I am watching an episode of
In particular, my patience is stretched by the number of repetitions in the break: the commercials are almost the same as those transmitted in previous breaks, the sponsorship announcements and the trailers are repeated and the channel voice repeats the same information. I am tempted to open my Netflix app on my Apple TV to continue the serial I am currently watching, but tonight I stay tuned until the programme finally continues.
The experience described above is probably very familiar to television viewers. A mix of linear and non-linear use of television is increasingly part of the patterns of everyday life, and the traditional method of distributing television content is being disrupted both from outside the traditional television companies, by transnational over-the-top competitors (OTTs) and social media, and from within the organizations themselves. Christensen’s definition of the concept disruptive innovations (Christensen et al., 2015) stresses that disruption is first of all a
The article presents the results from a comparative analysis of the kind of continuity that is produced by the four biggest television broadcasters in Denmark, with a combined share of television viewing of 95 per cent of the digitally advanced Danish media market (European Commission, 2018). The access to broadband internet in private households in Denmark is 99 per cent, and the access to high-speed broadband connections (100 Mbit/s), which are important for the use of audio-visual media of high quality, is 91 per cent (Slots- og kulturstyrelsen, 2018a). Potentially, this level of access makes the Danish market a good place to study the tensions between the two television paradigms, because it is increasingly the case that Danish viewers are no longer forced to watch time-structured television schedules – they have other options. The analysis will show how the communicative behaviour of the four channels, in different ways, is part of what I call a traditional
It is safe to say that understanding television and the television industry in the digital era is a new aspect of television studies. One of the scholars involved in this field is Amanda Lotz, whose work, based on the development of the television industry in the US, has been very important and influential. Lotz argued that the television industry is presently in a historic phase of transition towards a so-called post-network era (Lotz, 2014). Furthermore, drawing on Miege’s three models of media production logics, Lotz asserted that the flow model typical of the radio and television industries is giving way to a publishing model best known from the film, music and book publishing industries (Lotz, 2017). Even though there certainly is very hard evidence of fundamental changes taking place in the television industry in Lotz’s work, these assumptions are based on a rather linear notion of how media development works; it is also worth mentioning that her work was conducted in the commercial context of the North American media system. As suggested by Grainge and Johnson (2018), based on their analysis of the managerial discourse on the BBC iPlayer, understanding the development of the television industry in the digital era requires further discussions based on the findings from research on how the television industry is developing in media systems outside the US. Research needs to contextualize television development, as argued by Enli and Syvertsen (2016), to assess the balance between continuity and change in industrial development. In this connection, it is particularly important to consider the history and tradition of the elaborated cultural–political regulation, subsidies and well-funded public service television broadcasters in the North-Western European and Nordic countries.
As pointed out in my recent study of how the production of on-air schedules and continuity is changing within the Danish public service broadcaster TV 2 (Bruun, 2018), the television industry in Denmark is presently marked by tensions between a familiar linear television paradigm and an emerging non-linear television paradigm, with at least five key characteristics of the two paradigms colliding – as outlined below:
Two television paradigms
Central locality and the TV set | Multiple localities and digital devices | |
Time-structured access to content | On-demand access to content | |
One way | Interactivity | |
Schedules and content mirroring and structuring the temporal structures of the everyday life of an audience | Spatial structures and files | |
Temporal standardisation of content to fit distribution structures | No fixed temporal logics |
Continuity is very much a child of these key characteristics of the linear television paradigm outlined above. It performs a list of
Even if continuity is still fundamental to the way in which a television company distributes its content to the majority of its audience and makes a revenue, the viewing habits in the population are changing. There are huge differences between the European markets, and the viewing of traditional linear television in Denmark is well below the European rather steady average of 3:38 hours a day (EBU, 2018). In 2017, Danes spent 2:30 hours a day on average watching television, dwindling from an all-time high of 3:10 hours in 2010. The method behind these figures changed in January 2017. The present data include live/linear as well as time-shifted use of television content from all devices, not just from a connected television set, up until seven days after the initial broadcast. The streaming of content from the broadcasters’ different streaming services after that period is not included in the consolidated ratings. This change in method also makes a comparison with previous years and periods very complicated.
The changing patterns in television viewing in the digitally advanced Danish market (particularly among young audiences) are, as mentioned, a challenge to the traditional business model in the television industry. From the perspective of the broadcasters, continuity was and still is about how television broadcasters struggle to make the audience stay tuned as long as possible through strategic and tactical textual efforts (Eastman & Ferguson, 2009). Continuity in traditional linear television schedules needs to create
As mentioned in the introduction, several contributions have already underlined the resilience of the linear television paradigm in the television industry, and “flow” is a potent concept that is still very much in use in the industry. Constructing a channel “flow” that holds onto the viewers who are already watching, as well as attracting new viewers, is still the fundamental communicative function of the on-air schedule and of continuity in a competitive cross-platform media landscape. As the findings from my comparative study of continuity in Danish public service television based on data from 2015 suggest, the driving force is the business model of linear television: commercial breaks (Bruun, 2016). Only television companies funded 100 per cent by licence fees, taxes or subscription fees are financially independent of the linear use of television at the moment. This means that the Danish television company DR, funded by a media tax, eagerly promotes the non-linear options and niche channels in its portfolio. What I term “roundabouts” and “crossroads”, with trailers for content on other platforms, are used very frequently, whereas the commercially funded public service television company TV 2/Danmark limits these strategies to a minimum. The result is that DR stands out as far more non-linear and much more oriented towards the idea of the users’ choice. This communicative strategy is supported by the public service obligation to provide access to content regardless of the platform used. In this way, the need to make money has a conservative effect on the construction of continuity, with the significant differences between TV 2 and DR being connected to their funding models and not to the technology that they use.
The way in which on-air schedules and continuity are produced is changing within television companies. The producers are trying to appropriate the nonlinear paradigm and integrate it into their strategies and tactics in a way that fits the multiplatform “ecosystems” or “digital estates” of the television companies (Bruun, 2018; Evans et al., 2017). However, as Johnson’s (2012) findings suggest, it has become increasingly difficult to predict linear viewing patterns. Efforts to attract and retain the attention of the viewers are therefore paramount and have become more important than ever. The findings from my own production study of TV 2 in Denmark in 2016 (Bruun, 2018) also support the idea that a rather conservative and cautious development is taking place in commercially funded public service television. The television industry’s dominant business model (the commercial break) and the very different pricing models connected to commercials on broadcast television and online television are the important conservative forces in the industry. As a result, TV 2, which is a commercially funded public service broadcaster, is trying to incorporate non-linear television and discover how it can be used to secure the survival of the linear “cash cow” (Bruun, 2018). As a consequence, the producers of the on-air schedule and “continuity” try to turn the tensions between the linear and the non-linear television paradigm into a third and hopefully profitable new model (Bruun, 2018). This trend towards what might be termed the
In the following section of the article, I will add to the results of this body of research by presenting the findings from a comparative analysis of how continuity in the on-air schedules of the four biggest television companies on the Danish market is employed to address the viewers. The sample used is the continuity broadcast by the main channels of these companies (DR1, TV 2, TV3 and Kanal 5) from 7 p.m. to midnight during the period 8-14 February 2016. The analysis focuses on how
There are four important television companies in the Danish market: DR, TV 2/ Danmark, Nordic Entertainment Group (NENT) and Discovery Networks Denmark. DR and TV 2 are digital over-the-air broadcasters or distributed by cable and the DTT network, while NENT and Discovery are distributed by satellite or by cable and the DTT network. The four companies have large portfolios of five to thirteen television channels each. They also offer one or more streaming services each to provide on-demand and live access to the content that they produce. All these companies have extensive websites, and they are all eager users of social network media. This focus on producing cross-media television content is driven by the fact that Danes are frequent users of social network media – especially Facebook, which supports 3.9 million Danish profiles, and Youtube, used by 50 per cent of the population every week. There are, however, important differences between the four major television providers. In terms of ownership, DR is an independent, publicly owned institution, while TV 2/Danmark is a publicly owned limited company. NENT and Discovery are the Danish branches of multinational corporations operating in many other countries, too. Both broadcast to Denmark from the UK to avoid Danish television advertising laws, which are stricter than those formulated by British (or European Union) regulations. TV 2/Danmark, NENT and Discovery are all funded by advertising and subscriptions. However, under Danish law, TV 2/Danmark is only allowed to place commercials
Given these important differences between the four television companies in terms of ownership, cultural–political frameworks and obligations, and in terms of business models and market position, the forms of continuity produced for the four main channels display both similarities and differences. There are differences first in
Across the four main channels, the intermissions between the programmes or parts of the programmes make the implied viewers wait for the next programme to start or for the current one to continue. The table below shows the differences between the four during the period 8-14 February 2016 and between 7 p.m. and midnight: The time spent on intermissions includes commercial breaks and sponsorship announcements for all the channels apart from DR1. TV3 and Kanal 5 make their implied viewers wait for a programme to continue many times during each broadcast, but each break is shorter than the breaks employed by TV 2, because TV3 and Kanal 5 are allowed to interrupt their programmes. The high frequency of these intermissions means that the shortest sections of programmes are not much longer than the longest intermissions. Here is an example of this situation: during one hour of prime time on TV3, the programme was interrupted by three intermissions lasting between three and seven minutes:
Of this hour of prime time, 16 minutes was spent on non-programmes, and the commercial channels expected the viewers to stay tuned during these often rather long and frequent intermissions. This has been the situation for commercial television for decades, and the digital era has not brought any changes. Furthermore, and as illustrated in Table 2, not only TV3 but all the main channels do not seem to have any problem in making the viewers wait for a long time before continuing the programmes. The differences between the commercially funded channels, the channel with tax funding and the two channels with public service obligations are, however, huge. Tax-funded DR1 is the channel with the fewest and shortest intermissions, even though it still makes the viewers wait for a relatively long time between the programmes. DR uses the intermissions for the cross-promotion of programmes and channels. TV 2 is second to DR in terms of the number and length of the intermissions. As mentioned above, this is because TV 2 is only allowed under Danish law to have breaks between programmes – not breaks during programmes.
Waiting time
DR1 PS | TV 2 PS/COM | TV3 COM | Kanal 5 COM | |
---|---|---|---|---|
37 | 61 | 231 | 242 | |
82 min. | 370 min. | 579 min. | 582 min. | |
3% | 15% | 23% | 23% | |
2.2 min. | 6.1 min. | 2.5 min. | 2.4 min. | |
1-4 min. | 1-9 min. | 1-7 min. | 1-8 min. |
Across the commercially funded channels, intermissions are used mainly to broadcast commercials and sponsorship announcements. This means that there are huge differences between the ways in which the four channels use self-promotional communication during intermissions. Table 3 shows the differences and is followed by an explanation.
Promotional interstitials
Number of *‘Crossroads’ to one |
9 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
Number of *‘Roundabouts’ to two or more |
13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Number of interstitials promoting |
129 | 223 | 238 | 336 |
Number of interstitials promoting |
54 | 18 | 41 | 87 |
Number of interstitials promoting the streaming services (label on-screen and/or channel voice directing the viewer towards the streaming service’s content) | 1 (part of the tax: DRTV) | 15 (**SVOD: TV 2Play) | 121 (**AVOD: ViaFree) 9 (SVOD: TV3Play/Via Play) | 126 (AVOD/SVOD: DPlay) |
Number of interstitials promoting the website | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
Number of interstitials promoting an App. | 8 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
Number of interstitials promoting content on social media (label on screen) | 0 | 1 (Facebook) | 0 | 61 (Twitter # for the same programme) |
**SVOD: Subscription video on demand; AVOD: advertisement-funded video on demand.
The tax-funded public service television channel DR1 uses self-promotional tools that set this channel very much apart from the other three. All the intermissions feature trailers and on-screen schedules for programmes on different channels in DR’s portfolio as alternatives to what will be shown on DR1 “now”. In Bruun (2016), I call this self-promotional technique a “crossroads” or “roundabout”, encouraging the viewer to continue viewing on another linear channel. A “roundabout” includes trailers for up to four immediate alternatives to the programme that will be shown on DR1 “now”. These interstitials add a spatial dimension to the channel flow, making the implied viewers for the upcoming programme on the channel wait, and is a kind of service for viewers who want to zap.
TV 2 and the two commercial channels make very limited use of crossroads and do not use roundabouts. Instead, they prefer to point the implied viewers in the direction of their
As shown in Table 3, all four channels have a very large amount of promotion of
Let us now summarize the points made above about the time structures of promotional interstitials across the four channels. The implied viewers are asked to wait even though the programmes have been produced and are – in principle – available. In addition to this deliberate delay, the self-promotional material for the same programmes is repeated. Examples of this general trend are the promotion of
On the three commercially funded channels, the intermissions mainly consist of a block of commercials and a number of sponsorship announcements surrounding the programmes or programme instalments. TV3 and Kanal 5 are the channels with the highest number of commercial breaks and announcements of sponsorship. Table 4 shows the differences between the three channels from 7 p.m. to midnight on 8-14 February 2016:
Number of commercial breaks and sponsorship announcements
Commercial breaks | 54 | 69 | 69 |
Sponsorship announcements | 69 | 555 | 501 |
This means that TV3 and Kanal 5 also have the highest number of
The temporal configurations of continuity show that the traditional delay economy of the linear television paradigm dominates on the four channels, particularly on the three commercially funded channels. The business model used, rather than the technology employed, seems to have a conservative effect on the way in which these three companies construct their interfaces with the audience between programmes. This means that the differences between commercial and non-commercial television are obvious. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the 100 per cent tax-funded public service channel DR1 takes the lead in guiding the implied viewers to break away from the flow of content on the main channel. However, even though this is the case, the implied viewers waiting for the content to continue on DR1 are asked to wait for a relatively long time, because priority is given to self-promotional interstitials. Furthermore, the promotion of streaming services by DR as well as TV 2 is limited.
The next section of the article discusses whether sticking to the delay economy is a viable strategy for the television industry. Viewing habits are changing, and, if the industry wishes to retain its viewership in the future, it may have to abandon all these delays. First, the audience that the television companies are trying to attract and hold on to by using the tools of the traditional delay economy have gained enhanced control over what they watch and when and where they watch it. This probably means that many viewers are rapidly becoming used to
All in all, the audience expectations that might gradually be shaped by the elaborated use of on-demand streaming and social media do not match the implied viewers of the delay economy. A second set of cultural experiences should also be taken into consideration because it might challenge the delay economy: the proliferation of digital games on a variety of devices. We know very little about how this kind of entertainment might influence the experience of watching linear and non-linear television. However, as Evans (2015) pointed out in her analysis of games designed for mobile phones and tablets, the gaming industry tries to monetize the impatience of the players in a different way from traditional television. The player decides when to play the game, not the producers of the game, but, in many app-based freemium games, the player is given the opportunity to gain access and cut the waiting periods by paying. This simulates a “get-it-now” attitude, as Evans termed it (2015: 578). Nevertheless, compared with linear television, it is possible for each player to control the temporal flow, because the play structure is asynchronous, which allows their attention to be intermittent (ibid.: 576). Moreover, the games are designed to fit into the schedule of the day and perhaps fill brief moments of time at the player’s pleasure. As Vorderer and colleagues (2006) argued, this kind of everyday digital entertainment gives the user the ability to engage in an activity that gives the impression of being available on request and at the player’s convenience – without waiting for others to make content available. As further suggested by Vorderer and colleagues the feeling of autonomy is combined with the fact that the gameplay of these products can produce an instant feeling of personal competence, because the level of difficulty in the game is always a product of the abilities of the user (Vorderer et al., 2006). The
As suggested above, the changing horizon of expectations among television viewers could easily produce growing impatience with regard to the delay economy. The commercial television channels are challenged in particular, given the fact that they are extremely dependent on the business model represented by continuity and therefore on the attention of young audience segments. These segments are also leading the tendency to cut back on watching linear television. Furthermore, the relatively weak position of the two commercial companies on the Danish television market adds to their problems. DR, on the other hand, has the technological, cultural–political and financial muscle to recalibrate the relationship between the two television paradigms and reconceptualize the notion of the viewer in a more radical fashion.
However, despite the differences between the communicative strategies of the four companies, the resilience of the linear television paradigm is evident and supports the findings of previous research (Bruun, 2016, 2018; Grainge & Johnson, 2018; Johnson, 2017). Even though there is profound insecurity about the future of the linear television paradigm in the industry, the broadcasters are powerful agents of transformation themselves, producing their own futures by co-shaping the habits of their viewers. The contours of a
Finally, we might also wonder why Danish audiences do not use the streaming services provided by broadcasters to a much higher degree, given the proliferation of broadband internet access in Danish households. The use of linear television had a weekly reach in the population (+12 percentage points) of 80 per cent in 2017 (
All of these points call for continued research not only into how continuity as a televisual phenomenon and its production are changing in the digital era but also into its possible importance to the audience. This endeavour may help to flesh out in whose interest producing a third television paradigm in which the linear and the non-linear co-exist and are intertwined might be. Is it a possible future trajectory for the television industry to maintain its economic interests? Is it a fruitful way to ensure the cultural–political importance of the medium in society in the digital era? Is it yet another testimony to the adaptability and agility of the industry that has been seen before in television history? Or will streaming kill the television industry from outside and from within because the industry is not able to survive the effects of the disruption in the long run?