Extending Liveness - Redirecting Flow Analyzing strategies of re-positioning television in a cross-media sphere

Name: Felix van Gisbergen

E-mail address: [email protected]

Student number: 6075991

Supervisor: Sebastian Scholz

Second reader: Anne Kustritz

Master: Television and Cross-Media Culture: Beroepsgeoriënteerde Specialisatie

Department: Graduate School of Humanities

University: University of Amsterdam

Date of completion: 26-06-2014

Word count: 20.676

Acknowledgements

The past year as a Master student in Television and Cross-Media Culture I was challenged to deepen my knowledge about television studies. The bachelor provided a comprehensive foundation and the master created a valuable opportunity to further specialize in the area of television studies. It seems like only yesterday that I started this degree, yet the end is now nearly in sight. It is satisfying, yet also strange to write this with the knowledge that my academic career as a masters student will end in just a few days.

The thesis is, as written in the course guide, the ‘final exam’ where the student has to show his independence and skills in conducting academic research. Although, as previously mentioned, the thesis is an individual project I want to express my thankfulness to everyone who supported me during these past few months. I couldn’t have done it without the support of all the people who had confidence in my research during the writing of this thesis. First of all I want to thank the creators of Wie is de Mol? for making this great television program for the past fourteen years. I want to thank my family, friends and fellow students for their feedback and support. Also my colleagues at BNNVARA have been of great support during my traineeship by sharing their knowledge about the functioning of the Dutch public television system. I want to thank Sophie Buijsen for the proofreading of my thesis. Special thanks goes to Sebastian Scholz for his excellent supervision during the entire process. He has been of great help with all the feedback and criticism but at the same time always motivating me to keep the focus and trust, which was very important when writing this thesis.

Felix van Gisbergen Amsterdam, 25th of June 2014

2

Abstract

A debate is taking place in media studies about the future of television. Some academics claim that the fragmentation, cross-platform and multichannel media landscape has lead to a point where television will lose one of its core qualities as a mass medium; the ‘community thing’ that television once was will disappear. This research focuses on the question how television uses new strategies in addressing an audience in this new cross-platform media sphere. This will be exemplified with a case study of the Dutch television program Wie is de Mol? (AVRO, 2000). The focus in this research is on how the concepts liveness and flow are linked to the medium television and operate in a cross- platform television landscape. Therefore the aim of this research is to critically show how these concepts have changed in this new context, where the logic and strategies of television are not solely connected to the medium itself. This will lead to the reconceptualization of the concepts and determining how relevant they still are in this ‘new’ television landscape.

Keywords

Television, Flow, Liveness, cross-platform, Convergence

3

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION...... 5

1. MEDIUM SPECIFICITY IN AN CHANGING TELEVISUAL LANDSCAPE ...... 9

1.1 Liveness ...... 11

1.2 Flow ...... 15 1.2.1 Flow and the structure agency debate ...... 17 1.2.2 Flow nowadays: convergence culture and the rise of cross-platform television strategies ...... 18

2. CASE STUDY: WIE IS DE MOL? (THE MOLE)...... 23

2.1 Flow in the context of the television broadcast ...... 24

2.2 Liveness in the television broadcast of Wie is de Mol? ...... 28

3. MOLTALK: ‘’DON’T FORGET TO STAY TUNED AND GIVE YOUR OPINION!’’ ...... 30

3.1 Liveness and flow in Moltalk ...... 30

4. WIE IS DE MOL? APP ...... 38

4.1 Liveness and flow in the Wie is de Mol? App ...... 38

5. WIE IS DE MOL VODCAST ...... 42

5.1 Wie is de Mol Vodcast in relation to the cross-platform media flow ...... 42

6. DE ROODSHOW ...... 46

7. CONCLUSION ...... 48

7.1 Keeping them and Moving Them ...... 48

7.2 Why ‘old’ concepts never get ‘old’ ...... 57

LIST OF SOURCES ...... 61

4

Introduction

As a true fan of the Dutch television game show Wie is de Mol? I sat ready on the couch in anticipation of the start of the 14th season last January. The season premiere was spectacular as always and I was glued to the television screen for the duration of the broadcast. At the end of the program there was a live connection with the online after talk show Moltalk. In the short clip they emphasized that you, in this case I, the viewer could go online and witness a live stream of the program. Due to an endless desire to get more information about that evening’s broadcast I decided for the first time ever to turn on my computer and watch the online live stream. From that moment on I was ‘trapped’ in the whole network around the program and moved from one extra feature to another. For the first time in my life there was a program that made me go online, play apps, listen to radio shows and sent me on an online route to know more about every detail of the television broadcast. The situation mentioned above is an example of how the relationship between television, other media and its viewers has changed over the past few years. In media studies there is a debate about the influence of time-shift viewing on traditional media tactics in addressing potential audiences. An example of this is Gentikow who claims that television and new media compete and struggle to get their place in the media landscape (2010, 143). A number of authors claim that broadcast television, as we now know it, will soon be gone. Eligu Katz raises questions about the future of television and states that what has become clear in the last decades is that ‘[…] the era of “sharedness” is dead or dying’ (2009, 8). In her article ‘’The End of Television?’’ she makes a division between ‘new’ and ‘old’ television where the new is about the individual and the old about the mass. In her article Gentikow also claimed that the fragmented audiences and time-shift viewing of the last decades will result in the fact that nobody watches the same program (at the same time) anymore. She further emphasizes that the ‘community thing’ that television once was, will disappear due to the individualized and fragmentized audience (2010, 147). This debate starts with the changing notion of flow. In the early years of television there were only a few channels to choose from and the main focus for programmers was to keep their audience connected to their channel. With the introduction of the videocassette recorder people got more power over their time schedules and in this way gained some agency over the televisual flow of different connected units. In recent times the rise of new media initiatives enforced time-shifting possibilities for the viewer, some examples are Youtube1, Uitzending Gemist2, NL Ziet3 and Netflix4.

1 http://www.youtube.com/ (Online video streaming/uploading platform) 5

With all these technological innovations and social changes it is clear that the way we watch television is changing. We adjust and customize to new modes and habits of watching television. But the emphasis should not only be on the negatives for the future of broadcast television. Instead, I want to analyze what has been defined as essential qualities of broadcast television that always were specific to the medium and still are, and maybe especially relevant in the current debate. Important is that my aim is not to essentialize, instead, I want to take the focus from essentializing to a perspective that is open for new interpretation. Media scholars have had to constantly review and revise their framework to adjust to emerging technologies. We live in an age where every year new possibilities evolve to communicate, share, and experience with and through media. Putting medium specific concepts in the current cross-platform television landscape could show how and if these concepts are outdated or if they are still relevant and open for new interpretations. Going back in history to the start of broadcast television we see other medium specific qualities that made television unique. At first all broadcasts were transmitted live into millions of households. Everybody could witness news reports, sports events and entertainment simultaneously. This created a shared experience; everybody saw the same event at the same time. This is what Gripsrud called a ‘co-presence’; the relation between a television broadcast and its audience is that they occupy the same moment in time (2010, 11). Nowadays this co-presence is challenged by the time-shifting innovations mentioned before. A fragmentized audience is arising due to the overload in options, channels and programs. This doesn’t mean that this changing pattern in watching television will mean the end of television as we (used to) know it. Instead, this medium specific co-presence of watching television is why in my opinion broadcast television will not end. Technological innovations that are seen by most as threats to the medium, could help enforce the co-presence and make television current. Liveness could be placed in a different perspective, not only ‘seeing it as it is happening’ but ‘seeing it while everybody is watching’. Gripsrud puts it like this: ‘TV shows may not always be live, but they are current. They explicitly claim to belong to the same historical moment that their audiences are living’ (Gripsrud 2010, 11). This medium-specific quality of the mass medium television will enforce this co-presence. As the examples mentioned above show there is a debate about the direction television as a medium is going. This research will focus on the current changes in the media landscape and how television takes its position in all this. Therefore the main question of this research will be: How do

2 http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/ (On demand online Dutch public television) 3 https://www.nlziet.nl/ (On demand digital television of Dutch public broadcasters and commercial broadcasters) 4 https://www.netflix.com/ (On demand digital television) 6

television strategies in programming and addressing an audience change in the cross-platform media sphere? Central in this research will be the question if in the current cross-platform media landscape television is still able to do what it always did as a mass medium: creating a shared experience that we want to watch and experience all together. And instead of seeing all the new technological innovations as a threat to ‘classic’ television they could be seen as tools to enforce qualities that are - and were already - specific to the logics of the medium. This requires a broader perspective on concepts seen as ‘typical’ televisual. The focus of this research will be on how the concepts liveness and flow are linked to the medium television and operate in a cross-platform contemporary television landscape. My aim is to critically show how these concepts have changed in this new context where the logics of television are not solely connected to the medium itself. Finally this will lead to redefining the concepts and determining how relevant they still are in this ‘new’ television landscape. The aim of this research is to contribute to the scientific debate about the changing logics of television programming. Another aim is to nuance a debate where media are put in different frameworks when analyzed. Therefore I aim to show with this research that we should overcome a dichotomy when analyzing different media objects since in the contemporary convergence culture media are more connected than ever. The final aim is to give more insights in the transformation, construction and functioning of flow and liveness in the contemporary television landscape by exemplifying this with a case study. In the following research I will first map the debate about the future of television. After this I will set up a theoretical framework to contextualize the concepts ‘medium specificity’, ‘liveness’, and ‘flow’. This will eventually lead to a subchapter that connects the concepts to the new cross- platform media sphere. The main focus of this research will be on the case study to illustrate the workings of these ‘new’ television strategies in the cross-platform media sphere. This will be done with a case study of the Dutch version of ‘The Mole’ (Wie is de Mol?, AVRO 1999). The program that first aired fourteen years ago came to prominence in a time where cross-platform thinking was not a part of the television strategies. The cross-platform innovations and the program grew together and the program adjusted to these new possibilities without changing the format of the television broadcast. Therefore I will focus on the last (14th) season where the cross-platform media strategy behind the program is most clear. Just like in the flow created by the programmers I will continue my research with the online Moltalk stream, the Wie is de Mol? App, the Wie is de Mol Vodcast, and the radio program De Roodshow. Finally after all these different units are analyzed the case study will finish with an explanation of how they are linked and how the viewers are navigated through these 7

linked units. To conclude I want to share this quote of Gillan in Must-Click TV: ‘interlinked websites encourage viewers to embark on a circulatory ‘’path of further investigation’’ that leads away from’’ and ‘’back to’’ the core media text’ (2011, 164). I will try to make this clear in my case study about Wie Is De Mol?.

8

1. Medium Specificity in an Changing Televisual Landscape

Television went through lots of changes since Alexanderson demonstrated the first form of television broadcast in 19295. In fact to talk about television, as a stable and fixed medium won’t make any sense since television has never been stable, instead it has always been a contested and innovative medium. In this chapter the focus will be on the changes and functioning of television throughout the past decades. It’s important to mention that this isn’t a linear evolution enforced by technological innovations. Instead, it’s important to keep in mind that there are also social changes in society that formed modern television. It is also important to understand that the social and the technological are always related and connected to each other. This chapter will also give a brief view of different interpretations about the future of television by mapping the current debate about the medium in the (ever) changing media landscape. The main focus will be on the concepts of flow and liveness since these can be seen as the most specific concepts that help understanding the medium of television in a cross-platform media sphere. But first it’s important to contextualize the debate about the future of television. Markus Stauff reviewed recent academic literature on television’s transitions. He starts with making clear that media studies ‘[…] seems to be a field […] that is more dependent on the on-going transformations of its main object than other academic areas of inquiry’ (Stauff 2012, n. pag.). He further notes that it becomes less clear what the medium television is in recent times. He explains that television is in a ‘[…] constant rearrangement of gadgets and industrial strategies, infrastructures and practices’ (Stauff 2012, n. pag.). Stauff uses fuzziness to make clear the state television is in at the moment. The point Stauff makes by reviewing literature on television of the last decades, and by emphasizing the state television is in at the moment makes clear that essentializing the medium in a framework of vast concepts is dangerous since the medium (and the concepts related) is one that is characterized by change. In their article ‘When Old Media Never Stopped Being New’ Judith Keilbach and Markus Stauff emphasize that television has always been in transformation and change. They state that these characteristics are integral features of the medium throughout history (Keilbach and Stauff 2013, 80). They claim that part of the power of television is the capacity to change, transform and ‘’[…] reflect on the ‘appropriate’ use and an ongoing redefinition of television’’ (Keilbach and Stauff 80). Although mass media appear to be communicating with their audience in a process of habituation (Keilbach and Stauff 2013, 82) and communicate the feeling of being stable, they never

5 Source: http://www.oldradio.com/ 9

are. Keilbach and Stauff show examples that television consists of heterogeneous elements. This means that there is a constant rearrangement; examples of this are ‘[…] technical or programmes innovations, changing economic strategies, political regulations, or viewing patterns’ (2013, 83). The effects of these rearrangements are never clear and their uses can lead to new phenomena, as the concepts later on in this chapter will show. This process gives television as a medium its dynamic character. From this perspective television communicates with the viewer by introducing new features and tactics and adjusting to the way the mass uses these new possibilities. This permanent process of transformation forms television’s heterogeneous character. The issues raised by Keilbach and Stauff are important in relation to the current debate about the status of television since it shows medium specific capacities that are essential in analyzing television nowadays. It also shows that technological innovations are subject to social interpretation of the user/viewer/state before they adjust and are incorporated in the functioning of television. The adjustments and rearrangements that started in the early days of television in e.g. the educational television as mentioned by Keilbach and Stauff, the introduction of the VCR, the first texting interface in Big Brother in the 90s, or the use of social media, mobile applications and other new uses and transformations as we see in contemporary television culture show the capacity of television to improve, react, and communicate. The current debate is mostly focused on the threats (in relation to television) of new media that fragmentize the mass audience into niche audiences that are better served by the on-demand, online streams, and other services. Like many in media studies argue it’s too simplistic to argue that this trend in narrowcasting through new channels would mean the end of the television medium. Like Jostein Gripsrud mentions that photography was not the end of painting, books were not just replaced by movies, and radio didn’t come to a complete stop after the introduction of television (2010, 14). Gripsrud further explains that the form of television will change as will the way it’s consumed. He states that the Internet has a great potential in enforcing the power and reach of television (2010, 20). His perspective on the difference in use is also important to note. He sees the television more and more as a multipurpose screen, but the way its services are used is distinctly different from the Internet. Internet is not only associated with leisure but also with work in contrast with television, which is only associated with leisure. Following Gripsrud this is one of the main reasons why several studies have tried to prove that television is still very popular and the time spent watching television did not reduce with the arrival of the internet (2010, 15). These claims by Gripsrud are important in understanding and drawing attention to differences between platforms and the associations they have in the way they are used. When researching a cross-platform media sphere it is important to understand how these different platforms relate to each other. 10

The view on current day television by Barbara Gentikow as she describes in her article ‘Television Use in New Media Environments’ differs from Griprud’s perspective. Where Gripsrud places television within a symbiotic relationship with the Internet and emphasizes the different uses of the two media, Gentikow writes about traditional media and new technologies ‘[…] competing and struggling with a result still undecided’ (2010, 143). This quote shows how she doesn’t see place for both media to exist together but as a ‘fight’ where one will win and one will lose. Her view on the debate about the future of television is also quite different in relation to the focus of Keilbach and Stauff on the ongoing transformability of television throughout its history. Gentikow states that former changes can’t be compared to what is happening at the moment. She states that television went through lots of improvements, transformations and changes but they are all intrinsic in the medium itself. Examples of this are the: change from black and white television to color, the invention of the VCR, the change from mono to stereo, and so on (Gentikow 2010, 143). But the current developments make ‘[…] television more than a mass medium for just watching and listening’ (Gentikow 2010, 143). She further emphasizes that due to all those new technologies, transmediality, convergence, and other innovations it’s even hard to tell what defines the medium called ‘TV’ (Gentikow 2010, 143). Her view on the medium is rather pessimistic in relation to medium specificity as she claims the whole ‘concept’ of television is getting more vague because the relationships with other media are getting stronger. On the other hand her way of thinking outside the ‘black box’ opens up the debate to move the focus towards a cross-platform understanding of the medium. Medium specificity looks like a difficult concept in relation to the ongoing transformability that is one of the key characteristics of television. Transformability is therefore maybe one of the most important ‘medium specific’ qualities of television. In the next sub-chapters I will connect this transformability to the concepts liveness and flow that are seen as specific to the medium of television. Hereby I will try to make clear that ‘old logics’ that are specific for broadcast television are trying to gain their place in an ‘new’ cross-platform media sphere.

1.1 Liveness

To look into the future and to understand the current changes television is going through it is important to first look back in recent history. To start it is essential to explain what made television unique and different from other media at the time it arose. In other words what is (or was) specific to the medium of broadcast television in its early days? 11

Jérôme Bourdon states that in its early days, television had three characteristics that could be specifically connected to the medium of television, ’[…]namely screen size, domestic reception and, finally and most notably, ‘liveness’’ (2000, 532). Some of these medium specific trademarks of (early) television could be linked to other existing media at the time (radio for example). Just like all other media, television is connected to and rose out of or next to existing media. Existing modes of communication (radio news, radio storytelling, show reels) were converged into the medium of television, but there was one important new feature. This feature is of course already in the name of the medium; ‘television’ that originates from the Greek language and means ‘seeing at a distance’ (Gripsrud 10). Instead of watching newsreels or movies in the cinema people could enjoy live broadcasts inside their own domestic sphere. Mimi White emphasizes the power and importance of liveness for the medium of television. She states that liveness could be considered the epitome of television because it is ‘the condition in which the medium most fully expresses its specificity, offering the possibility, however illusory, of ‘touching the real’’ (White 2004, 75). She further states that liveness enforces the claim of television being a truthful and objective medium (White 2004, 76). Since liveness is so connected to the attraction of television I will focus in the following part on the concept of liveness and its changing meaning throughout the past decades to get a better idea about how the concept could be interpreted in the multimedia and cross-platform media landscape. Couldry mentions probably the most important function of liveness. He states that ’liveness guarantees a potential connection to shared realities as they are happening (2004, 355).’ This quote is important in understanding the power of live television since here Couldry emphasizes the importance of the concept for the medium. Liveness is more than just a technological feature of the medium, instead, liveness gives television the status of a central institution representing social reality (Couldry 2004, 354). Exactly this is the special promise that is made when experiencing live events. Bourdon claims that ‘live broadcasting has been exalted as a way to conquer time and distance, to have vast groups of people commune in a new experience’ (2000, 533). The word ‘experience’ is important since it is not what we see or how we see it that is important, but the way we interpret and experience an ongoing event is essential in understanding liveness as a concept. And to emphasize the importance of liveness for the medium even further, liveness serves, as Mimi White calls it, a ’conceptual anchor for the properties considered essentially televisual - immediacy, presence, reality affects, intimacy, and so on’ (White 2004, 81). The words ‘commune’, ‘groups of people’ and ‘shared realities’ like used by the authors above emphasize that liveness is also important in analyzing television as a mass media that connects people to a center that creates communities with shared experiences. In the following research this will be of importance when understanding the ‘contemporary’ notion of liveness in the case study. 12

Liveness is nothing new; in the first days of television there were solely live broadcasts of events and shows at the time they were occurring (Bourdon 2000, 534). But maybe the most important feature of live broadcasting in a time with only a few channels to choose from was that watching live television was a public phenomenon. Everyone was watching the same event at the same time. Bourdon states that ‘this initial situation stems an interesting ambiguity: is television about live broadcasting or about a shared viewing experience ’? (2000, 534). From this perspective the relation between television and its audience could be seen as Jostein Gripsrud called a ‘co- presence’ since they both occupy the same moment in time (2010, 10). The ambiguity mentioned by Bourdon and the co-presence mentioned by Gripsrud are strongly related. One of television’s powers as a mass medium could be seen as the anchor to make people experience events together. Liveness is from this perspective a concept strongly related to television since it creates a feeling of seeing what is happening communally and therefore creates a co-presence between dispersed audiences nation- or worldwide. This co-presence is important in understanding the power of a live broadcast. It connects a mass audience to the same experience at the same time. Compared to for example a newspaper it is clear what great potential this feature of television created. The only shared experience of a newspaper was that most people would read the same articles, on a moment when they wanted to, and considering most papers only had one or two rounds of distribution (morning and evening newspapers), there was a delay in the reporting, making the news less current. The potential of television was (is) that of the liveness ‘[…] the medium most fully expresses its specificity, offering the possibility, however illusionary, of touching the real’ (White 2004, 75). This potential connected the living room to the scene of the event taking place. And this specific characteristic of live television is in White’s word a key concept for television studies, she remarks that this can even be seen as the medium’s underlying ideology and ‘[…] television’s alibi for truth and objectivity’ (White 2004, 76). To emphasize liveness as a medium specific feature of television doesn’t mean that liveness solely exists as a television feature. Even before the invention of television, radio made the connection between the living room and events happening worldwide. In recent history the Internet proved to be an enormous platform to connect people the world over to live events as they happen. It is important in the current television landscape to emphasize the way television is linked to other media with the use of liveness (Couldry 2004, 355). This connection was made clear with the start of Big Brother (Endemol, 1999). A reality program that had a half hour broadcast each day summarizing the main events of that day. But the extra feature was the option to go online and view twenty-four seven what was happening live in the Big Brother house. This was not the only feature that made the program actual, there was also the possibility to get informed via a text messaging service when 13

something special was happening. This ensured a strong connection to its viewers, since one could be texted in the middle of the night about an ongoing event that couldn’t be missed. Big Brother was the first program to embrace the new possibilities of other media and use them to enforce the traditional medium specific qualities. Couldry also uses the example of Big Brother to explain the significance of liveness. He uses it as a starting point to deconstruct the term of liveness in three claims:

1. That we gain access through liveness to something of broader, ‘central,’significance, which is worth accessing now, not later; 2. That the ‘’we’’ who gain live access is not random, but a representative social group; 3. That the media (not some other mechanism) is the privileged means for obtaining that access. (2004, 356)

He further emphasizes that the categorical weight of liveness has recently been challenged by potential rival forms of ‘liveness.’ Those forms are, in contrast to television, not linked to a mediated social ‘center’ (Couldry 2004, 356). One of these rival forms according to Couldry is online liveness. But it’s important to notice that Couldry also notes that online liveness overlaps most of the time with existing modes of liveness, like websites linked to reality TV programs, and this makes it simply an extension of traditional liveness across media. Just like Gripsrud he emphasizes that these forms of liveness all involve a simultaneous co-presence of an audience (Couldry 2004, 357). To place the concept of liveness in the current debate about the medium specific features of television it’s to also important to take a look at what Couldry sees as the second rival form of ‘liveness’ what he calls group liveness. Group liveness according to Couldry starts from the co- presence of a social group and ’[…] not the co-presence of an audience dispersed around an institutional center’ (2004, 357). This form of liveness is about shared access to a communication system whose entry points themselves are mobile. Most important in this is that each individual inside a group can be constantly co-present to each other ‘[…] even as they move independently across space’ (Couldry 2004, 357). These ways of communication change the modes of entry to content and fixed points of media access. This in contrast with television that is not seen as a mobile medium, and one which has vast entry points In relation to medium specificity and liveness it’s also worth looking at the article ‘’Distinguishing television: the changing meanings of television liveness’’ written by Elana Levine. In this article she focuses on television’s struggles over distinction and cultural worth in an altered media environment concerning liveness (2008, 395). She states that television is not ‘the new medium seeking to establish itself amongst its more respected brethren but instead constructed and old, even outdated, medium trying to hold on to its cultural centrality’ (Levine 2008, 395). She claims

14

that liveness once was constructed as an ‘[…] admirable and distinguishing feature because it demonstrated television’s unique capacity for unpredictability’ (Levine 2008, 397). One of her main arguments is that recent examples of live comedy and drama distinguish themselves from television through liveness instead of enforcing the televisual with the once so called medium specific power of the concept (Levine 2008, 395). From this perspective she claims that through media convergence the medium specific claim of liveness is blurring the lines between media (Levine 2008, 398). In relation to the following research and case study it’s worth looking at how liveness is used as a televisual anchor in a cross-platform television sphere. The quick look in the different interpretations of liveness related to medium specificity showed that just like television itself, the concept of liveness can be addressed from different perspectives and was subject to change in the last decades. What I want to call television’s ‘central liveness’ operates now in a media sphere where other forms and centers of liveness are active, like the ‘group liveness’ described by Couldry. But the Internet proved to create new ‘centers’ of liveness but can also work as an extension of the televisual (Couldry 2004, 357). Exactly this point where the televisual meets the cross-platform environment is worth researching more in depth since here liveness could function as a bridge between different media when seen as an extension of television. This is also the field where the concept of flow is really relevant since the television is overflowing to another medium. Therefore In the next subchapter I will discuss the effects and logic of flow on television throughout the past decades and how this concept is applicable to multi-platform programming.

1.2 Flow

In the beginning of television there was not much of competition since there were only a few channels to choose from. With the rise of (commercial) stations the programming tactics became more important. At this time the logic, order and stream of television items became more and more important. This process and practice was called ‘flow’ by Raymond Williams in 1974. He used this concept to analyze the emerging programming tactics that characterized the logic of television. Williams described the concept of flow as the following:

In all developed broadcasting systems the characteristic organization, and therefore the characteristic experience, is one of sequence or flow. This phenomenon, of planned flow, is then perhaps the defining characteristic of broadcasting, simultaneously as a technology and as a cultural form. (2003, 86) 15

What he saw as an existential difference between television and older media was the way we ‘consumed’ specific items. Theater, pamphlets and books are examples of singular and specific items. There is a beginning and an end (Williams 2003, 87). Consuming items like this was thus connected to a singular expectation. From this perspective television is different since it links together specific items that broadcast one after another. How these items are connected with each other is essential in understanding the logics of flow and the experience of television. Williams’ theory of flow is not only about how specific programs and items are connected but also about how, for example, one program or film is interrupted with commercial breaks, trailers and other references to products and programs. He saw this as the real logic and tactic behind broadcasting:

What is being offered is not, in older terms, a program of discrete units with particular insertions, but a planned flow, in which the true series is not the published sequence of program items but this sequence transformed by the inclusion of another kind of sequence, so that these sequences together compose the real flow, the real ‘broadcasting’ (Williams 2003, 91).

The motive of the broadcaster to create this flow is to capture the viewer for a whole evening’s sequence. In relation to the case study presented later in this research it’s important to note that there is a difference between commercial and public television. But, as Williams mentions, the logic of flow is also applicable to public broadcasters. He explains that even within the broadcast of the BBC where there are no interruptions of specific ‘programme units’ we can experience the logics of flow. Especially since the BBC also competes in a big television market and tries to get viewers in ‘an evening’s viewing’ (Williams 2003, 93) and capture viewers at the beginning of this flow. Surely the use of flow is different in commercial and public television but the goals of both are the same: to capture a big audience and keep them connected to the brand/channel. The Dutch public broadcasting is compared to for example the Belgian or British system, stronger connected to commercial logics. In both Belgium (BRT) as in Great Britain (BBC) there are no commercial breaks between the different programs. The Dutch system has the ‘Ster’. An independent broadcaster that is responsible for the commercial breaks between different programs on Dutch public television (NPO)6. In the time Williams wrote his article about flow it was assumed that when one television station could capture viewers they would stay inside the flow that was pre-constructed by the

6 The case study in chapter 2 will give more insights in the working of the Dutch public television system. 16

television programmers. Examples are the programs that where intercut with trailers that made viewers curious about following programs. Flashy highlights of shows, films and other programs prepared the viewer for what would come next. So while experiencing one program the viewer was already attracted and prepared for the next program in the flow. This is essential in understanding flow. So even with items/programs that could all be totally different, the television experience of ‘flow has in some ways unified them’ (Williams 2003, 96). The above perspective on flow can be seen as the classic way of televisual flow. For the case study later on and to understand flow in a cross-platform media sphere it’s important to know how the notion of flow changed and how this relates to the structure agency debate.

1.2.1 Flow and the structure agency debate

Although the concept of flow is still very relevant in today’s televisual landscape it is necessary to clarify which technological and social changes have influenced the concept of flow throughout the past years. There is much written about the changing notions of agency related to the transformation of television. Although the focus in this research won’t be on agency and economical structures, it is a part that can’t be neglected. Programming tactics and concepts are always in some way related to the economic and social structures behind them. In this research my aim is not to come up with answers to questions about if the conglomerate is in control or the viewer. Essential in this research is to understand how the relationship between the viewer and broadcaster has changed on the subject of programming tactics. Especially the new logics of old concepts will have the main focus in the case study of Wie is de Mol?. Since the limited space in this thesis I will briefly mention changes and concepts that are related to the so-called structure agency debate. Uricchio notes that the medium of television went through big changes the last few decades. The viewer was once seen as a ‘couch potato’ captured passively in the flow as described by Williams in the 70s. The only power was that one could get out of his or her chair and switch off the television or change the channel. The position of the viewer as a passive recipient started to change with the introduction of the remote control device (RCD). The mobility for viewers in the televisual landscape increased since viewers could easily switch between channels and switch off or turn on sound. The invention of the videocassette recorder (VCR) was another invention that changed the notion of flow as once defined by Williams. Uricchio states that probably the most important change was that with the invention of the RCD and the VCR there was a change from a programming-based 17

notion of flow (what was characteristic for Williams’ notion of flow) to a viewer-centered notion (2013, 168). Bit by bit the viewer could get more of a grasp on space and time. The VCR made it possible to avoid the broadcast schedule laid out for them and the RCD gave the possibility to disrupt the flow as described by Williams. The consequence was also that the RCD was a ‘weapon’ against the commercial and captive logic that used to form television the foregoing years. The viewer had the possibility to silence the commercials (Uricchio 2013, 170). This disruption of the televisual flow also meant that the economical flow was disrupted (Uricchio 2013, 171). This could be the start of what Uricchio calls the conception of ‘viewer-dominated’ flow.

1.2.2 Flow nowadays: convergence culture and the rise of cross- platform television strategies

The change to a viewer-dominated flow got even clearer in recent years. Like the first chapter showed, the last decade was characterized by much debate about the future of ‘old-media’ in the new convergence culture. This whole debate, in relation to television, is mainly focused on new flows of viewers (consumers), agency, fragmentation and the adaptive possibilities for the broadcasters, channels and producers. Therefore I think it’s essential when researching flow to nuance the traditional concept of flow and put it in the new cross-platform context. The work of Henry Jenkins is a good base to take a closer look at the changes that occurred during the last decade. In his book Convergence Culture (2006) Jenkins reflects on the consequences of convergence culture on existing media. As he claims, his aim is modest: ‘[…] I want to describe some of the ways that convergence thinking is reshaping […] (and) impacting the relationship between media audiences, producers, and content’ (Jenkins 2006, 12). The term convergence means according to Jenkins ‘[…] the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want’ (2006, 2). Related to the following case study it is important to note that Jenkins’ convergence culture should not only be understood as a technological process that puts different media functions in one single device. Convergence according to Jenkins should be understood as a cultural shift, as consumers are able and encouraged to seek out new information, and make connections among dispersed media content (2006, 3). It is important to add that this logic and possibility of convergence culture, doesn’t mean that the consumer is freely floating around in space and choosing their own way to move along the cross-platform media landscape. There are always power structures regarding the 18

navigation of consumers/viewers in this space. The users can actively search for extra content, communicate through social media and play games via an application. The producers of the program always control the structure built around these interfaces and its incorporation into the format. And as mentioned before, the following research has connections to the structure agency debate, and is also (although a minor) part of what follows in the case study. The main focus of this research will be on the ways in which these new technologies exist next to traditional technologies, how they collide, and how the program makers use them. Since the relationship between a program maker/broadcaster and a viewer is one of power it’s inescapable to always keep in mind that the viewer is television’s currency, and in that way technological innovations are not only social and innovative but also commercial. The article ‘’Spaces of Participation: Interfaces, Conventions, Routines’’ written by Eggo Müller can help understand how programming tactics in the cross- platform media sphere help to create navigational paths in an ‘open’ space, where viewers can go anywhere to get the content they want. Since the following case study is about how program makers create these navigational routes and features, I would like to highlight some interesting parts of Müller’s publication. Müller claims that the social and cultural effects of new-media can be seen from a utopian as well as a dystopian perspective (2009, 49). What is important is that the structure of new-media seems completely different from that of television as the viewer can participate through some extended features of the television program. But Müller claims that this participation and the way viewers participate is highly ‘formatted’ within these extended structures. The frameworks set out structure possible actions of the viewer/user. This because these spaces are structured socially and are ideologically defined (Müller 2009, 52). Later on in the case study I want to show how interacting viewers that contribute to the programs ‘overflow’ on the internet generate extra value that ‘[…] only the producers can control and exploit’ (Müller 2009, 55). Also of importance to the case study later on I would like to focus the fact that Müller states that active fans of the program (in his case Big Brother) can go ‘[…] beyond the limited space of participation as formatted by the producers’ (2009, 56). In this way they can contribute to the cross-media spectacle the program is or can be. In my case study I want to show how even these activities, outside of the formatted spaces created by the producers, can be incorporated in the strategy of the program makers, and lead more viewers inside the formatted spaces. I try to make this aspect of the strategies clear in the part of the case study about the vodcast. Going back to the theory of Jenkins we see that his vision on the cross-media convergence culture is also connected to the first part of this research where I tried to map different interpretations about the future of the television medium. He claims that the introduction of new 19

media doesn’t mean that old media are pushed aside and are displaced by them. According to Jenkins most interesting is that these so called-new media will interact in even more complex ways (2006, 6) and that their status and functions are shifted by the introduction of new technologies (2006, 14). Jenkins doesn’t approach media convergence as just a technological shift. In his opinion media convergence:

[…] alters the relationship between existing technologies, industries, markets, genres, and audiences. Convergence alters the logic by which media industries operate and by which media consumers process news and entertainment. (2006, 16)

It doesn’t just bring a new feature and possibility in a viewer’s options to consume content but it also connects what once were separate features. Jenkins emphasizes that media convergence makes media companies learn to operate across different media channels to expand revenue opportunities, and maybe more important; to reinforce viewer commitments. At the same time the media consumers ‘[…] are learning how to use these different media technologies to bring the flow of media more fully under their control and to interact with other consumers’ (Jenkins 2006, 18). When grassroots initiatives meet with corporate interest they can reinforce each other (Jenkins 2006, 18). What has become clear in the current times of convergence is that the relation between the programmer and the viewer has changed. As mentioned in previous parts there has always been a process of reacting to technological and social changes. The difference at this time is that these relations are getting more complicated since the directions of the flow of viewers/users are becoming more vague. The challenges programmers, broadcasters and program makers face are more dynamic than ever. The convergence makes them think outside the ‘black box fallacy’ that separated different media and logics. These logics and uses, just like media, do not disappear but have to be reinterpreted constantly. Visible changes of the last decade are; the rise of affiliated websites next to television programs, applications for smartphones, second screen applications and the rise of new platforms for distribution of content. The term extension in this context refers to the media industry’s efforts to expand potential markets ’[…] by moving content across different delivery systems.’ (Jenkins 2006, 19). Jenkins describes, according to this principle, the ideal consumer as active, emotionally engaged, and socially networked (2006, 20). The term extension has also consequences for the creation of flow since the possibilities in which viewers are navigating are increasing. The traditional concept of flow now has to operate on more levels by ‘extending’ its navigational routes in different directions.

20

The convergence culture of the last years had its impact on traditional tactics related to the flow of programs. Since the more active and mobile viewer was harder to connect to a channel, tactics like ‘hammocking’ (placing a program with limited appeal between two popular ones), or ‘’lead-in programming’’ (Ihlebaek et al. 2013, 2) were challenged by a more cross-platform television logic like mentioned before by Müller as ‘formatted spaces’. Old tactics are still used and have their effect at the moment but only thinking about the flow on the channel isn’t sufficient anymore since the technology of navigating between different media has improved. The stickiness of a viewer to a channel has become less since the fragmentation, due to an overload of on-demand, online and cable television. From this perspective I would like to refer to Ihlebaek et al. who state that the new goal of a broadcaster is to keep the viewer loyal to their channel and to find viable ways of moving them across different media (2013, 9). They further state that ’[…] schedulers now need to plan navigational paths between many different services on an intrachannel, cross-channel, and cross- platform level’ (2013, 9). They illustrate this by quoting a head of planning of Norway’s TV2. He states that the major channel is the most important but at the same time ’[…] you should preferably move the viewers that you know are already wandering between different programs within our own universe’ (Ihlebaek et al 2013, 9). These examples show that the emerging converged television landscape requires new strategies in addressing the viewer and how to keep the viewer connected to the brand’s content. John Caldwell7 just like Ihlebaek et al. emphasizes how traditional programming strategies concerning flow have changed in the cross-platform media sphere. He claims that ‘It is no longer entirely credible, for example, to imagine that digital media is somehow marked by a radical break with traditional media practices’ (Caldwell 2003, 130). The use of new platforms beside television is a way to be visible in the fragmentized media space. It also enforces branding strategies and places ‘[…] their respective conglomerates in the capital markets’ (Caldwell 2003, 131). This creates new forms of user flows. It is important to note that he doesn’t see convergence media as a totally new way of branding content. According to Caldwell ‘[…] networks and studios use convergence initiatives to implement long-standing industry practices […]’ (2003, 131). In relation to the case study later on it is important to note that according to Caldwell the study of new media through the lens of ‘old media (and television in particular)’ can provide more insights in the way new media platforms are used in relation to the ‘old media’ (2003, 132). Caldwell makes a distinction between ‘first-shift’ aesthetics, the pre-digital programming strategies, and ‘second-shift’ aesthetics that are about the programming strategies within the cross-platform media sphere that ‘[…] have to bring

7 Caldwell’s article mainly focuses on film studies and takes examples from drama series. This shows that these new tactics are not only suitable for reality TV, sports events and game shows. 21

rationality to unstable media economies’ (2003, 135). One of the most important changes between the two is that in the convergence culture it is very difficult to predict linear viewing patterns. Related to the case study of Wie is de Mol? The most important change that rose with the use of cross-platform broadcasting is that the strategies have shifted from ’[…] program ‘flows’ to tactics of audience/user ‘flows’’ (Caldwell 2003, 136). These new tactics are just like Ihlebaek et al. emphasize navigating the viewer in circular protocols. Online feeds and narratives send viewers to televised plots and clues in prime time. In return the television broadcast sends them back to the web ‘[…] for further textual elaboration and interaction during the week’ (Caldwell 2003, 136). Although the medium of television is strongly connected to a framework it is dangerous as a researcher to essentialize a medium when the object of study is always in transition. Caldwell, Ilhebaek et al., Jenkins and Müller explain in their research how the flow of users is changing and how the framework of the networks is adapting to, and directing to, the movements of the viewer. In the following case study the focus will be on this trajectory set out by the network and how traditional medium specific television characteristics like liveness and flow are still very relevant medium specific factors in this new framework. As the following case study aims to show these concepts can be used and interpreted differently than they were a decade ago. It is therefore essential to always redefine the concepts used while analyzing (‘new’) media.

22

2. Case study: Wie is de Mol? (The Mole)

Wie is de Mol? (English version was called ’The Mole’) is a reality television game-show that was first produced by the Belgian producer Woestijnvis in 1999 and was broadcasted by VRT a Belgian public broadcaster. After only its first year it was sold to the Dutch public broadcaster AVRO and in 2000 it won the prestigious Rose d’Or at the television festival in Montreux. This recognition was the start of the big success of the format. In the following years more than fifty countries worldwide bought the Belgian format. The following research will focus on the Dutch version of the program. The Dutch version is produced by IDTV. The program revolves around ten players who travel together to an exotic destination, the location of which is unknown before departure. When they arrive the players must work together to complete various physical and mental challenges. During every challenge the group has the opportunity to earn money, which is the prize money awarded to the winner at the end of the program. As all challenges are group challenges it is important that the players operate well together as a group. The only problem is that one of the players is ’the Mole’, a double agent hired by the producers to sabotage the efforts of the group. The main goal of the players is to discover who the one sabotaging the whole program is. At the end of every episode the players have to take a test that consists of questions about the Mole. The player with the least knowledge on the Mole is sent home at the end of the episode. When there are players with equal scores (not visible to the viewer, nor the players) the one with the slowest completion time of the test has to go home. The essence of the program is that the Mole has to be careful and avoid drawing too much suspicion to her- or himself. The candidates have to work together but at the same time are each other’s opponents. In their spare time the players carefully write down all information they collected during the games. They use their ‘Mole journals’ to archive everything suspicious they see because in everything could be a hint that brings them closer to the Mole. Because the producers make use of secret signs, hints etc., the players also collect all minor information such as seating positions, clothing colors, minor discussion topics, and so on. This makes the program a very psychological game. Who can you trust, what can you share and with whom, how can you make the other players believe that you’re the Mole without being too obvious (to send them in the wrong direction). It is these questions that have attracted a large audience in the Netherlands for more than fourteen years. The attraction of the program is that the viewer has the same goal as the players in the game; to discover who the Mole is. This makes the editing of the program essential, as the

23

information given in each episode should not directly lead to the mole so that the suspense of not knowing is maintained. The slogan of the show is therefore: ‘trust nobody’. The reason for choosing Wie is de Mol? as a case study is related to its history. First of all it is a well-known program and a format that is broadcast internationally. The Dutch version drew an enormous amount of viewers, with numbers increasing every year. But most importantly the program has been broadcast for fourteen years already on Dutch television. The program was current during the period that new media and the internet were getting more important. In contrast to other programs with formats that incorporated use of second screen applications, online narratives etc. from the start, Wie is de Mol? wasn’t originally created as a program to be active on multiple platforms. The extra features like the online program Moltalk and the Wie is de Mol? App were added recently to the program. The commercial logic of the extra features behind the format wasn’t considered with the creation of the program. This whole new ‘universe’ that grew around the program is what the following case study will be about. Since the focus will be on these new features in relation to the television broadcast the research will focus on the last (14th) season of Wie is de Mol? which broadcast on Dutch television from the 2nd of January until the 20th of March.

2.1 Flow in the context of the television broadcast

Wie is de Mol? is broadcasted by the AVRO and is compared to commercial broadcasters not interrupted by commercial breaks. There is a short commercial break before and after the program of around five minutes, but none during the program. After the commercial break there is an intro by the broadcaster AVRO showing the logo and recognizable music tune of the broadcaster. This is followed by an announcement that there is a Wie is de Mol? application available on iPhone and Android. Then there is a recap of the previous episode. This is a common tactic within drama series and game shows that have no beginning and (closed) end in each separate episode. The logic behind this is to refresh the viewer’s memory and to give potential new viewers the context needed to start watching. At the end of the program there is a short compilation video of the contestant who was eliminated, and at the bottom of the screen some text pops up which alerts the viewers of the Roodshow (Radio 2, AVRO 2010), which will broadcast a live interview with the eliminated contestant the next day. After this the end titles of the program pop up followed by a precap. This precap shows the viewer some highlights of next week’s episode. The functioning of a precap at the end of a program is to seduce the viewer into also watching the next episode. Just like a recap this is also common in drama series and other programs that consist of storytelling spread over several 24

episodes. A precap is also often used on commercial television where programs are interrupted by commercial breaks. It is a way to keep the viewer in the flow of the program during a program that is separated in different sections and over a whole season that is separated in different episodes. After the precap the program switches to a short live connection with Arjan Lubach who is the presenter of the online program Moltalk, which analyzes the episode that just aired. Then the program has ended and the programming flow continues with a commercial break. By taking a close look at the flow throughout the program it is important to further examine the Dutch public television system since this is quite different from other public-TV in Europe. In the Netherlands the structure is unique because the system is based on compartmentalization8. Compartmentalization means a division of society into groups on ideological or social economic basis. The whole Dutch media system was based on this logic. In recent years this is still the case, especially for (public) television and radio. Each broadcaster has a different socio-economic or ideological background. There has been, and still is, a debate about the complexity of this system. Some claim that the whole system is outdated compared to transformations in society, and therefore not representative anymore for the Dutch public. Nowadays the Dutch society is completely different, it changed since the practice of religion has greatly diminished and the socio- economic situation changed completely since the original compartmentalization. But until the recent economic crisis this debate didn’t have much influence on the structure of public television. This also complicates the net programming9 of the three different public channels. Not the broadcaster but the NPO, as an independent organization, is responsible for the programming of the channels and the general policies. In other words, they have the task to create flow in the traditional manner by linking different programs (of different broadcasters most of the time) together. In the recent system a broadcaster isn’t solely linked to just one channel but can be active on multiple channels. This started with the channel profiling in 200610. Each channel now has a main focus on the level of content. Before this it was common practice to link a broadcaster to a specific channel. Nederland 1 is profiled as a channel that has to reach a broad audience. It mostly airs game shows, popular drama series, comedy etc. The channel is also used to broadcast general interest programs with a journalistic slant, examples of this are the news, big sports events, ‘Kings Day’ and ‘Prinsjesdag’11. Wie is de Mol? is broadcast on Nederland 1 because it is a game show for a wide audience and not linked to a specific age group. Nederland 2 is profiled as a channel for in-depth

8 Compartmentalization in Dutch means ‘verzuiling’. 9 The Dutch public television has 3 different channels: Nederland 1, Nederland 2 and Nederland 3. 10 Source: www.npo.nl 11 Prinsjesdag is when The Queen and Dutch political leaders gather in the Knights Hall in The Hague every second Tuesday in September as the historic building is transformed into a scene of pomp and glory. The Queen launches into a half-hour speech outlining her government's policy (source: www.expatica.com). 25

and mostly journalistic programs, but also drama series with a journalistic approach are placed on Nederland 2 as well as ‘auteur’ drama series and films. Nederland 3 has to reach a young audience. During the day the channel is home to Zappelin and Zapp that program programs solely for young children. In the evening the main content is targeted at adolescents and young adults. The crisis and the liberal governments in the last decade have enforced a change within the public television system. Currently the number of broadcasters has to be reduced from 21 at the moment to 8 in 2016. This means that broadcasters will have to merge, but maybe even more important, the broadcast time they will have in the new system will be based on the number of members12 each fusion broadcaster has. This is especially a point of interest when looking at the importance of flow in the context of the television broadcast of each program. The place in the television system that always seemed so secure all of a sudden isn’t secure at all. Dutch broadcasters feel the pressure to profile themselves more than ever and need to make the viewer more aware which unique programs belong to their ‘brand’. This was emphasized when the recently placed new managing director of the fusion broadcaster BNNVARA, Gerard Timmer, said in his welcome speech: ’I will give all I have to make BNNVARA the strongest brand on Dutch television’13. For television researchers this new era of profiling on the Dutch public television makes it even more interesting to research the working of flow inside the different program units since, for the different broadcasters, the separate programs are becoming more important than the programming of the channels in general. And because the broadcaster doesn’t have much influence at what time the program is being broadcast, as this is the responsibility of the net manager (NPO). What happens at the moment is that each broadcaster tries to obtain as many members as possible and this enforces a process of branding. The viewer has to become aware which broadcaster makes which programs. The consequence is that on public television commercial logics are common practice since competition between the different broadcasters is clearly visible in these times of re-arranging the whole television system. This framework of the corporate structure of the broadcaster is important in understanding the ways different media are linked. Like Caldwell claimed:

[…]it is almost impossible to talk usefully today of conglomeration, globalization, and industry without talking about texts; and impossible to talk about texts or identity without also talking about their corporate logic and institutional significance. (2003, 133)

12 The Dutch public television system works with ‘members’, the number of members determines the time of broadcast for each broadcaster. 13 Speech was held on 22-04-2014 at the BNNVARA building in Hilversum. 26

Wie is de Mol? is considered one of the best programs of the AVRO14, and also one of the programs with the highest number of viewers15. Therefore Wie is de Mol? was in its last season the ideal program to brand the broadcaster to a big audience. Like mentioned before the program starts with the recognizable tune of the AVRO. They make the viewer aware that this program belongs to them. Inside the program flow the viewer is also made aware of other AVRO programs, like at the end when the reference to the Roodshow (that will broadcast the following day on the radio) pops up. After this a short clip that makes the viewer aware that if they enjoy Wie is de Mol? and want to see programs like this in the future, it is important to become a member of the AVRO. The clip shows that by becoming a member you support the broadcaster and you will receive a Wie is de Mol? board game. By placing this unit in the flow of the program they use the popularity of the program to brand themselves. It is also important to note that the board game is only available by becoming a member and not for sale in stores. Placing a clip like this inside the flow of the program gives a potential connection between the viewer and the brand of the broadcaster. The live connection at the very end of the program with Arjen Lubach is there to make the viewers aware of the ongoing (live) event online. This connection directs the viewer from the television broadcast to AVRO’s online space. This means that the viewer is being led away from the television, this is in stark contrast with commercial logic on the level of channel programming. Like mentioned before the broadcaster is only responsible for its own programs and the NPO is responsible for the channel programming. Leading viewers away from television by the broadcaster doesn’t have implications for the brand. In the current system this is actually a smart move because the vast group of viewers the program attracts to the brand will mean that a broadcaster in a way creates a big and faithful audience that are potential viewers for their next program. Since the next program is from a different broadcaster (brand) it’s lucrative to lead them to their own brand online. In short, the flow of the television broadcast incorporates the whole cross-platform media landscape built around it. In the introduction as well as in the end of the program the viewer is directed to the extensions of the program on different platforms. Since the programming is the responsibility of the NPO, and not of the broadcaster or producer, the relation of a program with its audience in relation to programming tactics is different. The program is placed inside a flow that is not in the broadcasters’ control, they have to create another way of flow to get control over where their viewers are going. The cross-platform extensions create the possibility to navigate and move the viewer in other directions. This trend as shown in the flow of Wie is de Mol? exemplifies that the viewers in this cross-platform space are more program oriented, and not so much channel

14 In December 2008 the program was claimed to be the best AVRO program of the last 50 years by their own magazine Avrobode. 15 The last season of Wie is de Mol? had an average of 2.464.000 viewers (source: Stichting Kijkonderzoek) 27

orientated like Ihlebaek et al. also stated considering television in an cross-platform media landscape (2013, 6). The flow inside the program is made to stick the viewer to the program (and brand) and not to the channel. In the next subchapters the cross-platform extensions will be analyzed in how they relate to and extend the television broadcast.

2.2 Liveness in the television broadcast of Wie is de Mol?

The television broadcast is prerecorded and edited before it airs on television. Liveness in the traditional sense of the concept is therefore not applicable when researching the program. But also this clearly pre-recorded program has some points worth researching related to liveness effects. Via a direct address to the audience the program sets an intimate tone between the viewer and the contestants. This happens at the start of the program when the presenter Art Rooijakkers speaks directly to the audience at home. After the recap of what happened before, he introduces the current broadcast to the audience and gives some hints about what could be happening in the coming episode (02:09-02:38,24 February 2014). He looks straight in the camera as if he is talking to you in person (see 1.1).

1.1 The presenter of the program, Art Rooijakkers, looks directly in the camera to communicate with the viewers at home (episode 7, 02:09, 27-02-2014).

This way of addressing the viewer at home in an intimate setting is further emphasized with the ‘spoken diaries’ where the contestants give their thoughts on what happened during the different games they played. This is edited throughout the program and forms an important source of information for the viewers at home. In these shots the viewer only sees the contestant in front of a black screen (see 1.2). The program shows the game and in the editing room they cut it with

28

testimonials of the contestants about specific parts of the game. Intimacy with the viewer is further emphasized since they can safely share all their information with the viewer at home, which they can’t share with the other contestants.

1.2 One of the contestants speaks directly to the viewers at home (Episode 7, 09:30, 27-02-2014)

Although a direct address to viewers at home isn’t a direct claim of being live it has a strong connection to television aesthetics most common in live television. As bourdon claims about a direct address with the viewer at home: ‘I have been driven to treat ‘live broadcasting’ and the ‘look at the camera’ of the newscaster as nearly equivalent’ (2000, 540). Although the presenter and the contestants don’t use the words ‘you’ and ‘I’ while talking to the viewer at home these moments of direct address are important units in the program to create a strong intimacy between the viewer and the program. Although this is only a one-sided way of communicating, it feels like the people on screen are sharing information with the viewer at home. In this sense these moments could be seen as what Mimi White calls an conceptual anchor for properties essentially televisual like: presence, immediacy and intimacy (White 2004, 81). Aside from the direct address, as showed in the examples above, the program is clearly prerecorded. Maybe this is even further emphasized by these moments since the viewer sees a montage cut between the event and the reflections on the event by the contestants that makes it clear that the event took place in the past. Still the concept of liveness, and with this the concept of flow, are essential in understanding the connection between new media and these traditional medium specific concepts. The next chapters of this case study will focus on the online extensions of the television broadcast in relation to new-media tactics.

29

3. Moltalk: ‘’Don’t forget to stay tuned and give your opinion!’’

In the 13th season of Wie is de Mol? The program aired with a new feature: Moltalk. This feature is a live stream of about seven minutes before the program, and an extended after talk of about thirty minutes immediately after the television broadcast. Moltalk is, in contrast to the normal broadcast, only accessible online. The presenter of the program is Arjen Lubach, who was a contestant in the program in 2010. He is joined every week by different former participants of the program on a secret location somewhere in Amsterdam. Since the last edition (2014) he is joined every week by Kees Tol, the Mole of the previous season (2013). The program is set in an improvised studio with a big audience consisting of lucky viewers who won an online contest, and other people who are in some way related to the television program. Sometimes participants of the current season make an appearance and most of the time the whole production crew is also in the studio. The atmosphere is relaxed and informal. Most of the people on location are having a beer and the interviewer and his guests are seated on a comfortable sofa.

3.1 Liveness and flow in Moltalk

Especially in the online streams of Moltalk the concept of liveness is very relevant. In contrast to Wie is de Mol?, Moltalk is streamed live. Because Moltalk is split up in two parts, one before and one after the show, the television broadcast is ‘sandwiched’ by the online program. The television broadcast is also available online, this creates the possibility to watch the program on your computer and at a different time to its moment of broadcast on television. Moltalk is also available online after its first live stream after the program. The effect of the construction around the program from the perspective of flow is, like mentioned before, a way to keep the audience connected to the brand AVRO. But from the perspective of liveness this construction is also worth researching. Moltalk functions to make the television broadcast current. The live stream as it is happening changes the experience of watching an evening of Wie is de Mol?. Like Couldry mentioned it guarantees a potential connection to shared realities as they are happening (2004, 355). Not only ‘being live’ is what makes the program current but also the live feeds and references inside the program emphasize that the viewer has to watch both the television broadcast as the online stream of Moltalk now and not later. This will be clarified with the following examples. Looking back on the structure of flow inside the television broadcast makes clear that there is a short live connection to Arjan Lubach at the end of every program who invites the viewers to 30

come and share their opinions online while watching Moltalk. This is the clearest point in relation to the television program that the viewers are directed to another medium/platform. The setting of the ‘studio’ where Moltalk is set communicates the feeling of immediacy, presence, intimacy, and reality affects, like mentioned, the conceptual anchors for the properties considered essentially connected to liveness according to White (2004, 81). Examples of this are the informal setting of the improvised studio, people drinking beer and talking, a sofa with a small table with a candle on it that could be the interior of a generic house and the place where people would watch TV (see 1.4). The whole setting communicates that it is not television you’re watching but an online stream. Where on television every detail is thought-through, the presenters can make no mistakes and the public in the studio is mostly quiet. In Moltalk it often occurs that somebody drops a glass of beer, the presenter loses control of the interview and the audience, people walking on screen, and the quality of the image and sound is a little poor compared to a standard television broadcast. This creates intimacy with the viewer since it gives the feeling of being there on the spot with the sort of people that are fans of the program. But most importantly it emphasizes that it is recorded and broadcasted live. This creates what Levine called a ‘suspenseful experience’ that could be seen as one of television’s medium specific powers in relation to the concept of liveness (2008, 397). This liveness isn’t solely important in relation to Moltalk but also especially important in relation to the television broadcast. The television broadcast isn’t live but with the connection to a live pretalk and aftertalk the program becomes current. In a sense, the format is just like a big sports event, where you have live commentary from a studio before the game, and commentary immediately after the game. In these moments ‘experts’ share their opinions on what has happened in between the two moments of commentary. Before the game the topic was all about the expectation about what will follow and after the game there is the reflection on what just happened. This of course is common practice with big live sporting events. The viewer at home can see if their interpretations about what happened on the pitch are similar to those of the experts in the studio. Moltalk has the same logic, it positions the television broadcast as main event and extends it with a pre talk and an after talk. And, just like with sports events, it is about speculation first and about evaluation second. As Couldry claims; ‘liveness guarantees a potential connection to shared realities as they are happening’ (2004, 355). Moltalk also connects the viewer to the television broadcast and in contrast to a sports event, Moltak includes the viewer in the program with the use of new media. So what we see here is a feature, liveness, once claimed to be one of the essences of television (Levine 2008, 399) is created by an new media interface. In this way the new media stream creates a televisual feature, liveness, to make the television broadcast current. This is an example how new media don’t have to be a threat 31

but also can enforce televisual qualities. It also shows that it can change the character of the ‘old’ medium of television that Levine described as static and unidirectional (2008, 405) into a medium that is more mobile and interactive. This co-existence shows how new media can enforce televisual features. Including the viewer in the program is of big significance for the functioning of liveness. Including communication on social media about the program, sent during the broadcast of the program, make it worth accessing now, not later (Couldry 2004, 356). This is made clear at the end of the pre talk before the television broadcast. The words the presenter chooses and the interfaces used emphasize that it is worth watching the program now and interact now. At the end of the program the presenter directly addresses the viewer and motivates the people at home to interact with the program (see 1.3).

1.3 The presenter points at the viewer to emphasize that they can be part of the program if they share their thoughts on social media (Moltalk voorbeschouwing 13 maart 201416, 06:40, 13-03-2014).

This way of (directly) addressing an audience further emphasizes that the coming television program is worth accessing now, not later. To be part of the conversation it is important to interact and be active online whilst the program is being broadcasted. This interactivity promoted around the program makes that the program feels live because with these feeds the prerecorded program becomes current, worth watching now, not later.

16 I wrote the date in Dutch since this is the official title of the online stream. 32

During the whole pre talk the connection with the coming episode is further emphasized by a ticking clock onscreen that makes the viewer aware how much time is left until the program starts on television (see 1.4).

1.4 In the red square there is a ticking clock that counts down till the beginning of the television broadcast. (Moltalk voorbeschouwing 13 maart 2014, 06:12, 13-03-2014)

After the television broadcast the after talk starts with the presenter welcoming people back to the show. From the start of the program the community of viewers is directly addressed when the presenter says:

At home you can join us here with Moltalk. It’s really important to give your opinion about tonight’s episode because later on in the program we will go through your tweets. You can leave your tweets at #moltalk or @schemer. Maybe we will ask your question to one of the guests of tonight’s show! So it’s very important to send us your thoughts and questions. You can send your question or questions to #moltalk. (Moltalk voorbeschouwing 30 januari 2014, 04:00-04:32, 13-03-2014).

This kind of reference to the online community are part of the format and once in a while the presenter addresses the viewer directly to make them aware of the option to join the conversation. This example illustrates what Couldry describes as liveness’ potential connection to shared realities as they are happening (2004, 355). What is happening on screen is current since people can join at the moment the program is streamed. Immediacy is further emphasized with the mix of people in the program. Interviews with former contestants are mixed with interviews with, ‘normal people’ 33

that are fans of the program, just like most of the fans watching (Moltalk de nabeschouwing 08:15- 10:18, 09-01-2014). Connecting the viewer inside the program also creates a strong connection between the program and its fans. Just like the former contestants and other important people inside the studio they are asked for their opinion. This is one of the qualities of convergence media according to Jenkins. Wie is de Mol? Shows what Jenkins calls ‘the possibility to reinforce viewer commitment’. In various different episodes of Moltalk there are interviews with the makers of the program. In more than just one occasion a member of the crew is talking about the process of production to give the viewer an exclusive insight in the program and to see the faces of people that aren’t visible on the television broadcast. An example of this is when the director of the program was interviewed about the selection of the candidates and how they choose who will be the ‘mol’. The director emphasizes that in recent seasons the candidates are getting more important than the type of games they play. He said that in fourteen seasons they have played almost every game possible and that the program now has to seduce new potential viewers by selecting different kind of candidate. He doesn’t talk about the new game features online that are maybe even more important. When he is asked about specific things that might happen in the coming episode he builds suspense by telling a little but keeps silent about specific details. The hesitation in his voice makes the viewer aware of the improvised character of the program and that by watching Moltalk online you as a viewer could get more information than solely watching the television broadcast (Moltalk de nabeschouwing 27 februari, 25:56-28:30, 27-02-2014). On more than one occasion during an interview guests are cut in their conversation by the head of production because they are giving away information that has to be kept secret. This also happened for example in an interview with the head of editing when he was telling a little too much about the process of editing the program. This further emphasizes the feeling of liveness. Just like in sport events, interview programs, and other events that are being broadcasted live, the consequence and one of the attractions of liveness is the unexpected events that can occur, what you see is reality like it is, with no possibility to edit or take out parts of the event. On different moments during Moltalk the presenter switches to a second screen. He goes through tweets of people at home watching Moltalk. The presenter first starts with saying the name and location of the person who sent the tweet. On screen we see the avatar linked to the twitter account and the tweet. Then he reads the tweet out loud. After this the people in the studio start talking about the tweet.

34

1.5 Tweet of a viewer at home that is being discussed in the program. (Moltalk de Nabeschouwing 30 januari, 27:32, 30-01-2014)

The viewers who gain the live access are not random; instead they are a representative social group of fanatics of the program. Also in relation to the television broadcast this feature of the show is interesting in relation to Bourdons question about live television. He was talking about an interesting ambiguity, namely: ’[…] is live television about live broadcasting or about shared viewing experience?’ (Bourdon 2000, 534). This question raised in relation to Moltalk could exemplify that live television can be about both. Like the example above shows people first had the shared experience (meaning watching it at the time it was broadcast) of watching the prerecorded television broadcast and afterwards in Moltalk or solely on social media (also during the broadcast) they could share their experiences (live!) in their shared community. The prerecorded content is made current by the new online interfaces. Wie is de Mol? App17 is another interface that is linked to the online Moltalk broadcast. In Moltalk they incorporate statistics where they show which candidate the users of the app suspect of being the Mole (see 1.6). The community of users and viewers can compare their suspicion with the rest of the viewers.

17 The Wie is de mol? App will be further explained in chapter 4. 35

1.6 In the program they compare the suspicion of the app users with the result of that night’s episode. (Moltalk de Nabeschouwing, 28:40, 30-01-2014)

Not only the active participants on social media want to stay tuned to Moltalk to give their input, the program is also a great feature for non-participating (online) users. Like described before, one of the main powers of the television format is to sit down in your sofa and intensively watch the program, because if you miss one detail in the background or a part of a conversation you could miss a hint that leads you to the Mole. Just like the contestants there are fanatic fans that have their own Mole Journal to write down everything they hear, see or read online. The last season people could even buy an official Mole Journal in almost every bookstore in the Netherlands18. Everybody sees hints in different things; this is what makes that watching the program requires an active viewer. Moltalk is the perfect feature to compare your arguments to that of several famous and non-famous viewers present in the studio. The moment in the flow, placed right before and after the program creates a feeling of shared emotions. When the switch is made from the television broadcast to the online stream of Moltalk the first reactions are always of astonishment, disbelief etc. about what just happened on the television broadcast. Because the presenter and guests in the show, just like the viewer, don’t know who the Mole is there is a shared feeling of people looking for answers to the same questions. The examples mentioned above show that Moltalk adds an important feature to the program. It enforces the feeling of immediacy, but maybe even more importantly it makes the prerecorded and edited program current. Like the countdown to the program emphasizes, it is a

18An example of a Mole Journal for sale online: http://www.bruna.nl/boeken/wie-is-de-mol-molboekje-2014- 9789400504493?gclid=CNGfy9SrsL4CFQblwgodnTYAkw 36

program we have to watch now and not later. Especially this is important in relation to what Couldry called the importance of how television is linked to other media with the use of liveness (2004, 355). Also the use of social media in the program attracts viewers to watch the television episode and the aftertalk during its broadcast on television (the program itself) and its livestream on the internet (Moltalk). The presenter of the aftertalk, like showed in the examples above, emphasizes frequently that you (as a viewer) can have influence in the live broadcast by putting questions online on twitter. This makes interactivity an essential part to create a co-presence and in this way makes the program current for millions of viewers. Moltalk is also a central feature in the ‘overflow’ programming inside the Wie is de Mol? sphere. It is linked to the program with a live connection at the end. The program navigates the viewers to listen to De Roodshow, play the app, share questions on social media, watch the vodcast and last but not least watch next week’s episode and Moltalk.

37

4. Wie is de Mol? App

The latest season in 2014 added a new feature to Wie is de Mol?. From then on people could download the ‘Wie is de Mol? App’ on iPhone and Android. The app was an immediate success and even led to servers going down because so many people were downloading the app. An app like this works as an extension (as used by Jenkins) of the television broadcast, it isn’t a singular game or an element that can be used disconnected from the television broadcast. It is an extension of the television broadcast. The app is all about discovering the Mole. Just like the candidates, the users of the app have to answer questions about the program. The main difference is that the viewers have to answer them before each episode. An example of a question could be: ‘Who will turn out to be afraid of dogs in the next episode?’ Since you have to answer the question before the broadcast most of the answers have to be guessed. Each episode the players of the app and viewers of the program get to know the contestants better, when you start to know them you can think of who it could be. The last two questions are the same every week: ‘Who will be eliminated this episode?’ and ‘Who is the Mole?’. By giving the correct answers to the questions you earn points. According to the number of points the users of the app are placed in the ranking that is also accessible via the app. There is also the option to create different pools with friends. These micro rankings show the ranking between the user and his friends. After the final episode the top ten of best scoring players of the app will compete in a final game. The winner of this game will travel together with the contestants and producers to see the making of the first episode of season 15. This is of course the ultimate dream for a true fan of the program.

4.1 Liveness and flow in the Wie is de Mol? App

From the traditional perspective of flow in the television broadcast the app is only mentioned at the beginning of the broadcast. A short ad pops up and makes the viewers aware of the app, and where they can download it. After this, the television broadcast doesn’t use the app during the broadcast nor makes reference to the app during the broadcast. Just like Ihlebaek et al. claimed, the perspective of a broadcaster isn’t solely anymore inside the channel and on television. The ways in which the user is navigated through the content is what creates the new flow. How to create viewer loyalty is more than ever connected to the viable ways 38

of moving them across different media (Ihlebaek et al. 2013, 9). Just like Moltalk the Wie is de Mol? App is strongly connected to the program and the television broadcast. But in relation to the television broadcast there are some differences, yet at the same time they both share the same goals, like Ihlebaek et al. called their article: ‘Keeping Them and Moving Them.’ The placed unit of the ad before the start of the television broadcast leads the viewer to the app. This is the first way in which the television leads the viewer to another part of the multimedia universe of the program. Another important part of the app is related to time and space. Each week the questions become available at 12:00 the Friday after the broadcast. The questions have to be answered before the broadcast of the next episode. Although the user is free to answer the questions whenever they want (during the week) there is a deadline that has to be followed. This deadline is connected with the television broadcast. At the moment of broadcast the answers to the questions mentioned in the app are given. In this way there is a clear connection between the app and the programmed television broadcast. Just like the pre-talk in Moltalk the app counts down to the television broadcast (see 1.7).

1.7 In the red square there is a countdown to the television episode and the deadline to complete the questions (Wie is de Mol? App).19

19 Random example, source: http://androidworld.nl/apps/ontmasker-jij-de-mol-de-wie-de-mol-applicatie/ 39

The way the app is designed is also important in relation to the television broadcast. The possibility to create a pool with your friends creates small communities inside a bigger and more anonymous community of fans (the overall ranking). Inside this small community you can compare your findings with your friends. Like Jenkins mentioned one of the possibilities of our convergence culture is to interact with others. He also emphasized that the ideal consumer is active and socially networked (Jenkins 2006, 20). The app in this way creates small communities of viewers interacting and experiencing the program together. This makes the program relevant during the time of broadcast. Since these communities share their opinions, compare their results and play the game together. These communities can independently from each other, and where they want, interact in the game where they are competing with their friends. This creates a form of what Couldry calls ‘group liveness’ (2004, 357). But in contrast to the group liveness according to Couldry, this form of liveness is connected to a center of transmission. Group liveness in the app takes place in the pool of friends, the pool is located inside the app of the program and the app leads the user back to the television broadcast that is the center of it all. To get the answers to the questions of the week the users will have to watch the television broadcast. This dynamic doesn’t demand the whole group to watch the episode together on the sofa in someone’s home (although this will be the case for most fanatics). To communicate and comment with your friends after the program you have to make sure that you’ve seen the program at the scheduled broadcast time. Because missing the program inside a community means missing the conversation that follows in the cross-media environment around the program. Different from Moltalk and the other features is that this app creates a co-presence on a micro level inside the macro. Everyone inside your own group of friends wants to share the same experience that the television broadcast gives to the (sometimes) individual viewers. In this way the community building and the shared experience the app enforces makes the television broadcast current.

40

1.8 An example of a group of friends that play the Wie is de Mol? App.20 On the right of the screen there is a small avatar of the candidate they suspect of being the mole.

The Wie is de Mol? App is different from other applications that give extra content to television programs. Most television programs make use of a second screen that offers games, extra content etc. simultaneously with the television broadcast. They are only current during the program. This means that they are only usable simultaneously with the television broadcast. This is also a way of making the television broadcast current and only worth watching in the programmed time. However, in the case of the app, the way of navigating a viewer through a cross-platform media sphere doesn’t always mean you have to focus on different screens and content at the same time. In contrast to the other more common examples of applications the Wie is de Mol? App is only inactive during the broadcast and the next day. The focus of the app is to lead the users to the television broadcast, and let them focus solely on the broadcast on television. This is important since the program requires full attention of its viewers to get into the game. After the television broadcast has ended the new questions for the coming week are released in the app. This prepares the viewer to what could happen next week and leads them back to the television broadcast. Moltalk and the Wie is de Mol? App are features of the program created by the production company of the program. Wie is de Mol? has an extremely active fan base online who are also creating their own fan sites, forums and platforms to share their excitement and knowledge about the program. The next chapter will be about what Jenkins calls the junctures where ‘grassroots initiatives meet with corporate interest’ and they both reinforce each other (2006, 18).

20 This is a random example, source: http://www.mobypicture.com/user/Mol/view/16689563 41

5. Wie is de Mol Vodcast

All the extra interfaces around Wie is de Mol? mentioned above are created by the program makers. The recent technological innovations made it possible to add the extra features like Moltalk and the app. But not only responding to technological possibilities is what creates the cross-platform media landscape surrounding the program, in some occasions also initiatives of fanatic viewers are adopted and put in the official context of the program. The Wie is de Mol Vodcast is one of these examples of an initiative that started out as just an online podcast by a fan, and was later used in official Wie is de Mol? programs. Like Jenkins claimed; when grassroots initiatives meet with corporate interest there is the possibility to reinforce each other (2006, 18). This will become clear in the use of the corporate structure to incorporate the Wie is de Mol Vodcast into the official Wie is de Mol? sphere. During the season that aired in 2007 a fanatic fan ‘Joeri’ started making a podcast to recap each week’s broadcast. In the podcast (and later the vodcast) he gave a one minute voice-over summary of the past episode. This wasn’t just a summary but also an interpretation of the past events with a sarcastic/ironic tone. This podcast was shared among fans online and on the creator’s own website. In 2011 he decided to add video to his podcast and this is when the ‘Wie is de Mol Vodcast’21 was born. Like he mentions on his site, the vodcast gained more attention each year and became more professional with the rise of viewership22. The Vodcast became a big hit on the internet and hundred thousands of fans watched the vodcast online each week. This did not go unnoticed by the production company of the program and they invited ‘Joeri’ to an episode of Moltalk.

5.1 Wie is de Mol Vodcast in relation to the cross-platform media flow

The reason to incorporate the Wie is de Mol Vodcast in this research is because this feature shows how online fan activity can be used and made part of the official cross-platform media sphere created by the makers of the program. The vodcast is now part of the circulatory path laid out. Since it is frequently mentioned and used in Moltalk, it became part of the trajectory. Although it is not part of the flow of the television broadcast (in contrast with Moltalk and the app) its place in the

21 The Vodcast can be found at: http://www.widmvodcast.nl/ 22 Source: http://www.widmvodcast.nl/?page_id=50 42

network is strong. Since this year the official site of Wie is de Mol? makes references to the online vodcasts and later even incorporated them in the official website of the program.23 Wie is de Mol? has an enormous online active fan-base. Lots of forums and blogs are active online, some of them have thousands of readers/active participants. This research focuses specifically on the circulatory path with its reference to each different unit of this trajectory laid out by the creators of the program. The Wie is de Mol Vodcast was not intended to be part of this system but since its success, it was made part of this trajectory later on by the producers. One of the consequences of this incorporation was that the vodcast gained special treatment by the producers. From the moment the vodcast was incorporated and linked to official fan sites and Moltalk, the creator could interview the contestants, go to official meetings and gained much additional access. Max Dawson wrote about how online fan culture could create useful ways of leading other viewers to the television episode. His research is focused on television drama-series but is also applicable to the functioning of the Wie is de Mol Vodcast in relation to the television broadcast. He states that video summaries of fans can enforce the power of a ‘complex’ narrative industry (Dawson 2011, 47). Wie is de Mol? is all about the creation of a complex narrative. These videos can help to make viewers aware of missed hints and to recap missed episodes. It also creates the possibility for viewers that missed some episodes to enter the program without having to watch all previous episodes. Dawson also states that there is one big difference between producer-created recaps and fan-created recaps. Producer’s recaps are narrative devices that aim to create suspense without giving too much information or direction about where the narrative is going, he calls this ‘preferred interpretations’ (2011, 49). When viewers create their own recaps of a series, like the vodcast, this is a different story. The direction where the narrative is going could be leading the viewer in the right direction and put the focus on not missing details or mistakes in editing. This is also an important factor where the editors of the program have learned about coping with an extremely active fan base. In one episode of Moltalk one of the editors explains that sometimes they get nervous when important bloggers are headed in the right direction with their suspicions. But he also states that after thirteen years they know exactly how they have to edit to make sure that no mistakes are made in the post-production (Moltalk de nabeschouwing 27 februari, 30:45-33:56, 27- 02-2014). Just like Moltalk, the Wie is de Mol Vodcast makes use of social media inside the format. The big difference is that the concept of liveness is not relevant in this format. Yet the vodcast is all about social media and the fan base. Like mentioned before, the vodcast came from fan culture and

23 An example of this can be found at: http://avro.nl/wieisdemol/player/widm_14_vodcast_joeri/ 43

was placed inside the official Wie is de Mol? sphere. It creates a bridge between the unofficial fan activity and the producers tactics. An example of this is that in the vodcast the presenter uses theories about who could be the mole, which he encountered on fan sites and social media (see 1.9). He gives a platform to the fans by quoting them in the program.

1.9 A theory found on a unofficial fan forum is quoted in the vodcast. (Vodcast Aflevering 2, 03:20)

The vodcast also uses direct communication between the viewer and the program by using tweets directed to the vodcast (see 1.10). And direct communication with the maker of the vodcast is further emphasized when he invites viewers to send their thoughts about the program to his e-mail address:

If you want to give your view on the program and talk with us about the candidates send your mail to (mail-address pops up: [email protected]), you can also send a tweet using ‘@joeribreuk’ or surf to the site (address of the site pops up: www.widmvodcast.nl). (Vodcast Aflevering24 2, 08:28 – 08:39)

After this he also makes a reference to the the Wie is de Mol? App, by showing the results of this week’s suspicions of the audience (Vodcast aflevering 2, 08:49 – 09:02). This example of a fan who is equipped with knowledge of technology and the internet illustrates what Jenkins described as viewers that bring the content and paths they follow more fully under their control and interact with other viewers (Jenkins 18). At first the vodcast was a fan created feature that wasn’t part of the trajectory set out by the producers. When its success was growing and the reach of the vodcast was immense, the program makers had to incorporate it to use

24 Because the official title is in Dutch I use the word ‘aflevering’ which means episode in English. 44

it to lead the viewers back to the other features created by the program itself. The references to Moltalk, the incorporation in Moltalk and the exposure of a vodcast in the final episode on television were part of this tactic. With the vodcast in mind it is good to go back to Jenkins and his vision on the future of flow. He used the term extension to explain how television programs can extend to potential markets and viewer/users (Jenkins 2006, 19) on different platforms. Just like the example of Joeri, the founder of the broadcast, showed us the ideal consumer in the age of convergence is emotionally engaged, and socially networked. (Jenkins 2006, 20). The way the program makers reacted to the success of the vodcast showed that program makers have to react to technological and social changes around the programs. In relation to flow this also shows how the producers go beyond their own tactics to get more control over the directions viewers navigate through online content. The viewers are lead to Moltalk which leads them to the vodcast and the vodcast sends them back to the television broadcast. Setting out these sorts of paths further emphasizes the circulatory notion of flow in the convergence era. Just like all the features mentioned before, this shows a process of engagement of the program with the viewer and of the viewer with the program when the television broadcast isn’t on. This could be placed in Caldwell’s perspective on explaining the new tactics in the age of cross- platform media consumption. The use of these features assure ‘[…] further elaboration and interaction during the week’ (Caldwell 2003, 136).

45

6. De Roodshow

De Roodshow is a Dutch radio program by the AVRO and is broadcast from Monday to Friday from 14:00 till 16:00. The presenter of the program is Jan-Willem Roodbeen together with his sidekick Wendy Hendrikse. The program consists of different parts, most of them are about entertainment like a musical bingo, an IntroRally and the day’s top 3 most listened songs online. During the period Wie is de Mol? is broadcast the program spends each Friday for about 7 minutes with the contestant who was eliminated the episode on day before. Since the start of Wie is de Mol? this ‘aftertalk’ in De Roodshow has been part of the program. What has changed over the last few years is the way how the viewers/fans of Wie is de Mol? can interact with the program and with the eliminated contestant. Listeners of the program can send tweets with questions for the eliminated contestant to ‘@Roodshow’ and during the radio broadcast those questions are posed to the contestant. An example of this is: ‘If you could name one contestant that could come back to the game, who should it be?’ (De Roodshow aflevering 6, 02:44/03:00) The contestant gives his or her opinion and answers the questions the viewers have sent in. This way of conducting an interview emphasizes the way the program tends to incorporate viewer commitment, by making clear that everyone could ask his or her questions in the program. The last season was special since Jan-Willem Roodbeen, the presenter himself, was one of the contestants of the program. Therefore his sidekick asked the questions the viewers had sent to make sure that the questions and answers wouldn’t reveal any secret information. Each week there is also a ‘musical hint’, this means that a song is played at the end of the Wie is de Mol? part of the program that tells the listener something about who will exit the program the coming week. The program starts with last week’s hint and its explanation, with the knowledge of who left the program the day before on the television broadcast. This explanation and the interview with the contestant make the television broadcast current in the whole flow of program and other cross-platform features around the program. This is because the listener of the radio broadcast must have seen the television broadcast the day before or he or she will hear spoilers while listening the radiobroadcast. The radio program shows a triangular route. The television makes a reference to the program, the program uses online fan activity in its content and references back to the television program. In this way the radio show is part of the navigational routes as laid out by the program makers. What the ‘brand’ AVRO also does with incorporating De Roodshow inside the Wie is de Mol?

46

sphere is reacting to what Jenkins claimed about the new converged media audiences ‘[…] the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want’ (2006, 2). This means that the AVRO is aware of the big success of the program and tries to use the success to move the vast group of viewers from the program to another chain in de brand: ‘De Roodshow’. This is an example of new media tactics where new routes are led out to keep the viewer committed to the brand.

47

7. Conclusion

7.1 Keeping them and Moving Them

The case study showed how different features of the Wie is de Mol? ‘experience’ are connected and how they reference one to another. Therefore in the first part of this conclusion I will map the trajectory between the different features around the television broadcast to get a better overview of all these connections and references. This part only consists of descriptive analyses of which connections are made and how they reference each other. This chapter won’t be an in depth analysis since the case-study already showed how each feature is specifically connected to each other. The real conclusion will unfold in the second part of the conclusion. In figure 2.1 the whole Wie is de Mol? sphere and flow are drawn out (red line) around an axis that is the traditional television flow (arrows), the green lines are the flow of fan content. The following part describes the connections as drawn in the figure from each separate feature with the television broadcast as the central point.

Figure 2.1 Overview of connections inside the Wie is de Mol? sphere. 48

The Television broadcast of Wie is de Mol?

Figure 2.2 shows that the television broadcast makes reference in the flow of the program to three different features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere. First, at the beginning of the program there is a short commercial that makes the viewer aware of the Wie is de Mol? App. The second reference is at the end of the broadcast when viewers are made aware to listen to ‘De Roodshow’ the next day on the radio. Thirdly, the television broadcast makes reference after the end titles of the program to the coming livestream of Moltalk after-talk.

Figure 2.2: Connections from the television broadcast to other features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere.

49

Moltalk pre-talk

Figure 2.3 show the navigational paths of Moltalk pretalk. This feature is connected to the television broadcast since it references to the coming broadcast and uses footage from the past episode. Secondly, the pre-talk is connected with the Wie is de Mol? App because the program makes reference to the app and uses statistics drawn from the app. Thirdly, the program uses tweets from viewers in the program and in that way incorporates social media inside its format.

Figure 2.3: Connections from Moltalk Pretalk to other features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere.

50

Moltalk after-talk

The Moltalk after-talk is connected to various features and could be seen as the central axis in the digital flow as far as we can speak of a ‘central axis’. First, the after-talk makes references to the program by talking about the program, using footage from the episode and makes viewers aware of next week’s episode. Secondly, by incorporating questions from viewers drawn from social media the after-talk also has a clear connection with social media activity. Thirdly, the after-talk also references the app since it uses statistics drawn from the app and makes the viewer aware of possibilities to download the app. Fourthly, with the incorporation of the vodcast in some episodes of Moltalk there is a connection with the Vodcast. Fifthly, at the end of the program there is always reference to the Roodshow, which will air the next day.

Figure 2.4: Connections from Moltalk Aftertalk to other features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere.

51

Wie is de Mol? App

The app has only one direct reference that is the television broadcast. This is clear in the countdown to the broadcast within the app and the questions that tell the viewer what could happen in next week’s episode.

Figure 2.5: Connections from the Wie is de Mol? App to other features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere.

52

Wie is de Mol Vodcast

The vodcast makes references in four different directions. First, the vodcast uses footage from the television episode and makes viewers aware of the coming episode. Secondly, the vodcast uses questions that viewers send via social media. Thirdly, there is a connection with Moltalk aftertalk because the presenter makes a reference to the program for his viewers to stay updated. Fourthly, the vodcast ends with showing the statistics of suspicion drawn from the app.

Figure 2.6: Connections from the Wie is de Mol Vodcast to other features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere.

53

De Roodshow

The radio program ‘De Roodshow’ makes two references. The first is the direct reference to the television program by talking about the last episode, making the viewer aware of the coming episode and using audio-fragments of the last episode. The second connection is with social media, the show uses social media to gather their questions to the contestant that was eliminated that week and they emphasize that the viewer can be part of the program by leaving a question on Twitter.

Figure 2.7: Connections from De Roodshow to other features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere.

54

Social media

The social media references to De Roodshow, Vodcast, Moltalk (pre- and after-talk), and the television broadcast by posting details about the program and making people aware of the program, stream, and radio show on Facebook and Twitter.

Figure 2.8: Connections from social media to other features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere.

55

Online fan activity

The fan activity is placed outside the red field of the official Wie is de Mol? media sphere. This is because most fan activity is not visible inside the Wie is de Mol? media sphere. The communication through social media goes firstly to the social media box and from there the vodcast, Moltalk and Roodshow select which tweets and other messages they take out and use in their programs. So the social media box could be seen as the station where content arrives and from there the content is linked to other features that act as gatekeepers in deciding which messages they will use. The line connecting fan activity with the app is a direct connection since fans engage with the app by answering questions and the results are used inside the official Wie is de Mol? sphere. The line with the vodcast is not about the social media used in the vodcast (since this connection passes through the social media box first). This line is about a fan (Joeri Breuk) who was first active as a fan outside the official sphere and was later put inside the official sphere. So he as a fan operates now inside the Wie is de Mol? media sphere.

Figure 2.9 Connections from online fan activity to other features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere

56

7.2 Why ‘old’ concepts never get ‘old’

In the introduction of this research I briefly mentioned the threats that television was facing according to some academic debates about the future of the medium. The fragmentation of the audience in the cross-platform and multichannel media landscape would lead to that fact that television would lose one of its core qualities as a mass medium because the ‘community thing’ that television once was would disappear since nobody watches the same program at the same time. But just like other academics I referenced to in the framework that followed, I think this process is much more nuanced than just claiming that television and its function in society will soon be a relic from the past. In the case study I tried to show how television used new strategies in addressing an audience in the cross-platform media sphere. Wie is de Mol? and the whole sphere created around the program show how a television program that started before the rise of the cross-platform media sphere adjusted to technological and social changes concerning the way television is consumed. The whole ‘network’ of features on different platforms is used to lead the viewer away from the television but to keep them connected to the cross-platform features, which eventually lead the viewer back to the television broadcast. This creates a community of loyal viewers that are dedicated to the program and move in more directions than just one to get the information and content they want. In the theoretical framework, set out before the case study, the importance of cross-media tactics concerning flow was emphasized. Where traditional programming only focused on the televisual flow the new tactics should also adjust to potential viewers moving in different directions. Therefore the focus of a brand, broadcaster or station should look further to overcome loss of viewers in this so called fragmentized and converged media landscape, they should think of flow in more directions than just on television. The example of Wie is de Mol? Shows how a broadcaster uses a cross-platform media sphere to stick the viewer to the ‘brand’. Programing tactics that once had to fit different units in one flow of television are now operating on different media. The Dutch public broadcast system as explained in the case study proved an interesting playground for program makers and broadcasters to experiment with different strategies to navigate their audiences since the channel and the programs are under the responsibility of different heads with different priorities. The case of Wie is de Mol? taught us that the horizontal televisual flow is extended by a vertical cross-platform flow consisting of the features described in the case study. The scheme set out in the subchapter before shows how these navigational paths are laid out as extensions of the program. Just like Ihlebaek et al. state the tactics, as used in the examples throughout the case 57

study, show how navigational paths between different features are laid out on a cross-platform level (2013, 9). The whole circulatory path around the television broadcast leads the viewer back to the television by referencing to the episodes and its time of broadcast. Therefore these cross-platform features could be seen as ‘extensions’ as described by Jenkins where the relationship between existing technologies, industries, markets, genre, and audience are altered (2006, 16). The media consumer is moving in more directions than ever. Just like the traditional concept of flow, this redefined way is all about directing the viewer where the program makers want them to go. The strategy behind the different features and how they are connected could be seen as what Eggo Müller calls the ‘formatting’ of spaces. This means that the sometimes seemingly ‘open’ and participatory spaces are constructed as formatted spaces where the network is dominant in how the viewer experiences and moves through these spaces. The creation of these navigational routes and formatted spaces are not solely defined by technological possibilities and network strategies, instead, both social reaction online and uses of the viewer are in relation to how these paths are laid out. The example of the vodcast showed how peer initiatives are placed inside the network’s logics and strategy. The strong connection to social media in the different features further emphasizes how the creation of a strong community around the program is the most important goal of this whole trajectory/space. The opportunities that new platforms offer for broadcast television will, contrary to what Gentikow states, make sure that the television is and in the future still can be a ‘community thing’ (2010, 147). I want to reference back to the introduction of this research once again to emphasize that we should not define the relation between television and new media as one of competition or as a struggle like Gentikow stated (2004, 143). Instead, the relation between the two is one of connection and can enforce the qualities of both. The research on the level of liveness showed how programs can be made current again. The rise of on-demand, Uitzending Gemist etc. make that the viewers have more agency over their time scheduling concerning television. This is seen as a big threat for television as a mass medium since the shared experience of the programmed television broadcast was what made television a ‘community thing’. The research showed how with the use of liveness in a cross-platform mediaspace the ‘not to be missed’ experience of the television broadcast can be enforced. The positioning of Moltak right before and immediately after the program created an online flow that extended the television broadcast. This live extension of the program used different interfaces to connect the viewer to the program and to make it actual. It brought an important television feature to the program ‘liveness’. This connection makes the television part of a live program that is not to

58

be missed. The liveness was further emphasized by the use of social media in the content of the online extensions of the program. It’s maybe a bit ironic that new media interfaces enforce the ‘true promise’ of the televisual called liveness (Levine 2008, 399). But at the same time this shows how we shouldn’t analyze the cross-platform objects as just extra features to the programs and medium. This is important to overcome the dichotomy when analyzing media as platforms that operate separate from each other and as competing. The use of a cross-platform way of flow and an extending interpretation of liveness doesn’t solely help creating the experience; instead, in the case of Wie is de Mol? I tried to show how these once seen, as typical concepts of television, liveness and flow, can be dynamic and an integral part of the program/experience in a cross-platform television sphere. I also want to mention that the framework chosen and the case study used is just one example of how television operates in the cross-platform media sphere. The conclusion when analyzing a program from a commercial broadcaster could lead to completely different insights. This research was focusing mostly on the strategies used by the program makers and the broadcaster but as I mentioned during the research there are many more perspectives from different academic backgrounds possible when conducting this case study. The functioning of the system can also be further analyzed from the perspective of the structure-agency debate the work of Eggo Müller for example already showed this25. Therefore I want to emphasize that this research is far from complete, just like the flow it can move in much more directions than just the one I chose to conduct my research in. Therefore I won’t make any general claims but I hope that this case study opens up new perspectives on how television and ‘new’ media are related. More research has to be done on different genres of programs and formats to be able to have a better perspective. The work of Max Dawson already gave some insights on topics related to my research when analyzing the drama series Lost (ABC, 2004)26. Finally I want to emphasize that what all the examples of Wie is de Mol? make clear, is that television is just like Stauff mentioned in a constant rearrangement of gadgets, industrial strategies, and infrastructures (2012, n. pag.). This process is maybe the most medium specific aspect of the medium. With the research on Wie is de Mol? I tried to show that television as a dynamic medium adjusts to the way the mass uses and consumes media. These adjustments are enforced by technological innovations but also by social changes. Therefore television should not be placed apart from ‘new’ media but always in relation with new media. This perspective helps to overcome a

25 Obviously not all of this theory is used in this research, more can be read in the article ‘’Formatted Spaces of Participation: Interactive Television and the Changing Relationship Between Production and Consumption.’’ 26 This research can be found in his publication: ‘’Television, abridged: narrative scalability and TV-digital media convergence.’’ That was also used as a source in this research. 59

dichotomy where media are separated in ‘new’ and ‘old’ as well as the concepts used to analyze them.

60

List of Sources

Literature

Bourdon, Jerome. ‘’Live Television is Still Alive: On Television as an Unfulfilled Promise.’’ Media Culture & Society 22 (2000): 531-556. Caldwell, John, and Anna Everett. ‘’Second-shift Media Aesthetics: Programming, Interactivity, and User Flows.’’ New Media: Theories and Practices of Digitextuality. Eds. John Caldwell and Anna Everett. New York and London: Routledge, 2003. 127-143. Couldry, Nick. ‘’Liveness, ‘’Reality,’’ and the Mediated Habitus from Television to the Mobile Phone.’’ The Communication Review 7 (2004): 353-361. Dawson, Max. ‘’Television, abridged: narrative scalability and TV-digital media convergence.’’ Ephemeral Media: Transitory Screen Culture from Television to Youtube. Ed. Paul Grainge. London: British Film Institute, 2011. 31-57. Gentikow, Barbara. ‘’Television Use in New Media Environments.’’ Relocating Television: Television in the Digital Context. Ed. Jostein Gripsrud. London: Routledge, 2010. 141-155. Gripsrud, Jonathan. ‘’Television in the Digital Public Sphere.’’ Relocating Television: Television in the Digital Context. Ed. Jostein Gripsrud. London: Routledge, 2010. 3-26. Ihlebaek, Karoline Andrea, Trine Syvertsen and Espen Ytreberg. ‘’Keeping Them and Moving Them: TV Scheduling in the Phase of Channel and Platform Proliferation.’’ Television & New Media XX(X) (2013): 1-17. Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Colide. New York: New York University Press, 2006. Katz, Elihu. ‘’The End of Television?: Its Impact on the World (So Far).’’ The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Series. 625 (2009): 6-14. Keilbach, Judith, and Markus Stauff. ‘’When Old Media Never Stopped Being New: Television’s History as an Ongoing Experiment.’’ After the Break: Television Theory Today. Eds. Marijke de Valck and Jan Teurlings. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013. 79-98. Müller, Eggo. ‘’Formatted Spaces of Participation: Interactive Television and the Changing Relationship Between Production and Consumption.’’ Digital Material: Tracing New Media in Everyday Life and Technology. Eds. Marianne van den Boomen et al. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009. 49-63. Stauff, Markus. “A multiplied medium: Reviewing recent publications on television’s transitions.” NECSUS: European journal of Media Studies. 2012. European Network for Cinema and Media

61

Studies. 10-06-2013. < http://www.necsus-ejms.org/a-multiplied-medium-reviewing-recent- publications-on-televisions-transitions/>. Uricchio, William. ‘’Constructing Television.’’ After the Break: Television Theory Today. Eds. Marijke de Valck and Jan Teurlings. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013. 65-78 Uriicchio, William. ‘’Television’s Next Generation: Technology/Interface Culture/Flow.’’ Television After Television: Essays on a Medium in Transition. Eds. Lynn Spigel and Jan Olsson. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2004. 163-184. White, Mimi. ‘’The Atrtractions of Television: Reconsidering Liveness.’’ Mediaspace: Place, Scale and Culture in a Media Age. Eds. Nick Couldry and Anna McCarthy. London and New York: Routledge, 2004. 75-92. Williams, Raymond. Television: Technology and Cultural Form. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Websites

Expatica. 2011. Aaron Gray-Block. 24-04-2014. . Wie is de Mol. 2014. AVRO. 01-02-2014/24-06-2014. . Wie is de Mol Vodcast. 2014. Joeri van Breukelen. 05-05-2014/07-06-2014. .

Images

Colin Baak. Wie is de Mol-applicatie?. 2014. 25-03-2014. . Martijn Olislaegers. Eind uitslag van de Mol040 poule!. 2014. 22-05-2014. .

Video’s

Wie is de Mol Official Website. “Moltalk de Nabeschouwing.” Wie is de Mol Official Website. 09-01- 2014. 09-01-2014/25-05-2014. .

62

Wie is de Mol Official Website. “Moltalk de Nabeschouwing.” Wie is de Mol Official Website. 30-01- 2014. 30-01-2014/25-05-2014. . Wie is de Mol Official Website. “Moltalk de Nabeschouwing.” Wie is de Mol Official Website. 27-02- 2014. 27-02-2014/25-05-2014. . Wie is de Mol Official Website. “Moltalk de Voorbeschouwing.” Wie is de Mol Official Website. 30- 01-2014. 30-01-2014/25-05-2014. . Wie is de Mol Official Website. “Moltalk de Voorbeschouwing.” Wie is de Mol Official Website. 13- 03-2014. 13-03-2014/25-05-2014. .

Television programs

“… Moet Je Zien.” Episode 7. Wie is de Mol?. AVRO. 27-02-2014.

Radio shows

Episode 6. De Roodshow. AVRO. 21-02-2014.

Apps

Wie is de Mol? App. Apple App Store. Version 1.1. AVRO/IDTV, 3 January 2014. 16 January 2014.

Figures

Figure 2.1 Overview of connections inside the Wie is de Mol? sphere. Felix van Gisbergen, 14 May 2014. Figure 2.2 Connections from the television broadcast to other features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere. Felix van Gisbergen, 14 June 2014. Figure 2.3 Connections Moltalk Pretalk to other features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere. Felix van Gisbergen, 14 June 2014. Figure 2.4 Connections Moltalk Aftertalk to other features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere. Felix van Gisbergen, 14 June 2014. Figure 2.5 Connections the Wie is de Mol? App to other features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere. Felix van Gisbergen, 14 June 2014. Figure 2.6 Connections from the Wie is de Mol Vodcast to other features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere. Felix van Gisbergen, 14 June 2014.

63

Figure 2.7 Connections from De Roodshow to other features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere. Felix van Gisbergen, 14 June 2014. Figure 2.8 Connections from social media to other features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere. Felix van Gisbergen, 14 June 2014. Figure 2.9 Connections from online fan activity to other features in the Wie is de Mol? sphere. Felix van Gisbergen, 14 June 2014.

Personal communication

Timmers, Gerard. Speech for employees of BNNVARA , 22-04-2014.

64