tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/television-industry-9141/articlesTelevision industry – The Conversation2023-03-17T15:54:30Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2016882023-03-17T15:54:30Z2023-03-17T15:54:30ZWales Broadcast Archive: UK’s first national archive shows importance of preserving our audiovisual history<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/516021/original/file-20230317-2393-28331k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=44%2C0%2C5000%2C3308&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hundreds of thousands of hours of broadcasting history are available for the first time. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Library of Wales</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>This month’s launch of the <a href="https://www.library.wales/national-broadcast-archive">Wales Broadcast Archive</a> marks a major step forward in the curation of our collective audiovisual heritage. Housed at the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth, the archive features a cornucopia of material dating back to the early days of broadcasting in Wales, including film, radio and video. That it is the first of its kind in the UK, however, raises important questions about access to our audiovisual history. </p>
<p>As Unesco <a href="https://www.unesco.org/en/days/audiovisual-heritage?TSPD_101_R0=080713870fab2000502fe465bc04f6b27c52c9a0193e80a672ab1f5e21b1a4c85415302e3aabbd9b0810cf430e143000feeb184c026bc21a1537bc94124a8c96ed03ccb6d0f06a7ece1443260cacbf0531925b304c6ee161f47d82620e01e8ca">remarked</a> on the World Day for Audiovisual Heritage last October:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Audiovisual archives tell us stories about people’s lives and cultures from all over the world. They represent a priceless heritage which is an affirmation of our collective memory and a valuable source of knowledge, since they reflect the cultural, social and linguistic diversity of our communities.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>More often than not, access to broadcast archives has been restricted to those working within the industry or academic researchers. Last year, though, the <a href="https://bbcrewind.co.uk/">BBC opened up</a> part of its digitised archive online, allowing the public to access some of its hidden gems.</p>
<p>However, the new Wales archive is unique in that it brings together the archives of its three major broadcasters - BBC, ITV and S4C. It contains material reflecting all aspects of life in both the English and Welsh languages. It is a unique source of information which will give historians and others an insight into the history of the nation.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1636005548112871427"}"></div></p>
<p>As well as preserving our broadcast heritage in its original and digitised form in Aberystwyth, people around Wales will be able to access around 500,000 hours of archive footage in dedicated “clip centres” housed across the nation. For the first time, members of the public will be able to see historical footage of their local areas and hear voices from years gone by.</p>
<p>Although the Wales Broadcast Archive is unique within the UK, there are similar institutions further afield. One such organisation is the Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision, <a href="https://www.beeldengeluid.nl/en">Beeld en Geluid</a>, which opened in 1997. It provided a useful model for the establishment of the Welsh archive. As a heritage institute, it preserves the audiovisual material of the Netherlands, with material from the country’s various broadcasters under one roof.</p>
<h2>Technology and storage challenges</h2>
<p>Of course, archives are not without their problems or their gaps. Very early television programmes, for example, are now lost forever. The technology simply didn’t exist to record in the pre-war and immediate post-war period. Nothing survives from the BBC’s pre-war television service at <a href="https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/100-voices/birth-of-tv/ally-pally/">Alexandra Palace</a> – apart, that is, from some fascinating film shot on a home movie camera by one of the corporation’s engineers, Desmond Campbell, which is held by the <a href="http://bufvc.ac.uk/archives/index.php/collection/857">Alexandra Palace Television Society</a>.</p>
<p>As Dick Fiddy, a consultant at the British Film Institute, <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/_/m6AMngEACAAJ?hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3q4GL5t79AhWFRkEAHY32DVMQre8FegQIDRAD">noted</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The early technical difficulties associated with the recording of live television programmes, and the later injudicious wiping and junking policies of the major British broadcasters, has meant that hundreds of thousands of hours of precious television material is missing from the official UK television archives.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Over the years, many broadcasters have had to dispense with their audiovisual material simply for storage reasons. Film and videotape can take up a lot of floor space, let alone audio recordings. When one considers the huge amount of broadcasting hours that are chewed up every week, it is easy to see how physical material can mount up over time.</p>
<p>So, broadcasters have had to adopt selection policies, making decisions on what material or programmes might be historically important in the future. As you can imagine, this has not been an easy task. Often, entertainment programmes such as quiz shows, variety or local chat shows were deemed to have no intrinsic value and were overlooked for archival purposes. </p>
<p>Archivists are also faced with an ongoing dilemma. They need to be preserving material for future generations while also ensuring that the producers of current programmes have the necessary audiovisual archives at their disposal. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A man in a wheelchair and a man standing wear sets of headphones. Both are in a large room and are looking at a screen." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/516023/original/file-20230317-1658-1a8ot7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/516023/original/file-20230317-1658-1a8ot7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/516023/original/file-20230317-1658-1a8ot7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/516023/original/file-20230317-1658-1a8ot7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/516023/original/file-20230317-1658-1a8ot7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/516023/original/file-20230317-1658-1a8ot7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/516023/original/file-20230317-1658-1a8ot7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The public can also access the new archive in dedicated ‘clip centres’ throughout Wales.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Library of Wales</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The question now is whether the other UK nations should follow suit. While a similar model could be adopted in Scotland, in England the issue of whether the archives should house an English or British archive would need to be overcome.</p>
<p>Our collective audiovisual heritage provides a key to understanding ourselves as a society. It provides an additional access route into our past which complements that provided by the written record. </p>
<p>After all, archives are witnesses to history. They allow us to see how we lived, how we dressed, how we talked, how we were entertained, and how and when we watched or listened together. They also allow us to reflect and to learn. The Wales Broadcast Archive will do this and I, for one, am celebrating its arrival.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/201688/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jamie Medhurst has received funding from the AHRC, The Leverhulme Trust, and the British Academy in the past</span></em></p>The Wales Broadcast Archive in Aberystwyth brings together the archives of the BBC, ITV and S4C under one roof.Jamie Medhurst, Professor of Media and Communication, Aberystwyth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1606492021-05-17T15:47:02Z2021-05-17T15:47:02ZSouth Africa sets out to protect cast and crew involved in nudity and sex scenes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/400344/original/file-20210512-15-18wwdr0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Roketclips Inc/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>A new set of guidelines for handling intimate scenes in film and television shoots was recently released in South Africa. Similar to those adopted in other countries, the <a href="https://intimacysouthafrica.org.za/_files/200000019-3524035243/Protocols%20for%20Intimate%20Content%20in%20TV,%20Film%20and%20Associated%20Media%20South%20Africa%20V3.pdf">protocols</a> were compiled in consultation with the country’s major bodies for industry workers and producers. They provide guidance on how to make cast and crew safe, especially from sexual harassment and assault. Performer and academic Fiona Ramsay asked <a href="https://www.ssintimacycoordinators.com/kate-lush/">Kate Lush</a>, a co-creator of the new protocols, why they matter.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Why are the protocols needed?</h2>
<p>Historically, actors and students actors were groomed to believe that if they didn’t say yes to whatever the director or lecturer asked, someone else would; this was a side to the industry they’d just have to accept. Actors were rarely asked to interrogate their personal boundaries or comfort levels. As a result sexual harassment, bullying and coercion were rife in all areas of the entertainment industry and throughout academic institutions.</p>
<p>When I talk to people about what my role as an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/oct/06/safe-sex-on-screen-intimacy-coordinators">intimacy coordinator</a> actually involves, the first question is usually, ‘What did people do before?’. It seems astonishing to think that there was no clear methodology attached to scenes that had intimate content. Directors often didn’t know how to talk about or direct these scenes. Actors were repeatedly told to just work it out for themselves or improvise. Often they were made to rehearse and perform kisses, simulated sex and nudity in front of entire casts and crews. Needless to say, this often created scenes that didn’t serve the story or left actors feeling embarrassed, ashamed or violated.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/sexual-misconduct-in-film-and-tv-how-intimacy-coordination-can-help-to-address-the-historic-issue-160489">Sexual misconduct in film and TV: how intimacy coordination can help to address the historic issue</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>So, around the world, various production companies and unions have adopted similar guidelines. This was spurred by the revelations of sexual abuse by Hollywood producers that led to the <a href="https://metoomvmt.org">#MeToo</a> movement.</p>
<h2>What do the protocols propose?</h2>
<p>Since the beginning of 2020, the South African film industry has been in conversation with <a href="https://www.intimacysouthafrica.org.za">Intimacy Practitioners South Africa</a> to create protocols that outline what best practice looks like. (Intimacy Practitioners SA follows similar organisations in the US and UK. It was set up to advocate for and support <a href="https://theconversation.com/sexual-misconduct-in-film-and-tv-how-intimacy-coordination-can-help-to-address-the-historic-issue-160489">intimacy coordinators</a> and cast and crew working on intimate scenes on sets in South Africa.)</p>
<p>By following the protocols, producers and directors are encouraged to look at intimate content in a professional way. The protocols outline what considerations need to be put in place from pre-production, during production and into post-production. They talk about consent and agreements that must be put in place. About the right environment to hold auditions and what is the safest way to navigate scenes with intimacy, kissing, nudity and simulated sex. </p>
<p>They’re also framed with an anti-sexual harassment ethos that should be embedded into the culture of each set and a link to a code of good practice. </p>
<p>Actors, for example, are required always to work with a third person, to discuss the story and character arcs as a way of keeping the personal and professional in perspective. Actors are encouraged to have autonomy over their bodies. Equally they provide guidelines that encourage creativity and resourcefulness; they invite discussion and collaboration. </p>
<p>The protocols also highlight the scenes that present significant risk to the cast and encourage the use of an intimacy coordinator. This person would work with the directors, showrunners, producers and writers to facilitate their vision, while communicating the comfort levels and personal boundaries of the actors. </p>
<h2>Is #MeToo part of the historical impetus?</h2>
<p>The #MeToo movement was initiated in 2006 by the sexual harassment survivor and activist Tarana Burke. It was during the same year that the movement director Tonia Sena, co-founder of Intimacy Directors International (now <a href="https://www.idcprofessionals.com">Intimacy Directors and Coordinators</a>), wrote her Master of Fine Arts in theatre pedagogy <a href="https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2070&context=etd">thesis</a>, <em>Intimate Encounters; Staging Intimacy and Sensuality</em>. It was in response to the work she was undertaking while assisting on the choreography of intimate content in student dance productions. </p>
<p>But it wasn’t until #MeToo in 2017 that producers began to <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/lets-talk-about-simulated-sex-intimacy-coordinators-two-years-on-4101799/">realise</a> that they needed to do something proactive to keep their actors safe and to reduce the risk of litigation and bad press. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3LN1FaK9bIs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The South African campaign #ThatsNotOK released videos based on true stories.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It was during 2017/18 that the intimacy coordinators Alicia Rodis (US) and Ita O'Brien (UK) were invited on to set, employed specifically as intimacy coordinators, for the HBO show <em>The Deuce</em> and the Netflix show <em>Sex Education</em>. </p>
<p>Here, in South Africa, also in 2017, the organisation <a href="http://www.swiftsa.org.za">Sisters Working in Film and Television</a> conducted and published a <a href="http://www.swiftsa.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SWIFT_ReportBook_007FIN_singlepage-1.pdf">survey</a> on sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual assault and violence in the South African film and TV industry. They followed this by creating the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Swift+%23ThatsNotOk">#ThatsNotOK</a> campaign. </p>
<h2>The protocols can’t be policed, though?</h2>
<p>By working with the whole industry we’re hoping that their use will be organic. There is not a single voice instructing their use, there are many voices encouraging their use. </p>
<h2>Some might argue this muzzles creative work</h2>
<p>We have to assume that everyone always wants to do their best work. We have to also assume that producers want sets that are productive and respectful environments in which to work. Using the protocols, especially when in conjunction with an intimacy coordinator, brings professionalism and clarity to a process that has been historically muddy. </p>
<p>The guidelines never look to censor the work of any production, but to ask questions of the directors and the actors as to the story they’re trying to tell in each intimate moment. They support story explorations and can offer creative solutions. Challenging stories do need to be told, but when pushing the envelope of what has been, or is deemed, to be acceptable, film makers need to take responsibility for their productions and the people working on them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160649/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fiona Ramsay does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Spurred by the impetus of the #MeToo movement, South Africa’s is the latest film and TV industry to introduce intimacy protocols to guide how intimate scenes are conceived and executed.Fiona Ramsay, Head of Department of Theatre and Performance and PhD candidate, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1364412020-05-04T15:10:01Z2020-05-04T15:10:01ZTV viewing has surged during lockdown, but has become too technical for some – new research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/332412/original/file-20200504-83751-1yn6ln6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Screen time.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/mid-adults-watching-tv-pc-thanks-135287396">Shutterstock/ABB Photo</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As we find ourselves largely confined to our homes, it is unsurprising that television viewing has sky-rocketed. Watching live broadcasts in the UK has <a href="https://inews.co.uk/culture/live-tv-ratings-ant-and-dec-drama-barb-viewing-figures-covid-19-outbreak-2522761">increased by 17%</a> since the coronavirus lockdown, halting years of decline. </p>
<p>And just as the British government <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/future-public-service-broadcasting-launch-19-21/">launched its latest inquiry</a> into the future of public service broadcasting, the UK has been turning to those same services for news, entertainment and reassurance. In the first three weeks of lockdown, the BBC saw viewer numbers increase by 23%, with more than a third of all television viewing <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/arts/television/bbc-coronavirus.html?referringSource=articleShare">on the corporation’s platforms</a>. </p>
<p>Nor is it just traditional broadcasters benefiting from the lockdown. By early April, Disney’s new streaming service, Disney+, had almost doubled its global subscriber <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/09/disney-netflix-rival-doubles-subscriptions-in-virus-lockdown">numbers to 50 million</a>, with a fortuitously timed launch in most major Western markets in March. There has also been a notable spike in viewing of “non-broadcast content” on TV sets every day at 9am, which probably correlates with Joe Wicks’ hugely successful child-friendly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/apr/07/sleep-and-exercise-down-back-pain-and-tv-up-in-uk-lockdown">YouTube workouts</a>. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, as theatres, cinemas and museums face enforced closures, there have been a wave of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2020/mar/17/hottest-front-room-seats-the-best-theatre-and-dance-to-watch-online">plays, operas, ballets</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/apr/08/art-virtual-reality-coronavirus-vr">exhibitions</a> streamed over the internet. For many audiences this brings previously inaccessible cultural experiences into the comfort of their homes. </p>
<p>But such enriching, entertaining and companionable experiences are not available to all. There are homes in the UK without the superfast broadband connections or devices needed to access streaming services. <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/186413/Connected-Nations-2019-UK-final.pdf">Ofcom estimates</a> that around 53,000 homes in the UK are unable to access either a decent fixed broadband service or good 4G coverage. </p>
<p>And while superfast broadband coverage in the UK has <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/186413/Connected-Nations-2019-UK-final.pdf">increased to 95%</a>, only 57% of UK homes able to access superfast broadband had done so by 2018. Smart TV ownership has also <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand/media-nations-2019/media-nations-2019-interactive-report">sky-rocketed</a>, but they are only owned by just under half of UK households. And although eight in ten adults now own a smartphone, household ownership of laptops, tablets and PCs <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/160714/media-nations-2019-uk-report.pdf">declined</a> in 2019 to 63%, 54% and 24% respectively. </p>
<p>Yet what is less often considered are the skills needed to use the technologies required to access contemporary television. In September 2019 we undertook an in-depth <a href="https://research.hud.ac.uk/institutes-centres/cpc/ourprojects/routes/">study</a> of a demographically representative sample of 30 participants to find out how people find and access the television and streaming content they watch. </p>
<h2>Remote access</h2>
<p>Although it is important not to generalise from a small sample, we were struck by the repeated story that we heard from female participants aged 35 and over. This is perhaps encapsulated by one 54-year-old, who began our interview stating that her TV viewing had significantly declined over the past year. </p>
<p>As we explored her TV viewing habits and asked her to show us how she found something to watch, it became apparent that her time spent watching television had dropped because she struggled to operate the new smart TV purchased a year earlier. As she explained: “I don’t bother with telly anymore. It’s gone too technical that I don’t know how to use it.” </p>
<p>Instead, she found herself going to bed earlier, spending more time looking at emails and Facebook on her phone, or relying on her husband to find TV content for her. </p>
<p>And she was not alone. A number of our older female participants relied on their partners to access television programmes. When asked to show us how she found something to watch, one 55-year-old woman replied: “I rarely use the remote. It is mostly my husband that does the remote.” A 35-year-old woman also claimed that “nine times out of ten” it is her husband that holds on to the remote control. </p>
<p>Our older female participants also sometimes struggled with on-demand and streaming services. One said she had not yet figured out how to set up a Netflix account. Another didn’t understand what BBC iPlayer and ITV Hub were, complaining: “You don’t get taught how to do these things do you, you know, as older people.” </p>
<h2>Technical turn off</h2>
<p>Juggling multiple remotes, turning on smart TV sets and using streaming services prevented these older female participants from accessing entire routes to content, and placed control over television viewing in the hands of their partners. </p>
<p>The experiences of the women in our sample accord with a <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dWMdhtyFAcEC&source=gbs_book_other_versions">longer history of research</a> revealing that men dominate the use of media technologies in the home. The challenges our older female participants experienced are likely to be as much to do with long-standing cultural dynamics as with technological ability. </p>
<p>Ultimately it is not just access to superfast broadband and technological devices that limits people’s ability to experience the benefits of television in times of crisis, but also their technological and media literacy. And this, our research suggests, is likely to be a gendered, as well as a generational, issue.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330754/original/file-20200427-145530-154r2ie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330754/original/file-20200427-145530-154r2ie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330754/original/file-20200427-145530-154r2ie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330754/original/file-20200427-145530-154r2ie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330754/original/file-20200427-145530-154r2ie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330754/original/file-20200427-145530-154r2ie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330754/original/file-20200427-145530-154r2ie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">If you can.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/tv-stay-home-watch-notice-style-1705839580">Shutterstock/dubassy</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So while television might be taking on an increasingly important role during the coronavirus lockdown, the comfort, information and entertainment it offers is not as widely accessible as we might think. </p>
<p>There are no straightforward solutions to this problem. But there are steps that could be taken. For example, device manufacturers should be encouraged to improve the usability of smart TV sets and involve older women in their design. </p>
<p>Broadcasters and governments could invest in media and technological literacy initiatives targeted particularly at older female viewers. When proclaiming the benefits of new streaming services, industry and government need to recognise the challenges that older female viewers may face.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/136441/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Johnson has previously received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council. She is currently advisor to the DCMS select committee on the future of public service broadcasting. </span></em></p>There’s never been so much to watch, but not everyone is able to tune in.Catherine Johnson, Professor in Media and Communication, University of HuddersfieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1234112019-09-20T12:47:28Z2019-09-20T12:47:28Z4 reasons why we’ll never see another show like ‘Friends’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293240/original/file-20190919-22429-22v0q6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pictured from left to right are 'Friends' cast members Matt LeBlanc, Courtney Cox, Matthew Perry, Jennifer Aniston and David Schwimmer.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Associated-Press-International-News-United-King-/121bbb2544e5da11af9f0014c2589dfb/9/0">AP Photo/Lynne Sladky</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Sept. 22, 1994, six telegenic 20-somethings frolicked in a fountain in front of credits that announced the arrival of “Friends,” a new NBC sitcom that would forever change television.</p>
<p>As sitcom scribes scrambling to land on writing staffs during the mid-1990s, we witnessed – with awe and a bit of envy – how “Friends” instantly became a red-hot comedy commodity. <a href="https://newmusicandmore.tripod.com/friendsratings.html">According to Nielsen Ratings</a>, it was a top-five most watched program for nine of its 10 seasons. </p>
<p>The series was a ratings juggernaut during its network run, but its afterlife in syndication and streaming has been just as remarkable.</p>
<p>Now we’re TV and screenwriting professors in Emerson College’s Comedic Arts Program. And we couldn’t have ever predicted that our current crop of students <a href="https://www.shondaland.com/live/a26345588/friends-jennifer-aniston-netflix-popular-gen-z/">would be just as spellbound</a> by Ross and Rachel’s romance, Monica’s lovable neuroses and Joey’s passion for sandwiches. Netflix recently paid a whopping <a href="https://www.vulture.com/2018/12/netflix-friends-2019-streaming-deal.html">US$80 million</a> for the rights to run the show through 2019.</p>
<p>Networks would love to replicate the series’ success. But the realities of the television landscape today make it unlikely that we’ll ever see another series with as much of a cultural impact as “Friends.”</p>
<p>Here are four reasons why.</p>
<h2>1. Shorter seasons mean less screen time</h2>
<p>The television season was once as certain as death and taxes. </p>
<p>Shows started in September and ran until May. Most had an average order of <a href="https://www.vulture.com/2015/06/10-episodes-is-the-new-13-was-the-new-22.html">22 episodes per season</a>, with each episode airing once a week. This allowed viewers to make tuning into their favorite show a part of their weekly routine over the course of nine months. From 1994 to 2004, <a href="https://friends.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Friends_">NBC produced 236 episodes</a> of “Friends,” an average of 24 episodes per season. </p>
<p>Today, television seasons <a href="https://www.vulture.com/2015/06/10-episodes-is-the-new-13-was-the-new-22.html">are much shorter</a>. While the occasional sitcom still receives that coveted 22-episode order, others get considerably less, and this includes those with a proven track record.</p>
<p>For example, even though “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2467372/">Brooklyn Nine-Nine</a>” has won a Golden Globe for Best Comedy, NBC greenlit only <a href="https://screenrant.com/brooklyn-nine-nine-season-6-nbc-ratings/">13 episodes</a> for its upcoming season. </p>
<p>There are a host of <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-tv-networks-are-ordering-shorter-seasons-2015-6">reasons for this shift</a>, from star actors being less willing to commit to so many episodes to changes in the way syndication works. But shorter seasons mean viewers have less of an opportunity to become deeply invested in the show and its characters.</p>
<h2>2. Fragmented audiences</h2>
<p>Back in 1994, there were only four major broadcast networks: ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox. A limited number of networks meant only a limited number of programs would air – making it that much more likely that a popular show would attract a huge swath of Americans. </p>
<p>In 1994 and 1995, <a href="https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/hrts-must-see-tv-1201980583/">an average of 75 million people</a> tuned into NBC on Thursday nights. NBC rolled out the slogan “<a href="https://www.vulture.com/2014/09/1994-friends-seinfeld-er-warren-littlefield-transcript.html">Must See TV</a>” to market its Thursday night blockbuster comedy lineup, which, in addition to “Friends,” included heavyweight series such as “Mad About You” and “Seinfeld.” To miss out on a hit show meant being out of the loop the next day when everyone was talking about what happened.</p>
<p>But over the past decade, <a href="https://theconversation.com/fresh-off-the-boat-and-the-rise-of-niche-tv-37451">cable and streaming have completely upended this model</a>.</p>
<p>Over the first six months of 2019, <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/peak-tv-320-scripted-shows-have-aired-first-2019-1221792">more than 320 scripted shows</a> aired on television networks, cable and streaming platforms. </p>
<p>The massive viewing menu has fragmented audiences. No longer beholden to network schedules, viewers can watch what they want, where they want and when they want.</p>
<p>“<a href="https://www.cbs.com/shows/big_bang_theory/">The Big Bang Theory</a>” illustrates this shift.</p>
<p>Like “Friends,” “The Big Bang Theory” was a hugely popular sitcom on network TV about a group of friends. It ran for 12 years, from 2007 to 2019. Approximately <a href="https://deadline.com/2019/05/big-bang-theory-series-finale-ratings-jump-1202617069/">18 million people watched</a> the series finale, which also aired on a Thursday night. </p>
<p>But the “Friends” series finale blew it out of the water: On May 6, 2004, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/08/arts/friends-finale-s-audience-is-the-fourth-biggest-ever.html">more than 52 million people</a> tuned in to say goodbye. </p>
<p>In today’s marketplace, getting a show to that level of “Must See TV” status is an almost impossible feat for even the most seasoned producer.</p>
<h2>3. Single-cam snobbery</h2>
<p>Sitcoms are categorized as “single-cam” or “multi-cam,” <a href="https://gideonsway.wordpress.com/2018/08/29/how-do-single-cam-tv-shows-differ-from-multi-cam-ones/">which refers to the style of filming</a>. Multi-cam shows such as “Friends” and “The Big Bang Theory” are typically shot on a sound stage in front of a live studio audience. They’re often enhanced by a laugh track, and the final product resembles a filmed play. </p>
<p>Single-cam shows such as “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1723816/?ref_=nv_sr_7?ref_=nv_sr_7">Girls</a>” and “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” are produced more like films. They’re not limited to a small number of sets and locations. </p>
<p>While live studio audiences can infuse multi-cams with energy and immediacy, single-cam shows tend to have more storytelling flexibility, and they can possess a level of visual intimacy that’s difficult to attain in multi-cams. </p>
<p>In 1995, when “Friends” received <a href="https://www.emmys.com/awards/nominees-winners/1995">its first Emmy nomination</a> for Best Comedy Series, three of the four other nominees – “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098904/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">Seinfeld</a>,” “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103484/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">Mad About You</a>” and “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106004/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">Frasier</a>,” which took the prize – were multi-cam sitcoms on NBC. </p>
<p>In 2019, the list of Best Comedy Series contenders is bigger, <a href="https://www.emmys.com/awards/nominees-winners/2019/outstanding-comedy-series">with seven nominees</a>. But each is a single-cam show; there’s not a multi-cam or laugh track in the bunch.</p>
<h2>4. The rise of the ‘dramedy’ and the anti-hero</h2>
<p>In a way, “Friends” creators David Crane and Marta Kauffman, along with their original producing partner, Kevin Bright, <a href="https://www.glamour.com/story/exclusive-the-creators-of-frie">revolutionized</a> the sitcom genre. </p>
<p>The new show they were pitching – originally titled “Insomnia Cafe” – was still a multi-cam, but it was a very different kind of multi-cam.</p>
<p>The team envisioned a multi-cam that was denser, packed with more storylines and scenes to accommodate a six-lead ensemble. While an episode of an older, more traditional multi-cam like CBS’s “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066626/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">All in the Family</a>” might make do with six to 10 scenes, two storylines and fewer sets, “Friends” would have at least three storylines and up to twice as many scenes.</p>
<p>“We don’t want it to feel like anything else on TV,” Crane and Kauffman wrote in their original pitch document. “We want a fast, quick cutting style. The whole show should have a fast, over-caffeinated feel.” </p>
<p>“Friends” took the genre in a new stylistic direction, and subsequent multi-cams like “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460649/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">How I Met Your Mother</a>” <a href="http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/jbutler/clips/blending-multiple-camera-and-single-camera/view">continued the trend</a>.</p>
<p>But sitcoms were already undergoing an even more dramatic evolution. Whereas most traditional multi-cam sitcoms were expected mainly to deliver big laughs, an emerging spate of single-cam shows started infusing comedy with darker themes and edgier storylines. </p>
<p>Known as “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/may/11/why-we-fell-in-love-with-dramedies">dramedies</a>,” they became even more popular with the proliferation of streaming platforms. Viewers who have embraced the stark realism of shows like HBO’s “Girls” and Amazon Studio’s “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3502262/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">Transparent</a>” often find traditional multi-cams hokey. </p>
<p>Then there’s been the rise of the sitcom anti-hero, a new kind of lead character who could be flawed and not always likable – think Larry David in “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264235/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">Curb Your Enthusiasm</a>” or Julia Louis Dreyfus’ Selina Meyer in “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1759761/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">Veep</a>.”</p>
<p>Will modern, more jaded viewers who have crossed over to dramedies ever be willing to embrace the glossy, rom-com fluff of a show like “Friends”? </p>
<p>The current TV ecosystem might not be amenable to cultivating another “Friends,” but that shouldn’t detract from its impact on the genre. </p>
<p>It changed the game, raising the bar for all sitcoms to come.</p>
<p>[ <em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123411/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Since ‘Friends’ premiered 25 years ago, both the television industry and the sitcom genre have undergone huge transformations.Martie Cook, Professor of Film and Television Writing/Creator & Director of BFA in Comedic Arts/Founding Director, Center for Comedic Arts, Emerson CollegeManuel Basanese, Assistant Professor Visual Media Arts, Emerson CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1012922018-08-10T10:41:35Z2018-08-10T10:41:35ZProfit, not free speech, governs media companies’ decisions on controversy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231184/original/file-20180808-191013-13uar8y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What causes a media business to bar the door?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/blocked-door-abandoned-house-background-597346598">yanin kongurai/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For decades, U.S. media companies have limited the content they’ve offered based on what’s good for business. The decisions by <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/6/17655516/infowars-ban-apple-youtube-facebook-spotify">Apple, Spotify, Facebook and YouTube</a> to <a href="https://theconversation.com/audiences-love-the-anger-alex-jones-or-someone-like-him-will-be-back-101168">remove content from commentator Alex Jones and his InfoWars platform</a> follow this same pattern.</p>
<p>My <a href="https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/understanding-media-industries-9780190215323?cc=us&lang=en&">research on media industries</a> makes clear that government rules and regulations do little to limit what television shows, films, music albums, video games and social media content are available to the public. Business concerns about profitability are much stronger restrictions. Movies are given ratings based on their content not by government officials but by the <a href="https://www.mpaa.org/film-ratings/">Motion Picture Association of America</a>, an industry group. Television companies, for their part, often have departments handling what are called “<a href="http://www.museum.tv/eotv/standardsand.htm">standards and practices</a>” – reviewing content and suggesting or demanding changes to avoid offending audiences or advertisers.</p>
<p>The self-policing by movie studios and TV networks is very similar to YouTube’s and Facebook’s actions: Distributing extremely controversial content is bad for business. Offended viewers will turn away from the program and may choose to <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/target-prime-time-9780195063202?cc=us&lang=en&">boycott the network or service</a> – reducing the size of audiences that can be sold to advertisers. Some alarmed viewers may even urge boycotts of the advertisers <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/business/media/sexual-harassment-bill-oreilly-fox.html">whose messages air during controversial programming</a>. </p>
<p>Over the decades, television networks have internalized feedback from advertisers and unintended controversies to try to steer clear of negative attention. <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/facebook-and-apple-moved-the-goal-posts-to-ban-alex-jones-thats-encouraging.html">Social media companies</a> <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/youtube-bans-alex-jones-following-facebook-and-apples-lead/">are just beginning</a> to understand <a href="https://apnews.com/6d0a9467a997409cafd70a86d01e7093">these forces are at work</a> in their own industries as well. </p>
<h2>Self-regulation to avoid government intrusion</h2>
<p>The practices of media industries to police themselves arose over many years, as companies tried to appease public concern without triggering formal government supervision. This pleased all sides: Elected and appointed officials avoided having to do much of anything that might look like squashing free speech, companies avoided formal restrictions that might be quite severe, and concerned citizens had their objections heard and acted upon.</p>
<p>When concerns about the amount of sex and violence on broadcast television developed in the 1970s, the networks agreed – with strong encouragement from the federal government – to establish a “<a href="http://www.museum.tv/eotv/familyviewin.htm">Family Hour</a>” during the first hour of prime-time programming that was monitored by the National Association of Broadcasters. Music labels agreed to place “Parental Advisory” labels on <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2010/10/29/130905176/you-ask-we-answer-parental-advisory---why-when-how">albums with explicit lyrics</a>. Inspired by moviemakers, video game developers adopted ratings based on evaluations by an industry group, the <a href="https://www.esrb.org/about/">Entertainment Software Ratings Board</a>.</p>
<p>There is, though, a key difference between those industries and the situation of YouTube and Facebook. Movie studios, record labels and TV companies are responsible for making their content as well as distributing it – and are legally liable for any problems that might arise. </p>
<p>Online media companies, though, typically don’t create most of what appears on their platforms, and are <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-law-that-made-facebook-what-it-is-today-93931">expressly protected from legal responsibility</a> for the content of the messages others post. But hosting information publicly viewed as hateful can damage a business, even if it doesn’t run afoul of government rules.</p>
<h2>Challenges of social media content regulation</h2>
<p>Social media companies have achieved their <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/25/facebook-2-5-billion-people/">ubiquity</a> and <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/technology/sun-may-be-setting-on-social-media-stocks-14676996">high profits</a> because they do not have to pay for creating the content that attracts attention to their services. They reap the financial rewards of a technological advantage in which billions of users can create, share and look at different messages and pieces of content every day.</p>
<p>They are just beginning to understand the downside to that technological advantage, which is that the public – even if not the law – considers them at least somewhat responsible for what is said on their sites. And it’s <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/23/facebook-privacy-scandal-has-a-plus-thousands-of-new-jobs-ai-cant-do.html">extremely difficult to sort through</a>, classify and police all those billions of posts – much less to figure out how to <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-facebook-use-ai-to-fight-online-abuse-95203">automate some of those tasks</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231180/original/file-20180808-191025-1ic26j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231180/original/file-20180808-191025-1ic26j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231180/original/file-20180808-191025-1ic26j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231180/original/file-20180808-191025-1ic26j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231180/original/file-20180808-191025-1ic26j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231180/original/file-20180808-191025-1ic26j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231180/original/file-20180808-191025-1ic26j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231180/original/file-20180808-191025-1ic26j7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alex Jones, banned from many social media platforms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alex_Jones_Portrait.jpg">Michael Zimmermann</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So far, social media sites have avoided limiting content except in the most extreme cases, because it is difficult to draw lines of acceptability that don’t produce more controversy themselves. Their decision likely included weighing the effects of the objections that would erupt if they did ban Jones against what might happen to their brands <a href="https://apnews.com/6d0a9467a997409cafd70a86d01e7093">if they didn’t</a>. </p>
<p>In the past, self-regulation often allowed media companies to evade governmental action. It is unclear whether these latest moves by social media companies are the start of lasting self-regulation or a one-off effort to quell current concern. Either way, their decisions are all about what is good for business. </p>
<p>Their response to outcry may be craven, but it might suggest these companies are recognizing the cultural power of their products. Ultimately, social media companies – like other media companies – are showing that they will respond to pressure from their audiences and the marketplace. In the absence of regulation, consumers will encourage companies to change policies by opting out of social media that enable cesspools of trolling and hate.</p>
<p>Users who want changes made should take note of how audiences have pressured other media industries to make changes in the past. Consumers who want greater privacy controls, environments free of hate speech, and different kinds of algorithms could demand them by leaving flawed services or boycotting the advertisers that support them. As demand for alternatives becomes clearer, services will change or a competitor will arise.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101292/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Lotz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While they may talk about ‘free speech,’ businesses make decisions about their content based on a very different set of principles.Amanda Lotz, Fellow, Peabody Media Center; Professor of Media Studies, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/876522017-11-29T02:27:24Z2017-11-29T02:27:24ZWhen envisioning the future of TV, think of a shopping mall<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/195941/original/file-20171122-6020-1bd7w8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Disney has announced that it will be launching its own streaming service for its central brands, and another one for live sports. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Earns-Walt-Disney/872b6899dde848cbb1bfdff8405ba7bf/1/0">Richard Drew/AP Photo</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the biggest media industry stories this year is <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/08/11/disney-streaming-service-netflix/">Disney’s announcement</a> that it will launch its own internet-distributed television service in 2018. </p>
<p>There’s a lot we don’t know. The price is up in the air. And Disney – a company that owns everything from <a href="http://deadline.com/2017/09/marvel-star-wars-films-move-netflix-new-disney-ott-service-1202163292/">Star Wars</a> to Marvel to <a href="https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/08/20/why-disney-is-going-over-the-top-with-streaming.aspx">ESPN</a> – hasn’t clearly signaled how it will divvy its major franchises and brands across two or more services. </p>
<p>But much of the prognosticating – especially those betting on a <a href="http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/barry-diller-disney-netflix-1202613573/">battle between Disney and Netflix</a> – reveals a misunderstanding of the marketplace.</p>
<p>Don’t assume internet-distributed video will be dominated by a single service, or that all video services compete against each other. Instead, Disney’s new streaming service points to the growing range of offerings consumers will be able to choose from in the coming months and years.</p>
<h2>There’s room for multiple winners</h2>
<p>Disney, for example, recently suggested one of its new services would include only <a href="https://www.fiercecable.com/online-video/disney-streaming-service-will-be-priced-substantially-lower-than-netflix">family-friendly</a> content and would be priced “<a href="https://www.fiercecable.com/online-video/disney-streaming-service-will-be-priced-substantially-lower-than-netflix">substantially lower</a>” than Netflix. </p>
<p>But is that service a threat to Netflix, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-walt-disney-netflix-fox-analysis/fox-in-the-mouse-house-could-give-disney-an-edge-in-streaming-wars-idUSKBN1D801X">as some have suggested</a>? Of course not. </p>
<p>It helps to think of new television streaming services as specialty stores like the Gap, Chico’s or Justice. All sell clothing, but they compete minimally with one another because each targets consumers of different ages. </p>
<p>Likewise, while a department store such as Macy’s might compete a bit with each of these stores, they’re primarily concerned with other retailers that house many goods under the same roof – Target, Walmart and J.C. Penney. Even in a world of online retailers, there’s a huge variety among specialty sellers and Amazon’s one-stop shopping. </p>
<p>When it comes to streaming services, they might all deliver the same thing – video – via an internet connection. But it’s important to understand that all video services are not in competition. Many are quite complementary. Most offer completely different libraries of content and instead compete with cable and satellite packages. A Disney service would replicate only a small part of Netflix’s library, and would likely include much of the content offered on the Disney Channel. </p>
<p>Consumers with young children may decide that they need only a service with content for kids. Or they may decide they want a single library with content for both adults and children. Or they may decide that each provides enough value to subscribe to both. </p>
<p>Internet-distributed television simply offers much more flexibility; it’s up to consumers to assess what they want and how much they want to spread their spending.</p>
<p>In addition to differences based on the type of content these services offer, their revenue models are also distinct. Contrast YouTube and Netflix. YouTube – like other <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1329878X17709098">social media platforms</a> – has low content costs because users create and upload most videos. Without substantial program costs, YouTube can develop a business supported through advertising. </p>
<p>In contrast, Netflix offers a deliberately curated library of content that it either <a href="money.cnn.com/2017/10/16/technology/business/netflix-earnings/index.html">pays</a> to license or creates. It provides a library valued enough by some to pay a monthly fee for access to it. Because of the difference in their revenue models and the content those models allow, Netflix and YouTube are far more complementary than competitive.</p>
<h2>The breakdown of channel bundles</h2>
<p>For decades, U.S. television viewers could choose from only two or three options: broadcast signals, an expensive cable or satellite bundle, or a bigger, even more expensive cable or satellite bundle.</p>
<p>People frustrated with bundles (“Why would I want all of these channels?”) used to call for “à la carte” cable: the ability to select individual cable channels for which they hoped to pay less than the high amount for a bundle with many channels they never viewed. </p>
<p>Of course, there was <a href="http://www.carseywolf.ucsb.edu/mip/article/channel-bundles-persist%E2%80%94-now%E2%80%94despite-digital-disruption">a reason</a> companies didn’t let customers pay less for fewer channels – the bundles are <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/streaming">the result of a business strategy</a> intended to maximize profits. </p>
<p>But even though traditional cable remains bundled, more and more entertainment companies – like Disney – are offering their content at a standalone fee, allowing consumers to cobble together a customized menu of services. When viewers decide whether to subscribe to Disney’s new service, they’ll think about how this added cost relates to what they’re already paying, and whether it’s worth it. </p>
<p>We’re still in the early days of this new way of delivering television and film. For every headline announcing a service <a href="http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/fullscreen-svod-shutdown-layoffs-1202614100/">shutting</a> <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/9/16120606/seeso-shutting-down-streaming-service-comedy">down</a>, <a href="https://www.techhive.com/article/3204504/streaming-services/fubo-tv-all-the-details-on-this-sports-heavy-streaming-bundle.html">new ones</a> are launching. And <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html">FCC plans to eliminate</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/appeals-court-upholds-net-neutrality-rules-why-you-should-care-61064">net neutrality</a> will likely change this landscape tremendously. </p>
<p>It’s all part of the process of companies figuring out how much consumers want and how much they’re willing to pay. The new services offering content geared to a brand, franchise or genre – Disney, <a href="http://www.wwe.com/wwenetwork">WWE Network</a> (wrestling), <a href="https://www.shudder.com/">Shudder</a> (horror) – never plan on being in every home in the way CBS and NBC once were. </p>
<p>Just as we sometimes choose the one-stop shopping of Target, services such as Netflix offer convenience. But the trade-off for convenience is product choice – do you want to select among two sweaters or the 20 you’ll find at Old Navy?</p>
<p>Services that fail don’t portend the viability of all internet-distributed television. Nor do the successes. Rather, they simply offer lessons on particular value propositions. </p>
<p>The future likely includes a mix of specialty and multifaceted services.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87652/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Lotz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Disney recently announced a forthcoming streaming service, leading some to wonder if the company is gearing up for a battle with Netflix. But not all streaming services are locked in a death match.Amanda Lotz, Fellow, Peabody Media Center; Professor of Media Studies, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/798202017-07-12T00:38:36Z2017-07-12T00:38:36ZHow ‘Game of Thrones’ became TV’s first global blockbuster<p>On July 16, viewers around the world will eagerly tune into the premiere of the seventh season of “Game of Thrones.” </p>
<p>That phrase – “viewers around the world” – hasn’t applied to television premieres before. For most of its history, television has been a profoundly national medium. While shows like “Dallas,” “Baywatch” and “The Simpsons” all drew large global audiences, international television trade required delays: A television series could air in different countries, but it often happened months – even years – after it would air in its country of origin. </p>
<p>As I explore in <a href="http://www.amandalotz.com/we-now-disrupt-this-broadcast/">my book</a> “We Now Disrupt This Broadcast: How Cable Transformed Television and the Internet Revolutionized It All,” many of those practices have changed in recent years. It’s now possible for a series to release new episodes for viewers around the world, and the result is a global watercooler – a shared media culture that transcends national boundaries. </p>
<p>While you might think that Netflix or Amazon Video would have an advantage, it’s an HBO show – “Game of Thrones” – that’s at the forefront of this phenomenon.</p>
<h2>Building a global fan base</h2>
<p>Even in <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-has-tv-storytelling-become-so-complex-37442">a golden era of television production</a>, “Game of Thrones” stands out. HBO <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/hayleycuccinello/2016/04/22/game-of-thrones-season-6-costs-10-million-per-episode-has-biggest-battle-scene-ever/#62c056eb11bb">spends lavishly</a> on the series – beyond what most other networks can afford – and the result is a visually breathtaking product. </p>
<p>Its fantasy setting takes place in a world that isn’t geographically or culturally distinctive to the U.S., which also broadens audience appeal. Television shows that aren’t country-specific – miniseries such as “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118414/">The Odyssey</a>” and “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115195/">Gulliver’s Travels</a>” – tend to be among the most successful in international trade. There was also a built-in global fan base from <a href="http://www.georgerrmartin.com/grrm_book/a-game-of-thrones-5-book-bundle/">the popular series of novels</a> that inspired the show. </p>
<p>“Game of Thrones,” however, didn’t start out as a global blockbuster. </p>
<p>HBO debuted the show in 2011 for its U.S. cable channel. Following standard practice, the network sold the series to channels around the world that would air the series with the typical delay. For example, Canal+ airs it in France, Sky Atlantic airs it in Italy and Foxtel airs it in Australia. There are also several HBO branded channels around the globe such as HBO Canada, HBO Central Europe, and HBO Asia. Some are owned fully or in part by HBO’s parent company; others just license the name.</p>
<p>By 2014 “Game of Thrones” had become <a href="http://www.vulture.com/2014/06/game-of-thrones-now-hbos-most-watched-show-ever.html#">the network’s biggest hit</a>. But as the show’s popularity grew, so did its rates of piracy. While unauthorized access of video is difficult to measure with certainty, many called the series <a href="http://time.com/4618954/game-of-thrones-pirated-2016/">the most pirated show in the world</a>.</p>
<h2>How HBO pulled it off</h2>
<p>We’d expect changes wrought by the internet to have played a key role. They did, but not in the way you’d expect. HBO didn’t use the internet to distribute “Game of Thrones” to subscribers around the world <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-unique-strategy-netflix-deployed-to-reach-90-million-worldwide-subscribers-74885">like Netflix and Amazon Video have done with their series</a>. Instead, the internet was important to the series’ global growth because of the opportunities it gave fans to interact with one another.</p>
<p>The intricate, surprising storylines on “Game of Thrones” inspired instant dissection and analysis on social media feeds. This encouraged fans in TV markets outside of the U.S. to seek out unauthorized video sources: It was the only way they could avoid spoilers. While <a href="http://ew.com/article/2015/04/21/game-thrones-piracy-record/">news stories</a> about the high rates of piracy highlighted the popularity of the series – a form of free promotion – HBO certainly would prefer viewers to watch through authorized channels. Eliminating the delay in access was one solution. </p>
<p>In 2015, just before the start of its fifth season, HBO <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/game-thrones-season-5-set-780377">announced that it had deals</a> in 170 markets around the world to air new episodes simultaneously with its U.S. broadcast. This was not unprecedented. “Dr. Who” did the same in 2013 with a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/doctor-who/10470879/Doctor-Who-breaks-simulcast-world-record.html">94-country simulcast</a> in honor of its 50th anniversary – a one-time event.</p>
<p>Arguably no network other than HBO could have pulled it off.</p>
<p>Because HBO is both the producer and distributor of the series, it can adjust the timing of its international availability. Making shows (the job of studios) and presenting them to audiences (the job of channels) are two different businesses, and their interests don’t perfectly align. If a different studio produced “Game of Thrones” for HBO, the studio might be too concerned that the simulcast would diminish its ability to sell the series to other distributors. Moreover, HBO had significant international reach and relationships that provided it with a direct pipeline to viewers outside the U.S.</p>
<h2>Not the new normal – for now</h2>
<p>While HBO has shown that global TV blockbusters are now possible, they aren’t likely to become common practice. Internet-distributed services that are building a global subscriber base – such as Netflix and Amazon Video – have a clear advantage in this regard. They have customers around the world and can act as the producer and distributor of their series or negotiate for worldwide rights. It’s notable, however, that neither has succeeded in creating a true blockbuster hit. For example, Netflix’s “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2189461/">Marco Polo</a>” had a huge budget and a premise that appealed to audiences around the world. <a href="http://deadline.com/2016/12/marco-polo-canceled-2-seasons-netflix-1201869350/">But it never caught on</a>. </p>
<p>While <a href="http://us.macmillan.com/blockbusters/anitaelberse/9781429945325/">blockbusters can be incredibly lucrative</a>, there’s no magic formula for making one. The odds of success are far greater when making series that speak specifically to the cultural experiences of people in individual countries or with particular tastes. </p>
<p>Once Netflix and Amazon Video have firmed up a strong subscriber base outside of the U.S. with local programming, look for them to also wade into the risky – but rewarding – business of global blockbusters. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/giYeaKsXnsI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The trailer for Season 7 of ‘Game of Thrones.’</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79820/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Lotz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A unique set of circumstances allowed HBO to beat Netflix to the punch.Amanda Lotz, Fellow, Peabody Media Center; Professor of Media Studies, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/754232017-04-27T09:10:17Z2017-04-27T09:10:17ZSpeak up! Why some TV dialogue is so hard to understand<p>Within 24 hours of the first episode of wartime drama SS-GB being broadcast <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39038406">the BBC received 100 complaints</a>. Viewers took to Twitter to vent their frustrations with the sound. Many highlighted their annoyance that SS-GB was just the <a href="http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-02-23/why-does-yet-another-tv-drama-have-mumbling-dialogue--and-whats-the-solution">latest drama to be plagued with audibility problems</a>. The debate has stretched to the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39489713">House of Lords</a>, with peers asking whether consultation with broadcasters is needed to address the issue. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"833567761519493120"}"></div></p>
<p>So is making television sound understandable as simple as asking actors to speak up? The short answer is: no. Clean recordings and well enunciated speech will always make dialogue easier to understand. However, the relationship between the audio from our television and what we understand as speech is much more complex. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/shortcuts/2017/feb/20/flatscreen-tvs-actors-or-realism-whats-to-blame-for-ss-gbs-mumbling-problem">Many news sources</a> and <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2017-04-04/debates/F84C55A0-3D8B-41F7-A19C-CC216F8C7B0B/TelevisionBroadcastsAudibility">some of the Lords</a> blamed <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/20/ss-gb-bbc-re-examine-sound-yet-mumbling-complaints/">“modern flat televisions which place more emphasis on picture quality”</a> than sound quality. </p>
<p>There is some evidence to support this idea. A recent study
<a href="http://www.aes.org/e-lib/inst/browse.cfm?elib=18436">investigating how television sets effect speech intelligibility</a> showed the frequency responses (how loud different frequencies are, relative to each other) in different television sets differed by 10 to 20 decibels. This means the low pitched, rumbling background sounds might be made louder than intended, while the higher pitched voices stay the same volume. This issue is made worse by locating the speakers in the television sets so they point downwards or even backwards. </p>
<p>Speaker quality is likely a contributing factor but not all television programmes have suffered the same complaints as SS-GB. Assuming that viewers did not exclusively watch SS-GB with poor quality television speakers, this means there are other factors at play. </p>
<h2>Have I heard this before?</h2>
<p>Humans are quite good at understanding speech in challenging or noisy situations. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209016807">Research</a> indicates personal and psychological factors play a role in how well we are able to do this. Similarly, these factors may affect how we hear dialogue on television. </p>
<p>For example, you might find it easy to understand Bart and Homer’s banter in your 500th episode of The Simpsons while multitasking on Twitter and making a cuppa. But when the first episode of the newest crime drama comes on, you may find that you have to sit down and pay full attention to understand the speech. How well we understand speech is effected by whether we have heard a talker, a particular accent or what they are talking about before. </p>
<p>The effect of a familiar speaker on how well we understand speech is termed the “Familiar Talker Advantage”. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24131605">Studies have shown</a> that we are able to understand our spouse’s voice (a highly familiar voice) better than unfamiliar voices. Even voices we have <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081685/">only recently heard</a> are easier to understand than those we are completely unfamiliar with.</p>
<p>How predictable the content of the speech is also effects how easily we understand it. <a href="http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.381436">It has been well established</a> that when we have language or content cues in the speech, we recognise speech twice as accurately, even in the most challenging of listening situations. If we hear Homer Simpson’s brazen American voice exclaiming “Who ate all the …”, our brains are likely to insert the missing word as “doughnut”, not “bell peppers”. And we probably wouldn’t even notice we were doing it. </p>
<p>Happy Valley, another drama which had similar complaints to SS-GB, <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/bbc-bosses-blame-accents-yet-7381498">had accents pointed to as the issue</a>. On that occasion, the Lords criticised “indecipherable regional accents”. It has been shown, for American English, that <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2744323/">some accents are generally harder to understand than others</a> regardless of your own accent. Though when hearing is greatly challenged by competing noise, speech in your own accent is easier to understand. </p>
<p>Familiarity with an actor’s voice, their accent and what they may be speaking about changes our perception of the clarity of dialogue. This does not solve the issue of audibility more generally though. </p>
<h2>I’m no expert, but I know what I like</h2>
<p>Part of what makes the problem of audible speech on television difficult to solve is that there is no consensus on what “good sound” sounds like. Even among the barrage of complaints about SS-GB, some found no issue with the dialogue. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"833977710682763264"}"></div></p>
<p>Similar patterns have been seen in previous research by the BBC. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper272">An experimental football broadcast by the BBC</a> in 2013 allowed viewers to adjust the volume of the crowd compared with the commentary. While most users (77%) agreed that they liked the personalised broadcast, they differed in their preferences. Some balanced commentary and crowd noise while others preferred all crowd noise or all commentary.</p>
<p>The technology which allowed the user to alter the sound mix in the 2013 experiment is called <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2013/05/object-based-approach-to-broadcasting">object based broadcasting</a>. In the future, this may allow viewers to alter the levels of different segments of the broadcast based on their preference or their needs on their own televisions. Studies have shown that using the technology in this way can <a href="http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7270767/">improve speech intelligibility</a>. It has also been <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper324">proposed by the BBC</a> as a way forward for improving television sound for the hard of hearing. </p>
<p>The many factors effecting speech intelligibility mean that one particular sound mix will rarely make everyone happy. The provision of “personalisable” broadcast mixes, using object based broadcasting, may be the solution.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75423/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lauren Ward does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The problems and how we might fix them.Lauren Ward, Doctoral researcher in Audio Engineering and General Sir John Monash Scholar, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/647892016-09-07T02:43:33Z2016-09-07T02:43:33ZHow ‘Star Trek’ almost failed to launch<p>On Sept. 8, 1966, TV viewers were transfixed by the appearance on screen of a green-hued, pointy-eared alien called Spock. But beneath the makeup, actor Leonard Nimoy fretted that this would be the end of his promising career. </p>
<p>“How can I play a character without emotion?” he <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=CCN3CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA337&dq=It's+the+ears+or+me+Nimoy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMlMOBkPTOAhWBQiYKHeQUDTAQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=How%20do%20I%20play%20a%20character%20with%20no%20emotion%3F&f=false">asked</a> his boss, Gene Roddenberry. “I’m going to be on one note throughout the entire series.” </p>
<p>Nimoy thought he looked silly wearing the prosthetics that turned him into a Vulcan, at one point issuing an <a href="http://startrekdom.blogspot.com/2007/05/leonard-nimoys-lovehate-relationship.html">ultimatum</a>: “It’s me or the ears.” </p>
<p>Nimoy’s misgivings were just one of many problems the writers, producers and cast faced during “Star Trek”‘s troubled journey to the screen. Culled from <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=X2cBAAAACAAJ&dq=Inside+Star+Trek&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMzMm0kvTOAhVEOSYKHTpiA3sQ6AEIHjAA">their</a> <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=CCN3CgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+fifty-year+mission&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD7Yy3zvXOAhXHQiYKHSLJDNsQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=The%20fifty-year%20mission&f=false">recollections</a>, this is the story of how “Star Trek”’s mission to explore strange new worlds was almost over before it began. </p>
<h2>Seeds of inspiration</h2>
<p>The ingredients of “Star Trek” had been slow-cooking in creator Gene Roddenberry’s brain for years. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=CCN3CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA337&dq=It's+the+ears+or+me+Nimoy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMlMOBkPTOAhWBQiYKHeQUDTAQ6AEIMzAE#v=snippet&q=blimp&f=false">At first he wanted to write a show about a 19th-century blimp</a> that journeyed from place to place, making contact with distant peoples. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136808/original/image-20160906-25249-cejx16.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136808/original/image-20160906-25249-cejx16.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136808/original/image-20160906-25249-cejx16.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136808/original/image-20160906-25249-cejx16.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136808/original/image-20160906-25249-cejx16.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136808/original/image-20160906-25249-cejx16.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136808/original/image-20160906-25249-cejx16.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Star Trek’ creator Gene Roddenberry in the early 1960s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/MONY_Gene_Roddenberry.JPG">Mutual of New York (MONY)/Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Deciding instead to set the show in the future, Roddenberry drew upon his youthful immersion in science fiction magazines like <a href="http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/serial?id=astounding">Astounding Stories</a>. Also important was his experience as a World War II bomber pilot, which caused him to <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=jJlzRQQrIj4C&dq=Gene+Roddenberry+Yvonne+Fern&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=wasn%27t+just+an+aberration+of+man%27s+nature">ruminate</a> on human nature: Would we ever outgrow our obsession with violence? And from C.S. Forester’s <a href="https://www.loc.gov/nls/bibliographies/minibibs/horatio.html">Horatio Hornblower novels</a>, Roddenberry borrowed the idea of a courageous captain burdened by the duties of command.</p>
<p>With tiny Desilu Studios interested in making the show, Roddenberry pitched “Star Trek” to the networks. CBS passed after Roddenberry botched the pitch. But NBC bit and ordered a pilot episode, which was eventually titled “The Cage.”</p>
<h2>NBC responds to the pilot</h2>
<p>Watching “The Cage” now is a disorientating experience. In the captain’s chair is a sullen man called Pike, played by star Jeff Hunter. There is no sign of future series regulars McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, Checkov. Spock is there, but not quite the inscrutable Spock we would come to know. He shouts and, more than once, breaks into a wide grin. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SYPpgYwE7aY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The opening to ‘The Cage,’ ‘Star Trek’‘s first pilot episode.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The role of chilly logician and second in command is instead taken by “Number One,” a character played by actress Majel Barrett. </p>
<p>“Number One” wouldn’t make it past this trial run. In tests, some men and a surprisingly large number of women <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=CCN3CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA337&dq=It's+the+ears+or+me+Nimoy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMlMOBkPTOAhWBQiYKHeQUDTAQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=the%20women%20hated%20her&f=false">objected to her stridency</a>, which was out of touch with the gender norms of the time. NBC doubted that Barrett could carry such a prominent role (and even thought Roddenberry had cast her because she was his mistress). </p>
<p>“The Cage” – a complicated story about alien mind-control – was an ambitious pilot. When Roddenberry presented it to NBC, the programming executives were blown away. But the sales and marketing department wasn’t convinced. Not enough action, <a href="https://www.quora.com/I-just-started-Star-Trek-Why-does-it-switch-between-Pike-in-the-first-episode-and-Kirk-in-the-subsequent-episodes">they thought</a>. It would be hard to promote. Pass. </p>
<p>“Star Trek,” it seemed, was dead. </p>
<h2>Striking gold with Shatner</h2>
<p>Roddenberry pleaded with NBC for another chance. He assured them he could make it action-driven, that it didn’t need to be high concept. A television miracle happened when NBC commissioned that rarest of things: a second pilot.</p>
<p>Roddenberry wanted Jeff Hunter to return as Captain Pike, and arranged to screen “The Cage” for him, reserving Desilu’s projection room for March 25, 1965. But Hunter was a no-show, sending his wife in his stead. “This is not the kind of show Jeff wants to do,” <a href="http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Christopher_Pike">she told Roddenberry</a>. “Jeff Hunter is a movie star.” Pike relinquished command. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136810/original/image-20160906-25279-17aqmn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136810/original/image-20160906-25279-17aqmn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=773&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136810/original/image-20160906-25279-17aqmn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=773&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136810/original/image-20160906-25279-17aqmn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=773&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136810/original/image-20160906-25279-17aqmn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=971&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136810/original/image-20160906-25279-17aqmn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=971&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136810/original/image-20160906-25279-17aqmn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=971&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">William Shatner as Captain Kirk.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/William_Shatner_Star_Trek.JPG">NBC Television/Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The ebullient Canadian actor William Shatner was hired to play the ship’s captain, now named James R. (later James T.) Kirk. For Leonard Nimoy, the casting of Shatner, a stage actor accustomed to playing scenes big and loud, was the key to unlocking Spock.</p>
<p>“Jeff [Hunter] was playing Captain Pike as a very thoughtful, kind of worried, kind of angst-ridden nice guy,” Nimoy later <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=iw0TAgAACAAJ&dq=Star+Trek+Memories,+Shatner&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2rLW8lPTOAhUM4yYKHTXXDFoQ6AEIJzAA">told</a> Shatner, in an interview for Shatner’s book “Star Trek Memories.” “Pike didn’t have the clarity or precision of character against which you could measure yourself.” </p>
<p>Shatner’s clear-cut performance carved out space for Nimoy to shape his saturnine Spock. “For lack of a better metaphor, on a bright sunny day, the shadows get very clear.”</p>
<p>The second pilot, bolstered by the Shatner/Nimoy tandem, was a winner. “Where No Man Has Gone Before” was a rollicking story about crew members irradiated in deep space and acquiring godlike powers. NBC liked it and commissioned a full season of “Star Trek.”</p>
<h2>Righting the ship after a stormy start</h2>
<p><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=X2cBAAAACAAJ&dq=Inside+Star+Trek&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMzMm0kvTOAhVEOSYKHTpiA3sQ6AEIHjAA">Triumph quickly turned to panic</a> for Roddenberry and for Desilu studios. Roddenberry needed scripts for the series – fast. He solicited stories from veteran TV writers, from sci-fi magazine and novel authors, and even from his office staff. His secretary Dorothy Fontana went on to become perhaps the most celebrated and prolific writer for the show. </p>
<p>But script problems would dog the young series. Veteran TV writers, unused to sci-fi, struggled to work within the universe Roddenberry had created. Sci-fi luminaries had boundless imaginations but little grasp of the practicalities of writing for television. Their scripts often called for casting and staging that would consume the budget for a feature film, let alone a fledgling TV series.</p>
<p>Roddenberry also wasn’t the best at managing the fragile egos of his writers. He took it upon himself to <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=CCN3CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA337&dq=It's+the+ears+or+me+Nimoy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMlMOBkPTOAhWBQiYKHeQUDTAQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=Roddenberry%20re-wrote&f=false">rewrite every script that made it on-screen</a>, and his pages were often slow to arrive on set. Scripting was a constant source of tension and delay. </p>
<p>For Desilu, the elation of getting “Star Trek” picked up <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=X2cBAAAACAAJ&dq=Inside+Star+Trek&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMzMm0kvTOAhVEOSYKHTpiA3sQ6AEIHjAA">was dampened by the financial reality of producing the show</a>. Network policy was to pay a set amount for each episode, calculated at something like 80 percent of the cost of production. For a small outfit like Desilu, deficit-financing both “Star Trek” and their other new show, “Mission Impossible,” required some accounting wizardry. Both were budgeted at US$200,000 per episode, with NBC kicking in $160,000. Any over-budget costs were born by the studio alone.</p>
<p>Tiny Desilu kept its head above water into the second season of “Star Trek” before finally drowning in debt. Studio owner and “I Love Lucy” star Lucille Ball was forced to sell to Paramount. Had she been able to hold on a few months more, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=CCN3CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA337&dq=It's+the+ears+or+me+Nimoy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMlMOBkPTOAhWBQiYKHeQUDTAQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=Desilu%20money&f=false">she would have seen “Star Trek” picked up in 60 countries</a>. Had she retained the rights long-term, Desilu would have benefited financially from endless reruns of the show’s 79 episodes. Network-friendly deals also ensured it would be many years before the cast would gain financial security from their iconic roles.</p>
<p>With the premiere date rapidly approaching, NBC chose an episode titled “The Man Trap” to be the first to air. It is, in truth, a run-of-the-mill “Star Trek” episode. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=CCN3CgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+fifty+year+mission&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJsJ6Xs_vOAhVEFh4KHV9_AdsQ6AEILTAB#v=snippet&q=monster&f=false">The network liked that it featured a creature</a> – a shape-shifting, salt-guzzling monster – with which the show’s heroes could do battle. </p>
<p>Although NBC’s marketing team had not initially seen the potential of “Star Trek,” by the time “The Man Trap” aired, they were able to trumpet the show in a glossy, multipage <a href="https://theinvisibleagent.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/star-trek-nbc-sales-pilot-sell-sheet-1966/">promotional brochure</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“As the Apollo moon shot moves steadily from the drawing board to the launching pad, STAR TREK takes TV viewers beyond our time and solar system to the unexplored interstellar deeps … the STAR TREK storylines will stimulate the imagination without bypassing the intellect. While speculating in a fascinating way about the future, the series also will have much to say that is meaningful to us today.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A half-century later, we are on the cusp of a <a href="http://www.tor.com/2016/09/03/star-trek-discovery-secrets-revealed-at-missions-nyc/">new CBS series</a> set in the universe Roddenberry created. (CBS acquired the rights to “Star Trek” some years ago following a <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=lhmw637JRgUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA209#v=onepage&q&f=false">complicated series of corporate maneuverings</a>.) Titled “Star Trek: Discovery” and scheduled for release in January 2017, the new series has no doubt had to contend with its own casting controversies, script problems and budget constraints. </p>
<p>The writers of the new show certainly know enough about Trek’s turbulent beginnings to temper expectations: “If you go in with open minds and open hearts, you may be rewarded,” <a href="http://fandom.wikia.com/articles/star-trek-discovery-writer-lower-expectations">they told a crowd</a> eager for news at the Star Trek: Mission New York convention held over Labor Day weekend. “Whereas if you go with a set of impossible-to-realize expectations, which even you cannot specifically define, then we’re bound to fail.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64789/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Benedict Dyson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With a pilot that was deemed too complex and cerebral, ‘Star Trek’ looked dead in the water. Fifty years later, we look back at the show’s rocky beginnings.Stephen Benedict Dyson, Professor of Political Science, University of ConnecticutLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/580512016-04-22T06:16:10Z2016-04-22T06:16:10ZThe battle for audiences as free-TV viewing continues its decline<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119740/original/image-20160422-27004-1ghcqib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Online vs the traditional broadcaster for watching television.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-250930p1.html?cr=00&pl=edit-00">Michal Ludwiczak / Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s not been a good year so far for Australia’s traditional television industry with reports that <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/tv-audiences-tumble-as-netflix-effect-kicks-in-20160413-go5jev.html">prime-time audiences are down almost 5%</a> amid competition from internet streaming services. </p>
<p>But the decline in the number of Australians watching traditional television has not just occurred since the introduction last year of online streaming services such as Netflix. The trend has been evident for some time now in <a href="http://www.oztam.com.au/documents/Other/Australian%20Multi%20Screen%20Report%20Q411_FINAL.pdf">reports</a> from the audience monitoring company Oztam.</p>
<p>The key reason for the change in television viewing habits is the internet, which has led to a large uptake of new screen media devices such as computers (desktop and portable), smart phones and tablets. </p>
<h2>New media</h2>
<p>YouTube is more than <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com.au/key-turning-points-history-of-youtube-2013-2#chad-hurley-registers-the-trademark-logo-and-domain-of-youtube-on-valentines-day-2005-1">ten years old</a> but for a media organisation, this is extremely young.</p>
<p>It’s only in recent years that YouTube has become part of the mass media landscape. Larger media organisations have not seen it as an immediate threat to the traditional television model, and some still may not.</p>
<p>But YouTube’s own figures <a href="https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html">show</a> that it reaches more 18-to-34 and 18-to-49 year olds than any cable network in the US.</p>
<p>Recent <a href="http://www.tubefilter.com/2016/04/15/youtube-estimated-revenues-27-billion-2020/">analysis by UBS</a> shows YouTube is only going to get stronger and continue to grow at 21% for the next four years. By 2020, the site will have generated US$27.4 billion in revenues.</p>
<p>YouTube is not the only new media company that is having an impact on traditional television’s business model. By 2019, Netflix will arguably be the largest US video network.</p>
<p>Netflix has <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-02/media-companies-try-to-spend-their-way-out-of-cable-tv-crunch">budgeted</a> spending US$5 billion on content this year, 50% more than last year.</p>
<p>ARK Investment Management believes that Netflix’s spend on content will <a href="http://ark-invest.com/webx0/netflix-largest-us-tv-network">increase</a> by 22% per year over the next five years.</p>
<p>Analysts hope that expenditure on content will increase subscribers’ viewing time, which could see Netflix “deliver 83 billion hours of video a year” more than any American multichannel TV network.</p>
<p>If these two media organisations are such a threat to the American television industry, what does this mean for the Australian free-to-air (FTA) industry?</p>
<h2>Trouble down-under</h2>
<p>YouTube and Netflix’s growing audience is far different to that of Australian FTA stations, which are seeing their prime-time <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/tv-audiences-tumble-as-netflix-effect-kicks-in-20160413-go5jev.html">audiences decline</a>.</p>
<p>Richard Finlayson, director of television at the ABC, is not surprised by this decline in television viewing. He too <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/tv-audiences-tumble-as-netflix-effect-kicks-in-20160413-go5jev.html">notes</a> that this is “not a new trend”; the ABC was the first network to launch a video-on-demand service, iView, back in 2008.</p>
<p>Seven’s director of programming, Angus Ross, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/tv-audiences-tumble-as-netflix-effect-kicks-in-20160413-go5jev.html">argues</a> that “broadcast television continues to dominate a changing market”. Ross also <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/tv-audiences-tumble-as-netflix-effect-kicks-in-20160413-go5jev.html">believes</a> that television “is the only effective platform for the delivery of large and engaged audiences to advertisers”. </p>
<p>But this argument is rejected by YouTube. At this month’s Advertising Week Europe festival, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/20/google-youtube-ads-tv">the company plans to release an analysis</a> of ad campaigns across eight countries that shows in 80% of cases, YouTube ads were far more effective than TV ads in driving sales.</p>
<h2>More than just cat videos</h2>
<p>But this is not an argument based solely on the platform, nor the devices you can access the media from. It’s about content. </p>
<p>Content is still king, but both Netflix and YouTube have done something that we haven’t seen from commercial broadcasters: they provide niche content to a mass (global) audience.</p>
<p>Yes, there are more than <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbP2N1BQdYc">cat videos on YouTube</a>. Some of the more popular YouTube video-bloggers include <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/caseyneistat">Casey</a> with 2,780,000 subscribers and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/PewDiePie">PewDiePie</a> with 43,000,000 subscribers. Their videos regularly garner millions of views.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XjSa8juMyJ0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Casey Neistat - NEVER fly a Drone in a NYC Alley.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are also some Australian YouTube producers getting hefty views on their videos that local commercial broadcasters would kill for. </p>
<p>Jamie and Nikki, a Melbourne-based couple, have a reality style Vlog that is uploaded twice a week. Their <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/Reslim">channel</a> has more than 630,000 subscribers. Within a few days of release, their videos have more than 400,000 views and that number continues to grow. </p>
<p>Charlis Crafy Kitchen is another Australian YouTube <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/CharlisCraftyKitchen">channel</a> with great success. It has almost 600,000 subscribers and videos that have millions of views.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eAqActLRr-M?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Charlis Crafty Kitchen - MICKEY & MINNIE MARSHMALLOW POPS.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While Netflix has its own high-profile programs, such as House of Cards and Orange is the New Black, it also has a different approach to niche content than commercial FTA broadcasters.</p>
<p>Due to the user information that Netflix can acquire, it “can afford to buy content that doesn’t have broad popularity” as it can target its content to <a href="http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/09/30/how-netflix-inc-really-creates-value.aspx">particular</a> subscribers.</p>
<p>The approach by commercial television broadcasters to satisfy a mass audience is no longer ideal. Now, it appears that personalised viewing is the desired model for consumers.</p>
<h2>What audiences want</h2>
<p>So why are these YouTube creators successful? Their programs differ from what is on commercial FTA stations. Many have a shorter format and, more importantly, presenters who engage with viewers as if they were speaking directly to them.</p>
<p>The content on both YouTube and Netflix could, for the most part, be described as niche, an area commercial broadcasters don’t engage with. Television broadcasters need to present popular (broad) programming to get as many people as possible viewing at the same time. This is fundamental to a business model based on advertising, which is gauged by viewers.</p>
<p>New online media distributors have shown you can still gain a large audience for niche content, when it is presented globally.</p>
<p>Engagement with YouTube and Netflix will only continue to grow as smart televisions fill living rooms. By 2020, more than 75% of television sets are <a href="http://advanced-television.com/2016/04/18/140m-4k-uhd-tv-sales-by-2020/">expected to</a> feature smart connectivity.</p>
<p>This will open up further possibilities and ease of access to these services across all age groups.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58051/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>Prime-time TV audiences continue to drop as people switch over to watch online content.Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Screen Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/497452015-10-27T03:15:36Z2015-10-27T03:15:36ZFilm Thor promises an Australian jobs bonanza, but don’t believe the hype<p>Flanked by a smiling telecast of actor Chris “Thor” Hemsworth and director Ridley Scott, foreign minister Julie Bishop and arts minister Mitch Fifield last week announced some blockbuster news for the Australian film industry.</p>
<p>Production of upcoming films Thor III, Thor: Ragnarok, and Prometheus 2 from the Aliens franchise would all take place in Australia, they said.</p>
<p>True, Australian taxpayers will be partially footing the bill, with the Australian government <a href="http://foreignminister.gov.au/transcripts/Pages/2015/jb_tr_151022.aspx?w=tb1CaGpkPX%2FlS0K%2Bg9ZKEg%3D%3D">chipping in A$47 million</a> to 20th Century Fox and Disney’s Marvel Studios to entice them onto Australian shores. </p>
<p>But the benefits will far outweigh the cost, we are told. <a href="http://foreignminister.gov.au/transcripts/Pages/2015/jb_tr_151022.aspx?w=tb1CaGpkPX%2FlS0K%2Bg9ZKEg%3D%3D">According to Fifield</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Every job created in the film and television industry supports 3.57 jobs in other industries. Every dollar of turnover creates turnover of $3.52 in other industries. And an amount equal to 13-20% of spend comes back to the Australian Government in taxation, and a further 3% goes to state governments in the form of taxation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There’s only one problem: those figures are simply conclusions drawn from economic models (called input-output models) that assume very generous <a href="https://theconversation.com/did-the-new-zealand-film-industry-just-eat-our-lunch-21614">multiplier effects</a> from initial government investment. </p>
<h2>The magic of economic models</h2>
<p>To be fair, Fifield is quoting industry figures and a 2013 report titled <a href="http://www.sgsep.com.au/assets/Valuing-Australias-Creative-Industries-Final-Report.pdf">Valuing Australia’s Creative Industries</a>, prepared for the Creative Industries Innovation Centre by consultants at SGS Economics and Planning.</p>
<p>These sorts of consultants’ economic impact studies <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.199.7096&rep=rep1&type=pdf">drive</a> economists <a href="http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/cromptonrpts/files/2011/06/3_9_3.pdf">crazy</a> because of the way they are used to imply that a change in spending will multiply through creating all sorts of new jobs. But that’s not what these models mean.</p>
<p>I would argue that governments do not and cannot create jobs – only markets and entrepreneurs do. Why? Because creating jobs is hard and requires discovering new sources of value that others had not seen. </p>
<p>If the figures in Fifield’s assertion were correct, then surely private investors (in the form of the financing industry) would have already spotted those opportunities.</p>
<p>And where does this blockbuster enticement money come from? From tax, obviously.</p>
<p>And when you tax an existing business, you are imposing additional costs upon it. That destroys incentives and jobs. So for the extra jobs and spending created by giving money to one group, you have to subtract away the jobs and spending lost from the ones you took the money from. Usually those will be similar, so there will be zero net effect. But the figure could even be less than zero, because of the distortion created by the political interference.</p>
<p>And then there are rent seeking effects, where the beneficiaries of the subsidies (the film studios) spend resources lobbying for these tax breaks. This is unproductive spending, further compounding the waste.</p>
<p>So when you hear about the wonderful flow-on benefits of hosting these film productions in Australia, don’t simply wonder if the numbers are inaccurate. It’s not as though it is really 2.07 rather than 3.57 broader Australian jobs that every job in the film and television industry here supports. </p>
<p>It’s that these are not checkable facts in the first place. They are political promises that are never subsequently verified for their accuracy as a prediction. </p>
<p>And this is not just true of film and television. It’s true of every sector that seeks to promote its economic impact to public spending, such as big sporting events like the <a href="https://theconversation.com/hosting-the-olympics-cash-cow-or-money-pit-7403">Olympics</a> or the<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-13/campbell-why-wont-economists-leave-the-grand-prix-in-peace/5318202"> Formula 1 Grand Prix in Melbourne</a>, which routinely promise thousands of jobs created and enormous multiplier effects. </p>
<p>As always, it’s worth taking such political assurances with a very large grain of salt.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49745/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Potts receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is an Adjunct Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.</span></em></p>Federal arts minister Mitch Fifield said every job in the film and television industry supported 3.57 jobs in other industries. We should be wary of such promises.Jason Potts, Professor of Economics, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/490422015-10-15T03:27:25Z2015-10-15T03:27:25ZWhy the drop in illegal movie downloads in Australia?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98473/original/image-20151015-19377-51yhhl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=418%2C0%2C1186%2C799&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Play your part in reducing online piracy: a campaign by the IP Awareness Foundation.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.ipawareness.com.au/campaigns/2015-play-your-part">Screengrab/IP Awareness Foundation</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There has been a decline in online piracy in Australia, according to a report by the Intellectual Property Awareness Foundation (<a href="http://www.ipawareness.com.au">IPAF</a>) released this week at the <a href="http://www.movieconvention.com.au">Australian International Movie Convention</a>, on the Gold Coast. </p>
<p>There is no doubt that piracy in Australia is <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-convicts-to-pirates-australias-dubious-legacy-of-illegal-downloading-39912">far higher</a> than many other countries. But why are the figures actually falling?</p>
<p>The IPAF report indicates that part of the decline in piracy of movies and television programs is associated with increased access to legal alternatives. </p>
<p>Does this mean piracy was due to lack of <a href="https://theconversation.com/tv-shifts-from-hero-to-zero-but-even-netflix-cant-kill-pirating-45087">legal access</a> to content all along for Australians?</p>
<h2>All in the figures</h2>
<p>According to the <a href="http://www.ipawareness.com.au/media-release/new-piracy-research-shows-fall-in-rates-following-a-range-of-measures-including-new-legislation">IPAF report</a>, Australians engaging in piracy declined across all age groups from 2014 to 2015, except 35-49 year olds. The decline varied across the age groups; 18-24 from 54% to 46%; 25-34 48% to 40%, 35-49 steady at 20% and 50-64 13% to 6%. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/z17Q0/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Despite the decline in the demographic of 18-24 year olds, they are still the most active in pirating content; almost twice as active as the average Australian population.</p>
<p>This is the same demographic that <a href="http://www.oztam.com.au/documents/Other/Australian%20Multi%20Screen%20Report%20Q2%202015%20FINAL.pdf">watch</a> 41 hours of television per month, half the average for for all Australian age groups. The 18-24’s also watch more than 26 hours of online video across multiple devices, more than double the average of all Australian ages.</p>
<p>IPAF executive director Lori Flekser, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/technology/netflix-no-panacea-to-piracy-ipaf/story-e6frgakx-1227566545891">argues</a> that new video on demand (VoD) services, such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/netflix">Netflix</a>, have contributed to the decline in piracy. This was the main reason for 33% of the responses to the IPAF survey for their decline in piracy.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6312-netflix-already-dominates-streaming-video-on-demand-television-may-2015-201506230322">early indications</a> this year were that many Australians now access legal content through VoD services. The international giant Netflix is far in front of local services Stan and Presto. </p>
<p>A recent <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6447-netflix-passes-two-million-australians-in-august-2015-201509080554">report</a> by Roy Morgan has shown that the uptake of Netflix in Australia continues to rise. In April there were 286,000 homes (748,000 people) with Netflix, which rose to 855,000 (2,221,000 people) in August.</p>
<p>As Tim Martin, of Roy Morgan Research, <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6447-netflix-passes-two-million-australians-in-august-2015-201509080554">argues</a>, these services “need not only to attract but retain subscribers” due to their <em>no contract</em> models. There is a concern, though, over what will happen to the figures once any trial offers expire.</p>
<h2>Other contributors to a decline in piracy in Australia</h2>
<p>The other reasons put forward by respondents to the IPAF survey for their decline in piracy were feeling bad about pirating and acknowledging piracy is theft (21%); worrying about being caught or getting a computer virus (16%); and lack of time (13%).</p>
<p>Media coverage could be another factor in the decline in piracy in Australia. The IPAF notes that the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-much-will-australias-dallas-buyers-club-pirates-have-to-pay-40302">Dallas Buyers Club legal case</a> this year also contributed to the decline in piracy in Australia. This is despite the fact that the case has yet to be finalised.</p>
<p>The content that many <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-convicts-to-pirates-australias-dubious-legacy-of-illegal-downloading-39912">Australians pirate</a> is, in fact, international and not that of the local industry. Australian films only equated for 2.4% of <a href="http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/research/statistics/boxofficeaustralianshare.aspx">box office share</a> in 2014.</p>
<p>But the Australian film and television industry supports about 47,000 livelihoods, which is why the <a href="http://www.ipawareness.com.au/campaigns/2015-play-your-part">IPAF says</a> it’s important that everyone plays a part in dealing with piracy of content.</p>
<figure>
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/126751101" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The IPAF’s Lori Flekser says there is “no silver bullet” to preventing piracy but she notes that part of the recent decline is due to the efforts of “delivering great content at accessible prices to Australian consumers”.</p>
<p>It’s a point that Netflix’s Reed Hastings has <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/03/netflix-ceo-reed-hastings-on-the-nbn-piracy-and-launching-in-australia/">already acknowledged</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The key thing about piracy is that some fraction of it is because [users] couldn’t get the content. That part we can fix. Some part of piracy however is because they just don’t want to pay. That’s a harder part. As an industry, we need to fix global content.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This clearly shows a much broader understanding of piracy as something not just isolated to particular countries, such as Australia.</p>
<p>Internet video consumption is expected to <a href="http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/ip-ngn-ip-next-generation-network/white_paper_c11-481360.pdf">more than triple</a> from now to 2019. Internet video will be 80% of all consumer internet traffic in 2019, with traffic to peer to peer websites to remain steady from now through to 2019. These figures show that internet video viewing is only going to increase, and that places more emphasis on tackling piracy.</p>
<p>But piracy is a global issue, one that the industry needs to work together to address. The IPAF report indicates that ease of access was a key contributor to reducing piracy in Australia, but it is still far too early to determine how much of a contributor it was, with VoD still in its infancy in Australia. </p>
<p>Reports are yet to include the other alternatives, such as YouTube, to <a href="https://theconversation.com/up-next-video-on-demand-shakes-up-the-television-industry-45434">traditional television</a> and VoD services, which could also impact the future trends of video viewing.</p>
<p>What impact these various factors will truly have on piracy rates in Australia is still yet to be seen, but this an issue far from being resolved.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49042/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>A welcome fall in the number of people in Australia who admit to pirating movies and television shows. But what’s the cause off this shift in online behaviour?Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Screen Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/403912015-04-21T10:23:37Z2015-04-21T10:23:37ZTV5 Monde take-down reveals key weakness of broadcasters in digital age<p>In what was one of the most severe outages of its kind, French national television broadcaster TV5 Monde was recently the target of a <a href="http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2403317/french-tv-station-tv5-monde-taken-off-air-by-pro-isis-hack">well-planned and staged cyberattack</a> that took down its 11 television channels, website, and social media streams.</p>
<p>The hacker group responsible claimed to support the Islamic State, and proceeded to broadcast pro-IS material on the hijacked channels, while also exposing sensitive internal company information, and active military soldiers details.</p>
<p>It took TV5 three hours to regain control of its channels. The scale and completeness of the attack, and that it involved hijacking live television broadcast channels, has shocked the industry and prompted heated discussion on what steps might prevent or at least limit the likelihood of this reoccurring.</p>
<h2>The shift from analogue</h2>
<p>The fact that a major European public service broadcaster could be taken down so efficiently flags up an underlying weaknesses in modern broadcasting. </p>
<p>For years the industry has been moving away from traditional, analogue audio-visual broadcasting technology towards digital-only, network-based infrastructures. This is a logical and necessary process for broadcast companies to keep pace with technological development, and to benefit from the efficiencies of digital media network distribution. But any system based on delivering digital media over the internet is potentially vulnerable to cyberattack from outside.</p>
<p>These sorts of events often prompt moves that seem to be a case of bolting the stable door after horse has left. For example, when planning a new building or station installation, it’s common for there to be an argument over the value of a robust uninterruptable power supply system, or UPS. They are expensive and often seen as unnecessary – until the power fails, at which point a UPS redundant battery backup is worth, quite literally, its weight in gold (and batteries are heavy).</p>
<p>Similarly the reaction to the assault on TV5 has been a call for immediate and widespread cybersecurity improvements, including new collaborations between European security and law enforcement agencies in order to react faster and more effectively when such attacks occur.</p>
<p>The question must remain as to how the many, almost daily examples of hacking and cybercriminal attacks on firms hadn’t prompted broadcasters to take the threat seriously before now. </p>
<h2>Old idea, new tech</h2>
<p>There have been television broadcast signal hijacks before these modern, internet-enabled times. In 1977, the evening programming from broadcaster Television South in the UK was cut across by a hoax signal overriding the programme’s audio, claiming to be from <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afXKOt3A0xc">an alien civilisation</a> and demanding world disarmament. In 1986, HBO’s east coast satellite feed was interrupted by a hacker calling himself <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbruOe6Yii0">Captain Midnight</a>, actually satellite engineer John R. MacDougall, protesting at cable television fees. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78392/original/image-20150417-3224-onbv8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78392/original/image-20150417-3224-onbv8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78392/original/image-20150417-3224-onbv8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78392/original/image-20150417-3224-onbv8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78392/original/image-20150417-3224-onbv8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78392/original/image-20150417-3224-onbv8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78392/original/image-20150417-3224-onbv8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Max Headroom hijacker – still on the loose.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Youtube</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1987, a Chicago television broadcast was interrupted by a <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/headroom-hacker">man wearing a Max Headroom mask</a>. He has never been identified. In these instances hijacking the signals involved physical access to or tampering with the transmitters uplink sites, or broadcast feeds. For example, MacDougall worked at firm that uplinked programmes onto satellite feeds and so had <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070128101239/http://www.signaltonoise.net/library/captmidn.htm">access to all the equipment needed</a>.</p>
<p>There are other means of interrupting broadcasts, such as intentional jamming of signals by using one transmission of a higher power to block out another. During the Cold War it was common for the Soviet Union and Eastern European governments to use high-powered antenna to cancel out Western media such as Radio Free Europe east of the Iron Curtain. </p>
<p>More recently, the BBC World Service coverage of the contested Iranian election of 2009 was <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/theeditors/2009/06/stop_the_blocking_now.html">quashed by stronger signals</a> causing interference throughout Iran and surrounding countries.</p>
<p>There are relatively few examples of incidents like these because it’s difficult to interrupt a television or radio broadcast chain – not so in our new, all-digital, internet-connected media infrastructure. The scale of this intrusion into a major European public service television station is unprecedented, and a worrying escalation of the scope and capability for politically-motivated attacks on the media and freedom of speech.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40391/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laurence Murphy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Once analogue industries go digital, they’d better be prepared for the potential pitfalls of being internet-connected.Laurence Murphy, Senior Lecturer & Researcher in Media Technology, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/393012015-04-01T09:30:56Z2015-04-01T09:30:56ZWhere were the Latinos at South by Southwest?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76669/original/image-20150331-1245-1svgy8e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Popular Latino musicians like Café Tacvba didn't make an appearance. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Cafe_Tacuba_Pontevedra.jpg">Ruy Landa/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In March, artists, media industry executives and new media experts gathered in Austin, Texas for the annual South by Southwest (SXSW) festival to discuss the future of music, film and interactive media.</p>
<p>Since 1987, SXSW has featured musicians and filmmakers, showcasing rising talent across a variety of genres and mediums. At the same time, SXSW is meant to signal the latest innovations in emerging technology by promoting new websites, video games and start-ups. <a href="http://sxsw.com/interactive/our-story">According to the event’s own planners</a>, SXSW “has become the place to preview the technology of tomorrow today.”</p>
<p>Conspicuously absent in the hype of this year’s SXSW was the contingent of rising Latino talent, which includes Oaxacan rapper Mare and San Francisco-based filmmaker Aurora Guerrero. Nor were there any special appearances by established Latino artists like Café Tacvba. </p>
<p>Someone attending the festival may have gotten the sense that Latinos are merely incidental to technological and cultural change in the US. </p>
<p>In fact, they’re central to it. </p>
<h2>New Latinos: new consumers for new media</h2>
<p>According to the <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/median-age-for-hispanics-is-lower-than-median-age-for-total-u-s-population/">Pew Research Center</a>, the median age for US Latinos is 27, which is ten years younger than the median age for non-Latinos. The disparities are even greater among viewers of broadcast television, where the average age is 51. </p>
<p>Because of their growing numbers and overall youth, Latinos ought to be an appealing target for television networks and the advertisers who subsidize those networks; they should figure prominently in how media executives imagine their audience of the future. </p>
<p>Additionally, Latinos wield significant buying power, estimated by the <a href="http://www.latinocollaborative.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Multicultural-Economy-2013-SELIG-Center.pdf">Selig Center for Economic Growth</a> to be $1.2 trillion. According to the market research company <a href="http://latinocollaborative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/IBIS-The-Growing-Hispanic-Population-Big-Business-for-7-Sectors-August-2011.pdf">IBIS World</a>, the increased numbers of Latino youth will have a disproportionate influence in retail and financial services, along with the automotive and entertainment industries. </p>
<p>There’s also a better chance than ever before that a person downloading music, watching a movie and sharing images will be Latino. And because many Latinos speak Spanish either as a first or second language, they’re likely to consume content in Spanish. </p>
<p>In <a href="http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1959">my own research</a> on the television industry, I found that executives are enthusiastic about what they call the “new Latino” – young, bicultural consumers who are proficient with emerging technologies. According to <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-downloads/2012-Reports/State-of-the-Hispanic-Consumer.pdf">Nielsen</a>, Latinos are comfortable with consuming content in a variety of mediums; compared to non-Latino whites, they spend 68% more time watching video online and 20% more time watching video on their mobile phones.</p>
<h2>A gaping Latino media gap</h2>
<p>But excitement hasn’t translated into a greater presence of Latinos in media, and the exclusion of Latino artists, filmmakers and entrepreneurs highlights the disparities between those who consume media and those who produce it. In an editorial written for <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/top-five-filmmaker-chris-rock-753223">The Hollywood Reporter</a>, comedian Chris Rock issued a scathing critique of the Los Angeles film industry, describing it as “a Mexican-slave state.” Pointing out these disparities, Rock wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You’re in L.A. You’ve got to try not to hire Mexicans… You’re telling me no Mexicans are qualified to do anything at a studio? Really? Nothing but mop up? What are the odds that that’s true?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Rock’s argument is not without merit. In a 2014 study <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cser/downloads/AdvancedExectutiveSummary.pdf">report</a> titled The Latino Media Gap, scholars at Columbia University found that from 2010 to 2012 Latinos comprised none of the top 10 TV show creators, while making up only 1.1% of producers, 2% of writers and 4.1% of directors. Among top ten movies, Latinos accounted for 2.3% of directors, 2.2% of producers, and 6% of writers. No Latinos currently serve as studio heads, network presidents, CEOs or owners. The report also found that there was only one Latina among the top 53 executives at the studios and in all of English-language broadcasting.</p>
<p>The lack of Latinos in creative and executive positions corresponds to their poor representation in television and film. The authors of the study also found that while the 50 million-plus Latinos in the US make up 16% of the population, there were no leading roles for Latino actors among the top 10 movies and scripted network TV shows in all of 2013.</p>
<p>Furthermore, Latinos continue to be represented primarily as criminals, law enforcers and cheap labor. According to the report, from 2012 to 2013, 17.7% of Latino film characters and 24.2% of TV characters were linked to crime (even more jarring, in 1994 that figure was only 6%). Meanwhile, 69% of maids featured in film and television since 1996 are Latina.</p>
<p>These numbers are especially notable, given that media executives are faced with the challenge of appealing to new viewers, as their current television audiences have grown older and whiter, relative to the rest of the population.</p>
<h2>Stagnant industry practices</h2>
<p>But Rock was speaking about Hollywood. SXSW is supposed to represent something different. Sure, like Comic-Con and Coachella, SXSW is beginning to look less like a grass-roots movement and more like a corporate event. But in the weeks leading up to SXSW15, the city of Austin was actually promoted as an alternative to Hollywood – an incubator for innovative ideas and risk-taking. In a report on the Austin film industry, BBC’s Christian Blauvelt <a href="http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150320-is-texas-the-new-hollywood">rhapsodized</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>There (in Hollywood) it’s a top down model, where the latest trends are driven by industry executives, film schools and critics. Here in Austin, the film community is powered largely by the fans who patronize movie institutions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Blauvent’s claim doesn’t quite ring true. In a city where Latinos make up 35% of the population, the inability for SXSW’s planners to find and promote ample Latino talent speaks to conservative nature of the industry. </p>
<p>What’s taking the industry so long to respond appropriately with content, products and personalities geared towards this growing, young segment of the population?</p>
<p>For one, despite all their claims about innovation, the media industry is remarkably adept at replicating itself. In his discussion of television industry practices, sociologist <a href="http://books.google.com/books/about/On_Television.html?id=8EO6JMZw5KIC">Pierre Bourdieu</a> argued that industry practitioners are incredibly like-minded. After years of uniform education and training, media executives begin to implement not only the same professional practices, but also possess the same tastes and worldview.</p>
<p>It’s perhaps for this reason that media executives continue to see Latinos as a niche – not part of mainstream culture. And this perception, in turn, has a profound effects on the content produced by the industry. As influential gate-keepers, industry executives ensure that Latino talent remains invisible. In doing so, they ensure that the industry will produce nothing truly transformative. </p>
<p>Instead, we simply get more of the same.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39301/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Chávez does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>At an event that bills itself as ‘the place to preview the technology of tomorrow today,’ one of the fastest-growing, youngest and most tech-savvy segments of the population was largely ignored.Christopher Chávez, Assistant Professor of Communications, University of OregonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/374422015-03-27T09:50:36Z2015-03-27T09:50:36ZWhy has TV storytelling become so complex?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76143/original/image-20150326-8709-11xvq2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Seismic changes in the television industry have transformed the ways stories are told and consumed.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/s/TV/search.html?page=1&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=193018853">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you watch the season finale of The Walking Dead this Sunday, the story will likely evoke events from previous episodes, while making references to an array of minor and major characters. Such storytelling devices belie the show’s simplistic scenario of zombie survival, but are consistent with a major trend in television narrative.</p>
<p>Prime time television’s storytelling palette is broader than ever before, and today, a serialized show like The Walking Dead is more the norm than the exception. We can see the heavy use of serialization in other dramas (The Good Wife and Fargo) and comedies (Girls and New Girl). And some series have used self-conscious narrative devices like dual time frames (True Detective), voice-over narration (Jane the Virgin) and direct address of the viewer (House of Cards). Meanwhile, shows like Louie blur the line between fantasy and reality. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/a5Ha3IWeXOo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The House of Cards’ Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) will often directly address the audience – one of many storytelling devices that have emerged in television in recent years.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many have praised contemporary television using cross-media accolades like “novelistic” or “cinematic.” But I believe we should recognize the medium’s aesthetic accomplishments on its own terms. For this reason, the name I’ve given to this shift in television storytelling is “complex TV.”</p>
<p>There are a wealth of facets to explore about such developments (enough to fill <a href="http://nyupress.org/books/9780814769607/">a book</a>), but there’s one core question that seems to go unasked: “why has American television suddenly embraced complex storytelling in recent years?” </p>
<p>To answer, we need to consider major shifts in the television industry, new forms of television technology, and the growth of active, engaged viewing communities.</p>
<h2>A business model transformed</h2>
<p>We can quibble about the precise chronology, but programs that were exceptionally innovative in their storytelling in the 1990s (Seinfeld, The X-Files, Buffy the Vampire Slayer) appear more in line with narrative norms of the 2000s. And many of their innovations – season-long narrative arcs or single episodes that feature markedly unusual storytelling devices – seem almost formulaic today. </p>
<p>What changed to allow this rapid shift to happen?</p>
<p>As with all facets of American television, the economic goals of the industry is a primary motivation for all programming decisions. </p>
<p>For most of their existence, television networks sought to reach the broadest possible audiences. Typically, this meant pursuing a strategy of mass appeal featuring what some derisively call “least objectionable programming.” To appeal to as many viewers as possible, these shows avoided controversial content or confusing structures. </p>
<p>But with the advent of cable television channels in the 1980s and 1990s, audiences became more diffuse. Suddenly, it was more feasible to craft a successful program by appealing to a smaller, more demographically uniform subset of viewers – a trend that accelerated into the 2000s. </p>
<p>In one telling example, FOX’s 1996 series Profit, which possessed many of contemporary television’s narrative complexities, was quickly canceled after four episodes for weak ratings (roughly 5.3 million households). These numbers placed it 83rd among 87 prime time series. </p>
<p>Yet today, such ratings would likely rank the show in the top 20 most-watched broadcast programs in a given week.</p>
<p>This era of complex television has benefited not only from more niche audiences, but also from the emergence of channels beyond the traditional broadcast networks. Certainly HBO’s growth into an original programming powerhouse is a crucial catalyst, with landmarks such as The Sopranos and The Wire. </p>
<p>But other cable channels have followed suit, crafting original programming that wouldn’t fly on the traditional “Big Four” networks of ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX. </p>
<p>A well-made, narratively-complex series can be used to rebrand a channel as a more prestigious, desirable destination. The Shield and It’s Only Sunny in Philadelphia transformed FX into a channel known for nuanced drama and comedy. Mad Men and Breaking Bad similarly bolstered AMC’s reputation. </p>
<p>The success of these networks has led upstart viewing services like Netflix and Amazon to champion complex, original content of their own – while charging a subscription fee.</p>
<p>The effect of this shift has been to make complex television a desirable business strategy. It’s no longer the risky proposition it was for most of the 20th century.</p>
<h2>Miss something? Hit rewind</h2>
<p>Technological changes have also played an important role. </p>
<p>Many new series reduce the internal storytelling redundancy typical of traditional television programs (where dialogue was regularly employed to remind viewers what had previously occurred). </p>
<p>Instead, these series subtly refer to previous episodes, insert more characters without worrying about confusing viewers, and present long-simmering mysteries and enigmas that span multiple seasons. Think of examples such as Lost, Arrested Development and Game of Thrones. Such series embrace complexity to an extent that they almost <em>require</em> multiple viewings simply to be understood. </p>
<p>In the 20th century, rewatching a program meant either relying on almost random reruns or being savvy enough to tape the show on your VCR. But viewing technologies such as DVR, on-demand services like HBO GO, and DVD box sets have given producers more leeway to fashion programs that benefit from sequential viewing and planned rewatching. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=929&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=929&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=929&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1167&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1167&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76182/original/image-20150326-8713-8a2iy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1167&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Serialized novels – like Charles Dickens’ The Mystery of Edwin Drood – were commonplace in the 19th century.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Drood_serial_cover.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Like 19th century serial literature, 21st century serial television releases its episodes in separate installments. Then, at the end of a season or series, it “binds” them together into larger units via physical boxed sets, or makes them viewable in their entirety through virtual, on-demand streaming. Both encourage binge watching. </p>
<p>Giving viewers the technology to easily watch and rewatch a series at their own pace has freed television storytellers to craft complex narratives that are not dependent on being understood by erratic or distracted viewers. Today’s television assumes that viewers can pay close attention because the technology allows them to easily do so.</p>
<h2>Forensic fandom</h2>
<p>Shifts in both technology and industry practices point toward the third major factor leading to the rise in complex television: the growth of online communities of fans. </p>
<p>Today there are a number of robust platforms for television viewers to congregate and discuss their favorite series. This could mean partaking in vibrant discussions on general forums on <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/breakingbad/">Reddit</a> or contributing to dedicated, <a href="http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page">program-specific wikis</a>. </p>
<p>As shows craft ongoing mysteries, convoluted chronologies or elaborate webs of references, viewers embrace practices that I’ve termed “forensic fandom.” Working as a virtual team, dedicated fans embrace the complexities of the narrative – where not all answers are explicit – and seek to decode a program’s mysteries, analyze its story arc and make predictions. </p>
<p>The presence of such discussion and documentation allows producers to stretch their storytelling complexity even further. They can assume that confused viewers can always reference the web to bolster their understanding.</p>
<p>Other factors certainly matter. For example, the creative contributions of innovative writer-producers like Joss Whedon, JJ Abrams and David Simon have harnessed their unique visions to craft wildly popular shows. But without the contextual shifts that I’ve described, such innovations would have likely been relegated to the trash bin, joining older series like Profit, Freaks and Geeks and My So-Called Life in the “brilliant but canceled” category. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the success of complex television has led to shifts in how the medium conceptualizes characters, embraces melodrama, re-frames authorship and engages with other media. But those are all broader topics for another chapter – or, as television frequently promises, <em><a href="http://nyupress.org/books/9780814769607/">to be continued</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37442/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Mittell has received funding from the NEH in the United States, and the DFG in Germany.</span></em></p>Many refer to advances in television storytelling as novelistic or cinematic, but the medium deserves a term of its own: complex TV.Jason Mittell, Professor of Film & Media Culture, MiddleburyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/383862015-03-12T05:15:05Z2015-03-12T05:15:05ZNetflix arrival will be a tipping point for TV in Australia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74573/original/image-20150312-13523-1h5soau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C751%2C2448%2C1198&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The arrival of Netflix is set to shake up television in Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cantoni/10715878456/in/photolist-peawCw-hjVFk7-5nb2GM-4WhWmv-hp33TR-6KB5d2-4TiJBS-4TiJCj-cz4hJs-kZ9Fee-4TWGLF-5qnmv6-4WwjLq-4iNFCW-5TV6K8-69aKqD-5RuJCA-bFhLzB-ygTui-dRQY2j">Brian Cantoni/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>2015 will be an eventful, and testing, year for television in Australia. </p>
<p>It could be the year that we ask the fundamental question: <a href="https://theconversation.com/noisivision-radiospects-tellser-what-indeed-is-television-31741">what is television</a>? A year where Australia rethinks its “free television” philosophy, that tests Australia’s technological infrastructure for its capability to shift toward a television culture encompassing the internet.</p>
<p>There are a number of factors that will impact television in Australia during 2015. These will include whether the growth in catch-up television <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/Research-snapshots/Supply-and-demand-Catch-up-TV-leads-Australians-use-of-catch-up">continues on from 2014</a> and the continued roll-out of the <a href="http://www.nbnco.com.au/">National Broadband Network</a>. </p>
<p>In addition to these, the largest impact will come from the new video-on-demand (VOD) services, including <a href="http://presto.com.au/">Presto</a>, <a href="http://stan.com.au/">Stan.</a> and <a href="https://www.netflix.com/global">Netflix</a>. </p>
<p>But will subscription services such as these survive in Australia? This is a country that has only a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/04/foxtel-halves-price-basic-pay-tv-package">30% uptake</a> of pay television, despite it being available for almost 20 years. This is far from the <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/07/10/we-dont-love-pay-tv-like-the-rest-so-whats-foxtel-really-worth/">1999 prediction</a> of the Foxtel CEO Tom Mockridge, that within 10 years, pay TV would be installed in three-quarters of Australian homes.</p>
<p>Compare this to a <a href="http://informitv.com/2014/06/14/pay-television-to-exceed-170-million-homes-in-europe/">report last year</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Global pay-television penetration is forecast to exceed 57% by the end of 2014 and be above 70% of households in over 30 countries. Five countries will account for nearly two thirds of a forecast total of 886 million homes subscribing to television services.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The challengers</h2>
<p>The biggest change this year will come from the introduction of the new VOD services, each with their own idiosyncrasies. </p>
<p><strong>Presto</strong></p>
<p>Presto was the first of the three VOD services to launch in Australia. It is a joint venture between Channel Seven and Foxtel. It offers three different <a href="https://www.presto.com.au/whatispresto">subscription packages</a>: either movies or television separately for A$9.99 per month; or both for A$14.99 per month. </p>
<p>You can access content across a number of devices, including smart phones and tablets, and also stream to your television via <a href="https://www.google.com.au/chrome/devices/chromecast/">Chromecast</a>. The service allows for four devices to be linked with <a href="https://www.presto.com.au/whatispresto">simultaneously streaming</a> to two. </p>
<p>All of the content available on Presto is streamed at a <a href="https://community.presto.com.au/t5/Technical/Does-Presto-have-HD-content/td-p/1527">standard definition</a> resolution, requiring a minimum internet speed of at least 3Mbps.</p>
<p><strong>Stan.</strong></p>
<p>Like Presto, <a href="https://www.stan.com.au">Stan.</a> is also a joint venture, including Channel Nine and Fairfax. Unlike Presto, Stan. has a single package, which includes all movies and television entertainment for A$10 per month. </p>
<p>Stan. also supports smartphones and tablets, although one <a href="https://help.stan.com.au/hc/en-us/articles/202759750-What-devices-can-I-use-to-watch-Stan-">key difference</a> with Presto is the ability to stream content to your TV. It includes not only Chromecast, but you can also stream to <a href="https://www.apple.com/au/appletv/">AppleTV</a> via AirPlay. </p>
<p>Stan. provides content up to a High Definition (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_video">HD</a>) resolution of 1080p, where available. The appropriate format is automatically determined by your internet speed. The <a href="https://help.stan.com.au/hc/en-us/articles/202845004-What-kind-of-Internet-speed-do-I-need-to-run-Stan-">support page</a> lists the minimum internet speed of 1.5Mbps, although for HD content the connection should be above 3.5Mbps for 720p and 6.5mbps for HD 1080p.</p>
<p><strong>Netflix</strong></p>
<p>Netflix, which started in the US, is the only one of the three services to not have an Australian partner. However, there have been <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/ten-netflix-talk-on-streaming-tie-up/story-fna045gd-1227212350147">reports</a> that Network Ten was in discussions prior to the launch. If this is true, this would provide all three Australian free-to-air commercial broadcasters a link with a VOD service and an additional outlet for content.</p>
<p>Whilst there is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/gadgets-on-the-go/presto-and-stan-sweeten-their-deals-as-netflix-unleashes-the-dogs-of-war-20150304-13ustg.html">some speculation</a> of the packages that will be available to Australian Netflix customers, it is yet to be officially announced. However, if the US packages are any indication, there could be some key differences between Netflix and the two other services. </p>
<p>Firstly, Netflix allows not only for HD streaming, but also Ultra HD 4K streaming. In the US, prices range from US$7.99 to US$11.99. The additional charges are based upon whether you want SD, HD or Ultra HD (4K), in addition to the number of simultaneous screens you wish to stream to.</p>
<p>Another point of difference with Netflix is its integration with smart TV manufactures, such as Samsung, LG, Sony, Panasonic, Philips and Hisense, which will have a Netflix app. The service is also integrated with <a href="http://www.fetchtv.com.au/">Fetch TV</a> and Apple TV, along with a number of gaming consoles.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/b_gIAoA0YQE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Netflix Ultra HD (4K) Streaming at CES 2014.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What about the others?</h2>
<p>Whilst it may appear these are new services available to Australians, this is in fact incorrect. One other streaming service, <a href="https://www.quickflix.com.au/">Quickflix</a> commenced in 2003, although its initial business model was based upon a disc rental service. Since its introduction Quickflix has moved from its disc postage service to a streaming service. By the end of 2014 almost 70% of its customers had access to the streaming service. </p>
<p>Quickflix’s pricing structure has a more complex structure than other services discussed. The <a href="https://www.quickflix.com.au/About/Streaming/Subscription">streaming only subscription</a> is A$9.99 per month, with the <a href="https://www.quickflix.com.au/About/DVD">disc postage subscription</a> ranges from A$12.99 to A$29.99 per month, dependant on the number of disc you would like to rent at one time. </p>
<p>In addition to these two subscription options, Quickflix has premium movies and TV programs service, which are not included in the streaming subscription. These cost A$5.99 each for movies and A$2.99 each for TV programs. </p>
<p>Foxtel has strategically approached its attempt to lift subscriptions in two different ways. The first was lowering the entry point for Foxtel subscription to A$25 per month. The other move made by Foxtel has been its joint venture with the Seven Network to establish Presto. </p>
<h2>The games begin…</h2>
<p>With Netflix’s launch imminent, Presto and Stan. have been attempting to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/gadgets-on-the-go/presto-and-stan-sweeten-their-deals-as-netflix-unleashes-the-dogs-of-war-20150304-13ustg.html">sweeten their deal</a> to gain a foot hold in the Australian market. </p>
<p>Presto has announced a 30-day trial and is bundling the service with Telstra, including an app for the Telstra T-Box. Telstra mobile customers will also gain some benefits with a longer trial of up to three months. There is no coincidence that Foxtel has a share in both Presto and Telstra. </p>
<p>Stan. has also secured a deal with Vodafone, although the details are yet to be confirmed. In addition this could also see subscribers to Fairfax products also be offered exclusive deals for Stan subscriptions.</p>
<p>Netflix, on the other hand, has partnered with Optus and iiNet to offer customers unmetered usage of the VOD service.</p>
<h2>Australians beware!</h2>
<p>While many of us are excited by the prospect of getting content at the same time as the US – or much sooner than we are used to – there are some things to be aware of. Firstly, choice is great, but some of us may find ourselves torn between the subscription services, as we review the catalogue on offer from each provider. If you want everything, you may need to subscribe to multiple services.</p>
<p>The second point is that for each of the three subscription services, it is up to you to supply your own device/s and internet connection. The key devices focused on by these streaming services are smartphones, tablets and PCs, not a traditional television set. If you want to watch them on your TV, you need something to stream them. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74574/original/image-20150312-13514-y4rkba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74574/original/image-20150312-13514-y4rkba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74574/original/image-20150312-13514-y4rkba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74574/original/image-20150312-13514-y4rkba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74574/original/image-20150312-13514-y4rkba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74574/original/image-20150312-13514-y4rkba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74574/original/image-20150312-13514-y4rkba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74574/original/image-20150312-13514-y4rkba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The back of your telly might soon look like this.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/sd/10762387655/in/photolist-hp33TR-6KB5d2-4TiJBS-4TiJCj-cz4hJs-kZ9Fee-4TWGLF-5qnmv6-4WwjLq-4iNFCW-5TV6K8-69aKqD-5RuJCA-bFhLzB-ygTui-dRQY2j-7emjsp-9hu6op-qirmdB-asE2Na-66ZvYc-mN7pv-2VCy2E-52jfVF-9JusA8-8kBU4H-52jfXa-a4h6Nv-do1V99-5p8bij-5FR8ob-bmd7x6-uAMc5-5Bdd5b-cR7YHQ-7kgjtz-ajzxz6-5KaUfD-99Jrna-54V4H-5j5zNo-94jg6R-9rZd3e-eaydvH-7uwLku">Sebastian Delmont/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>According to the <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/au/docs/reports/australian-multi-screen-report-q32014.pdf">Australian Multiscreen Report for 2014</a>, the penetration rate of smart phones is 74% for people aged 16 and above, which has increased almost 30% from 2011. </p>
<p>Tablet ownership is currently at 45%, although this figure is more than double that of 2012. The percentage of Australians with internet access is currently around 80%, which has only increased 4% from 2011.</p>
<p>The other key component to make any of these streaming services is the internet, both in terms of speed and access. Currently Australia is <a href="http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/">ranked 40th</a> in the world for internet speed, with only 14% of the connections above 10Mbps. </p>
<p>When analysing a connection speed of 15Mbps or above – which is required for streaming at 4K – we are ranked 36th; less than 6% of Australian internet connections being of the equivalent or above. This means most Australians won’t be able to watch UltraHD via Netflix, which <a href="https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306">suggests</a> a 25Mbps connection.</p>
<h2>2015 for Australian TV</h2>
<p>This year could see a big change in the way we watch television. However, watching TV will also become more complicated. No longer will it be as easy as purchasing a television set and connecting an antenna. </p>
<p>TV will soon require various communication and media technologies to come together, including internet service providers, broadcasters (both old and new) and technology manufacturers. </p>
<p>In addition, the biggest determinant of success for internet television and VOD services will be the Australian public. After more than 60 years of free television, how many Australians will incorporate a subscription video service into their television viewing? </p>
<p>And if they do, will the overwhelming time spent watching television – currently more than 96 hours per month – begin to fall? Will the average hours we spend watching video online – approximately 12 hours per month – increase? </p>
<p>These questions are likely to begin to be answered in 2015 as we transition from traditional broadcast TV to the new era of streaming and video-on-demand viewing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38386/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>With the arrival of Netflix and competition from two other new video-on-demand services, television will never be the same in Australia.Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Digital Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/374512015-03-06T11:05:20Z2015-03-06T11:05:20ZFresh Off the Boat and the rise of niche TV<p>The new ABC family comedy <a href="http://abc.go.com/shows/fresh-off-the-boat">Fresh Off the Boat</a> is being hailed for returning, at last, an Asian-American family to US television – the first since 1994’s short-lived comedy <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4Q8HhKT3MY">All-American Girl</a>, which also sought to bring stories about an Asian-American family to prime-time, broadcast television.</p>
<p>To be sure, a show about an Asian-American family – especially one as well-written and acted as Fresh Off the Boat – is an important milestone. Most Americans might not realize how infrequently Asian-Americans appear on TV. Yet the continued scarcity of Asian-American characters <a href="https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/monitored-peril">is stunning</a>.</p>
<p>Have the times changed, such that mass audiences are more receptive to shows like Fresh Off the Boat, which feature diverse characters? Not necessarily. </p>
<p>Instead, when looking at Fresh Off the Boat and All-American Girl – and analyzing their respective fates – it’s important to consider the extraordinary transformation of US television in the intervening decades. The changes – part a shift toward more targeted programming – are so pronounced that it’s fair to ask whether today’s TV shows can even be compared to those of 1995. </p>
<h2>Different era, different fates</h2>
<p>All-American Girl produced 19 episodes that aired from September 1994 through March 1995. It averaged a 5.7 rating among a target audience of 18-49 year-olds (meaning 5.7 percent of 18-49 year-olds with televisions watched All-American Girl). The rating placed it second in its time slot to only Beverly Hills, 90210. </p>
<p>Still, it averaged fewer viewers than the show that preceded it, and drew far fewer than the one that followed it. Overall, its performance could be considered average: of the top 100 shows for the 1994-1995 season, All-American Girl ranked in the middle of the pack, at 48th.</p>
<p>In comparison, Fresh Off the Boat earned a 3.3 rating among the same demographic in its premiere (which includes those watching DVR recordings within three days). Yet this has been hailed as a strong debut, and after a handful of episodes, many are saying the show is <a href="http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/02/10/abc-predictions-fresh-off-the-boat-starts-fine-but-the-real-test-is-tuesday/358877/">likely to be renewed</a>. </p>
<p>So despite lower ratings, Fresh Off the Boat has been declared a success, while All-American Girl was swiftly canceled. </p>
<h2>A rapidly shifting landscape</h2>
<p>To explain this, it’s important to examine the significant adjustments to the television landscape over the past twenty years and how the business has changed. Last year, TV critic Joseph Adalian <a href="http://www.vulture.com/2014/08/1994-95-week-opening-essay-ratings-graphic.html">compared ratings</a> from 1994 with those of 2014 to illustrate how much smaller “big” audiences have become. Adalian found that the highest rated show in 2014 – The Big Bang Theory – would have ranked only 57th by 1995 standards. Only eight shows from last season had audience ratings substantive enough to rank in the top 100 programs of the 1994-1995 television season.</p>
<p>What happened? Simply put: viewers have many more options, and they can now watch shows how they want, when they want. </p>
<p>As a result, television no longer functions as a mass medium, but as a niche medium. Television viewing in 1994 usually meant watching ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, or watching live events. But over the last 20 years, the volume of new programs – and the array of ways to consume them – have steadily increased, dispersing the attention of audiences in what’s commonly called <a href="http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/233145/media-fragmentation-means-ad-worlds-future-based.html">audience fragmentation</a>. Viewers are now scattered across an abundance of channels and many, many shows – which are watched either live, recorded or on demand.</p>
<h2>More niche allows for more risk</h2>
<p>In the face of audience fragmentation, network executives have tweaked their strategy and focus. They’ve changed the types of programs they develop, adjusted the metrics for what determines a show’s success, and have become more attuned to how different audiences respond to certain programming. Audience fragmentation encourages television networks to target more particularly defined audiences, either by demographics or attitudes. Ultimately, it allows for more diverse programming that would have been rare – or altogether absent – when television was a mass medium. </p>
<p>Those who study popular culture have long understood that television – even though it exists primarily as a form of entertainment – can affect <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo4488399.html">attitudes on race and culture</a>. A decade before All-American Girl, a risky show about a black family debuted. Many believed it was destined for failure. Audiences had not yet fragmented, and it was commonly thought that in order to attract white audiences, programs needed to feature white actors. Instead, The Cosby Show became the last mass television blockbuster, and its phenomenal popularity led <a href="http://books.google.com/books/about/Enlightened_Racism.html?id=91UVXquXilcC">researchers to explore</a> how it influenced whites’ perceptions of blacks. </p>
<p>It took another decade for television executives to be bold enough to produce a show about an Asian-American family. Shows such as All-American Girl – and even today’s Fresh Off the Boat – carry tremendous symbolic importance because they’re perceived as bellwethers of racial attitudes. </p>
<p>So it’s reasonable to hope that its story about the challenges of first- and second-generation Americans can expand viewers’ perspective of the immigrant experience, while spurring the development of shows that similarly reflect a wide range of cultures and cultural issues. </p>
<p>But in considering Fresh Off the Boat, we must also acknowledge that being on television hardly means the same thing in 2015 as it did just twenty years ago. Just as cultural attitudes about race have changed, so too has television. And we are only just beginning to make sense of the impact exceptional programs can have in television’s niche era.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37451/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Lotz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Its ratings are worse. So why is Fresh Off the Boat considered a success, while All-American Girl was canceled?Amanda Lotz, Fellow, Peabody Media Center; Professor of Media Studies, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/369072015-02-18T02:19:04Z2015-02-18T02:19:04ZThird time unlucky for 3D television – so what went wrong this time?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71255/original/image-20150205-28612-nn2ob6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">3D TV was all the rave at one time -- so what happened?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/warrenski/4166471429">Flickr/Warrenski</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Television broadcasts in 3D promised to give people an extra dimension in viewing movies, sport and other entertainment but take up of the technology has not been that great. This is not the first time the industry has tried to use television screens to bring 3D to our living rooms. So what’s going wrong?</p>
<p>The latest generation of <a href="http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/389806/active_vs_passive_3d_what_better_/">3D-enabled televisions</a> have been available in Australia since April 2010.</p>
<p>In 2011, 24 million 3D capable televisions were <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/future-looks-flat-for-3d-tv-20130814-2rv1q.html">sold globally</a>, rising to 41 million in 2012. In Australia, sales of 3D sets during 2011 <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/technology/third-dimension-adds-360m-to-tv-sales-it-is-still-only-4pc-of-the-market-but-it-is-growing-at-300pc/story-e6frgakx-1226033570614">accounted for</a> 4% of television’s sold, and that figure was expected to rise.</p>
<p>The Canon <a href="https://www.canon.com.au/%7E/media/About-Canon/CDLI-Reports/Canon%20CDLI%20Report%202H%202011_FINAL.ashx">Consumer Digital Lifestyle Index Report</a> for 2011 (Q4) noted that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] 6% of Australian households currently own, and a further 16% state they intend to purchase a 3D TV in the next year. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ownership of 3D TVs in Australia grew from <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr13/international/icmr-3.32">10% in 2013</a> to <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr14/international/icmr-3.45">12% in 2014</a>, but currently there are no 3D broadcasts available from Australian television broadcasters.</p>
<p>It is important to note that ownership of smart TVs also grew, <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr13/international/icmr-3.32">from 17% in 2013</a> to <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr14/international/icmr-3.45">21% in 2014</a>. This may have influenced the growth of 3D TV ownership, with 3D being a “feature” of many new smart televisions. But the sale of a 3D capable television doesn’t reflect its intended use.</p>
<p>For example, Australian retailer <a href="http://www.harveynorman.com.au/tv-blu-ray-home-theatre/tvs/tvs">Harvey Norman</a> lists 92 televisions on its website, of which 53 are 3D capable, and notes in its 3D TV <a href="http://www.harveynorman.com.au/3d-televisions-buying-guide">buying guide</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] most free-to-air broadcasters and Pay TV operators are currently working on how to deliver 3D television content. In reality, it may be a year or two before this reaches the screens of the wider viewing audience. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>During 2010 to 2012, the Seven Network, Nine Network, Foxtel and SBS started <a href="http://www.brw.com.au/p/business/marketing_media/no_ratings_data_for_tv_shows_xxN9pyDSFbTizdtZcf2JXK">3D broadcast trials</a> of sporting events.</p>
<p>Such events included the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/hometech/coming-to-a-tv-near-you-3d-origin-20100427-tqh7.html">2010 State of Origin</a> rugby league clash, the <a href="http://www.cnet.com/au/news/world-cup-in-3d-on-foxtel-and-sbs/">2010 World Cup</a> soccer, the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/afl-grand-final-to-be-broadcast-on-3d-tv/story-e6frfkp9-1225913667190">2010 AFL Grand Final</a> and the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/31/london-2012-olympics-3d">2012 London Olympics</a>.</p>
<p>But 2013 was said to be the year 3D TV died, as the Sydney Morning Herald <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/future-looks-flat-for-3d-tv-20130814-2rv1q.html">noted</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Vale 3D television, born 2009, died 2013. Deeply mourned by television manufacturers, hardly noticed by buyers.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>What went wrong?</h2>
<p>A Nielsen <a href="http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/purchase-intent-for-3dtv-varies-around-the-globe/">survey during 2010</a> reported 64% of people who were asked said sports programming was one of the things they were “most interested” in seeing on 3D TV.</p>
<p>But the hype of 3D TV appears to have not transpired as a broadcast method for Australian television networks. Network Ten <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/broadcasters-cool-on-3d-tv-20130717-2q2tw.html">said it had no plans</a> to broadcast the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics in 3D, despite Olympic organisers committing to shooting it in 3D. </p>
<p>The BBC in the UK and Foxtel in Australia confirmed <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/08/the-future-of-high-definition-and-3d-sport-in-australia/">they were ditching 3D</a> in 2013 due to a “lack of interest”.</p>
<p><a href="http://espn.go.com/espntv/3d/">EPSN 3D</a>, once said to be “the largest and most important source of 3D TV content”, was also <a href="http://gizmodo.com/report-espn-is-killing-3d-broadcasts-by-the-end-of-the-512858617">discontinued in 2013</a>. The talk then was that broadcasters were concentrating more on <a href="http://www.cnet.com/au/news/espn-to-drop-3d-channel-in-2013/">high definition images</a>, an early pointer of things to come. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71942/original/image-20150213-13186-r9404o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71942/original/image-20150213-13186-r9404o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71942/original/image-20150213-13186-r9404o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71942/original/image-20150213-13186-r9404o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71942/original/image-20150213-13186-r9404o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71942/original/image-20150213-13186-r9404o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71942/original/image-20150213-13186-r9404o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The ‘unpopular’ 3D TV glasses.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahluv/5385417475">Flickr/sarahluv</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Despite all the hype, part of the problem with 3D TV was the proprietary glasses needed to view the 3D image, which has proved <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/11102038/3D-TV-falls-further-out-of-favour-as-Sky-omits-Premier-League-matches-from-schedule.html">unpopular</a> and <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/05/bbc_cuts_3d_tv_service/">expensive</a>. </p>
<p>There are now prototypes of 3D TVs that don’t need the viewer to wear special glasses. At this years Consumer Electronics Show (CES), in the United States, Samsung demonstrated its new 110 inch 8K television. Not only did it showcase a high resolution image, but also the ability to present 3D television glasses-free.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9STBsPHIEPA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>But as Gizmodo’s <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/01/samsungs-110-inch8kglassesless-3dtv-is-halfbeautiful-half-awful/">Mario Aguilar</a> says there is still more work needed:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] after looking at this 3D, I felt sick. Sure of the image popped out of the screen, but overall, it sort of felt like I was drunk. Only little bits of the image were in focus, and the overall picture looked warped and wacky. I felt dizzy. I wanted to look away.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Not the first time 3D TV has failed</h2>
<p>If you think 3D TV is a new technology then think again. A form of 3D TV (known as <a href="http://www.bairdtelevision.com/stereo.html">stereoscopic</a>) was demonstrated by <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/baird_logie.shtml">John Logie Baird</a>, one of the influential inventors of television, in Britain during 1928.</p>
<p>This came a year before television broadcasts <a href="http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/%7E/media/Files/NMeM/PDF/Collections/Television/AChonologyOfBritishTelevision.ashx">started in Britain</a>, although Baird’s stereoscopic television was not part of the introduction. The initial television broadcasts in Britain consisted of three 15 minute broadcasts per week using Baird’s 30-line (horizontal) television system.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G3CFkK5OORw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>3D’s second failure came less than 15 years later, when the debate of 3D TV was raised again in Britain. It came with the establishment of the Hankey Television Committee. The committee was to review television prior to broadcasts recommencing, after it was terminated during World War II.</p>
<p><a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=5y09hpR0UY0C&lpg=PA404&ots=Sl0Zfln0oA&dq=hankey%20television%20committee%20stereoscopic&pg=PA404#v=onepage&q=hankey%20television%20committee%20stereoscopic&f=false">Baird discussed with the committee</a> his updated stereoscopic television component which he had been working on for the past five years. It could be added to standard television sets for an increase of approximately 25% of the manufacturing costs. Baird stated, in relation to stereoscopic television that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think it will come into universal use within a reasonable period, and should be operating in the London area shortly after the war.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Baird’s perception did not come to fruition, the Committee’s final report was published during March 1945, but didn’t include 3D TV. Instead the focus of the report was upon improving picture quality.</p>
<p>The Committee recommended the standard of broadcast television in Britain be 1,000-lines, more than double the current 405-lines standard at the time.</p>
<h2>3D TV as a gimmick</h2>
<p>Over the years several 3D TV experiments have been conducted using the anaglyph method. This allowed the viewer to use their standard television, but required them to wear the glasses with one red and one blue lens. </p>
<p>Several television programs have been broadcast using this method although they were typically just one-off episodes such as that of the comedy <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0603549/">Home Improvement</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aEUq4ReQAuU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>These programs were never seen to be anything more than a gimmick, with 3D failing to win over viewers and <a href="http://filmschoolrejects.com/tv/tv-review-chuck-goes-3d-but-loses-a-dimension.php">critics</a>.</p>
<h2>Picture quality over depth</h2>
<p>The Australian Media and Communication Authority (<a href="http://www.acma.gov.au">ACMA</a>) has referred to the latest 3D TV broadcasts as, “<a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Spectrum/Radiocomms-licensing/Apparatus-licences/ifc-222010-temporary-trials-of-3d-tv-and-other-emerging-technology">Temporary Trials of 3D TV and other emerging technology</a>”.</p>
<p>As noted by <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Spectrum-for-broadcasting/Broadcast-planning/3d-television-spectrum-for-broadcasters-acma">ACMA</a>, the last 3D TV broadcast trail was completed during July 16 to August 13, 2012, with no evidence of further trials in the near future. </p>
<p>The focus is again on how the picture quality can be further enhanced, with discussion of Ultra High Definition; with 4K and 8K image resolutions.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5UixN8f0MCM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The 4K image is <a href="http://www.paulstv.com/learn-about-4k-ultra-hd/">3,840-lines</a> (horizontal), more than three times the current High Definition standard of 1,080-lines (horizontal), while 8K is 8,192-lines (horizontal) allowing for even further quality images.</p>
<p>But the support and push for the better image quality is not coming from traditional broadcasters, instead it’s coming from video streaming services.</p>
<p>Netflix was extremely public at CES 2015 about its views of next generation content and the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/05/uhd-alliance-4k-video-television-sony-samsung-warner-brothers-disney">future of 4K</a>. The issue here, though, is going to be bandwidth as the service is internet based. This will be of particular interest in the coming months when Netflix launches in Australia.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uO3YoSwA120?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Will Australia’s traditional television broadcasters follow the lead of video on demand services such as Netflix to bring 4K content to the Australian public?</p>
<h2>So where does this leave 3D TV?</h2>
<p>For now 3D TV as a broadcast method lies dormant. We may see it re-emerge if manufactures can refine their glasses-free technology, but this is just one part of the problem.</p>
<p>The production of 3D TV is another major hurdles which will take a great deal of effort, based on the previous results.</p>
<p>It could be that 3D is incorporated within new virtual reality and holographic technologies, seen as a more singular and immersive media format. Two examples recently showcased have been the <a href="http://www.cnet.com/au/news/return-of-the-video-goggles-avegant-and-vuzix-among-many-promising-head-mounted-near-vr-hands-on/">Avegant Glyph</a> headphones/headset shown at CES and Mircosoft’s new <a href="https://theconversation.com/with-hololens-the-future-of-reality-is-augmented-37104">HoloLens</a>.</p>
<p>Interestingly the promotion video for the HoloLens shows sport on television as a flat 2D image projected on a wall.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bpXVuRulSHw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>So do we need new 3D TV broadcasts, or for those who want a 3D fix, can they get it at the cinema? </p>
<p>3D movies appear to have been more successful in their uptake. Disney’s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2245084/">Big Hero 6</a> sold <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/film/the-hobbitt-on-boxing-day-baggins-bumps-up-box-office/story-e6frg8pf-1227167399716">more tickets for 3D sessions</a> than for 2D sessions.</p>
<p>But even the growth of 3D movies in <a href="http://www.dtcreports.com/weeklyriff/2013/08/05/the-rise-again-and-fall-again-of-3d/">cinema is slowing</a> with only <a href="http://pro.boxoffice.com/statistics/3d-release-calendar">23 movies listed</a> so far for 3D release this year, down from 28 last year and <a href="http://moviepilot.com/posts/2015/02/07/will-3d-movies-disappear-from-our-screens-2669692">39 in 2011</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3FQDUX6X6-w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Oh no, not another 3D movie.</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36907/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station)</span></em></p>Television broadcasts in 3D promised to give people an extra dimension in viewing movies, sport and other entertainment but take up of the technology has not been that great. This is not the first time…Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Digital Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/354032014-12-12T06:20:21Z2014-12-12T06:20:21ZWe’re still glued to the small screen, mostly – but that screen is getting ever smaller<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67033/original/image-20141211-6060-wqw2er.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=108%2C6%2C873%2C645&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The changing face of television.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/maveric2003/4848859758/">maveric2003</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Communications watchdog Ofcom have released a <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/infrastructure/2014/infrastructure-14.pdf">report</a> which reveals that, after decades of continual growth for the first time, the number of UK households with a television has fallen, from 26.33m at the end of 2012 to 26.02m at the end of 2013. </p>
<p>Behind this decline is the rapid rise of households that have replaced television with broadband, estimated to number close to 1m, watching television programmes only on the internet through BBC <a href="http://www.channel4.com/on-demand">iPlayer</a>, Channel 4 <a href="http://www.channel4.com/on-demand">4OD</a>, <a href="https://www.itv.com/itvplayer/">ITVplayer</a> and similar services.</p>
<p>This perhaps not surprising statistic nevertheless demonstrates the major challenge to the broadcast media status quo.</p>
<p>It’s worth making clear that this decline is not because the British viewing public have become television Luddites, adopting a highbrow attitude to the debased nature of today’s TV programming that still lies at the heart of popular culture. Rather the change is not what we watch, but what we watch it on. It’s also a symptom of how entertainment has grown to encompass digital platforms and include social media, video games, and websites in general.</p>
<h2>Fewer TVs, less time in front of them</h2>
<p>The writing was on the wall: while <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/infrastructure/infrastructure-2014/broadcast-networks/">69% of UK households have high-definition televisions</a>, global television sales have been in decline since 2011. There is a general consensus among manufacturers that we are not replacing older television sets, instead preferring to invest in smartphones and tablets.</p>
<p>We are buying fewer televisions and we are watching less television too: average viewing has fallen <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr14/">below four hours</a> for the first time since 2009. Crucially, younger people watch less TV than their elders: <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cross-media/2014/children-digital-day.pdf">digital diaries</a> of the viewing habits of 16 to 24-year-olds over seven days reveal this age group watched only half their programming as live television broadcast. Instead younger people are the largest consumers of programmes on DVD or Blue-Ray and the most avid watchers of short video clips online (8% of their viewing). That BBC Three, with its younger audience, has moved online-only is an indication this change has been recognised.</p>
<p>Other seismic shifts in television use include greater use of time shifting – we’ve been able to record live shows for later viewing since VHS recorders in the 1970s, but digital television recorders, set-top boxes with integrated hard-drives, catch-up services, and series-record buttons have transformed our television habits, as have Internet Protocol TV (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4334101.stm">IPTV</a>) services such as <a href="http://www.youview.com/">YouView</a>, <a href="http://www.sky.com/products/ways-to-watch/sky-plus/">Sky+</a> and <a href="http://www.virginmedia.com/tvradio/on-demand/">Virgin on demand</a>.</p>
<p>All these are only going to grow, not least because of the boom in mobile devices. The report finds 44% of UK adults own a tablet, compared to 2% of households in 2011. Those with smartphones have risen from 27% in 2011 to 60% in 2014. And in July 2014 the BBC reported that <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30392654">47% of iPlayer requests came from tablets and mobiles</a>, up from 25% in October 2012. Mobile network operators report video streaming accounts for two-fifths of the mobile data we use.</p>
<p>So television manufacturers have to respond to our changing habits. Integrating IPTV services into “smart TVs” is one step, but so far only 11% of households have one. Other approaches are Wi-Fi-enabled IPTV dongles, such as <a href="https://www.apple.com/uk/appletv/">Apple TV</a> or <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/chrome/devices/chromecast/">Google Chromecast</a> to add these services to existing digital sets.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67035/original/image-20141211-6045-1waksmf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67035/original/image-20141211-6045-1waksmf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67035/original/image-20141211-6045-1waksmf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67035/original/image-20141211-6045-1waksmf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67035/original/image-20141211-6045-1waksmf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67035/original/image-20141211-6045-1waksmf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67035/original/image-20141211-6045-1waksmf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gather around, children.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Evert F. Baumgardner</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Rediscovering the social side of TV</h2>
<p>With two teenage children in my family, the impact of broadband and mobile phones on what is or is not watched in the living room has been noticeable. Our TV consumption extends across a greater range of devices, but we still quite often sit on the sofa together.</p>
<p>The fly-on-the-wall Channel 4 series <a href="http://www.channel4.com/programmes/gogglebox">Gogglebox</a> is successful partly because it reflects back the experience of life in our living rooms which, unlike a visit to the cinema, has always been a shared, socially active experience. Technologically-rich households filled with games consoles, laptops, tablets and smartphones are less likely to foster the same collective habits. The dispersion of programmes across many channels has also dispersed the audience; once to different rooms of the house, now to different screens. </p>
<p>Of course this has serious implications for the television market. Sky’s current <a href="http://www.sky.com/products/ways-to-watch/multiscreen/index.html">multiscreen</a> package, which lets you watch Sky on different devices simultaneously, seems at £11.25 per month not so attractive when the <a href="http://go.sky.com/vod/page/default/home.do">Sky Go app and online service</a> offers its programmes to subscribers for free via broadband. </p>
<p>The demands for HD-quality streaming across superfast broadband, including 4G and faster mobile networks, will require greater data capacity and more sophisticated compression of multimedia. For organisations like the BBC, finding ways to track usage of online services such as iPlayer back to households will become increasingly important for monitoring television use in order to justify the license fee.</p>
<p>When the internet’s effects began to really emerge in the late 1990’s people made rash proclamations about the death of television. As any media historian will tell you, new communications technologies do not simply replace existing media, they coexist. Newspapers, film, radio and television continue to exist now in the age of the internet as they have done in the century before, it’s just that their relations are changing. Television, as we understand it, continues to dominate our cultural lives, but in ways that are more diverse and dispersed than ever before.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35403/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Haynes receives funding from Arts and Humanities Research Council.</span></em></p>Communications watchdog Ofcom have released a report which reveals that, after decades of continual growth for the first time, the number of UK households with a television has fallen, from 26.33m at the…Richard Haynes, Professor of Communications, Media and Culture, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/288492014-10-15T19:25:08Z2014-10-15T19:25:08ZThe end is nigh for full service, free-to-air television in Australia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61508/original/hkmc75j4-1413163933.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Ten newsroom is already stripped down to minimums - The Project, for all its merits, is still mostly opinion about news.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/ Channel Ten</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Out the hotel window in Istanbul, the minarets of the Blue Mosque were visible over the roof tops and, on TV, a choice of 600 channels awaited me. </p>
<p>Yet, not one of those channels resembled the full service, free-to-air model of broadcast television that has entertained, educated, even edified Australian viewers for nigh on 60 years.</p>
<p>Had I seen the future? If the <a href="http://www.ventureconsulting.com/assets/Advertising-Update-2013-Report2.pdf">present decline</a> in advertising revenue, experienced by Australian free-to-air TV broadcasters, continues, then the answer is “most likely”. The Commonwealth’s rumoured rejigging of SBS TV’s advertising rules will further that trend.</p>
<p>So, is the full service model – one that includes news, current affairs, sport and entertainment – of Australia broadcast television in danger of going the same way as full-service airlines? If so, the implications run deeply to the functioning of the Australian political system.</p>
<h2>Digital channel identity</h2>
<p>Despite gratuitous advice on “<a href="http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/category/blog">cutting the back office</a>”, the government’s attacks on the national broadcasters will impact on programming. It is just a matter of how thinly the Vegemite can be spread before it becomes unappetising.</p>
<p>The full service model has already gone in part. As you flick through the free-to-air offering in the many service areas, you’ll notice two shopping channels per commercial licensee. They are broadcast TV channels, right? </p>
<p>Wrong, they are “data delivery services”. They just happen to look like TV stations, with their moving images, synchronous sound and the unrelieved advertising. But these new “TV stations” are all product and no plot. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61516/original/8vns78my-1413174210.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61516/original/8vns78my-1413174210.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61516/original/8vns78my-1413174210.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61516/original/8vns78my-1413174210.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61516/original/8vns78my-1413174210.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61516/original/8vns78my-1413174210.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61516/original/8vns78my-1413174210.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61516/original/8vns78my-1413174210.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Seppo Leinonen</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There’s little to entertain, educate or edify here unless you are an unreformed shopaholic with an inexhaustible line of credit, an entirely trusting nature and an unfurnished warehouse to fill.</p>
<p>Then there are the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_digital_television_channels_in_Australia">digital siblings</a>, the extra channels made available to the established broadcasters, free of charge, by the government. It was part of the deal to shift to digital transmission but they could have been offered to new broadcast entrants, privileging media diversity not the status quo. </p>
<p>Programming on the siblings is still evolving but none are full service. Network Ten tried a sport-only model, but that didn’t work as planned. Other siblings such as 7-TWO and GEM are evolving towards a golden oldies format, others are still seeking an identity. </p>
<h2>What makes up a full service model?</h2>
<p>Only the ABC has gone for definitive channel branding with <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/abcnews24/">News 24</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/abc3/">ABC 3</a> for kids, and <a href="http://www.nitv.org.au/">NITV</a>, the National Indigenous TV service sits on SBS’s digital carrier. </p>
<p>Now <a href="http://www.c31.org.au/">Channel 31</a> in Melbourne with a “community” brand is being <a href="https://theconversation.com/moving-community-tv-online-is-a-turn-off-in-more-ways-than-one-31636">locked away</a> on the internet where no inveterate channel-changer will ever come across it inadvertently.</p>
<p>The legacy parents of the digital siblings, alone, cling to the full service model.</p>
<p>That model, first defined for commercial television broadcasters in the 1950s, commits each station to deliver a full range of programming. The national broadcaster’s equivalent is its <a href="http://about.abc.net.au/how-the-abc-is-run/what-guides-us/legislative-framework/">charter</a>. </p>
<p>From religious programs and children’s programs to news and current affairs, all stations had to be something to all people at least some of the time. But that takes money. In reality, commercial TV licenses are no longer a “license to print money”, as British press baron Lord Thompson put it around 1956, if ever they were. Lord Thompson’s money mill has slowed right down. </p>
<h2>Is dropping news the answer?</h2>
<p>The Ten Network, in particular, is <a href="https://theconversation.com/revenues-up-but-the-future-is-still-bleak-for-ten-25091">under the hammer</a>. Happily, they are still trying and are more adventurous in programming than their commercial rivals. </p>
<p>On October 6 Ten premiered <a href="http://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/party-tricks">Party Tricks</a>, a six-part political rom-dra-com. It’s showing promise, but six weeks does not a rating season break-out make. Ten also stuck with <a href="http://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/puberty-blue">Puberty Blues</a>, underrated and underrating, when many of the audience opted for building sites and talentless contests. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61517/original/7bzz94r6-1413175006.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61517/original/7bzz94r6-1413175006.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61517/original/7bzz94r6-1413175006.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61517/original/7bzz94r6-1413175006.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61517/original/7bzz94r6-1413175006.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61517/original/7bzz94r6-1413175006.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61517/original/7bzz94r6-1413175006.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/61517/original/7bzz94r6-1413175006.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Reality TV show The Bachelor.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/ Network Ten</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ten has fallen from fashion and its good programs are failing to find good audiences.</p>
<p>If Ten must look at further savings, abandoning the full service model must be among the options. Already the Ten newsroom is stripped down to minimums. <a href="http://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/the-project">The Project</a>, for all its merits, is still mostly opinion about news. </p>
<p>To make things worse Ten’s share price hit <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/quotes/summary/TEN/ten-network-holdings-limited">19 cents</a> on October 13. The stock has lost 90% of its value since Lachlan Murdoch and James Packer, quickly followed by Gina Rinehart, bought into the company in late 2010. </p>
<p>None are happy.</p>
<p>Dropping the news service might put Ten on the road to financial recovery, but it would be a tragedy on another front: diversity in news coverage.</p>
<p>If the government changes the media ownership rules to allow the city-based networks to take over their country cousins, the number of commercial TV newsrooms under independent management will halve. </p>
<p>If Ten and its regional affiliate Southern Cross dropped their news service, then there will be just two commercial TV newsrooms left, three if you include Imparja TV. Presently there are eight (including NBN and Imparja) plus the ABC and SBS. </p>
<p>That loss would be a blow to news diversity in Australia with flow-on effects to our democratic governance. </p>
<p>The restructure of free-to-air TV broadcasting has a long way to go. Lets hope the full service model is not an early victim, because no government is going to save a commercial enterprise just to support Australian democracy. </p>
<p>But it can retain the licensing status quo and trust the marketplace it so loves.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28849/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vincent O'Donnell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Out the hotel window in Istanbul, the minarets of the Blue Mosque were visible over the roof tops and, on TV, a choice of 600 channels awaited me. Yet, not one of those channels resembled the full service…Vincent O'Donnell, Honorary Research Associate of the School of Media and Communication , RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/272652014-05-29T02:17:44Z2014-05-29T02:17:44ZBroadcast to Chromecast – is TV being recast or cast out?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49701/original/57qywt22-1401326356.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Despite increased connectivity, televisions have remained largely dumb.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There are several large quite expensive pieces of electronic equipment in my house and in most homes that are the site of a long overdue technological revolution. Despite being in the “Internet Age”, most of these large chunks of hardware do not connect to the internet. While evolving from a large industrial age box to a flat screen and even curved screens, they only recently went digital and are among the dumbest pieces of electronic equipment currently in use. </p>
<p>I am of course talking about TV sets. My refrigerator is almost as intelligent. My iPod-connected sound system is definitely smarter and our cars positively brim with computer, satellite and, increasingly, internet connectivity.</p>
<p>So Google’s recent <a href="http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/5/28/technology/chromecast-googles-media-stick-finally-comes-australia">Australian launch of Chromecast</a> is no surprise. The TV industry has left the door to a A$4 billion vault wide open by continuing to broadcast re-runs of 1950s, 1960s and 1970s sitcoms and soaps along with copycat cooking and home renovation shows with just enough live sport and news breaks to get us away from our notebooks and tablets occasionally. Pay TV was going to bring Nirvana with 10 squillion channels and unlimited choice, but all we got were B-grade movies and even more copycat cooking and “reno” shows.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-breakfast-tv-and-the-fight-for-eyeballs-27079">Media cutbacks</a> have eroded quality in news and our sympathies and concerns must go with our dwindling cadre of employed journalists. But what has the rest of Australia’s TV industry been doing with its profits over the years and what are they thinking? The axing of Ten Network’s breakfast program Wake Up after attracting an average of just 30,000 viewers are signs of the formulaic (read old formula) approach of TV in Australia. </p>
<p>Little wonder that Google has plugged itself into the under-utilised TV sets of Australian homes by launching Chromecast, which started in the US in July last year with immediate success. For those who have been asleep or watching broadcast TV, Chromecast is, in Google’s words, “a thumb-sized media streaming device that plugs into the HDMI port of your TV set”. </p>
<p>More specifically, it is a A$49 USB thumb-drive size “dongle” that wirelessly connects TV sets to the internet and turns them into internet media hubs. That means users can watch movies, music videos, and other content available online.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49699/original/bbpnpqmv-1401325986.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49699/original/bbpnpqmv-1401325986.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49699/original/bbpnpqmv-1401325986.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49699/original/bbpnpqmv-1401325986.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49699/original/bbpnpqmv-1401325986.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49699/original/bbpnpqmv-1401325986.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49699/original/bbpnpqmv-1401325986.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Chromecast dongle works with a smartphone to deliver content to any television with a USB slot.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ปรัชญา สิงห์โต/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Chromecast lite</h2>
<p>But the relative paucity of quality content is likely to take the shine off its launch in Australia. In the US, Chromecast can access Netflix, HBO Go, Hulu, Amazon Instant Video and a range of live sports shows including Major League Baseball. However, so far, Chromecast users in Australia will only be able to access content from the ABC’s iView service, the Quickflix media rental service, and Foxtel’s fledgling movie service Presto, along with Google’s purchase service for movies and TV shows. </p>
<p>While commending Chromecast as cheap, easy and simple, reviewers have also pointed out the product does not come with a remote control, so users have to use a smartphone, iPad or computer to operate it. There are also other products such as <a href="http://www.roku.com/">Roku</a> that offer a wider range of content – albeit Australian users need a VPN (Virtual Private Network) to access Roku services.</p>
<h2>Google heavy</h2>
<p>Google Chromecast is also swelling a rising tide of concern around media monopolisation and the company’s position in the emerging megamedia landscape.</p>
<p>Google will use not only use Chromecast to launch a takeover of TV, but it will also use it to cross-promote Google Chrome, Chromebooks, and other Google apps. You can be sure that Google Search will favour Chromecast content. </p>
<p>The founder of the independent community Weblog publisher MetaFilter, Matt Haughy, recently <a href="https://medium.com/technology-musings/941d15ec96f0">hit out</a> at Google’s domination and control of media content, claiming that a change in the company’s advertising and page-ranking algorithms caused a 40% collapse in MetaFilter’s advertising revenue. Salon columnist Andrew Leonard <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/05/26/the_internet_as_we_know_it_is_dying/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow">says</a> Google’s page-ranking algorithms “determine whether publishing outlets live or die”. Will it be the same for TV and online video?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Media-Monopoly-Ben-Bagdikian/dp/0807061875">Ben Bagdikian’s book, The New Media Monopoly</a> pointed out that five megacorporations dominated the world’s media content during the late twentieth century. </p>
<p>After a brief euphoria about the the internet democratising media, we again face a situation in which a few corporate giants - Google, Facebook, and Microsoft - are gaining control of cultural production and distribution.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49702/original/n9g8m7jg-1401326508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49702/original/n9g8m7jg-1401326508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49702/original/n9g8m7jg-1401326508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49702/original/n9g8m7jg-1401326508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49702/original/n9g8m7jg-1401326508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49702/original/n9g8m7jg-1401326508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49702/original/n9g8m7jg-1401326508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chrome offers limited content options in Australia, but that’s likely to change with time.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ปรัชญา สิงห์โต/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>RIP traditional TV</h2>
<p>However, after watching several minutes of blatant promotion of gambling integrated into the sports commentary, as well as gambling ads during the State of Origin Round One on broadcast TV, I might give Chromecast a go. </p>
<p>As the chief product officer of Netflix Neil Hunt said recently, <a href="http://adage.com/article/media/future-tv-commercials-netflix-exec/293275/">traditional TV is dying</a>. He forecast an end to TV commercials, programs that are 48 minutes long to comply with the tyranny of prime time and advertising schedules, and “cliffhangers” that leave viewers in suspense and frustrated. </p>
<p>I expect more from the biggest screen in my house and, once again, traditional mass media have failed to deliver. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/27265/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jim Macnamara does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There are several large quite expensive pieces of electronic equipment in my house and in most homes that are the site of a long overdue technological revolution. Despite being in the “Internet Age”, most…Jim Macnamara, Professor of Public Communication, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/270792014-05-25T02:19:16Z2014-05-25T02:19:16ZAustralian breakfast TV – and the fight for eyeballs<p>The axe swung at Network Ten and removed the head of its breakfast program Wake Up - just over six months since it launched.</p>
<p>And why?</p>
<p>Nobody was watching.</p>
<p>The 6am to 9am timeslot has been a hotly contested battleground for channels Seven and Nine in recent years. Network Ten decided it wanted a slice of that pie and last year started its tilt at the nation’s early-rising TV watchers.</p>
<p>It had all the hallmarks of success – money was being poured in and Adam Boland, the man who steered Seven’s Sunrise to ratings glory, was at the helm.</p>
<p>How could it fail?</p>
<p>An awful lot of money was spent on the set at Sydney’s Manly Beach. Three recognisable, but not necessarily well-known faces - Natarsha Belling, James Mathison and Natasha Exelby - were Wake Up’s hosts. There was a nationwide, get-to-know-us tour. But moments after its launch cracks started to appear. Creator Adam Boland’s battle with his mental health saw him sidelined and within weeks, Exelby was dropped and the the three-headed presenting team became two.</p>
<p>But why would anyone try to beat two well-established shows like Today and Sunrise? The simple answer is money. Not as much money that you see coursing through the veins of primetime television..but there is money there. Grown-ups getting ready for work, parents prepping kids for school - people who spend money, and if they’re watching, TV stations can sell advertising. Cartoons and kid-oriented shows are okay and they’re cheap, but they’re not typically watched by consumers with spending power.</p>
<p>The audience was there, albeit not large, but it was there. Our attentions have turned to the online and mobile world - last year PricewaterhouseCoopers found that, for the first time, more money was spent on internet advertising than on free-to-air TV ads.</p>
<p>But there are still people who watch free to air television. Traditional media companies, like the television networks, are holding on to the old business models for all they’re worth – squeezing out every last drop. So, logically, with the right kind of show, maybe some of the pot of gold could be funnelled Ten’s way. </p>
<p>As Hunter S. Thompson once wrote: “The TV business is uglier than most things. It is normally perceived as some kind of cruel and shallow money trench through the heart of the journalism industry, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs, for no good reason.”</p>
<p>Try as they did Wake Up didn’t resonate with the breakfast audience. A lot of money was spent on the set and the program itself, but the lack of hosting chemistry cut deep. Look at the material offered by Today, Sunrise and Wake Up - and it never varied that greatly. But Karl Stefanovic’s naughty boy antics on Today and the clear chemistry between Sunrise’s David Koch and Samantha Armytage are hard to beat. Add to that no track record for breakfast TV and why would you watch Ten’s Wake Up? </p>
<p>The result of no-one watching your show, equates to advertisers not wanting to spend money with you. No money in the money trench..no show. It doesn’t badly damage the whole station’s ability to attract advertisers, but it doesn’t help. Wake Up was a calculated risk that just didn’t pan out. And these days, in television, the life of a risk is usually measured in weeks, not Wake Up’s months. </p>
<p>Wake Up’s demise has passed with a sense of sadness among its employees both past and present. Social media has been awash with words of support and empathy for those who are losing their jobs. The show’s creator Adam Boland tweeted: “I feel very sad for all my friends at Ten. Very good people, let down by many things, including my early exit. Thinking of them all today.” Messages asking him not to take the blame followed.</p>
<p>But this week’s passing of Wake Up was part of a much bigger plan at Network Ten to try to stop the company’s profit losses. Along with breakfast television went three of the station’s news bulletins and 150 jobs.</p>
<p>For those who work in news at Network Ten, it’s been a rocky road. Only 18 months ago, 100 of them lost their jobs. But back in 2010 it was a very different story. It was decided then that news would be expanded – it was time for wall-to-wall news.</p>
<p>There would be a bulletin from 5 until 6pm. Then The Project, with its unique take on reporting the news would kick in. 60 Minutes veteran George Negus would anchor the 6pm national news. According to Network Ten’s press release, Negus said it would dig “more deeply into the critical national and international stories and issues….the destination for viewers seeking a smarter, more informed and inquisitive approach. And he promised: "It could well change the landscape of free-to-air, prime time, national and international news and current affairs in this country – for the better.” It was boom time.</p>
<p>News is not cheap - salaries, expensive equipment, helicopters and satellites cost a lot of money. But a strong news reputation can help bolster a station’s audience. Capture the right number of eyeballs with your evening news bulletin and then you work to keep them watching through primetime when your ads are pulling money into the trench. That was the theory.</p>
<p>I’m told the company commissioned internal audience research. It found the bold plan would not work and Ten would get a kicking from its audience. That was ignored. They went on feelings rather than solid evidence.</p>
<p>As one insider told me at the time: “we’ll enjoy it while it lasts”.</p>
<p>By June 2011, the unravelling began. Dozens of new employees were sent packing. The news experiment took a bullet in the brain.</p>
<p>Whether Wake Up was a case of research, gut feeling, or simple hope, insiders aren’t saying. But the equation of potential success was there. It’s just that the audience didn’t see it that way.</p>
<p>There are reports there’ll be a replacement program for Wake Up. For now though, judging by its new breakfast TV line-up of program repeats and a Jamie Oliver series, it seems Ten has rolled over and given up.</p>
<p>The free-to-air television business is a tough one. There’s not as much money around as there was in TV’s heyday – the time before that internet thing took off. But stations took risks then and they take risks now. Sometimes they work. Sometimes they don’t. It’s just these days a lack of financial padding makes for a heavy landing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/27079/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Porter last worked in the media as Deputy News Manager for Network Ten in Perth. </span></em></p>The axe swung at Network Ten and removed the head of its breakfast program Wake Up - just over six months since it launched. And why? Nobody was watching. The 6am to 9am timeslot has been a hotly contested…Andrew Porter, Lecturer in journalism, Murdoch UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/241222014-04-06T20:10:50Z2014-04-06T20:10:50ZGame of Thrones is the Holy Grail of TV production<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44898/original/b6j4bnzh-1395900412.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lighting and CGI creates interiors reminiscent of Caravaggio.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">HBO</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZY43QSx3Fk">fourth season</a> of HBO’s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0944947/">Game of Thrones</a> (GoT) upon us, many of us will once again escape to the mythical land of Westeros. And we’ll do so thanks to a vast array of <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/game-of-thrones-season-4-behind-the-scenes-filming-video-released">international locations</a> and visual effects, teams of ensemble cast, battle scenes with hundreds of extras, horses, stunts, fires, more than 500 crew, mythological creatures and lavish costumes. </p>
<p>All of this thanks to an <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/game-thrones-by-numbers-178659">estimated</a> series production budget pushing a staggering US$250 million for the four seasons to date. </p>
<p>Television is no longer the poorer cousin of cinema. Digital screen production has rendered the difference between the two worlds almost meaningless and nowhere is this revolution more apparent than in the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/mar/22/game-of-thrones-whats-not-to-love">phenomenally successful</a> GoT.</p>
<p>So how is this epic fantasy world created?</p>
<h2>21st-century craftsmanship</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44904/original/88nm2f8n-1395902139.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44904/original/88nm2f8n-1395902139.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44904/original/88nm2f8n-1395902139.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44904/original/88nm2f8n-1395902139.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44904/original/88nm2f8n-1395902139.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44904/original/88nm2f8n-1395902139.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44904/original/88nm2f8n-1395902139.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44904/original/88nm2f8n-1395902139.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Richard Madden as Robb Stark.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">HBO</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The majority of costumes and associated armour for GoT are made in-house, requiring a solid staple of artisans: metal workers and cutters to leather workers and dyers, printers and embroiderers. Speculation <a href="http://fashionista.com/2012/06/game-of-thrones-hair-and-wardrobe-secrets-revealed/">is rife</a> about costumes supposedly being inspired by the 1990s stylings of British fashion designer Alexander McQueen – as famously <a href="http://onthisdayinfashion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/9-22-Bjork-Alexander-McQueen-2.jpg">worn by</a> Icelandic singer Bjork – as well as by other fashion superstars such as Galliano, Haider Ackermann, Rick Owens and Yohji. </p>
<p>The superior craftsmanship of the set design, combined with the lighting and computer-generated imagery (CGI) creates interiors reminiscent of Italian Baroque paintings of Caravaggio. The art direction in certain scenes such as the ones pictured above and below contributes some of the best examples of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiaroscuro">chiaroscuro</a> (the use of strong contrasts between light and dark) ever presented on screen. </p>
<p>Not long ago, such finely-tuned images were the domain of big-budget features. Having worked with CGI on a number of occasions including the creation of 3-D animal animation and digital sets, I am only too aware of the time-consuming and disciplined processes involved. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44905/original/sztxbj26-1395902316.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44905/original/sztxbj26-1395902316.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44905/original/sztxbj26-1395902316.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44905/original/sztxbj26-1395902316.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44905/original/sztxbj26-1395902316.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44905/original/sztxbj26-1395902316.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44905/original/sztxbj26-1395902316.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44905/original/sztxbj26-1395902316.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Natalie Dormer as Margaery Tyrell.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">HBO</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With animals, such as the <a href="http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Direwolf">direwolves</a> or dragons in GoT, CGI involves references, biomechanics, walk cycles, wire frames and textures while digital locations require footage of real places combined with CGI enhancements. </p>
<p>Production teams then need to draw detailed storyboards, research landscapes and ancient worlds, scout for remote locations, shoot “background plates” and other elements such as dust or snow and use <a href="http://www.brainstuffshow.com//blog/how-green-screen-works/">green screens</a> to create layers of foreground and background – all the while recording meticulous notes for shot size, angle, lenses and direction of light, which are needed by animators to match and meld them into a cohesive whole. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i4GkA6rIPDc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Game of Thrones special effects reel.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This melding process is achieved through rendering and compositing, which combines various individual components and actions of a planned animation sequence to create a single image or shot. Extremely time-consuming, melding involves processing each pixel in the frame through digital manipulation. </p>
<p>CGI demands extraordinary effort not merely to create a shot, but to create magic – the illusion that these different elements are part of the same scene.</p>
<p>In the creation of <a href="http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/The_Wall">The Wall</a> depicted in the series – a colossal fortification made of ice which stretches for 300 miles along the northern border of the <a href="http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Seven_Kingdoms">Seven Kingdoms</a>, 700 feet high and 300 miles long – the production team has likely used a combination of real elements and digital effects. </p>
<p>In season three, when the characters attempt to climb The Wall, massive shards of ice collapse, safety ropes are cut, protagonists dangle over the precipice, while others fall to their horrible deaths. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SuGr7pdaRmg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Game of Thrones, season three, episode six: The Climb.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If the usual CGI processes were applied here, background plates of real cliffs edited together with footage of actual rock climbing and stunts would have been integrated with green screen sequences using actors to create a cinematic scene in the true sense of the word – visually expansive, exciting and dramatically tense.</p>
<p>GoT is symbolic of the resurgence of the neo-mythological genre firmly established by <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nbqz9">Hollywood on the Tiber</a> in the 1950s and 60s where films produced by Hollywood studios capitalised on US and Italian government subsidies, cheap labour and exotic Mediterranean settings. This is evident in the appropriation of the big-budget mentality of the flagging creative genius we still call Hollywood. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44906/original/z56ngkw8-1395902961.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44906/original/z56ngkw8-1395902961.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44906/original/z56ngkw8-1395902961.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44906/original/z56ngkw8-1395902961.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44906/original/z56ngkw8-1395902961.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44906/original/z56ngkw8-1395902961.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44906/original/z56ngkw8-1395902961.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44906/original/z56ngkw8-1395902961.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Emilia Clarke as Daernerys Targaryen.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">HBO</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The series is bigger than many studio films, both in terms of production scale and production values. Cinematographic television has come of age here with state-of-the-art sound and vision combined with killer storylines where the abundance of sex and violence would make many Hollywood studio executives proud.</p>
<p>Like GoT’s noble houses fighting over the mythical land of Westeros, Hollywood faces what appears to be an unstoppable, if not supernatural, threat from its television counterparts. </p>
<p>One could be forgiven for thinking they’ve found screen entertainment’s Holy Grail.</p>
<p><br>
<strong>Further reading:</strong>
<br>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-game-of-thrones-the-story-so-far-24321">Explainer: Game of Thrones, the story so far</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24122/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Franco Di Chiera does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With the fourth season of HBO’s Game of Thrones (GoT) upon us, many of us will once again escape to the mythical land of Westeros. And we’ll do so thanks to a vast array of international locations and…Franco Di Chiera, Director WA Screen Academy, Edith Cowan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/241942014-03-12T03:33:38Z2014-03-12T03:33:38ZArchaic cross-media ownership laws won’t save local content<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43541/original/nd86kjkv-1394507339.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Consumers have never had more choice, but does that mean more local content?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Communication minister Malcolm Turnbull’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-09/cross-media-ownership-rules-due-for-rethink-malcolm-turnbull/5308550">proposal</a> for changes to cross-media ownership laws has reignited calls for the government to protect local content. </p>
<p>On the surface, it appears reasonable to expect government to regulate for the provision of local news coverage. Indeed, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-10/cross-media-ownership-laws-malcolm-turnbull-john-williams/5309526">Nationals leader Warren Truss</a> wants to ensure that “genuine localism” is maintained should there be any changes to cross-media ownership laws. </p>
<p>With Australia’s population concentrated in the larger metropolitan regions, “the bush” is rarely seen as a profitable market for commercial media operators, hence the assumption that government should intervene. But are traditional concerns about content versus carriage relevant in the NBN era?</p>
<h2>Content is one thing…</h2>
<p>Nine Network chief David Gyngell has <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/media-storm-driving-need-for-change-nine/story-e6frg996-1226850862638">labelled</a> Australia’s media ownership laws “archaic”, arguing media companies will struggle to invest in their local news content without the ability to expand beyond the current level limited by the law.</p>
<p>Commonly referred to as the “two out of three rule”, ownership of more than two of either television, radio or newspaper services in a given region is prohibited. And no individual provider is permitted to reach more than 75% of the population. Further, regional free-to-air broadcasters are required to provide local media content throughout Tasmania, and regional areas of NSW, Queensland and Victoria. It is likely that any consolidation of existing media interests will signal the end of regional broadcasters WIN TV, Prime Television and Southern Cross. But will this mean the end of local content?</p>
<h2>Carriage is another…</h2>
<p>When you can access global content via NBN, the distinction between television, radio and newspaper will no longer matter. And how can you limit a provider’s online reach? Improvements to broadband, driven by the NBN, enable global content to be consumed ubiquitously. Consequently, restricting cross-media ownership for the sake of parochial interests will only assist global competitors. Existing ownership rules restrict the business models available to local firms.</p>
<p>With global competition, it is folly to think that government can legislate for localism. Today, major portions of content on television and online are actually generated by consumers (famously labelled “<a href="http://www.worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-pro4.htm">prosumers</a>” by Alvin Toffler in 1980). However, old-school localism is substantially one-sided.</p>
<p>The former Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chief Graeme Samuel <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/business/former-consumer-watchdog-graeme-samuel-favours-relaxed-media-rules-20140310-34hsx.html">argues</a> the issues of carriage and content are being confused. If there is demand for local media content, then the market will deliver it. This view reflects the global trend towards the reconvergence of the communications industries that were deliberately segregated during the 19th century. </p>
<p>The concept of the common carrier emerged to ensure telegraph operators could not control the distribution of news stories to newspapers. Obviously, regulating carriage in an era where television, radio and newspaper content can all be delivered via the internet is rather passé.</p>
<p>Part of the cross-ownership legacy is the way we watch television. Many lounge rooms are dominated by a television. Consequently, free-to-air programs remain popular as it is comfortable to simply sit down and watch TV. But devices such as the XBox and Telstra T-Box enable online content from global providers (such as Youtube and Netflix) to be watched in the same manner. This means the government’s ability to protect local content through regulation will be increasingly over-stated as online content becomes part of our ingrained habit of consuming television programming. Indeed, the government has indicated it is <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/technology/film-studios-give-up-netflix-fight/story-e6frgakx-1226850717549">unwilling</a> to prevent Australians from accessing legitimate services from overseas providers. </p>
<h2>Defining localism</h2>
<p>Often neglected in this debate is whether localism ever existed in the first place. Until the 1990s, regional areas such as Queensland’s far north had only two local television stations. Local, yes, but hardly diverse. And viewers had virtually no ability to participate in the development of local content. Localism is much more than simply requiring commercial television stations to provide local news services. Which begs the question: what is “genuine localism”?</p>
<p>Broadband services certainly enable greater consumer participation in news media production. And the rise of Facebook and Twitter have seen changes in the ways that news media content is consumed. </p>
<p>Discrete groups of like-minded individuals sharing information via social networks would be the closest thing to a “genuine” localism. But how any Australian media provider can compete in this global space with one of its three “arms” tied behind its back is anybody’s guess. </p>
<p>The traditionally separate news media carriage services do not have the influential power they once had. The reach of news media services is not restricted by the type of infrastructure used. These older telecommunications and broadcasting networks were necessarily controlled by national governments and regulating content was much more practicable. The reconvergence of news media services, facilitated by NBN, makes the cross-ownership laws increasingly irrelevant. </p>
<p>Social networks transform the traditional top-down localism of television programming to a more participatory localism driven by consumers. This further erodes the relevance of Australia’s cross-ownership laws.</p>
<p>There are valid concerns for the regions that market failure may prevent local commercial news service delivery. But equally, regionally-focused companies with markets demarcated by outmoded ideas about communications technologies will not help. </p>
<p>Placing restrictions on cross-media ownership where the distinction no longer exists is hardly the recipe for a commercially viable and internationally competitive communications industry. Ideas about localism need to change too if the advantages of reconvergence are to be realised by Australian media companies. Indeed, regulating for localism may well benefit overseas competitors rather than the people it was designed to serve.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24194/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael de Percy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Communication minister Malcolm Turnbull’s proposal for changes to cross-media ownership laws has reignited calls for the government to protect local content. On the surface, it appears reasonable to expect…Michael de Percy, Senior Lecturer in Political Science, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/236742014-02-26T06:00:03Z2014-02-26T06:00:03ZHard Evidence: what would TV look like without the BBC?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42468/original/2d5yq2kw-1393335178.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">What if there were No BBC television?</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Critics of the BBC argue that it <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/aug/28/james-murdoch-bbc-mactaggart-edinburgh-tv-festival">distorts the UK’s media market</a>, making it hard for commercial competitors to prosper and meet consumers’ needs. Their view is that viewers would be better served if the BBC was smaller – allowing commercial broadcasters to expand – and showed only public service programmes that the market will not provide.</p>
<p>But this is not what the numbers suggest. On the contrary, our research suggests that cutting the BBC licence fee would reduce consumer choice and value for money, as well as greatly damaging UK programme producers.</p>
<p>We believe that without the BBC, the UK television industry’s revenue would most likely be lower. While there is a wide range of uncertainty that must be taken into account when making these calculations, it is likely that total investment in programmes would be 5-25% lower and investment in new UK programmes 25-50% lower. This would be a severe blow, not just to viewers, but to the UK television production industry as well.</p>
<p>Our analysis is based on comparing the UK television market in 2012 with projections of what the market might have been like if there had been no BBC TV and no licence fee. The net impact of BBC TV is the difference between the two. We developed two different scenarios: one highly optimistic from the industry’s viewpoint, and the other highly pessimistic. </p>
<h2>Damaging loss</h2>
<p>The figure below shows what the overall revenue to the television industry would look like without the £1.6 billion portion of the BBC licence fee revenue allocated to television content.</p>
<p>Our pessimistic and optimistic projections of the percentage changes in these revenues if there had been no BBC give us the following ranges (rounded): </p>
<p>• Subscriptions: zero to +50%<br>
• Advertising: -15% to +25%<br>
• Other commercial revenue: zero to +30% </p>
<p>The net effect of these changes, after allowing for the loss of BBC licence fee revenue, is that compared with the actual situation in 2012 (with the BBC included), total TV industry revenue would be reduced by over 25% in the pessimistic scenario and increased by almost 10% in the optimistic scenario.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42469/original/r6sffx7y-1393335340.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42469/original/r6sffx7y-1393335340.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42469/original/r6sffx7y-1393335340.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42469/original/r6sffx7y-1393335340.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42469/original/r6sffx7y-1393335340.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42469/original/r6sffx7y-1393335340.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42469/original/r6sffx7y-1393335340.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42469/original/r6sffx7y-1393335340.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Total TV Revenue in 2012 (£bn)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">What if there were no BBC television?</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These projections are conservative, if anything. In performing these calculations we have accepted the claim made by so much of the commercial television industry, that the BBC “crowds out” some of the investment in programming that would otherwise be made by commercial broadcasters. </p>
<p>In fact, on balance, the evidence suggests that the BBC probably forces commercial channels to spend more on programmes in order to attract viewers. If this is correct, losing BBC television would be even more damaging to viewers and programme producers than the report projects.</p>
<p>The estimates allow for uncertainties as to what effect removing the BBC would have on commercial broadcasters’ revenue, and uncertainties in the percentage of that revenue they would invest in content in a market without the BBC. </p>
<p>As the figures below suggest, removal of the BBC’s £1.6 billion investment in television content would mean a net loss to the overall television market, but both commercial public service broadcasters (such as ITV or Channel 4) and especially other commercial broadcasters would be able to expand to meet some demand from increased subscriptions and advertising.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42473/original/w99wyzkx-1393337213.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42473/original/w99wyzkx-1393337213.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42473/original/w99wyzkx-1393337213.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=236&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42473/original/w99wyzkx-1393337213.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=236&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42473/original/w99wyzkx-1393337213.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=236&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42473/original/w99wyzkx-1393337213.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42473/original/w99wyzkx-1393337213.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42473/original/w99wyzkx-1393337213.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=297&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">investment in total content.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But the net effect on the investment on UK first-run content would be dramatic.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42472/original/gyzjxwvm-1393337133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42472/original/gyzjxwvm-1393337133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42472/original/gyzjxwvm-1393337133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=263&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42472/original/gyzjxwvm-1393337133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=263&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42472/original/gyzjxwvm-1393337133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=263&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42472/original/gyzjxwvm-1393337133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=330&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42472/original/gyzjxwvm-1393337133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=330&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/42472/original/gyzjxwvm-1393337133.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=330&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">BBC investment in first run content.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>None of the BBC’s critics argue for the BBC to be abolished overnight, but many argue that it should be scaled back without providing any evidence that this would be better for the public. But our analysis suggests the opposite: although scaling back the BBC would not be as bad as abolishing it, it would still have a detrimental effect on UK viewers and producers. </p>
<h2>Salami slicing</h2>
<p>The scope of our report is necessarily limited in two ways: firstly, it focuses solely on television, while in fact the licence fee also funds other services and activities such as radio, online services, the World Service, S4C and broadband delivery. Of course, were there no BBC television and no licence fee, these other activities would also need to be cut or another way of funding them would have to be found.</p>
<p>We have also limited ourselves to assessing and discussing the BBC’s impact on the public as “consumers” rather than as “citizens”. So the BBC’s contribution to British culture, society, the economy, child development, technology adoption and many other of those “citizenship” benefits are necessarily excluded. But ever in those limited terms a smaller BBC would be bad for the public.</p>
<p>Households would either have to pay slightly more for slightly less choice or pay slightly less for much less choice. Britain without BBC television would also be likely to mean less money being spent on programmes overall – and far fewer new programmes would be produced, so viewers can look forward to TV schedules being packed with repeats and imports. </p>
<p>The idea of a future without BBC TV is not just a hypothetical scenario – it is the logical conclusion of the government’s current “<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/tony-hall-debate-over-licence-fee-damaging-9147728.html">salami-slicing</a>” policy of freezing the licence fee and diverting more and more of it to fund activities outside the BBC’s UK services – while the rest of the market keeps growing. If this policy continues – or even accelerates, as some are advocating – within a generation the BBC will be reduced to a minor sideshow, the UK equivalent of PBS (the Public Broadcasting Service) in the United States. </p>
<hr>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/hard-evidence">Hard Evidence</a> is a series of articles in which academics use research evidence to tackle the trickiest public policy questions.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23674/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Critics of the BBC argue that it distorts the UK’s media market, making it hard for commercial competitors to prosper and meet consumers’ needs. Their view is that viewers would be better served if the…Patrick Barwise, Emeritus Professor of Management and Marketing, London Business SchoolRobert Picard, Director of Research, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and a Research Fellow, Green Templeton College, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.