Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk

8/6/2019 Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk

1/20

the integration of television on the internet

Floor Broer van Dijk

5645581

New Media Theories, Group 2

Jan Simons & Sebastian Scholtz

MA, New Media

17-01-2011


2/20

1

Index

Keywords....................................................................................................... 2

Abstract.......................................................................................................... 2

Preface............................................................................................................ 2

1. Start up...................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Introduction.................................................................................. 3

1.2 Relevance & Methodology.......................................................... 4

2. Interactivity, Convergence & Participatory culture & Active Audience 5

2.1 Convergence & Participatory culture 5

2.2 Interactivity 6

2.3 The Audience. 6

3. History of the digitization of Television................................................... 10

3.1 The early years........................................................................... 10

3.2 Commercial television.................................................................. 11

3.3 Different stages of television......................................................... 12

4. The interactive in interactive television................................................... 13

5. The influence on audience behavior......................................................... 14

6. Conclusion................................................................................................... 16

Bibliography..................................................................................................... 17


3/20

2

Keywords

|Interactive, television | interactive television | participatory culture | convergence |

Abstract

In this paper, the digitization of television will be investigated. Answers will be given on

the questions What factors make interactive television interactive? and What is the

influence of the digitization of television (on audience behavior)? The terms

participatory culture & convergence culture of Henry Jenkins and interactivity and active

audience are central terms in this paper. In the conclusion I will describe which factors

make interactive television interactive. The main factor is the interaction with the

audience. Making people call, sending text messages or using social media platforms to

respond on a program. This shift from traditional passive television to the 2.0 active

television makes that the viewers are longer no passive recipients. The passive audience

now becomes active and has more influence on the medium and the content. This paper notes

the fact that an audience never has been just passive.

Preface

I want to write my master thesis about the integration of television and the internet, to be

specific, I want to do research on the upcoming phenomenon of twittering along with a

television program. Why is this a trend, does twitter needs television and vice versa and

how is New Media being used to create a connection with the audience? Since I know my

master thesis topic, I want to focus on this theme in my other papers. Thats why I want

to use this paper to learn more about interactive television.


4/20

3

1. Start up

1.1 Introduction

Back in the days people had to point the antenna of their television precisely in the good

direction in order to watch television. Then you had to be connected through a cable or a

dish in order to watch television. Now you can have all of that, but for an optimal

television-watching experience youre going digital, having interactive television. There

is a constant change in the world of television; its a dynamic world. Coffey & Stipp

already expected in 1997 that interaction with computers and Internet would increase,

what made interactivity possible for television.1

This interaction is strongly increasing.

The viewers want a broader offer of programs and they want to choose there moment to

watch a program. Besides that, interaction between the viewer en the screen becomes

more relevant according to Smith & Paterson.2 Interactivity- and multimedia

developments are the key to a whole new phase of television usage. In her master thesis,

Renske Karel distinguishes two sorts of viewer motifs to watch television, aware and

unaware motifs. By adding interactive elements to television programs the passive form

of watching television disappears. Viewers will have more control over the content of the

program.3 Critical television studies tried to show that viewing is not and has never been

all passive. I will call the early form of watching television passive.4

In this paper I focus on what interactive television is precisely, what factors do

make interactive television interactive and what is the influence of this digitization of

television, for example on viewing behavior. Im going to find answers on this two

research questions: What factors make interactive television interactive? and What is the

influence of the digitization of television (on audience behavior)?

1Coffey, S. & Stipp, H. The interactions between computer and tv usages. Journal of advertising research. 61-67. 1997

2Smith, A. & Paterson, R. (1998). Television. An International History. New York: Oxford University Press.

3Karel, Renske. Kijkmotieven en interactieve televisie, wat vinden zij?Een kwantitatief onderzoek naar de motievenvan TMF kijkers om het interactieve programma reaction te kijken. Communicatie wetenschappen. Universiteit vanAmsterdam. 19 maart 20084

Inside quotes to show that it isnt all passive


5/20

4

1.2 Relevance & Methodology

If we know the influence interactive television has on the viewers, we know what steps

we have to take to improve digitization. The Internet can be so smooth and full of new

technologies but if it isnt attractive for users, nobody uses it. The shift from passive

television to interactive television is fully in progress the last few years. Although articles

about the rise of interactive television have been written, there hasnt been done much

research about it recently. There have been written a lot of scientific researches about the

motives to watch traditional television but since there are increasingly more interactive

elements in television shows, research about the motives to watch interactive television is

important.

I will describe the history of interactive television and the digitization of

television through a historical research, done by a literature research. Through literature

research I want to find out what the influence of digitization of television is on users now

a day. I will describe developments, possible continuities and discontinuities of

technology, industry, audiences and social issues.


6/20

5

2. Interactivity, Convergence, Participatory culture and Active Audience

2.1 Convergence & Participatory Culture

An important concept is convergence media. Two specific technological developments

form the core of media convergence: the change of analog to digital technology and the

rise of computer networks.5 Janet Kolodzy mentions the fusion of Internet Company

AOL and multimedia company Time Warner in 2000 to give a starting point for digital

media convergence in the book Understanding Media Convergence. This was the first

time an online company and a traditional media company cooperated and it was the start

of multimedia co-operations online, in print and image.6

Henry Jenkins is an important

theorist specialized in convergence. In his book Convergence culture he describes the

collide of old and New Media. He says: By convergence, I mean the flow of content

across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and

the migratory behavior of media audiences that would go almost anywhere in search of

the kinds of entertainment experiences they wanted. Convergence is a word that manages

to describe technological, industrial, cultural and social changes depending on whos

speaking and what they think they are talking about.7

Another concept I will use is Jenkins participatory culture, a culture in which

private persons do not act as consumers only, but also as contributors or producers.

According to Jenkins, Convergence is caused by participatory culture. It's the opposite of

a consumer culture. This culture is also known as web 2.0. In participatory culture young

people creatively respond to a plethora of electronic signals and cultural commodities in

ways that surprise their makers, finding meanings and identities never meant to be there

and defying simple nostrums that bewail the manipulation or passivity of consumers.

This concept is relevant to this

study because interactive television is also a flow of content across multiple media

platforms, the television platform and the Internet platform.

8

5Grant, August. E, Wilkinson. Jeffrey S. Understanding Media Convergence. Oxford: University Press 2009. P. 5

Participatory cultures empower humans to be active contributors in personal meaningful

6 Idem. 2009. P. 347Jenkins. Henry. Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. New York University Press. New York. 2006

8Willis, Paul . Foot Soldiers of Modernity: The Dialectics of Cultural Consumption and the 21st-Century

School.Harvard Educational Review 73(3), p. 392. 2003


7/20

6

activities. This concept can also be related to this study because with interactive

television it becomes easier to become an active contributor.

2.2 Interactivity

Close to this two concept lies interactivity. SallyMcMillan states that interactivity can

occur at many different levels and degrees of engagement and that it is important to

differentiate between these levels. She names user-to-user interaction, communication

via the internet,para-social interaction, where new forms of media are generated online

and user-to-system interactivity that is the way devices can be engaged with by a user.9

The last two forms are relevant for my research. Lev Manovich also makes a clear

definition of what interactivity means for the user. He refers to open interactivity as

actions such as computer programming and developing media systems, whereas closed

interactivity is merely where the elements of access are determined by the user.10

Interactivity is such an important concept because the history of television and nowadays

the merge of television with the Internet, has interactivity in it. Voting for candidates in

programs like the Voice of Holland is a form of interactivity and so are the media boxes

that make it possible to choose when you want to see a program.

2.3 The Audience

Texts need audiences in order to realize their potential for meaning () The meaning is not in the text, but

in the reading. (Andrew Hart, 1991)11

The last concept that I introduce is the concept of an active audience. Participatory

culture, convergence culture and interactivity can't happen without an audience. When

television was still a new medium, viewers were called couch potatoes. They watched the

screen and didnt do anything with the text. Old media were passive and new media

brought interactivity. This passivity wasnt as passive as it looked like. Much research

9McMillan, S.J. (2002). "Exploring Models of Interactivity from Multiple Research Traditions: Users, Documents, And

Systems". In Lievrouw, L.; Livingston, S..Handbook of New Media. London: Sage. pp. 162182. ISBN 0-7619-6510-6. http://web.utk.edu/~sjmcmill/Research/interactivity2.doc.10

Interactivity. Wikipedia.com. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactivity#cite_note-4. 13 october 2010. 20 october

201011

Hart, Andrew. Understanding the media: a practical guide. London: Routledge. 1991


8/20

7

has been done to the meaning that audiences gave to a television text. In her research

Watching Dallas, Ien Ang did research on the audience of the soap opera Dallas and

concluded that different audiences give different meanings to a program. 12 But began

with the effects model of the Frankfurt school, set up in 1923. This model considered

society to be composed of isolated individuals who were susceptible to media messages.

The Frankfurt school envisioned the media as a hypodermic syringe and the contents of

the media were injected into the thoughts and beliefs expressed by the medium.13

In the

fifties, researchers used this model when exploring the potential of the new medium,

television. According to theorists in that time, media could not have such direct effects on

the audiences they serve. Personal contact and religion were factors more likely to

influence people. Later, the Effects model is considered to be an inadequate

representation of the communication between media and the public, as it does not take

into account the audience as individuals with their own beliefs, opinions, ideals and

attitudes.14

The academic journal Screen suggested that audiences were positioned by the

media text. Screen thought that the position of the viewer was determined for them

through the use of camera shots. Screen theory suggested that all media texts have a

mode of address, media texts address its intended audience in a particular way,

establishing a relationship between the producer of the text and the medias audience.

According to Philip J. Hanes, the limitations of focusing on audience in media studies can

In the seventies, a new approach to the dynamics of audience and television

text relationship was suggested in the Uses and Gratification model. In this model it was

not about how media affects the audiences, but how the audiences were using the media.

These theorists suggested that audiences had specific needs and actively turned to the

media to consume television texts. The audience in this model was seen as active, as

opposed to the passive audience in the Effects model but the model still implies that

television texts are packages of information that is read the same by anyone in the

audience. It does not consider how the message is interpreted.

12 Ang, Ien. Watching Dallas: Soap opera and the melodramatic imagination. Uitgeverij SUA. Amsterdam.

198213 Hanes, Philip J. The advantages and limitations of a focus on Audience in Media studies. Aberystwyth

University. April 2000. < http://www.aber.ac.uk//media/Students/pph9701.html>14

Idem, 2000.


9/20

8

clearly be seen in the mode of address made by the media. Different audiences use

different media.

These theories suggest that meaning is embedded within the text that audiences can

access easily and accept without questioning these meanings but just because producers

of the texts have a certain opinion and meaning, does not mean that this meaning will be

read or agreed by the audience. David Morley studied audiences of an early evening news

program and argued in The Nationwide audience that audiences actively decode

meanings from a media text. The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies expanded on

this work leading to Stuart HallsEncoding/Decoding model. This model suggested that

meanings were encoded by the producer into the media text and the audiences decoded

meaning from the text. In this model its acknowledged that there is a preferred meaning

in the text, the meaning made by the producer. The audiences interpretation of this

meaning depends on a number of frameworks outside the text like class, gender and age.

The individual viewer is recognized in this model.15 The Centre for Contemporary

Cultural Studies under leading of David Morley also proposed a model for different types

of audience decoding. Audiences have a dominant hegemonic position when they

recognize and agree with the preferred meaning of the text. They have an oppositional

hegemonic position when they understand the preferred meaning but disagree with it and

establish a negotiated hegemonic position when they oppose or has to adapt the preferred

meaning. When the audience reads the text in an unpredicted way, producing a deviant

meaning, it is referred to as aberrant decoding.16

According to Hanes, the main limitation of a focus in audience has been

highlighted by the various ways in which past theorist have thought audiences receive

media messages. There are many different ways to conceptualize the audience and the

way in which they work with media, but there appears to be no right way. This is

complicated because there are many different audiences for many different media.

During the eighties, a new strand of work developed in audience studies, focusing

on the domestic context of televisions reception within the household, using a broadly

15Hall, Stuart.Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage

publications. 199716Morley, David.Nation wide audience. Aberystwyth University.

1980


10/20

9

ethnographic methodology. This model characteristically focused on gender differences

within the household or family in television viewing habits.17

Halls encoding/decoding model has continued to set the basis conceptual

framework for the notable boom in studies of media consumption and the media

audiences. Studies like The Nationwide Audience of David Morley, Tania Modleskis

work on women viewers of soap operas, Janice Radways study of readers of romance

fiction and the study of Ien Ang of Dallas viewers are examples of the flow of researches

in the same light as the encoding/decoding model.

Since the early nineties, the terms viewerand consumerare no longer applicable

on the media landscape. Interactive elements were built in and the alleged passivity has

changed. There was a growing participation and an audience cant be named as vieweror

consumeranymore.18 Frank Biocca discussed five characteristics of the active audience.

Selectivity, audiences are considered to be selective in the media they choose.

Utilitarianism, media is used to meet particular need and goals.Intentionality, what

implies the purposeful use of media content.Involvement, audiences are actively

attending, thinking about- and using media. The last one is impervious to influence, not

very easily persuaded by the media alone. This all is based on the idea that no text has

just one meaning. The meaning has to be extracted by the receiver.19

17Morley, David.Audience Research. The Museum of Broadcast Communication. Museum.tv. 201118 Dijck, van Jos. Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content.Media Culture and

Society. Vol. 31 (1). 2009. P. 4119

Biocca, Frank. In: Littlejohn, S.W. Theory of communication (6th ed.) Belmont CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

1999


11/20

10

3. History of the digitization of Television

Our media landscape is changing quickly due to cultural and technological developments.

Television as we know it has been very popular since its rise and still it has a prominent

place in our society. Now we are on a point where television is going to change,

television has to take into account the individual needs of the audience. Also the Internet

is changing, it has become more social and interactive with the coming of blogs and

social networks in 2005. Now citizens have an integral role in the production of news.

Through e-mail, twitter and mobile phones, television stations receive the news from

citizens. Media start to look more participatory and inclusive.20

Just like web 2.0,

television also has become 2.0. There is a shift from niche to individual and from passive

audience to a more active audience.

3.1 The early years

In 1953 F. Kerkhof, employee of Philips, built in his free time the first television station

in the Netherlands. The NatLab, also from Philips, developed the first television test

signals in 1925, but the step in 1953 was a big step forward. He toured through the

Netherlands to spread this form of technique. The first programs were simple ones,

Mister Kerkhof when shaving and Misses Kerkhof when trying out different hats. In that

time, nobody could ever think of the success of television as a reporter in that time wrote:

Television has a future. A limited future probably: it will be not as common as the radio did, the

applications do have boundaries. To gain from television, people must have interest to the technique and

the programs. You dont leave your television on all day, as you do with radio. Programs cant interest

people all day.21

In 1951 the first Dutch television station became official with the public broadcast

associations Avro, KRO, NCRV, Vara and VPRO. Since then, television had a prominent

position in almost every Household. In the sixties there were a couple of changes, the

television landscape was segregated with three stations. In 1989 the Netherlands were

the last with the new phenomena, commercial television, that was now possible due to the

new legislation. RTL Veronique began broadcasting out of Luxembourg. (Later it

20Lovink, Geert. Introduction: The Pride and Glory of Web 2.0Zero Comments.Blogging and CriticalInternet Culture. Routledge. New York. 200821

Boogaard van den, Richard. Op weg naar Televisie 2.0 Frankwatching. Nieuws en Opinie over Digitale Trends.( 27

juni 2007). 04-03-2009


12/20

11

changed name into RTL 4) With this legislation, the Netherlands were obligated to allow

foreign stations. In 1992, it became possible for commercial stations to broadcast from

the Netherlands and in 1993 daytime television was introduced. This was the start of the

dual system of television where the public stations and commercial stations exist aside. In

1993 there was a new commercial station, RTL 5 and after the collaboration of Endemol

and the 'Veronica Omroep Organisatie' (VOO) several stations arose, like Veronica,

SBS6, Net 5, RTL 7 & RTL 8.

3.2 Commercial television

With the rise of commercial television, more programs arose with early forms of

participation. In his comparison of early forms of cinema, Tom Gunning notices

differences in the way the viewer is addressed. According to Gunning, we can speak of a

specific relation that creates the cinema of attractions with the audience. The recurring

look at the camera by actors [] establishing contact with the audience.22

Television shifts from mass to niche. Like Chris Anderson says, the era of

dominance by the mass industry runs to an end. With the rise of commercial television,

the media landscape fragmented and so did the audience.

This is

thought also an early form of interactivity in media. This addressing to the audience has

been done in early programs on television as well. With the coming of television on

location, live shows, real-life television and call-television, interactivity and participatory

culture became relevant within television. Normal people suddenly became part of the

program and those programs were far more interactive. From that point, everybody was

able to become a star and participate in television. With call-television, the host showed a

puzzle and addressed his attention to the audience at home, persuade them to call and

give the right answer.

23

22

Gunning, Tom. 1999 in: Blokland, Lisette van. Sociale media en de transformatie van televisie, hoe web 2.0

Anderson says that the long

tail theory also works with television. With the huge amount of stations these days, it is

possible to reach niches and earn money with it. All this niche stations could attract more

viewers than the big, general interest stations.

platformen tot nieuwe praktijken rondom televisie leiden. Universiteit Leiden. 20 september 201023

Boogaard van den, Richard. Op weg naar Televisie 2.0 Frankwatching. Nieuws en Opinie over Digitale Trends.( 27

juni 2007). 04-03-2009


13/20

12

3.3 Different stages of television

According to Richard van den Boogaard, Interaction is increasingly possible with the

clutch of different media, like mobile phones and internet. This is what he calls,

Participatory Television. In this category you have programs like donation shows and

music senders where you can text message your music request. With the coming of the

shows where you can vote for a candidate, viewers can actively participate and affect the

outcome of the program. Since the year 2000 audiences contribute to television programs

on a large basis. News programs almost cant exist without audience-generated content.

The audience became voluntary participants of talk-, dating- or make-over shows. In the

early days, people Send home videos to programs like Funnies home video. Today

people are uploading videos to YouTube and news- and entertainment programs cant do

without homemade videos.24

After this stage, van den Boogaard jumps to On demand Television. Nowadays,

with a media box, you can request a program and its available right away. The program

scheme of a station is no longer a necessary and determine factor for the activities of a

viewer. Prime time becomes my time.

With our mobile phone we send pictures and videos and

through e-mail and twitter, we keep news stations informed on accidents and other news.

25

The final stage is Interactive television. Besides television being interactive

through other kinds of media (like e-mail, social media and mobile phones), television

itself can be interactive to. With interactive television from different television

providers, you can add an extra information layer to a program.

Different stations now have Internet pages on

which you can watch programs afterwards.

24Dijck, van Jos. Television 2.0: YouTube and the Emergence of Homecasting. P. 9.25Boogaard van den, Richard. Op weg naar Televisie 2.0 Frankwatching. Nieuws enOpinie over Digitale Trends.( 27 juni 2007). 04-03-2009


14/20

13

4. The interactive in interactive television

According to Sherry Turkle, computers feel so natural because of their similarity to

watching Television since that is our dominant social experiences for the past forty

years.26 So while we use computers, we have a sense of watching television in our minds.

In her master thesis Hanneke Leenders presents a useful definition of interactive

television: Interactive television is a form of television in which de viewer can influence

the content, context and the form of the media content to a certain degree, by interaction

with the content & context provider and interaction with other users.27

1. Parallel information consumption: in this way, you can add an extra layer ofinformation to a program. This means extension of a program.

But what makes

interactive television interactive? In Leenders' thesis it became clear that television went

through certain stages that made television more and more active. Maybe the most

important factor is the audience. In the stage of mass television, the interactivity was

mainly between the audience. Talking with each other about the content of the program.

In the stage of participatory television, the interactivity was through extern media like

social networks, mobile phones and e-mail. Through social media sites like Twitter and

Facebook it was also possible to share your opinion. In the stage of on-demand television

interactivity lays is the fact that the viewer gets more and more control over the moment

of consumption of a program. Digital television though, presents another important

function, the integration of a return-pad that makes it possible to send information back to

the provider. This function transforms digital television in interactive television. An

important application within interactive television is parallel consumption. According to

Leenders, this can be done in two ways.

2. Parallel transaction consumption: This is an advanced form of interaction, inwhich a financial transaction is established. For example by buying a video or

even a pizza.

26Turkle, Sherry. Virtuality and its discontents. The American Prospect. Winter 1996

27Leenders, Hanneke. Toekomst-televisie, Een onderzoek naar de toekomst van interactiviteit van televisie in

Nederland. Universiteit van Amsterdam. 1 juli 2008


15/20

14

5. The influence on audience behavior

To predict if interactive television connects with the needs of the audience, a lot of research is

done. Uses and Gratifications research is such a research, this research tradition comes from

the fact that researchers reject the claim that media audience is passive. A relatively recent

research within the Uses and Gratifications movement is the research of Lee & Lee in 1995.

This research can be applied on interactive television and gives a good vision of the needs of

the audience nowadays. It becomes clear that the audience is watching intensively to

television but nog always to the same extend. The extend of attention is depending to certain

factors. The program content, the practices aside television watching, the moment of

watching, the motivation and the people you are watching. This is the case with traditional

television as it is with interactive television. An important point with interactive television

though, is that watching television became an individual practice. Through interactive

television, the audience is able to watch a program they like, anytime they want. What Lee &

Lee found out is that watching television for many people still finds place in a social context.

Especially prime-time television watching is still a family practice. Lee & Lee described six

important motives to find satisfaction in watching television:

1. Watching television as a ritual, planning a whole evening to watch all the programsthey like on that evening.

2. Watching television to change your mood, to relax and escape from your worries.3. Watching television for getting information, being up to date4. Watching television for social learning, the viewer can identify himself with the

personage and situations.

5. Watching television as tool for interpersonal communication, programs can be thebasis for discussions.

6. Watching television to explore an imposing, different worldAccording to S Mnker, electronic mass media, like traditional television, is always

companied by a discourse of critic on their one-to-many structure.28

28

Mnker, S.Emergenz digitaler Offentlichkeiten. Die Sozialen Medien im Web 2.0. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp

Verlag. 2009

Interactive television

has another kind of structure, many-to-many structure. Now the audience participates withthe medium. In this way, the audience has more influence on the medium and the content. It

is part of the participatory culture whereby Henry Jenkins points at the possibilities to


16/20

15

actively shape, transits and adapt media content. Jenkins thinks that Rather than talking

about media producers and consumers as occupying separate roles, we might now see them

as participants who interact with each other according to a new set of rules that none of us

fully understands.29 He claims that Audiences, empowered by these new technologies,[...] are

demanding the right to participate within the culture30

Charles Leadbeater describes howaudiences are much more demanding nowadays. They are no longer passive recipients of goods

delivered to them; they want to be participants in the creation of services they want.31

Mnker

expect that television is going to experience a development that will change her meaning as mass

medium. He gives the example of programs using web 2.0 platforms. According to Mnker this is

an approach that is less mass media like.32

29Jenkins, Henry. In: Blokland, Lisette van. Sociale media en de transformatie van televisie, hoe web 2.0 platformen tot

nieuwe praktijken rondom televisie leiden. Universiteit Leiden. 20 september 201030

Idem, 201031

Leadbeater, Charles. In: Blokland, Lisette van. Sociale media en de transformatie van televisie, hoe web 2.0

platformen tot nieuwe praktijken rondom televisie leiden. Universiteit Leiden. 20 september 201032

Mnker, S.Emergenz digitaler Offentlichkeiten. Die Sozialen Medien im Web 2.0. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp

Verlag. 2009


17/20

16

6. Conclusion

Television is a medium with a huge history of transition. It started as mass medium,

everybody watched programs at the same time, talked about it among friends and

colleagues and that was the interactivity in television those days. Then live programs,

programs on location and call-programs arose. With those programs television took one

step closer to be interactive. With the digitization of television, television is increasingly

becoming interactive. What interactivity in interactive television is, is the interaction

with the audience. A debate on media audience is going on for years now, claiming that a

television audience never has been all passive. According to Ien Ang for example,

everybody reads a television text differently and does something with a television text in

his own way. That is not passive behavior. The not so active audience shifted to an

active audience, an audience that can participate in the program and that has influence on

the content and development of the program. Another factor is the use of social media

platforms. Television stations nowadays use social media platforms to let the audience

interact with the program. The third factor is that the audience can interact with the

medium itself. The audience can choose when to watch a program he likes. It is also

possible to buy a movie or a pizza using their remote control.

The influence of the digitization of television on audience behavior is the change

of time management but Lee & Lee found out that prime-time television is still a family

practice. With the shift to a more active audience that participate and have influence on a

program, the behavior of the audience of course changes. The not interactive audience,

now becomes interactive and has more influence on the medium and the content.

Leadbeater sees that the viewers no longer are passive recipients of goods delivered to

them; they want to be participants in the creation of services they want.

In further research I like to focus on social media platforms that nowadays merge

with television programs. To what extend do social media platforms like twitter needs

television and vice-versa? and how is New Media being used to create a connection with

the audience? These are questions in which I am interested and in my master thesis I will

try to find answers to such questions.


18/20

17

Bilbiography

Ang, Ien. Watching Dallas: Soap opera and the melodramatic imagination. Uitgeverij

SUA. Amsterdam. 1982

Bakker, P. & Scholten, O. Communicatiekaart van Nederland; Overzicht van

media encommunicatie (2e

druk). Alphen a/d Rijn/Dieghem: Samsom. 1999

Blokland, Lisette van. Sociale media en de transformatie van televisie, hoe web 2.0

platformen tot nieuwe praktijken rondom televisie leiden. Universiteit Leiden. 20

september 2010

Boogaard van den, Richard. Op weg naar Televisie 2.0 Frankwatching. Nieuws en

Opinie over Digitale Trends.( 27 juni 2007). 04-03-2009

Broer van Dijk, Floor.Infotainment & de vrouw: Representatie van Femininiteit in

een nieuw genre in Indonesi. Universiteit van Amsterdam. 2009

Coffey, S. & Stipp, H. The interactions between computer and tv usages. Journal of

advertising research, 37(2), 61-67. 1997

Dijck, van Jos. Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content.Media

Culture and Society. Vol. 31 (1). 2009. P. 41

Dijck, van Jos. Television 2.0: YouTube and the Emergence of Homecasting


19/20

18

Grant, August. E, Wilkinson. Jeffrey S. Understanding Media Convergence. Oxford:

University Press 2009

Hall, Stuart.Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London:

Sage publications. 1997

Hart, Andrew. Understanding the media: a practical guide. London: Routledge. 1991

Hanes, Philip J. The advantages and limitations of a focus on Audience in Media studies.

Aberystwyth University. April 2000.

Hermes, Joke, Maarten Reesink.Inleiding Televisiestudies. Amsterdam: Boom, 2003

Jenkins, Henry. Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. New York

University Press. New York. 2006

Jenkins, Henry. Fans, Bloggers and Gamers: Exploring Participatory culture. New

York University Press. New York. 2006

Karel, Renske. Kijkmotieven en interactieve televisie, wat vinden zij?Een kwantitatief

onderzoek naar de motieven van TMF kijkers om het interactieve programma

reaction te kijken. Communicatie wetenschappen. Universiteit van Amsterdam. 19

maart 2008

Leenders, Hanneke. Toekomst-televisie, Een onderzoek naar de toekomst van

interactiviteit van televisie in Nederland. Universiteit van Amsterdam. 1 juli 2008

Littlejohn, S.W. Theory of communication (6th ed.) Belmont CA:

Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. 1999


20/20

19

Lovink, Geert. Introduction: The Pride and Glory of Web 2.0.Zero Comments:

Blogging and cricital internet culture. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. New

York. 2008

Morley, David.Audience Research. The Museum of Broadcast Communication.

Museum.tv. < http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=audiencerese>

2011

Morley, David.Nation wide audience. Aberystwyth University. 1980

Mnker, S.Emergenz digitaler Offentlichkeiten. Die Sozialen Medien im Web 2.0.

Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. 2009

Picard, R. Audience fragmentation and structural limits on media innovation and diversity.

Paper presented at the Second Expert Meeting on Media and Open Societies, 21-23

October, Amsterdam. 1999

Smith, A. & Paterson, R. (1998). Television. An International History. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Turkle, Sherry. Virtuality and its discontents. The American Prospect. Winter 1996

Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk

Documents

Transcript of Interactive Television, Floor Broer Van Dijk