Annotated Bibliography.

Posted on by
Reply

The following is for the Media Industries 1 assignment, Annotated Bibliography.

Rogers, DL 2010, ‘The Customer Network Revolution’, in The Network is Your Customer: Five Strategies to Survive in a Digital Age, Yale University Press, United States of America, pp. 3-26

This particular chapter in David Rogers’ The Network is Your Customer: Five Strategies to Survive in a Digital Age, provides readers with insights into the best strategies for thriving in a digital environment. Though not specifically aimed at television networks, it includes relevant information into the approach these networks may and should take towards an online presence. Rogers places emphasis on digital tools not only connecting users to products, but to one another; an important aspect to note about the digital environment. Rogers speaks specifically about the online environment transforming customer relationships; “Customers seek to engage with digital content that is sensory, interactive and relevant to their needs.” (Rogers 2010, p. 13)

The text is primarily aimed at a business audience, and clearly from a business-minded author, addressing the reader in an informative tone that often makes reference to strategies for success in the digital world. This tends to get caught up in giving long examples, and lacks an approach from a more communication theory based area, evident in referring to consumers of the online environment predominantly as “customers” rather than audiences. Regardless, there are aspects of the chapter that would certainly be valuable to the project. Rogers clearly has an idea of the possibilities of the online environment, and the way it has shifted the traditional form of the consumer – the huge impact of the Internet is not missed either; “The digital flow of our data, our ideas, our commerce, and our identity turns each of us into a node in an enormously powerful network of human interaction.” (Rogers 2010, p. 4)

Overall, the chapter gives interesting insights into how television networks should approach the online environment, and their potential audience on this platform. This has potential to be useful to our project, as these theories can be applied to the approaches of known television networks, and the audiences that engage with them online. However, as the text is so business orientated, more academic texts would be better suited.

______________________________________________________________________________

Australian Communications and Media Authority 2012, Online Video Content Services in Australia: Latest Developments in the Supply and use of Professionally Produced Video Services, Commonwealth of Australia, viewed 9 April 2013

This report by the Australian Communications and Media Authority addresses the latest developments in the use of Australian online video content. This includes assessments of growth in digital media usage and online participation, Australia’s free-to-air broadcasters, subscription television (FOXTEL), the demand for online video content in Australia, and the future of online video services in Australia.

The report is a very extensive look at this relatively complex and constantly-adapting area. It acknowledges the changing preferences of consumers and audiences are “driving fundamental changes in how content is delivered by communications providers in Australia,” going on to state this growth in online participation is disruptive; “presenting both a challenge and opportunity to [the television broadcast] industry.” (Australian Communications and Media Authority 2012, p. 1). The report takes a very formal tone, and is clearly aimed at academics and those within the industry in search of information regarding online video content in Australia.

Our project will greatly benefit from this report, as it combines statistics with analysis of data. It covers a wide range of issue related to the project, and provides observations on each key area. It is one of very few available on the subject, and as it is produced by such a credible source, will be highly useful for the project.

______________________________________________________________________________

Debrett, M 2009, ‘Riding the wave: public service television in the multi-platform era’, Media, Culture & Society, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 807-827

In this article, Mary Debrett discusses similar topics to those in her book, Reinventing Public Service Television for the Digital Future, but in quite a different approach. Instead of analysing particular public service broadcasting networks in depth, Debrett takes more of a general overview, going into more detail about the principles of public service broadcasting and developing online content. Debrett claims these principles to include universal coverage (a free service accessible to all), impartial news and current affairs, serving minority interests, reflection of national identity and culture, and the provision of innovative quality content.

In discussing these principles, Debrett provides a background of where public service broadcasting has come from, then follows this with interesting discussion of how this history has evolved with the introduction of digital television, and later with online television viewing. The article is written to an academic audience in quite a formal tone, but is at some points too lengthy, with points that could be made more succinctly.

The article will be valuable to the project as it gives an in-depth analysis of public service broadcasting from its early days to its adaption for digital and online television viewing. It gives comparisons between different nations, which will be useful when gathering an overview of the progression of television networks.

______________________________________________________________________________

Binfield, M, Kackman, M, Payne, MT, Perlman, A & Sebok B 2011, Flow TV: Television in the Age of Media Convergence, Routledge, New York & UK

Flow TV: Television in the Age of Media Convergence is a collection of articles related to the effect of media convergence on television. All articles are linked in some way to the concept of ‘flow’ and ‘convergence’. Flow is described as an outdated term, coined in 1974 by Raymond Williams to describe the “collision of programs, advertisements, promos, film trailers” as the central experience of watching television. Convergence, on the other hand, is described as an umbrella term related relating to the convergence of new media digital technologies;
“If flow challenges the idea of the discrete television text, then convergence destabilizes the notion of television as a discrete object. Television texts overflow onto interactive websites, television content is available on myriad platforms, and television networks are part of multi-media conglomerates.” (Binfield et al, p. 1)

The text is primarily aimed at those with an interest in new media convergence culture, with a particular focus on television’s role in this arena. The broad scope of articles mean the text covers an expanse of issues, including analysis and conclusion on issues such as industry convergence and cellular television.

Though the text is expansive, it holds interesting articles that could prove useful to the project. In particular, an article titled TiVoing childhood: time-shifting a generation’s concept of television, by Jason Mittell, gives insight into the effect of the rise of digital and online television on a generation, and its comparison to those before it. This insight into generational audiences and the impact of digital television viewing on these audiences would be very beneficial towards the project.

___________________________________________________________________________

Gentikow, B 2010, ‘Television Use in New Media Environments’ in Gripsrud, J 2010, Relocating Television: Television in the Digital Context, Routledge, UK, pp. 141-155

In this article Barbara Gentikow presents an interesting look at arguments centred around television and the new media environment. Gentikow comments on what she refers to as outdated arguments concerning television’s place in the arena of new media, including the proposed end of television. She goes on to note in contemporary society, more people use more media than ever before, but this neither adds to the use of traditional technologies nor detracts from it; “more complex situations occur with digitisation and convergences, such as parallel use of media, cross-media applications, the reception of media content from different platforms, new hierarchies of favourite media, but also surviving patterns of traditional use.” (2012, p. 142) To demonstrate her arguments, Gentikow examines three studies about television use, conducted in Norway.

Though these studies were conducted in Norway – perhaps a unique location compared to the rest of our research – they provide intriguing information into the use of television. The relationship between television and the ‘new media environment’ is also considered, and because the studies are relatively small, distinctive data and analysis are given. One study also compared the reasons behind subjects watching television online and offline, and hence gives insights into more than just traditional television viewing, but its development into the online environment. Gentikow writes in a relatively concise yet conversational style, being easy to read considering its less formal tone, yet the article is most likely aimed at academics and students studying the area.

The article will certainly be valuable to the project considering it provides discussion of the key arguments relating to television developing alongside new media and the relationship between the two. It also includes relevant studies that, though small and conducted solely in Norway, contain distinctive data and analysis concerning television viewing online and offline. The article is also easy to read, yet makes concise points, hence being very suitable for the project.

______________________________________________________________________________

Caldwell, J 2004, ‘Convergence Television: Aggregating Form and Repurposing Content in the Culture of Conglomeration’, in Olsson, J & Spigel, L, Television After TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition, Duke University Press, USA, pp. 41-74.

John Caldwell makes it clear he is a strong supporter of television in his essay, Aggregating Form and Repurposing Content in the Culture of Conglomeration. To Caldwell, television was never under any kind of threat from the introduction of digital and new media technologies. From its early beginnings, television has consistently competed as the most trusted source of information and entertainment; “far from being eclipsed by digital start-ups, television engaged and even welcomed the threat.” (Caldwell 2004, p. 42) Caldwell takes a refreshing engagement of the topic of television in the new media landscape, delving more into its history of competition rather than its ‘fight for survival.’ Television is labelled as resilient, adapting to change, rather than bowing out, as others have suggested.

Caldwell writes in an engaging way, and due to his interesting stance and belief in television, the content of the essay is likewise engaging. At some points he does stray perhaps a little too far into the ‘dot-com world,’ but in these cases television is always related back to eventually. The text is most likely aimed at students and academics, perhaps with intent on challenging some of the more conservative arguments surrounding the future of television.

The essay is immediately relatable to the project, as its take on television and the relationship between it and new media technologies is quite refreshing. It will certainly be useful in comparing with arguments that believe traditional television viewing is on the way out, and gives useful thoughts as to how television has adapted in the past, and may adapt in the future.

________________________________________________________________________

Bennett, J 2011, ‘Introduction: Television as Digital Media’, in Bennett, J & Strange, N, Television as Digital Media, Duke University Press, USA, pp. 1-27

James Bennett’s introductory chapter of book Television as Digital Media divulges in the complex area of television’s place in digital media and new media technologies. Television is said to be digital media, not new media. Furthermore, digital media is becoming less ‘new’, and more ordinary, everyday and accepted as regular practice; “just as we learned to live with television, we are learning to live with digital television.” (Bennett 2011, p. 22) Bennett touches on the uncertain placement by others of television within the realm of new media, noting television is often seen as the old form of technology thrown into the new, but always connected with its traditional roots. “Television’s digitization explicitly makes a new media form out of a technology that has often been positioned as the old media technology par excellence.” (Bennett 2011, p. 7)

The text often becomes quite lengthy, with explanations that often give little insight yet are rather extensive. It is clear, though, that the text, and the entire book for that matter, is aimed primarily at academics due to its tone of voice and use of comparisons between academic arguments.

Though the text makes some interesting insights into the placement of television as a digital technology, it also has a lot of focus on the new media environment. As our project is mostly focused on online television viewing and its development from traditional television viewing, this focus on new media may not be as useful towards the project. The text does, however, present comparisons of academic arguments concerning television’s place in the digital environment, which would be beneficial to our research surrounding the nature of online television viewing.

______________________________________________________________________________

Debrett, M 2010, Reinventing public service television for the digital future, Intellect, UK & USA.

Reinventing Public Service Television for the Digital Future by Mary Debrett examines the transition of public service television from traditional viewing to the digital area in Australia, the UK, the United States and New Zealand. Debrett discusses the need for public service television had to reinvent itself as a digital content provider in order to achieve more certain future prospects. Debrett also highlights the significance of each public service broadcaster’s history as a broadcaster (for example, in Australia, the ABC), playing it against the digital world each broadcaster must now compete in.

The text is a well written in-depth look at the changes public service television has been forced to make in line with the introduction of the digital era. Because each network examined is a public service broadcaster, analysis becomes an interesting look into each respective country’s relationship with public broadcasting, and the way this relationship has developed and grown with the country over numerous decades.

Given the text covers public service broadcasters from several nations, it becomes useful to the project to provide not only informative insights into the development of public broadcasting for the digital era, but also provides comparisons between nations relating to cultural and political differences regarding public television broadcasting and online content.

Finally final.

Posted on by
Reply

With the screening now behind us, it’s that time o’ year to look back on all the sweat, blood and tears. I feel like our film, from what we had a couple weeks ago, really came together well. But that being said, I think had we had spent more time editing it could have been improved slightly in terms of the finer details – mainly with sound levels and cutaways. I would have perhaps liked to experiment more with different structures too, as it didn’t turn out exactly the way I pictured it (not in a bad way, just in a different way). I thought it would be less structured, and maybe slightly more ‘experimental,’ but evidently that is the nature of making a documentary – only so much can be planned, and you have to rely heavily on what your subject gives you.

I do think the structure we went with of having the film split into segments worked well given the limited time we had to pull everything together. It allowed for a simple, straightforward storyline that gave us a focus in editing. Before deciding on the structure, our editing was a bit all over the place as we didn’t really know where we were going with the film.

The final filming session we did with the green screen and the more ‘reflective’ interviews really pulled it together in the end. Without them, we would have certainly been lost. The green screen turned out to be a really good introduction to the film. Although we could have experimented with it more, I feel it really draws the audience in to watch the documentary. The more reflective interviews we shot during the final filming session were also vital in bringing the film together – they rounded off the film on a positive and sentimental note. We also got plenty of cutaways during this session.

Overall Jack was an interesting person to work with. Not quite reliable, and a little vague on certain organisational matters, but nonetheless interesting to film. I found him to be quite intriguing; never knowing what he was thinking or what his thoughts on us filming him were. He was a good subject in that he focused on expressing himself, but at the same time it was hard to get short succinct answers out of him, which made it hard come editing given the 7 minute time limit. It also meant we had to come back later to get almost scripted introductions out of him for voiceover, as we needed more concise introductions for each of the segments.

As far as the team goes, we worked really well together and it was a pretty positive atmosphere all ’round. We all contributed equally, and there was just a good general ‘sense of team’ that was great to work in.

Look behind etc.

Posted on by
Reply

Looking back on this semester, as I always do, I have gained a small amount of hindsight…

Things I would have done differently:
- Started filming earlier; we were always quite rushed during this project, and it was very clear during the fine cut screening the group was behind.
- Organise the talent more; though Jack always seemed keen when filming, when we were trying to get in contact with him he was always hard to pin down. We also had instances when he was quite vague in telling us times and dates and what we could film, particularly when we went to film his play, expecting to be able to film the whole thing, but then getting turned away.
- Generally just put more time into the project. Though that being said I really do think I put in as much as I could have this semester, I was just so busy with both assignments and outside of uni stuff. In hindsight I just need to manage my time better.
- Slightly relates to above point, but put more time into editing; it took us a while to settle on a structure, so we didn’t have a lot of time to put it together and work out the smaller kinks. I think the sound suffered the most, though it is perfectly acceptable it just could have been fine tuned a little more to get all the levels right.

In-tro.

Posted on by
Reply

The introduction of our documentary was something we debated about for a while. At first, I wanted to have a more experimental approach, with Jack playing a completely different character (the example being a sailor), against a green screen with an image of the ocean, and have typical ocean sounds overlayed. At some point through this segment, we may have dubbed his voice as someone else etc, and just generally experimented with the whole reality of the scene. At the end we would zoom out to reveal the green screen and then have the narrator announce, “this is Jack. He is an actor.” We could have also taken that further, with the narrator actually being revealed to be Jack’s manipulated voice the whole time at the end of the film; the subject narrating the documentary. Self reflexive much? But I think in the end we just didn’t have time for this approach – maybe we were aiming too high given the time limit.

I think given we took an entirely different approach to what we had planned at the beginning, the introduction we used worked really well. It was simply a less experimental version of what we had planned. Jack came in with a character he had in mind, though needed some direction regarding what we wanted for this segment. Admittedly it got a bit scripted, but I think a little scripting was needed to achieve the result we wanted.

The character Jack plays, a highly successful and arrogant actor, worked well in that the audience is momentarily lured into thinking this specific character is the focus of the documentary. When revealed to be only a character, it highlights the fact Jack is an actor whilst also implying Jack is certainly not like this.

This is possibly the beginning of the portrayal of Jack; I feel overall we imposed a pretty positive portrayal. It got very sentimental towards the end. We could have taken it in many other directions with many other portrayals, but I’m glad we went with this one as it’s a sort of ‘feel good’ one that leaves the audience on a positive note.

Finito, filming.

Posted on by
Reply

Alright, so it’s getting to that time – crunch time! If only it were krump time.

Anyway, today we had our final filming day! Yay team! It went really well, and we definitely got a whole heap of usable material. I can now see the general structure our film will take, which is obviously fills me with relief. Though still a lot to do editing wise!

Today we filmed things:
- The green screen introduction. It was rather painful to set up lighting wise, but we got there in the end with lighting looking fairly acceptable. Once Jack got the idea of what we were after, it went really well. Jack put on a character of a successful and arrogant actor, that was tired of doing the documentary and walked out of the shot. It took a few takes to get the camera right, as we wanted to zoom out at just the right moment, but the end result is really good, and I think it’ll make a really good introduction.
- Interviews. Yay. One interview was with Jack lying on a couch, stereotypical therapist style. This one focused mainly on him, and what he thought would come out of the documentary. I liked the shots we got in this interview, and the material will certainly be usuable in a kind of summing up end to the documentary. The other was at the dining table with the backyard in the background, and a large vase of flowers right next to him. Overall the shot was nice but rather obviously domestic, but I kind of enjoy it. Here we got Jack to talk more about his friends and family. Again, the material was really good, as we had much more of a focus on the structure of the documentary, what we needed, and how we wanted it to play out. We were much more prompting of Jack today, and heavily encouraged him to use full sentences as we had editing in mind.
- Lots of outdoor cutaways. And weird cutaways. Featuring Jack in a wheelie bin brandishing a hose. Don’t ask. I’m not even- whatever. We got cutaways, they look good.

I think Ned’s house was the ideal shooting environment for these shots. It is a really nice house, and has lots of good shooting backdrops that will look really good on screen. Today was long but very valuable, and I’m now much more confident with our film and its outcome. There’s still lots of editing to do, but I feel today will greatly help this process.

That time again, again.

Posted on by
Reply

[self assessment post]

That time of semester has come around yet again, and I have yet again found myself surprised. View the last self-assessment post in which I was also surprised here.

The last half of this semester has flown by in a blur of social media and group meetings. I feel our participatory project certainly took up the majority of my attention regarding this subject, and hence other aspects of the course were perhaps diminished slightly.

As a result of the time consuming project, my blog suffered a little in terms of variety; most posts were about the project and little else. Though I read all of the readings, blogging about them also took a back seat.

There was, however, many things I did learn and improve on during the second half of semester, and though they might not reflect in the criteria, I feel gaining more knowledge of contemporary social media practices was really valuable.

1. Post regularly each week (2-4 times), with a variety of different topics including lectures, readings, outside sources, and own thoughts. Include different media types and alternate tone of voice depending on the topic of each post. Include regular analysis, not just summaries.
As discusses, this half of the semester was majorly taken over by the participatory project, and as a result my blogging frequency and variety. I did however try to blog as much as I could about the project and the experience I was gaining engaging with social media.
Mark: Credit

2. Engage with the course readings; keep up with them every week, expand on them and relate outside sources in at least one blog post per week.
As mentioned previously I didn’t blog about the course readings due to lack of time, but I did read all of the readings each week and made an effort to understand and engage with them.
Mark: Distinction

3. Seek and give feedback to peers. Regularly keep up with an assortment of posts by classmates each week, comment on at least two posts per week, and expand on any interesting posts.
At the start of semester I subscribed to all my classmates blogs using NetNewsWire, which kept me updated on all posts. I regularly read and engaged with these posts weekly, though again, found myself without any time to blog about them.
Mark: Distinction

4. Regularly maintain other aspects of online identity; tweet at least once a day, regularly update ABC Pool account, pinterest and engage and explore other social media tools.
Apart from ABC Pool, I really engaged a lot more with social media, inspired by the participatory project. I was on Pinterest a lot more, and now have several followers. I tweet regularly each day, including feeds from my Instagram account. I also experimented more with relatively unfamiliar platforms, such as Flavors.me and Glos.si.
Mark: High Distinction

Overall Mark: Distinction

Summarisin’

Posted on by
Reply

[Participatory project summary post]

The experience of the participatory project has taught me many things about approaching social media for certain purposes.

Regarding participation, I tried to be as active in the group as possible, expressing my thoughts and ideas and overall engaging in the group discussions we had. I attended the majority of meetings to the best of my ability (work and other commitments sometimes getting in the way) and always made sure I responded quickly to any posts on the group organisational Facebook page. Beyond that, I was put in charge of the Twitter account, and felt I did a relatively good job maintaining it; I tweeted at least once every day, followed and retweeted frequently, and tried to develop a persona for the account that was energetic and fun. Though we didn’t get much engagement through the account, I feel this is not due to lack of trying but perhaps to the medium itself; in the end our project was solely image based, and traditionally Twitter isn’t ideal for such purposes. I also contributed to the event we had by designing the promotional poster and organising some of the food we provided.

Looking back, I gained many insights through this project. I found it challenging to attract and maintain audiences, and if doing it differently would perhaps communicate better with the audience about what the project was seeking; it was more about simple things that people loved, rather than anything more complex. I feel if we’d communicated this better we may have had more success with our audience. I also found communicating through Twitter to be a new challenge; creating a persona that was fun and a little quirky was quite hard given the character limit. I feel I learnt about the platform from this project though, and next time would be more confident approaching audiences to get them engaged; the quirkier, witty posts seem to attract more of a following. Regarding promotion of the event, I think we did well in that we promoted both online and offline, but would have been more successful had we had a bigger time frame. Organisation of our thoughts and overall goal here was perhaps needed. This made me realise how important brainstorming is; ensuring we’ve covered all our ideas, and choosing one with clarity and focus is important. Furthermore, perhaps we could have aimed our other promotional material more specifically; the main logo for our Facebook page and Twitter account was perhaps too plain, and hence something more eye appealing may have attracted more of an audience. This of course pointed to the importance of promotional material, and the importance of aiming it either at a broad or specific audience in accordance with its intended function. I also gained a lot of insights into approaching audiences; in this case it was better to target specific audiences, such as photographic communities and those with a passion in photography, so as to gain the maximum amount of participation. Our project seemed to loose focus with our original audience, due perhaps to a small failure and confusion in communication, and fixing this earlier and targeting our audience more specifically may have improved audience and participation numbers.

I have certainly rethought media practices since completing this project. I now acknowledge the difficultly of maintaining audiences online, and the focus and need for simple communication regarding audiences and updating projects. Social media is definitely an inescapable part of contemporary social media practices, and hence understanding the complex nature of social media goes a long way. I feel I still have much to learn, but am certainly now more confident in approaching and experimenting with different social media techniques in order to engage with audiences in one way or another.

View our slideshare presentation here. Jenny has handily posted all other links here.

The second showcase.

Posted on by
Reply

This showcase post is an extension from previous post Game On, which discusses reviews and opinions of HBO’s Game of Thrones, and the issues it brings with it.

As discussed in this previous post, since its creation, Game of Thrones has encountered both acclaim and criticism regarding its content. In her review in The New York Times, Ginia Bellafante criticises the show’s apparent overuse of more violent and sexual scenes, “tossed in as a little something for the ladies.” In his article in The Guardian, David Barnett contradicts various points made by Bellafante, and depicts the show in a more positive light. And finally, Miles McNutt gives insight into certain problems of early reviews of the show in his Cultural Learnings article.

Game of Thrones raises certain issues due to its content. Often bold, brutal and daring, it raises the bar for what is considered ‘quality television,’ but in doing so, provokes further debate on what exactly ‘quality television’ is, and why it is so.

Jonathan Bignell believes quality television relies on key factors often associated with quality cinema:

“Quality television drama means an aesthetically ambitious programme type with the literary values of creative imagination, authenticity and relevance. As a mode of production, it is where writing and mise-en-scene are prioritised.” (2007, p. 162)

In essence, quality television relies on a combination of quality writing and mise-en-scene as its starting point. From there, techniques of camera work, framing, and acting need to further impress the audience. According to Dorothy Collins Swanson, utilising quality writing assumes the audience is of a relatively high intelligence level, and furthermore, creates characters that “tend to endear themselves to us.” (2000, p. 47) Characters are multidimensional, complex and flawed; “characters on quality shows are us.” (2000, p. 47) It is no real surprise, then, that Game of Thrones is so often referred to as quality television. It’s many complex characters, and time spent developing them and their relationships, in addition to the intricate and highly engaging writing, accentuates its status as quality television.

It is perhaps expected, then, that with highly engaging writing, a show may tug a few of the wrong strings and raise some issues. To be bold is to be provocative, and that is exactly what the writing of Game of Thrones delivers. The show is particularly attacked over its depiction of the relationship between men and women; men, for the most part, as the all-action, all-violence, sword-swinging bread winners, and women as the submissive, subservient eye-candy. Ginia Bellafante (2011) is certainly on this opposing side when it comes to Game of Thrones, stating rather naively yet boldly that the supposed overuse of “play-boy style plot points” and “costume-drama sexual hopscotch,” is merely added in to appeal to a female audience: “‘Game of Thrones’ is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half.” Here Bellafante may be missing the many underlying complex layers of the show’s writing; many females characters featured on the show directly challenge the male characters, and it is they the audience is encouraged to support and connect with. Additionally, though Game of Thrones may indeed appeal more to a male audience, but to suggest females are appealed to by the use of these aspects of the show is a rather large generalisation; Game of Thrones is much more complex than this, and naturally appeals to a female audience on many levels.

However one cannot dismiss the notion that part of why Game of Thrones is considered ‘quality television’ is perhaps due to its creator, HBO, and the brand it represents. HBO emerged as a serious contender in the quality television game when it started differentiating itself from the other networks. Keen to become something ‘more’ than ‘just television’, an iconic slogan was created (“It’s not TV. It’s HBO.”), marketing the network beyond the quality seen on others. As Deborah Jaramillo suggests, “this eagerness to differentiate its product from that of broadcast television amounts to the creation of a brand.” (2002, p. 64) The brand became the separation of HBO from the other networks, and hence allowed HBO to target more niche, specific audiences with shows more inclined to viewers interested in new, original content; “without the financial constraints under which the networks function, HBO can target narrowly segmented niche markets, a concept essential to its branding.” (Jaramillo 2002, p. 63)

Game of Thrones is perhaps an example of this niche audience targeting strategy. The show played a large role in what could be called the revival of the fantasy genre; combining this with elements of drama, action, and adventure, Game of Thrones accentuates a hybrid style of television, perhaps most appealing to a niche fantasy fan base. The show’s adaption from George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire could be seen as further appealing and targeted at a specific niche fantasy-inclined audience, and hence align with HBO’s consistent strategy of airing shows aimed at specific audiences like these.

HBO obviously doesn’t stop at niche audiences, but rather uses them as a starting point. Referencing HBO’s campaign to market popular vampire series True Blood, Jonathan Hardy explains:

“HBO’s strategy involved a sophisticated effort to establish both cult status and popular appeal. Through the targeting of fan networks, buzz marketing and invitations for immersion, HBO’s corporate strategy sought to cultivate fan engagement and use this as a tool to generate interest and publicity amongst wider audiences.” (2011, pp. 12-13)

The marketing strategy for Game of Thrones, then, assumably would have had similar objectives, given both shows are first aimed at more niche audiences. Beyond this, HBO also extends its marketing strategy to commercial intertextuality, described as “the production and interlinking of texts like blockbuster films or TV series with allied paratexts and products, such as spin-offs, reversionings, promos, online media, books, games and merchandise,” by Hardy (2011, p. 7). By linking the original books with the television adaption, as with Game of Thrones and True Blood, HBO immediately creates a fan base that continue over from these books. In turn, HBO then develops further cross-media promotion, including online and social media engagement, and hence allows niche audiences to be reached and targeted with ease and efficiency, as well as drawing the attention of a wider audience through these strategies.

HBO’s approach to marketing is interesting it say the least. It purposefully begins by targeting niche audiences with its “It’s not TV. It’s HBO” slogan; “the implication is that TV is everything else,” (Jaramillo 2002, p. 65) and therefore, HBO is separated – niche, not part of the mainstream – and ideal of audiences who are after something a little different. This is further accentuated by HBO adapting certain television shows, such as Game of Thrones and True Blood, from popular book series’. Game of Thrones, however, holds it own weight when it comes to being quality television; a combination of sophisticated writing and aesthetically appealing mise-en-scene align the show with common definitions of what a quality television show need be.

References:

Bellafante, G 2011, ‘Game of Thrones: A Fantasy World of Strange Feuding Kingdoms’, The New York Times, 14 April, viewed 5 October 2012, < http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/arts/television/game-of-thrones-begins-sunday-on-hbo-review.html?_r=2& >

Bignell, J 2007, ‘Seeing and Knowing: Reflexivity and Quality’, in Akass, K & McCabe, J, Quality TV: Contemporary American Television and Beyond, I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, United States of America & Canada, pp. 158-170

Hardy, J 2011, ‘Mapping Commercial Intertextuality: HBO’s True Blood’, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 7-17

Jaramillo, DL 2002, ‘ The Family Racket: AOL Time Warner, HBO, The Sopranos, and the Construction of a Quality Brand’, Journal of Communication Inquiry, vol. 26, no. 1, pp.59-75

Swanson, DC 2000, ‘Quality Television – An Oxymoron?’, in The Story of Viewers for Quality Television: From Grassroots to Primetime, Syracuse University Press, New York, pp. 44-71

The first showcase.

Posted on by
Reply

This showcase post is an extension of previous post This reality needs more entertainment.

Reality television is often caught up in attempting to represent the ‘real’ to varying degrees depending on the intention of the program. If the program seeks to be mere passive observers of an event, the claim the program makes to reality is much greater than a program that ‘interferes’ with reality. One Born Every Minute, for example, portrays an observer angle, taking the audience inside a birthing suite in a UK hospital. Interviews and subtitles are added in to create a more ‘full’ experience, but on the whole, the show is led by the main talents and nothing more. On the other hand, a show like Big Brother, in which contestants are locked in a luxury house to test their social skills, the producers constantly set the contestant tasks to complete, and contestants are constantly asked their thoughts of other housemates and of their experience. This style is hence one more based on ‘interfering’ and manipulating, and hence its claim to reality and the sense of realism it portrays is much smaller.

Directly affecting the perception of whether a reality program is of a higher quality or not is this varying claim to represent reality to greater or lower extents. Reality television, in its various forms, “tend(s) to be measured by viewers and television critics against an ideal (and vaguely formulated) conception of the ‘realistic’. Programmes are judged to be ‘good’ -i.e. well-constructed and entertaining – if they offer convincing ‘pictures of reality’.” (Biressi & Nunn 2005, p. 3) Hence the accurate portrayal of reality, either in this ‘observer’ style or similar, leans the program more towards being categorised as higher quality than those which involve ‘interfering’ with the immediacy of reality in their portrayal. This suggests viewers engage more, and have more respect, for reality television programs that aim to portray unmediated and untouched reality.

In their book Reality TV: Realism and Revelation, Anita Biressi and Heather Nunn discuss the many wonders of reality television. They suggest the ‘reality’ inherent in most reality television programs is perhaps in part due to the television medium itself; “there is an assumption that television produces a ‘realistic’, ‘common sense’ and therefore recognisable and familiar view of the social world; of the family, relationships, personal trauma, class, ethnicity and gender.” (2005, p. 3) Television as a medium connects many viewers to a sense of community; of connectedness to the outside world, which, in many cases, is portrayed as unmediated, unedited events. Biressi and Nunn then go on to discuss the effect of reality television on this perception of everyday life depicted through television:

“Reality TV inevitably raises the ante on the expectations made of realist representation. With new scopic technologies that convey a sense of immediacy and intimacy and ‘unscripted’ material featuring ‘real’ people, reality TV lays claim to reveal social, psychological, political and historical truths and to depict the rhythms and structures of everyday life with the least recourse possible to dramatisation and artifice.”

It is clear that the effect reality television has on audiences is more than just light entertainment; reality television is watched to witness this sense of immediacy and intimacy that is outside our average everyday encounters yet displayed inside directly to us on a television. In their article Paradox and the Consumption of Authenticity through Reality Television, Randle Rose and Stacy Wood explain further: “…the consumption of reality programming represents a sophisticated quest for authenticity within the traditionally fiction-orientated entertainment paradigm.” (2005, pp. 284) In this sense, viewers of reality television seek entertainment, but on a deeper level, also seek to connect with the program through its display of authenticity. The manipulation of this authenticity, though, does not go unnoticed. According to Rose and Wood, audiences of reality television programs “… revel in the ironic mixture of the factitious and the spontaneous.” (2005, p. 286) Audiences connect with the ‘real’ people of these reality television programs, but, according to Rose and Wood, acknowledge these people are placed in a very ‘unreal’ situation. Furthermore, their presence on television remains out of the ordinary – usually something that would not happen in everyday life – and hence “a paradox is revealed in which viewers negotiate the existence of both ‘people like me’ and storybook ‘characters.’” (Rose & Wood 2005, p. 290)

Television audiences are particularly complex, constantly watching for reasons other than to be entertained. Though often overlooked, this is certainly evident in reality television audiences. In a study by Steven Reiss and James Wiltz, reality television audiences are suggested to watch certain reality television shows based on individual personality desires. Interestingly, Reiss and Wiltz found the study to suggest an average reality television viewer placed the motive for status above other desires: “the more reality TV shows a person liked, the more status-orientated was the person.” (2009, p. 373) Behind this was the basic motive of vengeance. This suggests a deeper level of desire in reality television viewers than merely to watch, or witness authenticity that they would otherwise be unable to see. Perhaps subconsciously, viewers with a value placed on status are drawn to the reality television genre; “the idea that these are “real” people gives psychological significance to the viewers’ perceptions of superiority.” (Reiss & Wiltz 2009, p. 373) The idea and basic premise of reality television is also important here; millions of people watching ordinary people gives the implication that ordinary people are important.

Reality television is generally associated with trashy, entertainment-only television – its audience much the same. However it is clear that reality television has vast capabilities to influence how the average audience reflects on everyday life through the production and displaying of ‘reality’. Reality television programs of different styles choose to represent this reality to varying degrees of accuracy and convincingness, and are then categorised by this as ‘quality’ or not. Audiences of this complex genre are also more complex than first meets the eye. Watching for a combination of the desire to witness authenticity, entertainment, or deeper desires such as status, these audiences, for the most part, remain just as complex as other television genre audiences.

References:

Biressi, A & Nunn, H 2005, Reality TV: Realism and Revelation, Wallflower Press, Great Britain

Reiss, S & Wiltz, J 2004, ‘Why People Watch Reality TV’, Media Psychology, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 363-378.

Rose, RL & Wood, SL 2005, ‘ Paradox and the Consumption of Authenticity through Reality Television,’ Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 284-296.

End of the almost end.

Posted on by
Reply

Today was our last official group meeting!


We finalised the presentation, which Nikki completely redid, and it looks great! Jenny and Liviana will present on Monday, so today practised what they were going to say and recorded the audio for the slideshare presentation.

Overall I’m really happy with our project; we worked really well together as a team and learned some valuable social media lessons.