JOIN THE (PARA-) SOCIAL CLUB: A story of the transformation of television, the host and their viewers in the convergence age
ABSTRACT Drawing on the case study of two Dutch television programs, this thesis discusses as to what extent contemporary television programs have changed since the convergence between television and the Internet. This thesis starts off with the claim that television has always been in development throughout its entire history, and oppositely the views of as many critics who argue this notion. With this ongoing transformation, concepts used in television studies are changing as well; but with a few adaptions, old concepts remain just as important as new concepts to describe the ever-changing identity of television production. A returning concept in this thesis is that of para-social interaction, whereby the relationship between the viewer and the host is a central requirement in order to create loyal viewers. Through constant experiments in the industry, television show formats have changed and evolved, but the
relationship between the viewer and the host remains an important object to study. This thesis argues that with the introduction of the Internet, and thereby an increased opportunity for the viewer to interact with the television program, the role of viewer as well as the role of the host is changing. The viewer is now addressed as a prosumer, who is expected to contribute to the program by providing feedback in order to make it more interesting for themselves and the rest of the audience. With this new dynamic, the host is now, in addition to being an information source, expected to motivate the viewer to provide feedback and thereby create interaction. In this way, the host takes on the additional role of a promoter by encouraging the viewer to visit the several (social) media accounts of the television show. This thesis provides an overview of the ever-changing television scope, and all of the impacts the Internet has on the relationship between the television producers, hosts, and viewers.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 4
1. STORY OF TRANSFORMATION 7
1.1 TELEVISIONINANEVER-ENDINGDEVELOPMENT 7
1.2 TELEVISIONINTHECONVERGENCEAGE 11
2. PARA-SOCIAL INTERACTION 17
2.1 WHATISPARASOCIALINTERACTION 17
2.2 PARA-SOCIALINTERACTIONIN ‘MODERNTIMES’ 19
2.3 THEROLEOFTHEHOST 20
3. PARA-SOCIAL INTERACTION IN CONTEMPORARY DUTCH TELEVISION 23 3.1 DE WERELD DRAAIT DOOR; A TRADITIONALTELEVISIONSHOW 24
3.2 JOINTHESOCIALCLUB 28
4. (PARA-SOCIAL) INTERACTION VERSUS PARTICIPATION 35 4.1 UTOPIANANDDYSTOPIANDISCOURSESONCROSS-MEDIAINTERACTION
35
4.2 SPACESOFPARTICIPATION 37
4.3 ACTIVEANDPASSIVETELEVISIONAUDIENCE 39
4.4 ACTIVEANDPASSIVENEWMEDIA 41
5. CONCLUSION 45
INTRODUCTION
There has always been an ongoing discussion in contemporary television studies about how, why, and in what way television is transforming, and what kind of impacts it has on television production and its viewers. With the rise of new technologies such as the Internet and digitalization, several critics have talked about “a new era of television,” or even more drastically, “the end of television.” However, as Judith Keilbach and Markus Stauff have already stated in After the break; Television Theory Today (2013), television has always been in development and ever changing: “Part of the ‘power of television’ lies in its constant transformation process, enforced by a continuous reflection on the
‘appropriate’ use and an ongoing redefinition of television” (80). Keilbach and Stauff state that television always tries to be up-to-date, and therefore reacts to recent
developments. That being said, it is important to not solely put the focus on “the new era of television,” but rather on the constantly evolving television landscape and how
television is always trying to improve itself to keep up with the ever-changing media. Today the growth of multi-platform television programs, which are playing a big part in the contemporary transformation of television, have fed the discussion about the role of broadcast television since the Internet has come into play. The emergence of the Internet has resulted in speculations about the sustainability of television “as we know it.” The viewers’ increased use of several media platforms simultaneously has made the producers fear that television is being outcompeted by newer media. As a result,
producers have tried to integrate new media into their programs to keep up with recent developments, and therefore serve their dispersed viewers. On the other hand, the Internet has also had a positive impact by becoming a great tool for the producers to get to know what the viewers want. Since the viewer can now virtually “talk back” with the use of social media, they can therefore provide significant information for the television producers about viewing habits, preferences, or dislikes. Television is now changing on the level of how the audience can participate, interact, or watch television. Watching television is no longer a passive one-sided interaction, but is in fact becoming more so a two-sided one, in which the viewers can give their input about a show, tell the producers their opinion or stories, and actually interact more directly with the host of the show.
A good implement to describe this changing relationship between the viewer and the host is the concept of para-social interaction, introduced in 1956 by Donald Horton
and Richard Wohl in their article “Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance.” Although the article dates back to the early years of television and therefore seems a bit outdated, with some extensions and updating to fit the concept into the contemporary television landscape, it is still a very relevant and useful concept today. This thesistherefore seeks to investigate the status of television today in the multi-platform media landscape by analysing one of the core characteristics of broadcast media, namely the host-audience relationship. By using the concept of para-social interaction as guidance, the goal is to find out more about the changing relationship between the host and the audience and how the integration of new media in television helps to strengthen this relationship.
First this thesis will join the ongoing discussion of the ever-changing television landscape. Hereby it investigates to which degree television is in transition as a result of the rise of new media such as the Internet and the use of mobile phones, using the development of television throughout history as a starting point. From there on out, the focus will be put on the question: what characterizes the host-audience relationship in the contemporary television scape? This research question will be addressed through an analysis of the relation between the broadcasters and their audiences in multi-platform television productions. The combination of television production and the feedback of the viewers as external production labour will be examined in the light of two public service Dutch television programs, representing different stages in the historic development and various levels of audience influence and interaction with the show.
The first program to be discussed is a very popular traditional Dutch talk show, De Wereld Draait Door. This is a live television show with a studio audience that
integrates social media into their program in very limited ways. This program is a good example of a traditional talk show that is successful even without making extensive use of the new interaction possibilities of multi-platform media. Conversely, the second program to be covered is De Social Club, an innovative news program aimed at a younger audience that tries to integrate social media into their program in every way possible. By using the personal stories of their viewers, collected through several means of social media, the accounts of the audience members will become the news item central to the program. By using the viewer as an external producer, the show makes good use of the interactivity and feedback possibilities of the Internet. The hosts of the show visit these viewers at home to talk about their stories, thereby combining world news with organic
stories straight from the source. With both programs, the concept of para-social
interactivity can be used as a tool to describe the changing relationship between the host and the audience in the constantly evolving contemporary multi-platform television landscape on very different and surprising levels.
The last chapter discusses in depth the broader scope of the discussions around utopian and dystopian discourses of the cross-media interaction in the convergence age. Thereby it will take the stance that the viewer has always been active throughout
television history, and still is today. It also compares the levels of which this active interaction and participation take place in television and how it differs from, or is equal to, other kinds of more recently introduced media. The argument of this chapter refers back to the fact that television, although is been challenged by or converged with newer media, is always in development but will keep on existing, although it may take on a different look or change its content. It is a powerful medium that there always will be a demand for.
1. STORY OF TRANSFORMATION
1.1 TELEVISION IN A NEVER-ENDING DEVELOPMENT
Since the rise of new media like the Internet, a constant returning question in media studies is in regards to how far this new media is replacing older and existing ones. However, new media may not be in fact as new and innovative as many critics claim it to be; on many fronts, new media have the same function as the older methods, just with a fresh appearance. Nowadays, people can watch television shows on the Internet, read the newspaper online, listen to music on their mobile phones, and many other things that were not previously thought feasible. So the real questions is, are new media methods indeed replacing the old ones as we know it, or are they actually
complementary to the already existing ones? Additionally, if older media is indeed being replaced to a large extent, are old concepts and theories also suitable to apply to new media?
The classic television era of the 1950s and 1960s, well-known for the limited choices in programs and channels, was a time when the whole family gathered around the television watching their favourite show as their highlight of their day; this concept has indeed since then gradually faded. However, instead of viewing examples like this as the end of a certain era and making a division between the old and the new, we should instead be discussing rather an ongoing transformation of television. As previously stated, television is always in transition and development, and always has been. Producers always try to renew television programmes to catch up with the recent
technical developments of society to meet the demands of the viewer. Nonetheless, many critics still disagree with this statement and claim that, with the rise of digitalization (“understood as the expansion of computer technology” (Gripsrud 211)), we have indeed reached the end of the classical form of television. Some examples of how critics refer to this new era include “Television after TV” (Olsson & Spigel 2004), “The end of television” (Katz & Scannell 2009), or “Post-Network Era” (Lotz 2007).
As Judith Keilbach and Markus Stauff already note in Televisual Culture After the Break (2013), “although they focus on different aspects of the ongoing transformation, all distinguish the medium’s current heterogeneity from television as it used to be –
thereby implying that television once had a stable identity that is now being called into question” (79). This thesisis in line with these findings and therefore I want to challenge the statement of the stable identity of television by explaining that television never had a clear and stable identity. Hereby I use the theories of Keilbach and Stauff to support my argument, since Keilbach and Stauff underline the same as I want to prove, namely that ‘[…] television seems to be a medium that always was in transition throughout its entire history’ (80). An important question here is why television is constantly transforming. Television - like any other product - has to transform together with the changes in society. To keep up with this growth, it has to make adaptions in order to match with the demands of time. As Keilbach and Stauff explain, “part of the ‘power of television’ lies in its constant transformation process, enforced by a continuous reflection on the
‘appropriate’ use and an on going redefinition of television” (80). So what kind of important developments have taken place in television history since their introduction in the 1950s? I will try to sketch a concise version of this history, since there have been written multiple books about it. I will highlight some important transitions to show that television never had a stable identity but was and is up till now always in development, changing with the demands of time.
Since the introduction of television in the 1950s, very many changes have
occurred, both on technological and cultural grounds. Each step forward in both aspects has caused a flow of developments. Because of this, all of the advances in the evolution of television are always intertwined, and therefore there are no strict demarcated “eras” that a lot of critics claim there to be. An example of a critic who exhibits these delineated periods is Amanda Lotz. Lotz describes in her book, The Television Will Be
Revolutionized, three different eras in the history of television. She begins with the “Network Era,” which takes place from 1951 till the mid-1980s (5). Thereafter begins the “Multi-channel Era,” which marks the years between the 1980s up until 2005. This era describes the development of multiple channels and new possibilities for the viewer with the help of the remote control and the VCR (6). Lotz concludes with the “Post-Network Era,” the time from 2005 up until today. She describes this time period as the competing television scape that is replacing the old practices from the “network era” (7). It is important to note that the eras Amanda Lotz describes are not necessarily as
developments in television history never take place at a certain identifiable point, but are always intertwined.
A question to ask is, what were these specific changes in television history that made Lotz classify these eras? When putting the focus on the technological
developments, a factor that is most noticeable is a shift of more power to the viewer. One such example is the introduction of the VCR at the end of the 1970s. The VCR let the viewer record television shows they want to watch on a different point in time than the television producers had intended. With this new innovation, the viewer was no longer bound to the television schedule and could watch their favourite shows when they wanted to, and even skip commercials if desired. Another important technological development was the remote control in the 1980s. With this device, the viewer could more easily jump from one program to another, and thus the television producers had to make more of an effort to keep their viewers interested enough to stick with their
program or channel. These industrial renewals, together with other (digital) inventions such as TiVo and Video-on-Demand, caused a disruption of the so-called “flow” of television.
The concept of “flow” was introduced by Raymond Williams in 1974 in his book Television: Technology and Cultural Form. It describes the gradual transition in
television programming, a technique used by channels and networks to try to retain their viewer from jumping from program to program. It is a combination of certain television shows and commercials, making the viewer forget the world around them and keep watching the same channel for a long period of time. Some techniques used in the concept of flow are to stick to a certain genre for a couple of consecutive programs, or “hammocking” by starting with a successful program, followed up by a new or weak one, and end with a strong program. Media scholar William Uricchio saw the technical
renewals of television, like the remote control and TiVo, as a “shift away from the programming-based notion of flow that Williams documented, to a viewer-centred notion” (168). The viewer didn’t have to be home at a certain time to watch a television show, and as well could now skip unwanted commercials during breaks between programs, with just one press of the button. These changes were significant for the television producers, because now they needed new ways to attract and retain their viewers. They needed to know what the viewers liked and wanted to see on their television. However, this was a difficult feat at first, since they could not know if a
television program was going to be a success just by guessing. Therefore, producers started to experiment.
Keilbach and Stauff conceptualize television as an experimental system. With all of the “moments of transition” - like the aforementioned invention of the VCR and Video-on-Demand - television continuously has to come up with new solutions to compete with these challenges. Keilbach and Stauff see the introduction of items such as the remote control or the VCR “as experimental moments of broadcast/network television. Rather than just establishing a new (post-VCR) mode of television distinct from its prior (pre-VCR) more, the VCR figures as a rearrangement that raised new questions and offered new insight into the audience behaviour, economic strategies, […] and much more” (89). Statements such as this suggest that there is more a constant redefinition of what
television is and how it addresses its audience. Television is always searching for new ways to compete with or integrate recent developments through various experimental means, such as “searching for appropriate programme forms and schedules” (84). Keilbach and Stauff state that “television is always considered to be ‘improvable’” (90), and all of these needed improvements cause these experimental urges. This “constant rearrangement of the constellation of broadcast/network television follows certain rationalities: it presupposes a definition of (and reflection on) the specific potential of some of television’s elements, and it also produces phenomena (e.g. the ‘target
audience’) which only ‘make sense’ as part of the experimental system that produces knowledge about these phenomena and enables their manipulation” (90). Hence, as a result of these experiments, television producers get to know what works for their viewers, as well as what does not.
As it becomes clear, television is more than a static object and it is always in transition and always will be. There is extensive evidence that throughout history, a lot of changes have taken place within television production due to the ever-developing
society, and this transformation will go on as long as television exists. Focusing on the modern-day developments in television, we can inquire as to what effort producers nowadays take to keep track of all of the developments regarding new media, as well as going about acquiring knowledge of the viewers’ preferences. New information and entertainment sources have proven to be a challenge; so the question arises, how will television sustain its popularity with all of the new social media developments?
1.2 TELEVISION IN THE CONVERGENCE AGE
It is clear now that television is a constant changing object with a history we cannot subdivide into specific eras, because television never had and never will have a stable identity because it is in constant transformation due to the never ending transforming society. With the introduction of new media, a lot of critics have claimed that old forms of media need to be reconceptualised. This chapter discusses as to what degree
contemporary television production is in transition as a result of technological
convergence at present day. Keilbach and Stauff explain that “in the 1990s, when new technologies and deregulation policies were emerging throughout television practices, the resulting changes were considered to be transitions that would lead to a completely different and enhanced form of television. Back then, everybody anticipated that digital television would evolve as a new, possibly interactive television standard […]’ (79). Like never before in television history, television producers feared that these new media would put an end to the “classic broadcasting system,” “television as we know it,” or even outcompete television as a whole. Yet, as previously described, with the rise of
digitalization like Video-on-Demand, this is not the case. There is in fact no end to “television as we know it,” because it has never had a stable identity to begin with.
In the article “Broadcast Television: The Changes of its Survival in a Digital Age” (2004), Jostein Gripsrud asks himself the question “whether or to which extent
‘broadcasting as we know it,” and its public service version in particular, will survive the new information society that Manuel Castells calls ‘the network society’” (211). With the rise of digitalization, the possibility of interaction with television has greatly increased. As Gripsrud explains, “Previously passive audiences are enabled to become much more active participants in the hitherto mostly unidirectional process of broadcasting. Interactivity will take a multiplicity of forms, from video-on-demand to feedback to ongoing broadcast programs […]” (213). Although Gripsrud is referring to digitalization in terms of developments such as Video-on-Demand, the same could be said about the integration of Internet with television.
With the emergence of the Internet in the 1990s, several new concepts within media studies were introduced by critics to explain and understand all the changes in television. One of these is the concept of “convergence,” introduced by Henry Jenkins in his book Convergence Culture, Where Old and New Media Collide (2006). Convergence
as explained by Jenkins is not about the replacement of old media by new ones, but about the merging of platforms, new forms of content, and the active role of the user, or in this case, the viewer. As Jenkins explains: “By convergence, I mean the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behaviour of media audiences who would go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they wanted. Convergence is a word that manages to describe technological, industrial, cultural, and social changes,
depending on who’s speaking and what they think they are talking about” (2). In further discussion of convergence in this thesis, there will be a focus more on the social and technical side of convergence, so the merging of television and the Internet and the behaviour of the viewer as a result of this convergence. I leave the economical or industrial side of convergence - the cooperation between multiple media industries – aside for now, because in this thesis I am discussing the public broadcast service side of the Dutch television scape where economics, and thereby generating money, is less important than to serve the viewers intellectually and generate viewer ratings.
Since the rise of Internet, television has had to change its tactics in order to attract and retain viewers and create viewer loyalty. Television producers nowadays are making smart use of the Internet in order to reach this goal. They use this new media to complement their shows by giving their viewers more information about the program than they are able to fit into their television show during broadcasting. Another approach television producers use to profit from the advantages of the Internet is to make the viewer more actively involved in the program by making use of new possibilities of interaction. For example, as Mark Andrejevic states in his article “Watching Television Without Pity: The Productivity of Online Fans” (2008), message boards on the website of a television program have “become a marketing strategy for TV shows that takes advantage of interactivity to create fan communities and build viewer loyalty” (24). Andrejevic is researching the labour fans carry out for television shows and how television makes use of this labour in several ways: “Online viewer activity doubles as a form of value-enhancing labour for television producers in two ways: by allowing fans to take on part of the work of making a show interesting for themselves and by providing instant (if not necessarily statistically representative) feedback for the producers” (24). In this way, television producers get to know what the audience wants first-hand and simultaneously create viewer loyalty. This effort makes the viewer not
only a consumer of television, but also a producer, referred to as a “prosumer.” With this new role as prosumer, “[…] viewers now can talk back to the TV – and actually be heard” (24). Good examples of television formats that allow themselves to let the viewer
interact with the content of the show are that of reality and game shows. Because of the competition aspect of the show, viewers can vote for their favourite contestant through text messaging or online contests (24). This new audience participation is of course openly embraced by the television producers. They use this viewer contribution to develop strategies for promoting, harnessing, and exploiting the productivity of this activity (25). It is not only a benefit to the producers: “interactivity […] allows viewers to take on the work of finding ways to make a show more interesting” (28). Now viewers can take on an active role while watching television. As Andrejevic explains: "Forms of media that were once passive and mind numbing are transformed into means of creative self-expression and empowerment” (35).
However, there are also a lot of critics who don’t entirely agree with this strict passive/active audience division. For example, Gripsrud states that these now “active” viewers in fact aren’t that active at all. He explains that the once passive viewers who let themselves be informed and entertained by television aren’t suddenly turned into active participators by simply responding to the programs or planning their television viewing schedule by themselves every day since they have the ability of being able to record shows to watch at their own convenience. “There is something very utopian and even silly about these images of future viewers as individuals wholly outside their
geographically determined communities, actively enjoying an imagined total ‘freedom’ from the powerful programmers of broadcast TV” (Gripsrud 219). Gripsrud claims that the viewers still need their broadcast schedule, because viewers are not looking for that total freedom. When viewers are turning on the television, they are looking for
relaxation in their leisure time, and not an added effort of having to search for programs they want to watch and in what order.
Other critics claim that the television viewer was never passive in the first place, but was always interacting with the television show in one way or another, even before the enhanced possibility of interaction by digitalization or convergence (Blumler & Katz 1974). The viewer has always had the need to interact with other people. This was provided in the earlier days of television by the possibility to form virtual relationships with characters from soaps or with hosts. The loyal viewer of a program that is
broadcasted on television on a regular basis gets the opportunity to emotionally bond with the character or host. In this way, the viewer is actively involved with the program, but on an emotional level. Another way Blumler and Katz claim that the audience was already active before the rise of digitalization was by the need to define their personal identity. The viewers already had the choice to watch the show they wanted to watch. The viewers picked the shows that had similar beliefs to those they held themselves. The hosts or the stars of the shows could in this way be expressions of the identity of the viewers.
In the differing case of present day, with the introduction of the Internet and the corresponding multi-platform formats, the viewer has actually become an external production unit. Viewers are now expected to provide feedback to the program, and in turn the producers are dependent on this feedback in order to make a television show a success. In this way, the viewer has a certain degree of influence on the production of television, and a continuous dialogue between the viewer and the producer arises. Before the introduction of the Internet, the feedback possibilities were limited to just a call-in for a single chat or vote during the broadcast. With the availability of the Internet, there is a continuous stream of feedback, even after the television program ends. With this new means of communication between the audience and the program, producers are able to not just reach a handful of viewers, but rather to engage an entire population, making the viewers even easier to reach as well as chart. Like all of the previous
developments in television, the convergence with the Internet also started off as an experiment. With these trials, the television producers began to identify the viewer feedback and audience participation as a strategic way of connecting with their audience and create loyal viewers. With this new insight, multi-platform programs were born.
Espen Ytreberg describes in his article “Extended Liveness and Eventfulness in Multi-platform Reality Formats” (2008) that television is becoming more and more a diverse medium. This means that television is increasingly making use of other (new) media to increase the accessibility of the program by providing the viewer extended information or interaction possibilities through a different means. The modern-day strategy of television is to not only integrate the Internet into its programs, but also to spread the programs across different platforms like social media and apps. This flow of content across multiple media platforms is also a characteristic of convergence, referred to by Jens Jensen in his article “Interactive Television: New Genres, New Format, New
Content” (2005) as “cross-media interaction”. Jensen’s article describes the use of different media by television, whereby a television program redirects the viewer from the television to the Internet, and then back to the television. One use of this tactic is the creating of official websites, which provide interactive interviews and behind-the-scenes information that “gives fans the sense of at least partial entry into an inner circle of producers and writers” (Andrejevic 31). Social media offers an extension of the television studio audience, whereby the program offers a starting point of discussion, which will continue in the living room or on social media. This use of cross-media interaction has several advantages. As a lot of people do not have advanced interactive television systems yet, there is a need for another medium that “functions as a return channel from the viewer to the broadcaster. This can be the phone, the e-mail, the web, chat, fax or SMS, which in this way temporarily is established in the role of interactive return channel” (Jensen 90). Because most western households are already in
possession of a simple television set, a smartphone, and a computer with Internet access, cross-media interaction does not need new purchases like hardware or software, so it is even easier for the viewer to interact with the content of the show. With the possibility to easily interact with the television show, the viewer can feel that they can distinguish themselves from other viewers by letting his or her voice be heard and therefore will bind himself to a television show (Ytreberg 472). This ensures a fixed audience, and therefore persistent viewer ratings.
However, with the cross-media interaction, a new problem is also arising for the television producers: “how to reconfigure the viewer’s relationship to the screen along the lines of the computer user who both watches and interacts” (Andrejevic 29). The danger is that viewers will go to the Internet and stay there, getting lost in all the other information sources, thereby causing the television programs to lose viewers to the Internet rather than the television screen. With this new challenge, television producers have to create some sort of cohesion to keep the viewer interested in their show so that they will return to the television screen after being on the Internet. As Ted Magder explains in his article “The End of TV 101: Reality Programs, Formats, and the New Business of Television” (2004), “television producers are creating a virtuous circle that excites the interactive audience about what’s going on, drives them toward the TV program, the TV program will drive them to the Internet, and the Internet to the other ways they can get information, and other ways back to the TV” (151). For example, the
use of Twitter by television programs does not necessarily mean that it can replace existing media channels such as broadcasting or the newspaper, but often complements them, by redirecting them back and forth across multiple media, offering interaction and more information, and therefore creating viewer loyalty.
This back and forth migration of viewers from one media platform to the other can be seen as a new and different kind of flow, as described in the theory of Raymond Williams. John Caldwell in his article “Second-Shift Media Aesthetics: Programming, Interactivity, and User Flows” (2003) mentions this old and new kind of flow, labelled by himself as “the first shift” and “second shift strategies.” Although his article is mostly about the economic side, such as the branding and merchandising of television shows, this theory is also adaptable on the movement of viewers between television and the Internet. “First shift” flows are programming tactics, such as “tent-poling” and
“hammocking,” which are based on Williams’ theory. This particular flow happens just on television, whereby the viewer shifts from one program to the other. But with the “second shift” aesthetics, the flow of viewers is no longer just on television, but also between different media platforms. So instead of a program flow, there is a case of audience flow, whereby the audience drifts between the television and the Internet. Hereby users can no longer be controlled by television producers, but only loosely encouraged to watch their program or to visit their website.
It is becoming clear that with the introduction of the Internet, a lot of things have changed within the television scape, both for the viewer and the television producers. As with the introduction of the remote control, TiVo, the Internet, and other technical developments to interact with the television, television producers now need to develop and adapt different strategies in order to attract and retain viewers. These changes require and provoke new theoretical concepts to describe these phenomena. Concepts of conversion, prosumerism, and cross-media interaction play a big part in media studies today. These are all relatively new concepts, but a long-standing concept like flow is also still very useable with a few adaptions to fit into the modern television scape. Therefore, without creating new theoretical concepts, it is also beneficial to look at other seemingly outdated techniques that are still very useable to describe the contemporary television scape as well.
2. PARA-SOCIAL INTERACTION
2.1 WHAT IS PARA-SOCIAL INTERACTION?
As now has been made very clear, television is constantly changing not only on a
technical level, but also in regards to its formats and the way we watch it. Now what does this mean for the concepts we use as media scholars? Is there a constant need to renew these concepts as well, or even invent new ones for every alteration television makes? Of course there will be a need for new concepts to describe or indicate future additions to television; but as is shown with the concept of the aforementioned flow, with a few alterations, old concepts are also still very applicable to contemporary television. As Marijke de Valck and Jan Teurlings already state in the introduction of After the Break: Television Theory Today (2013) is “that the search for new concepts locks us into the rhetoric of the perennially new, blinding us to the fact that not only have things remained the same, but that older concepts yield interesting insights” (9). As previously discussed, one thing that has become clear is that the most important challenge television
producers face is boosting their viewer ratings by somehow binding their viewers to their program. As also revealed prior though, viewers can be active in many ways, not only by being literally interactive with the use of social media, but actively involved on an emotional level as well.
One very important established theory is that of para-social interaction, which relates the emotional level of interactivity of the viewer with a television show without the integration of the Internet. This theory was applied to the television studies by Donald Horton and Richard Wohl, described in their article “Mass Communication and Para-social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a distance” (1956). In their article, Horton and Wohl demonstrate that the most important social attraction of television is produced by a simulacrum of an intimate interaction between the host and the audience. This para-social interaction describes in what way the audience feels emotionally
connected to the television hosts, and thus connected to the television program itself. By addressing the viewers in an intimate way, looking the viewers “directly” in the eyes, the host talks to the viewer as a friend on a very personal, private, and informal level. To increase this familiarity even more, the host may even share personal little stories: “The
standard technique is not to make the private life an absolute secret […]” (Horton & Wohl 219), and thus makes the host more accessible. By the use of these methods, the viewer can build an emotional relationship with the host and will know them “somewhat in the same way they know their chosen friends: through direct observation and
interpretation of his appearance […]” (216). With this technique, the viewer will feel personally addressed and socially included in the broadcast content, and therefore will be more likely to watch the program on a regular basis.
According to Horton and Wohl, another way to make a host more accessible or “real” for the viewer is if the host sometimes steps outside of the format of the show and blends with his live studio audience (218). In this way, the host seems like they are one of the audience members themselves: they are not better, prettier, or smarter than the rest, but rather on the same level. As Horton and Wohl explain: “with a few exceptions, the popular figures of radio and television are, or give the appearance of being, paragons of middle-class virtue with decently modest intellectual capacities” (219). Although they may in fact have an upper hand on the audience in one aspect or another, “the façade is maintained only by concealing discrepancies between the public image and the private life” (219). And above all, the host offers a continuing relationship by appearing on television on a regular basis, and is therefore integrated into the routines of the daily life of the viewer (216). The viewer is likely to respond to these actions emotionally, because these characteristics are the basics of a friendship: sharing personal stories, seeing or speaking to each other frequently, and being trustworthy. The relationship between the viewer and the host is, as Horton and Wohl suggest, “experienced as of the same order as, and related to, the network of actual social relations” (220). However, it must be stressed that this relationship is actually an illusion or façade, seeing as that the relationship is mainly one-sided: “The interaction, characteristically, is one-sided, nondialectical, controlled by the performer and not susceptible of mutual development” (216). Due to the prolonged emotional intimacy of para-social relations and the
assumption that there is a real person or even a potential real friend beyond the
television figure, it is not surprising that many viewers want more than this para-social relationship and try to establish actual face-to-face contact with the host (219). As we know, there are in fact ways for the viewer to make contact with the host and make their feelings known, but according to Horton and Wohl, “this lies outside of the para-social interaction itself” (216). In the early days of television, all one could do as a viewer to
make real life contact with a host is to try to call the producers or write a letter in the hope that it will reach the right person, and in the end probably wouldn’t get any response anyway. Nowadays things have changed in the way the viewer has the
possibility to interact with the television, and thus with the producers or the host of the show.
2.2 PARA-SOCIAL INTERACTION IN ‘MODERN TIMES’
The theory of para-social interaction has up until now mainly been studied in relation to traditional media, meaning radio and television as we recognize it from the 1960s and 1970s. Since the rise of the Internet, media nowadays largely overlap and converge with one another. Opinions, emotions, and para-social relations are not often formed by a single medium anymore, because the television viewer goes almost anywhere in search of the kind of interaction he or she is looking for. This means the convergence culture is causing a whole other level of interaction and relationship building between the
television and the viewer. Therefore the question at stake here is if the integration of Internet in television could provide a whole new dimension of para-social interaction, because this new medium offers other and more various possibilities for the viewers to come in contact with the hosts and the television producers. Could this ensure a more intimate relationship between the viewer and the host, or does it remain a distant para-social relationship despite the more direct communication options?
Today there are various ways for the viewer to make contact with the host or the television production team thanks to technological developments. Many television hosts have their own Twitter or Facebook account where viewers can follow them, send a friendship request, or leave a message, which are more likely to be replied to than the old-fashioned manner of writing a letter because the Internet facilitates a quicker and easier response. Furthermore, a Facebook or Twitter account is often a personal page where you can follow the personal life of the host and stay updated even when the host is not broadcasted on television. It is also possible to “tweet” directly to a television program during live broadcasting by using hash tags, and even possibly have a message appear in the show, and can in a way join the discussion. Viewers are asked by the host or a voiceover to let their voice be heard, take on an active role, and join the conversation
between the host and his or her guests on Twitter, by underlining the fact that the program has a Twitter page, and showing the hash tags they can use directly on the screen. Hereby social media facilitates, stimulates, and strengthens the para-social interaction on television, because viewers can now easily come into contact with the host on a more direct and personal level.
A salient point in the article of Horton and Wohl is that they view more
specifically talk shows (or “personality programs” as they refer to them in the article) as a new mass media (219). In the 1950s, television was indeed a new mass medium, compared to newspapers and radio shows. Horton and Wohl see television as a distinguished medium compared to the older or more classic versions, because television has the ability to “confront a member of the audience with an apparently intimate, face-to-face association with a performer. Nowhere does this feature of their technological resources seem more forcefully or more directly displayed than in the ‘personality’ program” (219). At present day, the integration of social media into television adds a new layer to this statement, since the viewer can directly talk back by approaching the host personally on his or her social media page or the website of the program, therefore breaking the previously deliberated “one-sided” relationship barrier.
To be further discussed, due to the conversion of television and social media, the para-social interaction between the viewer and the host is getting more and more intimate. Now the relationship seems more like a friendship on Facebook – personal, two-sided, although still at distance and virtual– than just a simulacrum or imagination of that one-sided friendship. Although the relationship between the viewer and the host is getting more and more two-sided, in the end the power still remains with the host or the producers of the show, since they decide whether they react to the approaches of the viewer or not.
2.3 THE ROLE OF THE HOST
An important issue in the renewal of the concept of the para-social relationship is, of course, the role of the host. Much like television itself, the appearance and goal of the host changes together with the developments of society, but stays traditional at the same time. The host is still as much of an essential part of a television show as he or she was in
the early days of television. The host informs the viewer, leads the discussion with his or her guests, and makes the content of the show manageable for the viewer. The host explains to the viewer what is going on and leads the show in the right direction so it stays comprehensible. The host still talks to the viewer on a personal level, looks directly into the camera, and keeps the viewer interested and actively involved in the program by acting like a “friend.”
However, as social media is starting to play a bigger role in television, the host is becoming more and more of a promoter than a pure information source. They need to encourage the viewers to chat along on social media, to visit the website, to place a vote, and so on. They now must approach the viewer in a different way in order to generate the desired feedback. On one hand, the host is still appealing to the viewers as if they belonged to a circle of friends, thus expanding the idea of a para-social relationship. On the other hand, the modern television host is just as much using the techniques of a strategic salesperson to generate feedback or interaction by, for example, redirecting the viewer to their other corresponding multi-media platforms of the television show such as a website or social media account. By doing this, the host connects the various platforms of a television show and thus serves as a link between the studio production and the viewer feedback in a cross-media interaction. Therefore, they still embody one of their most classic and iconic core functions, namely connecting the viewer with the television show, although now they are using other techniques by taking on a different role to address the viewer. When working with multi-platform television productions, the role of the modern host now operates as a combination of a para-social friend, salesperson, and instructor.
The theory of Horton and Wohl is still very relevant today when looking at the relationship between the viewer and a television show. The host still exemplifies a very important role in the relationship between the show and the viewer, and as much as the role of the host changes, the role of the viewer changes as well. With the introduction of digital return channels and their capacity to process instant feedback, the home
audience has moved closer to the content and becomes integrated in the actual production. In a way, the para-social relationship between the viewer and the host is refined and articulated through the continuous dialogue between the two parties: the viewers are represented in production, not only as studio audiences clapping or
laughing, but also as contributors to content production, while the host keeps on encouraging the viewer to live up to that role.
3. PARA-SOCIAL INTERACTION IN CONTEMPORARY DUTCH TELEVISION
When applying this still very relevant theory of Horton and Wohl to two very different contemporary Dutch television shows with the same purpose, it not only becomes clear why the concept of para-social interactivity is still important and applicable today, but also in what very diverse ways television shows are transforming to keep up with the changes of several technical developments and viewer demands. In the upcoming chapters I apply and incorporate all of the previously discussed concepts to put them into practice.
Dutch television productions in particular are fine examples and stand out compared to other countries for being forerunners in the development of new formats by incorporating multi-platform television programming. They experiment and succeed with very innovative and successful programs like Big Brother (1999) and The Voice of Holland (2010), made by the famous Dutch Endemol productions, the world’s largest independent production company. Although these are just two examples, there are numerous other very interesting and successful shows that are part of the Dutch public broadcasting service, such as the program Hello Goodbye (2005, NCRV), a format sold all over the world to more than 17 countries. These kind of public broadcast service show is may be even more interesting for this thesis, since the public broadcasting service does not make television programs to make profit, but to serve the public on a intellectually, informative and entertaining level. They mostly need enough viewer ratings and
(donating) members to keep on existing, instead of generating money with commercials and branding like the commercial programming. Therefore they need to create loyal viewers and bind their viewer to their show in some way or another, by for example offer the viewer a place for discussion or to bind the viewer emotionally to the show by using several techniques of the concept para-social relationships.
To be discussed are two very different Dutch television programs, but with the same goal that has been previously explained: to generate enough viewers to boost their ratings by being informative as well as entertaining for their target group. Both
programs try to reach that goal in very different ways, whether it is by adapting
traditional techniques of the para-social relationship, or experimenting with integrating social media into their content to strengthen the program-viewer camaraderie.
3.1 DE WERELD DRAAIT DOOR: A TRADITIONAL TELEVISION SHOW
De Wereld Draait Door is a Dutch television program, produced by a public broadcasting service called VARA. They broadcast De Wereld Draait Door live every working day from a studio with a live audience in Amsterdam. The first broadcast date was the 10th of
October 2005, and through to present day the show has had more than a million viewers daily, and as well has the most episodes in Dutch television history, which makes it one of the most popular shows in the nation. The very charismatic Matthijs van Niewkerk hosts the show, which consists of a mix of news, information, and entertainment. The show has several components where they discuss the latest news in the field of music, literature, science, television, politics, sports and so on. The discussion will take place with three or four table guests and an alternately sidekick, varying from politicians and musicians to comedians and scientists. De Wereld Draait Door is overall a very classic example of a talk show with a very traditional host that leads the show. When adapting the theory of Horton and Wohl of para-social interactivity and relationships to De Wereld Draait Door, there are some very striking similarities between the talk shows they discussed 50 years ago and the modern talk show today. It seems like the
techniques used back then to attract and retain audience worked so well, they are still applied to talk shows like De Wereld Draait Door today.
Image 1; Screenshot from 'De Wereld Draait Door' Matthijs sits very close to
When examining the host of De Wereld Draait Door and the way that he presents the show, there are a lot of resemblances between Matthijs van Nieuwkerk and the hosts of the 50s as discussed by Horton and Wohl. One of the clearest similarities is that van Nieuwkerk makes use of the technique of directly addressing the viewer. When he talks to the viewers at home, he looks straight into the camera, as if he is directly talking to the individual viewer (Image 1). He addresses the viewer as a friend on a personal level, and tries to interest and actively involve the viewer with the show while the camera slowly takes a close up. In this way the camera is strengthening the closeness of the viewer to the host even more, by virtually entering the personal space of the host.
Another technique that van Nieuwkerk applies during presenting the show is that of connecting with the live studio audience as well. He integrates them into the show as if they are not simply a far-distant decor, but rather a part of the conversation between him and his guests. He sits so close to the audience that he is almost part of the audience itself (image 2). It is also common for the featured guests or musicians to sit in the audience themselves before they are called up to join the conversation at the table. There are even times when they stay seated in the audience while the microphone comes to them while taking part in the discussion. This closeness of “important” people to the “regular” audience makes the host and the guest very approachable for the studio audience, as well as for the viewers at home. Because the target group is given a face through the live audience - a diverse group with people of all ages mixed together - it is easier for the viewer at home to identify themselves with that audience. They can imagine that they are part of them, joining the discussion on the show at a very short distance.
Of course, the host is just as appealing for this various target group of viewers as the live studio audience themselves. van Niewkerk started off his career as a versatile journalist, which makes him intelligent and knowledgeable about what he is talking about when he leads the discussion about various subjects. This characteristic makes him trustworthy and convincing for the viewers. Although he is obviously intelligent, he is still a very approachable man, even for the viewers that are less educated. van
Niewkerk sometimes makes mistakes when formulating what he is saying, and therefore he comes off as a relatable, normal human being who indeed has flaws just like the members of his audience. He also asks his table guests sometimes to explain themselves further in a more simple vocabulary in order to make the information more
comprehensible for the viewer. van Niewkerk is also not a very static host, and he makes room in his program for a little joke. As he states on the website of De Wereld Draait Door, he likes to “lollygag with his guests at the table,” so there are not only formal conversations made in the show, but there is also room for a joke or just a conversation “between friends.” He sometimes shares little personal stories about topics such as where his son studies, where he lives, that he was at a concert the past weekend, and so on. Even so, he doesn’t overshare information, because the show is not meant to be solely about him as a person. In this sense, he seems more neutral, and therefore the viewer can easily identify with him. Because he is on television every working night at prime time hour, he is also recognizable. As Horton and Wohl explain, “the persona offers […] a continuing relationship. His appearance is a regular and dependable event, […] integrated into the routines of daily life” (216). All of these characteristics of van Nieuwkerk enable a para-social relationship between himself and the viewer.
In order to keep up with modern times, the producers of De Wereld Draait Door have also adapted some modern techniques to keep their audience interested and tied to the program, but for the most part stick to the classical form of a talk show as described by Horton and Wohl in the 1950s. The only time the program refers to a platform outside of the show is during the topic De Televisie Draait Door1, whereby the show is sharing
funny fragments from other television shows. They collect these fragments by asking the viewers at home to send in tips for the producers through the website of De Wereld Draait Door to show to the other viewers during the broadcast. An external voice-over asks the viewer to send in tips for remarkable television fragments by going to the website, and in return they can win a bag or a t-shirt (image 2). This is a typical example of making use of the labour of the viewers, by addressing them as prosumers to
encourage them to actively participate with the television show, make them part of the production team, and make them feel important.
An interesting factor is that the host himself is not redirecting the viewers to the website, but rather an external voiceover. In this way, van Niewkerk is able to maintain the classical role of a television host as an informer, and not the role of a promoter or salesperson. In contrast to other hosts or celebrities from modern television shows, van Niewkerk doesn’t use any social media at all. This enables him to exemplify the classic 1 De Televisie Draait Door is roughly translated as ‘The television keeps on turning’.
Image 2; Screenshot from 'De Wereld Draait Door'. An example of a prize offered to viewers for participating in contributing to the show through social media (22 May 2014).
example of a para-social interaction, because the relationship with the viewer is mainly one-sided and non-dialectical and only possible through watching television (Horton & Wohl 215). In the end, when viewers of De Wereld Draait Door have the urge to establish a closer contact with the host, this is only possible by making contact with the producers first, instead of directly contacting the host on a social media account. The only time when van Niewkerk appears on social media is when the producers of the show are using his familiar appearance, such as pictures of his face, as a header on the Facebook page or on the website of De Wereld Draait Door. In this way, he is recognizable for the viewer when they visit a platform outside of the television, and therefore again a regular and dependable event, integrated into the routines of daily life (Horton & Wohl 216).
Other ways De Wereld Draait Door makes use of social media is by using Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and Google Plus. They do not make use of cross-media interaction in a very explicit way by mentioning it during the broadcast of the show or trying to integrate it into the program. They did have an element in the show in 2011 which was called Trending Topic, whereby they discussed the most talked-about subjects on Twitter by using clips from YouTube. However, this was the only reference to any other multi-media platform outside the show since its first appearance on television. What is remarkable is that the Facebook page of De Wereld Draait Door today has over 200.000 followers, and on Twitter even more, at almost 500.000. Without any references to their social media pages during the show, they still manage to collect a lot of followers and create loyal fans who are searching for opportunities to interact with the show or the host themselves, without being continuously encouraged by the host as a sales promoter to interact with the show.
Even without integrating social media into their television show, De Wereld Draait Door has managed to become the most popular show on Dutch television. By using a lot of techniques discussed by Horton and Wohls’ theory of para-social interactivity and para-social relationships, they create loyal and steady viewers who make this show as popular as it is today. Therefore, it is demonstrated that a media theory concept invented more than 50 years ago is still very relevant today. Conversely, one can wonder what happens if we adapt this concept to a more experimental
television show that is built around social media. Questions arising concerning this new form of television are whether the role of the host is still important, how this role changes, and if the concept of para-social interactivity is still relevant and applicable.
3.2 JOIN THE SOCIAL CLUB
“The hottest news, the best Instagrams, the coolest tweets and Facebook posts; the club on your screen!” (http://desocialclub.bnn.nl, May 2014)
De Social Club is a creation by BNN, a well-known Dutch broadcaster aimed at a younger Dutch audience. De Social Club is broadcasted prime time every working day on the public broadcasting service. It is a television show that contains a lot of different elements where cross-media interaction is a central tactic. As the show describes on their own website:
The Social Club is the platform were you get the latest news, the hottest eye-candy and the most discussed subjects in rapid speed on your television screen. Seven hosts use their complete online network to find the most striking, inspiring and absurd stories. Their mission? Getting answers to the most fascinating questions of the day! Do you also follow the presenters on social media? Then you’re automatically part of De Social Club, with the possibility that after your post or tweet suddenly a presenter with camera knocks at your door. (http://desocialclub.bnn.nl, May 2014)
What is interesting about De Social Club is that the show was actually born out of an experiment of the TV Lab. The TV Lab is an experimental week in the summer on the public broadcasting service where program makers get the opportunity to test their new formats on national television. The public decides which program is best by voting on Twitter by using the #tvlab hash tag. This shows that television was not just an
experiment in its early days, but even is still today. It is never automatically known what the viewers like; this information can only come by testing, and in this case, voting. This is also a great example of how the viewer becomes a prosumer more than just a passive spectator. They can let their voices be heard about what they think is a good program, and therefore they will feel like they are a part of the production team. Out of this
experiment, De Social Club came out the best and was aired for the first time on the 6th of
January 2014. Although it was aired based on viewer votes, what is notable is that upon its production, due to bad viewer ratings and other causes, the show lasted just one season. Why the show failed even though the viewers chose it out of the experiment is an interesting question in itself, but the focus for discussion here is that of the content of De Social Club, examining what kind of techniques the producers used to initially attract and retain viewers, how they involved them actively with the show, how they integrated social media into their program, and what the role of the hosts and the viewers were.
De Social Club used multiple hosts per episode, all of which were already well-known by their target audience, being either famous presenters, rappers, or reality TV show contestants. The hosts were all in line with the identity of the target audience, because they were young, hip, quirky, and knew the latest hip gossips. Therefore, these hosts made the para-social relationships with the viewers stronger because they were accessible, credible, and knowledgeable of the topics presented on the show. The hosts made themselves even more relatable as normal human beings by admitting their weaknesses, showing the viewer that they are one of them. One such example is when
the host Filemon Wesselink admitted that he got a very low rating on his looks at the ranking website mooiemensen.com (prettypeople.com). There is even a screenshot of his Twitter message that was shown on the television screen where he had commented with amazement on the outcomes of said ranking list (image 3). Another example is when
Image 3; Screenshot from 'De Social Club' where Filemon explains he got
Filemon took on the role of a referee during a soccer match. It soon became clear that he was in fact not a very good referee and he made a lot of faults, all the while laughing at his own mistakes. These are very smart techniques to make a host appear more “human” by pointing out their own weaknesses. By doing this, the host makes themselves no longer appear as an unreachable “superman” who can do anything and has perfect looks; they are just like one of their viewers.
Viewer identification possibilities are not the only techniques the hosts of De Social Club used in order to attract and retain audiences. They also tried to involve the viewers in conversations in which they interviewed other people by sometimes
interrupting the interviewee, looking straight into the camera, directly addressing the viewer and making a joke, asking the viewer a question, or giving them a tip. For example when the host Stephanie Louwrier interviews Hans van der Togt (a famous Dutch television host) about his alcohol abuse and his rehabilitation process, both Stephanie and Hans look into the camera and tip the viewer at home about the best way to drink alcohol: “Guys, from now on, start your day with a glass of vodka and orange juice”. In this way, the viewer was invited to join the conversation, feeling like they were included in the talk “between friends,” and not just a passive spectator watching the interview from the sidelines.
In order to get the viewer even more actively involved in the content of the show, rather than just giving the viewer an impression of involvement, the program constantly showed a hash tag in the left corner of the screen to remind the viewer they can discuss the content of the show on the Internet and let their voice be heard. Not only the on-screen text (“tweet Stephanie your story @Slouwrier”) stimulated the viewer to interact, but the hosts also directly asked the viewer on a continuous basis to share their story with them (image 4). By doing this, while looking straight into the camera, the host talked to the viewer as a friend on a personal level and appeared interested in their personal story. This made the viewer feel important and encouraged them to share this story with the hosts. This is an example of how the role of the viewer is changed by becoming a prosumer of content, and likewise how the role of the host changes by promoting the use of social media for their show. The hosts of the show were constantly encouraging and reminding the viewer to Tweet them or follow them on Facebook, which makes the host more of a promoter than just an informer.
All of these aspects of para-social or cross-media interaction between the host and the viewer are actually the fundament of De Social Club. The show promotes itself by stating that you as a viewer can become part of the club, “the social club,” and therefore you can as well become a friend of the host and part of the production team. As one of the hosts, Tim Hofman, once said during an interview, “The Social Club is totally part of the viewers, they decide the subjects and people that will be discussed. It’s the best of both worlds; Internet and television, finally” (mediacourant.nl). The only thing a viewer has to do is to become “friends” with the program or one of the hosts, by following them on Facebook or one of their personal Twitter pages. The personal aspect is important here, because there is no interference of a producer who is selecting the messages that will reach the hosts or not. Now the viewer is sure that he or she can talk “directly” to their host of choice by leaving a message on their Twitter feed or other social media accounts. This personal account is not only being used for De Social Club, but also for the personal messages of the host, even including insignificant personal details such as what they had for breakfast, or that their train was delayed again. Thereby the relationship between the viewer and the host is getting even more two-sided, because they are not
only hearing the hosts’ stories, but can also let their own voices be heard too, and to a certain extent get to know their hosts’ personal lives.
Image 4; Screenshot from 'De Social Club'. Stephanie is interrupting
the interview in order to speak to the viewers at home (8 May 2014).
Image 5; Screenshot from 'De Social Club'. Tweets of the viewers are a
Additionally, the hosts not only reminded the viewers to constantly go to their several social media sites, but the program also made use of many different layers on the television screen to reach the same goal, for example with the use of hash tags like #durftevragen (#daretoask), or texts such as “share your story at desocialclub.bnn.nl”. One could almost say the television screen itself becomes a computer screen, using layer upon layer, using the sounds of mouse clicks and the ring tones of mobile phones. In addition, the content is mostly based on what has been said or seen on social media. So instead of basing your content on world news or things that happened on television as in De Wereld Draait Door, De Social Club mostly used content of the Internet and then transformed those stories into news (image 5). This directly stimulated the motivation for the viewer to fit into the role as a prosumer, and thereby taking on a more active role towards the show.
Another interesting aspect of De Social Club is that viewers could not only share their stories with the hosts, but it was even possible that they would like the story so much that they would come visit the fan personally at home with a camera and make their story newsworthy for television. This element of De Social Club made the para-social relationship even more possible and stronger, because a viewer had the opportunity to actually talk to the hosts live, face-to-face, and have a real two-sided conversation. Of course, not every viewer was granted this opportunity, since their story had to have been interesting enough for the producers of the program to select and show on national television. In this way, the power still lay in the hands of the producers, as they served as virtual “gatekeepers” for the possibility of the viewer to establish a real friendship with the host.
