Part 2: Everyone Dies. A History of Game of Thrones
In this section, I provide necessary background on the A Song of Ice and Fire
universe as well as plot information about Game of Thrones that is necessary to
understanding my theory and analysis. Warning: Spoilers follow.
A Song of Ice and Fire, the fantasy book series HBO’s Game of Thrones is based
off of, was initially conceived as a trilogy by author and self-admitted fantasy fanatic
George R.R. Martin. As he soon found out after the publication of Book 1: A Game of
Thrones, three novels was not nearly enough space to tell the story of the world he
had envisioned. Within the next few years after A Game of Thrones was released in
1996, Martin put out the second and third installments, A Clash of Kings (1998), and
A Storm of Swords (2000). Martin had a massive chunk of the story in his mind that
he was able to write relatively quickly, releasing the first three books of his series in
just over four years. However, since then his progress has significantly slowed, as
the fourth book A Feast for Crows was published in 2005, and the fifth book, A Dance
with Dragons was not released until 2011. Martin, who is now 65 years old, has
repeatedly told his readers and fans that he will not be pressured into releasing the
6th and 7th installments of the series due not only to the skyrocketing popularity of
the book series as a whole, but also the notion that the television show, if it
continues to release 1 season per year (as it has for four years now), will no doubt
catch up to the book series. While Martin has released a few chapters to preview The
Winds of Winter, the 6th book in the series, he has also said there is a lot of writing
still to be done, and that there is no estimated release date for the book.
David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, the co-creators of Game of Thrones, believed
they could adapt the series for television; not because they were successful
television writers, producers, and creators (because they weren’t), but because they
were fans. Benioff, who completed the first book in “under 36 hours”, convinced
Weiss to help him create this series, and they set a meeting with Martin
(Wikipedia.org). Over a dinner in 2006, Benioff and Weiss convinced a skeptical
Martin to let them attempt to recreate his beloved realm in a fantasy television
series, which Martin believed and had stated many times “couldn’t be shot on film”.
However, Martin agreed under the pretense that it was made by HBO. He was truly
convinced, when over their initial meeting in a Café in Santa Fe, Benioff and Weiss
provided him with an answer to a question he posed to them, “Who is Jon Snow’s
Mother?” that proved to Martin their desire as both creators and fans. The pilot was
ordered by HBO in 2009, and the series premiered in April of 2011, receiving
immediate and significant critical acclaim. Since then, the series has put out a
second and third season in 2012 and 2013, and the fourth season (which premiered
April 6th) is currently underway.
Understanding the complexity, scale, and detail that combined to create
Martin’s realm in which the series takes place, as well as the factors that lead to the
series itself, is incredibly important to understanding the culture surrounding the
show and its fans. The depth of character development, budget for the series, and
every other aspect that has contributed to the final product are all vital in analyzing
how, what, where, and why the culture that the show has created exists, as well as
any effects this specific culture has had on both television culture and fan culture.
Obviously, fantasy fandom is not a creation of Game of Thrones, as Star Trek, Lord of
the Rings, and Harry Potter, have had monumental success both financially as well as
being objects of serious and significant fandom in ways few fantasy series have
attained (the movie adaptations of the latter two coming before Game of Thrones).
For the purpose of this paper, a general idea of the world created by Martin and the
show’s creators is necessary in understanding my later analysis.
The realm in which A Song of Ice and Fire takes place is divided into two
continents. Westeros, home of the Seven Kingdoms, and Essos, home of the nine free
cities, the Dothraki sea, Slaver’s Bay, and many more geographic areas. The Narrow
Sea, a stretch of water that can be seen below as dividing the two landmasses,
separates these two continents.
In Westeros, one king or queen, who rules from Westeros’ capital city, King’s
Landing, is the supreme leader of the seven kingdoms. Their exist wardens of the
North, South, East, and West, all whom play a vital role in policing the kingdom, and
answer only to the king or queen. In Essos, each different city has a different
hierarchical structure and method of ruling. The continents collide in the story, as
traditions, characters, plot lines, and magic between the two seemingly different
worlds intertwine.
In Westeros, a more “typical” (to the genre) fantasy world and hierarchy is in
place. Houses, the term used to describe massive families, all pay homage to their
liege lord, from common folk all the way up to the king. For example, a common
person could be under the rule of a lowly lord or hedge knight, who perhaps
received titles and lands by virtue of family or prowess in battle. This person is in
turn under the rule of a larger house, who could perhaps be under the rule of (for
example) Lord Eddard Stark, the “Warden of the North”, who overseas the massive
northern part of the continent (he is the warden when the series begins, however
the Stark family has held the title for thousands of years). Eddard Stark, a main
character who is tragically killed in the first season of the show, pays homage to the
king and the king only. The other high lords of Westeros do the same. The Starks,
who many consider to be the main characters/family of the series, are honorable
“north men” born and raised in the northern part of the Westeros. The values held
in the north are honor among all, with a serious emphasis placed on family and
survival. As their poignant yet simple house words constantly remind not only the
characters, but the viewers, “Winter is Coming”. In the first episode of the series, the
Stark children discover Direwolf puppies. Direwolves are not only the sigil (symbol)
of their house, but incredibly rare to find in their geographic area. Taken as a sign,
Eddard Stark gives a puppy to each of his children. These wolves prove to be more
than pets, but vital to the trials the Stark children face, as literal parts of their souls.
Their importance lasts throughout the series thus far, and are important to
remember for when I discuss Robb’s wolf, Grey Wind, and his role in the Red
Wedding.
The Lannisters of Casterly Rock also play a massive role in the series as a
whole. One of the richest families in Westeros, the Lannisters rule the western part
of the continent, their seat placed on “Casterly Rock” a massive fortress built upon a
cliff over seemingly endless gold mines. Tywin Lannister, the head of the house
when the series begins, is noted as the most powerful man in the realm, despite not
actually being the king. His children, twins Jaime and Cersei, as well as “the dwarf”
Tyrion, all play central roles in the story, Tyrion being one of the few characters
whose point of view is used to write the first book A Game of Thrones (as well as
most of the stark family). When the series begins, Cersei is married to the King
Robert Baratheon, and Jaime is a Knight of the Kingsguard (a select seven knights
whose duty is to protect, obey, and serve the king). The Lannister house words are
officially “Hear Me Roar”, however their unofficial motto, which references both
their material wealth as well as their power as a family are, “A Lannister always
pays his debts.”
Beginning her story in Pentos, a city in Essos, Daenerys Targaryen is also one
of the main characters the story surrounds. A young girl of 13, the story (so far) has
covered her quest to recover her father’s throne from the “usurper” (initially Robert
Baratheon but later his “son” Joffrey) who took it after her father was killed. The
Targaryens had been the ruling family of the realm for hundreds of years until
Robert Baratheon, with the help of Eddard Stark and the Lannisters, killed the king
and took over power. Until this point in the series both book and television,
Daenerys is yet to accomplish her mission. For the purpose of this paper however,
Daenerys’s role is rather small.
As I mentioned above, Lord Eddard Stark is killed at the end of the first
season (as well as the end of the first book). With the Starks being the “main” family
of the series, his death comes as a massive shock to the viewer/reader. Lord Eddard
is incredibly honorable, up until his death the “main” protagonist of the show, and
also played by actor Sean Bean, perhaps the most recognizable actor in the series.
However, as many Game of Thrones fans are now accustomed to, he is killed in an
incredibly gruesome, tragic, and simply put, surprising episode of the first season
entitled “Baelor”. Lord Eddard in the opening few scenes of the series is asked by the
king Robert Baratheon to come to King’s Landing and serve as his “Hand” (the Hand
of the King is his right hand man, and acts with the king’s power). “You helped me
win this throne”, Robert claims in the first episode, “now help me hold it.” Eddard
accepts, and over the course of the first season discovers a disturbing truth: Joffrey,
Myrcella, and Tommen, the “children” of Robert Baratheon and Cersei Lannister
were in fact born of incest between Cersei and her brother Jaime (hence the
quotation marks around son two paragraphs ago). Due to this discovery, Eddard
plans on alerting Stannis Baratheon, Robert’s older brother, that he is the rightful
heir to the throne after Robert is killed midway through the first season, not his
“son” Joffrey. However, Ned (Eddard’s nickname) is captured and tried for treason
by Queen Cersei, as Joffrey ascends to the throne. And, despite promising mercy if he
admits his treason, Joffrey orders Eddard to be beheaded in front of the public in
King’s Landing, as well as in front of his daughters Sansa (who is betrothed to marry
Joffrey) and Arya, who both travelled with him to King’s Landing. Eddard, a man of
honor, admits his treason under the notion that he will be spared. However, when
he does, Joffrey simply commands his death, and his headsman abides. In the final
shot of the ninth episode, the headsman’s great sword descends and separates
Eddard’s head from his shoulders (the same scene I describe in my introduction).
This death begins the downward spiral that the story takes, and is perhaps where
the widely accepted notion that “every character you like dies throughout the
series” perhaps came from. Having read to the latest point in the story, I can attest to
this notion holding significant truth. This death is also crucial to this paper, as it was
the first of many emotional and traumatizing deaths the show has to this point
produced, as well as it directly leads to my object of analysis, the scene depicted in
the 9th episode of the 3rd season, now known to most as “The Red Wedding”. As I’ll
shortly describe, Ned’s death sets into motion the war that follows between the
Starks and the north, and the rest of the realm, as Robb Stark, Eddard’s oldest son,
seeks revenge on the Lannisters and all those who contributed to the death of his
father. It is also important to note that Robb is also fighting for northern
independence from the rest of the realm; if he is to win the war, he will become the
King in the North (a position that used to exist in the realm until it was conquered
by the Targaryens and became the seven kingdoms, all ruled by one King).
Over the next two seasons, the war that results from Ned’s murder, as well as
the other intricate plot lines of the story begin to unfold. Robb wins many victories
against the Lannisters with help from his “bannermen”, large houses that pay
homage to the Starks in the north. However, as the war continues it becomes more
and more apparent that Robb and his army of north-men are not only outnumbered,
but also outclassed in terms of strategy, tactics, and geologic control, as Tywin
Lannister and the other high lords that ally him are battle-tested veterans. Before
Robb reaches this conclusion however (about midway through the second season),
Robb and his army must pass through the Twins of the Crossing, a castle that sits
over the meeting of three major rivers, the seat of House Frey, a powerful
bannerman to House Tully, the house of Robb’s mother Catelyn. Lord Walder Frey is
the head of this house, and is an old, bitter character that refuses to take a side in
this war despite his pledge to serve House Tully, and therefore Robb. Despite his
disappointment however, Robb and his army must continue south. In order to cross
the bridge that connects the Twins (the sole way across the rivers), Frey demands
that Robb pledge to marry one of his daughters once the war ends, which would not
only advance the power and status of his family, but would also ensure some of his
descendants would have the name Stark, permanently tying the two houses
together. Walder Frey also knows that if Robb is to win his war, he will become the
King in the North, and whichever daughter Robb chooses would thus become the
Queen. Robb agrees to the terms, and his army passes. However, over the rest of
season 2, Robb falls in love with a nurse who he finds amongst his ranks (the
character is different in the books, but serves the same role in terms of Robb’s
betrayal of his vow to Walder Frey). Despite his vow to marry one of Lord Walder’s
daughters, Robb marries this nurse, named Talisa, toward the end of season 2. This
marriage sets in motion the betrayals that lead to the climax of season 3, my object
of analysis, “The Red Wedding”, which I alluded to earlier.
As mentioned above, Robb is desperate in the beginning of season 3 for an
alliance, and, despite betraying his vow to Lord Frey, believes he can sway House
Frey to his cause. It is arranged, and Lord Frey agrees, that Robb’s uncle Edmure
Tully, the heir to Riverrun (the principal house in the Riverlands) and brother to
Robb’s mother Catelyn, will marry one of Frey’s daughters in Robb’s stead. Although
this daughter will never be Robb’s queen, the two families will still be tied by virtue
of Robb’s relation to his uncle (a marriage between the families Frey and Tully is
something Walder Frey has been attempting to make happen before his death). The
war is put on hold, and despite warning from Robb’s mother Catelyn, Robb and his
high lords travel back to the Twins of the Crossing in order to make amends through
the marriage of Edmure Tully and a Frey daughter of his choosing.
Following suit with the series, the ninth episode of the 3rd season is perhaps
the most heart-wrenching, graphic, and plainly put, sad episodes of television that
has aired in the United States. Robb and his army finally arrive at the Twins for his
uncle Edmure’s wedding. Robb sincerely apologizes to a sour Lord Walder, who
before begrudgingly accepting his apology states to his entire court “Your king says
he betrayed me for love. I say he betrayed me for firm tits and a tight fit”, after Robb
introduces Talisa (“The Rains of Castamere, Season 3 Episode 9). The episode
continues with the wedding of Edumure and Roslin Frey as well as the feast and the
celebrations. The episode concludes with a scene that made book readers and show
watchers alike not believe what was unfolding in front of them, as the extent of
Stark, Lannister, and Frey betrayal come into fruition. Lord Edmure and his wife are
removed from the high hall in order to complete their wedding ceremony with the
traditional “bedding”. Catelyn Tully, Robb’s mother and widowed wife of Lord
Eddard first realizes something is wrong when the festive music players begin to
play a darker tune, one known throughout the kingdom from the highest of lords to
the lowest of peasants. They to play “The Rains of Castamere”, a song that
documents the brutal elimination of House Reyne by House Lannister, particularly
by Tywin Lannister himself, the song for which the episode is named. As the lyrics
state, Lord Reyne challenged Lord Tywin, to his imminent demise:
And who are you, the proud lord said,
that I must bow so low?
Only a cat of a different coat,
that's all the truth I know.
In a coat of gold or a coat of red,
a lion still has claws,
And mine are long and sharp, my lord,
as long and sharp as yours.
And so he spoke, and so he spoke,
that lord of Castamere,
But now the rains weep o'er his hall,
with no one there to hear.
Yes now the rains weep o'er his hall,
and not a soul to hear.
Book readers, or show watchers who were incredibly saavy, would know
that this song signaled something terrible was going to happen; and so it does. A
Frey guardsman unsheathes his knife and moves behind Talisa, brutally stabbing
her stomach and unborn child. At the same time, bowmen from the rafters unload
their arrows at Robb and his men, several piercing his chest and abdomen. Outside
the high hall, the rest of Frey’s guardsmen slaughter Robb’s party. Arya, who has
travelled to the Twins in order to reunite with her family after Ned’s death in season
1, witnesses Frey guardsman kill Grey Wind, Robb’s wolf, in his pen. The scene turns
back to the massacre within the castle, Lord Frey watching intently from the dais.
Amongst all the killing and bloodshed, Catelyn manages to grab one of Walder Frey’s
many wives and hold a knife to her throat. Robb has crawled over to Talisa, where
he lies holding her as she dies. Catelyn pleads with Lord Frey, to let her son live.
“Please”, she weeps, “let him go or I will cut your wife’s throat.” Frey simply
answers, “I’ll find another.” Robb, who struggles to return to his feet gasps “Mother”,
before Lord Roose Bolton, up until this point an ally of Robb, whispers “the
Lannisters send their regards” before stabbing Robb fatally in the stomach. Catelyn
wails as Robb collapses, dragging her own knife across the neck of Lord Frey’s wife,
the blood soaking her as she watches her first-born son die, in what can only be
described as a blood bath. Believing most of her children are now dead, a look that
can only be described as sheer and utter emptiness comes over her face. The camera
slowly zooms on Catelyn, before the episode concludes: A final Frey guardsmen
moves behind Catelyn, and slices her throat open. The gash from which the bloodspills out looks so real, it is both hard to comprehend how the scene was shot as
well as brutally graphic and stomach turning. The screen turns black, and for the
first time in the series, the credits role in utter silence. The consequences of Robb’s
betrayal, in a similar manner to the consequence of Eddard’s assertion that Joffrey
was born of incest, far exceed expectation.
This event now known to show watchers as “The Red Wedding” makes all
other deaths that had occurred throughout Game of Thrones look like, both in terms
of emotional investment with the characters as well as sheer graphic content, child’s
play.
1
Above: Catelyn is released from her endless grief with her death, the final shot of “The Red Wedding”.
Season 3 concludes as the prior seasons had, with an episode of aftermath
and consolidation. With the war now seemingly lost, it remains unclear to the
show’s audience what will happen next, and how the series can possibly recover
from such a tragic event. To add to the suffering fans were already feeling, season 3
episode 10 begins with a memorable and horrifying scene straight from the book.
Frey’s guardsmen behead both Robb and his direwolf Grey Wind before placing the
wolf’s head on Robb’s body. They parade it around the castle: “All hail the King in
the North!”
This catastrophic death scene that I have described in detail, as well as the
context for the series and story I have provided, are crucial in understanding my
analysis of HBO, Game of Thrones fans, and the culture that has been created as a
1
A screenshot from “The Rains of Castamere”, HBO.com
direct result of this scene. The quality in terms of production of the scene in all its
facets, the emotional investment of the fans, and the interactive social media
explosion that resulted from this scene, culminate into “The Red Wedding” being the
prime example of the new emotionally driven branding culture, that I will later
assert directly brings value to HBO.
Part 3: From Nerds to Normal: A brief History of Fans
Fandom is a term that was once coined to describe a small group of people
who enjoyed Sherlock Holmes novels, but has now developed into a common term
describing anyone who engages with or is interested in an object. Nowadays, if you
have real interest in an object or cultural artifact, you might be considered a “fan” of
said thing. Taken literally, a fan (from the word fanatic) is a person that not only
likes something, but engages with it culturally. This idea can mean many things,
from someone merely talking to someone else about the object they are a fan of, to
creating your own content using elements from the object of your fandom, to buying
every piece of merchandise the creator of said object puts on the market. In today’s
world, most if not all people are a fan of at least one thing, although the scale and
intensity of fandom can greatly differ.
Television fandom began for the most part with the invention of the
television itself; consumers who viewed its first broadcasts could be considered
fans. However, the term fandom, particularly media fandom, was not coined until
the 1970’s when Star Trek fans began to interact with each other about the show
they had fallen in love with (Textual Poachers 9-12). Initially, this group of fans and
others like them were considered an anomaly, outcasts, and strange. As Jenkins
describes, in his earlier work on fans, there existed a connotation about fandom as
“religious zealotry”, containing both “false beliefs”, and “madness” (Textual Poachers
12). As he continues to describe, contemporary fan discourse (when his book was
written in the late 80’s) still tied these representations to fans well into the 90’s.
However, this fandom began to percolate into other genres and medias outside of
science fiction and television, and as fans and fan groups grew, fandom developed
different meaning depending on its associated object(s). For example, a sports fan
could watch their team play on television, or attend a professional sporting event.
Literature fandom involved careful, often multiple readings of a text, loyalty to a
certain author, or sometimes a book club. For another type of fan, it could mean
passionate, religious-like study of a specific text. For many fans, their daily lives
could be dictated by their fandom. Regardless of the specific fan community
however, it was no doubt revolutionized with the advent of new media, particularly
the Internet. The ways in which these changes occurred is something Jenkins
describes in his more recent book, Convergence Culture, in which he theorizes about
“new media’s” role in our changing technological culture. The term “new media” is a
tricky one. Considering a technology is often obsolete a year after it is released, it is
hard to dictate what media constitutes “new media” and what is considered “old”, in
literal terms. The more important definition of the term however is that “new
media” deals with content and its immediate accessibility, as well as the ability to
directly interact with said media. New media technologies are “media forms that are
digital, interactive, updatable, ubiquitous” (Booth 3). In the late 80’s the web
browser was “new media”. In the 90’s it consisted of DVD’s and Internet forums. In
the early 2000’s, it was on demand video and HDTV. Nowadays, it is a clustered
combination of social media and the new technologies that are defining our culture,
as well as the seemingly infinite ways we interact. As I will argue later on, Game of
Thrones fans and their use of new media is not only a vital part of understanding
their fandom as a culture, but a vital part of understanding the incredibly important
relationship that HBO, and the creators of Game of Thrones, have with this
community.
Media fandom, and more specifically television fandom, is where Game of
Thrones fans fall (many are also fans of the book series as well and vice versa).
Initially, those who fell in love with George R.R. Martin’s universe were bookworms,
sci-fi fans who most likely enjoyed Tolkien, and many other fantasy genre legends.
However, the popularity of the series was miniscule before the creation of the
television series. The fan community that exists today has grown from a niche group
of fantasy fiction fans to a group containing several million, who follow a television
series (some also are book fans) on the forefront of American popular culture.
Before the series premiere in 2011, if you had heard of A Song of Ice and Fire it was
because you were most likely an avid sci-fi reader, or knew someone who was.
Today, it’s almost a social faux pas if you don’t tune in on Sunday nights each spring
for HBO’s most popular (currently running) series. Martin’s world had grown from a
series of books perhaps only hardcore sci-fi fans knew about, into a show which
averaged an audience around 5 million live viewers over the course of its third
season, and has had over 6 million live viewers for the first two episodes of season
four (Wikipedia.org).
Fans of A Song of Ice and Fire began communicating with each other via
websites and forums in the late 90’s. A small group of fans, they discussed theories,
scenes, and ideas they had about the first few installments of the series on A Song of
Ice and Fire specific web pages, such as “Westeros.org” and “A Forum of Ice and
Fire”. As he published the second and third books, the fan group gained numbers, as
the series popularity grew. What began for Martin as receiving a few fan letters a
year as a TV writer soon turned into receiving thousands of letters and e-mails each
month (Martin’s Blog). People began having conventions that Martin himself
attended, and his reputation as not only a fantastic fantasy writer, but as a creator
willing to engage with his fans rapidly grew. An avid fan himself, Martin had long
attended conventions to mingle and discuss the fantasy he loved with fellow fans
(Martin’s Blog). Nowadays, he is no different, although his notoriety is now equal to
the likes of many popular United States celebrities. While he still tries to answer
every fan letter personally, he admits his life has significantly changed since the
creation of the HBO series, and that he has much less time in his days. Fan forums,
such as “A Wiki of Ice and Fire”, Westeros.org, and the “subreddits” (forums on the
website reddit.com) for Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice and Fire each have
hundreds of thousands of users, the most active forums having up to 10,000 active
users at one time (the game of thrones subreddit has had well over 10,000 active
users the past two Sunday nights following the airing of the new episodes). These
fans discuss a range of topics, from theories about characters, plotlines, or the future
of the series, to what aspects of the books should be left out or included in the
television series, to many other topics surrounding the series. These fans also often
create their own content, a standard element of fan communities for the past few
decades. From fan fiction and videos, to paintings and art, to food and recipes
directly from the series, fans communicate and interact with each other to share,
gain, and create knowledge about Game of Thrones.
The fandom that now exists around Game of Thrones is not only incredibly
substantial in terms of sheer numbers, but is also clearly engaging with the new
media technologies that have grown to define fandom in today’s digital age. HBO,
“The Red Wedding”, and Game of Thrones fans all combine into my theory of value
creation, but can only be fully perceived by understanding both the background
information I have provided in this chapter, as well as the scholarly theory that I will
describe in the next chapter, and use for my careful analysis in my fourth chapter.
To quote George R.R. Martin, “The devil is in the details.”
Chapter 3: The Theory of New-Media Fandom: Branding, Capital, and Value
In today’s media infused society, combining all potential business aspects
into a precise and deliberate marketing strategy is key to a success and growth. Now
more than ever, the Internet and new media technologies are the key to successful
marketing, advertising, and the creation of brand loyalty and identity. This digital
era that is driven by technology and the engagement that occurs with it in all its
forms, has caused a shift from traditional business strategy, and forced companies
and producers of goods to adapt their style and tactics, or risk perishing from the
market. This evolution of technology and business strategy has occurred not only
due to technological advances that society has witnessed over the past two decades,
but also due to the change in our values and ideology as a society. In this chapter, I
will identify theories of brand value, interactivity, and convergence culture,
describing how each theory has developed with these shifts in cultural values, while
also explaining how these theories will help support my argument.
Part 1: Brand Theory
The value of a company is no longer as concrete and simple as its financial
assets, but has grown into the combination of many factors, including its assets,
material goods, and “brand value”. As a Wall Street Journal article pointed out in
2000, “Creativity is overtaking capital as the principal elixir of growth. And
creativity, although precious, shares few of the constraints that limit the range and
availability of capital and physical goods” (Perzinger). This idea of non-tangible
value relies heavily on the growth of our economy from one based on production, to
one based around the consumer, a growth economic and cultural theorists alike
agree has been occurring for over a half century. As a New York Times article pointed
out just one year before the piece in The Wall Street Journal, “over the last fifty years
the economic base has shifted from production to consumption. It has gravitated
from the sphere of rationality to the realm of desire” (Muschamp). With this shift
toward a “people-driven economy that puts the consumer in the seat of power”
(Gobé xvii), the ideas and morals that a company can brand itself as encompassing
have trumped their material value as the definitive factor in a company’s worth. If
we as cultural theorists accept this to be true, we can then use brand theory to
understand both how branding has developed to where it is currently culturally
situated, as well as specifically decide whether or not, as well as how, HBO is using
brand theory effectively in their own strategy to address the cultural shifts. As I
asserted with my thesis, not only does HBO understand both historical and
contemporary brand theory, but they are also revolutionizing and creating a new
type of branding, as they have revolutionized so many aspects of television in the
past. Using the work of brand theorists Adam Arvidsson, and Douglas B. Holt, whilst
supplementing this work with that of marketing guru Marc Gobé, I will connect
contemporary brand theory to HBO and Game of Thrones, showing how HBO’s
already established brand identification with “quality television”, “The Red
Wedding” itself, and their current branding practices not only stem from the theory
I describe, but are key (combined with other theory) to further my argument. This
idea that “brands have become an important tool for transforming everyday life into
economic value” (Brands ii), as these theorists assert, is the crucial point involving
branding regarding my thesis. How this economic value is created from brands
requires an understanding of the history of branding, as well as the theory that has
defined it.
Brands have existed for several centuries, initially simply as a stamp that
could help a consumer or anyone else recognize the manufacturer. These were often
signs or signals that were material, as they were most often printed on the product
itself. In this sense, branding has existed for hundreds of years. However, branding
grew from this simple form of identification in the late 19th century with the societal
turn toward mass production and mass consumption, when it was necessary to
provide mass-produced goods with a recognizable identity (The Logic of… 11). With
this idea of a brand as identity, branding was redefined from what was simply a
“maker’s mark” into something far more significant, as brands became associated
with “meaningful consumer choice and producer responsibility” (The Logic of… 11).
As brands developed from a mere signifier of the creator with this new idea, the
term “branding” itself changed. In the 1950’s, two marketing professionals coined
the term “brand image” a seemingly simple idea that would over the course of the
next few decades evolve into the complex and ever-changing concept of “brand
value” and “brand culture” that exists in our popular culture today. As Arvidsson
points out, Burleigh Gardner and Sydney Levi described brands as having a “public
image, a character or personality that may be more important for the overall status
of the brand than many technical facts of the product” (The Logic of… 11). These
ideas align with those of Arvidsson and Gobé, who also point to the cultural shift
toward a consumer driven economy as how and why brands are now associated
with cultural significance (Arvidsson, Holt, and Gobé’s ideas came far later and were
no doubt influenced by the initial ideas described by Gardner and Levi). The 50’s
was where the ideas that a brand could have a deeper meaning, a cultural value that
went beyond the sheer quality of the product itself, originated. As Arvidsson
explains, the new focus on branding that developed beginning in the 50’s realized
the necessity of connection to the consumer and the new media culture they found
themselves in. He asserts that goods and their brands were starting to be considered
by society as “a sort of social media that allowed the establishment of personal
identity” (The Logic of… 12). He continues, “previously, goods had acquired most of
their use value from various sets of pre-established needs and desire”, however,
now it seemed that “the use value of goods was increasingly produced in consumer
practice. Now more than before, goods served symbolic, experiential or relational
purposes” (The Logic of… 12). Arvidsson references Gardner and Levi’s ideas from
their 1955 article that brand image consisted of “meanings”, meanings that became
established in the public culture and the “new media-sphere” (which in the 1950’s
was organized around television). These “meanings” still exist today; Arvidsson
describes them as “informational capitalism”, and says they “are central to the social
formation that is developing around it” (“it” meaning a brand) (The Logic of… 9).
This “informational capitalism”, created by the consumer, ties branding and brand
value to the idea of “cultural capital”, which I will describe in more detail in the next
subsection. First however, I will unpack further the cultural changes that saw
branding theory evolve, before examining how HBO has created their own brand
value.
As Arvidsson points out in his piece “The Logic of the Brand”, it is now
“strategically more important for companies and other economic actors to produce
knowledge, innovation, design, and life-styles” (The Logic of… 7), the material
product becoming secondary. This is a fundamental idea that lead to the
development of “brand value”, and can be easily observed using the example of
HBO’s tagline “It’s not TV, it’s HBO”. This idea the company implemented as a simple
slogan in 1996 has now grown into the trademark for everything their brand, and
therefore company, stands for. Today, the slogan signifies to the individual the
quality, critical acclaim, awards, as well as cultural ideas held both in the past and
held in the present about HBO. If a show is made by HBO today, quality is assumed
by virtue of its existing brand value. Using the ideas out of Arvidsson and Holt’s
brand theory, I will show how HBO’s past innovations has the company already
branded as quality creators, and also how they have built their “brand value”. I will
theorize about what their current brand value is in what I will call HBO’s “Game of
Thrones era”. In showing today’s brand value, I will prove the cultural theory to an
extent, explaining how in terms of HBO’s brand value, the ideas of creativity,
collective knowledge, and putting the consumer first are now the most important
factors defining their brand value. Holt addresses these ideas of new branding
strategies in his book How Brands Become Icons, and goes as far as asserting that,
“while these conventional models may work for other types of branding, they do not
build iconic brands” (13). HBO, certainly in terms of television brands, has reached
this iconic status, and thus clearly deviates from traditional strategy. Here lies the
connection to my larger argument about how the “Red Wedding” created value for
HBO. My assertion of HBO’s brand value being defined by these theories of
consumer generated social knowledge constructs will become more clear when I
describe how HBO has built their brand value historically, but also when I combine
these brand theories with theories from Henry Jenkins about convergence culture,
and theories regarding interactivity via Mark Andrejevic. The combination of these
theories, which will occur for the most part in my analysis chapter, shows how “The
Red Wedding” reflected upon the already existing brand value, but also added to it,
and thus added value to the company. In order to make sense of the value HBO as a
brand has in today’s cultural context (and therefore have the ability to analyze it via
theoretical analysis), I will briefly examine how HBO historically established their
brand, a brand that I have claimed throughout this section thus far as being one with
high value, one I and many other cultural critics consider as an iconic brand within
today’s media culture. In doing so, the necessary information will be present
regarding how HBO built its brand when I analyze how today’s brand value,
combined with the theories of convergence culture and interactivity, works to
create the value my thesis states came directly from the “Red Wedding”.
HBO, as I lay out in my background chapter, was always on the forefront of
technological innovation in television, from their first satellite broadcast to their
anti-piracy measures. The process of creating “an outstanding one-of-a-kind
programming service” (Edgerton 8), that would lead to where the brand value exists
today, really began however in the 90’s, when Albrecht asked that defining question
of his executives about really believing in how they branded themselves. Albrecht
realized the necessity of expanding the HBO service and brand, as digital television
and the Internet created an increasingly competitive market. This expansion took
the shape of investing more in its programs, and creating more original
programming, as HBO further developed their brand identity. The resulting
expansions gave HBO an identity that differed from many other networks, as the
self-branding and original programming that followed the meeting in 1995 would
continue to redefine HBO and grow its brand value. In 1997 Time Warner’s
chairman Gerald Levin perfectly encapsulated how HBO saw themselves and thus
branded themselves, in both the past and the present, as he reflected on the growth
of the company, explaining how their initial ideas that had innovated the television
industry directly resulted in value creation for the HBO brand. He simultaneously
theorized about how the continuation of these ideas would lead to further growth of
their brand and its value. “HBO, the brand, is so powerful and HBO, the concept, is so
dynamic that it’s entering the digital future with the creative edge qualitatively
superior to our competition” (Littleton 35). The expansion continued, and soon
proved the truth of Levin’s hypothesis, as the investment in original programming,
as well as the continued belief that HBO had had about itself, combined in creating
both the original series that grew HBO’s value as a material product, but also value
in terms of the cultural identity and belief, the “cultural capital”, that my brand
theorists agree is an essential element in building a successful and increasingly
valuable brand. This combination truly propelled the HBO brand as one recognized
for producing both material and cultural value, a brand synonymous with quality
television.
The Sopranos premiered in 1999, and was the standout material piece that resulted
from the expansion I described previously. As the pinnacle achievement of material
production created by HBO, the critical acclaim and buzz the show received served
as the culturally created knowledge or ideas that represents such a large part of
brand value and identification today. Stephen Holden, a New York Times television
critic, gives us an example of how value was created for HBO through his article on
The Sopranos. Holden states “The Sopranos sustains its hyper-realism with an eye
and ear so perfectly attuned to the geographic details and cultural and social
nuances that it just may be the greatest work of American popular culture of the last
quarter century” (23). Not only does this quote inherently bring value to HBO
through its high praise of their product, but it also points to how HBO placed itself
within the television hierarchy, one that over the past several decades had
developed with the economy; from production based to consumer based. The
massive financial investments into the creation of this original content, as well as
the nature of the HBO network as a subscriber service (complemented by their
constant self branding as quality), clearly illustrates that HBO was at the top of the
television food chain. This positioning within the cultural hierarchy of television
lead to the next advancement in their brand value, a progression in brand identity
that assumes the viewer also exists within this cultural hierarchy. If not, meaning,
and therefore value, is lost. HBO’s ability to capture our culture and its social
nuances, as it does in The Sopranos, reinforces their self-proclaimed quality brand
and position on the totem pole, and also creates the necessary cultural capital a
brand needs. As I will discuss more deeply in the next section, HBO’s new brand
value and brand culture still involves the creation of “cultural capital” via various
discourses and methods of interactivity that as it has for a few years, consistently
given HBO more brand value when combined with their quality of production.
However, the more recent creation of cultural capital via HBO and its constituents
requires the consumer’s identification and level of cultural understanding to equal
that of HBO, as the apparent quality of HBO now more than ever heavily relies on
the quality of the cultural capital and social sphere it creates. The Sopranos is a
crucial example for HBO, as it is the first example of this new age creation of value,
which shows, as all evolution does, a small yet significant adaptation for the future.
The brand value that has resulted for HBO today is one that depends heavily on both
the recognition of the established brand and therefore its inherent cultural value, as
well as one that requires a type of “aesthetic disposition” (which I explain further in
the next section), or in other words, a level of cultural understanding, that allows the
viewer to identify with HBO at the top of the social hierarchy