The Limitations of Localization: a Cross-Cultural Comparative Study of Farmer Wants a Wife

Home , Farmer Wants a Wife

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264313572

The Limitations of Localization: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study of Farmer Wants a Wife

Article in International Journal of Cultural Studies · May 2014 DOI: 10.1177/1367877913496201

CITATIONS READS 12 1,076

2 authors:

Jolien van Keulen Tonny Krijnen Vrije Universiteit Brussel Erasmus University Rotterdam

5 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 154 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The World Hobbit Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tonny Krijnen on 27 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. ICS17310.1177/1367877913496201International Journal of Cultural Studiesvan Keulen and Krijnen 4962012013

International Journal of Cultural Studies 2014, Vol. 17(3) 277–292 © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1367877913496201 ics.sagepub.com

Article The limitations of localization: A cross-cultural comparative study of Farmer Wants a Wife

Jolien van Keulen and Tonny Krijnen Erasmus University of Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract Despite globalization, television is still bound to the nation-state in several aspects. The international television industry meets the national in the cross-border exchange of television content. Canned programming can hereby run into cultural barriers, which TV formats presumably can overcome, due to localization. Formats are translated to local versions that presumably suit national culture and identity. In globalization debates, localization is being used as an argument against cultural homogenization. However, there is little comparative work reviewing the extent to which TV formats are culturally specific. By comparing linguistic, intertextual and cultural codes in the Dutch and the Australian version of the British reality TV format Farmer wants a Wife, we will argue that localization of TV formats might be overrated as protection of cultural diversity.

Keywords comparative content analysis, Farmer Wants a Wife, globalization debate, localization, reality TV, TV formats

Farmer Wants a Wife is a reality TV format developed in Great Britain. The format has been purchased, adapted and broadcast in more than 20, mostly European, countries, as well as in South Africa, Australia and the United States. In most countries the show is extremely popular and breaks television viewing records, with the result that people from all across the world are watching a programme about farmers looking for a wife. However, different versions of the show exist, and in each country the format is localized and adjusted to suit national structures and characteristics. Farmer Wants a Wife is one of the reality TV formats that are incredibly successful on a global level and is therefore

Corresponding author: Tonny Krijnen, Department of Media and Communication, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Email: [email protected] 278 International Journal of Cultural Studies 17(3) often hailed as one of the finest examples of localization and an argument against cultural homogenization. To be successful, it is argued, it is essential that TV content con- nects to the norms, values, beliefs and all other social-cultural elements of an audience. If a programme is culturally distant from its viewers, it is incomprehensible or unattract- ive (Bielby and Harrington, 2002; Morley, 2001; Straubhaar, 2007). People feel at home seeing images and situations that correspond to aspects of their identity (Morley, 2001) and locally produced television provides a more accurate record of everyday life (Larkey, 2009). Accordingly, to connect the TV format to a socially and culturally located audience, format-based programmes are localized (Jensen, 2007; Moran, 2009a; Roscoe, 2004; Waisbord and Jalfin, 2009). At least this is the theory of what the localization of TV formats does. As a consequence, localization is used as an argument to dismiss the possible globalizing and homogenizing effects of the international TV format trade: ‘Because formats are essen- tially open, they cannot be seen simply as transmission belts for Western values’ (Waisbord, 2004: 371). Citing Moran, Waisbord (2004: 380) also notes that: ‘Formats are not catalysts for cultural sameness or the loss of cultural diversity; adaptations provide opportunities for reimagining nations in various ways.’ Keane (2004: 14) proposes that local production inputs are linked to social mores and cultural values, suggesting that format adaptations: ‘are influenced by specific structures of feeling’. According to most localization theorists, the TV format is illustrative of the pitfalls of cultural homogenization and the cultural imperialist thesis. However, empirical work on the localization of television formats, its manifestations and its effects is rare (Cooper-Chen, 2005; Jensen, 2007; Mikos and Perrotta, 2012). Moreover, studies of localization are usually based on one national version of a format, highlighting the elements that are typical of the nation in which it is broadcast (Roscoe, 2004; Turner, 2005). These studies do not, however, answer questions like: ‘How local, national or transnational are format-based programmes?’ ‘How is localization mani- fested?’ Does localization mean that because a format-based programme is locally produced, every format adaptation is a truly local product? For example, the Dutch version of Farmer Wants a Wife (named Boer Zoekt Vrouw) is produced by Blue Circle, the Dutch subsidiary of the multinational FremantleMedia, while the Australian adaptation of the format (The Farmer Wants a Wife) is produced by the Australian division of the same company, FremantleMedia Australia. So an international production company pro- duces two versions of the same programme to cover two national television markets. In these circumstances, can we still speak of local productions, or does the transnational environment of production prevail? Recently, the localization–globalization debate has been criticized for the stalemate it creates. As Dowd and Janssen argue (2011: 520): ‘neither approach captures fully the global situation of creative works’. The TV industry should be understood as a transnational field in which the national and the international interact. As well as the trade in formats (and other types of TV programmes), professional practices, aesthetic standards and cultural forms are also exchanged (Kuipers, 2011). The television industry is thus simultaneously both local and global. In order to understand the TV format as a product in a transnational field, we compared the content of the Dutch and Australian versions of Farmer Wants a Wife. Our van Keulen and Krijnen 279 main research question is: ‘How do the Australian and Dutch versions of Farmer Wants a Wife differ in terms of the localized elements of the format?’ This comparison enables us not only to understand how the localization of one format is manifest in two very different countries, but to also formulate a modest empirical contribution to our understanding of the TV format in a transnational field.

TV formats and the globalization debate Viewing the TV industry as a transnational field not only allows us to transcend the homogenization versus heterogenization debate, but to also take into account the economic factors (like market shares) and aesthetic criteria that are important for the production of TV programmes (Kuipers, 2011). Nowadays, national and international fields intersect; for example, media conglomerates disseminate TV programmes around the world to expand their markets. At the same time, television content has to address local audiences in different countries and with different cultures. Media products are cultural products and, when crossing borders, TV programmes can encounter cultural barriers (Waisbord, 2004). Television formatting can be viewed as a solution to this problem of international economic interests versus cultural barriers. TV formats are frameworks for programmes, and what is being sold and purchased is the idea and the manual to produce a show, the so-called ‘format bible’ (Moran and Keane, 2004). Local TV makers produce a local version of the format usually in close cooperation with the original producers. Some elements are fixed, while others are not, and the extent to which a format can be localized, and local producers can make their own choices, is dependent on the format bible (and other limitations, as we will argue in due course). Because of cooperation between the international and national television industries, the format trade can be compared with franchising (Keane and Moran, 2008), referring to the standardization of the format on the one hand and local adaptability on the other (Waisbord, 2004). Format programmes are foreign ideas, produced domestically: ‘The global circulation of formats responds to programming strategies to bridge transnational economic interest and national sentiments of belonging’ (Waisbord, 2004: 368). TV formats negotiate between the global and the local, and can be seen as the embodiment of the standardization of content, thus providing evidence of cultural homogenization. On the other hand, the notion still exists that, at a deeper level, formats attest to the fact that television is still tied to local and national cultures (Waisbord, 2004). This idea seems to indicate that when formats are adapted and localized in different countries, the various national versions are likely to differ from each other in terms of their cultural load. However, this viewpoint lacks empirical foundation. A similar dynamic can be recognized for TV audiences. With the importation of foreign television programmes, audiences become habituated to foreign aesthetics and ways of storytelling (Kuipers and De Kloet, 2009). Some would argue that this illustrates the imperialistic model of cultural globalization, which sees cultural homogenization as an effect of the international distribution of cultural products. However, this perspective denies the resistance of local culture and the active (meaning constructing) role of culturally located audiences. 280 International Journal of Cultural Studies 17(3)

Audiences make choices about their media consumption that are based, among other things, on cultural relevance or proximity (Straubhaar, 1991). This means that audiences prefer culturally close media content that contains characters they can identify with, deals with topics and themes they are familiar with and shows places they recognize. Viewers thus seem to place themselves between the local and the global by wanting their culturally close, nationally produced programmes to have the same aesthetic qualities and structures as the foreign shows they are used to. Global–local and international–national distinctions seem to be inadequate (Straubhaar, 2007), as does the opposition between cultural imperialism and local appropriation, or homogenization versus heterogenization. Transnational fields like television produce transnational styles, standards, aesthetics and cultural forms that need to be analysed in more detail (Kuipers, 2011). While most localization theorists hold on to the idea that format adaptations contain local styles and culture, there seems to be some evidence that stylistic elements have a transnational character. For example, Uzbekistan cameramen had to learn how to get certain shots when producing a local version of the American game show Family Feud (Moran, 2009b). Our comparative analysis of the Australian and Dutch versions of Farmer Wants a Wife will focus on these elements to help us to acquire a more in-depth understanding of format localization in a transnational field.

Format localization The trade in adjustable TV formats is based on the idea that television programmes become less attractive when crossing borders because of audience preferences for local content. Localization is generally assumed to be the tool to overcome this problem: in order to construct a feeling of proximity and be successful, the international format can be adapted to a new, local audience: ‘The program is usually modified in such a way as to seem local or national in origin. […] The stories it tells will tend to deal with the audience’s world’ (Moran, 2009a: 117–18). The localization of formats concerns ideas about national culture and identity. A format version contains an imagination of national culture that transcends internal diversity (Moran, 2009a), while format adaptation comprises forms of banal nationalism (Moran, 2009a; Waisbord, 2004). Several minor, inconspicuous details of a TV programme contain representations of a nation, such as colours, a story’s circumstances, an accent or a song, all of which can make the format version local in an authentic manner (Moran, 2009a; Waisbord and Jalfin, 2009). Cultural proximity is thought to play an important role in an audience’s preferences for local content (Straubhaar, 1991). Correspondence between viewers and a TV character’s features and identity is believed to construct cultural proximity between a television text and its audience (Straubhaar, 2007). Cultural proximity is based on the concept of cultural identity, which is complex and multi-layered, and consists of geographical, cultural and linguistic aspects like nationality, ethnicity, religion and gender (Straubhaar, 2007). Likewise, different levels of cultural proximity are distinguishable, such as geographic, cultural-linguistic, genre, thematic and value proximity features. Cultural proximity is largely based in language (La Pastina and Straubhaar, 2003), while other aspects of identity can be dress, ethnicity, gestures, body language, definitions of humour, ideas van Keulen and Krijnen 281 about story pacing, musical traditions and religious elements (La Pastina and Straubhaar, 2003). Mikos and Perrotta (2012) emphasize that visual styles must be integrated in the concept of cultural proximity and that the visual style of formats can be modified to suit conditions of the local market. Visual experiences and knowledge about narrative patterns, and visual stylistic elements like camera movement, montages and lighting can contribute to a sense of cultural proximity. Furthermore, notions of gender and socially desirable behaviour are culturally sensitive and can play an important part in the construction or absence of cultural proximity (Moran, 2009b). These different levels of cultural proximity correspond to different levels of format localization. Previous findings on format adaptation and the expression of national culture in television also indicate that localization can be apparent in different characteristics, elements or layers of a TV programme (Jensen, 2007; Moran, 2009a). For example, the connection between Australian soap operas and national identity is constructed through the everydayness of the stories, settings and discursive structures (Turner, 2005). So, to embed the national version of a TV show in the preferences of audiences, the format is localized on three levels: linguistic, intertextual and cultural (Moran, 2009a, 2009b), each of which has its own specific origins.

Linguistic, intertextual and cultural codes First, linguistic codes are elements of form and style that construct ‘film language’. They can occur in several ways and can be adjusted, replaced, removed or altered in the format adaptation (Moran, 2009b). Mise-en-scène, settings, locations, colours, sounds, lighting and montages are all examples of filmic elements that can be culturally determined. For example, the setting of the Australian Big Brother house, which was near a beach, had surfers, a pool and barbecue, reflected the Australian lifestyle and expressed a sense of Australianness (Roscoe, 2004). Moreover, the Australian version of the show contained more scenes per episode than the original (Roscoe, 2004), which is also a linguistic code. In their study, Mikos and Perrotta (2012) focus on visual styles as elements of localization, but also trace differences between adaptations of a telenovela format that are more often situated on the level of representation than on the level of the narrative and audiovisual style. Second, intertextual codes have two aspects. They are first established by knowledge and possibilities in a particular society. National television industries have certain orga- nizational traditions and habits in the production process that can influence the format adaptation (Moran, 2009b). Second, the regulation of the industry, the television system, and the nature of the channel or broadcaster are intertextual elements that can influence the process or result of format adaptation. Formats get adjusted, not only to cultural elements, but also to the media system and the political, economic and geographic circumstances of a country (Jensen, 2007; Moran and Keane, 2004). These intertextual codes are reflected in characteristics of the programme. Genres are also regarded as intertextual codes (Moran, 2009b). Some are inherently international, like game shows, while others, like drama, require greater adjustment (Moran, 2009b). Genres also play a role in cultural proximity; acquaintance with a particular narrative structure or way of storytelling is known as genre proximity (Straubhaar, 2007). Reality formats are very ‘open’ and easy to localize (Waisbord, 2004) and, by 282 International Journal of Cultural Studies 17(3) revealing human behaviour, they demonstrate social codes, ethics and mores: ‘The producers cannot help but fill them [reality formats] with concrete aspects of the specific culture in which they are adapted’ (Jensen, 2007: 84). The play between representation of the truth and the construction of an attractive story – the core element of reality TV – influences several narrative and visual characteristics of a programme. The elaboration of the reality genre can vary between adaptations of the same format (Jensen, 2007). The third level of adaptation includes cultural codes: ‘That combination of factors that make for communal and national difference’ (Moran, 2009a: 121). These codes contain references to elements of cultural identity, such as language, ethnicity, history or religion. Situations, themes or topics can also be more or less proximate cultural codes, while the story and characters contain many of them. For example, as well as differences in format adaptations that can be explained by the media system, Jensen (2007) also found differences that could be explained by social and cultural mores or taste, such as irony and over-dramatization. A comparison of characters in local versions of the talent show Pop Idol highlights differences between characters, behaviour and modes of address (Jensen, 2007; Kretschmer and Singh, 2012). Indeed, differences between format adaptations with respect to cultural codes are an important indicator of localization and cultural specificity. If a format-based programme is adapted to its culturally located audience, the levels and elements set out above should be transformed and differences in these aspects of format versions should be identifiable. The process of format adaptation is, however, multi-layered and complex and the different codes are not always distinguishable (Moran, 2009b). Moreover, the three levels of format adaptation are provisional and must be strengthened by empirical findings (Moran, 2009b). It is for this reason that we have analysed and compared the Dutch and Australian versions of Farmer Wants a Wife on these three levels, as this is crucial when examining to what extent format versions are local and determining an empirical foundation for the role and effects of format localization.

Method In order to analyse format localization, we compared the Dutch and Australian versions of the British reality TV format Farmer Wants a Wife. In the Netherlands the programme is extremely popular, and the first episode of season six was seen by 3.6m viewers (a 48.9 % market share; SKO, 2012). In Australia the show is also very successful, although precise market shares are unknown, the sixth season’s finale drew 1.45m metropolitan viewers1 (Washbrook, 2010). Comparing the Dutch and Australian versions of Farmer Wants a Wife meets our purposes in several ways. First, the Netherlands and Australia are geographically distant, different languages are spoken in the two countries, there are differences in the media landscape and system, and there are different social structures and cultural norms (Roscoe, 2004; Turner, 1994). Furthermore, while the programme in the Netherlands is broadcast on a public channel (KRO), in Australia it can only be viewed on a commercial one (Channel 9). Accordingly, comparing the Dutch and Australian versions of Farmer Wants a Wife is valuable: if the production of a format is inherently local, differences in form, content and culture can be expected. van Keulen and Krijnen 283

We used a qualitative content analysis to compare the two versions of the show, focusing on the manifestation of nationally and culturally specific elements therein. We analysed the fourth season of the show, which was broadcast in 2009 in both countries. This season of the Dutch version had 12 episodes, 10 of which were 50 minutes long and 2 of one hour (10 hours and 20 minutes in total), while the Australian version contained seven episodes, six of 45 minutes and one of 85 minutes (6 hours in total; commercial breaks excluded). This difference in broadcasting time could have a major impact on the results, and will be taken into account in the analysis. As well as watching each episode multiple times, we also carefully described each one on a narrative level with respect to the characters and the story and plotlines. Both verbal and visual aspects of the programmes were taken into account during the analysis, as they are intertwined. As Fiske (1987) argued, audiovisual products have three layers: filmic, narrative and symbolic. These layers are complexly intertwined, with the filmic layer supporting the narrative, while the symbolic layer is found in the narrative as well as in the filmic layer. Sensitizing concepts2 were used to guide the analysis and were formulated along the lines of our theoretical framework and grouped into three categories: linguistic, intertextual and cultural codes (see Moran, 2009b: section 4). Linguistic codes are found in the filmic layer (how things look), and for our analysis the following codes were taken into account: mise-en-scène, clothing, environment, accommodation, colours, setting, nature, staging, camera positions, editing, sound and modes of address. The cultural codes are primarily found in the narrative (what the programme is about) and symbolic layers (what the programme means), and are given shape in the local context of production. In our analysis the following cultural codes were taken into account: cultural identity (focusing on ethnicity, religion, gender, age and social class), history, traditions, gender roles, conduct, lifestyle, aims, norms and values, convictions and assumptions. The final group of codes are intertextual, which are found in all three layers, and focus on genre features and the role that the broadcaster might play.

Table 1. Overview of intersection of codes and layers of meaning.

Linguistic Intertextual Cultural Filmic Mise-en-scène, Production layer clothing, environment, material, customs, accommodation, colours, knowledge, setting, nature, staging, limitations camera positions and sound Narrative Characters, acts, editing, Genre features and Cultural identity (focusing layer mode of address, story pace, role of broadcaster on religion, gender, age story structure, episode and and social class), history, season structure traditions, conduct and aims Symbolic Norms and values, layer convictions and assumptions, manners and behaviour, lifestyle, gender roles, social stereotyping, cultural oppositions and central theme/message 284 International Journal of Cultural Studies 17(3)

The verbal aspect of the content analysis focused on the structure of the plotlines and storylines. Not only did we pay attention to how these story- and plotlines evolved, but also to the narrator and length of scenes. The codes of staging, editing, modes of address, aims, norms and values, and convictions and genre conventions were investigated. The visual aspect of the analysis focused on the more visible codes: mise-en-scène, clothing, environment, accommodation, colours, setting, nature and camera positions. Finally, the results of both parts of the analysis were compared in terms of similarities and differences in context.

Results: manifestations of difference Our study reveals an interesting distinction between the differences and similarities in the Dutch Boer Zoekt Vrouw (BZV) and the Australian The Farmer Wants a Wife (TFWW). Most of the differences with regard to localization were situated in the more apparent linguistic and intertextual codes, while the similarities tended to be located in the more latent cultural codes. These results suggest that format localization is present much more in the filmic and narrative aspects than at the symbolic level. Accordingly, we will demonstrate how these results significantly challenge perspectives on the localization of (reality) TV formats.

Filmic layer The differences between BZV and TFWW are manifest primarily in the linguistic and intertextual codes of the filmic and narrative levels. We will argue that, although differences might be thought to indicate localization, these differences are simply unavoidable and should, in this particular case, not be taken as serious signs of format localization. Linguistic codes are prone to adjustment during format adaptation (Moran, 2009a). Indeed, the results consistently show differences in this type of code at the filmic layer. Some of these codes, and the differences between BZV and TFWW that result, are obvious: different languages are spoken in the two countries, and the weather is very different which has an effect on the landscape, colours, animals, veg- etation and the look and location of the farms. For example, there are many shots of the surrounding landscape in both versions of the show, but the areas clearly look very different. Dutch farms, for example, are relatively small, often located next to other farms and are always close to roads. They are also surrounded by some green pasture and/or crop fields, and the land is surprisingly flat. Conversely, Australian farms are located in the outback, and we can see mountains, marshlands and sandy roads, but there are no other farms, houses or towns nearby. Other linguistic codes that cause dissimilarities between the two versions are less obvious, such as settings, locations, camera use and clothing. For example, in TFWW, and as a consequence of the better weather and climate, the setting for activities and events such as the eliminations is mainly outdoors, while in BZV such activities usually take place indoors. Moreover, in the Dutch BZV, the kitchen table at the farm is the most commonly used location, and it is here that events like breakfast, coffee breaks and the selection and opening of letters takes place. In TFWW, meanwhile, the farmers usually van Keulen and Krijnen 285 sit on their verandas. In both versions of the show the settings for eliminations seem to be carefully chosen and contain images of a farming life, like hay bales in a hay-loft, or are set against the background of sheep, cows or a tractor. Settings and mise-en-scène also lead to very different atmospheres in BZV and TFWW. In both versions shots of the surroundings are used to create a nostalgic, authentic and romantic atmosphere to depict life on a farm. In the Dutch BZV these images consist of windmills, black and white cows, ditches and pastures, and people on bicycles. In the Australian version, however, we see a farmer on a horse, vast stretches of shrubbery grazed by brown cows and a lonely looking farmer musing at the waterside or watching the sunset. Indeed, we see the sun rising or setting at least once per episode in TFWW. It could be argued that these features are culturally specific and therefore point to localization of the format. However, many of these codes are also geographically determined; after all, the Australian outback is not known for its windmills and people cycling around. Clothing is an important element in the filmic layer that contributes to the ways in which the farmers, the women and farm life are represented. The Australian farmers wear jeans with, often, a checked shirt, while some of them always wear cowboy hats. The Dutch farmers, when working, usually wear blue overalls and wooden shoes or rain boots. The women in TFWW dress up in short dresses and high heels, while their counterparts in BZV wear more practical clothing, such as jeans and boots. We will see later that these differences in clothing have consequences at the narrative level when it comes to cultural codes. Finally, camera positions form an interesting code that seems to cause differences that point to localization in TFWW and BZV. In TFWW long-distance crane shots are used alongside so-called ‘diary shots’, in which a farmer or one of the female participants talks directly into the camera, telling us what has happened and how they feel about it. The Dutch version does not use this type of camera work at all. Although this variation seems to indicate localization of the format, we would argue that it is determined by some of the unavoidable differences mentioned earlier that have repercussions for the codes at the filmic and narrative layer. As explained in the section on ‘Method’, the filmic, narrative and symbolic layers are interdependent (Fiske, 1987). This also means that the use of codes at one level interacts with the use of codes at another. An example is the linguistic code of camera use situated at the filmic layer, which can be explained by the fact that the host in BZV is present on the farm so that she can ask the farmers and the women about their feelings and thoughts. In Australia the host is not present, and the farmers and women explain their feelings and thoughts during the diary shots referred to earlier. The presence of the host might look like a producer’s decision, but we would argue that it is not. The farms in Australia are located thousands of kilometres apart, making it almost impossible for the host to travel from farm to farm to guide the farmers and their potential wives. The Netherlands, however, is a small country, meaning that the host of BZV can drive from farm to farm with relative ease. Again, geography seems to be an important determinant in what at first glance looks as if it is a producer’s decision. Furthermore, linguistic codes at the filmic layer, such as geography and camera use, have important consequences for the codes at the narrative layer, such as modes of address and story structure. 286 International Journal of Cultural Studies 17(3)

Narrative layer At the narrative layer we were also able to identify a few prominent differences between BZV and TFWW. The narrative layer of a TV programme contains manifest linguistic, intertextual and cultural codes, the most eye-catching of which is story structure. As mentioned in the section on ‘Method’, the number of episodes per season differs greatly: the Australian version had fewer episodes than the Dutch show. Additionally, seven farmers are being followed in TFWW, while in BZV only five are the centre of attention. Both versions contain the same story elements: an introduction to the farmers, the speed dates, a group date, multiple episodes showing the chosen candidates staying at the farm, multiple elimination rounds, a final elimination, a city trip for each couple, the reunion of all of the farmers and their potential wives, and the final evaluation. These elements are configured very differently for the two shows, with TFWW being much more com- pact than BZV. For example, for the BZV final decision, the city-break and the reunion and evaluation are shown in different episodes, while these important story elements are all brought together in the, extra-long, final episode of TFWW. The two versions also differ in the way the characters are represented, the story lines, the elaboration of the reality TV genre and in the ways in which the viewers are addressed. In TFWW the story is very concise; it does not unfold gradually, but is told mainly in impressions and climaxes, and the characters are typified and described by just one or two characteristics. TFWW does not show the everyday working life of a farmer, but only romantic dates in beautiful settings on and around the farm. It has a strong focus on conflict and emotion, showing a melodramatic elaboration of the reality TV genre, which is manifest in the creation of expectations, unexpected twists, cliff-hangers and triggers. This is also seen in the editing of the show: it is fast, shots jump from one farm to another, we are only shown highlights and impressions, and many flash-forwards and flashbacks are used. BZV has a slowly unfolding story, with details and everyday chores. The audiences get to know the farmers and the women and can identify with them. BZV also provides insight into farming as a business, showing the daily work that goes on. The development and characteristics of the characters are more complex than in TFWW. BZV has a more docu-dramatic elaboration of the reality TV genre and shows what has happened in chronological order. The editing is also linear; in every episode a minor story line unfolds at each farm. These differences between the two versions of the format suggest different elaborations of the reality genre. While TFWW can be marked as a melodramatic elaboration, BZV is docu-dramatic. These different elaborations have an impact on the engagement of the audiences with the shows (Hill, 2007). While TFWW can be regarded as addressing the viewer on the basis of fantasies and ‘guilty pleasures’, BZV deals with everyday life and issues the viewer can relate to. As noted before, the three types of codes interact. The differences at the narrative layer set out above can be explained by the fact that the Dutch season consists of more and longer episodes, without repetitions in the form of flashbacks and flash-forwards (a linguistic code). This means that BZV can tell a more complex and detailed story. These differences could be explained by national cultural differences between Australia and the Netherlands, as preferences for a focus on sensation, emotion or conflict could be van Keulen and Krijnen 287 culturally determined, but they may also be the result of media systemic differences (Jensen, 2007). We argue that these differences at the narrative layer can probably be explained by intertextual codes. The fact that TFWW is broadcast by the commercial Channel Nine and BZV by KRO, a public channel, is reflected in various elements of the two format versions, particularly with respect to differences in narrative elements, as reviewed above. A concrete example is the use of flashbacks and flash-forwards in TFWW that are a direct consequence of the commercials that interrupt the programme. Jensen (2007) also found differences between national format versions in modes of address, story pace, story structure and montages that were caused by differences in the media system. In particular, and consistent with our findings, Jensen found that commercial adaptations focus more on conflict and emotions, maintaining a rapid story pace, utilizing fast montages, and unexpected story twists and turns, thus elaborating the reality genre in a more elitist and melodramatic way. The variety in storylines, the elaboration of the genre and how the audiences of both versions are addressed indicate again that certain differences between format adaptations that look like manifestations of localization may actually be due to non-cultural differences. In this case, instead of differences in the narrative layers of BZV and TFWW being due to social mores and cultural values, the commercial or public nature of the broadcaster seems to be a determining factor.

Symbolic layer At the symbolic layer, the norms and values in TFWW mainly correspond to the expression of what is considered to be normal and right in BZV. However, some interesting differences concerning cultural codes were found relating to: the social stereotyping of farmers as a culturally determined articulation of masculinity; differences in gender roles, social manners and conduct; the central theme/message of the two format versions; and cultural oppositions. When it comes to the social stereotyping of the farmers, TFWW and BZV differ tre- mendously. In TFWW the farmers are characterized as real men and rough outdoor types (Roscoe, 2004), and the women are searching for this kind of man. The Australian farmers are also typified as gentlemen; they cook dinners for the women and pay them com- pliments, while the voice-over calls them ‘our hopeless romantics’. They are wealthy, look handsome and are muscular. The Australian voice-over states that the men have everything except a wife, which is due to the fact that they live such remote lives. The behaviour of the farmers in TFWW also differs from that of their Dutch counterparts. The Australian men touch, hug and kiss the women and express their feelings towards them. All of the farmers are very relaxed and spontaneous. The Dutch farmers, meanwhile, are represented as not very capable socially and unable to find a wife. Some still live with their parents, don’t know how to treat a lady and can’t take care of themselves, let alone impress a woman. The majority are also not particularly good looking. The Dutch host supports the farmers by putting them at ease, giving them instructions for the dates and telling them if they need to go shopping or clean their houses. She tells farmer Wietse, for example, that he should hold the door open for a lady. The farmers in BZV don’t cook for their female guests, but instead order 288 International Journal of Cultural Studies 17(3) take-away food or have dinner at their parents. They also rarely look at the women, don’t talk about their feelings and kiss just one contestant and only after the final decision. The voice-over in BZV states that farmer Hans is an atypical farmer, because he is not afraid to make good conversation. Dutch farmers are thus stereotyped as introverted and lack- ing good manners. The farmers are generally nervous and do not know how to behave. The social stereotyping of the women in the two format adaptations also has some interesting patterns. The Australian women are represented as urban dwellers, living in a big city. Farm life is very strange to them and they find things scary and filthy. One of the women explains: ‘This is something different, we don’t do this in the city.’ The women are also very competitive and express jealousy towards the other female candidates, seeing the show as a contest to win the heart of the farmer. They obviously try to attract the attention of the farmer and stand out from their competitors. For example, during a group date, the women fall out of a raft on purpose so that farmer Russel has to jump in and ‘save’ them. The Dutch female candidates, in contrast, are very committed to an outdoor and farm life. They like animals and plants and want to show the farmer that they are hard workers. They are also interested in the farm as a business and want to learn about it. In BZV the women are not competitive or jealous at all; they patiently wait for the farmer to make his decision. The female candidates also say that they will remain true to themselves and the farmer must accept who they are. When Marieke tries to attract the attention of farmer Jos by conspicuously falling in the mud, Jos and the other women clearly disapprove of her behaviour. She is too pushy and should not show off like that. In BZV the women take over the farmers’ homes and are presented while ironing and cooking. The women say that they would carry out the domestic chores if they move to the farm. One of the farmers eliminates a woman immediately when he discovers she has a job as this wouldn’t be compatible with living on the farm. In TFWW, however, the role of the women on the farm as a business is not a subject for debate. The farmers generally do the cooking and the women are not shown doing any household chores. All of the Australian women have jobs and it is unclear what they would do if they were to move to the farm. When it comes to the central theme, the two format versions are particularly distinct. While the Australian show is focused on finding a bride for the farmers and marriage is the central goal, the Dutch version has true love as its central theme, but this is not directly linked to marriage. In TFWW marriage seems to be of greater value than in BZV, as during the eliminations the Australian farmers also take into account the willingness of the female participants to marry. The Dutch farmers, meanwhile, are not looking for a bride, but for love. Connected to this central theme is the moral message that what is inside a person is more important than looks. This message is not expressed in TFWW, but is multiple times in BZV. BZV’s host sternly warns farmer Peter to not make his decisions solely based on photographs, but to actually read the letters. The Australian farmers, however, openly select or like certain female candidates because of their appearance. Distinctions are also found in the cultural opposition of the countryside versus the city and reason versus emotion. The opposition between the former is represented in both versions but in different ways. In both BZV and TFWW the notion is expressed that people from the country differ from those from the city. For example, one of the Dutch van Keulen and Krijnen 289 female candidates studies in Amsterdam and likes going out. Her female ‘opponent’ thus declares her to be unsuitable as a candidate. In TFWW this opposition between city and countryside is depicted more clearly; the voice-over declares that in the show ‘country and city collide’. The women come from the city, have to travel a long way to get to the farm and have no idea about everyday life there. Likewise, the farmers have rarely been in a city. Due to the greater physical distance between the city and the outback in Australia, the cultural opposition is stronger too. This is an example of cultural localization indirectly caused by geographical differences. The other form of cultural opposition, reason and emotion, accounts for a stronger difference between the two shows. In BZV there is a lot of attention paid to the practical side of the choice for a woman: where will she be living, which chores she is going to do, does she want children, does she ‘fit in’ on the farm? The choice of a partner is thus approached quite rationally in BZV. Emotions are usually only shown in the final elimination round and only by some participants. In TFWW the practical organization of the relationship and the future is not the subject of the conversations in any sense. The choice of a partner is an emotional one: the farmers are looking for a soul mate and choose the woman they fall in love with. Emotions are shown throughout the episodes and by all candidates. These differences in the representation of farmers, social manners, conduct, the central theme and cultural oppositions seem to be formed by cultural differences and so indicate localization. As Moran (2009a, 2009b) argues, cultural norms and values refer to beliefs and propositions that are also cultural codes that are adjusted during the format. Contrary to the codes at the filmic and narrative layers, these differences can only be partly explained by the geography (opposition between city and country) or the nature of the broadcaster. We suggest that commercial broadcasters probably have more interest in showing handsome, socially capable individuals, who create romantic scenes, instead of average, nervous participants who create embarrassing moments and awkward silences. The melodramatic elaborations of TFWW might be partly responsible for the exaggera- tion of the stereotype of the farmers and the female candidates and the norms with respect to how they should behave. Nevertheless, other codes at the symbolic layer are harder to account for and seem to indicate localization of the format as it is understood.

Conclusion: limited and forced localization The results of our comparative analysis of TFWW and BZV reveal a wealth of differences between the two shows. Most of these differences are situated on the manifest, rather than the deeper, latent level of culture. Characteristics at the filmic and narrative levels are believed to be modifiable and the result of decisions made by the producer. However, we have demonstrated how most of these decisions are determined by factors that are not so easily changed: geographical location and the nature of the broadcaster being the primary elements. The most manifest and obvious localization aspects are not the conscious decisions of the producers, but the inevitable consequences of these two elements. More latent aspects of localization, cultural norms and values are less easily explained. Nevertheless, we suggest that these are also not the result of conscious adjustments to the culture of the audiences. The local producer cannot alter deeply rooted, latent and cultural elements intentionally just because he or she is part of that 290 International Journal of Cultural Studies 17(3) same culture. For example, the blatant displays of ‘damsels in distress waiting to be rescued’ that are happily embraced by both the female and male candidates in TFWW are rejected in BZV. The event is similar, but the response of the candidates is entirely different. These results thus indicate that the localization of formats might be much more limited, unintentional and more constrained than is usually argued. Localization seems to be more driven by inescapable factors than by producers’ conscious decision- making in the adaptation process. Though studying only one format is a serious limitation when it comes to generalizing results, we also believe that the format of Farmer Wants a Wife itself generates differences on the manifest level that are not seen in other reality shows such as Survivor, Temptation Island or Jersey Shore. However, more empirical, comparative work on other reality formats is needed to investigate format adaptation and localization in more detail. Especially investigating local production teams, their thoughts and intentions with regard to format localization would be a significant, and maybe even necessary, contribution to the debate. The importance of the nature of the broadcaster sheds an interesting light on format adaptation in a transnational field. If we look beyond the differences caused by inevitable elements, the shows are more or less similar. This might not be such a surprise, as in both countries the versions are produced by subsidiaries of Fremantle Media. In addition to format adaptation being limited and constrained, the role of the media industry seems to be more important than any other factor. Although our analysis is only based on two adaptations of one format, we believe that our results provide a modest contribution to the understanding of the localization of TV content and the role of the television industry therein.

Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes 1. ‘Metropolitan’ refers to viewers in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth, and to subscription viewers. 2. Sensitizing concepts can be viewed as tentative and form starting points that guide the analysis in explorative social research (see Blumer, 1954; Bowen, 2006).

References Bielby D and Harrington C (2002) Markets and meanings: the global syndication of television programming. In: Crane D, Kawashima N and Kawasaki K (eds) Global Cultures: Media, Arts, Policy and Globalization. London: Routledge, pp. 215–232. Blumer H (1954) What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review 18: 3–10. Bowen GA (2006) Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(3): 12–23. Cooper-Chen A (2005) A world of ‘millionaires’: global, local, and ‘glocal’ TV Game Shows. In: Cooper-Chen A (ed) Global Entertainment Media. Content, Audiences, Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. van Keulen and Krijnen 291

Dowd TJ and Janssen S (2011) Globalization and diversity in cultural fields: comparative perspectives on television, music and literature. American Behavioral Scientist 55(5): 519–524. Fiske J (1987) Television Culture. London: Routledge. Hill A (2007) Restyling Factual TV: Audiences and News, Documentary and Reality Genres. Lon- don: Routledge. Jensen PM (2007) Television Format Adaptation in a Trans-national Perspective – An Australian and Danish Case Study. PhD Thesis, Aarhus University, Denmark. Keane M (2004) Asia: new growth areas. In: Moran A and Keane M (eds) Television across Asia: Television Industries, Programme Formats and Globalization. London: Routledge, pp. 9–20. Keane M and Moran A (2008) Television’s new engines. Television & New Media 9: 155–169. Kretschmer M and Singh S (2012) Strategic behaviour in the international exploitation of TV formats – a case study of the Idols format. In: Zwaan AJ and De Bruin J (eds) Adapting Idols: Authenticity, Identity and Performance in a Global Television Format. Farnham: Ashgate. Kuipers G (2011) Cultural globalization as the emergence of a transnational cultural field: transnational television and national media landscapes in four European countries. American Behav- ioral Scientist 55(5): 541–557. Kuipers G and De Kloet J (2009) Banal cosmopolitanism and The Lord of the Rings: the limited role of national differences in global media consumption. Poetics 37(2): 99–118. La Pastina AC and Straubhaar JD (2003) Multiple proximities between television genres and audiences: the schisms between telenovelas’ global distribution and local consumption. Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies 67(3): 271–288. Larkey E (2009) Transcultural localization strategies of global TV formats: The Office and Strom- berg. In: Moran A (ed.) TV Formats Worldwide: Localizing Global Programmes. Bristol: Intellect, pp.187–201. Mikos L and Perrotta M (2012) Traveling style: aesthetic differences and similarities in national adaptations of Yo soy Betty, la fea. International Journal of Cultural Studies 15(1): 81–97. Moran A (2009a) Global franchising, local customizing: the cultural economy of TV programme formats. Continuum 23(2): 115–125. Moran A (2009b) When TV formats are translated. In: Moran A (ed.) TV Formats Worldwide: Localizing Global Programmes. Bristol: Intellect, pp. 39–54. Moran A and Keane M (2004) Television across Asia: Television Industries, Programme Formats and Globalization. London: Routledge. Morley D (2001) Belongings: place, space and identity in a mediated world. European Journal of Cultural Studies 4(4): 425–448. Roscoe J (2004) Watching Big Brother at work: a production study of Big Brother Australia. In: Matthijs E and Jones J (eds) Big Brother International: Formats, Critics and Publics. London: Wallflower Press, pp. 181–193. SKO (2012) Kijkcijfers – Dagrapporten. Available at: www.kijkonderzoek.nl/component/ Itemid,45/option,com_kijkcijfers/file,dp-9-1-0-p Straubhaar JD (1991) Beyond media imperialism: asymmetrical interdependence and cultural proximity. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 8(1): 39–59. Straubhaar JD (2007) World Television: From Global to Local. Los Angeles: Sage. Turner G (1994) Making It National: Nationalism and Australian Popular Culture. St Leonards: Allen and Unwin. Turner G (2005) Cultural identity, soap narrative, and reality TV. Television & New Media 6: 415–422. Waisbord S (2004) McTV: understanding the global popularity of television formats. Television & New Media 5: 359–383. 292 International Journal of Cultural Studies 17(3)

Waisbord S and Jalfin S (2009) Imagining the national: gatekeepers and the adaptation of global franchises in Argentina. In: Moran A (ed.) TV Formats Worldwide: Localizing Global Pro- grammes. Bristol: Intellect, pp. 55–74. Washbrook C (2010) Ratings: The Farmer Wants a Wife finishes with big win. Available at: www.mediaspy.org/report/2010/09/16/ratings-the-farmer-wants-a-wife-finishes-with-big-win (accessed 6 July 2012).

Author biographies Jolien van Keulen is a freelance researcher. She completed a Bachelor’s degree in Film and Television Studies at Utrecht University and obtained her Master’s in Media Studies at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam. She also worked on a comparative sociological study at the University of Amsterdam. Email: [email protected] Tonny Krijnen is Assistant Professor of Media and Communication at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Her research interests lie with popular television, gender, morality, and new research methods. Her research is published in a variety of journals including the International Journal of Cultural Studies, Communications and Participations.

View publication stats