An audience studies’ contribution to the discoverability and prominence debate: Seeking UK TV audiences’ ‘routes to content’

Catherine Johnson, Matt Hills, Laurie Dempsey
{"title":"An audience studies’ contribution to the discoverability and prominence debate: Seeking UK TV audiences’ ‘routes to content’","authors":"Catherine Johnson, Matt Hills, Laurie Dempsey","doi":"10.1177/13548565231222605","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite discoverability and prominence emerging as crucial to contemporary industry and policy debates in relation to online and internet-distributed television, there remains relatively little rich, qualitative data about how contemporary audiences discover content. This article addresses this gap through empirical audience research focused on the ‘routes to content’ through which UK audiences find and decide what television to watch. Defining television broadly to include all forms of video content accessed in the home, we argue for the importance of thinking about discoverability as an audience activity, not just an industrial strategy. Building on TV audience studies’ longer history and more recent literature on engagement, media literacy, algorithms and technological affordances in contemporary media platforms, we argue for new understanding of the imaginaries shaping people’s habitual viewing activities. The article proposes four new concepts for thinking about discoverability as an audience activity. First, we explore technological affordances and default behaviour, developing the concept of the negotiated-null affordance to explain how technological affordances can be rendered invisible by habitual behaviours. Second, we focus on algorithmic literacies and propose a new dissonant algorithmic imaginary to explain our participants’ ambivalences towards algorithmic personalisation. Third, we unpack the dynamics of access that emerge in our participants’ negotiations of television technologies, services and content. Fourth, we examine the role of word of mouth and promotional paratexts, theorising a second-order algorithmic imaginary to help us understand how these forms of communication can often, themselves, be subject to algorithmic processes. In doing so, we argue for the need for further qualitative research that looks beyond the ‘savvy’ consumers that dominate audience research in order to unpack the technological, industrial, cultural and social processes that shape people’s routes to content in a platform-dominated media landscape.","PeriodicalId":505001,"journal":{"name":"Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies","volume":"186 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565231222605","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite discoverability and prominence emerging as crucial to contemporary industry and policy debates in relation to online and internet-distributed television, there remains relatively little rich, qualitative data about how contemporary audiences discover content. This article addresses this gap through empirical audience research focused on the ‘routes to content’ through which UK audiences find and decide what television to watch. Defining television broadly to include all forms of video content accessed in the home, we argue for the importance of thinking about discoverability as an audience activity, not just an industrial strategy. Building on TV audience studies’ longer history and more recent literature on engagement, media literacy, algorithms and technological affordances in contemporary media platforms, we argue for new understanding of the imaginaries shaping people’s habitual viewing activities. The article proposes four new concepts for thinking about discoverability as an audience activity. First, we explore technological affordances and default behaviour, developing the concept of the negotiated-null affordance to explain how technological affordances can be rendered invisible by habitual behaviours. Second, we focus on algorithmic literacies and propose a new dissonant algorithmic imaginary to explain our participants’ ambivalences towards algorithmic personalisation. Third, we unpack the dynamics of access that emerge in our participants’ negotiations of television technologies, services and content. Fourth, we examine the role of word of mouth and promotional paratexts, theorising a second-order algorithmic imaginary to help us understand how these forms of communication can often, themselves, be subject to algorithmic processes. In doing so, we argue for the need for further qualitative research that looks beyond the ‘savvy’ consumers that dominate audience research in order to unpack the technological, industrial, cultural and social processes that shape people’s routes to content in a platform-dominated media landscape.
观众研究对 "可发现性 "和 "突出性 "辩论的贡献:探寻英国电视观众的 "内容之路
尽管可发现性和突出性成为当代产业和政策辩论中有关在线和互联网传播电视的关键,但有关当代受众如何发现内容的丰富定性数据仍然相对较少。本文通过对英国观众发现和决定观看何种电视的 "内容路径 "进行实证研究,填补了这一空白。我们将电视广义地定义为包括在家中观看的所有形式的视频内容,并认为将可发现性视为一种受众活动而不仅仅是一种产业战略非常重要。基于电视观众研究的悠久历史以及最近关于参与、媒体素养、算法和当代媒体平台技术能力的文献,我们主张对塑造人们习惯性观看活动的想象力进行新的理解。文章提出了四个新概念,用于思考作为受众活动的可发现性。首先,我们探讨了技术负担能力和默认行为,提出了 "协商无效负担能力 "的概念,以解释技术负担能力如何被习惯性行为所掩盖。其次,我们关注算法文学,并提出了一种新的不和谐算法想象,以解释参与者对算法个性化的矛盾心理。第三,我们解读了参与者在与电视技术、服务和内容的谈判中出现的获取动态。第四,我们研究了口碑和促销副词的作用,提出了二阶算法想象的理论,以帮助我们理解这些传播形式本身是如何经常受制于算法过程的。在此过程中,我们认为有必要进一步开展定性研究,超越受众研究中的 "精明 "消费者,以解读在平台主导的媒体环境中塑造人们获取内容途径的技术、工业、文化和社会过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信