What is the relationship between changing consumer behaviour and the production of reality programs?
The changing television landscape and the rapidly evolving consumer convergence culture are both key motivators for the rise of reality programming. Reality television has become a cheap and viable option for studios, producing similar ratings success as drama programs, at a fraction of the cost. As society becomes less and less a nine to five working culture, prime time takes on a whole new meaning, with media consumers no longer satisfied with structured TV schedules, serialised content, and the one-to-many model of communication. Consumers are rapidly becoming active producers of their content, wanting their content on-demand, converging across multiple platforms online, and creating a new meaning for advertising and how brands relate and interact with their target audiences. Reality television provides consumers the ability to participate, and not only that, but instigate a plethora of online communication about the programs, and the issues it raises in the contemporary media space. [29]
MIT researcher Deb Roy, spoke in his TED presentation about the new way in which we can measure the 'success' of media content. Using advanced technology, Roy is able to correlate millions of pieces of online communication content, to see which television programs are generating the most discussion and interactivity online. Roy states, "Rather than measuring content based on how many people are watching, this [new model] gives us the basic data for looking at the engagement properties of content..." [9] Jenkins also argues that the quality of audience interaction is quickly devaluing the quantity of 'impressions' as a focus. An impression might measure the number of people that viewed a half hour program, however, an 'expression' refers to the meaningful connection that a consumer can make with the program through participatory culture and developing a relationship with the content. [9][14]
MIT researcher Deb Roy, spoke in his TED presentation about the new way in which we can measure the 'success' of media content. Using advanced technology, Roy is able to correlate millions of pieces of online communication content, to see which television programs are generating the most discussion and interactivity online. Roy states, "Rather than measuring content based on how many people are watching, this [new model] gives us the basic data for looking at the engagement properties of content..." [9] Jenkins also argues that the quality of audience interaction is quickly devaluing the quantity of 'impressions' as a focus. An impression might measure the number of people that viewed a half hour program, however, an 'expression' refers to the meaningful connection that a consumer can make with the program through participatory culture and developing a relationship with the content. [9][14]
Deb Roy discusses his research into the "birth of words," and applies his theory to mass media. Point of focus:11.48 onwards
There also appears to be a shift in audience taste. Many Australian consumer still regard reality as 'rubbish,' and there is debate within and outside the industry on how much of this success is generational, and how long 'it' will last. Sandy Grushow, longtime FOX programming boss in the US declared, "It is affecting every single corner of the industry: networks, studios, stations, advertisers, talent and their representatives... This is here to stay." [13][8] Younger generations are simply more tolerant to reality programmes, and reality as a genre is slowly being critiqued and modeled into an accepted format, due to its cultural and temporal significance. You can read more about audience culture and attitudes here.
But really why are consumers so attracted to factual entertainment? There is a tradition among many distinguished newspapers that allows for an interactive relationship between the reporting business and it's reader; when an error in factual content is noticed a reader finds comfort in knowing that they can contact the newspaper and that the fact will be corrected in the following edition if the error is provable. However, this is a tradition that has never been carried out to television news. [15] Consumers of free-to-air content may notice an error and may contact the television station but they are not ensured any form of correction. Between time constraints, live-to-air content and the general sense of immediacy and desire for new information there is little room left for television programs to backtrack and fix up minor errors. When the occasional correction does appear, it it generally too prominent to ignore and is important enough to be corrected in the next broadcast. [15]
If this says anything about the television industry it says that networks showing factual news to documentary style reality shows to self-improvement shows and game shows all struggle to stop and pause in order to satisfy their viewer and consumer needs. An interactive relationship is possibly closest when a talk show host reads a letter a viewer might have sent in but it's unlikely to be of a very intimate nature. As in, most of the changes in television content is an umbrella reaction over slightly longer periods and not a instant response over details that provide a sense of meaningful interactivity with the viewer.
When a viewer is able to switch on and make a phone call and vote for a contestant, press a button and feel like they have made a difference in a contestants outcome, watch a reality show and develop empathy with a character being portrayed on the screen as a real person they feel that sense of meaningful interactivity that seems lost otherwise. This could be seen as one of the reasons behind the interest behind factual programming.
If this says anything about the television industry it says that networks showing factual news to documentary style reality shows to self-improvement shows and game shows all struggle to stop and pause in order to satisfy their viewer and consumer needs. An interactive relationship is possibly closest when a talk show host reads a letter a viewer might have sent in but it's unlikely to be of a very intimate nature. As in, most of the changes in television content is an umbrella reaction over slightly longer periods and not a instant response over details that provide a sense of meaningful interactivity with the viewer.
When a viewer is able to switch on and make a phone call and vote for a contestant, press a button and feel like they have made a difference in a contestants outcome, watch a reality show and develop empathy with a character being portrayed on the screen as a real person they feel that sense of meaningful interactivity that seems lost otherwise. This could be seen as one of the reasons behind the interest behind factual programming.
How much does the 'reality' in factual programs mean to a viewer?
The term 'escaping reality' contradicts itself when put into context of reality programs but still does just what it says for many viewers. It it a comfortable place to be in front of the screen or monitor watching supposed 'real' people in 'real' situations struggling just as we would and do in our day-to-day lives. What is it about this voyeuristic behavior in us that makes us so curious of factual programs such as Big Brother all the way to something as simple and old as Candid Camera and Funniest Home Videos? Viewers have the desire to differentiate between what is real and what isn't; however, they still watch the program as it is fed to them and consume the drama and words and product placement as it spills out of the screen. In terms of Big Brother UK, Janet M. Jones wrote, "When the respondents were
asked, ‘Why do you watch?’ and given 20 possible answers, the most popular response was ‘It gives me insight into people’s behaviour,’ and the second choice was ‘I enjoy being nosy’, closely followed by ‘because it’s real’" [16]
It is this sort of trust that viewers have for reality programs even when they are aware that there are large gaps to what might be and might not be real.
MasterChef for example always seems to have clean countertops even after a messy cooking session; their finished dishes sit on a clean bench and one at a time, not to mention slowly, the contestants bring their dishes up to the judges to be tasted and critiqued. What is a odd here is that the dishes couldn't possibly be fresh or hot by the time the judges are tasting it. But viewers are ready to see past this and allow themselves to be convinced that the judges are making a decision based on fresh, hot/cold, just-cooked dishes. They are ready, it seems, to escape into a reality where countertops are magically clean and the dishes stay fresh and take this as reality.
It is this sort of trust that viewers have for reality programs even when they are aware that there are large gaps to what might be and might not be real.
MasterChef for example always seems to have clean countertops even after a messy cooking session; their finished dishes sit on a clean bench and one at a time, not to mention slowly, the contestants bring their dishes up to the judges to be tasted and critiqued. What is a odd here is that the dishes couldn't possibly be fresh or hot by the time the judges are tasting it. But viewers are ready to see past this and allow themselves to be convinced that the judges are making a decision based on fresh, hot/cold, just-cooked dishes. They are ready, it seems, to escape into a reality where countertops are magically clean and the dishes stay fresh and take this as reality.
A New Reality - Changes and Consolidations
A lot of the examples used by academic research on the area of non-scripted television only refers to what has now become a smaller subclass of what can be described as Reality Television. Formats discussed, such as American Idol or Top Model, are competitions and thus very dependent on results and a sequential narrative of sorts. This simply means that programs such as Idol or Top Model have very little 're-run' value and may struggle in the syndication market (which is another consideration as to why product placement is so important to these reality formats in particular). New Form(at)s of Reality Television have erupted in the last few years which don't necessarily rely on elimination of contestants but rather are quasi-documentary style type of show that follows the days in the live of x and y. Examples of this kind of format are shows like Keeping up with the Kardashians, Bondi Rescue, Bondi Vet, Jersey Shore and The Bad Girls Club.
In these shows, an underlying elementary narrative may be present (This is the life of the Kardashian Family, Dr Chris Brown is a vet) however the narrative within the episodes of these series are generally self-contained and non-consequential. Especially in the case of Bondi Vet, Dr Chris and his colleagues may treat up to three different animals per episode with their penultimate fate of recovery or otherwise being revealed before the conclusion of the episode. Henceforth, although there are changes and a narrative arc within the episode, ultimately at the end of the episode Dr Chris is still a Vet, and audiences can leave the show feeling satisfied narratively but without the underlying pressure to tune in next week to find out if anything groundbreaking will occur. In the case of Jersey Shore or the Kardashian Family, there may be character twists and turns that occur during the overall narrative arc of the series (boyfriends, people leaving) however each episode also has a self contained narrative (In an Episode of Keeping up with the Kardashians the episode followed a nervous Kim preparing for a Pussycat Dolls performance and her Father's colonoscopy) that would essentially create the same ease for the audience that Bondi Vet does - that is that the characters return to equilibrium before the end of the episode. Even if something groundbreaking does occur in any of these shows (which does happen from time to time) they are not as frequent nor as disruptive (usually) as something like a contestant or housemate leaving every week. Thus there is kind of a security there, for the audiences that whenever they tune into these shows that a relatively similar base of main players will be there to entertain them.
This is significant because this type of format is very similar to a traditional drama or sitcom. Watching regular characters in different situations is basically what scripted drama is all about. Thus reality television has metamorphosed into a hybrid style of program that further impeded on scripted drama's position in the media landscape. Reality Television provided the best of both worlds, a non-committal viewing experience mixed with a loosely dramatic narrative structure. This kind of programming can be seen in the scripted world mainly in american sitcoms such as Seinfeld and Friends, both of which have worldwide syndication deals and a high re-run value because you are not required to watch the show sequentially. Reality Programs like these are becoming more appealing to producers and networks alike. Not only are they able to generate more money via product placement, but they are now also able to rival sitcoms in acquiring lucrative syndication deals. The outstanding profitability of the hybrid format makes Reality Television an extremely popular content choice for networks who, in the current economic climate, are less willing to take risks on new drama which may not hold traction with audiences.
In these shows, an underlying elementary narrative may be present (This is the life of the Kardashian Family, Dr Chris Brown is a vet) however the narrative within the episodes of these series are generally self-contained and non-consequential. Especially in the case of Bondi Vet, Dr Chris and his colleagues may treat up to three different animals per episode with their penultimate fate of recovery or otherwise being revealed before the conclusion of the episode. Henceforth, although there are changes and a narrative arc within the episode, ultimately at the end of the episode Dr Chris is still a Vet, and audiences can leave the show feeling satisfied narratively but without the underlying pressure to tune in next week to find out if anything groundbreaking will occur. In the case of Jersey Shore or the Kardashian Family, there may be character twists and turns that occur during the overall narrative arc of the series (boyfriends, people leaving) however each episode also has a self contained narrative (In an Episode of Keeping up with the Kardashians the episode followed a nervous Kim preparing for a Pussycat Dolls performance and her Father's colonoscopy) that would essentially create the same ease for the audience that Bondi Vet does - that is that the characters return to equilibrium before the end of the episode. Even if something groundbreaking does occur in any of these shows (which does happen from time to time) they are not as frequent nor as disruptive (usually) as something like a contestant or housemate leaving every week. Thus there is kind of a security there, for the audiences that whenever they tune into these shows that a relatively similar base of main players will be there to entertain them.
This is significant because this type of format is very similar to a traditional drama or sitcom. Watching regular characters in different situations is basically what scripted drama is all about. Thus reality television has metamorphosed into a hybrid style of program that further impeded on scripted drama's position in the media landscape. Reality Television provided the best of both worlds, a non-committal viewing experience mixed with a loosely dramatic narrative structure. This kind of programming can be seen in the scripted world mainly in american sitcoms such as Seinfeld and Friends, both of which have worldwide syndication deals and a high re-run value because you are not required to watch the show sequentially. Reality Programs like these are becoming more appealing to producers and networks alike. Not only are they able to generate more money via product placement, but they are now also able to rival sitcoms in acquiring lucrative syndication deals. The outstanding profitability of the hybrid format makes Reality Television an extremely popular content choice for networks who, in the current economic climate, are less willing to take risks on new drama which may not hold traction with audiences.
FOOT NOTES
[8] Schmuckler, Eric, “Network and advertising execs deal with the new programming paradigm” Brandweek vol 45, iss 22, May 2004, (Business Source Premier)
[9] http://www.ted.com/talks/deb_roy_the_birth_of_a_word.html
[29] Big Brother Family Article - need to cite
[13] Graser, Marc, “Study: Reality TV fuels surge; funds diverted from media advertising” Advertising Age, vol 76, iss 14, April 2005, (Communication & Mass Media Complete)[13] Graser, Marc, “Study: Reality TV fuels surge; funds diverted from media advertising” Advertising Age, vol 76, iss 14, April 2005, (Communication & Mass Media Complete)
[14] Jenkins, Henry (2006) Convergence Culture, New York University Press, New York
[15] Graham, Tim. "Error-Free TV?" The World & l, vol 19, iss 6, June 2004, Washington Times Corporation, United States
[16] Jones M. Janet. "Show Your Real Face: A Fan Study of the UK Big Brother transmissions (2000, 2001, 2002) Investigating the boundaries between notions of consumers and producers of factual television" New Media & Society, vol 5, iss 3, 2003, pp 400 - 421, Sage Publications, London
[8] Schmuckler, Eric, “Network and advertising execs deal with the new programming paradigm” Brandweek vol 45, iss 22, May 2004, (Business Source Premier)
[9] http://www.ted.com/talks/deb_roy_the_birth_of_a_word.html
[29] Big Brother Family Article - need to cite
[13] Graser, Marc, “Study: Reality TV fuels surge; funds diverted from media advertising” Advertising Age, vol 76, iss 14, April 2005, (Communication & Mass Media Complete)[13] Graser, Marc, “Study: Reality TV fuels surge; funds diverted from media advertising” Advertising Age, vol 76, iss 14, April 2005, (Communication & Mass Media Complete)
[14] Jenkins, Henry (2006) Convergence Culture, New York University Press, New York
[15] Graham, Tim. "Error-Free TV?" The World & l, vol 19, iss 6, June 2004, Washington Times Corporation, United States
[16] Jones M. Janet. "Show Your Real Face: A Fan Study of the UK Big Brother transmissions (2000, 2001, 2002) Investigating the boundaries between notions of consumers and producers of factual television" New Media & Society, vol 5, iss 3, 2003, pp 400 - 421, Sage Publications, London
