term that is:

• based on Henry Jenkins’ transmedia storytelling, • adds Jeff Gomez’ focus on mass audiences to Jenkins’ focus on fan cultures, • combines Jonathan Gray’s incorporated paratexts with their text, • adds the real life aspects of Matt Hanson’s screen bleed without emphasising any medium, • combines story and play the way Christy Dena’s transmedia fiction does, but without introducing the distinction between fiction and non-fiction, and • adds the pervasiveness or ubiquity of Montola, McGonigal, et al. without their strict focus on games.

This list can, of course, only be understood as a snapshot of currently existing concepts describing Internet-native transmedia entertainment. New concepts will be formulated and will have to be added to the list. Much more interesting, however, is what such an umbrella term allows us to do: alternate reality games, transmedia storytelling, pervasive games, transmedia fiction, and in fact all mentioned concepts and practices can, now, be seen as subsets or specialised forms of Internet-native transmedia entertainment. The benefit is they become easier to compare and can be discussed and analysed using a common understanding instead of being approached with different tool sets.

— 68 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

A key insight of this subchapter therefore is that the thesis cannot focus on just storytelling, but has to broaden its horizon and investigate entertainment. This is not just a theoretical insight, but one that can be observed in many real- life Internet-native transmedia entertainment projects and aligns very well with Christopher Sandberg’s experience in this regard: his absolute first priority is to entertain, and he understands story as an element of the entertainment he creates. Other elements are, for instance, game design and participant actions. But what does a focus on entertainment imply? Or even more fundamentally, what is entertainment?

2.4 What is Entertainment?

Until not very long ago, entertainment was a severely under-researched phenomenon (Dyer 2002, p. 3; Collis, McKee and Hamley 2010, p. 921). The reason was very profane reason: it was deemed “too humdrum for serious attention” (Bosshart and Macconi 1998b, p. 3). This has started to change over the past decade or two and entertainment is beginning to receive the attention it deserves (Bryant 2010). In fact, it has become a mature enough area of research for ‘entertainment industries’ to have their own university degree (Collis, McKee and Hamley 2010). Getting attention and being researched does not, however, mean a widely accepted definition of entertainment exists. Jonathan Gray reviewed the field and existing definitions, and was rather disappointed with what he discovered:

I find it remarkably hard to offer a value-neutral definition of entertainment, since it is one of the most automatically moralized concepts. Entertainment can be a compliment or a profanity, and it can represent transcendence or corrup- tion, salvation or sin, depending upon the speaker (Gray 2008, p. 4).

Taking a step back, a lot of the confusion and diverging of opinions stems from researchers talking about three closely related, but nevertheless distinct, objects of study: first, anything entertaining; second, an independent institution and cultural practice (Müller 2011, p. 27); and third, the evolution of that institution over time. While the evolutionary aspect is addressed towards the end of

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 69 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture this subchapter, the distinction between the first two concepts is explored straightaway. Watching your new puppy stumble around in the garden and playing with it can be entertaining, but you would probably not call it entertainment. A movie, a novel, an opera performance, a football game, or a night club — these much rather comply with our idea of entertainment, an idea “that is both historically and culturally specific” (Dyer 2002, p. 1). This historic institutionalisation of entertainment — from the entertaining puppy to a Rolling Stones concert — is what Hans Otto Hügel calls the “emancipation” of entertainment (Hügel 1993, p. 138). Entertainment is entertainment, whether somebody feels entertained by it or not, because we have a common understanding of what entertainment is. Even if somebody does not feel entertained by stand-up comedy shows, the shows are still considered entertainment. On the other hand, not everything entertaining is entertainment: playing with the puppy would rather be considered a leisure activity than entertainment. Leisure, unfortunately, is another concept that does not have one accepted definition (Veal 1992), despite a fairly long history of research into it (Pieper 1952; Dumazedier 1967; Murphy 1974; Kelly 1996; Rojek 2000) that goes back all the way to Aristotle (Shivers and DeLisle 1997, p. 41). In an attempt to find commonalities among the different scholarly opinions, however, Tony Blackshaw situates the roots of modern leisure “in individual choice, freedom and self-determination” (Blackshaw 2010, p. 3) — characteristics that are not necessarily reconcilable with entertainment, as this chapter shows later on. Internet-native transmedia entertainment, of course, refers to the institutionalised form of entertainment and not to anything entertaining. But how has it been institutionalised? Or to get back to the main question of this subchapter: what does entertainment mean? This question has been approached by various researchers from various disciplines in various ways.

Economists tend to view entertainment as the product of those businesses that are part of the ‘entertainment industries’ or the ‘entertainment economy’ (Wolf 1999).

— 70 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Entertainment indeed means so many different things to so many people that a manageable analysis requires sharper boundaries to be drawn. Such boundaries are here established by classifying entertainment activities into industry segments, that is, enterprises or organizations of significant size that have similar technological structures of production and that produce or supply goods, services, or sources of income that are substitutable (Vogel 2011, p. xx).

These products can, then, be analysed with respect to common characteristics which, so goes the logic, must also be the characteristics of entertainment. While this approach has led to valuable insights that can be leveraged by businesses — Harold Vogel’s above-cited Entertainment Industry Economics, now in its eighth edition, leads the field in this regard — it will always remain de- batable as to which industries are to be included. Is, for example, an Xbox 360 an entertainment product? What characteristics does it have in common with a pop song or ballet?

Law scholars get involved in an entirely different manner. Presently, many entertainment products, and therefore businesses and industries, are founded on copyright and intellectual property (IP) — examples being movies, music, or novels. These industries are therefore often called ‘copyright(-based) industries’ (Siwek 2009). This illustrates that entertainment, which has to be created within the limitations of the law just like any other legal product (Butler 2010), is particularly intertwined with it:

What is distinctive about entertainment law is the unique way that many crucial features of this industry have shaped and been shaped by the legal system (Weiler 2002, p. 2).

The Internet has made it very difficult to enforce copyright (Ku 2002), which has led to enormous legal implications like Viacom, Inc. filing a USD 1 billion lawsuit against YouTube (Kim 2007) or the makers of Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker (2008) suing over 24,583 people for illegally downloading the movie (Ernesto 2011b). Copyright always struggled with technological change (Litman 1989; Geller 2000) and the copyright industries’ current lawsuits are a symp- tom of that. It needs to be remembered, however, that the copyright industries

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 71 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture do not equal the entertainment industries, and much less the community of entertainment creators — they are just a very vocal (Sprigman 2002) subgroup that has had a strong influence on copyright legislation over the past century or so (Sprigman 2004). From a law perspective, only that kind of entertainment is of interest which is regulated under what is often called entertainment law — even though there is no such thing as dedicated entertainment law (Butler 2010, p. 855). But what about a magician at a child’s birthday party? And what about music, which is forced to move away from its IP-based business models towards live entertainment (Montgomery and Fitzgerald 2006, p. 414)?

An entirely different perspective again, comes from individualistic psychology scholars. They focus on entertainment as a reception phenomenon (Vorderer, Steen and Chan 2006, p. 3; Bosshart and Macconi 1998a, pp. 3-6; Müller 2011, pp. 23-26), on “attainment of gratification” (Zillmann and Vorderer 2000, p. vii). Exemplary questions that may be posed are: what is it “that gives comedy the power to make people laugh and tragedy the power to make them cry,” how can it “be possible that mere spectators feel triumphant or depressed when seeing athletic competition between others go one way or the other, or, what empowers music to make listeners shudder or feel glorious” (Zillmann and Vorderer 2000, p. vi)? Or, on a more fundamental level, “why do human beings, across a range of different cultures and historical periods, seek out and enjoy the experience of entertainment” (Vorderer, Steen and Chan 2006, p. 3)? Entertainment is seen as “a response to a certain set of opportunities rather than a feature of a particular media product itself” (Vorderer, Steen and Chan 2006, p. 3). This focus on reception, then, also comes through when entertainment is defined as:

Any activity designed to delight and, to a smaller degree, enlighten through the exhibition of the fortunes or misfortunes of others, but also through the display of special skills by others and/or self (Zillmann and Bryant 1994, p. 448).

— 72 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

The focus on consumers is a great strength of such an approach. A limita- tion, however, is that only individual delight is investigated while the communal aspect of entertainment is ignored — as is its creation. But how can stand- up comedy be researched without taking the comedian and the entire audience into account? The feedback comedians instantly get from their audience and the way they integrate it into their performances, as well as the reinforcing effect audience members have on each other — in other words, the way communication whizzes through the room from and to everybody who is in it (Oliar and Sprigman 2008, p. 1789) — is intrinsic to stand-up comedy, but not to psychology’s approach.

Cultural studies have a relatively long inherited history with entertainment through the Frankfurt School’s negative attitude towards it (McKee 2008, p. 3) and the industries that create it (Horkheimer and Adorno 2002 [1947], p. 112- 113). It was feared that “the spectacle keeps people in a state of unconscious- ness” until eventually “all community and all critical awareness have disinte- grated” (Debord 2002 [1967], thesis 25). Entertainment is often regarded “as a sugar on the pill of ideological messages” (Dyer 2002, p. 1). Entertainment was not seen in a positive light, but as being opposed to something positive. It is not elite because it is for the masses. It is not art because it is “not formally perfect, accomplished or innovative, not emotionally deep, with nothing interesting to say about the world” — with the exception that rarely, but sometimes, a specific “instance of entertainment is really, or also, art” (Dyer 2002, p. 1). It does not foster critical thought because it distracts, is spectacular, and is not art. Ac- cording to Jonathan Gray there are three strands of entertainment criticism: first, “fear of the incredible powers of television entertainment,” second, “stark and clear opposition [of entertainment] to information and education,” and third, entertainment ‘users’ becoming “slaves to their/our addiction” (Gray 2008, p. 6). As a consequence of cultural studies’ strong opinion, entertainment was discussed intensively. This discussion, however, revolved around the effects of entertainment, not around the question of what it is.

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 73 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Newer research into the topic has led to some relatively value neutral definitions (Hartley 2011, forthcoming, pp. 162-163; Bosshart and Macconi 1998a, pp. 3-6), with a popular one describing entertainment as:

A type of performance produced for profit, performed before a generalized audience (the ‘public’), by a trained, paid group who do nothing else but produce performances which have the sole (conscious) aim of providing pleasure (Dyer 2002, p. 19).

This definition — essentially describing Shakespearian practice — emphasises the role of producers of entertainment: “professional entertainment is the dominant agency for defining what entertainment is” (Dyer 2002, p. 20). This is the opposite approach to psychology’s focus on the individual audience member. In cultural studies the audience is generalised and becomes ‘the public.’ At least, both producers and audiences are seen in their socio-cultural contexts, so the relations between them and the agency of both become interesting and are investigated.28 In the case of broadcast-based entertainment, however, this largely means that “products are organised around an industrial mode of production, typically ‘mass’ communication of standardised content to a consumer who has little input into it” (Hartley 2011, forthcoming, p. 162). This perspective on consumers is clearly challenged by the characteristics of Internet-native transmedia entertainment and its reintroduced dialogue between creators and audiences. And more generally does ‘mass’ — as in ‘mass media,’ ‘mass entertainment,’ ‘mass communication,’ or ‘mass audience’ — remain a popular descriptor. But what does ‘mass’ really mean? Do small night clubs that fit 150 people, of which there are extraordinary numbers in the entire world, really cater to a mass audience? Is larping (live action role playing) really mass entertainment, even though the number of larpers in the world is vanishingly small compared to the size of the Harry Potter audience? These are not examples of mass entertainment, but entertainment they certainly are.

28 This shift towards the double context of a text as well as the agency of both producers and consumers is explored in the description of immersive textual analysis and how it grows out of the history of cultural and media studies in Step Two of Subchapter 1.1 Research Design.

— 74 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

All presented approaches to and definitions of entertainment have strengths and shortcomings and help to understand aspects of it. Maybe the only viable path towards a better understanding of entertainment is therefore research that is not based on just one discipline — an approach that is gaining traction in entertainment courses at universities (Collis, McKee and Hamley 2010; Jenkins 2010b). Two business scholars seem to have gone down that path and define entertainment as:

A constructed product designed to stimulate a mass audience in an agreeable way in exchange for money (Sayre and King 2010, p. 4).

Unfortunately, this fusion of different disciplines is not particularly successful. It speaks of a mass audience, gives a superficial nod towards psychology by saying the stimulation has to be agreeable, and is unoriginal and cursory in the rest of the sentence.

Why do such unsuccessful fusions happen? One reason is the sheer opposite- ness of approaches that are to be unified but another, the more interesting one for Internet-native transmedia entertainment, is the evolution of the cultural institution entertainment itself, of what it is commonly understood to be. Enter- tainment means something different today from what it meant 150 or even 50 years ago. And this cultural coding continues to change. Hans Otto Hügel argues that entertainment, the way we understand it today, began in 1850 with the introduction of ‘Familienzeitschriften’ (‘family magazines’) (Hügel 1992, p. 289) and that we will live to see the end of the ‘entertainment epoch’ (Hügel 1993, p. 138). These past 160 or so years were dominated by communication technologies that did not permit dialogue between producers and consumers. But the Internet is reintroducing that dialogue and consequently triggering new evolutionary cycles of entertainment technology. Since the Internet is a communication technology that is fundamentally different from the communication technologies that were available before, entertainment based on it can potentially be very different from the entertainment that dominated the nineteenth and twentieth century. It may still be called entertaining, but not have anything

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 75 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture in common with the entertainment that all the scholars mentioned in this chapter have struggled to define. Of course, popular usage does not care about definitions and the term entertainment may simply be appropriated for new and different forms of communicative relationships (Müller 2009b, pp. 234-235). Entertainment will continue to exist but whether it will mean the same or not, is a different question. Something, indeed, has changed already. Terms like ‘entertainment economy,’ ‘entertainment epoch,’ or ‘entertainment age’ (Zillmann and Vorderer 2000, p. vi) suggest that entertainment is not something that we go to anymore. Instead, it has permeated our world and lives, which may or may not be a good thing (Postman 1986). It has turned into something that does not exist as a distinct category anymore:

With the internet, performance is not even necessarily professionally provided (except by technicians facilitating commercial web sites) — music, drama, all kinds of performances and visual expressions are now as likely to be amateur as professional, and anyone may be both a provider and a consumer of entertainment (Dyer 2002, p. 176).

Maybe the only way to embrace both the nineteenth and twentieth century concepts of entertainment as well as the evolved one of the twenty-first century in one definition is to take a step back and keep it more general. If every discipline stumbles over details, the solution may be to not prescribe any. Collis et al. did exactly this in preparation for an Entertainment Industries university degree and define entertainment as:

Audience-centred commercial culture (Collis, McKee and Hamley 2010, p. 921).

Starting from the back, ‘culture’ does not discriminate between professional and amateur, producer and consumer, or creator and audience — all can be part of it. ‘Commercial’ means entertainment is produced for a living and is therefore not art for art’s sake — which does not mean it cannot be art. And ‘audience-centred’ emphasises that entertainment will only continue to be created if it attracts audiences. From a slightly different — and not at all monetary

— 76 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

— perspective, Kenneth Burke argues that an artist needs to understand “the psychology of the audience” (Burke 1968 [1931], p. 31). This does not mean an artist needs to create what they think their audiences will like, but they need to create it having some kind of understanding of how their audiences think in order to reach them. The big advantage of this definition is that while it clearly refers to the institutionalised concept of entertainment and not simply to entertaining, it does not cater to a specific entertainment technology. It is an appropriate description of 1850s family magazines, 1950s television, and (hopefully) 2050s Internet- native transmedia entertainment.

In the above quotation on the changing roles of amateurs and professionals, Dyer brings up an important aspect about Internet-native transmedia entertainment that follows from the characteristics of the communication technology it is based on. With the Internet being more similar to speech than to any other communication technology, communication based on it lacks many of the characteristics of communication based on writing, print, or broadcast. In using the Internet, everybody can communicate with everybody without going through any kind of intermediary. This changes the roles of all communicating parties: both producers and consumers produce and consume. Dyer is, of course, not the only one to have noticed this. The changing relationship between producers and consumers has become a research area in its own right (Bruns 2008; Burgess and Green 2009b; Hartley and McWilliam 2009; Jenkins et al. 2009; Müller 2009a) and may appear to upset media studies’ focus on distinct producer, text, and audience (Gray 2008, p. 13) — but it really only upsets some of the conclusions and theories that were drawn from it. It definitely is more difficult to observe a clear value chain from producer via text to the audience, but this does not mean the three do not exist anymore. Quite the contrary, in practice it is often fairly easy to distinguish producers and audience, even though it may sometimes not be in theory. For this thesis, producers are the ones who instigate a project that is meant for other people to enjoy, have an overall creative vision for it, and live or hope to live off it. Consumers, then, get involved once a project has at least a rough outline, add more target-

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 77 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture ed creative input, and do it for their own enjoyment. Switching roles is, of course, possible throughout the course of a project. Some consumers may get so involved they effectively or even officially become producers, with all that this entails. Emmy Award-winning Star Wars Uncut (2010) is an interesting example that helps clarify this approach. Casey Pugh conceived it as a new kind of ‘fan film remake’ of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977): he cut up the original movie into 473 15-second clips and set up a website calling on fans to choose a clip, reshoot it, and upload their version. Pugh then put the clips back together into one movie which was subsequently made available for free on the website.29 The producer in this case was Pugh, who came up with the idea and put together the required technological infrastructure, while all content was delivered by consumers. There was, of course, also a much less involved category of consumers who watched the process from the sideline or even just the end result. The text, finally, is the movie Star Wars Uncut as well as the process that led to its creation. Producer, text, and audience thus stay distinguishable. The terms themselves may have become imprecise or even inappropriate, but this does not mean they cannot be appropriated to their evolved meanings — the same way text can refer to a movie or song in media studies. Maybe entirely new terms will be coined and enter popular usage and academic research alike. But until then the thesis uses producer, creator, artist, author, and practitioner synonymously; the same goes for consumer, audience, participant, and user. Producer or creator, however, do not imply consumers do not produce or create. And very explicitly, consumer has no relation to the extremely negative Frankfurt School notion of impotent consumers (Horkheimer and Adorno 2002 [1947], p. 113).

A few words remain to be said about the relationship between entertainment and leisure. Entertainment as it was known in the nineteenth and twentieth century could be seen as a leisure activity, but at the same time, its intrinsic characteristics did not exactly equal “individual choice, freedom and self-

29 See www.starwarsuncut.com and (Pugh 2010, see a teaser on the DVD).

— 78 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture determination” (Blackshaw 2010, p. 3), which are understood to be at the root of modern leisure: the communication technologies print and broadcast did not feature dialogue and egalitarianism of communication partners, but instead had powerful intermediaries. Consumers only had individual choice of prefabricat- ed entertainment products and no direct influence on those products themselves. But with the Internet’s shift towards dialogue and a lack of intermediaries, entertainment based on it may move closer to the roots of modern leisure. Consumers, today, have not only the choice of which product to consume, but also of what to do with it, how to influence it, and ultimately how to shape it. In the case of Internet-native transmedia entertainment, therefore, the distinction between entertainment and leisure may become redundant or, at least, rather blurry. Internet-native transmedia entertainment is a disruptive technology and “historically, the more successful approach has been to find a new market that values the current characteristics of the disruptive technology” (Christensen 1997, p. 227). In other words, Internet-native transmedia entertainment products may outgrow the demarcations of our current understanding of entertainment and may have to be understood, created, and marketed as leisure instead. The following chapters give many examples of Internet-native transmedia entertainment products, and although the topic of leisure remains only tangent to the topic of the thesis, the reader may notice how quite a few of these examples have leisure characteristics or could even pass for leisure activities and not entertainment products.

This past chapter explains and justifies the attention shift from storytelling to entertainment that is required if research into movies is to cover the full extent of changes that were triggered by the emergence of the Internet. It explains why we cannot know how far advanced we are into the evolutionary process of Internet-native entertainment technology and that a basic technology may not have emerged yet — the 20-odd year time lag between the emergences of 35 mm film and movies, as well as the continued refinement of both, served as an example in this regard. Then, the chapter introduces ‘Internet-native transmedia entertainment’ as a term referring to the transmedial subset of Internet- native entertainment technologies. To understand the implications of a shift

Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment — 79 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture from storytelling to entertainment, the different disciplinary conceptualisations of entertainment are explored and the approach of Christy Collis et al. is chosen to agree with: for this thesis, entertainment is “audience-centred commercial culture” (Collis, McKee and Hamley 2010, p. 921). The chapter emphasises throughout that the Internet is a communication technology, first and foremost, and that entertainment based on it must agree with its communicative characteristics or risk feeling alien to its users — a point that has already been made by Andrew Odlyzko, albeit following a rather different line of reasoning (Odlyzko 2001). The next chapter, now, focuses on one specific Internet-native transmedia entertainment form and develops it into the concept of Entertainment Architec- ture that is the backbone of the thesis.

— 80 — Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch)

The conducted interviews and survey point to a promising, but as of yet, elusive emerging form30 of Internet-native transmedia entertainment. Immersive textual analysis, performed on a number of products based on this form, allows to conceptualise it. The result of these analyses is that this emerging form is characterised by combining the four elements story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue,’ which are described in more detail in a few pages. As explained before, narratologists and ludologists still cannot decide whether or not just story and play can successfully be combined in one product. But this form does exactly that and more: it adds ‘dance’ and ‘glue.’ This makes it is so different from pre-Internet entertainment forms that the creation of and research into it require a novel approach. I therefore propose a conceptual framework called Entertainment Architecture (entarch for short) that provides a perspective on this emerging Internet-native entertainment form to its creators and researchers.

Internet-Native Transmedia Entertainment (umbrella term)

Figure 8: Entarch in relation to (Internet-native) (transmedia) entertainment.

Entertainment Architecture is a subset of Internet-native transmedia entertainment — it may be well approximated as a subset of the intersection of transmedia storytelling and pervasive/ubiquitous games. It does, of course, also

30 As mentioned before, I speak of ‘form’ instead of ‘technology’ if the context is not evolutionary.

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 81 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture share features with the other concepts presented in Subchapter 2.3 Internet and Storytelling, but these are left out of figure 8 for the sake of clarity. The robust framework of Entertainment Architecture has been progressively built through observing and talking to creators of transmedia entertainment, and through combining those aspects of their ventures that are successful. Ac- cordingly, some readers may recognise facets of entarch. They will hopefully discover how these facets can be integrated with a versatile and robust general creative, business, and analytical framework. To others, a lot may seem new; they are guided not just by pure theory but also by many real life examples. The aim, however, is not to establish a new buzzword, but to formalise a presently implicit framework: the emphasis lies not on the term itself, but on what it means. This chapter is dedicated to explaining this conceptual framework. The essence of Entertainment Architecture is to harness the unique characteristics of the Internet in order to create an entertainment experience that is much closer to the way we communicate among ourselves today than the way broadcast media communicate with us. It is about achieving a new quality of immersion in entertainment (Rose 2011, p. 3), which requires for entertainment creators to become architects of sorts. Before moving on to the details of entarch, the chapter therefore begins by dissecting this analogy. The four elements that enable Entertainment Architecture to achieve such immersion — story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue’ — exist in a complex reciprocal relationship that is explained in Subchapter 3.1 The Four Elements of Entarch, and explored further throughout the rest of the thesis. This complexity needs to be managed if a successful entertainment product is to result from it, and Subchapter 3.2 Entarch Bible introduces a tool that can assist in this. Subchapter 3.3 The Enter- tainment Architect (EA) then explains how this complexity leads to the need for a new breed of creators.

Architecture is:

The art or science of building or constructing edifices of any kind for human use (Oxford English Dictionary 1989b, sense 1 of the noun).

— 82 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

In practice, this means architecture encompasses everything from an idea to the resulting edifice. Architecture includes a blueprint for the edifice, identifies concrete steps and measures that have to be undertaken to realise it, the activity of building it, and the edifice itself. Architecture does not, however, include instructions for construction workers on which shovel to use to dig a hole or how to handle glass or bricks so they do not crack. Architecture strives to unify the practical restrictions surrounding the construction of edifices (e.g. technology, local climate, or cultural expectations) with aspirations to create art. Dif- ferent forms of architecture have evolved in response to different sets of restrictions:

Architecture is divided into civil, ecclesiastical, naval, military, which deal respectively with houses and other buildings (such as bridges) of ordinary utility, churches, ships, fortification (Oxford English Dictionary 1989b, sense 1 of the noun, emphasis in original).

Additionally, architecture has acquired a very broad meaning that goes far beyond the construction of edifices. Its has become a term that is applied to many topics:

Transf. or fig. Construction or structure generally; both abstr. and concr. (Oxford English Dictionary 1989b, sense 5 of the noun, emphasis in original).

Most notably it has entered common usage in IT terminology (Oxford English Dictionary 1989b, sense 6 of the noun), which knows hardware, software, and many other forms of architecture. In a similar way, this thesis applies it to Internet-native transmedia entertainment. Entertainment Architecture, therefore, encompasses everything from an idea to the resulting entertainment experience. Entarch includes a blueprint for the entertainment experience, identifies concrete steps and measures that have to be undertaken to realise it, the activity of undertaking those steps, and the experience itself. It does not, however, include instructions for filmmakers on which film stock to use or for sound engineers on which microphone to choose. Entarch strives to unify the practical restrictions surrounding the crea-

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 83 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture tion of Internet-native transmedia entertainment (e.g. technology, finance, or cultural practice) with aspirations to create art. As with any term that is abstracted from its original meaning — even more so if that term has its own profession, scholarship, and history — misunderstandings are to be expected. A few words are therefore required on what En- tertainment Architecture does not imply. It does not imply other entertainment forms are not architected. Neither does it imply other forms do have an architecture, but one that is not about entertainment. It is also does not imply any kind of evaluative hierarchy — neither of quality nor strength of design, or any other kind. Entarch is not better than any other entertainment form, it is just different. Finally, it does not imply rigidity of design or of the intended entertainment experience. Quite the contrary: as that experience only comes into being through collective action, through ‘dance,’ the design has to be flexible and able to account for consumer input.31 Of course, this list is non-exhaustive. From an evolutionary standpoint, entertainment is a social technology — and “to understand a technology means to understand its principle, and how this translates into a working architecture” (Arthur 2009, p. 35). This chapter is about translating the principles of Internet-native transmedia entertainment into such a working architecture, which has to happen on two levels: entarch elements as well as entarch components have to be architected. The architecture of entarch elements is a rather conceptual topic that will be described first, while an entarch bible can facilitate the architecture of entarch components, and is described subsequently.

3.1 The Four Elements of Entarch

Entertainment Architecture encompasses all Internet-native transmedia entertainment that exhibits the four elements story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue,’ which are described in detail below. It is important to understand that these elements

31 Coincidentally, this is something that is also becoming more and more relevant to various design disciplines and architecture in the original sense of the word, see (Schuler and Namioka 1993; Kvan 2000; Arias et al. 2000; Schneekloth and Shibley 1995; Blundell-Jones, Petrescu and Till 2005; Jenkins and Forsyth 2010).

— 84 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture do not automatically combine well. As mentioned before, it is an unsolved ar- gument if merely story and play can be combined successfully — add ‘dance’ and ‘glue’ to the combination and what results may be an unsorted, ill-created blend. This is why architecting such entertainment becomes important: it has to be made sure that the four elements add up to one successful product. But before moving on to exploring these elements, a few words on how they differ from entarch components. There are only four entarch elements: story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue.’ These are conceptual terms that describe the fundamental formal aspects of Enter- tainment Architecture as opposed to concrete products. Entarch component, on the other hand, refers to a concrete product that is a building block for experiencing the overarching Entertainment Architecture. It can be a book, movie, music concert, 3-day scavenger hunt, or any other entertainment experience that would have traditionally been sold as a stand-alone product, but now furthers entertainment beyond this product. Consumers therefore only get the whole intended entertainment experience if they engage with all components of it. The fewer components they consume the more fragmented and patchy their resulting experiences will be. Furthermore, an entarch component can itself consist of components — it is a recursive concept (Arthur 2009, p. 38): an alternate reality game, for example, can have a scavenger hunt component, which can have book or movie components.

Story

We as humans, have always told stories (Boyd 2009). There are forms of entertainment that need story to exist (books, movies, theatre, video games, etc.), while other forms need it less (music, circus, sports, video games, etc.). In a similar fashion, some Entertainment Architecture emphasises story and some does not, but all entarch features it. In the following, one example of story- driven entarch is presented. Lance Weiler used to call himself a filmmaker, but believes ‘story architect’ is a more accurate description today (Seize the Media n.d.-b). He does not create feature film length narratives anymore, but conceives what he calls sto-

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 85 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

ryworlds for his projects that play out across various media and real life before, during, and after his movies (Weiler n.d.). For one of his projects, he remixed his own horror movie Head Trauma (2006) in the following way. He created software that called Figure 9: In-character preacher (Knowledge@Wharton 2007a), reproduced all public phones in the vicinity of the with permission from Knowledge@Wharton. cinema that was screening the movie. An actor was playing a street preacher “preaching fire and brimstone” (Margolis 2010) and handing out small religious comics not far from the cinema. If a consumer examined that comic closely or answered one of the public Figure 10: Musicians scoring the screening live (Knowledge@Wharton 2007b), phones, they found clues related to reproduced with permission from Knowledge@Wharton. the story that was going to unfold during the movie. There was no soundtrack to the movie. Instead, musicians and DJs scored it live. Actors emerged from the audience at scary moments to play characters from the movie. The audience itself was able to interact with th e movie Figure 11: Announcement via their mobile phones. before the screening. Back at home, if an audience member accessed a website that was mentioned in the comic book, their phone would ring and the nemesis of the movie would start talking to and scar- ing them, all the while serving them content on the website that reacted to what the audience member told the nemesis on the phone. Parts of what the audience member said were recorded and played back to them via their own computer speakers. And finally, at the end of this part of the experience, the

— 86 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture caller was added to a conference call with all the other callers who were experiencing the same thing at the same time (Weiler n.d.). Head Trauma Remix (2007) shows how an experience can be extended from one medium to several others, even though it had originally been conceived and screened as a regular movie. All the described extensions were part of a movie remix Weiler created after the original theatrical and DVD distribution. For the video on demand release of Head Trauma, he extended his storyworld once again via an alternate reality game called Hope is Missing (HiM) (2007). Weiler calls his approach cinema ARG as it is largely centred around a movie that tells a story. All other components of Head Trauma Remix are meant to extend this story to create a deeper sense of immersion. He generates income from the sale of regular cinema tickets, DVDs, VOD, and so forth, as well as from staging cinema ARG events at venues like the Museum of the Moving Im- age in New York, which pay him to do so (Knowledge@Wharton 2007c). It is not straightforward whether the components that go beyond the movie itself — the preacher before the screening or the follow-up phone calls — should be considered part of the product or rather part of its promotion. This problem in separating an entertainment product from its promotion arises time and again throughout the thesis and is explored in greater detail in Subchapter 5.2 The Young Entarch Industry.

Play

Play, being intrinsic to human culture (Huizinga 1955; Konner 2010, esp. pp. 500-517), has been embraced by the creators of Entertainment Architecture. One reason may be that transmediality requires some form of activity from the consumers’ side: if an experience begins on one medium and continues on another, the medium has to be switched. And creators often attempt to turn this switching, or moment of activity, into a playful experience. Play, however, is not restricted to the fringes of Entertainment Architecture, but may also be its main driver, as in the case of the following example.

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 87 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

PacManhattan (2004), an adaptation of the video game Pac-Man (1980), consists of:

Five players in the street (Pac Man + 4 ghosts) and five players in a control room. Each Player on the street is teamed with a Controller, both of whom are in constant contact via cellphone for the duration of the game. The role of the Control- ler is to update the position of their Player as he or she runs through the streets (PacManhattan 2004).

The physical playground of the game is the area around Washington Square in New York City, where the urban grid resembles the maze of the original Pac- Man game. Every player in the street updates their Controller by phone every time they reach an intersection, and the Controller updates the player’s position on an online map that is shared among all Controllers. Pac-Man’s Control- ler sees everything; the ghosts’ Controllers only see the ghosts and the remaining “‘dots,’ the virtual objects that Pac-Man automatically consumes for points as he travels” (Lantz 2009, p. 132). The media used in PacManhattan are mobile phones and the Internet, but the entarch does not depend on these: in other locations the use of walkie- talkies, GPS, Wi-Fi, or the like may be more feasible. Income streams have not been explored, since PacManhattan was conceived by students as part of their course at New York University.

‘Dance’

‘Dance’ refers to the sociality and collectiveness of Entertainment Architecture — and being used figuratively, it continues to appear in quotation marks. The term was inspired by interview partner Sean Stewart, who likens the relationship between author and audience in his projects to a dance: he as the author holds out his hand and hopes for an audience to join him. Stewart’s idea is developed a little further in the thesis: if the audience joins, the ‘dance’ begins — but as with real dance, somebody has to lead. That is the role of the author. This ‘dance,’ however, is not like Salsa (an intimate experience between two people) but more like a rave (a DJ providing the stimulus that inspires a large crowd to dance not just with the DJ but also with each other). Entarch is there-

— 88 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture fore not just social between author and audience member, but among potentially large numbers of audience members as well. In a sense, Entertainment Architecture is like real dance: slightly less fun if done by oneself. How much sociality and collectiveness is intended can vary from entarch to entarch. The following example relied heavily on ‘dance.’ Interview partner Christopher Sandberg emphasises that the goal of Emmy Award winning The Truth About Marika (2007) was the creation of a participatory consumer experience (thecompanyp 2008, see DVD). To that end, The company P teamed up with the Swedish public broadcaster SVT to pair a TV drama series with an alternate reality game.32 The five-episode TV drama series revolved around the disappearance of a young woman by the name of Marika. However, real life events that were happening at the same time as the TV series was broadcast pointed towards the possibility that the TV series was based on a true story, which was about a woman called Adrijanna and her search for her supposedly real friend Marika. As a result, Adrijanna’s search started to become more and more prominent in the media. A Sweden-wide movement emerged trying to help her find her friend. All around the country people contacted Adrijanna after they thought they had spotted Marika. Adrijanna travelled across Sweden for 8 months while her supporters found out more and more about an evil security company that seemed to be involved in Marika’s disappearance. In the end, it turned out that Adrijanna was an actor who had spent the entire time in character travelling and following leads from the audience, who invested a lot of time and effort in supporting Adrijanna’s cause — despite both TV series and ARG being fictional, and having been promoted as such from the very beginning. Both TV series and alternate reality game were financed by the public broadcaster SVT, but created in cooperation with The company P. Again, as in the case of Head Trauma Remix, it is not straightforward whether the ARG part of The Truth About Marika was sophisticated promotion or part of the experience itself: the TV series consisted of only five episodes screened over the

32 The description of The Truth About Marika is partly based on (Denward and Waern 2008, pp. 250-252; Waern and Denward 2009).

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 89 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture course of one month, while the ARG lasted 8 months and only began after the TV series had already been launched.

‘Glue’

The fourth and last entarch element ‘glue’ has to be explained via the reci- procity of the previous three elements, which requires a quick thematic detour. Looking at the examples that illustrate the elements story, play, and ‘dance’ it becomes clear that no specific relationship between the three is prescribed in Entertainment Architecture:

• Head Trauma is story-driven but includes play and ‘dance’ elements — play and ‘dance’ enrich the story. • PacManhattan is play-driven but it is the ‘dance’ that makes it so extraordinary — ‘dance’ and (a very rudimentary) story enrich the play. • The Truth About Marika is ‘dance’-driven but includes an elaborate story and many play elements — story and play enrich the ‘dance.’

Entertainment Architecture does not have to follow a certain formula of story, play, and ‘dance.’ It simply acknowledges their existence and emphasises their reciprocal relationship. Such a relationship, however, introduces certain hurdles to entarch creation that have to be successfully taken by creators to make an immersive consumer entertainment experience possible. Considering how strongly researchers are divided on the question whether story and play are reconcilable, it does not come as a surprise that doing just that is not an easy task. On top of that, large numbers of consumers may have to be organised and coordinated, and their move from non-interactive to interactive media and onwards has to be facilitated. Some entarch components, for example, may be consumed in bed before falling asleep, while some may require consumers to run through streets with strangers and answer public phones, as in the case of the alternate reality game i love bees (2004). All these transitions are potentially problematic. Christopher Sandberg emphasises that consumers want to continue doing whatever they are doing at any particular moment; he likens it to inertia. In his experience, there is a consumer drop off rate when they are asked to switch from one medium to another and

— 90 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture entarch has to be designed around this problem. For example does The company P never design its projects to be interactive at a point in time when consumers are enjoying a non-interactive medium. Sean Stewart agrees and Jeff Gomez explains that Starlight Runner Entertainment has a specific approach to such design, for which they employ the terms ‘flow tag’ and ‘call-out’:

Flow tags are in the diegesis, which means that the fiction itself is indicating where the audience member needs to go next within the context of the narrative. Call-outs are in the exegesis, which means that the packaging, marketing, or some other element outside of the fiction is indicating where the audience member needs to go next.

‘Flow’ is a key term here. Brian Boyd assures us that:

For children, direction, narration, and enactment flow readily and naturally into one another. So long as the play-story continues, consistency of medium or mode does not matter (Boyd 2009, p. 177).

Children might therefore have less trouble engaging with Entertainment Ar- chitecture than adults, who seem to have lost this natural acceptance of play- story continuity across media. Entarch therefore has to make sure story, play, and ‘dance’ flow readily and naturally into one another — not just for children, but for adults as well. On a practical level this means it has to be made sure that story, play, and ‘dance’ can continue to flow into one another across all entarch components, from a movie into a video game, into a rave, and so forth. Only then can components amalgamate into Entertainment Architecture. But how can this continuation of flow be secured? By making sure there is something that connects the movie to the video game and the rave in a pre-defined way. By making sure that all entarch components are aligned with each other correctly and ‘glued tight’ in this formation so story, play, and ‘dance’ can flow readily from component to component, from movie to video game to rave. The term ‘glue’ goes back to Elan Lee, a colleague of Sean Stewart, who explains that for the first ever alternate reality game — The Beast (2001) — they created a number of websites which together told a story over the duration of

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 91 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture the game. These websites were originally created to hold (to ‘glue’) a movie and a number of video games together, but, as the video games were scrapped, ended up standing alone (Kim et al. 2009; Elefante 2010). Lee really means two things when he talks about ‘glue’: the story of The Beast and its interconnectivity. Story becomes an element of its own in this thesis (see above), and ‘glue’ is used to solely refer to the interconnectivity of Entertainment Architecture — to the way it is perceived as one product despite being spread across a number of components. Since it is used figuratively, ‘glue’ continues to appear in quotation marks. It is the element that turns separate entertainment experiences into one. It can be a hyperlink, an augmented reality smartphone application that recognises real-life objects and triggers the next entarch component, an actor sitting on a bench in a park passing on hints to participants, or an announcement at the end of a TV show advertising the graphic novel to the show. ‘Glue’ keeps all entarch components aligned, and this makes it crucial for an immersive entertainment experience. Such ‘glue’ does not have to be rigid, but can be very flexible — with time, a creator may even choose to disbond certain components because they cannot go where the Entertainment Architecture is being taken. It is this ‘glue’ that allows story, play, and ‘dance’ to flow from entarch component to entarch component. Without good ‘glue,’ entertainment architecture does not deserve its name, the same way a pile of bricks does not deserve to be called architecture while the Palace of Versailles does. The difference between the pile and the palace is that in Versailles every brick has its place in relation to all other bricks and is ‘glued’ to them using, in that case, mortar. The same goes for entertainment architecture: it requires ‘glue’ in order to become more than just a pile of words, videos, websites, games, events, and the like. If looked at from a different perspective, ‘glue’ has another task. Any good entertainment product — be it a movie, video game, novel, live concert, or radio show — has a red thread going through it. The challenge to good Enter- tainment Architecture is that every component has its own red thread, but that the entarch also needs an overarching one. All the while, no thread can be allowed to contradict another one or lead consumers astray. The solution is to ‘glue’ not just the components, but specifically their red threads.

— 92 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Good Entertainment Architecture therefore ‘glues’ the end of one thread to the beginning of another and so forth until there is one long thread. It may also braid several red threads into a ‘red rope.’ A creator then takes consumers by their hands and ‘dances’ with them on that rope, maybe even hopping from thread to thread — without getting lost in the entarch. The result is entarch elegance.33 Good ‘glue’ therefore defines good Entertainment Architecture and there is a fantastic strength to this: ‘glue’ can enable creators to sell services enabling entertainment experiences instead of easily piratable goods containing entertainment products (e.g. CD, DVD, or Blu-rayDisc). ‘Glue’ can therefore become a key to monetisation. The following hypothetical example shall illustrate this:

Beautiful but indecipherable stencils or graffiti are spread all over a city and collectively tell a story. Although they are freely accessible to anybody, a tool (e.g. an iPhone or Android App) is needed to connect to a central database that is constantly updated with current information regarding all stencils and therefore knows where to find them, in which order to access them, and how to decipher them. When pointed at a stencil, the tool shows a location-aware augmented reality (AR) film that consists of pre-recorded scenes with actors as well as hidden camera footage of the consumer and everybody who has used the tool at this spot before. Through finding the stencils and watching the films a consumer can experience a story about, for example, the history of that city, but also an entirely fictional one. Although the stencils are free and reproducible, the tool is what makes the entertainment experience possible: it enables the story, play, and ‘dance’ elements to flow into one another across all entarch components. It connects and braids together all red threads, provides flow tags and call-outs, and takes consumers by the hand to ‘dance’ on the red rope. The tool is the ‘glue,’ and it can be sold.

‘Glue’ makes or breaks Entertainment Architecture. It is that design aspect of entarch which enables consumers to move across media without getting lost, which turns disparate entarch components into a coherent whole, and which therefore creates continuity. But it is specifically not the design of entarch

33 This refers to Jeff Gomez’ term Transmedia Elegance, which he uses in a similar fashion (Powell 2010). While approaching this topic from a slightly different angle, Jonathan Gray concurs by saying that paratexts are not intrinsically beneficial to an entertainment experience as they “can often lead audiences down blind alleys” (Gray 2010, p. 140). He refers to his concept of “incorporated paratexts” in this context (Gray 2010, pp. 208-210).

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 93 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture components themselves, but of the links connecting them. ‘Glue’ enables the full entertainment experience, turns creators into service providers instead of goods sellers, and because of that, is a key to monetisation.

As already mentioned in relation to architecture, abstracting ‘dance’ and ‘glue’ from their original meanings may well lead to misunderstandings. What is more, ‘dance’ and ‘glue’ in one product may seem like a poor metaphor and a contradiction — and some scholars may see similar problems with story and play. But, really, there is no contradiction here — just an architectural challenge. There simply are different forces at play in Entertainment Architecture, which all have to be understood and managed: entarch has to be architected in a way that allows for all of them in one product. The goal is not to glue consumers to each other and let them play football in a dancing manner while re- citing poems. Combining the four elements in a convincing way is therefore a major challenge creators of Entertainment Architecture face, and doing it well separates the wheat from the chaff.

3.2 Entarch Bible

Since Entertainment Architecture is to combine story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue,’ it necessitates an approach to creation and research that deals well with complexity, addresses all four elements as well as their reciprocal relationship, and allows for a coordination of the entire process from inception to performance. Of course, entertainment is not the only, or even first, domain to face such problems. The architecture of edifices is another and much older one, which is why a look at how it deals with them is very insightful. Architects have been developing tools to assist them in their complex tasks from the very beginning (Kymmell 2008, p. 1), with the newest one attempting to capitalise on the rapid evolution of information technology: Building Infor- mation Modelling (BIM), “one of the most promising developments in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industries” (Eastman et al. 2011, p. 1).

— 94 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Its approach is quite simple in theory but has huge effects in practice. Ac- cording to a very basic definition BIM is:

The process of creating and using digital models for design, construction and/or operations of projects (Young, Jones and Bernstein 2008, p. 2).

The big change from existing approaches is that instead of creating large numbers of separate documents for architecture, construction, and operation of edifices, one giant database is created, and architects, engineers, contractors, and many more can provide input for it. Instead of having thousands of documents, one database is created and kept up to date by all involved parties in real time and includes all relevant information. Any document that is then needed by anybody at any point in time can then be exported from it, and always includes the newest developments in all areas. Users of BIM are enabled to always know what has to be done when and by who (Cotts, Roper and Payant 2010, p. 181). Contractors know if construction is behind schedule or ahead of time and can organise their processes accordingly. If one construction site is ahead of time and another one is delayed, they know where to send their employees. The project manager of a site knows when to ask the city to block off a street for security reasons. The purchasing department knows when to order which raw materials. The finance department knows when and how many funds will be required. And finally, when construction is finished, the owner of a building has a detailed database regarding every aspect of their new building, which eases maintenance over the lifespan of that building considerably (Young, Jones and Bernstein 2008 pp. 21-24). A central real-time database allows for a level of coordination heretofore impossible, which some other industries have discovered even earlier:

For decades, aerospace, automotive and shipbuilding companies have designed their complex products virtually, working closely with their suppliers, and used the models to drive their fabrication equipment. In effect they build the product twice, once virtually to ensure optimization, then physically in exact compli- ance with the model, at a high level of quality and production efficiency, in safe clean conditions with a skilled and well-trained workforce. This has contributed

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 95 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

enormously to improved productivity, safety and product quality in those industries (Young, Jones and Bernstein 2008, p. 21).

Entertainment creators have been developing their own tools to support them in their tasks. One of them — the so-called ‘bible’ — builds on the same idea of constructing one central (top secret) document that includes information for all involved co-creators of an entertainment product so that consistency can be achieved in the final result. In the Golden Age of Hollywood, encyclopaedic movie bibles were compiled for the production of big budget movies (Custen 1999, esp. pp. 136-137). Television producers create show bibles to keep track of characters and their interconnections in TV series, or more general technical and design information in the case of TV format sale (Moran and Malbon 2006, pp. 23, 60-65; Chwen-Chwen 2007, pp. 186-187). Being the paid author of a “bible for any television serial or prime-time miniseries of at least four (4) hours” (Writers Guild of America 2009, Section 4.d) is also one of the ways to become a member of the Writers Guild of America, West (WGAW). And the video game industry uses game bibles that allow all areas of game development to collaborate more effectively (Rouse 2004, pp. 311-313, 315-316; Adams 2010, p. 58; Schell 2008, p. 385). From discussions with practitioners and from examining the large number of entarch examples throughout the thesis, however, it becomes clear that the distributed and interconnected nature of Entertainment Architecture necessitates a new form of bible, which refer to as ‘entarch bible.’34 And just as architecture and many other professions have been able to profit from the developments in information technology and real-time databases, entertainment can do the same. Unfortunately, all discussion regarding entarch bibles has to happen in a hypothetical way. This is for two reasons. First, as far as is possible to tell, creators of Entertainment Architecture are very much experimenting and finding their way towards functional entarch bibles at the moment and no comprehensive dominant model seems to exist yet. And second, even those early steps are

34 Gary Hayes calls this kind of bible a ‘Transmedia Production Bible,’ and offers a different take on its creation that, nonetheless, somewhat overlaps with the concept of an entarch bible (Hayes 2011).

— 96 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture kept as business secrets, so what I have seen I cannot share at this point for confidentiality reasons. The major aspects of an entarch bible, however, appear to currently be of the following:

• A description of the intended entertainment experience — of the relationship and weighting of the four elements story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue.’ • A description of the entertainment world — not of the specific story that will be told, but of the fictional universe in which story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue’ will play out. • A description of the entertainment process — of the order in which entarch components will become relevant during consumption. • A description of the concrete tasks awaiting the creators of Entertainment Architecture for the entertainment experience to become possible and, if the entarch bible is to serve as the technological backbone of that experience, the provision of software that facilitates the co-creation of that experience with consumers after it has been prepared. • A linking of all aspects of the Entertainment Architecture with affected business processes — for example with costs, income, personnel requirements, technological requirements, etc.

Such an entarch bible can effectively assist authors in creating Entertainment Architecture. However, every entarch has specific requirements regarding its bible — the PacManhattan bible would differ from The Truth About Marika bible. It will therefore be interesting to see how far entarch bibles will become standardised, if at all. The following subchapters describe each of the above- mentioned entarch bible aspects in more detail, without gearing the concept towards any subform of Entertainment Architecture.

Entertainment Experience

As established in Subchapter 2.4 What is Entertainment?, entertainment is created for an audience. Perhaps the most fundamental aspect of entertainment is therefore a clear understanding of the product that is presented to consumers. An important difference in that regard to previous entertainment forms is that Entertainment Architecture is not defined by one specific medium it uses and therefore cannot be sold as such — in this it is very much unlike a movie, TV

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 97 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture series, or novel. Instead, entarch is defined by the intended entertainment experience, which means creators have to ask themselves questions like:

• Will the experience fit in already existing categories like alternate reality games or urban games (Montola, Stenros and Waern 2009a, p. xx) and will it be marketed that way or will it be a radically new idea that will require the audience to be carefully introduced to it? • What will be the relationship between story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue’ — which one will be emphasised? • Who will be the target group: pre-school girls, football fans, Christian music aficionados, or Thai boxers? • What genre will it be: British humour, bromance, fantasy, war action, tragedy, or war documentary? • Will the experience be an active or passive one? • What will be the length of the experience: 30 seconds or 25 years? • Will the experience be spread across a large number of media, which would raise the importance of good ‘glue,’ or will it emphasise a certain driving platform?

To describe the entertainment experience means to describe Entertainment Architecture from a consumer perspective. Here, the inner workings of entarch are not relevant. What is relevant is the intended consumer experience. This is again analogous to architecture, where a consumer is rarely interested in a structural analysis of a building but much more in the building’s impact on themself. They may be concerned with style: is it Baroque, Rococo, Bau- haus, or Chinese architecture of the Song Dynasty? Is it spacious or confining? Does it feature outdoor spaces or not? If it does, are they gardens or concreted terraces? Is it architecture to live in (e.g. a home) or is it public (e.g. a court)? What are its colours? What is its size? An entarch bible describes the intended entertainment experience in a similar way. It may summarise the story, explain the rules of play, describe the ‘dance,’ explain how the three work together, and what benefit all this offers to the audience.

— 98 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Entertainment World

Entertainment Architecture, since it happens dialogically with the audience, necessitates a prior specification of an entertainment world so as to ensure the product is prepared for, and can really follow, audience directions. Creating such worlds is an approach that has begun in other entertainment forms — regarding movies, see for example (Bordwell 2006, pp. 58-59; Weiler n.d.), and regarding video games, the extremely well-protected Halo Story Bible has become a myth in itself (Halopedia 2011b; Bungie 2007b) — but has to be pushed much further in Entertainment Architecture. Instead of a rigid story, a fictional world has to be detailed here in which story, play, ‘dance’ and ‘glue’ can be situated and evolve along with consumer interaction. This world is the setting in which the defined entertainment experience can happen as part of the creator’s vision. If it is a fantastic world with rules that differ from the real world, these have to be defined. Time, place, characters, relationships, back- stories, and all interconnections must be explained. The world has to be conceived in as much detail as possible. The aim is not to write content that will be delivered to consumers via certain media, but to create content for an encyclopaedic entarch bible. This bible is then to be consulted when content for specific media is created. The concept of world building differs from the idea of a ‘canon’ in that canon refers to the original entertainment products published by their creators as opposed to fan-created content (Black 2007, p. 126; McCardle 2003, pp. 435-436), while entertainment world refers to information that includes not only what has been published, but also a lot of information that goes beyond that, and may or may not be published in the future. As will be seen in the following examples of entertainment world descriptions, a rough outline of the story to be told can add to the detail of the world’s description — but the emphasis decidedly remains on the world itself, as the story may change in consequence of audience interaction. Unfortunately, the presented examples are not of Entertainment Architecture, but of other entertainment products with well-conceived entertainment worlds — a downside of researching such a young phenomenon.

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 99 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

The relationship between entertainment world description and story is well- illustrated by the Transformers Production Bible:35 although 154 pages long including appendices, the story of the first 64 episodes of the TV series, aired over three years (between 1984 and 1987), is summarised on just 24 pages. The bible starts off with a general introduction of the entertainment world of The Transformers, which would later be called the ‘Transformers Universe’ (Budiansky, Akin and Garvey 1986−1987):

Millions of years ago, in a galaxy many light-years from our solar system, the planet of CYBERTRON supported a life-force of mechanical, electronic creatures — intelligent robots — which could think and feel. As this race of robots advanced, they continued developing new technologies to increase their intelligence and abilities to incredible levels. But with greater technology came greater evils, and Cybertron fell into a warring state with two groups of robots pitted against one another in mortal combat. One was a malevolent race of robot war- riors known as the DECEPTICONS. The brutal Decepticons were driven by a single, undeviating goal — total domination of the universe. This was in bitter opposition to the more benevolent race of robots known as — the AUTOBOTS (TFARCHIVE n.d., pp. 1-2).

This description of the Transformers Universe goes on to fill 5 pages and ends with:

Soon the people of Earth learned of the evil Decepticons, and they fought val- iantly to save their precious life support systems. But they could do nothing in the face of this constant alien terror. Only the Autobots — those massive robots with their ethical computer ‘hearts’ — stood between them and certain extinction. Thus it was that the hostilities that swept Cybertron were renewed on Earth (TFARCHIVE n.d., p. 5).

Then the four main human characters, the headquarters of the Autobots and Decepticons, and 98 Transformers characters are described — although the first version of the bible is rumoured to have been a lot shorter and have fea-

35 Never officially published, one of the staff writers gave a copy to a fan in the late 1990s under the condition never to copy it. That fan stuck to the condition by not copying but transcrib- ing it. Now it is available online (TFARCHIVE n.d.), of course without official approval. A lot of its content has also been officially published in comic form in (Budiansky, Akin and Garvey 1986−1987) and as appendices of (Budiansky and Furman 1984−1991, vols. 47-79).

— 100 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture tured a lot less characters. This shows that a bible may never be finished and may, indeed, constantly evolve. In fact, Starlight Runner Entertainment created an entirely new and very comprehensive bible — a Mythology in their terminology — based on all Transformers products published to date to support the creation of the relaunched Transformers (2007 − 2011) movie series, which unfortunately cannot be cited here for confidentiality reasons. Sean Stewart pushes the idea of constant bible evolution even further when he says that their audience assists in creating a bible: although Fourth Wall Studios create very detailed and precise design documents, character sketches, backstory pieces, and so forth, they also consult the various dedicated websites, wikis, or forums that are set up by fans. Adrian Hon agrees that bibles can be well created by the community (Hon 2007b). Such bibles do, then, effectively represent the canon. Another important aspect of the Transformers Production Bible is that it not only describes the personalities of all characters but also their appearance and any other relevant information, as becomes very apparent in the following description of Jetfire:

(Note: JETFIRE has been “transformed” into SKYFIRE — with a different model — due to legal reasons. Do not use this character unless necessary.) NAME: JETFIRE FUNCTION: AUTOBOT AIR GUARDIAN TRANS-FORM: SUPER JET ABILITIES: Largest and swiftest Autobot... swing-wing design in jet mode – reaches speeds of Mach 4.2 with wings back. Orbital velocity and escape of Earth’s gravity (speeds to Mach 29) achieved by adding twin scramjet modules... Can fly halfway around the world in 30 minutes, carrying other Autobots. Car- ries 4 particle-beam cannons and heat-seeking, armor-piercing missiles. Prone to mechanical failure due to advanced technology. PROFILE: Originally a scientist-explorer on Cybertron before the Autobot- Decepticon wars, Jetfire crashed on Earth and was buried in the Arctic ice for millions of years. (Episode #4) He believes that victory over the Decepticons will come through advancements in Autobot technology. His allegiance to the cause is matched by his devotion to scientific research, and his intellectual curiosity and dedication to all life forms keeps him on the side of the Autobots.

The first interesting aspect of this description is that legal information is given to the writers because it influences their work. But it is perhaps even more

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 101 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture interesting that the entire description helps to visualise Jetfire. This is not only necessary for writers, but also for continuity across various media — which is essential for The Transformers, which were originally conceived as a toy line with the comic series developed to help popularise that toy line. The descriptions of Jetfire’s ‘trans-form’ and ‘abilities’ are therefore directly usable information for the toymakers. The descriptions of his function and profile aid in fleshing out the details. A good entertainment world description is therefore not just required for the story but can potentially influence all aspects of Entertain- ment Architecture: creative, legal, business, and more. The Series Bible (Moore 2003) of the relaunched Battlestar Galactica (2003 − 2009) TV series is another example of great entertainment world description. It is 53 pages long, filled with encyclopaedic information, and begins with a just over two pages long mission statement:

Our goal is nothing less than the reinvention of the science fiction television series. We take as a given the idea that the traditional space opera with its stock characters, techno-double-talk, bumpy-headed aliens, thespian histrionics, and emp- ty heroics has run its course and a new approach is required. That approach is to introduce realism into what has heretofore been an aggressively unrealistic genre. Call it “Naturalistic Science Fiction.” This idea, the presentation of a fantastical situation in naturalistic terms, will permeate every aspect of our series […] (Moore 2003, p. 1).

This mission statement then dedicates roughly a paragraph to each of the following aspects of the series: visual, editorial, story, (fictional) science, and character. In the end it concludes with:

Our characters are living, breathing people with all the emotional complexity and contradictions present in quality dramas like “The West Wing” or “The So- pranos.” In this way, we hope to challenge our audience in ways that other genre pieces do not. We want the audience to connect with the characters of Galac- tica as people. Our characters are not super-heroes. They are not an elite. They are everyday people caught up in a enormous cataclysm and trying to survive it as best they can. They are you and me (Moore 2003, p. 3).

— 102 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

After the mission statement, the document goes on to describe ‘The Twelve Colonies’ — the 12 fictional planets inhabited by humans — including their history, religion, technology, and culture and society, although all of them are destroyed in the 3-hour miniseries that precedes the actual TV series, and are therefore fictional history for the 4-season long TV series (Moore 2003, pp. 4- 7). Then it describes the robotic enemies of mankind called ‘The Cylons’ (Moore 2003, pp. 8-11) and gives character biographies of all important human characters (Moore 2003, pp. 12-29). It describes the kinds of stories that will be told, how tension will be maintained, what types of structure will be used (series arcs, multi-episodic arcs, and stand alone arcs), the Cylons’ influence, and that there will be plot-driven as well as character-driven stories (Moore 2003, pp. 30-33). At the end, the document describes in detail ‘The Battlestar Galac- tica’ itself, the space ship on which the action takes place (Moore 2003, pp. 41-49). The only glimpse of the actual story of Battlestar Galactica is given in a short seven page long summary — and only regarding season one of four (Moore 2003, pp. 34-40). The vast majority of the Battlestar Galactica: Series Bible is dedicated to conceiving a world in which stories can happen, not to describing the stories themselves.

Entertainment Process

Once the intended entertainment experience and the entertainment world have been addressed, the process by which they will be delivered to and co-created with the audience has to be developed. Entarch components cannot be produced and published independently from each other, but all components have to be part of concerted activity: the entertainment process. Coordination of this process and good ‘glue’ become crucial in entertainment that is delivered and created via many media. By consulting an entarch bible, producers must be able to answer questions like:

• Which entarch component is based on which medium/media? • How are specific components interrelated? • In what order are entarch components to be unveiled? • What has to happen for a certain component to be unveiled?

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 103 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

• Which components contain calls to action and what do these intend consumer to do? • How can consumers trigger certain components? • What kind of influence do consumers have on which components?

The aim is to make sure the various entarch components work well with each other. Some creators have developed their own approaches to this: Lance Weiler considers it part of a ‘storyworld description’ (Weiler n.d.; Margolis 2010; Weiler 2009) and Jeff Gomez calls it a ‘transmedia rollout blueprint.’ Gomez’ approach comes the closest to that of the entertainment process as presented here: the idea is to strictly focus on the process of the planned entertainment product, from pre-production until the end of its execution. As a result, an understanding is generated that can be exploited for the development of good ‘glue.’ However, no specific formula for describing the entertainment process is suggested, as different projects may necessitate entirely different processes. The following two examples illustrate how some practitioners go about ex- pressing entertainment processes at the moment. Generally accepted methods do not exist yet, and while both examples have significant shortcomings, they nonetheless present insightful first steps. International Mime Academy (2009) is a very simple alternate reality game that takes less than 10 minutes to complete. It was created by No Mimes Media LLC36 for conferences and meetings to help people better understand transmedia.37 A participant somehow learns that ‘Oswald’ is in trouble. The only lead is some kind of connection to the ‘International Mime Academy.’ By guessing the website to be www.internationalmimeacademy.com, the participant finds a phone number and an email address. If they write an email, they get an immediate response not helping them in any way but mentioning the same phone number again. When the participant then calls this number, they reach an answering machine that plays back the recording of a female voice with a French accent giving information about the academy. After a while,

36 See www.nomimes.com. 37 Email correspondence with Behnam Karbassi from No Mimes Media LLC.

— 104 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture however, a male voice interrupts the recording, identifies himself as Oswald, and finishes the recording by saying ‘A terrible thing to waste!’ twice. The participant then has to guess that this is a hint. The solution is to go to www.aterriblethingtowaste.com, a blog. Some of the letters of the first blog post are of a different colour than the rest, and put together they spell ‘youtu- beoswaldthemime.’ Going to www.youtube.com/oswaldthemime, the partici-

INTERNATIONAL MIME ACADEMY MINI-ARG FLOWCHART

gives URL

contact email

Autoreply

phone number

International Mime Academy Site

URL Inference Hacked Puzzle Voicemail

Bold Letter Puzzle A Terrible Thing to Waste Blog

Research Puzzle Oswald's YouTube Account

Autoreply Oswald's email

Surprise Phone Call Thank you from Oswald

No Mimes Media LLC www.nomimes.com

Figure 12: The entertainment process of International Mime Academy, reproduced with permission from No Mimes Media LLC.

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 105 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture pant finds a video of Oswald explaining he is kept captive and that the door is locked with a ‘Kryptonite Evolution 2000’ bike lock. He asks anybody who has an idea how to help him to send an email to ‘Oswald at my website.’ When the participant searches the Internet for information about that bike lock, they find out that in 2004 many websites reported on this lock to be of low quality, and that it can be opened using a Bic pen. After the participant sends an email suggesting the use of a Bic pen to [email protected], they receive an answer from Oswald who, thanks to the participant, managed to escape. Here, the participant expects the ARG to be over, but after a while they receive a threatening phone call from a male person with a French accent. This is where the game really ends. Figure 12 illustrates the entertainment process using a basic flowchart with screenshots. For very simple Entertainment Architecture, such an approach may suffice. Although a website, a blog, emails, a YouTube video, and a phone call are used to provide an entertainment product to a consumer, the diagram does not become very complex. The main reasons for this are the limited time span of the entertainment experience and its near-linear nature. As with all alternate reality games, story and play are tightly interlinked and held together by strong ‘glue.’ International Mime Academy is a little untypical as an ARG as it does not feature a strong ‘dance’ element — clearly the decision was made to favour repeatability and single player capability over social interaction, an important decision every Entertainment Architect has to make for themself. The second example Colour Bleed (2012, forthcoming), created by Rhys Miles Thomas of Glass Shot LLP,38 has been analysed by Robert Pratten, a movie director and producer39 whose current focus is to facilitate the process of In- ternet-native transmedia entertainment, to which end he has set up a company called Transmedia Storyteller.40 The following is a diagram — a ‘Platform Ac- tion Chart’ in Pratten’s terminology — he created to illustrate the entertainment process of Colour Bleed.

38 See www.glassshot.co.uk. 39 See www.zenfilms.com. 40 See www.tstoryteller.com.

— 106 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Figure 13: The entertainment process of Colour Bleed, reproduced with permission from Rhys Miles Thomas and Robert Pratten.

Colour Bleed is more complex than International Mime Academy for four reasons. First, it is a 6-month instead of 10-minute long entertainment experience. Second, it spans many more media. Third, it weaves user generated content into the experience. And fourth, it includes several alternate reality games as components of the experience, each of which is more complex than the entire International Mime Academy ARG. In Figure 13, horizontal arrows represent entarch components and vertical arrows represent their interconnections. Every single component, however, is more complex than a simple horizontal arrow might suggest. ARG components, for example, necessitate their own sub-diagrams for detailed representation, as seen in relation to International Mime Academy above. The clarity, however, would suffer if all information was added into one document. But in its current form the diagram can only give a rough overview of the project. Es- pecially the vertical arrows, in a sense the ‘glue’ of Colour Bleed, need to be much more detailed. The creators of Bluebird AR (2010) tried a different relationship of brevity and detail and arrived at their concept of a 41-page ‘Interac-

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 107 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture tion Map’ (Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2010). But providing an overview as well as detail in one and the same document appears rather difficult. Which is why, according to Christopher Sandberg, The company P creates a large number of different documents depending on what they will be used for:

We create briefs, we create big codexes of the underlying themes or characters or storylines or worlds or relationships between different entities in the story, we create plot outlines for the manuscripts, we create storylines and step outlines, we create big design structures and design documents, we create user experience flow charts — all these different tools from computer game design to film pre-planning.

Perhaps Pratten and his company Transmedia Storyteller, or somebody else, will succeed in creating a system that will allow zooming in and out of details depending on the level of information needed at any given point in time, but this would require some form of database or other software and not documents. Many companies are working on this problem, some of which are mentioned above and more are mentioned below.

The Two Stages of Entarch Creation

Now that the entertainment experience, world, and process have been concep- tualised, the focus shifts to the tasks a producer has to undertake to create the Entertainment Architecture. In contrast to movies (and other traditional entertainment products), where the creative tasks end with the screening in cinemas (because movies do not change anymore afterwards), entarch continues to be co-created with consumers after it has already been launched. Regarding every entarch component, therefore, two creation stages can be distinguished. In the first stage, every entarch component needs to be prepared before it can be launched — concrete steps and measures that have to be undertaken must be identified. Anything that is necessary for consumer engagement and the entertainment experience to become possible has to be prepared: stories have to be written, software has to be coded, films have to be shot and edited, physical locations have to be prepared, social media accounts have to be set up and populated with data, and so forth. In other words, the infrastruc-

— 108 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture ture that will make the entertainment experience possible needs to be built, and an entarch bible has to support creators in doing so. In the second stage, after a component has been launched, its co-creation with consumers has to be facilitated and moderated. This includes keeping the dialogue with consumers alive, keeping the technical infrastructure running, servicing consumers with content, preparing the move to the next entarch component, and so forth. Over the course of their existence, various companies have been coding and refining software that facilitates that second stage. Six to Start has functioning software and is working on refining it. Christopher Sandberg and The company P have developed an orchestration engine “as a back end to orchestrate massive participation.” And Sean Stewart says that one of the reasons Fourth Wall Studios was formed was:

To build something we call the Rides platform. Basically there’s going to be a button that says ‘This will be a 10-minute long story experience. You ready to go?’ You hit the button marked ‘Go.’ Okay, you see a guy walking back and forwards in his living room, obviously you’re now thinking ‘What should I do? What should I do? What should I do?’ He takes his phone out of his pocket and looks at it musingly, your screen splits and on the other half of it you see someone on a roof top looking down and you realise he’s looking in the window of the first guy and finally the first guy takes his phone, he flips it open and he punches in a number and then the cell phone in your pocket rings and you think ‘Holy Shit!’ and you pick up your phone and you say ‘Hello’ and it says ‘I didn’t know what to do. I think Ostrowski’s gone rogue and I think they’re after me and I need you to give a message to the girl before…’ whatever. And then on the other half of your screen you see the guy up on the rooftop take out a sniper rifle and point it down and you say ‘Holy shit, you’d better duck!’ And the guy that you’re watching on video talk on the phone then ducks and the bullet comes in. The Rides platform let’s you do that because what it’s doing at the back end is it’s syncing the information from the voice recognition software running your phone conversation and it’s syncing that with the video that’s playing in your browser at the same moment, so that what you say into the phone affects what you see on the browser and it’s also triggering an email. It will do text messages or emails, video, web updates, phone and sync them all and put them in an order. We started just building this stuff, whatever we needed for a given project. But what we’ve got increasingly is something that is encapsulated so that we can just plug in ‘Here’s element A and it relates to element B and email C and video

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 109 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

D and C’ and it will queue them all up. […] Just imagine using a video [editing] software but for transmedia.

Building such software platforms can become a key competency of a business, a topic that is touched upon again in relation to Hoodlum’s approach to entarch creation below. But first, a look at the business side of an entarch bible is required.

Business Processes

Now that the predominantly artistic aspects of Entertainment Architecture have been addressed, these can be linked to any affected business processes to ensure the project will not fail for organisational, financial, or technical reasons. Again, valuable inspiration can be gained here from looking at the architecture of edifices, especially from exploring the aforementioned tool that is currently being developed there: Building Information Modeling (BIM). An entarch bible that is based on a central database the way BIM is, links many aspects of the entertainment experience, world, and process descriptions to organisational, financial, or technical processes of the creating business. Any step or event in the preparation or execution of Entertainment Architecture can be related to the costs and benefits they incur. For example, if a component is to consist of a movie released the same day in cinemas worldwide, then the date of that release needs to be fixed early enough so the required negotiations with distributors and exhibitors can begin. As soon as a date is fixed, promotional material, trailers, and finished movie need to be created according to specific lead times. But the movie’s release date may depend on developments in other components, and a delay in those may incur a delay in the movie and therefore very high costs. Entertainment Architecture as a business that requires income to pay costs therefore benefits immensely if the developments in all components are interconnected. The better personnel, technological, financial, and all other needs of all entarch components can be estimated, the better entarch can be managed. On the other hand, if a project falls short of the critical audience mass it requires by a certain stage of the entertainment process, it can be shut down before higher costs are generated and losses can be minimised.

— 110 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

This part of an entarch bible can, then, be integrated well with a company’s business plan, model, and strategy, which are explored further in Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models. It can provide data and knowledge necessary for sound financial and organisational planning.

To conclude the discussion of entarch bibles, a few words need to be said about their current endorsement among creators of Entertainment Architecture. 70 per cent of survey respondents indicated they use some form of bible. Nev- ertheless, a dominant way of creating a bible has yet to transpire. Starlight Runner Entertainment put a lot of effort into creating a ‘Mythology’ for every single project, and Jeff Gomez emphasises that this has “proven to be the single most valuable tool in anything that Starlight Runner has built for transmedia implementation.” Six to Start work with a large collection of web-based shared Google Docs, but Adrian Hon sees community-created bibles as a viable addition. Fourth Wall Studios go about it in a similar way and make heavy use of fan-compiled information — on top of their own production documents. The company P do not have one central tool, but create many different documents and use many different technologies depending on what they are needed for. Lucasfilm maintain the ‘Holocron,’ an extraordinarily extensive internal Fi- leMaker database containing all information regarding the Star Wars ‘Expanded Universe’ (Rose 2011, p. 74; wired 2008). And the Australian Broadcasting Corporation created an ‘Interaction Map’ for Bluebird AR (2010). But even if an entarch bible is created to support the first stage of entarch creation (preparation), it is not always set up as the technological backbone supporting the second stage (execution and co-creation). In this context, Fourth Wall Studios created the ‘Rides’ platform, The company P created an ‘orchestration engine,’ and Six to Start is refining their own technology — while Star- light Runner Entertainment, for example, do not see the need for such software. Christy Dena compiled an extensive list of proprietary technologies of various companies experimenting with such technologies (Dena 2010a) that, currently,

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 111 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture only ‘Muse’ by We R Interactive41 needs to be added to. Independent developers have also discovered the need for tools, especially of the free kind — Jeff Watson compiled a great list ranging from a whiteboard to WordPress plugins, location-aware mobile phone platforms, participation analysis tools, book print on demand services, and many more (Watson 2010). Hoodlum is a company that stands out in that it has put particular effort over the course of a decade into developing a system that supports both the first and the second stage of entarch creation, as explained by Nathan Mayfield:

We’ve got that piece of technology: it’s an interface that all areas of the business can actually contribute to. They can collect a piece of content, upload it, it gets picked up by the technology team, the technology team take those assets, create a game, it’s put back in, it’s approved by the executives, and then it’s parked in the timeline for when it needs to go out. And it’s literally been ten years in the making. So we’ve started with Fat Cow Motel and we’ve just developed it in house to actually do all those things.

Mayfield refers to the fist creation stage here and emphasises that their entarch bibles need to have some crucial features:

The main, the most important piece, I think, were approvals: streamlining approvals when you have so many different parties involved. And also the ability to actually look at this material. Unlike making just a TV show, or just a film: you can shoot it, you can look at the rushes, after you’ve looked at the rushes you can look at it offline and a rough cut and then you can look at it online and then you can look at all these different things. You can visually see the story coming together in front of your eyes. When you’re talking about multiplatform that’s vastly different. Because the content needs to be dynamic and live on different platforms, there needs to be a way to view, change and approve content at different stages based on story, gameplay and design. So we created in essence a mock-up so that you can, at any given time, follow the story from A right through to Z in a mock up fashion so that you can feel that this story is right.

In his experience, such automated approval processes and mock-ups are required to coordinate a potentially large number of creators (who may work on

41 See www.werinteractive.com.

— 112 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture very different components) and to be able to test the entertainment experience before it is made available to consumers, in order to ensure the coherence of the Entertainment Architecture:

What we find is: you’d give a brief to the technology team, they’d go away and make a game, they’d bring the game back, and the game just didn’t feel right. It wasn’t actually fun. And they’d say ‘Well, we did exactly what you told us to’ and we’d say ‘But it’s not fun. People aren’t going to take it to the next level.’ That sort of testing and mock-ups has been really important. Especially when you’re dealing with, what happens all the time, you’re dealing with people who don’t live and breathe multiplatform so it’s even harder for them to visualise. So if you’re just giving them a whole stack of paper of ‘This is what the game looks like and what it’s going to do. And then it’s going to trigger this voice mail and it’s going to trigger this and this and this.’ Sometimes you’re not going to know until the soundtrack is on the game to make you realise that’s what is going to drive people to the next bit. As we get all the assets they start to get fed in so that we can start to piece this together so that you’re not delivering something at the end where no one’s happy and they [clients] don’t actually feel like they can say anything because they feel like it’s too late. Which is a huge problem with multiplatform — anything technology. There’s a lot of material that is developed and delivered to the client at a stage that to actually re-do it or re-make it would be too costly. And so the client is unhappy and we are unhappy, because it’s not working right. And so about five years ago we made a conscious effort to solve that problem basically.

But beyond supporting the first stage of entarch creation, Hoodlum’s software also supports the second stage, which needs to be planned carefully:

The aspiration and the intention is that all projects are scalable, and from a technology point of view ours are always that scalable. So it’s created for something that has an estimated of X hundred thousand people but if it’s a hit, and you go up to millions, you need to be able to scale up quickly to actually do that.

The bottom line of Mayfield’s experience and of the varying approaches of the different companies may be that every creator of Entertainment Architecture needs to decide how much effort they want to put into creating an entarch bible. If all aspects of it are to be included, its creation can become a lengthy and costly undertaking that may not pay off in the short run, but may have to be

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 113 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture seen as a longer term investment into the business: as soon as a creator has a comprehensive entarch bible at their disposal, they merely have to populate it with information and fine-tune it for every following project. They can, then, concentrate much more on the creative side of their job and have technology support them. If on the other hand, an entarch bible is really only to be used for one project, dedicated software at least may be unfeasible. Such deliberation, however, may become obsolete if service providers offering solid standardised software appear — a niche Robert Pratten and his company Trans- media Storyteller are already attempting to fill.

3.3 The Entertainment Architect (EA)

Entertainment Architecture is emerging from an environment that is deeply affected by the changing roles of producers and consumers. One might even think that radical ideas like self-organisation of consumers facilitated by the In- ternet could be a viable path to creating Entertainment Architecture. However, all examined examples of Entertainment Architecture throughout the thesis have identifiable creators. These may have conveyed a sense of authorship and agency to consumers, but still were the ones who made the entire project possible through instigating and preparing it — consumers always joined in later and co-created or participated within the space and boundaries prepared for them by specific creators. Telling a story or entertaining more generally seems to continue to be a gift, a talent, that some have more of and others less. But it is indisputable that the role of the storyteller or entertainer is shifting from entertaining directly to bringing into being an infrastructure that, if consumers engage with it, allows for collectively co-created entertainment to emerge. It is therefore quite clear that a new breed of artists is emerging. And these artists are trying to find a name for themselves and for what they do. For some time The company P used genesseur in allusion to genesis or creation, but they also employ designer, writer, and executive team. Christopher Sandberg, however, is not satisfied with any of these terms as they do not convey accurately what it is he and his colleagues are doing. According to Adrian Hon, Six to Start use the terms writer, game designer, producer, and developer,

— 114 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture depending on the context. Jeff Gomez and the Producers Guild of America are committed to raising the popular and industry acceptance of transmedia producer. This term, however, sounds clunky to many and has already humorous- ly been shortened to trannie (Finke 2010b). Lance Weiler considers himself a story architect (Seize the Media n.d.-b), and in television, the position of a showrunner is becoming more and more prominent (Gray 2010, pp. 108, 215, 217; Clements 2004). Moreover, there is a large number of names that I have come across but am unable to attribute to specific authors: flux producer, flow of platforms producer, experience designer, transmedia creator, transmedia writer, transmedia designer, integrated media producer, orchestrator, or simply curator. Sean Stewart avoids this discussion and suggests that at some point the vernacular will simply choose one name:

I think ultimately when someone comes up with a really good name for this then there will be a verb form of that name. Until then, director is probably the closest analogy. And it also has a happy homophone, in that it’s like a symphony director, because you’re controlling timing, you know, ‘All bows now!’ Director is probably closest, just because you’re marshalling so many different things and trying to composite them. Eventually someone will say ‘You’re a transmediafier,’ maybe.

But until the vernacular decides on a name, I propose to refer to the highest- ranking person behind entarch as an Entertainment Architect (EA for short) — in reference to an architect of edifices, who is defined as:

A master-builder. spec. A skilled professor of the art of building, whose business it is to prepare the plans of edifices, and exercise a general superintendence over the course of their erection […] (Oxford English Dictionary 1989a, sense 1.a. of the noun, emphasis in original).

An architect accompanies and oversees architecture from beginning to end, from an idea to the resulting edifice. They create the blueprint for the edifice, identify concrete steps that must be undertaken to realise it, and superintend its construction. An architect does not, however, have to be skilled at bricklaying

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 115 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture or strong enough to carry cement bags. An architect strives to unify practical restrictions like technology, local climate, and cultural expectations with their aspiration to create art. They are, in short, the central creative, coordinating, and executive mind behind architecture. This is quite transferrable to the role of creators of Entertainment Architecture. But beyond this original meaning of architect an additional understanding of the term has evolved that is even better transferrable to entarch:

One who designs and frames any complex structure; esp. the Creator; one who arranges elementary materials on a comprehensive plan (Oxford English Dictionary 1989a, sense 2 of the noun, emphasis in original).

This is a much broader understanding of what an architect is, goes far beyond the construction of edifices, and has been applied to various domains as in ‘software architect,’ for instance. An Entertainment Architect therefore designs and frames complex entertainment. They accompany and oversee entarch from the inception of an idea to the resulting entertainment experience. They conceive a blueprint for the entertainment experience, identify concrete steps that must be undertaken to realise it, and undertake those steps to make the experience possible. They do not, however, need to know how to encode video effectively or how to print high quality posters. They operate on a different level where they strive to unify restrictions like technology, finance, and cultural practice, with their aspiration to create art. An Entertainment Architect unifies the four elements of entarch. It is up to them whether entarch leans more towards story, play, or ‘dance,’ and it is them who create the ‘glue.’ They take an entarch bible, prepare all entarch components, and then co-create Entertainment Architecture in collaboration with an audience. In short, an Entertainment Architect is the central and highest- ranking creative, coordinating, and executive mind behind entarch. This does not, however, imply an Entertainment Architect has to be one person. Quite the contrary: all interview partners work in teams. But some form of (not necessarily explicit) hierarchy also exists in these team. It can be expected

— 116 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture that at some point this hierarchy will be formalised. Perhaps the tasks of an En- tertainment Architect will be split in a fashion similar to movie creation, where there are producers who oversee the organisational and business side of a movie and directors who oversee the artistic side. Perhaps entirely new organisational structures and hierarchies will emerge. Finally, what has been said about Entertainment Architecture also applies to Entertainment Architects: the name is not important but the underlying concept is. The vernacular will choose a name. It may turn out to be Entertainment Ar- chitect or any one of the above terms or it may not. But until then, any discussion of this topic is greatly eased by having a term with a defined meaning.

This chapter begins by explaining that interviews, survey, and immersive textual analysis helped identify a promising emerging form of Internet-native transmedia entertainment. This form is characterised by combining the four elements story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue’ and in analogy to the creative process behind the architecture of edifices, the name Entertainment Architecture (entarch for short) is chosen to refer to the conceptual framework, to the form itself, and to entertainment products based on it. The chapter explains the four elements in-depth, and emphasises the particular importance of ‘glue’ for well- functioning Entertainment Architecture as well as for monetisation. The need for new tools aiding in the creation of entarch is detected and the entarch bible — based on ‘bibles’ which have been used in entertainment for a long time — is proposed as a powerful and promising one. Then the chapter explains why Entertainment Architecture requires a new breed of creators, and that for a lack of an established name for them, the thesis refers to them as Entertainment Ar- chitects (EA for short). To conclude this chapter, a few general remarks remain to be said on Entertainment Architecture. One important point is that entarch is still very much evolving and rather crude, which is to be expected from a novel technology (Arthur 2009, p. 131). With time it will become more polished and functional. It is impossible to know in advance if it will turn out to be the basic Internet-native transmedia entertainment technology the way movies became the basic entertainment technology based on 35 mm film. The Entertainment Architecture framework

Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) — 117 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture therefore stays as open as possible to future adjustments within the limitations that story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue’ set, and does not prescribe a specific relationship between them — all Entertainment Architects get the choice to do that themselves in their projects. Maybe this will lead to subforms of Entertainment Architecture, which one might argue alternate reality games already are. Furthermore, interview partners and survey respondents tend to agree that Internet-native transmedia entertainment will become ordinary, or in the words of John Johnson:

A generation from now, nobody’s going to be thinking in terms of trans-media, because it will be so ubiquitous that it will become absolutely transparent (cited in Dinehart 2010).

In that sense, many entertainment products will be Internet-native and transmedial and will therefore enter the category of Internet-native transmedia entertainment. This does not, however, mean they will all become Entertain- ment Architecture. Artists working transmedially may become ubiquitous, but Entertainment Architects will always be a specialised sub-group of them — and it will be interesting to see how big this sub-group will become. The following chapter continues this line of thought by exploring why Halo (or Star Wars or James Bond) is not an example of Entertainment Architecture, despite being transmedia entertainment. The chapter, then, explores a number of entarch examples including their business models.

— 118 — Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models

The environment from which Entertainment Architecture is currently emerging as well as the conceptual framework of entarch itself are described in the preceding chapters. Now — keeping in mind that entertainment is commercial — the attention shifts to the question of how entarch can be made possible as a commercial product. This chapter therefore focuses on entarch business models, which are an essential component to any commercial organisation (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002, p. 550) and have been identified by all interview partners as a significant problem to be solved if Entertainment Archi- tecture is to become commercially viable. But what is a business model? The business model concept is often criticised for being used to refer to different things (Linder and Cantrell 2000, pp. 2-3; Osterwalder, Pigneur and Tucci 2005, pp. 1-2), for being an unwelcome remnant of the dot-com bubble (Porter 2001, p. 73), and generally, for being rather poorly defined (Morris, Schindehutte and Allen 2005, p. 726). This has prompted some highly formalised attempts at defining it (Hedman and Kalling 2003), as well as this more accessible one:

They are, at heart, stories — stories that explain how enterprises work. A good business model answers Peter Drucker’s age-old questions: Who is the customer? And what does the customer value? It also answers the fundamental questions every manager must ask: How do we make money in this business? What is the underlying economic logic that explains how we can deliver value to customers at an appropriate cost (Magretta 2002, p. 87)?

A company will benefit from reflecting on its business model, both in its founding and in its more mature stages. In its founding stage, a company will gain an understanding of where it is headed, which will guide its formulation of a business plan (Sahlman 1997, p. 105) — an important component to getting a venture off the ground. In its more mature stages, it will benefit from continuously adapting its business model to its ever-changing environment (Johnson, Christensen and Kagermann 2008, p. 56). Its business model will

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 119 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture therefore help it formulate a strategy through which it will differentiate itself from and ultimately outperform competitors (Porter 1996, p. 64).42 A young entarch-creating company will therefore profit tremendously from preparing a business plan that will get it into a position where its business model can be made to work. Along the way that model will have to constantly be revised and adjusted according to the competition and the own strategy. However, developing a business model is quite a substantial task in itself that has, as mentioned in Magretta’s definition above, several aspects to it — not all of which are explored in this chapter. Who the customer is and what they value in entertainment, is not discussed at this point as an Entertainment Architect is expected to have reflected on this in relation to the intended entertainment experience, and to have included the results in their entarch bible. While a good bible therefore facilitates the formulation of a business model, it can only do so to a certain extent as it is of less assistance in regard to the economic logic behind envisioned Entertainment Architecture. It is this economic logic — Magretta’s how-money-is-made question — that becomes the focus here. To this end, the chapter first turns to contractual relationships among the creators of Entertainment Architecture. It explains how current practices of licensing and (media) franchising have to be rethought if they are to be applied to Entertainment Architecture, and how these practices can become the foundations of ventures creating commercial entarch. Afterwards, ‘freemium’ is introduced — a tactic (not a business model) combining free with paid business models that is currently garnering a lot of attention. Then, a number of entarch- like products are clustered in four groups representing a rough distinction between the four generic business models sale, subscription, rental, and free — with each being explored in a dedicated subchapter. The largest category is that of free entarch, which consequently is further subdivided into advertising, product placement, patronage, and self-promotion.

42 Although Porter himself disputes the entire concept of a business model and advocates a focus on business strategy (Porter 2001, p. 73), the two can well be seen as complementing each other (Magretta 2002, pp. 91-92).

— 120 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

The genericness of these models is emphasised: they do not represent blueprints of business models that can be directly applied to future Entertainment Architecture. Rather, they describe the first efforts of Entertainment Architects towards viable entarch business models. It is also worth noting that many of the provided examples combine two or more business models: one product can sell, rent out, and offer subscriptions and free components at the same time. Finally, the reader is asked to remember that these examples present first steps, not fully-fledged Entertainment Architecture. Some of them do not even combine all four entarch elements in one product, and are therefore technically not entarch. The reason they are included anyway is they constitute innovative attempts at viable business models that may potentially be transferred to Enter- tainment Architecture.

4.1 Contractual Relationships

The contractual and business relationships among creators of Entertainment Architecture are not straightforward and must be clarified if entarch is to succeed as a commercial entertainment industry. Not only does entarch bring together potentially large numbers of creators who need to work with each other in a coordinated and artistically coherent way — this problem has been sorted out in movie production and other areas a long time ago (Schatz 1988; Gomery 2005; Starkey, Barnatt and Tempest 2000; Ebbers and Wijnberg 2009) — but these creators also stem from more than one industry with potentially very different contractual and business conventions. The relationships among entarch creators therefore necessitate a closer look. The contractual and business structure behind Entertainment Architecture — which really means among entarch creators — can be set up in several ways: at one end of the spectrum is a market-coordinated structure where an Entertain- ment Architect enters a contractual relationship with every single co-creator who is involved in the project for the duration of that project, and at the other

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 121 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture end of the spectrum is one firm whose employees create the entire project.43 In between, various other structures are possible — of particular interest at this point are licensing and (media) franchising. The following text therefore provides a quick look at the extreme ends of the spectrum — coordination via the market as well as the firm — and, then, analyses two examples that lie in between: licensing and (media) franchising, both prevalent concepts in the entertainment industries, but not easily accessible. The example illustrating the various relationships will be that of the hypothetical company X that has created or bought an intellectual property (IP) about the superhero SuperH, and now plans to turn it into Entertainment Architecture. The extreme case of a market-coordinated structure means SuperH- producing company X does not create any component itself, subcontracts everything, and merely coordinates the process so cohesive Entertainment Archi- tecture emerges. Every entarch component is created by a different company that is commissioned and paid for by X. Movie production company M creates a movie, movie distributor D distributes the movie, comic book publisher C publishes a comic, book publisher B publishes a book, event organiser E creates a festival, ARG production company R creates an alternate reality game, advertising agency G creates advertising, and so forth. Company X has to enter appropriate contractual relationships with all of these companies and pay them for their services no matter the success of the Entertainment Architecture. The other extreme case, that of a firm structure, means all entarch components are created by company X, and X does not have to enter contractual relationships with other companies because all entarch components are created by its own employees. X does not pay any other company for their services, and instead, chooses to maintain personnel costs. Such a firm would be much larger than in the case of coordination via the market. In fact, only vertically44 and

43 This line of thinking goes back to Ronald Coase’s question of why firms exist (Coase 1937; see also Kroszner and Putterman 2009 for an overview of the field), as well as to contract theory, the economic study of contractual arrangements (Bolton and Dewatripont 2005; see also Caves 2000 for an application to the creative industries). 44 Vertical integration is the expansion of firms “backward into materials, laterally into components, and forward into distribution” (Williamson 1985, p. 86) through, for example, acquisition, merger, or internal growth. An example of a vertically integrated entertainment industry

— 122 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture horizontally45 integrated conglomerates like The Walt Disney Company, Time Warner, Vivendi, or Bertelsmann may be diversified, knowledgeable, and experienced enough across media to create Entertainment Architecture in-house, if at all. Most entarch created outside of such media conglomerates likely has to be coordinated via the market to some degree. With these two cases being fairly straightforward the attention now shifts to licensing and, then, (media) franchising. They represent common (and by no means wrong) business practice in the entertainment industries today. So how does licensing work?

Under licensing, the central media company […] sells the rights to manufacture products using its assets to an often unaffiliated third party; the license limits what can be done with the characters or concepts to protect the original property (Jenkins 2006a, p. 105).

Unfortunately, following this approach without tailoring it to the requirements of Entertainment Architecture may lead to the following suboptimal result. Company X decides to produce a comic based on SuperH and to license off a part of its IP to company Y, a Hollywood studio that will produce a movie based on X’s SuperH. Y therefore receives full control over those aspects of X’s IP that are specified in the licensing agreement, but no control over those that are not part of the contract. The opposite goes for X. As a result, comic and movie are developed separately. Eventually, SuperH evolves in different directions in the two media: the hero dies in one and becomes immortal in the other. X now runs into trouble because comic and movie contradict each other. Y’s version of SuperH does not correspond with X’s intended entertainment world. But X intends to turn SuperH into entarch, which means it plans to en- was the Hollywood studio system until the Paramount Decree in 1948, which enforced the separation of movie production and distribution from exhibition and impacted the movie industry profoundly (De Vany 2004, pp. 143-175; Schatz 1997, esp. pp. 323-328; Scott 2002). 45 Horizontal integration is the acquisition of or merger with other firms that “are in the same product market” (Hay and Morris 1991, p. 496). Examples of horizontal integration in the entertainment industries are the present day owners of Hollywood movie production studios: The Walt Disney Company, for example, owns Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Holly- wood Pictures, Disneynature, Walt Disney Animation Studios, DisneyToon Studios, Pixar Ani- mation Studios, ImageMovers Digital, and Marvel Studios (The Walt Disney Company n.d., 2011).

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 123 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture courage the audience to consume content from all media that feature SuperH. X understands, however, that in the present constellation consumers are faced with two different SuperHs and will not discover a medium-agnostic continuity. X fears consumers will get irritated and disappointed, and knows that ultimately such entarch can only fail. X therefore tries to regain control over the entire IP. It asks Y to relinquish some control over its license back to X, or attempts to buy back the entire license. Y’s SuperH movie, however, is a huge success and a much larger business than X’s comic books. Y therefore has no intention to give up any control, let alone sell its license. Rather, it considers buying the rest of X’s IP. X’s problem becomes even bigger if it has sold more than just a movie license. Keeping its entarch coherent can become near impossible if the IP is spread over toys, bed linen, McDonald’s Happy Meals, TV series, novels, and potentially many more licenses. The reason why licensing has become popular in the entertainment industries in the first place is that it allows every company to focus on, and potentially make a lot of money with, what it is good at. Furthermore, the licensor does not bear the financial risk of every SuperH product, but only that of its own. This entails that every company — as it needs to be successful and profitable on its own — attempts to take its share of an IP in a direction that is most suited to its own medium, audience, budget, and so forth. If one licensee struggles financially, the licensor or other licensees will likely have no interest in bailing it out. Such an approach can be a good thing in some cases, but is, in this form, not conducive to the creation of coherent Entertainment Architecture. Licensing is not an isolated approach in the entertainment industries, but is closely related to media franchising — a term that is often used in a poorly defined manner, as I explain below. But to begin with the basics, what is a franchise?

Today, a franchise agreement is most often understood as a contractual ar- rangement between two legally independent firms in which one firm, the franchisee, pays the other firm, the franchisor, for the right to sell the franchisor’s product and/or the right to use its trademarks and business format in a given location for a specified period of time (Blair and Lafontaine 2005, pp. 3-4).

— 124 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

A franchise agreement is therefore a contract that specifies franchisor and franchisee obligations. The franchisor licenses off the right to sell their product and/or use their trademark or even business model to the franchisee who, in return, pays royalties, a lump sum, and/or additional fees for this license (Rubin 1978, p. 224; Lafontaine 1992, p. 264). Although the concept evolves continually, it is stable enough and has been understood well enough to be regulated under franchise-specific laws in many countries. In Australia it is regulated by the Franchising Code of Conduct, and in the USA it is regulated under the Dis- closure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising on a federal level, and often under additional state-level regulations — just to name two exemplary countries. Generally, it can be said that franchising is a well- established, defined, and researched topic (Caves and Murphy II. 1976; Brickley and Dark 1987; Lafontaine 1992; Blair and Lafontaine 2005). However, ‘franchise’ is also often used in a less well-defined manner when referring to the quite specific case of media — sometimes in the form of ‘media franchise,’ but a simple ‘franchise’ is just as common. It is a quite popular term among media scholars (Jenkins 2006a; Thompson 2007; Gray 2010; Askwith and Gray 2008) and popular press46 alike, which unfortunately does not mean its use is harmonised. Depending on the text it can simultaneously refer to products, firms, or brands — but may also refer to different things in different passages of one and the same text. Kristin Thompson wrote a fantastic book on The Lord of the Rings (2001 − 2003) movie trilogy, titled The Frodo Franchise, and the closest she got to defining ‘franchise’ — a word that is, after all, part of her book’s title — is that “people use the term ‘franchise’ rather loosely in relation to films” (Thompson 2007, p. 4). She is absolutely right. In fact, she could have easily substituted ‘media’ for ‘films’ and she still would have been right.47 One way of defining media franchise a little more tightly is to refer to Jenkins’ above definition of licensing, which, in essence, is a particular variety of a franchise agreement where just the trademark is licensed off (while product and business model are not part of the contract), often only a lump sum is paid

46 Google’s 1,140,000 results for “media franchise,” as of 03.08.2011, make this quite clear. 47 Refreshing exceptions do, of course, exist — as for example Derek Johnson’s PhD thesis on media franchises (Johnson 2009).

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 125 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

(and no royalties), and instead of many franchisees with a standardised contract, only fewer exist with individualised contracts. In some cases, this may be what media scholars refer to as a media franchise, but they may just as well refer to something entirely different. Law, economics, and business scholars do not seem to use ‘media franchise’ or ‘franchise’ in this media scholars way. This thesis hopes to avoid confusion by using ‘franchise’ according to the above strict definition and ‘media franchise’ to refer to the slightly more fuzzy concept of media scholars — for want of a better term. Franchising and licensing can lead to various contractual and business structures situated between the market and the firm. If they are to be used to create Entertainment Architecture, and the above-described SuperH licensing problems are to be circumvented, their implementation has to be deliberated well. Company X can, for instance, license off parts of the SuperH IP with the condition that all created products must comply with the entertainment world conceived by X — an approach that is pursued by the creators of Star Wars (1977 − ongoing). Different entarch components can, then, be created by different companies, each focusing on the profitability of their own component. X can create some components of choice and merely coordinate the rest. Such a relationship may be feasible in the case of components that are expected to generate a profit, but no company would buy a license for a component that is conceived as a loss leader — think of a free SuperH iPhone app that is meant to be the gateway to the Entertainment Architecture. X would probably have to produce these components themself and, being in a privileged position, would likely attempt to keep the most profitable ones to themself as well. But many more questions arise regarding the implementation of such a contractual and business structure. If consumers get the option to subscribe to an entire Entertainment Architecture, how are these revenues distributed? Does X reap them all and simply pay pre-arranged sums to the suppliers of entarch components? In that case: are suppliers simply service providers without risk, or does X pass on some of the risk (and with it some of the potential revenue)? Or would it make more sense to let suppliers keep the income from direct sales of their creations (or a share thereof) while X keeps subscription income to itself? Or do all suppliers get a share of subscription revenues? Or are they paid

— 126 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture proportionally to the success of the component they created, which may provide an additional monetary incentive for suppliers to produce outstanding products, which may lead to (good or bad) competition among the involved companies to creatively outdo each other and therefore raise (or lower) the overall quality of the entertainment experience? Or do suppliers receive a guaranteed minimum income, plus a share of their direct sales, plus a share of overall Entertainment Architecture income? Entirely new contractual relationships may have to be formalised among all entarch creating companies. But the advantage of Entertainment Architecture is that it allows to keep a holistic perspective: not all components have to be profitable by themselves for the entirety of them to be profitable. Some components may be created in the knowledge they will never make money — and their financing and contracts can be sorted out in advance. Vertically and horizontally integrated companies may experience some benefits in this regard, but it is just as conceivable that most transactions are coordinated via the market. Small and nimble companies like those interviewed for the thesis have proven to be well capable of coordinating large projects. Hence, whether Entertainment Architecture is coordinated via the market, the firm, licensing, franchising, or any other way is not the important question, for in practice, many different kinds of contractual and business relationships can be expected to coexist during the creation of one product: Entertainment Architecture may be created by a horizontally and vertically well integrated firm like The Walt Disney Company, which may nonetheless employ many creators via the market on a project basis (Starkey, Barnatt and Tempest 2000; Ebbers and Wijnberg 2009), while licensing off parts of its IP to other firms, which may work with additional creators on a project basis. What is important is to sort out the contractual and business relationships between all entarch- creating companies in advance. Jeff Gomez emphasises his need for contractual clarity because he needs to be able to assert quality control over the implementation of a transmedia production if he is to become a transmedia producer for a client like the imaginary company X. The creators in charge of the various media have to speak with each other and with him. Without guaranteed control he does not take a job, as it has failed before it has even begun. Fortunate-

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 127 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture ly, all interview partners agree that great progress is currently being made in this regard. New IP has a head start in this regard: no parts of it have been licensed off yet and its owner still has full control. But Entertainment Architec- ture can just as well be an option for existing IP, which can have incomparable assets like an existing fan base and a great reputation, and may be successfully retconned.48

Is Halo an Example of Entertainment Architecture?

To illustrate the need for advance planning of contractual and business relationships and how a lack of it can lead to suboptimal results, a large media franchise — Halo (2001 − ongoing) — is analysed from an Entertainment Ar- chitecture perspective. First, all products that are part of the media franchise are presented. Then, one of its most successful promotional campaigns is described. And finally, the two are compared to determine if one or both can be called Entertainment Architecture.

Halo is a media franchise that is centred around a series of video games and was expected to pass USD 2 billion in revenues by the end of 2010 (Microsoft 2010).49 The first Halo game was the launch title of the original Xbox and helped lay the foundations for the success of Microsoft’s entry into the gaming consoles market. Having neither a back catalogue of games nor an existing fan community among console gamers, Microsoft needed something exceptional to be associated with the Xbox. Halo was meant to be exactly that. This explains the immense marketing budgets and innovative marketing strategies

48 “Retconning comes from ‘retroactive continuity,’ meaning ‘taking the continuity of your storyline and retroactively changing part of it so things didn’t happen the way they happened’” (Burns-White 2008). 49 Halo 3 (2007) was allegedly not just the biggest video game but the biggest entertainment launch of all time with USD 170 million of US revenue in 24 hours (Microsoft 2007a). It has since been beaten by Halo: Reach’s (2010) USD 200 million (Nutt 2010). Call of Duty: Black Ops (2010) achieved USD 360 million in 24 hours, albeit in combined US and UK figures (Activision 2010b), and went on to reach gigantic USD 650 million in five days (Activision 2010a). Clearly video games have taken over from movies as the biggest opening events, as even Avatar’s (2009) opening weekend of USD 232 million (McClintock 2009) pales in comparison. Of course, successful movies have legs: Avatar, for example, went on to gross close to USD 2.8 billion (Box Office Mojo n.d.-a) not including its DVD and Blu-ray revenues — much more than the entire Halo media franchise.

— 128 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture throughout the life of the media franchise. To this day, Halo is an Xbox exclusive (with the exception of Windows and Mac ports of the first game) and commonly associated with spectacular big budget entertainment. A citation of Phil Spencer, vice-president of Microsoft Game Studios, makes this quite clear:

We are not about delighting millions of people, we are about delighting hundreds of millions of people (Bass 2010).

The main trilogy consists of first person shooters starring ‘Master Chief Petty Officer John-117,’ a cybernetically enhanced super soldier. They are what the media franchise is known for. However, the Halo universe, sometimes referred to as the Haloverse, is spread across many media. Interestingly, the first Halo product to be released was not a video game but the novel Halo: The Fall of Reach (2001). It introduced the universe and added to the hype surrounding the launch of both Microsoft Xbox and Halo: Combat Evolved (2001), the first game in the Halo franchise and launch title of the Xbox, two weeks later. What followed were Halo 2 (2004) and Halo 3 (2007) as the main video games in the franchise. Halo: Reach (2010) did not feature Master Chief (beyond a very brief cameo), but nevertheless enjoyed an enormous marketing budget and widespread attention as it was the last Bungie-created game.50 Halo Wars (2009) and Halo 3: ODST (2009) were considered somewhat ‘smaller’ in-between games — the first one being a real-time strategy game and the second one not starring Master Chief — and therefore lacked the big budget marketing and popular attention. Beyond video games, the Halo universe is spread across many other media and some of these products are extremely successful in their own rights. The following gives an overview of the ever-expanding media franchise. Since 2001, five more novels have been published — Halo: The Flood (2003), Halo: First Strike (2003), Halo: Ghosts of Onyx (2006), Halo: Contact Harvest (2007), and Halo: The Cole Protocol (2008). Halo: Cryptum was re-

50 Bungie is a video game studio that was acquired by Microsoft in 2000 including its then current project-in-development Halo. In 2007 Bungie split from Microsoft (Bungie 2007a) and in 2009 it was announced that Halo: Reach was to be their last addition to the Halo universe (Robinson 2009b). Bungie is often considered somewhat synonymous with Halo.

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 129 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture leased in January 2011 as the first book of the three-part The Forerunner Saga. More novels are already planned beyond that. Already, five novels have become New York Times bestsellers (Microsoft 2010). The success of The Halo Graphic Novel (2006) spawned a number of comic book series: Halo: Uprising (2007 − 2009), Halo: Helljumper (2009), Halo: Blood Line (2009 − 2010), and Halo: Fall of Reach (2010 − ongoing). Halo: Evolutions — Essential Tales of the Halo Universe (2009) was a collection of stories, and Halo Legends (2010) a collection of short animes. Moreover, every video game spawned an official strategy guide and the Halo Encyclopedia (2009) was published as a guide to the Halo universe. As of 14.09.2010, 6.3 million Halo books, comics, and strategy guides have been sold (Microsoft 2010). Of course, the media franchise offers many products beyond video games and print media; consumers can choose from a large selection of action figures, Halo Mega Blocks (2009 − ongoing),51 board games like RISK: Halo Wars Collector’s Edition (2009) and Halo: Interactive Strategy Game (2008), Halo NKOK (2010) RC vehicles, soundtracks, posters, calendars, branded cups and flash drives, high quality prints, apparel, accessories, and costumes. Worth mentioning is also Red vs. Blue (2003 − ongoing), an adaptation of all Halo video games as a series of comic machinima52 that is available on the Internet and on DVD. The series has gained Microsoft’s/Bungie’s support early on, and so far, 100 episodes have been released. Halo Waypoint (2009 − ongoing) has become the central hub for the media franchise and is accessible via Xbox or a web browser. Of course, there were also setbacks — the biggest one probably being the movie that never happened (as of 29.06.2011). For years Peter Jackson has been trying to get if off the ground as executive producer with Neill Blomkamp directing (Oldham 2009; Graser 2010). Along with the movie, Jackson and his company Wingnut Interactive were also planning to create Halo: Chronicles, an episodic video game (Carless 2007). To the dismay of many fans, both projects never took off, although rumours about the movie have rekindled yet again, this time with Steven Spielberg attached to it (Brodesser-Akner 2010).

51 LEGO-like toys. 52 Machinima are “animated films created using FPS (first person shooter) videogames,” typically produced by the games’ players themselves (Lowood 2006, p. 25; see also Marino 2004).

— 130 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

And even this list of Halo products does not present the entirety of the media franchise. Many more products are already in the planning stages — most significantly a second Halo video game trilogy is set to launch with Halo 4 in summer 2012 (Tsukayama 2011) — and Halo does not seem to be loosing any momentum. Its cultural impact has already prompted some to compare it with Star Wars (1977 − ongoing). And sure enough Halopedia,53 the largest Halo wiki, boasts 7,242 articles, which is a quite immense number. Wookieepedia,54 the largest Star Wars wiki, however, offers 84,877 articles. This is, of course, more of an interesting fact than a proof of cultural impact. But despite Microsoft and Bungie putting a lot of effort into maintaining a Halo Story Bible (Bungie 2007b; Halopedia 2011b), fans regularly criticise Ha- lo’s inconsistent canon.55 Why is this? A look at the extraordinarily successful promotional campaign of Halo 3 offers an explanation.

Halo is considered to have played a major role behind the success of Mi- crosoft’s Xbox. Microsoft knows this, and nurses it with exceptionally well- funded and innovative promotional campaigns. In fact, nearly every new Halo video game seems to spawn some form of entirely unprecedented promotion, which is then discussed widely in the blogosphere. Halo 2, for instance, played an important part in the development of alternate reality games with its i love bees (2004) component. The campaign of Halo 3: ODST was built around the message ‘We Are ODST,’56 and that of Halo: Reach around the two messages ‘Remember Reach’57 and ‘Deliver Hope.’ So why was Halo 3’s campaign chosen for this chapter and none of the other three? Halo 3: ODST was considered a very good but minor game both by Microsoft and consumers. Consequently, its promotional campaign was well executed, but simply did not have a com- parably massive budget. And while Halo: Reach is said to have had an even higher budget than Halo 3, its campaign is simply not yet well documented.

53 See www.halopedian.com. 54 See www.starwars.wikia.com. 55 See for example (Bungie Forums 2010) or the corresponding entry in Halopedia (Halopedia 2011c). 56 Orbital Drop Shock Troopers (ODST) are elite soldiers in the Halo universe. 57 Reach is a planet in the Halo universe.

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 131 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

On the other hand, immense numbers of websites and blog posts deal with the promotion of Halo 3 and Wikipedia offers an extensive article exclusively about it (Wikipedia 2011). The following text therefore describes all promotional activities around Halo 3 and then asks why one part of these activities can be considered Entertainment Architecture while the entirety of Halo cannot. Even though the game was only to be launched in September 2007, official promotion began already in May 2006, when a trailer was shown at the E3 video game expo in Los Angeles. It did not reveal much, but foreshadowed the mood of the game, Master Chief’s expected central role, and the visual quality of the game. The next trailer, dubbed Starry Night (2006), was aired on 04.12.2006 on US television during Monday night football. It showed brief flashes of Master Chief’s childhood and glimpses of his current battle. A beta multiplayer version of the game was released in May 2007 and played by 820,000 unique participants (Microsoft 2007b). The alternate reality game Iris (2007) was launched in June 2007, and expanded the backstory of the Halo universe. A third trailer shown in July 2007, again at E3 in Los Angeles, followed Master Chief through various fight scenes of the game. Between July and September 2007, 3 live-action short films were released: Halo: Arms Race, Ha- lo: Combat, and Halo: Last One Standing. In October of the same year — one month after the game’s release — they were recut into one seven-minute long short film entitled Halo: Landfall. These short films, directed by Neill Blomkamp, had a two-fold purpose. First, they gave background information to the slightly abrupt beginning of the game while showing that many soldiers fought and died supporting and believing in Master Chief, who gave them hope. And second, they were meant to test the market potential of a live-action Halo movie (that still has not happened). The fictional Museum of Humanity (2007) including the John 117 Monument (2007) — a real-life diorama over 111 m² in size and over 3.6 m tall — were built and used as the setting for the live-action TV and online trailers Believe: The John 117 Monument (2007), Museum (2007), and Enemy Weapon (2007), as well as for an interactive website. The TV and online trailers Hunted (2007) and Gravesite (2007) featured

— 132 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture veterans talking about the war and Master Chief. Microsoft hosted official launch parties in New York, Miami, Seattle, and Los Angeles, and an estimated 10,000 midnight launch parties were held at retail stores in the USA alone. Of course, the campaign also included various forms of print and online ads, as well as a lot of cross-promotion with companies like Pontiac, Mountain Dew, Burger King, Doritos, Game Stop, 7-Eleven, Samsung, Comcast, the NASCAR team Chip Ganassi Racing, and Projekt Revolution (a music festival tour head- lined by Linkin Park). But trailers, print ads, cross-promotion, beta testing, and launch parties had all been well-known promotional tools for a long time. Even if dioramas had not been used in such a way before, they were not new. So what turned this campaign — or in fact part thereof — into Entertainment Architecture? It was the way it appeared as one coherent whole. A lot of the listed promotional activity was simply traditional advertising. Many posters and magazine ads did but one thing: advertise Halo 3. But some activities — specifically everything connected to The Museum of Humanity — did much more: they collectively told a very simple but powerful story. At the time, Xbox.com — the port of call for Halo fans — summarised this story in the following introductory words:

A hero is more than a person, a hero is a belief. A belief that, against impossible odds, the world can be saved — and that the world is still worth saving. Heroes inspire that belief in us. They renew our faith and give us that most precious of all gifts — hope. The world needs heroes. That’s why, when a true hero arrives, the world will honor him (Xbox.com 2007).

To bring this story across, Microsoft teamed up with advertising agency T.A.G.58 John Patroulis, at the time Creative Director at T.A.G., explains the objective Microsoft had given them:

To use every medium we could to communicate the simple idea that Master Chief is a true hero to all humankind, from building monuments to creating fic-

58 Which has since changed its name to twofifteenmccann, see www.215mccann.com.

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 133 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

tional documentaries to interactive tours of the diorama to hanging plaques commemorating his exploits to fictional symphonies written in his honor. […] Essentially, the core of the Halo phenomenon is a simple story about a hero — the idea being that the hero is universal and resonates deep inside all of us. Mas- ter Chief came to life by our treating and honoring him exactly the way heroes have been honored throughout history (Creativity 2008).

So how did they treat and honour him? An explanatory video, created by T.A.G., describes the project in the following way:

We were asked to get the people who didn’t like Halo, didn’t care about Halo, or didn’t know about Halo to buy Halo 3, a futuristic humans versus aliens science fiction video game. So we changed the question from ‘How do you market a video game?’ to ‘How do you honour a hero?’ To do that, we created a fictional Museum of Humanity that commemorated the battle between mankind and its alien enemy. It’s centrepiece was the John 117 Monument, a real-world diorama that documented the historic battle in which Master Chief heroically turned the tide of war. Filming it for television and cinema was our first step to make people believe. Next, online, we provided an interactive fly-through of the entire John 117 Monument, putting visitors right in the middle of the fight. They could learn about our enemies and hear first-hand stories from the men who were there. […] And to make it all the more real, we created a fictional 4-minute documentary about the making of the John 117 Monument itself. […] Now people were starting to see Halo as a story with real emotion and Master Chief as a hero who personified courage, duty, and sacrifice. And they saw it all over the world in all the ways a hero would be honoured: in a fictional war photography exhibit that you could visit online and in person, in street murals and on buildings, outside on commemorative plaques, on their mail, and in person at the world tour of the diorama. […] Halo 3 had become more than a game. It had become a worldwide cultural phenomenon. All people needed to do was believe (twofifteenmccann n.d., see DVD).

This part of Halo 3’s promotional campaign was therefore named, not surprisingly, Believe (2007) and every part of that campaign repeated the central message ‘Believe!’ Those Halo 3 trailers that were not part of the Believe campaign were very successful in their own rights. Every single one of them told a tiny bit of the Halo backstory and was anticipated feverishly all around the world. But they were all more or less self-sustained. What set the Believe cam-

— 134 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture paign apart was that it did not feel like separate trailers, photo exhibitions, and a diorama simply telling stories set in the same entertainment world and therefore somehow related to one another, but it felt like all of them were constitu- tional bits that together told one coherent story. Every component of the campaign led to other components. In Jeff Gomez’ terms all components had both flow tags and call-outs; both the narrative itself and the ‘packaging’ around it led consumers to the next components. The Believe campaign had good ‘glue.’ But how can it make sense to analyse Halo’s advertising separately from its actual products? The following citation of John Patroulis answers this quite well:

The goal was to make this the biggest title launch in Xbox history. And we went about it by executing a global campaign that used absolutely no game footage, starred either plastic figures or old men in its films, used classical music as its soundtrack, and almost never showed Master Chief, the hero character the game was based on (Creativity 2008).

The promotion stood pretty much on its own feet. It was created independently, and its approach was very different from that of the game. The creators of the Believe campaign paid special attention to ‘glue,’ while Microsoft, as the owner of the media franchise, does so less. All Halo products are indeed set in the same entertainment world, but are not aligned and harmonised with each other. Each product stands alone. It may hint at, and whet the appetite for, the next one, but that next product may not feel like it has to be consumed for the experience to be complete. That product may not even agree with the previous one as they may have been created by different people without Mi- crosoft making sure all products harmonise with each other. A paradoxical example is the Believe promotional campaign itself, which is considered non- canon because its diorama depicts the ‘Second Battle of New Mombasa’ which does not appear in any Halo product. Fans have come up with two possible explanations for this, one diegetic and one exegetic (Halopedia 2011a). Either the Museum of Humanity was built to cover up and rewrite the real history of humans, which would be possible because it was built 50 years after the end of the war and nobody really remembered what had happened. Or it was simply

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 135 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture a consequence of the lack of communication between Bungie (who created the game) and T.A.G. (who created the campaign). Whatever the real reason, the result is consumers do not feel story, play, and ‘dance’ flow into one another across Halo products, but only within each of them. The products are not aligned well. There is no ‘glue.’ Instead of having one red thread across products, Halo has many of them that are in sight of, but not touching each other. This is the reason why it makes sense to call Halo’s Believe campaign Entertainment Architecture, but not the entire media franchise that is Halo.

(Media) Franchising is not Entertainment Architecture

The example of Halo shows that (media) franchising — which may at first glance appear to be a well-established concept that makes the entire entarch framework irrelevant because it already does what entarch is meant to achieve — is not an alternative to Entertainment Architecture, but a possible contractual and business structure behind it. The two cannot be directly compared with but must be seen in relation to each other. The usage of (media) franchising to refer to products — as in ‘the Halo franchise,’ for example — is therefore incorrect, just as incorrect as referring to Big Mac, Cheeseburger, and Chicken McNuggets as the McDonald’s franchise. A major difference between franchising and Entertainment Architecture is that the former refers to contracts and businesses, while the latter refers to a product — a product that consists of a number of components. Those collections of entertainment products that are sometimes referred to as media franchises often lack this focus on the overarching product and, instead, sell separate ones that are related in some way. Thus, a crucial distinction between Entertainment Architecture and (media) franchising is that the former emphasises good ‘glue’ to keep all components aligned and harmonised with each other, while the latter is not intrinsically concerned with such artistic coherence. This is why Halo and Star Wars are not examples of Entertainment Architecture despite being transmedia entertainment: they offer many products, not just one.

— 136 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Companies planning to convert their entertainment products produced in a licensing/franchising environment to Entertainment Architecture may not succeed due to the various above-mentioned obstacles they may face. This is no criticism of those companies or their products; it would have been very difficult to foresee the requirements of entarch and set up according contracts before this entertainment form even emerged. These companies and their products may therefore be more successful if they follow their existing approaches instead of a road towards Entertainment Architecture. As noted several times throughout this thesis: not all entertainment necessarily benefits from becoming entarch. Ultimately, Entertainment Architecture and franchising describe different things — with an area of overlap. EAs may profit from this if they find ways to use the contractual framework that franchising provides in a way that suits the requirements of Entertainment Architecture. If this happens, the two may end up being two sides of the same coin — the contractual/business and the product/experience side. Nathan Mayfield, for example, has no problem referring to his entarch Slide (2011) as a franchise. He believes that many of the above- described problems of franchising stem from poor future proofing of the product and business. Used in a well-prepared future-oriented way, therefore, franchising can be just the right contractual and business framework for Entertain- ment Architecture. To Jeff Gomez it is a simple fact that his company works with franchises. Maybe the fuzzy media scholars’ use of ‘franchise’ or ‘media franchise’ will pervade popular usage even more and consumers will start using these terms to refer to those entertainment products that this thesis describes as Entertainment Architecture — even if the contractual structure behind them is not that of franchising. Then the fuzzy term it already is may become even fuzzier. But is this likely? Will anybody ever use ‘franchise’ the same way they use play, novel, movie, or soap opera? Will anybody ever say ‘That franchise made me laugh and cry and love and hate and it was so right: life’s too short to live it by yourself’? This sounds about as right as saying ‘That intellectual property made me laugh and cry,’ or ‘That merchandising made me love again,’ or ‘That trademark really showed me what life is all about.’

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 137 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Entertainment is commercial. And as such, being profitable has to be among its highest priorities. If a business is not profitable, it disappears from the market and cannot deliver entertainment. But at the same time, it can only be profitable if it makes consumers laugh and cry and love and hate; otherwise, they will neither engage with nor pay for it. So even though an entertainment product is ultimately based on contracts and financing, consumers do not care about that. What they do care about is entertainment — laughing and crying and loving and hating, and so much more. And they need a term they can use to refer to this entertainment in a way that sounds like it is entertainment and not like the contractual or business matter it actually is. Whether Entertainment Architec- ture or entarch will be this term or not cannot be known yet, and really is irrelevant. But one thing seems quite obvious — that franchise is the wrong term. But then again, if it becomes appropriated and enters popular usage, then this is simply how it is.

4.2 Freemium

The right contractual structures among the creators of Entertainment Architec- ture is an essential precondition for the success of the resulting product. It is part of the foundation on which a commercial enterprise can be built. Another part is the right business model. But before getting to that topic, a currently very popular tactic — often rather incorrectly described as a business model — that can support companies on their way towards making their business model work needs to be explored: freemium. Although the concept behind freemium has been around for a long time — it is sometimes called the ‘crack dealer model’: first hit is free — it has not been named until fairly recently59 when venture capitalist and blogger Fred Wilson summarised it and called on his readership to finally coin a term for it:

Give your service away for free, possibly ad supported but maybe not, acquire a lot of customers very efficiently through word of mouth, referral networks, or- ganic search marketing, etc, then offer premium priced value added services or

59 Which is why several of the following references stem from the blogosphere.

— 138 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. […] I would like to have a name for this business model. We’ve got words like subscription, ad supported, license, and ASP, that are well understood. Do we have a word for this business model? If so, I don’t know it (Wilson 2006).

In other words, a small number of paying consumers of the premium version pay the costs induced by a large number of non-paying consumers of the basic version (Marín de la Iglesia and Labra Gayo 2009, pp. 92-93; Beuscart and Mellet 2009, p. 167). Jarid Lukin, one of the commenters on this blog post, then suggested the term Freemium. This name was received enthusiastically by Wilson’s readership and, in fact, throughout the world. Chris Anderson, for example, picked up the term, (wrongly) credited Fred Wilson with coining it (Anderson 2009, p. 27), expanded on the idea, and wrote a book about it: Free (Anderson 2009).60 Freemium, however, is not really a business model at all. Rather, it is an umbrella term for all tactics that combine sale, rental, or subscription models with free elements (Zelenka 2007). “Between zero revenue and positive revenue lies your business model” (Zelenka 2007). A business model describes how a company makes money despite its product being free for consumers. As Fred Wilson said nearly three and half years after his original freemium post: “Free gets you to a place where you can ask to get paid” (Wilson 2009). Christopher Sandberg expects his future projects to offer the main experience for free, but the deeper experience for money, and he expects them to combine various sources of revenue. One project can offer subscription, micro payments, and many more income streams at the same time. As Adrian Hon puts it, the business model of Entertainment Architecture is not clear yet. Whatever the exact business model will be, freemium may become an important aspect of it. A look at freemium approaches in the video game industry proves that it can be an extremely profitable tactic: the revenues of Dungeons and Dragons Online: Eberron Unlimited (2006 − ongoing), a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), allegedly grew 500 per cent after

60 To do it justice, Free is not just about freemium but treats it as one of four models of free (Anderson 2009, pp. 17-34).

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 139 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture the switch to a freemium from a pure subscription model (Alexander 2010); the revenues of The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar (2007 − ongoing), another MMORPG, allegedly tripled after the same switch (Orland 2011); and Zynga, a company founded in 2007 exclusively producing freemium casu- al browser-based social network games, is already valued at USD 19 billion (Levisohn 2009). At the moment, all Entertainment Architects are experimenting with all this and it is not improbable that different entarch business models will coexist. Right now, however, virtually all examples of Entertainment Architecture presented throughout the thesis combine free aspects with sale, rental, and/or subscription, and are therefore freemium projects. If freemium were indeed a separate business model, then all entarch would have the same one, and it would be easy to give a recommendation to Entertainment Architects. The following subchapters, however, show just how much the various entarch business models vary, and just how difficult the task of developing a viable entarch business model really is.

4.3 Sale

Sale is a popular business model in the entertainment industries: a book is sold, so is a theatre ticket, an audio CD, and many other entertainment products. It is not, however, the content of those entertainment products — their intellectual property — that is sold, but merely a right to consume them, a right to experience them (Vogel 2011, p. 31). In entertainment, consumers pay for intangible experiences: a play, a movie, a song, a story, and so forth. But intangibility is hard to monetise, which prompted the entertainment industries to develop strategies to deal with this: entertainment products may, for example, be created to be consumer-irreproducible, or may be tied to physical objects. A music concert with a 100,000 people strong audience is an experience that cannot be reproduced at home — if consumers want to experience it, they have to pay for it and go to the concert. A theatre performance includes many artists and a large stage, which cannot be reproduced in a consumer’s living room. Cinemas offer giant screens and powerful sound systems which, despite

— 140 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture the wide availability and affordability of home entertainment systems, is not perfectly reproducible for consumers at home. Additionally, both theatre and cinema offer communal experiences: they are experienced together with many strangers. On the other hand, entertainment experiences are often tied to physical objects because these can easily be sold, bought, and owned. A consumer can buy and own a book, a CD, or a DVD. This means a movie can be owned physically in the form of a DVD, while it cannot be owned in itself: the ownership of the intellectual property stays with the production company or with whoever holds the rights to it (Vogel 2011, p. 31), consumers merely own the right to watch the movie off the DVD. The same goes for a novel or a song on a CD. Hundreds of years of entertainment products being physically saleable and buyable has made this model very common and well-accepted. And for the entertainment industries, it offers one big advantage over the creation of consumer-irreproducible entertainment products: it is easily scalable. A band can only be in one place at a time, but it can sell CDs all over the world simultaneously. From a business perspective, this is very promising. Consumers are used to medium-specific entertainment, as shown in Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment, and on top of that, the entertainment industries have been pushing the sale of physical objects (which are medium specific). This deeply engraved medium-specificity poses a considerable obstacle to Entertainment Architecture monetisation. A novel is an entertainment experience tied to a physical object and only available via one medium: the book. This book can be bought and owned. But entarch is not medium- specific. It is available via many media, and if consumers intend to experience it in its entirety, they have to access all those media. What does this mean for the sale of entarch? An Entertainment Architect can attempt to sell books, CDs, DVDs, comics, and all other components that can be linked to physical objects. But what about real-life components? Marika of The Truth About Marika traveled Sweden for 8 months in 2007 and interacted with Swedes all over the country. How can this be sold? And after the project concluded, this interaction was over and a sale not an option anymore anyway. Even if physical com-

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 141 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture ponents of The Truth About Marika were for sale, the Entertainment Architec- ture in its entirety would still be ‘unownable,’ as the ‘dance’ of Marika is ephemeral — it cannot be owned. A similar problem exists for the play element of entarch. The conditions, rules, and requirements of play can be sold (think a chess board) but play itself cannot (think a particular chess game). And when play involves 10 million participants spread throughout the world — as in the case of the Why So Serious (2008) alternate reality game — the problem only becomes bigger. In some cases, play conditions, rules, and requirements suffice to deliver an entertainment experience — as in the case of Eagle Eye: Free Fall (2008) from further on in the thesis — and sale may be a viable option. But if the ephemeral of play is an essential aspect of the experience — as in the case of The Truth About Marika — entarch cannot be bought and owned. To introduce clarity into the variety of sale options, I distinguish two kinds of sale in relation to Entertainment Architecture: entarch component sale and entarch sale. The former refers to individual entarch components being sold and all following examples fall into this category. The latter refers to selling Enter- tainment Architecture in its entirety, which is fundamentally more difficult and has not been successfully achieved yet. Majestic (2001 – 2002)61 may have been the only entarch to even give it a try after its subscription model failed. But even this last measure did not prevent it from ultimately failing commercially.

Level 26 (2009 – ongoing) is Entertainment Architecture conceived by Anthony E. Zuiker, creator and executive producer of the exceptionally successful CSI: Crime Scene Investigation media franchise. This entarch does not have any ephemeral components but is devised to be repeatable for any number of consumers at any point in time. It revolves around Steve Dark, a police officer working for ‘Special Circs,’ a special division that deals with the worst murder- ers. His antagonist is latex suit-covered Sqweegel, a murderer so horrific Spe-

61 More about Majestic in Subchapter 4.4 Subscription.

— 142 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture cial Circs introduced a new classification level for him: level 26. Sqweegel is the first and only person to have populated that level. Zuiker’s ‘digi-novels,’ as he calls them, consist of books that are interspersed with so-called ‘cyber-bridges,’ short films that accompany the narratives of the books. The first digi-novel in the series, Level 26: Dark Origins (Zuiker and Swierczynski 2009), gives readers codes every 20-odd pages that can be used at www.level26.com to unlock 2 to 8 minutes long short films. There is, however, no content in the videos that is not explained in the book

Figure 14: Cover of as well. The cyber-bridges therefore have a Level 26: Dark Origins. slightly redundant feel to them and sometimes seem to only have been added for their visuals: beautiful women as victims of horrific crimes. Only the very last cyber-bridge makes use of a typical motion picture series characteristic: it goes beyond what is explained in the book, and ends with a dramatic cliffhanger that tantalises the audience — the next digi- novel will come for sure. And it does, but not before other media introduce it. Dark Prophecy: A Level 26 Thriller Featuring Steve Dark (Zuiker and Swierczynski 2010) features a new form of cyber-bridge implementation. The short films at www.level26.com are slightly longer, between 3 and 10 minutes running time, and collectively tell a one-hour long narrative that is not directly connected to the book but, instead, gives background information. Further- more, these cyber-bridges were released before the second book was published in order to build up attention towards that book’s release. Accordingly, they could be watched before, while, or after reading the book. Furthermore, Zuiker wrote a CSI (2000 − ongoing) TV series episode (season 11 episode 4) that revolves around Sqweegel, the killer and antagonist of Level 26. This episode explores Sqweegel’s history in a storyline that was only hinted at in the first digi- novel. The episode aired on 14.10.2010, the day the second book was released, again as a means to build up attention.

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 143 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

The first digi-novel’s films did not by themselves tell a cohesive story and did not add anything to the book’s narrative (except for the last film). The second digi-novel’s films and the CSI episode did both. Additionally, www.level26.com offers ‘dance’ aspects with personal profiles for all readers and a forum. These, however, have not been integrated into the entertainment experience beyond simple forum discussions, blog posts, and comments. Play aspects have only really been introduced in the iPad version of the second digi-novel, which allows to collect evidence, explore interactive character biographies, examine tarot cards, and can even threaten the reader in the name of the nemesis (insidelevel26 2011, see DVD).

Figure 15: iPad version of Dark Prophecy (Hooray Society 2011).

It is quite clear the Entertainment Architect behind Level 26 is on a steep learning curve. The first digi-novel did not succeed at ‘glueing’ the films to the book. The second one changed the approach and the result was a lot more cohesive. The third digi-novel, set to complete the trilogy in late 2011, can be expected to further tweak and tune the entertainment experience. Whether this will continue on a story, play, or ‘dance’ level remains to be seen. But just the developments from the first to the second digi-novel already back up several of

— 144 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture the insights proposed in the thesis. To begin with, it makes little sense to expect consumers to be active while they are enjoying a non-interactive medium — as in the case of the first digi-novel where consumers were expected to put the book aside and go to a computer to watch the cyber-bridges, whether they were in bed, on a couch, or on the beach. This is related to the importance of ‘glue,’ in this case the iPad app which enhances the experience significantly and allows for a smooth integration of play aspects. Good ‘glue’ makes or breaks Entertainment Architecture. So what does Level 26 sell? It primarily sells books: Dark Origins and Dark Prophecy are available in hardcover, paperback, audiobook, and Amazon Kin- dle editions between USD 9.99 and USD 26.95. Furthermore, there is an iPh- one app of Dark Origins that combines text and cyber-bridges for USD 12.99 and an even more comprehensive iPad app of Dark Prophecy for the same price. It can be assumed that some form of agreement with CSI for its one- episode-stint was reached. In the future, Level 26 might benefit from YouTube advertising — currently, however, its view count is much too low to give relevance to this revenue stream, probably even too low for YouTube to offer an ad revenue sharing agreement (YouTube n.d.).

Perplex City (2005 – 2007) was conceived by Mind Candy and ran for about two years.62 The name refers to a utopian metropolis connected to Earth in un- defined ways and obsessed with puzzles and cyphers. What counts most in this world is intelligence, which is highly regarded, constantly trained, and relent- lessly tested. Such an entertainment world allowed Mind Candy to create Entertainment Architecture that was full of puzzles which, according to Adrian Hon, do not typically integrate well with story (Hon 2007b). Various rabbit holes existed for this entarch, but the most important ones (for Mind Candy as a business) were related to a collection of 256 different puzzle cards. These could be bought on- and offline at various retailers in booster packs of six cards for the price of GBP

62 A lot of the following information stems from an interview with Adrian Hon, Director of Play at Mind Candy during the run of Perplex City, now CEO of Six to Start.

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 145 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Figure 17: A visualisation of Perplex City (Mind Candy and Bogaty n.d.), reproduced with permission from Mind Candy.

3.00. All cards featured unique IDs that allowed their owners to prove at www.welovepuzzles.com (the ‘dance’ element) they had solved particular puzzles (the play element). As of 03.08.2011, this has happened 949,938 times. Every solution, however, was also potentially a rabbit hole: if it was a telephone number, for example, then this number really existed and could be called to enter the world of Perplex City. Every card itself was also a rabbit hole since it featured a piece of a map of Perplex City on its back: 256 cards meant 256 pieces of a map. Fans got together and created a comprehensive Google Maps mash-up of these cards, accessible at www.perplexcitymap.com. In- terestingly, that mash-up was then used by the creators as well, because it was better than what they themselves had cre- Figure 16: Purchasable poster map of Perplex City, reproduced with permission from Mind Candy. ated.

— 146 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

All rabbit holes led to the same alternate reality game that had a specific goal: to find the ‘Receda Cube,’ a powerful and revered object that was stolen from Perplex City and hidden on Earth. The finder of the cube was promised GBP 100,000 and the game ended when Andy Darley finally found it in a wood in Northamptonshire, UK on 02.02.2007 and was awarded the Figure 18: Every purchased map is numbered, reproduced with prize money. permission from Mind Candy. A second season of the Entertainment Architecture called Perplex City Stories was announced and a first batch of puzzle cards sold, but ultimately it was put on indefinite hold despite a lot of fan interest because Mind Candy decided to focus on social online gaming for children and is today well-known for its Moshi Monsters (2008 − ongoing). Adrian Hon and his brother Dan then left Mind Candy to found Six to Start while the Perplex City IP stayed with Mind Candy. So what did Perplex City sell? Primarily puzzle cards (that are still being traded on eBay), which they sold millions of. A Perplex City Board Game (GBP 24.99) and a Perplex City Limited Edition Signed Poster Map (GBP 24.99) were also available. It is important to understand that nobody had to buy any puzzle cards in order to play the ARG and win the money. The two were, however, so intertwined they can be seen as two sides of the same coin, and it turns out to be quite difficult to decide which one was the product and which one was promoting that product. Since promotion is expected to be free for consumers, it seems to be obvious that the ARG was promoting the puzzle cards. In most cases, however, consumers had to already own puzzle cards in order to become aware of the ARG. Or, from a different perspective, if what they were really interested in was the ARG, the puzzle cards were a necessary price they had to pay in order to fully immerse themselves in Perplex City. In any case, the ‘glue’ between the cards and the ARG, as well as among the ARG components, was extraordinarily innovative and strong. Adrian Hon is very pleased

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 147 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture that Perplex City generated revenues at all and ultimately, he believes, at least broke even.

Cathy’s Book (Stewart, Weisman and Brigg 2006) (with its sequels Cathy’s Key (Stewart, Weisman and Brigg 2008) and Cathy’s Ring (Stewart, Weisman and Brigg 2009)) and Personal Effects: Dark Art (Hutchins and Weisman 2009) all represent Entertainment Architecture that consists of a book (part of the story element), items that come with the book (part of the play element), and an alternate reality game (play and ‘dance’). All books including the additional items are sold (Stewart’s books are also sold as iPhone apps) and all ARGs are free. All four books feature prominent phone numbers on their covers that consumers can call before opening (or even buying) the book. They can jump down these rabbit holes and end up in alternate reality games even before they get started with the products they think they bought (the books) — the very first indicator of the emphasis the authors put on good ‘glue.’

Figure 19: Cover of Cathy’s Book. Figure 20: Cover of Cathy’s Key.

— 148 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Figure 21: Cover of Cathy’s Ring. Figure 22: Cover of Personal Effects: Dark Art, reproduced with permission from J.C. Hutchins.

Exoriare (2009 – forthcoming) begins with an online graphic novel and is meant to continue in a print graphic novel (both parts of the story element). The online part is free, the print part will have to be purchased. Some of the panels of the online part, however, also function as rabbit holes. Clicking on a flashing screen in the background of one of the panels — an example of Exori- are’s ‘glue’ — leads to a browser game, which in turn, is the first step into a free ARG — and the ‘dance’ begins.

No treatment of Entertainment Architecture would be complete without at least a brief look at The Matrix (1999 − 2009). Although it was not really entarch in its entirety — media franchise may describe it better — it had many highly innovative aspects about it. Despite (or maybe because of) the success of the first movie The Matrix (1999), the Entertainment Architecture struggled to get accepted among mainstream critics and consumers. All products that followed the first movie were judged by whether they lived up to the expectations that movie had set. Addi-

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 149 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture tionally, neither critics nor consumers knew how to engage with it since it was a first-of-its-kind Entertainment Architecture. Every entarch component was therefore judged separately in comparison to the direct competition from that particular medium and not as parts of something bigger as intended by the Wachowski brothers, the Entertainment Architects behind The Matrix. The video game Enter The Matrix (2003) (part of the play element) probably suffered the most. It was released simultaneously with the movie The Matrix Reloaded (2003) and the two were meant to complement each other. What many critics called plot holes in the movie were in fact scenes that could be played out in the game, and vice versa (Jenkins 2006a, p. 104). Critics, however, were not prepared to rate the two as a whole and, in separating them, were not able to enjoy the full intended entertainment experience. The critics’ tone appeared to become slightly more favourable with the release of The Animatrix (2003) the following month, a collection of anime short films set in the Matrix universe but not directly related to the movies. The Ani- matrix made the movie trilogy and the video game a lot more understandable by presenting background information about them without being tied to their storyline. The third movie The Matrix Revolutions (2003), however, again did not live up to critics’ expectations. The next highly innovative move was unfortunately largely ignored by the mainstream: The Matrix Online (2005 − 2009), a massively multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG), continued the story (by far the strongest of the four entarch elements) of the Entertainment Architecture in a collectively expe- rienceable form — the ‘dance’ element. And it did not just continue less important story strands but instead, to set the tone, started off with the death of Morpheus, one of The Matrix’ main characters. The Wachowskis considered the relevance of The Matrix Online on par with that of the movie trilogy and the video game Enter the Matrix. Nothing like this had ever been attempted before and to this day, nothing quite like it has followed. Beyond the already mentioned, a few more components were released — the more prominent ones being the video game The Matrix: Path of Neo (2005) and The Matrix Comics Volume 1 and 2 (2003 and 2005).

— 150 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

In hindsight it is difficult to decide how good each component was in itself and how good the Entertainment Architecture was as a whole. But it remains a fact that the three movies alone grossed over USD 1.6 billion at the box office (Box Office Mojo n.d.-b) — and this figure does neither include ancillary markets like DVD, Blu-ray Disc, and TV nor any of the other Matrix components. So even though it was a gigantic commercial success, nobody at the time really knew how to understand and consume it. Certainly, from today’s perspective the ‘glue’ between the components was not always perfect. But The Matrix was, without a doubt, an important event in popular culture, which prompted Henry Jenkins to dedicate an entire chapter of Convergence Culture to it (Jenkins 2006a, pp. 93-130) and many other authors to at least touch upon the topic (Gray 2010, pp. 195-196, 216; Askwith and Gray 2008, p. 524; Hanson 2004, p. 47). The business model of The Matrix was very straightforward — all components were sold separately via their traditional distribution channels.

TRON (1982 − ongoing) is an example of a media franchise that is not Enter- tainment Architecture yet, but slowly morphing into one. TRON (1982), the first component, was released as a regular science-fiction movie. But with the plans of a sequel gaining shape more than twenty years later, Disney decided to not follow a regular media franchise concept and brought in Starlight Runner Entertainment to oversee the ‘transmedia implementation,’ as Jeff Gomez call is. As a result, the newest batch of TRON products combine ideas of various examples that are described throughout the thesis — but always remains very story-centred. Specifically, most products are sold via their regular channels — just like in the case of The Matrix — but TRON also offers some free entarch components. In July 2009 Flynn Lives launched, an alternate reality game created by 42 Entertainment that told the backstory of the new movie TRON: Legacy (2010) — as with all ARGs, this presents part of the play element as well as part of the ‘dance’ element at the same time. The game explained what had happened between the first and the second movie. Ten days before the release date of TRON: Legacy, then, TRON: Evolution (2010) was released, a video game that

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 151 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture told another part of the new movie’s backstory — and was part of the play element. The movie itself referenced the video game and the alternate reality game, so the entertainment experience was heightened for those consumers who had engaged with the two before watching the movie. For children aged four to eight and nine to twelve, four novels were released that all told additional bits of TRON’s backstory: TRON the Junior Novel, TRON: Legacy: De- rezzed, TRON: Legacy: It’s Your Call: Initiate Sequence, and TRON: Legacy: Out of the Dark (all 2010). An animated children’s TV miniseries is set to be aired in 2012 — TRON: Uprising. For slightly older children, the regular dance party ElecTRONica (2010) was held at Disney California Adventure, one of Disney’s theme parks (Hust Rivera 2010). TRON is an example of a media franchise that is becoming Entertainment Architecture. The ‘glue’ between all the components is not quite there yet — and perhaps never will, as the first movie was of an era when the Internet had not yet made good ‘glue’ possible. But nonetheless, it is a very interesting example — not least because it is the only one in the thesis that specifically tar- gets different demographics with different products. This is another first in En- tertainment Architecture, and it will be interesting to see if this becomes a successful feature of entarch. The idea behind all other presented entarch is for consumers to engage with every component of it in order to get the full intended experience. But what if the Entertainment Architects’s intention is to deliver different experiences to different demographics? It is nonsensical to try and per- suade all adult consumers to read novels aimed at four to eight year-olds. But does that mean no consumer will ever get the full possible entertainment experience? Will consumers feel like they miss out on something? Will only those who began engaging with the Entertainment Architecture when they were children ever get the whole experience? An example of an entertainment form whose creators also pay special attention to their target group — but for different reasons — is the daytime soap opera: its audience is fast disappearing and with it its creators (Steinberg 2010; Ford 2007). The producers of The Young and the Restless (1973 − ongoing) have therefore come up with a novel way of generating revenues. On 14.07.2011, actors Tracey E. Bregman (playing Lauren in the soap) and Peter Bergman

— 152 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

(playing Jack) appeared on the US-American talk show The Talk (2010 − ongoing) to promote Jabot Cosmetics (part of the ‘dance’), a fictitious cosmetics brand that had been part of the soap’s storyline (the very important story element) for several decades and was now being launched in the real world. This launch was to happen in several steps: it had already begun with a soft launch the month before and was to continue with the introduction of the online store63 the next day in episode 9,695 of the soap, the in-diegesis mentioning of Jack in episode 9,703 that he was to appear on The Talk two days later, that appearance of Bregman and Bergman (but this time playing their characters Lauren and Jack) on The Talk on 28.07.2011 to promote the cosmetics in diegesis but to a real world audience, and the official 5-hour launch of the product line presented by Bregman on HSN (Home Shopping Network) on the same day (Barnert 2011). The pre-official-launch products sold out straightaway, which probably garnered substantial attention among the struggling creators of daytime soap operas. This real world market launch of a fictitious product shows that ‘glue’ does not necessarily have to be inconspicuous: Jabot Cosmetics was loudly promoted both within the entertainment world and in the real world, or in Jeff Gomez’ terminology, both with flow tags and call-outs. The Young and the Restless has no play element and is therefore not an example of Entertainment Architecture — nonetheless their efforts are innovative and may prove relevant to EAs.

One last extraordinarily innovative example of sold Entertainment Architecture is EDOC Laundry (2005 − 2008), a fashion line combining clothes with puzzles, videos, websites and a crime story. Elan Lee, its creator, explains the concept best:

The basic idea is we make really cool looking clothes, but every shirt has hidden inside of it a secret code or hidden message. It’s in the stitching, we use invisible inks, sometimes you’ve got to fold up a shirt to use it correctly. If you find the

63 See www.shopjabot.com.

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 153 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

code, you go to the website,64 you enter it in, and a movie starts playing — there’s one movie per t-shirt. As you watch a few of them you learn a story about a woman on the run from the law for a crime she didn’t commit — anyway, before you know it you’re knee-deep in a murder mystery told exclusively through clothing (Lee 2007).

EDOC Laundry even became part of an episode (season 3 episode 4) of the TV series CSI: New York (2004 − ongoing), which can only have helped its popularity. It features a story, play in connection with the puzzles, and ‘glue’ that connects the t-shirts with the films, and generated income solely from the sale of clothes.

To summarise, the sale of Entertainment Architecture as a whole faces very large obstacles. The sale of components, however, is an established and widespread model only rivalled in its prevalence by free entarch, which is explored later on in Subchapter 4.6 Free.

4.4 Subscription

In the case of subscription, consumers may be asked to pay a regular fee for access to one or more entarch components, with the remaining ones being free or paid for separately — I call this entarch component subscription — or they may be asked to pay a regular fee and get access to all components without ever having to pay anything on top — I call this entarch subscription. Depending on the ownership structure of an intellectual property, component subscription may be well reconcilable with already existing entertainment content. For instance, a subscription to a comic book may be interlinked with a free ARG, a pay-TV series, and a movie that is sold at cinemas or on DVD. However, no Entertainment Architect has tried this model yet. World of Warcraft (2004 – ongoing) — not entarch but a massively multiplayer online role-playing game — may come closest to such a model: consumers need to buy a copy of the game and pay a monthly subscription fee to play the game.

64 The original website www.edoclaundry.com is not maintained anymore, but is accessible via the Internet Archive at web.archive.org/web/20070214104224/http://www.edoclaundry.com.

— 154 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Additionally, they can buy board games, a collectible card game, a collectible miniatures game, a comic series, a graphic novel series, and more. Although World of Warcraft is more media franchise than Entertainment Architecture, EAs could profit immensely from adapting its subscription model to entarch, as it has proven to be extraordinarily profitable.65 Entarch subscription, on the other hand, has not had a single success story yet. Electronic Arts tried this model with Majestic (2001 – 2002), a subscription-based alternate reality game. The first episode was free, afterwards consumers had to pay a monthly fee of USD 9.95, which included access to some additional Electronic Arts games. At a later stage, the game was sold for USD 40.00 including an unlimited subscription as a futile effort to boost revenues. The project became a commercial failure and ever since no Entertainment Ar- chitect has tried this model. Adrian Hon believes the reason for this is that EAs fear consumers do not know what to expect from entarch and will therefore not pay upfront — asking consumers to pay GBP 5.00 a month for something they do not understand is a lot more difficult than charging GBP 5.00 for an action movie. Filmmakers had 115 years to establish well-understood categories for movies, EAs just 10. Christopher Sandberg has similar objections to subscription models: people have to feel comfortable with the form of Entertainment Architecture first, they have to understand it or at least understand what kind of entertainment it is they are getting. If entarch is to become popular entertainment, Entertainment Architects need to first educate and familiarise consumers with it. Once this has happened — once consumers understand what entarch is and how to engage with and enjoy it — subscriptions are expected to become very important. Adrian Hon, Christopher Sandberg, and Sean Stewart stated this explicitly and ‘subscription’ was the most chosen answer to the survey question “How do you envision consumers paying for your future products (choose one or more)?”

65 World of Warcraft has 12 million subscribers (Blizzard Entertainment 2010) paying between USD 12.99 and USD 14.99 (depending on the country the amount can be higher or lower than that), and total running costs were allegedly around USD 200 million in four years (Plunkett 2008). A very rough estimate of World of Warcraft’s yearly profit therefore points to around USD 1-2 billion.

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 155 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

To summarise, selling entarch component subscriptions may already be a viable option, but has not been attempted yet. However, the more interesting option is to sell subscriptions to Entertainment Architecture as a whole. This model is expected to become quite important in the future despite not having produced a single success story yet. If Entertainment Architects succeed at this, potentially gigantic profits that may dwarf even the largest media franchises of today become possible. If a more or less niche-oriented entertainment product like World of Warcraft can regularly reach USD 1-2 billion in profit per year from ‘just’ 12 million subscribers, what could be possible with a mainstream product like Harry Potter, Hannah Montana, Sex and the City, James Bond, Top Gear, Star Wars, or Pokémon?

4.5 Rental

Rental is a widespread business model where one party pays for the temporary use of a product owned by another party. Like in the cases of sale and subscription, I subdivide rental into two distinct models: entarch component rental and entarch rental. The former is very common: any Entertainment Architecture that features movie or book components can offer these at DVD stores or libraries. Renting entire entarch, however, seems rather difficult to implement. No Entertainment Architect has tried an entarch rental model yet, and it may only be applicable to a certain category of Entertainment Architecture. That category would likely include all forms of repeatable entarch and exclude all ephemeral forms. If consumers can engage with entarch at a time of their choosing — with that choice having no detrimental influence on the entertainment experience, as in the case with Eagle Eye: Free Fall (2008), 6 Minutes To Midnight (2009), or Smokescreen (2009) — then entarch rental may indeed be an option. This has, however, not been attempted yet. But why is it that rental seems so problematic with Entertainment Architec- ture? Rental works well with durable goods — goods that do not wear out in one use (Coase 1972). A house, if it is looked after, lasts a long time. So does a car, a book, or a DVD. Therefore, one party can pay high up-front costs to buy

— 156 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture a durable good and then rent it out to a second party, which only pays for using it. If a third, fourth, and more renting parties follow, the owner can recoup their up-front costs. Some entertainment industries have applied this model to their products in a particular way: they tied entertainment experiences to durable physical objects — novels (tied to books) or movies (tied to DVDs). But it is not just the physical objects that are durable; the experiences are durable as well — although repeatable may be the better word here. It does not matter if a consumer watched Apocalypse Now (1979) the year it was released or in 2011 — the experience stays largely the same (excluding the social aspect of cinema). So an entertainment product has to be durable on two levels: the physical object and the entertainment experience tied to that object. This is the case with movies on DVDs and novels in books, but it does not necessarily have to be the case with Entertainment Architecture. Play and ‘dance’ elements can render entarch non-repeatable. Quite obviously this is the case with alternate reality games: a large part of Why So Serious’ (2008) appeal was the fact that 10 million people participated. Consumers that missed the opportunity to participate in 2008 and hope to catch up on that in 2011 are out of luck. Therefore, if Entertainment Architecture consists of a repeatable experience that is tied to a durable object, rental may be an option. Maybe a way will emerge to dispense with the physical object — but the experience needs to be repeatable. Entarch component rental, on the other hand, is widespread.

4.6 Free

‘Free’ is a word of many meanings in the English language, the important one for this subchapter being that of “Given or provided without charge. Occas. postpositive (Oxford English Dictionary 2008, sense A.IV.24.a. of the adjec- tive)“ — a synonym for ‘gratis.’ But how can a commercial product be free? ‘There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch’ (often abbreviated as TANSTAAFL) is an often-used phrase emphasising that, in a closed system, resources are finite. If one chooses to do one thing (work at the office), one cannot do another (go kitesurfing). Every resource can only be used for one thing at a time. If one decides to prepare

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 157 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture lunch, one can neither go kitesurfing nor work at the office: one looses out on fun, or income, or both — the opportunity costs of preparing lunch.66 So if an Entertainment Architect has opportunity costs (and monetary costs as well), how can their entarch be free to consumers? By somebody else bearing those costs to achieve their own promotional purposes. Such Entertainment Architec- ture can, then, promote a person, organisation, product, and the like. This has become a quite popular model among Entertainment Architects — as can clearly be deduced from the number and variety of examples that this subchapter offers — and Christopher Sandberg expects it to stay so for the foreseeable future. Promotional Entertainment Architecture therefore merits thorough exploration. But first, three terms need to be teased apart that are sometimes used synonymously in this context: marketing, promotion, and advertising. How one defines marketing depends on the context one plans to use the definition in — from conceptual to practical — which prompted Philip Kotler et al. to provide three definitions in one:

Broadly defined, marketing is a social and managerial process by which individuals and organisations obtain what they need and want through creating and ex- changing value with others. In a narrower business context, marketing involves building profitable, value-laden exchange relationships with customers. Hence, we define marketing as the process by which companies create value for customers and build strong customer relationships in order to capture value from customers in return (Kotler and Armstrong 2010, p. 29).

Of interest for this thesis is that marketing is the customer-facing side of a business: it is concerned with understanding the environment of a firm, gather- ing information for its strategy, and maintaining its customer relationships (Webster 1992, p. 14; Kotler and Keller 2006, p. 6). It does not, therefore, consist of just advertising and selling a product to a consumer. Promotion, then, is an aspect of marketing.

Promotion has been defined as the coordination of all seller-initiated efforts to set up channels of information and persuasion in order to sell goods and services or promote an idea (Belch and Belch 2009, p. 18).

66 For more information on opportunity costs see, for example, (Henderson 2008).

— 158 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

And advertising is one of these efforts.

Advertising is defined as any paid form of nonpersonal communication about an organisation, product, service, or idea by an identified sponsor (Belch and Belch 2009, p. 18).

So advertising is one kind of promotion, which itself is an aspect of marketing — and it is promotion that is the key term for this subchapter: all following Entertainment Architecture promotes something and receives funding from the promoter for doing so. Two waves of promotional Entertainment Architecture can be discerned. The first one was generated by the US-American entertainment industries who induced the emergence and early development of entarch. Later, various other industries began to join in and are still feeding a second wave. Subchapter 5.2 The Young Entarch Industry explores this in more detail. The following text illustrates quite a few examples of promotional entarch and clusters them around these four kinds of promotion: advertising, product placement, patronage (in theory not a form of promotion, yet often in practice), and self-promotion. Most examples promote entertainment products but a few promoting non-entertainment products are explored as well, particularly in relation to product placement, patronage, and self-promotion.

Entarch as Advertising

Entertainment Architecture that advertises products — mostly entertainment products — represents the largest share of promotional entarch. The first example, however, does not stem from an entertainment product, but from politics: the Barack Obama presidential campaign 2008, which illustrates how the evolution of communication technologies is influencing not only entertainment, but all areas of social life.67 Obama’s campaign was all about bringing across one message: Obama stands for ‘Change we can believe in’ (the official campaign slogan). At his New Hampshire concession speech, Obama sharpened

67 For an exploration of the Internet’s influence on personal connections, for example, see (Baym 2010).

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 159 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture this message even more by building his speech around three words: ‘Yes We Can.’68 From then on, everything was geared towards convincing the US- American public this message was true. All points of contact with the campaign — be they his public speeches, TV ads, video game ads,69 websites, YouTube videos,70 rallies, debates, interviews, his 30-minute infomercial, and many more — reiterated that same message in their own ways.

Figure 23: Screenshot of Burnout Paradise (redvsblue 2008).

Popular artist will.i.am, together with 37 other artists, turned the ‘Yes We Can’ speech into a successful pop song (will.i.am et al. 2008, see DVD) and street artist Shepard Fairey created a poster that became omnipresent. On it, Fairey boiled Obama’s concession speech down to one word: ‘Hope.’ Reacting

68 That speech is a very good example of writing for Entertainment Architecture, read or watch it at (Obama 2008, see DVD). 69 Obama bought ad space in 9 Electronic Arts video games, among them Burnout Paradise (2008) and Madden NFL 09 (2008) (Barrett 2008). 70 As of 09.08.2011, Obama’s official YouTube channel (Obama 2011) offers 2,000 uploads. Even though only a fraction of those are election related, this illustrates Obama’s continued commitment to reaching voters where they are.

— 160 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

quickly, Obama integrated the fan-created and fan- disseminated71 poster and its slogan ‘Hope’ into his campaign. The Barack Obama presidential campaign 2008 had a very simple but very powerful and emotional story element: ‘There is hope! If we all work together, we can change the world and make it a better place for all of us. And if you vote for me, you and I and the rest of us will make this happen.’ It encouraged

Figure 24: Hope poster by Shepard Fairey, everybody to become a based on a photograph by Mannie Garcia. driver of this change by getting involved in, for example, community efforts or by getting involved in the campaign itself — it encouraged the audience to ‘dance.’ Credibility was given to this encouragement through the official support of phenomena like the Yes We Can song and the Hope poster, which in some way represented the play of voters. The ‘glue’ element of this campaign was the simple fact that presidential elections were coming up in the USA. It is difficult to escape them even in countries that are not directly affected by them, like Australia or Ger- many. Obama was therefore in the comfortable position where he did not have to worry too much about ‘glue.’ If he got the other three elements right and aligned all components at least roughly, then ‘glue’ was provided by the rest of the world: the news covered Obama’s every move, the blogosphere followed

71 In marketing lingo it had ‘turned viral.’

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 161 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture him everywhere, and people talked to each other about him using any existing communication technology. Even though this example is not about entertainment and may therefore appear irrelevant to a concept and a thesis that focus on exactly that, it demonstrates how coordinated components that are spread across various media can nonetheless create a coherent bigger whole — exactly what Entertainment Architects strive to do. The reader may have noticed several striking similarities between Obama’s presidential campaign and Halo’s Believe promotional campaign described earlier on. Specifically the focus on very simple yet very emotional and powerful messages of the promotional campaigns of Halo 3 and all following Halo titles strongly resembled (and maybe foreshadowed) Obama’s campaign. Obama said ‘Change!’ (‘Yes We Can!’) and Halo 3 said ‘Believe.’ Both messages were the starting points for elaborate campaigns and stayed very prominent throughout. Both even used the same secondary message ‘Hope,’ which later became an even more important tagline in the campaign surrounding Halo: Reach.

Whether or not Halo promotion really inspired Barack Obama is unknown, but a brief look at the evolution of Halo’s promotional campaigns shows another interesting fact: the possible maturing of alternate reality games. A lot of buzz surrounded the campaign of Halo 2 (2004) for one specific reason: it featured i love bees (2004), a very successful alternate reality game created by 42 Entertainment, which consisted of a 6-hour-long radio drama broadcast via “hundreds of thousands of pay-phones all over the world” (Lee 2007). Consumers had to collaborate to find out where to find the right pay- phone, at what time, and who would be able to be there to answer it and write down the message for the rest of the world (Kim et al. 2009).72 The later advertising campaigns of both Halo 3 and Halo: Reach featured alternate reality games as well: Iris (2007) and Xbox News (2010) respectively. But despite be-

72 As an interesting side note, i love bees was initially considered non-canon for the same reason as Believe: it was created independently and stood on its own feet. Such decisions, however, seem to be rather negotiable as two characters from i love bees were nonetheless later on referenced in The Halo Graphic Novel (2006).

— 162 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture ing successful in their own rights, they did not become news the way Believe did. Why not? The reason may be that they had lost their newness and were instead judged by how well they did what they did instead of just how new and different they were. User TheDarkWayne may have summed up the current state of alternate reality games quite well in this comment to an article about the Halo: Reach ARG:

I never care for ARGs, mostly because a lot of them require effort and knowledge, like when i like bees made people go into the html code and what not, makes me feel dumb (Mitchell 2010).

It is quite telling that TheDarkWayne’s disappointment with ARGs stems from i love bees, one of the most successful alternate reality games to be created so far. Maybe ARGs are simply not for everybody. They were invented to promote movies — the honour goes to The Beast (2001) which advertised Ste- ven Spielberg’s A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) and was created by the people who later went on to found 42 Entertainment — and the most successful ARG so far also promoted a movie — Why So Serious (2007 – 2008), yet again created by 42 Entertainment, which advertised The Dark Knight (2008) and was a 16 month-long experience, had 10 million unique participants online, and over 750,000 participants in real-world activities in over 380 cities in 75 countries (Alternate Reality Branding 2008). Today, ARGs are often considered synonymous with promotion which, to be honest, many of them are. But maybe they are not that well suited to be the main form of promotion for mainstream products after all: even the “hundreds” (Alternate Reality Branding 2008) of participants that gathered in downtown New York for the climactic events of Why So Serious is not a large number for the highest-grossing movie of 2008. Maybe ARGs have matured enough to have their own place in the world, just like movies, comic books, or operettas. It turns out a worldwide community has already emerged which constantly creates and plays ARGs that are independent from any product or promotion: a look at the enormous number of ARGs being

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 163 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture played at any point in time may, indeed, be quite overwhelming.73 But it is possible this community will always stay a niche — Sean Stewart surely believes so. Nathan Mayfield agrees that the main thing Hoodlum has learnt over the course of its projects is that if one wants to reach the mainstream, one cannot make the audience feel stupid:

[Consumers] have to feel like that computer is reaching out and patting them on the back saying you could be a good spy, you’re a great neighbour.

So maybe the reason why the alternate reality games promoting Halo 3 and Halo: Reach did not enjoy the same limelight as the one promoting Halo 2 is that the newness had worn off and alternate reality games were maturing.

This illustrates quite well a recurring theme of this thesis: there is no one single form of Entertainment Architecture. Instead, many forms are co-evolving, and alternate reality gaming is one of them. So what other forms of Entertainment Architecture advertising other products have emerged so far? Many of them do not have names yet. If asked to describe them, one often has to resort to a comparison with a number of other entertainment forms at the same time. One such example is Eagle Eye: Free Fall (2008), which would probably be described as ‘being a bit like a website fused with a video game and a movie, and interspersed with phone calls between the consumer and fictional characters.’ This sounds reminiscent of alternate reality games, which is why many websites, blogs, and so forth call it one (Senderhauf 2008; Berens 2008). But it actually is quite different. Most importantly it is very short (10 minutes) and a pure single-player experience. So what does it look like? First of all, it advertises the movie Eagle Eye (2008), a science-fiction thriller about an artificial intelligence of the US government gone rogue trying to manipulate and force regular citizens to kill the US President. The entertainment experience begins with a website74 asking for the consumer’s first name and phone number. Once that information is entered, the consumer begins to inter-

73 The unfiction forums are a good place to start: forums.unfiction.com/forums. 74 See www.eagleeyefreefall.com, launched before the movie was released.

— 164 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture act with the website (the play element), which starts telling a story by showing film clips, animations, and other content. After a few moments the consumer’s phone rings and the website cuts to a ‘live’ close up of a scared man driving a car. On the phone a slightly awkward female voice — after watching the movie one learns that this is the artificial intelligence — commands the consumer to talk the man into doing something. The consumer has to strike up a conversation with the man but ultimately fails to convince him. This prompts the artificial intelligence to manipulate the car into malfunctioning, which leads to an accident in which the driver is killed. The voice addresses the consumer again and the website shows a database being searched. The search results in several hits, among them the two main characters of the movie. A few more things happen, but in total the entertainment experience is only 10 minutes long. Eagle Eye: Free Fall was received enthusiastically by press and consumers alike (Communication Arts Annuals 2009). Its ‘glue’ was outstanding: the limited timespan of the experience, and the website being the central hub of the experience, meant that the flow of story and play was well-controlled. Only the phone call had to be ‘glued in,’ and that was done very well via good timing and voice recognition. Since Eagle Eye: Free Fall does not feature any ‘dance’ components, it is not really Entertainment Architecture — but consumers have somewhat taken things into their own hands and discussed the experience via YouTube and other websites. Sean Stewart and Fourth Wall Studios polished their technology even further and a year later launched 6 Minutes To Midnight (2009) (telefonprojekt 2009, see DVD for both), which advertised the movie Watchmen (2009). In relation to Eagle Eye: Free Fall Sean Stewart mentions another indicator pointing to a constant evolution of Entertainment Architecture. When he and his colleagues created The Beast, they started a trend of pretend-realism in this form of entertainment — hence the term alternate reality game. Annoyingly for them from today’s point of view, this meant film footage could not be scored — hence the frequent use of security camera footage and fake vlogs (video blogs) in ARGs. But with Eagle Eye: Free Fall they finally got to the stage where they could add the beginnings of a score.

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 165 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

It sounds like just random computer noises except we used pitch and timing to make sinister random computer noises with rhythm and pulse to them.

But even this score still had to remain in fiction. At some point he expects this form of entertainment to reach a stage of maturity similar to that of movies and other entertainment forms where consumers “hear scary music when something scary is happening and you don’t have to say ‘Hey, next door there was a band rehearsing’” as parodied in the movie Blazing Saddles (1974).

As mentioned before (and is elaborated upon later), promotional Entertainment Architecture was largely created for entertainment products in the beginning — as reflected in the examples given so far. And even the ones presented so far are only the beginning of a much longer list. Star Trek ARG (2009) was created for the eponymous movie and Skynet Research (2009) for Terminator Salvation (2009). TV series had a large number of promotional entarch: Lost Experience (2006) and Find 815 (2007 − 2008) for Lost (2004 − 2010), What Happened in Piedmont? (2008) for The Andromeda Strain (2008), Heroes Evolutions (2007 − 2010) for Heroes (2006 − 2010), and many more. Video games had their own fair share: GKNOVA6 (2010) for Call of Duty: Black Ops (2010), There’s Some- thing in the Sea (2009 − 2010) for Bioshock 2 (2010), or Xi (2009) for Playstation Home. Even music albums had their own promotional entarch: United States of Eurasia (2009) for The Resistance (2009) by Muse and Year Ze- ro (2007), conceived by Trent Reznor and Nine Inch Nails as Entertainment Architecture consisting of a music album, an ARG, and further yet to be published components. Many more examples exist of entarch promoting entertainment products — sometimes successfully and sometimes not. However, this does not mean there are no examples of Entertainment Architecture promoting products beyond the entertainment industries. On the contrary, some advertising campaigns for non- entertainment products were extraordinarily innovative Entertainment Architec- ture — and present the second wave of promotional entarch.

— 166 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

The Man Your Man Could Smell Like (2010), better known as Old Spice Guy, was an advertising campaign created by Wieden+Kennedy for Old Spice grooming products and has been, in Sean Stewart’s words, “viral in a way that almost nothing else has been.” But what did Wieden+Kennedy achieve that was so exceptional? It managed to ‘dance’ with a gigantic number of consumers while bringing across the feeling that every single one of them could potentially be addressed personally. The campaign started off with a fantastic television and YouTube advertisement (Old Spice 2010b, see DVD) starring The Man Your Man Could Smell Like aka Old Spice Guy who, in the end, proclaims “I’m on a horse!”

Figure 25: Screenshot of the first Old Spice Guy advertisement (Old Spice 2010b, see DVD).

A few months later, a second equally good advertisement followed and ended with the invitation “So ladies, should your man smell like an Old Spice man? You tell me!” (Old Spice 2010a, see DVD). And two weeks after that, Old Spice Guy started responding via YouTube to what people had told him — or rather to what they had said about him anywhere on the Internet. He responded, for example, to a blog post of Internet celebrity Perez Hilton (Old Spice 2010g, see DVD) as well as to an imageboard post of the secretive Anonymous community (and survived!) (Old Spice 2010f, see DVD). A conversation with the audience began (play and ‘dance’ in one) and went on for three

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 167 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture days. He flirted with several women and by the end of the three days was in a ‘long-term committed relationship’ with TV actress and Twitter celebrity Alyssa Milano.75 The fascinating part was that he did not respond to just celebrities, but to seemingly anybody — he did, for example, propose to a woman in the name of her tweeting boyfriend (Old Spice 2010e, see DVD). Everything happened in real time: 183 video responses were conceived, written, shot, edited, and uploaded to YouTube in just three days.76 Iain Tait, global interactive creative director at Wieden+Kennedy, explains the process behind the Entertain- ment Architecture:

One of the unique things taking place in the studio is we have a team of social media people, we have the Old Spice community manager, we have a social media strategist, a couple of technical people, and a producer. And we’ve built an application that scans the Internet looking for mentions and allows us to look at the influence of those people and also what they’ve said. They’re working in collaboration with the creative team that are there to pick out the messages that: 1. Have creative opportunity to produce amazing content; or 2. Have the ability to then embed themselves in an interesting or virally-relevant community. It’s not just picking people with huge followings, it’s a really interesting combination (Borden 2010).

The social media guys and script writers are collaborating to make that call in real time. We have people shooting and we’re editing it as it happens. Then the social media guys are looking at how to get that back out around the web...in real time (Kirkpatrick 2010).

Specific numbers of consumer reach are notoriously difficult to acquire in the Internet arena, but a general consensus seems to be that the campaign would easily win a comparison with a Super Bowl ad which would have cost Old Spice up to USD 3 million to air and been 30 seconds long (Baumer 2011). And the best part is that this reach was achieved by consumers themselves via all forms of social networks. The audience was actively engaged — a marketer’s dream. A Super Bowl ad would not have had that advantage.

75 Watch the evolution of their relationship at (Old Spice 2010c, see four videos on the DVD). 76 Watch them all at (Old Spice 2010d).

— 168 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

There are quite a few more noteworthy examples of Entertainment Architec- ture promoting non-entertainment products like, for example, Hotel 626 (2008) and its successor Asylum 626 (2009) — both not entirely dissimilar to the above-described Eagle Eye: Free Fall. Several more are explored below in relation to product placement, patronage, and self-promotion.

Product Placement in Entarch

Product placement, also often referred to as brand placement (Balasubramanian, Karrh and Patwardhan 2006, p. 115) or brand integration (Wiles and Danielova 2009, p. 44), is the inclusion of branded products or identifiers through audio or visual means within mass-media programming (Wiles and Danielova 2009, p. 44).77 Product placement means for Entertain- ment Architecture that it receives its funding from featuring a certain product or brand. A very similar but younger concept is that of branded entertainment:

Branded entertainment is defined as the integration of advertising into entertainment content, whereby brands are embedded into storylines of a film, television program, or other entertainment medium. This involves co-creation and collaboration between entertainment, media and brands (Hudson and Hudson 2006, p. 492).

For this thesis, branded entertainment is treated as a subform of product placement where the brand or product dominates the entertainment to such a degree that the entertainment appears to simply be advertising that product. In that sense, branded entertainment is a borderline case between, or fusion of, product placement and advertising. Even though product placement is a widespread form of promotion, it is rarely used to fund Entertainment Architecture. As a matter of fact, branded entertainment seems to be the only form of product placement that is used at all at the moment — as illustrated by the following example funded by Audi.

77 This definition is derived from (Balasubramanian 1994, p. 31), whose definition only included movies and television programming.

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 169 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

The Art of the H3ist (2005), an alternate reality game created by advertising agencies McKinney+Silver and Campfire,78 launched with the theft of an Audi A3 from the Audi dealership on Park Avenue in New York City the night before Audi was to present it at the New York International Auto Show (Campfire 2010, see DVD).

The story develops into a narrative involving Nisha Roberts and Ian Yarbrough who are racing for their lives as they are being pursued by a pair of hit men. Ian’s tearing across America in a stolen car, the key to unlocking the mystery behind one of the biggest art heists ever planned. Now Nisha has to find out who’s behind the scheme. To complicate matters, Nisha has attracted the attention of legendary game designer Virgil Tatum. Virgil has set his eyes on a prize of his own — Nisha and a video game based on the adventures of Nisha Roberts and her company, Last Resort Retrieval (Audi of America 2005b).

As The Art of The H3ist unfolds in real time over the course of three months, our audience experiences a story of theft, love and betrayal through every media imaginable. Print ads, billboards, television commercials, radio spots, Web Sites, live events, e-mails, videos, IRC chats, voice transcripts, machinima, puzzles, photos, scanned-in documents, and the list goes on and on (Audi of America 2005a).

The Art of the H3ist was a typical alternate reality game in that it strived to establish a credible alternate reality. But it was slightly untypical in that it was not just advertising the new Audi A3; rather, the car became part of the story, and therefore of the entertainment experience. The Art of the H3ist was definitely not ‘just’ promotion — which its creators also noticed, and decided to promote the promotion (Audi of America 2005b).

But aside from branded entertainment, what does Entertainment Architecture funded via product placement look like? Nobody really knows yet, but Elan Lee of Fourth Wall Studios has a good idea:

If you think of an ARG, the whole point of an ARG is to engage the audience member in kind of this bizarre ‘trust dance,’ this concept where they want des-

78 Campfire was founded by two of the makers of The Blair Witch Project (1999).

— 170 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

perately to believe that this stuff is real because it makes it more fun, and the role of an ARG is to do everything in its power to make them not feel stupid about taking that leap with us. And we are in this bizarre position where product placement actually enhances that. If the characters in your story are doing real things, are going to a restaurant that actually exists, that makes the game better, rather than worse. That kind of product placement lets you take that leap with us so much more easily. Because ‘Oh my god, what if this thing is real? What if this person does exist? What happens if I go to that restaurant? What happens if I buy that product? What if… what if… what if…’ (cited in Siegel 2006).

Lee describes a restaurant that pays to become part of Entertainment Archi- tecture. This model can work for any sort of venue or product. James F Robin- son, the Entertainment Architect behind Story Addict (2009), self-promotional entarch that is described a little later in this subchapter, seems to believe in product placement as well. In a presentation about Story Addict he states:

The Characters SHOP, DRIVE, EAT, CHAT ABOUT and CONSUME PRODUCTS that allow ample opportunities for Embedded Branding & Marketing. Coupons and links to product sites & SMS promotions can also be included (Robinson 2009a, p. 13, emphasis in original).

Unfortunately, as promising as the idea appears, not much progress has been made since Lee’s above quotation from 2006 and Robinson’s quotation from 2009. Maybe their idea of product placement will become more relevant with the mass adoption of location-based social networking services like Four- square, Gowalla, Facebook Places, or Google Latitude, which already have been used in innovative ways by advertising agencies. Maybe the problem is scale; there is a limit to how much a restaurant can afford to pay for its product placement in an entertainment experience. Maybe a franchise like McDonald’s can afford to pay more — which would also make the entertainment experience transferrable to many locations. But maybe venues are not the right clients after all and products are better suited — the way Volvos are featured in the extremely successful Twilight (2005 − 2012) media franchise, for example. Yet I have discovered only one apparently successful example of such product placement in Entertainment Architecture: I AM PLAYR (2011) which puts consumers in the virtual Nike shoes, Ginsters-sponsored shirts, and Alfa Romeo car

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 171 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture of a fictitious professional River Park FC football player, and lets them attempt a career while drinking virtual Red Bull — all via Facebook (We R Interactive 2011; Red Bull 2011). It is quite possible that product placement will be made to work well with Entertainment Architecture in the future. The reason why not much has happened since Lee’s 2006 citation may simply be that the process of convincing advertisers and consumers of the viability of product placement in entarch is much slower than Entertainment Architects would like.

Patronage of Entarch

Although not, in the strictest sense of the concept, a form of promotion, patronage is included at this point to serve as an umbrella term for several concepts, the boundaries between which are very fluid. Naturally, the ancient meaning of art patronage, where a wealthy person or institution — a patron — provides financial or material support to artists, is included.79 In theory, such art does not have to promote the patron. In reality, however, if their patrons were not promoted, their politics, opinions, and so forth often were (Balfe 1993, p. 3). Furthermore, all forms of public support through, for example, arts or research grants, cultural subsidies, or public broadcasting organisations are included. Finally, sponsorship is included, which is “the purchase (in cash or kind) of an association with an event, team, activity, etc., in return for the ‘ex- ploitable commercial potential linked to that activity’” (Schwaiger, Sarstedt and Taylor 2010, p. 78; see also Meenaghan 1991, p. 36). Sponsorship differs from advertising in that an event, team, activity, and the like does not advertise its sponsors, but the sponsors are allowed to publicly mention their involvement with that event. This category differs from the rest of the thesis in that it is not dominated by US-American Entertainment Architecture but at the same time, or maybe because of that, is a rather small category. Two examples of entarch created un-

79 Greek art patronage can be traced “back at least to the golden days of Pericles,” fifth century BCE (Schoener 1966).

— 172 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture der two forms of patronage are explored in the following text: one is sponsorship-funded and the other was financed by a public broadcaster.

Conspiracy For Good (2010) was created by The company P and Tim Kring,80 and presented by Nokia. So far, it consisted of an alternate reality game pilot executed in 2010 (cfg77472 2010, see DVD). The story revolves around a fictitious Conspiracy For Good that tries to bring down the evil corporation Black- well Briggs while, at the same time, hoping to donate 10,000 books to a library in Chataika, a Zambian village. The entertainment experience is heavily ‘dance’-oriented — it was created by the makers of The Truth About Marika (2007) after all — and attempts to become a social movement beyond the pure fun aspect. Regular highlights are real-life events (‘dance’) and tasks consumers can participate in (play). The aim is for a real world-changing movement to emerge out of the fictional entertainment world. The approach is to create awareness of issues like child poverty in Africa and to collect money for real- world charities. The official website of the alternate reality game sums the idea up in the following way: “Is there really a Conspiracy For Good? There is… when you make it real” (Conspiracy For Good n.d.). Nokia is sponsoring the alternate reality game. In return, some Conspiracy For Good content can only be accessed via the free but Nokia-exlusive Ovi app store. Consumers do not, however, have to own a Nokia phone to engage with the Conspiracy For Good as the Ovi components represent only a part of the entertainment experience.

Bluebird AR (2010), created by the public broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), was a 6 week long alternate reality game centred around the controversial topic of geoengineering, the idea that Earth’s environment should be manipulated to counteract global warming. The official Bluebird AR website explains the reasoning behind ABC’s involvement in alternate reality gaming:

80 The creator of the very successful TV series Heroes (2006 − 2010).

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 173 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Just as Literature, Radio, Television and Cinema offer well established mediums for drama, Online is reaching a level of maturity as a medium to offer its own compelling stories. But with a new language that involves interaction, reactivity and scenario-game play, alongside the more traditional languages of storytelling. In addition, Bluebird AR offered a compelling way to educate and engage audiences in a very current and contentious real world issue that was on the fringe of entering mainstream debate, i.e. geoengineering. The blurring of real and virtual worlds around an issue on the verge of changing the world forever as it edges closer and closer to becoming a reality would offer an immersive and powerful experience (Australian Broadcasting Corporation n.d.).

Clearly the ABC was following its mandate to, amongst others, inform, entertain, and educate (Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing 2008, section 6(1)(a)) when it created and publicly funded Bluebird AR. This is an important aspect for public broadcasters as they have to be particularly careful not to vio- late their mandates when creating Entertainment Architecture — in practice this may mean they cannot create genuine Entertainment Architecture but only transmedial extensions or ‘satellite formats,’ as in the case of the BBC’s Doctor Who (1963 − ongoing) (Perryman 2008, p. 34).

Even though patronage is a rather small category, it may prove to be essential for Entertainment Architects outside of the USA, who cannot tap as large advertising budgets as their US-American colleagues — Subchapter 5.2 The Young Entarch Industry explores this in more detail. But patronage is also gaining relevance in other areas: the already mentioned No Mimes Media collaborated with JUXT Interactive81 to create two massive Cisco-internal alternate reality games called The Threshold (2009) and The Hunt (2010) which brought together the majority of Cisco’s around 20,000 people strong sales staff before and during its annual sales meetings called GSX (JUXT Interactive 2009, see DVD; 2010, see DVD).

Entarch as Self-Promotion

Now the attention turns to Entertainment Architect-funded entarch. It is not a

81 See www.juxtinteractive.com.

— 174 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture large category either, but one that has a quite specific raison d’être: actually realised entarch can expand an Entertainment Architect’s portfolio, even if it was self-funded. Artists tend to be in the situation where they are judged by their previous work (Blair 2001) but cannot show it to support their application for a project. They may have sold their art (painting) or it may site-specific (installation art) or ephemeral (ballet) or the like. This is why artists create portfolios that go by various names depending on the industry: lookbook, artfolio, show reel, demo tape, etc. It can be anticipated that Entertainment Architects will have to do the same, whatever the name of such a portfolio may end up being. It is also, of course, possible that an EA may fund their own Entertainment Architecture without intending to promote themself, but rather as an artistic statement. But, as I have not discovered any such Entertainment Architecture yet, I will focus on the self-promotional version at this point. The skills needed to be a successful Entertainment Architect are quite unique and unprecedented, and all interview partners agree that, at the moment, the only way to decide if a person is suitable as an Entertainment Architect is to look at their previous work. More or less established Entertainment Architects are, of course, in a position where they can refer back to their previous work. But what about early career EAs? According to Christopher Sandberg,

There are no schools teaching people that we can draft from. […] TV or film production has many decades of experience meaning they know what the different phases [of creation] are. And we are going to know that as well.

As soon as such Entertainment Architecture schools exist, early career EAs will be able to enrol in them. Such degrees may, then, serve as partial substi- tutes for entarch portfolios, or portfolios may be created as part of such degrees. Until then, the only real option is to conceive and execute entarch and, if it is ephemeral, to document it and use this documentation for their portfolio. It is to be expected, however, that such first entarch will always struggle to attract funding, which may leave the EA’s personal funds as their only option. Hence, the relevance of this topic.

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 175 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Self-funding Entertainment Architecture may sound like an expensive approach — and it of course does not help that emerging Entertainment Architects tend to not yet be rich and famous — but it does not have to be. James F Robinson, an experienced movie director but emerging EA, created Story Addict (2009), a ‘digital social media novel.’ According to its website,

STORY ADDICT is a new kind of DIGITAL STORY that takes place over 23 days. You will read the private emails, texts, videos, photos and recordings82 of Man- dy, Eric and their friends & rivals as they stumble into a world of obsession, betrayal & revenge.83 Besides EMAIL & TEXTS, the story is told by the character’s social media activities on YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Flickr and other networking sites84 (Story Addict n.d.).

Robinson created a presentation that is available online and explains the workings and ideas behind Story Addict:

The bulk of STORY ADDICT’s digital content is text-based “transmissions” sent via email and/or text. The audience receives 74 transmissions over 23 days, linked to over 150 videos, photographs, web pages and sound files that tell the story (Robinson 2009a, p. 5).

The presentation also explains that Story Addict was free for a limited time. Currently, a 3-day trial is free and the full entarch costs USD 4.95. But it is

Figure 26: Story Addict banner (Robinson worth pointing out that a lot of its con- 2009a, p. 15), reproduced with permission from James F Robinson. tent is still free. Robinson decided to put an emphasis on YouTube and to make

82 Sifting through all the content certainly has a playful aspect. 83 The story element. 84 The ‘dance’ element.

— 176 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture these videos available without charge. The same goes for various websites. But if consumers want the elaborate 23-day long product including text messages, emails, and all other restricted content — if they want the ‘glue’ that enables the full entertainment experience — they have to pay. Then the presentation goes on to explain “opportunities for embedded branding & marketing” (Robinson 2009a, p. 13), as already touched upon before. This presentation clearly is a form of artist portfolio for Robinson. It is freely available on the Internet, downloadable in PDF-form, and easy to email. Per- haps Story Addict is generating direct revenues from sale, perhaps not. But its budget would not have been very large anyway and it definitely fulfils its function as Robinson’s and all other involved artist’s self-promotional tool.

Another example is International Mime Academy (2009) from Subchapter 3.2 Entarch Bible: simple Entertainment Architecture created by No Mimes Media LLC for conferences and meetings to help people better understand what it is they do. It was created to ease communication with conversation partners by letting them experience what entarch is about instead of trying to explain it, but at the same time, it is a signal proving that No Mimes Media LLC know what they are talking about. Self-promotion is not the only goal of International Mime Academy, but it is still a goal.

Yet another example is the last chapter of Dave Szulborski’s book This Is Not A Game (Szulborski 2005), where he takes readers through Errant Memories (2005), an alternate reality game he created specifically for that chapter. He mentions websites and encourages the readers to check them out and experience everything for themselves while being guided by him. The last example of self-promotion shows that while no dedicated schools or degrees exist yet, entarch-related courses are starting to appear and may help early career Entertainment Architects to build a portfolio. To that end, Brad King put together a course for the fall 2010 semester at Ball State University: ICOM 375: Digital Storytelling (Ball State University 2010), during which

Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models — 177 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture groups of students created Entertainment Architecture. The final results can be viewed online.85

Low budget is a key term in the context of early career self-promotion, and fortunately, is quite possible thanks to current technology. Mobile phones take photos and videos of acceptable quality. YouTube, Flickr, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter are free. Inspiration may not come easy, but it is indeed free. If an emerging Entertainment Architect finds inspiration and invests time and effort, simple entarch can be created without incurring large monetary costs and can become part of their portfolio. And if at some point in the future Entertainment Architecture is created and intended as an artistic statement, self-promotion may be an unintended side effect.

To conclude Chapter 4, let me point out that financing Entertainment Architec- ture via the promotional budgets of other companies is by far the dominant approach at the moment — and this has immense influence on the cultural perception of entarch. Some forms — alternate reality games being the most prominent example here — are already largely perceived as forms of promotion, not entertainment, by the mainstream. The broader implications of this are explored in a lot more detail in Subchapter 5.2 The Young Entarch Industry, so suffice it to say at this point that alternative viable business models absolutely must be found if Entertainment Architecture is to become culturally accepted as a legitimate form of entertainment and not just as promotion. Developing solid business models is therefore not only crucial for individual businesses and the future growth of the entire entarch industry, but also for making sure that a nascent form of entertainment is not stifled and reduced to being promotion for other things.

85 Video synopses are available at www.vimeo.com/channels/bsudst and websites explaining the projects at cityofelsinore.blogspot.com/p/full-story.html, jerichman.iweb.bsu.edu/The_Alias/ the_story.html, learninglifeat50.wordpress.com, and rjluikart.iweb.bsu.edu/ the_art_of_the_trade/index.html.

— 178 — Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry

After the environment from which Entertainment Architecture is emerging, the conceptual framework of entarch, and an overview of entarch business models, the thesis now turns to the nascent entarch industry and to how the future of every Entertainment Architect depends on the developments of the emerging entarch industry as a whole. This chapter therefore presents the last link in the logical chain going through the thesis: a novel communication technology triggers the evolution of novel entertainment technologies, which trigger the evolution of novel businesses, which trigger the evolution of novel industries. The following subchapters introduce some of the factors that typically shape emerging entertainment industries, and relate them to the emerging entarch industry. To that end, Subchapter 5.1 Entrepreneurship and Creative Destruction gives an introduction into the economics of change, entrepreneurs as the driving force behind it, and creative destruction as its outcome. Subchapter 5.2 The Young Entarch Industry then applies this knowledge to the Entertainment Architecture industry: it explains the seemingly slow pace of its current growth, some of the requirements of faster future growth, and the significance of Enter- tainment Architects weaning off other companies’ promotional budgets and in- tensifying their own marketing. The following Chapter 6 does not extend the logical chain of the thesis anymore, but applies the generated insights to movies and moviemakers.

5.1 Entrepreneurship and Creative Destruction

Mainstream or orthodox economics are difficult to apply to topics like the emergence of a novel industry or the impact of novel on established industries as they are not inherently interested in analysing change, but focus on investigating states of equilibria (Nelson and Winter 1982, esp. pp. 23-48; Metcalfe 1998, pp. 12-19; Herrmann-Pillath 2002, p. 36; Dopfer and Potts 2008, p. 2). The economy is assumed to virtually always be in an equilibrium state which,

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 179 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture if disturbed, adjusts infinitely fast to arrive at a new equilibrium state.86 This is problematic to combine with the inherently change-focused topic of the thesis or, some argue, with any real life problem (Hodgson 1993, p. 3). But Entertainment Architects would profit immensely from an understanding of their changing economic environment. They would gain a broader perspective on some of the factors behind financial soundness of their industry and of their own. But such soundness is fundamental to the creation of all entertainment, which always incurs costs and, being commercial, has to recoup them. To start at the beginning of the process of economic change, how is it triggered? According to Thorstein Veblen, changes in “the human factor” find their expression in changes in the “mechanical contrivances” and, ultimately, in economic development (Veblen 1898, p. 388). This means that as long as the cause of the change is not an exogenous shock — a natural catastrophe, for example — change is caused by people:

The human mind is […] the seat of economic evolution (Dopfer and Potts 2008, p. 6).

People themselves change. They do things in novel ways which, if taken up by a large enough number of other people, drives the economy (Nelson and Winter 1982; Dopfer, Foster and Potts 2004). Veblen recognised this change is not random, but follows the pattern of evolution as described by Charles Dar- win (Darwin 2008 [1859]; Hodgson 2002). To him, this meant that economics should be an evolutionary science (Veblen 1898). Joseph Schumpeter later devoted his life and academic career to further develop that idea (McCraw 2007). To him, economic evolution is based on innovation brought about by entrepreneurs, who therefore have to be at the centre of any economic analysis (Schumpeter 1934). Many researchers have since struggled to define what an entrepreneur or entrepreneurship is (Cole 1969, p. 17; Gartner 1988, p. 11; Venkataraman 1997,

86 General equilibrium theory is a dominant branch of economic theory first attempted by (Walras 1954 [1874]) and first mathematically proven by (Arrow and Debreu 1954), that has become part of any microeconomics textbook, see for example (Varian 1992, pp. 313-337).

— 180 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture p. 120). Nonetheless, the interdisciplinary efforts of Andrew Shane have found some fairly broad support:

Entrepreneurship is an activity that involves the discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities to introduce new goods and services, ways of organising, markets, processes, and raw materials through organising efforts that previously had not existed (Shane 2003, p. 4).

Although not explicitly mentioned, this definition elaborates on Schumpet- er’s idea of entrepreneurship being intrinsically connected to innovation: it generates novelty and innovation through the reconfiguration of existing networks, which leads to the creation of new markets (Herrmann-Pillath 2002, p. 469). This embraces any kind of innovation: from introducing bush doofs87 to enhancing the efficiency of industrial robots or advancing colouring techniques for hairdressers. But entrepreneurship or innovation is not something that just happens. It is an activity or process that requires a person or, by extension, a newly founded or established firm (Peterson and Berger 1971; Casson 2003, p. 20) behind it:

Because the economy operates in a continual state of disequilibrium and change, situations arise in which people can transform resources into a form (new goods and services, new ways of organising, new methods of production, new markets or new materials) that they believe will have greater value than their cost to create. The entrepreneurial process begins with the perception of the existence of opportunities, or situations in which resources can be recombined at a potential profit. Alert individuals, called entrepreneurs, discover these opportunities, and develop ideas for how to pursue them, including the development of a product or service that will be provided to customers. These individuals then obtain resources, design organisations or other modes of opportunity exploitation, and develop strategies to exploit the opportunities (Shane 2003, p. 10).

In business terminology, entrepreneurs come up with new business models and implement them — which is why Subchapter Chapter 4: Entarch Business

87 Semi-legal Goa and psytrance parties in remote Australian locations.

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 181 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Models holds particular importance for Entertainment Architects as the entrepreneurs behind Entertainment Architecture. Sankaran Venkataraman points out that not all entrepreneurship is alike. He distinguishes two fundamental kinds:

The first, which I call the weak premise of entrepreneurship, holds that in most societies, most markets are inefficient most of the time, thus providing opportunities for enterprising individuals to enhance wealth by exploiting these ineffi- ciencies. The second, which I call the strong premise of entrepreneurship, holds that even if some markets approach a state of equilibrium, the human condition of enterprise, combined with the lure of profits and advancing knowledge and technology, will destroy the equilibrium sooner or later (Venkataraman 1997, p. 121).

The first premise tends to be associated with the work of Israel Kirzner (Kirzner 1997): some innovations (e.g. new business models) bring mild incremental change. The second premise goes back to the work of Joseph Schum- peter: some innovations reset entire industries. Schumpeter popularised the term creative destruction88 to describe exactly that:

[Creative destruction is the] process of industrial mutation — if I may use that biological term — that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one (Schumpeter 1942, p. 83, emphasis in original).

Instead of there being a stable equilibrium in an industry, entrepreneurs per- petually introduce innovations that destroy current order — and in doing so, create a new one. Entrepreneurs are the ones who discover or create opportunities, make use of and capitalise on them, and by doing so, renew industries and create new markets, new growth, and new wealth.

88 The idea of the new destroying the old has been part of human culture, philosophy, and art for a long time, which is why it has become an essential part of myths worldwide: “Only birth can conquer death — the birth, not of the old thing again, but of something new” (Campbell 2004 [1968], p. 15). Friedrich Nietzsche used it as a central theme in Also sprach Zarathustra (Nietzsche 1883−1885) and Werner Sombart was the first economist to use it (Sombart 1913, p. 207). Schumpeter’s take on it, however, is quite different from Sombart’s (Reinert and Reinert 2006).

— 182 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

[These revolutions] occur in discrete rushes which are separated from each other by spans of comparative quiet (Schumpeter 1942, p. 83).

Mainstream economics are well-suited to investigate the ‘spans of quiet’ but not the ‘rushes of revolutions.’ These require economics to be evolutionary. But to return to the significance of the entrepreneur: they are at the same time the destroyers of what has been created before and the creators of the new — until the next entrepreneurs trigger the next revolutions. How does this relate to Entertainment Architecture and movies? The environment of the movie industry (as an example of the predicament of many copyright-based industries) has changed dramatically over the last decade or so, as elaborated upon in the introduction to the thesis. This change is in the process of destroying its business models and therefore its very foundations and future. Unfortunately, established companies “have a genuinely hard time doing what does not fit their model for how to make money” (Christensen 1997, p. 228; see also Johnson, Christensen and Kagermann 2008). It is not the case that the entire movie industry is closing its eyes to what is happening. On the contrary: it is intensely experimenting with Entertainment Architecture, as the sheer number of movie-related entarch in the thesis illustrates very clearly. Their problem, however, is that they, like any established company, try to fit it into their existing business models — and the easiest way to do so is to use En- tertainment Architecture to promote their products and give it away for free instead of trying to monetise it. Interview partner Katie Shortland experienced this first-hand when she unsuccessfully pitched Entertainment Architecture to an Australian TV network a few years ago. All other interview partners had similar experiences. Hollywood cannot just abandon their copyright-based business model and start giving away all their movies for free on YouTube. They generate income from — their foundation is — a successive exploitation of distribution windows. If Hollywood abandons this business model, they abandon their foundations: all stable income streams would break away and they would essentially become entrepreneurs. But being an entrepreneur is risky: their “attrition rate in early life is very high” (Ormerod 2007, p. 240). The reason for this is not poor management but

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 183 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture an environment that “is not merely uncertain; particular aspects of it are simply unknown” (Arthur 2009, p. 209). Faced with an environment that cannot be understood, rationality and good management alone cannot save entrepreneurs from failing. Established companies like the Hollywood majors therefore cannot, and will not, accept a shift from a working business model to a fundamentally unpredictable one. MGM, for instance, has assets of USD 2.7 billion, mostly consisting of its extensive movie library that asserts a steady income stream from the home entertainment market (Sandler, McCarty and Kary 2010). If MGM decided to start giving away these movies for free, it would invalidate its own business model and destroy the value of its assets — unless it can find a new business model that adds value to them in a new way. But switching from a still-working business model to an unproven one could, in this case, cost the company USD 2.7 billion in assets. Not surprisingly, MGM and the rest of Hol- lywood are reluctant to bet on new and unproven business models. Newly established companies like the ones interviewed for the thesis do not have such problems. They do not have to take into account protecting their assets as they have yet to build them up. They do not have to worry about large numbers of employees because they only have few. They do not have to stick to their business model because they do not have definite ones yet. This means they can take risks. Many of them will become bankrupt, disappear, and be forgotten — but some will succeed and reshape entire industries. Most entarch- creating companies are, at the moment, of this young and flexible kind that has better chances of adapting their business model to their still-changing environment than big established firms. This is an example of Schumpeter’s creative destruction: Entertainment Ar- chitects are the entrepreneurs who able to flourish in turbulent times. While the business models of established entertainment industries have begun to struggle, EAs are experimenting with and will establish new ones. They have discovered opportunities and are exploring ways of making a living exploiting them. They believe they can live off creating new forms of entertainment that consumers will enjoy. They are “market makers” (Casson 1997, esp. pp. 5-8). It remains to be seen whether they are Schumpeterian or Kirznerian entrepreneurs —

— 184 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture whether they will destroy other entertainment industries in the process of creating a new one, or merely bring along incremental change. But even if some established industries suffer, David Edgerton has shown that technologies — which entertainment forms are — rarely disappear (Edgerton 2007) and Harold Vogel emphasises that although new entertainment forms “may diminish the importance of existing forms, the older forms are rarely rendered extinct” (Vogel 2011, p. 527). It is highly unlikely that existing entertainment forms and industries will disappear, but it is quite likely that their cultural standing and size will change — which would continue the process already described in Subchapter 2.2 The History of Storytelling. Finally, all Entertainment Architects can be understood as entrepreneurs at the moment as they are all still in the process of developing a market. As soon as an Entertainment Architecture market is established, however, some of them will become incumbents and many will lose their entrepreneurial function.

5.2 The Young Entarch Industry

The Entertainment Architecture industry is still in its infancy — Christopher Sandberg calls it ‘virgin.’ It cannot even really be called a coherent industry yet. Rather, Entertainment Architects are still employed by various distinct industries: movies, video games, publishing, marketing, and so forth. In other words, offshoots of various industries are growing closer and closer together, and where they touch, a new industry is forming — the Entertainment Architec- ture industry. Hence, delimiting this industry is no easy task as it is highly intertwined with other entertainment industries. For this dissertation therefore:

The ‘entarch industry’ is defined as all persons and businesses creating Enter- tainment Architecture.

As an example, Bungie and Microsoft (the creators of the Halo media franchise) are not part of the entarch industry, while T.A.G. (the creators of the promotional Believe campaign) are.

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 185 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

An exciting but at this point not further pursued aspect of such a young industry is that it can be an artist’s paradise. Christopher Sandberg emphasises the multitude of possible pathways any Entertainment Architect can choose. There are no set rules yet, and experimentation is not only tolerated but essential for survival — even beyond the already “considerable freedom [in the entertainment industries] for the entrepreneurial spirit to thrive” (Vogel 2011, p. 527). There are, of course, also downsides to this newness: it keeps the industry in a niche position where only a “shockingly” tiny number of consumers really engage with its products, as Adrian Hon cheerlessly remarks. He calls it “the biggest dirty secret of transmedia.” This subchapter therefore explores why 10 years after The Beast the Enter- tainment Architecture industry is still vanishingly small compared to other entertainment industries, and why this is not surprising. Then it investigates the prerequisites for faster growth and some of the challenges the entarch industry may face. Finally, it analyses why the Entertainment Architecture industry is so intertwined with the advertising industry, why it is essential for this to change if entarch is to become a legitimate form of entertainment, and what the role of entarch marketing is in this context.

Slow Growth

Choosing The Beast as its first spark, the Entertainment Architecture industry turned 10 in 2011. But it is still struggling with profitability, as hinted at by Adrian Hon and Nathan Mayfield. Why is this? Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment showed that Entertainment Ar- chitecture is a novel entertainment technology that is co-evolving with the In- ternet as the newest communication technology. With every novel technology, however, progress is slow at first as new supporting technologies and organisational arrangements are needed and as a multitude of new structures have to be built (Arthur 2009, pp. 178-181). This takes time but is required before the novel technology can be widely adopted and serve as a foundation for industries to be built upon.

— 186 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

This process is paced not by the time it takes people to notice the different way of doing things and adopt it, but rather by the time it takes existing structures of the economy to re-architect themselves to adapt to the new domain. This time is likely to be decades, not years (Arthur 2009, p. 157).

One such example of the economy re-architecting itself is the current search for viable ways of financing Entertainment Architecture and devising appropriate contractual relationships, as explored in Subchapter Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models. But it is not just the entertainment technology entarch that is going through the process described above by Arthur, but the Internet as the youngest communication technology is subject to it as well. So there are two co-dependent slow processes. Additionally, it is not just the pace of these processes that constrains the growth of the entarch industry, but also the market:

The pace of progress that markets demand or can absorb may be different from the progress offered by technology (Christensen 1997, p. 226).

Markets can be quick to develop demand, but they can also be slow. Thus, the total time lag between the emergence of a novel communication technology and that of a basic entertainment technology building upon it, depends on a great many diverse factors, and as such, may be difficult to determine. The following pages explore some of these factors. While reading them, the reader is asked to keep in mind they do not suggest the entarch industry should grow at a certain speed, or that it should attain a certain monetary size to be considered a success. Alternate reality games represent a niche, and that is perfectly fine. ‘Slow’ refers to three aspects within the context of the thesis. First, the form of entarch is not fully developed yet. We only see early efforts that may go down in history as precursors to what will become a basic Inter- net-based entertainment technology. A few decades may not seem long in comparison to the hundreds of years it took for writing to spawn literature, but when watching the process unfold from the inside, things subjectively appear slow. This eager anticipation of things to come emanates from all interview partners.

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 187 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Second, no matter the size of the entarch industry, it has to be profitable. Such a focus on profitability does not imply entarch has to become a multi- billion Dollar industry, but it cannot make losses if it is to survive. And so far, the long-term profitability of promotional entarch is by no means secure, and the profitability of entarch as an entertainment form in its own right has not been proven possible yet. Third, it is a perfectly valid option for Entertainment Architecture to become a non-professional form unconstrained by profitability. And the pace of that development may be unconnected to that of a professional industry. But this is beyond the scope of this dissertation.

One of the reasons behind the slow growth of the entarch industry is the general ‘You’re only as good as your last movie/song/novel/etc.’ attitude that pre- vails in creative professions.89 And ‘good’ in relation to ‘your last project’ really means ‘profitable’: ‘You’re only as good as your last movie/song/novel/etc. was profitable.’ The emphasis really is on the last project — the older a success the less relevant it is. Getting the next project off the ground depends on the commercial success of the last one. Any artist aspiring to live off their art can relate to that. The situation is especially tricky for emerging artists — which every artist tends to have been at some point — because they do not have a ‘last project,’ let alone a highly profitable one. How are they to secure funding? And what if, as in the case of Entertainment Architecture, an entire industry cannot show a commercially successful last project? Certainly, the entarch industry is successful in some ways: many a project is clearly enjoyed by a lot of fans, some projects’ newness propels them into the focus of traditional media, and entarch deepens the relationship of brands with their consumers. But an example of gigantic commercial success of Entertainment Architecture in itself — not of the product it is advertising — has yet to happen. One of the reasons is there have been very few examples of stand-alone Entertainment Architecture — entarch that has been planned as such, is not advertising another product,

89 In relation to the UK movie industry, see (Blair 2001; Starkey, Barnatt and Tempest 2000).

— 188 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture and aims to be profitable by itself, not by extension of the blockbuster movie it accompanies. But this is changing: Sean Stewart has already gained experience with the Cathy’s Book series, Starlight Runner Entertainment are about to launch Team GoRizer, Hoodlum have launched Slide, Six to Start are in the development phase of Zombies, Run!,90 and The company P are actively exploring future original projects. But these companies are among the most established Entertainment Archi- tects in the world and are still only now attaining positions allowing them to launch their own products. The reason behind this goes back to the ‘You’re only as good as your last movie/song/novel/etc.’ attitude. Nathan Mayfield explains that Hoodlum needed years and many projects to succeed to gain the reputation, experience, and funding to get Slide off the ground. Every next project expanded their reputation into an additional direction and was a little bigger than the previous one, until they got in a position where they received trust, support, and funding for their own project. To some degree, new entarch industry entrants can build on the successes of the ones that came before them and may not need a decade to launch original Entertainment Architecture. But the ‘You’re only as good as your last project’ principle still applies and makes growing a career, business, or industry a cumbersome process.

Christopher Sandberg gives another reason for the relatively slow growth of the industry:

[Larger projects] can only happen if there is an ongoing shift in the society from passive to active. We can push that and we can help that, but it is really out of our hands. If people want to be passive, then participatory drama is always going to be a niche thing. But right now the trend is telling with big neon letters that everybody wants to be more active, more involved, and have a larger sense of agency and ownership in the experiences. They are tired of being silent. They want to scream and jump and hit and run around and so on. Not all the time. Sometimes we just want to be couch potatoes, but everybody wants to be active sometime.

90 While still at Mind Candy, Adrian Hon, of course, co-created Perplex City.

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 189 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

This shift, unfortunately, is slow. For it to reveal its ultimate effect, the first generation of consumers that never experienced a life without Internet and En- tertainment Architecture may have to grow up. For hundreds of years now — an effect of the fifteenth century printing press and twentieth century broadcast era — dialogue between consumers and producers has been minimal to non- existent in most forms of entertainment. This worldview is deeply engrained in our culture. Changing it is a slow process but a crucial task for Entertainment Architects. Entertainment Architecture may only become fully accepted when both creators and consumers stem from a generation that grew up with it. But this does not mean all is lost and the industry cannot grow before then. Quite the contrary: Entertainment Architects have to drive this change — a central theme of this thesis.

Another reason why the industry is not yet bigger is the prevalence of relatively unscalable business models. A lot of Entertainment Architecture today has live event characteristics. The only way to participate in an alternate reality game, for instance, is to take part when it is staged and, if it has real-life components, where it is staged. Once it is over, it is over: it cannot be experienced anymore. Entertainment Architects are trying to find ways around this. Some attempt to conceive global alternate reality games, as in the case of Flynn Lives (2009 − 2010) and Why So Serious (2007 − 2008). Others design sequential world- touring Entertainment Architecture, as in the case of Breathe (2010) and Con- spiracy For Good (2010). All of them, however, tend to run into substantial lo- gistical problems if they rely on real-life components: personal appearances of artists or characters limit scalability (Montgomery and Potts 2008, p. 21), the productivity of live events is difficult to enhance (Vogel 2011, p. 527), and the consumer reach of a blockbuster movie released in 20,000 cinemas worldwide on the same day is hard to achieve — not to mention that the organisational structures that have been developed and established over the course of a century to enable such a movie release do not support Entertainment Architects in executing real-life components, and therefore cannot be capitalised on. This does not mean highly profitable live events do not exist, as proven by the USD

— 190 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

700 million grossing concert tour of U2 that has just wrapped (Greenburg 2011). EAs continue to create live-event-like products because these hold different properties, specifically a different kind of scarcity, from physical products. And scarcity is important because the price of a scarce product rises with its demand (Robbins 1932, esp. p. 15; Mankiw 2011, esp. p. 84). In other words, scarcity is a way towards monetisation. But entertainment itself is not necessarily scarce. On the contrary, it tends to have public good characteristics (Waterman 2005, p. 10-12; Vogel 2011, p. 527): it is non-rivalrous and non- excludable, which means one person’s consumption of it does not affect its availability for another person and people cannot be prevented from consuming it (Varian 1992, p. 414). Reading a poem does not spoil it for the next reader, and if a reader decides to recite the poem to a friend, they cannot be prevented from doing so. But public goods are hard to monetise, which is why we do not pay for street lighting on a per-use basis. To solve this, the entertainment industries have come up with the concept of tying entertainment products to physical objects (books, magazines, vinyl, CD, DVD, etc.).91 This turns them into club goods — still non-rivalrous, but now excludable (Varian 1992, p. 415) — and therefore makes them scarce and monetisable. Such physical objects can, then, be sold millionfold around the world. Unfortunately for the entertainment industries, digitisation of entertainment products and the Internet have made these physical objects superfluous, and with them their non-excludability. Entertainment products have become easily sharable via peer-to-peer file sharing networks. With this shift, the business models of music, publishing, movie, and many more entertainment industries are being invalidated, and all these industries are now in the forced and painful process of adapting their business models — a process the music (Peitz and Waelbroeck 2006; Liebowitz 2006; Gayer and Shy 2006) and the movie industry (Kirsner 2008, pp. 113-123) are trying to stop or slow down as much as they can. But in the process, the music industry has learnt that with a lack of sellable physical products, live events become an interesting alternative

91 This is also touched upon in Subchapter 4.3 Sale.

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 191 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

(Montgomery and Potts 2008, p. 20), and consequently has become more involved in live concerts — formerly a rather uninteresting and often outsourced part of their business. Entertainment Architecture, now, is in the particular position that it is emerging in the middle of this process: being trans- or beyond- media it does not appear to be linkable to one sellable physical object, and at the same time, some established entertainment industries (e.g. music) give the impression that live- event-like entertainment is more reliable as an income source anyway. Hence the creation of live-event-like products by Entertainment Architects. Sean Stewart, Adrian Hon, Nathan Mayfield, and Jeff Gomez believe this is the wrong approach. Creating live-event-like experiences limits the reach of their products — and it is hard to generate high income from low reach. But prospects of high income help attract funding and grow an industry. The entarch industry may face large obstacles to its growth as long as Entertainment Architecture is not a repeatable product. Another aspect of this problem is that live entertainment cannot, by definition, be preserved for posterity in a way that is true to its original experience. How can a 10-million participant alternate reality game like Why So Serious be preserved? Even if its events are recorded, its ‘dance’ element will be lost. A recorded alternate reality game will have documentary relevance at best. This lowers potential subsequent income streams. Beyond all these financial and industrial reasons, Sean Stewart expresses concern on a more personal and artistic level:

I’m a novelist and I like the idea that if I do something good, someone can come along three weeks later and see that thing.

As long as Entertainment Architecture is not repeatable again and again throughout history, it is easy to forget — and the next Shakespeare, Beethoven, or Hitchcock cannot emerge. The legal foundation that allows (or used to) to transform public-like entertainment products into club goods is copyright. It enables the owner of an intellectual property to be the only legitimate reproducer of it. As long as the re-

— 192 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture production of entertainment was linked to the costly reproduction of physical objects, the number of illegitimate reproducers was limited to the ones having the knowledge, funds, and technology to do so. This excluded most consumers and allowed the owner of an IP to pursue a more or less limited group of more criminally organised perpetrators. But with entertainment becoming digital instead of linked to physical objects, and with the Internet making the distribution of that entertainment free, the circle of perpetrators is being enlarged so significantly that extraordinary numbers of non-criminally-organised consumers are being pursued (McBride and Smith 2008) — the latest examples being the movie The Hurt Locker (2008) whose creators are planning to sue 24,583 consumers (Ernesto 2011b), and the movie The Expendables (2010) whose creators are planning to sue 23,322 consumers (Ernesto 2011a). This kind of intellectual property theft became known as ‘piracy,’ even though the word itself is misappropriated: the original form of piracy, maritime piracy, is closely linked to violence and depredation, while theft could but did not have to be part of it (Halberstam 1988, pp. 272-282; Young and Valencia 2003, p. 270).

Figure 27: Every time you torrent god kills a cinema (sasira 2009), reproduced with permission from sasira.

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 193 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

In any case, being or not being able to enforce copyright has large monetary implications for the entertainment industries as it can be seen as the only obstacle between consumers and free access to virtually any product of the music, movie, and many more entertainment industries. Not surprisingly, it has become a hotly debated topic (Lessig 2004; Stallman 2010; Fitzgerald and Atkinson 2011; Antons 2011; Lobato 2011; Goldstein 2003; Hargreaves 2011; Patterson 1968; Kaplan 1967; Levine 2011; Siwek 2009; Shachtman 2011; International Federation of the Phonographic Industry 2006). While many entertainment industries keep emphasising that copyright is required to enable artists to live off their craft and therefore indispensable, others argue it does not fulfil its raison d’être by not supporting emerging artists:

Fundamentally, courts, Congress, and the public should consider how creativity happens in America. Ethnocentric notions of creativity and a maldistribution of political power in favor of established artists and media companies have already served to stifle expression — the exact opposite of the declared purpose of copyright law (Vaidhyanathan 2003, p. 148).

So far, no consensus is in sight: even four economists writing two chapters for one and the same book on industrial organisation can analyse the same data and nonetheless draw diametrically opposite conclusions (Gayer and Shy 2006; Liebowitz 2006). Even the concept of ‘intellectual property’ itself, of which copyright is understood to be a part of, is disputed: how can an idea be treated the same way as a physical object?

I understand what I am taking when I take the picnic table you put in your backyard. I am taking a thing, the picnic table, and after I take it, you don’t have it. But what am I taking when I take the good idea you had to put a picnic table in the backyard — by, for example, going to Sears, buying a table, and putting it in my backyard? What is the thing I am taking then (Lessig 2004, p. 83, emphasis in original)?

The thesis keeps returning to the fact that copyright-based business models are struggling and that the entertainment industries have so far failed to come up with a comparatively successful alternative business model. Unfortunately,

— 194 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture the Entertainment Architecture industry is emerging in the midst of these turbu- lences and does not have many solid entertainment product business models to choose from — hence the above-mentioned predominance of live-event-like products. Maybe the implication for Entertainment Architects is to not only look to the entertainment industries for inspiration, but to free/libre/open-source software (FLOSS) and Creative Commons (Montgomery and Fitzgerald 2006, p. 415). These communities are fundamentally sceptical towards copyright, and may turn out to be a source of promising future business models that will allow the Entertainment Architecture industry to bypass the copyright discussion and establish itself by other means.

Another reason for the slow growth of the Entertainment Architecture industry is that, at the moment, its products tend to be niche-oriented. Even entarch that is advertising big budget movies is niche content compared to the movies themselves: Why So Serious, the largest alternate reality game so far, attracted only hundreds of participants in cities like New York and Chicago (Associated Press 2008), and while no numbers of participants filling the streets of Twin Falls in Idaho USA, Limburg in Germany, or Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia are given, it is a safe bet that more people in those cities watched the movie The Dark Knight than participated in Why So Serious, its promotion. Focusing on niche audiences is, of course, a valid approach — and even recommended by the currently popular concept of the long tail, which says that mer- chandise assortments can grow immensely if there are no physical (shelf) space restrictions, and that because of this Figure 28: Economic cutoff points (Anderson 2008, p. 92), reproduced with permission from Chris Anderson. gigantic choice, more

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 195 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture niche content is consumed (Anderson 2008, pp. 15-26). Therefore, so goes the logic, businesses can offer many niche products instead of just a few blockbusters — with the potential to make good profit anyway. Besides the fact that the concept itself is disputed (Elberse 2008, p. 96), En- tertainment Architects would, following that logic, need many concurrent products in order to generate a high aggregate profit, which does not typically happen: today, EAs typically create one or two concurrent products and make rather little money on either of them. At the moment, Entertainment Architecture may indeed evoke the appearance of it being for geeks, nerds, and hardcore fans, while the rest may do better to stick with movies. And as long as full interaction with Entertainment Ar- chitecture requires checking the source code of websites or manipulating photos, sounds, or videos — as often is the case with alternate reality games — it can be expected to stay niche. But if entarch continues to target niche audiences, it will continue to be perceived as generally being niche entertainment, and will face difficulties reaching the mainstream. Unfortunately, without more mainstream appeal, the industry will continue to struggle with the acquisition of larger budgets. And larger budgets, if converted into successful products, might help put Entertain- ment Architecture on the entertainment map — which, then, would attract the next investments. This logic does not imply all entarch must become mainstream, but some mainstream entarch may make vastly more consumers aware of its existence, who may or may not then move on to niche entarch. No entertainment form is inherently restricted to niche audiences; mainstream and niche movies co-exist well. This is a difficult position for the Entertainment Architecture industry to get out of, but a promising first step would be to infuse more mainstream products into its portfolio, for Entertainment Architecture is not inherently a niche concept and several interview partners have already proven this: Hoodlum’s work on the British soap opera Emmerdale (1972 − ongoing) is a good example here, as is the Cathy’s Book series of Fourth Wall Studios or Starlight Runner Enter- tainment’s work on Tron.

— 196 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Future Growth

Several reasons behind the relatively small size of the Entertainment Architec- ture industry so far are explored above. But what determines future growth and shape of the industry? And what immediate challenges does it face? Entertainment Architecture is not the first entertainment form to emerge and struggle with its place in the world. Fortunately, some other forms’ struggles have been well-documented and researched, particularly the early years of the US movie industry92 (Bordwell, Staiger and Thompson 1985; Balio 1985b; Allen 1985; Musser 1990; Bowser 1990). Candace Jones made use of this documentation and explored the entrepreneurial environment of the movies’ first 25 years, beginning in 1895 (Jones 2001, 2006). Although the concrete problems of movie entrepreneurs and Entertainment Architects differ, the overall industrial growth process has, so far, been quite similar. The following pages therefore build on Jones’ research and explore transferrable insights that may assist EAs in shaping their own industry. But before getting to that, a few words need to be said on the importance of good ‘glue’ as an enabler of growth in the Entertainment Architecture industry. ‘Glue’ makes an intended entertainment experience possible and can turn entarch into a sellable product. It can turn Entertainment Architecture into an excludable product and therefore into a club good. As described before, turning public into club goods via the linking of entertainment to physical objects was what enabled the extraordinary financial success of the entertainment industries in the twentieth century. We will see if ‘glue’ achieves a similar feat in the twenty-first century. Beyond ensuring good ‘glue,’ however, Entertainment Architects need to attack obstacles that do not have a direct connection with the artistic quality and coherence of entarch, but have more to do with the shaping of the cultural and

92 I choose the term ‘movie industry’ here knowing that movies were not invented right at the birth of the industry because I know the industry quite clearly became dominated by them later on. The early movie-less years represented a crucial phase of the movie industry, not a distinct industry in itself. Furthermore, the US-focus follows from the fact that much less historical data is available regarding the movie industries of other countries.

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 197 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture industrial environment in which Entertainment Architecture is situated:

In emerging industries, a key strategy of entrepreneurial firms is negotiating and gaining legitimacy, because it enhances not only firm, but industry survival (Jones 2001, p. 921).

The young US-American movie industry, for instance, had a severe legitimacy problem which, in 1909, the trade journal Moving Picture World (1907 − 1928) summarised as follows:

The moving picture business occupied in public esteem a position so offensive, so contemptible, and in many respects so degrading, that respectable people hesitated to have their names associated with it (as cited in Bowser 1990, p. 37).

To solve this problem, content entrepreneurs, under which term Jones summarises the second wave of film entrepreneurs, strived “to legitimize film as an acceptable rather than suspect activity of ghetto dwellers” (Jones 2001, p. 925). Through raising the public image of the movies, they hoped to attract larger audiences:

The legitimacy strategy of immigrant content entrepreneurs was cultural rather than regulatory. They imitated the high culture symbols and formats of Broad- way theatres to evoke accepted cognitive heuristics from consumers, such as providing uniformed ushers, plush chairs, two-hour shows, and elaborate buildings. […] Content firms […] built the industry’s consumer base by establishing the legitimacy of film as a form of entertainment. Legitimacy was critical to firms, since, between 1895 and 1920, 60 percent died within their first year of commercial life (Jones 2001, p. 925).

Fortunately, the public opinion of Entertainment Architecture is not as low as that of film in its beginnings. But unfortunately, the industry faces a different, maybe worse problem: widespread ignorance or lack of awareness among potential consumers. In January 1907, there were at least 2,500 nickelodeons (precursors of cinemas) in the United States, probably many more (Variety 1907, p. 12). Manhattan alone had 123 dedicated film exhibitors plus vaudeville theatres (Allen 1979, p. 4). In February 1908, the Bijou Dream theatre had

— 198 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture an audience of 2,000 people daily (Variety 1908, p. 4). And on Thanksgiving Day of the same year, the Dewey theatre sold 12,000 tickets (Variety 1908, p. 12). The Entertainment Architecture industry is nowhere near such figures ten years into its existence — while the US population has more than tripled since 1908 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011, p. 8). To make matters worse, no reliable metrics regarding any Entertainment Ar- chitecture, let alone the entire industry, exist. It is indeed quite plausible that Why So Serious was one of the most successful alternate reality games so far (Alternate Reality Branding 2008), but how can it be proven? This relates to what Adrian Hon calls the big legitimacy problem of the Entertainment Archi- tecture industry: all entarch-related metrics are generated and published by the Entertainment Architects themselves. No reliable, provable, and independent figures exist yet — but they are desperately needed if the industry wants to be taken seriously. The entarch industry clearly has a legitimacy problem. Consumers are not aware of this new entertainment form and if they are aware of it, they often do not really understand and therefore do not know how to engage with it. For some consumers this may be the very incentive of Entertainment Architecture — hence the appeal of alternate reality games and their riddles and puzzles — but this can hardly be expected from a more mainstream audience. More consumers will begin to understand entarch better as soon as it is more standardised culturally, technologically, and as a product. They need to be able to name the product they are going to engage with, to have a certain general ex- pectation of the experience that awaits them, to understand how much this experience will cost them, and so forth — they need to be able to categorise it (Rosch 1978; Smith and Samuelson 1997). What Mattias Svahn writes about pervasive games in this regard, also hold true for Entertainment Architecture:

They are where the mp3 player was before the iPod, where coffee shops were before Starbucks, or where cooking shows were before Jamie Oliver — they lack the one prototypical product that defines the whole product category for the mass market (Svahn and Lange 2009, p. 219).

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 199 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

As soon as a creator conceives Entertainment Architecture that becomes the widely understood “ideal” (Loken and Ward 1990, p. 119) representation of this product category — or, in evolutionary terminology, as soon as a basic entertainment technology has been developed — an entarch industry can be built on this prototype. When that prototype exists, when the audience understands Entertainment Architecture, a consumer base can grow — a process similar to the development of a “reading public” for the printing press (Hartley 1992, pp. 161-163). As is described in more detail in a few pages, the movie industry went through a similar process around 100 years ago and profited immensely from it. But this does not mean that the standardisation of Entertainment Architecture should be overly rushed. The thesis repeatedly illustrates that evolutionary processes take time. A balance has to be found between letting form and business of Entertainment Architecture mature freely, and actively narrowing them down to a standardised product that can be sold without having to explain it anew to every single consumer. The growth of the entarch industry may continue to be slow until this happens. But once this does happen — once the entertainment technology entarch has matured, is standardised, and locked in — surrounding structures and organisations supporting it will emerge and support the growth of the industry, and will also serve as barriers to entry for competing entertainment technologies (Arthur 2009, pp. 138-139). Such standardisation can only be achieved by Entertainment Architects. Consumers, as explained before, shape entarch in a secondary step through accepting, or not, what EAs create. At some point, legal restrictions will also shape entarch, as they do with all entertainment (Weiler 2002, p. 2). But at the moment, the creators clearly have the strongest influence on this entertainment form. And this means current EAs have enormous leverage regarding the future of the entire industry; they are laying the foundations that an industry is being constructed upon. “When many firms or a few dominant firms commit themselves to certain practices, despite alternatives, they initiate an industry’s trajectory” (Jones 2001, p. 912). This does not mean these firms have to agree on a trajectory: what one firm does simply influences the actions of other firms and the industry evolves accordingly (Jones 2001, p. 939). The fewer entrepreneurs

— 200 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture there are in an industry, the higher the leverage of each one of them. In the case of the young Entertainment Architecture industry, there are, at the moment, only few players. These players have an influence on entarch form and industry like no other players will have ever again. The way they standardise Entertainment Architecture and turn it into a successful product will determine all that will come afterwards.

Regarding the movie industry, Candace Jones discovered two generations of entrepreneurs that standardised two different aspects about film: technology and content entrepreneurs. The former ones were the inventors and refiners of the communication technology film, and constantly sued each other hoping to control the industry through patents. They treated film like a commodity: it was sold by the foot and the content did not matter. The latter ones emerged around 1909, came from a retail and marketing background, and emphasised story and talent. Although originally dominant in every regard, “by 1920, eight of the ten major technology players […] were bankrupt or had exited the industry” (Jones 2001, p. 916). How did this happen? The technology entrepreneurs simply overlooked the content entrepreneurs; for too long they did not even notice them as competition (Jones 2006, p. 202). In the meantime, content entrepreneurs worked on legitimising film (Bakker 2010). Part of their approach was to emphasise story and cultivate the talent that was good at creating it. They effectively altered the film form that consumers were expecting and demanding (Pearson 1996b, p. 39). By the time the technology entrepreneurs even noticed any hiccups, the content entrepreneurs had already developed solid skill sets in narrative film, created the concept of film stars, and gained a reputation for creating good content. But even after they noticed content entrepreneurs ‘stealing’ their customers, technology entrepreneurs stuck to their idea of film as a commodity industry and ultimately nearly all vanished. They revealed institutional isolating mechanisms; they were unable or unwilling to imitate the content entrepreneurs (Oliver 1997, p. 704).

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 201 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

And the movie industry is not the only example of this mechanism:

The history of cultural industries is littered with successful incumbents who, failing to see or respond to dramatic shifts in their competitive landscapes, were replaced by newcomers (Jones 2006, p. 195).

Why does this happen again and again in industry after industry? The process goes as follows. Successful entrepreneurs develop mental maps through experience in their core business (Prahalad and Bettis 1986, p. 485). In the beginning they experiment: their ways of doing things are flexible. But with success this flexibility diminishes. Things start to get done according to more and more rigid rules: entrepreneurs develop a dominant logic. But if the environment of a business changes, it may be necessary to revise that logic of action and transform an organisation accordingly (Bacharach, Bamberger and Sonnenstuhl 1996, p. 502). By that time, however, incumbents have often allo- cated their scarce attention (Ocasio 1997) and resources differently and developed blind spots — quite often regarding potential new competition (Zajac and Bazerman 1991). The more homogeneous the incumbents — and in the case of film, the technology entrepreneurs had extremely similar businesses and practices — the less adaptive their macroculture is to change (Abrahamson and Fombrun 1994, p. 750). This presents an opportunity to new industry entrants — hence the success of the content entrepreneurs. The history of incumbents failing to survive change and new competition in the cultural industries therefore shows what happens if a new dominant logic does not emerge among incumbents but among new competing firms: the competitor becomes the new incumbent (Jones 2006, p. 195). As mentioned above, this process is not a movie industry exception, but a cultural industries normality. A struggle between Entertainment Architect generations is therefore to be expected. If the first generation does not want to go under, it has to pay close attention to how the approaches of following generations differ from their own. The next generations may focus more on story and less on newness. They may bring more business or legal skills to the industry and try to buy or squeeze out first generation EAs who tend to stem from crea-

— 202 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture tive backgrounds. They may introduce bigger production and marketing budgets to reach bigger audiences easier. They may create global products instead of domestic ones. They may serve the mainstream more and ignore the niches. They may shift away from entertainment and towards leisure, the way the music industry is moving away from CDs and towards concerts. They may compete with football games and not with cinemas. Or they may do something different entirely. Whatever the shifts may be, current Entertainment Architects need to stay aware of and open minded about them. They have to know “they are ‘standing on ground that is crumbling beneath their feet’” (Joseph Schumpeter cited in McCraw 2007, p. 496). Otherwise they will hold on to their idea of Entertain- ment Architecture while the world will have moved on, and will disappear the way technology entrepreneurs did in the movie industry. It took content entrepreneurs 14 years to enter the movie industry, another 7 to dominate it (Jones 2006, p. 197), and another 12 to arrive at a stable oligop- oly — as all entertainment industries tend to do (Vogel 2011, pp. 526-527) — of ‘The Big Five’ and ‘The Little Three’: the ‘Hollywood Majors’ (Koszarski 1990; Sedgwick and Pokorny 1998). Taking The Beast as its beginning, the En- tertainment Architecture industry is now in its tenth year. It is still forming, it is not an established industry, but interest in it is increasing faster and faster, and all interview partners expect it to become more profitable and hence more competitive. Adrian Hon:

As soon as someone starts making money out of it, I’ll give you six months before everyone else just jumps in at the same time. It’s that quick.

Regarding the early years of the movie industry again, the second generation of firms had “higher rates of entry and shorter lives,” but was also able to learn from the mistakes of the first generation, and ultimately had “greater national economic prosperity and industry growth” than the first generation (Jones 2001, pp. 919, 926). The Entertainment Architecture industry may face similar developments, and the current generation of Entertainment Architects has yet to show they were not only good for initiating an industry but also for growing

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 203 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture and establishing it. They were grand Schumpeterian entrepreneurs and stirred things up profoundly. At some point, however, more Kirznerian entrepreneurs will be needed — and it remains to be seen if current EAs can cease being the former and become the latter. But whatever happens, the current generation had immense influence on the form and industry of Entertainment Architecture. Future generations will have “less leverage in co-evolving the industry to meet their own needs” (Jones 2001, p. 938) as form and industry will already be on a trajectory.

Entarch and Marketing

Throughout the thesis, particularities regarding the relationship between Enter- tainment Architecture and advertising, promotion, and marketing are observed. These, now, become the topic for the rest of the subchapter. The following pages first explore why entarch has found such a comfortable existence pro- moting93 other products. Then they turn to the problems this comfortable existence is generating for the entarch industry. And finally, they discuss why entarch would profit from solid marketing of its own. As mentioned before, promotional Entertainment Architecture emerged in two waves. Its invention was triggered by the US-American entertainment industries, who thereafter realised its benefits rather quickly and began to regularly utilise it for promotional purposes. When other industries noticed promotional entarch regularly appearing as news on traditional media — which equals free additional campaign reach — they joined in and today new ‘transmedia’ advertising agencies are popping up incessantly; most of them in the USA, but this development is beginning to spread to many other countries as well. The US-American entertainment industries were driving the early years of the entarch industry for two reasons: first, the US-American advertising market is by far the largest in the world not just in absolute, but also in per-capita fig-

93 On the following pages, especially when quoting other sources, the line may not always appear to be perfectly sharp between promotion and its subform advertising. This is due to the fact that in popular usage the two are often not distinguished, or rather that advertising is used to refer to promotion.

— 204 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture ures,94 and second, within that market the entertainment industries are among the top spenders.95 The high advertising spend of the entertainment industries may follow from them offering experience goods, meaning it is difficult for a buyer to ascertain the quality of the entertainment they are about to buy before consuming it (Nelson 1970, esp. p. 312; Cabral 2000, p. 223): they buy it pure- ly for expected yet uncertain enjoyment. In other words, entertainment always plays with expectations: it has to promise enjoyment, and then hopefully deliver it. This promise is given in the form of promotion for the entertainment product, which tries to bring across some of the qualities the actual entertainment experience will offer as soon as consumers pay for it. But because of the large size of the advertising market there is a lot of competition for consumers’ attention and it is difficult for creators to rise above the noise and be noticed. Consequently, the entertainment industries place a lot of emphasis on innovative advertising ideas. Ad budgets have become so big that fractions of them can be put aside for experimental ideas that are often intended to reach only small numbers of hardcore fans. This idea goes back to Lazarsfeld’s and Katz’s concept of ‘opinion leaders’ and ‘The Two-Step Flow of Communication,’ which state it is advantageous to convince certain people (opinion leaders) because they are influential among their many peers (Lazarsfeld, Berelson and

94 In 2009, the USA accounted for just over 4.5% of global population and under 25% of gross world product (GWP), but over 39% of global advertising expenditures (GAE) — in other words, USD 511 were spent on advertising per capita (YAC) in the USA. These figures represent the state after the USA had been affected by the latest recession. In 2006, well before that recession, the USA accounted for roughly 45% of GAE, which translated to nearly USD 666 YAC. To put these figures in perspective, a comparison to Australia and Germany in the year 2009 is provided: Australia: 0.32% of population, 1.72% of GWP, 2.4% of GAE — USD 452 YAC; Germany: 1.22% of population, 5.77% of GWP, 5.33% of GAE — USD 262 YAC. All data based on official exchange rates and therefore only indicative — purchasing power parity (PPP) adjusted figures were unfortunately not available for advertising expenditures. 2006 data is based on the archive of CIA World Factbook data at (Coutsoukis n.d.) and on (PricewaterhouseCoopers 2008). All non-2006 population data relates to the year 2010 and is based on (Central Intelligence Agency 2010). GWP data relates to the year 2009 and is based on (International Monetary Fund 2010). All non-2006 GAE data is preliminary, relates to the year 2009, and is based on (PricewaterhouseCoopers 2010). 95 Exact figures relating to the advertising spend of specifically the entertainment industries are difficult to obtain but are said to be high both in absolute form and in advertising-to-sales (A/S) ratios (Vogel 2011, p. 51). Among the 200 US-industries with the largest dollar volume of advertising, for example, the average A/S ratio was estimated to have been 3.1% in 2009, while that of the ‘SIC 7812 Motion Picture and Video Tape Production’ industry had the third highest one with 19.4% (World Advertising Research Center 2010). If all industries were to be included, the average A/S ration would even be lower than 3.1%.

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 205 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Gaudet 1944; Katz 1957; Weimann 1982; Lowery and DeFleur 1995, pp. 189- 212). Hence, putting extra effort into reaching the most devoted fans, hoping for them to become ‘evangelists,’ has become a widespread tactic in the entertainment industries — a practical example being the constantly growing industry interest in the annual San Diego Comic-Con, originally a ‘nerd event.’ Once the entertainment industries proved the viability of Entertainment Architecture as promotion, other industries joined in. The budgets behind such experimental promotional ideas can indeed be large enough to fund entire self-contained entertainment experiences that would otherwise struggle to find funding. As a result, most current Entertain- ment Architecture is promotional and Christopher Sandberg does not expect this to change anytime soon:

I think for a long time advertiser-funded solutions are going to be prominent. Es- pecially since these kinds of interactivity, participation, and dialogue create a much richer understanding of what the audience wants. Instead of one click on the remote we have hundreds of clicks on the keyboard. So ratings of eyeballs changed to ratings of fingertips and that is really valuable to business people who want to have a feedback loop with the audience and so on. When media brokers understand this and marketing people understand this and the brands understand this, the enormous value of these relationships will, I think, yield a lot of advertiser-funded projects. Probably, if I am sort of guessing, kicking movies down a notch and a lot of really big budgets will instead go into these participatory things.

All these reasons point towards a continued emphasis on promotion as the dominant financing model behind Entertainment Architecture, which consequently means that entarch is heavily shaped by being promotional — one obvious example of what this means is that consumers expect it to be free. Inter- estingly, this shaping is a reciprocal process: influenced by the current evolution of entertainment, promotion is changing fast as well, and the two are sometimes becoming very similar (Rose 2011, p. 3). One survey respondent explained this change in the following way:

We are technically an advertising agency moving from a more traditional agency model into some of what an entertainment company would typically do.

— 206 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Promotion has to try and stand out of the noise that surrounds consumers: how can promoters get noticed by consumers if these are highly selective about who or what they grant their attention (Warshaw 1978, pp. 371-372; Raymond, Fenske and Tavassoli 2003, p. 542)? Turning promotion into entertainment is one solution (Gray 2010, pp. 214, 218; Tryon 2009, pp. 90-91). And since advertising agencies are used to working across media, creating that entertainment-like promotion across media is just natural to them. This means Entertainment Architecture is a valuable concept not just for the entertainment industries but for advertising agencies as well — or maybe the advertising industry has just become part of the entertainment industries. The large number of advertising agencies that have already been mentioned throughout the thesis as the creators of Entertainment Architecture, and the even larger number of those that have not yet been mentioned, bears testimony to that: twofifteenmccann (formerly T.A.G.), Big Spaceship, Campfire, McKinney, Mothership, Wieden+Kennedy, and many more. They may even outnumber the dedicated Internet-native transmedia entertainment businesses. Interestingly, looking at contemporary marketing, this does not come as such a surprise. Marketing constantly evolves, and roughly since the 1980s (Belch and Belch 2009, pp. 10-12) a specific marketing approach has become quite prominent — Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC):96

Integrated marketing communication is a strategic business process used to plan, develop, execute and evaluate coordinated, measurable, persuasive brand communications programs over time with consumers, customers, prospects, employees, associates and other targeted, relevant external and internal audiences. The goal is to generate both short-term financial returns and build long- term brand and shareholder value (Shultz 2004, p. 9).

This definition is very comprehensive, but does not offer any practical implications of IMC. These have to be derived from it, which is what Belch et al. do

96 Integrated marketing communication is, of course, not the only marketing approach and not every marketer or advertising agency subscribes to it. It cannot be neglected, however, that it has had a certain influence on marketing practices worldwide (Grove, Carlson and Dorsch 2002, pp. 395-396; Kitchen and Burgmann 2010).

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 207 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture in their approach to the topic:

The integrated marketing communications approach seeks to have all of a company’s marketing and promotional activities project a consistent, unified image to the marketplace. It calls for a centralized messaging function so that everything a company says and does communicates a common theme and positioning (Belch and Belch 2009, p. 11).

Such an understanding of marketing shares many similarities with Entertain- ment Architecture. In fact, this definition would only have to be slightly modified to seemingly apply to Entertainment Architecture as well:

Entertainment Architecture seeks to have all of an entertainment product’s components project a consistent, unified entertainment experience to the marketplace.

However, such a definition of Entertainment Architecture would neglect the creative and experiential side too much. Entarch has to make story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue’ work and can, then, use them to tackle the marketplace. Moreover, projecting an image or experience to the market can differ dramatically from actually delivering it. So ultimately, integrated marketing communication and Entertainment Architecture grow from different roots — but they are akin enough to benefit from similar nurturing, which is why some advertising agencies are good at creating entarch. They have already been creating and nurturing unified products — brand images — for a few decades. And they have been using centralised messaging functions to do so. These are great skills for Entertainment Architects to have. These skills, however, do not seem to be evenly distributed among advertising agencies around the world, but most presented examples of promotional Entertainment Architecture stem from the USA — which is not surprising considering this is by far the largest advertising market in the world. The big advantage of US-American Entertainment Architects is that once they secure the promotional budget of some brand or product, they can focus on the creation of entarch without having to worry too much about financial aspects. In the USA, therefore, a lot of Entertainment Architecture is created that cannot exist

— 208 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture outside of markets with big advertising budgets. In other countries, the budget- ary fragments set aside for experimental promotional ideas are often too small to finance entire Entertainment Architecture. Here, Entertainment Architects need to find other sources of finance. This is confirmed by the survey, whose North-American respondents are distinctly more advertising-focused than those of the rest of the world. The advantage of US-based EAs is they can focus much more on the creative side and probably have higher average budgets — their projects are decidedly more sophisticated. The downside is they are slightly detached from the requirements of the consumer market. If the future of Entertainment Architecture is for it to be a form of promotion, this is a great starting point. But if it is to become a form of entertainment in its own right, then a focus on the market has to be among its highest priorities. All interview partners — both US-based and not — are well aware of this situation. In fact, all of them have already developed, or are currently developing, original products that are designed to allow them to connect directly with consumers. London-based Adrian Hon gained first experience with the sale- financed Perplex City (2005 − 2007). Then he moved on to collaborations with UK public broadcasters BBC and Channel 4, the financing of which resided somewhere between advertising and public funding. And now he is in the preparation stages of the new original game Zombies, Run! (2012, forthcoming). Brisbane-based Nathan Mayfield has just produced Slide (2011), Hood- lum’s latest original IP, which will be financed indirectly via collaboration partner FOXTEL’s pay-TV subscribers. New York-based Jeff Gomez is in the preparation stage for Starlight Runner Entertainment’s first original IP Team GoRizer (2011, forthcoming). San Francisco-based Sean Stewart gained experience with the Cathy’s Book trilogy that was sold directly to consumers, and now Fourth Wall Studios is in the preparation stages of several original IP projects. And Stockholm-based Christopher Sandberg explains that, in the beginning, research funding and public service television productions allowed The company P to explore boundaries and develop a platform without the need to adhere to commercial constraints. This allowed them to move on to advertiser- and sponsor-funded models in cooperation with, for instance, private television

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 209 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture companies. But eventually, the goal for them is to “wean off that and have our only income come from our end users.” For the near future he expects 70% of their income to come from clients (promoters, patrons) and 30% from consumers.

But the scalable affair could be quite the opposite where we actually create an ongoing franchise, fully financed by tickets or license fees or monthly fees from the audience.

There are two important insights here. First, the financing of Entertainment Architecture is an evolutionary process in itself that may take many more years to arrive at a dominant model. All interview partners are clearly finding their own unique ways in this ‘virgin’ industry. And second, all interviewees are aiming for a direct relationship with consumers instead of keeping Entertain- ment Architecture as a form of promotion. To them, promotion is simply one of the required intermediary steps they as commercial businesses — and as an industry — need to take towards consumer-financed business models.

There is another complicating aspect about the relationship between Enter- tainment Architecture and promotion: it is sometimes surprisingly difficult to decide which is the product and which the promotion. Perplex City (2005 − 2007) offered a free alternate reality game and purchasable puzzle cards. Since the ARG was free, it appears logical to think it was promoting the cards, but a large share of the participants only became aware of the ARG after they had already bought the cards. So the cards were promoting the game. However, once consumers started playing the ARG, it made sense for them to buy more cards to get a more complete entertainment experience. So then the ARG really was promoting the cards. To get out of this circular reasoning, it may make more sense to not call either of the two promotion, but simply components of the same Entertainment Architecture — and the strength of the ‘glue’ was that it was taking consumers from one component to the other while encouraging them to spend money on the cards and merchandising. In fact, Perplex City simply did not have any traditional promotion. Instead, it spread mostly

— 210 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture through word of mouth and extensive traditional and online media coverage that was reporting on its newness. In the cases of Head Trauma Remix (2007) and The Truth About Marika (2007) it is similarly difficult to decide whether the alternate reality game was promoting the movie/TV-series or the other way round. The more promising way to look at this, again, is to see ‘glue’ always ‘promoting’ the next component. And to make consumers aware of the Entertainment Architecture to begin with, traditional promotion was used and the entarch’s newness were exploited to get media coverage. This relationship of product and promotion may at first glance appear to be related to the criticism of the typically made (by, for example, the OECD and Eurostat 2005, pp. 47-56) distinction between product innovation and marketing innovation, which says that the two need to be treated as simply being part of innovation more generally (Stoneman 2010, pp. 23-30, 40-41). However, the case of Entertainment Architecture is a lot more specific than such general observations. Describing free entarch components as promotion can simply be missing the point: they are often crucial components that simply cannot be directly monetised. They are not add-ons to the entarch, but indispensable. De- scribing them as the free part of freemium would be missing the point as well: they are not components that could be monetised, but the Entertainment Archi- tect chooses not to and treats the lost sales as promotional costs. In other cases they simply cannot be promoting the project as consumers only become aware of them after already having begun to engage with the entarch. Rather, Entertainment Architects may have to develop an understanding of, and an instinct for, which components can be monetised and which cannot — then give the latter away for free, and preferably position them in a way so they can promote the Entertainment Architecture through being its rabbit holes. This was not possible for the creators of Perplex City, The Truth About Marika, and Head Trauma Remix as their free components were designed to follow, and not to lead into, the Entertainment Architecture. These three projects, however, profited immensely from their newness: their promotion stemmed from traditional media that reported on them. But as already seen in regards to the Halo alternate reality games, this newness wears off rather quickly. Future Entertain-

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 211 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture ment Architecture will have to find other ways of making consumers aware of its existence: through architecting free entrance points, employing traditional promotion, or even combining the two the way The Beast (2001), for instance, hid hints in real promotional movie posters. And entarch that does not follow the ‘This Is Not A Game’ (TINAG) aesthetic, and does not attempt to blur the real/fiction distinction, can be a lot more obvious and clear in their use of traditional promotion as free entrance components than The Beast was.

This leads to an eminently important aspect of the relationship between Enter- tainment Architecture and marketing in relation to more significant future growth of the entarch industry. As mentioned repeatedly throughout the thesis, neither producers nor consumers really understand Entertainment Architecture yet. While producers may enjoy experimenting and not knowing, consumers will not demand a product they do not see a use for. Contrary to mature industries, therefore, the emerging entarch industry will not grow as a response to demand:

We cannot expect our customers to lead us toward innovations that they do not now need (Christensen 1997, p. 226).

It is not enough for Entertainment Architects to legitimise, standardise, and then simply create good Entertainment Architecture, but they also have to teach consumers how and, maybe even more importantly, why to engage with it. To Joseph Schumpeter this has always been a crucial function of entrepreneurs:

It was not enough to produce satisfactory soap, it was also necessary to induce people to wash — a social function of advertisement that is often inadequately appreciated (Schumpeter 1939, p. 243).

The same way a “reading public” had to be developed for the printing press to become the historical milestone it was (Hartley 2004, p. 133), Entertainment Architects need to inform and educate the audience about entarch.

— 212 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

It is [...] the producer who as a rule initiates economic change, and consumers are educated by him if necessary; they are, as it were, taught to want new things, or things which differ in some respect or other from those which they have been in the habit of using (Schumpeter 1934, p. 65).

And marketing is precisely the tool that allows Entertainment Architects to do so — it supports entrepreneurs in their market-making function (Casson 2003, p. 84). Kotler’s earlier-cited definition of marketing, if read from this angle, also supports this view:

We define marketing as the process by which companies create value for customers and build strong customer relationships in order to capture value from customers in return (Kotler and Armstrong 2010, p. 29).

This “process” simply differs between established industries — where value is created through offering the right well-understood product to the right aware consumer — and emerging ones — where value is created through explaining to unaware consumers why they might be interested in certain not-yet- understood products. Entertainment Architecture simply needs its own marketing that will help EAs change the worldview of consumers. Promotion, of course, can be part of this, and fortunately, some Entertain- ment Architects are already promoting their products: in the case of The Art of the H3ist, “wild postings and blogs [were] used to inform the public about the thriller” (Audi of America 2005b), and in the case of Old Spice Guy, a TV-ad promoted the Entertainment Architecture that played out two weeks later over the course of three days. But current promotion does not simply have to make consumers aware of the existence of particular entarch — it also has to inform and educate. Later, when both form and industry of Entertainment Architecture have matured, promotion can perhaps settle for just making aware of particular entarch. But maybe entarch and its promotion will have merged by that time anyway. Another way in which marketing can educate consumers is by making Enter- tainment Architecture interesting enough to become news, something Elan Lee

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 213 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture and his colleagues achieved with several of their creations — in this case with i love bees:

What we try to do is get a product into venues they wouldn’t normally have access to. For example, we did I Love Bees for Halo 2. Halo 2 was going to be huge, no doubt about it. But suddenly you saw crazy, fanatic people answer tel- ephones in bee costumes in the middle of a hurricane; you saw that on CNN and you saw that in the New York Times. You saw stories about insane Halo fans interacting and creating entertainment in their lives in a way that no one had ever seen before. And while Halo 2 would have been huge anyway, there’s no way it would have gotten into venues like that (cited in Ruberg 2006, emphasis in original).

This kind of traditional media attention is gained by promotional Entertain- ment Architecture doing something new and extraordinary. In this case, the creators of Halo 2 profited from its promotional ARG i love bees (2004) being spectacular enough to get Halo 2 mentioned in many traditional media for free — in a way, they simply did not have to pay for some of their promotion. The promotional value of Entertainment Architecture is therefore often two-fold: first, from reaching a certain number of consumers directly and promoting an entertainment experience to them, and second, from the Entertainment Archi- tecture becoming news. The news coverage of promotional Entertainment Ar- chitecture can reach vastly greater numbers of consumers than the entarch itself, which explains why both businesses and advertising agencies like using it. But more importantly, this is a huge opportunity to market Entertainment Ar- chitecture itself. News coverage of promotional entarch can achieve two things for the entarch industry: first, it can make large numbers of consumers aware of particular Entertainment Architecture as well as of the existence of entarch more generally, and second, because it typically explains what that particular entarch was about, it can educate its audience about entarch at large. Enter- tainment Architects are often invited to give interviews and other public appearances, which they can use to further educate consumers about entarch. These opportunities, however, do not come indefinitely: as described before in relation to the various Halo alternate reality games, the attention of many traditional media is lost as soon as something stops being new and becomes nor-

— 214 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture mal. Then it is judged by how good it actually is. This is the moment when En- tertainment Architecture has to impress those consumers who engage with it. Otherwise they will forget about it, which the news will have long done. Entertainment Architecture therefore needs to capitalise on its newness to educate consumers, but then has to step beyond that and create compelling experiences. Otherwise it will stay news — and news age less well than a Shakespeare play, a Mozart sonata, or a Kubrick movie. Sean Stewart was aware of this problem from the very beginning. While working on The Beast in 2001 he was disappointed that participants treated the entertainment experience like an intellectual exercise instead of becoming emotionally invested in the characters and became the first person to exclaim ‘This Is Not A Game!’ This expression was, then, taken by his colleague Elan Lee and turned into the foundation of alternate reality games: “no matter how many layers you peel off, it should still look real.” But what Stewart originally meant is closer to what the entarch industry needs to achieve: for Entertainment Architecture to be accepted as a form of entertainment. Some EAs may emphasise play while others may push story or ‘dance’ — but the crucial task of all of them is to take entarch from being widely understood as a form of promotion and from ‘news- worthiness’ being a measure of success, to being judged by its entertainment value, and to being understood as an entertainment product. This will immensely support any business models that charge consumers directly, and will be an important step towards establishing an industry and securing future growth. The way Stewart went about his situation — which represents another way in which marketing can educate consumers — was to write a 2,100-word meditation97 — as the in-fiction blog posts of Laia Joana Salla, one of the characters from The Beast, were called — in which he introduced a lot of history and emotional background to the entarch, hoping this would begin to alter the consumers’ perception of and engagement with it. The very way entarch is conceived and created therefore also has to become part of any EA’s and the industry’s marketing.

97 Read it at (Salla and Stewart 2001).

Chapter 5: Entarch Industry — 215 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Last, but not least, part of the marketing of Entertainment Architecture consists of figuring out the right market to offer it on. As mentioned before, sometimes entarch may be marketed and sold much easier as a leisure activity instead of competing with typical entertainment activities (see also Svahn and Lange 2009, pp. 228-229).

— 216 — Chapter 5: Entarch Industry Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Chapter 6: From Movies to Entarch?

The focus of the thesis is on a novel emerging transmedia entertainment form — on Entertainment Architecture — and on movies and moviemakers as a secondary priority. Accordingly, the preceding chapters are mostly about Enter- tainment Architecture: Chapter 2 lays the groundwork through investigated the impact of the Internet on storytelling and entertainment, Chapter 3 describes the form of entarch as it is emerging from that impact, Chapter 4 explores potential business models based on that form, and Chapter 5 focuses on the industry that is emerging from businesses built on these business models. Now, the focus shifts somewhat and Entertainment Architecture is finally related to movies. To that end, this chapter brings together insights from the entire thesis to explore how the form of movies and that of Entertainment Architecture may influence each other, and what implications this may have for moviemakers and Entertainment Architects on a formal, business, and industrial level. This brings us full circle with regard to the research question. So far, the form of movies has barely been affected at all by entarch. This is in great difference to videos and films (which movies are a subset of in the terminology of this thesis), which have been embraced enthusiastically by Enter- tainment Architects. One reason may be, according to Christopher Sandberg, that the filmic language is so entrenched in our culture that it allows EAs to convey information and emotion very efficiently. As a result, the form of films has already been heavily influenced by their association with Entertainment Architecture, and continues to evolve fast. The predominance of the ‘This Is Not A Game’ aesthetic in alternate reality games, for instance, has led to heavy use of fake webcam and security camera footage, which creators like Sean Stewart are not particularly content with, despite the low production costs compared with movies. The form of movies, however, has barely been affected at all. Of course, a few first experiments have been conducted over the past decade — but all with mixed success and none feeding back into the movie form. The experience of

Chapter 6: From Movies to Entarch? — 217 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture watching the movie The Blair Witch Project (1999)98 was certainly enriched if a consumer engaged with all the promotional content that had been created around it, but the movie itself was still a movie the way consumers knew them to be. Then, when part of the story of the movie The Matrix Reloaded (2003) was told in the video game Enter The Matrix (2003), many critics and consumers felt this did not enrich the experience, but simply left a plot hole in the movie (Jenkins 2006a, pp. 103-104). In the case of the movie Tron: Legacy (2010), the various commercial and promotional products surrounding it indeed added to the entertainment experience, but the form of the movie, again, did not change significantly — those consumers who had engaged with the other products before watching the movie would simply catch a few references that other consumers would not. A little more changed in Star Wars Uncut (2010), where one fan cut up Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977) into 473 15-second clips which were then reshot by other fans and finally put back together and published online for free. The latest example, and maybe the one representing the largest shifts in form so far, was not really a movie, but more like an evolved documentary: Life in a Day (2011). On 06.07.2010 directors Ridley Scott and Kevin Macdonald, YouTube, the Sundance Film Festival, and LG Electronics called on the entire world to record anything they wanted on 24.07.2010 to upload to YouTube. More than 80,000 videos were submitted from 197 countries99 totalling over 4,500 hours (Weinstein 2010; Life in a Day 2011), which were then edited down to one just under 95-minute long movie under Macdonald’s direction. The result does not really tell a story — and most definitely not one following the movie-typical three-act structure — but gives a snapshot — or rather many snapshots — of one day in the life of humans all over the world on a specific day in the year 2010. Distribution was also movie- atypical as it featured an online premiere and cinema screenings that could be demanded by consumers instead of being scheduled by distributors, but these

98 Sometimes mentioned as the first example of transmedia storytelling (Jenkins 2006a, p. 101), not within this thesis though. 99 The final movie states 192 countries. Since both numbers stem from official YouTube sources, the actual number may be either of the two — or maybe even a different one.

— 218 — Chapter 6: From Movies to Entarch? Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture options had already been pioneered years earlier by other movie entrepreneurs.100 Beyond these and a few more timid attempts, not much has happened yet — neither among big budget nor among independent moviemakers. This may sound counterintuitive since many Entertainment Architecture examples offered in the thesis were created as promotion for movies. But rarely was the movie form affected by these projects even in the slightest way. The relationship between movie and entarch is typically one of absolute movie dominance. This chapter focuses on the future of that relationship under the assumption that Entertainment Architecture becomes a successful entertainment form. Sean Stewart even expects it to become “the dominant art form of the twenty-first century” and if this comes true, it stands a good chance of becoming a large viable industry. The following pages explore the options of moviemakers in this changed (and still changing) environment and spread them out on a spectrum, the extreme ends of which are investigated in two separate sections: on the one hand, moviemakers can decide to ignore Entertainment Architecture entirely, or on the other hand, they can decide to fully embrace it and let movies completely dissolve into it. The future reality will probably lie somewhere in between. If Entertainment Architecture ends up not becoming a successful and dominant entertainment form, then such a spectrum of options will, of course, not open up in this form. The intention behind this chapter is not to engage in speculation, but to apply the knowledge generated in the thesis to movie form and industry, and to verify the results against the opinions of interview partners and survey participants to best delimit the room moviemakers have available for manoeuvre in their changing environment. As only the borders of this room are explored and no prediction is made as to what may likely happen, this chapter does not claim exhaustively to explore the implications of movies dissolving or not dissolving into Entertainment Architecture, but to present a starting point from which moviemakers can continue, or begin, to experiment with Internet-native transmedia entertainment and seize opportunities that may arise in the process.

100 Among the first were Mobz, see http://www.mobz.com.br.

Chapter 6: From Movies to Entarch? — 219 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

The One Extreme: Movies Stay Movies

The one end of the spectrum represents movies not being influenced by Enter- tainment Architecture at all. The vast majority of moviemakers worldwide choose this path at the moment and follow the ‘proven’ way of filmmaking: make a movie, find a distributor, let them advertise it and put it through the distribution windows, and hope to make your money back and then some (not necessarily in that order). This is a perfectly valid approach as we have already seen that entertainment forms rarely disappear — which means movies still have a long future. Howev- er, if moviemakers decide to follow this path, the entire traditional production- distribution-exhibition process requires thorough reconceptualisation, as it has already been affected on all levels and can be expected to be affected even further (Eliashberg, Elberse and Leenders 2006). And we have seen that, despite continued existence, the cultural and industrial importance of an entertainment form may be diminished (Vogel 2011, pp. 527-528). This process seems to already have begun and some argue that movies have already stopped being the “art of the middle” (Gabler 2007). This does not necessarily mean movies are watched less — specific figures may be impossible to compile, but adding up all legal and illegal distribution channels would quite probably point to a gigantic total movie audience (Trevisanut 2011; Klinger 2006, esp. pp. 4-5; Jones 2011; Ernesto 2010). Unfortunately, as explored in the introduction, the paying movie audience is declining fast — the same way it is declining, or has already done so, in other entertainment industries like music or publishing. So even if Entertainment Architecture does not become the next ‘art of the middle,’ movies may already be en route towards becoming a niche entertainment form — a specialised technology in evolutionary terms (Arthur 2009, p. 141) — or, from a different perspective, high art. They stopped being contemptible more than 100 years ago (Moving Picture World cited in Bowser 1990, p. 37) — a position that was later taken over by television and video games (Squire 2002). But if Entertainment Architecture does become widely popular, it may assist in shifting the cultural perception of movies as we know

— 220 — Chapter 6: From Movies to Entarch? Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture them today towards the ranks of theatre, ballet, or opera — venerable entertainment (art) forms that may be of little interest to large parts of the population. This may be a welcome development for those moviemakers who strive for a positioning of movies as high art. Lower budgets, however, are hardly welcome: the higher the art of moviemaking, the less mainstream it is, the smaller its paying customer base, the smaller its budgets become. If, on the other hand, moviemakers find new viable business models for movies in the twenty-first century — the Finnish makers of Star Wreck (2005), Iron Sky (2012, forthcoming), and the online collaboration platform www.wreckamovie.com may be making some progress in that regard101 — then this reasoning may become in- valid and movies may continue in a similar form to that of today.

The Other Extreme: Movies Dissolve into Entarch

The other end of the spectrum represents movies dissolving into Entertainment Architecture entirely. Assuming entarch becomes a successful entertainment form, this would mean movies remain (or become again) the ‘art of the middle’ — but probably in a dramatically changed form. Beginnings of this may have already been seen in Believe (2007), Halo 3’s promotional entarch, whose various successively released films had no first or third, but just second acts. They only made sense for an audience that had some knowledge about the Halo universe, and preferably also about the Believe campaign. Whether movies develop in similar or entirely different directions — some formal change is to be expected. If a movie is the opening component of Entertainment Architecture, it may only have a first act. Perhaps, all such a movie will do will be to introduce characters, settings, and a plot that may be so vast that 90 minutes are needed to just give an overview. If a movie serves as a mid-way component, it may explore a side story following a three-act structure, or it may offer neither intro-

101 These movies present interesting research objects as they may be seen, on the one hand, as examples of traditional stand-alone movies coping well with the impact of the Internet or, on the other hand, as examples of Entertainment Architecture that begins with the first call for participation years before the movie is released and continues afterwards — depending on the point of view.

Chapter 6: From Movies to Entarch? — 221 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture ductions nor an ending, but follow the example of the Believe films and explore one specific event like an epic battle that would profit from being watched on the big screen. If a movie is the final and climactic entarch component, an Entertainment Architect can expect the audience to know the characters and backstory and not offer any introductions — the entire movie may focus on the resolution. If, additionally, EAs embrace interaction in movies the way Lance Weiler did in Head Trauma Remix (2007), for example, the narrative structure may change even more.102 Of course, any combination of the above and beyond is conceivable. The heritage of movies may therefore not be the feature film, but the filmic language. The traditional three-act structure of movies may disappear or be adapted. Movies may become much shorter, longer, or episodic instead of being 90-minute stand-alone narratives. If this happens, the distinction between movie and film, as used throughout the thesis, may disappear again and movie may be appropriated to include its evolved form. But it is also not unlikely that, instead, a new dominant and widely understood subform of film will emerge, become known under its own name, and coexist next to movies. Clearly, if movies cease to be stand-alone experiences, revenue streams must be rearranged. Entertainment Architecture that runs for several years before culminating in a movie can hardly be pre-financed over all those years hoping to recuperate costs via sold cinema tickets (which would be a continuation of the current practice to pre-finance promotional entarch in order to sell more cinema tickets). Entertainment Architects may have to experiment a lot before viable financing models emerge and current models may be turned up- side down in the process: Christopher Sandberg, Jeff Gomez, Sean Stewart, and Nathan Mayfield even think it may become viable to offer movies in cinemas for free if other sources of income can be accessed successfully. If, for example, Entertainment Architecture can be financed via millions of subscribers over several years, a climactic movie may be offered as included in the subscription. Maybe movies will even promote Entertainment Architecture in the future, and

102 The iCinema Centre for Interactive Cinema Research in Sydney, Australia, and the Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie in Karlsruhe, Germany have been researching interactivity in movies for quite a while.

— 222 — Chapter 6: From Movies to Entarch? Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture therefore be entirely free for everybody. Such a movie may whet consumers’ appetites for the overarching Entertainment Architecture and entice them to pay for a subscription or component. Currently, the Hollywood majors spend on average USD 32 million per movie on promotion (Gerbrandt 2010), and for blockbusters up to USD 150 million (Eller 2008). If entarch budgets grow enough to have similar amounts available for promotion, and Entertainment Architects choose to go down this road, then free promotional movies could become reality. Whatever the form in which movies become part of Entertainment Architec- ture, friction between movie directors and Entertainment Architects is likely to come up on the way towards figuring out an appropriate hierarchy of creators. Directors are used to occupy the highest creative position leading to fame and stardom. But this may change: if movies are ‘reduced’ to being components of something bigger — of Entertainment Architecture — then the creative people behind that — the Entertainment Architects — will occupy the highest creative positions and directors will be demoted to lower ones, even though the complexity and budgets of movie production may not decrease. If EAs end up being widely accepted as creative people, they may become the new stars and re- place directors. If not, they may remain as unknown as movie producers tend to be today. But even if not famous, Entertainment Architects will become powerful while directors will be reduced to voices among many, which likely will not sit well with the current generations of directors. One way to counter this development is for directors to become EAs themselves, but it remains to be seen if they are even suitable for that position. They would have to stop thinking in deeply engrained medium-based patterns and their job would be to coordinate entarch components — a task potentially far removed from actual movie creation. This may not be what they want to do or are even good at. Maybe, instead, a new generation of creators will have to grow up — a generation that has never experienced a world without the Inter- net and expects entertainment to utilise its full potential. One way to conceptualise this difference between movie directors and Entertainment Architects is to look at how they approach the four elements of entarch: story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue.’

Chapter 6: From Movies to Entarch? — 223 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Today, movie directors are concerned with story first and foremost — movies are a form of storytelling after all — and only then do they think about how the Internet could become part of the experience in some way. So they add play or ‘dance’ elements to their movies via browser games on dedicated websites or activities on social networking platforms. But since these are essentially afterthoughts, they often end up simply being part of that movie’s promotional efforts. Most importantly, moviemakers are rarely concerned with ‘glue,’ and therefore let service providers (e.g. advertising agencies or specialised companies like those of the interview partners) handle it — who often do not get the in-depth access to resources and the influence on the ‘Gesamtkunstwerk’103 they need to ensure coherent Entertainment Architecture. Entertainment Architects, on the other hand, approach the creation of their products from the opposite direction. To them, good ‘glue’ is a foundation of anything they do. It is not an afterthought, but a prerequisite that influences everything they create. If their aim, therefore, is to tell a story, they distribute that story across various media, attempting to harness the individual strengths and avoid the individual weaknesses of each medium. The ‘glue’ holding these components together and allowing consumers to move from one to the next, then, brings about various kinds of consumer agency, which only make sense to be har- nessed as ‘dance’ and play elements of the entertainment experience. If, on the other hand, their aim is to facilitate play, then Entertainment Archi- tects, being ‘glue-conscious,’ distribute that play across media, again, according to individual medium strengths and weaknesses. A story tends to be needed (even in an as rudimentary form as in PacManhattan) and ‘dance’ tends to emerge whether encouraged or not. If, finally, an EA’s aim is to make consumers ‘dance,’ then that ‘dance’ is spread across various media — again according to the particular strengths and weaknesses of each medium, and again facilitated by ‘glue.’ Such an enter-

103 A German word translating to ‘total artwork.’ The term was first used by (Trahndorff 1827, p. 318) and brought to wider attention by Richard Wagner (Wagner 1871 [1849], pp. 12, 29; 1850, pp. 32, 197, 202). However, the thesis does not refer to Wagner’s social and political implications.

— 224 — Chapter 6: From Movies to Entarch? Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture tainment experience may require a story and play to entice consumers to ‘dance.’ If movie directors, therefore, aim to become Entertainment Architects, they can still focus on story — but ‘glue’ needs to turn into a foundation of their approach, not an afterthought. ‘Glue’ is not, of course, an end in itself, but part of the communicative toolkit of Entertainment Architects. Interestingly, as one survey respondent notes, those current moviemakers interested in becoming Entertainment Architects have nobody in the movie industry to turn to for advice and, instead, approach advertising agencies who appear to have a better adapted communicative toolkit at the moment. It remains to be seen how this will impact on movies. On the other hand, for those moviemakers who are lower in the hierarchy than directors, not much has to change. There will still be plenty of space and opportunities for directors of photography, actors, cameramen, gaffers, and most other movie professions. Their skills will be needed whether it is a movie or some new motion picture form that is being created.

Between the Extremes

As emphasised throughout, these two extremes are just hypothetical boundaries of a spectrum of options that has opened up in front of every single moviemaker. Both extremes are unlikely and every moviemaker can act in between not evolving at all and giving up their independence. Whether they become Entertainment Architects themselves, suppliers of other EAs, or stay much closer to traditional movies, every moviemaker can temporarily assume the function of a Schumpeterian entrepreneur (Schumpeter 1934) and bring about creative destruction (Schumpeter 1942, p. 83) if they innovate with Entertain- ment Architecture. At some point, however, the co-evolution of movies and Entertainment Ar- chitecture will slow down and stabilise, and a “span of comparative quiet” (Schumpeter 1942, p. 83) will set in. Then moviemakers will lose their entrepreneurial function — with the exception of some Kirznerian entrepreneurs (Kirzner 1997) — to conduct (an evolved form of) ‘business as usual.’

Chapter 6: From Movies to Entarch? — 225 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

This spectrum of options opens up before every single moviemaker. But if the collective of them is considered, then moviemakers have already moved away from utter ignorance: Hollywood is finding ever-newer ways of using En- tertainment Architecture for promotional purposes, and independent moviemakers are discovering entarch as a means to work on their awareness problem.104 The simple fact, however, that most of these efforts merely promote movies but do not influence their form or business model in significant ways, shows that moviemakers do not really embrace Entertainment Architecture yet. These promotional components are not believed to be financially viable entertainment products in themselves, and they are virtually never allowed to feed back into the movies in any significant way. The result is that the form of movies stays largely unchanged, and all additional activities are very limited in their perceived importance, both from a producer and a consumer perspective. This may be one of the reasons why Jeff Gomez believes that Entertainment Architecture will continue to have a driving platform — a movie, video game, or the like that all other components revolve around — for a number of years to come. Ultimately, he believes, this will change. But for this to happen, moviemakers (and other creators) need to move away from the ignorant end of the spectrum — and this will take time. Whichever approach individual moviemakers may decide upon, the fundamental changes that are happening in movie form, creators, and business models must lead to substantial changes in the movie industry — which has, after all, spent more than a century developing structures supporting a very specific movie form, very specialised moviemakers, and very specific income streams. Depending on whether the moviemakers, most prominently the Hollywood majors, turn into Entertainment Architects, suppliers for EAs, or become niche artists, the changes will differ. If they hope to dominate the entarch industry, they will face strong competition from many other existing industries (TV and video games are very active in this area) and the organically growing novel entarch industry. Hollywood, of

104 Jon Reiss, for instance, wrote a comprehensive guide for independent moviemakers specifically about how social networks and other platforms can be used in that context (Reiss 2010).

— 226 — Chapter 6: From Movies to Entarch? Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture course, has the advantage of substantial financial means and brand awareness. The downside is they cannot simply abandon existing business models and income streams. If moviemakers become suppliers for the entarch industry, they will lose their dominance and creative control, but will be able to focus on the creation of formally evolved movies, which they may be good at. If they continue to make movies as we know them, they will go through a painful process of downsizing and layoffs, but will stand the chance to continue making movies for a long time to come. As emphasised before, this presented spectrum of options for moviemakers and the movie industry only gains validity from the assumption that Entertain- ment Architecture will become a dominant entertainment form of the twenty- first century. If, however, entarch remains a niche phenomenon, or even disappears entirely, it will not impact on movies as strongly as described in this subchapter — and the movie industry will have to find other ways to deal with its current, rather difficult, position.

Chapter 6: From Movies to Entarch? — 227 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

— 228 — Chapter 6: From Movies to Entarch? Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Chapter 7: Conclusions

The stated aim of the thesis is to answer this question:

How can movie entrepreneurs avail themselves of the opportunities that are emerging from the evolving forms of Internet-native transmedia entertainment to develop viable businesses.

The conducted interviews and survey, immersive textual analysis, and review of literature from various disciplines point to one specific novel emerging Internet-native transmedia entertainment form having particular relevance. Un- til the vernacular decides on a name, I call that form — as well as products based on it and the conceptual framework describing it — Entertainment Archi- tecture (‘entarch,’ for short). The unique characteristic of entarch is that it combines story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue’ in one product: Entertainment Architec- ture tells a story, offers playful interaction, invites to social interaction between producers and consumers, as well as amongst consumers (‘dance’), and all components of it can be spread across many media, but are nonetheless perceived as one product instead of many because they are highly interconnected and mutually dependent (‘glue’). Entarch — like the promotional campaign Be- lieve (2007) that is explored in Subchapter 4.1 Contractual Relationships — is perceived as one product despite being spread across many media, while current media franchises — like Star Wars (1977 − ongoing) or Halo (2001 − ongoing) — are perceived as many products spread across many media. ‘Glue,’ the element that makes this coherence possible, gains particular importance as a key to monetisation: it empowers creators to offer and sell (difficult to pirate) services that enable entertainment experiences instead of (easily piratable) content. The thesis explores the environment from which Entertainment Architecture is emerging, the form of entarch, potential business models based on that form, and the novel industry that has started to grow from it. Following its secondary priority — to relate entarch to one existing entertainment form — the thesis ex-

Chapter 7: Conclusions — 229 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture plores the potential for creative and financial cross-fertilisation between entarch and movies. The thesis is therefore not about movies, and decidedly not from a film studies perspective. It is, first and foremost, about how entertainment is changing from a consumer-perspective — with the emergence of entarch being a symp- tom of this change — and about how existing entertainment forms — exemplified by movies — may find their way in this changing entertainment world. In that sense, the thesis does not imply in any way that entarch is the reason why movies and other existing forms are currently struggling — the reason is the In- ternet. Entarch may simply offer a way out. With the focus being on a novel form and novel industry, the thesis does not investigate the survival of Entertainment Architecture within the contemporary Hollywood complex or any other existing entertainment industry. Neither does it analyse the issues these industries are facing, or whether entarch can solve them. Instead, it explores ‘on the fly’ an emergent phenomenon (Sawyer 2005; Runciman 2009): a novel entertainment form that does not grow from existing industries but from novel dynamic circumstances that are arising from the youngest human communication technology, the Internet, and from the change it is effecting in consumer expectations of entertainment. It explores the creative and business viability of this novel form, the kinds of entrepreneurs who might exploit the opportunities rising from it, and the novel industry being built in the process. In this approach, the current state of existing forms and industries is not directly relevant. Entarch and the entarch industry may or may not affect existing industries down the line, but they do not yet (at least not significantly). And how they will do that, if they ever will, is utterly unknown as we do not even know if entarch will turn out to be the basic entertainment technology based on the Internet — the far future of any technology is unfortunately unpredictable (Arthur 2009, p. 186). The approach of the thesis is therefore not to ask what happens to current producers, but to describe a currently emerging novel entertainment form which, if consumers demand it, either established or new producers will find a way to finance and create. Current entertainment industries only become relevant in relation to the secondary priori-

— 230 — Chapter 7: Conclusions Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture ty of the thesis: the potential for creative and business cross-fertilisation between entarch and movies. To answer the above research question therefore really means two things: to construct the Entertainment Architecture conceptual framework as an outcome of and a response to interviews, survey, immersive textual analysis, and literature (main priority), and then to find out if movie entrepreneurs can benefit from engaging with the entarch framework and form (secondary priority). In the context of the second priority, a spectrum of options has been identified: moviemakers can ignore Entertainment Architecture or they can let movies completely dissolve into it. Every single moviemaker has to make this decision themself and may indeed choose one of these extreme ends of the spectrum, but on the level of the entire movie industry and on the even more general level of the movie form, the future reality will probably lie in between. The answer to the research question is therefore:

Moviemakers can innovate with Entertainment Architecture, and thereby become movie entrepreneurs availing themselves of the opportunities that are emerging from the evolving forms of Internet-native transmedia entertainment to develop viable businesses.

This does not imply moviemakers and the movie industry should strive to create Entertainment Architecture, but considering the state and prospects of many existing entertainment industries they might want to at least consider it. As emphasised throughout the thesis, entarch is in no way better than other entertainment form — it is simply different and, what is important from an entrepreneurial perspective, it makes different business models possible that may prove to be viable. If an existing form is enjoyed by many throughout the world, continues to find access to finance, and there is no reason to believe this will change, then there is no reason to stop creating that form and turn to Entertainment Architecture — except maybe curiosity. Moviemakers who fully embrace Entertainment Architecture and assume the highest-ranking position behind its creation (at the cost of moving away from actual moviemaking) become Entertainment Architects (EA, for short). Other moviemakers may innovate with entarch in other ways: they may become sup-

Chapter 7: Conclusions — 231 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture pliers to other Entertainment Architects or find different ways to combine their craft with entarch.

With Entertainment Architecture, the thesis offers a comprehensive conceptual framework that is not only an innovative contribution to Internet-native transmedia entertainment scholarship, but also one that entertainment creators can use to better understand a novel entertainment form, to better delimit the potential for cross-pollination with their preferred form, and to adjust their worldview accordingly to become Entertainment Architects. Thesis and framework empower creators to utilise the unique characteristics of the Internet to create entertainment that embraces the communicative behaviour of Internet-native consumers instead of forcing them to desist from it, that harnesses the strengths of various media while avoiding some of their weaknesses, and that can be a product sustaining viable businesses. Researchers, on the other hand, are empowered to investigate the very elusive developments in entertainment in a structured way, as a wide range of research approaches to this topic are taxonomised and subdivided into three categories: transmedia entertainment, Internet-native entertainment, and Internet- native transmedia entertainment. Entertainment Architecture is discovered to be one currently emerging form of Internet-native transmedia entertainment whose unique characteristic is that it combines story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue’ in one product. Another eminently handy tool for researchers is immersive textual analysis, a new mode of textual analysis allowing to investigate Internet-native transmedia entertainment in a way that does justice to its unique particularities. In other words, the Entertainment Architecture conceptual framework enables both scholars and artists to handle this emerging entertainment form despite its evolving and dynamic nature. The thesis not only develops the framework but is also to be understood as an example of how it can be applied by scholars.

On a conceptual level, the thesis investigates how a novel communication technology leads to novel entertainment forms, how these lead to novel kinds of businesses that lead to novel industries, and if existing forms can profit from

— 232 — Chapter 7: Conclusions Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture becoming part of the novel ones. This logic connects the five main chapters of the thesis:

• Chapter 2: Movies are a form of storytelling. However, storytelling cannot be researched separately in relation to the novel communication technology In- ternet, but has to be understood as an aspect of entertainment. First, therefore, the co-evolution of Internet and entertainment needs to be understood, before the attention can shift back to how moviemakers can deal with this evolution. • Chapter 3: A novel Internet-native transmedia entertainment form is emerging that combines story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue.’ I call it — as well as the conceptual framework describing it and products based on it — ‘Entertain- ment Architecture.’ • Chapter 4: Along with this form, opportunities for novel innovative and viable business models are emerging. Entrepreneurs are seizing and experimenting with these opportunities at the moment. • Chapter 5: Collectively — and through experimentation — these entrepreneurs are establishing a novel industry that may become relevant to existing entertainment forms. • Chapter 6: Moviemakers (and other creators) can use the Entertainment Ar- chitecture framework to grasp this emerging form and relate movie form, business, and industry to it. This offers them a way to deal with the change that is currently affecting them.

Every chapter therefore researches a different aspect about the Entertainment Architecture form and framework. Throughout all chapters, however, a lot of exemplary entarch is described — but no example should be understood as representing ‘ideal’ Entertainment Architecture. Rather, all of them are early attempts at and first steps towards what may some day be accepted as entarch. Also, some examples are mainstream (Tron or Halo, both decidedly more media franchise than entarch) and some are niche (alternate reality games). This is to show that while a certain product may be mainstream or niche, the form is neither — just like in movies where we have both mainstream Avatar (2009) and niche Tetsuo (1989). Chapter 2: From Storytelling to Entertainment explains how the thesis treats storytelling as a social technology that is co-evolving with the communication technologies it is based on. The Internet is found to be only the fifth human communication technology after speech, writing, print, and broadcast (Hartley

Chapter 7: Conclusions — 233 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

2009a), and accordingly is introducing profound changes in various areas of human culture. Regarding the topic of the thesis, this change means that storytelling utilising the Internet to its full communicative potential cannot be researched in isolation anymore; the focus has to shift to the broader category of entertainment, which is defined as “audience-centred commercial culture” (Collis, McKee and Hamley 2010, p. 921). To introduce clarity in the terminological thicket of current concepts describing emerging Internet-related entertainment forms, the chapter introduces three terms: Internet-native entertainment, which fully exploits the capabilities of the Internet; transmedia entertainment, which is not limited to one medium; and Internet-native transmedia entertainment, as the intersection of the two and, at the same time, as an umbrella term for several presented concepts of scholars and practitioners. Chapter 3: Entertainment Architecture (Entarch) is an outcome of the conducted interviews, survey, immersive textual analysis, and consulted literature, and conceptualises one specific emerging Internet-native transmedia entertainment form. This form is approximated as a subset of the intersection of transmedia storytelling and pervasive/ubiquitous games:

Internet-Native Transmedia Entertainment (umbrella term)

Figure 29: Entertainment Architecture in relation to other concepts.

Entertainment Architecture is proposed as a term referring to this form, products based on it, and the conceptual framework describing it. The unique characteristic of entarch is that it combines the four elements story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue,’ all of which are explored in more detail. The chapter describes the

— 234 — Chapter 7: Conclusions Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture concept of an ‘entarch bible,’ a tool facilitating the creation and execution of Entertainment Architecture. Regarding the creators of entarch, the chapter dis- covers that ‘glue’ needs to be a foundation of their approach, not an afterthought. This means a new breed of creators is needed — which are conceptu- alised as Entertainment Architects. Subchapter Chapter 4: Entarch Business Models explores how Entertainment Architecture can be made possible as a commercial product. In this context, the chapter emphasises that the contractual relationships among the creators of entarch need to be fashioned carefully if a coherent product is to result from them. A suboptimally designed contractual structure behind entarch may lead to experiential inconsistencies in the product: if entarch components contradict each other, and the Entertainment Architect is not in the position to amend this, the entertainment experience is lowered and the entarch does not achieve its goal. On the other hand, it has to be ensured that all creators are adequately compensated — which may not be straightforward in the case of, for example, crucially important and costly to produce but free to consume entarch component. Therefore, if franchising is to be used as the contractual structure behind entarch, this has to be done in a way that suits the requirements of Entertain- ment Architecture — and the two may turn out to be a good fit. Then the chapter explains ‘freemium,’ a tactic that can lead to financial success and consists of offering tantalising parts of a product for free, while the sophisticated parts are charged for. The remainder of the chapter analyses and categorises numerous entarch examples according to their business models: sale, subscription, rental, and free. Promotional entarch is discovered to currently be a dominant financing model, particularly among US-American Enter- tainment Architects. Chapter 5: Entarch Industry focuses on the emerging Entertainment Architec- ture industry, how its slow pace of growth is typical for a young industry, and how its future growth can be greatly influenced by the current generation of Entertainment Architects who are understood to be Schumpeterian entrepreneurs: destroyers of the existing and creators of the new (Schumpeter 1934; 1942, p. 83). The chapter shows that entarch can be expected to profit from a pushing of its legitimisation and standardisation — the same way earlier enter-

Chapter 7: Conclusions — 235 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture tainment forms profited from them — and that every single Entertainment Ar- chitect can contribute to this. But it also shows that EAs need to be pushing cautiously: nobody knows yet what Entertainment Architecture really is, and even the Internet — which entarch is based on — is still evolving. The ultimate direction and shape of entarch are therefore utterly unknown. This is normal for any novel technology, just as it is normal that this process of shaping takes its time (Arthur 2009, p. 157). It took 20 years for movies to dominate the big screen. But picking The Beast as the first Entertainment Architecture, this form is only 10 years old and still in its infancy:

We can see the outlines of a new art form, but its grammar is as tenuous and elusive as the grammar of cinema a century ago (Rose 2011, p. 8).

We simply have not yet seen what the dominant form of Entertainment Ar- chitecture will be. A prime example of this continuing evolution is the ‘This Is Not A Game’ aesthetic that defined early projects — and still defines alternate reality games — but has meanwhile been abandoned by all interview partners — even by Sean Stewart and his colleague Elan Lee, its originators. Trying to stop and lock down formal evolution may simply be too early at this point — and perhaps impossible anyway. But the entarch industry may profit from some pushing. In that context, the chapter explains why Entertainment Architects may have to wean off other companies’ promotional budgets and intensify their own marketing if entarch is to become an entertainment form in its own right — which all interview partners are convinced it is. Interestingly, there are two somewhat different entarch industries emerging at the moment: US-American EAs benefit from the size of their domestic advertising industry and therefore largely create promotional entarch, while those from the rest of the world are forced to find other ways of financing their products. As a result, US-American entarch tends to be more elaborate and numerous. But the US-American entarch industry runs the risk of evoking a cultural perception of entarch as a form of promotion — something alternate reality games are already struggling with. On the other hand, the rest of the world is creating much less entarch on much smaller budgets, which means the indus-

— 236 — Chapter 7: Conclusions Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture try is developing much slower there. But this may ultimately transpire as an advantage, as it puts Entertainment Architects under more pressure to come up with viable business models that build up a direct producer-consumer relationship — which is what all interview partners are striving for at the moment. Attaining cultural acceptance of Entertainment Architecture as an entertainment form in its own right may therefore help lay more robust foundations for viable business models and, as a result, for a viable entarch industry. A focus on marketing — not just of particular products, but of the form itself — may assist in legitimising and standardising Entertainment Architecture, in achieving cultural acceptance, and in growing beyond the niche to draw more mainstream consumers. Finally, Chapter 6: From Movies to Entarch? brings together findings from all preceding chapters as an example of how the Entertainment Architecture conceptual framework can be used to explore the potential for creative and business cross-fertilisation between this emerging form and existing ones. To that end, the chapter investigates the spectrum of options that is opening up for moviemakers under the assumption that entarch becomes a dominant entertainment form of the twenty-first century. The edges of the spectrum are to either ignore entarch, or to fully embrace it. Both extremes have far-reaching consequences for movie form and industry, as well as for the movie director profession. If moviemakers ignore entarch, they may well be able to continue creating movies for a long time to come, but possibly at the cost of becoming a niche entertainment form. If, on the other hand, movies fully dissolve into En- tertainment Architecture, they may lose their typical three-act-structure and focus on just one act that may become shorter, longer, or episodic, they may only seldom be watched in cinemas, or they may even be given away for free via all delivery technologies, including cinemas. The legacy of movies may therefore be the filmic language, not the feature film made to be watched in cinemas — and the result may be the emergence of a new subform of film to coexist with movies. With this shift in form, a shift among its creators may be expected: movie directors may have to decide whether they want to pass the highest creative position on to Entertainment Architects or become EAs themselves at the potential cost of being removed from actual movie creation. This

Chapter 7: Conclusions — 237 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture spectrum of options not only applies to individual moviemakers but also to the entire movie industry, which is seen to be at a crossroads: ignore Entertainment Architecture and turn into a niche player, or embrace it and become a dominant player potentially far removed from its roots. The entarch framework therefore allows creators to gauge the room for manoeuvre available to them in an environment that has been — and still is being — entirely reshaped by the emergence of the Internet.

Three Uncertainties

These five chapters show that the emergence of a novel communication technology (Internet) is triggering evolutionary cycles in entertainment technologies (entarch and others), and that, in doing so, it is causing creative destruction so fundamental and powerful, it is introducing radical uncertainty on an entrepreneurial, a formal/experiential, and a disciplinary level. Researching this phase is a rather complex but also highly rewarding endeavour and, ultimately, the thesis succeeds in reducing all three of these levels of uncertainty.

Entrepreneurs, the shaping force behind the form of Entertainment Architecture, are investigated fruitfully through personal interviews and a survey. Especially the second round of interviews shows how fantastic insights about an uncertain space can be generated from only a few conversations — if these are with the right people. It is also quite remarkable how enthusiastic the top Entertainment Architects in the world are about research into their creations, and how (comparatively) well-reachable they are for a researcher. Considering how highly they are sought-after to speak at conferences or give exclusive master classes, it is simply remarkable they invest between 70 and 170 minutes plus many emails in this thesis. Without these two rounds of interviews — and the connection to entrepreneurial and creative practice they allow — the research question would not have been answered and the research would have failed. In a space that is fairly new, constantly changing, and has not been thoroughly researched yet, personal interviews with practitioners can be recommended unreservedly.

— 238 — Chapter 7: Conclusions Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

On the other hand, the conducted survey, while without a doubt offering valuable insights, claimed so much time that the ultimate cost-benefit ratio was not entirely favourable.

To better understand the form of Entertainment Architecture — as far as this is even possible considering it still is evolving — I developed immersive textual analysis, with a lot of support from John Hartley, and propose it as a new textual analysis method that is suited for research into objects that are not settled in the way novels or movies are, and that need to be engaged with to be understood. Immersive textual analysis is what allowed me to conceptualise En- tertainment Architecture as consisting of the four elements story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue.’ One intrinsic downside of this method is that it is very time-consuming, given that potentially large numbers of components across many media have to be engaged with over a potentially long time span. Furthermore, is it difficult — for the moment — to rely on existing literature describing Entertainment Archi- tecture: not much academic work is available yet, and rarely does it describe all entarch components. Non-academic texts tend to be even more incomplete. Every single example of Entertainment Architecture therefore requires a lot of literature and a lot of personal engagement if an overview is to be gained.

The thesis brings together research and approaches from various disciplines, and synthesises them into one unifying overarching research framework to reduce the disciplinary uncertainty around this phase of change. Through combining film studies and theory, media studies, business, marketing, evolutionary theory, economics, and historical analysis, the implications of an emerging entertainment form can be researched without being restricted to exploring just one aspect of it. The logical chain connecting the disciplines begins with the emergence of a new form, continues with an exploration of the implications for creators on both a formal and a business level, and ends with why these creators need to become a collective — an industry — and what obstacles this industry is facing on its way towards more substantial growth. This logical chain is interwoven with an understanding of the already happening (and continuing)

Chapter 7: Conclusions — 239 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture cultural shifts of consumers and producers, and with knowledge about historical phases of creative destruction and how they were triggered by novel communication technologies. Combining these disciplines in one thesis is a challenging task as they represent entirely different worldviews and approaches. Even in using the same terms, the researcher runs the risk of being understood differently by readers from different disciplinary backgrounds: for instance, the term ‘consumer’ is used in both cultural studies and economics, but with very different meanings and values attached to it. In the attempt to reconcile the disciplines, the thesis introduces the following terms in a manner that is as value-neutral as possible: producer, artist, author, creator, practitioner, consumer, audience, user, (feature) film, motion picture, movie, video, (Internet-native and transmedia) entertainment, licensing, (media) franchising, entrepreneur, entarch industry, marketing, promotion, advertising, entarch element, story, play, ‘dance,’ ‘glue,’ and entarch component. The result of bringing together the various disciplines in one framework to research form and agency (of both producers and consumers) in an integrated approach is that certain shifts can be recommended for some of these disciplines to better encompass Internet-native transmedia entertainment in their research: film studies may become more applicable in the future if they focus more on the experience of a text, and less on the text itself; media studies may avoid some of its conceptual obstacles by focusing less on a producer- consumer distinction and more on the relationship between them, i.e. play and ‘dance’; economics are confirmed in their push from a focus on equilibrium towards one on uncertainty; and an overlap between economics and marketing is emphasised in that specific marketing is required in novel products and industries, for an industry will not grow from market demand alone if the market (i.e. consumers) does not yet understand the product. The downside to combining that many disciplines is, of course, that there are, at every turn, several paths that could be investigated much further and disciplines that could be engaged with much deeper. Consequently, the result is a conceptual framework that, now, requires to be filled with more detailed partial research. Another downside is that the reader may sometimes feel like

— 240 — Chapter 7: Conclusions Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture the dissertation does not abide by their disciplinary conventions or methodological protocols. This is inevitable as the conventions of some disciplines are simply antithetical, and I ask the reader to bear this in mind. While the differences between cross-, multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary research are still not clear-cut (Wesselink 2009, p. 405), the thesis may be best- categorised as transdisciplinary as it develops and uses a “conceptual framework that draws together discipline-specific theories, concepts, and methods to address a common problem” (Stokols et al. 2003, p. S24). Furthermore, it fulfils several typical characteristics of transdisciplinarity: it accepts uncertainty (Thompson Klein 2004, p. 521; Després, Brais and Avellan 2004, p. 476) and links theory and professional practice (Lawrence 2004, p. 489) to tackle a real- world (Horlick-Jones and Sime 2004, p. 452; Balsiger 2004, p. 419) complex (Nicolescu 2002, pp. 86-87) problem that involves “an interface of human and natural systems” (Wickson, Carew and Russell 2006, p. 1048; see also Lawrence and Després 2004, pp. 398-399). The methodology of the thesis was influenced by all combined disciplines, and evolved throughout the research (Wickson, Carew and Russell 2006, p. 1051) to essentially become part of the resulting framework. Whether or not I succeeded in leaving disciplinary thinking behind while allowing my personal worldview to become transdisciplinary in the sense of Max-Neef’s “strong transdisciplinarity” (Max-Neef 2005, p. 10) is to be judged by the reader.

Three Strengths

For researchers confronted with this emerging Internet-native transmedia entertainment form, the appeal of the Entertainment Architecture framework is as follows: it offers a comprehensive perspective on this form and therefore allows structured research into it. The same comprehensive perspective is, as explained before, offered to artists. But why should artists even choose to create this kind of entertainment in the first place? The short answer is that entarch allows them to reach audiences in a changing environment — and it will do so more and more as the environment con-

Chapter 7: Conclusions — 241 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture tinues to change. In a little more detail, there are two artistic and one business reason.

Entertainment Architecture provides entertainment that utilises the communicative characteristics of the Internet instead of breaking with them. It does not force consumers to desist from their regular communication technology engagement patterns, but embraces them. Before the Internet, consumers were used to communication technologies (i.e. print, broadcast) delivering only monologic content from few privileged senders. Since entertainment was based on these technologies, it appeared just normal to consumers that it, too, was monologic and produced by few privileged ones. This was the norm. But the Internet has since pervaded consumers’ lives, and they have grown accustomed to a communication technology that is dialogic and has vast numbers of more or less equal senders. In this environment, monologic and privileged entertainment is fast becoming abnormal to consumers, while in contrast, Entertainment Architecture is emerging as an entertainment form that fits into their communicative worldviews. Artists can use this phenomenon to their advantage, and create and deliver compelling entertainment experiences that do not feel abnormal to audiences, but on the contrary, integrate well with their communicative behaviours.

The transmediality of Entertainment Architecture is not an end in itself, but a feature that allows EAs to harness the strengths of various media, while avoiding their weaknesses. In working with just one medium, an artist has to decide, for example, whether they want to stimulate a consumer’s imagination of what a landscape looks like (e.g. in a novel or letter), convey emotions without utter- ing a single word (e.g. through music), or deliver a very immersive temporally limited experience (e.g. a movie). Entertainment Architecture, on the other hand, empowers artists to create experiences across media, and puts them in a position where they can decide which part of an experience works well on which medium, to create entertainment that is compelling beyond the possibilities of a solitary medium.

— 242 — Chapter 7: Conclusions Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

The Internet is eroding the business model foundations of the copyright-based industries, and in their place, is paving the way for a novel entertainment industry with novel business models, where the key to monetisation is ‘glue.’ So long as the copyright-based industries continue to struggle, there is an incentive for experimentation with entarch, even if it is risky — after all, the entertainment industries are hoping for a novel business model that can extend their financial success story of the twentieth century. If, however, the copyright-based industries manage to rejuvenate their business models, experimentation with radically novel forms and business models loses in importance due to their inherent riskiness — and the attractiveness of Entertainment Architecture may suffer.

But even beyond its financial risks, and despite its strengths, Entertainment Ar- chitecture is not a must. Every creator needs to assess whether their idea for an entertainment experience would benefit from being executed as entarch. Inter- view-partner Marian McGowan emphasises that

When you come across a story, you think about what the best way to deliver it is.

Although Entertainment Architecture is often created simply because of its newness — Christopher Sandberg believes this is due to our neophile culture — all interview partners and survey respondents emphasise that their projects are not about using the always-newest technology. Rather, they are about har- nessing the strengths and the uniqueness of the Internet to create something that is, in Sandberg’s words, “beautiful and rich and entertaining and meaning- ful.” Painter Paul Klee reached a similar insight in his diary entry from 1909:

And now an altogether revolutionary discovery: to adapt oneself to the contents of the paintbox is more important than nature and its study. I must some day be able to improvise freely on the chromatic keyboard of the rows of watercolor cups (Klee 1964, p. 244).

Chapter 7: Conclusions — 243 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Entertainment Architecture offers a new ‘paintbox,’ and it is up to moviemakers to choose whether or not they want to ‘adapt themselves to it’ so they can some day ‘improvise freely on its keyboard.’ If they decide their interests and talents lie with movies, that they have not run out of compatible stories, and that they can secure the required financing, they can perfectly well continue to create movies as we know them for a long time to come. It will be highly interesting to further observe and research the relationship between moviemakers and Entertainment Architecture. But to do so, researchers have to also understand this new ‘paintbox’ — and the conceptual framework of Entertainment Architecture enables them to do so.

7.1 Loose Ends? – Implications for Further Research

The thesis cannot, of course, answer all questions around this fascinating phase of change entertainment is going through at the moment — especially if it introduces a conceptual framework that it can only begin to fill with more detailed knowledge. Over the course of the research, therefore, quite a few promising research directions meriting thorough investigation have been identified — always from a point of view that acknowledges the still evolving nature of Entertainment Architecture, and in doing so, understands that every description can only be a snapshot of a longer process. In the following, these research ideas are clustered under two headings: those filling the framework with more detailed knowledge, and those investigating the environment in which Enter- tainment Architecture is situated.

Filling the Entarch Framework

Filling the framework can roughly be summarised under two headings: form and business. The thesis describes the four cornerstones of the form of Enter- tainment Architecture: story, play, ‘dance,’ and ‘glue.’ The formal details of these elements, however, have not been addressed yet. What dramatic structure do entarch writers employ and to what effect? What visual look is characteristic of Entertainment Architecture: will it stay on the level of security camera footage and webcams? Which media complement each other well, which do

— 244 — Chapter 7: Conclusions Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture not? Are subforms of entarch emerging, and if so, what are their characteristics? Are alternate reality games one such subform? Combining such an exploration of form with that of business aspects can generate valuable knowledge — as demonstrated by this thesis — and the following interesting business topics have been identified. Marketers would profit from a greater understanding of the various target groups of (the various potential subforms of) Entertainment Architecture. Finan- ciers would profit from an understanding of the typical up-front costs and revenue expectations to better shape cash flow, develop milestones and measures of success, and keep track of break-even points. Human resources departments would profit from contractual guidelines for the relationships among entarch creators. Strategic and business development departments would profit from contractual guidelines for the relationship among entarch-creating companies: is it more promising to integrate vertically or horizontally, coordinate via the market, or enter franchise agreements? And, very importantly, business models have to be analysed further — the free/libre/open-source software (FLOSS) and Creative Commons movements, for instance, may prove to be more inspira- tional to Entertainment Architects than the copyright-based entertainment industries (Montgomery and Fitzgerald 2006, p. 415) — which I return to in a moment. All entarch research that is situated between form and business needs to pay special attention to ‘glue,’ which is a key to an immersive entertainment experience as well as to the monetisation of entarch. As such, it absolutely must be investigated a lot more thoroughly. The thesis, really, is only able to introduce the importance of ‘glue’ and illustrate it with examples, but this is not enough for practitioners to use as guidance, or for researchers to really understand its role. ‘Dance’ is another topic that, so far, is only described, but not sufficiently examined. On a practical level, it is important to figure out ways to coordinate many simultaneous senders and receivers in order to arrive at a successful entertainment product. But this is not an entarch-unique phenomenon and challenge — rather, it is something that has been introduced into human culture

Chapter 7: Conclusions — 245 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture and relationships with the emergence of the Internet, and needs to be researched further in that context.

Entarch and its Environment

This leads to implications for research into the environment of Entertainment Architecture. One phenomenon that follows from the Internet is the ostensive possibility of a consumer to engage with any entertainment product whenever they choose to without any imposed scheduling of artists or gatekeepers. But this “deroutinisation” is only true within a broader context of consumers having to juggle a range of simultaneous schedules, and the fact that entertainment products still only become available the moment their creators publish them (Jancovich 2011, pp. 94-95). In this context, the timing of when Entertainment Architects should publish which entarch components to reach which target audiences successfully within their deroutinised lives can be researched further. Such scheduling has to be seen in a wider context that is touched upon at various points in the thesis: who will become successful Entertainment Archi- tects? All interview partners are clearly enthusiastic about the creative freedom they enjoy: there are no clear rules yet, quite in contrast to the highly perfected form of movies, for instance. But all interview partners stem from medium- based backgrounds. Which ones will prove to be the best Entertainment Archi- tects: movie directors, authors, (video) game designers, or somebody else entirely? Or do we have to wait for a generation of ‘native’ Entertainment Archi- tects who grew up with the Internet and Entertainment Architecture? The thesis chooses one existing creative profession — moviemakers or, more specifically, movie directors — and begins to explore their spectrum of options in relation to Entertainment Architecture. It also touches upon how movie form and industry may be affected in the process. All this needs to be examined in more detail. Especially the relationship between entarch and contemporary economic and industrial realities and production practices deserves particular attention. The big question that comes to mind in this context is if and how entarch will impact on Hollywood and the rest of the existing movie industry. Will it impact them at all or stay this side of their barriers to entry and evolve in

— 246 — Chapter 7: Conclusions Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture parallel without touching. Such analysis can become very detailed and practitioners would welcome any empirical values, from audience reach to return on investment and beyond. But even if entarch does not affect movies in any way, the traditional production-distribution-exhibition process of moviemaking will continue to change even more than it already has, which opens up a panoply of research topics (Eliashberg, Elberse and Leenders 2006). In a similar way, the entarch framework can be applied to other entertainment forms and industries to produce applicable insights for the creators in and researchers of those industries. The thesis illustrates that the Entertainment Architecture framework requires a broad focus on entertainment instead of a narrower one on story or play. This attention shift from storytelling to entertainment is justified in the thesis, as it is required to answer the research question — but the equivalent shift from play to entertainment is only touched upon. Both these topics merit more detailed investigation and reflection, and may require narratologists and ludologists to stop discussing whether story and play can be combined, and begin to work together to figure out how this is done in practice. Another new approach may be required in regards to the relationship between entertainment and leisure, as the thesis suggests a number of times it may be changing. This is something others have also noticed (White 2007), but which has not yet prompted thorough scholarly research. This evolving relationship may well be related to leisure itself changing “as a result of some profound social, cultural, economic and political changes” (Blackshaw 2010, p. viii). Whatever the reasons are, they need to be better understood, as Enter- tainment Architecture may profit from being marketed as leisure instead of, or additionally to, being marketed as entertainment: competing with tennis clubs may turn out to be more promising for ‘dance’-driven entarch than competing with cinemas. Pertaining to the marketing of entarch more generally, it will be interesting to observe if the entarch industry becomes aware of its need thereof, and whether this assists in building up a “reading public” (Hartley 1992, pp. 161- 163; 2004, p. 133) of entarch consumers or not. In the same context, it will be fascinating to observe if Entertainment Architecture achieves a status of genu-

Chapter 7: Conclusions — 247 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture ine entertainment and moves beyond its promotional roots — a truly pivotal issue for the future development of both form and industry. Novel forms and products require novel markets, which unfortunately are not driven by consumer demand and therefore need to be pushed by producers (Christensen 1997, p. 226; Schumpeter 1939, p. 243; Casson 2003, p. 84). The function of marketing differs between such novel markets and developed ones, and its role in the establishment of an entarch industry merits dedicated research. Several seeming paradoxes exist regarding entarch and marketing. To begin with, the marketing of Entertainment Architecture is currently highly neglected even though it is advertising agencies that employ a significant share of current Entertainment Architects — and one would expect of them to be focused on the market. But their focus on the market of the product they are advertising may be distracting them from the market of the entarch they are creating — they may not even notice they are creating entertainment that may be a product in itself. Another paradox is that in promotional entarch, specifically in alternate reality games, the promoter is not always easy to identify — which is not only in- triguing, but may also prompt governments to somewhat regulate entarch the way they have been regulating advertising for a long time (Feick and Gierl 1996, p. 229; Coase 1977; Harker 1998). It will also be interesting to observe whether entarch will end up using traditional stand-alone promotion to promote itself sometime or continue to fuse with it — and if this means that Entertainment Architects need to also become promotion specialists. It simply appears that something is happening to marketing that goes beyond its relation with Entertainment Architecture, and the thesis lightly bumps into this process of change at various points. Dedicated research could, now, investigate whether or not there is a significant connection between the change that is happening in marketing and the one that is happening in entertainment — whether or not, for example, promotion is really fusing with entertainment as a survey respondent and some scholars suggest (Gray 2010, pp. 214, 218; Tryon 2009, pp. 90-91). For marketing researchers the long-term viability of promo-

— 248 — Chapter 7: Conclusions Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture tional entarch becomes a topic in itself, as no hard and comparable numbers regarding return on investment, audience reach, or promoter benefit exit yet. A topic that is not researched at all in the thesis — as it does not agree with the focus on commercial entertainment, entrepreneurs, and industries — is that of Entertainment Architecture in non-commercial contexts. The hypothetical parent creating entarch about the first steps of their child could become a next research focus for scholars interested in user generated content (Cha et al. 2007; Burgess and Green 2009b) or digital storytelling (Hartley and McWilliam 2009; Lambert 2009). The last — and by far the most important — topic I would like to call to the reader’s attention is the significance of ‘net neutrality,’ which refers to:

An Internet that does not favor one application (say, the world wide web), over others (say, email) (Wu 2003, p. 145).

A very simple concept in itself, its repercussions are felt in many areas, which has prompted a large number of scholars to discuss the benefits and damages that follow from its enforcement by governments (Yoo 2005; Hahn and Wallsten 2006; Kocsis and de Bijl 2007; Schewick 2007; Zittrain 2008; Economides and Hermalin 2010; Schuett 2010). But whether net neutrality is ultimately beneficial for human culture or not is a question with many facets and no straightforward answer. In any case, the copyright-based industries are very vocal opponents of net neutrality for their own business reasons, which unfortunately may not be for the benefit of the rest of the world. These industries are involved in this discussion in the following way. Illegally distributed products enjoy the same accessibility, priority, and speed as legal ones of the entertainment industries, who seemingly (maybe rightfully) believe this is undermining their business models, and (wrongfully) believe that any means to ensure the continued existence of current entertainment companies is an acceptable price for the world to pay. To that end, they are lobbying governments into strengthening copyright and, thus, protecting their products and existence (TERA Consultants 2010; Mundell 2010; Willis

Chapter 7: Conclusions — 249 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

2011; Ferrer 2011). Their approach to enforcing copyright includes geo- blocking, traffic shaping, traffic charges, gatekeepers, data logging, filtering, censoring, and many more — with the side effect that net neutrality suffers. The topic of net neutrality is therefore highly intertwined with the topic of copyright, which is discussed in Subchapter 5.2 The Young Entarch Industry and also is a topic with many facets and no straightforward answer (Lobato 2011). Some argue that to even stand a chance of arriving at a solution for the copyright problem (and of taking some pressure off net neutrality), the rhetoric has to move beyond current polarisations of “us versus them” (Crawford 2005b, p. 30; see also Hemmungs Wirtén 2006, p. 289): obsolete industrial dinosaurs versus innovative free culture, legitimacy versus piracy, closed systems versus open ones, control versus freedom, private versus public, etc. In most cases, the reality and future must probably be found in between. The relationship between net neutrality, copyright, and Entertainment Archi- tecture therefore deserves special attention. What happens if copyright is strengthened? Will there even be an incentive to continue experimenting with entarch? What happens if copyright is weakened? Will the budgets of promotional entarch collapse because the copyright-based industries collapse? Will other industries step in with their budgets? Can business models that are based on ‘glue’ really repeat the success story of copyright-based business models? But the importance of net neutrality goes much deeper. To Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web and strong proponent of net neutrality, it is a fundamental characteristic of the Internet. And the importance of the Internet, being the newest communication technology, goes far beyond mere entertainment:

The Web105 is yours. It is a public resource on which you, your business, your community and your government depend. The Web is also vital to democracy, a communications channel that makes possible a continuous worldwide conversation. The Web is now more critical to free speech than any other medium. It brings principles established in the U.S. Constitution, the British Magna Carta

105 I am aware that the Web is not the same as the Internet, but one of the many technologies based on it. But for the Web to fulfil all the functions and importance that Berners-Lee attrib- utes to it, the Internet must fulfil them too.

— 250 — Chapter 7: Conclusions Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

and other important documents into the network age: freedom from being snooped on, filtered, censored and disconnected (Berners-Lee 2010, p. 82).

A very current example of what Berners-Lee refers to is the role the Internet and social media have played as enabling factors of the Arab Spring (Salem and Mourtada 2011; Ali 2011). Another example is how Twitter, Blackberry Messenger, and Facebook have been used by rioters to coordinate the latest riots in the UK (BBC 2011b) — but also how the same and other services were used by citizens to coordinate the subsequent clean-up (BBC 2011a) and by the police to prevent further riots (BBC 2011c). These examples show how, depending on the point of view, the Internet can be perceived as enabling positive or negative actions. But it really is just a communication technology — and as such it can be used for good and bad. Likewise, net neutrality has good and bad effects — solely depending on the point of view. Irrespective of any such judgements, it is quite clear that net neutrality is constantly threatened. Sometimes actively — as in the above case of the copyright-based industries — and sometimes without any direct intentions. More and more Internet personalisation technologies, for example, are being invented and embraced enthusiastically: think personalised (and therefore more precise and relevant) Google search results, or the way Facebook learns which of your ‘friends’ you are interested in and stops serving you information about the rest. But unfortunately it turns out that the more personalised the Internet becomes, the more isolated we are from each other (Pariser 2011). The bottom line is that communication technologies, like any other technology, constantly evolve (Arthur 2009), and we as a culture need to pay attention to the evolution of the latest one — the Internet — as it has pervaded our inter- personal communication, and thus affects the way we as humans communicate with, relate to, live with, and treat each other. If its fundamental characteristics change — and net neutrality is one of them — then Entertainment Architecture will need to be reconceptualised, along with everything else that utilises the Internet.

Chapter 7: Conclusions — 251 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Both Internet and Entertainment Architecture are technologies and their evolution therefore path-dependent — their near future is reasonably predictable, while their far future is not at all (Arthur 2009, p. 186). So while the thesis conceptualises a currently emerging form of Internet-native transmedia entertainment, this very form is expected to move away from that conceptualisation more and more as time goes on, leaving the far ahead unknown. Nobody can therefore know if there is a future for that passion of mine that led me to writing this thesis: movies and the immersive cinema experience. Both may stand a chance of becoming entarch components, but they may also develop in different directions. In any case, years will pass before we get there, and (the form of) movies may change entirely in the process. Personally, I cannot wait to see what happens.

— 252 — Chapter 7: Conclusions Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Appendices

A Interviews Round One — Questionnaire

(Note that this questionnaire uses the term ‘film’ in accordance with the way this thesis uses the term ‘movie.’)

Difference film/TV • What is unique about film in comparison to TV? • Are PayTV/DVD/VOD part of film or TV? • Is TV doing what film fails to do?

Influence/future of computer screens and mobile devices (phone, iPod, etc.) • Will new forms of storytelling evolve for these screens or will the “old” forms be watched on them? • Are you working on new forms of storytelling? • Do you think consumers want to watch films on their phones? Do you want to watch films on your phone?

Evolution of film • Is the experience of watching a feature film in a cinema still convincing for consumers? • Did your approach to making films change in the last 5 years? • Do you expect it to change in the (near) future? • Do consumers influence your projects? If so, how? • Do current technological/cultural developments influence your projects? • Where is film heading and how do you plan to get there?

Appendices — 253 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

— 254 — Appendices Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

B Interviews Round Two — Questionnaire

Transmedia Storytelling Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture, 2006, p. 20: “Transmedia storytelling refers to a new aesthetic that has emerged in response to media convergence — one that places new demands on consumers and depends on the active participation of knowledge communities. Transmedia storytelling is the art of world making. To fully experience any fictional world, consumers must assume the role of hunters and gatherers, chasing down bits of the story across media channels, comparing notes with each other via online discussion groups, and collaborating to ensure that everyone who invests time and effort will come away with a richer entertainment experience.”

Questions 1. How did Your Company start? Was it born into a transmedia environment, ready adapted, or were lots of mistakes made and way finding necessary?

2. Thinking over the past 5 years, what is the main thing you have learnt in your projects thus far?

3. What do you perceive as your first (second, third, fourth, fifth) priority? a. To tell a story, b. To give passive consumers the possibility to be active, c. To realise your vision, d. To entertain, or e. Other?

4. Does consumer participation change your approach to creating a story? If so, how?

Appendices — 255 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

5. On a scale of 1 to 7, what kind of influence do consumers have on your story: a. Very weak (1) or very strong (7), b. Obvious and direct like voting (1) or inconspicuous and indirect like you adapting to what consumers discuss in forums without telling them about it (7)?

6. Is the switching from medium to medium to real life an obstacle in creating an immersive consumer experience?

7. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various media you use? How do these media complement each other? And how do they work against each other?

8. Have these strengths and weaknesses of media been changing over time?

9. What is film to you primarily? a. The theatrical experience b. The language of film / film aesthetics c. Any moving picture d. Other

10. Do you see strengths in film that make you want to use it as part of your projects? Do you see it as financially viable to use film as part of your projects, now or in the future?

11. How do you coordinate the successive revelation of a story with the successive story chunks being revealed via different media? Is a certain person responsible for this?

12. Do you create story world bibles (or similar tools) for your projects?

— 256 — Appendices Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

13. Do you think it is possible to continue creating an ongoing fictional story indefinitely with short lead-time while reacting to consumer influences?

14. How scalable are your projects? How many people do you think you can reach in the future?

15. What percentage of your budgets typically comes from: a. Retained earnings, b. Current earnings, c. Private investors, d. Venture capital, e. Equity financing, f. Debt issuance (short term or long term), g. External grants, h. Research funding, i. Personal funds, j. Other sources?

16. On a scale of 1 to 7, please indicate your response to the following statements, with 1 meaning “strongly disagree” and 7 meaning “strongly agree”: a. Transmedia products occupy a growing niche. b. Current contracts and business models are big obstacles on the way to executing transmedia projects. c. In the future, all existing entertainment companies will successfully use transmedia approaches as part of their products. d. New companies with novel products will emerge and become strong competitors to existing companies, leading to a shakeup of the entertainment industry with many established companies going out of business. e. Transmedia-oriented companies will develop alongside existing entertainment companies and the two will coexist.

Appendices — 257 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

f. Transmedia products will become increasingly profitable. g. The transmedia market will become increasingly competitive. h. The success of transmedia products depends on their use of the always-newest technology. i. Storytelling has to blur reality and fiction to be successful today. j. Story chunks that are created for different media can be created independently by different teams and only have to be loosely coordinated.

17. What is the main difference between what you do and what entertainment companies have done in the past?

18. What do you call the person or team of persons behind your projects: filmmakers, writers, directors, musicians, or do your projects necessitate a new category of creative people?

— 258 — Appendices Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

C Survey — Questionnaire

7KH&LQHPD([SHULHQFHLQWKH,QWHUDFWLYH(UD0DUNHWLQJDQG &LQHPDWLF&KDQJH

5HVHDUFK7HDP&RQWDFWV

:RLWHN.RQ]DO'LVWLQJXLVKHG3URIHVVRU -RKQ+DUWOH\ 3K'VWXGHQW6XSHUYLVRU&UHDWLYH,QGXVWULHV)DFXOW\ ZRLWHNNRQ]DO#TXWHGXDXMKDUWOH\#TXWHGXDX

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

Appendices — 259 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

3OHDVHFRQILUP\RXUDJUHHPHQWWRSDUWLFLSDWHE\FOLFNLQJ1H[W

:KDWDJHJURXSGR\RXEHORQJWR"

3OHDVHSLFNRQHRIWKHDQVZHUVEHORZ

RYHU

:KDWLVWKHKLJKHVWOHYHORIHGXFDWLRQ\RXKDYHFRPSOHWHG"

3OHDVHSLFNRQHRIWKHDQVZHUVEHORZ

3RVWJUDGXDWHGHJUHH *UDGXDWHGHJUHH 8QGHUJUDGXDWHGHJUHH

6HFRQGDU\HGXFDWLRQ 3ULPDU\HGXFDWLRQ

:KDWLV\RXUMREWLWOH"

3OHDVHXVHWKHEODQNVSDFHWRZULWH\RXUDQVZHUV

— 260 — Appendices Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

3OHDVHSURYLGHWKHIROORZLQJGHWDLOVDERXW\RXUFRPSDQ\

3OHDVHXVHWKHEODQNVSDFHWRZULWH\RXUDQVZHUV

1XPEHURIHPSOR\HHV

$QQXDOWXUQRYHU LQFOXGLQJFXUUHQF\

:KDWVHFWRU V DUH\RXLQYROYHGLQ FKRRVHRQHRUPRUH "

3OHDVHFKHFNDOOWKDWDSSO\DQGRUDGG\RXURZQYDULDQW

)LOP 5DGLR 0RELOH ,QWHUQHW 3XEOLVKLQJ 1HZPHGLD 9LGHRJDPHV (YHQWPDQDJHPHQW 2WKHU

'R\RXFRQVLGHU\RXUVHOIDVWRU\WHOOHU"

3OHDVHSLFNRQHRIWKHDQVZHUVEHORZ

Appendices — 261 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

+RZIDPLOLDUDUH\RXZLWKWKHFRQFHSWRIWUDQVPHGLDVWRU\WHOOLQJ"

3OHDVHPDUNWKHFRUUHVSRQGLQJFLUFOHRQO\RQHSHUOLQH

9HU\ 8QIDPLOLDU IDPLOLDU

7KHHPHUJHQFHRIWUDQVPHGLDVWRU\WHOOLQJLVRISULPDU\LQWHUHVWWKURXJKRXWWKLVTXHVWLRQQDLUH:KHQ UHVSRQGLQJWRWKHQH[WVHWRITXHVWLRQVSOHDVHNHHSLQPLQGWKHIROORZLQJGHILQLWLRQ ಯ7UDQVPHGLDVWRU\WHOOLQJUHIHUVWRDQHZDHVWKHWLFWKDWKDVHPHUJHGLQUHVSRQVHWRPHGLDFRQYHUJHQFHದRQH WKDWSODFHVQHZGHPDQGVRQFRQVXPHUVDQGGHSHQGVRQWKHDFWLYHSDUWLFLSDWLRQRINQRZOHGJHFRPPXQLWLHV 7UDQVPHGLDVWRU\WHOOLQJLVWKHDUWRIZRUOGPDNLQJ7RIXOO\H[SHULHQFHDQ\ILFWLRQDOZRUOGFRQVXPHUVPXVW DVVXPHWKHUROHRIKXQWHUVDQGJDWKHUHUVFKDVLQJGRZQELWVRIWKHVWRU\DFURVVPHGLDFKDQQHOVFRPSDULQJ QRWHVZLWKHDFKRWKHUYLDRQOLQHGLVFXVVLRQJURXSVDQGFROODERUDWLQJWRHQVXUHWKDWHYHU\RQHZKRLQYHVWV WLPHDQGHIIRUWZLOOFRPHDZD\ZLWKDULFKHUHQWHUWDLQPHQWH[SHULHQFHರ+HQU\-HQNLQV&RQYHUJHQFH &XOWXUHS

:KDWGR\RXSHUFHLYHDVWKHILUVWSULRULW\LQ\RXUSURMHFWV"

3OHDVHSLFNRQHRIWKHDQVZHUVEHORZRUDGG\RXURZQ

7RWHOODVWRU\ 7RWXUQSDVVLYHFRQVXPHUVLQWRDFWLYHRQHV 7RUHDOLVH\RXUYLVLRQ 7RHQWHUWDLQ 2WKHU

+RZVWURQJO\GRHVFRQVXPHUSDUWLFLSDWLRQFKDQJH\RXUDSSURDFKWRFUHDWLQJDQGWHOOLQJDVWRU\"

3OHDVHPDUNWKHFRUUHVSRQGLQJFLUFOHRQO\RQHSHUOLQH

9HU\ 9HU\ ZHDNO\ VWURQJO\ 1$

— 262 — Appendices Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

+RZELJLVWKHREVWDFOHRIFRQVXPHUVKDYLQJWRVZLWFKIURPPHGLXPWRPHGLXPWRUHDOOLIHIRUFUHDWLQJDQ LPPHUVLYHFRQVXPHUH[SHULHQFH"

3OHDVHPDUNWKHFRUUHVSRQGLQJFLUFOHRQO\RQHSHUOLQH

9HU\ VPDOO 9HU\ELJ 1$

:KDWLVILOPWR\RXSULPDULO\"

3OHDVHSLFNRQHRIWKHDQVZHUVEHORZRUDGG\RXURZQ

7KHWKHDWULFDOH[SHULHQFH WKHFLQHPD 7KHODQJXDJHRIILOPILOPDHVWKHWLFV QRPDWWHUZKDWVFUHHQ\RXZDWFKLWRQ

$Q\PRYLQJSLFWXUH

2WKHU

'R\RXVHHVWUHQJWKVLQILOP DVGHILQHGE\\RXDERYH WKDWPDNH\RXZDQWWRXVHLWDVSDUWRI\RXUSURMHFWV"

3OHDVHSLFNRQHRIWKHDQVZHUVEHORZDQGDGG\RXUFRPPHQWV

,VLWILQDQFLDOO\YLDEOHWRXVHILOP DVGHILQHGE\\RXDERYH DVSDUWRI\RXUSURMHFWVQRZRULQWKHIXWXUH"

3OHDVHSLFNRQHRIWKHDQVZHUVEHORZDQGDGG\RXUFRPPHQWV

Appendices — 263 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

:KRLQ\RXUFRPSDQ\LVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUFUHDWLQJDVWRU\DQGFRRUGLQDWLQJLWVVXFFHVVLYHUHYHODWLRQZLWKWKH VXFFHVVLYHVWRU\FKXQNVEHLQJUHYHDOHGYLDGLIIHUHQWPHGLD"

3OHDVHSLFNRQHRIWKHDQVZHUVEHORZDQGDGG\RXUFRPPHQWV

2QHSHUVRQ

$WHDP

1DPHRISHUVRQWHDP

'R\RXFUHDWHVWRU\ZRUOGELEOHV RUVLPLODUWRROV IRU\RXUSURMHFWV"

3OHDVHSLFNRQHRIWKHDQVZHUVEHORZDQGDGG\RXUFRPPHQWV

:KDWGR\RXFDOOWKHPLIQRWVWRU\ZROGELEOHV"

+RZIHDVLEOHLVLWWRFRQWLQXHFUHDWLQJDQRQJRLQJILFWLRQDOWUDQVPHGLDVWRU\LQGHILQLWHO\ZLWKVKRUWOHDGWLPH ZKLOHUHDFWLQJWRFRQVXPHULQIOXHQFHV"

3OHDVHPDUNWKHFRUUHVSRQGLQJFLUFOHRQO\RQHSHUOLQH

1RW 9HU\ IHDVLEOH IHDVLEOH 1$

+RZPDQ\VWDIIGR\RXKDYHSHUSURMHFW"

3OHDVHXVHWKHEODQNVSDFHWRZULWH\RXUDQVZHUV

:KDWLVWKHEXGJHWUDQJHIRU\RXUSURMHFWV LQFOXGLQJFXUUHQF\ "

3OHDVHXVHWKHEODQNVSDFHWRZULWH\RXUDQVZHUV

— 264 — Appendices Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

:KDWSHUFHQWDJHRI\RXUEXGJHWVW\SLFDOO\FRPHVIURP

3OHDVHXVHWKHEODQNVSDFHWRZULWH\RXUDQVZHUV

5HWDLQHGHDUQLQJV

&XUUHQWHDUQLQJV

3ULYDWHLQYHVWRUV

9HQWXUHFDSLWDO

(TXLW\ILQDQFLQJ

'HEWLVVXDQFH VKRUWWHUPRUORQJWHUP

([WHUQDOJUDQWV

5HVHDUFKIXQGLQJ

3HUVRQDOIXQGV

2WKHUVRXUFHV

7RWDO KRSHIXOO\

Appendices — 265 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

+RZGR\RXHQYLVLRQFRQVXPHUVSD\LQJIRU\RXUIXWXUHSURGXFWV FKRRVHRQHRUPRUH "

3OHDVHFKHFNDOOWKDWDSSO\DQGRUDGG\RXURZQYDULDQW

2QHRIISD\PHQW

3HUXVHSD\PHQW 6XEVFULSWLRQ $GYHUWLVLQJ

1RSD\PHQW

2WKHU

:KDWLVWKHPDLQGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQZKDW\RXGRDQGZKDWHQWHUWDLQPHQWFRPSDQLHVKDYHGRQHLQWKHSDVW LQRQHWRWKUHHVHQWHQFHV "

3OHDVHZULWH\RXUDQVZHULQWKHVSDFHEHORZ

7KHODVWSDJH

— 266 — Appendices Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

3OHDVHLQGLFDWH\RXUUHVSRQVHWRWKHIROORZLQJVWDWHPHQWV

3OHDVHPDUNWKHFRUUHVSRQGLQJFLUFOHRQO\RQHSHUOLQH

6WURQJO\ 6WURQJO\ 'LVDJUHH 1HXWUDO $JUHH 1$

7UDQVPHGLDSURGXFWV RFFXS\DJURZLQJQLFKH

&XUUHQWFRQWUDFWVDQG EXVLQHVVPRGHOVDUHELJ REVWDFOHVRQWKHZD\WR H[HFXWLQJWUDQVPHGLD SURMHFWV

,QWKHIXWXUHDOOH[LVWLQJ HQWHUWDLQPHQWFRPSDQLHV ZLOOVXFFHVVIXOO\XVH WUDQVPHGLDDSSURDFKHVDV SDUWRIWKHLUSURGXFWV

1HZFRPSDQLHVZLWKQRYHO SURGXFWVZLOOHPHUJHDQG EHFRPHVWURQJFRPSHWLWRUV WRH[LVWLQJFRPSDQLHV OHDGLQJWRDVKDNHXSRIWKH HQWHUWDLQPHQWLQGXVWU\ZLWK PDQ\HVWDEOLVKHG FRPSDQLHVJRLQJRXWRI EXVLQHVV

7UDQVPHGLDRULHQWHG FRPSDQLHVZLOOGHYHORS DORQJVLGHH[LVWLQJ HQWHUWDLQPHQWFRPSDQLHV DQGWKHWZRZLOOFRH[LVW

7UDQVPHGLDSURGXFWVZLOO EHFRPHLQFUHDVLQJO\ SURILWDEOH

7KHWUDQVPHGLDPDUNHWZLOO EHFRPHLQFUHDVLQJO\ FRPSHWLWLYH

Appendices — 267 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

7KHVXFFHVVRIWUDQVPHGLD SURGXFWVGHSHQGVRQWKHLU XVHRIWKHDOZD\VQHZHVW WHFKQRORJ\

6WRU\WHOOLQJKDVWREOXU UHDOLW\DQGILFWLRQWREH VXFFHVVIXOWRGD\

6WRU\FKXQNVWKDWDUH FUHDWHGIRUGLIIHUHQWPHGLD FDQEHFUHDWHG LQGHSHQGHQWO\E\GLIIHUHQW WHDPVDQGRQO\KDYHWREH ORRVHO\FRRUGLQDWHG

3OHDVHSURYLGH\RXUGHWDLOVLI\RXZRXOGOLNHWREHNHSWXSWRGDWHZLWKWKLVUHVHDUFK RSWLRQDO

3OHDVHXVHWKHEODQNVSDFHWRZULWH\RXUDQVZHUV

1DPH

&RPSDQ\

(PDLODGGUHVV

— 268 — Appendices Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

,I\RXKDYHDQ\FRPPHQWVWRVKDUHUHJDUGLQJWKLVTXHVWLRQQDLUHILOPRUIURPSURMHFWH[SHULHQFHVSOHDVH ZULWHWKHPGRZQ

3OHDVHZULWH\RXUDQVZHULQWKHVSDFHEHORZ

:RLWHN.RQ]DOZRLWHNNRQ]DO#TXWHGXDX

Appendices — 269 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

— 270 — Appendices Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

D Mentioned Entertainment Products

The ‘driving platforms’ are listed. Many products, of course, consist of more than one component and utilise more than one medium. ‘Entarch’ implies a driving platform cannot be discerned, which does not mean the other categories can’t be called entarch — they simply have more distinct driving platforms. The classification is, of course, highly subjective.

6 Minutes To Midnight (2009)  Promotional entarch for Watchmen: www.6minutestomidnight.com, see DVD: ‘telefonprojekt 2009.’ A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)  Movie. Also sprach Zarathustra (1883 − 1885)  Philosophical novel. Apocalypse Now (1979) -> Movie. Asylum 626 (2009)  Promotional entarch for Doritos: www.asylum626.com. Avatar (2009)  Movie. Battlestar Galactica (2003 − 2009)  Relaunched TV series. Believe (2007)  Promotional entarch for Halo 3, see DVD: ‘twofifteenmccann n.d.’ Believe: The John 117 Monument (2007)  Trailer for Halo 3. Bioshock 2 (2010)  Video game: first-person shooter. Blazing Saddles (1974)  Movie. Bluebird AR (2010)  ARG: www.abc.net.au/bluebird. Breathe (2010)  Entarch: www.breathewith.me. Burnout Paradise (2008)  Video game. Call of Duty: Black Ops (2010)  Video game: first-person shooter. Cathy’s Book (2006)  Novel + ARG. Cathy’s Key (2008)  Novel + ARG. Cathy’s Ring (2009)  Novel + ARG. Colour Bleed (2012, forthcoming)  Entarch. Conspiracy For Good (2010)  ARG: www.conspiracyforgood.com, see DVD: ‘cfg77472 2010.’ CSI (2000 − ongoing)  TV series. CSI: New York (2004 − ongoing)  TV series. Doctor Who (1963 − ongoing)  TV series.

Appendices — 271 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Dungeons and Dragons Online: Eberron Unlimited (2006 − ongoing)  Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG). Eagle Eye (2008)  Movie. Eagle Eye: Free Fall (2008)  Promotional entarch for Eagle Eye: www.eagleeyefreefall.com, see DVD: ‘telefonprojekt 2009.’ ElecTRONica (2010)  Dance party at theme park. Emmerdale (1972 − ongoing)  Soap opera. Enemy Weapon (2007)  Trailer for Halo 3. Enter The Matrix (2003)  Video game. Errant Memories (2005)  ARG. Exoriare (2009 – 2010)  Entarch: www.exoriare.com. Fat Cow Motel (2003)  Entarch: www.abc.net.au/tv/fatcowmotel. Find 815 (2007 − 2008)  Promotional ARG for Lost: www.find815.com. Flynn Lives (2009 − 2010)  Promotional ARG for Tron: Legacy: www.flynnlives.com. GKNOVA6 (2010)  Promotional entarch for Call of Duty: Black Ops. Gravesite (2007)  Trailer for Halo 3. Halo (2001 − ongoing)  Media franchise centred around video games, see up and down this list. Halo 2 (2004)  Video game: first-person shooter. Halo 3 (2007)  Video game: first-person shooter. Halo 3: ODST (2009)  Video game: first-person shooter. Halo 4 (2012, forthcoming)  Video game: first-person shooter. Halo Encyclopedia (2009)  Guide book to the Halo universe. Halo Legends (2010)  Collection of short animes. Halo Mega Bloks (2009 − ongoing)  LEGO-like toys. Halo NKOK (2010)  RC vehicles. Halo Wars (2009)  Video game: real-time strategy. Halo: Arms Race (2007)  Live action short film. Halo: Blood Line (2009 − 2010)  Comic book series. Halo: Combat (2007)  Live action short film. Halo: Combat Evolved (2001)  Video game: first-person shooter. Halo: Contact Harvest (2007)  Novel. Halo: Cryptum (planned for 2011)  Novel.

— 272 — Appendices Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Halo: Evolutions — Essential Tales of the Halo Universe (2009)  Collection of stories. Halo: Fall of Reach (2010 − ongoing)  Comic book series. Halo: First Strike (2003)  Novel. Halo: Ghosts of Onyx (2006)  Novel. Halo: Helljumper (2009)  Comic book series. Halo: Interactive Strategy Game (2008)  Board game. Halo: Landfall (2007)  Live action short film. Halo: Last One Standing (2007)  Live action short film. Halo: Reach (2010)  Video game: first-person shooter. Halo: The Cole Protocol (2008)  Novel. Halo: The Fall of Reach (2001)  Novel. Halo: The Flood (2003)  Novel. Halo: Uprising (2007 − 2009)  Comic book series. Halo Waypoint (2009 − ongoing)  Central hub for the Halo media franchise: halo.xbox.com (additional features only available via Xbox 360). Harry Potter (1997 – ongoing)  Novels and movies. Head Trauma (2006)  Movie. Head Trauma Remix (2007)  Movie and ARG. Heroes (2006 − 2010)  TV-series. Heroes Evolutions (2007 − 2010)  Entarch extending Heroes: www.nbc.com/ heroes/evolutions. Hope is Missing (HiM) (2007)  ARG: www.hopeismissing.blogspot.com. Hotel 626 (2008)  Promotional entarch for Doritos: www.hotel626.com. Hunted (2007)  Trailer for Halo 3. i love bees (2004)  Promotional ARG for Halo 2. I AM PLAYR (2011)  Entarch: www.facebook.com/iamplayr. Iliad (8th century BCE)  epic poem International Mime Academy (2009)  ARG. Iris (2007)  Promotional ARG for Halo 3. Iron Sky (2012, forthcoming)  Movie, crowd-created and -sourced: www.ironsky.net. James Bond (1953 – ongoing)  Novels + movies + video games. Jewelled Nights (1925)  Movie.

Appendices — 273 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

John 117 Monument (2007)  Diorama advertising Halo 3. Level 26 (2009 – ongoing)  Novels + ARGs: www.level26.com, see DVD: ‘insidelevel26 2011.’ Life in a Day (2011)  Entarch + movie: www.youtube.com/user/lifeinaday. lonelygirl15 (2006 − 2008)  Entarch: www.lg15.com/lonelygirl15. Lost (2004 − 2010)  TV series. Lost Experience (2006)  Promotional ARG for Lost. Lux Radio Theatre (1934 − 1955)  Radio adaptations of Broadway plays and Hollywood movies. Madden NFL 09  Video game. Majestic (2001 – 2002)  Entarch: video game + ARG. Moshi Monsters (2008 − ongoing)  Children’s social online game: www.moshimonsters.com. Moving Picture World (1907 − 1928)  Trade journal. Museum (2007)  Trailer for Halo 3. Nawlz (2008 − ongoing)  Internet-native comic: www.nawlz.com. Odyssey (8th century BCE)  epic poem Old Spice Guy (2010)  Promotional entarch, vernacular name for The Man Your Man Could Smell Like, see DVD: 9 videos. Pac-Man (1980)  Video game. PacManhattan (2004)  Entarch: www.pacmanhattan.com. Pandemic 1.0 (2011)  Entarch: www.hopeismissing.com. Perplex City (2005 – 2007)  ARG: www.perplexcity.com. Perplex City Stories (unpublished)  ARG, successor to Perplex City: www.perplexcitystories.com. Personal Effects: Dark Art (2009)  Novel + ARG. Pirates of the Caribbean (2003 − 2011)  Theme park ride, movies, novels, video games. Red vs. Blue (2003 − ongoing)  Fan-made machinima series set in the Halo universe: roosterteeth.com. Quo Vadis? (1912)  Movie. RISK: Halo Wars Collector’s Edition (2009)  Board game. Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)  Music album. Skynet Research (2009)  Promotional ARG for Terminator Salvation.

— 274 — Appendices Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Slide (2011)  Entarch: slide.fox8.tv (only accessible in Australia). Smokescreen (2009)  Entarch: www.smokescreengame.com. Star Trek (2009)  Movie. Star Trek ARG (2009)  Promotional ARG for Star Trek. Star Wars (1977 − ongoing)  Media franchise centred around movies. Star Wars Uncut (2010)  Fan-created entarch: www.starwarsuncut.com, see DVD: ‘Pugh 2010.’ Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977)  Movie. Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning (2005)  Movie, fanfilm: www.starwreck.com. Starry Night (2006)  First trailer for Halo 3. Story Addict (2009)  Entarch: www.story-addict.com. Team GoRizer (2010, forthcoming)  Entarch. Terminator Salvation (2009)  Movie. Tetsuo (1989)  Movie. The Andromeda Strain (2008)  TV miniseries. The Animatrix (2003)  Collection of anime short films. The Art of the H3ist (2005)  Promotional Entarch for Audi, see DVD: ‘Campfire 2010.’ The Beast (2001)  Promotional ARG for A.I. Artificial Intelligence. The Birth of a Nation (1915)  Movie. The Blair Witch Project (1999)  Entarch. The Dark Knight (2008)  Movie. The Expendables (2010)  Movie. The Halo Graphic Novel (2006)  Graphic novel. The Hobbit (1937)  Novel. The Hunt (2010)  Cisco-internal ARG, see DVD: ‘JUXT Interactive 2010.’ The Hurt Locker (2008)  Movie. The Life of Moses (1909 − 1910)  Movie. The Lord of the Rings (1954 − ongoing)  Novels, movies, video games. The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar (2007 − ongoing)  Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG). The Man Your Man Could Smell Like (2010)  Promotional entarch, see Old Spice Guy, see DVD: 9 videos.

Appendices — 275 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

The Matrix (1999 − 2009)  Media franchise centred around movies, see up and down this list. The Matrix (1999)  Movie. The Matrix Comics (2003)  Collection of comics. The Matrix Comics. Volume 2 (2005)  Collection of comics. The Matrix Online (2005 − 2009)  Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG). The Matrix Reloaded (2003)  Movie. The Matrix Revolutions (2003)  Movie. The Matrix: Path of Neo (2005)  Video game. The Museum of Humanity (2007)  Fictional museum promoting Halo 3. The Resistance (2009)  Music album by Muse. The Story of the Kelly Gang (1906)  Movie. The Talk (2010 − ongoing)  Talk show. The Threshold (2009)  Cisco-internal ARG, see DVD: ‘JUXT Interactive 2009.’ The Truth About Marika (2007)  TV series + ARG, see DVD: ‘thecompanyp 2008.’ The War of the Worlds (1938)  Radio drama adaptation of H. G. Wells’ novel of the same title. The Young and the Restless (1973 − ongoing)  Soap opera + sale of cosmetics. There’s Something in the Sea (2009 − 2010)  Promotional ARG for Bioshock 2: www.somethinginthesea.com. Transformers (1984 − ongoing)  Entarch. Transformers Production Bible (n.d.)  TV series bible. TRON (1982)  Movie. TRON the Junior Novel (2010)  Novel. TRON: Evolution (2010)  Video game. TRON: Legacy (2010)  Movie. TRON: Legacy: Derezzed (2010)  Novel. TRON: Legacy: It’s Your Call: Initiate Sequence (2010)  Novel. TRON: Legacy: Out of the Dark (2010)  Novel. TRON: Uprising (2012, forthcoming)  Animated TV miniseries.

— 276 — Appendices Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Twilight (2005 − 2012)  Novels, Movies. United States of Eurasia (2009)  Promotional entarch for The Resistance: ununitedeurasia.muse.mu. Watchmen (1986 – 1987)  Comic book series. Watchmen (2009)  Movie. What Happened in Piedmont? (2008)  Promotional ARG for The Andromeda Strain: www.whathappenedinpiedmont.com. Why So Serious (2007 – 2008)  Promotional ARG for The Dark Knight. World of Warcraft (2004 – ongoing)  Massively multiplayer online role- playing game (MMORPG). Xbox News (2010)  Promotional ARG for Halo: Reach. Year Zero (2007)  Entarch: yearzero.nin.com. Yes We Can (2008)  Song, see DVD: ‘will.i.am 2008.’ Zombies, Run! (2012, forthcoming)  Entarch.

Appendices — 277 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

— 278 — Appendices Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Bibliography

Aarseth, Espen J. 1997. Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Abrahamson, Eric and Charles J. Fombrun. 1994. “Macrocultures: Determinants and Consequences.” Academy of Management Review 19 (4): pp. 728-755.

Abramson, Albert. 1995. Zworykin: Pioneer of Television. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Activision. 2010a. “Call of Duty®: Black Ops Sets New Five Day Entertainment Industry Record Grossing More Than $650 Million Worldwide.” Press Release. Last modified November, 18th. Accessed 01.12.2010. http://investor.activision.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=531581.

Activision. 2010b. “Call of Duty®: Black Ops Sets New Opening Day Sales Record With Approximately $360 Million in North America and United Kingdom Alone.” Press Release. Last modified November, 11th. Accessed 01.12.2010. http://investor.activision.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid= 529609.

Adams, Ernest. 2010. Fundamentals of Game Design. Berkeley: New Riders.

Aitchison, Jean. 1996. The Seeds of Speech: Language Origin and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Alexander, Leigh. 2010. “Going Free Boosts Turbine’s DDO Revenues 500 Percent.” Gamasutra. Last modified February, 26th. Accessed 24.06.2011. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27416/Going_Free_Boosts_ Turbines_DDO_Revenues_500_Percent.php.

Ali, Amir Hatem. 2011. “The Power of Social Media in Developing Nations: New Tools for Closing the Global Digital Divide and Beyond.” Harvard Human Rights Journal 24 (1): pp. 185-219. Accessed 27.07.2011. http://harvardhrj.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/185-220.pdf.

Allen, Graham. 2011a. Intertextuality. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Allen, Robert C. 1979. “Motion Picture Exhibition in Manhattan 1906-1912: Beyond the Nickelodeon.” Cinema Journal 18 (2): pp. 2-15. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1225438.

Allen, Robert C. 1985. “The Movies in Vaudeville: Historical Context of the Movies as Popular Entertainment.” In The American Film Industry, edited by Tino Balio, revised ed., pp. 57-82. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Bibliography — 279 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Allen, Robert C. 2011b. “Reimagining the History of the Experience of Cinema in a Post-movie-Going Age.” Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy (139): pp. 80-87. Accessed 25.07.2011. http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=055633347600871; res=IELHSS.

Alternate Reality Branding. 2008. “Why So Serious? 360 Alternate Reality Experience.” Accessed 11.12.2010. http://www.alternaterealitybranding.com /whysoserious_viral09.

Altick, Richard Daniel. 1957. The English common reader: A social history of the mass reading public 1800-1900. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Amdur, Meredith. 2004. “Mixed media marks.” Variety. Last modified April, 18th. Accessed 05.04.2011. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117903425.

American Film Institute. n.d. “Catalog of American Feature Films.” Accessed 30.01.2011. http://www.afi.com/members/catalog.

Anderson, Chris. 2008. The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More. New York: Hyperion.

Anderson, Chris. 2009. Free: The Future of a Radical Price. New York: Hyperion.

Antons, Christoph. Ed. 2011. The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: Comparative perspectives from the Asia-Pacific region. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

Arias, Ernesto, Hal Eden, Gerhard Fischer, Andrew Gorman and Eric Scharff. 2000. “Transcending the Individual Human Mind — Creating Shared Understanding through Collaborative Design.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7 (1): pp. 84-113. Accessed 01.07.2011. doi: 10.1145/344949.345015.

Arrow, Kenneth J. and Gerard Debreu. 1954. “Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy.” Econometrica 22 (3): pp. 265-290. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1907353.

Arthur, W. Brian. 1989. “Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events.” Economic Journal 99 (394): pp. 116-131.

Arthur, W. Brian. 2009. The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. New York: Free Press.

Askwith, Ivan and Jonathan Gray. 2008. “Transmedia Storytelling and Media Franchises.” In Battleground: The Media, edited by Robin Andersen and Jonathan Gray, pp. 519-527. Westport: Greenwood Press.

— 280 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Associated Press. 2008. “Bat Signal Lights Up Gotham’s Night.” YouTube video, posted July, 10th. Accessed 07.02.2011. http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=YJ5MYHCkVDA.

Atkinson, Paul and Martyn Hammersley. 1994. “Ethnography and Participant Observation.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, pp. 248-261. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Audi of America. 2005a. “The Art Behind ‘The Art of the H3ist’.” Press Release. Accessed 19.12.2010. http://www.audiusanews.com/newsrelease.do?id= 259.

Audi of America. 2005b. “Audi’s ‘The Art of the Heist’ Campaign Launched With Stolen A3.” Press Release. Accessed 19.12.2010. http://www.audiusa news.com/newsrelease.do?id=260.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 2010. Bluebird AR: Interaction Map + Content Schema, v1.3. Accessed 12.06.2011. http://www.abc.net.au/ innovation/bluebird/resources/interaction_map_1_3_v2_1.pdf.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation. n.d. “About Bluebird AR.” Accessed 20.12.2010. http://www.abc.net.au/innovation/bluebird/about.htm.

Bacharach, Samuel B., Peter Bamberger and William J. Sonnenstuhl. 1996. “The Organizational Transformation Process: The Micropolitics of Disso- nance Reduction and the Alignment of Logics of Action.” Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (3): pp. 477-506. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393939.

Bakker, Gerben. 2010. “The Economic History of the International Film Indus- try.” In EH.Net Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaples. Last modified February, 5th. Accessed 06.07.2011. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ bakker.film.

Balasubramanian, Siva K. 1994. “Beyond Advertising and Publicity: Hybrid Messages and Public Policy Issues.” Journal of Advertising 23 (4): pp. 29-46.

Balasubramanian, Siva K., James A. Karrh and Hemant Patwardhan. 2006. “Audience Response to Product Placements: An Integrative Framework and Future Research Agenda.” Journal of Advertising 35 (3): pp. 115-141.

Balfe, Judith Huggins. Ed. 1993. Paying the Piper: Causes and Consequences of Art Patronage. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Balio, Tino. 1985a. The American Film Industry. revised ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Bibliography — 281 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Balio, Tino. 1985b. “Part I: A Novelty Spawns Small Businesses, 1894-1908.” In The American Film Industry, edited by Tino Balio, revised ed., pp. 3-25. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Ball State University. 2010. “Course Description: ICOM 375 - Digital Storytell- ing.” Accessed 26.06.2011. http://www.bsu.edu/common/course/0,1481,--- ICOM-375,00.html.

Balsiger, Philip W. 2004. “Supradisciplinary research practices: history, objectives and rationale.” Futures 36 (4): pp. 407-421. Accessed 23.07.2011. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.002.

Barnert, Deanna. 2011. “‘The Young and the Restless’ and ‘The Talk’ Crosso- ver: Jabot Cosmetics breaks the fourth wall.” MSN TV. Last modified July, 12th. Accessed 18.07.2011. http://social.entertainment.msn.com/tv/blogs/tv- buzz-blogpost.aspx?post=5ce575ec-0433-4239-9c09-14bfc14a5cc7.

Barrett, Devlin. 2008. “Video games feature ads for Obama’s campaign.” Associated Press. Last modified October, 14th. Accessed 27.11.2010. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93QF82G0.

Barthes, Roland. 1972 [1957]. Mythologies. Translated by Annette Lavers. New York: Hill and Wang.

Bass, Dina. 2010. “The Halo Effect of Microsoft’s Halo.” Bloomberg Business- week. Last modified August, 26th. Accessed 29.11.2010. http://www.busi nessweek.com/magazine/content/10_36/b4193032898394.htm.

Baumer, Kevin. 2011. “Here’s A Look At The Cost Of Super Bowl Ads Through The Years.” Business Insider. Last modified February, 3rd. Accessed 27.06.2011. http://www.businessinsider.com/cost-super-bowl-ads-through- the-years-2011-2.

Baym, Nancy K. 2010. Personal Connections in the Digital Age. Cambridge; Malden: Polity.

Bazin, André. 1967. What is Cinema? Translated by Hugh Gray. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bazin, André. 2002. “Will CinemaScope Save the Film Industry?” Film-Philoso- phy 6 (2). Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol6- 2002/n2bazin.

BBC. 2011a. “England riots: Twitter and Facebook users plan clean-up.” Last modified August, 9th. Accessed 22.08.2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk- england-london-14456857.

— 282 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

BBC. 2011b. “Is technology to blame for the London riots?”. Last modified August, 8th. Accessed 22.08.2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology- 14442203.

BBC. 2011c. “Riots thwarted by Blackberry and Twitter chat - police.” Last modified August, 16th. Accessed 22.08.2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ uk-politics-14542588.

Beinhocker, Eric D. 2006. The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics. 2nd ed. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Belch, George E. and Michael A. Belch. 2009. Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective. 8th ed. Boston: McGraw- Hill Irwin.

Bennis, Warren G. and Burt Nanus. 1997. Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: HarperBusiness.

Berens, Brad. 2008. “Paramount’s new-style movie marketing.” iMedia Con- nection. Last modified September, 24th. Accessed 28.06.2011. http://www.i mediaconnection.com/content/20623.asp.

Berg, Bruce L. 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Berners-Lee, Tim. 2010. “Long Live the Web: A Call for Continued Open Standards and Neutrality.” Scientific American 303 (6): pp. 80-85. Accessed 26.07.2011. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=long-live-the- web. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1210-80.

Beuscart, Jean-Samuel and Kevin Mellet. 2009. “Business Models of the Web 2.0: Advertising or the Tale of Two Stories.” Communications & Strategies Special issue (Nov.): pp. 165-181. Accessed 24.06.2011. http://www.ida te.org/en/Digiworld-store/Collection/Communications-Strategies_18/Special- issue-Ultrabroadband-The-Next-Stage-In-Communications_386.html.

Biesta, Gert. 2010. “Pragmatism and the Philosophical Foundations of Mixed Methods Research.” In SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, edited by Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie, 2nd ed., pp. 95-118. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Billips, Connie J. and Arthur Pierce. 1995. Lux Presents Hollywood: A Show by Show History of the Lux Radio Theatre and the Lux Video Theatre, 1934- 1957. Jefferson: McFarland.

Bibliography — 283 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Black, Rebecca W. 2007. “Digital Design: English Language Learners and Reader Reviews in Online Fiction.” In A New Literacies Sampler, edited by Michele Knobel and Colin Lankshear, pp. 115-136. New York: Peter Lang.

Blackshaw, Tony. 2010. Leisure. London; New York: Routledge.

Blair, Helen. 2001. “‘You’re only as Good as Your Last Job’: The Labour Process and Labour Market in the British Film Industry.” Work, Employment & Society 15 (1): pp. 149-169. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1177/09500 170122118814.

Blair, Roger D. and Francine Lafontaine. 2005. The Economics of Franchising. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Blizzard Entertainment. 2010. “World of Warcraft® Subscriber Base Reaches 12 Million Worldwide.” Last modified October, 7th. Accessed 26.10.2010. http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/press/pressreleases.html?101007.

Blundell-Jones, Peter, Doina Petrescu and Jeremy Till. 2005. Architecture and Participation. New York: Spon Press.

Bogost, Ian. 2006. “Review of Convergence Culture, by Henry Jenkins.” Last modified August, 1st. Accessed 01.10.2010. http://www.bogost.com/water coolergames/archives/review_of_conve.shtml.

Bolton, Patrick and Mathias Dewatripont. 2005. Contract Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Borden, Mark. 2010. “The Team Who Made Old Spice Smell Good Again Reveals What’s Behind Mustafa’s Towel.” Fast Company. Last modified July, 14th. Accessed 18.12.2010. http://www.fastcompany.com/1670314/oldspice-youtube-videos-wieden.

Bordwell, David. 1985. “The Introduction of Sound.” In The Classical Holly- wood Cinema: Film Style & Mode of Production to 1960, edited by David Bordwell, Janet Staiger and Kristin Thompson, pp. 298-308. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bordwell, David. 2006. The Way Hollywood Tells It: Story and Style in Modern Movies. Berleley: University of California Press.

Bordwell, David, Janet Staiger and Kristin Thompson. 1985. The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style & Mode of Production to 1960. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bordwell, David and Kristin Thompson. 2008. Film Art: An Introduction. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

— 284 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Boserup, Ester. 1996. “Development Theory: An Analytical Framework and Selected Application.” Population and Development Review 22 (3): pp. 505- 515. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2137718.

Bosshart, Louis and Ilaria Macconi. 1998a. “Defining Entertainment.” Commu- nication Research Trends 18 (3): pp. 3-6. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://cscc.s cu.edu/trends/v18/v18_3.pdf.

Bosshart, Louis and Ilaria Macconi. 1998b. “Introduction.” Communication Research Trends 18 (3): pp. 3-6. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://cscc.scu.edu/ trends/v18/v18_3.pdf.

Bowser, Eileen. 1990. The Transformation of Cinema, 1907-1915. 2 of 10 vols. History of the American Cinema, edited by Charles Harpole. New York; Toronto; New York: Scribner; Collier Macmillan Canada; Maxwell Macmil- lan International.

Box Office Mojo. n.d.-a. “Avatar.” Accessed 15.06.2011. http://boxofficemo jo.com/movies/?page=main&id=avatar.htm.

Box Office Mojo. n.d.-b. “Yearly Box Office.” Accessed 20.02.2009. http://ww w.boxofficemojo.com/yearly.

Boyd, Brian. 2008. “The Art of Literature and the Science of Literature.” The American Scholar. Accessed 20.12.2009. http://www.theamericanscho lar.org/the-art-of-literature-and-the-science-of-literature.

Boyd, Brian. 2009. On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

Braudy, Leo and Marshall Cohen. 2008. Film Theory and Criticism: Introduc- tory Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brickley, James A. and Frederick H. Dark. 1987. “The choice of organizational form: The case of franchising.” Journal of Financial Economics 18 (2): pp. 401-420. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1016/0304-405x(87)90046-8.

Briggs, Asa and Peter Burke. 2009. A Social History of the Media: From Guten- berg to the Internet. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Polity.

Brodesser-Akner, Claude. 2010. “The New Halo Game Is a Hit — So What’s the Status of the Halo Movie?” New York - Vulture. Last modified October, 10th. Accessed 30.11.2010. http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/10/ the_new_halo_video_game_is_a_h.html.

Bruns, Axel. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. Digital formations, v. 45. New York: Peter Lang.

Bibliography — 285 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Bryant, Jennings. 2010. “Foreword.” In Entertainment and Society: Influences, Impacts, and Innovations, edited by Shay Sayre and Cynthia King. New York: Routledge.

Budiansky, Bob, Ian Akin and Brian Garvey. 1986−1987. Transformers Uni- verse. 4 vols. New York: Marvel Comics.

Budiansky, Bob and Simon Furman. 1984−1991. The Transformers. 80 vols. New York: Marvel Comics.

Bungie. 2007a. “Bungie Studios Becomes Privately Held Independent Compa- ny: Bungie and Microsoft forge new long-term relationship.” Press Release. Last modified October, 5th. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.bungie.net/ News/content.aspx?type=news&cid=12835.

Bungie. 2007b. “Halo Universe: Covenant Weapons.” Last modified Septem- ber, 6th. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx? type=topnews&cid=12753.

Bungie Forums. 2010. “Reach canon (spoilers).” Last modified December, 17th. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx? postID=54298191.

Burgess, Jean E. 2006. “Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling.” Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 20 (2): pp. 201 - 214. Accessed 04.04.2011. doi: 10.1080/1030431 0600641737.

Burgess, Jean E. and Joshua B. Green. 2009a. “The Entrepreneurial Vlogger: Participatory Culture Beyond the Professional-Amateur Divide.” In The YouTube Reader, edited by Pelle Snickars and Patrick Vonderau, pp. 89- 107. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden/Wallflower Press. http://ww w.youtubereader.com.

Burgess, Jean E. and Joshua B. Green. 2009b. YouTube: Online Video and Par- ticipatory Culture. Cambridge: Polity.

Burke, Kenneth. 1968 [1931]. Counter-Statement. Berkeley: University of Cali- fornia Press.

Burns-White, Eric. 2008. “Retconning: Just Another Day Like All The Others.” Websnark. Last modified January, 3rd. Accessed 29.06.2011. http://www.w ebsnark.com/archives/2008/01/retconning_just_1.html.

Butler, Des. 2010. “The borders that law sets on entertainment.” Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 24 (6): pp. 855 - 863. Accessed 17.01.2011. doi: 10.1080/10304312.2010.510638.

— 286 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Cabral, Luís M. B. 2000. Introduction to Industrial Organization. Cambridge; London: MIT Press.

Caldwell, John Thornton. 2003. “Second-Shift Media Aesthetics: Programming, Interactivity, and User Flows.” In New Media: Theories and Practices of Dig- itextuality, edited by Anna Everett and John Thornton Caldwell. New York: Routledge.

Caldwell, John Thornton. 2008. Production Culture: Industrial Reflexivity and Critical Practice in Film and Television. Durham: Duke University Press.

Campbell, Joseph. 2004 [1968]. The Hero With a Thousand Faces. Commemo- rative ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Campfire. 2010. “Audi Case Study.” Vimeo video, posted February, 5th. Accessed 24.08.2011. http://vimeo.com/9240242, see also http://camp firenyc.com/#work7, see DVD.

Carless, Simon. 2007. “GDC: Microsoft Talks Episodic Halo Xbox 360 Series.” Gamasutra. Last modified March, 7th. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.ga masutra.com/view/news/30446/TGS_Microsofts_Keynote__Japan_Fills_ Kinects_Core_Gamer_Gap.php.

Carlson, Carl Lennart. 1938. The First Magazine: A History of the Gentleman’s Magazine, with an Account of Dr. Johnson’s Editorial Activity and of the Notice Given America in the Magazine. Providence: Brown University.

Casson, Mark. 1997. Information and Organization: A New Perspective on the Theory of the Firm. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Casson, Mark. 2003. The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory. 2nd ed. Chelten- ham: Edward Elgar.

Cavallaro, Dani. 2010. Anime and the Visual Novel: Narrative Structure, De- sign and Play at the Crossroads of Animation and Computer Games. Jeffer- son: McFarland.

Caves, Richard E. 2000. Creative Industries: Contracts Between Art and Com- merce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Caves, Richard E. and William F. Murphy II. 1976. “Franchising: Firms, Mar- kets, and Intangible Assets.” Southern Economic Journal 42 (4): pp. 572-586.

Central Intelligence Agency. 2010. “The World Factbook.” Accessed 13.02.2011. http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ index.html.

Bibliography — 287 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture cfg77472. 2010. “Conspiracy For Good - 2010.” YouTube video, posted No- vember, 19th. Accessed 24.08.2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=wN590e-fopc, see DVD.

Cha, Meeyoung, Haewoon Kwak, Pablo Rodriguez, Yong-Yeol Ahn and Sue Moon. 2007. “I Tube, You Tube, Everybody Tubes: Analyzing the World’s Largest User Generated Content Video System.” In proceedings of 7th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement, pp. 1-14. San Diego, CA, USA, October, 24th-26th. Accessed 26.07.2011. doi: 10.1145/ 1298306.1298309.

Chardère, Bernard, Guy Borgé and Marjorie Borgé. 1985. Les Lumière. Lau- sanne; Paris: Payot; Bibliothèque Des Arts.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2005. “Grounded Theory in the 21st Century: Applications for Advancing Social Justice Issues.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Re- search, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 3rd ed., pp. 507-536. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Chesbrough, Henry and Richard S. Rosenbloom. 2002. “The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corpo- ration’s technology spin-off companies.” Industrial and Corporate Change 11 (3): pp. 529-555. Accessed 16.06.2011. doi: 10.1093/icc/11.3.529.

Christensen, Clayton M. 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technol- ogies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Chwen-Chwen, Chen. 2007. “The Transformation of Ideas into TV Programs.” In Internationalization of the Chinese TV sector, edited by Manfred Kops and Stefan Ollig, pp. 181-190. Berlin: Lit Verlag.

Clark, Kim B. 1985. “The Interaction of Design Hierarchies and Market Con- cepts in Technological Evolution.” Research Policy 14 (5): pp. 235-251. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(85)90007-1.

Clements, Steve. 2004. Show Runner: Producing Variety and Talk Shows for Television. Los Angeles: Silman-James Press.

Coase, R. H. 1937. “The Nature of the Firm.” Economica 4 (16): pp. 386-405. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2626876.

Coase, R. H. 1972. “Durability and Monopoly.” Journal of Law and Economics 15 (1): pp. 143-149. Accessed 26.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 725018.

Coase, R. H. 1977. “Advertising and Free Speech.” The Journal of Legal Studies 6 (1): pp. 1-34. Accessed 25.07.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/724187.

— 288 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Cole, Arthur H. 1969. “Definition of Entrepreneurship.” In Karl A. Bostrom Seminar in the Study of Enterprise, edited by John L. Komives, pp. 10-22. Milwaukee: Center for Venture Management.

Collis, Christy, Alan McKee and Ben Hamley. 2010. “Entertainment industries at university: Designing a curriculum.” Continuum: Journal of Media & Cul- tural Studies 24 (6): pp. 921-932. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1080/103 04312.2010.511706.

Communication Arts Annuals. 2009. “Eagle Eye: Free Fall.” 2009 May/June Interactive Annual 15: Entertainment. Accessed 28.06.2011. http://www.co mmarts.com/interactive/cai09/EagleEye.html.

Connolly, Robert. 2008. Embracing Innovation: A New Methodology for Fea- ture Film Production in Australia, White Paper. Melbourne: Australian Film Television and Radio School, Centre for Screen Business.

Consalvo, Mia and Nathan Dutton. 2006. “Game analysis: Developing a methodological toolkit for the qualitative study of games.” Game Studies 6 (1).

Conspiracy For Good. n.d. “Who We Are.” Accessed 19.12.2010. http://ww w.conspiracyforgood.com/about.php.

Corbin, Juliet M. and Anselm L. Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Costikyan, Greg. 2000. “Where Stories End and Games Begin.” Game Devel- oper 7 (9): p. 44.

Cotts, David G., Kathy O. Roper and Richard P. Payant. 2010. The Facility Management Handbook. 3rd ed. New York: American Management Association.

Coutsoukis, Photius. n.d. “Countries of the World: 28 Years of CIA World Fact Books.” Accessed 18.02.2011. http://www.theodora.com/wfb2006/uni ted_states/united_states_people.html.

Cowen, Tyler. 2009. Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered World. New York: Dutton.

Cox, Gordon. 2011. “Johansson, Jackman star in legit readings.” Variety. Last modified March, 7th. Accessed 25.05.2011. http://www.variety.com/article/ VR1118033432.

Bibliography — 289 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Crafton, Donald. 1997. The Talkies: American Cinema’s Transition to Sound, 1926-1931. 4 of 10 vols. History of the American Cinema, edited by Charles Harpole. New York; Toronto; New York: Scribner; Collier Macmillan Cana- da; Maxwell Macmillan International.

Crawford, Chris. 2005a. Chris Crawford on Interactive Storytelling. Berkeley: New Riders Games.

Crawford, Kate. 2005b. “Adaptation: Tracking the Ecologies of Music and Peer- to-peer Networks.” Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy (114): pp. 30-39. Accessed 25.07.2011. http://search.informit.com.au/ documentSummary;dn=010385232794972;res=IELHSS.

Creativity. 2008. “2008 Creativity Award Winner: Halo 3 Launch Campaign.” Last modified 14.05.2010. Accessed 08.12.2010. http://creativity-online.com /news/2008-creativity-award-winner-halo-3-launch-campaign/127034.

Creswell, John W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Creswell, John W. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Crombie, Alistair Cameron. 1990. Science, Optics and Music in Medieval and Early Modern Thought. London; Ronceverte: Hambledon Press.

Crowley, David and Paul Heyer. Eds. 2011. Communication in History: Tech- nology, Culture, Society. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Custen, George F. 1999. “Hollywood and the Research Department.” In Why Docudrama? Fact-Fiction on Film and TV, edited by Alan Rosenthal, pp. 133-145. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Dancyger, Ken. 2007. The Technique of Film and Video Editing: History, The- ory, and Practice. 4th ed. Amsterdam; Boston: Focal Press.

Darwin, Charles. 2008 [1859]. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. revised ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The Selfish Gene. 30th Anniversary ed. Oxford: Ox- ford University Press.

Day, Richard H. and Jean-Luc Walter. 1989. “Economic Growth in the Very Long Run: On the Multiple-Phase Interaction of Population, Technology, and Social Infrastructure.” In Economic Complexity: Chaos, Sunspots, Bubbles, and Nonlinearity - Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium in Economic Theory and Econometrics, edited by William A. Barnett, John

— 290 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Geweke and Karl Shell, pp. 253-289. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

De Grazia, Sebastian. 1962. Of Time, Work, and Leisure. New York: Anchor Books.

De Vany, Arthur. 2004. Hollywood Economics: How Extreme Uncertainty Shapes the Film Industry. London: Routledge.

Debord, Guy. 2002 [1967]. The Society of the Spectacle. Translated by Ken Knabb. Canberra: Hobgoblin Press.

Deleuze, Gilles. 1986. Cinema 1: The Movement-Image. Translated by Hugh Tomlinson. London: Athlone.

Dena, Christy. 2009. “Transmedia Practice: Theorising the Practice of Express- ing a Fictional World across Distinct Media and Environments.” PhD diss., School of Letters, Art and Media; Department of Media and Communica- tions; Digital Cultures Program, University of Sydney. Accessed 22.06.2011. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/30158/DENA_TransmediaPractice.pdf.

Dena, Christy. 2010a. “Cross-Media Management Technologies.” Christy’s Corner of the Universe. Last modified August, 19th. Accessed 13.06.2011. http://www.christydena.com/online-essays/cross-media-management- technologies.

Dena, Christy. 2010b. “PGA’s Transmedia Producer!” Christy’s Corner of the Universe. Last modified April, 5th. Accessed 03.08.2010. http://www.christy dena.com/2010/04/pgas-transmedia-producer.

Denward, Marie and Annika Waern. 2008. “Broadcast culture meets role- playing culture.” In Playground worlds: creating and evaluating experiences of role-playing games, edited by Markus Montola and Jaakko Stenros, pp. 248-261. Helsinki: Ropecon ry.

Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2005a. “Introduction.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 3rd ed., pp. 1-32. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2005b. “Preface.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 3rd ed., pp. ix-xix. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Després, Carole, Nicole Brais and Sergio Avellan. 2004. “Collaborative planning for retrofitting suburbs: transdisciplinarity and intersubjectivity in action.” Futures 36 (4): pp. 471-486. Accessed 23.07.2011. doi: 10.1016/ j.futures.2003.10.004.

Bibliography — 291 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Dinehart, Stephen E. 2010. “Creators of Transmedia Stories™ 4: John Johnson.” The Narrative Design Explorer. Last modified January, 1st. Accessed 21.07.2011. http://narrativedesign.org/2010/01/creators-of-transmedia- stories%E2%84%A2-4-john-johnson.

Dopfer, Kurt, John Foster and Jason Potts. 2004. “Micro-meso-macro.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 14 (3): pp. 263-279. Accessed 04.08.2011. doi: 10.1007/s00191-004-0193-0.

Dopfer, Kurt and Jason Potts. 2008. The General Theory of Economic Evolution. London; New York: Routledge.

Doraszelski, Ulrich. 2004. “Innovations, Improvements, and the Optimal Adoption of New Technologies.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 28 (7): pp. 1461-1480. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1016/s0165- 1889(03)00112-x.

Drucker, Peter F. 2007. The Practice of Management. Amsterdam; London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Dumazedier, Joffre. 1967. Toward a Society of Leisure. New York: Free Press.

Dutton, Denis. 2009. The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, & Human Evolution. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

Dyer, Richard. 2002. Only Entertainment. Second ed. New York: Routledge.

Eastman, Chuck, Paul Teichholz, Rafael Sacks and Kathleen Liston. 2011. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors. 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Ebbers, Joris J. and Nachoem M. Wijnberg. 2009. “Latent organizations in the film industry: Contracts, rewards and resources.” Human Relations 62 (7): pp. 987-1009. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1177/0018726709335544.

Eco, Umberto. 2005 [1972]. “Towards a Semiotic Inquiry into the Television Message.” Translated by Paola Splendore. In Internationalizing Cultural Studies: An Anthology, edited by Ackbar Abbas and John Nguyet Erni, pp. 237-252. Malden: Blackwell Pub.

Economides, Nicholas and Benjamin E. Hermalin. 2010. “The Economics of Network Neutrality”. In New York University Law and Economics Working Papers. Paper 250. Accessed 26.07.2011. http://lsr.nellco.org/nyu_lewp/250.

Edgerton, David. 2007. The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History Since 1900. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

— 292 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. 1979. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Eisenstein, Sergei. 1949. Film Form: Essays in Film Theory. Translated by Jay Leyda. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Elberse, Anita. 2008. “Should You Invest in the Long Tail?” Harvard Business Review 86 (7-8): pp. 88-96.

Elefante, Phoebe Harris. 2010. “Elan Lee: The ‘Rolling Stone’ Interview, Part II.” WorkBook Project: Culture Hacker. Last modified July, 27th. Accessed 13.11.2010. http://workbookproject.com/culturehacker/2010/07/27/elan-lee- the-rolling-stone-interview-part-ii.

Eliashberg, Jehoshua, Anita Elberse and Mark A.A.M. Leenders. 2006. “The Motion Picture Industry: Critical Issues in Practice, Current Research, and New Research Directions.” Marketing Science 25 (6): pp. 638-661. Accessed 27.07.2011. doi: 10.1287/mksc.1050.0177.

Eller, Claudia. 2008. “Risky quest for treasure.” Los Angeles Times. Last modified April, 21st. Accessed 27.02.2009. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/ apr/21/business/fi-indianajones21.

Ellis, Carolyn S. and Arthur P. Bochner. 2000. “Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity: Researcher as Subject.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 2nd ed., pp. 733-768. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Ellis, John. 1992. Visible fictions: Cinema, television, video. Rev. ed. London; New York: Routledge.

Ernesto. 2010. “Avatar Crowned The Most Pirated Movie of 2010.” TorrentFreak. Last modified December, 20th. Accessed 25.07.2011. http://torrentfreak.com/avatar-crowned-the-most-pirated-movie-of-2010- 101220/.

Ernesto. 2011a. “23,322 Expendables Downloaders Accused in BitTorrent’s Biggest Lawsuit.” TorrentFreak. Last modified May, 10th. Accessed 05.07.2011. http://torrentfreak.com/23322-expendables-downloaders- accused-in-bittorrents-biggest-lawsuit-110510.

Ernesto. 2011b. “Hurt Locker Makers Target Record Breaking 24,583 BitTorrent Users.” TorrentFreak. Last modified Mary, 23rd. Accessed 30.05.2011. http://torrentfreak.com/hurt-locker-makers-target-record-breaking-24583- bittorrent-users-110523.

Bibliography — 293 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Febvre, Lucien and Henri-Jean Martin. 2000. The Coming of the Book: The Impact of Printing 1450-1800. London: Verso Classics.

Feick, Lawrence and Heribert Gierl. 1996. “Skepticism about advertising: A comparison of East and West German consumers.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 13 (3): pp. 227-235. Accessed 25.07.2011. doi: 10.1016/0167-8116(96)00009-2.

Ferrer, Emilio. 2011. The Impact of Internet Piracy on the Australian Economy. Sphere Analysis, prepared for the Australian Content Industry Group. Accessed 09.08.2011. http://www.bsa.org/country/~/media/Files/Research Papers/enAU/piracyimpact_australia.ashx.

Finke, Nikki. 2010a. “Cameron Talks ‘Avatar’ Novel & Sequels: Probably Makes #2 And #3 Back-To-Back.” Deadline Hollywood. Last modified August, 7th. Accessed 16.09.2010. http://www.deadline.com/2010/08/jim- cameron-talks-avatar-novel-sequels-probably-make-1-and-2-back-to-back.

Finke, Nikki. 2010b. “Producers Guild Of America Agrees On New Credit: ‘Transmedia Producer’.” Deadline Hollywood. Last modified April, 5th. Accessed 02.08.2010. http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/producers-guild- of-america-vote-on-creation-of-new-credit-transmedia-producer.

Fiske, John and John Hartley. 1978. Reading Television. London: Methuen.

Fitzgerald, Brian and Benedict Atkinson. Eds. 2011. Copyright Future Copyright Freedom: Marking the 40th anniversary of the commencement of Australia’s Copyright Act 1968. Sydney: Sydney University Press.

Fontana, Andrea and James H. Frey. 2005. “The Interview: From Neutral Stance to Political Involvement.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 3rd ed., pp. 695-727. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Ford, Samuel Earl. 2007. “As the World Turns: in a Convergence Culture.” PhD diss., Program in Comparative Media Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Foth, Marcus. 2009. Handbook of Research on Urban Informatics: The Practice and Promise of the Real-Time City. Hershey: Information Science Reference.

Frasca, Gonzalo. 1999. “Ludology Meets Narratology: Similitude and Differences between (Video) Games and Narrative.” Ludology.org. Accessed 12.04.2011. http://www.ludology.org/articles/ludology.htm.

Freeman, Melissa. 2008. “Hermeneutics.” In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, edited by Lisa M. Given, pp. 385-389. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

— 294 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Gabler, Neal. 2007. “The movie magic is gone: Hollywood, which once captured the nerve center of American life, doesn’t matter much anymore.” Los Angeles Times. Last modified February, 25th. Accessed 14.01.2011. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op- gabler25feb25,0,4482096.story.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1976. Philosophical Hermeneutics. Translated by David E. Linge. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Garratt, Gerald R. M. 2006 [1994]. The Early History of Radio: Rrom Faraday to Marconi. London: The Institution of Engineering and Technology.

Gartner, William B. 1988. “‘Who is an Entrepreneur?’ Is the Wrong Question.” American Journal of Small Business 12 (4): pp. 11-32.

Gayer, Amit and Oz Shy. 2006. “Copyright Enforcement in the Digital Era.” In Industrial Organization and the Digital Economy, edited by Gerhard Illing and Martin Peitz, pp. 229-240. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Geller, Paul Edward. 2000. “Copyright History and the Future: What’s Culture Got To Do With It?” Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A. 47: pp. 209-257.

Genette, Gérard. 1997 [1987]. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Translated by Jane E. Lewin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gerbrandt, Larry. 2010. “Does movie marketing matter?”. The Hollywood Reporter. Last modified October, 14th. Accessed 14.07.2011. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/does-movie-marketing-matter- 24514.

Gershenfeld, Neil, Raffi Krikorian and Danny Cohen. 2004. “The Internet of Things: The Principles That Gave Rise to the Internet are Now Leading to a New Kind of Network of Everyday Devices, an ‘Internet-0’.” Scientific American 291 (4): pp. 76-81. Accessed 26.07.2011. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-internet-of-things. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1004-76.

Goldstein, Paul. 2003. Copyright’s Highway: From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox. Rev. ed. Stanford: Stanford Law and Politics.

Gomery, Douglas. 1985. “The Coming of Sound: Technological Change in the American Film Industry.” In The American Film Industry, edited by Tino Balio, revised ed., pp. 229-251. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Gomery, Douglas. 2005. The Hollywood Studio System: A History. London: British Film Institute.

Bibliography — 295 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Goody, Jack. 1987. The Interface between the Written and the Oral. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Graser, Marc. 2010. “‘Halo’: the care and feeding of a franchise.” Variety. Last modified September, 4th. Accessed 16.06.2011. http://www.variety.com/ article/VR1118023688.

Graser, Marc. 2011a. “Blu-ray hits mainstream in 2010.” Variety. Last modified January, 6th. Accessed 20.02.2011. http://www.variety.com/article/ VR1118029848.

Graser, Marc. 2011b. “Blu-ray sales, rentals outpace estimates.” Variety. Last modified January, 5th. Accessed 20.02.2011. http://www.variety.com/article/ VR1118029765.

Gray, Jonathan. 2006. Watching with The Simpsons: Television, Parody, and Intertextuality. New York: Routledge.

Gray, Jonathan. 2008. Television Entertainment. New York; London: Routledge.

Gray, Jonathan. 2010. Show Sold Separately: Promos, Spoilers, and Other Media Paratexts. New York: New York University Press.

Gray, Jonathan and Amanda D. Lotz. 2012. Television Studies. Cambridge: Polity.

Greenburg, Zack O’Malley. 2011. “U2 Rocks Meadowlands As $700 Million Tour Winds Down.” Forbes: The Beat Report. Last modified July, 21st. Accessed 22.07.2011. http://blogs.forbes.com/zackomalleygreenburg/2011/ 07/21/u2-rocks-meadowlands-as-700-million-tour-winds-down.

Grimbly, Shona. 2000. Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. London; Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn.

Grondin, Jean. 1994. Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics. Translated by Joel Weinsheimer. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Grove, Stephen J., Les Carlson and Michael J. Dorsch. 2002. “Addressing services’ intangibility through integrated marketing communication: an exploratory study.” Journal of Services Marketing 16 (5): pp. 393-411. Accessed 08.07.2011. doi: 10.1108/08876040210436876.

Gunnarsson, Tony. 2010. “Evolution of Home Entertainment.” Screen Digest July: pp. 200-201.

Hahn, Robert W. and Scott Wallsten. 2006. “The Economics of Net Neutrality.” The Economists’ Voice 3 (6: Article 8). doi: 10.2202/1553- 3832.1194.

— 296 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Halberstam, Malvina. 1988. “Terrorism on the High Seas: The Achille Lauro, Piracy and the IMO Convention on Maritime Safety.” The American Journal of International Law 82 (2): pp. 269-310. Accessed 05.07.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2203189.

Hall, Ben M. 1988. The Best Remaining Seats: The Golden Age of the Movie Palace. Revised ed. New York; London: Da Capo Press.

Halopedia. 2011a. “Believe.” Last modified May, 15th. Accessed 21.06.2011. http://www.halopedian.com/Believe.

Halopedia. 2011b. “Halo Story Bible.” Last modified May, 31st. Accessed 11.06.2011. http://www.halopedian.com/Halo_Story_Bible.

Halopedia. 2011c. “List of inconsistencies in the Halo series.” Last modified May, 29th. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.halopedian.com/List_of_in consistencies_in_Halo.

Hanson, Matt. 2004. The End of Celluloid: Film Futures in the Digital Age. Mies, Switzerland: RotoVision.

Hargreaves, Ian. 2011. Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth. Newport: United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office. Ac- cessed 18.07.2011. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview-finalreport.pdf.

Harker, Debra. 1998. “Achieving acceptable advertising: An analysis of advertising regulation in five countries.” International Marketing Review 15 (2): pp. 101-118. Accessed 25.07.2011. doi: 10.1108/02651339810212476.

Harpole, Charles. Ed. 1990−2000. History of the American Cinema. 10 vols. New York; Toronto; New York: Scribner; Collier Macmillan Canada; Max- well Macmillan International.

Harris, Richard. 2007. Film in the Age of Digital Distribution: The Challenge for Australian Content. Platform Papers, No. 12. Strawberry Hills: Currency House.

Hartley, John. 1992. The Politics of Pictures: The Creation of the Public in the Age of Popular Media. London; New York: Routledge.

Hartley, John. 1999. Uses of Television. London: Routledge.

Hartley, John. 2004. “The ‘Value Chain of Meaning’ and the New Economy.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 7 (1): pp. 129-141. Accessed 11.07.2011. doi: 10.1177/1367877904040610.

Hartley, John. 2008. Television Truths. Malden; Oxford: Blackwell Pub.

Bibliography — 297 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Hartley, John. 2009a. “From Cultural Studies to Cultural Science.” Cultural Sci- ence 2 (1). Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.cultural-science.org/journal/ index.php/culturalscience/article/view/19/67.

Hartley, John. 2009b. “TV Stories: From Representations to Productivity.” In Story Circle: Digital Storytelling Around the World, edited by John Hartley and Kelly McWilliam, pp. 16-36. Chichester; Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hartley, John. 2009c. The Uses of Digital Literacy. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Hartley, John. 2011, forthcoming. Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The Key Concepts. 4th ed. London: Routledge.

Hartley, John and Kelly McWilliam. 2009. Story Circle: Digital Storytelling Around the World. Chichester; Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hauser, Marc D., Noam Chomsky and W. Tecumseh Fitch. 2002. “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?” Science 298 (5598): pp. 1569-1579. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 3832837.

Hawkes, Terence. 1973. Shakespeare’s Talking Animals: Language and Drama in Society. Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield.

Hay, Donald A. and Derek Morris. 1991. Industrial Economics and Organiza- tion: Theory and Evidence. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Hayek, Friedrich August von. 1988. The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism. Edited by William Warren Bartley. London: Routledge.

Hayes, Gary P. 2011. How to Write a Transmedia Production Bible. Sydney: Screen Australia. Accessed 15.08.2011. http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/ documents/SA_publications/Transmedia-prod-bible-template.pdf.

Hedman, Jonas and Thomas Kalling. 2003. “The business model concept: theoretical underpinnings and empirical illustrations.” European Journal of Information Systems 12: pp. 49-59. Accessed 17.06.2011. doi: 10.1057/ palgrave.ejis.3000446.

Hemmungs Wirtén, Eva. 2006. “Out of Sight and Out of Mind.” Cultural Stud- ies 20 (2-3): pp. 282-291. Accessed 25.07.2011. doi: 10.1080/09502380 500524145.

Henderson, David R. 2008. “Opportunity Cost.” 2nd ed. Library of Economics and Liberty. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Accessed 20.12.2010. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/OpportunityCost.html.

— 298 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Hendricks, Gordon. 1964. Beginnings of the Biograph: The Story of the Inven- tion of the Mutoscope and the Biograph and their Supplying Camera. New York: Beginnings of the American Film.

Hendricks, Gordon. 1966. The Kinetoscope: America’s First Commercially Suc- cessful Motion Picture Exhibitor. New York: Beginnings of the American Film.

Herman, David. 2004. “Toward a Transmedial Narratology.” In Narrative across Media: The Languages of Storytelling, edited by Marie-Laure Ryan, pp. 1-40. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Herrmann-Pillath, Carsten. 2002. Grundriß der Evolutionsökonomik. UTB. München: Fink.

Herrmann-Pillath, Carsten. 2010. The Economics Of Identity And Creativity: A Cultural Science Approach. Creative Economy + Innovation Culture Series, edited by Stuart D. Cunningham and John Hartley. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Hodgson, Geoffrey Martin. 1993. Economics and Evolution: Bringing Life Back Into Economics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Hodgson, Geoffrey Martin. 2002. “Darwinism in Economics: From Analogy to Ontology.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 12 (3): pp. 259-281. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1007/s00191-002-0118-8.

Hodgson, Geoffrey Martin and Thorbjørn Knudsen. 2010. Darwin’s Conjec- ture: The Search for General Principles of Social and Economic Evolution. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.

Höijer, Birgitta. 2008. “Ontological Assumptions and Generalizations in Quali- tative (Audience) Research.” European Journal of Communication 23 (3): pp. 275-294.

Holden, Constance. 2004. “The Origin of Speech.” Science 303 (5662): pp. 1316-1319.

Holston, Alicia. 2010. “A Librarian’s Guide to the History of Graphic Novels.” In Graphic Novels and Comics in Libraries and Archives: Essays on Readers, Research, History and Cataloging, edited by Robert G. Weiner, pp. 9-16. Jefferson: McFarland.

Hon, Adrian. 2007a. “A Game by any other Name...”. Last modified 02.11.2007. Accessed 11.05.2010. http://mssv.net/2007/11/02/a-game-by- any-other-name.

Bibliography — 299 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Hon, Adrian. 2007b. “How to Make an Alternate Reality Game Or Perplex City: A Look Behind The Scenes.” Google Tech Talk. YouTube video, posted July, 24th. Accessed 11.05.2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtY-ifss EKY.

Hooray Society. 2011. Flickr image, posted February, 16th. Accessed 24.08.2011. http://www.flickr.com/photos/hooraysociety/5451379448.

Hopewell, John and Emilio Mayorga. 2011. “Spanish B.O. falls by 3%.” Variety. Last modified January, 3rd. Accessed 20.02.2011. http://www.varie ty.com/article/VR1118029616.

Hoppe, Heidrun C. 2002. “The Timing of New Technology Adoption: Theoreti- cal Models and Empirical Evidence.” The Manchester School 70 (1): pp. 56- 76. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1111/1467-9957.00283.

Horkheimer, Max and Theodor W. Adorno. 2002 [1947]. Dialectic of Enlight- enment: Philosophical Fragments. Translated by Edmund Jephcott, edited by Gunzelin Schmid Noerr. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Horlick-Jones, Tom and Jonathan Sime. 2004. “Living on the border: knowledge, risk and transdisciplinarity.” Futures 36 (4): pp. 441-456. Accessed 23.07.2011. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.006.

Hudson, Simon and David Hudson. 2006. “Branded Entertainment: A New Ad- vertising Technique or Product Placement in Disguise?” Journal of Marketing Management 22 (5/6): pp. 489-504.

Hügel, Hans Otto. 1992. “Unterhaltungsliteratur.” In Literaturwissenschaft. Ein Grundkurs, edited by Helmut Brackert and Jörn Stückrath, pp. 280-296. Rheinbeck: Rowohlt.

Hügel, Hans Otto. 1993. “Ästhetische Zweideutigkeit der Unterhaltung: Eine Skizze ihrer Theorie.” montage AV 2 (1): pp. 119-141. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.montage-av.de/pdf/021_1993/02_1_Hans_Otto_Huegel_Ae sthetische_Zweideutigkeit_der_Unterhaltung.pdf.

Huizinga, Johan. 1955. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hust Rivera, Heather. 2010. “First Look at ElecTRONica.” Disney. Last modified September, 1st. Accessed 16.12.2010. http://disneyparks.disn ey.go.com/blog/2010/09/first-look-at-electronica.

Hutchins, J. C. and Jordan Weisman. 2009. Personal Effects: Dark Art. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.

— 300 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Huxley, George Leonard and Anthemius. 1959. Anthemius of Tralles: A Study of Later Greek Geometry. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Monographs, No. 1. Cambridge. insidelevel26. 2011. “Dark Prophecy for iPad #2.” YouTube video, posted February, 25th. Accessed 25.06.2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=BYeVOQ8ra9U, see DVD.

International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. 2006. The Recording Industry 2006 Piracy Report: Protecting Creativity in Music. Accessed 05.07.2011. http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/piracy-report2006.pdf.

International Monetary Fund. 2010. “World Economic Outlook Database, October 2010.” Last modified October, 6th. Accessed 13.02.2011. http://ww w.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/index.aspx.

Jancovich, Mark. 2011. “Time, Scheduling and Cinema-going.” Media Interna- tional Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy (139): pp. 88-95. Accessed 25.07.2011. http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=0556 70613543388;res=IELHSS.

Jenkins, Henry. 1992. Textual Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Cul- ture. Studies in Culture and Communication. New York: Routledge.

Jenkins, Henry. 2001. “Convergence? I Diverge.” Technology Review 104 (5): p. 93. Accessed 25.08.2011. http://web.mit.edu/cms/People/henry3/ converge.pdf.

Jenkins, Henry. 2003. “Transmedia Storytelling: Moving characters from books to films to video games can make them stronger and more compelling.” Technology Review. Last modified January, 15th. Accessed 06.10.2010. http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/13052/page1.

Jenkins, Henry. 2004. “Game Design as Narrative Architecture.” In First person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game, edited by Noah War- drip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan, pp. 118-130. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Jenkins, Henry. 2006a. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, Henry. 2006b. Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, Henry. 2006c. “Response to Bogost (Part Two).” Confessions of an Aca-Fan: The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins. Last modified August, 14th. Accessed 01.10.2010. http://henryjenkins.org/2006/08/response_to_bogost_ part_two.html.

Bibliography — 301 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Jenkins, Henry. 2006 − ongoing. Confessions of an Aca-Fan: The Official Web- log of Henry Jenkins. Accessed 25.08.2011. http://www.henryjenkins.org.

Jenkins, Henry. 2010a. “Hollywood Goes Transmedia.” Confessions of an Aca- Fan: The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins. Last modified April, 27th. Ac- cessed 20.05.2010. http://henryjenkins.org/2010/04/hollywood_goes_trans media.html.

Jenkins, Henry. 2010b. “Transmedia Storytelling and Entertainment: An anno- tated syllabus.” Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 24 (6): pp. 943-958. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1080/10304312.2010.510599.

Jenkins, Henry, Ravi Purushotma, Katherine Clinton, Margaret Weigel and Alice J. Robison. 2009. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. The John D. and Catherine T. MacAr- thur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Jenkins, Paul and Leslie Forsyth. Eds. 2010. Architecture, Participation and So- ciety. London; New York: Routledge.

Jenny, Laurent. 1982. “The strategy of form.” Translated by R. Carter. In French Literary Theory Today: A Reader, edited by T. Todorov. Cambridge; New York; Paris: Cambridge University Press; Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.

Jensen, Richard. 1982. “Adoption and Diffusion of an Innovation of Uncertain Profitability.” Journal of Economic Theory 27 (1): pp. 182-193. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1016/0022-0531(82)90021-7.

Jewell, Richard B. 2007. The Golden Age of Cinema: Hollywood, 1929-1945. Malden: Blackwell Pub.

Johnson, Derek. 2009. “Franchising Media Worlds: Content Networks and the Collaborative Production of Culture.” PhD diss., Graduate School, The Uni- versity of Wisconsin, Madison.

Johnson, Mark W., Clayton M. Christensen and Henning Kagermann. 2008. “Reinventing Your Business Model.” Harvard Business Review 86 (12): pp. 50-59.

Jones, Candace. 2001. “Co-evolution of Entrepreneurial Careers, Institutional Rules and Competitive Dynamics in American Film, 1895-1920.” Organiza- tion Studies 22 (6): pp. 911-944.

Jones, Candace. 2006. “From Technology to Content: The Shift in Dominant Logic in the Early American Film Industry.” In The Business of Culture: Stra- tegic Perspectives on Entertainment and Media, edited by Joseph Lampel,

— 302 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Jamal Shamsie and Theresa K. Lant, pp. 195-204. Mahway: Lawrence Erl- baum Associates.

Jones, Janna. 2011. “‘When the Movie Started, We All Got Along’: Generation Y Remembers Movie Night.” Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy (139): pp. 96-102. Accessed 25.07.2011. http://search.infor mit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=055745145428421;res=IELHSS.

Jones, Stacy Holman. 2005. “Autoethnography: Making the Personal Political.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Den- zin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 3rd ed., pp. 763-792. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Jorgensen, Danny L. 1989. Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Juul, Jesper. 2001. “Games Telling stories?” Game Studies 1 (1).

Juul, Jesper. 2005. Half-Real: Video Games Between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cambridge: MIT Press.

JUXT Interactive. 2009. “The Threshold An Alternate Reality Game.” Case Study and Vimeo video, posted December, 23rd. Accessed 28.06.2011. http://www.juxtinteractive.com/cisco/threshold.html, see also http://vi meo.com/8360490, see DVD.

JUXT Interactive. 2010. “CISCO’S Transmedia Adventure Breaks New Ground in Collaboration.” Case Study and Vimeo video, posted January, 19th. Ac- cessed 28.06.2011. http://www.juxtinteractive.com/case-studies/2010/cisco- gsx/the-hunt, see also http://vimeo.com/18964900, see DVD.

Kaplan, Benjamin. 1967. An Unhurried View of Copyright. New York: Colum- bia University Press.

Kaplan, Robert S. and David P. Norton. 1992. “The Balanced Scorecard: Mea- sures That Drive Performance.” Harvard Business Review 70 (1): pp. 71-79.

Katz, Elihu. 1957. “The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-To-Date Report on an Hypothesis.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 21 (1): pp. 61-78. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2746790.

Kaufman, Peter B. and Jen Mohan. 2008. The Economics of Independent Film and Video Distribution in the Digital Age, A Report Prepared for the Tribeca Film Institute. New York: Intelligent Television.

Kelly, John R. 1996. Leisure. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bibliography — 303 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Kennedy, Helen W. 2002. “Lara Croft: Feminist Icon or Cyberbimbo? On the Limits of Textual Analysis.” Game Studies 2 (2).

Kern, Stephen. 2011. “Wireless World.” In Communication in History: Tech- nology, Culture, Society, edited by David Crowley and Paul Heyer, 4th ed., pp. 210-213. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Keynes, John Maynard. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan.

Kim, Eugene C. 2007. “YouTube: Testing the Safe Harbors of Digital Copyright Law.” Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 17 (1): pp. 139-171.

Kim, Jeffrey, Elan Lee, Timothy Thomas and Caroline Dombrowski. 2009. “Sto- rytelling in new media: The case of alternate reality games, 2001-2009.” First Monday 14 (6). Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.uic.edu/htbin/ cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2484/2199.

Kinder, Marsha. 1991. Playing with Power in Movies, Television, and Video Games: From Muppet Babies to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kirkpatrick, Marshall. 2010. “How the Old Spice Videos Are Being Made.” ReadWriteWeb. Last modified July, 14th. Accessed 18.12.2010. http://ww w.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_old_spice_won_the_internet.php.

Kirsner, Scott. 2008. Inventing the Movies: Hollywood’s epic battle between innovation and the status quo, from Thomas Edison to Steve Jobs. n.p.: Cine- maTech Books.

Kirzner, Israel Meir. 1997. “Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach.” Journal of Economic Literature 35 (1): pp. 60-85. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2729693.

Kitchen, Philip J. and Inga Burgmann. 2010. “Integrated Marketing Communi- cation.” In Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing, edited by Jagdish Sheth and Naresh Malhotra. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Klee, Paul. 1964. The Diaries of Paul Klee: 1898-1918. Edited by Felix Klee. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Klein, Norman M. 2011. “Animation.” In The Routledge Companion to Film History, edited by William Howard Guynn, pp. 92-102. New York: Routledge.

Klinger, Barbara. 2006. Beyond the Multiplex: Cinema, New Technologies, and the Home. Berkeley: University of California Press.

— 304 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Knowledge@Wharton. 2007a. “Lance Weiler’s Cinema ARG: Photo 3 of 12.” Last modified August, 8th. Accessed 26.08.2011. http://knowledge.whar ton.upenn.edu/special_sections/weiler/img003.html.

Knowledge@Wharton. 2007b. “Lance Weiler’s Cinema ARG: Photo 9 of 12.” Last modified August, 8th. Accessed 26.08.2011. http://knowledge.whar ton.upenn.edu/special_sections/weiler/img009.html.

Knowledge@Wharton. 2007c. “The Movies Meet Web 2.0: Lance Weiler on the New Economic Model for Independent Cinema.” Last modified August, 8th. Accessed 08.06.2011. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm? articleid=1783.

Kocsis, Viktória and Paul de Bijl. 2007. “Network neutrality and the nature of competition between network operators.” International Economics and Eco- nomic Policy 4 (2): pp. 159-184. Accessed 26.07.2011. doi: 10.1007/s103 68-007-0082-8.

Konner, Melvin. 2010. The Evolution of Childhood: Relationships, Emotion, Mind. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

Koszarski, Richard. 1990. An Evening’s Entertainment: The Age of the Silent Feature Picture, 1915-1928. 3 of 10 vols. History of the American Cinema, edited by Charles Harpole. New York; Toronto; New York: Scribner; Collier Macmillan Canada; Maxwell Macmillan International.

Kotler, Philip and Gary Armstrong. 2010. Principles of Marketing. 13th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Kotler, Philip and Kevin Lane Keller. 2006. Marketing Management. 12th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Kracauer, Siegfried. 1960. Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality. London; Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Kristeva, Julia. 1980. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, edited by Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kroszner, Randy and Louis G. Putterman. Eds. 2009. The Economic Nature of the Firm: A Reader. 3rd ed. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ku, Raymond Shih Ray. 2002. “The Creative Destruction of Copyright: Napster and the New Economics of Digital Technology.” The University of Chicago Law Review 69 (1): pp. 263-324. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/1600355.

Bibliography — 305 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Kvan, Thomas. 2000. “Collaborative design: what is it?” Automation in Con- struction 9 (4): pp. 409-415. Accessed 06.07.2011. doi: 10.1016/s0926- 5805(99)00025-4.

Kymmell, Willem. 2008. Building Information Modeling: Planning and Manag- ing Construction Projects with 4D CAD and Simulations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lafontaine, Francine. 1992. “Agency Theory and Franchising: Some Empirical Results.” The RAND Journal of Economics 23 (2): pp. 263-283. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2555988.

Lambert, Joe. 2009. Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives, Creating Community. Berkeley: Digital Diner Press.

Lantz, Frank. 2009. “PacManhattan.” In Pervasive Games: Theory and Design, edited by Markus Montola, Jaakko Stenros and Annika Waern, pp. 131-135. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.

Lavin, Marilyn. 1995. “Creating Consumers in the 1930s: Irna Phillips and the Radio Soap Opera.” Journal of Consumer Research 22 (1): pp. 75-89.

Lawrence, Roderick J. 2004. “Housing and health: from interdisciplinary principles to transdisciplinary research and practice.” Futures 36 (4): pp. 487- 502. Accessed 23.07.2011. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.001.

Lawrence, Roderick J. and Carole Després. 2004. “Futures of Transdisciplinari- ty.” Futures 36 (4): pp. 397-405. Accessed 23.07.2011. doi: 10.1016/j.futur es.2003.10.005.

Lazarsfeld, Paul Felix, Bernard Berelson and Hazel Gaudet. 1944. The People’s Choice: How The Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce.

Lee, Elan. 2007. “LIFE – If You’re Bored You’re Doing it Wrong.” Ignite Lon- don. YouTube video, posted August, 25th. Accessed 13.11.2010. http://w ww.youtube.com/watch?v=bctGWwTXXz8.

Lee, Elan. 2010. “The Evolution of Storytelling.” TEDxSeattle. YouTube video, posted April, 25th. Accessed 28.09.2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=uyyrW8bIk6M.

Lessig, Lawrence. 2004. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. New York: Penguin Press.

Lessig, Lawrence. 2008. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hy- brid Economy. New York: Penguin Press.

— 306 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1966. The Savage Mind. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Levine, Robert. 2011. Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Cul- ture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back. New York: Doubleday.

Levisohn, Ben. 2009. “Playing the IPO Boom: Hot Tech Offerings Have Blown Up on Investors in the Past. Here’s How to Stack the Odds in Your Favor.” The Wall Street Journal. Last modified June, 11th. Accessed 24.06.2011. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230477830457637346 2041927054.html.

Liebowitz, Stan J. 2006. “Economists Examine File Sharing and Music Sales.” In Industrial Organization and the Digital Economy, edited by Gerhard Illing and Martin Peitz, pp. 145-173. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Life in a Day. 2011. “Info.” Facebook. Accessed 12.07.2011. http://www.face book.com/LifeinaDayMovie?sk=info.

Linder, Jane and Susan Cantrell. 2000. Changing Business Models: Surveying the Landscape: Accenture Institute for Strategic Change.

Litman, Jessica. 1989. “Copyright Legislation and Technological Change.” Ore- gon Law Review 68 (2): pp. 275-361.

Livingstone, Sonia. 2010. “Giving People a Voice: On the Critical Role of the Interview in the History of Audience Research.” Communication, Culture & Critique 3 (4): pp. 566-571.

Lobato, Ramon. 2011. “Constructing the Pirate Audience: on Popular Copy- right Critique, Free Culture and Cyber-libertarianism.” Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy (139): pp. 113-123. Accessed 25.07.2011. http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=05580 1044342195;res=IELHSS.

Lockyer, Sharon. 2008. “Textual Analysis.” In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qual- itative Research Methods, edited by Lisa M. Given, pp. 865-866. Los Ange- les: Sage Publications.

Loken, Barbara and James Ward. 1990. “Alternative Approaches to Under- standing the Determinants of Typicality.” Journal of Consumer Research 17 (2): pp. 111-126. Accessed 11.07.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2626 804.

Lowery, Shearon A. and Melvin Lawrence DeFleur. 1995. Milestones in Mass Communication Research: Media Effects. 3rd ed. White Plains: Longman.

Bibliography — 307 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Lowood, Henry. 2006. “High-performance play: The making of machinima.” Journal of Media Practice 7 (1): pp. 25-42. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.13 86/jmpr.7.1.25/1.

Lubbock, Mark Hugh and David Ewen. 1962. The Complete Book of Light Opera. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Luckman, Susan and Julia de Roeper. 2008. “Wagging the Long Tail: Digital Distribution and Peripheral Screen Production Industries.” Cultural Science 1 (2).

Luhmann, Niklas. 1984. Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Lumière, Louis and Auguste Lumière. 1895. “La Sortie des usines Lumière à Lyon.” YouTube video, posted November, 3rd. Accessed 18.05.2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYpKZx090UE.

Magerkurth, Carsten, Adrian David Cheok, Regan L. Mandryk and Trond Nil- sen. 2005. “Pervasive Games: Bringing Computer Entertainment Back to the Real World.” Computers in Entertainment 3 (3): pp. 4-4. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1145/1077246.1077257.

Magretta, Joan. 2002. “Why Business Models Matter.” Harvard Business Re- view 80 (5): pp. 86-92.

Maltby, Richard. 2003. Hollywood Cinema. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell Pub.

Man, John. 2002. Gutenberg: How One Man Remade the World with Words. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Mankiw, Nicholas Gregory. 2011. Principles of Economics. 6th ed. Mason: Thomson South-Western.

Mansfield, Edwin. 1968. Industrial Research and Technological Innovation: An Econometric Analysis. New York: Norton.

Margolis, Michael. 2010. “The New Storytellers: Interview: Lance Weiler – 04/ 27/10.” Get Storied. Last modified April, 22nd. Accessed 13.06.2010. http://www.getstoried.com/2010/04/22/interview-lance-weiler-042710. “ Marín de la Iglesia, Jose Luis and Jose Emlio Labra Gayo. 2009. Doing business by selling free services.” In Web 2.0: The Business Model, edited by Miltiadis D. Lytras, Ernesto Damiani and Patricia Ordóñez de Pablos, pp. 89-102. New York: Springer.

Marino, Paul. 2004. 3D Game-Based Filmmaking: The Art of Machinima. Scottsdale: Paraglyph Press.

— 308 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Markham, Annette N. 1998. Life Online: Researching Real Experience in Virtual Space. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.

Marshall, Alfred. 1890. Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.

Martin, Adam and Tom Chatfield. 2006. “Introduction.” In Alternate Reality Games SIG Whitepaper, edited by Adam Martin and Tom Chatfield. Interna- tional Game Developers Association (IGDA). Last modified 29.03.2011. Ac- cessed 20.05.2011. http://wiki.igda.org/Alternate_Reality_Games_SIG/Whi tepaper/Introduction.

Max-Neef, Manfred A. 2005. “Foundations of transdisciplinarity.” Ecological Economics 53 (1): pp. 5-16. Accessed 23.07.2011. doi: 10.1016/j.ecole con.2005.01.014.

Maynard Smith, John. 1993. The Theory of Evolution. Canto ed. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

McBride, Sarah and Ethan Smith. 2008. “Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits.” The Wall Street Journal. Last modified December, 19th. Accessed 05.07.2011. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html.

McCardle, Meredith. 2003. “Fan Fiction, Fandom, and Fanfare: What’s All The Fuss?” Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law 9 (2): pp. 433-470.

McClintock, Pamela. 2009. “‘Avatar’ nabs $73 million at box office.” Variety. Last modified December, 20th. Accessed 01.12.2010. http://www.variety.co m/article/VR1118012991.

McCraw, Thomas K. 2007. Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Cre- ative Destruction. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

McGonigal, Jane. 2006. “This Might Be a Game: Ubiquitous Play and Perfor- mance at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century.” PhD diss., Performance Studies and the Designated Emphasis in Film Studies, University of Califor- nia, Berkeley. Accessed 25.08.2011. http://janemcgonigal.files.wordpress.co m/2010/12/mcgonigal_this_might_be_a_game_sm-1.pdf.

McGonigal, Jane. 2011. Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. New York: Penguin Press.

McKee, A. 2008. “Looking for fun in Cultural Science.” Cultural Science 1 (2).

McKee, Alan. 2003. Textual Analysis: A Beginner’s Guide. London; Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Bibliography — 309 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

McLuhan, Marshall. 1962. The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

McNary, Dave. 2011. “Ticket prices continue to climb.” Variety. Last modified January, 28th. Accessed 05.04.2011. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1 118031132.

McWilliam, Erica. 2007. “Unlearning How to Teach.” In proceedings of Crea- tivity or Conformity? Building Cultures of Creativity in Higher Education. Car- diff, January 8-10. University of Wales Institute in collaboration with the Higher Education Academy. Accessed 25.08.2011. http://www.creativitycon ference07.org/presented_papers/McWilliam_Unlearning.doc.

Meenaghan, Tony. 1991. “The Role of Sponsorship in the Marketing Commu- nications Mix.” International Journal of Advertising 10 (1): pp. 35-47.

Metcalfe, John Stanley. 1998. Evolutionary Economics and Creative Destruc- tion. The Graz Schumpeter Lectures. London; New York: Routledge.

Microsoft. 2007a. “Global Entertainment Phenomenon ‘Halo 3’ Records More Than $300 Million in First-Week Sales Worldwide.” News Press Release. Last modified October, 4th. Accessed 01.12.2010. http://www.microsoft.co m/presspass/press/2007/oct07/10-04halo3firstweekpr.mspx.

Microsoft. 2007b. “Groundbreaking ‘Halo 3’ Multiplayer Beta Concludes; Offi- cial Countdown for Launch of Game Begins.” News Press Release. Last modified June, 13th. Accessed 08.12.2010. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/ press/2007/jun07/06-13Halo3BetaConcludesPR.mspx.

Microsoft. 2010. “Millions Reaching for Most Ambitious Halo Game Yet.” Fea- ture Story. Last modified September, 14th. Accessed 01.12.2010. http://ww w.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2010/sep10/09-14ReachLaunch.mspx.

Miller, Toby, Nitin Govil, John McMurria, Richard Maxwell and Ting Wang. 2005. Global Hollywood 2. London: British Film Institute.

Mind Candy and Anton Bogaty. n.d. Accessed 25.06.2011. http://seasonone.p erplexcitystories.com/art/apblackout.jpg.

Mitchell, Richard. 2010. “Canadian Xbox News app actually a Halo: Reach ARG.” Joystiq. Last modified August, 20th. Accessed 21.11.2010. http://ww w.joystiq.com/2010/08/20/canadian-xbox-news-app-actually-a-halo-reach- arg.

Mittell, Jason. 2006. “Narrative Complexity in Contemporary American Televi- sion.” The Velvet Light Trap - A Critical Journal of Film and Television 58 (Fall 2006): pp. 29-40. Accessed 29.05.2011. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ the_velvet_light_trap/v058/58.1mittell.html.

— 310 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Monaco, James. 2009. How To Read A Film: Movies, Media, and Beyond - Art, Technology, Language, History, Theory. 4th Completely Revised and Ex- panded ed. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Monaco, Paul. 2001. The Sixties: 1960-1969. 8 of 10 vols. History of the Amer- ican Cinema, edited by Charles Harpole. New York; Toronto; New York: Scribner; Collier Macmillan Canada; Maxwell Macmillan International.

Montgomery, Lucy and Brian Fitzgerald. 2006. “Copyright and the Creative Industries in China.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 9 (3): pp. 407- 418. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1177/1367877906066886.

Montgomery, Lucy and Jason D. Potts. 2008. Global Reuse and Adaptation in the Creative Industries: Three Further Arguments Against Intellectual Proper- ty Based on Lessons From China. Dynamics of Institutions and Markets in Eu- rope (DIME), Working Papers on Intellectual Property Rights, no. 59. Ac- cessed 30.05.2011. http://www.dime-eu.org/working-papers/wp14/59.

Montola, Markus. 2009. “Games and Pervasive Games.” In Pervasive Games: Theory and Design, edited by Markus Montola, Jaakko Stenros and Annika Waern, pp. 7-23. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.

Montola, Markus, Jaakko Stenros and Annika Waern. 2009a. “Introduction.” In Pervasive Games: Theory and Design, edited by Markus Montola, Jaakko Stenros and Annika Waern, pp. xix - xxi. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.

Montola, Markus, Jaakko Stenros and Annika Waern. Eds. 2009b. Pervasive Games: Theory and Design. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.

Moore, Ronald D. 2003. “Battlestar Galactica: Series Bible.” Accessed 11.06.2011. http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Battlestar_Galactica/ Battlestar_Galactica_Series_Bible.pdf.

Moran, Albert and Justin Malbon. 2006. Understanding the Global TV Format. Bristol; Portland: Intellect Books.

Mordden, Ethan. 1988. The Hollywood Studios: House Style in the Golden Age of the Movies. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Morris, Michael, Minet Schindehutte and Jeffrey Allen. 2005. “The entrepreneur’s business model: toward a unified perspective.” Journal of Business Research 58 (6): pp. 726-735. Accessed 16.06.2011. doi: 10.1016/j.jbus res.2003.11.001.

Motion Picture Association of America. 2010. 2009 Theatrical Market Statistics. Washington, D.C. Accessed 25.08.2011. http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/ 091af5d6-faf7-4f58-9a8e-405466c1c5e5.pdf.

Bibliography — 311 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Müller, Eggo. 2009a. “Formatted Spaces of Participation: Interactive Television and the Reshaping of the Relationship Between Production and Consump- tion.” In Digital Material: Tracing New Media in Everyday Life and Technol- ogy, edited by Marianne van den Boomen, Sybille Lammes, Ann-Sophie Lehmann, Joost Raessens and Mirko Tobias Schafer, pp. 47-61. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Müller, Eggo. 2009b. “Unterhaltung im Zeitalter der Konvergenz.” In Die Zwei- deutigkeit der Unterhaltung: Zugangsweisen zur populären Kultur, edited by Udo Göttlich and Stephan Porombka. Köln: Halem.

Müller, Eggo. 2011. Not Only Entertainment: Studien zur Pragmatik und Ästhe- tik der Fernsehunterhaltung. Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag.

Mundell, Ian. 2010. “Piracy in Europe costs $13.7 billion.” Variety. Last modified March, 18th. Accessed 20.02.2011. http://www.variety.com/article/ VR1118016618.

Murphy, James Frederick. 1974. Concepts of Leisure: Philosophical Implica- tions. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Murray, Janet Horowitz. 1997. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narra- tive in Cyberspace. New York: Free Press.

Musser, Charles. 1990. The Emergence of Cinema: The American Screen to 1907. 1 of 10 vols. History of the American Cinema, edited by Charles Har- pole. New York; Toronto; New York: Scribner; Collier Macmillan Canada; Maxwell Macmillan International.

Musser, Charles. 1991. Before the Nickelodeon: Edwin S. Porter and the Edison Manufacturing Company. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Nagle, Thomas T., John E. Hogan and Joseph Zale. 2011. The Strategy and Tac- tics of Pricing: A Guide to Growing More Profitably. 5th ed. Boston: Prentice Hall.

Needham, Joseph. 2004 [1962]. Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 4, Physics and Physical Technology - Part 1, Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nelson, Phillip. 1970. “Information and Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Politi- cal Economy 78 (2): pp. 311-329. Accessed 08.07.2011. http://www.jstor.or g/stable/1830691.

Nelson, Richard R. and Bhaven N. Sampat. 2001. “Making Sense of Institutions as a Factor Shaping Economic Performance.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 44 (1): pp. 31-54. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1016/s016 7-2681(00)00152-9.

— 312 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Nelson, Richard R. and Sidney G. Winter. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

Nicolescu, Basarab. 2002. Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity. Albany: State Uni- versity of New York Press.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. 1883−1885. Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen. Chemnitz: Schmeitzner.

Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey. 1996. “The Loop and the Maltese Cross.” In The Ox- ford History of World Cinema, edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, p. 7. Ox- ford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Nutt, Christian. 2010. “TGS: Microsoft’s Keynote - Japan Fills Kinect’s Core Gamer Gap.” Gamasutra. Last modified September, 15th. Accessed 01.12.2010. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/30446/TGS_Micro softs_Keynote__Japan_Fills_Kinects_Core_Gamer_Gap.php.

Obama, Barack. 2008. “Remarks of Senator Barack Obama on New Hampshire Primary Night.” Wikisource and YouTube video, posted January, 9th. Ac- cessed 26.11.2010. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Remarks_of_Senator_Bara ck_Obama_on_New_Hampshire_Primary_Night, see also http://www.youtu be.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms, see DVD.

Obama, Barack. 2011. “BarackObama.com.” YouTube channel. Last modified August, 9th. Accessed 09.08.2011. http://www.youtube.com/user/Barack Obamadotcom.

Ocasio, William. 1997. “Towards an Attention-Based View of the Firm.” Strate- gic Management Journal 18 (Summer Special Issue): pp. 187-206. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088216.

Odlyzko, Andrew. 2001. “Content is Not King.” First Monday 6 (2). Accessed 17.07.2011. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/ article/view/833/742.

OECD and Eurostat. 2005. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities: Oslo Manual - Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innova- tion Data. 3rd ed. Paris: OECD Publishing. Accessed 09.07.2011. http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/free/9205111e.pdf.

Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, Attorney-General’s Department. 2008. Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983. Canberra. Accessed 24.08.2011. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011C00565.

Old Spice. 2010a. “Old Spice | Questions.” YouTube video, posted June, 29th. Accessed 22.12.2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLTIowBF0kE, see DVD.

Bibliography — 313 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Old Spice. 2010b. “Old Spice | The Man Your Man Could Smell Like.” You- Tube video, posted February, 4th. Accessed 22.12.2010. http://www.youtu be.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE, see DVD.

Old Spice. 2010c. “Old Spice Guy Responses to Alyssa Milano (4).” YouTube playlist, posted July, 14th. Accessed 22.12.2010. http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=-oElH6M_5i4&feature=BF&list=PL09F17FAE5F5E2998&index=1, see DVD.

Old Spice. 2010d. “Old Spice Man Internet Responses.” YouTube playlist, posted July, 14th. Accessed 07.04.2011. http://www.youtube.com/user/ OldSpice - grid/user/484F058C3EAF7FA6, see DVD.

Old Spice. 2010e. “Re: @Jsbeals | Old Spice.” YouTube video, posted July, 13th. Accessed 22.12.2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-fLV28 SkZ8, see DVD.

Old Spice. 2010f. “Re: Anonymous | Old Spice.” YouTube video, posted July, 13th. Accessed 22.12.2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWCVhGz rAT0, see DVD.

Old Spice. 2010g. “Re: Perez Hilton | Old Spice.” YouTube video, posted July, 13th. Accessed 22.12.2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ive3vXv-X Rk, see DVD.

Oldham, Stuart. 2009. “Interview: Neill Blomkamp.” Variety. Last modified Au- gust, 14th. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.variety.com/article/VR111800 7279.

Oliar, Dotan and Christopher Sprigman. 2008. “There’s No Free Laugh (Any- more): The Emergence of Intellectual Property Norms and the Transforma- tion of Stand-Up Comedy.” Virginia Law Review 94 (8): pp. 1787-1867. Ac- cessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25470605.

Oliver, Christine. 1997. “Sustainable Competitive Advantage: Combining Insti- tutional and Resource-Based Views.” Strategic Management Journal 18 (9): pp. 697-713. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088134.

Olson, Harry Ferdinand. 1967. Music, Physics and Engineering (Formerly Titled Musical Engineering). 2nd ed. New York: Dover Publications.

Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London; New York: Methuen.

Ordish, Thomas Fairman. 1899. Early London Theatres: In The Fields. London: Elliot Stock.

— 314 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Orland, Kyle. 2011. “Turbine: Lord of the Rings Online Revenues Tripled As Free-To-Play Game.” Gamasutra. Last modified January, 6th. Accessed 24.06.2011. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/32322/Turbine_Lo rd_of_the_Rings_Online_Revenues_Tripled_As_FreeToPlay_Game.php.

Ormerod, Paul. 2007. Why Most Things Fail: Evolution, Extinction and Eco- nomics. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Örnebring, Henrik. 2007. “Alternate reality gaming and convergence culture: The case of Alias.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 10 (4): pp. 445- 462.

Osterwalder, Alexander, Yves Pigneur and Christopher L. Tucci. 2005. “Clarify- ing Business Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the Concept.” Commu- nications of the Association for Information Systems 16: pp. 1-25. Accessed 17.06.2011. http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol16/iss1/1.

Overclock.net Forums. 2010. “Famous Actors in Video Games.” Last modified February, 24th. Accessed 14.03.2011. http://www.overclock.net/t/674493/ famous-actors-in-video-games.

Oxford English Dictionary. 1989a. “architect.” 2nd ed., online version. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Accessed 01.04.2011. http://www.oed.com/view dictionaryentry/Entry/10393.

Oxford English Dictionary. 1989b. “architecture.” 2nd ed., online version. Ox- ford: Oxford University Press. Accessed 07.06.2011. http://www.oed.com/ viewdictionaryentry/Entry/10408.

Oxford English Dictionary. 1989c. “trans-.” 2nd ed., online version. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Accessed 28.05.2011. http://www.oed.com/view dictionaryentry/Entry/204575.

Oxford English Dictionary. 2001. “Internet.” 3rd ed., online version. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Accessed 25.05.2011. http://www.oed.com/view dictionaryentry/Entry/248411.

Oxford English Dictionary. 2003. “movie.” 3rd ed., online version. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Accessed 01.04.2011. http://www.oed.com/view dictionaryentry/Entry/123038.

Oxford English Dictionary. 2008. “free.” 3rd ed., online version. Oxford: Ox- ford University Press. Accessed 26.06.2011. http://www.oed.com/viewdic tionaryentry/Entry/74375.

PacManhattan. 2004. “About.” Accessed 16.01.2011. http://www.pacmanhatt an.com/about.php.

Bibliography — 315 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Panay, Panos. 2011. “Rethinking Music: The Future of Making Money as a Per- forming Artist.” In proceedings of The Rethink Music Conference - Rethink- ing Music: A Briefing Book, pp. 57-64. Cambridge: The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. Accessed 25.08.2011. http://cyber.l aw.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Rethinking_Music_Fut ure_Making_Money_Performing.pdf.

Pariser, Eli. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin Press.

Patterson, L. Ray. 1968. Copyright in Historical Perspective. Nashville: Vander- bilt University Press.

Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks; London: Sage Publications.

Pearson, Roberta. 1996a. “Early Cinema.” In The Oxford History of World Cin- ema, edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, pp. 13-23. Oxford; New York: Ox- ford University Press.

Pearson, Roberta. 1996b. “Transitional Cinema.” In The Oxford History of World Cinema, edited by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, pp. 23-42. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Peitz, Martin and Patrick Waelbroeck. 2006. “Digital Music.” In Industrial Or- ganization and the Digital Economy, edited by Gerhard Illing and Martin Peitz, pp. 71-144. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Peräkylä, Anssi. 2005. “Analyzing Talk and Text.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 3rd ed., pp. 869-886. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Perryman, Neil. 2008. “Doctor Who and the Convergence of Media.” Conver- gence 14 (1): pp. 21-39.

Peterson, Richard A. and David G. Berger. 1971. “Entrepreneurship in Organi- zations: Evidence from the Popular Music Industry.” Administrative Science Quarterly 16 (1): pp. 97-106. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/2391293.

Phillips, Andreak. 2009. “WTF is an ARG? 2009 Edition.” Last modified Janu- ary, 13th. Accessed 28.09.2010. http://www.deusexmachinatio.com/2009/ 01/wtf-is-an-arg-2009-edition.html.

Phillips, Andreak. 2010. “WTF is Transmedia?”. Last modified April, 6th. Ac- cessed 03.08.2010. http://www.deusexmachinatio.com/2010/04/wtf-is- transmedia.html.

— 316 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Pieper, Josef. 1952. Leisure: The Basis of Culture. Translated by Alexander Dru. London: Faber and Faber.

Pinker, Steven. 1994. The Language Instinct: How The Mind Creates Language. New York: W. Morrow and Co.

Plunkett, Luke. 2008. “How Much Has WoW Cost Blizzard Since 2004?” Kota- ku. Last modified September, 16th. Accessed 25.06.2011. http://kotaku.com/ 5050300/how-much-has-wow-cost-blizzard-since-2004.

Porter, Michael E. 1996. “What Is Strategy?” Harvard Business Review 74 (6): pp. 61-78.

Porter, Michael E. 1998. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Indus- tries and Competitors. New York: Free Press.

Porter, Michael E. 2001. “Strategy and the Internet.” Harvard business review 79 (3): pp. 62-78.

Postman, Neil. 1986. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin Books.

Potts, Jason D. 2000. The New Evolutionary Microeconomics: Complexity, Competence, and Adaptive Behaviour. New Horizons in Institutional and Evolutionary Economics, edited by Geoffrey Martin Hodgson. Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Potts, Jason D. 2007. “Fashionomics: Fashion Should be Taken Seriously.” Policy 23 (4): pp. 10-15.

Potts, Jason D. 2011. Creative Industries and Economic Evolution. New Hori- zons in Institutional and Evolutionary Economics, edited by Geoffrey Martin Hodgson. Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Powell, Barry B. 2009. Writing: Theory and History of the Technology of Civi- lization. Chichester; Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

Powell, Jenni. 2010. “Jeff Gomez: Transmedia is a Responsibility Not a Privi- lege.” Tubefilter News. Last modified June, 4th. Accessed 30.11.2010. http://news.tubefilter.tv/2010/06/04/jeff-gomez-transmedia-is-a-respon sibility-not-a-privilege.

Prahalad, C. K. and Richard A. Bettis. 1986. “The Dominant Logic: A New Linkage between Diversity and Performance.” Strategic Management Journal 7 (6): pp. 485-501. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2486 135.

Bibliography — 317 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2008. Global Entertainment & Media Outlook 2008- 2012. Frankfurt.

PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2010. Global Entertainment & Media Outlook 2010- 2014. Frankfurt.

Producers Guild of America. 2010a. “About the PGA.” Accessed 29.09.2010. http://www.producersguild.org/?page=about_the_pga.

Producers Guild of America. 2010b. “Code of Credits - New Media.” Accessed 06.06.2010. http://www.producersguild.org/?page=coc_nm - transmedia.

Pugh, Casey. 2010. “Star Wars Uncut ‘The Escape’.” Vimeo video, posted April, 10th. Accessed 24.08.2011. http://vimeo.com/10821312, see DVD.

Rajewsky, Irina. 2005. “Intermediality, Intertextuality, and Remediation: A Lit- erary Perspective on Intermediality.” Intermédialités 6: pp. 43-64.

Rajewsky, Irina O. 2002. Intermedialiät. Tübingen: A. Francke.

Raymond, Jane E., Mark J. Fenske and Nader T. Tavassoli. 2003. “Selective At- tention Determines Emotional Responses to Novel Visual Stimuli.” Psycho- logical Science 14 (6): pp. 537-542. Accessed 08.07.2011. doi: 10.1046/ j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1462.x.

Red Bull. 2011. “I Am Playr: The Evolution of Football Gaming.” Last modified June, 16th. Accessed 28.06.2011. http://www.redbull.co.uk/cs/Satellite/ en_UK/Article/i-am-playr-online-football-game-021243035278790. redvsblue. 2008. Last modified October, 6th. Accessed 09.10.2009. http://red vsblue.com/members/journal/entry.php?id=2199614.

Reinert, Hugo and Erik S. Reinert. 2006. “Creative Destruction in Economics: Nietzsche, Sombart, Schumpeter.” In Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900): Economy and Society, edited by Jürgen G. Backhaus and Wolfgang Drechs- ler, pp. 55-85. Boston: Springer.

Reiss, Jon. 2010. Think Outside the Box Office: The Ultimate Guide to Film Distribution and Marketing for the Digital Era. Los Angeles: Hybrid Cinema Publishing.

Reisz, Karel and Gavin Millar. 2010 [1968]. The Technique of Film Editing. 2nd ed. Oxford; Burlington: Focal Press.

Robbins, Lionel. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan.

Robertson, Patrick. 2001. Film Facts. New York: Billboard Books.

— 318 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Robinson, Andrew. 2011. “The Origins of Writing.” In Communication in His- tory: Technology, Culture, Society, edited by David Crowley and Paul Hey- er, 6th ed., pp. 27-33. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Robinson, James F. 2009a. Story Addict: The First Social Media “Novel”. Zap Pictures. Accessed 12.11.2010. http://www.slideshare.net/jfrobinson/story- addict-social-media-storytelling-meets-embedded-marketing.

Robinson, Martin. 2009b. “Reach to be Bungie’s Last Halo: Developer ending work on franchise next year.” IGN. Last modified July, 24th. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/100/1007095p1.html.

Rojek, Chris. 2000. Leisure and Culture. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. “Principles of Categorization.” In Cognition and categorization, edited by Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd, pp. 27-49. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rose, Frank. 2011. The Art of Immersion: How the digital generation is remaking Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and the way we tell stories. New York: W. W. Norton.

Rosenberg, Nathan. 1994. Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics, and History. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ross, Sharon Marie. 2008. Beyond the Box: Television and the Internet. Mal- den: Blackwell Pub.

Rouse, Richard. 2004. Game Design: Theory & Practice. Plano: Wordware.

Ruberg, Bonnie. 2006. “Elan Lee’s Alternate Reality.” Gamasutra. Last modified December, 6th. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/ feature/1765/elan_lees_alternate_reality.php.

Rubin, Paul H. 1978. “The Theory of the Firm and the Structure of the Fran- chise Contract.” Journal of Law and Economics 21 (1): pp. 223-233. Ac- cessed 21.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/725148.

Runciman, Walter Garrison. 2009. The Theory of Cultural and Social Selection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ryan, Marie-Laure. 2004. “Introduction.” In Narrative across Media: The Lan- guages of Storytelling, edited by Marie-Laure Ryan, pp. 1-40. Lincoln: Uni- versity of Nebraska Press.

Ryan, Mark David and Greg Hearn. 2010. “Next-Generation ‘Filmmaking’: New Markets, New Methods and New Business Models.” Media Internation- al Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy (136): pp. 133-145. Accessed

Bibliography — 319 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

15.06.2011. http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=3737970 18024771;res=IELHSS.

Sabin, Roger. 1996. Comics, Comix & Graphic Novels: A History of Comic Art. London: Phaidon Press.

Sahlman, William A. 1997. “How to Write a Great Business Plan.” Harvard business review 75 (4): pp. 98-108.

Sale, Kirkpatrick. 1995. Rebels Against The Future: The Luddites And Their War On The Industrial Revolution - Lessons For The Computer Age. Reading: Ad- dison-Wesley Publishing.

Salem, Fadi and Racha Mourtada. 2011. “Civil Movements: The Impact of Facebook and Twitter”. In Arab Social Media Report. Dubai: Dubai School of Government. Accessed 27.07.2011. http://www.dsg.ae/portals/0/ASM R2.pdf.

Salla, Laia Joana and Sean Stewart. 2001. “Easter 2142.” The Beast on Cloud- makers. Accessed 11.07.2011. http://familiasalla-es.cloudmakers.org/medita tions.htm.

Salzano, Massimo and David C. Colander. Eds. 2007. Complexity Hints for Economic Policy. Milan; New York: Springer.

Samuelson, Paul A. and William D. Nordhaus. 2010. Economics. 19th ed. Bos- ton: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Sandler, Linda, Dawn McCarty and Tiffany Kary. 2010. “MGM Files Bankrupt- cy, Rejecting Lions Gate, Icahn Bid.” Bloomberg Businessweek. Last modified November, 3rd. Accessed 13.02.2011. http://www.businessweek.com/ news/2010-11-03/mgm-files-bankruptcy-rejecting-lions-gate-icahn-bid.html.

Sarma, Sanjay, David L. Brock and Kevin Ashton. 2000. The Networked Physi- cal World: Proposals for Engineering the Next Generation of Computing, Commerce & Automatic-Identification. Cambridge: Auto-ID Center, MIT. Accessed 28.5.2011. http://www.autoidlabs.org/single-view/dir/article/ 6/93/page.html. sasira. 2009. Flickr image, posted October, 5th. Accessed 03.08.2011. http://w ww.flickr.com/photos/sasira/3983753349.

Sauerberg, Lars Ole. 2009. “The Gutenberg Parenthesis — Print, Book and Cognition.” Orbis Litterarum 64 (2): pp. 79-80. Accessed 20.04.2011. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0730.2009.00962.x.

Sawyer, Robert Keith. 2005. Social Emergence: Societies As Complex Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

— 320 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Sayre, Shay and Cynthia King. 2010. Entertainment and Society: Influences, Impacts, and Innovations. New York: Routledge.

Schatz, Thomas. 1988. The Genius of the System: Hollywood Filmmaking in the Studio Era. New York: Pantheon Books.

Schatz, Thomas. 1997. Boom and bust: the American cinema in the 1940s. 6 of 10 vols. History of the American Cinema, edited by Charles Harpole. New York; Toronto; New York: Scribner; Collier Macmillan Canada; Maxwell Macmillan International.

Schell, Jesse. 2008. The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses. Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann.

Schewick, Barbara van. 2007. “Towards an Economic Framework for Network Neutrality Regulation.” Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law 5 (2): pp. 329-392.

Schilling, Mark. 2011. “DVD sales fall in Japan.” Variety. Last modified Janu- ary, 21st. Accessed 20.02.2011. http://www.variety.com/article/VR111803 0625.

Schneekloth, Lynda H. and Robert G. Shibley. 1995. Placemaking: The Art and Practice of Building Communities. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Schnupp, Jan, Israel Nelken and Andrew King. 2011. Auditory Neuroscience: Making Sense of Sound. Cambridge; London: MIT Press.

Schoener, Jason. 1966. “Art Patronage in Greece.” Art Journal 26 (2): pp. 166- 170. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/775041.

Schuett, Florian. 2010. “Network Neutrality: A Survey of the Economic Litera- ture.” Review of Network Economics 9 (2: Article 1). Accessed 26.07.2011. doi: 10.2202/1446-9022.1224.

Schuler, Douglas and Aki Namioka. 1993. Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schumpeter, Joseph Alois. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Trans- lated by Redvers Opie. Harvard Economic Studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Schumpeter, Joseph Alois. 1939. Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. 1 of 2 vols. New York; London: McGraw-Hill.

Bibliography — 321 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Schumpeter, Joseph Alois. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York; London: Harper & Brothers.

Schumpeter, Joseph Alois. 1954. History of Economic Analysis. New York: Ox- ford University Press.

Schwaiger, Manfred, Marko Sarstedt and Charles R. Taylor. 2010. “Art for the Sake of the Corporation: Audi, BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Montblanc, Siemens, and Volkswagen Help Explore the Effect of Sponsorship on Corpo- rate Reputations.” Journal of Advertising Research 50 (1): pp. 77-90. Ac- cessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.2501/s0021819910091208.

Scott, Allen J. 2002. “A New Map of Hollywood: The Production and Distribu- tion of American Motion Pictures.” Regional Studies 36 (9): pp. 957–975.

Sedgwick, John and Michael Pokorny. 1998. “The Risk Environment of Film Making: Warner Bros in the Inter-War Years.” Explorations in Economic History 35 (2): pp. 196-220. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.science direct.com/science/article/B6WFJ-45J505H-K/2/a5ddd72b6bf25de4 abdd964629a601bb.

Sedgwick, John and Michael Pokorny. Eds. 2005. An Economic History of Film. London: Routledge.

Seize the Media. n.d.-a. “What is Transmedia?”. Accessed 20.02.2011. http://s eizethemedia.com/what-is-transmedia.

Seize the Media. n.d.-b. “Who.” Accessed 08.06.2011. http://seizethemedia.co m/principals.

Senderhauf, Michelle. 2008. “Eagle Eye Freefall: What Majestic Should Have Been.” ARGNet. Last modified September, 6th. Accessed 28.06.2011. http://www.argn.com/2008/09/eagle_eye_freefall_what_majestic_shou ld_have_been.

Shachtman, Noah. 2011. Pirates of the ISPs: Tactics for Turning Online Crooks Into International Pariahs. Cyber Security #1. 21st Century Defense Initiative, John L. Thornton China Center at Brookings. Accessed 10.08.2011. http://w ww.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2011/0725_cybersecurity_sh achtman/0725_cybersecurity_shachtman.pdf.

Shane, Scott Andrew. 2003. A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Indi- vidual-Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Shivers, Jay Sanford and Lee J. DeLisle. 1997. The Story of Leisure: Context, Concepts, and Current Controversy. Champaign: Human Kinetics.

— 322 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Shultz, Don E. 2004. “IMC receives more appropriate definition.” Marketing News 38 (15): pp. 8-9.

Siegel, Marjorie. 1995. “More than Words: The Generative Power of Trans- mediation for Learning.” Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 20 (4): pp. 455-475. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.o rg/stable/1495082.

Siegel, Scott Jon. 2006. “Joystiq interviews Elan Lee of 42 Entertainment.” Joy- stiq. Last modified November, 14th. Accessed 19.12.2010. http://www.joysti q.com/2006/11/14/joystiq-interviews-elan-lee-of-42-entertainment.

Siwek, Stephen E. 2009. Copyright Industries in the U.S. Economy: The 2003- 2007 Report. Economists Incorporated, prepared for the International Intel- lectual Property Alliance (IIPA). Accessed 01.07.2011. http://www.iipa.com/ pdf/IIPASiwekReport2003-07.pdf.

Smith, Adam. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell.

Smith, Linda B. and Larissa K. Samuelson. 1997. “Perceiving and Remember- ing: Category Stability, Variability and Development.” In Knowledge, Con- cepts, and Categories, edited by Koen Lamberts and David R. Shanks, 1st MIT Press ed., pp. 161-196. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Sombart, Werner. 1913. Krieg und Kapitalismus. München: Duncker & Hum- blot.

Sood, Ashish and Gerard J. Tellis. 2005. “Technological Evolution and Radical Innovation.” Journal of Marketing 69 (3): pp. 152-168.

Sprigman, Chris. 2002. “The Mouse That Ate The Public Domain: Disney, The Copyright Term Extension Act, And eldred V. Ashcroft.” FindLaw’s Writ. Last modified March, 05th. Accessed 31.05.2011. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ commentary/20020305_sprigman.html.

Sprigman, Christopher. 2004. “Reform(aliz)ing Copyright.” Stanford Law Re- view 57 (2): pp. 485-568.

Spry, Tami. 2001. “Performing Autoethnography: An Embodied Methodologi- cal Praxis.” Qualitative Inquiry 7 (6): pp. 706-732. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1177/107780040100700605.

Squire, Kurt. 2002. “Cultural Framing of Computer/Video Games.” The Interna- tional Journal of Computer Game Research 2 (1). Accessed 13.07.2011. http://gamestudies.org/0102/squire.

Bibliography — 323 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Staiger, Janet. 1985. “Blueprints for Feature Films: Hollywood’s Continuity Scripts.” In The American Film Industry, edited by Tino Balio, revised ed., pp. 173-192. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Stallman, Richard M. 2010. Free Software, Free Societies. 2nd ed. Boston: Free Software Foundation. Accessed 05.07.2011. http://www.gnu.org/doc/fsfs-ii- 2.pdf.

Stark, David. 2009. The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in Economic Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Starkey, Ken, Christopher Barnatt and Sue Tempest. 2000. “Beyond Networks and Hierarchies: Latent Organizations in the U.K. Television Industry.” Or- ganization Science 11 (3): pp. 299-305.

Starlight Runner Entertainment. n.d. “What is Transmedia?”. Accessed 20.02.2011. http://www.starlightrunner.com/transmedia.

Steinberg, Brian. 2010. “Daytime TV’s New Entries Push Soaps Toward Drain: Why the Once-loved Genre Is Losing Viewers, Marketing Dollars, and What’s Replacing It.” Advertising Age. Last modified August, 9th. Accessed 18.07.2011. http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/tv-soap-operas-losing- viewers-marketing-dollars/145291.

Stewart, Andrew. 2011. “2010 overseas B.O. reaches $20 billion.” Variety. Last modified January, 6th. Accessed 20.02.2011. http://www.variety.com/article/ VR1118029800.

Stewart, Sean. 2010. “Bard 5.0 The Evolution of Storytelling.” TEDxEdmonton. YouTube video, posted April, 8th. Accessed 13.07.2010. http://www.youtub e.com/watch?v=HnxVsVetrDI, see also http://www.tedxedmonton.com/20 10/04/sean-stewart-bard-5-0-the-evolution-of-storytelling.

Stewart, Sean, Jordan Weisman and Cathy Brigg. 2006. Cathy’s Book: If Found Call (650) 266-8233. Philadelphia: Running Press.

Stewart, Sean, Jordan Weisman and Cathy Brigg. 2008. Cathy’s Key: If Found Call (650) 266-8202. Philadelphia: Running Press.

Stewart, Sean, Jordan Weisman and Cathy Brigg. 2009. Cathy’s Ring: If Found Call (650) 266-8263. Philadelphia: Running Press Book Publishers/RP Teens.

Stokols, Daniel, Juliana Fuqua, Jennifer Gress, Richard Harvey, Kimari Phillips, Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati, Jennifer Unger, et al. 2003. “Evaluating transdisciplinary science.” Nicotine & Tobacco Research 5 (Supplement 1): pp. S21-S39. Accessed 23.07.2011. doi: 10.1080/14622200310001625555.

— 324 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Stoneman, Paul. 2010. Soft Innovation: Economics, Design, and the Creative Industries. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Story Addict. n.d. “About.” Accessed 12.11.2010. http://www.story-addict.com /storyaddictabout.html.

Strauss, Anselm L. and Juliet M. Corbin. 1997. Grounded Theory in Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Suhor, Charles. 1984. “Towards a Semiotics-based Curriculum.” Journal of Cur- riculum Studies 16 (3): pp. 247-257. Accessed 26.09.2010. doi: 10.1080/00 22027840160304.

Sutherland, John. 1976. Victorian Novelists and Publishers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Svahn, Mattias and Fredrik Lange. 2009. “Marketing the Category of Pervasive Games.” In Pervasive Games: Theory and Design, edited by Markus Monto- la, Jaakko Stenros and Annika Waern, pp. 219-230. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.

Szulborski, Dave. 2005. This Is Not A Game: A Guide to Alternate Reality Gaming. n.p.: New-Fiction Pub.

Teddlie, Charles and Abbas Tashakkori. 2010. “Overview of Contemporary Issues in Mixed Methods Research.” In SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, edited by Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie, 2nd ed., pp. 1-41. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Tedlock, Barbara. 1991. “From Participant Observation to the Observation of Participation: The Emergence of Narrative Ethnography.” Journal of Anthro- pological Research 47 (1): pp. 69-94.

Tedlock, Barbara. 2005. “The Observation of Participation and the Emergence of Public Ethnography.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 3rd ed., pp. 467-482. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. telefonprojekt. 2009. “Telefon Projekt.” YouTube video, posted August, 28th. Accessed 24.08.2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj447OBqlmw, see DVD.

TERA Consultants. 2010. Building a Digital Economy: The Importance of Saving Jobs in the EU’s Creative Industries. Paris.

TFARCHIVE. n.d. “Transformers Production Bible.” Accessed 22.06.2010. http://tfarchive.com/cartoons/bible.

Bibliography — 325 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

The Gutenberg Parenthesis Research Forum. 2011. “The Gutenberg Parenthesis — Print, Book and Cognition.” Institute of Literature, Media and Cultural Studies, University of Southern Denmark. Last modified 07.03.2011. Ac- cessed 22.04.2011. http://www.sdu.dk/en/Om_SDU/Institutter_centre/ Ilkm/Forskning/Forskningsprojekter/Gutenberg_projekt.

The Numbers. n.d. “US Movie Market Summary 1995 to 2011.” Accessed 13.02.2011. http://www.the-numbers.com/market.

The Walt Disney Company. 2011. Fact Book 2010. Accessed 23.06.2011. http://a.media.global.go.com/investorrelations/2010Factbook_FINAL.pdf.

The Walt Disney Company. n.d. “Company Overview.” Accessed 23.06.2011. http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/overview.html. thecompanyp. 2008. “The Truth About Marika.” YouTube video, posted June, 19th. Accessed 24.08.2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX_ZJkwv KR8, see DVD.

Thompson Klein, Julie. 2004. “Prospects for transdisciplinarity.” Futures 36 (4): pp. 515-526. Accessed 23.07.2011. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.007.

Thompson, Kristin. 2007. The Frodo Franchise: The Lord of the Rings and Mod- ern Hollywood. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Throsby, Charles David. 2001. Economics and Culture. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Titze, Ingo R. 1988. “The Physics of Small-Amplitude Oscillation of the Vocal Folds.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 83 (4): pp. 1536-1552.

Towse, Ruth. Ed. 2003. A Handbook of Cultural Economics. Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Trahndorff, Karl Friedrich Eusebius. 1827. Ästhetik oder Lehre von der Weltan- schauung und Kunst. 2 of 2 vols. Berlin: Maurer.

Trevisanut, Amanda Malel. 2011. “Taking on the Box Office.” Media Interna- tional Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy (139): pp. 149-157. http://se arch.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=056043272968552;res= IELHSS.

Tryon, Chuck. 2009. Reinventing Cinema: Movies in the Age of Media Conver- gence. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

— 326 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Tsukayama, Hayley. 2011. “E3 2011: Halo 4, voice control and the cloud.” The Washington Post. Last modified June, 7th. Accessed 21.06.2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/faster-forward/post/e3-2011-halo-4- voice-control-and-the-cloud/2011/06/06/AGNAeELH_blog.html. twofifteenmccann. n.d. “Case Study - Halo 3: Believe.” Online video. Accessed 24.08.2011. http://www.215mccann.com/ - /our-work/case_study_xbox_ha lo_3_believe, see DVD.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. “Section 1: Population.” The 2011 Statistical Ab- stract. Accessed 25.08.2011. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/ 11statab/pop.pdf.

Uckelmann, Dieter, Mark Harrison and Florian Michahelles. 2011. Architecting the Internet of Things. Heidelberg; New York: Springer.

Vaidhyanathan, Siva. 2003. Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellec- tual Property and How it Threatens Creativity. New York: New York Univer- sity Press.

Varian, Hal R. 1992. Microeconomic Analysis. 3rd ed. New York; London: W. W. Norton.

Variety. 1907. January, 26th.

Variety. 1908. December, 12th.

Veal, A. J. 1992. “Definitions of Leisure and Recreation.” Australian Journal of Leisure and Recreation 2 (4): pp. 44-48.

Veblen, Thorstein. 1898. “Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 12 (4): pp. 373-397. Accessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1882952.

Venkataraman, Sankaran. 1997. “The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research.” Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth 3 (1): pp. 119-138. Vogel, Harold L. 2011. Entertainment Industry Economics: A Guide for Finan- cial Analysis. 8th ed. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Vorderer, Peter, Francis F. Steen and Elaine Chan. 2006. “Motivation.” In Psy- chology of Entertainment, edited by Jennings Bryant and Peter Vorderer, pp. 3-18. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bibliography — 327 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Waern, Annika and Marie Denward. 2009. “On the Edge of Reality: Reality Fiction in ‘Sanningen om Marika’.” In proceedings of Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory - Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) 2009. London, UK, September, 2009. Brunel Univer- sity. Accessed 25.08.2011. http://www.digra.org/dl/db/09287.50584.pdf.

Wagner, Richard. 1850. Das Kunstwerk der Zukunft. Leipzig: Otto Wigand.

Wagner, Richard. 1871 [1849]. “Die Kunst und die Revolution.” In Gesamme- lte Schriften und Dichtungen, pp. 8-41. Leipzig: C. F. W. Siegel.

Walras, Léon. 1954 [1874]. Elements of Pure Economics or The Theory of So- cial Wealth. Translated by William Jaffé. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Warshaw, Paul R. 1978. “Application of Selective Attention Theory to Televi- sion Advertising Displays.” Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (3): pp. 366- 372. Accessed 08.07.2011. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.63.3.366.

Wasko, Janet. 1990. “Hollywood and Television in the 1950s: The Roots of Di- versification.” In The Fifties: Transforming the Screen, 1950-1959, 7 of 10 vols., edited by Peter Lev. History of the American Cinema, edited by Charles Harpole. New York; Toronto; New York: Scribner; Collier Macmil- lan Canada; Maxwell Macmillan International.

Wasserfall, Rahel. 1993. “Reflexivity, Feminism and Difference.” Qualitative Sociology 16 (1): pp. 23-41. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1007/bf0099 0072.

Waterman, David. 2005. Hollywood’s Road to Riches. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Watson, Jeff. 2010. “Content management and delivery tools for indie ARG producers.” remotedevice. Last modified February, 9th. Accessed 13.06.2011. http://remotedevice.net/blog/arg-tools.

We R Interactive. 2011. “Press.” Last modified May, 27th. Accessed 28.06.2011. http://werinteractive.com/press.php.

Weber, Johannes. 2006. “Strassburg, 1605: The Origins of the Newspaper in Europe.” German History 24 (3): pp. 387-412. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1191/0266355406gh380oa.

Webster, Frederick E. Jr. 1992. “The Changing Role of Marketing in the Corpo- ration.” Journal of Marketing 56 (4): pp. 1-17.

Weiler, Lance. 2009. “The Evolution of Storytelling.” Power To The Pixel. Ac- cessed 04.08.2011. http://www.slideshare.net/lanceweiler/the-evolution-of- storytelling.

— 328 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Weiler, Lance. n.d. “Creating a Storyworld - part one.” Seize the Media. Online video. Accessed 17.06.2010. http://seizethemedia.com/2009/05/creating-a- storyworld-part-one.

Weiler, Paul C. 2002. Entertainment, Media, and the Law: Text, Cases, Prob- lems. American casebook series. St. Paul: West Group.

Weimann, Gabriel. 1982. “On the Importance of Marginality: One More Step into the Two-Step Flow of Communication.” American Sociological Review 47 (6): pp. 764-773. Accessed 08.07.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 2095212.

Weinstein, Nate. 2010. “Explore the Life in a Day video gallery.” YouTube Blog. Last modified September, 5th. Accessed 13.07.2011. http://youtube- global.blogspot.com/2010/09/explore-life-in-day-video-gallery.html.

Wertheim, Arthur Frank. 1976. “Relieving Social Tensions: Radio Comedy and the Great Depression.” The Journal of Popular Culture X (3): pp. 501-519. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3840.1976.1003_501.x.

Wesselink, Anna. 2009. “The emergence of interdisciplinary knowledge in problem-focused research.” Area 41 (4): pp. 404-413. Accessed 23.07.2011. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00882.x.

White, Randy. 2007. “The Death of Entertainment: Welcome to the New Mind- set of Leisure Experiences.” White Hutchinson Leisure & Learning Group. Ac- cessed 01.06.2011. http://www.whitehutchinson.com/leisure/articles/ entertainmentdeath.shtml.

Wickson, F., A. L. Carew and A. W. Russell. 2006. “Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality.” Futures 38 (9): pp. 1046-1059. Ac- cessed 23.07.2011. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2006.02.011.

Wikipedia. 2011. “Halo 3 marketing.” Last modified July, 14th. Accessed 21.06.2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_3_marketing.

Wiles, Michael A. and Anna Danielova. 2009. “The Worth of Product Place- ment in Successful Films: An Event Study Analysis.” Journal of Marketing 73 (4): pp. 44-63. Accessed 15.06.2011. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.73.4.44. will.i.am, Scarlett Johansson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Common, John Legend, Bryan Greenberg, Kate Walsh, et al. 2008. “Yes We Can.” YouTube video, posted February, 2nd. Accessed 26.11.2010. http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY, see DVD.

Williams, Raymond. 2003 [1974]. Television: Technology and Cultural Form. Edited by Ederyn Williams. London; New York: Routledge.

Bibliography — 329 — Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Williamson, Oliver E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications - A Study in the Economics of Internal Organization. New York: Free Press.

Williamson, Oliver E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. New York; London: Free Press; Collier Macmillan.

Willis, Charlotte. 2011. “Report: Film piracy costs the economy $1.37bn annually.” Inside Film. Last modified February, 17th. Accessed 20.02.2011. http://if.com.au/2011/02/17/article/Report-Film-piracy-costs-the-economy-1- 37bn-annually/YWVVKWALAS.

Wilson, Fred. 2006. “My Favorite Business Model.” AVC. Last modified March, 23rd. Accessed 17.02.2010. http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2006/03/my_fa vorite_bus.html.

Wilson, Fred. 2009. “Freemium and Freeconomics.” AVC. Last modified July, 4th. Accessed 15.10.2010. http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium- and-freeconomics.html. wired. 2008. “Star Wars: The Holocron.” YouTube video, posted August, 20th. Accessed 13.06.2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuqSdtWADAc.

Wolf, Michael J. 1999. The Entertainment Economy. New York: Times Busi- ness.

World Advertising Research Center. 2010. “US Advertising/Sales Ratios.” Based on Advertising Ratios & Budgets, 34th ed. Libertyville: Schonfeld & Associ- ates. Accessed 08.07.2011. http://www.warc.com/Pages/ForecastsAndData/ AdvertisingSlesRatios.aspx.

Writers Guild of America, West. 2009. “Constitution and Bylaws of the Writers Guild of America, West, Inc.”. Last modified June, 17th. Accessed 25.08.2011. http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=1105 - 1.

Wu, Tim. 2003. “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination.” Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law 2: pp. 141-175.

Xbox.com. 2007. “Believe.” Accessible at the Internet Archive. Last modified September, 16th. Accessed 21.06.2011. http://web.archive.org/web/2007 0916084816/http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/h/halo3/believe/ default.htm.

Yoo, Christopher S. 2005. “Beyond Network Neutrality.” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 19 (1): pp. 1-77.

— 330 — Bibliography Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal Entertainment Architecture

Young, Adam J. and Mark J. Valencia. 2003. “Conflation of Piracy and Terror- ism in Southeast Asia: Rectitude and Utility.” Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International & Strategic Affairs 25 (2): pp. 269-283.

Young, Norbert W. Jr., Stephen A. Jones and Harvey M. Bernstein. 2008. “Building Information Modeling (BIM): Transforming Design and Construc- tion to Achieve Greater Industry Productivity”. In SmartMarket Report: De- sign & Construction Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill Construction.

YouTube. n.d. “Partner Program: Benefits & Qualifications.” Accessed 25.06.2011. http://www.youtube.com/t/partnerships_benefits#qualifications.

Zajac, Edward J. and Max H. Bazerman. 1991. “Blind Spots in Industry and Competitor Analysis: Implications of Interfirm (Mis)Perceptions for Strategic Decisions.” The Academy of Management Review 16 (1): pp. 37-56. Ac- cessed 15.06.2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/258606.

Zelenka, Anne. 2007. “Free: A Tactic, not a Business Model.” GigaOM. Last modified March, 13th. Accessed 15.10.2010. http://gigaom.com/2007/03/ 13/free-a-tactic-not-a-business-model.

Zelizer, Barbie. Ed. 2008. Explorations in Communication and History. London; New York: Routledge.

Zillmann, Dolf and Jennings Bryant. 1994. “Entertainment as a Media Effect.” In Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, edited by Dolf Zillmann and Jennings Bryant. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zillmann, Dolf and Peter Vorderer. 2000. “Preface.” In Media Entertainment: The Psychology of its Appeal, edited by Dolf Zillmann and Peter Vorderer, pp. vi-x. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ziman, John M. 2000. “Evolutionary Models for Technological Change.” In Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process, edited by John M. Ziman, pp. 3-12. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Zimmer, Ben. 2007. “New Words on the Block: Back When ‘Movies’ Were Young.” Oxford University Press Blog. Last modified December, 6th. Ac- cessed 01.04.2011. http://blog.oup.com/2007/12/movies.

Zittrain, Jonathan. 2008. The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

Zuiker, Anthony E. and Duane Swierczynski. 2009. Level 26: Dark Origins. New York: Dutton.

Zuiker, Anthony E. and Duane Swierczynski. 2010. Dark Prophecy: A Level 26 Thriller Featuring Steve Dark. New York: Dutton.

Bibliography — 331 —