For the past year almost,Â I’ve been following the discussion about ‘transmedia planning’ that has been taking place in cyberspace and at conferences. In response to Henry Jenkins’ ‘transmedia storytelling’, Faris Yakob introducedÂ Â ‘Transmedia
In this model, there would be an evolving non-linear brand narrative. Different channels could be used to communicate different, self-contained elements of the brand narrative that build to create an larger brand world. Consumers then pull different parts of the story together themselves.
Since then there has been alot of discussion about the difference between ‘transmedia planning’ andÂ otherÂ approaches such asÂ synergistic, cross-channel, multi-channel, media neutral, integrated and 360. The problem with all of these approaches is that the meaning or intention behind them is not shared. People have been implementing each of these approaches in many different ways. So when someone says A is not B or A = B, both are true. Some people have been implementing what is now regarded as ‘transmedia planning’ and calling it other things, and some people haven’t been implementing it at all and so the concept is an inspiringÂ new one. Indeed, ‘transmedia planning’ doesn’t describe the only way IMHO to implement the use of multiple media platforms, people, storytelling and participation.
If you’re not aware of the debate that has been taking place, follow the cybertrail, and join the Transmedia Facebook Group that was started by Adam Crowe. At present their isn’t any new information on there that readers of this blog wouldn’t know, but I’m sure (hoping) there will be some very interesting links and discussions in the not too distant future.