Exploring Cross-Media Audience Practices in Two Cases of Public Service Media in Estonia and Finland

BALTIC SCREEN MEDIA REVIEW 2017 / VOLUME 5 / ARTICLE Article Exploring Cross-Media Audience Practices in Two Cases of Public Service Media in Estonia and Finland ALESSANDRO NANÌ, University of Tartu & Tallinn University, Estonia; email: [email protected] PILLE PRUULMANN-VENGERFELDT, Malmö University, Sweden; email: [email protected] 58 DOI: 10.1515/bsmr-2017-0012 ABSTRACT Stemming from the concept of active audiences and from Henry Jenkins’ (2006) idea of participatory culture as the driving force behind the transformation of public service broadcasting into agencies of public service media (Bardoel, Ferrell Lowe 2007), this empirical study explores the attitude and behaviour of the audiences of two cross- media projects, produced by the public service media of Finland (YLE) and Estonia (ERR). This empirical study aims to explore the behaviour, wants and needs of the audiences of cross-media productions and to shed some light on the conditions that support the dynamic switching of the engagement with cross-media. The study’s results suggest that audiences are neither passive nor active, but switch from one mode to another. The findings demonstrate that audience dynamism is circumstantial and cannot be assumed. Thus, thinking about active audiences and participation as the lymph of public service media becomes problematic, especially when broadcasters seek generalised production practices. This work demonstrates how television networks in general cannot be participatory, and instead, how cross-media can work as a vehicle of micro participation through small acts of audience engagement (Kleut et al. 2017). 59 BALTIC SCREEN MEDIA REVIEW 2017 / VOLUME 5 / ARTICLE FROM PUBLIC SERVICE relies on theoretical utopias rather than on BROADCASTERS TO PUBLIC tried and tested empirical investigations, SERVICE MEDIA the changes in TV networks result more from a trial-and-error approach than a sys- People want to be included, and tematic understanding of complex realities. they want to be heard. Now they This situation is evident in the transforma- know how to make themselves tion of public service broadcasting into heard, and if we want to be rel- agencies of public service media (Kjus 2007: evant in society, we need to talk 135). to them by making our channels On one hand, scholars have argued inclusive. We need new inclusive that public service broadcasting needs to strategies to reach new types of seek new models for engaging citizens. audiences. For instance, Jo Bardoel and Gregory Fer- rell Lowe (2007) claim that public service This imaginary quote from an imaginary broadcasters must move beyond the television (TV) executive is what producers broadcasting model to prioritise multime- might have heard in production meetings dia practices in the attempt to reach frag- worldwide, but is this an accurate state- mented audiences and therefore to fulfil, ment? Is this what audiences want from once again, the remit they represent. Elisa- public service broadcasters? beth Evans (2015) stresses how offering Today’s media landscape is made of alternatives to TV broadcasting translates contradictory forces to which broadcasters into offering audiences a wider range of are trying to adapt. If society is character- choices in their engagement with the con- ised by a ‘lesser collective participation’ tent produced by TV. Andres Jõesaar (2015: (Bardoel, d’Haenens 2008: 341), the indi- 81) argues that considering the young gen- vidual contribution to the media discourse eration’s departure from watching linear TV, has reached new heights, and new breeds broadcasters should reposition themselves of audiences are today, more than ever, and think in terms of converging media ready to engage in participatory production platforms, that is, cross-media strategies. practices that, if not revolutionary, are the On the other hand, the broadcasters’ results of the society we live in today (Evans leap into new inclusive strategies is often 2015: 111). Within this framework, on the approximate, generic and contradictory. one side, issues such as media saturation Indeed, if many European public service and audience fragmentation are viewed broadcasters have already shifted to public as concrete threats to the effectiveness service media (Sehl et al. 2016), this does of public service broadcasting in reaching not necessarily translate into a good under- and serving their publics. Seemingly on the standing of the implications caused by con- other side, using digital media to include vergence and participation. Mark Andrejevic the publics is perceived by broadcasters argues that ‘while audiences are active, the as a way out. In fact, a number of aca- advent of interactive media is the develop- demics (Jenkins 2006, Long 2007, Scolari ment of strategies for promoting, harness- 2009, Dena 2009) have started highlighting ing, and exploiting the productivity of this the behaviour of new types of audiences activity’ (Andrejevic 2008: 25). However, hav- who are departing from linear broadcasting a presence in social media and produc- ing while embracing novel forms of active ing content for the internet cannot by itself engagement. The challenge of less engaged be the answer to the oft-lamented loss of societies and audiences that, at least in audiences. Sharon M. Ross remarks that theory, are ready to interact and participate ‘the Internet has played a significant role in in media makes public broadcasters scram- prompting the television industry to begin ble for new productions. However, as the seeking viewer tele-participation’ (Ross understanding of audience behaviour often 2011: 72). However, tele-participation is 60 BALTIC SCREEN MEDIA REVIEW 2017 / VOLUME 5 / ARTICLE often confined to forms of interaction, such that are designed to intertwine and support as tele-voting and commenting. At least, as one another. In cross-media, the audience this study’s findings demonstrate, this is is expected to have different degrees of not necessarily what makes the difference engagement in the form of active interac- in the relationship between broadcasters tion, and at its best, of participation (Gam- and their audiences. barato, Nanì 2016). For John Fiske (1989), The lack of understanding of how to the conceptualisation of active audiences engage new audiences is demonstrated stems from the act of interpretation as a in the case of public service broadcasting form of active engagement with the text. in Estonia (ERR). Indrek Ibrus and Astra And while we presume that the active Merivee point out that despite the ERR engagement with the text on the interpre- executives’ genuine interest in pursuing new tational level is true across all audiences, cross-media strategies, approximation and in the case of cross-media environment, the lack of comprehension clearly jeop- the audiences are invited to become active ardise the changes necessary to fulfil the agents of composing their personal expe- public service remit (Ibrus, Merivee 2014: riences. Based on Henry Jenkins’ (1992) 117). The shift from public service broad- idea of participation, audience reactions, casting to public service media – inspired comments or involvement become part by the need to address irreversible societal of the cross-media experience. Such changes that push people away from col- active engagement shapes what Jenkins lective participation and simultaneously describes as participatory culture, a dimen- pull them towards individual participation – sion where individuals are ready to migrate should evolve around a clear understanding from one medium to another if they find of audiences and audience practices. the experience compelling enough and where fans depart from the mere consump- CROSS-MEDIA AND tion of media to embrace forms of organ- PUBLIC SERVICE MEDIA ised and autonomous production of new In this article, cross-media includes all texts (Jenkins 1992: 43). Such production activities that carry messages across plat- occurs in the light of a culture of inclusion forms, aimed at catching audience atten- that propels audience engagement. Such tion, facilitating awareness and enhancing engagement is not immune to exploitation, engagement (Ibrus, Scolari 2012). Social for instance, from the perspective of digital media platforms are among them, but news labour as discussed by Christian Fuchs and portals, websites and live events can also Sebastian Sevignani (2013) from a political be considered to be cross-media. Cross- economy perspective. However, the aim of media is an inclusive term that reflects the this article is not necessarily critique, tak- productions of the majority of European ing advantage of audiences as co-produc- public service media and can be defined ers, but rather to investigate whether the as the spreading of content across differ- audiences recognise such invitations in the ent media chosen for their characteristics, first place. As demonstrated in the following and where texts are related to each other, sections, if we limit the cross-media experi- but are not necessarily linked by a unify- ence to active re-appropriation of content ing narrative that needs to be followed in as defined by Jenkins, we lose out on an its entirety to understand the individual in-depth understanding of the nuances of components. Furthermore, cross-media is audience behaviour. Participatory culture not related to the repurposing of the same thus comprises a set of ideas, customs and content on different platforms, but the social behaviours that, sustained by new creation of

Load more