What do you think?
Rate this book
Postmillenial Pop
Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture
Spreadable Media maps fundamental changes taking place in our contemporary media environment, a space where corporations no longer tightly control media distribution and many of us are directly involved in the circulation of content. It contrasts "stickiness"—aggregating attention in centralized places—with "spreadability"—dispersing content widely through both formal and informal networks, some approved, many unauthorized. Stickiness has been the measure of success in the broadcast era (and has been carried over to the online world), but "spreadability" describes the ways content travels through social media.
Following up on the hugely influential Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, this book challenges some of the prevailing metaphors and frameworks used to describe contemporary media, from biological metaphors like "memes" and "viral" to the concept of "Web 2.0" and the popular notion of "influencers." Spreadable Media examines the nature of audience engagement, the environment of participation, the way appraisal creates value, and the transnational flows at the heart of these phenomena. It delineates the elements that make content more spreadable and highlights emerging media business models built for a world of participatory circulation. The book also explores the internal tensions companies face as they adapt to the new communication reality and argues for the need to shift from "hearing" to "listening" in corporate culture.
Drawing on examples from film, music, games, comics, television, transmedia storytelling, advertising, and public relations industries, among others—from both the U.S. and around the world—the authors illustrate the contours of our current media environment. They highlight the vexing questions content creators must tackle and the responsibilities we all face as citizens in a world where many of us regularly circulate media content. Written for any and all of us who actively create and share media content, Spreadable Media provides a clear understanding of how people are spreading ideas and the implications these activities have for business, politics, and everyday life.
Following up on the hugely influential Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, this book challenges some of the prevailing metaphors and frameworks used to describe contemporary media, from biological metaphors like "memes" and "viral" to the concept of "Web 2.0" and the popular notion of "influencers." Spreadable Media examines the nature of audience engagement, the environment of participation, the way appraisal creates value, and the transnational flows at the heart of these phenomena. It delineates the elements that make content more spreadable and highlights emerging media business models built for a world of participatory circulation. The book also explores the internal tensions companies face as they adapt to the new communication reality and argues for the need to shift from "hearing" to "listening" in corporate culture.
Drawing on examples from film, music, games, comics, television, transmedia storytelling, advertising, and public relations industries, among others—from both the U.S. and around the world—the authors illustrate the contours of our current media environment. They highlight the vexing questions content creators must tackle and the responsibilities we all face as citizens in a world where many of us regularly circulate media content. Written for any and all of us who actively create and share media content, Spreadable Media provides a clear understanding of how people are spreading ideas and the implications these activities have for business, politics, and everyday life.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published December 1, 2012
110 people are currently reading
963 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
March 6, 2016
Too many pages for too little ideas... It is an interesting book despite the fact that it deals with the big questions only superficially. It keeps repeating itself.. But the first 2 chapters are good.
January 21, 2013
Much has been written and is being written about how the media operates today, with audiences relationship with media texts far more complex than ever before. The internet and digital media affords audiences not only new opportunities and platforms for consumption of the media, but also creation too. Following on from Jenkins 2008 book Convergence Culture, this really is the most up to date analysis of the media you can get today. Spreadable Media focuses on the distribution, re-distribution and appropriation of media texts by audiences and the reaction from media organisations, many of which feel uncomfortable with this new era of media production and consumption.
Case studies throughout are fascinating, with Mad Men and the Twitter expansion of its universe a particular favourite with it branching into areas of fan fiction and issues of media ownership.
As a media educator myself I will certainly be recommending it to colleagues and students alike. I hope that the audience reaches further than this - it certainly deserves to - as media professionals and media consumers (so yes, that's all of us) will certainly gain much from reading the book.
Case studies throughout are fascinating, with Mad Men and the Twitter expansion of its universe a particular favourite with it branching into areas of fan fiction and issues of media ownership.
As a media educator myself I will certainly be recommending it to colleagues and students alike. I hope that the audience reaches further than this - it certainly deserves to - as media professionals and media consumers (so yes, that's all of us) will certainly gain much from reading the book.
June 14, 2015
Vim esperando um livro com uma análise rasa, por quem não está inserido na mídia, como costumam ser as revisões acadêmicas, mas fui muito bem surpreendido. Excelente livro, que explica desde o que leva as pessoas a compartilhar ou produzir conteúdo ao que faz ele se espalhar. Recomendadíssimo para qualquer um que queira entender a cultura atual.
August 11, 2017
Introduction: Why Media Spreads
p.17 – The term “viral” first appeared in science fiction stories, describing (generally bad) ideas that spread like germs.
p.18 – The notion of the media as virus taps a larger discussion that compares systems of cultural distribution to biological systems.
1 – Where Web 2.0 Went Wrong
p.48 – The idea of Web 2.0 was introduced at a 2004 conference of the O’Reilly Media Group. In Tim O’Reilly’s formulation, Web 2.0 companies rely on the Internet as the platform for promoting, distributing, and refining their products: treating software as a service designed to run across multiple devices, relying on data as the “killer app,” and harnessing the “collective intelligence” of a network of users (O’Reilly 2005). Since Web 2.0’s introduction, it has become the cultural logic for e-business – a set of corporate practices that seek to capture and exploit participatory culture.
p.52 – The idea of a moral economy comes from E.P. Thompson (1971), who used the term to describe the social norms and mutual understandings that make it possible for two parties to conduct business. Thompson introduced this concept in his work on eighteenth-century food riots, arguing that when the indentured classes challenged landowners, their protests were typically shaped by some “legitimizing notion” (1971, 78).
All participants need to feel that the parties involved are behaving in a morally appropriate fashion. In many cases, the moral economy holds in check the aggressive pursuit of short-term self-interest in favour of decisions that preserve long-term social relations among participants.
p.53 – Communities are in theory more fragmented, divided, and certainly more dispersed than the corporate entities with which they interface, making it much harder for them to fully assert and defend their own interests.
p.82 – Moving Beyond Web 2.0 (But Not Just to Web 3.0) – For the media industries, for marketers, and for audiences, then, where has Web 2.0 ultimately gone wrong? Much as “viral media” pushed us toward embracing a false model of audience behavior, one which simplifies the motives and processes through which grassroots circulation of media content occurs, the language of Web 2.0 oversimplifies the “moral economy” shaping commercial and non-commercial exchanges.
p.83 – The flaws in Web 2.0, at their core, can be reduced to a simple formulation: the concept transforms the social “goods” generated through interpersonal exchanges into “user-generated content” which can be monetized and commodified. In actuality, though, audiences often use the commodified and monetized content of commercial producers as raw material for their social interactions with each other. This misrecognition is perhaps most profoundly expressed when companies seek not simply to “capture,” to “capitalize on,” or to “harvest” the creative contributions of their audiences but also to lock down media texts so they can no longer spread beyond their walled boundaries.
4 – What Constitutes Meaningful Participation?
p.160 – As early as 1932, Bertolt Brecht imagined the transformation of radio from a technology supporting passive mass audiences to a medium of collective participation: “Radio is one-sided when it should be two. It is purely an apparatus for distribution, for mere sharing out. So here is a positive suggestion: change this apparatus over from distribution to communication. The radio would be the finest possible communication apparatus in public life if it knew how to receive as well as transmit, how to let the listener speak as well as heat, how to bring him into a relationship instead of isolating him ([1932] 1986, 53).
Brecht’s agenda was revisited by Hans Magnus Enzensberger, who in 1970, similarly predicted the emergence of a much more participatory media culture, one in which the means of cultural production and circulation will be “in the hands of the masses themselves” ([1970] 2000, 69).
p.161 – Today’s era of online communication demonstrates some decisive steps in the directions Brecht and Enzensberger advocated, expanding access to the means of cultural production (through ease-of-access-and-use tools) and to cultural circulation within and across diverse communities. Brecht’s conception of a world where listeners become “suppliers” of material for other listeners has been more fully realized in the digital era than radio ever achieved. Podcasting, for example, has returned the radio format – if not the technology – to a more participatory medium, allowing many different groups to produce and circulate radiolike content.
p.173 – The use of commercial spaces for political gathering is not historically unique. Classically, the Habermasian (1962) conception of the public sphere emphasized the independence of such spaces from both government and corporate interests. As Nancy Fraser reminds us, Jürgen Habermas argued that the public sphere “is not an arena of market relations but rather one of discursive relations, a theater for debating and deliberating rather than for buying and selling” (1990, 57). Yet, As Tom Standage documents, the coffeehouses that Habermas used to illustrate his conception of the public sphere were, after all, commercial establishments, often organized around themes or topics which allowed them to bring together desired publics who might wish to use them as their base of operations (2006, 151-165). The proprietors supplied meeting spaces and resources (pamphlets, magazines, newspapers) to sustain conversations and customers. But, ultimately, the coffeehouses were in the business of selling coffee. That coffeehouses might be considered branded spaces that worked in ways surprisingly similar to the spaces being constructed and sold by Web 2.0 companies.
p.182 – A more participatory media environment focuses not only on better understanding and prioritizing the ways media audiences participate but likewise the activities that media industries and brands must participate in if they want to continue to thrive. In other words, top-down corporate concepts of “alignment” should be replaced by companies who constantly listen to their audiences and who recalibrate their infrastructure to make the company more attuned to address what whose audiences want and need.
p.193 – When we describe our culture as becoming more participatory, we are speaking in relative terms – participatory in relation to older systems of mass communication – and not in absolute terms. We do not and may never live in a society where every member is able to fully participate, where the lowest of the low has the same communicative capacity as the most powerful elites. Insofar as participation within networked publics becomes a source of discursive and persuasive power – and insofar as the capacities to meaningfully participate online are linked to educational and economic opportunities – then the struggle over the right to participation is linked to core issues of social justice and equality.
5 – Designing for Spreadability
p.200 – Communications scholar John Fiske (1989) draws a distinction between mass culture – which is mass produced and distributed – and popular culture – media texts which have been meaningfully integrated into people’s lives. As Fiske points out, only some material from mass culture enters the popular culture: “If the cultural commodities or texts do not contain resources out of which the people can make their own meanings of their social relations and identities, they will be rejected and will fail in the marketplace. They will not be made popular” (2).
p.223 – Despite critics who dismiss a politics grounded in the spread of messages through social media as “slactivism,” research by Georgetown University’s Center for Social Impact Communication and Ogilvy Worldwide in 2010 suggests that the small investments in time and effort required to pass along such messages (or to link to causes via our social network site profiles) may make participants more likely to take more substantive action later (Andersen 2011).
p.224 – All of this suggests that more spreadable forms of civic media may not only reach unexpected supporters but may be planting seeds which can grow into deeper commitments over time.
Conclusion
p.297 – Cultural participation takes different forms within different legal, economic, and technological contexts. Some people have confused participatory culture with Web 2.0, but Web 2.0 is a business model through which commercial platforms seek to court and capture the participatory energies of desired markets and to harness them toward their own ends. While these Web 2.0 platforms may offer new technical affordances that further the goals of participatory culture, friction almost always exists between the desires of producers and audiences, a gap which has resulted in ongoing struggles around the terms of participation.
p.304 – The spreading of media texts helps us articulate who we are, bolster our personal and professional relationships, strengthen out relationships with one another, and build community and awareness around the subjects we care about. And the sharing of media across cultural boundaries increases the opportunity to listen to other perspectives and to develop empathy for perspectives outside our own. We believe that building a more informed and more engaged society will require an environment in which governments, companies, educational institutions, journalists, artists, and activists all work to support rather than restrict this environment of spreadability and the ability of everyone to have access – not just technically but also culturally – to participate in it.
p.17 – The term “viral” first appeared in science fiction stories, describing (generally bad) ideas that spread like germs.
p.18 – The notion of the media as virus taps a larger discussion that compares systems of cultural distribution to biological systems.
1 – Where Web 2.0 Went Wrong
p.48 – The idea of Web 2.0 was introduced at a 2004 conference of the O’Reilly Media Group. In Tim O’Reilly’s formulation, Web 2.0 companies rely on the Internet as the platform for promoting, distributing, and refining their products: treating software as a service designed to run across multiple devices, relying on data as the “killer app,” and harnessing the “collective intelligence” of a network of users (O’Reilly 2005). Since Web 2.0’s introduction, it has become the cultural logic for e-business – a set of corporate practices that seek to capture and exploit participatory culture.
p.52 – The idea of a moral economy comes from E.P. Thompson (1971), who used the term to describe the social norms and mutual understandings that make it possible for two parties to conduct business. Thompson introduced this concept in his work on eighteenth-century food riots, arguing that when the indentured classes challenged landowners, their protests were typically shaped by some “legitimizing notion” (1971, 78).
All participants need to feel that the parties involved are behaving in a morally appropriate fashion. In many cases, the moral economy holds in check the aggressive pursuit of short-term self-interest in favour of decisions that preserve long-term social relations among participants.
p.53 – Communities are in theory more fragmented, divided, and certainly more dispersed than the corporate entities with which they interface, making it much harder for them to fully assert and defend their own interests.
p.82 – Moving Beyond Web 2.0 (But Not Just to Web 3.0) – For the media industries, for marketers, and for audiences, then, where has Web 2.0 ultimately gone wrong? Much as “viral media” pushed us toward embracing a false model of audience behavior, one which simplifies the motives and processes through which grassroots circulation of media content occurs, the language of Web 2.0 oversimplifies the “moral economy” shaping commercial and non-commercial exchanges.
p.83 – The flaws in Web 2.0, at their core, can be reduced to a simple formulation: the concept transforms the social “goods” generated through interpersonal exchanges into “user-generated content” which can be monetized and commodified. In actuality, though, audiences often use the commodified and monetized content of commercial producers as raw material for their social interactions with each other. This misrecognition is perhaps most profoundly expressed when companies seek not simply to “capture,” to “capitalize on,” or to “harvest” the creative contributions of their audiences but also to lock down media texts so they can no longer spread beyond their walled boundaries.
4 – What Constitutes Meaningful Participation?
p.160 – As early as 1932, Bertolt Brecht imagined the transformation of radio from a technology supporting passive mass audiences to a medium of collective participation: “Radio is one-sided when it should be two. It is purely an apparatus for distribution, for mere sharing out. So here is a positive suggestion: change this apparatus over from distribution to communication. The radio would be the finest possible communication apparatus in public life if it knew how to receive as well as transmit, how to let the listener speak as well as heat, how to bring him into a relationship instead of isolating him ([1932] 1986, 53).
Brecht’s agenda was revisited by Hans Magnus Enzensberger, who in 1970, similarly predicted the emergence of a much more participatory media culture, one in which the means of cultural production and circulation will be “in the hands of the masses themselves” ([1970] 2000, 69).
p.161 – Today’s era of online communication demonstrates some decisive steps in the directions Brecht and Enzensberger advocated, expanding access to the means of cultural production (through ease-of-access-and-use tools) and to cultural circulation within and across diverse communities. Brecht’s conception of a world where listeners become “suppliers” of material for other listeners has been more fully realized in the digital era than radio ever achieved. Podcasting, for example, has returned the radio format – if not the technology – to a more participatory medium, allowing many different groups to produce and circulate radiolike content.
p.173 – The use of commercial spaces for political gathering is not historically unique. Classically, the Habermasian (1962) conception of the public sphere emphasized the independence of such spaces from both government and corporate interests. As Nancy Fraser reminds us, Jürgen Habermas argued that the public sphere “is not an arena of market relations but rather one of discursive relations, a theater for debating and deliberating rather than for buying and selling” (1990, 57). Yet, As Tom Standage documents, the coffeehouses that Habermas used to illustrate his conception of the public sphere were, after all, commercial establishments, often organized around themes or topics which allowed them to bring together desired publics who might wish to use them as their base of operations (2006, 151-165). The proprietors supplied meeting spaces and resources (pamphlets, magazines, newspapers) to sustain conversations and customers. But, ultimately, the coffeehouses were in the business of selling coffee. That coffeehouses might be considered branded spaces that worked in ways surprisingly similar to the spaces being constructed and sold by Web 2.0 companies.
p.182 – A more participatory media environment focuses not only on better understanding and prioritizing the ways media audiences participate but likewise the activities that media industries and brands must participate in if they want to continue to thrive. In other words, top-down corporate concepts of “alignment” should be replaced by companies who constantly listen to their audiences and who recalibrate their infrastructure to make the company more attuned to address what whose audiences want and need.
p.193 – When we describe our culture as becoming more participatory, we are speaking in relative terms – participatory in relation to older systems of mass communication – and not in absolute terms. We do not and may never live in a society where every member is able to fully participate, where the lowest of the low has the same communicative capacity as the most powerful elites. Insofar as participation within networked publics becomes a source of discursive and persuasive power – and insofar as the capacities to meaningfully participate online are linked to educational and economic opportunities – then the struggle over the right to participation is linked to core issues of social justice and equality.
5 – Designing for Spreadability
p.200 – Communications scholar John Fiske (1989) draws a distinction between mass culture – which is mass produced and distributed – and popular culture – media texts which have been meaningfully integrated into people’s lives. As Fiske points out, only some material from mass culture enters the popular culture: “If the cultural commodities or texts do not contain resources out of which the people can make their own meanings of their social relations and identities, they will be rejected and will fail in the marketplace. They will not be made popular” (2).
p.223 – Despite critics who dismiss a politics grounded in the spread of messages through social media as “slactivism,” research by Georgetown University’s Center for Social Impact Communication and Ogilvy Worldwide in 2010 suggests that the small investments in time and effort required to pass along such messages (or to link to causes via our social network site profiles) may make participants more likely to take more substantive action later (Andersen 2011).
p.224 – All of this suggests that more spreadable forms of civic media may not only reach unexpected supporters but may be planting seeds which can grow into deeper commitments over time.
Conclusion
p.297 – Cultural participation takes different forms within different legal, economic, and technological contexts. Some people have confused participatory culture with Web 2.0, but Web 2.0 is a business model through which commercial platforms seek to court and capture the participatory energies of desired markets and to harness them toward their own ends. While these Web 2.0 platforms may offer new technical affordances that further the goals of participatory culture, friction almost always exists between the desires of producers and audiences, a gap which has resulted in ongoing struggles around the terms of participation.
p.304 – The spreading of media texts helps us articulate who we are, bolster our personal and professional relationships, strengthen out relationships with one another, and build community and awareness around the subjects we care about. And the sharing of media across cultural boundaries increases the opportunity to listen to other perspectives and to develop empathy for perspectives outside our own. We believe that building a more informed and more engaged society will require an environment in which governments, companies, educational institutions, journalists, artists, and activists all work to support rather than restrict this environment of spreadability and the ability of everyone to have access – not just technically but also culturally – to participate in it.
May 22, 2024
Wildly interesting. Full of concrete examples from popular culture to back up its arguments. Any time academic study can be tied back into Lost, "Chocolate Rain," or those Old Spice commercials from the late 2000s, I'm all-the-way in. Jenkins's perspective on "virality" being a misused word is one that will stay with me.
November 22, 2022
Read as a coursebook.
December 24, 2014
Finally finished this. It wasn't entirely what I was expecting, but I enjoyed it. I anticipated the focus to be more on online media industries, but it paid a lot of attention to how the internet is changing traditional media industries. As such, I think it'd be a really useful book for anyone teaching media industries courses. It's useful for my New Media Theory grad course, and select chapters are very useful for my social media strategies course.
I think the book takes a balanced approach to respecting industries and audiences and attempts to complicate and disrupt traditional binaries. Chapter 4, which addresses meaningful participation, was by far my favorite and I anticipate quoting it a lot in future research. I suspect this book will change the ways media scholars talk about and conceptualize a lot of media phenomenon and practices(e.g. viral, participation, consumers, etc.) and thus it is an important contemporary read.
I think the book takes a balanced approach to respecting industries and audiences and attempts to complicate and disrupt traditional binaries. Chapter 4, which addresses meaningful participation, was by far my favorite and I anticipate quoting it a lot in future research. I suspect this book will change the ways media scholars talk about and conceptualize a lot of media phenomenon and practices(e.g. viral, participation, consumers, etc.) and thus it is an important contemporary read.
April 15, 2014
I thought Spreadable Media was quite good. It brought up a lot of points of the various ways that media is evolving. One of the most intriguing parts to me was a discussion of how online piracy creates a wider audience for a work and whether that advantage compensates for the lack of monetary compensation.
The idea of an enhanced book intrigues me, and I look forward to reading the some of the essays posted on the website.
The only downside of this book was stylistic. It suffered from the seemingly inevitable dryness of academia as well as a lack of a distinct voice. The voicelessness was probably a result of the multiple academics coauthoring the work. It is hard for three people to speak with one voice. However their collective knowledge more than made up for the somewhat challenging reading experience. All three of them are clearly experts in media studies, and the work was meticulously researched.
The idea of an enhanced book intrigues me, and I look forward to reading the some of the essays posted on the website.
The only downside of this book was stylistic. It suffered from the seemingly inevitable dryness of academia as well as a lack of a distinct voice. The voicelessness was probably a result of the multiple academics coauthoring the work. It is hard for three people to speak with one voice. However their collective knowledge more than made up for the somewhat challenging reading experience. All three of them are clearly experts in media studies, and the work was meticulously researched.
April 8, 2020
The authors do a good job of compiling a number of interesting case studies in the evolving media environment surrounding participation and the collision of fan cultures with the bigger media conglomerates. In their introduction some attention is paid to the fact that there are two sides to this story--one positive and one negative--and the intention of striking a balance between the two is expressed. Throughout the course of the book, though, it seems the authors err far too often on the more hopeful side of things, such that as I was reading I kept thinking of counterarguments and doubts concerning their case studies that were generally left unaddressed. The profiles and arguments are interesting, but the book probably would have benefitted from a somewhat more balanced approach.
May 19, 2021
If post-it notes in a book are a mark of how good it is, the 20 tabs sticking out the side of my copy of Spreadable Media shout "This Is A Good Book!"
Spreadable Media is a scholarly work, rich with ideas, facts, quotes, and links, while at the same time it's easily readable without an academic background in media studies.
I've recently been reading many, many books on social media, fandom, and writing and this is the first one I've photographed so I could go shout about to fandom writers on social media.
Spreadable Media is a scholarly work, rich with ideas, facts, quotes, and links, while at the same time it's easily readable without an academic background in media studies.
I've recently been reading many, many books on social media, fandom, and writing and this is the first one I've photographed so I could go shout about to fandom writers on social media.
March 31, 2023
Lettura obbligatoria per un esame universitario molto interessante con esempi comprensibili a chiunque. I problemi sono due :
1) parla di un argomento molto attuale ed interessante (la diffusione di notizie nei media ) purtroppo però si sente che è del 2013 alcuni argomenti sarebbero da rivedere
2) ripetitivi alcuni argomenti vengono ripetuti più e più volte all’interno del libro
1) parla di un argomento molto attuale ed interessante (la diffusione di notizie nei media ) purtroppo però si sente che è del 2013 alcuni argomenti sarebbero da rivedere
2) ripetitivi alcuni argomenti vengono ripetuti più e più volte all’interno del libro
May 30, 2014
Anyone teaching composition should read this book. Jenkins challenges us to think about composition in all its forms, especially how we can mix text, image, sound, and performance to create rich designs with complex meanings.
Read
December 12, 2015Super great read. I've never had an introductions to theories and examples such as those provided by these authors, so the book kept my interest. However, I did feel as though the ideas started to repeat themselves toward the end.
August 3, 2018
This book made me visibly upset at times. There is a great deal of rewriting what economic concepts mean here. Understandably, much of this is believably the case because neo-liberal economics seems to avoid the cultural attitudes of individuals as they relate to the collectives/groups/crowds which develop media through their own labor.
However, there are alternatives in Austrian economic thinking, and the current strain of game theory in networks that are very valuable to this conversation. However, here it seems much of those ideas were either appropriated without citation or the authors were without any background to speak on those topics. It seems strange to me that so much conversation was dedicated to economic theory here that barely any economics was actually read. It seems dominantly Marx was cited and taken as an authority on this; however much attention is paid to the individual. For this to be argued, ONE MUST READ AND CITE ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM! One cannot straw person these arguments, and pretend that this is the first case that this has argued this from a media production stance on value of "free labor" or "labor residual" or whatever. These is all clearly argued in labor theory of economics. People have discussed this in the context of social networks, but here it's as if the authors just prefer to pretend that such a strain of economic thinking has never been considered.
This book is often a misappropriation of economic thinking and almost entirely is valued on its marketing of phrasing. Sure, "spreadable media" is a useful semantic product, but I don't see why I have to use the arguments here instead of arguing on the basis of informational products being communicated through society in other ways, starting with Hayek's arguments about the differences in value and price in his "The Use of Knowledge in Society" and following to the work of Leonid Hurwicz and a more accessible use of his students' work.
I feel as though this work was largely void in teaching me anything new, and instead taught me how far the abuse of economic theory can go in order to straw person economics as ignorant of culture, when it is actually the cultural research which is the offender of ignorance.
However, there are alternatives in Austrian economic thinking, and the current strain of game theory in networks that are very valuable to this conversation. However, here it seems much of those ideas were either appropriated without citation or the authors were without any background to speak on those topics. It seems strange to me that so much conversation was dedicated to economic theory here that barely any economics was actually read. It seems dominantly Marx was cited and taken as an authority on this; however much attention is paid to the individual. For this to be argued, ONE MUST READ AND CITE ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM! One cannot straw person these arguments, and pretend that this is the first case that this has argued this from a media production stance on value of "free labor" or "labor residual" or whatever. These is all clearly argued in labor theory of economics. People have discussed this in the context of social networks, but here it's as if the authors just prefer to pretend that such a strain of economic thinking has never been considered.
This book is often a misappropriation of economic thinking and almost entirely is valued on its marketing of phrasing. Sure, "spreadable media" is a useful semantic product, but I don't see why I have to use the arguments here instead of arguing on the basis of informational products being communicated through society in other ways, starting with Hayek's arguments about the differences in value and price in his "The Use of Knowledge in Society" and following to the work of Leonid Hurwicz and a more accessible use of his students' work.
I feel as though this work was largely void in teaching me anything new, and instead taught me how far the abuse of economic theory can go in order to straw person economics as ignorant of culture, when it is actually the cultural research which is the offender of ignorance.
July 6, 2020
This is a good history and survey of how media companies affect digital experience and how users respond. However, there is a missing perspective--not absolutely sure what it is, except that the view of the book is that mass media is still largely in control of our online experience.
August 15, 2021
alguns capítulos são interessantes, mas chega uma hora que fica bem repetitivo (principalmente se você leu cultura da convergência há pouco tempo 🤡)
mas não deixa de ser bom e nem prejudica a leitura (que é bem dinâmica)
mas não deixa de ser bom e nem prejudica a leitura (que é bem dinâmica)
January 3, 2022
Great examples, but I think that conceptually this book doesn't go much further than Convergence Culture.
I particularly recommend chapter 5, Designing for Spreadability, that discuss how to create content with greater potential to be spreadable.
I particularly recommend chapter 5, Designing for Spreadability, that discuss how to create content with greater potential to be spreadable.
November 1, 2025
lo leí, entendí y es tan actual. me gusto la simplicidad de la explicación académica.
aborda temas necesarios para la comunicación y el entender las comunidades de las plataformas .
este libro debería ser casi obligatorio para los comunicadores
aborda temas necesarios para la comunicación y el entender las comunidades de las plataformas .
este libro debería ser casi obligatorio para los comunicadores
August 29, 2018
Too much of a drag and few good points in between. Should have been crisp and precise. Too spreadable media in wrong connotation
June 2, 2020
This was the third book for a class. I had a hard time following it and just ended up skimming it.
August 23, 2024
It was a relevant book when it was published, with some good analyses, but the proposals put forward haven't aged very well.
June 28, 2025
I read it for my dissertation, it was ok I guess
December 3, 2025
Continuação das reflexões iniciadas em “Cultura da Convergência”. Uma leitura ainda mais interessante.
December 17, 2021
Rich in examples, but a tad too sparse with its insights. I suggest you head to the Conclusion to quickly get acquainted with the key points first, before deciding if the other chapters are worth looking into.
Also implied by the authors is the perpetual game of catch-up when writing about media and technology, so what would have been perceived as remarkable outliers 5-10 years before or at the time of writing would have either evolved into mainstream fare, or simply faded into obscurity by now.
Finally, with data-driven platforms holding and facilitating these interactions at an exponential scale, I think the book would substantially benefit from an update with computational approaches (e.g. data analytics) that can monitor and measure the creation of value in a more targeted way.
Also implied by the authors is the perpetual game of catch-up when writing about media and technology, so what would have been perceived as remarkable outliers 5-10 years before or at the time of writing would have either evolved into mainstream fare, or simply faded into obscurity by now.
Finally, with data-driven platforms holding and facilitating these interactions at an exponential scale, I think the book would substantially benefit from an update with computational approaches (e.g. data analytics) that can monitor and measure the creation of value in a more targeted way.
December 25, 2020
I read this book through the lens of a content marketing practitioner that was curious what new insight Henry Jenkins and his co-authors would add to the information and guidance that's already available on this topic -- both online and in other books.
The authors believe that "if it doesn't spread, it's dead." To me, that's an oversimplified explanation of today's environment. Also, most of their case studies are from the American entertainment industry. In contrast, I'm more interested in how these `spreadable media' scenarios apply to commercial (corporate brand) storytelling.
What's their primary focal point? The author's acknowledgement of the "participatory culture" of the Internet is a reoccurring theme throughout the book. Likewise, they remind us how the leadership of Big Media corporations have historically misunderstood or intentionally resisted this phenomena -- often at their own peril.
Moreover, while the basic concept of sharing and syndication is not new, those people who do much of the `social' sharing today are not sanctioned or encouraged by the content creator. To some people within the media industry, that's very unsettling. But the authors present a somewhat optimistic outlook -- believing that those fears will dissipate over time.
At the offset they're actually quite hopeful that socioeconomic advancement is likely, as a result of these progressive changes to the status quo. They say "The growth of networked communication, especially when coupled with the practices of participatory culture, provides a range of new resources and facilitates new interventions for a variety of groups who have long struggled to have their voices heard."
They question the cultural logic of believing that you can make something "go viral" -- because this notion is proven [upon reflection of the available research] to be more akin to wishful thinking than fact. They also challenge the legacy marketer's belief in content "stickiness" and point to the apparent limits of distribution models that merely count impressions or page views.
In summary, while I didn't find a significant new revelation in their text, I believe the authors have compiled a very thorough assessment of the topic and they deserve credit for that achievement. I like the way that they characterize online `influence' as a meritocracy -- and that to some degree we're all capable of becoming taste-makers of good content. Also, that the new media landscape offers a huge opportunity for creative artists that are eager to experiment and grow.
As I read the conclusion of this book I thought about all the marketers that will attempt exponential distribution of their thought leadership by paying publishers for their Native Advertising services, and yet they fail to include a Creative Commons licence on their corporate blogs -- opting instead for the restrictive traditional copyright warnings that inhibit proactive sharing and syndication.
For those readers who want to learn more about the author's point of view, they have an "enhanced version" of the book online at spreadablemedia.org
The authors believe that "if it doesn't spread, it's dead." To me, that's an oversimplified explanation of today's environment. Also, most of their case studies are from the American entertainment industry. In contrast, I'm more interested in how these `spreadable media' scenarios apply to commercial (corporate brand) storytelling.
What's their primary focal point? The author's acknowledgement of the "participatory culture" of the Internet is a reoccurring theme throughout the book. Likewise, they remind us how the leadership of Big Media corporations have historically misunderstood or intentionally resisted this phenomena -- often at their own peril.
Moreover, while the basic concept of sharing and syndication is not new, those people who do much of the `social' sharing today are not sanctioned or encouraged by the content creator. To some people within the media industry, that's very unsettling. But the authors present a somewhat optimistic outlook -- believing that those fears will dissipate over time.
At the offset they're actually quite hopeful that socioeconomic advancement is likely, as a result of these progressive changes to the status quo. They say "The growth of networked communication, especially when coupled with the practices of participatory culture, provides a range of new resources and facilitates new interventions for a variety of groups who have long struggled to have their voices heard."
They question the cultural logic of believing that you can make something "go viral" -- because this notion is proven [upon reflection of the available research] to be more akin to wishful thinking than fact. They also challenge the legacy marketer's belief in content "stickiness" and point to the apparent limits of distribution models that merely count impressions or page views.
In summary, while I didn't find a significant new revelation in their text, I believe the authors have compiled a very thorough assessment of the topic and they deserve credit for that achievement. I like the way that they characterize online `influence' as a meritocracy -- and that to some degree we're all capable of becoming taste-makers of good content. Also, that the new media landscape offers a huge opportunity for creative artists that are eager to experiment and grow.
As I read the conclusion of this book I thought about all the marketers that will attempt exponential distribution of their thought leadership by paying publishers for their Native Advertising services, and yet they fail to include a Creative Commons licence on their corporate blogs -- opting instead for the restrictive traditional copyright warnings that inhibit proactive sharing and syndication.
For those readers who want to learn more about the author's point of view, they have an "enhanced version" of the book online at spreadablemedia.org
May 31, 2015
When I worked at MIT’s Technology Review in 2006, I had the pleasure of editing a few pieces from Henry Jenkins that would become part of
Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide
, his seminal work exploring transmedia storytelling and its impact on the television, film, and publishing industries. In
Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture
, Jenkins and his co-authors expand on that work, examining the ways stories, content, and other created materials are spread through the Web and other interconnected networks.
This is very much an academic’s book, although the enhanced version does have essays and writing from professionals in the field. It’s main thesis is that people involved in entertainment — from creators on through executives — must change the way they calculate value. Today’s metrics can’t simply rely upon how many people watch, read, or listen to something. They must also understand the value of media that is both easily and often shared. In a networked world, spreadability is as important as watchability, or readability, or listenability.
Like much of Jenkins’ longer works, this isn't a beach read. It’s meticulous and thorough, which I don’t mean as a pejorative analysis. He and his collaborators are exacting in their language, making sure to avoid some of the well-worn fawning about the power of new technologies. They are careful to articulate the ways in which spreadability can benefit creators, while also examining why it’s not the panacea for all creators.
For those who have been involved in the field, the conclusions and discussions weren't particularly new or insightful, which was a bit disappointing. Of course, that may be the nature of follow up work. The real insights came from Convergence Culture and Jenkins’ blog, Confessions of an Aca-Fan, where his writing feels very much more tuned to research and applied theory. Spreadable Media’s ideas felt more like a survey course for an audience of entertainment industry executives and creators-in-training.
Still, Spreadable Media is a must-read for anyone who is serious about creating stories and other digital content, whether as a hobbyist or a professional.
This is very much an academic’s book, although the enhanced version does have essays and writing from professionals in the field. It’s main thesis is that people involved in entertainment — from creators on through executives — must change the way they calculate value. Today’s metrics can’t simply rely upon how many people watch, read, or listen to something. They must also understand the value of media that is both easily and often shared. In a networked world, spreadability is as important as watchability, or readability, or listenability.
Like much of Jenkins’ longer works, this isn't a beach read. It’s meticulous and thorough, which I don’t mean as a pejorative analysis. He and his collaborators are exacting in their language, making sure to avoid some of the well-worn fawning about the power of new technologies. They are careful to articulate the ways in which spreadability can benefit creators, while also examining why it’s not the panacea for all creators.
For those who have been involved in the field, the conclusions and discussions weren't particularly new or insightful, which was a bit disappointing. Of course, that may be the nature of follow up work. The real insights came from Convergence Culture and Jenkins’ blog, Confessions of an Aca-Fan, where his writing feels very much more tuned to research and applied theory. Spreadable Media’s ideas felt more like a survey course for an audience of entertainment industry executives and creators-in-training.
Still, Spreadable Media is a must-read for anyone who is serious about creating stories and other digital content, whether as a hobbyist or a professional.
July 14, 2021
It is an excellent intellectual work in the field of social media and networked societies. The book explore the Secret behind some messages spreading like Wildfire and the others getting dumped without any apparent reason. A Must read for all the students of of mass communication and those who want to make sense of the mad world of Social media.
January 26, 2013
I have completed reading Spreadable Media and will write a review in the next few days. It's an important and scholarly piece examining the ways in which ideas and their bearers are spread, re-thought, and reworked to suit various audiences and and constituencies. It also considers in great deal the affect of new media and their transmission on such issues as ownership and copyright. Written in scholarly language with many relevant examples from popular and social media, it is though provoking. A full review appears on my blog here: http://tedlehmann.blogspot.com/2013/0...
November 3, 2014
This book examines the concept of viral media and argues for a different paradigm based on participatory culture and fandom, where people choose to spread ideas and their interests to other people. It's a fascinating book that presents an alternative perspective on marketing, but also on pop culture studies, bringing those studies to the 21st century by focusing on the role of social media within pop culture. If you are interested in pop culture, you'll find this book useful for understanding how pop culture spreads and if you are interested in marketing this book will provide a different perspective to the prevailing wisdom of the time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews