Download - Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
1/20
the integration of television on the internet
Floor Broer van Dijk
5645581
New Media Theories, Group 2
Jan Simons & Sebastian Scholtz
MA, New Media
17-01-2011
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
2/20
1
Index
Keywords....................................................................................................... 2
Abstract.......................................................................................................... 2
Preface............................................................................................................ 2
1. Start up...................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Introduction.................................................................................. 3
1.2 Relevance & Methodology.......................................................... 4
2. Interactivity, Convergence & Participatory culture & Active Audience 5
2.1 Convergence & Participatory culture 5
2.2 Interactivity 6
2.3 The Audience. 6
3. History of the digitization of Television................................................... 10
3.1 The early years........................................................................... 10
3.2 Commercial television.................................................................. 11
3.3 Different stages of television......................................................... 12
4. The interactive in interactive television................................................... 13
5. The influence on audience behavior......................................................... 14
6. Conclusion................................................................................................... 16
Bibliography..................................................................................................... 17
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
3/20
2
Keywords
|Interactive, television | interactive television | participatory culture | convergence |
Abstract
In this paper, the digitization of television will be investigated. Answers will be given on
the questions What factors make interactive television interactive? and What is the
influence of the digitization of television (on audience behavior)? The terms
participatory culture & convergence culture of Henry Jenkins and interactivity and active
audience are central terms in this paper. In the conclusion I will describe which factors
make interactive television interactive. The main factor is the interaction with the
audience. Making people call, sending text messages or using social media platforms to
respond on a program. This shift from traditional passive television to the 2.0 active
television makes that the viewers are longer no passive recipients. The passive audience
now becomes active and has more influence on the medium and the content. This paper notes
the fact that an audience never has been just passive.
Preface
I want to write my master thesis about the integration of television and the internet, to be
specific, I want to do research on the upcoming phenomenon of twittering along with a
television program. Why is this a trend, does twitter needs television and vice versa and
how is New Media being used to create a connection with the audience? Since I know my
master thesis topic, I want to focus on this theme in my other papers. Thats why I want
to use this paper to learn more about interactive television.
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
4/20
3
1. Start up
1.1 Introduction
Back in the days people had to point the antenna of their television precisely in the good
direction in order to watch television. Then you had to be connected through a cable or a
dish in order to watch television. Now you can have all of that, but for an optimal
television-watching experience youre going digital, having interactive television. There
is a constant change in the world of television; its a dynamic world. Coffey & Stipp
already expected in 1997 that interaction with computers and Internet would increase,
what made interactivity possible for television.1
This interaction is strongly increasing.
The viewers want a broader offer of programs and they want to choose there moment to
watch a program. Besides that, interaction between the viewer en the screen becomes
more relevant according to Smith & Paterson.2 Interactivity- and multimedia
developments are the key to a whole new phase of television usage. In her master thesis,
Renske Karel distinguishes two sorts of viewer motifs to watch television, aware and
unaware motifs. By adding interactive elements to television programs the passive form
of watching television disappears. Viewers will have more control over the content of the
program.3 Critical television studies tried to show that viewing is not and has never been
all passive. I will call the early form of watching television passive.4
In this paper I focus on what interactive television is precisely, what factors do
make interactive television interactive and what is the influence of this digitization of
television, for example on viewing behavior. Im going to find answers on this two
research questions: What factors make interactive television interactive? and What is the
influence of the digitization of television (on audience behavior)?
1Coffey, S. & Stipp, H. The interactions between computer and tv usages. Journal of advertising research. 61-67. 1997
2Smith, A. & Paterson, R. (1998). Television. An International History. New York: Oxford University Press.
3Karel, Renske. Kijkmotieven en interactieve televisie, wat vinden zij?Een kwantitatief onderzoek naar de motievenvan TMF kijkers om het interactieve programma reaction te kijken. Communicatie wetenschappen. Universiteit vanAmsterdam. 19 maart 20084
Inside quotes to show that it isnt all passive
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
5/20
4
1.2 Relevance & Methodology
If we know the influence interactive television has on the viewers, we know what steps
we have to take to improve digitization. The Internet can be so smooth and full of new
technologies but if it isnt attractive for users, nobody uses it. The shift from passive
television to interactive television is fully in progress the last few years. Although articles
about the rise of interactive television have been written, there hasnt been done much
research about it recently. There have been written a lot of scientific researches about the
motives to watch traditional television but since there are increasingly more interactive
elements in television shows, research about the motives to watch interactive television is
important.
I will describe the history of interactive television and the digitization of
television through a historical research, done by a literature research. Through literature
research I want to find out what the influence of digitization of television is on users now
a day. I will describe developments, possible continuities and discontinuities of
technology, industry, audiences and social issues.
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
6/20
5
2. Interactivity, Convergence, Participatory culture and Active Audience
2.1 Convergence & Participatory Culture
An important concept is convergence media. Two specific technological developments
form the core of media convergence: the change of analog to digital technology and the
rise of computer networks.5 Janet Kolodzy mentions the fusion of Internet Company
AOL and multimedia company Time Warner in 2000 to give a starting point for digital
media convergence in the book Understanding Media Convergence. This was the first
time an online company and a traditional media company cooperated and it was the start
of multimedia co-operations online, in print and image.6
Henry Jenkins is an important
theorist specialized in convergence. In his book Convergence culture he describes the
collide of old and New Media. He says: By convergence, I mean the flow of content
across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and
the migratory behavior of media audiences that would go almost anywhere in search of
the kinds of entertainment experiences they wanted. Convergence is a word that manages
to describe technological, industrial, cultural and social changes depending on whos
speaking and what they think they are talking about.7
Another concept I will use is Jenkins participatory culture, a culture in which
private persons do not act as consumers only, but also as contributors or producers.
According to Jenkins, Convergence is caused by participatory culture. It's the opposite of
a consumer culture. This culture is also known as web 2.0. In participatory culture young
people creatively respond to a plethora of electronic signals and cultural commodities in
ways that surprise their makers, finding meanings and identities never meant to be there
and defying simple nostrums that bewail the manipulation or passivity of consumers.
This concept is relevant to this
study because interactive television is also a flow of content across multiple media
platforms, the television platform and the Internet platform.
8
5Grant, August. E, Wilkinson. Jeffrey S. Understanding Media Convergence. Oxford: University Press 2009. P. 5
Participatory cultures empower humans to be active contributors in personal meaningful
6 Idem. 2009. P. 347Jenkins. Henry. Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. New York University Press. New York. 2006
8Willis, Paul . Foot Soldiers of Modernity: The Dialectics of Cultural Consumption and the 21st-Century
School.Harvard Educational Review 73(3), p. 392. 2003
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
7/20
6
activities. This concept can also be related to this study because with interactive
television it becomes easier to become an active contributor.
2.2 Interactivity
Close to this two concept lies interactivity. SallyMcMillan states that interactivity can
occur at many different levels and degrees of engagement and that it is important to
differentiate between these levels. She names user-to-user interaction, communication
via the internet,para-social interaction, where new forms of media are generated online
and user-to-system interactivity that is the way devices can be engaged with by a user.9
The last two forms are relevant for my research. Lev Manovich also makes a clear
definition of what interactivity means for the user. He refers to open interactivity as
actions such as computer programming and developing media systems, whereas closed
interactivity is merely where the elements of access are determined by the user.10
Interactivity is such an important concept because the history of television and nowadays
the merge of television with the Internet, has interactivity in it. Voting for candidates in
programs like the Voice of Holland is a form of interactivity and so are the media boxes
that make it possible to choose when you want to see a program.
2.3 The Audience
Texts need audiences in order to realize their potential for meaning () The meaning is not in the text, but
in the reading. (Andrew Hart, 1991)11
The last concept that I introduce is the concept of an active audience. Participatory
culture, convergence culture and interactivity can't happen without an audience. When
television was still a new medium, viewers were called couch potatoes. They watched the
screen and didnt do anything with the text. Old media were passive and new media
brought interactivity. This passivity wasnt as passive as it looked like. Much research
9McMillan, S.J. (2002). "Exploring Models of Interactivity from Multiple Research Traditions: Users, Documents, And
Systems". In Lievrouw, L.; Livingston, S..Handbook of New Media. London: Sage. pp. 162182. ISBN 0-7619-6510-6. http://web.utk.edu/~sjmcmill/Research/interactivity2.doc.10
Interactivity. Wikipedia.com. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactivity#cite_note-4. 13 october 2010. 20 october
201011
Hart, Andrew. Understanding the media: a practical guide. London: Routledge. 1991
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
8/20
7
has been done to the meaning that audiences gave to a television text. In her research
Watching Dallas, Ien Ang did research on the audience of the soap opera Dallas and
concluded that different audiences give different meanings to a program. 12 But began
with the effects model of the Frankfurt school, set up in 1923. This model considered
society to be composed of isolated individuals who were susceptible to media messages.
The Frankfurt school envisioned the media as a hypodermic syringe and the contents of
the media were injected into the thoughts and beliefs expressed by the medium.13
In the
fifties, researchers used this model when exploring the potential of the new medium,
television. According to theorists in that time, media could not have such direct effects on
the audiences they serve. Personal contact and religion were factors more likely to
influence people. Later, the Effects model is considered to be an inadequate
representation of the communication between media and the public, as it does not take
into account the audience as individuals with their own beliefs, opinions, ideals and
attitudes.14
The academic journal Screen suggested that audiences were positioned by the
media text. Screen thought that the position of the viewer was determined for them
through the use of camera shots. Screen theory suggested that all media texts have a
mode of address, media texts address its intended audience in a particular way,
establishing a relationship between the producer of the text and the medias audience.
According to Philip J. Hanes, the limitations of focusing on audience in media studies can
In the seventies, a new approach to the dynamics of audience and television
text relationship was suggested in the Uses and Gratification model. In this model it was
not about how media affects the audiences, but how the audiences were using the media.
These theorists suggested that audiences had specific needs and actively turned to the
media to consume television texts. The audience in this model was seen as active, as
opposed to the passive audience in the Effects model but the model still implies that
television texts are packages of information that is read the same by anyone in the
audience. It does not consider how the message is interpreted.
12 Ang, Ien. Watching Dallas: Soap opera and the melodramatic imagination. Uitgeverij SUA. Amsterdam.
198213 Hanes, Philip J. The advantages and limitations of a focus on Audience in Media studies. Aberystwyth
University. April 2000. < http://www.aber.ac.uk//media/Students/pph9701.html>14
Idem, 2000.
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
9/20
8
clearly be seen in the mode of address made by the media. Different audiences use
different media.
These theories suggest that meaning is embedded within the text that audiences can
access easily and accept without questioning these meanings but just because producers
of the texts have a certain opinion and meaning, does not mean that this meaning will be
read or agreed by the audience. David Morley studied audiences of an early evening news
program and argued in The Nationwide audience that audiences actively decode
meanings from a media text. The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies expanded on
this work leading to Stuart HallsEncoding/Decoding model. This model suggested that
meanings were encoded by the producer into the media text and the audiences decoded
meaning from the text. In this model its acknowledged that there is a preferred meaning
in the text, the meaning made by the producer. The audiences interpretation of this
meaning depends on a number of frameworks outside the text like class, gender and age.
The individual viewer is recognized in this model.15 The Centre for Contemporary
Cultural Studies under leading of David Morley also proposed a model for different types
of audience decoding. Audiences have a dominant hegemonic position when they
recognize and agree with the preferred meaning of the text. They have an oppositional
hegemonic position when they understand the preferred meaning but disagree with it and
establish a negotiated hegemonic position when they oppose or has to adapt the preferred
meaning. When the audience reads the text in an unpredicted way, producing a deviant
meaning, it is referred to as aberrant decoding.16
According to Hanes, the main limitation of a focus in audience has been
highlighted by the various ways in which past theorist have thought audiences receive
media messages. There are many different ways to conceptualize the audience and the
way in which they work with media, but there appears to be no right way. This is
complicated because there are many different audiences for many different media.
During the eighties, a new strand of work developed in audience studies, focusing
on the domestic context of televisions reception within the household, using a broadly
15Hall, Stuart.Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage
publications. 199716Morley, David.Nation wide audience. Aberystwyth University.
1980
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
10/20
9
ethnographic methodology. This model characteristically focused on gender differences
within the household or family in television viewing habits.17
Halls encoding/decoding model has continued to set the basis conceptual
framework for the notable boom in studies of media consumption and the media
audiences. Studies like The Nationwide Audience of David Morley, Tania Modleskis
work on women viewers of soap operas, Janice Radways study of readers of romance
fiction and the study of Ien Ang of Dallas viewers are examples of the flow of researches
in the same light as the encoding/decoding model.
Since the early nineties, the terms viewerand consumerare no longer applicable
on the media landscape. Interactive elements were built in and the alleged passivity has
changed. There was a growing participation and an audience cant be named as vieweror
consumeranymore.18 Frank Biocca discussed five characteristics of the active audience.
Selectivity, audiences are considered to be selective in the media they choose.
Utilitarianism, media is used to meet particular need and goals.Intentionality, what
implies the purposeful use of media content.Involvement, audiences are actively
attending, thinking about- and using media. The last one is impervious to influence, not
very easily persuaded by the media alone. This all is based on the idea that no text has
just one meaning. The meaning has to be extracted by the receiver.19
17Morley, David.Audience Research. The Museum of Broadcast Communication. Museum.tv. 201118 Dijck, van Jos. Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content.Media Culture and
Society. Vol. 31 (1). 2009. P. 4119
Biocca, Frank. In: Littlejohn, S.W. Theory of communication (6th ed.) Belmont CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
1999
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
11/20
10
3. History of the digitization of Television
Our media landscape is changing quickly due to cultural and technological developments.
Television as we know it has been very popular since its rise and still it has a prominent
place in our society. Now we are on a point where television is going to change,
television has to take into account the individual needs of the audience. Also the Internet
is changing, it has become more social and interactive with the coming of blogs and
social networks in 2005. Now citizens have an integral role in the production of news.
Through e-mail, twitter and mobile phones, television stations receive the news from
citizens. Media start to look more participatory and inclusive.20
Just like web 2.0,
television also has become 2.0. There is a shift from niche to individual and from passive
audience to a more active audience.
3.1 The early years
In 1953 F. Kerkhof, employee of Philips, built in his free time the first television station
in the Netherlands. The NatLab, also from Philips, developed the first television test
signals in 1925, but the step in 1953 was a big step forward. He toured through the
Netherlands to spread this form of technique. The first programs were simple ones,
Mister Kerkhof when shaving and Misses Kerkhof when trying out different hats. In that
time, nobody could ever think of the success of television as a reporter in that time wrote:
Television has a future. A limited future probably: it will be not as common as the radio did, the
applications do have boundaries. To gain from television, people must have interest to the technique and
the programs. You dont leave your television on all day, as you do with radio. Programs cant interest
people all day.21
In 1951 the first Dutch television station became official with the public broadcast
associations Avro, KRO, NCRV, Vara and VPRO. Since then, television had a prominent
position in almost every Household. In the sixties there were a couple of changes, the
television landscape was segregated with three stations. In 1989 the Netherlands were
the last with the new phenomena, commercial television, that was now possible due to the
new legislation. RTL Veronique began broadcasting out of Luxembourg. (Later it
20Lovink, Geert. Introduction: The Pride and Glory of Web 2.0Zero Comments.Blogging and CriticalInternet Culture. Routledge. New York. 200821
Boogaard van den, Richard. Op weg naar Televisie 2.0 Frankwatching. Nieuws en Opinie over Digitale Trends.( 27
juni 2007). 04-03-2009
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
12/20
11
changed name into RTL 4) With this legislation, the Netherlands were obligated to allow
foreign stations. In 1992, it became possible for commercial stations to broadcast from
the Netherlands and in 1993 daytime television was introduced. This was the start of the
dual system of television where the public stations and commercial stations exist aside. In
1993 there was a new commercial station, RTL 5 and after the collaboration of Endemol
and the 'Veronica Omroep Organisatie' (VOO) several stations arose, like Veronica,
SBS6, Net 5, RTL 7 & RTL 8.
3.2 Commercial television
With the rise of commercial television, more programs arose with early forms of
participation. In his comparison of early forms of cinema, Tom Gunning notices
differences in the way the viewer is addressed. According to Gunning, we can speak of a
specific relation that creates the cinema of attractions with the audience. The recurring
look at the camera by actors [] establishing contact with the audience.22
Television shifts from mass to niche. Like Chris Anderson says, the era of
dominance by the mass industry runs to an end. With the rise of commercial television,
the media landscape fragmented and so did the audience.
This is
thought also an early form of interactivity in media. This addressing to the audience has
been done in early programs on television as well. With the coming of television on
location, live shows, real-life television and call-television, interactivity and participatory
culture became relevant within television. Normal people suddenly became part of the
program and those programs were far more interactive. From that point, everybody was
able to become a star and participate in television. With call-television, the host showed a
puzzle and addressed his attention to the audience at home, persuade them to call and
give the right answer.
23
22
Gunning, Tom. 1999 in: Blokland, Lisette van. Sociale media en de transformatie van televisie, hoe web 2.0
Anderson says that the long
tail theory also works with television. With the huge amount of stations these days, it is
possible to reach niches and earn money with it. All this niche stations could attract more
viewers than the big, general interest stations.
platformen tot nieuwe praktijken rondom televisie leiden. Universiteit Leiden. 20 september 201023
Boogaard van den, Richard. Op weg naar Televisie 2.0 Frankwatching. Nieuws en Opinie over Digitale Trends.( 27
juni 2007). 04-03-2009
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
13/20
12
3.3 Different stages of television
According to Richard van den Boogaard, Interaction is increasingly possible with the
clutch of different media, like mobile phones and internet. This is what he calls,
Participatory Television. In this category you have programs like donation shows and
music senders where you can text message your music request. With the coming of the
shows where you can vote for a candidate, viewers can actively participate and affect the
outcome of the program. Since the year 2000 audiences contribute to television programs
on a large basis. News programs almost cant exist without audience-generated content.
The audience became voluntary participants of talk-, dating- or make-over shows. In the
early days, people Send home videos to programs like Funnies home video. Today
people are uploading videos to YouTube and news- and entertainment programs cant do
without homemade videos.24
After this stage, van den Boogaard jumps to On demand Television. Nowadays,
with a media box, you can request a program and its available right away. The program
scheme of a station is no longer a necessary and determine factor for the activities of a
viewer. Prime time becomes my time.
With our mobile phone we send pictures and videos and
through e-mail and twitter, we keep news stations informed on accidents and other news.
25
The final stage is Interactive television. Besides television being interactive
through other kinds of media (like e-mail, social media and mobile phones), television
itself can be interactive to. With interactive television from different television
providers, you can add an extra information layer to a program.
Different stations now have Internet pages on
which you can watch programs afterwards.
24Dijck, van Jos. Television 2.0: YouTube and the Emergence of Homecasting. P. 9.25Boogaard van den, Richard. Op weg naar Televisie 2.0 Frankwatching. Nieuws enOpinie over Digitale Trends.( 27 juni 2007). 04-03-2009
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
14/20
13
4. The interactive in interactive television
According to Sherry Turkle, computers feel so natural because of their similarity to
watching Television since that is our dominant social experiences for the past forty
years.26 So while we use computers, we have a sense of watching television in our minds.
In her master thesis Hanneke Leenders presents a useful definition of interactive
television: Interactive television is a form of television in which de viewer can influence
the content, context and the form of the media content to a certain degree, by interaction
with the content & context provider and interaction with other users.27
1. Parallel information consumption: in this way, you can add an extra layer ofinformation to a program. This means extension of a program.
But what makes
interactive television interactive? In Leenders' thesis it became clear that television went
through certain stages that made television more and more active. Maybe the most
important factor is the audience. In the stage of mass television, the interactivity was
mainly between the audience. Talking with each other about the content of the program.
In the stage of participatory television, the interactivity was through extern media like
social networks, mobile phones and e-mail. Through social media sites like Twitter and
Facebook it was also possible to share your opinion. In the stage of on-demand television
interactivity lays is the fact that the viewer gets more and more control over the moment
of consumption of a program. Digital television though, presents another important
function, the integration of a return-pad that makes it possible to send information back to
the provider. This function transforms digital television in interactive television. An
important application within interactive television is parallel consumption. According to
Leenders, this can be done in two ways.
2. Parallel transaction consumption: This is an advanced form of interaction, inwhich a financial transaction is established. For example by buying a video or
even a pizza.
26Turkle, Sherry. Virtuality and its discontents. The American Prospect. Winter 1996
27Leenders, Hanneke. Toekomst-televisie, Een onderzoek naar de toekomst van interactiviteit van televisie in
Nederland. Universiteit van Amsterdam. 1 juli 2008
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
15/20
14
5. The influence on audience behavior
To predict if interactive television connects with the needs of the audience, a lot of research is
done. Uses and Gratifications research is such a research, this research tradition comes from
the fact that researchers reject the claim that media audience is passive. A relatively recent
research within the Uses and Gratifications movement is the research of Lee & Lee in 1995.
This research can be applied on interactive television and gives a good vision of the needs of
the audience nowadays. It becomes clear that the audience is watching intensively to
television but nog always to the same extend. The extend of attention is depending to certain
factors. The program content, the practices aside television watching, the moment of
watching, the motivation and the people you are watching. This is the case with traditional
television as it is with interactive television. An important point with interactive television
though, is that watching television became an individual practice. Through interactive
television, the audience is able to watch a program they like, anytime they want. What Lee &
Lee found out is that watching television for many people still finds place in a social context.
Especially prime-time television watching is still a family practice. Lee & Lee described six
important motives to find satisfaction in watching television:
1. Watching television as a ritual, planning a whole evening to watch all the programsthey like on that evening.
2. Watching television to change your mood, to relax and escape from your worries.3. Watching television for getting information, being up to date4. Watching television for social learning, the viewer can identify himself with the
personage and situations.
5. Watching television as tool for interpersonal communication, programs can be thebasis for discussions.
6. Watching television to explore an imposing, different worldAccording to S Mnker, electronic mass media, like traditional television, is always
companied by a discourse of critic on their one-to-many structure.28
28
Mnker, S.Emergenz digitaler Offentlichkeiten. Die Sozialen Medien im Web 2.0. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp
Verlag. 2009
Interactive television
has another kind of structure, many-to-many structure. Now the audience participates withthe medium. In this way, the audience has more influence on the medium and the content. It
is part of the participatory culture whereby Henry Jenkins points at the possibilities to
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
16/20
15
actively shape, transits and adapt media content. Jenkins thinks that Rather than talking
about media producers and consumers as occupying separate roles, we might now see them
as participants who interact with each other according to a new set of rules that none of us
fully understands.29 He claims that Audiences, empowered by these new technologies,[...] are
demanding the right to participate within the culture30
Charles Leadbeater describes howaudiences are much more demanding nowadays. They are no longer passive recipients of goods
delivered to them; they want to be participants in the creation of services they want.31
Mnker
expect that television is going to experience a development that will change her meaning as mass
medium. He gives the example of programs using web 2.0 platforms. According to Mnker this is
an approach that is less mass media like.32
29Jenkins, Henry. In: Blokland, Lisette van. Sociale media en de transformatie van televisie, hoe web 2.0 platformen tot
nieuwe praktijken rondom televisie leiden. Universiteit Leiden. 20 september 201030
Idem, 201031
Leadbeater, Charles. In: Blokland, Lisette van. Sociale media en de transformatie van televisie, hoe web 2.0
platformen tot nieuwe praktijken rondom televisie leiden. Universiteit Leiden. 20 september 201032
Mnker, S.Emergenz digitaler Offentlichkeiten. Die Sozialen Medien im Web 2.0. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp
Verlag. 2009
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
17/20
16
6. Conclusion
Television is a medium with a huge history of transition. It started as mass medium,
everybody watched programs at the same time, talked about it among friends and
colleagues and that was the interactivity in television those days. Then live programs,
programs on location and call-programs arose. With those programs television took one
step closer to be interactive. With the digitization of television, television is increasingly
becoming interactive. What interactivity in interactive television is, is the interaction
with the audience. A debate on media audience is going on for years now, claiming that a
television audience never has been all passive. According to Ien Ang for example,
everybody reads a television text differently and does something with a television text in
his own way. That is not passive behavior. The not so active audience shifted to an
active audience, an audience that can participate in the program and that has influence on
the content and development of the program. Another factor is the use of social media
platforms. Television stations nowadays use social media platforms to let the audience
interact with the program. The third factor is that the audience can interact with the
medium itself. The audience can choose when to watch a program he likes. It is also
possible to buy a movie or a pizza using their remote control.
The influence of the digitization of television on audience behavior is the change
of time management but Lee & Lee found out that prime-time television is still a family
practice. With the shift to a more active audience that participate and have influence on a
program, the behavior of the audience of course changes. The not interactive audience,
now becomes interactive and has more influence on the medium and the content.
Leadbeater sees that the viewers no longer are passive recipients of goods delivered to
them; they want to be participants in the creation of services they want.
In further research I like to focus on social media platforms that nowadays merge
with television programs. To what extend do social media platforms like twitter needs
television and vice-versa? and how is New Media being used to create a connection with
the audience? These are questions in which I am interested and in my master thesis I will
try to find answers to such questions.
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
18/20
17
Bilbiography
Ang, Ien. Watching Dallas: Soap opera and the melodramatic imagination. Uitgeverij
SUA. Amsterdam. 1982
Bakker, P. & Scholten, O. Communicatiekaart van Nederland; Overzicht van
media encommunicatie (2e
druk). Alphen a/d Rijn/Dieghem: Samsom. 1999
Blokland, Lisette van. Sociale media en de transformatie van televisie, hoe web 2.0
platformen tot nieuwe praktijken rondom televisie leiden. Universiteit Leiden. 20
september 2010
Boogaard van den, Richard. Op weg naar Televisie 2.0 Frankwatching. Nieuws en
Opinie over Digitale Trends.( 27 juni 2007). 04-03-2009
Broer van Dijk, Floor.Infotainment & de vrouw: Representatie van Femininiteit in
een nieuw genre in Indonesi. Universiteit van Amsterdam. 2009
Coffey, S. & Stipp, H. The interactions between computer and tv usages. Journal of
advertising research, 37(2), 61-67. 1997
Dijck, van Jos. Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content.Media
Culture and Society. Vol. 31 (1). 2009. P. 41
Dijck, van Jos. Television 2.0: YouTube and the Emergence of Homecasting
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
19/20
18
Grant, August. E, Wilkinson. Jeffrey S. Understanding Media Convergence. Oxford:
University Press 2009
Hall, Stuart.Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London:
Sage publications. 1997
Hart, Andrew. Understanding the media: a practical guide. London: Routledge. 1991
Hanes, Philip J. The advantages and limitations of a focus on Audience in Media studies.
Aberystwyth University. April 2000.
Hermes, Joke, Maarten Reesink.Inleiding Televisiestudies. Amsterdam: Boom, 2003
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. New York
University Press. New York. 2006
Jenkins, Henry. Fans, Bloggers and Gamers: Exploring Participatory culture. New
York University Press. New York. 2006
Karel, Renske. Kijkmotieven en interactieve televisie, wat vinden zij?Een kwantitatief
onderzoek naar de motieven van TMF kijkers om het interactieve programma
reaction te kijken. Communicatie wetenschappen. Universiteit van Amsterdam. 19
maart 2008
Leenders, Hanneke. Toekomst-televisie, Een onderzoek naar de toekomst van
interactiviteit van televisie in Nederland. Universiteit van Amsterdam. 1 juli 2008
Littlejohn, S.W. Theory of communication (6th ed.) Belmont CA:
Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. 1999
-
8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk
20/20
19
Lovink, Geert. Introduction: The Pride and Glory of Web 2.0.Zero Comments:
Blogging and cricital internet culture. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. New
York. 2008
Morley, David.Audience Research. The Museum of Broadcast Communication.
Museum.tv. < http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=audiencerese>
2011
Morley, David.Nation wide audience. Aberystwyth University. 1980
Mnker, S.Emergenz digitaler Offentlichkeiten. Die Sozialen Medien im Web 2.0.
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. 2009
Picard, R. Audience fragmentation and structural limits on media innovation and diversity.
Paper presented at the Second Expert Meeting on Media and Open Societies, 21-23
October, Amsterdam. 1999
Smith, A. & Paterson, R. (1998). Television. An International History. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Turkle, Sherry. Virtuality and its discontents. The American Prospect. Winter 1996