This article was downloaded by: [James Madison University] On: 03 November 2014, At: 16:54 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Popular Music and Society Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpms20 Artists as Entrepreneurs, Fans as Workers Jeremy Wade Morris Published online: 15 May 2013.

To cite this article: Jeremy Wade Morris (2014) Artists as Entrepreneurs, Fans as Workers, Popular Music and Society, 37:3, 273-290, DOI: 10.1080/03007766.2013.778534 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03007766.2013.778534

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions Popular Music and Society, 2014 Vol. 37, No. 3, 273–290, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03007766.2013.778534

Artists as Entrepreneurs, Fans as Workers Jeremy Wade Morris

This paper uses the increasing integration of social media into music making and marketing to reflect on the work artists and their fans perform. While new technologies are celebrated for making cultural production more accessible, there is also more pressure on artists, as cultural entrepreneurs, to produce and distribute their own work. At the same time, fans are facing greater invocations to participate through overt calls to become co-creators or through more passive participation like behavior tracking. Fans cannot really consume without working. Using an analysis of British musician Imogen Heap— including press articles and data scrapes from Heap’s social media accounts—this paper focuses on the changing occupational and creative roles for artists and fans and the attendant implications for the circulation of cultural goods.

Introduction In 2009, British ambient pop singer Imogen Heap undertook a massive social media campaign to produce and promote her new album Ellipse. Using video diaries, blog posts, and status updates across sites like MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube, Heap kept fans apprised of the album’s progress, solicited their input on demos, and included them in other aspects of the production process, such as the design of her album art and the writing of her press biography (Bascaramurty; Fusilli; West). As the cultural industries experience ongoing aftershocks in the wake of digitization, the case of Imogen Heap shows how social media and online distribution have occasioned a Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 re-thinking of how artists, authors, and musicians go about the business of their art. Heap’s case also highlights the different occupational and creative roles that are emerging for users and fans and the shifting ways users are engaging with cultural content and with the creators and producers of that content. Accordingly, this paper uses the increasing integration of new media into music making and marketing as an opportunity to reflect on the idea of the artist as entrepreneur and on the cultural labor of fans. While new technologies have been routinely celebrated for making the tools of production more accessible (Anderson; Breen and Forde; Jones; Kot; Kusek and Leonhard), there is also more pressure on

q 2013 Taylor & Francis 274 J.W. Morris artists, as entrepreneurs; expertise they may neither have nor be interested in attaining (The´berge, Any Sound). On the other side of the equation, fans are facing far greater invocations to participate (Burkart; The´berge, “Everyday Fandom”). Be it through overt calls to help artists make and market their content, or through more passive participation such as the ambient tracking of users’ habits, patterns, and preferences, fans cannot really consume without working. Using Imogen Heap as a case study of a cultural entrepreneur, this paper focuses on the changing expectations of artists and fans in light of the digitization of the music commodity and on the subsequent implications for the circulation of cultural goods like music. It questions the applicability of terms like “work” and “labor” to user and fan practices and argues that the artist’s production practices are increasingly part of the “product” they are offering.

Social Media and Cultural Entrepreneurs The digitization of the music industries is now well into its third decade (Burkart and McCourt; Garofalo; Tschmuck). While digital formats do not yet dominate all markets or genres their effect on the music industries is undeniable:

What is clear, however, despite resurgences in vinyl sales and the relative stability of CD album sales, is that there has been a shift in music consumption toward the virtual, or at least toward complex imbrications of virtual and physical artefacts in everyday musical practices. (Beer 223) The decline in dominance of traditional ways of marketing and selling music (e.g. the dwindling economic and cultural influence of radio, music video television, and “brick-and-mortar” retailers) has sparked an explosion of new business models (Van Buskirk). Musicians of many stripes and genres are experimenting with new media/social media to connect with their fans, explore variable pricing models for their songs, and to find new audiences. While these strategies range from major label artists to independent musicians and from sincere efforts at connecting with fans to uninspired marketing spam, it is hard to ignore that the ways of doing business, as a musician, are changing. The digitization of the music commodity creates economic and structural opportunities (Byrne; Krasilovsky and Shemel; Thomson and Zisk). The economics of Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 digital formats eliminates a number of traditional production costs (e.g. packaging, physical shipments of products, etc.) and greatly reduces some of the others (e.g. retail, distribution). There are still studio fees, marketing and advertising campaigns, time and effort for discovering new talent, and administration fees, but these pale in comparison to the costs for physical products (Byrne). This has been especially important for independent artists, who have long been accustomed to handling much of the administrative aspects of their music themselves (i.e. marketing, promotion, touring). While the emerging uses of social and other new media are just the latest iteration of this do-it-yourself ethos, the significant cost savings and proliferation of Popular Music and Society 275 available platforms through which to communicate with audiences and other artists has helped make independent production and distribution a less costly model for artists to experiment with (Anderson). Aside from economic benefits, the larger hope for digital music lies in the structural changes it portends. Artists now have greater access to a wide variety of tools that allow them to produce, distribute, and market their own music and to circumvent the traditional paths of circulation for the music product. Digital technologies can put artists directly (or at least more directly) in contact with their fans (FMC, “Digital Infrastructure,” “Manifesto”). Cutting out the intermediaries makes it, in theory, cheaper to produce and market music and it potentially affords artists more intimate and meaningful relationships with their fans. In some cases, this seemingly direct contact with audiences presents opportunities for co-creative relationships to evolve. Again, it is not that these relationships are entirely new; musicians have previously relied on the labor of fans and audience members (e.g. fan clubs, word-of-mouth, tactical promotions, etc.). Rather, the widespread use of new and social media platforms and relative ease with which they can be put at the service of developing co- creative relationships makes the practice a more common and viable strategy for emerging and independent artists. This seemingly direct connection between artist and fan is perhaps clearest on social media platforms or technologies that make up what is known, for better or worse, as “Web. 2.0.” Proponents praise the democratizing effects of technologies and services that allow anyone with a creative idea to participate in artistic production (O’Reilly; Shirky; Tapscott and Williams). Others are more critical (Allen; Fuchs; Jarrett; Kawashima; Zimmer) and contend that social media and similar collaborative, productive software and services create a “cult of amateurs” that has negative consequences for art (Keen), for political participation (Morozov), and for the integration of capitalism and consumption into free time and leisure activities (Dean; Scholz; Terranova). Still, it is hard to deny that social media have become primary tools for artists (amateurs and professionals alike) to gain exposure and connect with users. Social networks like Facebook or MySpace and other technologies associated with Web 2.0 seem to mash up so many previous forms of publicity—concert posters, videos, interviews, demos, radio, etc.—that they are hard for emerging artists to ignore. Artists across the various levels of the music industries are turning towards new media as an alternative way to market and distribute their music, connect with Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 fans, or re-evaluate their troubled relationships with the traditional music industries. The flipside to this integration of new and social media into the production process is a greater burden on artists to take control of aspects of their career that they previously delegated to labels, managers, or other ancillary staff. Artists are increasingly becoming “cultural entrepreneurs” or taking part in what might be called cultural entrepreneur- ship (Scott). Michael Scott defines cultural entrepreneurship as marked by a lack of economic success, at least initially. Michael Scott defines cultural entrepreneurs as independent and emerging artists who undertake cultural production primarily for exposure’s sake and for purposes of networking. Their artwork functions to increase 276 J.W. Morris their visibility and cultural capital among cultural intermediaries that may one day provide them with steadier economic return. Cultural entrepreneurship, at least initially, is marked by a lack of economic success. Cultural entrepreneurship becomes the process of trying to convert a lack of financial resources into economic success through cultural capital and artistic influence (Scott 246–47). Importantly, the idea that artists are also entrepreneurs is not an attempt to undermine any sort of authenticity typically associated with the artistic process, but rather to acknowledge that the artistic process often involves entrepreneurial responsibilities and acumen. While art and commerce are frequently presented in opposition to one another, artists have long had to navigate the line between the two. Even studies of musicians in the eighteenth and nineteenth century (see, for example, Swedberg; Weber) suggest that, in addition to making art, “musicians are business people and social forces, entrepreneurs who take advantage of the opportunities before them (Weber 3). Scott’s research usefully illuminates the ways in which independent cultural producers navigate their first encounters with the broader cultural industries. However, by limiting the definition of cultural entrepreneurs to that of young, independent and economically struggling artists (Scott), the new kinds of work many cultural artists are now undertaking as a result of—or in conjunction with—the development of new technologies go unaddressed. Newer media and social platforms open up additional spaces for all levels of artists to share, present and distribute their work as well as supplementary means for interacting with fans (Baym, “Seeing Social Media Audiences”). This affects younger, independent musicians as much as it does more established and “famous” ones as both fans and artists begin reinterpreting traditional notions of celebrity. Given the possibilities for connecting with artists on these platforms, as Alice Marwick and danah boyd note, celebrity is moving “from a highly controlled and regulated institutional model to one in which performers and personalities actively address and interact with fans” (139–40). Since these media platforms are available to both emerging and established artists alike, they create a complicated “social environment where fans, famous people, and intermediaries such as gossip columnists co-exist” (Marwick and boyd 143). These kinds of settings exert new entrepreneurial pressures in terms of consistency of content production and strategies of representation and performance (Baym, “Fans or Friends” 299–305). The tools and platforms for sharing music and connecting with fans are by no means compulsory, but because almost anyone can have a Bandcamp page or Twitter Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 account, many artists in popular music genres almost need to have one by necessity. Just as the availability of low-cost, easy-to-use home studio hardware and software in the late 1990s put higher expectations on artists to have high-quality demo CDs ready before approaching record labels (The´berge, Any Sound), artists today face similar pressure to prove an extensive online presence with a valuable market of followers in order to convince labels or other financers to sign them or keep promoting their work. Social media become training grounds for artists considering a role in the music industries and empirical proof for labels gauging the continued viability of a particular artist or trend. Popular Music and Society 277 In the process of trying to build these networks and markets, as Nancy Baym’s recent research suggests, artists are experiencing different encounters with, and expectations from, their fans (“Engaging Fans,” “Fans or Friends,” “Seeing Social Media Audiences”). She notes that artists “often feel compelled to engage in direct, proactive and increasingly interpersonal modes of interaction with their fans” and that “what used to be clearly performer-audience relations increasingly resemble ordinary friendship” (“Fans or Friends” 1). Part of the reason for this blurring of roles is technological. The technology underpinning the micro-blogging network Twitter, for example, makes celebrities and micro-celebrities seemingly more accessible than they are in other forms of mediated representation (Marwick and boyd). Twitter followers can subscribe to anyone else’s account as long as the feed is public; unlike some other social network sites, no reciprocation from the person being followed is required. Moreover, by using hash tags and @reply functions, even users not subscribed to a particular account can potentially be in communication with an artist they admire. These connections let artists and other “famous” people perform celebrity in a way that seems more authentic and intimate than in other media (Marwick and boyd). Although the 140-character limit on Twitter updates may not offer an in-depth venue for confessional revelations of an artist’s inner personality, the intimacy that results from tracking a celebrity’s tweets on a regular basis “may create an equally valid feeling of ‘knowing’ them” (Marwick and boyd 148). There is also a wide range of content that can extend beyond mundane updates of an artist’s daily life; artists like Radiohead, U2 and a myriad of independent artists (for example, Ani Difranco) use their social media feeds for making political and ethical statements that both further their connections with audiences and build their artist image. In this respect, these new media platforms for engagement extend previous modes of artist-fan connection. Artists with a following have long cultivated fan clubs that they foster and maintain by providing exclusive access to b-sides and rarities, somewhat personalized letters or written material through the mail, or special shows and concerts. Similarly, many fans have typically relied on fan letters as a way to communicate directly with artists (Baym, “Seeing Social Media Audiences” 292). As Baym notes though, the difference with these new platforms is how quickly and how frequently audiences can now be in touch (“Seeing Social Media Audiences” 293). Moreover, fans have higher expectations about receiving a response from those they are in contact with (“Seeing Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 Social Media Audiences” 293). The norms of sites like MySpace or Twitter for the broader population apply even for relationships that are defined by a fan/celebrity divide. Different types of social media platforms, then, offer different spaces and conventions for fan-artist interaction. Each of the sites where artists and their fans interact has its own expected pace and rhythm in terms of updating and posting content. As a result, artists find themselves with a variety of profiles across various networks that require careful and constant curating. Even if the artists themselves are not maintaining their own profiles—choosing instead to employ record labels, 278 J.W. Morris PR firms, or consultants to manage their social media profiles for them—active social media profiles are crucial for developing strong connections with fans and for fostering productive fan communities (Beer; Marwick and boyd). As David Beer argues, “The profiles of popular music performers are crucial in making the ‘flickering connections’ central to the collaborative functioning of Web 2.0 by introducing ‘like-minded’ people who have never actually met” (Beer 224). Ultimately, as artists negotiate new modes of interacting with their fans and audience, they must also negotiate their own relationships with the different technologies, media, and platforms on which these encounters take place.

Ellipse The release of Heap’s Ellipse offers a glimpse at what a reconfigured creative process looks like. Heap has released several solo albums and one as part of an electronic duo formerly known as Frou Frou. Her songs have been featured in multiple television and film soundtracks, and she has even received a Grammy award for her production work. Despite these achievements, her records have never achieved massive commercial success. She was formerly signed to independent record label Almo Sounds, but, when Universal Records acquired Almo towards the end of the 1990s, they dropped Heap from their roster. Instead of pursuing another contract, Heap started her own record company and began using the web as a key means of promotion (though she still licenses her work for distribution and some promotion to Sony and RCA). To that end, she is an avid user of new and social media platforms, with hundreds of thousands of followers on MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter (Bascaramurty). While Heap is an accomplished musician and producer, this paper focuses more on her marketing skills than her musical ones. I treat Heap much the way Beer researches Jarvis Cocker: as both a product of, and participant in, global cultural production who can be analyzed via the traces from her (social) media imprint (Beer). The analysis below draws from a sample of dozens of press articles profiling the singer as well as a qualitative analysis of some of her online efforts. This includes imogenheap.com (Heap’s website which launched in 1999 and has been frequently updated and maintained since 2005) and the video blogs she posted on YouTube as well as her profiles/accounts on MySpace (since early 2005), Flickr (2004), Twitter (since April 2008), Ustream (2009), and, more recently, Facebook and Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 SoundCloud. Using text collection software, I compiled the historical contents of the various sites and analyzed them in conjunction with the period leading up to and directly after the launch of Ellipse. Perhaps the most striking outreach effort in Heap’s Ellipse project was the forty video blogs (vBlogs) she created throughout the two-year recording process (2007–09). The videos generally lasted between five and twelve minutes, and attracted anywhere from 15,000 to 100,000 views and hundreds of ensuing comments. The videos show Heap transforming her family home into a useable sound recording studio and feature the singer reflecting on the process of recording. The videos play Popular Music and Society 279 a key role in cementing the relationship between Heap, her fans/followers, and her music. Commenters, for example, remark at how the videos offer insight into a process many of them had found mysterious:

This was an amazing idea. It really lets your fans feel a closer connection to you. Well at least for me! ^ _ ^ We get to see the Immi behind the scenes. These vBlogs almost top the time i met you, almost.:P Keep up the great work and your lovely spirit!! (painted0green) The “connection” described by this user is partly the result of the form: hosted on YouTube, the videos partake of a certain amateur aesthetic, even though they are clearly filmed and edited by a trained videographer. Heap also consistently presents a quirky, creative personality and maintains a tone that is informal, approachable, and accessible. The impression of seeing “Immi behind the scenes” is also a result of the content. Many of the early videos are about relatively mundane activities (e.g. getting a driver’s license, spending time with her cat, moving furniture) rather than any kind of insight into her musical life or other traditional markers of celebrity lifestyle. The sharing of these seemingly trivial details is part of what makes social media so effective in creating intimate bonds between celebrities and users. The successful performance of intimacy depends on providing “the illusion of ‘backstage’, giving the impression of uncensored glimpses into the lives of the very famous” (Marwick and boyd 140). While the details of some of Heap’s video updates may seem inconsequential at first, the result is a strong connection with the artist that goes beyond fandom and prepares users to serve integral roles in the production process. As is obvious from some of the comments to the video blogs, Heap’s decision to share the process behind the album’s creation becomes part of how fans hear and interpret her music:

I would just like to say that I personally really appreciate you letting us all be a part of your life, your music. The songs feel that much more personal. For instance, when you mentioned the neighbors and the tree, it felt nostalgic because i remember you reporting it on your vlog months ago. Your music is truly inspiring, “cheeky” or not. (doctor2nsh) Heap’s videos, then, are not just a platform for extending or building her celebrity status by acquiring more devoted fans. Entrepreneurially, she is making a concerted effort to create a relationship with fans and followers that will serve as a starting point for further involvement in the production process or a deeper connection during Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 consumption. As the videos continue, fans are brought more directly into the production process. Once Heap has her home renovated and her studio fully functioning (around video blog #12), viewers are witness to recording “sessions” and to some of the dilemmas Heap faces during the production process. The first song Heap shares through the video blog, for example, is for the soundtrack of the TV show Heroes (Heap Video Blog #14). Heap describes how such side projects help support her work but they also unfortunately keep her away from finishing Ellipse. She apologizes to fans, acknowledging their eagerness to hear the album, and asks for their patience. 280 J.W. Morris As Heap shares new material, she uses the opportunity to reward viewers for tuning in and to solicit feedback from fans. Typically, Heap will play a section of a new song she is working on and ask fans to respond. Although many fans chime in with undying praise such as “u r like the best, I love you” (ASIthLordsPoet19) and “next to Bjork you are my second number one favorite artist, if that makes any sence???” (shirochachadorian), many also offer more specific constructive feedback. On one occasion, after a video blog in which Heap played the chorus of her new single “First Train Home,” several YouTube users remarked on its similarity to another pop song. One indicative comment, for example, read: “For some reason when you played ‘First Train Home’ I was hearing ‘I Love You Always Forever’ that song by Donna Lewis” (jancipants). The following day, Heap sent a message out to fans signaling she had listened to the reference song and she agreed with the remarks: “Had a listen to that ... song some of you said ‘first train home’ chorus sounded like and you’re so right!” (Heap, “Had a Listen to That”). In a more elaborate response, Heap used her next video blog to play fans a revised version of the chorus, and she demonstrated to viewers the specific changes she had made to the melody (Heap, “Video Blog #26”). Aside from the video blogs, Heap held contests through photo-sharing site Flickr where users submitted photos based on song lyrics for a chance to win copies of her CDs and she offered various other promotions through MySpace and her mailing list. Heap used a contest with her network of followers to find a graphic designer to come and live in her house for a week to help design the album’s cover art. She also outsourced the writing of her press biography to her followers. Using Twitter, Heap asked fans to submit 140-character-long tweets about her life and music, which she then compiled into a three-page document. The resulting biography reads more like an academic journal than a press bio, with each sentence being credited to one of over fifty Twitter users/fans/friends who submitted the sentence (Heap, “Tweet Biog Story”). This is but a hint of the activities Heap and her team carried out for Ellipse.1 Heap’s committed use of social media, while not the norm among artists, is becoming less rare. As such, it opens up larger questions for artistic production and consumption in the culture industries. For the rest of the article, I will focus specifically on two of these key issues: work and cultural entrepreneurship.

Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 Work How do we classify the “work” Imogen Heap and her fans and followers are doing here? Certainly fans are taking on duties that publicists, graphic designers, and producers are trained and paid to do (e.g. write biographies, design cover art, and give musical feedback). But, in the case of Ellipse, followers complement rather than replace the work done by these traditional figures. For example, instead of physically writing the biography themselves, Heap and her team’s role changed to collecting all the submissions from Twitter and crafting them into a finished bio. For Heap, the exercise becomes one of managing the complementary contributions of users. This is, Popular Music and Society 281 in other words, a version of what John Banks and Mark Deuze call co-creative labor, or labor between audiences and professionals. They argue that the “success of media production may increasingly rely on effectively combining and coordinating the various forms of expertise possessed by both professional media workers and creative citizen-consumers, not displacing one with the other” (Banks and Deuze 422). Media production, in other words, is increasingly dependent on the complementary efforts of traditional media professionals and the eventual consumers of the content in question. Heap’s work, in addition to creating music, becomes the coordination of user production and attention through social media. Her skills involve both the production of music and the production of an environment in which fans feel they can contribute to the project. This kind of co-creative labor calls into question terms like “work,” but also terms like “amateurs” and “professionals.” It reveals that expertise can take multiple forms: the formal expertise that a professional gains through practice and credentials as well as less codified tacit expertise gained through the amateur’s experience and perspective (Ross). This is why Philippe Ross’s case study of new media producers in the UK starts with such a deceptively straightforward question: “What do new media producers know?” (912–13). He responds by arguing that each form of expertise must be taken in context, but each has something to contribute to the process. We can put Ross’s question to musicians, artists, and other cultural content creators as well. What, after all, does a musician “know” that the rest of us do not? The skills to play an instrument or perform are indeed learned and perfected over time, but they are not the province of artists alone. This is even truer across the various managerial roles in the cultural industries where the skillset is fuzzier (e.g. marketing, networking, trend- spotting, buzz-building, etc.). Research on Swedish indie music bloggers suggests that many so-called amateurs have greater expertise than the musicians (and many of the executives at record labels) at tracking, promoting, and spreading news about the Swedish music scene (Baym and Burnett). These expert amateurs develop their own credentials and skills through different channels than traditional music industry executives, but their place in the circulation and success of certain artists in the scene is just as influential. Screeds against amateurs, like Andrew Keen’s, hold little weight when we realize that the act of creating and distributing cultural goods is such a highly complex task that all experts are amateurs at some part of the process. Perhaps the terms “work” or “labor” here are misleading then. They reduce the Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 complex meanings behind why people contribute, participate, and expend time and effort in projects that are not entirely rewarding in the classical economic sense (i.e. profit, compensation, etc.). This is precisely the issue in the recent debates on labor and cultural production between critics like Christian Fuchs who employ Marxist critiques to suggest that producers of user-generated content comprise a new class of exploited laborers under informational capitalism and those like Adam Arvidsson and Elanor Colleoni who argue that labor theories of value do not adequately account for the value generated through artist-fan relations and user-based production practices (Fuchs, Arvidsson and Colleoni). We do know that Imogen 282 J.W. Morris Heap’s fans and followers received various forms of compensation, depending on the project. Contest winners received merchandise while bio contributors received recognition/credit, a free CD, and a special invitation to a party with Imogen Heap. Other projects, like the graphic design work, were paid contract work. Considering the amount of labor fans do on behalf of Facebook, MySpace, Last.FM, and other such sites through ambient tracking of tastes and preferences which are then sold back to advertisers (Cote´ and Pybus), the work they do for Heap seems much more transparent: users are more aware of the conditions of their labor/compensation and are in greater agreement with the overall purpose of the project. While it might be tempting to criticize the incorporation of user-given labor and content into the musical production process and dismiss it as another instance of the exploitation of “free labor” (Fuchs; Terranova), it is not clear that the users who have taken part in the co-production process view their contributions as work or labor, and framing it on those terms may lead us further from understanding the reasons for, and meanings of, user contributions to the production process (Baym and Burnett 445). Instead, fans and followers seem to be undertaking a form of what Postigo calls “passionate labor”. Although the economic “profit” from the labor of co-creative fans and users flows mostly to Heap, there are a range of other rewards in terms of meaning and experience that govern their contributions. Importantly, the drive to share this passionate labor with the Ellipse project was fostered and instilled by the kinds of interactions Heap provided for her fans. Her labor was as much social as musical. Passionate labor (from both Heap and her fans) helped Heap receive a significant response to her call for submissions for help with her bio or artwork for her album. It also extended beyond Heap’s own solicitations. Some of the passionate labor fans carry out is taken up on their own initiative. In an interesting example, one of Heap’s fans tipped her off to a leak of a promotional copy of her album on the auction site eBay, where someone was trying to sell Ellipse several weeks before its official launch date (Fusilli). A swarm of followers quickly investigated who was behind the leak and traded strategies on how to stop the auction. In response, Heap and her fans put in massive bids on eBay, ratcheting the album’s cost up to 10 million pounds (Fusilli). The suspicious behavior alerted eBay that something was amiss and the company took the auction down. This all took place within twenty-four hours. In an era where record labels and music industry groups bemoan users who clamor to download early releases from unsanctioned file-sharing sites, here was a group of users, passionately Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 invested in Ellipse as a project, acting as lawyers and managers to make sure the album did not get out before its official release date. For the artist as entrepreneur, their role is as much about making connections as it is about making sales. This is certainly not unique to the era of social media marketing; musicians have long had to work at building and maintaining audiences through touring, newsletters, and other forms of social outreach. However, the avenues for enacting these kinds of relationship are proliferating and the ability to feed these interactions into the production process is much more direct and integral (as I discuss further in the following section). Just as Scott argues for the importance of using free Popular Music and Society 283 labor to build convertible social and cultural capital, Heap carries out a series of relationship-building initiatives in order to embed fans into the production process. However, the case of Heap shows that Scott’s conclusions apply beyond independent and emerging artists and affect many artists who enter into the blurred relationships presented by social media and other technologies. Heap’s highly social and technologized marketing strategies say as much about her music as does the music itself. Although the sample-based electronic music she creates (along with found sounds) lends itself to certain modes of fan involvement (i.e. submitting samples, sound snippets, etc.), Heap is using fan contributions as another instrument in her music making and another component of the production and distribution process. Through her production and marketing techniques, Heap is trying to present a particular mode and method of being a musician and of forming relationships with her fans. As Swedberg notes about cultural entrepreneurs in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, “One can, for example, conceptualize the artist as someone who combines different items into the piece of art, and an economic feature—say a way of marketing—may be one of these items that are combined” (259). Heap’s work as an artist is as much about the music she creates as it is about the way she creates and markets it. Her process is part of her product, and she is recognized as a pioneer in this realm in music and technology circles.2

Cultural Entrepreneurship There is no question that Imogen Heap’s project is savvy marketing. She incorporated fans into the project or, to take a more cynical stance, she provided the illusion of inclusion. This made fans feel as if they were taking part in the album’s realization. It also created a level of passionate investment in the project that paid back on many levels, from fans looking out for album leaks to pre-orders and sales of the finished CD. The strategy also laid the groundwork for a series of spin-off commodities and revenue streams: advertising sold off Imogen Heap’s video blogs, a user-generated remix album inspired by one of Ellipse’s throwaway songs, a DVD documentary about the “making of” Ellipse and more. At a time when artists are struggling to sell CDs, Heap is simultaneously trying to make the CD more meaningful as an object while also downplaying its importance by introducing other consumption options. But it is hard to dismiss Ellipse as a mere publicity stunt. An odd conflation of user Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 labor, targeted freelance work, and collaborative crowd-sourcing, it represents a model of cultural entrepreneurship that puts a new spin on do-it-yourself (DIY) culture. Call it “do-it-ourselves” instead, since the “doing” typically involves a substantial sea of fans, friends, and followers who have taken an interest in the project. Without a record label behind her, Heap took on many of the roles typically fulfilled by a label (promotion, publicity, production, scheduling, etc.), but to call it DIY is disingenuous. In fact, given the complexity of the process of producing and distributing cultural goods in the increasingly digitized cultural industries, the idea of the lone artist with the ability to do it all seems not only quaint but seriously misguided. While independent artists have 284 J.W. Morris long had to resort to DIY strategies for production, marketing, and distribution—and recognizing that they likely were not doing it entirely themselves—DIO strategies extend the network of supporters beyond the support of a small group of friends or fans to a much wider network of possible contributors. The persistence and participation of fans in propagating the popularity of cultural products is hardly new (Jenkins). The difference here is the point at which fans are being incorporated into the creative and production process. It is one thing to have fans as active consumers. It is a wholly other undertaking to involve them as producers, as funders, as backers. This is the crucial difference between crowd- sourcing and crowd-funding (Bannerman). While there are plenty of opportunities for fans to give advice and input on media content, sites like Kapipal and Kickstarter rely on fans to fund the very production of the various projects. Artists (established and emerging) can create project pages and put out a call for funding and fans participate in the production process to varying degrees depending on their investment (economic and other) in the project. Far from mere workers, crowd- funding positions fans increasingly as patrons, investors, and collaborators. There are more avenues for followers to participate directly and integrally in the projects of their choosing. On these sites, the artist is responsible to—and their success determined by—the quality of the network they build and that network’s level of participation. This, however, is where the demands of being an artist bump up against the demands of being an entrepreneur. Exciting as some of these new models may be for disintermediation or for re-arranging the economics of production and circulation, these new opportunities for making, distributing, and selling cultural goods throw artists and creators into environments for which they may be inadequately suited. Take Imogen Heap’s own comments about how demanding her DIY schedule is: “About 5% of my time goes to actually making music sadly. ... The rest is promo, technical, planning, running around, schedules ... blah” (Heap, “About 5% of My Time”). Heap also had to re-think her touring plans after realizing how much of her time it would require to organize shows in the kinds of venues she wanted based on her budget (Arthur). In a particularly telling Twitter exchange, Heap laments the amount of extra work cultural entrepreneurship takes:

I really need to work on my delegation skills! Life is full of things to do and I need to stop trying to do it all myself. ... I need a full time PA. i’m so dog tired trying Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 to do everything. This isn’t anywhere near as busy as it’s going to get either. long siiiiigh. ... funny thing is, I don’t have time to FIND/ Interview a PA!” (Heap, “I Really Need to Work,” “I Need a Full Time PA,” “Funny Thing Is”) Even though fans responded to her pleas for help with great enthusiasm, Heap admits that her kind of cultural entrepreneurship imposes many extra demands on the production process that she must address on her own or is simply unable to accomplish. While journalists and marketing types praised Heap’s model of cultural entrepreneurship (Bascaramurty; Fusilli; Weintraub), music industry insider and provocateur Bob Lefsetz puts the project into stark reality: “There’s nothing wrong Popular Music and Society 285 with what Imogen has done here. But if this is truly the future, we’re fucked. There’s got to be a better way to reach fans. ... Do people have to give up music because they’re so busy marketing themselves?” Baym’s research on practicing musicians suggests that the answer to this question depends highly on the personal views, values, and skills of each individual musician. Some musicians are more proficient with social media than others. Some are more comfortable maintaining friendships with fans. And others still suggest feeling overwhelmed or at least overburdened by building and maintaining productive networks while others seem to have integrated these practices more directly into their process (Baym, “Seeing Social Media Audiences”). While artists’ relationships with social media and the connections they entail may vary widely, it is clear that the demands of co-creative labor, of maintaining active social media profiles, and of coordinating the resulting user communities that emerge out of these networks and interactions are becoming an increasingly important node of tension for artists trying to both fulfill their musical goals and maintain their engagement with their audience. They are part of what it means to take on the work of a cultural entrepreneur.

Conclusion Heap’s near obsessive use of new media joins that of other high-profile artists trying to incorporate their audience’s expertise into the making, distributing, and selling of music. Other often cited examples include industrial rocker Trent Reznor (from Nine Inch Nails), who created a secret website, coded messages, and an immersive video/role-playing game to promote his recent album, Year Zero, and rock group Radiohead, who spliced up one of the singles from In Rainbows into its component pieces (i.e. bass track, vocals, drumbeat) for a global remix contest (Kreps; Rose). Arguably, the success of these initiatives owes a large debt to the pre-existing popularity of the acts in question—popularity that comes from years of marketing and promotion provided by the industrial system that some of these artists are now trying to circumvent. Outside these high-profile experiments. though, there are countless independent and emerging artists all trying different models of making and circulating the digital music commodity. Bands are asking users to pay what they want on sites like Bandcamp or KickStarter. Artists are giving away digital songs with the purchase of an accompanying physical artifact. Websites like Sell-A-Band encourage Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 users to invest in bands, like stocks, and the funding helps seed the production of new music. Other music retail sites, like Amie Street, employed variable pricing based on the popularity of songs on the site: as a song gets more popular, its price increases, adding monetary value to the skills and process of discovery.3 These types of innovation are rife in all registers of the music industries, prompting one journalist to note that business models are the new punk (Van Buskirk). Of course, not all of these models will be successful. In fact, some of them have already failed due to poor economic performance or lack of users (e.g. Amie Street). Nor am I suggesting that every artist could or should follow the lead set by Heap or the 286 J.W. Morris examples above. Many of Heap’s successes stem from years of experience of building a relationship with her audiences: a hurdle new and emerging artists will all likely need to negotiate in their own ways over time. Finally, the tools and strategies discussed above are also not, of course, available only to independent and emerging artists. Marketers for more established record label artists are quite handily finding ways to incorporate fan and user labor into their campaigns and album production process, ranging across the spectrum from honest and transparent co-creation to more opaque forms of co- optation of user labor and sentiment. DIO strategies differ in the levels at which artists integrate them into their creative practices and the commitment artists exhibit towards transparency of the production process. Part of the reason Heap makes such a fruitful and complicated example is precisely that liminal status she has as both a product of the traditional music industries and yet also as an artist working through the incorporation and management of co-creative user relationships. Ultimately, I outline Heap’s practices here not because they should serve as a template for all artists to follow, but because they are a signal for a much larger set of musical experiments in cultural entrepreneurship that are taking place at many levels of the music industries. Regardless of these various strategies and their varying successes, what is important to recognize is a burgeoning investment in models of cultural entrepreneurship that seek to combine new technologies for producing, distributing, and connecting with the passionate labor and creativity of both artists and fans. Heap’s mode of practice, along with other, similar initiatives taking place, demonstrates the flexibility and multiplicity of the digital music commodity when combined with the creativity and skills of individual artists and users. In the first instance, then, this research has been an attempt to think through how co-creative labor can “be understood parallel to (or beyond) categories such as work and labor” (Banks and Deuze 426). Although the research conducted here is by necessity relatively silent on the many reasons why users get involved in do-it- ourselves co-creative projects, it is clear from the user comments and commitments to Heap’s various initiatives that simply dismissing user involvement as “work” or exploited labor is an insufficient theoretical lens. Rather, considering how DIO strategies complement and coexist with traditional artist production processes will offer a more nuanced picture of the production and circulation of cultural content in light of digital goods and new and social media. Second, this case study of Imogen Heap shows how new and emerging media help Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 artists present their creative process as part of the product. Beyond her music, Heap’s stance towards her audience—her willingness to open up various aspects of creation, marketing, and distribution to users—is as much a part of the significance of Ellipse as any of the individual songs it contains. We can argue over how honest or sincere she was in her efforts of inclusion—Was it merely a marketing stunt? Was it a genuine desire to work with a larger community of fans and artists?—but these debates may not ultimately matter given the perception of transparency and inclusion Heap was able to achieve. Heap offers not only her music to fans, but also the experience of feeling part of the creation of that music. Popular Music and Society 287 Finally, I would like to suggest that what is truly interesting about this kind of passionate, co-creative labor, particularly in the realm of digital goods and social media, is that it fosters a re-evaluation of the relationship artists and users have with the music commodity. Digitization has revealed what has long been a central truth of cultural commodities: people are not paying solely for the objects; they are also paying for the meanings they associate with the object. Co-creative labor now offers users multiple options for experiencing art in different forms and formats, through different media and modes of engagement. Fans now have multiple registers in which they can get involved or participate with cultural content. The result is a critical re-evaluation of artistic experiences and products and the role they play in our lives. For Heap, the benefits of cultural entrepreneurship seem to outweigh the demands. She has recently begun the recording of her newest album, her fourth, and she is developing each song over a three-month period over the next three years. Each song involves fans who are submitting snippets of sounds, or “seeds,” that Heap is sifting through, selecting, effecting, and collating as part of the bed tracks for the album’s songs. Fans and their creative work are literally embedded in the album. This project will undoubtedly require a significant amount of Heap’s time and effort to keep fans involved, just as it will take much of their time and effort to contribute. Whether the resulting project will be of mutual benefit remains to be seen. But, across the music industries, there are enough similar experiments taking place to force a re-evaluation of the relationships both artists and fans have with art, and that is certainly a positive development for listeners, musicians, and, ultimately, for music itself.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Derek Johnson as well as audiences at the IASPM conference and at the UW Madison Media and Cultural Studies colloquium for their helpful feedback on earlier versions of this article. Thanks also to the reviewers and editors of Popular Music and Society for their time and comments. This research was funded in part by a grant from the Quebec provincial government (Fonds que´be´cois de la recherche sur la socie´te´).

Notes [1] She even created a “twitdress” for her appearance at the 2010 Grammy Awards that tweeted messages and pictures from fans so they could “accompany [her] on the red carpet” (Dybwad). [2] As a quick example, Heap has been invited to give TED lectures about her recording process; Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 her technological abilities and co-creative stance are always mentioned in her print and television interviews. [3] In September of 2010, Amie Street closed down and began directing all its customers to Amazon.com’s new music service. Although files were still available at Amazon, the demand- based pricing structure was no longer supported.

Works Cited

Allen, Matthew. “Web 2.0: An Argument against Convergence.” First Monday 13.3 (2008): Web. Anderson, Chris. The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More. New York: Hyperion, 2006. Print. 288 J.W. Morris

Arthur, Charles. “Imogen Heap Says Touring’s Too Pricey as Record Industry Sales Slump.” The Guardian, 26 May 2010. Web. 13 Mar. 2011. Arvidsson, Adam, and Elanor Colleoni. “Value in Informational Capitalism and on the Internet.” The Information Society 28.3 (2012): 135–50. Print. ASIthLordsPoet19. “User Comment to Video Blog #.” YouTube, 2011. Web. 23 Sept. 2011. Banks, John, and Mark Deuze. “Co-Creative Labor.” Interantional Journal of Cultural Studies 12.5 (2009): 419–31. Print. Bannerman, Sarah. “Crowdfunding Culture.” Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Association for the Study of Popular Music, Canadian Chapter. Montreal, 18 June 2011. Canadian Journal of Communication (forthcoming). Web. Bascaramurty, Dakshana. “The Tweet Sound of Success.” The Globe and Mail, 2 Sept. 2009: R4. Print. Baym, Nancy. “Engaging Fans through Social Media.” Larm Norway Music Industry Conference. 2011. Web. ———. “Fans or Friends.” International Communication Association Conference. Boston, MA. 28 May 2011. Conference Paper. ———. “Fans or Friends? Seeing Social Media Audiences as Musicians Do.” Participations 9.2 (2012): 286–316. Web. Baym, Nancy, and Robert Burnett. “Amateur Experts: International Fan Labor in Swedish Independent Music.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 12.5 (2009): 433–49. Print. Beer, David. “Making Friends with Jarvis Cocker: Music Culture in the Context of Web 2.0.” Cultural Sociology 2.2 (2008): 222–41. Print. Breen, Marcus, and Eamonn Forde. “The Music Industry, Technology and Utopia: An Exchange between Marcus Breen and Eamonn Forde.” Popular Music 23.1 (2004): 79–89. Print. Burkart, Patrick. Music and Cyberliberties. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan UP, 2010. Print. Burkart, Patrick, and Tom McCourt. Digital Music Wars: Ownership and Control of the Celestial Jukebox. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. Print. Byrne, David. “David Byrne’s Survival Strategies for Emerging Artists—and Megastars.” Wired 18 Dec. 2007. Print. Cote´, Mark, and Jennifer Pybus. “Learning to Immaterial Labor 2.0: Myspace and Social Networks.” Ephemera 7.1 (2007): 88–106. Web. Dean, Jodi. Blog Theory: Feedback and Capture in the Circuits of Drive. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010. Print. doctor2nsh. “User Comment to Video Blog #23.” YouTube 2008. Web. 16 Jan. 2011. Dybwad, Barb. “Grammys: Imogen Heap Accepts Award Wearing ‘Twitter Dress’.” Mashable, 2010. Web. 14 Feb. 2011. FMC. “The Future of Digital Infrastructure for the Creative Economy.” Future of Music Coalition. 16 Feb. 2010. Web. 15 Apr. 2010. FMC. “The Future of Music Manifesto.” Future of Music Coalition. 1 June 2000. Web. 13 Apr. 2010. Fuchs, Christian. “Labor in Informational Capitalism and on the Internet.” The Information Society 26.3 (2010): 179–96. Print. Fusilli, Jim. “A Heap of Surprises: ‘Ellipse’ Is Modern Pop Full of Invention.” The Wall Street Journal, 28 Aug. 2009, Arts and Entertainment. Print. Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 Garofalo, Reebee. “From Music Publishing to Mp3: Music and Industry in the Twentieth Century.” American Music 17.3 (1999): 318–53. Print. Heap, Imogen. “About 5% of My Time Goes to Actually Making Music Sadly ... the Rest Is Promo, Technical, Planning, Running around, Schedules ... Blah.” Twitter, 6 Aug. 2009. Web. 23 Sept. 2011. ———. “Video Blog #14.” YouTube, 2007. Web. 14 Jan. 2011. ———. “Funny Thing Is, I Don’t Have Time to Find/Interview a Pa! Argh! That Was Quite a Response. I’m Sure Many of You Would Be Amazing Too. Oh Wa.” Twitter, 15 July 2009. Web. 14 Apr. 2012. ———. “Had a Listen to That ... Song Some of You Said ‘First Train Home’ Chorus Sounded Like and You’re So Right!” Twitter, 26 June 2008. Web. 16 Jan. 2011. Popular Music and Society 289

———. “I Need a Full Time Pa. I’m So Dog Tired Trying to Do Everything. This Isn’t Anywhere near as Busy as It’s Going to Get Either. Long Siiiiigh.” Twitter, 15 July 2009. Web. 14 Apr. 2012. ———. “I Really Need to Work on My Delegation Skills! Life Is Full of Things to Do and I Need to Stop Trying to Do It All Myself.” Twitter, 15 July 2009. Web. 14 Apr. 2012. ———. “Tweet Biog Story.” 2009. Web. 3 Apr. 2012. ———. “Video Blog #26.” YouTube, 2008. Web. 16 Jan. 2011. jancipants. “User Comment to Video Blog # 25.” YouTube, 2008. Web. 16 Jan. 2011. Jarrett, Kylie. “Interactivity Is Evil! A Critical Investigation of Web 2.0.” First Monday 13.3 (2008): Web. Jenkins, Henry. Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: New York UP, 2006. Print. Jones, Steve. “Music and the Internet.” Popular Music 19.2 (2000): 217–30. Print. Kawashima, Nobuko. “The Rise of ‘User Creativity’: Web 2.0 and a New Challenge for Copyright Law and Cultural Policy.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 16.3 (2010): 337–53. Print. Keen, Andrew. The Cult of the Amateur: How Today‘s Internet Is Killing Our Culture. New York: Doubleday/Currency, 2007. Print. Kot, Greg. Ripped: How the Wired Generation Revolutionized Music. New York: Scribner, 2009. Print. Krasilovsky, M., and S. Shemel. This Business of Music. New York: Billboard Books, 2000. Print. Kreps, Daniel. “Radiohead Launch ‘Nude’ Remix Contest.” Rolling Stone, 2008. Web. 12 Aug. 2009. Kusek, David and Gerd Leonhard. The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution. Boston, MA: Berklee Press, 2005. Print. Lefsetz, Bob. “Imogen Heap.” The Lefsetz Letter, 2009. Web. 12 Aug. 2009. Marwick, Alice E., and danah boyd. “To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17.2 (2011): 139–58. Print. Morozov, Evgeny. The Net Delusion the Dark Side of Internet Freedom. Philadelphia, PA: Perseus Books, 2011. Print. O’Reilly, Tim. “What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software.” O’Reilly Group 2005. Web. 12 Oct. 2009. painted0green. “User Comment on Video Blog #1.” YouTube, 2008. Web. 16 Jan. 2011. Postigo, Hector. “America Online Volunteers: Lessons from an Early Co-Production Community.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 12.5 (2009): 451–69. Print. Rose, Frank. “Secret Websites, Coded Messages: The New World of Immersive Games.” Wired 20 Dec. 2007. Print. Ross, Phillippe. “Is There an Expertise of Production? The Case of New Media Producers.” New Media and Society 13.6 (2011): 912–28. Print. Scholz, Trebor. “Market Ideology and the Myths of Web 2.0.” First Monday 13.3 (2008): Web. Scott, Michael. “Cultural Entrepreneurs, Cultural Entrepreneurship: Music Producers Mobilising and Converting Bourdieu’s Alternative Capitals.” Poetics 40.3 (2012): 237–55. Print. Shirky, Clay. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York:

Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014 Penguin, 2008. Print. shirochachadorian. “User Comment to Video Blog #1.” YouTube, 2010. Web. 23 Sept. 2011. Swedberg, Richard. “The Cultural Entrepreneur and the Creative Industries: Beginning in Vienna.” Journal of Cultural Economics 20 (2006): 243–61. Print. Tapscott, Don, and Anthony D. Williams. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York: Portfolio, 2006. Print. Terranova, Tiziana. Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age. London and Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press, 2004. Print. The´berge, Paul. Any Sound You Can Imagine: Making Music/Consuming Technology. Hanover, NH, and London: Wesleyan UP, 1997. Print. ———. “Everyday Fandom: Fan Clubs, Blogging, and the Quotidian Rhythms of the Internet.” Canadian Journal of Communication 30.4 (2005): 485–502. Web. 290 J.W. Morris

Thomson, Kristin, and Brian Zisk. “iTunes and Digital Downloads: An Analysis.” Future of Music Coalition, 15 June 2003. Web. 26 July 2008. Tschmuck, Peter. Creativity and Innovation in the Music Industry. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Print. Van Buskirk, Eliot. “Radiohead Makes Business Plans the New Punk Rock.” Wired 12 Dec. 2007. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. Weber, William, Ed. The Musician as Entrepreneur, 1700–1914: Managers, Charlatans, and Idealists. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 2004. Print. Weintraub, Colette. “The New Music Business Model: Imogen Heap.” Deep Dive Marketing, 2009. Web. 14 Mar. 2011. West, Naomi. “Imogen Heap: Fully Connected.” The Telegraph 14 Oct. 2010. Print. Zimmer, Michael. “Preface: Critical Perspectives on Web 2.0.” First Monday 13.3 (2008): Web.

Notes on Contributor Jeremy Wade Morris holds a PhD from McGill University and is an Assistant Professor in Media and Cultural Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Communication Arts department. His research interests include the state of the popular music industry, the digitization of cultural goods and commodities, podcasting and other music and sound technologies. His work has appeared in New Media and Society, First Monday, and in collected editions on music and technology. Downloaded by [James Madison University] at 16:54 03 November 2014