Changing Consumer Behavior
The future of Australian commercial television content relies heavily on changes occurring in the media industry, motivated by technological advances as well as changes in consumer habits. Because of natural changes in these two areas, free-to-air content has been forced to adapt in order to survive and meet the growing demands of hungry and avid consumers. There is also a growing appetite for interactive content, whether it is an emotional connection between viewer and reality television stars or the sense of participatory control a consumer might feel when they ‘vote’ with the press of a button for an idea or character. In saying so, viewers of television content are developing from 'watchers and consumers' to 'constructors' of televised content. This is the key to both technological and consumer changes; each fuels the other and towards a more complex and multi-leveled the commercial television realm.
“The Australian screen industries are a leading domestic creative industry sector at a crossroad. New production, distribution and exhibition technologies are challenging traditional models of ‘filmmaking’. For the screen industries to remain competitive they must renovate business models for an emerging marketplace.” [24] “As the television writer, director, and independent producer Michael Darlow [27] argues, “By 1993, most independent producers as much as broadcasters, saw themselves as businesses which made programmes, not as they had a decade earlier, as programme makers who also ran businesses.” Since the 1990s, these two shifts have run parallel to one another, and it raises the issue of whether the development off-screen of a more commercial, competitive, and entrepreneurial TV marketplace has affected the way the medium frames its on-screen engagement with business, entrepreneurship, risk, and wealth creation.” [28]
What these businesses are also considering in the production of television content is the currency of intimacy. Michael Kackman writes, “Intimacy is the currency of reality programming, that which makes the various levels of commodity operating within reality TV – products, brands, celebrity, even exposure itself – all interchangeable, and hence able to be converged. Every commodity, such as the celebrity experienced by Santino, can be exchanged for a commodity of roughly equal value, such as the value of Santino’s exposure on Project Runway or of the exposure accruing to the brand Tim Gunn through Santino’s mockingly affectionate imitations of Gunn’s voice.” [39] This is another way of attaching value to a program that is expected to have certain success as well as a meaningful way of reading why viewers feel attracted to factual entertainment.
“Although (a great deal of) money is involved in the making and franchising of these shows, it is to some extent invisible and, importantly, incommensurate: why should participants win $1 million, or $100,000 and a contract, or a house whose actual building costs we can only guess at (as in Extreme Makeover: Home Edition)? How do these sums match up with participants’ labor on the one hand, and the balance sheet of the production companies on the other? More the point, how do we put a dollar amount on a brand whose value is determined by cultural affect? Given the incommensurability of these units of value, it is the palpable flows of intimacy rather than the invisible flows of money that function as currency in these shows, and that in turn raise the value of the commodities and brands associated with them. In the industry convergence programs, the leisure industries buying into reality TV formats are keen to adopt their particular kind o currency – intimacy – in order to make a profit.” [39]
So then, is this why industries buying into reality television are willing to put some much into these shows even before a single shot has been taken? Like Masterchef for example? Because although taking into account that Masterchef is predicted to reach a large audience, this ‘currency of intimacy’ is almost insurance that viewers will be attracted to the converging from everything on show. Because viewers feel like they ‘know’ the characters on a reality program, they are gullible to the narrative, the products placement and are attracted to the connection they feel for the people in the show. This could be part of an explanation as to why viewers are seduced into tuning into something like Border Patrol; a show with no continuous narrative or no character development.
It is this attitude that motivates many of the changes in the types and genres of programing; the changing trends are for the benefits of the broadcasting businesses. Different aspects of these benefits include advertising, funding and ratings. The keyword in this is 'renovate'; the industry has needed to renovate and make changes that will benefit not only themselves but satisfy their audience in a never ending cycle. In a way it is not only the consumer behavior that is changing but just as much, the behavior of the industry. So what does this mean for young media professionals looking to take their first steps into the already challenging industry? Just as it always has, there is a real need to understand the way that the industry works. What might have been taught in the first few years of studies many no longer apply just so obviously to the framework of the modern media world. It is important to see and be able to adapt to changes and react and most importantly respond and not just observe. For example, being that factual programming is a rather interactive mode of television, in this particular genre there has been a rather rapid increase in online television content. Screen industries are picking up on popular ways that viewers have been interacting with the television content themselves. There are an incredible number of fan-forums dedicated to popular shows, there is fan art, viewers write narratives in the realm of the televised content (fan fiction), have competitions amongst themselves etcetera. What shows such as MasterChef and The Biggest Loser Australia have done are pick up on this behavior and integrated it into their own business model. Websites for most popular reality shows have space for a community, competitions with prizes, space for viewers to comment and for dedicated viewers to submit content.
“The Australian screen industries are a leading domestic creative industry sector at a crossroad. New production, distribution and exhibition technologies are challenging traditional models of ‘filmmaking’. For the screen industries to remain competitive they must renovate business models for an emerging marketplace.” [24] “As the television writer, director, and independent producer Michael Darlow [27] argues, “By 1993, most independent producers as much as broadcasters, saw themselves as businesses which made programmes, not as they had a decade earlier, as programme makers who also ran businesses.” Since the 1990s, these two shifts have run parallel to one another, and it raises the issue of whether the development off-screen of a more commercial, competitive, and entrepreneurial TV marketplace has affected the way the medium frames its on-screen engagement with business, entrepreneurship, risk, and wealth creation.” [28]
What these businesses are also considering in the production of television content is the currency of intimacy. Michael Kackman writes, “Intimacy is the currency of reality programming, that which makes the various levels of commodity operating within reality TV – products, brands, celebrity, even exposure itself – all interchangeable, and hence able to be converged. Every commodity, such as the celebrity experienced by Santino, can be exchanged for a commodity of roughly equal value, such as the value of Santino’s exposure on Project Runway or of the exposure accruing to the brand Tim Gunn through Santino’s mockingly affectionate imitations of Gunn’s voice.” [39] This is another way of attaching value to a program that is expected to have certain success as well as a meaningful way of reading why viewers feel attracted to factual entertainment.
“Although (a great deal of) money is involved in the making and franchising of these shows, it is to some extent invisible and, importantly, incommensurate: why should participants win $1 million, or $100,000 and a contract, or a house whose actual building costs we can only guess at (as in Extreme Makeover: Home Edition)? How do these sums match up with participants’ labor on the one hand, and the balance sheet of the production companies on the other? More the point, how do we put a dollar amount on a brand whose value is determined by cultural affect? Given the incommensurability of these units of value, it is the palpable flows of intimacy rather than the invisible flows of money that function as currency in these shows, and that in turn raise the value of the commodities and brands associated with them. In the industry convergence programs, the leisure industries buying into reality TV formats are keen to adopt their particular kind o currency – intimacy – in order to make a profit.” [39]
So then, is this why industries buying into reality television are willing to put some much into these shows even before a single shot has been taken? Like Masterchef for example? Because although taking into account that Masterchef is predicted to reach a large audience, this ‘currency of intimacy’ is almost insurance that viewers will be attracted to the converging from everything on show. Because viewers feel like they ‘know’ the characters on a reality program, they are gullible to the narrative, the products placement and are attracted to the connection they feel for the people in the show. This could be part of an explanation as to why viewers are seduced into tuning into something like Border Patrol; a show with no continuous narrative or no character development.
It is this attitude that motivates many of the changes in the types and genres of programing; the changing trends are for the benefits of the broadcasting businesses. Different aspects of these benefits include advertising, funding and ratings. The keyword in this is 'renovate'; the industry has needed to renovate and make changes that will benefit not only themselves but satisfy their audience in a never ending cycle. In a way it is not only the consumer behavior that is changing but just as much, the behavior of the industry. So what does this mean for young media professionals looking to take their first steps into the already challenging industry? Just as it always has, there is a real need to understand the way that the industry works. What might have been taught in the first few years of studies many no longer apply just so obviously to the framework of the modern media world. It is important to see and be able to adapt to changes and react and most importantly respond and not just observe. For example, being that factual programming is a rather interactive mode of television, in this particular genre there has been a rather rapid increase in online television content. Screen industries are picking up on popular ways that viewers have been interacting with the television content themselves. There are an incredible number of fan-forums dedicated to popular shows, there is fan art, viewers write narratives in the realm of the televised content (fan fiction), have competitions amongst themselves etcetera. What shows such as MasterChef and The Biggest Loser Australia have done are pick up on this behavior and integrated it into their own business model. Websites for most popular reality shows have space for a community, competitions with prizes, space for viewers to comment and for dedicated viewers to submit content.
Audience Studies
Ien Ang, a renowned leader in cultural studies, tell us ‘that despite television’s apparently steady success in absorbing people’s attention, television audiences remain extremely difficult to define, attract and keep, The institutions must forever “desperately seek the audience”’ [17] Television audiences are something that have always changed and developed over time, and in the present age of ‘convergence culture’ [14] where audiences are consuming television, and all media is a variety of forms, the institutions Ang referred to must keep up with their audiences, or else, they might lose them. Television studios and production houses will program for ratings and for profit, which ultimately depends on their audiences. We must first understand television audiences, or new-media audiences, who consume their media in ways that threaten the success of traditional television programming.
Television audience studies once viewed audiences as “fixed” and “controllable” [18] definable in their homes, watching TV with family, friends or alone, not dressed up as an audience would be for the theatre or the cinema, and with variable attention unlike the theatre or cinema which would demand focus from its audience. TV was free or relatively cheap for audiences, meaning there were more people consuming television than any other visual media. [18]
Today this is hardly the case. The rise of the Internet has paved the way for multi-platform media engagement from its audiences, providing audiences with a much greater choice of media to consume. [14] Other developments in technology mean that audiences now do not have to watch a desired program at the time it is aired, they might record it on their VHS or DVD player, on their internal hard drive, view the program through a subscription TV model, online in a legal or illegal forum or on DVD if the content is then released for public sale. [19] Audiences not only view their content in a wide variety of forms, but they now interact with it in a completely different way. Participatory culture has grown to be an important part of the way audiences interact with media, providing a personal connection to what is consumed, and also contributing each individuals creativity from either a very small level of contribution ie: voting online or ‘tweeting’, to a large scale contribution such as submitting a video, remixing online media or attending studio audiences etc. New media, or trans-media audiences are now demanding more from media creators, pushing for the line between media producer and media consumer to be blurred in order to have a meaningful impact on what audiences are exposed to. [14]
Bosland [22] writes, “Numerous reports claim that viewers are increasingly turning to legal and illegal internet sites for their audiovisual content. Indeed, according to British internet consultancy Envisional, Australia is the second largest market for pirated TV shows in the world, responsible for 15.5 per cent of illegal downloads in 2005. [23] And, some estimates suggest that 75 per cent of worldwide internet traffic is occupied by the transfer of pirated TV shows and movies.” [25]
In order to battle this producers are providing more and more legal alternatives such as being able to view episodes online minutes after it is first aired online. The incredibly popular reality television program MasterChef Australia did this in their 2010 season; they made available episodes as well as interviews with contestants and behind the scene footage of the show. According to a TVTonight news article, MasterChef Australia attracted an average of 1.42 million viewers, making it the most watched show in its timeslot. [26] With so many viewers at hand, there is an incredible push to give the viewers what they want in a way that networks will profit.
“The entire media landscape is changing at present due to the forces of convergence, digitalization, deregulation and globalization, and companies in every sector are doing their best to survive, and hopefully thrive, in the new environment. New ventures and competitors are crowding all media markets, and one result is audience fragmentation.” [20]
This term ‘crowding media market’ and ‘audience fragmentation’ describes the phenomenon of the media industry dealing with more media consumer than they have ever before. As technologies expand across the globe, and develop into highly interactive and immersive environments, consumers find themselves in contact with media more than ever before, and as such are spending more time interacting with their media. However, there is a temporal limit to which users can consume media everyday. Instead of keeping up with every emerging technology, program, website, social network, film or other form of media, audiences are being more selective about what they consume, and when they consume it, resulting in ‘audience fragmentation.’ [20]
“In 1995, 225 shows reached audiences of over 15 million in British television, but by 2005 none did (Arsenault and Castells, 2008: 10), and the same development threatens the dominance of traditional broadcasters around the world.” [20]
‘In the 1960s an advertiser could reach 80% of the US women with a prime-time spot on the three networks. Today it has been estimated that the same sport would have to run on one hundred TV channels to reach the same number of viewers” [14]
The trans-media environment responds to fragmenting audiences by attempting to target different sections of the market via multiple platforms. Television producers now have to produce content not only for their loyal television audiences, but for the ‘Casuals’ and the ‘Zappers’ (explained below) and for the complex online audiences emerging.
Either a product (or a catalyst) or convergence culture is shorter audience attention spans. Audience studies have categorized television audience into three categories: ‘Zappers’, ‘Casuals’ and ‘Loyals.’ Zappers are most likely to flick between programs as soon as one loses interest, and generally is non-committal to any one program. Television is not a strict part of their schedule, watching spontaneously rather than actively. On the other end of the spectrum you have Loyals, who, as the name suggests, will schedule a program into their daily or weekly schedule, and will generally cease any activities whilst their chosen programme/s is aired. Loyals are most likely to sit through commercials and most likely to return episodically and seasonally. Casuals lie somewhere between these two extremes, generally not planning an evening around a program, but rather switching to a program that grabs their interest, with the possibility of becoming a Loyal if the content is suitable. Consumers are not defined exclusively to one category, rather transitioning through each category at given times. [14]
Responding to these audience definitions are television producers that can provide self-contained programmes so that Casuals are able to pick up a show at any given point. Detailed and repetitive recaps throughout the programme can also attract zappers, who can be immediately brought up to speed, encouraging them not to flick away. As well as accommodating for the Casuals and Zappers, serialising programmes satisfy Loyals, who will be able to connect to a longer and more committal type narrative. Unresolved elements or cliffhangers are intended to make Loyals out of Casuals. [14]
The reality genre is a key formula for attracting this variety of audiences, which not only incorporates elements that are able to satisfy the above mentioned television audiences, but also satisfies a convergence consumer culture, with the ability to establish meaningful connections with the audience through multi-platform engagement, as well as the representation of social and cultural norms through local reality content.
Reality Television, by its nature, will incorporate aspects particular to the country, region or culture by which it is produced, with this unique-ness providing a point of identification, or lack of identification with its intended audiences. Australian Reality television has been so successful to Australian audiences, something that Australian drama programmes have not been as successful in achieving. [21] There have been many studies on why audiences are attracted to reality television, when the initial response to the genre was overwhelmingly negative. Broadcaster Nick Clarke declares Reality programmes as,
“Fast cheap totally addictive… the shows [are] weapons of mass destruction… causing us to become dumber fatter and more disengaged from ourselves and society. The mixed metaphors of drug addiction and way indicate how the reality genre is often frames in relation to media effect and cultural, social and moral values.” [21]
Reality television, referred to by Hill as ‘popular factual television,’ provides a higher entertainment quality than regular factual programmes such as news and documentary, therefore attracting younger audiences. Hill suggests that consumers want to be part of social and political issues, something that reality provides due to its relevance and immediacy in its context.[21] Reality formats generally feature ordinary people as participants, in effect incorporating local languages, sayings, culture and temperaments, lending to the increased exposure to local culture. Moreover, reality concepts derive from universal conditions such as love, family, careers and competition, with these global themes making it easy for most people to emotionally involve themselves.[20] On top of these aspects, consumers who are used to receiving content immediately, whilst it is still fresh off the press are desiring content that is relevant NOW, and not in three months time, and so turning to reality programming allows them to experience current affairs and events, discuss these current events in their on and offline communities. [14][18]
An accumulative result of media convergence, reality programming, and smarter audiences, is that audiences are becoming more aware of being a ‘consumer.’ This intelligence is giving each consumer are more critical eye. By partaking in the production process via online mediums, these consumers are increasingly aware of ethics in production, production quality and the ‘truth claims’ that different sub-genres of reality provide. Audiences watch reality television with a critical eye, they judge each program on a sliding scale named by Hill as the ‘Fact/Fiction Continuum.’ [21] Programmes such as news and current affairs are at the more traditional end of the scale, whilst Big Brother and Idol are at the other end. Programmes such as Masterchef will be seen as fiction, but home-renovation shows such as The Block are seen more as ‘lifestyle’ programmes, therefore more ‘truthful.’ Audiences will then derive expectations of the level of ‘reality’ they expect to receive based upon where in the Fact/Fiction Continuum they categories each programme. [21] Audiences of the reality genre generally classify the programmes as entertainment, however in some shows such as Medical Emergencies, audiences will also learn about health and dealing with medical situations, or in shows such as Border Patrol will gain awareness of national laws and regulations, as well as be exposed to the level of crime in their country.
Some reality television audiences also expect certain elements from the programmes. They expect success and positive outcomes. There is an element of wanting a particular slice of reality for their entertainment. If every DIY programs ends in disaster, the ‘truth’ element might be fulfilled, but as mentioned above, audiences consider the genre to be entertainment, so they prefer to view renovations in which there is a ‘happy ending,’ or a positive outcome to the day or three days worth of construction. [21]
The consumer behaviour of television audiences has changed dramatically in the last decade, with the simultaneous rise of reality programming, as well as a new trans-media environment educating a new kind of consumer. Today’s consumer wants to be informed immediately of social and political affairs. Information needs to grab their attention fast and efficiently to save them Zapping away to another form of media. Media needs to be accessible and needs to be personal, consumers want to produce and have control over their media, not only what they see, but when they see it, so a focus on live television and relevant content will win generally win a viewers attention over a serial drama that requires commitment and strict timing. Reality programming has been successful in incorporating multi-platform material, competitions providing audiences the power to judge, eliminate, comment, vote and participate physically on online, and as such, is gaining more momentum in the Australian commercial television Industry, where locals can experience and identify with the people they are watching.
Television audience studies once viewed audiences as “fixed” and “controllable” [18] definable in their homes, watching TV with family, friends or alone, not dressed up as an audience would be for the theatre or the cinema, and with variable attention unlike the theatre or cinema which would demand focus from its audience. TV was free or relatively cheap for audiences, meaning there were more people consuming television than any other visual media. [18]
Today this is hardly the case. The rise of the Internet has paved the way for multi-platform media engagement from its audiences, providing audiences with a much greater choice of media to consume. [14] Other developments in technology mean that audiences now do not have to watch a desired program at the time it is aired, they might record it on their VHS or DVD player, on their internal hard drive, view the program through a subscription TV model, online in a legal or illegal forum or on DVD if the content is then released for public sale. [19] Audiences not only view their content in a wide variety of forms, but they now interact with it in a completely different way. Participatory culture has grown to be an important part of the way audiences interact with media, providing a personal connection to what is consumed, and also contributing each individuals creativity from either a very small level of contribution ie: voting online or ‘tweeting’, to a large scale contribution such as submitting a video, remixing online media or attending studio audiences etc. New media, or trans-media audiences are now demanding more from media creators, pushing for the line between media producer and media consumer to be blurred in order to have a meaningful impact on what audiences are exposed to. [14]
Bosland [22] writes, “Numerous reports claim that viewers are increasingly turning to legal and illegal internet sites for their audiovisual content. Indeed, according to British internet consultancy Envisional, Australia is the second largest market for pirated TV shows in the world, responsible for 15.5 per cent of illegal downloads in 2005. [23] And, some estimates suggest that 75 per cent of worldwide internet traffic is occupied by the transfer of pirated TV shows and movies.” [25]
In order to battle this producers are providing more and more legal alternatives such as being able to view episodes online minutes after it is first aired online. The incredibly popular reality television program MasterChef Australia did this in their 2010 season; they made available episodes as well as interviews with contestants and behind the scene footage of the show. According to a TVTonight news article, MasterChef Australia attracted an average of 1.42 million viewers, making it the most watched show in its timeslot. [26] With so many viewers at hand, there is an incredible push to give the viewers what they want in a way that networks will profit.
“The entire media landscape is changing at present due to the forces of convergence, digitalization, deregulation and globalization, and companies in every sector are doing their best to survive, and hopefully thrive, in the new environment. New ventures and competitors are crowding all media markets, and one result is audience fragmentation.” [20]
This term ‘crowding media market’ and ‘audience fragmentation’ describes the phenomenon of the media industry dealing with more media consumer than they have ever before. As technologies expand across the globe, and develop into highly interactive and immersive environments, consumers find themselves in contact with media more than ever before, and as such are spending more time interacting with their media. However, there is a temporal limit to which users can consume media everyday. Instead of keeping up with every emerging technology, program, website, social network, film or other form of media, audiences are being more selective about what they consume, and when they consume it, resulting in ‘audience fragmentation.’ [20]
“In 1995, 225 shows reached audiences of over 15 million in British television, but by 2005 none did (Arsenault and Castells, 2008: 10), and the same development threatens the dominance of traditional broadcasters around the world.” [20]
‘In the 1960s an advertiser could reach 80% of the US women with a prime-time spot on the three networks. Today it has been estimated that the same sport would have to run on one hundred TV channels to reach the same number of viewers” [14]
The trans-media environment responds to fragmenting audiences by attempting to target different sections of the market via multiple platforms. Television producers now have to produce content not only for their loyal television audiences, but for the ‘Casuals’ and the ‘Zappers’ (explained below) and for the complex online audiences emerging.
Either a product (or a catalyst) or convergence culture is shorter audience attention spans. Audience studies have categorized television audience into three categories: ‘Zappers’, ‘Casuals’ and ‘Loyals.’ Zappers are most likely to flick between programs as soon as one loses interest, and generally is non-committal to any one program. Television is not a strict part of their schedule, watching spontaneously rather than actively. On the other end of the spectrum you have Loyals, who, as the name suggests, will schedule a program into their daily or weekly schedule, and will generally cease any activities whilst their chosen programme/s is aired. Loyals are most likely to sit through commercials and most likely to return episodically and seasonally. Casuals lie somewhere between these two extremes, generally not planning an evening around a program, but rather switching to a program that grabs their interest, with the possibility of becoming a Loyal if the content is suitable. Consumers are not defined exclusively to one category, rather transitioning through each category at given times. [14]
Responding to these audience definitions are television producers that can provide self-contained programmes so that Casuals are able to pick up a show at any given point. Detailed and repetitive recaps throughout the programme can also attract zappers, who can be immediately brought up to speed, encouraging them not to flick away. As well as accommodating for the Casuals and Zappers, serialising programmes satisfy Loyals, who will be able to connect to a longer and more committal type narrative. Unresolved elements or cliffhangers are intended to make Loyals out of Casuals. [14]
The reality genre is a key formula for attracting this variety of audiences, which not only incorporates elements that are able to satisfy the above mentioned television audiences, but also satisfies a convergence consumer culture, with the ability to establish meaningful connections with the audience through multi-platform engagement, as well as the representation of social and cultural norms through local reality content.
Reality Television, by its nature, will incorporate aspects particular to the country, region or culture by which it is produced, with this unique-ness providing a point of identification, or lack of identification with its intended audiences. Australian Reality television has been so successful to Australian audiences, something that Australian drama programmes have not been as successful in achieving. [21] There have been many studies on why audiences are attracted to reality television, when the initial response to the genre was overwhelmingly negative. Broadcaster Nick Clarke declares Reality programmes as,
“Fast cheap totally addictive… the shows [are] weapons of mass destruction… causing us to become dumber fatter and more disengaged from ourselves and society. The mixed metaphors of drug addiction and way indicate how the reality genre is often frames in relation to media effect and cultural, social and moral values.” [21]
Reality television, referred to by Hill as ‘popular factual television,’ provides a higher entertainment quality than regular factual programmes such as news and documentary, therefore attracting younger audiences. Hill suggests that consumers want to be part of social and political issues, something that reality provides due to its relevance and immediacy in its context.[21] Reality formats generally feature ordinary people as participants, in effect incorporating local languages, sayings, culture and temperaments, lending to the increased exposure to local culture. Moreover, reality concepts derive from universal conditions such as love, family, careers and competition, with these global themes making it easy for most people to emotionally involve themselves.[20] On top of these aspects, consumers who are used to receiving content immediately, whilst it is still fresh off the press are desiring content that is relevant NOW, and not in three months time, and so turning to reality programming allows them to experience current affairs and events, discuss these current events in their on and offline communities. [14][18]
An accumulative result of media convergence, reality programming, and smarter audiences, is that audiences are becoming more aware of being a ‘consumer.’ This intelligence is giving each consumer are more critical eye. By partaking in the production process via online mediums, these consumers are increasingly aware of ethics in production, production quality and the ‘truth claims’ that different sub-genres of reality provide. Audiences watch reality television with a critical eye, they judge each program on a sliding scale named by Hill as the ‘Fact/Fiction Continuum.’ [21] Programmes such as news and current affairs are at the more traditional end of the scale, whilst Big Brother and Idol are at the other end. Programmes such as Masterchef will be seen as fiction, but home-renovation shows such as The Block are seen more as ‘lifestyle’ programmes, therefore more ‘truthful.’ Audiences will then derive expectations of the level of ‘reality’ they expect to receive based upon where in the Fact/Fiction Continuum they categories each programme. [21] Audiences of the reality genre generally classify the programmes as entertainment, however in some shows such as Medical Emergencies, audiences will also learn about health and dealing with medical situations, or in shows such as Border Patrol will gain awareness of national laws and regulations, as well as be exposed to the level of crime in their country.
Some reality television audiences also expect certain elements from the programmes. They expect success and positive outcomes. There is an element of wanting a particular slice of reality for their entertainment. If every DIY programs ends in disaster, the ‘truth’ element might be fulfilled, but as mentioned above, audiences consider the genre to be entertainment, so they prefer to view renovations in which there is a ‘happy ending,’ or a positive outcome to the day or three days worth of construction. [21]
The consumer behaviour of television audiences has changed dramatically in the last decade, with the simultaneous rise of reality programming, as well as a new trans-media environment educating a new kind of consumer. Today’s consumer wants to be informed immediately of social and political affairs. Information needs to grab their attention fast and efficiently to save them Zapping away to another form of media. Media needs to be accessible and needs to be personal, consumers want to produce and have control over their media, not only what they see, but when they see it, so a focus on live television and relevant content will win generally win a viewers attention over a serial drama that requires commitment and strict timing. Reality programming has been successful in incorporating multi-platform material, competitions providing audiences the power to judge, eliminate, comment, vote and participate physically on online, and as such, is gaining more momentum in the Australian commercial television Industry, where locals can experience and identify with the people they are watching.
FOOT NOTES
[14] Jenkins, Henry (2006) Convergence Culture, New York Univeristy Pres, New York[17] Ang, Ien, (1991) Desperately seeking the Audience, Routledge, London
[18] Gorton, Kristyn, (2009) Media Audiences, Edinborough University Press, Edinborough.[17] Ang, Ien, (1991) Desperately seeking the Audience, Routledge, London
[19] Palmer, Shelley (2006) Television disrupted: the transition from network to networked TV, Focal Press: Elsevier, Burlington
[20] Yngvar, Kjus, 2009, ‘Everyone Needs Idols: Reality Television and Transformations in MediaStructure, Production and Output,’ European Journal of Communication
[21] Hill, Annette (2004) Reality TV: Factual Entertainment and Television Audiences, Routledge, London
[22] Bosland, Jason. (2006) ‘Beyond Broadcasting’: Facing the Future of Australian Content in the Digital Audiovisual Environment
[23] Ghandour, Rania (2006) ‘We lead world in television piracy’, The West Australian (25 February) 50.
[24] Ryan, Mark David and Hearn, Gregory N. (2010) Generation next: post-cinema Australian moviemaking, innovation and implicaions for cultural policy. In: Proceedings of Australian and New Zealand Communication Association Conference 2010, 7-9 July 2010., Old Parliament House, Canberra. ( http://eprints.qut.edu.au/33094/1/c33094.pdf )
[25] Davidson, John (2006) ‘Look who’s stealing the show: first it was music, not it’s television’, The Weekend Australian Financial Review, Perspective 17.
[26] Knox, David (28 April 2009). "Biggest Loser tops 2m viewers". tvtonight.com.au. Retrieved 10 April 2011.(http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2009/04/biggest-loser-tops-2m-viewers.html)
[27] Darlow, Michael. 2004. Independents struggle: The programme makers who took on the TV establishment.
London: Boa Ms/Quartet.
[28] Lisa W. Kelly & Raymond Boyle. Business on Television: Continuity, Change, and Risk in the Development of Television’s ‘Business Entertainment Format’ Television and New Media 2011, 12(3), pp 228 – 247, (June 2010) Sage Publications. http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/12/3/228 (accessed May 14th 2011)
[39] Kackman, Michael. 2010. Flow TV: Television in the Age of Media Convergence. Routledge. Taylor and Francis Ltd. Pp 88
[14] Jenkins, Henry (2006) Convergence Culture, New York Univeristy Pres, New York[17] Ang, Ien, (1991) Desperately seeking the Audience, Routledge, London
[18] Gorton, Kristyn, (2009) Media Audiences, Edinborough University Press, Edinborough.[17] Ang, Ien, (1991) Desperately seeking the Audience, Routledge, London
[19] Palmer, Shelley (2006) Television disrupted: the transition from network to networked TV, Focal Press: Elsevier, Burlington
[20] Yngvar, Kjus, 2009, ‘Everyone Needs Idols: Reality Television and Transformations in MediaStructure, Production and Output,’ European Journal of Communication
[21] Hill, Annette (2004) Reality TV: Factual Entertainment and Television Audiences, Routledge, London
[22] Bosland, Jason. (2006) ‘Beyond Broadcasting’: Facing the Future of Australian Content in the Digital Audiovisual Environment
[23] Ghandour, Rania (2006) ‘We lead world in television piracy’, The West Australian (25 February) 50.
[24] Ryan, Mark David and Hearn, Gregory N. (2010) Generation next: post-cinema Australian moviemaking, innovation and implicaions for cultural policy. In: Proceedings of Australian and New Zealand Communication Association Conference 2010, 7-9 July 2010., Old Parliament House, Canberra. ( http://eprints.qut.edu.au/33094/1/c33094.pdf )
[25] Davidson, John (2006) ‘Look who’s stealing the show: first it was music, not it’s television’, The Weekend Australian Financial Review, Perspective 17.
[26] Knox, David (28 April 2009). "Biggest Loser tops 2m viewers". tvtonight.com.au. Retrieved 10 April 2011.(http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2009/04/biggest-loser-tops-2m-viewers.html)
[27] Darlow, Michael. 2004. Independents struggle: The programme makers who took on the TV establishment.
London: Boa Ms/Quartet.
[28] Lisa W. Kelly & Raymond Boyle. Business on Television: Continuity, Change, and Risk in the Development of Television’s ‘Business Entertainment Format’ Television and New Media 2011, 12(3), pp 228 – 247, (June 2010) Sage Publications. http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/12/3/228 (accessed May 14th 2011)
[39] Kackman, Michael. 2010. Flow TV: Television in the Age of Media Convergence. Routledge. Taylor and Francis Ltd. Pp 88
