Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr.

Horrible

2 Abstract With the advent of the Internet, media convergence has brought conglomerates and users to a central point of conflict. Companies have spread across fragmented channels while users create new paradigms to produce and share information. This clash has also brought

opportunities for both to work together, creating unique scenarios such as Dr. Horribles SingAlong Blog, a web miniseries. The research utilizes the theoretical framework of convergence, produsage, fandom and transmedia, and seeks to answer the following questions: How has the web series paradigm affected produsage and convergence? How has this model worked as a model for transmedia? And what is the legacy of Dr. Horrible in transmedia and its effect on cult fandom? This paper explores the background of Dr. Horrible to understand these questions and focuses on both fan and producer responses through semi-structured interviews. The findings show that this web series paradigm has potential as an open medium, giving producers free reign to express their creative vision and letting viewers engage with the content although not without its own set of risks. This research concludes that the produsage-like model is viable for financial and viewership success while empowering fans and producers to be cultural citizens although hampered by the lack of gatekeepers and top-down clashes. Suggested Keywords produsage, web series, cult fandom, convergence, transmedia, conglomerates, Joss Whedon, Dr. Horribles Sing-Along Blog

3 1. Introduction [1.1] The changing flow of technology has created an unstable landscape for media conglomerates and consumers. Both struggle to obtain control over content distribution and consumption. These conflicts lead to the creation of media convergence: the intersection of the conglomerates digital strategies and consumers underground media tactics. [1.2] In this transition period, conglomerates are experimenting with new content distribution and creation methods while the audience grapples with a constantly changing media landscape. How will these experiments affect the audience, and will they change power

dynamics between the two sides? Have new opportunities arisen that can pave the way for future producers and audience members? The promises and realities of new, innovative prospects have begun to shine light onto these inquiries. [1.3] This study undertakes an analysis of a web video miniseries called Dr. Horribles Sing-Along Blog. Considered by critics as an Internet phenomenon, Dr. Horrible created a direct communication channel between the producers and their viewers and is a relevant and timely case study. This research will bring a modern insight into digital innovation and reveal a push for media convergence cooperation.

2. A Top-Down Conglomerate System to Media Convergence [2.1] Mass media systems used to control the information within their technological channels until media convergence allowed individuals to disrupt this information stream. Historically, media conglomerates created and distributed content through legacy mediums, viewed by a mass audience (Rose 2011, 86). Scholars argued about the imbalance of

information and mediation in these channels. However, individuals eventually adopted new

4 technologies, which disrupted these methods (Gillan 2011, 179), creating a clash between the two sides. [2.2] Mass medias power in the 20th century reveals the conglomerates transition from dominating the communication channels to struggling with new user practices. During the mid20th century, only a few media channels were available (film, television, and radio). It was not difficult for companies to reach audiences via these mediums, and studios could easily woo advertisers to invest (Ang 1990, 68). [2.3] Academics considered this time periods audience to be passive and controlled. Ang describes it as an a socially-constituted and institutionally-produced category, (1990, 3). He argued that messages that were not from media conglomerates were not sent to the audience, giving little freedom in choice of content and voicing opinions to these companies. [2.4] The evolution of technology transformed these theorists arguments post-1980s. Technological advancements, such as satellite signals, gave consumers more options (Harvey 1989, 293), eroded the domination of the central studios, and caused audience fragmentation: scattering viewers across multiple channels (Ang 1990, 69). Willis mentions, Technological developmentsled to a breakdown in the traditional family units consumption of media (2003, 137). New methods had to be developed by studios to continue to push their messages to audiences. [2.5] One contrasting perspective argues that viewer agency is still bound to the conglomerates, which adapted to the changes. Curtain argued that these companies were always involved with media convergence, using methods like product placement, to counteract user empowerment (2001, 229). The studios released fewer but broader brands to capture the mass audience and focused on niches to expand their flexible accumulation: the capability to expand

5 farther by being on many mediums (Curtain 2001, 231). This struggle between consumers and conglomerates would be further complicated with the Internet.

3. The Online Struggle of Media Convergence [3.1] The Internet was heralded as a breakthrough, full of potential and freedom. Yet, this was met with skepticism from those who saw it as part of the conglomerates media convergence strategy to make users into free workers. The Internets evolution as a consumerdriven and user-friendly framework shows the fissure that permeated this debate. [3.2] One side contests that the Internet is another medium controlled by media conglomerates. This viewpoint argues that companies utilize vertical integration, denoting how companies controlinterests across the entire entertainment industry (Jenkins 2006, 14), to spread their influence online, since the Internet is fragmented and broad. Users try the

conglomerates websites because it promises to organize the sporadic digital content (2006, 3). [3.3] Andrejevic speaks of a system in which the conglomerates attached themselves to websites and forced users to give up information for access. (The) model of the on-line economy isbased on the strategy for rationalizing and disciplining the labor of viewingand of consumptionto make it more productive, (2002, 243). Users become both consumers and workers to allow companies access to watch what they click. [3.4] If companies cannot subtly persuade users, they utilize their legal power with tactics like copyright infringement. Lessig explains that companies have continued to exploit these powers to control the online space (2004, 148-149). Therefore, the top-down business model is still present as companies adapt to the digital environment. [3.5] The conflicting argument states that the Internet is an empowering and creative

6 landscape for users, who have bypassed the top-down structure and become participatory cultural citizens. This can be seen through open source and digital commons. These concepts grant freedom and collaboration to participants. Open source is a kind of political movement against the commodification of information, (Curtain 2001, 239). An open source code is publicly available and maintained for free. governance, (Bruns 2008, 40). [3.6] Digital commons is associated with open source but encompasses more breadth. Commons are resources that all in a specified community may use but none can own, (Coleman 2007, 935). Users work together and add to a program, which can be public or corporate. Here, these participants are considered more than a spectator. They become It is a non-hierarchical structure of organization and

producers and creative entities, playing with ideas that can lead to other creative venues. [3.7] Bruns creates a term to describe these activities as produsage: a new type of digital empowerment. Users no longer produce contentthat resembles traditional, industrial modes of production(It becomes) a creative, collaborative, and ad hoc engagement with content for user-led spaces (2008, 1). He categorizes several points to signify produsage in effect: open participationcommunal means of evaluatingfluid heterarchyad hoc community, selfgovernance processesunfinished artefactconstant processes of evolutioncommon

property(and) individual rewards (2008, 249).

Like in other arenas, however, these

grassroots processes clash with the corporate structure because of convergence (Jenkins 2004, 37). This continuous tension between consumers and creative users can best be seen in fandom.

4. The Integral Role of Fandom in Convergence Culture [4.1] Fandom has always been a part of the overall audience yet only recently has the

7 term evolved into a visible mode of consumption. Sandvoss utilizes the most relevant definition for fandom as the regularly, emotionally involved consumption of a given popular narrative or textwhichbuild and maintain an affective relationship with mediated texts and thus share fundamental psychological, social and cultural premises and consequences (2005, 8-9). [4.2] These fans can be further divided through categorizations from Abercrombie and Longhurst (2005, 31). These groupings look at how focused fans are to the content, how interconnected they are to a community, and how much of the media is consumed. This criteria creates three categories:

[4.3] Fansfollow a particular textexclusively through the mass media(and are) part of an atomized audience and not linked with each other; cultistsare more specialized and tend to develop through albeit largely unorganized ties; enthusiasts(are those whose) own activity and textual productivity(which) constitute the core of their fandom. (2005, 31)

[4.4] These categorizations give perspective in viewing fandoms impact on different levels. This concept has become important due to convergence and fragmentation theories. Academics have discussed two sides to fans actions: one perspective views them as viewers being controlled and exploited while the other sees them as creative and productive cultural citizens. [4.5] The negative viewpoint stems from the exploitative mindset of corporate entities. This concept is considered to mirrorconditions of popular culture, (Sandvoss 2005, 3). Fans read and engage with a text because of their enjoyment and involvement, but some academics

8 argue that through media convergence, producers can control fans through multiple channels. Burgess states, participation of user communities can be read in terms of affective, immaterial, andfree labor (2009, 61). Fans are considered free marketers because of their passion to consume and publicize content to others. [4.6] Fandom, from an industrialist standpoint, represents a highly engaged consumer culture that is both born of andimplicated in the cultural processes it supposedly resists, (Gray 2003, 2). Some companies issue warnings when fans break copyright laws, but most believe fans are controllable with more merchandise and content. Ang states that fans are considered as a simple statistic by studios (1990, 13). [4.7] However, the opposing argument considers fans to be creative and participatory. Gray argues that fans are more than part of the collective audience because they tend to engage with these texts not in a rationally detached but in an emotionally involved and invested way, (2003, 10). Each of the fans actions contributes to a community and gives perspective on how bonds are formed between communities globally. [4.8] Fans are known to be textually productive, reformulat(ing) the fan text in ways that necessarily move it out of its industrial framing and invite emancipationand resistance (Sandvoss 2005, 29). An example of this is fan videos. These users channel their talents and creativity through their fandom in new ways and become ad hoc performers (2005, 48). [4.9] Fans are users who often participate in produsage, seen also through their participatory communities. It shapes the tenor and quality of fans interactions not only with each other but also with other non-fans, (2005, 55). This potentially could culminate into fans being in a progressive, cosmopolitan cultural citizenshipa revived model of the public sphere (with) sustainedparticipationdialogue(and) negotiation of complexity and difference

9 (Burgess 2009, 79). Fans have shown this opportunity for interaction and openness, and slowly producers are also realizing this as well.

5. Experimentation in a Turbulent Transition [5.1] Media convergence has brought the audience and conglomerates closer than ever before, and recently, has also started a period of experimentation. Different types of

compromises have appeared to address this question of possible cooperation between the grassroots and conglomerates. One type of media attempting to do this is transmedia. Jenkins defines this as: stories that unfold across multiple media platforms, with each medium making distinctive contributions to our understanding of the world, (2006, 334). Different experiments have appeared such as the initial instances of webisodes, web episodes of legacy media content, and mobisodes, mobile episodes, from the 1999 show, Smallville. These episodes let fans watch smaller characters receive extended plotlines (Gillan 2011, 51). [5.2] Transmedia has partially succeeded in bringing together the audience and conglomerates. One success is in empowering viewers. Jenkins states, an engagement model thrives when entertainment properties help active audiences connect with one another in and around (relationship-building) properties (The Value 2011, 43). Transmedia tactics, such as Losts website, helped involve its fans to become fanalysts, who worked to decipher the shows codes through the producers minigames (Gillan 2011, 155). The audience gets to interact with media producers in direct ways and feels empowered. [5.3] The second success is from the professional emulation of fan actions to create compelling content and trust amongst audiences. Fans have shown dedication to content through collective action. An example is the Save Chuck Subway campaign in which rallying fans

10 prevented Chuck from being cancelled by buying Subway sandwiches, the shows sponsor (Rose 2011, 195). Media producers are inspired to create similar experiences. Alternate reality games, such as Why So Serious?, the Dark Knights marketing campaign, created an engaging and successful game for fans by solving physical puzzles and rewarding them with exclusive film content. It emulated hypertextsan essential feature of the Web(and) assumed that the participants would be interconnected, (2011, 13). [5.4] However, some have argued that transmedia is not perfect. One perspective is that the viewer is being exploited again as free workers. The atmosphere is more open but is an illusion of empowerment. Adrejevic believes Web 2.0 as a new form of exploitation, as media industries are generating new kinds of data from the actions of online audiences, (Jenkins, The Value 2011, 28). Gillans example of this is a production blog for Greys

Anatomy, entitled Grey Matter, which had the false impression of being open. It was rarely used and only by marketers, not the creative team initially promised (2011, 224) and represents one in many cases of producers casting fans as statistical figures than meaningful relationships. [5.5] Another argument states that legacy media is still the priority over transmedia tactics. The first reason for this is the reliance on old metrics and tactics as the core driver of revenue. Gillan notes that, broadcast networks are still committed to behaviors that are

supposed to be part of(what) they left behind in the twentieth century (2011, 241), such as the Nielsen ratings still utilizing old media diaries. [5.6] A television executive, Engler, states, Wed rather have a million TV viewers than a million streaming viewers because we make more money from TVwhich means they contribute more to the health and success of a show (Jenkins, The Value 2011, 9). This is an example of the conglomerates apathy because of a lack of financial incentive.

11 [5.7] The second reason is that many legacy companies are inexperienced in comprehending fandom and new media usage. As proudsage necessitates, the effort from

producers must be genuine and unique or face rejection by the community (Jenkins 2006, 88). This happened with Glee, which had viewers Tweeting questions to the actors during the show with real-time responses, yet it showed a technologically illiterate cast and crew and a disengaged audience (Gillan 2011, 234). [5.8] However, even with these successes and misfires with transmedia, many questions still remain as to whether this period of experimentation will come to favor either the audience or producers. Jenkins notes:

[5.9] There have beentoo few fully transmedia stories for media makers to act with any certainty about what would constitute the best uses of this new modelor for critics and consumers to know how to talk meaningfully about what works or doesnt workfew, if any franchises achieve the full aesthetic potential of transmedia storytelling yet. (2006, 99)

6. Research Questions and Hypotheses [6.1] Dr. Horrible, an original web miniseries, was unique for its time, created by a Hollywood director yet produced and released without any major studios involvement. This content is an intriguing example of a produsage-like professional digital text to analyze. Dr. Horrible also revealed new challenges since its release concerning the future of web video content and communities. [6.2] My main research question is: has the web series paradigm exemplified and/or

12 contradicted the theories of produsage and convergence and in what ways? My two sub-research questions are: how has the web series model worked to be a viable model for transmedia outlets? And what is the legacy of Dr. Horribles Sing-Along-Blog in the present and future of transmedia and the opportunities and obstacles it has created for cult fandom? [6.3] I hypothesize that a web series can be an ideal medium that marries both produsage and convergence strategies to its success, having to conform to characteristics of grassroots content while utilizing professional crew and cast. For the second question, I believe that I will discover the web series model working to carry some successful content and create an ideal environment yet due to the legacy medias reluctance to change, the transition will not reach its full potential in the near future. Finally, I believe that the legacy of Dr. Horrible will represent a successful transmedia strategy that utilizes a pure production to marketing strategy that respects and resonates with fans, inspiring them to market and push the content along with becoming participatory and creative cultural citizens.

7. Methodology [7.1] The main method utilized is semi-structured interviews. Secondary methods such as video analysis and reading through web articles were also used. The video analysis consisted of watching the Dr. Horrible series online and on DVD with the commentary tracks from the cast and crew along with the Evil League of Evil (ELE) fan videos. This was to be familiar with the narrative and production in understanding the context of the interviews. [7.2] The qualitative research method of semi-structured interviews was chosen because of the type of analysis. The research required an in-depth look at the reasoning people had with their fandom of Dr. Horrible and industry perspectives from various producers. (The) real

13 purpose of qualitative research is to explore range of opinions(to) understand the different opinions of the social milieu, (Bauer 2000, 41). A qualitative approach can present this with interactive exchanges and intimate conversations. [7.3] As noted by Berger, a depth interview is a probe, (1998, 55). It allows a researcher to explore and pursue inquiries not possible with quantitative methods, ask(ing) a lot of detail(ed) questions(to) adapt and bring out inner thoughts from interviewees (1998, 57). [7.4] Qualitative analysis does have weaknesses. First, semi-structured interviews are limited in scope and size. Much time is spent on arranging, conducting, and transcribing interviews. One other limitation is that the interviewees may leave out certain details because he/she is shy or forgetful (2000, 44). [7.5] One set of interviewees can be categorized as Dr. Horrible fans. 15 of them were chosen utilizing Facebook, Google, and Youtube searches. This number corresponds to Bauers suggested number of interviews (2000, 43). Three were Europeans; 12 were Americans; and the interviewees ages ranged from 20 to 42. Nine were male; six were female. The second set included one of the Dr. Horrible screenwriters along with four transmedia producers to understand their thoughts on the digital industry and Dr. Horrible. They were found using personal contacts and media resources. [7.6] The research study was submitted to the institution's ethical review board, which waived the requirement for full review. An institutional academic supervisor ensured the integrity of the institution's ethical guidelines. All interviewees provided written informed consent to utilize their transcripts for the research. Interviewees approved the research study by verbal consent. Interviewees who requested anonymity were given aliases. All transcripts and recordings are kept within a password-protected computer.

14 [7.7] After creating pilot interviews and several topic guides, these interviews were conducted using Skype, with the recording plug-in Pamela, and face-to-face using a recorder. The coding frame used was thematic and discourse analysis. The theoretical concepts, such as media convergence, transmedia, produsage, and grassroots, were utilized as well as repeating themes, such as viewer response to the series, active fan participation, and the industry perspective.

8. Results - Whedons Introduction to the Internet Playground [8.1] In late 2006 to 2007, a few individuals were attempting to create professional web videos, and studios were looking for a sustainable, financial structure for digital content. Kim Evey, a producer of a web series called The Guild, commented, It seems like there just werent narrative serieson Youtube, and there wasnt much that was produced (2011). Many startups and legacy conglomerates at the time created aggregate web video sites with original web content, but most of them were not viable. A few independent web series similar to The Guild, though, started to showcase some success through sponsorships and niche audiences (2011). [8.2] During the Writers Strike of 2007, an opportunity to create web videos appeared for legacy media teams. The strike focused on disputes mainly over residuals for the

development of online extensions of television programs, (Jenkins, Courting Supporters 2011, 15). Traditional teams were barred from work while consumers had little content to watch. A PhD candidate interviewee recollected, There was no Lost, there was nothing. I was essentially bored, (A01, 2010). The strike led many film and television producers to the Internet where they could release content on their own. [8.3] Dr. Horribles director, Joss Whedon, who created cult television texts such as

15 Buffy the Vampire Slayer, also ventured into this arena (Jenkins, Courting Supporters 2011, 14). With the Writers Strike in motion and inspired by talks with Felicia Day, the creator of The Guild, he began to create his own web series (Whedon, 2010). His co-writer, Zack, recollects how it began:

[8.4] My brother Josswanted to get into doing Internet content and hadnt had an opportunity to. The Writers Guild Strike provided a really great opportunity for that (we) spent just writingbecause we didnt have anything else to do and when the Strike endedwe finished writing it and shot it... (2010)

[8.5] Interested in produsage-like work, Joss wanted the flexibility amateur producers had without the bureaucratic studio system (Jenkins, Courting Supporters 2011, 16). A Swedish fan, Niklas, recollects how Joss said he wanted to cut off the middle handits just me and my fans, (A14, 2010). [8.6] Twelve interviewees were familiar with the background of Dr. Horribles creation and in turn, affected fans motivations for watching the series. Also, many interviewees did not watch the series during its initial release. One British fan, Uriel, watched Dr. Horrible two years after its debut and knew about the series background. He stated, a lot of people jumped on (the series) because there was no content(because of) the Writers Strike (2010). [8.7] Additionally, many interviewees were cord cutters: users watching content exclusively on mediums other than a television. A British amateur filmmaker, Magnus,

commented, I dont have TV channelsBut yeaI watch a lot of Internet, a lot of TV stuff (A08, 2010). Many users still view television and film content, just on other mediums.

16 This audience fragmentation was important for Dr. Horribles viewership.

9. Making Content for the Medium [9.1] Joss self-funded his project for less than $250,000 and shot for six days around L.A. (Jenkins Production Models 2011, 16) with six weeks for post-production (Whedon, 2010). Zack commented, (Joss) called in with a lot of favors with people he worked with over the years to help out with it. A lot of people offered their work for free. These production choices exemplify the do-it-yourself (DIY) produsage culture. Zack continued, the lower budget it was, the betterWe wanted to make it look good with what we hadbut its importantthat (it looked like) a bunch of friends were working on the project, which it was, (2011). [9.2] Many of the interviewees were aware of this aesthetic and found it added to the appeal. One graduate student and filmmaker mentioned that he enjoyed how reminiscent it was to video blogging. He states, Dr. Horrible was playing off the aesthetics of a web cam, someone just doing a talking blog its lowering itself toan indie production level, (A12, 2010). [9.3] The contents length also was also important to viewers. The difficulty for Dr. Horrible was balancing the nominal short web video length, approximately three minutes, to a longer time. Evey gave her perception on content length, stating, Im investing in an entire (television) series because Ive been told that its goodthe webif it doesnt engage me really quickly, Ill turn it off, (2011). [9.4] Dr. Horrible pushed each episodes length to nearly 14 minutes. Many fans noticed the episodes were longer but accepted it because of the engaging content. A blogger,

EvilWorldofHiglet, commented, Theyre probably the longest episodes that Ive seen for a

17 web series. But because there is so much going on, it works, (2010). [9.5] Some interviewees even stated that the show was too short. A graduate student commented, The length did surprise meI actually thought it cut short, and I havent caught the whole first part, (A02, 2010). Expectations are created from both the average thirty-minute legacy media experience and the shorter web videos. Dr. Horrible provides an example of balancing these two ends using engaging content. [9.6] The fans connection to the content also comes from the visceral nature of web video. One mathematics college student stated, Maybe because its placed on the web, its more accessibleit feels more user-directed (A04, 2010). Users feel that content is much more intimate and focused on the web.

10. Making Quality Content [10.1] Dr. Horrible is a sci-fi musical. The miniseries consisted of three episodes and centered on a villain, Dr. Horrible (Neil Patrick Harris). While trying to become a member of the ELE, Dr. Horrible falls in love with Penny (Felicia Day). However, he must also deal with his nemesis, Captain Hammer (Nathan Fillion). Through dramatic monologues and musical numbers, the series weaves a comedic and dramatic plot of love and loss. [10.2] Many interviewees considered Dr. Horrible as quality content. However, the definition of good content is difficult. The classification of good is not only creating quality aesthetics; it must be good to the targeted niche. Evey discussed digital content being able to speak to these audiences, stating, the more specialized you arethe more interested and invested your core audience can be and that core audience is what helps yougrow, (2011). Dr. Horrible catered to fans of Joss previous work while also catering to passive viewers as

18 well. The interviewees were asked questions to understand the core attributes that attracted fans. [10.3] One appealing element was the quality of the overall production. This attribute analyzed the look and feel of the content such as the acting. Joss was a long-time writer among a professional crew that worked on many legacy works. A graduate student and fan spoke of her fandom of the acting and how the celebrity presence of Harris attracted her. I followed his resurrected career(and) I read about Dr. Horrible...I think his performance was outstanding, (A02, 2010). [10.4] Two other important elements to the interviewees were the plot and characters. Joss legacy works are characterized as having complex plots and multi-dimensional characters. Many interviewees found Dr. Horrible to be equally as engaging. DocOct, a chiptune artist, stated, Id say (Joss is) a genius with the content he puts out consistentlyHe releases something that is just as good and better than the first thing andthat it continues to be good inspires people to believe that the artistis legit, (2010). [10.5] The characters exuded a fondness as well. An amateur comic book writer spoke of her adoration of the main character. She stated, What really got me hookedwas Dr. Horrible himself. It was just really easy for me to relate to him, (A15, 2010). Many viewers spoke of their empathy with these characters. With little time to expand on character development, strong characters became important to engage viewers. [10.6] Music was the final element that the fans were attuned to. Internet musicals were rare when Dr. Horrible released, and the quality of web music was not thought of highly. A radio station production director, Frank, spoke about how he was hooked to the music, stating, the first song, it wasunexpected and cool. It started out being (about)the script and the

19 performances(and) ended up being more about the music, (2010). All the aforementioned points distinguish how Dr. Horrible created connections to the fans through the content.

11. For the Fans [11.1] The production was wrapped up in early 2008 with the next steps including marketing and releasing the project. The creative team, though, did not set aside a marketing budget and was screened for a few journalists. Dr. Horrible relied on a grassroots-focused plan. Zack recalled, It was entirely dependent on the fansWe didnt do any marketingwe spent no money on publicity, (2010). They did not know what reception to expect as Zack stated, It was always going to be just ahomegrown thing. If many people watched it, greatbut if only a handful of people watched it that would have been fine, (2010). [11.2] The moment the first news broke out, passionate Whedon fans worked on creating blogs and fan websites about the project. EvilWorldofHiglet was one of the original fans that created the main Dr. Horrible fansite. She discussed the fervor for the series among fans, stating, There was a massive amount of interest. If you go ontothe Dr. Horrible official fan websitethere was massive speculation, (A03, 2010). Similar to other cult communities

around some content, Dr. Horrible became a highly anticipated event where fans worked together to piece together clues about the show. [11.3] The fanbase marketed the show, utilizing social networking and grassroots methods to casual viewers. One college graduate stated, if I meet someone who hasnt seen it, Im likeyou have to watch thisItslike youre kind of invested in it... (A13, 2010). Ten interviewees found the show through a grassroots method. All 15 of the interviewees participated in grassroots activity, and five interviewees experienced narrative web video for the

20 first time through Dr. Horrible. [11.4] Joss had a passionate and vocal fanbase that he accumulated through his legacy work. In produsage, reputation and trust are garnered after a user has proven herself to the community. Joss did not have to go through this trial to create this bond with the audience. His fans were loyal because they saw his prior work as genuine and transparent and were the early adopters that pervaded online communities. Lauren, a Youtube artist, discusses her trust in Joss content. She states, He has yet to make something I dont likeso until he does something wrong, I have yet to be disappointedIm going to trust whatever he comes out with, (A11, 2010). This reputation created a core audience that would be with Joss from the beginning. [11.5] Additionally, Joss communicated and bonded with his community. He spoke in interviews to conventions while actively rewarding and acknowledging his fans. One example is the contest made for the Dr. Horrible DVD, where Zack commented, We thought it would be a really smart idea to involve the fansand reward them for all of the hard work that they did so thats how the ELE competition came aboutsomething like 600 submitted, (2010). Fans submitted videos on why they should be included in the ELE with the top five winners being included in a special with the other videos included in a montage sequence on the DVD. [11.6] Dr. Horribles produsage-like model also inspired passion to amateur and professional fans to create their own content. Ranging from a stage production from the

Hockinson High School Drama Club (Dr. Horrible, 2011) to the 8-bit Dr. Horrible video game (DocOct, 2010), fans showcased creative and diverse produsage content. Eight interviewees were active participants in fandom; five of them created content for the first time in a new medium. One example is the web movie, Horrible Turn. Chance began this prequel when he became a cult fan and a grassroots advocate. He comments, I loved itI was an ambassador

21 for it and sharing it with everybodyusing the songs on the radio andas bumpers, and people calling in and asking what that was and telling them. The reaction (was) so positive and so cool, (2010). [11.7] Inspired by Dr. Horrible, Chance and Frank, began to work on their passion for wanting to creating a movie for the first time. Using the negative space from the plot, they both wrote a screenplay. Frank commented that they used a produsage-like model as well, utilizing their own funds and getting volunteers to help. We just wanted to do it all ourselves. We couldve borrowed moneybutmy vision (was) that we should try to do it on our own, (2010). After its debut, their fan movie was publicized in the press and nominated for awards (Chance, 2010), inspiring them to continue to pursue more filmmaking opportunities. These enthusiasts were not only pamphleteers for the show but creatively engaged and fulfilled their passions.

12. The Democratization of Content [12.1] On July 15th, 2008, the series released the first episode for free on the Dr. Horrible website via a Hulu player. The website crashed the first day due to the overwhelming

viewership. After getting more server space, the two other episodes were released within a twoday interval between each other (Dr. Horrible, 2011) and garnered more than 200,000 views per hour. After the first week, it had been watched more than 2 million times (Jenkins,

Production Models 2011, 16). The series was then taken off the website and released on iTunes. After its first week, according to industry gossip, Whedon had recouped his production costs, (2011, 16). [12.2] With just the DVD and iTunes sales, Zack comments that, its been

22 remarkably profitable. Its made back the money we spent on itI thinkfive or six times over now, (2011). The series re-released for free on its website on July 28th and then taken off the website permanently November 29th, 2009. Dr. Horrible then released on DVD, Blu-Ray, and Netflix. The team also released five comic books and a soundtrack on iTunes. On March 29 th, 2011, the production book was released. Critically, Dr. Horrible went on to win numerous endorsements and awards, such as an Emmy (Dr. Horrible, 2011). This data signifies the success of Dr. Horrible as a transmedia text. The series created an ongoing, open product that is still running and successful. [12.3] However, in spite of this success, a few challenges regarding the web video format were discussed during the interviews. One of the main concerns included the vastness of the web, where many found Dr. Horrible through their own sources but afterwards, had not watched other professional web videos. The mathematics college student stated, I dont really know of any other miniseriesI havent heard from anyone else. I havent found any, (A04, 2010). [12.4] Although social media and online communities have become sources, the problem starts at the initial discovery process and the exponential competition. Parikh mentions his experiences, stating, the sheer volume of contentbeing created for the web is huge. So nowadays to really set yourself apartis difficult because there are so many web series out there, (2011). [12.5] Another challenge is concerned with the viability of Dr. Horribles model. One argument was that this model is difficult to reproduce because of the unique situation of the Writers Strike to the temporality of web content. The lack of a longer, continuous series left a financial model to be desired. An anonymous filmmaker comments, What Joss did was

amazing, but it requires capital and his number of fans, (Transmedia Conference, 2011). Joss

23 also had a unique position to leverage his fans, money, and contacts, which many producers do not have. [12.6] Third, there are major battles happening regarding web video support. The

finances are still with legacy media, and both studios and producers are figuring out how to transition. David Baron, Hulus VP of Content, explains the current marketplace:

[12.7] the reality is thathigh quality talent is used to a certain level of compensation that the web cant really cover yet. The second thing is that traditional television model is still based on heavy licensing fees which cover the costs of production(the web) is still building up the audience and the revenue model for these kind of things. (2011)

[12.8] Overall, though, the interviewees wanted to see more content like Dr. Horrible with many experiments concurrently occurring in the digital space. Minisodes and webisodes have been thriving, and up-and-coming producers have been able to create several small successes. Legacy producers are also making strides on the web with their personalized content. Zack stated, working your way from the bottom like the Guild did, that model will start to catch onBut I think that people in Joss position will start to explore morethe creative freedom youre afforded on the Internet is very attractive, (2011). Experimentation and creative freedom seem to be the key themes for the future as seen in recent news of Google, Netflix, and Hulu investing in original content (Evey, 2011). [12.9] Dr. Horrible resonated with the grassroots and top-down conglomerates. The common response included the idea that quality content had made differences within the perception of web videos. One graduate student mentioned, the fact that this came out as a sole

24 piece of online content separate from the studio and everythingset a lot of ground rules for future Internet content and what can be done with it, (A09, 2010). [12.10] Parikh adds, it sort of inspired everybodydo we necessarily need Foxs approval for what we want to createdo we necessarily need their distribution model? Is there another way to do this? (2011).

13. Discussion [13.1] These interviews are not representative of all fans and producers and cannot pinpoint exact consumption practices. However, these interviewees reveal themes of effective produsage and transmedia within Dr. Horrible. One area of opportunity seen is categorizing the web video paradigms. Although not comprehensive, these four classes represent how web videos can be defined. The first is the amateur model, classifying producers who create web videos but do not make a sustainable living from them. These videos come from YouTube-like sources. The second is a crowdfunded/sourced model, which has users contributing to funding for amateur and professional producers. The third is a corporate model, where producers create content under contract for a media conglomerate. The final one is the self-funded professional model, where producers create videos utilizing their own funds and make a sustainable living through their content, which Dr. Horrible fits into. [13.2] RQ1 Has the web series paradigm exemplified and/or contradicted the theories of produsage and convergence and in what ways?: The self-funded web video paradigm exemplified produsage and convergence, and Dr. Horrible is a utopic example. Based on a produsage amateur model, an ideal web series can bridge the producer and viewer. The model lets the creative team create their unfiltered vision with no bureaucratic system and lets them be

25 in direct contact with their viewers. This direct communication can be risky if the content does not live up to its promise, but the produsage community can support respected content through their strong grassroots channels. [13.3] However, several processes of produsage were not applicable here. One was through reputation. Unlike amateur producers who build reputation, Joss Whedons legacy media lent him trust throughout the community, and let him build a substantial, online fanbase. Second, Joss was able to create his own reward system. He acted as a leader for his community who were inspired to create their own systems. Rewards usually begin within a community of equals while Joss demonstrated a position as an immediate organizer. Joss type of leadership may be an interesting development to produsage and create better lines of support and inspiration for users from professionals. [13.4] RQ2 How has the web series model worked to be a viable model for transmedia outlets?: The interviewees were also supportive of Dr. Horribles model. The miniseries has been successful using its distribution models and continued transmedia expansion from both grassroots fans and the producers. This model gives an opportunity for a series to create transmedia presence by acknowledging its audience and giving them roles to play. Joss

understood who the fans were, what they wanted, and how they impacted the content and communicated well with them. Also, the series transmedia trappings utilized the plots negative space, giving ideal opportunities for more content and also given to fans to reinterpret and remix on their own. [13.5] RQ3 What is the legacy of Dr. Horribles Sing-Along-Blog in the present and future of transmedia and the opportunities and obstacles it has created for cult fandom?: Finally, Dr. Horrible created a long-lasting legacy and future for web videos, even though a tumultuous

26 time of experimentation is predicted for the future. For cult fans, the miniseries created a direct communication channel that made them feel involved and respected with some who were inspired to pursue their artistic passions. This user stimulation creates scenarios for future research as possible ways to create digital engagement and literacy. For the passive viewer, Dr. Horrible was quality content. Most viewers took time to learn about the production backdrop and made their first entrance into narrative web videos. The challenge will be to keep these types of content discoverable. [13.6] For up-and-coming producers, they saw the miniseries as a legitimizing force for the web video industry. The series methods of engagement and focuses can be of benefit to future producers. However, this industry continues to grow quickly with many competitors as well as financial hurdles still in place. For conglomerates, the miniseries was both a success story and challenge to their dominance and therefore creates a continued expectation of a slow transition from legacy media. Still, new players in original web video content will challenge this from digitally focused companies like Google. [13.7] Further research on future web series and their reception by various sub-groups could chart the successes and failures of these advancements. By seeing the number of web texts that are produced and a greater sample of success and failures, a clearer picture can be created of how both companies and audience resonate to this type of content. Additionally, this future research can then view the lasting effect Dr. Horrible on future web content as well as the rise or fall of the grassroots communities and conglomerates.

14. Conclusion [14.1] The research analyzes an example of a modern web series and transmedia effort by

27 viewing the structure, distribution, and impact of Dr. Horrible. The argument was framed in viewing the miniseries from a top-down conglomerate to bottom-up grassroots perspectives and utilized convergence studies, the produsage framework, and transmedia theories. The findings utilized interviews with fans and industry professionals to gain knowledge from all vantage points. [14.2] The findings are consistent with much of the research; the self-funding professional web video model utilizes produsage and transmedia properties that link the viewer and professional producer, creating trust and open discussion. Dr. Horrible was an ideal text created for the potential of creative freedom to the direct interaction with users. Furthermore, the miniseries legacy was inspiring for up-and-coming professionals to enthusiasts who felt validated in their work and creatively simulated. Dr. Horrible has created a viable model not only for web videos but for an equal produsage space, where all voices can contribute and discuss freely. Whether the near future will bring this change to complete fruition has yet to be seen, but as this research shows, all users can be included to share and create new ideas. Shirkys definition of the consumer ties together the current evolution of the Internet community today: In the age of the Internet, no one is a passive consumer anymore because everyone is a media outlet, (2003, 358).

28 Acknowledgments Thank you to my parents for continually believing in my potential, Thank you to all the interviewees for their kind and candid dialogues; none of this could be accomplished without their help, Thank you to all of my friends and colleagues for their encouragement and advice, And thank you to my dissertation supervisors, Sonia Livingstone and Tom Hollihan, and the faculty at the London School of Economics and University of Southern California for pushing me to reach new heights.

29 15. Works Cited A01 (PhD Candidate) in discussion with the author, March 12, 2010. A02 (Graduate Student) in discussion with the author, April 5, 2010. A04 (Mathematics College Student) in discussion with the author, April 12, 2010. A09 (Graduate Student 2) in discussion with the author, April, 2010. A12 (Graduate Student and Filmmaker) in discussion with the author, June 10, 2010. A13 (College Graduate) in discussion with the author, June 25, 2010. A15 (Comic Book Writer) in discussion with the author, July 2, 2010. Andrejevic, M. 2002. The Work of Being Watched: Interactive Media and the Exploitation of Self-Disclosure. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19(2): 230248. Ang, I. 1990. Desperately Seeking the Audience. London: Routledge. 46. Baron, David (Hulu VP of Content), in discussion with author, March 2011. Bauer, M. W. & Gaskell, G. (eds.). 2000. "Chapter 3: Individual and group interviewing." In Qualitative researching: with text, image and sound. A practical Handbook, 43-49. London: Sage Publications. Benkler, Yochai. 2006. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press. Berger, A. 1998. "Chapter 6, Depth Interviews: favorite singers and recordings." In Media Research Techniques, 55-62. London: Sage. Bruns, Axel. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang. 1-249. Burgess, Jean. 2009. YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Cambridge: Polity. 61-79. Catone, Josh. Dr. Horrible: The Future of Television. Sitepoint. last modified, 14 Jan. 2009, http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/01/14/dr-horrible-the-future-oftelevision/. Chance, in discussion with the author, May 2010. Click, Melissa. 2007. Untidy - Fan Response to the Soiling of Martha Stewarts Spotless

30 Image. In Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, ed. Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, and Harrington, C. Lee, 301-315. New York: New York University Press. Coleman, Sarah and Dyer-Witheford, Nick. 2007. Playing on the digital commons: collectivities, capital and contestation in videogame culture. In Media Culture Society. 29: 934-953. Curtin, M. and Streeter, T. Media. In R. Maxwell (Ed.). 2001. Culture Works: Essays on the Political Economy of Culture. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 225-49. Dillman, D. A. 1991. The design and administration of mail surveys. In Annual Review of Sociology. 17: 225-249. DocOct, in discussion with the author, May 2010. Dr. Horrible. Wikipedia. Last modified 2011, April 13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Horrible. Evey, Kim, in discussion with author, April 5, 2011. EvilWorldofHiglet, in discussion with the author May 3, 2010. Frank, in discussion with the author May, 2010. Gillan, Jennifer. 2011. Television and New Media: Must-Click TV. New York: Routledge. 36235. Gordon, Ian. 2003. Superman on the Set: The Market, Nostalgia and Television Audiences. In Quality Popular Television: Cult TV, the Industry and Fans, ed. Jancovich, Mark and Lyons, James. 148-162. London: British Film Institute. Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, and Harrington, C. Lee. 2007. Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World. New York: New York University Press. Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, and Harrington, C. Lee. 2003. Introduction - Why Study Fans? In Quality Popular Television: Cult TV, the Industry and Fans, ed. Jancovich, Mark and Lyons, James, 1-16. London: British Film Institute. Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. London: Blackwell, 284-307. The Horrible Awards. Livejournal. Last modified 2010, May 5. http://community.livejournal.com/horrible_awards Hills, Matt. 2003. Media Academics as Media Audiences - Aesthetic Judgments in Media and

31 Cultural Studies. In Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, ed. Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, and Harrington, C. Lee, 33-47. London: British Film Institute. Jancovich, Mark and Lyons, James. 2003. Quality Popular Television: Cult TV, the Industry and Fans. London: British Film Institute. Jancovich, Mark and Lyons, James. 2003. Introduction. In Quality Popular Television: Cult TV, the Industry and Fans, ed. Jancovich, Mark and Lyons, James, 1-8. London: British Film Institute. Jenkins, Henry. 2003. Afterword The Future of Fandom. In Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, ed. Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, and Harrington, C. Lee. 357-364. London: British Film Institute. Jenkins, H. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press. 3-334. Jenkins, H. 2011. Courting Supporters for Independent Media. Unpublished. 44. Jenkins, H. 2004. The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence. In International Journal of Cultural Studies 7(1), 33-43. Jenkins, H. 2006. Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: New York University Press. Jenkins, H. 2011. The Value of Media Engagement. Unpublished. 9-44. Johnson, Derek. 2003. Fan-tagonism - Factions, Institutions, and Constitutive Hegemonies of Fandom. In Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, ed. Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, and Harrington, C. Lee, 285-300. London: British Film Institute. Jones, Sara. 2003. Web War: Resistance, Online Fandom and Studio Censorship. In Quality Popular Television: Cult TV, the Industry and Fans, ed. Jancovich, Mark and Lyons, James, 163-177. London: British Film Institute. Lauren, in discussion with the author, May 25, 2010. Lessig, L. 2004. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. New York: Penguin Press, 116-173. Magnus, in discussion with the author, May 13, 2010. Meng, Bing. 2010. MC423 Lecture Notes Week Two. London School of Economics.

32 Miller, T. et al. 2005. The New International Division of Cultural Labor. In T. Miller et al., Global Hollywood 2. London: BFI Publishing, 111-172. Niklas, in discussion with the author, June 17, 2010. Parikh, Sandeep, in discussion with the author, March 2011. Pearson, Roberta. 2007. Bachies, Bardies, Treekies, and Sherlockians. In Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, ed. Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, and Harrington, C. Lee, 98-109. London: British film Institute. Rantanen, T. 2009. When News Was New. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, Chapter 1. Rose, Frank. 2011. The Art of Immersion. W.New York: W. Norton & Company. 14-241. Sandvoss, Cornel. 2005. Fans: The Mirror of Consumption. Oxford: Polity. 3-55. Sandovss, Cornel. 2007. The Death of the Reader? Literary Theory and the Study of Texts in Popular Culture. In Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, ed. Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, and Harrington, C. Lee, 19-32. London: British Film Institute. Scodari, Christine. 2007. Yoko in Cyberspace with Beatles Fans - Gender and the ReCreation of Popular Mythology. In Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, ed. Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, and Harrington, C. Lee, 48-59. London: British Film Institute. Shirky, Clay. 2008. Here Comes Everybody. New York: Penguin Books. Silverstone, R. 2006. Hospitality and Justice, in Media and Morality. Cambridge: Polity, pp. 136-161. Transmedia Hollywood: Visual Culture and Design. 2011, April 8. Turow, Joseph. 2005. Audience Construction and Culture Production: Marketing Surveillance in the Digital Age. In Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 597(1): 103-121. Uriel, in discussion with the author, May 2010. Youtube Serves Up 100 Millions Videos a Day Online. USA Today. Last modified July 16th, 2006. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-07-16-youtube-views_x.htm Villa, D. 1999. Theatricality and the Public Realm. In Politics, Philosophy, Terror: Essays on the Thought of Hannah Arendt, 128-55. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

33 Waisbord, S. 2004. McTV: Understanding the Global Popularity of Television Formats. Television & New Media, 5(4), 359-382. WGA Contract 2007 Proposals. Writers Guild of America. Modified. 2010, July 20. http://www.wga.org/subpage_member.aspx?id=2485 Whedon, Zack in discussion with the author, July 13, 2010. Willis, Andrew. 2003. Marital Law and the Changing Face of Martial Arts on US Television. In Quality Popular Television: Cult TV, the Industry and Fans, ed. Jancovich, Mark and Lyons, James, 137-147. London: British Film Institute.