The remediation of flow on Netflix and YouTube
Changing consumption practices of television
Roisin Moloney
MA Thesis Media Studies: New Media and Digital Culture
Words: 20, 865
Supervisor: Michael Stevenson
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Chapter 1 – Theoretical Framework 5
1.1.1 TV then vs now 5
1.1.2 Remediation 6
1.1.3 Business models 7
1.1.4 Social vs Technological determinism 9
1.1.5 Mobile Privatization 10
1.6 Domesticity 11
1.7 Flow 13
1.7.1 Flow 2.0: Updates 16
1.8 Broader Tendencies 18 1.8.1 Personalization 18
1.8.2 Algorithmic Recommendation 19
1.9 Affordances 21
1.10 Interface design 21
Chapter 2 – Methodology 23
2.1 Case Studies 24
2.2 Visual Cross-Platform Analysis (VCPA) 24 2.2.1 VCPA Benefits 25
2.2.2 VCPA Limitations 25
2.3 Trade Press 26
Chapter 3 – Analysis 27
3.1 Political economy of Netflix and YouTube 27
3.2 Netflix and YouTube cost 29
3.3 Netflix and YouTube Advertising 29 3.4 Platform Analysis 30
Chapter 4 – Discussion 45
4.1 Flow vs Binge-watching 46
Chapter 5 – Conclusion 48
Bibliography 51
Abstract:
This thesis aims to investigate how streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube remediate flow. It will also address how domesticity is dealt with as the consumption of television has changed significantly over the years. It will add to the plentiful discipline of television studies but outline how flow has been remediated in the new media landscape of streaming platforms. The methodology used was a combination of a trade press analysis and a visual-cross-platform analysis (VCPA). The trade press analysis was conducted in order to situate the platforms and their business models in a wider societal context. And the VCPA was useful in comparing the chosen two platforms. The analysis conducted showed that both platforms have altered how we think of these concepts. YouTube illustrated a closer approximation to Williams’ conception of flow. Netflix provides the experience of flow in a new way. Domesticity has also changed due to the increasing prevalence of portable devices with which to consume content which has led to the disaggregation of the family within the home. In conclusion, streaming platforms have certainly changed these two concepts.
Key words: Netflix, YouTube, Flow, Remediation, Domesticity, Television Introduction
“Obviously the way people watch TV has changed so much, too, that it's not necessarily about the ratings anymore. There's a different kind of time lapse; you put it out there and people absorb it at their speed, not just on Monday night at eight.” - Alia Shawkat
Streaming platforms have irrevocably changed the way we consume content. Content can now be consumed whenever, and wherever we wish. We no longer sit in front of the television set at 8pm every night, with meticulously curated programming ahead of us, all decided by the broadcasters. As actress Alia Shawkat mentions, the viewing practices for television have changed immeasurably, let alone the devices people now consume television on, due to the advent of new media technologies. In a world surrounded by technology, whether that be televisions, smart phones, or laptops that ingratiate the viewing public with constant audio-visual content, how we watch television has never been more up to us. You can either choose to sit down and get sucked into Netflix or turn on YouTube on your television- sized screen. But you look at your phone, and both the applications are there too. So, it is up to you. You can either sit down in front of your television set, by yourself, decidedly different from the family- oriented television of previous times or move about watching content on your phone. You get the same audio-visual experience, only miniature, and much more individualized in comparison to the television. But the premise remains the same, no matter what device you watch content on, it will always try to lure you in.
The platforms that will be discussed within this thesis are the streaming platform heavyweight; Netflix, which has become a disruptor and dominant force within the streaming platform industry, and YouTube. Netflix is the twentieth Top Site worldwide (Alexa) and retains leadership within the streaming platform industry despite fierce competition from others (Lee, The New York Times, n.p.; Hazelton, 2019). The platform has several advantages against competitors in subscriber numbers, time spent on the platform and the extent of the content they provide (Lee). So, it was chosen as an appropriate case study for this thesis. The other platform of interest here, is the popular streaming platform, YouTube. With nearly one billion hours of content seen on YouTube every single day (Iqbal, businessofapps) and being the second Top Site worldwide (Alexa), it presents a significant challenge to the media landscape.
What we know currently is, the way we consume television has changed considerably over the years. It has been guided by the remediation of classic notions such as flow and has also altered how television is consumed within the home. The considerable proliferation of streaming platforms, even in the last five years, have seen the individual become increasingly more cocooned in creating their own televisual schedule. The way we watch television has become significantly different. The viewer can consume content from any number of devices, at any time they wish to. Most nowadays, are using technology such as TiVo, DVD’s and streaming platforms such as YouTube and Netflix, to create their own
1 televisual schedule. This calls the medium of television into question. If viewers are in control of their consumption of the medium, is it still considered television (Urrichio in The YouTube Reader, 2009)? Television was inherently controlled by the broadcasters and television networks and transmitted to the audience. But this has changed due to increasing viewer autonomy and new media technologies, giving increased agency to the viewer. For instance, Netflix’s complicated status as internet television and whether it deserves to be treated the same as conventional television has repeatedly been called into question since it began streaming (McFarland, Wired).
There has been a substantial amount of academic debate concerning the concepts of domesticity and flow. What remains under-researched, however, and what this thesis examines, is how flow remains relevant even in the new media landscape in which we now live. And how these streaming platforms deal with the concept of domesticity. This thesis will aim to demonstrate whether and how it can be applied to popular streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube. Is the notion too outdated since its inception in the 1970s or can we still find a place for it today? Numerous scholars over the years have attempted to update and rework flow, and I will investigate these during the theoretical framework, as well as the concept of flow in more depth.
This creation of the viewer’s own consumption schedule brings about Williams’ concept of flow. Flow, a term conceived by Raymond Williams in the 1970s, concerns itself with how television began to become more organized in terms of broadcasters assembling discrete units of media into programmes. This created a sequence which later commercial breaks were added into, along with trailers for films. This sequence Williams noticed, differed widely in American and Britain. This created an atmosphere in which the broadcasters wanted the television viewers to keep watching - one programme after another. But that is not all flow is concerned with. Flow is impacted by much broader tendencies such as personalization and algorithmic recommendation, which I will investigate further in the theoretical framework. These tendencies directly impact flow and are used as strategic business decisions by each platform to keep the user watching. Flow, however, is much more than keeping viewer’s in front of the television screen. It is an experience, a mode of consumption that replaces discrete media units and is instead a more generalized practice. Williams adds more depth to this concept than I will do here.
Domesticity has also been in fierce debate since the television's widespread use in the 1950s. It was increasingly thought of as a family-oriented (and housewife-oriented) medium. During this time, it was a medium with which to bring the family together during the aftermath of the second World War. But over the years, we have seen families become more segmented and individualized within the home due to new media technologies. Nowadays, people might choose to consume content on their mobile phones, laptops or tablets instead of the television set. This may be due to the accessibility and convenience of streaming platforms being able to provide content to customers. And due to these accessible technologies, everyone can choose what they want to watch. The television is no longer
2 addressing the family as a whole, but each individual person within that family. But domesticity will be elaborated upon in greater detail during the theoretical framework chapter.
This thesis is attempting to answer the following main research question in order to add to the plentiful research on television studies and new media platforms. But, as flow was a concept developed in the 1970s, I will attempt to add to the many updating/reworkings of the concept, but in the context of streaming platforms. It will also address (as a smaller research question) how streaming platforms are dealing with the concept of domesticity.
How are streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube remediating flow?
How are streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube addressing domesticity?
Thesis structure
Chapter 1:
Chapter One of this thesis encompasses the literature review and theoretical framework that informs the cultural context and necessary background information. It encompasses domesticity (Spigel, 2013; Kompare, 2006), and how it is dealt with today. Tryon (2015), writing in a different technological context than Spigel was, outlines how the home has changed with regards to more portable technology. He outlines the mobility of media in a temporal and spatial sense, which alters how each platform is dealt with in relation to the home. As mentioned before, flow is intrinsically important to understanding how it changes from the inception of the term back in the 1970s, to today, with new media platforms such as YouTube and Netflix. These classic concepts will be elaborated on further in this chapter. It is interesting to outline how these two successful new media platforms deal with these two seminal notions differently.
Chapter 2:
Chapter Two illustrates the methodological approach chosen to best address the central research question – how flow is remediated on streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube. The smaller research question is also relevant to remember here, how domesticity is dealt with in relation to streaming platforms. It will take a mixed-methods approach of a visual cross-platform analysis (VCPA) and an analysis of relevant trade press concerning the platforms. This will give relevant theoretical depth to the thesis. These two methods will be elaborated upon in more depth during this chapter.
Chapter 3:
Chapter Three analyses how flow is remediated on Netflix and YouTube, by studying the Home screen of both interfaces. It will examine what happens when viewers click on a video, and their accompanying affordances. Do these affordances encourage or discourage flow to occur? How does the home interface
3 present content to entice the user to participate in flow? Domesticity will also be addressed due to increased consumption of content on more portable devices, but still a small emphasis on the television set as important.
Chapter 4:
Chapter Four discusses how flow is remediated on these streaming platforms, and how they deal with domesticity. The debate of whether flow is outdated in the current media landscape, and whether people yearn for the days with fewer channels and fewer choices, is still ongoing. Interestingly, there exists a paradox when it comes to new media technologies. They provide necessary (and convenient) technological change, but at a time when the viewing public are inundated with content. Viewers of these platforms, consequently, are unable to make choices about what they wish to watch, and flow could therefore be inhibited.
Chapter 5:
The concluding chapter of this thesis will reiterate the main research question and the principle modes of research used. A combination of a trade-press analysis and a visual cross-platform analysis (VCPA) was used. It will provide answers to the question of how platforms remediate flow and address the topic of domesticity. It will also acknowledge limitations of the research undertaken, while outlining possible avenues for future research.
4
Chapter 1: Theoretical framework
Introduction
This chapter will strive to illustrate how Netflix and YouTube remediate flow, which will be my focus during this chapter. It is also important to outline how these streaming platforms deal with the issue of domesticity. The way in which we consume television inside the home has changed immensely over the years, and so this concept also needs sufficient explanation.
To begin with, I will briefly mention the broad shift in television from its widespread use in the 1950s, to now, as there have been numerous changes in terms of television over the years. Remediation will be elaborated upon in greater detail. As it is a concept that is increasingly looked at from an economic background, the chapter will then move to speak about the business models of each platform. The platforms both have different business models, and this inherently affects how flow is approached on them. Media is often caught up in a tension between social and technological determinism. This chapter will elucidate these concepts, with a focus on Raymond Williams being an advocate of social determinism. This social determinism inherently affected how he thought of the concept of mobile privatization, which will receive sufficient interrogation here. Mobile privatization inherently affected domesticity, and this concept will be delved into in more detail during this chapter. Flow, as a central concept in this thesis, will then be spoken about. Many scholars have attempted to rework this concept since the 1970s, and it is interesting to outline how the concept has changed over the years. Flow is also impacted by broader tendencies relevant to this new media landscape, such as personalization and algorithmic recommendation. It is also necessary to elucidate affordances as they are important to my analysis. These will then be elaborated upon, in the final section of this chapter.
1.1.1 Television then vs now
Television has changed a lot over the years. From its widespread use during the 1950s, the television was a medium that brought people together in the aftermath of the second World War. It became a medium where the family could come together under one roof, in front of the television set, to escape the tumultuous time they were experiencing (Spigel, 2013; Kompare Rerun Nation, 2004). Television during this time was an organizational structure to the family’s daily life “[…] soaps were deliberately structured […] to mirror the rhythm, pacing, and lived experience of its mostly, female, mostly housebound viewership” (Harrington and Bielby, 2005:836). But television has changed immensely since then. The number of channels we now have is almost too much. Technology has improved so that we now have mini televisions in our pockets on devices such as smartphones, laptops and tablets. We
5 can now consume content through streaming platforms such as YouTube and Netflix, both of which are available on all these devices. Therefore, Raymond Williams’ concept of flow is important to understand as flow mirrors this organizational structure previously mentioned. Flow will therefore be explored in greater detail later in this chapter, as well as the concept of domesticity and the home. But first, the concept of remediation needs further explanation as it is a key term in my research that may be unfamiliar to some.
1.1.2 Remediation
In order to understand how streaming platforms such as YouTube and Netflix use flow differently when presenting content to users, the concept of remediation firstly needs further investigation. Remediation, a term coined by Marshall McLuhan in his book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1994) but updated by Bolter and Grusin (2000), elucidates how one (older) medium attempts to represent themselves in newer media. An example of this is people seeing old characteristics of television in new media such as streaming platforms. This is crucial when trying to understand how new media appropriate media that came before. Remediation was used as a way of understanding two complementary logics – immediacy and hypermediacy (Bolter and Grusin). Hypermediacy is a way of looking in terms of visual representation, that calls attention to the medium (Bolter and Grusin). However, hypermediacy is less relevant when discussing television, so instead, immediacy will be focused on as it is more closely linked to streaming platforms. Immediacy is addressed by Bolter and Grusin in the context of the film industry and computer-generated-imagery (CGI). However, for the purpose of this thesis, immediacy will be spoken about in relation to television. “On the World Wide Web, [...] it is television [...] that is remediated. Numerous websites borrow the monitoring function of broadcast television” (47). Immediacy “dictates that the medium itself should disappear and leave us in the presence of the thing represented” (6). Online platforms such as Netflix and YouTube represent a convergence between broadcast television and the internet which has the two industries battling in a fierce competition where one tries to remediate the other (Bolter and Grusin). “The competition is economic as well as aesthetic, it is a struggle to determine whether broadcast television or the Internet will dominate the American and world markets” (47/48). This competition between analogue and new media, is foregrounded by the political economy of each platform (Hesmondhalgh and Lotz, 2020). It is to a discussion of each platform and how they each remediate flow due to their different business models, that I will now turn.
6
1.1.3 Business Models
YouTube
As the previous section outlines, remediation is central to how streaming platforms borrow from older media like television. Each platform's business model has a significant impact on how it remediates flow. This section will broadly outline how these two platforms with different business models each deal with flow differently.
YouTube provides the content on its platform for free to consumers. When YouTube was founded in 2005 by Steve Chen, Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim, the platform was one where people could upload or watch videos, and people did not need much expertise to contribute to the platform. However, this all changed when the platform was bought by Google in 2006 for $1.65 billion, (Burgess and Green, 2011; Kim, 2012; eds. Snickars and Vonderau, 2009; van Dijck, 2007). This lent YouTube credibility and legitimacy. The business model of YouTube has since become an advertisement-based business model (Dutta, “Feedough”). This means the platform provides content for free to its users, but places advertisements on that content, in order to generate revenue. YouTube does this in several ways. One of which is an “embedded advertisement” (Dutta). This is when YouTube places an ad for something before, during, or after the video plays. The platform gains revenue from selling this advertisement space, to its customers, the advertisers. YouTube also gets revenue from a subscription-based service known as YouTube Premium, much like Netflix’s business model, but that aspect of their business model will not be discussed during this thesis.
YouTube uses this business model very effectively, but the user has become wise to this. The user expects these advertisements to appear, and so is often prepared to click the Skip Ad button in order to get to the desired content. When clicking this button, the user is brought straight into watching the video. And if the algorithms are good enough at recommending them content, they will be kept there. This point is exactly where the concept of flow comes into play. Flow is encouraged on YouTube in the more traditional sense when Williams conceived of it. The advertisements act as ad breaks like broadcast television, encouraging a person to keep watching “The flow of our attention is still directed towards more content on the same ‘channel’ based on the matching up of metadata” (Evans, UoN Blogs). The content presented to us here is marginally different, but still similar enough to arouse interest (like broadcast television). The difference with a platform such as Netflix, however, is the content is numerous episodes of the same tv show consumed simultaneously. “This flow is then scheduled to entice viewers to stay with the same channel” (Evans, UoN Blogs).
And of course, what makes a user continue onto the video and watch it is influenced by several broader tendencies. Some of these broader tendencies include personalization and algorithmic recommendation.
7
And although they are relevant here as they influence what makes a person click on a video, they will be discussed at a later point. Of course, not all platforms have advertisements encouraging flow like broadcast television, some have no ads, and so flow is revitalized in a new way. Some have different business models which this next section will elaborate on.
Netflix
Netflix has undergone several transitions with its business model. Since its inception in 1997 by Marc Randolph and Reed Hastings, it has been a significant influence in changing the televisual landscape. Hastings admired Amazon for its ability to predict products and wanted to do something similar. The idea to create a mail order service for DVD’s quickly materialized. Chuck Tryon (2015) conceptualizes Netflix as having undergone three significant transition periods. Firstly, there was the subscription model in 2001, during which time subscribers could rent unlimited DVD’s for a flat monthly rate. This was eventually changed to include a tiered pricing system. The second phase began in 2007, when Netflix was introduced as a streaming service of content, focusing on the refinement of their algorithm, in order to better tailor what content people enjoyed. The third and final stage came in 2011, when Netflix began producing its own original content, most notably, House of Cards and Lillyhammer. This production of original content helped Netflix assert its dominance within the marketplace (Fontana in Landau, 2015), but some are still critical of it being considered television. The 2013 Emmy’s nominated Netflix Original content for consideration in contention with broadcast television, which raised a discussion about what should or should not be considered television (Lima, Almedia Celia, et al.). This is still fiercely debated (McFarland, Wired), but it certainly has become a big player within the industry. In 2019, Netflix released 2,769 hours of original content, in comparison to 2012, when it released just 8 (Watson, Statistica). But it has also achieved this dominance through several innovative strategies in its business model which I will now outline.
As previously discussed, YouTube uses an advertisement business model. Netflix, however, has a subscription business model. This means the service relies on people who subscribe to the content, for a flat monthly fee. According to Statistica, the average monthly price of a cable bill in the United States in 2019, is between $51-$100, with the second highest percentage paying $101-$150 (Watson, Statistica). Netflix, however, offers varying price brackets for the user (Netflix Help Center; Johnson, Business Insider: $8.99 for Basic, $12.99 for Standard, and $15.99 for Premium). This makes streaming platforms, cheap and accessible for many people, particularly young people who may not be able to afford cable.
The platform also retains subscribers through its absence of advertisements. Because of this, flow is more encouraged in a new way different to that of YouTube. Viewers begin watching one episode, they finish it, and suddenly, the next one begins playing due to its Autoplay feature. This lack of ads keeps
8 the user on the platform (viewer retention), watching content, facilitating binge-watching which is an attractive draw for the platform (Jenner 2017; 2019). As Anthony Alexander mentions, Autoplay and recommendation algorithms (which create your own personalized library) are facilitating “a more individually curated experience of […] television flow – a series of units assembled into a period of viewing.” (n.p). Their algorithms help them win “moments of truth” (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt, 6; Alexander, The Verge). By recommending people content they like and can catch their attention within a few seconds, it helps them to retain subscribers. This leads the platform to have higher engagement in terms of subscriber numbers and helps prevent subscribers cancelling their subscriptions.
Through these differing business models, we must remember the time in which the platforms were conceived (2005 and 1990s respectively), and when the concept of flow was thought of (1970s). Raymond Williams was a huge proponent of social determinism which influenced how he thought about television. In this way, social determinism is worth examining in more depth as it heavily influenced Williams when conceiving the concept of flow. It is to this concept of social determinism; I will now turn to.
1.1.4 Social vs Technological Determinism
Williams in Television: Technology and Cultural Form (1974) denotes television as having to be contextualized in a “whole social and cultural process” (122). This process of contextualization is aided by understanding social and technological determinism. Williams was a devout believer in social determinism; that social interactions decide the behaviour of individuals. He was a vehement critic of technological determinism; that the technology present in society determines how society is structured, and what cultural values that society has. “Williams constantly stressed the indeterminacy and contingent nature of technological development” (Freedman 2002: 426). He was instead more focused on determinism from a social point of view, “the development, take-up and use of technologies are all shaped by the social relations of the world into which they enter'' (Freedman, 427).
But social determinism, due to its emphasis on the social relations between people, also brought about inequalities between those who have access to it, and those who do not. Technology, therefore, presents a tension in society between what it improves and makes more convenient, and the way it structures society with the unequal balance of power between corporations and consumers (Freedman). Williams looks at social determinism as “restor(ing) social context” (Freedman, 427) to how communication technologies are shaped. It attempted to look at “the gap between the potential and actual social benefits of communications technologies” (Freedman, 431). There is no denying that technology is favored by people who can afford it. Williams was therefore advocating for a wider societal look at how power relations are structured with regards to technology. He advocated for people being who they were and focused on how society impacted them, not how technology impacted them. As technological
9 determinism instilled hierarchies as regards who could and could not afford it, he was a vehement opponent of technological determinism and stands opposed to influential media theorist Marshall McLuhan who was a big advocate of technological determinism.
Williams’ belief in the concept of social determinism undoubtedly affected his concept of mobile privatization, which this next section will outline.
1.1.5 Mobile Privatization
As the previous section outlines, Williams was an advocate for social determinism. The use of new media such as the television, he thought, was ultimately determined by the relations between people within that society. And society had undergone a process of increasing innovation and industrialization during this time, which Williams attempts to understand through the concept of mobile privatization.
As Oswald and Packer mention in Packer and Crofts-Wiley (2013), Williams wished to understand how mobility was changing during this time, and so came up with the concept of mobile privatization. Before this, people lived in greater proximity to each other and did not have a lot of technology. Then, during a time of great innovation, mobility changed as people could communicate over greater distances. Mobile privatization, therefore, outlined how people must perceive technology and the home differently to the way they had before (Oswald and Packer). At the time Williams was writing about this concept, there was a convergence of technological innovation. “Industrialisation and modernisation had created new demand and new challenges: for order, for control and for communication” (Williams, 1975: viii). As people before had been thought of in terms of groups, mobile privatization denotes how society was becoming increasingly fragmented and more individualized (Williams; Groening, 2010). This modernity of culture was “characterised by the two apparently paradoxical yet deeply connected tendencies of modern urban industrial living” (Williams, 19). On the one hand, mobility and greater movement/communication, and on the other, the home “an at-once mobile and home-centred way of living” (19; Moores, 1993).
Broadcast media was thus seen to solve this tension the world was now experiencing. People wanted a medium that would bring together “the contradictory experience of new forms of urban life” (Freedman, 429). People were increasingly mobile due to new technology and individualized within the home. Broadcasting technology such as radio and television were a “social product of this distinctive tendency” (Williams, 26). They did the dual job of providing new perspectives and broadened horizons for people, but it achieved this through “focusing on the family home” (Freedman, 429) as the center of achieving this process. Therefore, the home and the family unit were intrinsically linked, and this was facilitated through flow. “[…] flow is a way of understanding one specific element in the new social and economic arrangements that Williams describes as mobile privatization” (Oswald and
10
Packer, 279). But flow will be elaborated upon at a later point. It is to this issue of the home; I will now turn to as it outlines how the family unit through television was brought together but is now increasingly fragmented and individualized due to new technologies.
1.6 Domesticity
As the previous section concerning mobile privatization outlines, society during this time was driven by a paradox – that of the home versus mobility. And mobile privatization, and broadcasting were solutions to this. Mobile privatization achieved a delicate balance between focusing on the home as a central part of communication, but also letting broadcasting broaden a family’s horizons through television. This section will therefore focus on the home, and how watching television inside the home has changed due to streaming platforms. To begin with, we must define what domesticity means.
Domesticity emerged from the end of the 18th century and continued to interrogate women’s place within the home for many years to come. Domesticity centred on women’s place within the private sphere of the home and proffered gender inequalities about their place within society. Domesticity was a legitimizing figure of these inequalities (Gillis and Hollows, 2009). Before industrialization, men and women were both seen to be involved in work. But modernization and industrialization changed the relationships the genders had to the home. Work was no longer seen as occurring within the home, and so the home began to be thought of more in relation to a haven (the man could have) after his hard day’s work. The private and public spheres were thus delineated from each other. The public sphere was associated with men and work, and the private sphere with women and their rightful place within the home. “Women’s lives were thus defined by their responsibilities as wives and mothers” (Gillis and Hollows, 4). This outlook on women was proffered by religious groups, women’s magazines, and other female-directed literature of the time (Gillis and Hollows). It continued into the 1920s, when the housewife became a popular archetype since servant’s were not used that much anymore during this time. This idea persisted well into the 1950s when women who were well educated and involved in the upper classes of society stopped work to instead, pursue a domesticated life in the home (Friedan The Feminine Mystique cited in Gillis and Hollows).
This idea persisted into televisions widespread use in the 1950s. Television was a medium of unification for families in the aftermath of the second World War (Spigel, 2013). As Derek Kompare mentions in his book, television was a medium of escape similar to theatre and cinema but brought inside the four walls of families’ homes. Television during this time was structured around the housewife inside the home (Harrington and Bielby). Television became an important symbol of nationalism and togetherness within America during this time (Moe, 2005; Kompare “Greysish Rectangles”, 2006). As Spigel
11 outlines, television characteristics were quite different during this time to now. Simultaneity, immediacy, presence, and liveness were prioritized to make the family feel as if they were experiencing the event as it was happening. Television’s power was its ability to fuse the public with the private domain (Spigel). As Kompare outlines, in the United States by the 1970s, television was widely adopted by society (“Greyish Rectangles”, 2006). But increasingly, the consumption of television within the home has changed, such as when technology such as the VCR began to proliferate in the 1980s, and DVDs in the 1990s. David Morley (2003) attempts to rework this notion for the current context. This contemporary reworking of domesticity with respect to new media technologies will be discussed next.
Streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube are increasingly engaging in what Larry Grossberg calls, a “politics of dislocation” (Morley, 435) which outlines how people position themselves in certain places. This is most importantly linked with the home. Morley here, uses the example of the increasing prevalence of home-focused programmes on television in Britain. Patrick Keiller (2002) in the same article, points out that there has been a deliberate dearth in programmes concerning domesticity and the home as it was not seen as pertinent in today’s era. But now, home programmes proliferate the television screens in Britain. As Morley notes, there is an obsession with “the materiality of ‘home’ in the form of the privatized lifestyle of the domestic household” (436). The home in contemporary times is not a “local, particular or ‘self-enclosed’ space” (436), it is instead, a fusion of both. This is reflective of Williams’ mobile privatization, as mentioned earlier, as, “it offers the dual satisfaction of allowing people to simultaneously visit far and away places but from the comfort of their own home (Morley). Spigel, cited in this article, outlines more mobile technologies in the 1960s replacing Williams’ mobile privatization in favor of “privatized mobility” (438). Spigel, Morley argues, when she is discussing smart houses, sees a space constructed within them as a “sentient space” which supplants the internal and external boundaries of the workplace and the home so “as to make it unnecessary to actually go anywhere anymore” (Spigel, 2001: 386, 398 cited in Morley: 438). The space you are in in a smart house, feels like it is alive and conscious. One feels a close connection with technology here. This might replace the boundaries one feels between the inside and outside world, so people may feel it pointless to get up and go anywhere, if they have something in front of them that provides them with mobility and broadened horizons, from the comfort of their own home.
This can be linked to flow here as well. The viewers are thus, due to this mobile privatization, turned into couch potatoes (Jenner, 2019) - lazy people who deem it unnecessary to be anywhere else but staring at a screen. But as Morley mentions, this metaphor could be updated for the current landscape in which we live as the screens on which we watch have changed immensely. The couch potato metaphor could instead be replaced by “slouchback media” (Morley, 439), which prioritizes the association with mobility. People do not watch a lot of television in front of a television set with their family anymore. As Tryon (2015) mentions, people do not even think watching television on other
12 devices is considered watching television. People can now watch content on their laptops and mobile phones by themselves. The television is no longer addressing the entire family unit, it is now addressing a more individualized form of audience. And it is not even just the television doing this, we now have multiple screens with which we can be addressed as individualized units. This is pertinent now to bring up the concepts of media fragmentation and audience fragmentation.
As Philip Napoli (2010) outlines in his book, fragmentation can be further broken down into two types: Media fragmentation and Audience fragmentation. Media fragmentation firstly, is the “technological processes that increase the range of content options available to media consumers” (55). This media fragmentation can be further broken down into two categories; Inter-media fragmentation; which is the increasing number of platforms on which content can be provided on eg: mobile phones, laptops, denoting the family no longer has to sit in front of the television set. While Intra-media fragmentation is concerned with “the processes that subdivide choices within particular media technologies” (56), such as the increase in the number of channels on cable networks.
The second type of fragmentation that Napoli describes is Audience fragmentation. This entails the division of audiences into smaller and smaller audience niches, to target them with more specific content, or narrowcasting (Hagedoorn, 2013; van Dijck, 2007). Napoli mentions in his book that this narrowcasting definition might be insufficient to denote how audience fragmentation works nowadays, and we should instead use the term “silvercasting” (57) which goes further to denote audience fragmentation. “The […] Internet and digital media […] are altering the ways in which individual subjects orient themselves in regard to others, the world around them, and, ultimately, their sense of self.” (Turcotte, 2013: 125). Watching Netflix or YouTube “actually functions as a space of withdrawal into closed communities of the ‘like-minded’ (Morley, 441). The viewer is wrapped in a nice warm blanket of their own televisual experience, a cocoon, as Morley mentions. This cocooning effect is therefore facilitated also by flow, capturing you in an experience. This next section will explain flow, as well as addressing how it has been updated and reworked by various scholars.
1.7 Flow
As the previous section outlines, the concept of domesticity is crucial to outline the ways in which we consume content have changed. One concept that has remained prevalent however, since its inception in the 1970s, is that of flow. This concept still exists but exists in vastly different contexts due to new media platforms such as YouTube and Netflix. But we must first outline where the concept originally came from. British cultural theorist Raymond Williams in his book (1974), tells us that we must interrogate the “static concept of ‘distribution’” (77) and investigate “the mobile concept of ‘flow’” (77) instead. In 1973, Williams looked at the distribution of television programmes in America and Britain. He was
13 attempting to identify the way in which the programmes were organized, in what he later called the “defining characteristic of broadcasting, simultaneously as a technology and as a cultural form” (86). This feature that he was attempting to identify was flow. In order to explain this concept, we must first understand that media during this time, in the 1970s, were thought of as separate instances eg: reading a book, attending a play. What flow attempts to address however, through television, is that these discrete instances are presented on your screen as a “sequence […] of these and other events, which are then available in a single dimension and in a single operation” (87).
This blend of parts within a media form undoubtedly informs the society in which we live and consume cultural products in. Broadcasting television inherited this trait from radio, through its use of pre- recorded programmes to transmit at a later point. Broadcasters for television, discovered that these individual items could be assembled into programmes. These programmes then became timed “Each unit could be thought of discretely, and the work of programming was a serial assembly of these units.” (88). Williams describes this assembly of units as illustrating a shift from a “general service” (88) to differing “types of service, alternative programmes” (89). Certain categories of radio were given names to differentiate the type of content they would transmit. With regards to American radio, this organization of units into timed programmes were split further into categories denoting genres of music (Williams). There has also been a big movement in terms of “the concept of sequence as programming to the concept of sequence as flow” (89).
Through watching television, or listening to radio, there were generally breaks between programmes. These breaks would be denoted by a sound such as crashing waves, or a visual signal showing viewers that the service was still active, this was just a little break in between the units. But we have seen with the widespread use of the television, “the interval […] has been fundamentally revalued” (Williams, 90). This change in the concept of breaks between programme units were affected by economics. The broadcasting companies discovered that during these breaks between programmes, they could place advertisements. This was displayed in Britain through their insistence that the advertisements could only appear when there was a true break between units, for example between Acts 1 and 2 in a play. But of course, the broadcasters were always in control here, so it was up to their discretion where the advertisements were ultimately placed. The American outlook however, with regards to advertisements was very different to the British. Advertisements in America were put into the programming schedule from the outset as part of the larger concept of a person’s night of programming.
Instead, viewers of television are given a “planned flow” (Williams, 91) during which, “the true series is not the published sequence of programme items but this sequence transformed by the inclusion of another kind of sequence, so that these sequences together compose the real flow” (91). This flow that was preordained by broadcasters was an exercise in trying to keep viewership on the few channels available to people at the time. A small portion of whatever content you are watching on television is
14 teased to you. Then the advertisements play for a few minutes. Then you are back into watching the film or show, and more commercials, and so on, until the programme. That was the way Williams experienced the new phenomenon in Britain. But his outlook changed greatly when he experienced flow watching television in Miami one night.
In American television, he noticed that there were much more advertisements during the film he was watching. But he quickly noticed that during the advertisements, trailers for other films that were set to be played on other nights of the week were shown “this was sequence in a new sense” (92). He noticed this as a big difference to the experience he had watching British television. British television had “a visual signal […] before and after the commercial sequences, and ‘programme’ trailers only occur between ‘programmes’” (92). In his watching of this television however, “the transitions from film to commercial and from film A to films B and C were in effect unmarked” (92). This he inferred, was incredibly disorientating, as he began confusing the different content he was consuming, thinking advertisement characters were characters in the shows, and so on. But underlining this, is the broadcaster’s intention of creating the planned flow mentioned earlier. The opening part of a show or film must be attention-grabbing enough that the viewer will ultimately stay watching on that channel “the interest aroused must be strong enough to initiate the expectation of (interrupted but sustainable) sequence” (93). A flow is created for instance, when we sit down for “’an evening’s viewing’” (93) which is ultimately intentionally thought out by the broadcasters. This happens increasingly when more and more cable channels were created, with different channels vying for the attention of so many people “to get viewers in at the beginning of flow […] viewers will stay with whatever channel they begin watching” (94). We have increasingly found that we are reluctant to stop watching television even when we know what we want to watch, “we find ourselves watching the one after that and the one after that” (94). This concept is exemplified in American television creating that planned flow.
Williams ties this notion of being unable to switch television off, to the evident availability of content during this time. In Britain, people mostly watched television at night, after work. But increasingly, there are more programmes at different times of the day. And in America, he notes, consumption of television begins very early in the morning, with content almost being omnipresent “and so on in a continuous flow, with the screen never blank” (95). Flow is therefore a central premise when it comes to television (Williams).
We can see this central premise illustrated in Williams’ analysis of flow. He analyses flow in three categories – Long-range, medium-range and close-range, which I will briefly elaborate on. Long-range flow denotes the flow of an evening’s programmes on television. Medium-range flow denotes how items are structured in succession of one another “within and between the published sequence of units” (97). But this second concept of flow is quite important, as it shows us how units that normally would not fit together, are combined into a cohesive structure, or flow. Finally, close-range flow which is the
15 most detail-oriented of all the flows mentioned. This flow denotes “the actual succession of words and images” (97) and the “process of movement and interaction through sequence and flow” (97). Flow is noticeable in a wide range of concepts and is very much linked to not being able to turn the television off. This has meant that flow continues to exist today, but ultimately in different forms due to new media contexts, including streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube. This next section will elaborate on scholars’ updates and reworkings of the concept of flow, to fit in a landscape populated by different streaming services.
1.7.1 Flow 2.0: Updates
As the previous section outlined, flow is a central concept when it comes to television. But we must not forget when it was conceived (1970s). New media technologies have changed considerably since then, and that has invariably altered how flow is conceived of today. This next section will outline how scholars have attempted to update flow for the modern media landscape.
Thibault (2015) equates flow with liquid metaphors as the “dominant metaphor for […] streaming – to explore how […] it remediated past media economical models, technological forms, and functions as a way to control and capture audiences” (111). Oswald and Packer in their chapter of Flow and mobile media (2013), demonstrate that flow is also a metaphor for movement “audiences are mentally or cognitively moved through media content, while their bodies remain fixed in space” (276). Flow is also thought of in relation to spatial and temporal relations (Tryon, 2012 “Digital delivery and media mobility”). We can see this in time-shifting technologies such as the VCR and DVD boxset (Kompare, “Publishing flow”, 2006) altering how a user engages in flow. Christopher Cox (2018) echoes this by using Netflix as an example to show how algorithms help the flow of programming to occur as they “offset the possibility of interrupted or discontinued viewing” (442).
Kackman et al. (2010) mention how flow and convergence are inextricably linked, and this has become even more noticeable due to new media platforms “if flow challenges the idea of the discrete television text, then convergence destabilizes the notion of the television as a discrete object” (1). The convergence of modern television with new media platforms echo what Caren Deming in A Companion to Television (2010) says when she mentions that due to flow and convergence being closely linked, time has been turned into a commodity. This is due to the profit-oriented logic purported by new media companies. Flow can now be remediated through the convergence of old mechanisms, but into the actual frame of the content you are consuming. I am speaking of course, about technological affordances such as the pause, play, stop, fast-forward and rewind buttons facilitated either by the remote control (Walker and Bellamy, 1991) you use when consuming Netflix on a television, or within the frame when consuming Netflix on a laptop. These affordances are the convergence of television and other technologies coming together so the user can create their own version of their television watching experience.
16
But Oswald and Packer in their chapter, cite several scholars who criticize flow, looking at it from a contemporary viewpoint. But maybe we have found over the years that we in fact, still abide by flow. They cite William Boddy (2004) as he criticizes flow for being “[…] historically and generation- specific” (280), thus illustrating the importance of putting things in specific cultural context and updating theories. They cite Jason Mittel as equating television with files rather than a flow. This is also echoed in Bjorn Nansen’s article speaking about Australian television, and how computational television has changed the way we perceive flow (The Conversation). But files can still flow “the sequential arrangement of files can still be understood as a flow – though an idiosyncratic one – determined by the viewer rather than the broadcaster” (Nansen).
In White’s essay (2001) she uses Jane Feuer to also criticize flow ““Williams should more accurately say that television possesses segmentation without closure, for this is what he really means by flow.” (White, pp.15-16). White, citing Feuer, outlines how flow is inherently economic in nature since time has become a commodity. White, again citing Feuer, also links television to how it is consumed eg: in the home, so therefore, flow can be easily disrupted. This encourages updating flow that Tryon (2015) outlines in his discussion of media mobility. Nowadays, television is no longer consumed in front of the television set as it was in Williams’ time. Flow can now be continued at any point in time, on any device you want if you have an internet connection. This presents an interesting paradox today when it comes to flow. Although the concept has been criticized much over the years, as it is now seen as too old and antiquated to fit in today’s world, it seems as if there is a yearning for nostalgia. Streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube are attempting to bring some elements of older media back into new media contexts due to a nostalgia for an era with not so much content (Richwine Reuters; McGuigan, FlowJournal). Instead, the modern audience might want something easy for them to choose instead of them becoming overwhelmed with choices.
Flows reworkings also come impacted by broader tendencies used by streaming platforms nowadays. This ability to choose what to watch is impacted by the abundance of content on our screens. So, this content needs a way of being dealt with. One of the ways in which platforms attempt to solve this problem is using strategies such as personalization and algorithmic recommendation. This takes pressure off the user and makes it easier for them to choose what to watch and participate in flow. This next section will outline these broader tendencies and how they impact flow.
17
1.8 Broader Tendencies
1.8.1 Personalization
As outlined in the previous section, flow has been attempted to be reworked for the new media landscape. Flow is undoubtedly impacted by broader tendencies that encourage it nowadays. One of these broader tendencies is personalization which we can see in both YouTube and Netflix. One of the ways in which personalization is used, is the recommendation of content to users, that the platform believes you will enjoy. From the outset the platforms are noting which content interests you, and which does not, and will therefore recommend you content accordingly using algorithms (algorithms will be elaborated on in a separate section following this one).
One of the ways YouTube engages in personalization is through the Subscriptions and Watch Later tabs on the Home Screen. While the Home Screen itself is personalized with regards to what content is shown to you, it is based on algorithms recommending content, based on what you and others have watched in the past. This will be elaborated on in the next section. But Watch Later and Subscriptions on the Home Screen allow the user to have a great deal of autonomy with regards who they subscribe to, and what videos they choose to watch at a later point in time. This means particularly with the Watch Later playlist; the user has complete control when they begin their flow of watching their own content.
Personalization in Netflix is most obviously shown through the content that is recommended to each subscriber, as well as the personalized profiles each user can have. The content the subscriber encounters are sometimes eerily specific (Rodriguez, “Quartz”) “Netflix's new super-specific, algorithmically suggested microgenres are an effort to make itself more TV-like, an attempt to serve up something from its vast archive of second-tier content that you'll consent to watch, even if you're not enthralled by it” (Vanhemert, Wired). This allows the platform to target each user’s specific interests “Without personalization, all our members would get the same videos recommended to them (Gomez- Uribe and Hunt, 6). Personalization allows the platform to guarantee people will enjoy the content, and therefore keep watching (Lobato, 2019). This guarantees the platform will keep subscriptions, and therefore keep generating revenue through the subscription fees. “If we create a more compelling service by offering better personalized recommendations, we induce members who were on the fence to stay longer and improve retention” (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt, 8).
As this section outlined, personalization is hugely important to each platform, but it is not the only tendency that influences how flow is remediated on these platforms. The next section will outline how algorithmic recommendations remediate flow.
18
1.8.2 Algorithmic Recommendation
YouTube
As Neal Mohan, the Chief Product Officer at YouTube mentions (cited in Wilson, 2019), up to 70% of Watch Time comes from the recommendations of YouTube videos through algorithms. Algorithms are used expertly here, which can alter the flow of whether a user stays on the platform and continues watching or not. They create “a continuous flow of programmed content” (de Valck and Teurlings, 150) which keep the user watching and engaged on the platform. Although the user might think they have some autonomy when watching videos (which they do to a certain extent), the content is ultimately decided by algorithms that make a viewer’s searching more tailored and individualized to content they like (Napoli, 2011). In this way, searchability and fragmentation of the audience is linked. The way YouTube’s interface is organized and designed demonstrates the popularity of a lot of videos (Bartl, 2018; Borghol, 2012; Figueiredo, 2014). The platform controls its users not using “programming schedules but by means of metadata, search engines, ranking and profiling systems” (de Valck and Teurlings, 150).
There has been a substantial amount of research done concerning YouTube and its algorithms (Roth et al., 2020; Bentley et al., 2019) which inherently impact what type of content the user is presented with. From the effect deep learning has on the YouTube recommendation algorithm (Covington et al. 2016), to analyzing dwell time (how long a user spends on a page, in this case watching a YouTube video) in terms of viewer engagement “content recommendation systems […] deliver the most relevant content items to individual users” (Yi et al., 2014:1).
But creators also want their users to engage in flow also. Emily Pedersen (2019) denotes YouTube algorithms in terms of different personas; the Gatekeeper, an Agent, and a Drug Dealer. Each of which has their own specific traits. “An Agent is someone who manages and helps the creator in their work by finding an audience for them and promoting them. A Gatekeeper is someone who stands between the creator and viewers and decides who gets through. A Drug Dealer has one goal: keeping viewers hooked on the platform for as long as possible” (3). It is apparent, therefore, that the content creators’ game the platform to get views (Wilson).
This would in turn affect flow through Watch Time. if YouTubers want to keep eyes on their videos, they need to manipulate the algorithms to make sure flow remains unbroken for the viewer. This is especially important in recent times as YouTube started prioritizing Watch Time (Covington et al., 2016; Yi et al., 2014), rather than other factors. But the scholars cited in Wilson (2019) also mention how creators are also trying to maximise their click-through-rate (CTR) in order to increase views on their videos. For the algorithm to show users their videos, they try and maximise their CTR through
19 elements such as the video title, an interesting thumbnail, and longer videos (Wilson, 2019). The algorithm(s) “tries to maximize expected watch time per thumbnail and title video impression” (Wilson, 6). Some of these elements are also used by the algorithms on Netflix, as will be shown in the next section.
Netflix
As for how algorithmic recommendations are used on Netflix, Gomez-Uribe and Hunt’s (2015) article on the different algorithms Netflix uses and how this impacts its business model, is instrumental. Netflix has been a ground-breaker and innovative in many respects to how it provides the audience with content, but none is more instrumental than their recommender system. The algorithms are so important, that they even created a competition to see who could come up with the best improvements to them (Gomez- Uribe and Hunt; Striphas and Hallinan, 2016; Arnold, 2016).
As they mention, it is not just one algorithm at work on the platform, but many, all of which come together to give each individual Netflix user their own personalized experience (Verela, 2019). Choice is ultimately what television comes down to, but they have found that people are quite bad at choosing (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt) what to watch as they are presented with so many choices. This creates what John Ellis describes as “choice fatigue” (cited in Samuel (2017), 169). They become overwhelmed with the amount of choice the platform offers, and so consequently, do not choose anything. If a user wants to watch Netflix content, the platform typically has between 60 to 90 seconds to catch the user’s attention for them to watch something (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt; Alexander, The Verge). Either they watch, or the platform risks losing them. And the way in which they catch these users is through their skilful employment of the algorithms. This helps the platform win what they call “moments of truth” (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt, 6) by keeping the user on the platform and “captured” in flow (Williams, 91). In the Business Wars podcast on the battle between Netflix and Blockbuster, this is expanded upon further.
According to David Brown from the Business Wars podcast, Netflix found that the data the users gave the platform, together with the algorithms, influenced the content recommended to each individual user. This allowed the platform to be predictive and have foresight regarding trends on the platform and what would gain viewership (Episode 3 “Dirty Tricks”). Through their algorithms, the platform was able to observe how people search for content, how long they stay watching a show, which actors they liked, and then recommend them content accordingly. The algorithms allowed the platform to create an intricate behaviour profile for each individual subscriber. This in turn, helps the platform assemble different “micro-audiences” for specific genres/shows (Episode 4 “The Digital Divide”). All these ties into flow through the subscribers being recommended content the platform believes they will enjoy. If they do, they will stay on the platform watching content, participating in flow. “We think the combined
20 effect of personalization and recommendations save us more than $1B per year.” (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt, 7). Although flow is impacted by some of these broader tendencies mentioned, flow is also aided by affordances present on each platform. These will be outlined briefly.
1.9 Affordances
As previously outlined, flow has been revitalized on streaming platforms using broader tendencies such as personalization and algorithmic recommendation. This is also impacted by affordances on these platforms. Each platform has its own unique style and way of carrying out actions. Flow can therefore be encouraged or discouraged through what James Gibson (2015) terms affordances. Affordances in the context in which Gibson was writing, from ecological psychology, denote what the environment provides animals with, whether they be good or bad (Gibson cited in David and Chouinard (2016): 242). Although Gibson speaks about the relationship an animal has to his immediate environment, he stresses that affordances are inherently relational (Gibson 2015:120, cited in Bucher and Helmond 2017) and what one user might do with the affordances of a platform may be different for another user.
This is still relevant in a new media context. Norman describes affordances as the interaction between the user and the platform, and how they are meant to work together for the platform to be effective (Norman, 1990, as cited in Bucher and Helmond, 2017). Affordances can thus be the inhibition and encouragement of certain actions on platforms. Bratton (2015) mentions that the action taken by the user is mediated by the platform for the action to occur, and affordances work in the same context. Mel Stanfill (2015) speaks about affordances as “examining what is possible on sites – features, categories of use foregrounded, and how technological features make certain uses easier or harder – illuminates the norms of use.” (1061). “The affordances of streaming permit audiences to view at the pace and ordering that they desire” (Burroughs, 8). Although earlier technology such as the VCR, DVD and TiVo technologies (Carlson 2006; Kompare, 2006), allowed users to alter the pace at which they consumed content, we have seen this be revitalized by streaming platforms. Users are encouraged by the affordances on these platforms to make choices, and this is either encouraged or inhibited also by the way the interface is designed, to which I will now turn.
1.10 Interface Design Affordances allow or discourage certain actions. This relation is closely tied to the interface design of a platform. As Markham et al. (2019) outlines how a user interacts with the Netflix interface “the viewer has agency and controls the Netflix experience through their choices” (4). Netflix and YouTube utilize interface designs to guide the user to make certain choices. As Oswald and Packer mention, the interface design becomes increasingly important to how users make decisions and flow is consequently reimagined in this new media environment. Increasingly, the screen of the television set has become less important, in favor of smaller, more portable screens such as that of smartphones or laptops. The
21 interface design has changed from being “programmed in sequence for a single device (a static space- time orientation) to the reprogramming of a fluidly scheduled mobile life via networked terminals and mobile devices” (Oswald and Packer, 279; Tryon, 2015). Modern platforms such as YouTube and Netflix have allowed the user to create their own flow through the design of the interface.
Conclusion In the next chapter, the Methodology section, will outline my chosen method for exploring how Netflix and YouTube remediate flow. Therefore, a combination of a trade-press analysis of relevant media, and a visual cross-platform analysis (VCPA) of these two platforms will be carried out. These will be further elaborated upon in the next chapter.
22
Chapter 2: Methodology
Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to outline how flow is remediated on Netflix and YouTube. Flow is experienced slightly differently on these platforms and is impacted by each platform's interface design and affordances, as it dictates what video gets clicked on, and whether you stay on the platform. Closely linked, are some of the concepts mentioned during the previous chapter: personalization and algorithmic recommendation. The way each platform recommends certain content to its users, dictates whether that user stays on the platform. Flow is mediated by content drawing the user in and staying there.
Useful for understanding this intersection between interface and affordances, a mixed methods approach will be used. A visual cross-platform analysis (VCPA) will used. Also, a trade press analysis of relevant sources will be used in order to paint a broader societal picture in terms of how flow has become remediated. These will be elaborated on at a later point.
Through my case studies, I will demonstrate how flow is remediated through the different affordances present on each platform. Furthermore, I will identify how the interface entices you onto the platform and encourages flow. The intersection between these two ultimately decide whether you stay, participating in flow. I will look at how these two intersect on the desktop versions of YouTube and Netflix as people are moving away from consuming content on television sets, and instead moving toward using more portable devices such as smartphones and laptops. YouTube data reports that “the platform reaches more 18-49 US consumers in an average week than all cable TV networks put together” (Businessofapps, n.p.). And as for Netflix, “Americans find streaming content more entertaining than cable TV” (Businessofapps, n.p.). Therefore, we can see how content is very often not consumed in front of a television set within the home. Increasingly, the family unit is becoming more individualized as everyone consumes content on different devices, instead of together.
Specifically, the analysis of the interface and accompanying affordances in terms of UI (user interface) and UX (user experience) are important to examine. The affordances on the platform specifically allow the user to make certain choices in terms of how they use the platform eg: whether they want to engage in flow or not. The affordances also point the user to making certain choices about which content they choose to watch or continue watching. Features such as the ‘Skip Intro’ and Autoplay dictate a user wanting to get into watching the content straight away. Through these features, the platform keeps the user in a constant flow.
In each case study, I will look at the Home screen interface, and observe what happens and if flow is apparent from the outset. In addition, I will also be looking for affordances that encourage flow. I will
23 only study the affordances that encourage flow, as affordances that do not facilitate flow will not be relevant.
2.1 Case studies
Netflix
Firstly, Netflix was chosen as an appropriate case study for this thesis as it has truly changed the way television is consumed. Through its ease of accessibility and mobility on devices, and vast library of content, it is an attractive choice for people. It is by far the most dominant player when it comes to streaming video. As Sandvig (2015) outlines, Netflix occupies a considerable amount of internet traffic (“34%”). Peak internet traffic times also saw considerable dominance by the service (“80%”) (304). Currently, Netflix retains leadership within the streaming platform landscape despite fierce competition from other streaming platforms (Lee, The New York Times, n.p.; Hazelton, 2019). It has also benefited from its extremely malleable business models. It understands and responds accordingly, to how people have shifted the way they consume television over the years. The platform has several advantages against competitors in subscriber numbers, such as time spent on the platform and the extent of the content they provide (Lee, n.p.)
Domesticity is also remediated on this platform due to the ability to access the platform from multiple devices such as your mobile phone, television or laptop (Tryon, 2015). The television no longer represents the heart of the home.
YouTube
YouTube was chosen as the second case study because it is the “second largest search engine and second most visited site after Google. (It) is the 2nd most popular social media platform with 1.9bn users” (Smith, n.p. brandwatch). People also choose the platform often over broadcast television “6 out of 10 people prefer online video platforms to live TV” (Smith) due to its mobility and ease of access. The platform was also chosen due to its omnipresence on a global scale. Ninety-one countries in the world now have the platform encouraging the widespread use of the platform perhaps in place of other technologies (Smith). Its dominant presence combined with its ease of functionality made it a pertinent example to study how streaming platforms remediate flow.
2.2 Visual Cross-Platform Analysis (VCPA)
Visual cross-platform analysis (henceforth, VCPA) will be used to analyze YouTube and Netflix to gain a better understanding of the “‘platform vernaculars’” (Gibbs, Meese, Arnold, Nansen, & Carter, 2015 cited in Pearce et al., 2020:162) of each platform. Platform vernaculars are “the different narrative patterns that shape content and information flows across platforms” (Pearce et al. (2020):162) VCPA
24 is distinct in identifying, examining, and interrogating vernaculars that are predominantly visual which propose an interesting difference to other forms of analysis such as textual.
When researching Netflix and YouTube, we must remember that these platform vernaculars are influenced by many affordances. Each platform has a culture of use that must be adhered to. The culture of use must be used in “front-end and back-end structures” (Pearce et al., 162) of each platform. These affordances present distinctive vernaculars of platforms, which increasingly, are focused on the visual, along with the textual (Pearce et al.). VCPA allows the platforms realize their own affordances and distinctive arrangement. Realizing this makes it imperative to take care when comparing similar things on different platforms (Burgess & Matamoros-Fernández, 2016 cited in Pearce et al., 2020). So, a careful comparison of each platform must be carried out. With that being said, VCPA also has a lot of benefits which makes it an appropriate method to study Netflix and YouTube.
2.2.1 Benefits of VCPA
Prior platform analysis has inherently only focused on one platform of one kind, at any one time. By doing this, it has led to a very narrow-minded approach when it comes to platform analysis. However, engaging in an analysis of more than one platform can often demonstrate new and interesting insight into how platforms work (Segault, 2018). Each platform may have many differences in terms of use, priorities, and outcomes. These differences exist between different platforms. While platforms may be similar in some ways, their affordances and ways of using them may differ wildly (Segault). Each platform thus contains its own “culture of use” (Segault, 3). This way a specific platform directly links to affordances as explained in the theoretical framework. “Cross-platform analysis of a more diverse range of platforms, […] can address this distortion by highlighting the diversity of visual vernaculars across multiple platforms” (Pearce et al. 2018, 7).
2.2.2 Limitations of Visual Cross-Platform analysis
Each platform has its own ramifications which outline how cross-platform analysis might be subject to “digital bias” (Pearce et al., 4). This digital bias is important to understand as each platform contains its own platform vernacular and way of dealing with things again intersecting the fact that each platform contains its own norms of use (Stanfill, 2015). So, this may differ between Netflix and YouTube and thus make each platform, platform specific in terms of the realm of study. “[…] but we must acknowledge that […] platforms are hybrid assemblages of users, algorithms, and data […] that require researchers to regularly reflect on the empirical object of them research (Marres, 2017, p. 132)” (Pearce et al., 2020, 4).
I will now move on to outlining the second methodological approach that will be approached in this thesis; trade press analysis.
25
2.3 Trade Press Analysis
In addition to VCPA, I have also chosen to do a trade press analysis as part of my mixed method approach. Sources such as the main media centres for each respective platform will be consulted eg: Netflix Help Centre, the official YouTube Blog and YouTube for Press sites; distinguished newspapers such as The New York Times, LA Times, The Guardian, etc.
Social news websites (such as The Verge, Engaget, The Conversation, Investopedia, BusinessofApps, Slate, Reuters, Brandwatch) will also be consulted. In addition, some blogs from trusted university affiliations such as Loughborough and Nottingham will also be consulted.
Statistical analysis websites such as Statistica will be used in order to outline specific data about each platform (when appropriate) about usage, age, or device etc.
This type of analysis is necessary to frame how flow is remediated on these different streaming platforms. As this industry is so fast-paced, media developments occur quickly, especially in the case of streaming platforms such as YouTube and Netflix. Due to this, this trade press analysis was conducted during the second half of 2019 and the first 6 months of 2020. This is situating this analysis in this context and time frame. Already this year has seen the entry of new media players into the streaming industry such as Disney, AppleTV, HBO Max, Quibi, among others (Reilly, Vulture).
This chapter aims to outline the mixed methods approach this thesis took. Firstly, it outlined the use of (VCPA), which is important when comparatively analysing two platforms. In particular, the streaming platforms Netflix and YouTube were chosen as appropriate case studies for this thesis, due to their dominance in the streaming platform landscape. Secondly, the trade press analysis was the other methodology chosen. This method was necessary in order to frame the two case studies in the wider societal and contextual landscape of streaming platforms.
26
Chapter 3: Analysis
The aim of this thesis is to investigate how streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube remediate flow. This concept of flow, as explained in the theoretical framework, is impacted by broader tendencies such as algorithmic recommendation, personalization, which will be interrogated here. These platforms have also altered the consumption of content from inside the home. What used to be consumed in front of a television set, has changed to everyone consuming something differently, on any device they wish, at any time they wish.
This analysis will be a comparative analysis between YouTube and Netflix. As explained in the theoretical framework, the business models of each platform are important as it determines how the platform makes revenue, but it also determines how they deal with flow. YouTube has an advertisement business model, and so the viewer may experience flow more akin to how it was in Williams’ time (commercial breaks in between content). But, due to other features which I will outline, flow is easily encouraged from the outset here in a new way, as the viewer can skip the ads, and continue straight into the content. And even though Netflix does not have advertisements, the absence of ads makes the content on this platform flow more seamlessly together. But this is also changing on the platform as it is trialling the release of weekly episodes. So, the two platforms may represent a yearning for the older attributes concerned with flow, but also an updating and reworking of the concept for the new media landscape. Firstly, I will outline the political economic implications on both platforms. Then I will delve into the analysis of each platform.
3.1 Political economic implications of Netflix and YouTube – remediation of television
Political economic studies of television analyze “the social relations that mutually constitute the production, distribution, and consumption of resources” (Mosco, 1995, p.25 cited in Meehan 2020). These approaches mainly analyze the corporate businesses that control the distribution and production of televisual content, with a strict power imbalance between the corporations and the audience. During the widespread use of the television in the 1950s and 1960s, America was at a considerable advantage when it came to other global markets in terms of dominance “the state sets in place economic rules, incentives, and protections that foster the privatization and commercialization of technologies of mass communication” (Meehan, 240). In the 1960s and 1970s cable was found to be superior to broadcast television by media corporations due to its ability to provide the viewer with much more choice than ever before. In the 1990s however, regulation and deregulation reared its head. When the markets were regulated, there was a fair balance and no market achieved a monopoly in market dominance which meant the interests of the public, and the interests of the corporations did not sway too heavily to one side. However, deregulation occurred which meant “companies can own multiple television networks, production units, cable channels, cable systems and infrastructural companies” (Meehan, 248; Evens
27 and Donders 2016), or in other words, vertical integration. But this changed widely when new players entered the market such as Netflix in the late 1990s, and mid 2000s with YouTube.
Netflix and YouTube
When Netflix launched in 1997 as a service to order DVDs through the US postal service, it quickly shifted in 1999 to a subscription-based model where a consumer could order DVDs for a flat monthly rate. The payment originally was a pay-per-use model but that quickly changed to a flat monthly subscription fee (Marple, 2017). As the service experienced steady growth during the early 2000s, the mid to late 2000s brought a change. “Netflix thus spends more than $300 million a year on improving the user experience.” (Fontaine 2013, 117). In 2007, Netflix underwent the change to become a streaming service (still providing the renting of DVDs by post to their customers), but also providing licensed content to their subscribers.
Netflix utilizes a subscription-based business model which relies on a subscription fee paid by their subscribers in order for the platform to generate revenue (Ulin, 2014 cited in Marple, 2017; Jenner, 2017). The platform has three plans to choose from Basic, Standard and Premium plans. The Basic plan lets you stream content on one device at a time in standard definition (SD). It also lets you download the content to one phone or tablet at a time. The Standard plan lets you stream content on two devices simultaneously and in high definition (HD). You can also download the content to two phones or tablets. And finally, the Premium plan allows you to stream content on four devices simultaneously either in high definition (HD), or ultra-high definition (UHD), and stream to four phones or tablets simultaneously (help.netflix.com).
While YouTube is free to use (an advertising business model), the platform also has a subscription- model service called YouTubeTV which the user can pay $49.99 for. This is drastically different to their advertising business model for which they provide the platform for free, and this subscription- model clearly appeals to a middle-class audience able to afford the service. Those who can afford it, can pay for it. Here we may recall the inequalities that technology brings about, mentioned during the theoretical framework. The subscription price is something akin to television cable prices, but much more expensive than the subscription fee than a platform like Netflix provides (Basic-7.99euros, Standard-11.99euros, or Premium-15.99euros per month (help.netflix.com)). But interestingly, the subscription service to YouTubeTV is still cheaper than cable television subscriptions. According to Statistica, the average monthly cost of a tv cable bill in the United States in 2019, is between $51-$100, with the second highest percentage paying $101-$150 (Watson, Statistica). Streaming platforms such as YouTube and Netflix therefore remain a viable, cheaper (or free) alternative to cable broadcast television. Increasingly, we can see the rhetoric of cord-cutting (Burroughs, 2019; Petersen, Slate;
28
McNamara, LATimes) become more common when we mention streaming platforms, as it is particularly amenable to the younger generations.
3.2 Netflix and YouTube Cost
The rhetoric of cord-cutting (people shifting to not paying for cable television, or not having a cable subscription at all) is evident in Netflix and YouTube. People might choose to not subscribe to cable, and instead opt to pay less for a service with a vast library of content such as Netflix, (Tryon, 2015; Jenner 2019; Oat, 2013) for a much lower price than cable, or free in YouTube’s case. Describing Netflix, Oat outlines that the draw of the platform is its affordable subscription fee, and vast library of content. This is what makes it a dominant player in the streaming platform industry. If the subscription fee prices were compared to a DVD, the DVD would cost more (Oat).
3.3 Netflix and YouTube Advertising
Netflix has benefited from its lack of reliance on ads in between its shows. Advertising was found to be in opposition to Netflix’s brand strategy (Powell, 2016 cited in Marple, 2017; Spaviero, 2019). While this position does limit potential revenue, it has also benefited the company in terms of subscriber growth, with the presence of ads being one of the most common complaints among subscribers (Strangelove, 2015, 126 cited in Marple, 197). If ads started showing up in Netflix, consumers would be disappointed, and it would interrupt their way of experiencing flow, through the seamless integration of episodes one after another.
When YouTube was originally launched, it was a simple video-sharing platform where people with no technical expertise could watch, upload and consume audio-visual content. Even from the outset, the founders expressed their desire to not include advertisements for fear of dispensing with the grassroots, community-driven outlook the platform hoped to have (Wasko and Erickson, The YouTube Reader). Although they did not receive funding from advertisers at the beginning, the site did receive funding in other ways. For example, the year of its launch it received almost $10 million from Sequoia Capital, a venture capital company responsible for funding Google, Apple, among other FAANG companies (Investopedia.com). The company’s acquisition by Google in 2006 eventually saw it relent to having advertisements on the platform, attaining “Google’s expertise in organizing information and creating new models for advertising on the Internet.” (Wasko and Erickson, 374). Thus, from the beginning, “Google’s intentions seemed clear: to develop YouTube’s potential for attracting advertising revenues” (Wasko and Erickson, 374; van Dijck 2007). Google wanted to make information accessible and democratized to everyone, and so attains its revenue through advertisements, and so the parent company of YouTube quickly exerted its power and influence over the video-sharing platform which ultimately
29 altered its business model from being a platform that did not want to advertise, to one that embraced advertisements as a way to monetize.
Advertisements link closely to flow here. Users on YouTube are used to seeing ads play before their videos, they know that is the way the company attains revenue. But it could be argued that the ads on YouTube help the platform create flow, more like it was in Williams’ time “Programs bleed into each other, without definitive intervals between, while trailers promote other programs during ad breaks” (Alexander, The Guardian).
3.4 Platform Analysis
Figure 1: Netflix/YouTube Home screen
From the outset of examining the Netflix desktop homepage, the subscriber is immediately brought into experiencing flow on the platform. “Programs bleed into each other, without definitive intervals between” (Alexander, The Guardian). As shown by Figure 1, the Netflix Original series Dead to Me begins immediately drawing the user into the content, by playing a mini trailer or teaser of the content. The platform is attempting to catch the user’s attention straight away (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt; Alexander, The Verge) to retain subscriptions. It does this by recommending the user content it believes
30 the user will enjoy, wants to watch and therefore click on “The primary goal of the Search is to help you find/discover anything that matches your criteria as fast as possible without distractions along the way” (Makker, UXPlanet). This is achieved by the personalization and algorithmic recommendation outlined in the theoretical framework. The platform only has a few seconds with which to engage its user, and so it does this with the data it already has on the user (Ibhrahim, Medium), pointing their behavior in certain directions (Yeung, 2017). Every homepage/thumbnail is different for each individual and distinct to that user (Business Wars episode 3 “Dirty Tricks”; Dunderalp, Medium; Vox 0:00-5:49), and this therefore helps Netflix grab subscribers, and keep them there, captured in flow.
The YouTube interface has undergone several changes since its inception in 2005. The interface is now cleaner and devotes its time to prioritizing the videos on its homepage (Figure 1) (Fingas, Engadget; Ingraham, Engadeget; El-Dardiry, “Official YouTube blog”). If a user hovers over a video on the Homepage, it begins playing. This is different to Autoplay which the platform also has, but I will show how it relates to YouTube later. When a user hovers over a video on the Home screen, the video begins playing silently. This is different to the teaser trailer playing on Netflix as that immediately plays with sound drawing you in (Makker). Whereas here, you must hover over the video yourself for it to play. Immediately the platform is attempting to draw the user into participating in flow. And when you click into the video, YouTube has now added chapters to the video player to make navigation easier “Viewers can click on chapters to jump to a specific part of a video and rewatch video clips -- a more convenient alternative to scrubbing. Chapters are visible at the bottom of the video player” (Smajstrla, Engadget). Flow can be manipulated here due to the user having control over what chapters of the video they watch, and which they do not.
Figure 2: Netflix Home page
On both platforms, the user has control over whether they continue watching the trailer/video playing or they start watching an episode. The user stops the videos from playing on both platforms, by scrolling down, and continuing to browse around like at a video store (Vanhemert, Wired; Ibrahim, Medium). This is what is called the infinite scroll (Ahuvia, SmashingMagazine; Lucey, InvisionApp; Babich, UXPlanet; Loranger, NNGroup). This may prevent a user from ever choosing something to watch due
31 to the vast amount of content (Vanhemert; Faraz, UXDesign) - “showing only a few items matching the search criteria leaves the user wanting for more whereas exhibiting too many will confuse and scare the user away (Makker). The (horizontal) scroll is limited on Netflix to about 40 rows of content. But the infinite scroll happens more when the rows are not sorted generically (Figure 2). The vertical scroll on YouTube, however, seems never-ending. This feature may discourage flow as the user does not choose anything to watch “these new challengers require decisions–a careful cost-benefit analysis of thousands of different options (Vanhemert, Wired). Regular broadcast television might seem like a more amenable option “what regular TV really offers is low-stakes, ambient entertainment.” (Vanhemert). But this is counteracted with several features which encourage flow on the platforms.
Figure 3: Netflix Originals foregrounded on Home Screen
It is unsurprising that the first bit of content the subscriber would see on Netflix, would be Netflix original content (Figure 3). Right away it is apparent to the user, that Netflix prioritizes its original content over its licensed content on its home page “On the top of search results is a list of additional subcategories to help you narrow down your search quickly” (Makker). As explained in the theoretical framework, Netflix went through several transformations from when it began in the 1990s to now. One of these changes was a shift from licensed content, to producing original content, alongside its licensed media. In 2012, it gave the world Lillyhammer, and in 2013, House of Cards. This was a deliberate business decision by the company to invest in original programming in order to compete with popular HBO shows such as The Wire and The Sopranos (Business Wars episode 6 “Binge”)
The promotion of their original content is one of the ways in which they can retain subscribers. As their revenue is generated by the monthly subscription fee, they need to differentiate themselves in some way to keep ahead in the market (Jenner, 2017). Too much licensed content on the platform would cause it to stagnate and become boring. The user will think they have run out of content to watch, and therefore stop using the service. So, the investment in new, and original content keeps subscribers on the platform. It also hopes to entice the viewer into consuming the new content, thereby capturing the user in flow.
32
Figure 4: Netflix’s Autoplay feature
After a user is intrigued by the teaser trailer on Netflix, the next episode immediately begins playing once the previous one has ended (Petersen, Slate) “simulating the always-something-on-next effect of regular TV (Vanhemert). This is Netflix’s Autoplay feature (Figure 4). The next episode begins playing 15 seconds after the previous one has ended (Jenner, 2017). As Andrew Anthony (Guardian) and Thibault (2015) outline, programs are almost liquid with how seamlessly they all blend together nowadays. These liquid metaphors have become the dominant metaphor to describe streaming in this current landscape (Thibault).
Autoplay creates “a more individually curated experience of what ostensibly remains television flow – a series of units assembled into a period of viewing.” (Anthony, The Guardian). This is facilitated through “‘insulated flow’” (Lisa Perks 2015, xxvi cited in Jenner 2019, 309). Netflix promotes this through Autoplay, thereby “privileg(ing) the sequential viewing of a single text (binge-watching) rather than the viewing of different texts in succession as is custom on traditional broadcasting schedules.” (Jenner 2019, 309). Here, we can already see streaming platforms using televisual characteristics. While Netflix’s Autoplay plays successive episodes of the same show (binge-watching) (Lee, Wired; Romero, Refinery29), YouTube is more alike broadcast television in more ways than one. For instance, YouTube’s Autoplay plays content that is just different enough, but still similar to warrant continued attention, like broadcast television. On YouTube, Autoplay automatically starts the next video in the Related Videos (Figure 5) queue on YouTube.
However, recently, on both platforms, users have been given the opportunity to turn off the Autoplay feature (Figure 5). With this ability to disable Autoplay (Haring, Deadline), the user has the agency and power to stop their flow, and continue at whatever time they wish; however they wish. They are no longer set up for preparing for an entire evening’s programming like they used to do with television. They no longer sit in front of their television set consuming content. (How many of you are on your phone while you watch Netflix? How many of you are consuming content on a screen, while watching something on another screen?). The focus on the television set is becoming a thing of the past due to new media technologies. Consumption practices inside the home have changed to becoming more
33 individualized instead of a family unit, and consuming content on multiple, individual devices, rather than the television set.
Figure 5: Playback settings on Netflix and YouTube respectively
There are also several affordances within the frame of a YouTube video the viewer is watching, which alter flow. One example of this, is the keyboard shortcuts. I will only be outlining the ones that concern flow.
The spacebar alternately pauses and plays the video.
‘K’ pauses the video.
‘Replay’ replays the video the viewer was just watching.
‘Next’ (Shift + n) plays the Up Next video that is up next in the Queue meaning flow can be continued.
‘Settings’ allows the viewer to switch the Autoplay functionality on or off thereby either inhibiting or encouraging flow.
The ‘Playback Speed’ can be altered by the viewer from a range of options. Viewers can alter the playback speed from 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.25 or Normal speeds. These variations in speed make the video either play faster or slower depending on the viewers discretion. The autonomous choice provided to the viewer here, allows them to retain greater agency with regards to how quickly or slowly they consume the content.
The video quality can be amended using the ‘Quality’ affordance. The viewer can choose from different quality metrics such as 144p, 240p, 360p, 480p, 720p or HD quality 1080p. The varying video qualities
34 may constrain or encourage flow, depending on the viewers broadband connection. However, if the internet connection is not as good to play HD quality videos, a lower quality would have to be picked, perhaps the viewer due to a decrease in quality would spend less time on the platform, not engaged in flow:
“the experience of “flow” when viewing online video is quite puzzling[...] “Why do ads always load flawlessly, while other videos are choppy and slow-loading?” (The answer could be a CDN.) Or, “Why do some videos look terrible on a fast Internet connection?” (No CDN.) Internet audiences have no way to know why the quality of some videos is worse than others”(Sandvig, 301).
Figure 6: Media mobility with Netflix/YouTube
The early scholarship concerning television in the 1950s when it became more widely used often took a feminist approach chronicling how it brought the family together “Accordingly, TV was often
35 described as [...] a member of the archetypal American family (Kompare “Greyish Rectangles”, 159), and was arranged around the daily routines of the housewife in a domestic setting (de Valck and Teurlings, 2013; Harrington and Bielby). The consumption of television took place within the home and so differs from the consumption of films and theater shows. During this time, programming was structured by “imperfect concentration— or flow and its interruptions” (de Valck and Teurlings, 161), following the structure of broadcast television. Programmes were thus structured around the household, “to mirror the rhythm, pacing, [...] of its mostly, female, mostly housebound viewership” (Harrington and Bielby, 836). This strikes a similarity with flow here, “[…] planned television flow intersects with what might be called “household flow,” or the routines of everyday life” (Corner cited in Harrington and Bielby, 836).
As regards how Netflix and YouTube deal with domesticity, we can think about the way in which we watch television has changed. Television, for a lot of us, does not even occur in front of a television set anymore. This is due to the increasing media mobility (Dunderalp, Medium; Greer and Ferguson, 2015) with which we now consume content, and as Tryon (2015) mentions, people who do not consume television in front of a television set, do not even think they are watching television. So, is Netflix not on a TV, not considered television? We can see how consumption practices of television have changed through Tryon’s (2012) ‘Make any room your TV’ campaign. During this we observe people consuming content on different devices, in different rooms, at different times. This illustrates that the consumption of television is no longer bound by temporal limits as it once was, it “expand(s) the time-shifting [...] technologies such as the VCR and the DVR” (Tryon (2015), 289). Tryon (2015) also mentions the idea of a shift in spatial mobility. This is known as “platform mobility, (which) refers to the idea that (content) can move seamlessly from one device to another with minimal interruption (289). As demonstrated in Figure 6, Netflix can be watched on multiple devices such as a smartphone, laptop, iPad, set-top box, or tablet (Netflix Help Center). Increasingly, the platform has tried to remain popular on television, such as providing the service on Smart TVs and even a dedicated Netflix button on television remotes, but streaming content has become increasingly popular on smaller and smaller screens that are more mobile and accessible than television.
YouTube (either YouTubeTV or the platform itself) can also be consumed on a plethora of different devices such as AppleTV, Roku, Playstation, laptops. Interestingly, also in Figure 6, the desktop version of YouTube is encouraging you to cast from another device, onto your television. In the Settings, it emphasizes how to connect me watching from a device such as my phone, to my television. A return possibly to the “communal activity that could bring parents and children together” (Tryon, 2015: 288; Carlson, 2006) television watching? It is still echoing the television as a domestic medium but realizes it cannot be exclusively anymore due to the increasing emphasis on portable devices. There is a sense that the family nuclear unit is disaggregated and fragmented here, breaking the family down into each individual and how she/he consumes content. The family no longer sit in front of a television set, instead
36 each individual watch whatever they want, on whatever screen they want, and so the boundaries of the home become permeable. The user’s ‘television set’ is now their phone or tablet. And their ‘living room’ is the subway/tram (Tryon).
This notion of constant accessibility to content on many different devices, means flow remains unbroken. Andrew Anthony (Guardian) outlines that flow nowadays is very different to how it was when Williams conceived it in the 1970s. But, he argues, maybe the flow we are experiencing now, is just a different kind to the one people experienced before. Through watching content on different devices, yes people no longer really watch television in front of a television set, but it is still emphasized like YouTube showed us. In fact, 70% of Netflix users after signing up (on a different device) continue to watch Netflix on a television (businessofapps). And yes, the family unit that once existed has changed drastically due to both platforms personalization and algorithms that allow for more individualized targeting of people. This means programmes are no longer targeting the family unit, but individual people within that family. And because of the platform targeting one person at a time, everyone can watch something different, on whatever device they wish to, whenever they want. Flow is now determined by the viewer inside the home, not the broadcaster as it once was (Anthony). And if the viewer has a certain degree of control, they can keep watching, until they can’t watch anymore. This practice is known as binge-watching, and it is to this, I will now turn.
Figure 7: Binge-worthy content
37
Figure 9: Continue Watching row
As shown by Figures 7,8 and 9, the platform is suggesting “binge-worthy” content, or to “Continue Watching”. The concept of binge-watching is part of what makes Netflix so successful as it reconceptualized binge-watching (Jenner, 2017; 2019) and freed it from its historically bad connotations. It keeps its users on the platform, captured in flow, and turns them into couch-potatoes, or engaging in “slouchback” media (Morley, 2003: 43), to update it to a more modern time. But we must first understand those bad connotations, which this next section will outline.
How could you stoop so low?
Binge-watching originally gained popularity with the DVD boxset (Kompare “Publishing flow”, 2006; Jenner, 2017). People could consume more than one episode of content sequentially, which was different to broadcast television, only putting out one episode of a television show per week, and consuming different discrete programmes, as opposed to binge-watching consuming several episodes of the same show.
The scholarship concerning binging in the 1990s attached a certain cultural hierarchy to it when it concerns television versus when it describes other cultural productions such as literature. Binging denotes doing something in excess, doing too much of something. It was associated with a “shameful indulgence, and a lack of control” (Ramsey, 2013 cited in Jenner: 306). Associating binge-watching and television ascribed certain cultural notions that watching many episodes of something with no interruptions was a bad thing. Opposed to something with a good cultural undertone, such as literature. People do not binge books. They are considered page-turners. This ascribes a higher cultural outlook to literature than television (Ramsay, 2013 cited in Jenner 2017, 306; Tryon, 2015).
When we watch multiple episodes of a show, we often do it alone, and therefore we feel guilt for not being productive enough or having wasted precious time (Lisa Glebatis Perks 2015, cited in Jenner, 2017). Television is thus separated by a binary of ‘good’ TV, and ‘bad’ TV. The hope is that the viewer will not watch the ‘bad’ TV and will choose the ‘good’ TV instead. The ‘good’ TV is inscribed with a norm of quality, prestige and legitimacy (Tryon, 2015). This contrasts heavily with the ‘bad’ TV that
38 inscribes pitfalls such as “illness, anti-social behaviour or depreciation in the value of the neoliberal subject” (Jenner 2019, 303). People often use the word couch potato to inscribe a certain value on the viewer of television, which may echo some of the apprehensions people have when considering the downsides of television (Jenner, 2019). You will waste your life away consuming trashy television, if you keep sitting in front of that television set. But of course, we have seen that change with the notion of mobility in terms of media and the fragmentation of the home in relation to television. The medium is no longer consumed in front of the television set, but instead consumed on mobile devices such as laptops, mobile phones and tablets (Tryon, 2015). The younger generations have moved from being couch-potatoes to participating in “slouchback media” (Morley, 2003: 439). But that notion of binge- watching being a bad thing, channels such as HBO in the late 1990s attempted to change, by differentiating themselves from broadcast television, and imposing a sense of quality and legitimacy to themselves (Tryon, 2015). Netflix followed suit, and quickly positioned itself as a service that provides quality content, like HBO (Jenner, 2019; 2017; Samuel, 2017), to reappropriate the meaning of binge- watching.
Binge-watching is used by Netflix to keep the user watching, engaged, and on the platform, captured in flow, watching episodes of the same show consecutively. You sit down to watch one episode of something, and then before you know it, you’ve watched another three. Time just seemed to slip away from you. Netflix is attempting to redefine how people previously thought of binging. And television consumption has never been more important than during these times during which Coronavirus (COVID-19) is running rampant throughout the world. Due to this, production on content has been suspended in the interest of public health. This global lockdown means people are at home much more, and thus, television watching is a way to (again echoing television during the aftermath of the second World War) bring the nation together and solve the boredom of a society in isolation. In 2020, Netflix has seen more Netflix Originals be shown on the platform than 2019. (Levy, Fool). Even their stocks and number of subscribers have reached record highs. They have reported nearly 16 million new subscribers in the first quarter of 2020 (Swartz, Marketwatch; Burdakin; The Motlet Fool; n.p, BBCNews).
Binge-watching is good?
Charlotte Brunsdon links the rise of binging, with a shift in the perception of television:
“This new, good television, in contrast to old, bad, addictive television” (Jenner, 2017: 305) is far removed from the old perceptions of the medium. This television is one more up to the viewer. The user can pay a subscription fee to access content or watch it for free “this new television is young, smart, and on the move, downloaded or purchased to watch at will” (2010: 65 cited in Jenner 2017, 305). It is no longer associated with the housewife and family life. Instead it is more individualized, and this allows binging to thrive as the platforms are addressing individual people. This is exemplified by the
39 individual user profiles on Netflix, and the viewer’s own channel on YouTube with which they can manage their subscriptions.
Quality was a marker used to legitimate binge-watching. As Glebatis Perks’ (2015) outlines in Jenner (2017), people will often use the association of shows with a certain quality (Jenner, 2016; Tryon, 2015), to justify binge-watching and stop their feelings of guilt. As Brunsdon (2010) outlines in Jenner (2017), “‘binge’: with all its connotations of an uncontrollable, excessive consumption, ironically reconnects the prestige dramas, marketed as being superior to ‘television’” (2010: 65 cited in Jenner 2017: 305).
Grant McCracken however, reconceptualized binging as ‘feasting’. The user when they feast, is more intentional about their choices. Binging, in McCracken’s view, is a “healthier selection of content [...] Bingeing suggests junk food, while feasting is for a more sophisticated palate.” (Tryon 2015: 111). This can also be linked with the assumption that platforms are reaching out to middle class audiences (Jenner 2017; Jenner 2019) that are able to pay for their service. Streaming platforms such as YouTube are free to users (but they also have a subscription service available for $49.99). The varying price brackets of Netflix entice different audiences due to its accessible price range, but vary, in order to garner as many subscribers as possible. It was also found that people will subscribe to multiple subscription services simultaneously, rather than pay for cable (Figure 10). “Some students use Hulu, but never Hulu Plus” (Petersen, Slate). This will give them access to a much vaster library of content than cable provides them with, and at a much lower price. Subscribers would only pay for maximum 3 subscription services (Figure 10), but that would still be much less than cable (Business Wars episode 8 "“Streamers Revisited”).
They also have the advantage with streaming platforms of getting entire series of content to binge, instead of paying extortionate prices for cable for episodes released weekly. According to Statistica, the average monthly cost of a tv cable bill in the United States in 2019 is between $51-$100, with the second highest percentage paying $101-$150 (Watson, Statistica.com). This kind of release of content means binge-watching is encouraged on the platform. The subscriber, however, can also curate their own curated list with the My List feature. This takes some of the pressure off the subscribers with the vast rows of content.
40
Figure 10: Subscription to multiple subscription services
Figure 11: My List
The “My List” feature in Netflix, or the Watch Later, Liked Videos on YouTube allows viewers to compile a list of specific content of their choosing. This could be the platform's attempt at creating people’s own curated channel, perhaps mirroring how channels used to be structured as regards to broadcast television (Samuel, 2017). We can see this feature on Netflix towards the beginning of the Home screen interface but father up and more pronounced is the “Continue Watching” (Figure 9). The order in which these two features are placed is important. “Continue Watching” being prioritized means the platform wishes the subscriber to get right back into the flow of binge-watching. Choosing new
41 content to watch becomes less important (Samuel). We can see a “continuance of, or a return to, traditional broadcast structures and viewing preferences” (Samuel, 87) here. Flow is also being revitalized by Netflix’s trial of releasing episodes of shows weekly (Schomer, BusinessInsider; Radulovic, Polygon; Meek, BGR; JOE.IE ARTICLE) “the anti-choice model – or the social practice of watching television […] on a particular channel (Netflix), on a specific recurring day of the week.” (Samuel, 87). Even with the vast library of content provided to the user, sometimes, the traditional structure of the way things used to be, just works.
And Netflix is not the only streaming platform to do this. This release of weekly episodes is also occurring on HBOMax and Apple. As Richwine outlines, and the chairman of Warnermedia emphasizes, a shared sense of experience is created in the release of weekly episodes. This is mirroring the traditional broadcast structure and the characteristics that old television valued, simultaneity and presence (Spigel, 2013). Actor Pedro Pascal even echoes this love of the older times of broadcast television “Basically you get to sort of wait and experience more collectively, and it just makes it more event television” (Richwine, n.p). Data from Parrot Analytics (Richwine) outline that shows are binge- able on streaming platforms when they release, and for a short time after, but then taper off as the novelty of the shared experience of event television becomes less exciting.
The old reconceptualization of flow where a structure is created including commercial breaks is seen on YouTube through its use of advertisements. This is also occurring through the curated channels such as the Watch Later, Liked Videos, and to a certain extent, the Subscriptions tab.
This certainly foregrounds how viewers of content have different expectations nowadays. But over the years, and interestingly due to new media technologies and technological convergence such as streaming platforms, there may be a return to the older concept of flow and its accompanying characteristics.
On YouTube’s Home screen, the videos are immediately foregrounded. But if the user does not want to choose one of the videos shown, the interface has provided them with personalized generic categories based on the algorithm (Figure 12). This helps the user make more specific choices by genre (“YouTube Official Blog”).
Figure 12: YouTube genre recommendations
When this happens, the videos presented to the user on the Home screen, change to videos featuring that particular genre. For instance, when I clicked “Cooking” during this analysis, videos from channels I have subscribed to, or other recommended channels, showed me videos about cooking and food. This
42 recommendation of content the platform believes I would like, is one of the broader tendencies mentioned in the theoretical framework that influences flow on the platform. They then encourage people to keep watching through the Related Videos and Up Next features (Figure 5). They are hoping that recommending content that is similar enough to the video I have already watched, I will keep watching. This is also encouraged Autoplay present on both platforms and outlined earlier.
However, on YouTube, while the platform is trying to keep a user captured in flow through recommending the users content that will encourage them to keep watching, the platform is constantly plagued by advertisements, which are central to their business model. These ads, therefore, may disrupt the flow a user might feel when watching videos, or instead, make them nostalgic for how flow used to occur on television with breaks in between. The ads might act as a type of commercial break between videos, like broadcast television. But users of YouTube have become so used to ads on the platform now, that there is always a Skip Ad button on the video player a few seconds into the advertisement playing. This, therefore, encourages the user to get right back into the flow of watching videos.
One of the sidebars on the YouTube homepage contains four affordances (Figure 11): Home, Subscriptions, Library and Trending. For the purposes of this analysis, I will only be dealing with Subscriptions and Library since they both directly relate to how YouTube remediates flow.
Firstly, the Library affordance contains three categories; History, Watch Later and Liked Videos. Liked videos are videos the user can react positively to, by giving the video a thumbs up. The user can then rewatch the videos under this Liked video category. The second category in the user’s Library is their video History. A detailed list of what videos the user has watched, or how much of a specific video they have watched. These videos are stored here in case the user wishes to return to them, perhaps if they have not finished watching, a disruption, and resumption of flow. Similar to this, is the Watch Later playlist. This playlist is fully created by the user. The user while they are watching any video, can click a button either on a video itself, presented on the homepage, or at the side of a video they are currently watching. The user then gets the option to Add to a Queue of videos into a playlist; a Watch Later playlist. This playlist is entirely created by the user composed of videos that they do not wish to watch straight away. They will watch these videos later, whenever, and on whatever device they wish. This Watch Later playlist is most like the My List feature on Netflix, mentioned earlier in this analysis. The users, on both platforms have the choice and agency to create their own curated list of videos they wish to watch. This takes some of the pressure off them when they are confronted with the vast library of content. These three categories within the Library affordance on the YouTube homepage, all encourage flow. Maybe not experiencing it right now, but a user will return to experience flow, when it is convenient for them.
Secondly, I will speak about the Subscriptions affordance. This Subscription tool allows the user to subscribe to whatever channels they like, and the videos uploaded to the subscribed channels, will
43 appear in this tab. This means, if a user subscribes to a lot of channels, then they would have a lot of content to get through. Like the My List row on Netflix, the user can narrow down the vast library of content presented to them, to just the channels they like. Here again, the notion of personalization is seen as the platform is trying to cater for each individual user by providing them with content, they know they will watch. But this job is done specifically by the user as it is them who chooses who they subscribe to, or not. The channels you subscribe to therefore give the platform data about what sort of content the user enjoys, and they then use this to recommend you more channels and content. Therefore, flow is integral to this as the platform and the user are in a symbiotic relationship, using each other to each gain something out of the experience
In conclusion, these features are a way to improve the user experience. But they also serve a purpose for YouTube as a business, as the platform gains knowledge about video popularity using actions taken by the users (curated lists, liking videos, videos in their history). This in turn aids the platform to make better choices to the users, and thereby provides them with more accurate, enjoyable content that will keep them captured in flow.
44
Chapter 4: Discussion
The Analysis chapter aimed to show how Netflix and YouTube remediate flow. And how domesticity is dealt with on both platforms. Focusing on each platform's interface and affordances, I examined how each platform, while they had some similarities, both dealt with flow differently. Flow seems to be easier to experience on a platform like Netflix due to the absence of ads and encouragement of binge- watching. But on YouTube, we might associate the older style of flow with the advertisements acting as commercial breaks between the steady stream of videos.
Consumption practices have changed drastically due to new media technologies such as mobile phones, laptops and tablets. These provide the user with greater mobility and accessibility, as the same platform can be accessed to continue consuming content, and flow can easily remain unbroken. The family is therefore broken down from a family unit, to more individualized people within that family ie: every member of a family could be watching something different, on a different device all together (within the same home). They are simultaneously together (within the same home), but apart (no longer in front of the television set, but all in front of their own screen). This echoes Williams mobile privatization mentioned in the theoretical framework. Broadcasting was seen as a solution to the two contradictory notions; that of the home and increasing mobility.
Even though flow might seem a little outdated since its inception in the 1970s, we can see that platforms like Netflix and YouTube are trying to recapture some of the older ideas associated with early television. Both platforms, have tried to revitalize conventions of early television such as a shared experience, simultaneity, presence, liveness. This can be seen through YouTube’s Premiere function with which it sets a time for a video to go live and thus creates a build-up to the event, with which everyone can then participate in. Netflix also utilizes event television through its release of its episodes all at once in order to create a shared experience among viewers.
Williams’ flow and John Ellis’s “choice fatigue” (cited in Samuel, 84; Vanhemert, Wired) are two important concepts when discussing how new media platforms such as YouTube and Netflix remediate flow. As Samuel (2017) mentions, choice disrupts flow, and we have never had so much choice than we do on streaming platforms. “choice fatigue” demonstrates a viewer’s inability to choose, because they are overwhelmed by so much choice. And so, they decide to not choose anything. Thereby, they do not participate in flow.
The viewer might not want to use Netflix or YouTube, because it presents them with so many choices. People may become increasingly impatient and tired when choosing what to watch from a vast library of content (Buonanno cited in Samuel, 2017). Therefore, the viewer might have a ‘‘nostalgia for pattern, habit and an era when choices seem few’’ (Ellis, 171 cited in Samuel). Modern users might have a “yearning for nostalgia, for structure and schedule” (Samuel, 85). A contradiction may exist of wanting
45 technology to improve and make their lives more convenient, but a desire for the way content used to be presented to them, such as in the broadcast era of television. As Ibhrahim mentions, the goal of streaming platforms would be “a single, flexible philosophy which permeates across all available channels, making minimal, predictable adjustments which keep the experience frictionless” (Ibhrahim, Medium).
Platforms like these “involve mediation of the viewing experience between choice-based and traditional patterns. These methods of viewing can provide an experience that is linear and fluid and that reinstates the principles of Williams’s notion of (planned) ‘‘flow’’ (Williams, 1974: 91; Samuel, 85). As we have seen in the Analysis, both platforms use personalization and algorithms to recommend content. This helps the users not have to make so many choices when they are trying to choose what to watch from the vast libraries of content. The platforms attempt to “help you find/discover anything that matches your criteria as fast as possible without distractions along the way.” (Makker). By the platform recommending you content it believes you will enjoy watching, it is trying to bring the user back into experiencing flow. (Samuel).
4.1 Flow vs Binge-watching
Comparing and contrasting binge-watching and flow is interesting when looking at platforms such as these. Streaming platforms have often been seen in opposition to flow. But we have seen throughout this thesis that they share more characteristics than previously thought.
These two contradictory notions exist in symbiosis with one another. Binge-watching is a “continuous sequence” (Samuel, 81) of programming, and choice contradicts this, by bringing the user to a state of indecision (Samuel, 2017). As is shown in the Analysis of the Homepage, both platforms interfaces present the viewer with a wide choice of videos. This overwhelming choice may make them turn away from the services, and back to linear television where there is less choice “showing only a few items […] leaves the user wanting for more whereas exhibiting too many will confuse and scare the user away” (Makker, n.p).
Binge-watching is seen as “decidedly different […] (to) television flow where more than one programme is watched” (Jenner 2017, 307/8). With flow, different discrete units of media (different television programmes) are assembled into programmes in a sequence. But with binge-watching, more than one episode of the same show is consumed. Flow was inherently created by the broadcasters to control the schedules of broadcast television, but this has changed with YouTube and Netflix. The viewers now want a “‘pure’ text (as Jacobs terms it) that is distinctively not part of the television flow.” (Jenner 2016, 266). Since binging content has become so synonymous with platforms like Netflix, it is said to not be participating in flow “new technologies allow for the viewing of texts without interruption or ‘pollution’ by adverts, thus avoiding what has historically been conceptualised as the televisual flow” (Jason Jacobs cited in Jenner 2017, 309/310). But instead, we can see flow reconceptualized in a new
46 way. Netflix’s absence of ads and features such as Autoplay encourage the seamless consumption of (the same) content. This also applies to YouTube through being stuck in a ‘rabbit-hole’ of content presented to the viewer that they cannot escape from. The flow on YouTube is the consumption of discrete units of content that is different enough, but still similar enough in the realm of your interest to arouse sustained watching. Although flow on YouTube is more akin to the flow of broadcast television (with its advertisements acting as commercial breaks in between videos) it is not really considered binge-watching. For some reason, saying you binged a bunch of YouTube videos seems to sound wrong. However, saying you binged a whole season of something on Netflix seems to roll off the tongue. After all, Netflix totally reconceptualized the way society saw binge-watching. It freed it from its historically bad connotations and inferred on it an ideology of prestige and legitimacy central to the platforms business strategy.
We can recall Grant McCracken’s concept of “feasting” in place of “binge-watching (Tryon, 2015) here. McCracken’s “feasting” endorses Williams’ flow “as an almost oppressive “flow” of images, programming, commercials, [...] designed to keep viewers watching, one that is deliberately “planned” by broadcasters to promote attentiveness to a single channel over the course of an evening.” (Tryon, 2015:111). For McCracken, streaming platforms like Netflix and YouTube solve a problem television has had for far too long “a lack of viewer control over how TV structures time”. (Tryon 2015:111). It is clear from this that McCracken’s reconceptualization of the way in which we watch television is seen as a solution to television’s age-old problem. Streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube ultimately attempt to fix the association between media consumption and time. Therefore, flow can be seen to occur on both platforms, but in decidedly different ways.
In the concluding chapter of this thesis, which will be discussed next, it will provide an answer to the chosen main research question. It will provide alternative options for avenues of future research and provide a critical outlook on how the research conducted could have been improved.
47
Chapter 5: Conclusion
This thesis aimed to examine the relationship between television and streaming platforms. It examined domesticity in terms of the television’s relationship to the home, and the consequent relationship between the technology and the viewer and how the notion of watching television inside the home has been reconceptualized. Also central to this thesis is the notion that although flow seems to be held in contradiction to streaming platforms, nowadays through people being able to manipulate, plan and schedule their own flow, we might see some more similarities than we once thought, to older media. These platforms attempt to revitalize flow through reawakening some earlier conventions of television. A desire for a structured list of channels and an emphasis on an era when choice was limited can be seen being reflected in these platforms.
Intrinsically, we must not forget the central question with which this thesis was predicated on:
How are streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube remediating flow?
How do streaming platforms deal with domesticity?
In conclusion, it has shown that although streaming platforms such as these may have been often thought of in opposition to flow, they are however, trying to revitalize it.
Flow is an experience that is more than keeping viewer’s in front of a screen. It is a mode of consumption that replaces discrete media content and is instead a more generalized practice. Williams adds immense depth to this concept into the constructuction of this experience as regards programming and the content produced. Flow is also impacted by broader tendencies such as algorithms and personalization. This inherently impacted how flow was constructed on each platform as these tendencies help the modern audience experience flow easier. This helps underpin flow's broader significance. Flow was inherently, from its inception, created by the television broadcasters. It allowed the few cable channels of the time to get good viewership by employing certain strategies. An interesting beginning, followed by commercials, followed by more of the film. It kept the viewer coming back for more and enduring the ads to get back into the content. Jason Jacobs in Jenner (2017) outlines how platforms with no ads (such as Netflix), are the opposite of flow. But flow is present in platforms such as YouTube, and so show that streaming platforms do encourage flow. And recently, we can see Netflix going against this idea of it not producing flow, through its trial of releasing episodes weekly. This is more like a traditional broadcast structure, thereby recalling Williams concept of flow from the 1970s, but in a more modern reworking. Also, its absence of ads does help the user experience flow through the seamless flow of programming from episode to episode. This is also aided by the platforms
48 encouragement of binge-watching, which is certainly an effective business strategy, and aided the platform in retaining subscribers.
The advertisements before a YouTube video may be akin to the commercial breaks experienced during flow. And although the concept of binge-watching might be seen as antithetical to flow, as it is not discrete units that are being watched, but consecutive episodes of shows, they are in fact closely linked. Binging on services such as YouTube and Netflix are common. Netflix revolutionized binge-watching and instilled it with a cultural hierarchy due to Netflix producing quality television. And people who watch YouTube often fall down a rabbit-hole of consuming content, video after video. In YouTube’s case it aligns more so with flow due to its presence of ads similar to the original conception of flow. But on Netflix, due to its absence of ads and encouragement of binge-watching, flow I find, is easier to achieve on the platform than YouTube.
Domesticity has also been dealt with in relation to these platforms. The way we consume content nowadays has changed immensely. It has moved from consuming content in front of a television set together as a family, to every person in that family unit being addressed individually. YouTube and Netflix are attempting to address their users on an individual basis through strategies such as algorithmic recommendation and personalization. This is affected by the platform's interface and accompanying affordances. There is also increasing spatial and temporal mobility. People can now consume content on multiple devices such as tablets, smartphones, laptops and so on. These devices also illustrate how time-shifting technologies of the past such as the VCR, DVD and others, are reflected in new technologies such as TiVo, and streaming platforms. The user can manipulate YouTube and Netflix however they wish through its various affordances - pause, play, its curated playlists. The notion of the television set as a primary object of togetherness in a simultaneous experience of an event has changed. It has been altered due to these streaming platforms. Each individual now has the capability to create their own flow from wherever they want, whenever they want. Television has become a more solitary experience brought about by the different devices. The content is no longer appealing to everyone, it is increasingly appealing to individualized consumers with distinct tastes and preferences as opposed to a clear familial unit.
In terms of future research, a more comprehensive study of more platforms could be undertaken (Balanzategui, The Conversation). Since this study was a comparative analysis of only two streaming platforms, this study could lay the foundation for a more extensive study that involves the new entrants into the streaming race. Now that more players have become competitors in the streaming race, (HBOMax, Disney+, among others; Hazelton, 2019) there could be more insights to be gleaned from a study of some of these new platforms and how they affect flow.
49
I believe a more effective methodology could have been utilized in order to fully understand the changes in domesticity and flow. The visual cross-platform analysis (VCPA) was effective in comparing my chosen two platforms, but perhaps at a shallower level than I would have liked. Although not understating the importance of VCPA as it is certainly a valid analysis.
Lastly, it cannot be disputed that the consumption of television has changed immensely over the years. From the devices we now consume it on, to the very changing nature of the medium itself, it has been in great consternation due to new media technologies. But overwhelmingly, in both platforms studied for this thesis, Netflix and YouTube, the concept of flow remains vital. Even though it is criticized as being too stuck in its time, we have certainly seen how streaming platforms have adapted the concept to fit in the new media landscape in which we now live. And even though the family unit may have become disaggregated due to new media technologies, there is no greater medium with which people can be brought together than the television.
50
Bibliography
Ahuvia, Yoger. “Infinite Scroll: Let’s Get to the Bottom of This.” Smashingmagazine. May 3 2013. Accessed 9 June 2020. https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2013/05/infinite-scrolling-lets-get-to-the- bottom-of-this/
Alexa. The top 500 sites on the web. n.d. http://www.alexa.com/topsites.
Alexander, Julia. “Netflix tracks shows by measuring ‘starters’, ‘watchers’ and ‘completers’”. The Verge. 0ctober 21st 2019. Accessed 3rd April 2020.
Anthony, Andrew. “A history of television, the technology that seduced the world – and me”. The Guardian. 7th September 2013. Accessed 30th April 2020.
Arnold, Sarah. “Netflix and the Myth of Choice/Participation/Autonomy”. The Netflix Effect: Technology and Entertainment in the 21st Century. New York/London: Bloomsbury Publishing Inc, 2016: 1-21.
Babich, Nick. “UX: Infinite Scrolling vs Pagination.” UXPlanet. May 1 2016. Accessed June 9 2020. https://uxplanet.org/ux-infinite-scrolling-vs-pagination-1030d29376f1
Balanzategui, Jessica. “More streaming services could change what we watch on TV and how we watch it”. The Conversation. 28th August 2019. Accessed 29th April 2020. https://theconversation.com/more-streaming-services-could-change-what-we-watch-on-tv-and-how- we-watch-it-122399
Bärtl, Mathias. "YouTube channels, uploads and views: A statistical analysis of the past 10 years." Convergence 24.1 (2018): 16-32.
Bentley, Frank, et al. "Exploring online video watching behaviours." Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video. 2019.
Bolter, J. David and Richard A. Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000.
Borghol, Youmna, et al. "The untold story of the clones: Content-agnostic factors that impact YouTube video popularity." Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 2012.
Bratton, H. Benjamin. “Platform and Stack, Model and Machine.” The Stack: on Software and Sovereignty, 2015, pp. 41–51.
51
Brown, David. “Business Wars.” Wondery. May 1-27 2019. https://wondery.com/shows/business- wars/. Podcast
Bucher, Taina, and Anne Helmond. "The affordances of social media platforms." The SAGE handbook of social media (2017): 223-253.
Burdakin, Anne. “3 Top Stay-at-Home Sticks to Watch in June.” Fool. June 18 2020. Accessed 21 June 2020. https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/06/18/3-top-stay-at-home-stocks-to-watch-in- june.aspx
Burgess, Jean, and Joshua Green. YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. John Wiley & Sons, 2018.
Burroughs, Benjamin. "House of Netflix: Streaming media and digital lore." Popular Communication 17.1 (2019): 1-17.
Carlson, Matt. "Tapping into TiVo: Digital video recorders and the transition from schedules to surveillance in television." New Media & Society 8.1 (2006): 97-115.
Covington, Paul et al. "Deep neural networks for YouTube recommendations." Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on recommender systems. 2016, 191-198.
Cox, Christopher, M. "Programming–Flow in the convergence of digital media platforms and television." Critical Studies in Television 13.4 (2018): 438-454.
Davis, Jenny L., and James B. Chouinard. "Theorizing Affordances: From Request To Refuse". Bulletin Of Science, Technology & Society, vol 36, no. 4, 2016, pp. 241-248. SAGE Publications, doi:10.1177/0270467617714944. de Valck, Marijke, and Jan Teurlings, eds. After the break: Television Theory Today. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013.
Deming, Caren. “Locating the Televisual in Golden Age Television.” A Companion to Television, Janet Wasko ed. Blackwell Publishing Ltd: United Kingdom, 2010.
Dundaralp, Dilek. “Netflix User Interface Design Analysis.” Medium. 18 March 2019. Accessed 12 May 2020. https://medium.com/swlh/netflix-user-interface-design-analysis-a625d20852ca
Dutta, Arieez. “YouTube Business Model: How does YouTube Make Money.” April 23 2019. Accessed 11 June 2020. Feedough.com
El-Dardiry, Essam. “Giving you more control over your Homepage and Up Next videos.” YouTube Official Blog. YouTube. June 26 2019. Accessed 9 June 2020.
52
Evans, Liz. “Algorithmic Flows: Binge-watching and the Televisual.” UoN Blogs. University of Nottingham. 8th January 2016. Accessed 29th April 2020.
Faraz, Ali. “Netflix Discovery Experience – a UX/UI Case Study.” UXDesign. 23 December 2018. Accessed 12 May 2020. https://uxdesign.cc/netflix-discovery-experience-a-ux-ui-case-study- 7bcd12f74db1
Fernando, Jason. “FAANG Stocks”. Investopedia.com. January 24th 2020. Accessed 21st May 2020.
Figueiredo, Flavio, et al. "Does content determine information popularity in social media? a case study of YouTube videos' content and their popularity." Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2014.
Fingas, Jon. “YouTube will retire its classic web interface in March.” Engadget. February 4 2020. Accessed June 8 2020. https://www.engadget.com/2020-02-04-youtube-drops-classic-web-interface- march.html
Fontaine, Gilles. "Television 2025: Video as a service." Communications & Strategies 92 (2013): 115.
Fontana, Tom. “Gamechangers.” TV Outside the Box: Trailblazing in the digital television revolution. New York and Oxon: Focal Press, 2016. 5-41.
Freedman, Des. "A 'technological idiot'? Raymond Williams and communications technology." Information, Communication & Society 5.3 (2002): 425-442.
Gibson, J. James. “The Theory of Affordances.” The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 2015, pp. 127–143.
Gillis, Stacy and Joanne Hollows. Feminism, Domesticity and Popular Culture. Routledge: New York and Oxon, 2009.
Gomez-Uribe, Carlos A., and Neil Hunt. "The Netflix recommender system: Algorithms, business value, and innovation." ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS) 6.4 (2015): 1-19.
Greer, Clark F., and Douglas A. Ferguson. "Tablet computers and traditional television (TV) viewing: Is the iPad replacing TV?." Convergence 21.2 (2015): 244-256.
Groening, Stephen. "From ‘a box in the theater of the world to ‘the world as your living room’: cellular phones, television and mobile privatization." New Media & Society 12.8 (2010): 1331-1347.
53
Hagedoorn, Berber. “Collective Cultural Memory as a TV Guide: “Living” History and Nostalgia on the Digital Television Platform”. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Film and Media Studies. 14. 10. 2017: 71-94.
Hallinan, Blake, and Ted Striphas. "Recommended for you: The Netflix Prize and the production of algorithmic culture." New media & society 18.1 (2016): 117-137.
Haring, Bruce. “Netflix installs new option to turn off “Autoplay” feature and ends automatic previews.” Deadline. 6 February 2020. Accessed 12 May 2020. https://deadline.com/2020/02/netflix- new-option-turn-off-autoplay-feature-1202853649/
Harrington Lee, C. and Denis Bielby. “Flow, Home, and Media Pleasures.” Journal of Popular Culture 38.5 (2005): 834-854.
Hazelton, John. "Watch Out Netflix? how Apple TV+, WarnerMedia and Disney+ could Shake Up the SVoD Landscape." Screen International, 2019: 1-7.
Hesmondhalgh, David, and Amanda D. Lotz. "Video Screen Interfaces as New Sites of Media Circulation Power." International Journal of Communication 14 (2020): 24.
Ibrahim, Mohammed. “Netflix UI: Case Study.” Prototypr.io, Medium. August 8 2019. Accessed 12 May 2020. https://blog.prototypr.io/netflix-ui-is-bad-heres-how-i-would-make-it-better- 11724c445c74
Ingraham, Nathan. “YouTube’s big desktop redesign is now available to everyone.” Engadget. August 29 2017. Accessed June 8 2020. https://www.engadget.com/2017-08-29-youtube-redesign- desktop-ios-android.html
Iqbal, Mansoor. “Netflix Revenue and Usage Statistics (2020).” Businessofapps.com. April 24 th 2020. https://www.businessofapps.com/data/netflix-statistics/
Jenner, Mareike. "Binge-watching: Video-on-demand, quality TV and mainstreaming fandom." International Journal of Cultural Studies 20.3 (2017): 304-320.
Jenner, Mareike. "Is this TVIV? On Netflix, TVIII and binge-watching." New media & society 18.2 (2016): 257-273.
Jenner, Mareike. “Control Issues: Binge-watching, channel-surfing and cultural value.” Participations Journal of Audience and Reception Studies 16.2 (2019): 298-317.
Johnson, Dave. ““How much does Netflix cost?”: All of Netflix’s subscription plans, explained.” BusinessInsider. May 30 2019. Accessed June 4th 2020. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much- is-netflix?r=US&IR=T
54
Kackman et al., eds. Flow TV: Television in the age of media convergence. New York: Routledge, 2010.
Kompare, Derek. "'Greyish Rectangles': Creating the television heritage." Media History 9.2 (2003): 153-169.
Kompare, Derek. "Publishing flow: DVD box sets and the reconception of television." Television & New Media 7.4 (2006): 335-360.
Kompare, Derek. "Reruns 2.0: Revising repetition for multiplatform television distribution." Journal of Popular Film & Television 38.2 (2010): 79-83.
Kompare, Derek. Rerun nation: How repeats invented American television. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Lee, Alex. “Netflix: 55 of the Best Netflix Series to Binge-Watch This Week.” Wired.co.uk. June 4 2020. Accessed June 9 2020. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/best-shows-netflix
Lee, Edmund. “As Netflix Contends With More Rivals, Hulu Stands Out.” New York Times. April 16 2019. Accessed 14th May 2020.
Levy, Adam. “Netflix Just Slashed Its Content Budget by 10%: Management's new guidance shows the impact of suspending production.” Fool. 26 April 2020. Accessed 12 May 2020. https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/04/26/netflix-just-slashed-its-content-budget-by-10.aspx
Lima, Cecilia Almeida et al. "Netflix e a manutenção de gêneros televisivos fora do fluxo." MATRIZes 9.2 (2015): 237-256. DOI: 10.11606/issn.1982-8160.v9i2p237-256
Lobato, Ramon. "Rethinking international TV flows research in the age of Netflix." Television & New Media 19.3 (2018): 241-256.
Loranger, Hoa. “Infinite Scrolling Is Not For Every Site.” NNGroup. February 2nd 2014. Accessed 9 June 2020. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/infinite-scrolling/
Lucey, Kate. “It’s Time to Kill the Infinite Scroll.” Invisionapp. July 5 2019. Accessed 9 June 2020. https://www.invisionapp.com/inside-design/kill-infinite-scroll/
Makker, Gustav. “Netflix vs Amazon Prime Vide: User Experience (Part 1)”. UXPlanet, Medium. November 19 2018. Accessed 12 May 2020. . https://uxplanet.org/netflix-vs-amazon-prime-video- user-experience-part-1-576d3b97e303
Markham, Annette et al. "Netflix, imagined affordances, and the illusion of control." Netflix at the Nexus. Peter Lang, 2019.
55
Marple, J. “Examining the Strengths and Weaknesses of Netflix’s Business Model in the Context of the Post-Legacy Television Market”, Journal of Promotional Communications, (2017) 5 (2), 191-202.
McFarland, Kevin. “In 2015, Netflix became a TV network. Where does it go from here?” Wired. 12 November 2015. Accessed June 19 2020. https://www.wired.com/2015/12/netflix-legit-tv-network/
McGuigan, Jim. “What can we still learn about television from Raymond Williams?” October 22 nd 2004. Accessed 11th June 2020. Loughborough University UK. https://www.flowjournal.org/2004/10/what-can-we-still-learn-about-television-from-raymond- williams/
McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. London and New York: MIT press, 1994.
McNamara, Mary. “Oversubscribed! Wasn’t cord-cutting supposed to streamline our lives?”. LA Times. 9th October 2019. Accessed 29th April 2020.
Meehan, R. Eileen. "Watching television: A political economic approach." A Companion to Television (2020): 345-360.
Meek, Andy. “Weekly releases vs the binge model: Here’s why Netflix’s approach is better.” BGR. September 8th 2019. Accessed 16 June 2020. https://bgr.com/2019/09/08/netflix-new-releases-weekly- schedule-vs-all-at-once/
Moe, Hallvard. "Television, Digitalisation and Flow: Questioning the Promises of Viewer Control." Digital Utopia in the Media: From Discourses to Facts. A Balance. Eds. P. Masip & J. Rom. Barcelona: Facultat de Cièències de la Comunicació Blanquerna, 2005. 773--784.
Moores, Shaun. "Television, geography and mobile privatization'." European Journal of Communication 8.3 (1993): 365-379.
N.p. “Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube.” YouTube Official Blog. YouTube. January 25 2019. Accessed 9 June 2020.
Nansen, Bjorn. “Computing changed the ‘flow’ of watching television”. The Conversation. 8th June 2016. Accessed 29th April 2020. https://theconversation.com/computing-changed-the-flow-of- watching-television-58225
Napoli, Philip. Audience Evolution: New Technologies and the Transformation of Media Audiences. Columbia University Press: New York, 2011.
56
Netflix Help Center. “Netflix Billing and Payments,” Netflix – Help Center. N.d. Accessed 20th May 2020. https://help.netflix.com/en/node/41049
Netflix Help Center. “What devices can I use to stream Netflix.” Netflix – Help Center. N.d. Accessed 20th May 2020. https://help.netflix.com/en/node/14361
Oat, Elena. "Analysis of Netflix architecture and business model." Seminar on Internet Working. 2013.
Oswald, Kathleen, and Jeremy Packer. "Flow and mobile media." Communication matters: Materialist approaches to media, mobility and networks (2013): 276-287.
Pearce, Warren et al. “Visual cross-platform analysis: digital methods to research social media images”, Information, Communication & Society, 23:2, (2020): 161-180, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1486871
Pearce, Warren et al. “Visual cross-platform analysis: digital methods to research social media images”, Information, Communication & Society, (2018), 1-20, DOI:10.1080/1369118X.2018.1486871.
Pearce, Warren, et al. "Visual cross-platform analysis: digital methods to research social media images." Information, Communication & Society 23.2 (2020): 161-180.
Petersen, Helen Anne. “The New Netflix Canon”. Slate. 10th October 2013. Accessed 29th April 2020.
Radulovic, Petrana. “Netflix is airing some shows weekly, but binging isn’t going away.” Polygon. September 4th 2019. Accessed 16th June 2020. https://www.polygon.com/2019/9/4/20849151/netflix- weekly-shows-report
Reilly, Dan. “A Guide to all the New Streaming Services That Want Your Money”. Vulture. November 5th 2019. Accessed 15th June 2020.
Richwine, Lisa. “Want to binge watch? New streaming services TV services will make you wait”. Reuters. 28th October 2019. Accessed 29th April 2020.
Rodriguez, Ashley. “Netflix’s strangely specific, hidden search categories. Quartz.com. December 4th 2018. Accessed 11th June 2020. https://qz.com/quartzy/1482571/netflixs-strangely-specific-hidden- search-categories/
Romero, Ariana. “You Have 22 New Netflix Trends to Binge This Weekend – Here’s What’s Worth Watching.” Refinery29. (Updated weekly) 15 May 2020. Accessed 9 June 2020. https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/05/9826771/new-netflix-may-22-lovebirds-selling-sunset- blood-water
57
Roth, Camille, et al. "Tubes & Bubbles--Topological confinement of YouTube recommendations." arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.05324, 2020, 1-10.
Samuel, Michael. "Time Wasting and the Contemporary Television-Viewing Experience." University of Toronto Quarterly 86.4 (2017): 78-89.
Sandvig, Christian. "The Internet as the anti-television: Distribution infrastructure as culture and power." Signal traffic: Critical studies of media infrastructures (2015): 225-45.
Schomer, Audrey. “Netflix is testing out a new model where it releases episodes on a weekly basis.” BusinessInsider. September 6th 2019. Accessed 16 June 2020. https://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-testing-weekly-episode-release-model-2019-9?r=US&IR=T
Segault, Antonin. “Crossplatform Referneces on Social Media.”Elliadd Laboratory, Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comte (2018): 52-55.
Smajstrla, Ann. “YouTube adds chapters to make video navigation easier.” Engaget. May 28 2020. Accessed June 8 2020. https://www.engadget.com/youtube-adds-chapters-make-video-navigation- easier-192029339.html
Smith, Kit. “57 Fascinating and Incredible YouTube Statistics.” Brandwatch.com. 21st February 2020. https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/youtube-stats/
Snickars, Pelle, and Patrick Vonderau. The Youtube Reader. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden, 2009.
Spaviero, S. (2019). “From passive consumption of media goods to active use of media brands: on value generation and other differences.” Communication & Society, 32(3), 67-79.
Spigel, Lynn. “The People in the Theatre Next Door”. Make room for TV: Television and the family ideal in Postwar America. University of Chicago Press, 2013: 136-180.
Stanfill, Mel. “The Interface as Discourse: the Production of Norms Through Web Design.” New Media & Society 17.7, 2015: 1059-1074.
Strangelove, Michael. Watching YouTube: Extraordinary videos by ordinary people. University of Toronto Press: Toronto, Buffalo, London, 2010.
Swartz, Jon. “Netflix has biggest quarter with nearly 16 million new subscribers signing on.” Marketwatch. April 22 2020. Accessed 21 June 2020. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix- adds-more-than-15-million-new-subscribers-stock-rockets-higher-2020-04-21?mod=article_inline
Thibault, Ghislain. "Streaming: a media hydrography of televisual flows." VIEW Journal of European Television History and Culture 4.7 (2015): 110-119.
58
Tryon, Chuck. "‘Make any room your TV room’: digital delivery and media mobility." Screen 53.3 (2012): 287-300.
Tryon, Chuck. "TV got better: Netflix’s original programming strategies and the on-demand television transition." Media Industries Journal 2.2 (2015): 104-113.
Turcotte F. Joseph and M. Len Ball. “All Transportation is Local”: Mobile-Digital-Networked- Technologies and Networked Orientations.” Transfers 3.1 (2013): 119-139. doi: 10.3167/trans.2013.030109
Van Dijck, José. "Television 2.0: YouTube and the emergence of Homecasting." Creativity, Ownership and Collaboration in the Digital Age, Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2007): 27-29.
Vanhemert, Kyle. “To Grow, Netflix Must Learn From the Quietly Brilliant UI of Regular TVs” Wired. 2nd May 2014. Accessed 12 May 2020. https://www.wired.com/2014/02/regular-old-tv-still- has-the-best-ui-around-netflix-should-copy-it/
Varela, D., Kaun, A. (2019) “The Netflix Experience: A User-Focused Approach to the Netflix Recommendation Algorithm” In: Theo Plothe, Amber M. Buck (ed.), Netflix at the Nexus: Content, Practice, and Production in the Age of Streaming Television (pp. 197-211). New York: Peter Lang Publishing Group
Vox. “Why Your Netflix Thumbnails Don’t Look Like Mine.” YouTube, uploaded by Vox, November 21 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axCBA3VD5dQ
Walker, James R., and Robert V. Bellamy. “Gratifications of Grazing: An Exploratory Study of Remote Control Use.” Journalism Quarterly, vol. 68, no. 3, Sept. 1991, pp. 422–431, doi:10.1177/107769909106800313.
Wasko, Janet, ed. A Companion to Television. US and UK:John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
Watson, Amy. “Average monthly spending on cable television in the United States as of July 2019.” August 5 2019. Accessed 21st May 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1034487/united-states- monthly-cable-television-cost/
Watson, Amy. “Original content hours on Netflix worldwide 2012-2019.” May 28th 2020. Accessed June 12 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/882490/netflix-original-content-hours/
White. Mimi. “Flows and Other Close Encounters with Television. 2001. Northwestern University. Essay.
59
Wiard, Victor and David Domingo. “Fragmentation versus convergence: University students in Brussels and the consumption of TV series on the Internet.” Volume 13, Issue 1. 2016. Participatations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies.
Williams, Raymond. Television: Technology and cultural form. London and New York: Routledge, 1974.
Wilson, Linus. "Clickbait Works! The secret to getting views with the YouTube algorithm." The secret to getting views with the YouTube algorithm (2019).
Yeung, Karen. “‘Hypernudge’: Big Data as a Mode of Regulation by Design”. Information, Communication & Society 20.1 (2017): 118-136.
Yi, Xing et al. "Beyond Clicks: Dwell Time for Personalization." (2014): 1-8.
60