Just a small collection of ideas – ‘Production, Produsage, and the Future of Humanity’

May 29, 2009

“What are you gonna do without a college degree? Drive a forklift?”   – Paris Gellar.

This quote summed up my perception of being a ‘professional’ when I graduated high school in 2004. And I have a sneaking suspicion that many of my generation (Y, if you had to ask) feel the same.

Online convenience stores

Over the last 5 weeks, I’ve discovered produsage across new mediums and through different communities. This week however, we were asked to consider the future of produsage. Last week in tutorials we discussed communities such as Instructables, eMachineshop, Ponko, Spoonflower, Etsy. I had not heard of any of these ‘communities’ before now.

By describing them as communities, it suggests they are not simply not just websites or pages, but are products which reshape cultural, social, commercial and political institutions (Burns 2008, 400). Just in case any of you were a little puzzled about these communities, here is a quick run-down of what they do:

Instructables: Web-based documentation platform where people share their knowledge and collaborate with others.

eMachineshop: A conventional machine shop with low-cost fabrication of custom parts made from designer software.

Ponko: ‘The first online shop for individualised goods’ including specific designer created goods by users.

Spoonflower: Unique user created fabric based around design, craft and fabric communities.

Etsy: An online marketplace to buy and sell handmade items.

The common denominator here is user led communities that also provide open source software to design user created merchandise.

The effect of these communities on advertising lies in the users self-promotion on a viral level. As Bruns (2008, 400) suggests  “peer property spreads in a viral fashion, in a process that we call the ‘circulation of the common’. This is a new phenomenon, and it operates in parallel with the ‘circulation of commodities’ process of the traditional market system”.

The importance of users advertising their own merchandise through viral means, suggests users also become co-produsers of the space (Bruns 2008, 400). This correlates with Nimon’s (2007, 27) suggestion of Generation Y’s self-expression through Internet platforms.  Furthermore word of mouth, peer feedback and viral marketing are elements that both Bruns (2008) and Nimon (2007) are fundamental to produsage environments.

The Future of Produsage

The continuum of knowledge, collaboration, open source software and community communication methods is one that produsage stands. This is the future of communication for active generations. For advertising, being a paid communication portal is something that will probably rarely change, but will instead adapt to new mediums by reaching niche audiences on a global scale. The possibilities for advertising research of target markets as generations adopt personalised approaches to virtual communities and personalities are inexplicitly endless.

As always I welcome your comments, suggestions and feedback to ensure an industrious and dynamic approach to advertising in new media. I hope these last few weeks have sparked interest into what is already a heavily new media saturated take on advertising.

I will leave you with a few wise words from the father of advertising himself, which I believe personifies advertising communication in a new media world:

“I don’t know the rules of grammar… If you’re trying to persuade people to do something, or buy something, it seems to me you should use their language, the language they use every day, the language in which they think. We try to write in the vernacular.

– David Ogilvy.


Advertising: Pro or Amateur?

May 22, 2009

Last weeks discussion on Wikipedia got me thinking about the extension of knowledge in a professional sense: Will I still use Wikipedia (and alike) the same way when I graduate? How will produsage communities be of use to me then? My bet is, some of you are thinking the exact same thing.

Wikipedia: the secret Gen Y scapegoat?

Currently I use it as a starting point. To get a general understanding about key terms, movies, books, politics, really anything. In fact, even when I think “just Google it”, 9 times out of 10, I end up at Wikipedia. I often wonder if I’m a typical by-product of my generation or if this will just become another social norm. Apparently I’m not alone in thinking this. Jenkins (in Bruns 2008, 208) suggests the possession of knowledge is not what holds collective intelligence together, but rather the social process of acquiring knowledge.

I have an idea

For advertising, the Pro/Am debate is something, which I think extends beyond Bruns and Sanger’s Wikipedia debate. The community of knowledge creators and curators (Bruns 2008, 213) is one that I believe explains ihaveanidea.org.

Now I know I’ve mentioned this ad-community before, but this time I thought we’d take a closer look at just how the creation of advertising is involved in Pesce’s hyperintelligence. Like Wikipedia, I have an idea also is primarily led by amateurs and Pro-Ams, with very little recognition of their professional personas. While the creatives section at I have an idea, publicises advertising professionals who contribute to the community. This allows them to be ‘organic’ members instead of foreign bodies as revealed by Bruns (2008, 218).

Layers of the Pro-Am Onion

Networking and participation. These two words are crucial elements for any produsage model. They also hold importance in the overall process of layering diverse knowledge across a multitude of tools (Bruns 2008, 220). Tools such as Ning enable users to create, modify and manipulate collective intelligence by creating new social networks and platforms on which to decentralise the human knowledge space (Bruns 2008, 220).The public exchange of information through services such as Ihaveanidea, Ning and even Twitter are just the small picture in a wider community. Johnson’s “cosmopedia” explores how the users (the am’s of pro-ams) space is controlled by their own collective intellect.

Let bygones be bygones?

What I have learnt from Wikipedia and produsage communities is: nothing is tangible. Not even information of knowledge. It cannot be classified or classed as it has in the past. It cannot be seen viewed as naïve and simple. Pro-Ams challenge it, alter it, and tweak it to ensure the collective community gets the best out of what is available. Now you’ll probably note my view of past knowledge, like Bruns (2008, 222), is holoptic. It is representative of a clouded truth, based on naivety and mass production. But I wonder if network-centric mindsets are really that different. Yes, they underpin collective intelligence in all of its grandeur, but does it really represent the truth? Or does it merely present a quasi-semi-qualifies Pro-Am view on a certain subject?