Designing, Implementing and Producing for Participation: Media Convergence in Practice

  • Marie DenwardEmail author
Part of the Media Business and Innovation book series (MEDIA)


In today’s hybrid media landscape the previously distinct borders between production and consumption blur. Convergence may be created intentionally by media companies, or happen as a bottom-up social process initiated by media users searching entertainment experiences. This chapter presents the study of one such hybrid production, Sanningen om Marika (Eng. The Truth About Marika). A Swedish public service provider and a pervasive games startup company combined their expertise in broadcasting and games development to craft this ‘participation drama’. It offered the audience rich possibilities to interact and participate, or just to watch or lurk on the various platforms. With an ethnographic approach the design, implementation and production phases were studied and analyzed. The many types of appearing convergences—industrial, technical, cultural and social—and the various difficulties they created in the (blurred) processes of production and consumption are dealt with in this chapter.


Media convergence Media production processes Television Pervasive games Internet Transmedia storytelling 


  1. Aarseth, E. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on ergodic literature. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bourdaa, M. (2011). Quality Television : Construction and de-construction of seriality. In Previously On. Interdisciplinary Studies in TV series in the Third Golden Age of Television (pp. 33–44). Sevilla: Frame.Google Scholar
  3. Breur, T. (2011). Data analysis across various media: Data fusion, direct marketing, clickstream data and social media. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 13(2), 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpentier, N. (2009). Participation is not enough: The conditions of possibility of mediated participatory practices. European Journal of Communication, 24(4), 407–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, C. H. (2012). Audience value and transmedia products. In International Symposium on Media Innovations, Oslo. Google Scholar
  6. de Certeau, M. D. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dena, C. (2008). Emerging participatory culture practices: Player-created tiers in alternate reality games. Convergence, 14(1), 41–57.Google Scholar
  8. Dena, C. (2009). Transmedia Practice: Theorising the practice of expressing a fictional world across distinct media and environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  9. Denward, M. (2011). Pretend that it is real!: Convergence culture in practice. Doctoral thesis, Malmö University, Holmbergs, Malmö.Google Scholar
  10. Deuze, M. (2007). Media work. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  11. Enli, S. (2008). Redefining public service broadcasting: Multi-platform participation. Convergence, 14(1), 105–120.Google Scholar
  12. Eskelinen, M. (2001). The gaming situation. Game Studies, 1, 1.Google Scholar
  13. Evans, E. (2011). Transmedia television. Audiences, new media and daily life. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Fine, G. A. (1983). Shared fantasy: Role-playing games as social worlds. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago.Google Scholar
  15. Gunzerath, D. (2012). Current trends in U.S. media measurement methods. International Journal on Media Management, 14, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Jenkins, H. (2004). The cultural logic of media convergence. The International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7(33), 33–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jenkins, H., & Deuze, M. (2008). Convergence Culture Convergence, 14(1), 5–12.Google Scholar
  20. Johns, J. (2006). Video game production networks: value capture, power relations and embeddedness. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(2), 151–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonsson, S., & Waern, A. (2008). The art of game-mastering pervasive games. In International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. Yokohama, Japan: ACM.Google Scholar
  22. Juul, J. (2003). Half-real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Doctoral Thesis, IT University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  23. Kline, S., Dyer-Witheford, N., & De Peuter, G. (2003). Digital play: The interaction of technology, culture and marketing. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Knudsen, B. T., & Thomsen, B. M. (2002). Indledning. In B. T. Knudsen & B. M. Thomsen (Eds.), Virkelighedshunger: nyrealismen i visuel optik: antologi. København: Tiderne Skifter.Google Scholar
  25. Küng, L., Picard, R. G., & Towse, R. (2008). The internet and the mass media. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Küng-Shankleman, L. (2000). Inside the BBC and CNN: Managing media organisations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Leiter, D. S. (2011). Detecting audience design: The rhetoric of mystery and transmedia storytelling in the case of Harper’s Island. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
  28. Lowe, G., & Bardoel, J. (2008). From public service media to public service media the core challenge. In G. Lowe & J. Bardoel (Eds.), From public service media to public service media RIPE@2007. Göteborg: Nordicom, Göteborg University.Google Scholar
  29. Mackay, D. (2001). The fantasy role-playing game: A new performing art. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.Google Scholar
  30. Martin, A., Thompson, B., & Hatfield, T. (Eds.). (2006). 2006 alternate reality games white paper. International Game Developers Association IGDA.Google Scholar
  31. McGonigal, J. (2003). A real little game: The performance of belief in pervasive play. Level up. Digital games research conference proceedings, DiGRA 2003. Utrecht Universiteit, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  32. Montola, M. (2005). Exploring the edge of the magic circle: Defining pervasive games. DAC 2005, IT University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  33. Montola, M., Stenros, J., & Waern, A. (2009). Pervasive games, theory and design. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  34. Napoli, P. (2011). Audience evolution. New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  35. O’Reilly, K. (2005). Ethnographic methods. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Reilly, K. (2009). Key concepts in ethnography. Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Poremba, C. (2007). Critical potential on the brink of the magic circle. DiGRA 2007 Situated Play conference, University of Tokyo, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  38. Rilstone, A. (2000). Role-playing games: An overview. The Oracle, Essays.Google Scholar
  39. Roscoe, J. (2004). Multi-platform event television: Reconceptualizing our relationship with television. The Communication Review, 7(4), 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sandbye, M. (2001). Mindesmærker: tid og erindring i fotografiet. København: Politisk revy.Google Scholar
  41. Scott, G. G. (1996). Can we talk?: The power and influence of talk shows. New York: Insight.Google Scholar
  42. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation holt. New York: Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  43. Stenros, J., Montola, M., Waern, A., & Jonsson, S. (2007). Play it for real: Sustained seamless life/game merger in momentum. In DiGRA 2007 Situated Play conference. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
  44. Svahn, M., Kullgard, P., Waern, A., Holopainen, J., Koivisto, E., Stenros, J. et al. (2006). Business opportunities and business structures, Appendix 5 (IPERG Report D4.5). Event arrangements in volunteer organisations.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Interactive Institute Swedish ICTKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations