Era. Critical Studies in Television, 13(2), 137-152. 10.1177/1749602018763700

Coversheet This is the accepted manuscript (post-print version) of the article. Contentwise, the accepted manuscript version is identical to the final published version, but there may be differences in typography and layout. How to cite this publication Please cite the final published version: Bruun, H. (2018). Producing the On-air Schedule in Public Service Television in the Digital Era. Critical Studies in Television, 13(2), 137-152. 10.1177/1749602018763700 Publication metadata Title: Producing the On-air Schedule in Public Service Television in the Digital Era Author(s): Hanne Bruun Journal: Critical Studies in Television DOI/Link: https://doi.org/10.1177/1749602018763700 Document version: Accepted manuscript (post-print) General Rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. If the document is published under a Creative Commons license, this applies instead of the general rights. This coversheet template is made available by AU Library Version 2.0, December 2017 Accepted manuscript for Critical Studies in Television, 13(2), 137-152 Producing the on-air schedule in Danish public service television in the digital era Hanne Bruun Abstract This article presents results from a production study on how the on-air-schedule is changing in the digital era at the Danish public service broadcaster, TV 2. TV 2’s multi-channel and increasingly non-linear television portfolio has a profound impact on the production practices involved in order to meet the public service obligations. The analysis shows that the producers develop new ways to secure an audience of scale under these conditions. So far three lessons are learned: First, the work flow of promoting content and the demands on the qualities of the promotional material has changed. Second, an understanding of the interplay between flow and SVOD scheduling is emerging. And third, a renewed focus is put on branding the viewer-provider relationship. The article concludes that the production of on-air scheduling makes the contours of what can be termed ‘a third television paradigm’ visible in which a distinction between linear and non- linear television does not apply. Keywords: Scheduling; on-air-schedule; production culture; production study; digital television; non-linear television 1 Introduction The funny thing, comparing the present to the ‘old days’ [2004], is in fact that all the production processes and promotional processes involved have become far more complicated […] In fact on-air television scheduling was a rather simple matter back then (laughs). (Head of Scheduling TV 2 and TV 2 News, Mette Rysø Johansen, 7.3.2016, personal interview)1 This is a quote from one of the many interviews conducted in my study of the changes in the production of the on-air schedule in Danish public service television. It expresses a general notion held by the producers: the practices of on-air-scheduling are changing and getting much more complicated in the digital era. The traditional linear television environment that constituted the basis for this kind of production in television is gone, and a linear as well as non-linear television environment has taken over. Among the schedulers and continuity producers there is a sense of insecurity regarding what the future might bring, but also a very strong will to understand and to adapt to changes, and to the new terms of competition for the attention of the audience on the media market for audio-visual content. 1 All quotes are translated from Danish by the author. 2 The aim in my study is to shed some light on these changes in the production culture (Caldwell 2008) of the producers: how do these professionals interpret the tensions between a well-known linear television environment and the non-linear services included in the portfolio of the provider, and do they have an impact on the practices and value systems guiding this kind of textual production? The article presents main findings from the study at the Danish commercially funded public service television company TV 2. The tensions between traditional linear television and the non-linear television services have a strong influence on the production culture among the producers, and three lessons have been learned so far. First, these tensions have an impact on the ways the work of the producers aim to support and secure the position of the main channel in TV 2’s portfolio of channels and online services in order to hold on to and guide the viewers towards profitable user flows. As a consequence, the work flow of promoting content and the demands on the qualities of the promotional material have changed. Secondly, an understanding of the interplay between flow and SVOD scheduling is slowly emerging. And third, a renewed focus is put on branding the viewer-provider relationship. Based on these findings the article finally suggests that the contours of what might be termed a ‘third television paradigm’ are being produced. This paradigm is marked by the interplay between the traditional linear television paradigm, and an emerging non-linear television paradigm that is integrated into the work practices. Back in style – or on the edge of extinction? 3 The product produced (the on-air schedule) is a kind of televisual text that has been produced throughout the history of television in different configurations. It bridges what is regarded as the programmes proper and reflects the television market in different regions. The on-air schedule is the top level of television’s textual hierarchy – the “supertext” (Brown 1984) – and the kind of organisational identity that the viewers meet when they watch several programmes across linear television. The on-air schedule is described as “the architecture that combines them [the programme genres of television]” (Ellis, 2000a, 131), as a junction using a montage of “interstitials” (Johnson, 2013; Ellis, 2011) and as a montage of “paratexts” (Gray, 2010). Ellis describes the work of the producers of this text as “editing on an Olympian scale” (2000b, 25), defining a specific broadcast television service and making it distinguishable from other services. According to Søndergaard (1994, 41), the schedule can even be regarded as a special genre of television, and it has an autonomous potential in the sense- making process of what ‘television’ is among the producers. It is traditionally associated with the basic theoretical understanding of television as a textual phenomenon and a cultural form that has been conceptualised by Raymond Williams (1974), and in more detail by Ellis (1982) using the term ‘flow’. Constructing a textual ‘flow’ that holds on to the viewers who are already watching, as well as attracting new viewers, is the fundamental communicative function of the schedule in a competitive media landscape (Bruun 2016; Johnson and Weissmann 2017). The production of the on-air schedule sits right in the middle of the heritage of linear television and the present challenges that non- linear television represents, and a renewed scholarly interest is emerging in 4 television studies. Important contributions question the theoretical understanding (developed in the pre-digital era) of television as a time- structured textual phenomenon. Using branding theory, Johnson (2012) provides us with a comprehensive analysis of the efforts made to work the identity of the provider into a single brand with distinctive values in the eyes of the viewers. This is done in the context of intensified competition for attention in the economic and emotional markets. Johnson’s study compares the channel branding strategies and campaigns of the BBC, ITV1 and Channel 4 with the American networks ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox over a thirty-year period. As Johnson’s findings suggest, it has become increasingly difficult to predict linear viewing patterns. Nevertheless, efforts to attract and hold the attention of the viewers are still paramount, and they have become more important than ever. Caldwell terms the providers’ new strategies and tactics to hold on to their audiences in a non-linear multi-platform environment ‘second-shift media aesthetics’ (2003, 127). Identity branding becomes essential, as does thinking in spatial metaphors, such as giving the viewers the opportunity to ‘graze’ on content outside the boundaries of the individual channel. However, Caldwell emphasises the ways in which the providers try to guide the viewers towards profitable user flows. In line with Caldwell’s interest in how the American television industry adapts its industrial logic and business models, Ihlebæk, Syvertsen and Ytreberg (2014) compare how schedulers and promoters of public service and commercial channels in the Norwegian television market revise and renew their “toolkit” (2014, 14) to face these scheduling challenges. Special attention is given to building so-called ‘junctions’ (ibid., 9), where the multi-platform provider uses 5 different forms of cross-promotion in order to guide the viewers to stay tuned within its environment of streaming services, websites and main and niche channels. These findings are largely supported by Doyle’s analysis of the work of schedulers at MTV UK (2013). These new tools, which aim to support continued viewing but on a different platform, and the need for spatial metaphors is underpinned by the effort to describe the new temporal structures and the generic changes in the providers’ communicative behaviour.

Load more