Second Screen Apps and the Televisual Experience

(1)

Suzan de Graaff (10244751) ADRES ADRES TEL NR. suzandegraaff@gmail.com MA Thesis University of Amsterdam

Media Studies: Television and Cross-Media Culture Supervisor: Sudeep Dasgupta

Second reader: Toni Pape 23-06-2016

Second Screen Apps

and the

(2)

1

(3)

2

1. INTRODUCTION

“Do you, at home, want to help us to solve our case? Then open your RTL XL app right now.”1

This is what inspector Evert Numan tells the viewers every week just before the episode of the crime TV series Moordvrouw begins. Viewers can help the inspectors by answering questions and paying attention to hints given by the application. This is a typical example of a second screen app, which are appearing more often nowadays. Participating in a gameshow, expressing your opinion about a topic in a talk show, judging candidates in a talent show and thus even solving crime cases; all activities that are more than ‘just watching TV’, made possible by second screen apps.

Second screen apps can be considered to be part of a bigger theme: second screen theory, which is a much described subject. The current domestic space no longer only contains a TV, but is a place where several (screen) technologies are available to people, like the computer, mobile phone and the tablet, whose presence can change the televisual experience of the viewer (D’heer, Paulussen and Courtois 60). These second screens in general can be used for several purposes and in different ways. Viewers can use a second screen for doing something which has nothing to do with the content on TV; for example playing a game on a laptop, chatting with friends about the weekend via their mobile phones or watching Netflix on a tablet. In this practice of using a second screen, the mobile ‘media screens’ provide a form of distraction from ‘watching’ a TV program (65-6).

But what most scientists write about, are practices in which television content and the content on a second screen are congruent; here the viewer is actively engaging with the content of the program. Again, one can distinguish different purposes and uses of the second screen. One; a viewer may for example be searching for more information about the content he/she is watching, by surfing the web. The viewer can pull information towards him to clarify content from the program or to gain more knowledge about certain subjects. Two; a viewer can go online and use social media to talk about the show. The viewer is able to actively tweet about the content he/she is watching and ‘discuss’ the subjects or scenes with other viewers. Three; a viewer can also use a second screen application, if it is available. A second screen app is an app that is created for (most often) a specific TV program. The app needs to be downloaded and can only be used at the moment the specific program is broadcast on TV. After the show has gone off-air, the app often ceases functioning.

While these three activities are all practices on a second screen in which the TV

program is extended, broadened, intensified or in any case about the same content, the last one – using a second screen app – is fundamentally different. What differs this practice from all others is that it is constructed by the makers of the specific television program. While the practice of

(6)

5

tweeting or surfing the Web during a TV broadcast is done by and from the initiative of the viewer (even though it can be stimulated by the program), a second screen app is created and structured by the television industry with certain thoughts and purposes. Besides this, also the moment of use differs. Browsing for more information on a subject of the TV program can be continued after the broadcast, and tweeting about a show can also be done before the program starts. Using a second screen app is created for using it during the broadcast, which adduces the notion of liveness. In addition, a second screen app is different from all other practices on a second screen because the environment is enclosed: the app enables certain activities but purely the ones desired by the makers. All these differences affect not only the way how viewers use their second screen and watch TV, but thus also its associated viewing experience, which is the reason I want to focus on this specific form of second screen use.

It needs no long explanation why many people argue that traditional characteristics of television and traditional ways of watching are disappearing or changing and that viewers are evolving in more active and individualized subjects. Viewers are able to watch TV where and whenever they wish to, due to technological developments like online platforms and on-demand systems. As a result, TV programmers and producers are developing strategies to attract the viewers to their channels at fixed broadcast times and to make programs more interactive. Second screen apps can be seen as an ultimate strategy to accomplish that.

It seems that second screen apps are created more often and are widely used by the audience the last years. However, there has not been written a lot of academic articles about it (in contrast to for example tweeting during a broadcast), and there are also not a large number of apps available yet. This is another reason to focus on second screen apps only. With the

commonly mentioned claim in my mind that new technologies change the viewing habits and experiences of television viewers, the question that my research aims to answer is: “How do second screen apps affect the viewing experience of its users?”

1.1 Method and apps

The majority of my research will have a theoretical approach. The viewing experience that I will research is demarcated on three themes: Flow and liveness, Distraction and Collective

experiences. I will make theoretical frameworks of each of these themes, which I will do in every chapter separately instead of one theoretical framework at the beginning. This analysis of existing material shall I apply as a content analysis on different second screen apps. Besides this, I shall explain and set out different theories on second screen apps, but also on second screens and multi-platforming in general which I can apply on second screen apps in particular. Although a viewing experience may be subjective and more quickly be connected to reception studies and audience surveys, I decided to use academic texts and researches to answer my

(7)

6

research question. By researching flow, liveness, distraction and collective viewing theoretically I am thus able to investigate how these traditional televisual characteristics are affected by the practice of using a second screen app. I am then able to examine how the themes affect the viewing experience and how this is constructed by the apps. I will therefor also research and explain what the well-functioning features are and when apps are most effective, so that it is clearer how viewing experiences are evoked.

I will focus on second screen apps in general, but will mention and discuss a couple apps in particular to make statements clear and support claims. The apps I will refer to are:

Moordvrouw - Crime series

Eigen Huis & Tuin - Make-over/DIY Carlo's TV Café - Talk show The Voice (Kids) - Talent show

Weet Ik Veel - Game show

The Big Picture - Game show

I only used apps from commercial TV, to avoid having to elaborate any (financial) strategies based on the difference between commercial and public service broadcasters. I also will not conclude any sports-related apps, like second screen apps that can be used during a soccer match. Soccer games for example already have a different viewing experience, especially with regard to the themes I will discuss. Liveness for example is the key word for sports (one will not watch a full match a couple days after it took place) and also the collective experience that comes with is mostly different than with other TV programs (watching TV with friends in a bar is for example more common to viewers of sports than to viewers of a series).

The genre of a TV show is a significant feature when creating a second screen app. The genre influences the type of interaction and plays a role in the degree of distraction. That is why I refer to different kind of programs. I have chosen to use two different kinds of game show-apps, because despite their similar use, they are very different with regard to the notion of interaction and collectiveness. I have used all these apps and there are interesting features within all of them that are relevant to this thesis.

1.2 Structure of themes

As mentioned, the chapters of my thesis are based on the themes of a viewing experience. First, I will go into the concepts flow and liveness. In this chapter I will create a theoretical

framework of both concepts by firstly discussing their traditional role. After this I will research how flow and liveness have got other interpretations due to new technologies. These

(8)

7

contemporary interpretations are also affected by second screen apps, which I will explain by discussing features within the specific apps. How these new interpretations of the concepts can affect the viewing experience, will be questioned at the end of the chapter.

The second chapter is about the theme distraction. I will first provide a theoretical framework on traditional television as a medium of distraction and how this has ‘changed’ over the years. In this chapter my main goal is to research if the practice of using a second screen app can be seen as a form of distraction or can be considered to immerse the viewer/user. I will discuss elements like push messages, the kind of content within the app, failing techniques, the practice of using a mobile phone, the interaction with the app, etc. to answer this question.

The last chapter is about social experiences. I will first create a theoretical framework about TV as a collective and social medium, and discuss some new systems that affected this. A question this chapter aims to answer is how and if the practice of interacting via a second screen app stimulates social connections or individualization. I will also research how second screen apps can affect viewing experience by the ability of the viewer to interact via the app.

The last two chapters are both based on the notion of interaction, but with an entire different approach. In all the chapters I will thus use examples from the apps I mentioned, to clarify concepts and statements.

(9)

8

2. FLOW AND LIVENESS

2.1 Flow

Flow has always been considered to be one of the central analytical concepts in traditional television. The concept, according to its founder Raymond Williams, is strongly connected to the viewing experience. His classical definition from 1974 is today still very influential for television science. Since the end of the twentieth century, different media technologies, media practices and media industries blend together which created a fundamental different media landscape. Thence, the definition of the concept is often discussed, criticized, expanded and changed and some even argue that flow actually no longer exists. In this chapter I do not want to comprehensively investigate whether and what kind of flow exists nowadays on television, but more specifically how second screen apps affect the perception of flow and whether there has emerged a different flow through the advent of these apps. But, to create a clear image about flow as a concept and to contextualize the flow attached to second screens apps, I will explain some changes and adaptations the traditional concept has made throughout the years.

2.1.1 Traditional flow

In 1974, Raymond Williams described the phenomenon he experienced when watching

television in the United States. He was used to TV from his own country – the United Kingdom – where television programs were clearly distinguishable units, but on US television the

programs, promos and advertisements seemed to follow each other up seamlessly and turn into one whole (Williams 81-3). Williams experienced the TV content as one continuous and uninterrupted stream of images; he got caught in a flow of programs and kept watching TV, instead of just watching one show (86-7). He labeled this phenomenon of flow as “the central television experience” (88).

In this classical definition of the concept of flow, programming is key (93). The flow is created by the manner in which the networks construct their programming schedule. This planned flow could be seen as a (commercial) strategy used by the major US networks to bind the viewers to their channels for the entire night (Corner 60). In this manner, viewers

automatically stay tuned during advertisements which can be a source of income for the networks; operating television sets can namely be counted (Altman 42). This economic aspect of flow will not be discussed in further detail because it does not relate to the experience of the viewers. However, it was important to mention in order clarify why flow is important for the networks. Flow thus defines both the viewing experience of watching television and explains the organization of television as text (Uricchio, “Television’s Next” 168).

(10)

9

2.1.2 Redefining the concept

Williams wrote his book based on media conventions from the years 1950-1980, a period when television had acquired a relatively stable position (Gripsrud, “Broadcast Television” 212). According to Henry Jenkins, the context where Williams’ theory of flow came into being is fundamentally different from the transformative context of television where we are in today. Various technological, industrial and socio-cultural changes, affected the classical notion of flow over the years (Jenkins 2-3). Also William Uricchio argues, in his article “Television's Next Generation” from 2004, that the original concept of flow has changed since its

introduction. The remote control, for example, made it easier to interrupt the planned flow by the possibility to switch between programs and to avoid commercial breaks. However, as Hallvard Moe argues, “the viewer still has no control over the schedule – no option to manage the timing or order of it” (776). The viewer was still bound to a planned stream of programs. But, with the advent of video recorders this changed. Viewers were then able to determine themselves at what time they wanted to watch a certain program. This, according to Uricchio, caused the transition from the programming-centered flow – the traditional concept of flow introduced by Williams – to the active-audience centered flow. This new type of flow is characterized by the set of choices and actions made by the viewer (“Television’s Next” 170). Viewers could now ‘structure’ their own flow and thus gain more control over their viewing experience.

But, this idea of a transition in flow from programming-based to audience-centered is put under perspective. The main counterargument states that viewers are still bound to the programs offered by TV producers (Moe 779). Due to innovations viewers do have more choices, but, according to Graham Murdock, “they do not alter the fundamental power relations between broadcasters and their audiences. It remains essentially a top-down system. Viewers are still responding to options orchestrated by program makers. They may have an increasingly flexible menu to choose from but they are still not allowed in the kitchen” (13).

What can be argued from this perspective, is that viewers can indeed create their own flow due to new technologies and the advent of more channels, but within the ‘channel flows’ that are available and created by programmers. It was particularly the choice of programs that has expanded, and with that the ability for users to create their own flow. “In addition, each channel flow was more thoroughly prepared in order to keep viewers from zapping” (Bruhn Jensen qtd in. Moe 778). Traditional programming techniques were reinforced:

Time-tested programming techniques such as a strong lead-in with a highly rated program at the start of a time block, or the hammock (packaging of a new or weak entry between two strong ones), or stacking series of the same or similar genre to minimize disruptions, can all be expected to intensify. (Uricchio, “Televisions Next” 247)

(11)

10

But also new strategies were introduced:

(…) more interesting are the continuity strategies evident in the reworking of end or opening credits (dropping of theme songs, superimposition of credits over the opening of the narrative, using outtakes or an epilogue to hold viewers to the end of the slot), in ‘hot starts’ where a new program begins without an advertising buffer between it and the preceding program, in the sharpening of program hooks before ad breaks by showing previews of the following sequence; pre-grazed programs (sports summaries for example); and local fine-tuning of the program mix. (247)

Anyone would probably agree that these ‘tricks’ to detain viewers at the same channel are still present in contemporary television. The channel flows can be considered to still exist. However, these statements are all based on traditional broadcast television. But due to many

developments, television was asked to include and expand their functions to online spaces (Ytreberg 469; Uricchio, “The Future” 26). Viewers now have access not only to various digital channels and platforms to (re-)watch TV programs, but also to additional content on websites or apps. But “even though the media landscape has dramatically changed”, according to Ethan Thompson “flow remains a valuable tool for understanding television” (283).

2.1.3 Digital technologies

Digital channels and online platforms often provide TV programs as stand-alone objects. How Jason Mittell explains it: one will “experience the medium [of television] within the framework of files, digital objects to be accessed in menus and manipulated via an interface” (50). The viewing practice is now “autonomously scheduled” (Jenner 5-7); viewers are able to watch all TV programs separately whenever they want – way more easy than by using a VCR. The fact that online platforms often provide TV programs as distinct items does not mean that creators of these digital interfaces are not trying to grasp users and keep them on their platforms. On the contrary; nowadays one can find different kinds of strategies that create a new kind of flow. Compared to traditional TV, online platforms have no pre-established programming, but use metadata systems and filtering technologies which create an adaptive agent-centered flow (Uricchio, “Television’s Next” 176-7). Platforms try to approximate the user’s individual taste by making predictive selections based on the personal viewing habits of the specific user, which creates an online flow that stays in touch with the personal preferences of the user. However, I will not go any deeper into these strategies because it is not relevant for this research. Most important is to notify that flows also exist out of the television programming environment.

Viewers not only have access to online channels and platforms to (re-)watch TV programs, but also to additional content on websites or apps. Will Brooker terms the extensions

(12)

11

from television content as ancillary and subsidiary material. According to the writer, the information on cross-media platforms is additional to what really matters; the TV content. This is still the reference point that viewers ‘must return to’. The content on websites or platforms can by this perspective be seen not as a regular flow, but as overflow (461-9).

According to Ihlebæk, Syvertsen and Ytreberg this tactic of additional content on websites or apps is created to keep viewers connected with the ‘brand’ within this cross-media context. Certain strategies from television broadcasters are based on the idea that viewers would otherwise make use of other platforms anyway (480). Many theorists argue that Williams’ traditional concept of flow, or some new form of flow, can be found within these cross-media programs. Espen Ytreberg even argues “that flow also needs to be designed for the purposes of triggering cross-channel moves” (472). This concerns not only the way in which the public is encouraged to ‘move’ between different channels, but also: “the ways in which they [TV formats] combine a number of broadcast and digital platforms under the aegis of a common ‘brand’.” (467). Flow in this perspective is a structuring and branding strategy. Television is not any longer only a linear experience on the TV screen but consist out of connective flows between different platforms that together create a brand (Thompson 287; Stein 129). Ytreberg calls all these flows together an eventfulness. This eventfulness should keep viewers hooked to a specific program. Viewers are ‘connected’ with and ‘attached’ to the program, however not necessarily by watching TV (467-74).

Many of the theorists thus use the term flow within a cross-media landscape to describe how a product or program is put down as a brand, is distributed via different channels and how the viewer is encouraged to “move” between these different channels. Flows do not only exist within television programming, but also in cross-media platforms, and on top of that, also between these different platforms (and the TV program).

2.2 Liveness

Like flow, liveness is one of television’s most characteristic concepts that has (had) many different interpretations and descriptions. To explain that ‘live TV’ is an ambiguously concept, this example of Jérôme Bourdon will be significant:

A family watched a famous singer in a variety show. The show has been pre-recorder by the channel. The singer himself has recorded the performance before the show, in the same studio, and was not present in the rest of the show. The director, however, was skillful enough to give, through editing, the feeling that the singer was actually present (we are not aware that the ‘live audience’ has applauded the diffusion of a recorded tape on a screen, not the actual singer). Last but not least, the singer, at the time of recording his performance, was not singing, but lip-synching to a pre-recorded playback. (…) Even worse, the little brother might have played a trick on the family and broadcast from his

(13)

12

room a cassette of a show he had recorded a month before, when the family was away on vacation. (535-6)

In this example, the recording of the program already exists out of three levels which can be discussed concerning ‘live TV’: The voice in the studio, the performance and the show itself. Besides this there are also the transmission and the reception (viewer(s) watching the content) which can be discussed in terms of liveness. Because of the many interpretations and levels, I will discuss the concept within three layers that are relevant for the following of this chapter: The recording, the transmission and the reception.

2.2.1 A simultaneous process

In the early years of television, recording and broadcast often took place at the very same moment. Live transmission was the main promise of TV and advertisements emphasized the simultaneousness of the medium (Hilmes 187). “The transmission of sounds and images of an event at the time when it is occurring” was the main characteristic of TV (Bourdon 534). According to Bourdon, TV constantly reminds viewers that it links them “to something, to a specific place (‘live form’), a specific person (‘live with’)” (532). This gave audiences the feeling of conquering time and space. According to Philip Auslander, “live recordings allow the listener a sense of participating in a specific performance” (60). He emphasizes that the

experience from watching a pre-recorded live event is similar to a live attending. ‘You do not need to be there, to be there’, was made possible by TV. Broadcast and reception in the early years of TV also took place at the same moment, because time-shifting technologies like the VCR did not exist yet. Recording, broadcast and reception were thus often one simultaneous process.

Nowadays, it is still very normal for all three actions to take place at the same moment, even though there are often a couple seconds or minutes delay in the first two steps to catch any major errors. Watching a live talk show or a live finale of a talent show at the moment that it is broadcast is a practice that many people will recognize. But, many other practices have also become more common since the early days of TV. I will discuss the two options in which (1) recording and transmission are not simultaneous, and (2) transmission and reception do not occur at the same time.

2.2.2 Distinct activities

Jérôme Bourdon argues that the amount of “live broadcastings has declined between the 1950s and the 1960s (simply because game-shows, not to mention drama, moved from live

broadcasting to film or tape).” I will not focus too much on the recording itself. This may be ‘live recorded’, as Auslander calls it, like a live-concert, but it may also be a game-shows which

(14)

13

intro is recorded a couple times. The main focus of this paragraph is on the fact that recording and broadcast were often not at the same time anymore.

What was discovered however, is that the live experience is not dependent on whether the content that the viewer watches is actually live (seeing when it is happening), but whether the recording feels live to the viewer. Bourdon, Auslander and Jane Feuer agree with this statement. Feuer argues: “As television becomes less and less a “live” medium in the sense of an equivalence between time of event and time of transmission, the medium in its own practices seems to insist more and more upon an ideology of the live, the immediate, the direct, the spontaneous, the real” (Feuer 14). What can be concluded it that “live” had become ideological rather than ontological, which has also been mentioned by Bourdon (534). This ideological ‘live’ became a way to convince the viewer of the authenticity of certain images. Live images namely are often received as the real image (Feuer 14), ‘if it is live, it must be real’. Auslander adds that the ideology of liveness mainly lies in the idea that television could be live and that it has a high degree of ‘immediacy’ and intimacy (12-4). What may already be clear now, and is important to note, is that liveness means that the content of a program occurs as is it is broadcast live, although TV programs are less often actually live transmitted. This means that liveness can be seen as a concept related to the viewing experience; it after all applies to whether the viewer experiences the image as live.

Ytreberg, whom I have already discussed with respect to flow, wrote an article on multi-platform reality formats. An important part of the article is the extended meaning that the term liveness gets in this multi-platform formats. Ytreberg first discusses the meaning of liveness from the study of Feuer and Bourdon and elaborates multi-platforms within the concept. He argues: “When audiences vote on competitors via SMS, or when they navigate through the web platform for in-depth information on the current candidate for eviction, somehow they seem to take part in that liveness” (478). Important are the words ‘to take part’. The ability for users to participate or interact adds new dimensions to temporal experience and thus increases liveness (467). But, with this statement Ytreberg does not refer to “being live in the sense of

experiencing the transmission of [a program] simultaneously with others” (478). The platforms often constantly provide new information and content which creates the feeling of continuous connection, and increases the degree of liveness. Liveness according to the writer, is thus not limited to television, but is strengthened and expanded by the digital platforms.

More often, like recording and broadcast, also broadcast and reception are taking place at different moments. In the theoretical framework of flow, I have explained that new

technological developments caused a major shift which mainly resulted in more power for the viewer. Most important for this chapter are time-shifting technologies like the VCR, video on demand-systems and platforms to (re)-watch programs. Viewers were no longer bound to the programming that was created by television producers. Because viewers in this way gained

(15)

14

Figure 1: The orange section leads the user to the second screen feature.

more control over their TV schedule, live viewing became less popular. From now on I will refer to the term ‘live viewing’, when I mean the practice of watching a TV show when it is being aired; at the time of transmission.

However, live viewing is still something broadcasters are enticing people to do. Live viewers namely are attractive for commercial purposes (Geerts et al. 98). Also, broadcasters want their viewers to talk about their shows before, during and after the broadcast because it stimulates more people to watch too. And when every viewer watches the same program at the same moment, more people will be encouraged to discuss that TV program in both offline and online environments. This notion will be discussed in more detail in chapter 4. Most important for now is that although live viewing is becoming less popular due to new on-demand systems, broadcasters are still trying to find ways to make live viewing attractive to lure viewers back.

2.3 Second screen apps as game changers

2.3.1 Back to live viewing

As I discussed, many new technologies made it possible for viewers to watch the program they want and when they want to. But second screen apps can be considered as real game changers. A second screen app stimulates viewers to watch the program when it is being aired on TV. As James Bennett mentions, interactive second screen apps typically rely on live viewing (172). This does also apply to all the apps that I used in need for this thesis.2_{The apps for}

Moordvrouw, Eigen Huis & Tuin and Carlo's TV Café are part of the RTL XL app. Only at the specific broadcast time, the RTL XL app shows the ‘link’ to the second screen feature of the corresponding

program. This link may for example say “Join Carlo’s TV Café”3_{and disappears after the show has ended}

(Figure 1). Before and after the transmission of the program the user can never enter this section.

2_{Moordvrouw, Eigen Huis & Tuin, Carlo's TV Café, The Voice Kids, Weet Ik Veel, The Big Picture}

(16)

15

Figure 2: The Weet Ik Veel app before

and after a broadcast.4

The Weet Ik Veel app can be opened at other times than during the show, but users can only play three practice-questions, read the tutorial, go to their grades and edit their profile (Figure 2). The Big Picture app is comparable; before and after the broadcast the user only has access to a tutorial, advertorials and his/her profile. 4

The Voice Kids app is the only second screen app that can be used actively before and after the broadcast. The second screen app then changes into a platform for the program, allowing the user to watch videos, read information about the

contestants, play games and make predictions for the next broadcast. This information is additional to the program, which makes the stream of content an overflow, as discussed in the theory. This overflow can also be connected to the notion of eventfulness. The The Voice Kids app is a way to attract and maintain viewers outside broadcast-times. This eventfulness should keep viewers connected and attached to The Voice, not necessarily by only watching the show. During the broadcast, the platform of the The Voice Kids app disappears and the app turns into a second screen app that can be used to judge performances.

4_{Text in the app: “Currently there is no broadcast, but you can play the practice-questions to prepare yourself for the}

(17)

16

Figure 4:”That went a little too fast, what is the name of the motorcycle-club?” can only be answered if the user paid close attention to the TV-program.

(18)

17

Figure 3: To answer the question “Which animal do you see on this picture?” users have to watch the TV

program to see the actual picture.

The second screen app features of all the apps cannot be used if a viewer choses to (re)-watch the program later. It thus brings users of second screen apps back to the moment of transmitting: to live viewing. But to keep users attached to the program on the TV screen it is not only important that a second screen app can only be used during the specific broadcast, but also that the app can only be used by watching the specific broadcast. The apps therefor need to be constructed in a way that the TV program remains the main object, so that viewers do not entirely lose their attention from the program. This can be seen in for example the Weet Ik Veel app. Users of this app can play along with the game show and answer the questions that are appearing in the show. In order to avoid that it becomes a regular quiz-app that can be played without having to watch the show, there are some questions that lead the user back to the TV screen. Figure 3 shows an example of such a question. It cannot be

answered correctly – besides guessing – without watching the TV program, because the

question on the app is incomplete now. Also Moordvrouw uses this strategy of stimulating users to focus on the broadcast on TV, when it lets its users of the app answer questions about the narrative of the program (Figure 4).

Besides this, the app should either support the content or make the content interactive, but should not contain any vital information, making regular viewers without the app unable to understand the TV program. On the other hand, the second screen app has to be presented by the program as if it has an added value that cannot be missed – even though in reality it is not indispensable. An example from again Moordvrouw: Every week before the program on TV starts, one of the main characters speaks to the viewer: “Do you, at home, want to help us to solve our case? Then open your RTL XL app right now.”5_{It is represented as if users of the}

second screen app can help the inspectors in solving a crime, while regular viewers are just passively watching.

Second screen apps are thus bringing viewers back to the practice of live viewing and as well stimulating them to focus on the show itself. What can be argued from the discussed theory

(19)

18

in the previous subchapters is that programmers are still maximizing the flow to bind the audience to their channels as long as possible. And because second screen apps lead users back to live viewing, viewers can again be subjected to this flow (in contrast to viewers who are watching TV programs on-demand). Lee and Andrejevic argue: “The appeal of second-screen apps is compounded by industry research that indicates viewers who use second screens are more likely to refrain from skipping commercials” (43). This can be explained by a result from Holmes, Josephson and Carney’s research. It showed that during commercials, second screen app users are more focused on their second screen than on the TV (399). Both arguments exemplify that users of second screen apps are more likely to keep watching a particular channel. This means that app users are to a great extent attached to the content of the program and the app and become more easily subjected to the channel flow.

2.3.2 Overflow and app-flow

In the theoretical framework I discussed that most cross-media environments – platforms, websites or apps with additional content about the TV program – are constructed as a brand-extension of the TV program, which can be used or visited before and after the broadcast. Second screen apps are specifically constructed for the use during the broadcast. What can be argued is that, in contrast to cross-media platforms like websites and standard apps from TV programs that mean to extend and lengthen the experience, second screen apps attempt to deepen or intensify the experience. To get a more specific image of this experience, I will now act in more detail with regard to the role of flow and liveness in (the practice of using) second screen apps.

As argued, many theorists claim that flows also exist in cross-media environments. Even though the moment and practice of visiting these environments differs from using the second screen app, it is clear that flows also exist within other areas than television

programming. Second screen apps also have flows of content within them. This flow within the app, however, should not contain any vital information, making regular viewers without the app unable to understand the TV program. As argued before; the broadcast itself must remain the main object. This allows me to conclude that the flow within the app actually can be seen as overflow – an addition to what really matters; the TV content.

But besides this, in the theory section I not only referred to the flows within multi-platforms and digital environments, but also to the flows that exists between these multi-platforms. These flows in cross-media contexts, according to the discussed theory, are designed to trigger moves between the TV program and the additional platform – or in this case, the second screen app. There can actually be said that, because of the fact that the second screen apps are designed for interaction with the program at the specific moment of broadcast, there is a new flow that exists between the TV program and the second screen app – instead of merely within the app –

(20)

19

which I will refer to as the app-flow. This flow must be constructed accurately and carefully to create more immersion for the viewer, which will deepen or intensify the viewing experience. The flow at specific times needs to be ‘on’ the app, but may not be too long away from the TV program itself, and vice versa. If this flow is not applied properly, when it does not lead the users seamlessly through the practice of watching the broadcast and using the app at the same time, it is immediately felt as a distraction. This thin line between distraction and immersion shall I further discuss in Chapter 3.

2.3.3 Second screen app liveness

As indicated, when TV programs are live, as in an event that actually takes place at the exact same time, viewers will not only feel like something is happening, but that it is happening ‘right now’ (Gripsrud, “Television, Broadcasting, Flow” 19). Many programs are therefore presented as if they are live, in order to give viewers the feeling that it is currently taking place and that it is now important to watch. The involvement of the viewer can hereby be increased, since there is created a feeling that he/she is part of this one-time-happening event. Second screen apps can be seen as an ultimate means for this liveness strategy. As I have showed, second screen apps only work at the moment of airing. This means there is only one chance to experience the use of it. This is comparable to everything that is live; there is only one ‘real’ moment. Even a not-live program may now feel as a live-broadcast. Because of the fact that liveness is more intensified because of the one moment a second screen app can be used, the involvement is experienced even more intensely. In addition, in the theory on platforms I argued that these systems often constantly provide new information and content which creates the feeling of continuous connection, and increases the degree of liveness. Second screen apps also continuously provide additional material for its users. Thus, not only because of the singular moment to use the app, but also because of the constant updates, liveness is created by the second screen app.

Liveness can also be created by second screen apps in other manners, for example by interaction. Interaction makes a user part of the liveness, Ytreberg argues. A significant example here is Weet Ik Veel. Users can participate in the quiz by answering the same questions on their app. The questions in the app appear simultaneously with the questions in the broadcast, whereby it seems as if the app-users are playing the quiz in real life simultaneously with the participants in the studio. Presenter Linda de Mol emphasizes this idea by often addressing the TV viewers in relation to the app; she tells that users at home can “play along” and compare their answers to the people in the studio.

(21)

20

Figure 5: Jamai Loman telling the audience how many viewers are using the second screen app.

The idea of liveness is simulated in yet another way. De Mol sometimes ‘speaks with’ her sidekick Jamai Loman – who is in another room and will “keep an eye on the app-users”. Viewers will see Jamai in front of the camera, providing the audience with for examples some statistics (Figure 5). Both Linda and Jamai mention the second screen app (users) multiple times in the broadcast which will create a feeling of continuous connection for the app-users. At the end of the program, the final average results of the participating app-users are presented by Jamai. Jamai ‘responds’ to the input of the users, which will even more create the feeling of interaction. This all adds to the liveness of the program. However, Weet Ik Veel is not broadcast live, with the exception of the parts with Jamai. The whole studio quiz is pre-recorded, also Linda ‘talking’ to Jamai. This can be related to the first example of chapter 2.2 and all the different levels of liveness. In this example, the layers and the second screen app feature are ultimate ways to create liveness into a non-live program. The interactive features in the app ensure that the users are also becoming part of this liveness.

(22)

21

Figure 6: Besides judging the performance, the user could also watch

the livestream.

The app from The Voice Kids also has a unique way to create liveness. One time an audient in the show carried a selfie-stick with a camera during her performance. The second screen app then enabled a ‘live stream’. By watching this stream, the user could see the performance from the perspective of the selfie-stick (Figure 6). The stream was simultaneously played with the performance on TV, which – besides the word live-stream – evoked the idea of the video and the program being actually live. This part of the program is not live so it was just a regular video that the user could watch. This feature of the app can thus be seen as a strategy for liveness.

Besides the research result that second screen apps can be used as a strategy to create liveness, also other conclusions can be drawn from this chapter. The information on a second screen app can be seen as an overflow – in order to keep the TV image the main content. This overflow is continuously complemented and updated, which simulated a continuous connection between the app-user and the TV program. But not only within the app exists a flow; also between the app and the TV screen. This app-flow needs to be constructed accurately to fluently guide the gaze of the user.

As argued in this section, many practices and strategies connected to flow and liveness, like interaction, distraction and immersion are important features to create the more intense and deepening viewing experience I mentioned. These concepts will be discussed in more detail in the next chapters.

(23)

22

3. DISTRACTION

3.1 TV: The medium of distraction

In the years when television emerged, the practice of watching TV was seen as a form of distraction from other activities. As Wim Knulst argues, “the era of listening to the radio and reading with relative scarcity of distraction and entertaining drew in in the late fifties: television penetrates more and more living rooms” (105)6_{. But television in connection to distraction is}

also put in a more positive perspective. According to the ideas of Jerome Singer, television also is a form of entertainment that provides distraction for “the complexities of one’s daily life” (47). Also Isaac Diepenhorst illustrates early television as an activity that brings distraction to viewers’ existence (288).

However, the practice of watching television itself is also subjected to other forms of distraction. Moreover, the TV is often positioned in the living room where distractions are ceaselessly present. Sometimes television is even some sort of background-noise during family activities. These constant television households, according to Medrich, are households “in which the TV is on for most of the day – whether or not anyone is watching” (171). But when a member of the family desires, this background noise can be moved to the foreground (Lull n. pag.). I will not focus too much on television as a background-noise, but more on the practice of watching television consciously and the presence of other distractions surrounding it. This namely can be connected more easily with the practice of using a second screen app while watching TV. This is because of the fact that second screen apps, as argued before, are created to be used simultaneously with a TV program and not autonomously. Although second screen apps are designed to intensify the televisual experience and to add interactivity, the dividing between immersion and distraction is very thin.

3.1.1 Multiple screens next to the television

The current domestic space no longer only contains a TV, but is a place where several (screen) technologies are available to people, like the computer, mobile phone and the tablet, whose presence can changes the televisual experience of the viewer (D’heer, Paulussen and Courtois 60; Shin, An and Kim 1). These screens are second screens. Important to note is that second screen apps are applications created by the specific TV program and a second screen in general can be any digital screen – laptop, mobile phone, tablet – that a TV viewer uses for any activity while watching TV. These available mobile second screens provide a form of distraction while watching a program. Viewers with access to multiple screens significantly more often chat with friends and surf on Internet while watching TV (D’heer, Paulussen and Courtois 65-6; Toor qtd.

6_{Translation from: “het tijdperk van radio luistern en lezen met nog relatieve schaarste aan afleiding en vermaakt,}

(24)

23

in Lee & Andrejevic 41). These examples can be seen as distractions from the content on TV. But there also is a growing preference to use smart phones while watching television, to search for more online information about the television content; which is very different because it is related to the TV content (Courtois and D’heer 155; Lochrie and Coulton 199; Van

Cauwenberge, Schaap and Van Roy 100; Zigmond and Stipp 32). In this last practice, the second screens – not to be confused with second screen apps – are not just a distraction, but may function as a tool for more engagement with the TV content. However, what is also argued is the opposite; indications are that viewers that are using second screens to follow a TV program “are far more likely to split their attention between distinct activities on each device” (Google 3). In this perspective, a second screen which is used for creating more connection with the content of the program – by looking up more information – on the other hand causes that the activity of watching TV is ‘disturbed’ by the actions on the second screen. This is for example reinforced by the fact that someone searching for more information on the world wide web may be quickly distracted by all the possibilities offered and strategies offered by the Internet.

The second screen in relation to distraction can thus be seen from various perspectives. A viewer may use a second screen for socializing with friends, watching videos or other activities that are distracting from the content on TV. The second screen can however also be used to deepen the involvement with the TV program, as a viewer may search online for more information about certain subjects from the show. On the other hand; there is always the possibility of being distracted by all the opportunities offered by the second device which moves the attention away from focusing on the content on TV.

3.2 Second screen apps

3.2.1 Channeling the attention

The abovementioned statements are, as explained, based on second screens in general and not on second screen apps – despite the fact that these apps only run on second screens too. What is clear is that “TV no longer commands our full attention as it has become one of the most common devices that is used simultaneously with other screens” (Google 2). The presence of these mobile devices and the high attention for online activities encouraged the TV industry to examine potential ways to respond to people’s tendency to simultaneously watch and browse (Lee and Andrejevic 41-2). This ‘way’ eventually emerged in the form of second screen apps. Second screen apps, from this perspective, can be seen as a production-side strategy to capture the wandering attention of audiences.

Second screen apps can contain multiple and various features. For example “additional show-related information, access to social networks (…), and interactive experiences

(25)

24

synchronized to program content such as polls or quizzes,” which can all enhance the viewer’s experience (Holmes 397). This suggests that (besides viewing) interacting, contributing, sharing etc. are also activities which are encouraged by broadcasters who make second screen apps. But all these activities that are meant to provide immersion, engagement or pleasure, can easily provoke the opposite. The apps need to be designed in such a way that the gaze of the viewers is directed between the TV screen and the second screen. If this is not done properly, the second screen app could be a distraction rather than a tool for engagement (Holmes, Josephson and Carney 397; Basapur et al. 87). Holmes, Josephson and Carney found in their study that 63% of the viewer’s total gaze is directed to the TV-screen, 30% to the tablet and 7% off screen (398). Brown et al. found that only 22% of the total gaze was directed at a companion app (670). The length of the gaze is not the most significant; more important is that this gaze does not form a disruption for the TV viewing. An app should therefore thus provide a fluent connection between itself and the program. This app-flow must be constructed accurately and carefully to create a more enhancing viewing experience for the users of the second screen app.

A significant difference between surfing the web on a second screen and using a second screen app can be observed in the manner how the content comes to the user. Where a website can be seen as a pull-medium – a user can search for content of interests and ‘pulls’ this content towards him/herself –, an app is the contrary: the medium pushes information to the user, even though it is not specifically requested. This push-function can be found in all the second screen apps I used for this research, and has influence on the viewing experience of its users. Firstly, the pushed information creates a “walled garden”, in contradiction to the open and varied field of the internet browser (Lee and Andrejevic 45). Seconds screen apps only provide users with information about the program the viewer is watching; for example DIY-tips or walkthroughs during Eigen Huis & Tuin. No other content is bothering the user, which may occur if a viewer would search online for more information itself. Then, the viewer could more easily be

distracted. Lee and Andrejevic argue that the second screen apps therefor “channel the audiences’ attention” (45-6). If the attention of a user is more channeled, he/she as a viewer is more focused. Secondly, and at the same time contradictory, pushed content that was not requested or desired by the user, can more easily be experienced as distractive than pulled content. There is a fine line between complementary information that offers more engagement, and intrusive content that causes distraction. This fine line is caused by the fact that the interests of the producer of content might not match the viewers, so pushed content can turn redundant if the viewer is not interested in it. The degree of distraction or engagement also depends on the ‘fluency’ of the app-flow, on the type of content that is pushed and on the way a user’s attention is triggered. I will hereafter discuss different kinds of content; reading/viewing material (that is not asking for reaction), messages with questions and stimulations to social interaction.

(26)

25

Figure 8: The app repeats some

information from a conversation.8

Figure 7: Host Carlo Boszhard introduces his guests.7

The possibilities offered by second screen apps enable apps to channel the attention of its users, which in combination with a fluent app-flow may cause for more immersion. However, since the pushed content might be unwanted, this is not certain. Channeling can thus not guarantee success in avoiding distraction.

3.2.2 Reading/viewing and watching

The apps I used for this research push different kinds of reading and viewing material to their users. With this, I mean content on which a user does not need to respond to, except by reading or watching it. Both the Weet Ik Veel and The Big Picture app do not provide any of this material, so I will not discuss these apps in this section. The app from The Voice Kids also does not offer any reading material and only provided viewing content once; the livestream that I discussed earlier in the previous chapter.

The app from Carlo’s TV Café pushes all kinds of material to the user. Sometimes it brings content from the broadcast in more detail to the user, for example the recipe that the TV-cook is preparing. But besides this, the app also provides the users with short messages that may function as introduction to the show (Figure 7), as conclusion from conversations with guests (Figure 8), or as preview for next week’s broadcast. 78

7_{Text in the app: “Later, my guests will be Jan Versteegh and Geraldine Kemper, Jennie Lena and Paul de Leeuw.}

My co-host is André Hazes Junior! So long!”

8_{Text in the app: “Paul de Leeuw is currently touring throughout The Netherlands with his show Zingen Zolang het}

(27)

26

Figure 9: “So that's Liselotte's plan: Carla busies Van Kemenade while Liselotte looks into the navigation system

of his car.”

Figure 10: “Bram occurs during an attempt to free Evert's daughters. But

something goes very wrong ...”

The Eigen Huis & Tuin app pushes a little amount of messages to the user, per episode usually only one or two. These messages are instruction manuals for do-it-yourself jobs or product descriptions. The jobs or products themselves appear in the broadcast but are more detailed discussed within the app, supported by pictures or videos to clarify the steps or features.

The Moordvrouw app also provides the user with reading and viewing material.

Sometimes these are messages with stills from the broadcast that are highlighting a major event in the story (Figure 9). At other times it is a still that has yet to come, which tells the viewer that something important is going to happen (Figure 10). In the first five episodes the app also pushed videos to the user. The videos displayed a car driving to a crime scene or examination (which was presented as if it was the car of the app-user), or scenes from the last episode or previews from the next one.

The first kind of message that can be distinguished from all the above mentioned examples is the message that provides the user with more information about a certain subject that has not been discussed deeply in the show. These updates are, according to a research from Geert et al. appreciated very much by users. “What seems to be appreciated most by the participants is the content and information they receive which they would not have had if they only watched the show” (101). Important however, is that these messages are not too long. This implicates that the content that Eigen Huis & Tuin offers to its users, is not appreciated. The descriptions and

(28)

27

manuals are too long to read quickly, which is disturbing to the practice of viewing. This also counts for the recipes provided by Carlo’s app. These messages can be considered to distract the users. However, what the research of Geerts et al. also clarified, is that app-users apply “a form of self-regulation in order not to get distracted. When they know a certain update has so much content that it would distract them, they tend to skip that update or just glance over it” (100). This implies that users of the app would not be ‘distracted’, but that they just do not read the content on the Eigen Huis & Tuin app. This makes the app worthless because these are the only kind of messages it provides. Users can indeed choose to read the content after the show but this would completely undermine the principle of a second screen app and make it nothing more than a regular website or app.

What none of the used apps does, and is very important that they do not do, is providing additional information that gets the user out of the experience. Goldenberg describes this practice in his research. Some apps may for example provide content about the production side of the program, which emphasises the ‘fake-ness’ of the story world. Imagine for example the Moordvrouw app pushing messages that inform the user on which prizes some actors has won or where the film set of the series is. This pulls the user out of the experience of the fictive story world, instead of maintaining the user inside of the experience (46). Thus, additional content to the TV program is appreciated by the users, but the length of the provided material and the extent to which the content is connected to the (story) world of the program determine whether it will be distractive.

Besides additional content, some apps also provide repetitive material. Figure 8 and 9 for example, show messages that repeat information from the TV program. The messages are short which means that they can be read quickly by the users and are not distractive for the practice of viewing. According to Dowell et al. repetitive information is however not valued by users of an app (1216). On the other hand, repetitive messages may emphasise an important element of a conversation or scene, which may provide more engagement with the content. This becomes clear in Figure 9. By putting the focus on a specific action of a character, the

Moordvrouw app implicates that this event is a significant happening in the story. Messages with repetitive information in this case function as a guide through the story world. This is useful since series are more detailed and complex and it reinforces an immersive involvement (Murray 6). Thus, pushed content which repeats the content on TV while not adding new information is in general not valued, but can be important if it underlines or emphasizes elements of the content on TV which are significant.

Another kind of content that the apps provide are videos. Moordvrouw and The Voice Kids both push these to the users. But according to research, videos are being considered as confusing (Wilson 187; Geerts et al. 100). Users do not know which content they should be watching; the video or the program itself. The videos from Moordvrouw, even though they

(29)

28

Figure 11: The apps tests if the viewer has been paying attention to

the conversation between the team members.9

might function as reminder to a previous episode, are thus experienced as a form of distraction during the practice of watching the TV program. Maybe this is the reason why after the fifth episode the app did not push any video material to the users anymore. The ‘livestream’ video on the The Voice Kids app however, is another case. This video runs parallel to the performance on TV, so that it can be watched ‘at the same time’. The video on the app shows another camera-perspective than the performance on TV, which adds an extra dimension to the viewing experience. Thus, the same content from a different viewing perspective is effective, but completely different video content is distracting.

There is yet another kind of message that can be distinguished from the examples. Figure 7 and 10 are representing this. These messages are preparing the user for what is coming, so that the user is more engaged with the program. Carlo’s TV Café is literally telling what is coming, by providing information about his guests, but the Moordvrouw example is most significant in this case. It is only telling the user that something is going to happen, not specifically what. This excites suspense and an apprehensive feeling with the users of the app. The users will pay close attention to the TV screen, which stimulates the immersion to the program.

3.2.3 Answering questions and watching

The apps also push messages to the user to which a response is expected. The Moordvrouw app approaches the user as if he/she is a member of the investigation team and continuously asks the users questions about the content of the TV program. These questions can be distinguished in two

categories: trivia questions based on events that just happened in the show and questions based on the opinion or thoughtfulness of the user. The first category mainly consists of questions like Figure 11.9 The app tests whether the user has been paying attention by asking questions about actions, conversations, events and developments, all based on scenes that just appeared on TV. When episodes are divided over multiple broadcasts, the app may ask a question about the previous broadcast(s). After answering a question, all options turn green or red;

9_{Text in the app: “Which information is on the microchip? 1) All names and locations of IS-leaders. 2) Future targets}

(30)

29

Figure 13: The user can express his/her opinion about a team

member.11

Figure 12: The app asks the user whether

he/she found a connection between two

elements in the case.10

right or wrong. The user now knows if he/she answered the question correctly. The second category of questions does not label an answer as correct or incorrect because it consists of questions asking for the opinion or testing the thoughtfulness of the user. The app asks the user questions for example about what he/she thinks about the actions of his/her ‘colleagues’ within the investigation team, about the premonition of the user, or if the user found a connection or link between events (Figure 12-13). 1011

The app from Carlo’s TV Café exists out of the exact same type of questions like the Moordvrouw app: Sometimes the app asks what the user thinks about a certain object,

performance, person or subject, and other questions are trivia questions ba sed on the content of the program.

The The Big Picture app and the Weet Ik Veel app both push trivia questions to their users. The users are able to play along with the contestants in the show and the audience in the studio, as they can answer the same questions at the exact same moment. Besides these questions, the apps do not provide any other content or questions.

10_{Text in the app: “Fenna looks suspiciously at the mascot in the car. Do you recognize it from somewhere? 1) Yes.}

2) No.”

11_{Text in the app: “What do you think of Carla’s behavior towards Van Kemenade? 1) It is quite naive of her. 2)}

(31)

30

Figure 14: The opinions are strongly divided: 53% against

47%.12

The first kind of question that can be distinguished from all the above mentioned examples, is a question directed to the opinion of the user. Moordvrouw, Carlo’s TV Café and The Voice all use this type of question to engage with the users. According to a research from Geerts et al., polls cause mixed reactions. “Some participants thought the questions were mostly

uninteresting, while for others they lead to a short debate nearly every time” (101). The uninterestingness mostly came from questions that are too obvious. The questions should thus be constructed so that discussion is possible. Figure

1412 shows an example of a question from the Carlo’s

TV Café app. It is seen that the opinions of the users are much divided. This question is apparently not obvious and will for example more quickly be the basis for a discussion among those present in the home. Also Figure 13 shows an example of a poll with two possible answers that are both arguable. Questions like these are appreciated by the users of second screen apps (Geerts et al. 101), which therefore do not feel as a disturbing element. One can however argue the opposite: questions which have multiple opinions that are ‘arguable’ are more interesting and demand more thought, but does this not make them distracting? The questions therefore must quickly and easily generate an opinion of the viewer; the question should go into a subject the user probably already has an opinion about.

The Moordvrouw app also asks questions which allow users to express their

premonitions. Again here it is important that these questions are not too obvious, it works the same way as the just mentioned polls. But, this kind of questions also has another important result that is comparable to the reading material of this same app. For example Figure 12: If the question is answered negatively and the user thus not discovered a link, the user is now aware there is a connection between some actions that maybe soon will be displayed. This raises suspense and an apprehensive feeling with the users of the app. The users will pay close attention to the TV screen, which stimulates the immersion to the program. If this question however is answered with yes, the user may experience a form of triumph; he/she discovered an important connection, which some others have not – after answering the question, the app will provide the user with the statistics of the answers.

12_{Text in the app: “Do you agree on Flodder being chosen as the best TV series from the past 25 years? 1) Yes. 2)}

(32)

31

Another kind of question is the one that is based on the content of the show. Both Moordvrouw and Carlo’s TV Café ask those questions repeatedly. What is significant is that these questions can only be answered correctly (besides guessing) if the user is watching the show attentively (Figure 11). These questions are thus not distracting from the program but are stimulating users to focus on the broadcast on TV. In addition, when a question is answered wrongly, the correct answer is displayed. If a user of the app missed a part of the program, or perhaps misunderstood a scene, he/she is now yet in possession of the correct information. Mainly in Moordvrouw this may be helpful when it comes to important information to better understand the story. In this case it operates in the same way as some reading material of the app. The questions then function as a guide through the story world, which reinforces an immersive involvement (Murray 6). This is also helpful for the episodes that are divided over multiple broadcasts and when the app asks a question about the previous episode. If the user missed the previous episode, he/she has the right answer to this question which may contain important information to better understand the story. These kinds of questions can be considered to provide more immersion in the story, instead of being a distraction to the program.

In contrast to the other apps, the Weet Ik Veel and the The Big Picture applications are not only just based on the content, but are the same content as the program, as the programs are quiz-shows. The concept of the show is exactly the same game on the app. Users of the app specifically use the app to play along with the program, so the messages on the app are not considered as a distraction to the practice of watching. Only when for example questions on the app appear too soon or too late, causing the second screen to no longer run parallel with the TV screen, it will be considered as irritation and as a result as distraction to the program.

3.2.4 Social media and watching

The apps also push message that stimulate users to be active on social media. Moordvrouw, Eigen Huis & Tuin and Carlo’s TV Café all do this in the same way, as the apps belong to the same overarching application from RTL XL. All messages that are pushed to the user have a button on the side with the share-icon (Figure 7-14). Messages can be shared on social

platforms with one click on this button. Other ways to be ‘socially engaged’ are made possible at the top of the screen (the same figures). ‘Social on’ shows the flow of messages on twitter, related to the particular program (Figure 15) and ‘Write a message’ enables users to type a message which will be posted on Twitter.