Initial Reasons
Hill suggests that 'The rise of reality TV came at a time when networks were looking for a quick fix solution to economic problems within the cultural industries'. She attributes the 'Increased costs in the production of drama, sitcom and comedy'[12] as the key factor in the embracing of Reality Television.
Economics
Reality wasn’t always a gold-mine for product placement, with its
reputation for being a a ‘hodge-podge’ television category[4] initially
negatively impacting on the brand identity of networks that support
the genre. In 2000, FOX television Entertainment Group chairman Sandy
Grushow discussed FOX’s over-reliance on short-term fix of shock
reality specials and series. The overall performance of the group had
declined and brand identity had devalued, a phenomenon that was
predicted by advertisers, market research and reporters.[4] According
to Tom DeCabia, exec VP of Schulman/Advanswers, New York, The impact on
performance was related to many clients refusing to be involved with
the genre of reality, so despite drawing audiences, reality was failing
at drawing dollars. This economic downside did not last for
long, with a dramatic change in the use of reality for advertising
developing quickly after the success of Survivor. [8] Patrick Quinn, president of the Stamford, Connecticut firm declared in 2005
that “the emergence of reality programs during the last five years has
been a godsend to the product-placement market.” Quickly, advertisers
saw the value in the reality of product placement offering a strong
supplement to the deteriorating effectiveness of the 30-second spot. [13]
The Rise of Reality TV in the USA was due to the changing models of advertising, its popularity, and the cost effectiveness of reality TV. In 2001 when Survivor season two sprung onto American TV, CBS aired it against NBCs formidable Thursday night line-up (Thursday night being the major section of prime time each week). This is a significant decision as it stems from a belief that reality TV could (and ultimately does) contest in the ratings race against the most popular shows on television. However the ratings was only half the story.
The amount of money CBS was spending compared to NBC, was miniscule. This was due to sponsors paying to put their product on the reality show itself, and due to the sheer amount of sponsorship,
"CBS doesn't pay to have the show made; the sponsors do. And even though Survivor is probably the most expensive reality show [up to 2002], with production costs rising...to $1.5 million an episode...the margins are good." [10]
This is a table depicting the production costs of each television show per episode:
The amount of money CBS was spending compared to NBC, was miniscule. This was due to sponsors paying to put their product on the reality show itself, and due to the sheer amount of sponsorship,
"CBS doesn't pay to have the show made; the sponsors do. And even though Survivor is probably the most expensive reality show [up to 2002], with production costs rising...to $1.5 million an episode...the margins are good." [10]
This is a table depicting the production costs of each television show per episode:
Survivor was the catalyst due to the enticing business model it offered. Furthermore the shortage of talent and also due to the amount of time that TV needed to fill per year, their was not enough writers and actors that reach a high standard to make dramatic productions continue in its dominance. As well as the mere number of people that were talented enough, due to this fact, the cost of having them on the project became unmanageable, and thus making the shows unprofitable. Constant pressures for shows to become successful also raise concerns on production costs, this is why it is possible to see “The emergence of reality TV [as] yet another strategy in the general effort to reduce costs and uncertainty”. [10]
Reality TV offered a template model of a television show that could be made and distributed anywhere. If a show is successful overseas (usually Europe) then all that needs to be done is a change of cultural characteristics, and then you will have a show that is more likely to be successful then a new sitcom, or an edgy cop show that pushes the boundaries of viewer acceptability. Networks are finding it more difficult to justify investments in television programs whose costs are high and risk for popularity even higher. [40] It’s a move away from the traditional forms of television, “we are entering a new era of product placement and integration, merchandising, pay-per-view, and multi-platform content. The emerging business models will change what we see and how we see it.” [10] Although this may give a brief overview to the reasons why it become successful in the industry, it does not ask the simple question to why the public accepted and embraced it so rigorously as a television medium.
Reality TV offered a template model of a television show that could be made and distributed anywhere. If a show is successful overseas (usually Europe) then all that needs to be done is a change of cultural characteristics, and then you will have a show that is more likely to be successful then a new sitcom, or an edgy cop show that pushes the boundaries of viewer acceptability. Networks are finding it more difficult to justify investments in television programs whose costs are high and risk for popularity even higher. [40] It’s a move away from the traditional forms of television, “we are entering a new era of product placement and integration, merchandising, pay-per-view, and multi-platform content. The emerging business models will change what we see and how we see it.” [10] Although this may give a brief overview to the reasons why it become successful in the industry, it does not ask the simple question to why the public accepted and embraced it so rigorously as a television medium.
Due to audience fragmentation the shrinking in potential viewers, through the increase of digital channels, as well as other media providers, broadcasters will not spend the money on a dramatic show unless the potential viewers is great enough to cover the cost of the star and to then surpass that, and make a profit. [41]
Even though reality television is cheap to produce, if it didn’t have an audience then it would not be profitable. So although there are undoubtedly many reasons why people watch reality TV, there is a study called Sensitivity Theory, which may hold an answer, as it deals with the motives behind why people watch certain kinds of programming.
Even though reality television is cheap to produce, if it didn’t have an audience then it would not be profitable. So although there are undoubtedly many reasons why people watch reality TV, there is a study called Sensitivity Theory, which may hold an answer, as it deals with the motives behind why people watch certain kinds of programming.
A survey was conducted in 2004 that examines people’s reasons for watching reality television in conjunction with the 16 basic motives of people, as recognised by The Sensitivity Theory. This is the overview of that study:
“We assessed the appeal of reality TV by asking 239 adults to rate themselves on each of 16 basic motives using the Reiss Profile standardized instrument and to rate how much they watched and enjoyed various reality television shows. The results suggested that the people who watched reality television had above-average trait motivation to feel self-important and, to a lesser extent, vindicated, friendly, free of morality, secure, and romantic, as compared with large normative samples. The results, which were dose-dependent, showed a new method for studying media. This method is based on evidence that people have the potential to experience 16 different joys. People prefer television shows that stimulate the feelings they intrinsically value the most, which depends on individuality.” [11]
The Sensitivity theory bases itself on the concept that people will pay more attention to stimuli that engages with the basic motives that are heightened within the individual and will reject, ones that are irrelevant or do not communicate with these certain motives. These motives are broken down to basic motivation which “influences what people pay attention to and what they do” [11] Thus the Sensitivity Theory of Motivation, “offers a unique analysis of basic motivation based on what thousands of people rated to be their most important goals and motives” [11]
Below is a table of the 16 basic desires that were found within the studied group of people:
“We assessed the appeal of reality TV by asking 239 adults to rate themselves on each of 16 basic motives using the Reiss Profile standardized instrument and to rate how much they watched and enjoyed various reality television shows. The results suggested that the people who watched reality television had above-average trait motivation to feel self-important and, to a lesser extent, vindicated, friendly, free of morality, secure, and romantic, as compared with large normative samples. The results, which were dose-dependent, showed a new method for studying media. This method is based on evidence that people have the potential to experience 16 different joys. People prefer television shows that stimulate the feelings they intrinsically value the most, which depends on individuality.” [11]
The Sensitivity theory bases itself on the concept that people will pay more attention to stimuli that engages with the basic motives that are heightened within the individual and will reject, ones that are irrelevant or do not communicate with these certain motives. These motives are broken down to basic motivation which “influences what people pay attention to and what they do” [11] Thus the Sensitivity Theory of Motivation, “offers a unique analysis of basic motivation based on what thousands of people rated to be their most important goals and motives” [11]
Below is a table of the 16 basic desires that were found within the studied group of people:
The theory seems to suggest that we continuously try to satisfy our more predominant motives due to the fact that no satisfaction lasts indefinitely, and so television becomes a quick and easy way to satisfy these motives.
At the conclusion of the study, this table was formulated in response to the results acquired:
At the conclusion of the study, this table was formulated in response to the results acquired:
The results indicate that people who watch 1 or 2 reality Television programs have a higher tendency towards the Status and Vengeance Motives. There is also a small tendency towards Social Contact, Order, Romance, and finally a lesser attribution to Honour. “The results showed that status is the main motivational force that drives interest in reality television. The more status-oriented people are, the more likely they are to view reality television and [receive] pleasure and enjoyment” [11] as a result.
Reasons to why Status may have a higher correlation in people rather then Romance, or Honour, could be due to viewers feeling that they are of a higher status than the ordinary persons portrayed in the reality television show they are watching. Due to these people being “real”, it “gives psychological significance to the viewers’ perceptions of superiority it may not matter much if the storyline is realistic, so long as the characters are ordinary people.” [11] But how does this explain the large correlation to Vengeance?
This occurs due to reality television being a very competitive form of television programming, and Vengeance being “closely associated with enjoyment of competition” [11]. Constantly people are being eliminated, or there are activities, which pit one contestant against another for a prize that will benefit them during the show, as well as after the reality show has been completed. An interesting development found during this study, was the fact that Voyeurism (or curiosity as a basic motive) was not rated highly in the study for reasons to why people watch reality television. A result that would naturally conflict with what one traditionally believes drives people to watch such programming.
Reasons to why Status may have a higher correlation in people rather then Romance, or Honour, could be due to viewers feeling that they are of a higher status than the ordinary persons portrayed in the reality television show they are watching. Due to these people being “real”, it “gives psychological significance to the viewers’ perceptions of superiority it may not matter much if the storyline is realistic, so long as the characters are ordinary people.” [11] But how does this explain the large correlation to Vengeance?
This occurs due to reality television being a very competitive form of television programming, and Vengeance being “closely associated with enjoyment of competition” [11]. Constantly people are being eliminated, or there are activities, which pit one contestant against another for a prize that will benefit them during the show, as well as after the reality show has been completed. An interesting development found during this study, was the fact that Voyeurism (or curiosity as a basic motive) was not rated highly in the study for reasons to why people watch reality television. A result that would naturally conflict with what one traditionally believes drives people to watch such programming.
Syndication
Another plain on the economic side of the media landscape lies in a production's ability to recoup production costs in various revenue streams, of which syndication is usually a main focus. There are three different kinds of syndication but they all basically refer to a selling the rights to screen a show on a network outside of a broadcast network (For example - how Neighbours is screen in the UK). When we refer to the Ratings section of the report we can see how in the top 20 shows of 1998 were by and large syndicated shows from the US. Fast-forwarding to 2010 with all Australian content we can see that popularity of these shows
FOOT NOTES
[4] Martin, Ed, ‘Real thing: reality genre covers everything from games to band building; for some, ‘It’s a quickie’ Advertising Age, vol 71, iss 21, May 2000 (Communication & Mass Media Complete)
[8] Schmuckler, Eric, “Network and advertising execs deal with the new programming paradigm” Brandweek vol 45, iss 22, May 2004, (Business Source Premier)
[10] Magder, Ted. "The End of TV 101: Reality Television, Formats and the New Business of TV." Laurie Ouellette and Susan Murray, eds. Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture (New York: NYU Press) 2004
[11] Reiss, Steven. Wiltz, James, Why People Watch Reality TV, MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY, 6, 363–378 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (http://nisonger.osu.edu/papers/Reisswiltz_2004.pdf)
[12] Hill, A, 'Reality TV: Audiences and popular factual television, Routledge, New York, 2005
[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)
[40] http://economics.com.au/?p=803
[41] Goolsbee, Austan. 'American Idol' Is the Price We Pay for a Menu of So Many Channels. New York Times, Published April 26, 2007. <httphttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/business/26scene.html?ex=1335240000&en=93ec2a0f5c622931&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>
[4] Martin, Ed, ‘Real thing: reality genre covers everything from games to band building; for some, ‘It’s a quickie’ Advertising Age, vol 71, iss 21, May 2000 (Communication & Mass Media Complete)
[8] Schmuckler, Eric, “Network and advertising execs deal with the new programming paradigm” Brandweek vol 45, iss 22, May 2004, (Business Source Premier)
[10] Magder, Ted. "The End of TV 101: Reality Television, Formats and the New Business of TV." Laurie Ouellette and Susan Murray, eds. Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture (New York: NYU Press) 2004
[11] Reiss, Steven. Wiltz, James, Why People Watch Reality TV, MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY, 6, 363–378 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (http://nisonger.osu.edu/papers/Reisswiltz_2004.pdf)
[12] Hill, A, 'Reality TV: Audiences and popular factual television, Routledge, New York, 2005
[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)
[40] http://economics.com.au/?p=803
[41] Goolsbee, Austan. 'American Idol' Is the Price We Pay for a Menu of So Many Channels. New York Times, Published April 26, 2007. <httphttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/business/26scene.html?ex=1335240000&en=93ec2a0f5c622931&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>
