![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
LJ has been purchased by SUP, who are the same entity that's been operating a Russian version of LJ. The NY Times reports on the purchase, and at this point, I'm just most interested in the "community" members who will become a part of LJ's "Advisory Board" "via an open online election process."
The Times an article on fanclubs where they noted:
Well, we've all seen blogposts and coverage by F_W raging in support of, and against, things like complaints to consumer protection agencies when fans see fan-servicing entities that don't stick to their promises or even their written agreements - remember the griping and the praising last summer when people complained to California's consumer protection entities (now run by former CA Gov Jerry Brown) - and it's interesting to see a "third party" take on coverage of these issues.
They cover "Fan Asylum", who manage fan clubs for Maroon 5 and Whitney Houston. Their founder got his start running Journey's fan club (which I was a member of back in 1984? 1985?) and he says,
Well, yeah.
That's one thing that's been discussed over and over - and should continue to be discussed throughout all types of fandoms, IMHO - what sort of service do fans want, and when does the company's interest in in creaing revenue for the sake of the company's owners overwhelm the service they're supposed to be performing for the fan club members? And how much of this crosses paths with the interest by the performers/creators in making money off of their creativity?
I'm especially fascinated by the discussion of Prince.org by the site's founder:
Isn't this what we've seen happening on LJ as people join for or because of fandom participation, and after a while they may migrate to other fandoms, "consume" content created in other fandoms, and just start hanging out with the community, the personalities and the environment?
When I saw the headline yesterday, on the front page of the Times' Sunday Style section, my first thought was that Fandom Wank would have a field day complaining about Fannish Entitlement by the Mylie Cyrus and Prince fans, although they probably won't bother because they haven't yet and these are things that have been in the public eye for a while. If they were going to be turned into wank-subjects, they probably would have already. It's like that with F_W and other wank-ish sites - they cover what's on their radar screen and they don't cover stuff where the majority of participants are under 18, which is probably the situation with the Hannah Montana stuff - and that makes sense.
But if there is a "fannish entitlement" "problem", then it's not limited to, or wholly encompassed on, or manifested solely within the modes that have been the subject of much debate. Some of the Rolling Stones' fan communities gripe about this and that, but when something happens, like Keith Richards' fall out of a palm tree, there's a tonne of concern and sympathy and banding together, and that's what a community does.
It's like the discussion of what makes someone a "bad fan", if they don't like the way the creator has done something - which, interestingly enough, is a discussion that never happened in the Heroes fandom this fall, although it could have gone that way - and it was probably pre-empted by that Tim Kring interview with EW where he detailed all the things that had been Less Than Perfect in the first seven or so episodes of this season - most of which had been mentioned by at least some fans. And that leads me to a weird pondering - if the creators of a show did something - a plotline, a casting choice, whatever - that you liked but it turned out they didn't actually feel proud of (at the time, in retrospect, whatever), does that make you a bad fan because you're disagreeing with the creators? I can think of examples from at least three fandoms, and I'm just not sure what the answer actually is.
Of course, that's assuming there is such a thing as a "bad fan" in the first place - I mean, other than the fans who get stalkery or jump onto the Creators and/or Talent in a physical way. If all you're doing is discussing, or even ranting, can any of that make you into a "bad fan"? Can you be a fan of something if an aspect of the creative work, or the beaviour of those involved in creating it, makes you irked, frustrated, unhappy or disapointed?
And, to hell with it, I'll throw the question out there. What's wrong with being a "bad fan" anyway?
Discussion, contrary opinions, debate and ranting are all welcome here!
ETA: Dinosaur Mummy Discovered! Cool!
The Times an article on fanclubs where they noted:
By definition, members of fan clubs are passionate, but these days they also seem cranky and some are even at war with the performers they supposedly slavishly admire. Fan clubs today are online communities that vent on Internet message boards and gripe directly to performers about everything, including song lists, merchandise and the prices and availability of tickets. And when sounding off is met by dead air, fans sue, complain to consumer protection agencies and even plot concerted action on a global scale.
Well, we've all seen blogposts and coverage by F_W raging in support of, and against, things like complaints to consumer protection agencies when fans see fan-servicing entities that don't stick to their promises or even their written agreements - remember the griping and the praising last summer when people complained to California's consumer protection entities (now run by former CA Gov Jerry Brown) - and it's interesting to see a "third party" take on coverage of these issues.
They cover "Fan Asylum", who manage fan clubs for Maroon 5 and Whitney Houston. Their founder got his start running Journey's fan club (which I was a member of back in 1984? 1985?) and he says,
when the mission shifts from an emphasis on service to one of revenue, “You’re just asking for trouble from the fan base.”
Well, yeah.
That's one thing that's been discussed over and over - and should continue to be discussed throughout all types of fandoms, IMHO - what sort of service do fans want, and when does the company's interest in in creaing revenue for the sake of the company's owners overwhelm the service they're supposed to be performing for the fan club members? And how much of this crosses paths with the interest by the performers/creators in making money off of their creativity?
I'm especially fascinated by the discussion of Prince.org by the site's founder:
But now the site functions more as an international social network where people discuss politics and other topics, he said.
“People stay for the community that’s evolved, the personalities and environment,” he said. “It’s a virtual hang-out.”
Isn't this what we've seen happening on LJ as people join for or because of fandom participation, and after a while they may migrate to other fandoms, "consume" content created in other fandoms, and just start hanging out with the community, the personalities and the environment?
When I saw the headline yesterday, on the front page of the Times' Sunday Style section, my first thought was that Fandom Wank would have a field day complaining about Fannish Entitlement by the Mylie Cyrus and Prince fans, although they probably won't bother because they haven't yet and these are things that have been in the public eye for a while. If they were going to be turned into wank-subjects, they probably would have already. It's like that with F_W and other wank-ish sites - they cover what's on their radar screen and they don't cover stuff where the majority of participants are under 18, which is probably the situation with the Hannah Montana stuff - and that makes sense.
But if there is a "fannish entitlement" "problem", then it's not limited to, or wholly encompassed on, or manifested solely within the modes that have been the subject of much debate. Some of the Rolling Stones' fan communities gripe about this and that, but when something happens, like Keith Richards' fall out of a palm tree, there's a tonne of concern and sympathy and banding together, and that's what a community does.
It's like the discussion of what makes someone a "bad fan", if they don't like the way the creator has done something - which, interestingly enough, is a discussion that never happened in the Heroes fandom this fall, although it could have gone that way - and it was probably pre-empted by that Tim Kring interview with EW where he detailed all the things that had been Less Than Perfect in the first seven or so episodes of this season - most of which had been mentioned by at least some fans. And that leads me to a weird pondering - if the creators of a show did something - a plotline, a casting choice, whatever - that you liked but it turned out they didn't actually feel proud of (at the time, in retrospect, whatever), does that make you a bad fan because you're disagreeing with the creators? I can think of examples from at least three fandoms, and I'm just not sure what the answer actually is.
Of course, that's assuming there is such a thing as a "bad fan" in the first place - I mean, other than the fans who get stalkery or jump onto the Creators and/or Talent in a physical way. If all you're doing is discussing, or even ranting, can any of that make you into a "bad fan"? Can you be a fan of something if an aspect of the creative work, or the beaviour of those involved in creating it, makes you irked, frustrated, unhappy or disapointed?
And, to hell with it, I'll throw the question out there. What's wrong with being a "bad fan" anyway?
Discussion, contrary opinions, debate and ranting are all welcome here!
ETA: Dinosaur Mummy Discovered! Cool!
