television and the internet: how convergence affects audience consumption

brunel university

film and television studies

school of arts

“tELEVISION AND THE iNTERNET - hOW cONVERGENCE aFFECTS aUDIENCE cONSUMPTION.”

BY

rYAN oLIVER lEWIS

sUPERVISED BY

jULIAN sAVAGE

dATE SUBMITTED: 29TH aPRIL 2010

a sPECIAL pROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE ba: fILM & tELEVISION sTUDIES dEGREE.

Ryan Lewis [email protected] www.razzlewis.com

i

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements 1 – INTRODUCTION 1 i Aims ii Debate 2 – THE IDEA OF CONVERGENCE 4 3 – PROGRAMMING REACHING ITS AUDIENCE 6 4 – AUDIENCE BEHAVIOURS 9 5 – INVESTIGATION 13 i Area of Research ii Methodology 6 – STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 16

i The frequency with which the audience watches television

and how it receives the programming ii What the audience desire from their viewing experience and

how the internet is associated with it 7 – FINDINGS 23 8 – CONCLUSIONS 28 I Summary of findings ii Suggestions for further study iii Evaluation Bibliography Appendix


ii

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contributed in any way, shape or form to the completion of my special project and this

resulting report.

To all the university staff, friends and family who have helped me with planning, materials and proof reading, and even those who would have

helped more had I only asked, thank you.

Lastly, I must acknowledge the memory of my mother; I hope the completion of my degree work would have made you happy, I know you were always

proud no matter what I did.


1

INTRODUCTION

(i) AIMS

In this project I shall be focusing upon the Internet and television,

looking at ways in which they are evolving in response to each other and

analysing how this has an effect upon the audience consumption of their

respective media output. I am expecting to find that the manner in which

people now view television broadcasts has shifted away from the traditional

means of viewing, bringing with it an adjustment to the behaviours of the

audience, whilst showing no real change in the frequency with which

programmes are viewed.

(ii) DEBATES

This topic is of particular interest at this moment in time as the Internet

remains a relatively new sector of the mass media and, as such, still

something of an unknown quantity in many ways. Its potential in terms of

audience reach is unprecedented given that it can be “available to anyone

with access to a computer… [and] defies traditional national boundaries”

(Orlik and Day, 2007: 243) allowing for distribution of content to be more

widespread than ever before.

However, the relative youth of the Internet is also matched by the

speed with which it is still changing and adapting. Part of this is the way in

which the technology itself used within a computer is improving. There has

been the advent of better connection speeds, computer screens and

graphics or sound cards all of which make the notion of using the Internet to

see video content more attractive to the audience, and more content is now

available in response. This can be seen in the setup of legal online video

services such as Hulu (2007), iPlayer (2007) and YouTube (2005), which The

Economist reports took up around 27 percent of all Internet bandwidth in

2008 despite their young age. It is the emergence of video streaming sites


2

such as these that truly signalled the arrival of the Internet as a broadcasting

platform.

So, given the opportunity to distribute shows to a wider catchment

area of people and using popular new platforms with broadcaster support, it

is almost certain that the Internet is to remain as a method of viewing

‘television’ shows. New methods of distribution are still being developed,

and opportunities to explore their commercial possibilities looked at. Yet it is

not just the way in which television shows can now be viewed that has

resulted in the Internet making an impact upon the consumption of television,

the role of the audience itself is of considerable importance.

Where there traditionally has been a debate between the activity or

passivity of the audience based around the uses and gratifications model

developed by Blumer and Katz In 1974, the development of the Internet as a

platform for television may change the scope of this debate considerably.

Whilst there has been a “shift in thinking… to the view that it is active”

(Nabi and Oliver, 2009: 22) over recent times anyway, the level of choice has

increased significantly, allowing them to gain more active control than ever

over their choice of consumption. Where in 1990 James Lull noted

“audience members watch programs that simply happen to appear on the

same channel to which the television is already tuned” (p. 87) such a series of

events could now be becoming passé; the “passive audience” become lost

in response to the familiarity of choice, fostered by multi-channel television.

How the audience consumes programming does, therefore, need to be

revaluated once more in response.

There could additionally be a change in what the audience perceives

the uses of television to be, whether they still feel the need to undertake

shared television viewing is worth questioning. It could have been

supplanted by feeling gratified just by watching the shows they enjoy with or

without company. Indeed, given the nature of online viewing it may be that

rather than actual company a virtual alternative is sought out. By watching

television on the Internet it could be that the audience simply joins those who

get the reactions of other people online, discussing shows like ‘Heroes’ “into


3

the wee hours of the morning on countless message boards and Internet

forums.” (Lavery, 2010: 130)

There are also issues with regards to the proliferation of unauthorized

access to programming online. Torrent sites and unregulated streaming

outlets such as WiseVid provide access to copyrighted material at no cost to

the audience, and such activity is difficult to control. One newspaper article

has contained quotes claiming that “there are hundreds of web services out

there – it’s incredibly easy to find [what] you want to see” (Harris and Nixon,

2009) and reported audience members stating that they “can look past

quality issues, it’s free.” (Harris and Nixon, 2009) As a result, some indication

as to the amount and frequency of such activity could help to shape the

future priorities of broadcasters.

Certainly in this case the increase in the “active audience” could lead

to the reception and influence of mass media being altered significantly. Not

only are broadcasters facing a struggle to keep the audiences for their

channels and shows, but it could also be the case that the broadcaster sees

absolutely no return for its investment despite the shows still having an

audience. For the long-term health of the industry, it is understandably a

critical concern if the relationship between audience and programming is to

develop in this way.

This paper will, therefore, outline the recent changes that have taken

place within the spheres of the Internet and television. It will look at the

audience for television and how it consumes it, then focus on researching the

effects this has had on the viewer; how and how often they watch television

programming, what they want from the experience and what this may mean

for the future of both television and the Internet.


4

THE IDEA OF CONVERGENCE

Other studies regarding the convergence between television and the

Internet as a programming platform are not as numerous as those to be

found on other topics. This comes as no real surprise given that the Internet

only experienced its “period of explosive growth in 1995 and 1996.”

(Coffman and Odlyzko, 1998: 2) Still, even then it was only upon “the

substitution of broadband for dial-up access [that] resulted in millions…

being able to download large data files within a reasonable period of time”

(Held, 2006: 36) and the UK’s first home broadband customer did not appear

until the year 2000.

As a result, many of the scholarly articles that do exist on the

convergence between the Internet and television pay specific attention to

technological convergence. They look at ways in which the Internet can

appear on television in order to achieve greater market penetration.

One early study that broadens its definition is that of Thielman and

Dowling, “Conversion and Innovation strategy for service provision in

emerging Web-TV markets”. (1999) In it, they refer to a definition of

convergence developed in a their 1998 paper, that convergence is “the

complimentary merging of products or services or both at once” (Thielman

and Dowling, 1999: 4) They acknowledge that convergence has altered both

broadcast platforms and content.

Still, as such, texts reference an Internet that has evolved considerably

in the intervening years. They could be seen to be a little outdated,

commenting as they are upon something that has undertaken a different

evolutionary path since their publication. They acknowledge “online services

are often a substitute for TV viewing” (Thielman and Downling, 1999: 4) but,

by focusing their conclusions upon “internet-on-TV” and the idea that

“convergence… is likely to become an important market in the form of

enhanced-TV” (Thielman and Downling, 1999: 8) and not online access to

programming, the fact convergence has occured differently to their

expectations is highlighted.


5

More recent is Henry Jenkins’ book “Convergence Culture – Where

Old and New Media Collide”, (2006) an in depth study of convergence across

all aspects of the media landscape, new and old, the relationship of which is

considered; from books to Internet programming and mobile phone

downloads.

Jenkins’ book considers the notion, put forward by Trippi (1993) that

convergence will be “One box. One screen… check your e-mail and order

your groceries and check your child’s homework all on the one screen”,

(Jenkins, 2005: 212) to be merely a “black box fallacy”, (Jenkins, 2005: 14)

suggesting that technology is not the main consideration when looking at

convergence.

Instead, his beliefs are more in tune with 2002’s Ciskin Research that

states, “the hardware is diverging while the content converges”. (2006: 15)

Plurality of platform choice is considered central to the Jenkins definition of

convergence, where consumers “must assume the role of hunters and

gatherers, chasing down bits… across media channels” (Jenkins, 2006: 21)

and “the public… live[s] betwixt and between… multiple media systems”.

(2006: 212)

This redefinition of the topic from “what it’s usually meant to describe

in media and technology circles” (Sinnreich, 2007: 44) is contentious and

during the process of Jenkins explaining the process “we must ultimately

take it on faith that these events are somehow united by the geist of

convergence.” (Sinnreich, 2007: 44) He demonstrates there is some weight

behind his ideas on modern communications culture by presenting six case

studies, but all only manage to imply the validity of the thesis as opposed to

construcing an clear, logical connection.

According to these ideas, the audience are looking beyond what

platform they use to obtain the content, happily dividing their attentions

across many of them and using each for different purposes. As such, this

convergence and his idea that “companies may be forced to renegotiate their

relationship with consumers” (2006: 243) provide a valuable centrepiece to

an analysis of how audience consumption has been affected by the


6

relationship between television and the Internet. This ‘renegotiation’ is what

will shape the future of both platforms, and as such, understanding the

audience is a key consideration for those in the industry.


7

PROGRAMMING REACHING ITS AUDIENCE

Firstly, it is important to know the size of the audience and their levels

of consumption, how frequently they use both the Internet and television sets

to watch videos and television programming. This gives insight into the

levels and type of provision the media should be supplying to the platform.

Essentially, the relationship between the Internet and television is governed

by its ability “to deliver an audience to advertisers”. (Alperstein, 2005: 2)

It makes sense to begin reviewing these figures by looking at those of

the oldest content provider, looking at the numbers viewing programming on

a television. Using the founding of the Internet’s largest video platform

(YouTube - February 2003) as a starting point, we can see that the amount of

time spent viewing the television has remained stable, if not increased. From

27 hours, 53 minutes per person per month then, it reached 28 hours, 14

minutes upon the launch of iPlayer in December 2007 and currently stands at

28 hours, 16 minutes as of March 2010. Television viewership then remains

strong.

Unfortunately though, reliable figures for the usage of Internet video

are not so prevalent, Livingstone (2004: 8) going so far as to say, “there are

no industry records of audience ratings categorised by demographics”.

There are however some interesting findings in a few reputable surveys.

The first set of figures of relevance is from a survey conducted by ICM

for the BBC in November 2006. In this study, those between the ages of 16-

24 were found to be the biggest users of Internet video, with 28 percent

mentioning how they viewed in excess of one per week, compared to 13

percent of 25-34 year olds and less than 7 percent of those older. The poll

also reported that 43 percent of Britons had started to watch less television

as a result of having access to either online videos.

With this research having being undertaken before the creation of any

real provider of “long form (10 minutes or greater)” (Poole and Bradley, 2003:

56) video online, these statistics are interesting to compare with my findings.

They should provide insight into what change, if any, such provision has


8

produced.

One other set of audience statistics of great interest is that of the “3

Screen Report” undertaken by The Neilsen Company in the United States.

The report publishes statistics on video consumption over three platforms;

those of the Internet, television and mobile phones, obtaining its data from a

mixture of surveys and the collection of electronic usage reports from both

the Internet and television audience. The results of this are published

quarterly and the study began in the first half of 2008, allowing a level of

insight into trends that have developed over the last two years in this quickly

expanding area of the industry.

The findings of the most recent “3 Screen Report” show that older

viewers that make up the greater number of users, with 30 percent of the

audience for online content aged 35-49, compared to 24 percent aged 18-

34. Those aged 18-24 (6:35) and 25-34 (4:58) view around twice as much

content in hours per month, however, when compared to those in other

demographics (range between 1:25 and 3:40).

The most recent statistics in the area of online video in the UK are

those published by comScore in April 2010. In this report, the amount of

videos viewed online on a range of video content sites were compared to

figures from one year earlier providing an insight into the growth of the

Internet as a platform. The findings show that there has been an increase in

consumption across the board, with 37 percent more videos viewed on all

sites in February 2010 than in the same period last year; a total of 5.5 billion

videos.

The statistics in this study include a breakdown of the age

demographics for the viewers of online video hosted by the terrestrial

television broadcasters, namely the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. Information is

provided on the composition index of viewers and how many videos on

average they viewed. Age bands were set at 15-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54 and

55+.

The data shows a somewhat different spread of viewers than that of

The Neilsen Company’s findings, with those aged 35-44 (17.5, 20.9 and 13.5)


9

watching more videos per individual than those aged 25-34 (15, 17.4 and

12.1) across every one of the sites. Even more interestingly, every other age

group had more individual viewers to both the BBC and ITV sites than that of

the 15-24 demographic. This suggests though that the audience behaviours

in the UK may differ to those of American audiences, and, as a result, the

findings generated from comparisons with the ‘3 Screens Report’ may be

flawed. It will however provide an interesting comparison.

Six of the ten sites most popular sites were also shown to have at

least doubled the number of videos viewed using them as a platform over the

past year, including those of the BBC (143% growth), and ITV (134%)

alongside less mainstream providers such as Blinkx (204%) and Megavideo

(103%). In those channels, without a link to a major broadcaster, there are

areas of particular interest with regards to the audience consumption of

television.

Loebbecke and Fischer produced a paper entitled “Pay TV Piracy and

Its Effects On Pay TV Provision” which highlights a number of concerns held

by commercial broadcasters when considering the effects of the Internet. In

their study, they concentrate on the ways pirate subscription television can

be obtained through the Internet, highlighting six methods of “illegally

decoding CAS [Conditional Access Systems] encryption” (2005: 26) in order

to obtain subscription television services through a set top box without

paying. Piracy on the Intenet was considered by The European Commission

to be its use as an outlet to find “manuals for manipulating smart cards…

and for decoding keys that can be downloaded”. (Loebbecke and Fisher,

2005: 23)

However, Loebbecke and Fischer note that “the rapidly spreading

Internet, has promoted the growth of pay TV piracy” (2005:1) and given the

expansion of streaming websites and there are certainly concerns that “the

rise of file sharing threaten[s] old ways of doing business”. (Jenkins, 2006:

243)

Indeed, their suggestions of “decreasing their subscription costs and

”more frequently… changing their decoding keys” (Lebbecke and Fischer,


10

2005: 29) are less likely to change the behaviours of that share of the

audience when the alternative is not “a cheaper, illegal pirate” option

(Lebbecke and Fischer, 2005: 30) but a free one. The speed with which

illegal Internet television sources are growing their audience and providing

free easy access to programming can be assumed to be making it more

likely than in 2005 that pay TV stations would “consequently lose their

customers”. (2005: 27)


11

AUDIENCE BEHAVIOURS

Understanding the nature of the audience then is just as important as

knowing just the quantity of viewers and what they view. Study into how

they consume the programming when they are watching television allows for

insights to be that may guide the levels of convergence in future. Indeed, if a

significant proportion of the audience finds it has no use for something, such

as ‘Internet-TV’, then it makes sense that the nature of relationships at their

convergence will change.

A leading paper on the power of the audience in what media they

chose to consume and how is, “Utilization of Mass Communication By the

Individual”. (Blulmer, Katz and Gurevitch, 1974) They set out in this paper

how “gratifications studies have demonstrated that one and the same set of

media materials is capable of serving a multiplicity of needs and audience

functions” (Blumer, Katz and Gurevitch, 1974: 44) and conclude by

establishing “the audience as a source of challenge to producers to cater…

to the multiplicity of requirements and roles” (Blumer, Katz and Gurevitch,

1974: 48) that they expect from the media.

By proposing that the audience has a set of needs they require from

the process of media consumption, they establish the idea that the audience

will find gratification for these needs among various sources; “some kind of

division of labour among the media for the satisfaction of audience needs”.

(Blumer, Katz and Gurevitch, 1974: 42)

In the years since this paper was published however, the amount of

media content available to the audience has grown considerably; a level of

choice which sits well with the idea that the audience makes its decisions

upon what to consume with considerable thought. It stands to reason that

this “division of labour” will have also been considerably altered in response

and audience consumption will have changed with it.

In 2000, Thomas E. Ruggiero published his paper, “'Uses and

Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century”, in an effort to apply the theories of

outlined in the above study to the new media landscape and audience needs


12

that had evolved since 1974. Drawing upon the ideas of the Perse and Dunn

(1998) he notes how “personal computers may be displacing the use of

traditional media” as “they are increasingly filling similar needs”, (Ruggiero,

2000: 17) and how “different individuals tend to display different types and

amounts of activity in different communication settings and at different

times”. (Ruggiero, 2000: 8)

Within his own work Ruggiero addresses the criticisms of the theory,

noting, “mass communication scholars have contended uses and

gratifications is not a rigorous social science”. (2000: 1) Citing White (1994)

he mentions how “the U&G theory overextends its reach in asserting that

people are free to choose the media fare and interpretations they want”.

(Ruggiero, 2000:11) Indeed, the presence and reach of major broadcasters,

not to mention media conglomerates with other sources of mass media

output, has grown along with the Internet. It will, surely then, still have a

considerable impact on the habits of the audience given its increased

presence and availability.

Still, he notes that Gilder (1990) sees that development of the “Internet

will empower users” (Ruggiero, 2000: 29) and given the increase in content

providers available on line and the amount of ‘user-generated content’

(Childs, 2003 cited by Livingstone, 2004: 2) it could indeed be the case that

“any attempt to speculate on the future direction of mass communication

theory must seriously include the uses and gratifications approach”.

(Ruggiero, 2000: 1)

Still though, being ten years old in a quickly evolving sector of the

media industry, the paper can be considered dated to an extent. It makes

limited reference specifically to Internet television, instead considering the

Internet as a platform to fulfil communication needs within the audience, yet

it is important in showing theoretical developments.

Sonia Livingstone begins to address Jenkins’ ideas of an audience

obtaining their content across a variety of platforms, noticing how “users of

new media are increasingly active… and they are increasingly plural”.

(Livingstone, 2004: 4) She also mentions though that the Internet is difficult to


13

assess as an audience theorist given that “a survey about an evening’s

viewing is tricky but my no means as tricky as recording an evening’s surfing,

game playing or instant messaging”. (Livingstone, 2004: 8)

Essentially, an audience member’s use for the Internet could be one of

many things, and with this increasing plurality comes a difficulty in assessing

their relationship with Internet television amid everything else. This, combined

with her noticing that theorists “tend to defer the study of audiences and

users of new information and communication technologies to the last stage

in a long chain” (Livingstone, 2004: 3) the reason for a lack of abundance in

relevant studies becomes clear.

Still, in her statement that the audience now “routinely multitask

across platforms and applications” (Livingstone, 2004: 8) an interesting

question with regards to whether the new “celebrated, resistant, active

audience” (Livingstone, 2004: 3) is still just as active in interpreting the texts

they view comes up.

Neil Alperstein undertook a survey of college students in 2005; looking

at how they used the media and paying particular attention to how attentive

they were when engaged in simultaneous media use. In his report, he

mentions how Gunter and Furnham (1995) reported “40 percent of the time

viewers are in front of the television, they are not looking at the screen”

(Alperstein, 2005: 6) and his own research presents the figures that “88

percent of... college students surveyed used media simultaneously”.

(Alperstein, 2005: 20)

Also of interest is a set of statistics in the “3 Screen Report” (2010)

that finds that 59 percent of American’s use their televisions and the Internet

simultaneously at least once a month. Furthermore, between December

2008 and December 2009 the amount of time they spent doing so had

increased by 34.5 percent, although this was still only a period of three and a

half hours per month.

While Gunter and Furnham show television to be a broadcasting

format prone to having a distracted audience prior to the Internet, the

indication is that the television consumption among the 18-24 year old age


14

group may be considerably affected by its presence.

One of the suggestions Alperstein makes as a result of his findings is

that there may be “a shift toward more individualized or private consumption

of media” (2005: 17) and in order to test the validity of a claim such as this

use of television as a social medium needs to be reviewed.

James et al (1995) are cited as saying, “suggested Internet forums

such as electronic bulletin boards fulfil many expectations of both mass and

interpersonal communication” (Ruggiero, 2000: 27) and similarly Jenkins’

ideas on “transmedia storytelling” (2006: 96) also include online discussions

as a key component.

Yet television is also an activity that is undertaken with company, as

the studies of James Lull suggest. His 1980 paper, “Family Communication

Patterns and the Social Uses of Television” studied 85 families using a

mixture of observation and interviews in order to study how different families

use the watching of television within their home to achieve social

gratifications.

In it, he found that the television audience does indeed “recognise the

utility of television as a social resource”, (Lull, 1980: 333) but that the uses of

television differed between different types of people. In this case, he noticed

differences between socio-centred and concept-centred families, where

“socio-centred families have high levels of total television viewing” (Lull,

1980: 321) and “employ the medium for a variety of social purposes not so

used by their concept-oriented peers”. (Lull, 1980: 329) These findings

indicate that there may be a number of different reasons given by for

television audiences for their viewing habits, though such family related

specifics will be absent from the results of this project.

Given the study is now 30 years old, and that the media landscape

has been altered considerably in the intervening years, looking at this study

will allow some insight into whether there has been a change in the audience

use of television in this way. Indeed, by comparing such findings to the

thoughts of Jenkins and Ruggiero, who believe the Internet may now fulfil


15

some of the social uses of the Internet, an interesting element of media

convergence could be highlighted.


16

INVESTIGATION

(i) AREA OF RESEARCH

Briefly, the main areas of questioning within my study are:

1) The frequency with which the audience watches television

programming and how it receives the programming.

2) What the audience desire from their viewing experience and how the

Internet is associated with it.

To gain insight into the former, I shall be asking simply how often the

respondent watches a piece of television programming using the television or

the Internet and its various sources.

For the latter, there are three key things which the questions are

attempting to gain an insight into, namely: if the Internet is used as a regular

platform to view programming, if the Internet distracts from the programming

in any way, and the use of the Internet with regards to the social aspects of

viewing television programming. These questions should help to ascertain

what people see the ‘uses’ of television to be; whether Internet television

succeeds in delivering television in a way the audience want.

(ii) METHODOLOGY

I decided upon commencing that I would undertake this study using

the data-finding methodology of quantitative research, in order to provide

quantifiable evidence for any trends in viewing figures, habits and methods of

programming consumption. This would be administrated through the

distribution of a questionnaire. I believe that this is a suitable way to

approach this topic, as some empirical evidence is certainly required in order

to prove or disprove the effects that the Internet has had upon the viewing of


17

television programming. As I am trying to find indicators of particular trends,

I feel a method that leaves me with raw data to analyse is highly appropriate.

My study bears a resemblance to that undertaken by Mojsa and Rettie

in 2002, “Attitudes to Internet Advertising: A Cross Cultural Comparison.”

This study consisted of a quantitative survey of 200 students in response to

US studies in the same field, in order to obtain comparisons as well as

generate new information. In it, the participants were asked sixteen

questions, all based around the five point Likert scale as I used myself for six

of the twelve questions. Obviously though, where their area of study was

Internet advertising, mine is Internet television.

Ten people in each of three different target age ranges received a

copy of the questionnaire allowing for a comparison of analysing any age

related trends. Group A was that of people aged around 16-24, people who

would have been young children at around the time of the mass consumer

uptake of the Internet, and who could therefore be reasonably expected to

have grown up with familiarity and access to the medium. My belief is that

this demographic, now reasonably mature and with freedoms and autonomy

with regards to their consumption, will offer the best possible indication as to

any trends which offer a chance of causing further changes.

In addition, I had also distributed two more sets of questionnaires to

people of the age range 25-34 (group B), people who would have been of a

similar age as the respondents in the first group when the Internet was

starting to become a mainstream form of media. Lastly, group C contained

those aged 35+, people who would have been without any exposure to the

Internet at school, if indeed at all, during their youth.

In addition to them being appropriate in terms of their developmental

exposure, these age ranges will also allow me to compare them directly to

the ICM study from 2006, whilst the Three Screen Reports also mentioned in

my critical review use similar age groups aside from further stratifying those

over 35.

The study used quota sampling in order to obtain the required number


18

of questionnaires, resulting in a sample that is neither random nor

representative of the population. However, I feel that the ways in which the

groups are split allows for a reasonable cross section generationally, bearing

in mind that one of the aims of the study is to attempt to find any trends that

may continue to affect the two platforms in the years to come. In this

instance a focus among the younger members of society could be beneficial.

Unfortunately too, the number of people within the sample is

somewhat small and this serves to impact upon the reliability of the study as

a whole. However, it can still serve to give some indication of audience

patterns within the targeted age groups.

Initially I was also contemplating the inclusion of a more open

interview-based approach in order to see if any unforeseen points of interest

came up. However, based upon the level of detail given in response to the

testing of the questionnaire I attempted it a more pared down approach with

a structured/semi-structured basis was adopted. This would ensure that the

responses I got were all full enough to work with, as well as not so long and

differing as to render it somewhat troublesome to form the respondents

opinions into clear results.

Semi-structuring allowed for the easier spotting of indications that

trends are forming; the use of Likert scales allowing mathematical

representations of responses to be easily formed. The scales were used with

the distribution range of never, once a month, once a fortnight, weekly and

daily which were, whilst not specific enough to provide statistics such as a

general number of viewing hours, are able to present a broad indication of

the habits of those within the sample.

At the end of the questionnaire there were then still a few open-ended

questions that remained, all except one relating to a question previously

asked. These questions were included in order to obtain a little more detail

about why they may be unsatisfied with the state of Internet television. It

should also help to illustrate what the audience perceive the ‘uses’ of

television to be in the modern day. These two topics are cornerstones in

establishing the extent to which audience consumption of television


19

programming is open to the convergence between television and the

Internet.

Once these results were gathered in this manner, I then began a

statistical analysis of them in an effort to ascertain whether there is any

indication of trends, habits or attitudes present in the participants’ viewing

habits.


20

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

In this section of the investigation, I analyse the results obtained from

the questionnaires received from groups A, B and C individually, and

highlight anything that stands out as significant. Then I look at the combined

results of all three groups together in order to get an indication of the

relationship between television and the Internet at this point in time. In the

findings, I then look at these results in comparison to other studies and

literature in the field.

As previously mentioned however, these results do have to be

considered far from conclusive. There is a small survey sample of only ten

people for each group and they were chosen without stratification; it can be

merely a guide, not a representation of the actual population.

(i) THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THE AUDIENCE WATCHES

TELEVISION AND HOW IT RECEIVES THE PROGRAMMING.

In group A, every single respondent said that they still watched

television programming on a weekly basis, with the 80 percent majority

saying it was a daily thing. The figures from groups B and C were similar,

with everyone again saying that the viewing of television programming was a

weekly pastime at worst. However, 70 percent of the people within group

B’s 25-34 age range were daily viewers, a figure matched by group C.

Undeniably then, television programmes are still popular and an important

part of the day-to-day lives of the respondents, although it appears to be

slightly less important with age.

When asking participants how often they use a television to view the

programming (Table 2) some surprising results were found. 30 percent of

people in group A indicating that the Internet is their main form of television

viewing. Indeed, whilst everyone in both groups B and C matched their

answers to the first question, 50 percent of those in group A changed theirs.

It appears that there is indeed a shift, then, within this youngest demographic


21

toward Internet television viewing, with only half of those who watch

television on a daily basis using a television set, compared to all of the

corresponding group B and C’s.

Even more surprisingly, it appears that those 4 respondents who do

watch Internet television on a daily basis do not even watch the television at

all. This could very well be as a result of their not possessing a set, maybe

deciding that they are perfectly happy with the quality received through

Internet television.

Upon discussing the question of whether the Internet was used as a

platform for viewing programming (table 3) even larger discrepancies than

expected appeared between the groups. Within group A the majority of

those questioned still professed to viewing a television show on a daily basis,

though this time at a figure of 60 percent. One respondent did say, however,

that they never watched television programming over the Internet. Therefore,

only 90 percent of group A can be considered Internet television audience

members on, at a minimum, a weekly basis. Yet, the youngest demographic

was again the one which appeared to embrace the idea of Internet television

the most.

Group B also provided something of an expected result, with again 10

percent fewer people than in group A indicating that they viewed television

programmes over the Internet on a daily basis. Of the remaining 50 percent,

40 percent were weekly viewers though, so both groups A and B have 90

percent of respondents using Internet television weekly.

Group C is fairly interesting, with a large split between those that do

watch television on the Internet at least weekly (50%, with 10% daily)

compared to 20 percent who watch monthly, and 30 percent who never view

Internet television at all. Again, there is no real surprise in the elder group

showing something of a drop off, but the disparity between the two is

somewhat unexpected. It would be interesting to know more about the

demographic of the respondents in order to theorise upon the reasons for

this, whether jobs or family are a factor.

Just over two thirds of the respondents then watch Internet television


22

on a weekly basis, with 22 out of the 30 stating this in their viewing habits.

Interesting to note is how over half of those questioned watch Internet

television daily, despite only one of those over 35 being in that number. This

again goes some way toward indicating how there is a generational gap with

regards to the uptake of Internet television viewing.

The fourth question (table 4) is one in which the frequency of answers

given by the respondents drops considerably more than I would have

expected. Within group A only 30 percent of people claimed to use an illegal

torrent or streaming site weekly, despite three times as many people using

the Internet for television during that time. Two others claimed to use them

fortnightly, with four accessing programming illegally on a monthly basis.

With groups B and C the results are largely as would be expected

from the responses received to the previous question. The vast majority of

those who view Internet television regularly also undertake the viewing of

some programmes using illegal means. Twenty percent of each group said

they never used sites unaffiliated to those of the broadcasters of the shows,

and similarly twenty percent less than used Internet television used those

sites daily.

There is no surprise here in that almost everyone does view an illegal

programme at some point, although the recorded frequency is lower than I

expected in group A. Still, the question was one about undertaking illegal

activity and this may have altered the legitimacy of their responses; it is an

unexpected result in theory that is certainly understandable in practice. Even

so, when 73 percent of the respondents stating that they access

programmes from such sources, and 50 percent do so on a weekly basis, a

possible area for concern for programme makers and broadcasters is

certainly highlighted.

When asked why they chose to use one of the unaffiliated sites at any

point however, there were a large variety of different reasons put forward;

many respondents choosing to give more than one, and in one case as many

as six.

Despite minor differences in the phraseology, there were two


23

particular reasons that at least half of those respondents that view content on

these sites brought up. Eleven of them mentioned that they did it when they

had issues with the legal video platforms (50%), whilst sixteen (73%) did so

when accessing what would otherwise be unavailable content, either in it

only being available abroad or on a subscription channel.

The fact around half of those questioned reported problems with the

current online video platforms (ITV player, 4oD, Demand Five and iPlayer) is

possibly grounds for concern among those involved. However, given as the

nature of the complaints were usually transient (“when iPlayer is loading

slowly”) or purely aesthetic (“I don’t like how ITV player looks or 4oD does

downloads”) it probably is not too big an issue, especially when you consider

even the oldest of these services has not been around for 3 years yet.

The latter though, could possibly indicate that there is a market for

subscription stations to provide a platform for viewing their content on, with

those channels currently only available through digital satellite currently

somewhat conspicuous by their absence. The two people that complained

that they could not get Sky due to living in halls may be the type to consider

such a service.

However, given that purchasing a Sky subscription is already an

option for the majority, those 36 percent who use streaming sites to watch

football or wrestling are likely doing it in order to avoid the cost. The other

significant proportion (45%) mentioned that the content had aired elsewhere,

but was currently unavailable here with people mentioning ‘24’, ‘House’ and

‘Fringe’ as examples of shows they download. Going from these results,

restricting access to content like this does appear to be a challenge the

industry has to face, more so than ensuring their services are working well.

(ii) WHAT THE AUDIENCE DESIRE FROM THEIR VIEWING

EXPERIENCE AND HOW THE INTERNET IS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

In the first of this category of questions (table 5) we begin to look at

what the audience uses television programming for, in this case whether they


24

see it still as a shared social experience. In this question, we have the

second instance of the frequency increasing with age. 60 percent of those in

group A viewing television company on a weekly basis compared to 70

percent in group B and the entirety of group C. Indeed, over half of group C

watch with company on a daily basis compared with 10 percent of group A

and 20 percent of group B.

This result is particularly interesting when looked at along with the

results in table 2. In doing so you can hypothesise that almost every time a

member of group C watches the television, and they do so with someone in

their company. Television is certainly part of the social experience for those

questioned who were aged over 35, and this could lie in how they would be

of the age to have a settled family life.

Similar ideas about the lifestyles could also account for the results of

those in the other age bands. Those aged 16-24 are most likely primarily

students, house sharing with people on different timetables possibly

accounting for the fact they watch television with others on a regular basis,

but not daily. Those in the 25-34 age bracket may have families and partners,

accounting for the 20 percent rise, whilst others may be single or more

career driven so have less opportunity to watch with others when at home.

Included next was a comparison question with regards to the social

wants of the television audience; question six (table 6) looking into whether

discussion and reaction to television programming in a virtual environment

was as common as the watching of television in company. This question is

significant in assessing whether the audience has the desire to discuss what

they view with others, outside of their company or if they had none.

Unsurprisingly, group A is again the leader in such communications

with 70 percent of them indicating that they did so at least once a week and

only 20 percent that they never do so.

The responses to this question demonstrated far more equality

between the three groups than I thought it would. With groups B and,

especially, C undertaking more television viewing in the company of others I

thought there would be a significant reduction in the number feeling the need


25

to discuss the programming elsewhere. Instead, it appears that public

discussion online is now a valuable addition of the experience an audience

derives from a television programme and as a result of this 60 percent of

those questioned overall took part.

Question 8 (table 8) is a question specifically regarding the direct

impact of the Internet’s presence upon the viewing experience, whether or

not it was the transmission platform. In response to it, the majority of the

respondents (63%) said that the Internet distracted them from watching the

television at times. Those aged 35+ appeared be less prone to the problem

though, with only half of them considering it an issue.

When asked how this distraction manifested itself however, the

responses to question ten were intriguing, mainly because the reasons given

for were almost always exactly the same. Indeed, of people who do find

themselves distracted by the Internet, 82 percent of them mentioned the

same reason. The sounds of an online message or an email appear to be the

primary offender in distracting people; the distraction for the other 18 percent

being a compulsion to research something they had seen or, simply,

because “its there”.

Interestingly though, without being prompted to mention when they

were distracted during the programming, 36 percent of those who were

mentioned that the distraction occurred during the advertisements. Many of

the responses were prefixed or suffixed with phrases such as “during the

ads”, “when the adverts come on” and “in the break”. Such a result is

interesting with regards to its possible impact of the future of commercial

television when faced with these audience patterns.

The final question that was asked had the respondents comparing

their experiences of viewing programming on a television set to viewing it on

the Internet when with company. This provides some indication as to the

reasons people have for choosing one platform over another in a social

context; a context which the study has found to be frequent for the majority.

Generally, those who responded did so by expressing dissatisfaction

with the Internet as a viewing platform as opposed to noting anything good


26

about a television set, with 73 percent of the answers given to this question

falling into the former category. Some of the responses given were, again,

specific to particular sites finding that “4oD’s adverts are annoying” or that

“Megavideo always has loads of pop-up screens”, issues again that do not

point to overall trends.

There were also indications though that using the Internet, as opposed

to the television, impacted upon the enjoyment of the viewing experience.

Indeed, 64 percent mentioned issues with the delay of streaming Internet

video, one commenting, “if it starts to stop all the time with someone else

there, it just feels awkward” whilst plenty of others used the words “lag”,

“freeze” and “slow” in their responses.

Also relevant are the 21 percent who indicated that there were

practical problems with regards to the social viewing of Internet television.

These included that “having to get up to change programmes is the worst

thing if you’ve just got comfy” and that it is “awkward to know where to put

the laptop watching it… the screen is too small to be far away, but it gets too

hot to put on your lap”. Such problems show the active audience is very

specific in what it wants when consuming media content and that the

platform can be just as important as the programming.


27

FINDINGS

Firstly, there are a couple of very basic conclusions that can be drawn

from the results that are still worth mentioning. People do still seem to have

a strong appetite for viewing television shows, with the majority of

respondents watching on a weekly basis, and this sits well with the BARB

ratings figures.

Furthermore, the television is still the main platform for television

viewing amongst for the majority of the respondents; only those within the

youngest demographic appeared to use the Internet to watch television to

the same or a greater extent. However, 77 percent of respondents did say

they watched television over the Internet on at least a weekly basis; itself a

strong figure and something the “3 Screen Report” (The Neilsen Company,

2010) suggested would be the case.

This does suggest then that the idea “online services are often a

substitute for TV viewing” (Thielman and Dowling, 1999: 4) has not developed

into a large-scale migration from a television audience to that of an Internet

video audience. The huge decrease from the 67 percent of people saying

they would "never watch and cannot envisage watching" (ICM, 2006) online

video, along with the increase in consumer choice, suggest television

audience figures are not going to be considerably affected by online video.

Yet, despite this, 65 percent of 16-34 year olds questioned said they

would consider selling their television and access programmes through the

Internet, demonstrating that people do not feel the same attachment to the

television set as they did as few as four years ago. It could be that Ruggiero

is correct in thinking that “personal computers may be displacing the use of

traditional media”. (2000: 14)

One of the primary factors in this, outside of Internet television being

more widely available, could be the accessibility to content they would not

otherwise be able to view on the television. As mentioned in my results,

around half (45%) of those who used torrent and streaming sites unaffiliated

with broadcasters did so to view either subscription channel content, or that


28

which was only available abroad at the time.

Indeed, “several pay TV providers have reported losses for the past few

years due to… falling revenues caused by pay TV piracy” (Loebbeke and

Fischer, 2005: 21) something that supports the idea of a significant number

of people obtaining access to subscription television content on sites that are

hosting copyrighted material they have no rights to. The fact that, according

to the comScore data from April 2010, web platforms of broadcasters such

as Channel 4 (39.3m) and ITV (28.2m) are obtaining similar online video

viewing figures as Dailymotion (31.4m) and Megavideo (53.5m) pay testament

to that.

Still, this method of obtaining content “only reduces demand and

revenue if we assume that the pirates would alternatively pay for the

subscription”. (Loebbeke and Fischer, 2005: 28) Or, indeed, that they would

wait for the latest episodes of their favourite shows to be broadcast legally.

However, with the prominent "spoiler community" (Jenkins, 2006: 54) and the

audience knowing the shows are there to be accessed this may be

something they are not willing to do.

Another thing apparent from the results of the study is the distraction of

the Internet itself on the audience; over 63 percent of those questioned

responded in the affirmative when asked whether the Internet served to

disrupt their television viewing experiences. This, when considered

alongside the findings showing 59 percent of people using the Internet and

television at the same time regularly, (The Neilsen Report, 2010) indicates

Alperstein’s suggestion that “concurrent behaviours while watching television

and simultaneous media use are integrally woven into the fabric of everyday

life” (2005: 20) could indeed be correct.

Interesting as it was to find more than half of the respondents found

that they were distracted from their viewing by the Internet, it is just as

important to consider the reasons the respondents disclosed for this

distraction. The most common reason cited was undoubtedly some form of

Internet communication, but the fact 36 percent of respondents mentioned

how they were more distracted during the advertisement breaks is


29

interesting.

This amount of Internet usage whilst watching programming, alongside

Alperstein’s findings that “only 4.6 percent of the respondents said they were

highly likely to look up from their computer in order to pay attention to the

television when a commercial came on”, (2005: 16) indicates that television

advertising audiences are, in terms of active viewers, not quite so numerous

as those of programming audience.

Harry Jenkins notes a shift in the idea of the audience over the last ten

years; the idea that “if the old consumers were assumed to be passive, new

consumers are active.” (2006: 18) The television audience are now required

to make more effort to find the content they want due to the advent of multi-

channel television and the on-demand nature of Internet television. This,

coupled with their rejection of traditional television components such as the

advertisements when offered another choice, shows the audience as a whole

to be an active one.

Yet it appears that the audience is often an audience to both the

Internet and television at the same time. It may be that they are an active

audience when their attention is on the television, but the interactivity and

immersion of the Internet is, at times, preventing them from even engaging

with the programming they have selected, making them passive. Rather than

being an active television audience then, emails and social networking sites

are co-existing with broadcast media in order to provide gratifications for the

user.

As Ruggiero concludes it could be time “to question stock assumptions

about the active audience concept”, (2000: 26) referring as it does to the

consumption of one form of media at a time where now “all audience

members are not equally active at all times”. (Ruggiero, 2000: 26)

These findings, of course, are something that should be of great

concern to those in commercial broadcasting where already “major

broadcast networks are attracting a smaller slice of the [revenue] pie as

audience fragmentation continues” (Jenkins, 2006: 66). Any indication that

those viewing the programming may not be viewing the channel with


30

“consumers… showing a declining loyalty to networks” (Jenkins, 2006: 19),

and then that those viewing the channel may be paying no attention to the

adverts can be of no benefit to their future security.

Interesting findings can also be drawn from the study in relation to the

social applications of television, and how that has altered in response to the

Internet. The data regarding how frequently communal viewing occurs shows

the future of watching television as a social activity to be strong, one third of

the respondents saying they watch programmes in company daily whilst 76

percent do so at least weekly.

This result then is far more supportive of the established ideas of Kubey

and Csikszentmihayi (1990) that “socializing, is an important part of the

greater television experience” (Alperstein, 2005: 3) than it is to the

speculation of Neil Alperstein himself who said his study “may indicate a shift

toward more individualized or private consumption of media” (2005: 17)

The statistics regarding the use of a television set for viewing in

comparison to the frequency of viewing the television in company make for

more interesting reading though, given that there is a much closer

resemblance in the two among the older respondents than was found in the

16-24 year olds. I proposed the idea that this may be as a result of a family

influence, and this sits well with the James Lull who acknowledged how the

family uses “the medium is also used… as a resource for conversational

topics and for providing a desirable social activity - the viewing experience.”

(1980: 331)

Indeed, his further findings that the audience “use it [television] often

and in various ways as a resource for constructing their desired social

realities at home“ (Lull, 1980: 333) could indicate why 70 percent of the

respondents over the age of 25 watch programming on a television set daily;

by viewing it in such a manner, they encourage family interactivity.

Lull’s findings may also explain the disparity within the 25-34 age range,

his findings that “concept-oriented family members have relatively low

television consumption overall” (1980: 321) could point to their difference

from socio-orientated families being significant. This would not explain the


31

fact those at 35+ appear to be more inclined to view television socially again

though, yet given the small sample any of these results may be unreliable.

In a social situation too, the dislikes for aspects of the Internet television

experience that are raised are reaffirming. With a television set you can be

“sitting quietly on the sofa” (Livingstone, 2004: 10) in a prominent room of the

house watching content delivered with immediacy, a situation far more open

to social interactions occurring than the “small screen” and “slow streaming”

mentioned by the respondents of this study.

Similarly, the 21 percent who mentioned practical issues with regards to

watching Internet television in company demonstrate a desire possibly for an

element of technological convergence. They have attempted to watch

Internet television socially, and are therefore clearly receptive to the idea.

However, issues such as “having to get up to change the programme” and

the “screen being too small” on their laptop. As Thielman and Dowling noted

then in 1999, “PC-based television faces quality or convenience limitations to

become an equivalent substitute” (p. 5) and over ten years later, this still

appears to be the case.

Still, despite the regular consumption of content in company, a

significant proportion (60%) of those questioned use the Internet to discuss

television programming at least once a week, again demonstrating the inter-

relation of the two platforms in providing the audiences with gratification.

This statistic would definitely back up Jenkins’ idea that the audience over

the Internet are “collaborating to ensure that everyone who invests time and

effort will come away with a richer entertainment experience”. (2006: 21) As

their actions towards advertisements show, if this new level of active

audience didn’t gain anything from it, they would not be slow to respond

accordingly.


32

CONCLUSIONS

(i) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The results of the study have shown, as expected, that the Internet

has had an impact on how television is consumed. There has been a

substantial increase in the frequency with which Internet television platforms

are used since 2006, with those amongst the younger demographics leading

the way as expected.

The attentiveness of the television audience in competing with the

Internet is something that may worry broadcasters, with a large number of

people indicating they simultaneously use both. Indeed, advertisers have

more reason to worry if, as indicated, people move from viewing the

television to browsing the Internet on their commencement. Yet, the

willingness to engage with the actual programmes is still there, maybe even

on a greater level given how many of them discuss the shows online.

There also appears to be a reasonable level of piracy with regards to

the access of content on the Internet as people watch programming from

outside of the authorised sources. Combined with the worries of advertisers,

the future revenue streams of commercial broadcasters could be threatened,

particularly when half of those questioned said they would consider using

only the Internet to view content.

Still though, the appetite for television programming received in the

traditional manner remains. The majority still watch content on television

sets and numerous concerns were expressed with regards to the quality of

Internet platforms. Indeed these issues, combined with the how social

viewing has still shown to be a regular occurrence, suggest there is still

plenty of scope for the traditional manner of television viewing to remain

prominent in the face of the Internet’s competition.

(ii) SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY


33

I think further study could, and should, certainly be undertaken into

the area of illegal downloading, using torrents and streaming websites not

authorised by the programme makers or distributors. This is an area in which

I did not go into much depth in the study, but the results of my research

seem to imply that there may be around as many users as there are for legal

video streaming websites.

Insights into this area then may yield important findings, particularly

regarding the urgency of establishing an effective copyright protection

system to prevent the illegal distribution of material. It is clear from my

findings, even with a small and unrepresentative sample, that the Internet has

an issue with restricting the number of people who download content using

illegal means. Although it may seem like a minor issue with regards to the

audience watching the same programming either way, without curbing to

some extent there could very well be a large budgetary issue for

broadcasters, in the near future if some are not struggling already.

In the words of Will Page, the chief economist at the Performing Right

Society, “Doing nothing will see the problem getting worse and worse [but]

neither is disconnecting people from the Internet a good way of increasing

revenues." (Frost, 2009) Therefore, to make the best judgment with regards

to the future of television and its connections with the Internet more

information can be of no harm.

Also, with regards to the Internet, it could be interesting to research

whether the audience is distracted more when using it as a platform for

viewing content than when using a television set. Over half (63%) of the

respondents to the study mentioned that the Internet does distract them from

the programming at times, a similar proportion (59%) to that reported by The

Neilsen Company (2010) in the US as using the Internet and television

simultaneously. As Neil Alperstein quotes Bunn (1982) as pointing out, “the

extent to which television viewers remain ‘present’ during commercial breaks

is an important issue for advertisers and media analysts”. (2005:2)

I also feel that research on this topic would benefit greatly from a

study utilising the observational method of data-finding, namely directly


34

recording data on the usage of a large stratified sample of the population.

From this raw data you would then be able to analyse how much time was

spent on which websites, how much time was spent watching television and

how frequently the two activities were seen to occur concurrently without

having to rely on any subjective judgments or participant errors.

There could, of course, be numerous ethical issues if a study was

undertaken in this manner due to issues regarding intrusion into their privacy,

and behaviour may be changed in a way that user downloaded content

would come from different sources. However, if anonymity could be

guaranteed and ethical concerns resolved, a really insightful dataset could be

produced if developed over a reasonable length of time.

(iii) EVALUATION

With regards to this study, I believe the project to be hampered by a

few flaws that prevent it from being as good as it could be. The open-ended

questions found within the questionnaire would have been improved greatly

by asking them as a separate series of interviews in the data gathering

process. Whilst the responses were detailed enough to attempt a reasoned

analysis in conjunction with the other findings from the questionnaire, the

opportunity to have gone into a little more depth would have bestowed any

conclusions derived from them with more clarity and insight.

Similarly, an increase in the sample size would have resulted in much

more valid and reliable figures upon which I could base my findings. Instead,

they can only be considered suggestive as opposed to truly representative of

the opinions and habits of the population as a whole.

I feel the topic of the project itself is a good and highly relevant one,

examining as it does an issue of key importance to the industry at the

present day. Obviously though, given the nature of innovation in the subject,

the study will become dated relatively quickly as many others in the field

already have.


35

There may have been more benefit if the study was more focused in

looking at the issues with regards to the audience response. I feel the

insights into Internet television as a method of communal viewing are

interesting, but a specific question with regards to the frequency of this

taking place is lacking.

Lastly, the critical review would have benefitted from the existence of

more recent studies into the area of Internet television and more statistics

with regards to the use of illegal steaming and torrent sites. As it stands,

there was only breakdown of the viewing figures received by UK Internet

television platforms, whilst figures on the illegal sites were restricted to how

many visitors it received not what they downloaded or saw. The availability

of this information would allow better comparisons to be made, and for more

reliable and valid conclusions to be drawn.


i

PRIMARY BIBLIOGRPAHY

Lewis, R.O. (2009). Questionnaire On the Internet and Television Viewing Habits. Date Completed 19 Dec 2009.


i i

SECONDARY BIBLIOGRPAHY Alperstein, N. M. (2005). Living in an age of distraction: Mulititasking and simultaneous media use and the implications for advertisers (Research report): Loyola College, MD. This version available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1473864 BARB. (2010). Monthly Multi-Channel Viewing Summary. Available: http://www.barb.co.uk/report/monthlyViewing BARB. (2009). Monthly Total Viewing Summary 1992-2009. Available: http://www.barb.co.uk/report/monthlyViewingSummaryOverview Blumler, J., E. Katz and M. Gurevitch (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In: J. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.). The uses of mass communication: Current perspectives on gratifications Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 19–34. Bryant, Jennings and J. Alison Bryant. (2001). Television and the American Family. London: Routeledge. Coffman, K.G and A.M. Odlyzko. (1998). The Size and Growth Rate of the Internet. AT&T Labs. This version available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.28.1057&rep=rep1&type=pdf Held, Gilbert. (2006). Understanding IPTV. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. ICM Research. (2006). Online Mobile Video Online, November 2006. [Data File] Available: http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/pdfs/2006_november_bbc_online_mobile_video_online.pdf ICM Research. (2006). Online Mobile Video Online, November 2006. [Data File] Available: http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/pdfs/2006_november_bbc_online_mobile_video_telephone.pdf Jenkins, Henry. (2006). Convergence Culture – Where Old and New Media Collide. New York, NY: NYU Press. Lavery, David. (2010). The Essential Cult TV Reader. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press.


i i i

Livingstone, Sonia (2004) The challenge of changing audiences: or, what is the audience researcher to do in the age of the Internet? European journal of communication, 19:1. 75-86. Loebbecke, Claudia and Matthias Fischer (2005). Pay TV Piracy and its Effects on Pay TV Provision, Journal of Media Business Studies. 2:2, 17-34. Lull, James. (1980). Family Communication Patterns and the Social Uses of Television. Communication Research. 7:3, 319-333. Lull, James. (1990). Inside Family’s Viewing – Ethnographic Research On Television’s Audience. London: Routeledge. Mojsa, Magdalena and Rettie, Ruth (2003) Attitudes to internet marketing: a cross-cultural comparison. Kingston upon Thames: Kingston Business School, Kingston University. Nabi, James and Mary Beth Oliver. (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Media Processes and Effects. London: SAGE Publications. Orlik, Peter B. and Louis A. Day. (2007). Exploring electronic media: chronicles and challenges. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Poole, Curtis and Janette Bradley. (2003). Developer's digital media reference: new tools, new methods. Oxford: Focal Press. Ruggiero, Thomas E. (2000). 'Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century', Mass Communication and Society, 3:1, 3-37. Sinnreich, Aram. (2007). ‘Come Together, Right Now: We Know Something’s Happening. But We Don’t Know What It Is’, International Journal of Communication, 1: 1, 44-47. Stempel, Guido Hermann. (2003). Media and Politics In America – A Reference Handbook. Oxford: ABC-CLIO. The Neilsen Company. (2010). Three Screen Report, 4Q 2009. [Data File] Available: http://en-us.nielsen.com/etc/medialib/nielsen_dotcom/en_us/documents/pdf/three_screen_reports.Par.56095.File.dat/3Screens_4Q09_US_rpt.pdf Thielmann, Bodo and Michael Dowling. (1999). 'Convergence and innovation strategy for service provision in emerging Web-TV markets', International Journal on Media Management, 1: 1, 4-9 Valkenburg, Patti M., Marina Kramar, Allerd L. Peeters and Nies M. Marseille. (1999) 'Developing a scale to assess three styles of television mediation: “Instructive mediation,” “restrictive mediation,” and “social coviewing”',


i v

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43: 1. 52-66.


v

INTERNET SOURCES BBC News. (2010). Introducing UK’s Broadband’s First Customer, Ten Years On. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8589853.stm. Last accessed 25 Apr 2010. ComScore. (2010). U.K. Online Video Viewing Up 37 Percent During Past Year. Available: http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/4/U.K._Online_Video_Viewing_Up_37_Percent_During_Past_Year Frost, Vicky. (2009). Ignore illegal downloading at your peril, music industry warns TV. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/29/ignore-illegal-downloading-peril-tv. Last accessed 26 Apr 2010. Harris, Nick and Katie Nixon. (2010). Pirates v the Premier League – A War On the Web. Available: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/pirates-v-the-premier-league-a-war-on-the-web-1798224.html. Last accessed 26 Apr 2010. The Economist. (2010). Video on the internet: Why are public broadcasters experimenting with the “peer-to-peer” technology beloved of online pirates? Available: http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15582215. Last accessed 25 Apr 2010.


i

APPENDIX

Questionnaire On the Internet and Television Viewing Habits Please circle one of the following as describes you. AGE 16-24 25-34 35+ Please indicate your responses to the following questions with a number on the following scale: 1 – Never / 2 – Once a Month / 3 – Once a fortnight / 4 – Weekly / 5 – Daily 1) How often do you watch a TV programme? 2) How often do you watch television programming on a television set? 3) How often do you use the Internet to watch a TV programme? 4) How often do you use the Internet to watch a TV programme using a

download unaffiliated with the makers (e.g. Torrent, allsp.com, WiseVid)?

5) Do you watch TV programmes with company? 6) Do you ever talk about TV programmes with others on the Internet? Please respond yes or no to the following: 7) Would you consider selling your TV and watching programmes only

with your PC/laptop? 8) Do you find that the Internet distracts you from watching a show? And lastly, can I have a brief paragraph on the following: 9) If you do use unaffiliated torrents or streaming sites, why do you

make that choice? 10) If the Internet does distract you from viewing a programme, how

does it do so? 11) If you view TV programming over the Internet with company, how

does the experience differ to watching it on a television set?


i i

TABLE 1 – How often do respondents watch a TV programme? 16-24 25-34 35+ OVR Never 0% 0% 0% 0% Once a Month 0% 0% 0% 0% Fortnightly 0% 0% 0% 0% Weekly 20% 30% 30% 27% Daily 80% 70% 70% 73% TABLE 2 – How often do respondents watch a TV programme on a

television set? 16-24 25-34 35+ OVR Never 40% 0% 0% 13% Once a Month 10% 0% 0% 3% Fortnightly 0% 0% 0% 0% Weekly 10% 30% 30% 23% Daily 40% 70% 70% 60% TABLE 3 – How often do respondents use the Internet to watch a TV

programme? 16-24 25-34 35+ OVR Never 10% 0% 30% 13% Once a Month 0% 0% 20% 7% Fortnightly 0% 10% 0% 3% Weekly 30% 40% 40% 37% Daily 60% 50% 10% 40% TABLE 4 - How often respondents use the Internet to watch a TV

programme using a download unaffiliated with the makers (e.g. Torrent, allsp.com, WiseVid)?

16-24 25-34 35+ OVR Never 10% 20% 50% 27% Once a Month 40% 0% 0% 13% Fortnightly 20% 10% 0% 10% Weekly 30% 40% 40% 37% Daily 0% 30% 10% 13% TABLE 5 - Do respondents watch television with company? 16-24 25-34 35+ OVR Never 0% 0% 0% 0% Once a Month 10% 10% 0% 7% Fortnightly 30% 20% 0% 17%


i i i

Weekly 50% 40% 40% 43% Daily 10% 30% 60% 33% TABLE 6 – Do respondents use the Internet to talk about TV

programming? 16-24 25-34 35+ OVR Never 20% 20% 40% 27% Once a Month 0% 10% 0% 3% Fortnightly 10% 10% 10% 10% Weekly 50% 40% 40% 43% Daily 20% 20% 10% 17% TABLE 7 – Would respondents consider selling their TV and accessing

programming only over the Internet? 16-24 25-34 35+ OVR Yes 70% 60% 20% 50% No 30% 40% 80% 50% TABLE 8 - Do respondents find that the Internet distracts them from

watching a show? 16-24 25-34 35+ OVR Yes 70% 70% 50% 63% No 30% 30% 50% 37%

television and the internet: how convergence affects audience consumption

Documents