M.A. Media Studies: Television and Cross Media Culture
Master Thesis
Tegenlicht Meetups: education or activism?
Using commercially incented matrix strategies to reach public
service broadcasting objectives
26-06-2017
In the
Department of Media Studies
Faculty of Humanities
University of Amsterdam
Thesis supervisor: dr. J.A. Teurlings
Second reader: dr. J.C. Hermes
ABSTRACT
Public service broadcasters fulfill the social role of educators, and their programs function (among other reasons) to create engaged and informed citizens. ‘Tegenlicht’ is an example of
an educational program of the public service broadcaster ‘VPRO’. By providing ‘Meetups’ after each episode to discuss the topic of that episode, ‘Tegenlicht’ takes the role of educator a
step further. However, as seen more often with public service broadcasting, it fails to engage citizens in real critical mobilisation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction p. 1
Public service broadcasting: educating the citizenry p. 4 Education in public service broadcasting: historical overview p. 4 PSB in the United States: historical overview p. 8
Education in PSB: today p. 10
PSB and citizenship p. 11
PSB in the Netherlands p. 12
Taking it a step further: Tegenlicht Meetups p. 14
Eventization of the media p. 17
Matrix media p. 17
Experience economy p. 19
Eventization of the media p. 20
Eventization of Tegenlicht p. 24
Methodological interlude p. 26
Meetups as experience p. 29
The creation of Meetups as experiences p. 29
Addressing citizenship p. 37
Conclusion p. 43
References p. 47
INTRODUCTION
In a constant changing multimedia environment, linear television is becoming less attractive for consumers who are used to consuming media anywhere, anytime and anyplace they want due to technologies of agency such as DVD’s, the Internet and smartphones. Television broadcasters seek to find new ways of engaging audiences by broadening the reach of their programming across these different platforms. This trend has been extensively examined in media studies, and remains an interesting topic as it does not seem to slow down anytime soon, with new technologies and applications emerging rapidly. The dominant approach in this research has been to link new technologies to commercial imperatives. However, this thesis examines this trend in the context of public service broadcasting (PSB). PSB objectives differ considerably from commercial media conglomerates, which makes that their process has followed a different path than their commercial counterparts. Although PSB systems have had different developments in different countries, they all share their social role as educators and facilitators of citizenship. In a changing media environment, PSB programs need to develop different strategies to reach an audience that is now more dispersed than ever. Several strategies are being used, some of which can be traced back to commercial broadcasting.
For example in the Netherlands, PSB has been relatively slow in adapting to new media technologies, and is now trying to catch up with commercial channels that have been rather successful in aggregating (mostly young) viewers (Kloosterman 2016; van Teefelen 2015). One PSB program that uses platform proliferation to engage viewers is ‘Tegenlicht’, a program of the Dutch public broadcaster ‘VPRO’. Tegenlicht is a series of informative episodes where innovative ideas and trends are explored in the world of politics, economy, society, technology and science. Each “episode” is independent from other episodes, and the program style could be categorized as close to documentary. With an interactive website and active social media channels, Tegenlicht does a lot to involve its viewers with the topics of the program. On top of that, the show hosts a “Meetup” every week, a sort of seminar where viewers are invited to discuss the program with the filmmaker and experts on the topic (often times also people who appeared in the episode). The Meetups are the object of study in this thesis. This thesis analyzes these Meetups as organized ‘experiences’ that are created as an audience engaging strategy while aiming to fulfill the educational character of PSB. It is then viewed what role Meetups play in PSB’s broadly defined educational and citizenship
In addressing Meetups as strategies used to reach PSB objectives, the first chapter will give a historical overview of the role that was attributed to PSB, and more specifically the role of education and facilitating citizenship in PSB around the world. It gives a broad insight in why and how education is so connected to PSB systems. From this starting point, it is then
examined how Tegenlicht takes this educational role a step further with Meetups. The second chapter focusses on how these Meetups can be viewed in context of audience participation strategies and platform proliferation, both of which are important means that originated in commercial media. To be able to view Meetups in this broader context of matrix strategies that are used to engage audiences, the chapter gives an overview of the changing media environment that has urged media conglomerates to adapt new ways of reaching audiences. What is especially important here, is the notion of Pine and Gilmore’s ‘experience economy’. This theory has been influential in economic and societal research, but also has far reaching implications for media studies. As Pine and Gilmore acknowledge, experiences are especially lucrative for the entertainment business, of which the media are surely a part of. The different characteristics that are generated when an experience is
‘created’ prove to be useful for engagement and participation strategies. This thesis positions Meetups as media events that aim to engage audiences, and can thus also be seen as
experiences.
The third chapter then analyzes how these Meetups are created as an experience, or more specifically; how the space and structure of the Meetup are designed to generate and accommodate involvement from the audience. Then, Meetups are analyzed in the context of Habermas’ public spheres, as they accommodate a forum for public discussions. This perspective is also helpful in examining Meetups’ role in facilitating citizenship; do the Meetups create actively engaged citizens? The third chapter is partly formed using participant observation and interviews with participants at four separate Tegenlicht Meetups. These were conducted at; “What makes you click” (Nijmegen, 16-11-2016), “Frau Merkel” (Amsterdam, 12-04-2017), “All in the game” (Amsterdam, 18-04-2017), and “Boer zoekt voedselflat” (Amsterdam, 26-04-2017). Participatory observation has been chosen for this thesis because it is an effective method of observing the normal course of a Meetup without obstructing the occurrence of the behaviour. A total of four participants have been interviewed during or after the Meetups in Amsterdam. These interviews are relevant because they allow a closer look at participant’s motivations and experiences. The duration of these interviews varied between 5-15 minutes per interviewee. These interviews will be helpful in reviewing how participants engage in the Meetups, for example why they come and how they experience the event.
To conclude this thesis, the different notions and observations will be brought together to provide a summary assessment of the performance of Meetups for PSB objectives. This thesis herewith aims to complement existing research on audience engaging strategies, as well as analyze a case study of Tegenlicht Meetups to give insight in how and with what effect these strategies are being used in Dutch public service broadcasting. As Tegenlicht is one of the few programs that use audience engagement strategies in the offline realm, analyzing its potency will give insight in whether these strategies are beneficial for reaching and improving public service broadcasting objectives.
This thesis thus analyzes Tegenlicht Meetups as an engaging audience strategy used in the realm of public service broadcasting, and aims to give insight in how such a strategy might be useful in reaching PSB objectives. To start, the emergence and development of these PSB objectives will be discussed in the next chapter.
PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING: EDUCATING THE CITIZENRY
As a program broadcasted by a public broadcaster, Tegenlicht must meet certain functions ascribed to public service broadcasters. This is executed through its informative documentary format, but also through organizing Meetups to provide opportunities for people to get more informed about, debate or discuss certain topics. This chapter will first look at how the educational function of public service media has developed through the years. After that, it is discussed how Tegenlicht Meetups are taking this educational function a step further.
Education in public service broadcasting: historical overview
Democratic theorists argue that a democracy only works when its citizens are informed and enlightened (Hochschild 2010). The availability of information plays an important role in obtaining (political) knowledge, which in turn plays a crucial role in the functioning of democracies. For a long period, the access to this information was determined by income, education, or other socio-economic factors. However, when television was invented, people quickly understood that such a mass medium can facilitate the “communicative action necessary for democratic society” (Grummel 2009 p. 268), just as radio had done until then. Especially in Europe, educational intentions have been important from the beginning within the public service model of broadcasting, and television developed as a mass medium with important informative features. As such, PSB is seen as an important ‘cornerstone’ for democracy, which has several functions to fulfill.
Most scholars and theorists agree that the “educational character and learning processes inherent in public service broadcasting have a central role in the development of knowledge and participation in citizenship that is vital for a mature democratic society” (Grummel 2009 p. 282). However, the interpretation and phrasing of this educational character has not always remained the same in the past century. Different political, financial and theoretical discourses have influenced how PSB is perceived to implement its educational role. These discourses will be discussed in this chapter, to get a better understanding of the role of education in public service broadcasting today.
Before we can begin to understand how and why education became such an important part of public broadcasting services, it is necessary to go back in history. Because what exactly is the definition of ‘service’? Raymond Williams defined the Victorian ideal of service being “a sense of moral purposeand of social duty on behalf of the community, aimed particularly at those most in need of reform— the lower classes” (Scannell 1990 p. 22). This mainly
focussed on educational and cultural needs. In the early twentieth century, teacher and critic Matthew Arnold claimed that culture could bring classes closer together and thus the task of ‘civilizing’ people was also politically prudent (Scannell 1990). Scannell argues that “equal access for all to … informational, entertainment, and cultural programmes … must be thought of as an important citizenship right in mass democratic societies” (1990 p. 27). By the time that broadcasting was established, it seemed PSB could contribute to this end, being an electronic public sphere and forum for public discussion. As Newcomb and Hirsch explain, television can direct people “toward action, toward expression of ideas and values”
(Newcomb & Hirsch 1984 p. 570). Broadcasting could not fall in the hands of commercial markets, but should at the same time not be completely controlled by a government. This is why, in most European countries, PSB became an important cornerstone in democracy that was to be protected and stimulated, for it could have great impact in informing and educating people that until then, did not have the opportunity or resources to do so. This gave way to a paternalistic discourse that did not place much power or responsibility in the hands of the audience. When mass media gained popularity in the early 20th century, audiences were seen
as passive masses. It was thought that broadcasting and education should be controlled by expert driven structures. There was no discourse on the role or responsibility of viewers, let alone active citizenship (Grummel 2004 p. 9). This view has changed drastically. Viewers used to be perceived as passive, ignorant, and easy to influence, whereas nowadays they would be described as active, complex and with specific preferences. Over the course of the previous century, viewers were no longer perceived as mere ‘couch potatoes’ who will consume anything the TV has to offer. It is acknowledged that television and media in general have a complex role in the formation of informed citizens, and thus a functional democracy. For example, the remit of public service broadcasting has been defined by the Council of Europe as: “to operate independently of those holding economic and political power. It provides the whole of society with information, culture, education and entertainment; it enhances social, political and cultural citizenship and promotes social cohesion”. (Council of Europe 2004, cited in Grummel 2009 p. 269).These words are the outcome of more than a century of discourses on what public service broadcasting should entail and produce. The educational role of PSB has been formulated and reformulated since its very inception. This chapter will discuss these developments in PSB, focusing on education and facilitation of citizenship.
When the first broadcasting committee in Britain came together in 1923, its chairman defined broadcasting as ‘a public utility’. Looking at the social and political possibilities of a
widespread medium like radio, the committee “judged that ‘the control of such a potential power over public opinion and the life of the nation ought to remain with the state’ (Sykes 1923:15, cited in Scannell 1990 p. 12), to prevent this national service of coming in the hands of a commercial cartel. However, the government was not supposed to have direct control of broadcasting, instead it should be controlled indirectly by the form of a licence which stated the responsibilities of the broadcasters. Although this first committee granted the BBC its first broadcasting licence, it was not until later that the interpretation of the responsibilities of public service broadcasting was shaped. An important actor in the realization of the guidelines for the future of broadcasting was John Reith, the manager and later director-general of the British Broadcasting Company (BBC). In his manifesto for a PSB system he advocated the importance of education and knowledge. Reith argued public broadcasters had an important public role to fulfil and carried the responsibility “for guiding the development of its citizens” (Grummel 2004 p. 9). His notions became important fundamentals for most European PSB systems, and are now referred to as the ‘Reithian principles’, which focus primarily on using PSB to educate the citizenry. These notions are in line with what Matthew Arnold found important and called ‘civilizing’ the people, in a time when most people did not have access to information or knowledge of ‘real’ culture. And so in the very beginning of radio
broadcasting, broadcasters used contacts in “great educational movements and institutions of the day in order to develop the use of the medium of radio to foster the spread of knowledge” (Scannell 1990 p. 13).
Next to its educational, political and social role, radio was also seen as a potential helper in creating an “informed and enlightened democracy” (Scannell 1990 p. 14). Reith especially found it was important for people to gain the opportunity of making up their own minds, instead of assimilate to “the dictated and partial versions of others” (Reith 1925:4, cited in Scannell 1990 p. 14). So PSB stimulated people to form their own opinions by educating them. In its early form, public service broadcasting had a strong notion of ‘educating the populace’. As will become clear in the next paragraphs, in the following decades, the role of education became less explicit, as the educational task shifted from ‘educating the populace’ towards ‘informing the citizen’.
In some countries, for example in Ireland, the weak economic situation in the 1930s and 1940s resulted in a broadcasting model which was supposed to have mixed financial aids, a
combination of state funding and commercial income. This complex funding aggravated the position of education in PSB. (Grummel 2009 p. 270).
The discourse of modernization in the 1950s facilitated “profound economic, cultural and social transformation” (Grummel 2009 p. 270). The scare of World War II immensely magnified the perceived importance and relevance of a functioning PSB system that could teach morale and integrate people into the democratic system. A “culture of governance” was implemented, in which a range of strategies were used to spread “education, morality, and happiness among the citizenry, [motivated by] the pressing need to safeguard the free world’s economic and political systems” (McCarthy 2013 p. 2). One of these strategies was television. PSB no longer merely educated people, but addressed ‘the citizen’. This notion became especially relevant after the war, when nations began to see the importance of creating democratic attitudes and calling upon people’s civic duties. An important component here is that it endorsed ‘passive’ citizenship; PSB’s educational task focussed more and more on maintaining social stability and national cohesion, cultivating the masses “through the ever-evolving medium of citizenship” (McCarthy 2013 p. 1). Thus, state investment in education triggered a more secure basis for the role of education in broadcasting, which lead to an increase in educative productions.
In the following decades, however, funding for educative productions and school television began to decrease. The European Union started promoting every state’s own responsibility in creating a “learning and knowledge society” (Grummel 2009 p. 277). Education became more integrated into general programming as opposed to producing specific educational programmes for certain groups. This ‘knowledge society’ discourse in Europe can be seen in context of the rise of globalization and neoliberalism. Although neoliberal ideas initially rationalized educational broadcasting to become part of the state’s development of a ‘learning and knowledge society’, it also pressured politicians to allow the commercial sector to grow, which in turn threatened the position and potential of public service media. Educational functions of the media became challenged by “the growth of institutionalisation, globalisation and commercialism” (Grummel 2004 p. 5). This emphasized more efficiency and focus on performativity of public services, which evoked deregulation across European broadcasting. In Britain, the BBC’s monopoly in the television industry was already compromised as commercial television was established, funded by advertising (ITV). It was not presented as an alternative to public service broadcasting, but as an extension, as the commercial service was still under state regulation and aimed to maintain high standards of program quality. The role of broadcasting in Britain was discussed, and stood for big
changes. Critics claimed that the BBC and ITV were not fully representative of “increasingly diverse tastes, interests, and needs of an increasingly diverse society” (Scannell 1990 p. 19), and suggested a market free broadcasting system, in which multiple channels would have the opportunity to represent everyone in society. In the 1980s these changes became inevitable, as experts began to envision broadcasting as a commodity, establishing consumer sovereignty through a market system. These developments were not exclusive to the British system; most European countries went from a PSB monopoly to a dual system and later a mixed system with multiple PSB and commercial networks.
Critics argued that this shift towards commercial logic influenced the educational aspect of PSB, as public service media now were (sometimes partly) deregulated and forced to collect advertising income. PSB was still required to meet their educational ideals while at the same time offer programming supplementary to commercial broadcasting (Bell 1995 p. 86-87). This caused the understanding of PSB’s educational task to change again. Although the importance of cultural and educational programs were emphasized, they were not viable in gaining audiences and thus commercially not interesting enough (Grummel 2004). Most public service broadcasters changed their broadcasting schedules (Meier 2003 p. 344, Ytreberg 2002), positioning education as a “minority interest scheduled in off-peak times” (Grummel 2009 p. 276). Instead, ‘edinfotainment’ programmes gained popularity and became more apparent in narrow-cast schedules of different channels. These ‘edinfotainment’ or ‘edutainment’ programmes use “educational material with entertainment and information strategies from mainstream broadcasting” (Grummel 2009 p. 276), and it remains unclear whether these programmes actually constitute educational objectives. Also, it was thought that this “typecasting of education’s role in broadcasting” severely neglects the complicated role of PSB in democratic processes (Grummel 2004 p. 6). These program formats slowly phased out education as a more ‘formal’ production method. The growing commercial drive was seen to threaten the core public service ethos in broadcasting, as the educational character of PSB continued to perish under “the continuous negotiations over commercialism and
performativity” (Grummel 2009 p. 282; Edin 2006 p. 61-62). PSB in the United States: historical overview
This commercially motivated market system for broadcasting was also present in the United States of America. However, the birth of PSB actually came after the origin of commercial broadcasters, instead of the other way around like in European countries (McCarthy 2013; Ouellette 1999). In the United States of America, PSB has traveled an immensely different
road in comparison to European public broadcasters. In the US, PSB did not come into existence until the late 1960s. Radio and television were originally dominated by commercial broadcasters. However, this dominance of commercial incentives in broadcasting culture received more and more criticism. Commercial broadcasters, which are acting in the
consumer economy and looking at ratings for success, spend little to no time on current affairs broadcasting. And even if they did, it did not produce the objective or qualitative
programming that critics thought was needed. For example, early experiments in
commercially televised debates and panel discussions received criticism for posing a threat to democracy because “it catered to ‘popularity and emotion’ over ‘intelligence and reason’” (Ouellette 1999 p. 70). After all, commercial television aimed to address the widest possible audience, resulting in sensational and easy-to-watch programmes.
But democracy was perceived to be breaking down, and this was partly blamed on commercial television. There were growing fears about the collapse of democracy and the effect of commercial broadcasting on people’s knowledge. After all, commercial television “were ‘giving the people what they wanted’”, but this was seen to have resulted in a mass public “that refused to act as responsible citizens” (Ouellette 1999 p. 66). This ushered a call for the “reinvigoration of democracy” (p. 64). This idea developed on the underlying thought that citizenship, as a social construct, can be shaped by social institutions. A new kind of governmentality was needed (McCarthy 2013). It was believed that television could have the same intervention power on democracy as museums had in the late 1800s. When museums were opened up to the public in the 19th century, it aimed to “uplift popular taste and prevent
rioting”. It was thought that for a democracy to be successful, it needed well-informed citizens who are capable of performing their “democratic rights and duties” (p. 66). Just as museums in the late 1800s, PSB was envisioned – as Reith had envisioned it for Britain – as “a cultural corrective” (p. 73), which promoted rational thinking and civility. In the 1950s, when ideas about PSB started to develop, it was thought PSB could serve as “a template for proper citizenship” (p. 76), as well as presenting possibilities for “citizen involvement in the democratic process” (p. 75). PSB needed to produce a ‘better’ and more enlightened public. These reforming and participatory elements lead to the creation of a PSB system that was different from PSB systems in European countries.
As PSB originated as an alternative to commercial broadcasting, it was made clear from the beginning that PSB was “for the people not by the people” (Ouellette 1999 p. 67). After all, the primary reason why PSB came into existence was rooted in the failures of commercial television because it was only ‘giving what the people wanted’. Because PSB had
a complementary role and did not effectively compete for commercial television’s consumers, it had a marginalized position in the television industry. Most programs were poorly watched and reached only college-educated professionals. However, researchers claimed that the influence of PSB was still far-reaching, as they assumed that ideas from PSB were picked up by ‘primary influentials’ and were then passed on to the ‘blue collar class’ through a select group of ‘informed opinion leaders’ in their communities. This ‘two-step flow’ theory reaffirmed the importance of PSB on US television.
Education in PSB: today
Still to this day, it is believed that PSB main focus should be on information and education. Especially because similar to the discussion several decades ago in the US, it is still believed that commercial television cannot live up to the task. Commercial television is seen as media that “cannot offer a guarantee of freely accessible, reliable information, innovative culture and deliberate education” (Bardoel et. al 2008 p. 351). In reformulating their objectives, public service broadcasters try to integrate discourses of modernisation, civic development and social democracy, hoping “educational broadcasting could rise to the forefront, legitimated by its potential contribution to the development of critical reflectivity in the public sphere.” (Grummel 2004 p. 14). However, major public broadcasters in Europe are having difficulties with legitimating their public service stance within the current consumer-oriented world. The growth of entertainment programming at the expense of the educational genre marks the “beginning of a new era for education in broadcasting” (Grummel 2004 p. 16).
Understandings of the role of education are being refined, in which the idea of “a lifelong process of learning” is becoming more important, as opposed to the former “institutional notion of didactic education” (Grummel 2004 p. 16). As modern European countries thrive as knowledge economies, the ideal of ‘informing the citizen’ became outdated and was replaced with a ‘capabilities approach’, formulated in terms of ‘Bildung’. Bildung approaches reflect “the broad interplay of formal, non-formal and informal processes and modes of education” (Andresen et. al 2008 p. 165), aimed to fully develop “the capacities and powers of each human individual to question preconceived opinions, prejudices, and ‘given facts’, and intentioned participation in the shaping of one’s own and joint living conditions” (Mogensen & Schnak 2010 p. 61). In other words, it is the ‘building’ of personalities through education in such a way that people do not merely adapt to existing conditions, but instead emancipate to “become political subjects – and not just the objects of control and guidance exercised by other people” (Hellesnes 1976 p. 18, cited in Mogensen & Schnak 2010 p. 61). It
initiated programs that are focussed on exploring popular social and educational issues, while facilitating audience participation and empowerment. This new type of education is more focussed on informative programs which promote critical and civil abilities that are necessary in a functioning society.
PSB and citizenship
As discussed in the previous paragraph, it is believed that citizenship is a social construct that can be shaped by social institutions such as the media. And in order for a democracy to be successful, it needs well-informed, engaged citizens that are able to perform their democratic rights and duties. When PSB started out in Europe in the beginning of the 20th century, the
broadcasting monopoly made it logical “to conceive of the viewing audience as the public and – by extension – of the viewer as a citizen” (Edin 2006 p. 61). However, the implementation of this has changed over the course of PSB’s existence, resulting in conceptual tension across notions of how ‘the citizen’ ought to be addressed by PSB.
As mentioned before, the very first ideas about what PSB should entail were highly influenced by Reith, who saw public service broadcasting, blatantly put, as a ‘cultural
corrective’ aimed to educate people. This notion is based on the idea that people did not have the resources to educate themselves, and thus television could help improve this situation. When people are informed, they can make better choices for themselves and for democracy, that was the idea. This is in contrast with the Bildung-like approaches that regained popularity more recently. Bildung-like approaches consider “education as a capability, and human capabilities as consequences of educational processes” (Andresen et. al 2008 p. 166). Thus in a more modern interpretation of education in PSB, the primary goal is not merely to educate people, but to build people’s personality in such a way that they are capable and competent to act independently.
Another interesting contrast that evolved over the years is that of passive versus active citizenship. As explained earlier, in the aftermath of WOII, nations started to use mass media to create democratic attitudes, maintain social stability and national cohesion. The aim here was not necessarily creating empowered or active citizens, rather passive citizens who knew their place in society and supported democratic norms and values. This notion is considerably different from that of today, in which the empowering of citizens is omnipresent. PSB’s tasks include facilitating citizenship by expanding “opportunities for citizen involvement in the democratic process”. But then again, there are also different notions on what ‘civic
including having democratic norms and values, having a set of political attitudes and beliefs, holding opinions of current affairs issues, and engaging in actual political behavior (Carpini 2004 p. 396).
Broadly, all forms of involvement can be placed on a spectrum from passive to active participation. Participant-oriented approaches to democratic theory often emphasize the importance of active participation in civic matters, whilst more pluralist perspectives emphasize passive supporters as part of the democratic process as well (Wollebak & Selle 2003 p. 67-68). According to Kruikemeier et. al, who studied active and passive political participation on the Internet, the level of interactivity – among other factors – is one of the indicators for whether involvement is passive or active. Communication high in interactivity encourages more meaningful processing of information, and this “may consequently lead to an increase of political involvement.” (p. 5). Kruikemeier defines interactivity as two-way communication. Active engagement “involves participation in two-way communication with others or a system” – such as participating on a forum or donating money – whereas passive engagement involves one-way communication – for example reading information
(Kruikemeier et. al 2014 p. 5).
Thus, citizen engagement can have different forms, varying from active to passive involvement. For citizens to become truly engaged on the active side of the spectrum, they must have “the skills and resources necessary to develop informed values, attitudes, and opinions, connect them together, and translate them into effective action” (Carpini 2004 p. 396). Ultimately, that is where PSB aims to be of guidance; informing whilst facilitating citizenship, albeit in various forms.
PSB in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands too, education and facilitating citizenship are two important elements in PSB. The Dutch PSB system came into existence in much the same way as other European examples discussed in this chapter. However, it has a considerably different structure than most countries. In the Netherlands there are multiple public service broadcasting
organizations (NOS, NTR, VPRO, KRO-NCRV, AVROTROS, BNNVARA, MAX, EO) that all provide programming content that is broadcasted by the NPO; the Dutch public service broadcasting order. These different public service broadcasting organizations are a remnant of the various ideological pillars that made up Dutch society in the previous century. When PSB came into existence in the early 20th century, various broadcasting organizations were formed
liberals, progressives, etc.). People could become a member of the organization of their preference, and with enough members, a broadcasting organization could acquire a broadcasting license. This structure was derived from the notion that everyone in Dutch society should be represented by PSB, and thus each broadcasting organization was entitled to a certain amount of broadcasting time to serve their associated citizens. As the 20th century
progressed, religion and social class became less dominant in society, and a trend of de-pillarization could be recognized. Postmodern ideologies cultivated a more individualistic and pluralistic society. This meant that the number of members of broadcasting organizations started to drop, as people did no longer feel the need to commit to a certain pillar or segment of society. The original ideology of each broadcasting organization became less important and less visible in most of their programming. Some broadcasters even entirely let go of their previous interpretation, although differences between broadcasters in their mission and ideology can still be clearly recognized.
The current PSB system is to a large extent influenced by the ‘Mediawet’ (Media law) of 2008. This law regulates admission to the broadcasting system and sets requirements for public broadcasting to ensure, among others, media pluralism. This law ensures that the Dutch PSB system must be independent, accessible and pluralistic, as these are “three essential pillars for a democratic society” (Commissariaat voor de Media, 2016). In 2016, this Media law has been updated and dictates a more narrow-focussed objective on information, culture, and education (Ministerie van Algemene Zaken, 2016). Thus, in accordance with most other European PSB systems, the Dutch PSB focusses on education and information. It is
subsidized by the government, but also needs to generate advertisement revenue. There are strict rules regarding the sort of and the amount of advertising that is allowed on PSB channels. For example, programs cannot be interrupted for commercial breaks and less advertising time is allowed on PSB channels than on commercial channels. Also, the focus in programming should never be on entertainment, as this is not a core task of PSB (anymore). Entertainment can, however, be used as a way to attract more viewers, as this will
subsequently be beneficial for the reach of educational and informational programs. PSB’s function of facilitating an engaged, well-informed citizenry is also
acknowledged within the Dutch system, as the government finds that “partly due to the media, people are able to express their opinions” (Ministerie van Algemene Zaken, 2016). The NPO wants their programs to connect viewers to the world surrounding them, and enable them to join the conversation of the day, feel a part of society, develop and discover new worlds in their own way. Because “when you see, hear and experience, you are involved and feel
connected” (Missie & Visie, 2017). This can be viewed as a reference to PSB’s function of facilitating an engaged, well-informed citizenry, as the NPO wants to produce programs that “take you further and ensure you participate” (Missie & Visie, 2017). Also, it is important that the programs express the Dutch identity, in whatever form this may be. It is argued that PSB needs to be accessible for everyone. PSB programs should represent everyone in the
Netherlands, giving attention to the diverse (sub)cultures that can be found in Dutch society. Also, they claim to continuously work on innovation and seek interaction with the consumer. Most programs (85%) are made in the Netherlands, independent from political or commercial interests. The programs are about “issues that concern us all” (Missie & Visie, 2017).
Taking it a step further: Tegenlicht Meetups
Tegenlicht (produced by the public broadcasting corporation VPRO) is a series of informative programs where new ideas and trends are explored in the world of politics, economy, society, technology and science. Each “episode” is independent from other episodes, and the program style could be categorized as documentary. As a show within the model of PSB, Tegenlicht also has an educational role to fulfill. This is done by the documentary style of the program and the range of topics the program analyzes. It seeks stories about “situations in which ideas are developed, tested, and criticized” (Over VPRO Tegenlicht, 2017). Through unusual and controversial analyses, Tegenlicht shows its perspective on national and international developments that shape modern society. The show does not have a set format, but uses different ways of narration dependent on the subject of the episode. Sometimes this means in-depth reports, sometimes it consists of an extensive interview with someone that has an interesting perspective or knowledge about a certain subject. It is the only, as they call it, ‘future affairs’ program in the Dutch PSB system. This all marks the strong informative function and vision Tegenlicht employs. It informs viewers on varied subjects and often offers a new or out-of-the-box approach to a certain issue or development. Tegenlicht meets core requirements of public broadcasting services; it plays an important role in creating shared frameworks of information and entertainment, and thus the formation of cultures (Born & Prosser 2001 p. 659).
Besides its weekly episodes, Tegenlicht producers have created an extensive world around the program with considerable opportunities to learn more about that week’s subject. For example, it makes adequate use of the digital environment. It has an interactive website where information regarding the topics of the episodes is shared. It provides extensive
specially designed educational bundles, which can be used by teachers for primary or secondary schools and higher education. A weekly newsletter keeps thousands of people informed of each episode. The program is especially active on social media; often on Sunday nights, when the show is aired, #tegenlicht is trending topic on Twitter in the Netherlands. The program has a social media team that disperses bits and pieces of information throughout the week about an upcoming (or previous) episode, and shares interesting facts and funny quotes during the broadcast. The online environment is where most of the information is stored; the episode is just the gateway to an extensive and immense assemblage of ideas, information, educative tools, interviews, extended articles, et cetera. Tegenlicht uses the digital realm to activate viewers in different levels of interactivity. Twitter and Facebook are obviously very useful tools to start the conversation and allow interactivity to flow between producers and consumers, as well as interested parties such as organizations or experts that appeared in the episode. The weekly newsletter is much lower in interactivity and involves a more passive approach, as it is one-way communication and is low in participation. The bundles with extended articles and background interviews demand higher participation as the viewer needs to get active, visit the website and do the research themselves. Tegenlicht’s extensive online features are thus accommodating an audience that Siapera (2004) would call a ‘learning audience’; it uses “a combination of the technical potentialities of the internet with the continuing understanding of the social role of the media as educators” (p. 166). By integrating the Internet and social media with the program, Tegenlicht can stimulate viewer participation. In this sense, Tegenlicht measures up to the European standard that PSB programs need to “include original programming and … act as pioneers or innovators in programming and services” (Harrison & Woods 2001 p. 481). These digital features “further media citizenship beyond the constraints presented by one-to-many mass communications” (Flew 2011 p. 227). This is important, as Tegenlicht can thus continue to play a key role in the development of an information society in the new digital environment (Harrison & Woods 2001 p. 482).
Besides using televisual and digital features, Tegenlicht extends its reach into the offline realm as well. ‘Tegenlicht Meetups’ are seminars that are organized every week, a few days after the episode has aired. In the seminars the topic of that particular episode is
discussed, and viewers are invited to deliberate on the episode with the filmmaker(s) and experts on the topic (often times also people who appeared in the episode). Originally these Meetups were only held in Amsterdam, but for the past year Tegenlicht has also encouraged local parties to set up Meetups, resulting in an impressive list of cities and towns in which
Tegenlicht Meetups are held. These Meetups take the level of participation even higher, as participants obviously need to get out of the house and attend an actual offline public meeting. The level of interactivity is also higher than in the online realm, as people gather in a room to talk face to face, discuss, and share knowledge and experiences. As will become clear later in this thesis, the Meetups are structured in such a way that the level of interactivity is high, the audience is repeatedly asked for their opinions and there is a lot of room for questions. By organizing Meetups, Tegenlicht can accommodate the educational and citizenship
perspectives discussed in the previous paragraph. It focuses on commonality by regarding people as participants in political, social and cultural communities. The next chapter will review Meetups as an audience engaging strategy and trace its origin back to the broader context of commercializing and technologically changing media.
EVENTIZATION OF THE MEDIA
As discussed in the previous chapter, Tegenlicht Meetups accommodate the educational and citizenship objectives characteristic for PSB, by regarding people as participants in political, social and cultural communities. In this chapter the origin of Meetups is reviewed in the broader context of commercializing and technologically changing media. First, it will be discussed how television, through different technological developments, has become a ‘matrix medium’, which has led to new strategies to engage audiences. This, together with the notion of the ‘experience economy’ will explain how media are exploring and proliferating different forms of audience engaging strategies, such as creating media events. Then it is argued that the Tegenlicht Meetup can be seen as an effluence of these different developments.
Matrix media
The philosophy of public service broadcasting has long been inherently linked to the notion of classical broadcast media, in which one central channel reached many isolated viewers. Developments in recent decades have undermined this classical model of broadcasting, changing television into a ‘matrix medium’. With the introduction of DVD’s, DVR’s and the Internet in the 1990s, the classical broadcasting era gave way to the convergence era;
television moved away from producing entertainment “from a central source to a diverse audience”, to producing “from more centres and flowing through more circuits” (Curtin 2009 p. 13). The introduction of these ‘technologies of agency’ (Newman & Levine 2011) has altered the experience of television viewing. Audiovisual content is now available to watch anywhere, anytime, and “although television companies remained the leading producers of video content, their historic control of distribution seemed increasingly uncertain.” (Curtin 2009 p. 10). Audiences spend less time watching linear television and continually shift their attention between multiple platforms. Especially younger audiences became experts in multitasking, resulting in less focussed attention for linear programming and more dispersed attention migrating across different platforms. This “new landscape of convergence” forced media conglomerates to respond by adapting new strategies “in order to succeed in far more volatile media markets” (Caldwell 2003 p. 135). It incented media producers to no longer just focus on the program as a distinct body on one television channel, rather they used strategies to distribute content on multiple platforms. These adapted strategies are termed by Caldwell as ‘second-shift aesthetics’. An example of this is ‘herding’, which is a subtle but lucrative means to induce migrating users into certain ‘click-through patterns’ that still benefit the conglomerate and its partners. “Programming strategies have shifted from notions of network
program ‘flows’ to tactics of audience/user ‘flows’”(Caldwell 2003 p. 136, emphasis in the original). Adapting to audiences that were “increasingly engaging to television as part of a multimedia environment” (Curtin 2009 p. 12), was especially relevant for commercial broadcasters, as advertising remained the most important source of income. Alternative platforms - such as the Internet, social media, gaming or video content - became important in deepening the viewer experience. Instead of linear programming on one platform (television), content is now delivered in a range of formats, allowing audiences to engage with it wherever and whenever they want. As commercial broadcasters are able to compile the different
audiences they reach with different platforms, they build a substantial base of users.
Because these users navigate through various programs and content, different niche groups can be recognized. Narrowcasting across multiple channels and platforms enables media conglomerates to return “lucrative, “niche” demographic segments of the audience to program suppliers and networks who could, as a result, charge higher advertising rates” (Caldwell 2003 p. 137). After all, as the unknown mass audience could be recognized as distinct “niche” segments with specific demographic characteristics, advertisers were able to perform more focussed strategies of advertising, for example by offering more personalized advertising. Thus, to retain the same audience numbers (and thus; advertising revenue), media conglomerates became multimedia providers, stimulating the production of content that could be shared and exploited across diverse media platforms.
These changes in production and distribution did not exclusively occur in commercial broadcasters. As seen in the first chapter, in the past decades broadcasting as a whole has shifted more towards a commercially motivated market system. As mentioned in the first chapter, Dutch PSB system NPO aims to work on innovation and seek interaction with the consumer. This is for example done by developing platforms that engage viewers on different levels than just watching television (social media, websites, apps, contests, etc.). An example of this can already be found with Tegenlicht’ extensive website and social media channels. The previously mentioned technique of herding can be recognized in this construction; different channels and content across multiple platforms stimulate viewers to engage with the program in various ways, aiming to reach a wider audience. So in this sense, Tegenlicht is an example of how PSB programs are also using more commercially inspired strategies to engage viewers. Thus, public service broadcasting has also been affected by the commercial logic which previously only accounted for commercial broadcasters. Especially commercial broadcasters in the US, whose programs are exported all across the globe, have influenced “production practices, programme formats, institutional behaviours and audience tastes”
(Curtin 2009 p. 9). Television had become, according to Curtin, a ‘matrix medium’, which was characterized by its “increasingly flexible and dynamic mode of communication” (Curtin 2009 p. 13). Producing a television show for the Sunday evening is no longer the most
important ambition for media producers; content is dispersed across platforms to suit the needs of audiences that spend less time watching linear television and continually shift their attention between multiple platforms, as well as direct (‘herd’) them into environments beneficial to the media producer.
Experience economy
As broadcasters learned to adapt to the “changing behaviours of audiences that now navigate a growing universe of entertainment, information and interactivity” (Curtin 2009 p. 19), they had to become increasingly creative in executing matrix strategies, for example Caldwell’s ‘second-shift aesthetics’ (Caldwell 2003). Television broadcasters that are catering audiences in the matrix era are using alternative platforms to engage audiences. However, as more and more platforms/channels are becoming available, television broadcasters are facing increased competition (Ytreberg 2009 p. 469). As a result, broadcasters aim to secure audience loyalty through audience participation by experimenting with conventions of ‘liveness’ and
‘eventfulness’ (Ytreberg 2009 p. 469) on different platforms. By extending and transforming liveness and eventfulness, broadcasters use this ‘platform proliferation’ to stimulate audience participation, which subsequently results in higher audience loyalty.
This observation closely corresponds to ideas about the ‘experience economy’, which claim that while “prior economic offerings – commodities, goods, and services – are external to the buyer, experiences are inherently personal, existing only in the mind of an individual who has been engaged on an emotional, physical, intellectual, or even spiritual level” (Pine & Gilmore 1998 p. 99). In their explanation of what an experience entails, Pine and Gilmore (1998) distinguish two dimensions in which an experience can be positioned. The first dimension, ‘customer participation’, can be used to indicate whether consumers of an experience are passive (in which consumers do not affect the event) or active (in which consumers “play key roles in creating the performance or event that yields the experience”) (Pine & Gilmore 1998 p. 101). The second dimension, ‘connection’ describes the relationship consumers have with the event. Experiences
can be either ‘absorbing’ on the one end of the
spectrum, or ‘immersing’ at the other end. Pine and Gilmore define absorption as viewing or being exposed to the event, whereas immersion means to be in it, to be “immersed in the
Figure 1. "The four realms of an experience" from Pine &
sights, sounds, and smells that surround them” (Pine & Gilmore 1998 p. 102).
In the experience economy, ‘experiences are the new services’ and businesses aim to stage an experience by engaging consumers in a personal, memorable way. Especially in the
entertainment industry, new technologies and diverse platforms are used to enhance new genres of experiences such as interactive gaming, motion-based simulators and virtual
reality (Pine & Gilmore 1998 p. 99). An experience allows consumers to gain “insights, self-discovery, and engaging interactions” (Pine & Gilmore 1998 p. 101).
Eventization of the media
Commercial broadcasters aiming to engage viewers and build audience loyalty have mastered the logic of the experience economy. One could argue that media have evolved from being mere things to watch, to being things to experience. Previously, the services that producers or broadcasters delivered were commodities like DVDs or broadcasts. Now, the logic of the experience economy has entered the world of media; wherein media are made as an
experience, instead of just an object to buy or watch. This can take many forms, ranging from stimulating engagement through interactivity, or even creating offline media events in which experiences can flourish. Media conglomerates now try to create an environment around the program, pulling consumers into a range of experiences that are associated with the program, of which the television program is only one element.
An explicit example of this can be found in reality television, which are often based on the experiences and emotions of ordinary people. As Syvertsen argues in his study of
television participation; “media increasingly is becoming ‘something to do’ rather than just something to watch” (Syvertsen 2001 p. 319). In recent decades, the amount of formats of reality TV has exploded, and according to Syvertsen, “being on television is becoming a leisure activity” (p. 320). Syvertsen’s study, in which he examined the motivations of participants in a Norwegian dating television show, showed that one of the main reasons of participating is “linked to the experience itself”, with many participants stating they “wanted to do something exciting and experience something out of the ordinary” (p. 322). Although
other motivations were stated, such as finding a partner or wanting to find out more about how television is produced, most of the motives listed are linked with “the perception of television as an activity – as something to do” (p. 323).
But this trend of ‘ordinary people’ becoming more involved in television production, can be recognized in other genres than just reality television as well. As mentioned before, an important element in staging experiences is to engage consumers in a personal, memorable way.This can for example be accomplished by allowing people to get more involved in producing television; new strategies for audience participation are used by outsourcing production work, facilitating platforms for action, or encourage ‘co-creation’. Caldwell discusses in his paper on out-sourcing in the media that media conglomerates are, next to their normal ‘big-budget’ programming, “finding ways to encourage consumers, fans, and users to either ‘add value’ to or ‘produce’ screen content of the conglomerate” (Caldwell 2009 p. 162). He argues that convergence culture has initiated media conglomerates to embrace the
perspective of un(der)paid work in commercial discourses, as it is part of the new normal of doing business in media. In recent years, the consumer has transformed from a passive recipient of messages and commodities to “an active interpreter and maker of both, a
transformation often expressed by the neologism prosumer” (Zwick et al. 2008 p. 167). Zwick and his colleagues argue that ‘co-creation’ allows “companies to manage intensifying
uncertainties about market demand by embedding consumption itself deep with production, innovation, and marketing processes.” (p. 176). Thus, consumption is embedded within the creation of products, or in media terms; production. By allowing consumers to be immersed into this world, an experience is created. Media conglomerates aim to find “avenues to mobilize consumers as part of the design, innovation, and production ‘team’” (p. 181). Co-creation essentially commodifies the experience of producing. It promotes “empowerment and self-actualization” and taps into “consumers’ needs for recognition, freedom, and agency” (p. 185). The unpaid labor and emotional involvement that is invested in “designing and
producing the commodity obviously increases its value” (p. 182). Thus, through co-creation media engage consumers and build audience loyalty, as the experience strengthens the relationship the consumer has with the program.
But that is not the only benefit co-creation has for audience loyalty; “co-creation has developed as a way to generate and control consumption” (p. 186). In an era of fragmented and rapidly changing consumer tastes, co-creation aims to “bridge the enduring distance between spaces of production and consumption” (p. 185). Essentially, companies aim to regain control by “‘bringing in’ the consumer” (p. 185). Co-creation thus originated as a
marketing technique that promotes “close, productive, and mutually beneficial company– customer relationships” (p. 165). This rests on a framework of ‘one-to-one marketing’; customer control by forming more and more individualized conditions of relating. Through this, the company is able “to more intensely modulate each relationship and more successfully channel consumer activities in specific, desirable directions” (p. 182) This can be translated to the ways media aim to build audience loyalty. By facilitating platforms (through earlier mentioned ‘platform proliferation’) on which consumers are invited to participate and share their creativity and know-how, media conglomerates can – via these same platforms – also steer consumer activities. So while the consumer has the freedom to roam multiple platforms, media conglomerates still try to ensure that the “subject’s experience of freedom follows a prescribed program” (p. 184). As Caldwell argues in his essay on second-shift aesthetics; “second-shift augmentations ‘flow’ the viewer outside of any televisual or digital text into the material world of consumerism” (Caldwell 2003 p. 137). But not only is the viewer invited to immerse himself into the world of the media, this mechanism is also applied the other way around; companies seek ways to “insert brands and products deeply into the fabric of consumer life worlds” (Zwick et al. 2008 p. 168). This has resulted in marketing strategies that aim to draw consumers into the production process, but also surround the consumer in all spheres of life; to capture “more and more of consumers’ attention, knowledge, and affect” (p. 176). Media conglomerates are creating environments with numerous ways for consumers to engage and experience, of which the television program is just one element. These seductive environments are designed to ‘set consumers free’ to produce and share knowledge, and at the same time control consumer behavior, thus essentially providing “the surest way of delivering the [consumer] over to the corporation” (p. 186).
This platform proliferation and environment building does not solely involve the digital realm. Commercial broadcasters are also more and more incorporating offline participation as a commercially viable market strategy. For example, broadcasters invite audiences to pre-planned offline events, where they can engage with the program content (for example by visiting the set, meeting the cast, or engage in other ways of audience
participation). These events are defined by Andreas Hepp as ‘popular media events’, as they are commercial and organized by the media themselves. They “break with the everyday in a routine way” (Couldry & Hepp 2009 p. 8). These media events focus on a certain thematic core, in which different media products and formats are transgressed and thus capable of reaching a collection of diverse audiences (Hepp & Krotz 2008 p. 267).
of commercialised popular culture. As Hepp explains when discussing eventization in radio; “producers who were creating material for popular culture paid close attention to the growth of commercialisation and learned how to adapt it to their own purposes by using their medium as a place in which to create ‘events’” (Hepp 2004 p. 209). In his explanation, Hepp also mentions Schulze, a sociologist who claims that in our current ‘event-dominated society’, people “seek to become managers of their experiences, they look for specific situations that will secure a calculable experience” (e.g. going to the cinema or participating in a media event) (Hepp 2004 p. 202). This observation supports the idea of an ‘experience economy’.
According to Couldry, visiting popular media events – or as he calls it; ‘media pilgriming’ – is increasingly common and executed by a much wider group than just fans (Couldry 2003 p. 75). Couldry calls this ‘media pilgriming’ because visiting a popular media event is a “ritually managed crossing of the symbolic boundary between ‘media’ and
‘ordinary’ ‘worlds’” (Couldry 2000 p. 179). Whereas the world of the media is normally something only seen on TV or heard on the radio, visiting a media event brings the world of the media in everyday life. Couldry argues that media events are such a powerful experience because it joins the two separate worlds. Couldry gives several reasons why people attend media events. Perhaps it is significant because the participant feels involved in something they routinely watch. Some people may do it out of interest, “to find out ‘how it all works’, or finding it educational” (Couldry 2000 p. 70). The visit can have “considerable emotional investment”, as it can be ‘a dream come true’ (p. 70). Also, visiting a media event involves “comparing the results of two different activities”; two ways of looking. Watching the program on television only gives limited access of how you can look at the action, whereas seeing the set or cast in real life allows you to look however and wherever you want, which then allows you to “put the whole thing back together” (p. 83). Attending a media event is thus “an active process (…), qualitatively different from watching television” (p. 84). It allows people to do ordinary things in an extraordinary setting. This connects to “the ‘ordinary’ process of television viewing (the ‘now’ of everyday viewing) and the
‘extraordinary’ moment of the visit” (p. 85). Although these settings remain separate, the two ‘worlds’ are connected.
After analyzing how the logic of the experience economy has permeated commercial broadcasting, this ‘eventization of the media’ can also be translated to Tegenlicht. This will be done in the next paragraph.
Eventization of Tegenlicht
The notions discussed in this chapter also apply to Tegenlicht. Tegenlicht fits well into this structure of matrix media. As mentioned, Tegenlicht has an extensive website and social media channels; different platforms to engage viewers. Instead of linear programming on one platform (television), Tegenlicht content is delivered in a range of formats (articles, in-depth interviews, infographics, historical overviews, etc.), allowing audiences to engage with it wherever and whenever they want. By using matrix strategies across different platforms, Tegenlicht is tapping into the world of the experience economy; with live Facebook videos, Twitter updates, online texts and offline Meetups, Tegenlicht experiments with liveness and eventfulness, two important components in deepening the consumer experience. This
positions Tegenlicht Meetups within a broader trend of eventization of the media. The earlier quotes claim by Syvertsen that “media increasingly is becoming ‘something to do’ rather than just something to watch” (Syvertsen 2001 p. 319), is directly applicable to Tegenlicht.
Taking this all into account, one could argue that Tegenlicht Meetups are in fact preplanned media events that stylishly combine the logic of the experience economy with commercial tactics of platform proliferation. Although Tegenlicht Meetups are somewhat different than popular media events, there are some similarities to be found. As with popular media events, Tegenlicht Meetups invite audiences to engage with the program content in an offline setting. Tegenlicht producers offer viewers the experience of discussing the topic with the ‘cast’ (experts who also appeared in the episode). Also, Tegenlicht Meetups can be positioned within the characteristics of an experience. Tegenlicht Meetups can be categorized as experiences that are high in participation and absorption. Viewing Tegenlicht as a
television program is an experience in which consumers participate passively, whereas Tegenlicht Meetups are high in participation. As mentioned in the first chapter, Tegenlicht producers have created an extensive world around the program with considerable
opportunities to learn more about that week’s subject. The television program is no longer the sole product, it is one of many elements Tegenlicht producers use to engage people. This makes it an excellent example of how PSB too has been influenced by the experience economy. As discussed in this chapter, eventization in the media – or the permeating of the experience economy into the media – started, reasonably, in commercial media. There is an obvious reason for this; to engage viewers and thus generate advertising revenue. PSB, however, does not have the same needs as commercial media. They depend less on
advertising revenue and have different objectives, as discussed in the previous chapter. Hence, the use of events in PSB are different in nature than those that can be found in commercial
media. Tegenlicht serves as an example of this; the program and Meetups are informative, educational and meant to inspire people, perhaps even stimulate to take action. Although audience rates matter, achieving higher rates is not the core goal of PSB programs. Thus, although the notion of a ‘meet up’ can be traced back to commercially motivated media, Tegenlicht uses it to achieve a non-commercial, PSB objective. This contradiction has consequences for the effectiveness of Tegenlicht Meetups, which will return in the next chapter.
METHODOLOGICAL INTERLUDE
Before going on to the next chapter – for which participatory observation has been applied to give insight in how Tegenlicht Meetups are created as an experience – it is necessary to take a closer look at how this ethnographic method has been used in this context.
Ethnographic research is broadly explained by Karen O’Reilly as being:
“close to the way we all make sense of the world around us in our daily lives - by watching, experiencing, absorbing, living, breathing, and inquiring about a culture, lifestyle, event, or even object – while it can also be, if undertaken carefully, scientifically rigorous, systematic, and at least to some extent objective”. (O’Reilly 2012 p. 1).
Ethnographic research is used in numerous ways in a broad range of disciplines using different traditions. Conventional ethnography would entail extensive research whereby the researcher makes a personal investment by immersing himself into the researched
environment for long periods of time. Other ways of ethnographic research focus more on empirical work such as observation, with the aim of “producing a full, nuanced, non-reductive text” (O’Reilly 2012 p. 2). Whatever kind of ethnographic research method is used, most researchers acknowledge that “the research is usually small in scale, undertaken in everyday contexts, using various data sources and methods”, and has an inductive and interpretive nature (O’Reilly 2012 p. 2).
Although ethnographic methods originated in social sciences research, it is more recently also used in media studies. This happened over the course of changing audience measurements, which Ien Ang refers to as the ‘ethnographic move’ in media studies. Watching television had long been defined as “a simple, one-dimensional, and purely objective and isolatable act” (Ang 2003 p. 125), but when the television environment started to change into the matrix medium it is today, simple audience measurements that were being used before were not accurate in considering the ‘lived reality’ behind the ratings. Television consumption became a more dynamic, complex practice “that is more than just an activity that can be broken down into simple and objectively measurable variables” (Ang 2003 p. 129). Thus, as television consumption practices were “not generalizable in terms of isolated instances of behaviour” (p. 131), television audience measurements shifted towards ethnographic measurements, to really get to know consumers. This ethnographic move corresponds with a broader trend in the advertising research community, in which
‘observational research’ is becoming a more popular research method, as it lays bare “the minutiae of consumer behaviour” (p. 131). Thus, media research can also make use of observational methods, in combination with interviews, as these clarify the discursive, emotional, intuitive, and contradictory modes of media performances.
For this thesis, exactly such a mixed methods approach was used, combining participatory observation with informal, semi-structured interviews with participants. The participatory observation has been conducted at four separate Tegenlicht Meetups: “What makes you click” (Nijmegen, 16-11-2016), “Frau Merkel” (Amsterdam, 12-04-2017), “All in the game”
(Amsterdam, 18-04-2017), “Boer zoekt voedselflat” (Amsterdam, 26-04-2017). Participatory observation is a research method that is used mainly in social sciences research. It is
especially useful when collecting information about social behaviour (Jonas 2012). Participant observation is essentially a “method of observation in which the researcher studies the target group or community from within” (Jonas 2012 p. 48).
Participatory observation has been chosen for this thesis because it is an effective method of observing the normal course of a Meetup without obstructing the occurrence of the behaviour. The observation has been conducted in an “informal and unstructured manner, … posing as a member of the group being observed” (Jonas 2012 p. 48). The targets of the observations (participants in the Meetup) were unaware that they were being observed. This way, any reactivity – when the research method alters the nature of what is being observed – has been avoided.
The participatory observation method was mainly used to get a good idea of how the Meetups are structured, how the space where the Meetup took place was used, what kind of reactions the audience gave, what the host did to trigger conversation, et cetera. A small notebook was used to write down quotes or interesting findings, albeit in a brief manner. The observational research has been conducted in combination with interviews with four
participants in the Meetup. These interviews were conducted either during the break (halfway through the Meetup) or directly after the Meetup ended. These interviews took place either within the Meetup room, or in the waiting area outside the Meetup room. The interviews lasted between 5-15 minutes. The transcripts of these interviews can be found in the appendix.
These interviews were relevant because they allowed a closer look at participant’s motivations and experiences. Not everyone contributes during the Meetups, so it is impossible to know why some participants join and what they thought of the discussions by just
conducting participatory observation. The interview did not have a strict structure, although it was made sure some important questions were asked everyone, such as; “Why did you come here?”, “How did you experience the Meetup?”, “How do you view your contribution to the Meetup?”, “What are you planning to do with the information you gathered here tonight?”. The interviews allowed participants to not only share their opinions, but also reflect on Meetups in a broader context, for example how they think these Meetups affect the Tegenlicht episodes and its viewership. These four interviews will by no means reflect the vast variety of participants in Meetups, but it will give an idea of the reasons why people might engage and in what way they view and describe their involvement. This is especially interesting because it will give insight in how participants view the Meetups, and what their perceived function is. In the previous chapter, Meetups have been reviewed as an effluence of the different
emerging matrix strategies. The next chapter will give a closer look at Meetups and analyze how it uses these different strategies to create an experience that is exceedingly different than watching Tegenlicht as a program, and what kind of consequences this performance has for achieving PSB objectives.
