Do we still need the term "Web series"?

Recently a member of the Web Series Network asked the question that since TV and Web series now appear side by side on the Hulu platform does it make sense to call your show a Web series?

Below you will find my response:

"Hulu is a distribution platform.  When you go to a grocery store (another distribution platform) you find apples, oranges and a zillion other variants of the types of food consumers want.  Distribution platforms play the role of allowing products with certain common features to reach the consumer via a common venue.  So, to say that because a Web series uses the same distribution platform as a TV series means they should both be called TV is like saying a can of coke and a loaf of bread should be called the same thing because they are both sold in a grocery store.

Perhaps you should spend a little time reading up on the history of Web series and their evolution. Ask your self, where does their competitive advantage lie?  What makes them different?  What makes them powerful. What allows them to organically grow an audience without the huge marketing budgets that TV shows have?  What allows them to engage more deeply with their audience? If you answer these questions, you will understand how Web series are different from TV. Many of these topics have already been extensively discussed here on WSN, and elsewhere, so take advantage of the resources available to you.

On Web Series Today we needed a category system to aid in the  discovery of content that would appeal to specific audiences.  To accomplish this we broke the space down into 4 subcategories: Web Series (serialized scripted narrative: think Video Game High School, etc.), Web Shows (episodic series such as scripted comedy shows: think Shane Dawson, Annoying Orange, Kids React), Web News (current events, technology news, entertainment news series etc.: think Philip DeFranco, The Young Turks), Community video (life streaming, vlogs, short films, music video etc. from members of the community: think Shay Carl, Charles Trippy, Vlogbrothers, Lindsey Stirling, etc.). All of these can be considered Web series in the larger context but the breakdown into subcategories has been useful.  These are not intended to be definitions because it is best not to limit the potential of any video series but the categories allowed us to create story streams of content that had some features in common. One could of course lnclude other categories such as transmedia or alternate reality games to meet specific needs. The point is that the entire space is wide and deep and is currently packed with creative potential that has yet to be unleashed.

If you want to make TV content that is your prerogative.  Go do it! Just remember that the viewer has certain expectations of what TV content "feels like."  Look at the fashion sensibility of Gossip Girl. Look at the power of the action sequences on Arrow.  Look at the quality of the story arcs and acting on Supernatural. The Carrie Diaries builds on the epic Sex and the City brand. Vampire Diaries expands on a well known book brand with its own TV-friendly eye candy (just look at their popularity on Pinterest if you doubt it). Any less and the content will probably fail to compete in the TV playing field, even on the Web. In other words content that made it to TV has been built to take full advantage of the TV medium.

When Strike.TV was formed many experienced TV writers failed miserably on the Web with only a few exceptions. Those exceptions had specific traits that made them Web friendly. The point is that TV is very good at doing what it does and they will continue to do what they do, even on the Web. Web series on the other hand are native to the Web and need to fully embrace what that entails rather than merely mimicking TV.

All this is not to say that "Web series" cannot bridge both Worlds.  We have seen Annoying Orange, and a few others attempt that.  However, note that they did not simply try to port the Web series to TV. They actually attempted to script a show that was appropriate for the medium.

What is interesting is that companies that make traditional TV are now experimenting by making their own Web series (think Talent, or Wendy from Alloy). Their content is solid from a production point of view, but they still have a lot to learn about the Web. However, they are learning fast (very, very fast), so rather than trying to "ape" TV, Web series creators should take advantage of the potential the space offers them, before the competition in Web series increases exponentially from more established studios.

There are probably many who will agree with your position. These same people want to create standards and barriers to entry within the space. They want to become the gate keepers that control access to the space. This would be a tragic future and one we should reject. The Web needs to remain open and we need to allow Web series to continue on their evolutionary path to see what they become. If you produce a Web series you might want to be proud of the brand because it is a brand that is as great as your own creativity.

Many of us want to watch Web series because they offer something different. If we want TV on the Web, there is plenty of very professionally produced TV shows to pick from. Is there room for more? Sure, but they will be judged by the same visor we use to watch TV (script, music, lighting, talent, special effects, etc.). Our expectations are extremely high because that is where the bar has been set by years of tradition and evolution. If you are up to the challenge then go for it.

When it comes to Web series, however, many of us are much more open because we are looking for content that engages in a unique and interesting way. This is something TV would love to do but because of the nature of the TV medium it is doubtful they will ever be able to take full advantage of it.

That is not to say our expectations from Web series are not extremely high, but they are very different and that is the point. That is the opportunity creators need to take advantage of, but first they need to understand what the viewer really wants in the form of engagement. Web series, when sculpted from the right DNA, can provide a level of entertainment that mobilizes entire communities; something that was perhaps best demonstrated by the lonelygirl15 phenomena.

So decide what you actually want to make: a Web series or a TV show; and go for it. But do it right and use each medium to their fullest potential. But if you do want to produce a Web series you should not forget our heritage or take a step back into a history that knew nothing of this great platform we call the World Wide Web which is honored within the Web series brand.

The fact you just read this is one clear demonstration of how radically different from TV the Web series space is. We need to embrace our differences and move forward to develop the type of content that truly feels at home on the Web and feels totally organic to those that participate in the experiences we know as Web series."

So, what do you the community think? Do we still need the term Web series? Leave a comment below and let us know what you think.