The remediation of flow on Netflix and YouTube
Changing consumption practices of television
Roisin Moloney
MA Thesis Media Studies: New Media and Digital Culture
Words: 20, 865
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Chapter 1 – Theoretical Framework 5
1.1.1 TV then vs now 5 1.1.2 Remediation 6 1.1.3 Business models 7 1.1.4 Social vs Technological determinism 9 1.1.5 Mobile Privatization 10 1.6 Domesticity 11 1.7 Flow 13 1.7.1 Flow 2.0: Updates 16 1.8 Broader Tendencies 18 1.8.1 Personalization 18 1.8.2 Algorithmic Recommendation 19 1.9 Affordances 21 1.10 Interface design 21 Chapter 2 – Methodology 23 2.1 Case Studies 24
2.2 Visual Cross-Platform Analysis (VCPA) 24
2.2.1 VCPA Benefits 25
2.2.2 VCPA Limitations 25
2.3 Trade Press 26
Chapter 3 – Analysis 27
3.1 Political economy of Netflix and YouTube 27
3.2 Netflix and YouTube cost 29
3.4 Platform Analysis 30
Chapter 4 – Discussion 45
4.1 Flow vs Binge-watching 46
Chapter 5 – Conclusion 48
Abstract:
This thesis aims to investigate how streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube remediate flow. It will also address how domesticity is dealt with as the consumption of television has changed significantly over the years. It will add to the plentiful discipline of television studies but outline how flow has been remediated in the new media landscape of streaming platforms. The methodology used was a combination of a trade press analysis and a visual-cross-platform analysis (VCPA). The trade press analysis was conducted in order to situate the platforms and their business models in a wider societal context. And the VCPA was useful in comparing the chosen two platforms. The analysis conducted showed that both platforms have altered how we think of these concepts. YouTube illustrated a closer approximation to Williams’ conception of flow. Netflix provides the experience of flow in a new way. Domesticity has also changed due to the increasing prevalence of portable devices with which to consume content which has led to the disaggregation of the family within the home. In conclusion, streaming platforms have certainly changed these two concepts.
1
Introduction
“Obviously the way people watch TV has changed so much, too, that it's not necessarily about the ratings anymore. There's a different kind of time lapse; you put it out there and people absorb it at their speed, not just on Monday night at eight.” - Alia Shawkat
Streaming platforms have irrevocably changed the way we consume content. Content can now be consumed whenever, and wherever we wish. We no longer sit in front of the television set at 8pm every night, with meticulously curated programming ahead of us, all decided by the broadcasters. As actress Alia Shawkat mentions, the viewing practices for television have changed immeasurably, let alone the devices people now consume television on, due to the advent of new media technologies. In a world surrounded by technology, whether that be televisions, smart phones, or laptops that ingratiate the viewing public with constant audio-visual content, how we watch television has never been more up to us. You can either choose to sit down and get sucked into Netflix or turn on YouTube on your television-sized screen. But you look at your phone, and both the applications are there too. So, it is up to you. You can either sit down in front of your television set, by yourself, decidedly different from the family-oriented television of previous times or move about watching content on your phone. You get the same audio-visual experience, only miniature, and much more individualized in comparison to the television. But the premise remains the same, no matter what device you watch content on, it will always try to lure you in.
The platforms that will be discussed within this thesis are the streaming platform heavyweight; Netflix, which has become a disruptor and dominant force within the streaming platform industry, and YouTube. Netflix is the twentieth Top Site worldwide (Alexa) and retains leadership within the streaming platform industry despite fierce competition from others (Lee, The New York Times, n.p.; Hazelton, 2019). The platform has several advantages against competitors in subscriber numbers, time spent on the platform and the extent of the content they provide (Lee). So, it was chosen as an appropriate case study for this thesis. The other platform of interest here, is the popular streaming platform, YouTube. With nearly one billion hours of content seen on YouTube every single day (Iqbal, businessofapps) and being the second Top Site worldwide (Alexa), it presents a significant challenge to the media landscape.
What we know currently is, the way we consume television has changed considerably over the years. It has been guided by the remediation of classic notions such as flow and has also altered how television is consumed within the home. The considerable proliferation of streaming platforms, even in the last five years, have seen the individual become increasingly more cocooned in creating their own televisual schedule. The way we watch television has become significantly different. The viewer can consume content from any number of devices, at any time they wish to. Most nowadays, are using technology such as TiVo, DVD’s and streaming platforms such as YouTube and Netflix, to create their own
2 televisual schedule. This calls the medium of television into question. If viewers are in control of their consumption of the medium, is it still considered television (Urrichio in The YouTube Reader, 2009)? Television was inherently controlled by the broadcasters and television networks and transmitted to the audience. But this has changed due to increasing viewer autonomy and new media technologies, giving increased agency to the viewer. For instance, Netflix’s complicated status as internet television and whether it deserves to be treated the same as conventional television has repeatedly been called into question since it began streaming (McFarland, Wired).
There has been a substantial amount of academic debate concerning the concepts of domesticity and flow. What remains under-researched, however, and what this thesis examines, is how flow remains relevant even in the new media landscape in which we now live. And how these streaming platforms deal with the concept of domesticity. This thesis will aim to demonstrate whether and how it can b e applied to popular streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube. Is the notion too outdated since its inception in the 1970s or can we still find a place for it today? Numerous scholars over the years have attempted to update and rework flow, and I will investigate these during the theoretical framework, as well as the concept of flow in more depth.
This creation of the viewer’s own consumption schedule brings about Williams’ concept of flow. Flow, a term conceived by Raymond Williams in the 1970s, concerns itself with how television began to become more organized in terms of broadcasters assembling discrete units of media into programmes. This created a sequence which later commercial breaks were added into, along with trailers for films. This sequence Williams noticed, differed widely in American and Britain. This created an atmosphere in which the broadcasters wanted the television viewers to keep watching - one programme after another. But that is not all flow is concerned with. Flow is impacted by much broader tendencies such as personalization and algorithmic recommendation, which I will investigate further in the theoretical framework. These tendencies directly impact flow and are used as strategic business decisions by each platform to keep the user watching. Flow, however, is much more than keeping viewer’s in front of the television screen. It is an experience, a mode of consumption that replaces discrete media units and is instead a more generalized practice. Williams adds more depth to this concept than I will do here. Domesticity has also been in fierce debate since the television's widespread use in the 1950s. It was increasingly thought of as a family-oriented (and housewife-oriented) medium. During this time, it was a medium with which to bring the family together during the aftermath of the second World War. But over the years, we have seen families become more segmented and individualized within the home due to new media technologies. Nowadays, people might choose to consume content on their mobile phones, laptops or tablets instead of the television set. This may be due to the accessibility and convenience of streaming platforms being able to provide content to customers. And due to these accessible technologies, everyone can choose what they want to watch. The television is no longer
3 addressing the family as a whole, but each individual person within that family. But domesticity will be elaborated upon in greater detail during the theoretical framework chapter.
This thesis is attempting to answer the following main research question in order to add to the plentiful research on television studies and new media platforms. But, as flow was a concept developed in the 1970s, I will attempt to add to the many updating/reworkings of the concept, but in the context of streaming platforms. It will also address (as a smaller research question) how streaming platforms are dealing with the concept of domesticity.
How are streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube remediating flow?
How are streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube addressing domesticity?
Thesis structure
Chapter 1:
Chapter One of this thesis encompasses the literature review and theoretical framework that informs the cultural context and necessary background information. It encompasses domesticity (Spigel, 2013; Kompare, 2006), and how it is dealt with today. Tryon (2015), writing in a different technological context than Spigel was, outlines how the home has changed with regards to more portable technology. He outlines the mobility of media in a temporal and spatial sense, which alters how each platform is dealt with in relation to the home. As mentioned before, flow is intrinsically important to understanding how it changes from the inception of the term back in the 1970s, to today, with new media platforms such as YouTube and Netflix. These classic concepts will be elaborated on further in this chapter. It is interesting to outline how these two successful new media platforms deal with these two seminal notions differently.
Chapter 2:
Chapter Two illustrates the methodological approach chosen to best address the central research question – how flow is remediated on streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube. The smaller research question is also relevant to remember here, how domesticity is dealt with in relation to streaming platforms. It will take a mixed-methods approach of a visual cross-platform analysis (VCPA) and an analysis of relevant trade press concerning the platforms. This will give relevant theoretical depth to the thesis. These two methods will be elaborated upon in more depth during this chapter. Chapter 3:
Chapter Three analyses how flow is remediated on Netflix and YouTube, by studying the Home screen of both interfaces. It will examine what happens when viewers click on a video, and their accompanying affordances. Do these affordances encourage or discourage flow to occur? How does the home interface
4 present content to entice the user to participate in flow? Domesticity will also be addressed due to increased consumption of content on more portable devices, but still a small emphasis on the television set as important.
Chapter 4:
Chapter Four discusses how flow is remediated on these streaming platforms, and how they deal with domesticity. The debate of whether flow is outdated in the current media landscape, and whether people yearn for the days with fewer channels and fewer choices, is still ongoing. Interestingly, there exists a paradox when it comes to new media technologies. They provide necessary (and convenient) technological change, but at a time when the viewing public are inundated with content. Viewers of these platforms, consequently, are unable to make choices about what they wish to watch, and flow could therefore be inhibited.
Chapter 5:
The concluding chapter of this thesis will reiterate the main research question and the principle modes of research used. A combination of a trade-press analysis and a visual cross-platform analysis (VCPA) was used. It will provide answers to the question of how platforms remediate flow and address the topic of domesticity. It will also acknowledge limitations of the research undertaken, while outlining possible avenues for future research.
5
Chapter 1: Theoretical framework
Introduction
This chapter will strive to illustrate how Netflix and YouTube remediate flow, which will be my focus during this chapter. It is also important to outline how these streaming platforms deal with the issue of domesticity. The way in which we consume television inside the home has changed immensely over the years, and so this concept also needs sufficient explanation.
To begin with, I will briefly mention the broad shift in television from its widespread use in the 1950s, to now, as there have been numerous changes in terms of television over the years. Remediation will be elaborated upon in greater detail. As it is a concept that is increasingly looked at from an economic background, the chapter will then move to speak about the business models of each platform. The platforms both have different business models, and this inherently affects how flow is approached on them.
Media is often caught up in a tension between social and technological determinism. This chapter will elucidate these concepts, with a focus on Raymond Williams being an advocate of social determinism. This social determinism inherently affected how he thought of the concept of mobile privatization, which will receive sufficient interrogation here. Mobile privatization inherently affected domesticity, and this concept will be delved into in more detail during this chapter.
Flow, as a central concept in this thesis, will then be spoken about. Many scholars have attempted to rework this concept since the 1970s, and it is interesting to outline how the concept has changed over the years. Flow is also impacted by broader tendencies relevant to this new media landscape, such as personalization and algorithmic recommendation. It is also necessary to elucidate affordances as they are important to my analysis. These will then be elaborated upon, in the final section of this chapter.
1.1.1 Television then vs now
Television has changed a lot over the years. From its widespread use during the 1950s, the television was a medium that brought people together in the aftermath of the second World War. It became a medium where the family could come together under one roof, in front of the television set, to escape the tumultuous time they were experiencing (Spigel, 2013; Kompare Rerun Nation, 2004). Television during this time was an organizational structure to the family’s daily life “[…] soaps were deliberately structured […] to mirror the rhythm, pacing, and lived experience of its mostly, female, mostly housebound viewership” (Harrington and Bielby, 2005:836). But television has changed immensely since then. The number of channels we now have is almost too much. Technology has improved so that we now have mini televisions in our pockets on devices such as smartphones, laptops and tablets. We
6 can now consume content through streaming platforms such as YouTube and Netflix, both of which are available on all these devices. Therefore, Raymond Williams’ concept of flow is important to understand as flow mirrors this organizational structure previously mentioned. Flow will therefore be explored in greater detail later in this chapter, as well as the concept of domesticity and the home. But first, the concept of remediation needs further explanation as it is a key term in my research that ma y be unfamiliar to some.
1.1.2 Remediation
In order to understand how streaming platforms such as YouTube and Netflix use flow differently when presenting content to users, the concept of remediation firstly needs further investigation. Remediation, a term coined by Marshall McLuhan in his book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1994) but updated by Bolter and Grusin (2000), elucidates how one (older) medium attempts to represent themselves in newer media. An example of this is people seeing old characteristics of television in new media such as streaming platforms. This is crucial when trying to understand how new media appropriate media that came before. Remediation was used as a way of understanding two complementary logics – immediacy and hypermediacy (Bolter and Grusin). Hypermediacy is a way of looking in terms of visual representation, that calls attention to the medium (Bolter and Grusin). However, hypermediacy is less relevant when discussing television, so instead, immediacy will be focused on as it is more closely linked to streaming platforms. Immediacy is addressed by Bolter and Grusin in the context of the film industry and computer-generated-imagery (CGI). However, for the purpose of this thesis, immediacy will be spoken about in relation to television. “On the World Wide Web, [...] it is television [...] that is remediated. Numerous websites borrow the monitoring function of broadcast television” (47). Immediacy “dictates that the medium itself should disappear and leave us in the presence of the thing represented” (6). Online platforms such as Netflix and YouTube represent a convergence between broadcast television and the internet which has the two industries battling in a fierce competition where one tries to remediate the other (Bolter and Grusin). “The competition is economic as well as aesthetic, it is a struggle to determine whether broadcast television or the Internet will dominate the American and world markets” (47/48). This competition between analogue and new media, is foregrounded by the political economy of each platform (Hesmondhalgh and Lotz, 2020). It is to a discussion of each platform and how they each remediate flow due to their different business models, that I will now turn.
7 1.1.3 Business Models
YouTube
As the previous section outlines, remediation is central to how streaming platforms borrow from older media like television. Each platform's business model has a significant impact on how it remediates flow. This section will broadly outline how these two platforms with different business models each deal with flow differently.
YouTube provides the content on its platform for free to consumers. When YouTube was founded in 2005 by Steve Chen, Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim, the platform was one where people could upload or watch videos, and people did not need much expertise to contribute to the platform. However, this all changed when the platform was bought by Google in 2006 for $1.65 billion, (Burgess and Green, 2011; Kim, 2012; eds. Snickars and Vonderau, 2009; van Dijck, 2007). This lent YouTube credibility and legitimacy. The business model of YouTube has since become an advertisement-based business model (Dutta, “Feedough”). This means the platform provides content for free to its users, but places advertisements on that content, in order to generate revenue. YouTube does this in several ways. One of which is an “embedded advertisement” (Dutta). This is when YouTube places an ad for something before, during, or after the video plays. The platform gains revenue from selling this advertisement space, to its customers, the advertisers. YouTube also gets revenue from a subscription-based service known as YouTube Premium, much like Netflix’s business model, but that aspect of their business model will not be discussed during this thesis.
YouTube uses this business model very effectively, but the user has become wise to this. The user expects these advertisements to appear, and so is often prepared to click the Skip Ad button in order to get to the desired content. When clicking this button, the user is brought straight into watching the video. And if the algorithms are good enough at recommending them content, they will be kept there. This point is exactly where the concept of flow comes into play. Flow is encouraged on YouTube in the more traditional sense when Williams conceived of it. The advertisements act as ad breaks like broadcast television, encouraging a person to keep watching “The flow of our attention is still directed towards more content on the same ‘channel’ based on the matching up of metadata” (Evans, UoN Blogs). The content presented to us here is marginally different, but still similar enough to arouse interest (like broadcast television). The difference with a platform such as Netflix, however, is the content is numerous episodes of the same tv show consumed simultaneously. “This flow is then scheduled to entice viewers to stay with the same channel” (Evans, UoN Blogs).
And of course, what makes a user continue onto the video and watch it is influenced by several broader tendencies. Some of these broader tendencies include personalization and algorithmic recommendation.
8 And although they are relevant here as they influence what makes a person click on a video, they will be discussed at a later point. Of course, not all platforms have advertisements encouraging flow like broadcast television, some have no ads, and so flow is revitalized in a new way . Some have different business models which this next section will elaborate on.
Netflix
Netflix has undergone several transitions with its business model. Since its inception in 1997 by Marc Randolph and Reed Hastings, it has been a significant influence in changing the televisual landscape. Hastings admired Amazon for its ability to predict products and wanted to do something similar. The idea to create a mail order service for DVD’s quickly materialized. Chuck Tryon (2015) conceptualizes Netflix as having undergone three significant transition periods. Firstly, there was the subscription model in 2001, during which time subscribers could rent unlimited DVD’s for a flat monthly rate. This was eventually changed to include a tiered pricing system. The second phase began in 2007, when Netflix was introduced as a streaming service of content, focusing on the refinement of their algorithm, in order to better tailor what content people enjoyed. The third and final stage came in 2011, when Netflix began producing its own original content, most notably, House of Cards and Lillyhammer. This production of original content helped Netflix assert its dominance within the marketplace (Fontana in Landau, 2015), but some are still critical of it being considered television. The 2013 Emmy’s nominated Netflix Original content for consideration in contention with broadcast television, which raised a discussion about what should or should not be considered television (Lima, Almedia Celia, et al.). This is still fiercely debated (McFarland, Wired), but it certainly has become a big player within the industry. In 2019, Netflix released 2,769 hours of original content, in comparison to 2012, when it released just 8 (Watson, Statistica). But it has also achieved this dominance through several innovative strategies in its business model which I will now outline.
As previously discussed, YouTube uses an advertisement business model. Netflix, however, has a subscription business model. This means the service relies on people who subscribe to the content, for a flat monthly fee. According to Statistica, the average monthly price of a cable bill in the United States in 2019, is between $51-$100, with the second highest percentage paying $101-$150 (Watson,
Statistica). Netflix, however, offers varying price brackets for the user (Netflix Help Center; Johnson, Business Insider: $8.99 for Basic, $12.99 for Standard, and $15.99 for Premium). This makes streaming
platforms, cheap and accessible for many people, particularly young people who may not be able to afford cable.
The platform also retains subscribers through its absence of advertisements. Because of this, flow is more encouraged in a new way different to that of YouTube. Viewers begin watching one episode, they finish it, and suddenly, the next one begins playing due to its Autoplay feature. This lack of ads keeps
9 the user on the platform (viewer retention), watching content, facilitating binge-watching which is an attractive draw for the platform (Jenner 2017; 2019). As Anthony Alexander mentions, Autoplay and recommendation algorithms (which create your own personalized library) are facilitating “a more individually curated experience of […] television flow – a series of units assembled into a period of viewing.” (n.p). Their algorithms help them win “moments of truth” (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt, 6; Alexander, The Verge). By recommending people content they like and can catch their attention within a few seconds, it helps them to retain subscribers. This leads the platform to have higher engagement in terms of subscriber numbers and helps prevent subscribers cancelling their subscriptions.
Through these differing business models, we must remember the time in which the platforms were conceived (2005 and 1990s respectively), and when the concept of flow was thought of (1970s). Raymond Williams was a huge proponent of social determinism which influenced how he thought about television. In this way, social determinism is worth examining in more depth as it heavily influenced Williams when conceiving the concept of flow. It is to this concept of social determinism; I will now turn to.
1.1.4 Social vs Technological Determinism
Williams in Television: Technology and Cultural Form (1974) denotes television as having to be contextualized in a “whole social and cultural process” (122). This process of contextualization is aided by understanding social and technological determinism. Williams was a devout believer in social determinism; that social interactions decide the behaviour of individuals. He was a vehement critic of technological determinism; that the technology present in society determines how society is structured, and what cultural values that society has. “Williams constantly stressed the indeterminacy and contingent nature of technological development” (Freedman 2002: 426). He was instead more focused on determinism from a social point of view, “the development, take-up and use of technologies are all shaped by the social relations of the world into which they enter'' (Freedman, 427).
But social determinism, due to its emphasis on the social relations between people, also brought about inequalities between those who have access to it, and those who do not. Technology, therefore, presents a tension in society between what it improves and makes more convenient, and the way it structures society with the unequal balance of power between corporations and consumers (Freedman). Williams looks at social determinism as “restor(ing) social context” (Freedman, 427) to how communication technologies are shaped. It attempted to look at “the gap between the potential and actual social benefits of communications technologies” (Freedman, 431). There is no denying that technology is favored by people who can afford it. Williams was therefore advocating for a wider societal look at how power relations are structured with regards to technology. He advocated for people being who they were and focused on how society impacted them, not how technology impacted them. As technological
10 determinism instilled hierarchies as regards who could and could not afford it, he was a vehement opponent of technological determinism and stands opposed to influential media theorist Marshall McLuhan who was a big advocate of technological determinism.
Williams’ belief in the concept of social determinism undoubtedly affected his concept of mobile privatization, which this next section will outline.
1.1.5 Mobile Privatization
As the previous section outlines, Williams was an advocate for social determinism. The use of new media such as the television, he thought, was ultimately determined by the relations between people within that society. And society had undergone a process of increasing innovation and industrialization during this time, which Williams attempts to understand through the concept of mobile privatization. As Oswald and Packer mention in Packer and Crofts-Wiley (2013), Williams wished to understand how mobility was changing during this time, and so came up with the concept of mobile privatization. Before this, people lived in greater proximity to each other and did not have a lot of technology. Then, during a time of great innovation, mobility changed as people could communicate over greater distances. Mobile privatization, therefore, outlined how people must perceive technology and the home differently to the way they had before (Oswald and Packer). At the time Williams was writing about this concept, there was a convergence of technological innovation. “Industrialisation and modernisation had created new demand and new challenges: for order, for control and for communication” (Williams, 1975: viii). As people before had been thought of in terms of groups, mobile privatization denotes how society was becoming increasingly fragmented and more individualized (Williams; Groening, 2010). This modernity of culture was “characterised by the two apparently paradoxical yet deeply connected tendencies of modern urban industrial living” (Williams, 19). On the one hand, mobility and greater movement/communication, and on the other, the home “an at-once mobile and home-centred way of living” (19; Moores, 1993).
Broadcast media was thus seen to solve this tension the world was now experiencing. People wanted a medium that would bring together “the contradictory experience of new forms of urban life” (Freedman, 429). People were increasingly mobile due to new technology and individualized within the home. Broadcasting technology such as radio and television were a “social product of this distinctive tendency” (Williams, 26). They did the dual job of providing new perspectives and broadened horizons for people, but it achieved this through “focusing on the family home” (Freedman, 429) as the center of achieving this process. Therefore, the home and the family unit were intrinsically linked, and this was facilitated through flow. “[…] flow is a way of understanding one specific element in the new social and economic arrangements that Williams describes as mobile privatization” (Oswald and
11 Packer, 279). But flow will be elaborated upon at a later point. It is to this issue of the home; I will now turn to as it outlines how the family unit through television was brought together but is now increasingly fragmented and individualized due to new technologies.
1.6 Domesticity
As the previous section concerning mobile privatization outlines, society during this time was driven by a paradox – that of the home versus mobility. And mobile privatization, and broadcasting were solutions to this. Mobile privatization achieved a delicate balance between focusing on the home as a central part of communication, but also letting broadcasting broaden a family’s horizons through television. This section will therefore focus on the home, and how watching television inside the home has changed due to streaming platforms. To begin with, we must define what domesticity means. Domesticity emerged from the end of the 18th century and continued to interrogate women’s place within the home for many years to come. Domesticity centred on women’s place within the private sphere of the home and proffered gender inequalities about their place within society. Domesticity was a legitimizing figure of these inequalities (Gillis and Hollows, 2009). Before industrialization, men and women were both seen to be involved in work. But modernization and industrialization changed the relationships the genders had to the home. Work was no longer seen as occurring within the home, and so the home began to be thought of more in relation to a haven (the man could have) after his hard day’s work. The private and public spheres were thus delineated from each other. The public sphere was associated with men and work, and the private sphere with women and their rightful place within the home. “Women’s lives were thus defined by their responsibilities as wives and mothers” (Gillis and Hollows, 4). This outlook on women was proffered by religious groups, women’s magazines, and other female-directed literature of the time (Gillis and Hollows). It continued into the 1920s, when the housewife became a popular archetype since servant’s were not used that much anymore during this time. This idea persisted well into the 1950s when women who were well educated and involved in the upper classes of society stopped work to instead, pursue a domesticated life in the home (Friedan The
Feminine Mystique cited in Gillis and Hollows).
This idea persisted into televisions widespread use in the 1950s. Television was a medium of unification for families in the aftermath of the second World War (Spigel, 2013). As Derek Kompare mentions in his book, television was a medium of escape similar to theatre and cinema but brought inside the four walls of families’ homes. Television during this time was structured around the housewife inside the home (Harrington and Bielby). Television became an important symbol of nationalism and togetherness within America during this time (Moe, 2005; Kompare “Greysish Rectangles”, 2006). As Spigel
12 outlines, television characteristics were quite different during this time to now. Simultaneity, immediacy, presence, and liveness were prioritized to make the family feel as if they were experiencing the event as it was happening. Television’s power was its ability to fuse the public with the private domain (Spigel). As Kompare outlines, in the United States by the 1970s, television was widely adopted by society (“Greyish Rectangles”, 2006). But increasingly, the consumption of television within the home has changed, such as when technology such as the VCR began to proliferate in the 1980s, and DVDs in the 1990s. David Morley (2003) attempts to rework this notion for the current context. This contemporary reworking of domesticity with respect to new media technologies will be discussed next. Streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube are increasingly engaging in what Larry Grossberg calls, a “politics of dislocation” (Morley, 435) which outlines how people position themselves in certain places. This is most importantly linked with the home. Morley here, uses the example of the increasing prevalence of home-focused programmes on television in Britain. Patrick Keiller (2002) in the same article, points out that there has been a deliberate dearth in programmes concerning domesticity and the home as it was not seen as pertinent in today’s era. But now, home programmes proliferate the television screens in Britain. As Morley notes, there is an obsession with “the materiality of ‘home’ in the form of the privatized lifestyle of the domestic household” (436). The home in contemporary times is not a “local, particular or ‘self-enclosed’ space” (436), it is instead, a fusion of both. This is reflective of Williams’ mobile privatization, as mentioned earlier, as, “it offers the dual satisfaction of allowing people to simultaneously visit far and away places but from the comfort of their own home (Morley). Spigel, cited in this article, outlines more mobile technologies in the 1960s replacing Williams’ mobile privatization in favor of “privatized mobility” (438). Spigel, Morley argues, when she is discussing smart houses, sees a space constructed within them as a “sentient space” which supplants the internal and external boundaries of the workplace and the home so “as to make it unnecessary to actually go anywhere anymore” (Spigel, 2001: 386, 398 cited in Morley: 438). The space you are in in a smart house, feels like it is alive and conscious. One feels a close connection with technology here. This might replace the boundaries one feels between the inside and outside world, so people may feel it pointless to get up and go anywhere, if they have something in front of them that provides them with mobility and broadened horizons, from the comfort of their own home.
This can be linked to flow here as well. The viewers are thus, due to this mobile privatization, turned into couch potatoes (Jenner, 2019) - lazy people who deem it unnecessary to be anywhere else but staring at a screen. But as Morley mentions, this metaphor could be updated for the current landscape in which we live as the screens on which we watch have changed immensely. The couch potato metaphor could instead be replaced by “slouchback media” (Morley, 439), which prioritizes the association with mobility. People do not watch a lot of television in front of a television set with their family anymore. As Tryon (2015) mentions, people do not even think watching television on other
13 devices is considered watching television. People can now watch content on their laptops and mobile phones by themselves. The television is no longer addressing the entire family unit, it is now addressing a more individualized form of audience. And it is not even just the television doing this, we now have multiple screens with which we can be addressed as individualized units. This is pertinent now to bring up the concepts of media fragmentation and audience fragmentation.
As Philip Napoli (2010) outlines in his book, fragmentation can be further broken down into two types: Media fragmentation and Audience fragmentation. Media fragmentation firstly, is the “technological processes that increase the range of content options available to media consumers” (55). This media fragmentation can be further broken down into two categories; Inter-media fragmentation; which is the increasing number of platforms on which content can be provided on eg: mobile phones, laptops, denoting the family no longer has to sit in front of the television set. While Intra-media fragmentation is concerned with “the processes that subdivide choices within particular media technologies” (56), such as the increase in the number of channels on cable networks.
The second type of fragmentation that Napoli describes is Audience fragmentation. This entails the division of audiences into smaller and smaller audience niches, to target them with more specific content, or narrowcasting (Hagedoorn, 2013; van Dijck, 2007). Napoli mentions in his book that this narrowcasting definition might be insufficient to denote how audience fragmentation works nowadays, and we should instead use the term “silvercasting” (57) which goes further to denote audience fragmentation. “The […] Internet and digital media […] are altering the ways in which individual subjects orient themselves in regard to others, the world around them, and, ultimately, their sense of self.” (Turcotte, 2013: 125). Watching Netflix or YouTube “actually functions as a space of withdrawal into closed communities of the ‘like-minded’ (Morley, 441). The viewer is wrapped in a nice warm blanket of their own televisual experience, a cocoon, as Morley mentions. This cocooning effect is therefore facilitated also by flow, capturing you in an experience. This next section will explain flow, as well as addressing how it has been updated and reworked by various scholars.
1.7 Flow
As the previous section outlines, the concept of domesticity is crucial to outline the ways in which we consume content have changed. One concept that has remained prevalent however, since its inception in the 1970s, is that of flow. This concept still exists but exists in vastly different contexts due to new media platforms such as YouTube and Netflix. But we must first outline where the concept originally came from.
British cultural theorist Raymond Williams in his book (1974), tells us that we must interrogate the “static concept of ‘distribution’” (77) and investigate “the mobile concept of ‘flow’” (77) instead. In 1973, Williams looked at the distribution of television programmes in America and Britain. He was
14 attempting to identify the way in which the programmes were organized, in what he later called the “defining characteristic of broadcasting, simultaneously as a technology and as a cultural form” (86). This feature that he was attempting to identify was flow. In order to explain this concept, we must first understand that media during this time, in the 1970s, were thought of as separate instances eg: reading a book, attending a play. What flow attempts to address however, through television, is that these discrete instances are presented on your screen as a “sequence […] of these and other events, which are then available in a single dimension and in a single operation” (87).
This blend of parts within a media form undoubtedly informs the society in which we live and consume cultural products in. Broadcasting television inherited this trait from radio, through its use of pre-recorded programmes to transmit at a later point. Broadcasters for television, discovered that these individual items could be assembled into programmes. These programmes then became timed “Each unit could be thought of discretely, and the work of programming was a serial assembly of these units.” (88). Williams describes this assembly of units as illustrating a shift from a “general service” (88) to differing “types of service, alternative programmes” (89). Certain categories of radio were given names to differentiate the type of content they would transmit. With regards to American radio, this organization of units into timed programmes were split further into categories denoting genres of music (Williams). There has also been a big movement in terms of “the concept of sequence as programming to the concept of sequence as flow” (89).
Through watching television, or listening to radio, there were generally breaks between programmes. These breaks would be denoted by a sound such as crashing waves, or a visual signal showing viewers that the service was still active, this was just a little break in between the units. But we have seen with the widespread use of the television, “the interval […] has been fundamentally revalued” (Williams, 90). This change in the concept of breaks between programme units were affected by economics. The broadcasting companies discovered that during these breaks between programmes, they could place advertisements. This was displayed in Britain through their insistence that the advertisements could only appear when there was a true break between units, for example between Acts 1 and 2 in a play. But of course, the broadcasters were always in control here, so it was up to their discretion where the advertisements were ultimately placed. The American outlook however, with regards to advertisements was very different to the British. Advertisements in America were put into the programming schedule from the outset as part of the larger concept of a person’s night of programming.
Instead, viewers of television are given a “planned flow” (Williams, 91) during which, “the true series is not the published sequence of programme items but this sequence transformed by the inclusion of another kind of sequence, so that these sequences together compose the real flow” (91). This flow that was preordained by broadcasters was an exercise in trying to keep viewership on the few channels available to people at the time. A small portion of whatever content you are watching on television is
15 teased to you. Then the advertisements play for a few minutes. Then you are back into watching the film or show, and more commercials, and so on, until the programme. That was the way Williams experienced the new phenomenon in Britain. But his outlook changed greatly when he experienced flow watching television in Miami one night.
In American television, he noticed that there were much more advertisements during the film he was watching. But he quickly noticed that during the advertisements, trailers for other films that were set to be played on other nights of the week were shown “this was sequence in a new sense” (92). He noticed this as a big difference to the experience he had watching British television. British television had “a visual signal […] before and after the commercial sequences, and ‘programme’ trailers only occur between ‘programmes’” (92). In his watching of this television however, “the transitions from film to commercial and from film A to films B and C were in effect unmarked” (92). This he inferred, was incredibly disorientating, as he began confusing the different content he was consuming, thinking advertisement characters were characters in the shows, and so on. But underlining this, is the broadcaster’s intention of creating the planned flow mentioned earlier. The opening part of a show or film must be attention-grabbing enough that the viewer will ultimately stay watching on that channel “the interest aroused must be strong enough to initiate the expectation of (interrupted but sustainable) sequence” (93). A flow is created for instance, when we sit down for “’an evening’s viewing’” (93) which is ultimately intentionally thought out by the broadcasters. This happens increasingly when more and more cable channels were created, with different channels vying for the attention of so many people “to get viewers in at the beginning of flow […] viewers will stay with whatever channel they begin watching” (94). We have increasingly found that we are reluctant to stop watching television even when we know what we want to watch, “we find ourselves watching the one after that and the one after that” (94). This concept is exemplified in American television creating that planned flow.
Williams ties this notion of being unable to switch television off, to the evident availability of content during this time. In Britain, people mostly watched television at night, after work. But increasingly, there are more programmes at different times of the day. And in America, he notes, consumption of television begins very early in the morning, with content almost being omnipresent “and so on in a continuous flow, with the screen never blank” (95). Flow is therefore a central premise when it comes to television (Williams).
We can see this central premise illustrated in Williams’ analysis of flow. He analyses flow in three categories – Long-range, medium-range and close-range, which I will briefly elaborate on. Long-range flow denotes the flow of an evening’s programmes on television. Medium-range flow denotes how items are structured in succession of one another “within and between the published sequence of units” (97). But this second concept of flow is quite important, as it shows us how units that normally would not fit together, are combined into a cohesive structure, or flow. Finally, close-range flow which is the
16 most detail-oriented of all the flows mentioned. This flow denotes “the actual succession of words and images” (97) and the “process of movement and interaction through sequence and flow” (97). Flow is noticeable in a wide range of concepts and is very much linked to not being able to turn the television off. This has meant that flow continues to exist today, but ultimately in different forms due to new media contexts, including streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube. This next section will elaborate on scholars’ updates and reworkings of the concept of flow, to fit in a landscape populated by different streaming services.
1.7.1 Flow 2.0: Updates
As the previous section outlined, flow is a central concept when it comes to television. But we must not forget when it was conceived (1970s). New media technologies have changed considerably since then, and that has invariably altered how flow is conceived of today. This next section will outline how scholars have attempted to update flow for the modern media landscape.
Thibault (2015) equates flow with liquid metaphors as the “dominant metaphor for […] streaming – to explore how […] it remediated past media economical models, technological forms, and functions as a way to control and capture audiences” (111). Oswald and Packer in their chapter of Flow and mobile
media (2013), demonstrate that flow is also a metaphor for movement “audiences are mentally or
cognitively moved through media content, while their bodies remain fixed in space” (276). Flow is also thought of in relation to spatial and temporal relations (Tryon, 2012 “Digital delivery and media mobility”). We can see this in time-shifting technologies such as the VCR and DVD boxset (Kompare, “Publishing flow”, 2006) altering how a user engages in flow. Christopher Cox (2018) echoes this by using Netflix as an example to show how algorithms help the flow of programming to occur as they “offset the possibility of interrupted or discontinued viewing” (442).
Kackman et al. (2010) mention how flow and convergence are inextricably linked, and this has become even more noticeable due to new media platforms “if flow challenges the idea of the discrete television text, then convergence destabilizes the notion of the television as a discrete object” (1). The convergence of modern television with new media platforms echo what Caren Deming in A Companion to Television (2010) says when she mentions that due to flow and convergence being closely linked, time has been turned into a commodity. This is due to the profit-oriented logic purported by new media companies. Flow can now be remediated through the convergence of old mechanisms, but into the actual frame of the content you are consuming. I am speaking of course, about technological affordances such as the pause, play, stop, fast-forward and rewind buttons facilitated either by the remote control (Walker and Bellamy, 1991) you use when consuming Netflix on a television, or within the frame when consuming Netflix on a laptop. These affordances are the convergence of television and other technologies coming together so the user can create their own version of their television watching experience.
17 But Oswald and Packer in their chapter, cite several scholars who criticize flow, looking at it from a contemporary viewpoint. But maybe we have found over the years that we in fact, still abide by flow. They cite William Boddy (2004) as he criticizes flow for being “[…] historically and generation-specific” (280), thus illustrating the importance of putting things in specific cultural context and updating theories. They cite Jason Mittel as equating television with files rather than a flow. This is also echoed in Bjorn Nansen’s article speaking about Australian television, and how computational television has changed the way we perceive flow (The Conversation). But files can still flow “the sequential arrangement of files can still be understood as a flow – though an idiosyncratic one – determined by the viewer rather than the broadcaster” (Nansen).
In White’s essay (2001) she uses Jane Feuer to also criticize flow ““Williams should more accurately say that television possesses segmentation without closure, for this is what he really means by flow.” (White, pp.15-16). White, citing Feuer, outlines how flow is inherently economic in nature since time has become a commodity. White, again citing Feuer, also links television to how it is consumed eg: in the home, so therefore, flow can be easily disrupted. This encourages updating flow that Tryon (2015) outlines in his discussion of media mobility. Nowadays, television is no longer consumed in front of the television set as it was in Williams’ time. Flow can now be continued at any point in time, on any device you want if you have an internet connection. This presents an interesting paradox today when it comes to flow. Although the concept has been criticized much over the years, as it is now seen as too old and antiquated to fit in today’s world, it seems as if there is a yearning for nostalgia. Streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube are attempting to bring some elements of older media back into new media contexts due to a nostalgia for an era with not so much content (Richwine Reuters; McGuigan, FlowJournal). Instead, the modern audience might want something easy for them to choose instead of them becoming overwhelmed with choices.
Flows reworkings also come impacted by broader tendencies used by streaming platforms nowadays. This ability to choose what to watch is impacted by the abundance of content on our screens. So, this content needs a way of being dealt with. One of the ways in which platforms attempt to solve this problem is using strategies such as personalization and algorithmic recommendation. This takes pressure off the user and makes it easier for them to choose what to watch and participate in flow. This next section will outline these broader tendencies and how they impact flow.
18 1.8 Broader Tendencies
1.8.1 Personalization
As outlined in the previous section, flow has been attempted to be reworked for the new media landscape. Flow is undoubtedly impacted by broader tendencies that encourage it nowadays. One of these broader tendencies is personalization which we can see in both YouTube and Netflix. One of the ways in which personalization is used, is the recommendation of content to users, that the platform believes you will enjoy. From the outset the platforms are noting which content interests you, and which does not, and will therefore recommend you content accordingly using algorithms (algorithms will be elaborated on in a separate section following this one).
One of the ways YouTube engages in personalization is through the Subscriptions and Watch Later tabs on the Home Screen. While the Home Screen itself is personalized with regards to what content is shown to you, it is based on algorithms recommending content, based on what you and others have watched in the past. This will be elaborated on in the next section. But Watch Later and Subscriptions on the Home Screen allow the user to have a great deal of autonomy with regards who they subscribe to, and what videos they choose to watch at a later point in time. This means particularly with the Watch Later playlist; the user has complete control when they begin their flow of watching their own content. Personalization in Netflix is most obviously shown through the content that is recommended to each subscriber, as well as the personalized profiles each user can have. The content the subscriber encounters are sometimes eerily specific (Rodriguez, “Quartz”) “Netflix's new super-specific, algorithmically suggested microgenres are an effort to make itself more TV-like, an attempt to serve up something from its vast archive of second-tier content that you'll consent to watch, even if you're not enthralled by it” (Vanhemert, Wired). This allows the platform to target each user’s specific interests “Without personalization, all our members would get the same videos recommended to them (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt, 6). Personalization allows the platform to guarantee people will enjoy the content, and therefore keep watching (Lobato, 2019). This guarantees the platform will keep subscriptions, and therefore keep generating revenue through the subscription fees
.
“If we create a more compelling service by offering better personalized recommendations, we induce members who were on the fence to stay longer and improve retention” (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt, 8).As this section outlined, personalization is hugely important to each platform, but it is not the only tendency that influences how flow is remediated on these platforms. The next section will outline how algorithmic recommendations remediate flow.
19 1.8.2 Algorithmic Recommendation
YouTube
As Neal Mohan, the Chief Product Officer at YouTube mentions (cited in Wilson, 2019), up to 70% of Watch Time comes from the recommendations of YouTube videos through algorithms. Algorithms are used expertly here, which can alter the flow of whether a user stays on the platform and continues watching or not. They create “a continuous flow of programmed content” (de Valck and Teurlings, 150) which keep the user watching and engaged on the platform. Although the user might think they have some autonomy when watching videos (which they do to a certain extent), the content is ultimately decided by algorithms that make a viewer’s searching more tailored and individualized to content they like (Napoli, 2011). In this way, searchability and fragmentation of the audience is linked. The way YouTube’s interface is organized and designed demonstrates the popularity of a lot of videos (Bartl, 2018; Borghol, 2012; Figueiredo, 2014). The platform controls its users not using “programming schedules but by means of metadata, search engines, ranking and profiling systems” (de Valck and Teurlings, 150).
There has been a substantial amount of research done concerning YouTube and its algorithms (Roth et al., 2020; Bentley et al., 2019) which inherently impact what type of content the user is presented with. From the effect deep learning has on the YouTube recommendation algorithm (Covington et al. 2016), to analyzing dwell time (how long a user spends on a page, in this case watching a YouTube video) in terms of viewer engagement “content recommendation systems […] deliver the most relevant content items to individual users” (Yi et al., 2014:1).
But creators also want their users to engage in flow also. Emily Pedersen (2019) denotes YouTube algorithms in terms of different personas; the Gatekeeper, an Agent, and a Drug Dealer. Each of which has their own specific traits. “An Agent is someone who manages and helps the creator in their work by finding an audience for them and promoting them. A Gatekeeper is someone who stands between the creator and viewers and decides who gets through. A Drug Dealer has one goal: keeping viewers hooked on the platform for as long as possible” (3). It is apparent, therefore, that the content creators’ game the platform to get views (Wilson).
This would in turn affect flow through Watch Time. if YouTubers want to keep eyes on their videos, they need to manipulate the algorithms to make sure flow remains unbroken for the viewer. This is especially important in recent times as YouTube started prioritizing Watch Time (Covington et al., 2016; Yi et al., 2014), rather than other factors. But the scholars cited in Wilson (2019) also mention how creators are also trying to maximise their click-through-rate (CTR) in order to increase views on their videos. For the algorithm to show users their videos, they try and maximise their CTR through
20 elements such as the video title, an interesting thumbnail, and longer videos (Wilson, 2019). The algorithm(s) “tries to maximize expected watch time per thumbnail and title video impression” (Wilson, 6). Some of these elements are also used by the algorithms on Netflix, as will be shown in the next section.
Netflix
As for how algorithmic recommendations are used on Netflix, Gomez-Uribe and Hunt’s (2015) article on the different algorithms Netflix uses and how this impacts its business model, is instrumental. Netflix has been a ground-breaker and innovative in many respects to how it provides the audience with content, but none is more instrumental than their recommender system. The algorithms are so important , that they even created a competition to see who could come up with the best improvements to them (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt; Striphas and Hallinan, 2016; Arnold, 2016).
As they mention, it is not just one algorithm at work on the platform, but many, all of which come together to give each individual Netflix user their own personalized experience (Verela, 2019). Choice is ultimately what television comes down to, but they have found that people are quite bad at choosing (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt) what to watch as they are presented with so many choices. This creates what John Ellis describes as “choice fatigue” (cited in Samuel (2017), 169). They become overwhelmed with the amount of choice the platform offers, and so consequently, do not choose anything. If a user wants to watch Netflix content, the platform typically has between 60 to 90 seconds to catch the user’s attention for them to watch something (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt; Alexander, The Verge). Either they watch, or the platform risks losing them. And the way in which they catch these users is through their skilful employment of the algorithms. This helps the platform win what they call “moments of truth” (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt, 6) by keeping the user on the platform and “captured” in flow (Williams, 91). In the Business Wars podcast on the battle between Netflix and Blockbuster, this is expanded upon further.
According to David Brown from the Business Wars podcast, Netflix found that the data the users gave the platform, together with the algorithms, influenced the content recommended to each individual user. This allowed the platform to be predictive and have foresight regarding trends on the platform and what would gain viewership (Episode 3 “Dirty Tricks”). Through their algorithms, the platform was able to observe how people search for content, how long they stay watching a show, which actors they liked, and then recommend them content accordingly. The algorithms allowed the platform to create an intricate behaviour profile for each individual subscriber. This in turn, helps the platform assemble different “micro-audiences” for specific genres/shows (Episode 4 “The Digital Divide”). All these ties into flow through the subscribers being recommended content the platform believes they will enjoy. If they do, they will stay on the platform watching content, participating in flow. “We think the combined
21 effect of personalization and recommendations save us more than $1B per year.” (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt, 7). Although flow is impacted by some of these broader tendencies mentioned, flow is also aided by affordances present on each platform. These will be outlined briefly.
1.9 Affordances
As previously outlined, flow has been revitalized on streaming platforms using broader tendencies such as personalization and algorithmic recommendation. This is also impacted by affordances on these platforms. Each platform has its own unique style and way of carrying out actions. Flow can therefore be encouraged or discouraged through what James Gibson (2015) terms affordances. Affordances in the context in which Gibson was writing, from ecological psychology, denote what the enviro nment provides animals with, whether they be good or bad (Gibson cited in David and Chouinard (2016): 242). Although Gibson speaks about the relationship an animal has to his immediate environment, he stresses that affordances are inherently relational (Gibson 2015:120, cited in Bucher and Helmond 2017) and what one user might do with the affordances of a platform may be different for another user.
This is still relevant in a new media context. Norman describes affordances as the interaction between the user and the platform, and how they are meant to work together for the platform to be effective (Norman, 1990, as cited in Bucher and Helmond, 2017). Affordances can thus be the inhibition and encouragement of certain actions on platforms. Bratton (2015) mentions that the action taken by the user is mediated by the platform for the action to occur, and affordances work in the same context. Mel Stanfill (2015) speaks about affordances as “examining what is possible on sites – features, categories of use foregrounded, and how technological features make certain uses easier or harder – illuminates the norms of use.” (1061). “The affordances of streaming permit audiences to view at the pace and ordering that they desire” (Burroughs, 8). Although earlier technology such as the VCR, DVD and TiVo technologies (Carlson 2006; Kompare, 2006), allowed users to alter the pace at which they consumed content, we have seen this be revitalized by streaming platforms. Users are encouraged by the affordances on these platforms to make choices, and this is either encouraged or inhibited also by the way the interface is designed, to which I will now turn.
1.10 Interface Design
Affordances allow or discourage certain actions. This relation is closely tied to the interface design of a platform. As Markham et al. (2019) outlines how a user interacts with the Netflix interface “the viewer has agency and controls the Netflix experience through their choices” (4). Netflix and YouTube utilize interface designs to guide the user to make certain choices. As Oswald and Packer mention, the interface design becomes increasingly important to how users make decisions and flow is consequently reimagined in this new media environment. Increasingly, the screen of the television set has become less important, in favor of smaller, more portable screens such as that of smartphones or laptops. The
22 interface design has changed from being “programmed in sequence for a single device (a static space-time orientation) to the reprogramming of a fluidly scheduled mobile life via networked terminals and mobile devices” (Oswald and Packer, 279; Tryon, 2015).
Modern platforms such as YouTube and Netflix have allowed the user to create their own flow through the design of the interface.
Conclusion
In the next chapter, the Methodology section, will outline my chosen method for exploring how Netflix and YouTube remediate flow. Therefore, a combination of a trade-press analysis of relevant media, and a visual cross-platform analysis (VCPA) of these two platforms will be carried out. These will be further elaborated upon in the next chapter.
23
Chapter 2: Methodology
Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to outline how flow is remediated on Netflix and YouTube. Flow is experienced slightly differently on these platforms and is impacted by each platform's interface design and affordances, as it dictates what video gets clicked on, and whether you stay on the platform. Closely linked, are some of the concepts mentioned during the previous chapter: personalization and algorithmic recommendation. The way each platform recommends certain content to its users, dictates whether that user stays on the platform. Flow is mediated by content drawing the user in and staying there.
Useful for understanding this intersection between interface and affordances, a mixed methods approach will be used. A visual cross-platform analysis (VCPA) will used. Also, a trade press analysis of relevant sources will be used in order to paint a broader societal picture in terms of how flow has become remediated. These will be elaborated on at a later point.
Through my case studies, I will demonstrate how flow is remediated through the different affordances present on each platform. Furthermore, I will identify how the interface entices you onto the platform and encourages flow. The intersection between these two ultimately decide whether you stay, participating in flow. I will look at how these two intersect on the desktop versions of YouTube and Netflix as people are moving away from consuming content on television sets, and instead moving toward using more portable devices such as smartphones and laptops. YouTube data reports that “the platform reaches more 18-49 US consumers in an average week than all cable TV networks put together” (Businessofapps, n.p.). And as for Netflix, “Americans find streaming content more entertaining than cable TV” (Businessofapps, n.p.). Therefore, we can see how content is very often not consumed in front of a television set within the home. Increasingly, the family unit is becoming more individualized as everyone consumes content on different devices, instead of together.
Specifically, the analysis of the interface and accompanying affordances in terms of UI (user interface) and UX (user experience) are important to examine. The affordances on the platform specifically allow the user to make certain choices in terms of how they use the platform eg: whether they want to engage in flow or not. The affordances also point the user to making certain choices about which con tent they choose to watch or continue watching. Features such as the ‘Skip Intro’ and Autoplay dictate a user wanting to get into watching the content straight away. Through these features, the platform keeps the user in a constant flow.
In each case study, I will look at the Home screen interface, and observe what happens and if flow is apparent from the outset. In addition, I will also be looking for affordances that encourage flow. I will
24 only study the affordances that encourage flow, as affordances that do not facilitate flow will not be relevant.
2.1 Case studies Netflix
Firstly, Netflix was chosen as an appropriate case study for this thesis as it has truly changed the way television is consumed. Through its ease of accessibility and mobility on devices, and vast library of content, it is an attractive choice for people. It is by far the most dominant player when it comes to streaming video. As Sandvig (2015) outlines, Netflix occupies a considerable amount of internet traffic (“34%”). Peak internet traffic times also saw considerable dominance by the service (“80%”) (304). Currently, Netflix retains leadership within the streaming platform landscape despite fierce competition from other streaming platforms (Lee, The New York Times, n.p.; Hazelton, 2019). It has also benefited from its extremely malleable business models. It understands and responds accordingly, to how people have shifted the way they consume television over the years. The platform has several advantages against competitors in subscriber numbers, such as time spent on the platform and the extent of the content they provide (Lee, n.p.)
Domesticity is also remediated on this platform due to the ability to access the platform from multiple devices such as your mobile phone, television or laptop (Tryon, 2015). The television no longer represents the heart of the home.
YouTube
YouTube was chosen as the second case study because it is the “second largest search engine and second most visited site after Google. (It) is the 2nd most popular social media platform with 1.9bn users” (Smith, n.p. brandwatch). People also choose the platform often over broadcast television “6 out of 10 people prefer online video platforms to live TV” (Smith) due to its mobility and ease of access. The platform was also chosen due to its omnipresence on a global scale. Ninety-one countries in the world now have the platform encouraging the widespread use of the platform perhaps in place of other technologies (Smith). Its dominant presence combined with its ease of functionality made it a pertinent example to study how streaming platforms remediate flow.
2.2 Visual Cross-Platform Analysis (VCPA)
Visual cross-platform analysis (henceforth, VCPA) will be used to analyze YouTube and Netflix to gain a better understanding of the “‘platform vernaculars’” (Gibbs, Meese, Arnold, Nansen, & Carter, 2015 cited in Pearce et al., 2020:162) of each platform. Platform vernaculars are “the different narrative patterns that shape content and information flows across platforms” (Pearce et al. (2020):162) VCPA
