Cross-‐media logic in Wie is … de Mol?
Changing strategies within NPO
Marlies van Zwieteren 6052223
marliesvanzwieteren@gmail.com
Master Thesis Television & Cross-‐Media Culture University of Amsterdam
Word count: 22.022 Supervisor: Markus Stauff Second reader: Karin van Es 26-‐06-‐2015
Abstract
Televisual culture has changed due to developments in technological and cultural fields. The medium television was unique in creating a ‘shared experience’ by gathering
families and friends around the TV. In the contemporary digital media landscape, there is a trend towards a more individualized experience, in where a viewer can create his or her own schedule. This means television companies have to create new strategies to address the audience. In this research, the focus is on how the Dutch public broadcasting system ‘Nederlandse Publieke Omroep’ (NPO), formed on so-‐called pillars, uses cross-‐ medial extensions to attract viewers and to promote its channels and shows. The reality game show Wie is ... de Mol? (AVROTROS) is used as case study to scrutinize this
question. The concepts of flow and (to a lesser extent) liveness help to show in what way NPO addresses viewers. What can be seen is that NPO applies a commercial logic to its programs –where branding plays an important role-‐ but in a more controlled and neat way than on commercial channels.
Key words
flow, liveness, NPO, cross-‐media, individualization
Table of contents
INTRODUCTION 4
1. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NPO, FLOW AND LIVENESS 9
1.1 Development of the Dutch public broadcasting system 9 1.2 Developments in the concept of flow 15 1.3 Developments in the concept of liveness 19
2. ANALYSIS OF WIE IS … DE MOL? AND MOLTALK 22
2.1 What is Wie is … de Mol? 23
2.2 Analysis of the television broadcasts 26 2.2.1 Williams’ concept of flow and Wie is .. de Mol? 35
2.3 Analysis of Moltalk 38
3. ANALYSIS OF THE WIE IS … DE MOL? VODCASTS 43 3.1 Analysis of the official vodcasts 44 3.2 Analysis of the unofficial vodcasts 45
4. ANALYSIS OF THE TWITTER ACCOUNTS OF WIE IS … DE MOL? 49
4.1 What is Twitter? 50
4.2 Analysis of the Twitter accounts 51
4.2.1 Analysis of @wieisdemol 51
4.2.2 Analysis of @ikbendemol 53
5. ANALYSIS OF THE WIE IS … DE MOL? APP AND ROODSHOW 56
5.1 Analysis of the official app 56
5.2 Analysis of Roodshow 58
CONCLUSION 59
LIST OF REFERENCES 63
Introduction
In 1974, media scholar Raymond Williams introduced the notion of flow in his book
Television: Technology and Cultural Form. In this publication, he explained in what way
commercial television channels tried to hold the attention of their viewers by creating a flow in their programs. He named three different levels of flow, which all work on a different layer: flow can be present within a channel (to prevent a viewer from zapping), but can also be found within a particular show. Williams called flow “the defining
characteristic of broadcasting, simultaneously as a technology and as a cultural form.” (86) Flow is thus more than a televisual concept: as Williams describes, flow is also connected to technological and cultural developments. Many of those developments took place in the years after Williams’ publication. When his book was published in 1974, only a few TV channels were available. This meant that the control over televisual flow was in the hands of a few networks who focused on flow within a program or in-‐ between programs, so the viewer would be glued to the screen. This is what is called a program-‐based flow; the flow is based on what happens on a certain channel or within a program. Uricchio described flow as a programming strategy “that transformed the diverse program elements into a whole.” (164) Six years later, this power would shift to a more viewer-‐based flow. With the arrival of the remote control device (RCD) in 1980, the audience was now in the position to zap away more easily from a program: the so-‐ called ‘couch potato’ was able to switch channels without getting up from their couch. Some years later the videocassette recorder (VCR) made its entrance in people’s homes, with the consequence that viewers could now determine their own broadcast schedule. It enabled audiences to record shows and programs, and they were therefore no longer bound to a certain channel flow: they were able to watch shows on their own schedule. Another advantage was that viewers were able to skip commercials by simply fast-‐ forwarding the VCR to the start of their recorded show. This led to a viewer-‐centered notion of flow; a flow “as a set of choices and actions initiated by the viewer.” (Uricchio 170) Audiences were ‘in control’ of their TV and they could determine their own TV schedule by taping shows and skipping commercials. Moreover, from 1980 until circa 2000, the multi-‐channel era took place, leading to an expansion in TV channels. Government regulations enabled the existence of a wider selection of channels. This caused an increase in consumer control, while the television industry had to come up
with new shows and strategies to attract viewers (Lotz 25). In the Netherlands, commercial television gained access for broadcasting in 1988 and the same battle for audience ratings began. (Bardoel and Konig 598-‐9). With the rise of the Internet in the 90s and social media in the last ten years, the structure of flow has changed again. New technologies such as wireless connections and mobile devices empower audiences in moving freely while streaming content from sites like Netflix and NPO Uitzending Gemist. A viewer no longer has to be home or in front of an actual TV set to watch television and time schedules are of less importance: flow became an even more viewer-‐determined experience (Uricchio 172). Another fundamental change is that the power in the relation producer-‐viewer shifts. A viewer no longer has to be exclusively a viewer, but can be what Don Tapscott called a ‘prosumer’: the consumer can become a producer too. (Babu 2) Viewers can create content in different forms: they can make podcasts, vodcasts, and own adaptations of their favourite shows etcetera. Active audiences can respond to Twitter and Facebook accounts for official programs and live-‐tweet a show. What can be seen in these developments is a trend towards individualization: television is a mass medium, but the mass finds ways to other media outlets, without missing their favourite shows. Viewers can now control their media use in their own way.
With these new media options available, the original definition of the one-‐way flow where a few networks decided what viewers would watch doesn’t seem very relevant anymore. Television users now have the option to ‘talk back’ via digital technologies, meaning they can literally respond to programs by posting their
commentary and critique online and are able to compose their TV schedules themselves; another step towards individualization. In the academic field, there has been debate about the importance of television in this era. With these new technological
developments, can television still be a mass medium? For example, media scholar Barbara Gentikow argues in her article that technological improvements (as mentioned above) have changed the way viewers use their television. Audiences are now likely to become more individualized and fragmentized, and television will lose its status as a ‘community thing’: the mass medium is becoming a personal medium. (2010, 147) Some television features are still very relevant: a quality of what made and still makes
television a very important medium is the liveness of broadcasting. With liveness I don’t necessarily mean that the show is live, but rather that it is watched by many viewers at
argues: “TV shows may not always be live, but they are current. They explicitly claim to belong to the same historical moment that their audiences are living.” (2010, 11) Liveness can contribute to the importance of flow and is still a significant and relevant medium quality that can help to push a viewer into a certain televisual flow. What I want to make clear with this is that both flow and liveness are two very important features of televisual culture. The main focus in this research will be on flow, because this strategy is still used for broadcasters to address audiences in Williams’ sense of the concept. Liveness can contribute to this, and I will consider liveness as a supportive function of flow. I am not interested in the function of liveness and live events in general, but rather in the particular function liveness can fulfil when linked to flow.
All these developments in televisual culture were a reason for me wanting to explore a certain question: In a time where television programs are not solely on television, but where we can speak of a medium within a bigger cross-‐medial platform, how do television strategies change? I especially want to dig deeper into the strategies of the Dutch public broadcasting system NPO (Nederlandse Publieke Omroep). The reason I want to focus on the NPO within my research is that the televisual flow Williams described is aimed at commercial channels (like RTL 4 and SBS 6 in the Netherlands). Their goal is to keep the audience attached to their programs as long as possible, because their source of income is completely dependent on the viewer ratings: the more viewers, the more money. The public broadcast system in the Netherlands does not apply this commercial philosophy. The public system originated in 1924 for radio broadcasting and never went through real changes in its form of broadcasting. I will come back to this in my first chapter. This means the Dutch public broadcasting system is almost 100 years, but did not adjust to developments in various sectors and is therefore described as out-‐dated (Bardoel and Konig 594, Daalmeijer 33). Since 1956, when the Dutch Television Act1 was adopted, the public television system is divided
between several broadcasters. They get designated airtime based on how many
members the broadcaster has: the more members, the more airtime (I will touch on this in more detail at a later stage). This means that different broadcasters will show their programs on one channel on the same evening, meaning there isn’t one controlled flow that will continuously run through an evening’s schedule. Therefore, the legitimacy of a
1 http://www.gahetna.nl/actueel/nieuws/2012/geschiedenis-‐publieke-‐omroep-‐nederland
commercial flow as seen on RTL 4 does not exist with the NPO: this obsolete NPO structure impacts the way flow can work within a public channel. The shows are not as coherent and broadcasters will try to hold on to a viewer with their broadcast, not on a channel, per se. To keep audiences watching their channel or broadcasts, NPO and its different broadcasters will have to come up with new strategies to hold audiences with their brand. With a trend towards individualization in media use and with NPO’s current form of existence, I am interested in how flow works within the Dutch broadcasting system and that is why the research question in my thesis will be:
How does public television use new strategies in addressing audiences in a cross-‐medial landscape?
To answer this question, I will first have to take a closer look at the ever-‐changing definitions of flow and liveness. As already demonstrated above, flow and liveness are two dynamic concepts that change and adapt due to technological, social and economical developments. Individualization and the changing role of viewers to a more active
attitude towards the media are also significant factors of the contemporary cross-‐medial era. All these concepts interact and influence each other: for example, flow is still a relevant television term, but is changing due to individualization, and vice versa. In my first chapter, I will therefore give a critical historical overview of these concepts. I will also provide a historical overview of the NPO, to create a context for my analysis in the upcoming chapters.
After that, I will research how the NPO deals with these changed concepts and what strategies they use to create flow and liveness in their programs. It is useful to connect my research question to a NPO program to make a case study. I will scrutinize the game show Wie is… de Mol? (AVROTROS, 1999-‐) in the following chapters. I have chosen to research Wie is … de Mol?, because it has been on television since 1999; this means that it was on air before digital technologies such as social media and Uitzending
Gemist were used. The show has lived through these changes and the format has proven
to be strong enough to still be interesting, but at the same time adapt to new
developments. Although the show itself has not changed in content, the producers have moved with the times and have created several transmedia extensions to create a cross-‐ medial Wie is… de Mol? platform. I’m interested in how these new strategies are used
within the public broadcasting system, especially in relation to the concepts of flow and liveness. Williams’ notion of flow was aimed solely at television, while I want to connect flow to a transmedia surrounding, where television, Internet, mobile phones and radio all play a significant part in the Wie is … de Mol? world.
In the chapters after my literature research, I will analyse different elements of the cross-‐medial Wie is … de Mol? system. My main focus will be on flow: I will show more thoroughly how the concept of flow has changed and is changing in my first chapter. In the following chapters I will scrutinize how Wie is … de Mol? uses flow, liveness and other strategies to address audiences by looking at the television episodes, Twitter use, radio broadcasts and other extensions of the show.
1. Developments in the NPO, flow and liveness
In this chapter, I start by giving a short historical overview of the Dutch public broadcasting system NPO. I will explain how it was founded and how it developed through several technological and social changes. By showing the evolution of the NPO, I will argue that its deviant form and existence had and still has specific impacts on the concepts and strategies of flow and liveness in relation to the Dutch public system. Therefore, I will also focus on the questions of flow and liveness to elaborate on the specific structure and strategies of NPO.
By making a connection between these three, I want to show how developments in media, society and in technological fields became important in finding new ways of addressing audiences and how this changed strategies of the Dutch public system. In my introduction, I already briefly illustrated why flow and liveness are suitable for
scrutinizing the NPO and its strategies, in this chapter I will provide a larger academic background, to create a theoretical framework that is applicable to the upcoming chapters about Wie is ... de Mol? and its various cross-‐medial extensions.
1.1 Development of the Dutch public broadcasting system
The Dutch public system is a very complicated whole of various broadcasting
associations. It differs from other national public broadcasting sectors like the United Kingdom, where the public system is limited to one central organization (in the case of the UK that is BBC) that is in charge of broadcasting. To understand the logic of NPO’s current state, it is useful to explain something about the beginning of broadcasting in the Netherlands. The contemporary Dutch public broadcasting system originated in 19232.
In this year the first public broadcaster that still exists today (then named HDO, now AVROTROS) was founded and started transmitting radio broadcasts: since its beginning, “it [NPO] has been based upon a very different set of loyalties and commitments.” (Ang 99) Although it was not the first broadcaster in the Netherlands, it was the first that was founded on certain social-‐cultural norms and values. The Dutch society was already divided in segmented social groups; each group had its own norms and values, often based on religious traditions. This meant that when a person belonged to, for example,
the Catholic segment of the society, he or she would go to a Catholic school and church, read a Catholic newspaper and would have a group of friends that only consisted of Catholics. This segmentation of the society is called the pillarization of the Netherlands; every ideology or religious movement had its own pillar.
Returning to radio broadcasting, this pillarization model had radical
consequences for the Dutch public system. The conservative liberals were the first ones to found a public broadcaster in the form of the HDO/AVRO. They opted for a BBC broadcasting model in the Netherlands, meaning they would be the central organization within the Dutch public system. Ien Ang argues “the Dutch broadcasting system (...) is essentially based upon the assumption that broadcasting should be a question of public service.” (99) So when HDO started its broadcasts, other social groups like Catholics, Protestants, socialists and progressive liberals claimed this proposal was unfair, since their social-‐cultural group wouldn’t be represented in radio broadcasts. This led to the founding of the contemporary public service system, where radio broadcasts could connect with all pillars and operate as a public service. All different socio-‐political groups demanded their own broadcast company, since they recognized radio as an excellent instrument to broadcast their philosophy on a nation-‐wide level. (Bardoel en Konig 596)
Pillarization led to a national radio system, where each social group had its own broadcasting association that transmitted radio shows. Every new broadcaster made it more difficult to create a central broadcasting system, and in 1930 the government determined that five broadcasting associations (AVRO, KRO, NCRV, VARA and VPRO) would get designated airtime on two national radio channels. This was the foundation of the still-‐used national broadcasting system in the current Dutch public television and radio system. What occurred in this system was a broadcasting foundation that contradicted the notion of a channel flow. This system discouraged people from
continuing to listen to the radio. If they continued to listen, they would be introduced to opposing views and other pillars, something which was considered unacceptable in religious groups. Although it is assumed all members of the different pillars only listened to their ‘own’ broadcaster, it can’t be verified since there were no systematic survey data available at that time (Ang 101). This created a tension: there was no flow intended, but the possibility of listening to the next program was there.
The pillarization meant that when TV was introduced in the Netherlands in 1951, five different broadcasters wanted to produce shows only for their own community, attracting their audiences all in their own way and with their own ideologies. For example, VARA presented itself as a broadcaster that wanted to educate people in cultural emancipation and defined their audience as working-‐class socialists. Therefore, they wanted to make progressive programs about culture and spread a socialist
ideology. (Ang 102-‐3) From 1951 until 1956, the five separate broadcasters did exist, but together they formed the NTS (Nederlandse Televisie Stiching; Dutch Television Foundation), an organization that controlled and broadcasted everything on Dutch television. The Dutch Television Act from 1956 made it possible for all five to broadcast their own shows individually on two public channels. This was a turning point for Dutch society and the mass medium effect of television was partly responsible for the
depillarization: people had an easy way to discover the values and ideas of other pillars when they watched TV. (Bardoel & Konig 604) This trend of depillarization became even more apparent when new, more liberal, worldviews evolved in the late sixties and illegal Dutch commercial broadcasters started transmitting radio shows that were focused on entertainment. Since then, the goal of public broadcasters was no longer exclusively to inform and to educate, and shows were more often focused on entertainment as well3.
As a result, the more informal and entertainment-‐focused channel TROS was added to the public broadcasting system. The NTS was re-‐named NOS in 1967 and became responsible for news and sports broadcasts; in this way all other broadcasters could focus on their own programs and content. Also, the STER, a foundation to regulate commercials, was introduced.4 Two things are worth noting here: First, Dutch society
had changed enormously in the sixties, while the public broadcasting system was still based on the principle of segmented pluralism of the twenties. (Bardoel & Konig 597) Second, the Dutch public system was now able to focus more on a televisual flow, since Dutch citizens cared less about the pillars and broadcaster they once belonged to. People would no longer exclusively watch programs aimed at their socio-‐cultural group and became interested in the shows of other pillar broadcasters as well. Since communities were willing to watch programs of broadcasters other than their own, it was possible to create a flow in the evening programming to keep audiences watching. This did not
3 http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschiedenis_van_de_Nederlandse_televisie
occur immediately, since there was no battle for audiences. With no competition between different channels, it was superfluous to create a flow to keep audiences watching a certain broadcast.
This changed in 1989, when commercial channels finally gained access to broadcast for the first time on Dutch television. This had the effect that the public broadcasting system now had to think more effectively about their shows and how to hold the attention of the viewer. Another result was the increase of commercials on public channels.
With the arrival of commercial channels, the Dutch public broadcasters for the first time had to come up with television strategies to compete with the commercial logic. The NPO profiled itself as a broadcaster that would provide programs for the public interest, but Ang claims that ‘public interest’ is not the same as what ‘the public’ are interested in. (5) Commercial channels didn’t have to fulfil a public interest, and were therefore freer in their genre of programming. They approached their viewers more as customers. To remain relevant, the NPO had to find a way to still make programs for the public interest, but to make it entertaining to compete with commercial channels as well. The decision was made to add a third channel to the Dutch public system and to appoint every broadcast association to one of those three channels: this meant that when someone wanted to watch programs of, for example the VARA, they always had to tune in to the third channel.5 This was called the ‘thuisnetmodel’ (broadcaster home model).
This way of classifying different broadcasters turned out to be ineffective, and audience ratings decreased rapidly (Daalmeijer 35).
This is why the NPO, the administrative organization of the public system, were given a key role in 2006 to promote the co-‐operation and the cohesion of all the
different broadcasters within the public system.6 The NPO argued that there was no
cohesion due to all the different broadcasters making various shows. The thuisnetmodel was abolished and traded for the ‘programmeermodel’ (programming model) or channel profiling. As a new strategy, to compete with the commercial channels, who optimized cohesion in their programming, this so-‐called channel profiling was established, to
5 http://www.npo.nl/overnpo/geschiedenis
6 The NPO has five other organizational tasks within the Dutch public broadcasting system, see all of them
here: http://help.npo.nl/faqs/welke-‐rol-‐speelt-‐de-‐npo-‐als-‐organisatie-‐binnen-‐het-‐nederlandse-‐ omroepbestel
create a target audience for each of the three public channels7, although this idea has
met resistance. For instance, media scholar Huub Wijfjes argued it was better to focus on a diverse range of broadcasters; otherwise all associations would make programs with similar content and this would be a waste of the subsidies every organization receives.
The decision to work with channel profiling offered the opportunity to create a flow that would encourage theme nights on the Dutch public channels, such as a reality-‐ genre schedule with for example Wie is ... de Mol? and a travel show in sequence. The only, ever remaining disadvantage is the fact that broadcasting associations still have to be diverse –meaning they cover all sorts for programs for all sorts of ideologies-‐ to be legitimate and therefore don’t have the chance to create the same kind of flow as with commercial channels. This paradox of wanting to create theme nights, but at the same time demanding from broadcasters that they be aberrant forms a possibility of creating flow within the NPO, but this flow will never work as well as with commercial channels.
Therefore, the NPO is doing its best to invent new strategies to compete with commercial channels: cohesion between broadcasters and more entertainment shows are both two effects of this. Bardoel and d’Haenens argue in their article that the most important transformation in recent broadcast history is the shift from broadcast to media. (357) They argue that public service broadcasting now is public service media: in order to maintain a reasonable level of audience coverage, public broadcasters have extended their platforms and channels to connect with all generations. (355-‐7) By allowing the NPO to disseminate their information online and on mobile phone apps, broadcasters got more freedom to create a cross-‐medial platform for programs. The creation of a cross-‐media platform is an overall trend, but Bardoel and d’Haenens argue it is extra beneficial for the NPO, since cross-‐media platforms addresses young target groups the most and this was the audience with the smallest share in the NPO audience. This development gives shows the opportunity to have a network of transmedia
extensions to keep viewers occupied with a certain show, not only during the broadcast, but also before and after the program. This is what I argue that Wie is … de Mol? does too: creating a flow not, per se, on a certain channel, but a certain broadcaster or even more specifically: a flow within a certain show is created to entertain a viewer as much as possible. This is already the case with Wie is … de Mol?: the television show uses the
7 The official act can be found here: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-‐19992000-‐26660-‐
radio show Roodshow broadcasted by AVROTROS on NPO Radio 2 to give the viewer (who now has become more than a viewer; a participant) hints about the show’s next week. They also create Moltalk shows online to keep the viewer interested in Wie is ... de
Mol? rather than the next broadcast on NPO1 etcetera. In this way, the show or
broadcaster becomes almost a brand itself. The new developments helped the NPO growing: in 2014, the audience ratings for the public system were higher than for any other media company and NPO thus defeated media conglomerates RTL and SBS.8
Lastly, I will take into account the final developments within the Dutch public system; the mandatory fusions of public broadcasters in 2013 made the big public broadcasters even bigger. This law was a huge disadvantage for the smaller public broadcasters; they lost some of their airtime. Airtime within the Dutch public system is divided based on how many members a public broadcaster has. The big broadcasters that merged were allocated even more airtime than they had before the merger and became the leading figures in the public system. The three biggest broadcasters are KRO-‐NRCV, BNN-‐VARA and AVROTROS. This development leads to what I call an oligarchy of these
broadcasters: they have the most members, which leads to the highest subsidy and airtime as distributed by the government. This means that their programmes are most likely to have the best quality (because they have more financial resources), something that attracts more viewers and possibly new members; thus reinforcing their power. This also means that these three broadcasters can make the most programmes on radio and television and can therefore create a web of programmes within their own
association that are linking to each other and can create a multimedia platform. Taking this development into account, a more general concern of the NPO is discussed by Bardoel and Konig. They claim in their article that the developments towards a cross-‐medial NPO system will lead to individualization: people are watching television in their own way and create their own media experience by going online. This means that individualization can affect one of the core values of the NPO; to be an
organization that connects everyone in the public with their programs. They argue this can cause the present public broadcasting system’s undoing in the long-‐term. (610)
8 The annual report of the independent research company about audience ratings in 2014:
1.2 Developments in the concept of flow
Raymond Williams was the first media scholar to describe the phenomenon of flow. The following quote makes it easy to understand the feeling of what flow on television channels is for a viewer (88):
We can be 'into' something else before we have summoned the energy to get out of the chair [and switch off the TV]. Many programmes are made with this situation in mind: grabbing of attention in the early moments; the reiterated promise of exciting things to come, if we stay.
While the situation described above is recognizable for everyone who has ever watched TV, it is also clear that this citation is out-‐dated: it is no longer required for a viewer to get out of their chair and switch off the TV. Other technological changes have also altered the definition of flow. William Uricchio gives an updated definition of flow in his article: flow “has given form to the viewing experience, serving as a framework within which reception can be understood (…) [flow is] the purposeful linkage of variously scaled textual units in order to avoid ruptures.” (165-‐7) Flow is thus created by channels to make programs and TV evening schedules interesting in such a way the audiences would never get the urge to zap away.
The original definition of flow was program-‐based and had to make sure that the viewer was not tempted to switch channels or even turn off the TV set. Williams argues: “In all developed broadcasting systems the characteristic organisation (...) is one of sequence or flow.” With this idea he tries to describe how the arrangement and
sequence of separate ‘text units’ that are televised ensure that the experience still feels like a whole. (86) Williams described three layers of flow, all working on different levels (97):
First, there is the flow (...) within a particular evening’s programmes. For this we can use the general notation which has become conventional as ‘programming’ or ‘listing’. Second, there is the more evident flow of the actual succession of items within and between the published sequence of units. Flow of this second kind, however, is centrally important in our experience of television, since it shows, over a sufficient range, the process of relative unification, into a flow, of otherwise diverse or at best loosely related items. Third, there is the really detailed flow within this general movement: the actual succession of words and images. Here notation of a kind is available, but it is still subject to the limitation that it notes as discrete items not only the planned combination and
fusion of words and images, but the process of movement and interaction through sequence and flow.
The flow that Williams describes is situated through different segments of a channel. Programming is part of a flow, in the way that channels select the same type of programs scheduled in one evening. But within such a program, flow is also present in the form of succession of items. This flow can be planned, but can also happen unintentionally. The same goes for the flow that can occur between the combination of words, images and sound in a few seconds. All three levels are interesting for researching Wie is ... de Mol?, because it can say something in what way Williams’ concept of flow is still used as a tactic.
When Williams wrote about flow, only a few channels existed and therefore there were only a few channels a viewer could select. The switching of channels became easier when the remote control device was released in 1980. The viewer now had a device to easily zap through the TV channels. On top of that, the multi-‐channel era started around the same period, so the viewer was not only in control of their flow, but also had more options. The power of flow was no longer in hands of the networks; this was the time of viewer-‐based agency: flow “as a set of choices and actions initiated by the viewer.” (Uricchio 170) What I want to make clear with this short overview, is that television is a medium in an ever ongoing transition. New technologies and social factors transform television and therewith television strategies (see chapter 1.1). In the contemporary media world where digital media plays an important role in our lives, it is inevitable that television and its strategies change as well. Television flow thus still exists, but has to adapt and grow with recent social-‐technological changes. Williams showed in his book that flow is visible in the textual structure of a program. Uricchio has a more theoretical approach and claims flow is more an effect of the viewer’s actions: flow became an even more viewer-‐determined experience in recent history through sites as Netflix (Uricchio 172). Flow is an established concept in Williams’ definition, while Urrichio mentions it is a more fluid concept that helps media scholars understand historical changes in
televisual culture. By making a connection between these two authors, I will show both forms of flow are relevant in contemporary televisual culture. Michael Kackman
underlines that flow is still a very relevant and present concept in media studies, as long as it is updated with technological developments. Kackman’s argument is an updated
version of Williams’ theory: flow is still directed by media outlets, who now not only perform as broadcasters, but can also create flow on other platforms. Where Uricchio claims flow is now controlled by digital technologies (for example; Netflix’ algorithm influencing a viewer’s choice), Kackman says flow is still for the most part in the hands of the media. He is quoted in an article of Mary Debrett, where he argues the following (1062-‐3):
Flow in a digital world refers to the sharing of content through social media and the migration of content across various viewing platforms, but that the
underlying importance of thinking of television as a set of overlapping textual experiences rather than an individual text, which is shaped as much by contextual factors as the interaction between viewer and text, remains.
Flow in this media era is thus no longer exclusively linked to television, but can be observed in various media platforms, creating a flow through the connection in these platforms, rather than only during a television broadcast. This is what Espen Ytreberg argues when he speaks of ‘eventfulness’: He argues that in the last years, television has lost many viewers to digital media, but TV producers have found a strategy to combine those two. By creating multiple platforms (online and offline) to keep the audience in a continuous state of an event flow, “adding a portfolio of digital platforms to the
broadcast ones” (469). Finally, he claims that Williams’ theory of planned flow is incorporated in the multi-‐platforms formats as well (472): in all platforms a flow is created, all those flows together create an eventfulness, that keeps audiences hooked to a certain television program. This means that the audience will constantly be
preoccupied with a particular television format, but not necessarily by watching TV. In their 2014 article, Ihlebæk et al write about their findings in the Norwegian television system. They observe a new tactic in the television industry they call ‘keeping them and moving them’. This means that a viewer now is led away “from the main platform of television onto relatively more unknown territory for broadcasters”, to keep a viewer with a brand in a cross-‐medial world. (479) They keep the viewer with the program or brand, and move the viewer toward different kinds of media outlets. They claim this switch to a cross-‐medial flow is necessary, because viewers would make use of other platforms anyway. Therefore, television broadcasters now aim for the ‘keeping them and moving them’-‐tactic. (480) Different transmedia extensions are connected in a larger flow, which consists of a televisual flow, but also includes app flows, radio flows
etcetera. This development is also interesting when looking at the relevance of liveness for flow: on the one hand, liveness is often declared extinct in contemporary televisual culture, but on the other hand, liveness can incite cross-‐media extensions and plays therefore a part in creating a flow. In the upcoming chapters I will argue that this larger transmedia flow is part of a new strategy of the public system as well as a strategy of
Wie is … de Mol? and AVROTROS.
In their 2014 article, media scholars Van den Bulck and Enli also defend that in spite of what is often argued, the theory of Williams’ flow is still important in the contemporary media landscape. They name four characteristics which are all still important in their eyes, even though television is not the same medium it was 50 years ago: “creating flow, personalization, liveness, and branding” are still important qualities of TV. (451) Creating flow and liveness are two traditional categories, but
personalization and in particular branding are relatively new tactics in televisual culture. Personalization is the tactic of making a TV host or contestant of a show empathic and familiar, to create a bond with the viewer. Branding is focused on
promoting a certain channel, broadcaster or show in order to create loyal viewers. In my case study I will argue that these four characteristics are all present in Wie is ... de Mol? and therefore still can be important televisual concepts.
The digitalization of media has left its footprint on and has even altered the definition of flow, but televisual flow certainly still exists: it remains an important tactic to catch the attention of the viewer. An important issue here is that media change, and even their function can change, but their goal can still be the same. In his book Convergence Culture (2006), Henry Jenkins evaluates the rise of digital media in relation to television. Jenkins argues that with the rise of digital media alongside TV, media consumers “are learning how to use different media technologies to bring the flow of media more fully under their control and to interact with other consumers.” (18) I will show how this works in chapter 3, where I will give an analysis of grassroots flow, created by a Wie is … de Mol? fan in his popular vodcast about the show. The use of Internet within a cross-‐media platform will result in individualization, according to John Havick in his article “The impact of Internet on a Television-‐Based Society.” The dispersion of audience over multiple media channels will cause fragmentation and stimulates individuals to create their own experience and flow. Havick claims the Internet will make users more
autonomous, because they now can control the production, storage and dissemination of information, a quality that is substantially different from television use. He argues that this possibility causes behavior that is less group-‐oriented. (283) I will argue that this is not always the case, per se, and that the possibility of Internet does not necessarily results in a fragmentized audience.
1.3 Developments in the concepts of liveness
The developments in the concept of flow influence the understanding of liveness as a medium specific quality as well. Since the beginning of the mass medium television, liveness has been an aspect that distinguished the medium from other forms. In the last decades, there has been debate about the changing role of television, and how it alters its characteristics, including liveness. The importance of television liveness declines in a cross-‐medial sphere, where the Internet plays a significant role in taking over this aspect. In his article “Live television is still alive”, Jerome Bourdon argues the opposite: that television has, and always will keep the role as the most important medium when liveness plays a role. He names liveness as one of the three defining characteristics of television, because it has the function to “have vast groups of people commune in a new experience.” (533) From the beginning of the TV, reporting and news broadcastings emphasized their liveness (‘live with’ or ‘live from’) which gave audiences a feeling of conquering time and space: what happened on the other side of the country could now come live into the living room. (Bourdon 532-‐3) Live broadcasts also created a feeling of authenticity and truth with viewers: if something is showed live, it must be real. Another significant feature was the shared experience: other people are watching at the same time as me. A side note to liveness during broadcasting is the notion of mediated
liveness: although an event or happening can be broadcasted live, it is always mediated. Reality and live television broadcasts are two different things, because in the process of television making there will always be decisions that influence the reality into a
mediated reality. Funk, Gross and Huber therefore argue that “reality is thus inaccessible, or rather always already mediated.” (10)
The live feature is something that will ensure that television can still be relevant in the upcoming years. Even with new digital technologies such as social media, the importance of what Jostein Gripsrud described as follows: “TV shows may not always be
