Saturday, May 10, 2008
Television. Is it falling behind?
Times have changed... How long until they change again? Television has been a primary medium for many media users over the years, only recently, with the expansion of Web 2.0, has television been given serious competition (Hartley, 2002, 124). Though we cannot predict what the future holds, it is suggested there will be media preferences towards interactivity, intercreativity and produsage (Bruns, 2008, 5). There is no denying that television has entertained a multitude of Australians since 1956 (Cunningham and Tuner, 2002, 173), over the years technological qualities (such as the introduction of colour and high definition television) have become highly developed (Klosek, 2007). However, currently television possesses no built in opportunity for advancing in interactivity, intercreativity and produsage (Bruns, 2008, 1). To counteract this, television has converged with the internet, utilising attributes which pertain to Web 2.0.
In the United States of America, networks are making popular television shows available through their websites via direct download or YouTube. Similarly, some Australian networks (see ABC) are becoming more active in ensuring their shows are available in podcast form (Bruns, 2008, 7). This age of hyperdistribution has been embraced by society, though surely someone must be worse off with this internet trend?
From the perspective of producers and advertisers, hyperdistribution has the opportunity to be beneficial, if the economical objectives allow maximum profit (Pesce in Bruns, 2008, 8). Something which would prove economically efficient is allowing advertisers to work with program producers when directly distributing online television content (Pesce in Bruns, 2008, 8). Revenue would come from advertisements inserted into downloadable programs, plus the standard internet advertising; pay-for-access fees for direct downloadable, commercial-free versions of a program; further revenue from advertising to potential world-wide viewers (Bruns, 2008, 8).
Contrary to belief, produsage site YouTube, has the power to generate revenue for online content (Haven, 2007). In regards to BBC, 43 per cent of online viewers claim they watch less television as a result of YouTube (Cashmore, 2006). CBS however have gained an increase in viewers from YouTube, though unsurprisingly CBS have their own YouTube account and regularly upload their videos (Cashmore, 2006). Online viewers are driven to original content after they view a clip they appreciate. According to Pesce (cited in Bruns, 2008, 9), “YouTube has been acting as an arbitrageur of media equalizing in equity in the marketplace,” as copywriters and producers have failed to upload videos online to capitalise on the new media market.
Produsage blurs the “boundaries between professional an amateur content” (Bruns 2008, 10), therefore encouraging all consumers to become active participants. Pesce (cited in Bruns, 2008, 5) best sums up the produsage concept: “sharing of media is an act of production in itself – we are all our own broadcasters.”
When there is a change in media technologies, there is a related change in the location of the audience (Couldry, 2005, 189). Audiences have changed since Web 2.0 emerged; the contemporary “diffused audience” uses at least one electronic medium constantly throughout the day, in nearly all aspects of professional and social life (Couldry, 2005, 186). With this societal trend shift, will television also undergo a cultural transformation?
The future of television depends upon a number of variables; hyperdistribution, produsage and technologies plus audience trends. Bruns (2008, 12) has predicted television will become a series of “televisual, audiovisual practices and media forms collected in categories such as ‘streaming media’, ‘video on demand’ and ‘downloadable video’. Though television has no built in opportunities to fully embrace new media technologies, by converging with the internet, television will hopefully be able to live a long, prosperous life, and be around to entertain our great grand-children. No doubt there will be another change in media trends by then.
References
Bruns, A. 2008. Reconfiguring Television for a Networked, Produsage Context. http://snurb.info/files/Reconfiguring%20Television%20for%20a%20Networked,%20Produsage%20Context.pdf (Accessed May 2, 2008).
Cashmore, P. 2006. YouTube Vs TV. November 27. Mashable: Social Networking News. http://mashable.com/2006/11/27/youtube-vs-tv/ (Accessed May 3, 2008).
Couldry, N. 2005. The Extended Audience: Scanning the Horizon in M Gillespie (ed.) Media Audiences. Maidenhead: Open University Press. p183-222.
Cunningham, S., G. Turner. 2002. The Media and Communications in Australia. New South Wales: Allen and Unwin.
Hartley, J. 2002. Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The Key Concepts. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
Haven, P. 2007. YouTube plans revenue sharing with users. January 27. MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16842857/ (Accessed May 3, 2008).
Klosek, N. 2007. Future Technologies. Dealerscope. 49 (7). http://proquest.umi.com.ezp02.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=10&did=1314410151&SrchMode=2&sid=2&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1210761100&clientId=14394 (Accessed May 6, 2008).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Natalie,
I think your post raises some very valid points about the changing nature of audiences and the impact this is having (and will have) on the nature of television. I agree with your description of modern audiences who have adapted to the interactive capabilities of web 2.0; we are now becoming more comfortable with our position as produsers who have the ability to control and contribute to the content we chose to use, and are coming to expect this element of interactivity in our everyday media consumption. Your use of high quality references strengthens these arguments in your post and definitely supports your position in this respect.
However, I don’t totally agree that television can survive through convergence with the internet. I see the lack of built-in capabilities congruent to new media technologies as a major flaw in this medium and combined with the unwillingness of producers to part with the “‘old media’ mindset” (Bruns 2008), I think that television is definitely not doing enough to keep up with these audience trends. In a recent Snurblog post, Bruns notes that while producers are aware of the new trend towards user-generated content, they are still dealing with this issue in a shallow way. This will only be to their own (and television’s) detriment – it is already happening in the music industry, those who do not fully engage new media audiences simply lose out (I know this from first-hand experience!), and the same will happen to television if the mind set does not change soon.
References
Bruns, A. 2008. Mark Scott's Lackluster Vision for the Future of Our ABC. http://snurb.info/node/804 (accessed May 8, 2008).
Nat, your blog presented a great debate and pointed out many key problems that face the television as a medium, jeopardizing its place in society.
It is without question that the expansion of Web 2.0 has given television a ‘run for its money’. As you mentioned, and Bruns suggests, media preferences will edge towards interactivity, intercreativity and produsage (Bruns, 2008). This statement reigns true, especially today in our convergence driven world. To some extent I believe television has taken steps towards providing an interactive environment for its viewers. Emergence of cable and satellite television has in some way presented a platform in its interactivity with its audiences. Take for instance Foxtel IQ. Features allow you to stop, start, rewind and record live television. There also exists to a degree, an element of participation in the television which features specialist and nice channels in comparison to the free to air, stock-standard programs free to air presents. (Flew, 2005)However your blog effectively conveyed that theses changes to television though significant, “have not dramatically changed the experience of television to its viewers, since it remains a medium where someone other than the viewer determines the available menu of content and options at any given time.” (Flew, 2005. p. 2) As indicated in your blog television has no inbuilt opportunities where it can embrace new media technologies. Perhaps society is happy to keep the television as a medium which they passively consume? It is possible for it to survive. However, for television to encompass new media through its interactivity, intercreativity and produsage, the answer still lies with the prevailing option of distributing the television programs and films online. (Bruns, 2008)
References:
Bruns, A. 2008. Reconfiguring Television for a Networked, Produsage Context. http://snurb.info/files/Reconfiguring%20Television%20for%20a%20Networked,%20Produsage%20Context.pdf (Accessed May 2, 2008).
Flew, T. 2005. New Media. 2nd Ed. Oxford: Victoria.
Post a Comment