Claims of fragmentation and an independent audience
In the late 2000s, a great deal of research around audiences and media consumption argued we were moving into a world of increasingly fragmented audiences, as users were able to engage with a multitude of media modes in a variety of devices and contexts. Henry Jenkins’ Convergence Culture was perhaps the best argued example of this strain of thought, which is well respected both colloquially and empirically. Back then I wrote a paper arguing that the popularity of DVD Box Sets, iTunes sales, torrent traffic, TiVo and (then brand new) services like ABC’s iView and the US Hulu were evidence of audience fragmentation. Suggesting that as traditional media producers were directly remunerated for their work, it would have significant effects for traditional broadcast/distribution networks as well as advertisers. This wasn’t to say traditional TV networks would cease to exist, however I suggested their role in commissioning content would be somewhat reduced as smaller production companies and television studios could be directly funded by niche audiences who subscribed to particular programmes. This train of thought found its roots in the explosion of high quality, niche drama which began to be produced during the 2000s by subscription based US cable channels such as HBO (think shows like The Sopranos, 1999; Sex and the City, 1998; Mad Men, 2007; Weeds, 2005; Dexter, 2006; Californication, 2007… the list goes on). These programmes were lauded for their unusual stories, complex characters and high level of production artistry. It was as if television had finally grown up, thinking of itself as a peer to the cinema rather than its poor nephew. To achieve this, these programmes were given substantial budgets with comparatively less network oversight to which large numbers of individual audience members responded – voting with their dollar (through cable subscriptions, DVD sales, etc).
This reading of the contemporary television landscape as one which is fragmenting is firmly built on the conceptual foundation advocated by theorsists such as de Certeau; Fiske and Hartley; Ang; Penley; and Hall, Morley & Chen, who argued that the massified concepts of audience used in mass media for so long did not reflect the actual composition of individuals who engaged in their media. To say that all women over 30 will want to watch Martha Stewart is overly simplistic, and negates the unique and individual preferences of thousands of people. Commentators and researchers alike saw the simultaneous shift towards both a demassified conception of audience and technologies which enabled individual control of media consumption as evidence of an inevitable shift away from “appointment television” (a historical term developed by advertisers to characterise the kind of programmes audience members would plane their schedules around) towards deeply fragmented audiences.
The social intervention
Significantly, this kind of carte blanche individualisation of audience consumption does not appear to have continued at the rate predicted. I suggest that as real-time, public and mobile social networks have grown in size and relevance to those very same television viewers, we have actually seen a resurgence in appointment television. How could these platforms have dragged audiences kicking and screaming back to someone else’s schedule? The easy answer is; they haven’t. People have always found value in the idea of communally sharing experiences, which is exactly the added value that has seen large numbers of Australians come together at a scheduled time. Historically this shared experience has been one confined to your own living room, and organising a communal experience has been difficult or bothersome (only truly special occasions warranted the effort, like Grand Finals, Election nights or programme finales). Due to tools like Twitter, there is no longer an effort cost for partaking in this communal experience. This is a view shared by Twitter’s Robin Sloane,
“[In the last 18 months], I think we actually saw the pendulum swing back toward things like shared experiences, back toward live TV. I think Twitter, of course, is one of the things that drove this”
Indeed a recent study by Deloitte of 2000 American consumers aged 14 to 75 found that 42 percent sometimes surfed the Internet while watching TV, and 26 percent sometimes sent instant messages or texts. However, not all television programmes are feeling the benefit of this internet enabled communal experience. I’d argue a degree of tension and uncertainty is fundamental to a programme becoming appointment viewing—as is often seen in competitions, live programmes, award shows or reality television. Sloane suggests this kind of “synchronous tweeting” can be leveraged by media producers in a number of ways, such as simply featuring the nominated hashtag on the programme, right through to actively contributing alternative perspectives, narratives, questions/answers or commentary to the backchannel—as such expanding the media product as a whole into the social space. An idea he describes as “sort of like a new, live [and interactive] DVD commentary track”, with a great recent example being conducted by MTV and Stamen for their annual VMAs. The producers of the media also stand to gain substantially from this extra effort, as those engaging in the converstion do so publicly—and as such the hype and content of their conversational energy is likely to spread amongst their networks and attract members of their broader network to share the experience.
Aside from major events and live shows, programmes which have very specific subcultural or demographic roots also seem to foster the right conditions for a back-channel to form. The greatest example of this in the Australian context is ABC’s Good Game, whose hosts have taken to “live tweeting” episodes along with their young, tech-savvy audience. I spoke to one of them, Hex, about how the production team approaches their presence on Twitter and what effect they believed it to be having on their audience. Saying,
“[Live tweeting] gives [the audience] a chance to participate in something with us, but it also allows us to get an immediate response from people of what they’ve seen, what they liked or didn’t… what they found funny, etc. And from this, we can discuss these reactions and responses and if necessary make adjustments to the content or the way we do things in future episodes. It’s also just really nice to be able to witness positive responses to the show in real time – which isn’t a luxury we’ve had in television [before].”
Ian Schafer, the chief executive of the digital agency Deep Focus agrees, recently telling The New York Times that Twitter and Facebook messages about TV programs may well be “the most efficient way to drive tune-in.” Schafer said he observes it when a news segment catches his attention or a basketball game is in overtime.
“I’ll say on Twitter or Facebook, ‘You have got to tune into ‘Nightline’ or ‘60 Minutes’ right now,’ and then I’ll get people saying, ‘Oh, thanks for alerting me,’ ” he said.
However, it is important to note that it is difficult to empirically assess whether the backchannel has directly improved ratings, however Hex suggests “I feel like it certainly strengthens the viewership that we already have.”
Why should producers care, and what do they stand to gain?
Twitter recently unveiled an Australia specific “Trending Topics”, which gives us a great insight into the Australian context. Within this location specific set of terms, it was surprising to see just how regularly television programmes featured. It is also interesting to note there was substantial correlation between television programmes which received high ratings (particularly those which “won the night” according to OzTam/Nielson) and those which had been popular discussion topics on Twitter that evening. Examples include Ten’s MasterChef and MasterChef Junior, ABC’s Q&A, and earlier episodes of Nine’s Hey Hey its Saturday. Indeed, I have also spoken to people who have suddenly found themselves watching Question Time on a regular basis as a result of the vibrancy of conversation which accompanies it through these networks.
Beyond this correlation, there seems to be mounting evidence that real-time, public and mobile networks are supporting a move towards appointment viewing. Sloane argues that integrating Twitter into a show’s overall strategy can dramatically affect ratings. Citing a test conducted by Oxygen media, who held a “social viewing party” for Bad Girls Club viewers finding that on the East Coast, ratings went up 92%. The same show on the West Coast, which didn’t have a social viewing party, only went up 14%. “A Twitter strategy,” Sloan argues, “is just as important as focusing the lights and charging up the microphones.” This is a view shared by Mark Scott, the Managing Director of the ABC, who recently said he felt the use of Twitter on Q&A ”reinforce[d the view] that Q&A is live. That it is unscripted. That it is, as we have seen, unpredicatble. And as a result, it is appointment viewing. And since we put the Twitter feed on, audiences are up 40%”.
As such it would seem incorporating Twitter into Q&A fulfilled two key goals of the program. Firstly, achieving the conceptual goal of the programme, by adding to the number of voices involved in discussions around public issues and secondly, by channelling that conversational energy into ratings (to the point it now competes with commercial offerings—an uncommon feat for the national broadcaster). With this in mind, it is surprising more commercial programmes aren’t actively including or promoting back-channels—especially given the relative ease from an administrative point of view. It is even more surprising that commercial media producers seem to infact be fighting the idea. The Australian recently wrote of Q&A’s back channel,
[Twitter] has become the dunny-door graffiti of the digital age, adding precisely nothing to the sum of human knowledge. So why is it that the ABC has opted to include it in the broadcaster’s serious current affairs offerings?… Supporters see it as democracy in action, but the ABC would be better off leaving viewers with a blank space than dignifying this gratuitous feedback”.
Possible failings
Despite the opportunities for media producers on these networks, I do believe there are some pitfalls. The most obvious one being conversations conducted on these platforms are synchronous, and as such, if you wanted to watch Q&A on iView the next day there is no facility to engage in the conversation (either actively or passively). Speaking from my personal experience, this greatly diminishes my interest in catching up with a programme after it airs. Additionally, due to the difficulty of avoiding these very public conversations, users are faced with the dilemma of either being forced back into the broadcast schedule to avoid having those unpredictable moments and narrative developments spoiled, or being forcibly disconnected from their social group until they catch up. As the latter is unacceptable to many, this essentially means users are often viewing a compromised version of the programme or are watching it as close to the original broadcast time as humanly possible. Either way—the kind of absolute individual control heralded by early proponents of convergence and audience fragmentation seems to be falling flat.
All of which, oddly, brings us back to where we began. It seems obvious that the facility to timeshift viewing onto a variety of devices is one which is resonating with users and will continue to do so. However, we need to develop a more nuanced understanding of the way viewers engage with television programmes, which understands that television viewing has always been a communal (if just in the abstract) experience.
