Rachel Wieringa Convergence

The Key to Convergence

In Foreman and Saint John’s article “Creating Convergence,” they define convergence as having three separate yet intertwining elements: content — “audio, video, and data” — platforms — “PC, TV, Internet, and game machine” — and distribution — “how the content gets to your platform” (50). A closer look into each of these elements may be able to define an equation for companies who seek to hopefully create and successfully sell the “Black Box,” through which all content will flow through (Jenkins 14).

Platforms seem to be of the greatest interest to them, as they represent the technological choices available to the future — many of which are competing with one another. Warner Amex’s QUBE system, for example, was tested and concluded to be a failure in the attempt to get audiences to communicate back to the broadcasters. In comparison, the Internet was highly successful in doing so in Foreman and Saint John’s example of an interactive, online game that accompanied the showings of *Who Wants to be a Millionaire?*,  and is perhaps even more effective at present (52). Since 2005, YouTube has been a prime example of broadcasting that promotes and readily accepts the interaction of its visitors and viewers; in fact, it’s a crucial aspect of the site and is often the reason why many YouTube “stars” and contributors remain active on the Internet instead of moving into the television set or movie theatre. As is demonstrated here, the future of convergence was resting heavily on the choice of platform and whether or not it would be successful and widely accepted. The Internet was amongst the highest adopted into platforms, probably due to its ease of use, availability, and the fact that it was — and still is — free for anyone with a connection.

Cost was a huge factor with regards to content. Of course, no one is going to consider spending money on a platform when they have no interest in the content itself. Then came the problem of convincing consumers that what they wanted can come in fully digital form, and that this digital form was more efficient and easier to use. Numerous companies had plans to take daily wants and needs, from banking services to grocery delivery, and try to include them into the services of interactive televisions (53). As many of these services are not available on television sets in the present day, I can only assume that these services were either not wanted or needed, or not successful in terms of its distribution or platform. Some content, however, was indeed successful through the platform of the television, such as video-on-demand and electronic program guides. It seems as though discovering what content consumers were willing to pay money for was simply done through trial and error, which could explain why there were so many unsuccessful attempts at making the most out of the idea of convergence.

Despite the article’s claim that “the options that succeed are often different from what anyone imagined or intended,” Foreman and Saint John make an incredibly acute prediction for the future of convergence: even with the consumer nightmare that is the many different available forms of content, distribution, and platforms to choose from, convergence will likely still succeed through “a mix of separate devices,” many of which are “connected […] to the Internet but not necessarily to one another” (56). It seems as though all this time the key to convergence’s success was the Internet.

Works Consulted

Boehlert, Eric. “MP3 wrestles with the future.” *Rolling Stone* 5 August 1999: 15-17. Print.

Foreman, Peter and Saint John, Robert W. “Creating Convergence.” *Scientific American* 285.5 (2000): 50-6. Web.

Gore, Andrew. “Music for the masses.” *Macworld* Sept. 1999: 23. Print.

Howard, Bill. “In praise of the C-word.” *PC Magazine* 16 Nov. 1999: 95. Print.

Jenkins, Henry. *Convergence Culture*. New York: New York University Press, 2006. Print.