https://magic.piktochart.com/output/6315228-sentenced-to-death#
Liberating Barbie
A short I produced examining culture jamming and the Barbie Liberation Organisation.
Aussies Online – Online Platforms and the future of the Australian Film Industry
Aussie audiences – where you at?
What is the last Australian film you saw at the cinemas?
Struggling to think of one?
Same here. I didn’t even get to see The Great Gatsby on the big screen last year (and yes, that was an Australian production).
This isn’t to say I never watch Aussie films though. In fact, my entire family really enjoys watching them – favourites include The Castle, The Dish, Cosi, Tomorrow When the War Began, Bran Nue Dae, Kenny and Mental. I own all these films on DVD, however I don’t think I saw a single one of them at the movies.
Why?
Usually by the time I heard about them, they had finished being shown at the cinemas. I don’t recall any big scale advertising campaigns letting me know that the films were even being released.
Unfortunately, this means I am included in the statistics indicating that the Australian film industry is in crisis. According to Screen Australia (2014) “feature films under Australian or shared creative control earned $38.5 million or 3.5 per cent of the total Australian box office in 2013.”
Only 3.5 per cent? Damn.
So what is going wrong when it comes to Aussie films?
Is it the actual content? In Triple J Hack’s Australian Film Industry Special it was suggested by some that Australian feature films are often “too depressing, too dark or too stereotypical.” Indeed I know from discussions with my friends that the persistent Aussie stereotypes presented can be a major deterrent for them when it comes to decisions on whether to watch a home grown production.
Triple J Hack (2009) referred to this sensation as “cultural cringing.” We get embarrassed when we see terrible Aussie stereotypes depicted in international productions (such as the recent Modern Family episode or The Inbetweeners 2), so it’s even worse when they are being actively promoted by our own film industry.
After all there is a bit more to Australian culture than the Outback, kangaroos, boomerangs, surfing and drinking beer.
With this said, I believe that the Australian film industry has released a diverse range of well scripted, beautifully filmed, and fantastically acted movies. In addition, Australian films have had great critical reception internationally at events such as the Toronto International Film Festival (Gibbs, 2013). Therefore, it seems that there is more to this problem than simply the media content itself.
While there have been declines in cinema attendance over time, as I indicated in an earlier post, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, many Australians still enjoy the movie-going experience. It seems the success of the Australian film industry is being measured by cinema attendance. However, Carroll Harris (2013) argues “the cinema system is designed for different kinds of movies than the ones we have the budgets and integrated media companies to produce. It’s designed for Hollywood super-movies…. [and as such] Australian films have been zombified through cinematic releases.” Thus, relying on box office figures to demonstrate the success of our industry may not be the most appropriate method.
As Carroll Harris (2013) argues “it is all very well for films to tell a spell-binding story, to feature exceptional performances or extraordinary cinematography, but to make an impact, they have to be seen – and for that to happen, they have to be effectively distributed.” The Australian film industry may find greater success by contemplating release through alternative media platforms. Carroll Harris (2013) explains “The focus until now has been on generating Australian content, not about making that content accessible to where audiences are at: online and outside the cinema.” Television, online streaming/downloading sites and even community film festivals may be effective mediums to encourage Australians to consume local content.
As I have already mentioned, in my experience the advertising of Australian productions has been completely ineffective. It is extremely rare for me to come across any trailers, articles and even Facebook/Youtube pop up ads telling me something is coming out. I think the key times I have known about an Australian film being made is when I have actively searched the Screen Australia website. (Or when Baz Luhrmann is creating something – but let’s face it, that’s because I’m in love with Hugh and Leo.)
Screen Australia website – only place I’ve even heard about these films.
If the industry wants to continue focussing on success through the ‘big screen’ it will need to develop more effective ways of encouraging audiences to pop on some pants and head out to the cinemas. Exploit social media the way Hollywood seems to, focus on fantastic trailers that build suspense and get the audiences hyped. And at the end of the day, just letting us know the films are coming out will be a great start.
References:
Barrington, John (2009) ‘Hack’s Australian Film Industry Special’ Triple J – Hack [podcast], 29 October, <http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/stories/s2722568.htm>
Carroll Harris, Lauren (2013) ‘How do you solve a problem like the Australian Film Industry?’ Junkee., 11 October, <http://junkee.com/how-do-we-solve-a-problem-like-the-australian-film-industry/21379>
Gibbs, Ed (2013) ‘Australian films get rousing reception in Toronto’ Sydney Morning Herald, 12 September, <http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/australian-films-get-rousing-reception-in-toronto-20130912-2tlx6.html>
Screen Australia (2014) , ‘Australian Content: Box Office’, <http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/research/statistics/australianshare.aspx>
Flixing Geoblocks
While living in Canada, my roommate, Sonya, introduced me to the magical world of Netflix. She couldn’t believe I had never heard of it before, and after I used it, neither could I. Spending $9 a month gave me unlimited access to all sorts of movies, documentaries, and TV shows. There were recently released films, as well as classics like Bend It Like Beckham, The Rugrats Movie and Pokemon.
It was fantastic! Everything loaded super quickly, there were never any annoying advertisements, and best of all, I never had to worry about viruses or getting in trouble for consuming my media content via not-quite-legal sources.
Considering how handy the website was, I was so confused that I had never heard about it back home. It seemed like everyone I spoke to in North America had Netflix. Then I returned home and was confronted by this screen when I attempted to log into my account.
Argh!
“Netflix is not available in your country yet.” Once again, Australia is losing out on media content.
Screens such as this pop up frustratingly often when living ‘Down Undah’ – something about being a continent 14 hours plan ride from Los Angeles means we’re not entitled to certain online television series, Youtube clips etc. Companies will use the computer’s IP address to determine its geographic location and filter content available for access accordingly (Schaffarczyk, 2013).
In this situation I experienced a direct block to any of Netflix’s content, but in other instances companies will use a more subtle approach. Companies, such as Apple, typically charge Australians “50% more for software and hardware compared to their American counterparts” (Radcliffe, 2013).
As my friends and I have discussed on numerous occasions, when it comes to tangible property, we can understand a mark up in the price of imported products. After all, it takes a lot of petrol to transport a box of Californian Chardonnay to Wollongong, New South Wales. However, the internet is the internet – there ain’t no shipping costs to factor in when purchasing Meghan Trainor’s hit song ‘All About That Bass‘. Yet on the Australian iTunes Store it’s $2.19, while in the US it’s only $1.29.
$2.19 – Thanks Aussie iTunes
Whereas in the US….
Geist (2010) argues that while some companies may indicate that there are ‘old laws’ which cause discrepancies in cost and availability of the same content between different regions, “the reality is geo-blocking is invariably a business issue, not a legal one…. [It is] an attempt to preserve an older business model, namely content licensing on a country-by-country or market-by-market approach.” However, if ‘e-commerce’ is going to continue, I don’t feel that this business model is a fair or feasible one.
If Australians know they are going to be almost ‘punished’ for living here when it comes to legally accessing media content -whether it be by blocking access or charging excessively higher prices, there is not much to persuade them to purchase the content.
The result?
Australia has become one of the highest consumers of pirated media. In addition, even Parliamentary Reports are encouraging Australians to “lawfully evade” geo-blocks, acknowledging that geo-blocking is “unfair when used to segregate global markets in order to make bigger profits” and has had significant impacts on “Australian consumers and businesses” (ABC News, 2013).
Geo-blocking is creating inequality of access to media content and as a result, is causing honest people (like myself) to use ‘not-quite-legal’ websites or to find complicated ways of getting around the blocks. I miss my $9 a month, easy to use and totally legal Netflix account and would love to see these blocks driven away as soon as possible.
References:
Geist, Michael (2010) ‘Geo-blocking online: It’s a buiness, not a legal issue’ The Ottawa Citizen, 6 July, <http://ezproxy.uow.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/docview/595893572?accountid=15112>
‘Parliamentary report urges Australians to bypass online geo-blocks than can double prices for IT products’ ABC New, 30 July 2013, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-29/geo-blocking-mps-committee-price-report-apple-adobe-microsoft/4850484>
Radcliffe, Pj (2013) ‘Software is officially a rip-off in Australia – so what can you do?’ The Conversation, 31 July, <http://theconversation.com/software-is-officially-a-rip-off-in-australia-so-what-can-you-do-16556>
Schaffarczyk, Karl (2013) ‘Explainer: what is geoblocking?’ The Conversation, 17 April, <http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-geoblocking-13057>
I need Self Control
I have been trying to write this post for a while now, but it’s just taking forever! Every time I read a bit of information relevant to the post I suddenly remember that I am halfway through messaging a friend on Facebook, or that I need to check different employment websites in case there are any interesting positions vacant this week, or that right now is the perfect time to discover the health benefits of quinoa.
So what ends up happening?
I am flitting between a bagillion different tabs on several different windows (as well as checking my phone every once in a while), I get overwhelmed and decide that I just need a break from media so I go outside.
Great, productive study session Danielle.
Funnily enough, the exact phenomenon that I am experiencing and has kept me from writing my blog sooner, is what I want to talk to you about. (So meta!!!).
It’s called ‘media multitasking’.
Today it is very common for people to be consuming several different media sources at once. Listening to music while researching, doing a Buzzfeed quiz while watching television, Facebook stalking while listening to a lecture. We ‘multitask’.
Homework, tv and texting boyfriend at once. #studentlyf
Kenner and Poldrack (2009) argue “people often think of the ability to multitask as a positive attribute… [and] technologies such as smart phones cater to this idea that we can (and should) maximise our efficiency by getting things done in parallel with each other.” However, there are concerns on how this multitasking is affecting our attention levels. It might be okay for your attention to be constantly skipping between different topics when you’re watching the football, but many argue the issue is much more serious when it comes to education.
Murphy Paul (2013) argues “evidence from psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience suggests that when students multitask while doing schoolwork, their learning is far spottier and shallower than if the work had their full attention.” There is evidence suggesting that those who frequently consume multiple media sources have “greater difficulty filtering out irrelevant stimuli from their environment” (Ophir, Nass and Wagner, 2009).
The messages coming from many education sectors in regards to this research are that in order to actually be efficient when it comes to learning, media multitasking needs to be minimised. However, this becomes increasingly difficult when education today so often requires students to engage in online activities and research. As Murphy Paul (2013) argues “given that these distractions aren’t going away, academic and even professional achievement may depend on the ability to ignore digital temptations while learning – a feat akin to the famous marsh mallow test.”
I know I don’t always possess the self control to stay away from social media. As I have sat on my computer researching ‘media multitasking’, I have found my fingers unconsciously typing in [command] [T] ‘facebook’ about 10 times. It seems that today I am particularly accomplished at ‘multitasking’, and it’s driving me insane.
Interestingly, some media companies have found ways to take advantage of people’s concerns regarding media multitasking. Apps such as Self Control have been designed to allow people to block access to particular websites for a specified amount of time. The app reminds people of how inefficient they may be if they have to use their own self control to avoid being distracted by social media etc, then makes money by taking the responsibility away from the individual.
Genius.
Maybe if I had Self Control, this blog would have been completed this morning. But then again, I wouldn’t now know that quinoa is high in protein and loaded with antioxidants.
References
Kenner, Naomi and Russell Poldrack (2009) ‘Portrait of a Multitasking Mind’ Scientific American, 15 December, <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multitasking-mind/>
Murphy Paul, Annie (2013) ‘You’ll Never Learn – Students can’t resist multitasking, and it’s impairing their memory’ The Slate, 3 May, <http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/05/multitasking_while_studying_divided_attention_and_technological_gadgets.html>
Ophir, Eyal, Clifford Nass and Anthony D. Wagner (2009) ‘Cognitive control in media multitaskers’ PNAS, vol 106, no 37, 15 September, <http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15583.full >
‘Insta’nt Communication – #hashtaggingyourfriendsaway
In an earlier blog post I discussed the rule my group of friends created regarding mobile phone use during social gatherings. To ensure we all connect with each other, rather than be distracted by Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, text messages and phone calls, each person must place their phone in a pile on the middle of the table.
The first person to touch their phone buys the group a round of drinks.
While I find this system works very well and is a rather fun way to ‘subtly’ remind everyone not to be rude, it does raise some interesting issues regarding mobile phone use in public spaces.
In the American Planning Association (2014) list of characteristics which define a ‘Great Public Space’, the number one characteristic is “promotes human contact and social activities.” Yet whenever I walk through public spaces lately, it would be odd not to see many people interacting with their mobile phone (or other portable device) more than with the person sitting next to them.
UOW students socialising between classes… (Permission given to publish photo).
I find it interesting that the introduction of mobile phones, and in particular, smart phones, has developed a situation where people have to make a conscious effort to ensure they are not distracted away from the direct “human contact” public spaces are supposed to promote. Badger (2012) argues that the public sphere plays a very “important role in our communities: it’s where we observe and learn to interact with people who are different from us, or, as academics put it, it’s where we come to know “the other”.” However there seems to be a risk that as use of electronic devices continues to increase, we will lose those fundamental communication skills.
The use of these technologies means that a person, in one moment, may be trying to balance the ‘social codes’ of public spaces, “your social network, your email, your news source, [and] your live personal conversations” (Badger, 2012). In my experience it is near impossible to focus on whatever is happening on your screen, while still giving those in your physical vicinity the full attention needed to adequately engage in conversation. A private ‘bubble’ forms around you.
Mobile phone use in public spaces may not of itself be an entirely bad thing, and today is really quite unavoidable. However I think we need to work on managing its use when there is the option to properly interact with others. While you sit at the table uploading a ‘Sierra filtered’ photo of your drink onto Instagram with the caption #ciderwivmabitchezzz, not only are you missing out on whatever your ‘bitchezzz’ are actually saying or doing, in my group at least, it’s going to cost you another ten ciders.
References:
American Planning Association (2014) ‘Characteristics and Guidelines of Great Public Spaces’ <https://www.planning.org/greatplaces/spaces/characteristics.htm>
Badger, Emily (2012) ‘How Smart Phones are Turning Our Public Places into Private Ones’ Citylab, 16 May, <http://www.citylab.com/tech/2012/05/how-smart-phones-are-turning-our-public-places-private-ones/2017/>
Strangers in the dark
I love going to the movies. The smell of popcorn as you walk through the doors. The delicious first crunch into a mint choc-top. The awkward crackle of lolly wrappers during the quietest, most intense scene of the film. And my favourite part (like Amelie) – looking back during the film and seeing everyone’s faces in the dark.
It is a fantastic feeling, sitting there in the cinema, laughing and crying along with all these people you don’t know. A funny sense of community – where you don’t actually acknowledge those around you directly, but you share an experience with them.
On Tuesday, I headed into Wollongong with my roommate, Christie, and boyfriend, Jack, to see The Inbetweeners 2. Ever since hearing that this film was being made, the three of us have been beside ourselves with excitement. The misadventures of Will, Simon, Neil and Jay could only get even more ridiculous with a trip ‘Down Undah’.
Christie, Jack and I go to the movies together fairly regularly – our ‘Cinebuzz’ memberships make it a very affordable weekday treat and we have mastered the art of sneaking in sandwiches and chocolate blocks to avoid the exorbitant candy bar prices.
As there is a bit of a routine already in place, when Christie and I decided over breakfast on Tuesday morning that we felt like going to the movies that night, it was very easy to organise. We quickly googled the screening times in Wollongong from Christie’s phone, decided on a 6.15pm session and texted Jack to let him know the plan. However, while our night out did feel very easy to organise, there were many underlying factors which influenced our decisions.
In the late 1960s, Torsten Hägerstrand used the concept of the “space-time path” to demonstrate how human interactions are shaped by timing and spatial factors (Corbett, 2011). He identified three ‘constraints’ on human spatial activities:
- Capability constraints: limits on where activities will take place due to physical or biological factors.
- Coupling constraints: the required presence of other people or need to be in a certain place for an amount of time in order for the activity to occur.
- Authority constraints: limits set on access to areas where the activities could take place, by those whom control that space. (Corbett, 2011).
Hägerstrand’s concepts help to reveal the factors which came into play for Christie, Jack and I on Tuesday,when organising our ‘spatial activity’ – that is, going to the movies together to see The Inbetweeners 2.
In determining the cinema venue for the evening, we needed to take into account the fact that while Christie had access to a car that evening, Jack and I would be heading to the cinema straight from uni and only had access to public transport. Thus the only feasible option was Wollongong ‘Event’ Cinemas.
As we really wanted to see the film together, it was necessary to find what times the three of us were available. Jack didn’t finish class until 5.30pm that day, thus the screening time needed to be long enough after that to give him time to get into town on the bus. Then, of course, we were limited to the screening times the cinema actually offered – in this case, we only had one option: 6.15pm.
We managed to get to the cinema in very good time, and were the first people there – so we got the best seats in the house. First row of the second level (right in the centre!).
Booyah.
I was interested to see where everyone else would sit after we claimed the victory seats. Unsurprisingly, this particular film seemed to draw a lot of men in their early 20s into the audience. There were about four groups of six to eight guys who sat towards the back – still in the centre of the rows. Each group would try to get a row for themselves. Only a few couples turned up for the screening and they sat closer to the middle of the cinema, but on the edges of the rows. One lady had come by herself, and it seemed she wanted to make that fact very inconspicuous – sitting at the very edge of the cinema, out of the audience’s direct line of sight. Not that anyone would have been judging her.
There was a good turn out to this screening. Unfortunately, there are predictions cinema attendance in Australia will be declining over time (Coate and Verhoeven, 2014). Issues of piracy, rather expensive movie tickets and the availability of DVDs, Blu-ray and ginormous home television screens, all indicate that people may be more and more inclined to stay home to watch films in the future (Coate and Verhoeven, 2014).
However, I don’t think the future looks that bleak – going to the cinema is a fun activity, and one which I believe will continue to exist for a long time. It combines the excitement of a night out with the comfort of being able to sit back and relax for an hour or two. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011) has indicated that in Australia, “people do still enjoy the cinematic experience” with the 2010 box office being the highest on record. According to the ABS the cinema is the most attended cultural venue/event, with 67% of people aged 15 years and over visiting the cinema at least once in the 12 months before the 2011 survey. Screen Australia‘s report on audience motivations in 2012, also indicated that the main reason people attend the cinema is for the social aspect.
Going to the cinema isn’t really about watching a movie on a big screen. It’s about standing in the foyer before the film, predicting what’s going to happen. It’s about subtly edging your hands towards each other in the dark on a first date. It’s about laughing out loud with strangers. It’s about the smell of popcorn, the awkward butt shimmy of people trying to get past someone sitting in the same row, and your friends laughing at you when the lights come on at the end and you realised the choc-top has melted all over your new white top.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Cinema Attendance’ 4172.0.55.001 – Perspectives on Culture, March 2011, <http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/4172.0.55.001~March+2011~Main+Features~Cinema+Attendance?OpenDocument>
Coate, Bronwyn and Deb Verhoeven (2014) ‘Only at the movies? Home truths about ticket pricing’ The Conversation, 30 April, <http://theconversation.com/only-at-the-movies-home-truths-about-cinema-ticket-pricing-25820>
Corbett, John (2011) ‘Torsten Hägerstrand: Time Geography’ Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science, accessed 27 August 2014, <http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/29>
Screen Australia (2012) ‘What to Watch? Audience motivation in a multi-screen world’ <http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/getmedia/4972fa65-caa5-4235-86be-1800e4a2815b/rpt_whatto>
Family connections
The National Broadband Network (NBN) – the Australian government’s project to provide faster, more reliable and more affordable phone and internet coverage nation-wide, began in 2009. Interestingly, it is marketed as being “essential for Australia’s transition to a digital future” and “designed to enable lifestyle enhancement.” There is an assumption that the internet is becoming more and more of an ‘essential’ part of our lives, and thus, every home needs to become ‘networked’.
As the home becomes more networked, there is concern about how it will affect our lives. In her TED talk, ‘Connected, but alone?’, Sherry Turkle (2012, 2:17) argues that our online devices “change who we are.” Instead of embracing the richness and messiness of human relationships, she argues “we clean them up with technology … sacrific[ing] conversation for mere connection” (Turkle, 2012, 7:05). While Turkle provides some very interesting observations and analysis, I don’t completely agree.
I think her diagnosis is extreme.
This weekend I spent a lovely afternoon chatting on the phone with my family. A key part of that conversation was asking my parents and three sisters about their use of the internet and their opinions about its future. I believe the internet has not affected my family’s ability to properly communicate, but it ensures we keep in touch, especially when travelling. When I was studying in Canada, Skype, Viber, Snapchat and Facebook were invaluable, allowing me to still feel included in my family’s day to day activities.
My family uses an ‘ADSL with WiFi’ plan – the NBN rollout hasn’t started in their area. While Mum, Alicia (20), Caitlin (16) and Aimee (14) all use the internet for social media, especially Facebook, Snapchat and KIK, Dad “doesn’t like social media.” He only really uses the internet for work and the occasional email if he is unable to call someone. My whole family use the home internet for research, to read news articles and to find music on Youtube.
No-one feels that the internet is having an adverse effect on household dynamics and the interaction between family members. Instead, Aimee sees it as being beneficial for household social interactions. “It gives you things to talk about, like last night I was showing Felix and Caitlin funny Youtube videos.”
Mum and Alicia also feel that social media helps to reinforce connections with friends and extended family whom you would otherwise only speak to once or twice a year. “It provides great sources for conversation when you do get to see them in person – you can ask them about their trip, or whatever, and it doesn’t feel like you are invading their privacy to do that because they chose to post that information online” (Alicia).
Rather than replacing conversation with ‘mere connection’, in my family, it seems the internet can actually aid it.
Internet – aiding conversation with the family.
The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network report Broadbanding Brunswick, which analyses the implementation of the NBN in Brunswick, found that “people are overwhelmingly satisfied with their [internet] speed regardless of the type of home broadband” (Nansen et al, 2012, 21).
For a long time I have wondered what the NBN’s faster internet would actually achieve (besides providing a great source of procrastination through the ability to download more shows and movies). I find current broadband speeds perfectly adequate for my needs, and so does my family. They don’t feel the NBN will have any major effect on their lifestyles, and couldn’t foresee any key differences in the way home internet would be used in the future.
Aimee and Caitlin believe Internet usage will remain the same (except maybe you could press a button and it could immediately deliver food), unless someone creates something “better than the Internet”. Aimee indicated that “if it’s faster maybe people could do their work faster. But then they might be on their phones even more and won’t talk to anyone.”
Dad made the point that when it comes to the NBN’s promises, people don’t actually need faster internet in the home, it just becomes a matter of “the more you give, the more people want – whatever you provide becomes the expected base level.” However, he does see a need for faster, more reliable, internet in areas such as healthcare, giving the example of a hospital patient in the Outback without access to a specialist. Faster internet would allow for immediate transfer of high resolution images, and the patient may be able to have a real-time consultation with a panel of specialists in major cities.
Alicia agreed with Dad about the importance of fast, reliable internet for equity of access to healthcare, indicating that in her pharmacy degree they were learning about using online models of proteins to develop new drugs – “Without the internet you wouldn’t be able to see all the intricacies the model shows.”
Mum had a slightly different take on the future of the internet, focussing more on her concern that pushes for more education to take place online don’t take into account geographic/demographic factors which may limit access to computer/internet technology. She also feels we need to consider the security of our information and question how much information we willing hand over to unknown sources, because once it’s “out there,” you can’t really get that information back.
The NBN rollout continues – and while this occurs I expect there will be a lot more discourse and fearmongering on how the networked home will affect our lives. As Neil Levy (2012) argues, “fears concerning new technologies are a natural response to the unfamiliar.” However, while many may be inclined to agree with Sherry Turkle’s dire predictions, it seems to me that things probably won’t change too much. Faster internet will likely be very beneficial for areas like healthcare, and as for those of us sitting at home, bring on Games of Thrones Season 5.
References:
Herrick, C (2011) ‘NBN 101: How the NBN can change Australian healthcare’, Computerworld, 23 June,
Levy, Neil (2012) ‘Your brain on the internet: a response to Susan Greenfield’ The Conversation, 8 August, <http://theconversation.com/your-brain-on-the-internet-a-response-to-susan-greenfield-8694> accessed 23 August 2014.
Nansen, B., Arnold, M., Wilken, R. and Gibbs, M. 2012, Broadbanding Brunswick – High-speed Broadband and Household Media Ecologies: A Report on Household Take-up and Adoption of the National Broadband Network in a First Release Site,Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, Sydney.
Turkle, S (2012) ‘Connected, but alone?’, Talk Transcript – TED.com, <https://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together/transcript>
#sixseasonsandamovie
A few months ago a tragedy occurred. NBC decided to axe the television series Community leaving us with a mere five seasons, rather than the #sixseasonsandamovie we had been banking on for the past few years. Why did they cancel it?
Ratings.
According to Nielsen TAM, television ratings are “the currency that facilitates the purchase and sale of TV broadcast time.” They determine what shows continue to air and which ones get prime viewing slots. Networks need to be able to justify their media content, and in the process convince advertisers that it is worth spending phenomenal amounts of money on a particular ad space.
Oztam, Australia’s official source of television audience measurement, indicates their service provider, Nielsen TAM, collects data from a sample of households in capital cities across Australia. Data will include who is watching television, and the time, duration and date of viewing (Oztam, 2014). The members of the household have to register via remote control when they are watching the TV, but a little black box collects the rest of the information.
This data is sent back to Nielsen for analysis and collated with information from networks about their program schedules. It is thus possible to determine how many people are watching what programs each night. The next morning television ratings are available to Nielsen/Oztam’s subscribers who will use the data for a wide variety of purposes. This process mirrors television audience measurement techniques across the globe.
However, there are a number of gaps in this model of audience measurement.
While sampling deals with the impractical task of measuring each individual and household’s viewing patterns across the country, inherent in this approach is the problem of ensuring accurate representation of media consumption on a larger scale. Nielsen data is widely accepted as representative, although there is always a chance that samples may be skewed by certain geographics and demographics, as well as the possibility of the sample households inaccurately reporting or even fabricating viewership (Walters, 2011).
In addition, it would appear that this system, while relevant in terms of advertising space and broadcasting decisions, does not paint an accurate picture of media content’s popularity and true consumption. As Smith and Foster (2013) argue, “just counting people watching at home doesn’t reflect 21st century viewing habits.”
Today, many people will consume media online rather than through the television. Downloading and streaming media provides ease of access and the ability to mould viewing habits to suit the individual’s timetable. Internet sites such as Netflix and Hulu have recognised these changes in viewing habits and have provided a new platform for audiences to legally access content. For us poor souls Down Under, the lapse in time between shows being broadcast overseas and finally making it to our shores, has caused many people to turn to not-so-legal sites such as Pirate Bay and Project Free TV. Apart from anything else, to reduce the risk of spoilers.
Community is a prime example of the way television shows operate in the digital/internet age. Walters (2011) argues that “ratings have a power of veto that is louder than lavish productions, great acting or quality scripts.” And for NBC the lack of ratings eventually meant the show had to be cut despite its strong critical reception and passionate word-of-mouth support. When the show seemed to be facing cancellation after the conclusion of the third season, its fans took to social media with the hashtag #sixseasonsandamovie, and managed to secure a fourth and fifth season with NBC. Smith and Foster (2013) argue “what matters now is fans and buzz.” However eventually, even the hashtag couldn’t save Community‘s television slot. The ratings were unable to take account of the huge online audience, thus to take advantage of the online viewership the show had to be saved by an online platform which NBC was either unable or unwilling to provide.
After NBC confirmed Community‘s cancellation earlier this year, all hope seemed lost. However, Yahoo swept in at the eleventh hour and saved the day, renewing the series through their online platform Yahoo Screen (Hibberd, 2014). Yahoo Screen has clearly decided it’s an economically sound move to provide certain content exclusively online, hot on the heels of the great success Netflix has experienced with its original content such as House of Cards and Orange is the New Black.
Perhaps this is a sign of things to come, as we consume more and more media online, television networks will need to develop strategies to follow audience consumption patterns in order to remain relevant and hang onto their advertising revenue.
References:
Hibberd, James (2014) ‘NBC explains why it canceled ‘Community”, Inside TV, 13 July, <http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/07/13/nbc-community-was-canceled/>
‘The Ratings Process’, Oztam – Measuring Audiences, accessed 17 August 2014, <http://www.oztam.com.au/TheRatingsProcess.aspx>
Smith, Russell C and Michael Foster (2013) ‘Reinventing the TV Rating System: How Community‘s Fans Battled the Nielsen Rating System’, Huffpost TV, 8 May, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-c-smith/reinventing-the-tv-rating_b_3226285.html>
Walters, Conrad (2011) ‘Made to measure but can we trust TV ratings?’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 23 April, <http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/made-to-measure-but-can-we-trust-tv-ratings-20110422-1dr9m.html>
‘Where we are’, Nielsen Television Audience Measurement, accessed 17 August 2014, <http://www.agbnielsen.net/whereweare/dynPage.asp?lang=english&id=60&country=Australia>
Watching the World 