Social Television Viewing with Second Screen Platforms: Antecedents and Consequences
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Media and Communication (ISSN: 2183–2439) 2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 139–152 DOI: 10.17645/mac.v7i1.1745 Article Social Television Viewing with Second Screen Platforms: Antecedents and Consequences Miao Guo Department of Telecommunications, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] Submitted: 17 September 2018 | Accepted: 3 November 2018 | Published: 19 February 2019 Abstract This study investigates the causal relationship between antecedents and consequences of social television viewing com- bining the television screen and concurrent use of a mobile, “second screen” media platform. The results indicate that social television viewing is a complex process driven by the viewers’ program affinity, motives, interpersonal interaction, and the perceived media characteristics of alternative platforms. The social television viewing behavior also has a posi- tive influence on loyalty to television programs, time-shifted viewing, and product purchase intention. The implications of these findings and recommendations for future research are discussed. Keywords mobile media; second screen platforms; social TV; viewer behavior Issue This article is part of the issue “Emerging Technologies in Journalism and Media: International Perspectives on Their Nature and Impact”, edited by John Pavlik (Rutgers University, USA). © 2019 by the author; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu- tion 4.0 International License (CC BY). 1. Introduction ences. In light of the significance of social television view- ing, this study aims to identify major exploratory factors As mobile devices proliferate through adoption of smart- of social television viewing from the perspectives of me- phones, tablets, and laptop computers, today’s audi- dia content, media platforms, and audience attributes. ences are increasingly involved with television content This study further investigates the impacts of this pro- through a “second screen” platform. In particular, mo- cess on program loyalty, time-shifted viewing, and prod- bile enhancement apps allow audiences to remotely uct purchase likelihood. comment and share their favorite shows. Social media create a new and powerful “backchannel”, fueling the 2. Literature Review renaissance of live broadcasts. Mobile and tablet de- vices empower viewers to experience television when- 2.1. Social Television Viewing and Second Screening ever and wherever they want (Proulx & Shepatin, 2012). All these developments have significantly invigorated The emerging pattern of social television viewing the social nature of television viewing—social television through portable devices and social media platforms rep- viewing—the use of online apps and mobile devices to resents the ongoing convergence between mass and in- promote communication and social interaction related terpersonal communication (Perloff, 2015). Social televi- to television content. The emerging pattern of social sion viewers use “communication technologies to con- television viewing is meaningful for program producers, nect with their friends and family, even when they broadcasters, and advertisers in their justification of in- are not watching the same screen” (Bellman, Robinson, vestment in content, retaining and acquiring viewers, Wooley, & Varan, 2017, p. 73). Recent studies on so- enhancing brand affinity and program loyalty, as well cial television are focused on the motives and person- as identifying and marketing to the most valuable audi- ality characteristics of social television users (Cohen & Media and Communication, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 139–152 139 Lancaster, 2014; Guo, 2018; Guo & Chan-Olmsted, 2015; struct to capture the current reality program consump- Han & Lee, 2014), television-related contents that are tion in a cross-media environment. Hall’s dimensions in- posted on various social platforms (Wohn & Na, 2011), clude social involvement, cognitive involvement, and on- and the media effects of social television interactions on line involvement. talent show content and program protagonists (Winter, Genre preference refers to television viewers’ predis- Krämer, Benninghoff, & Gallus, 2018). posed liking of one specific program type or genre among Second screening, a similar concept with social televi- a set of available program types or genres (e.g., soap sion, describes that second screeners use digital devices opera, sports, drama, news, etc.) (Youn, 1994). Schol- (e.g., smart phones, tablets, or laptop computers) while ars and industry practitioners have previously concluded watching television to access the Internet and social me- that television genre is an important predictor in view- dia platforms in order to obtain more information about ing choice because the industry relies heavily on im- or discuss the program they are watching (Zúñiga, Garcia- itation (Bielby & Bielby, 1994). Conventional program Perdomo, & McGregor, 2015). In the context of news con- types, such as drama, sitcom, and so on, bear system- sumption, second screening has been widely used by au- atic relationships to program preferences (Geerts, Cesar, diences during breaking news, live coverage, political de- & Bulterman, 2008). The preferences of different types bates, and online political participation (Giglietto & Selva, of content could stimulate diverse social viewing expe- 2014; Zúñiga et al., 2015). riences and communication patterns surrounding pro- Drawing upon previous studies on social television grams. For example, genre preferences can impact the and second screening, this study defines social televi- way viewers talk, chat, or interact with each other while sion viewing as the degree of intensity or types of con- watching television or afterwards (Geerts et al., 2008). nections that audiences develop with television content Sports programming is often cited as a genre best suited through online or mobile apps via second screen plat- for stimulating social interaction. Other types of content forms. Second screen platforms here refer to mobile de- such as cooking programs and movies also present this vices (e.g., smartphones, tablets, and laptop comput- type of sociability (Harrison & Amento, 2007). Some gen- ers) that allow television viewers to interact with tele- res have been shown to be motivators of viewer engage- vision content through the Internet and enhancement ment experiences such as sharing these program videos apps. Note that the term “television content” is defined or viewing experiences with others. Thus, the following broadly in this study, including the program content it- research questions are proposed: self, characters or celebrities in the show, and related staff such as writers, directors, or producers, etc. RQ1: How is program affinity related to social televi- sion viewing via second-screen platforms? 2.2. Program Affinity, Involvement, and Genre RQ2: How is program involvement related to social Preference television viewing via second-screen platforms? RQ3: How is program genre preference related to so- Affinity, defined as the level of importance one attaches cial television viewing via second-screen platforms? to a medium or media content, has received consider- able research attention in broadcasting and electronic 2.3. Compatibility, Perceived Ease of Use, and media (Rubin, 2009). Rubin and Perse (1987a) measured Convenience television program affinity as the perceived importance of watching favorite television programs in audiences’ Given the innovative attributes of mobile devices like daily lives. Affinity was found to be associated with di- smartphones, innovation diffusion theory offers a use- verse media use behavior and viewing motives (Haridakis ful heuristic framework to investigate how individual au- & Hanson, 2009). When examining one of the most diences use mobile second screen platforms to engage popular social media platforms, YouTube, Haridakis and with television content. Rogers (2003) conceptualized Hanson (2009) included affinity as one of a range of the perceived characteristics of an innovation as relative independent variables predicting such viewing behav- advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and ob- ior as co-viewing videos on YouTube and sharing videos servability. Compatibility is defined as “the degree to with others. which the adoption of a technology is compatible with Rubin and Perse (1987a, 1987b) categorized viewer existing values, past experiences, and needs of poten- involvement with soap operas or television news as affec- tial adopters” (p. 15). Thus, compatibility may refer to tive involvement, cognitive involvement, and behavioral compatibility with the values or norms of the potential involvement. An involved television viewer may feel af- adopters or it may imply congruence with existing prac- fect toward those in need on the show (i.e., affective in- tices of the adopters (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). In Tor- volvement), consider the messages of the show (i.e., cog- natzky and Klein’s (1982) meta-analysis of innovation nitive involvement), and talk about the show with others adoption, the authors discovered that an innovation is (i.e., behavioral involvement) during and after the expo- more likely to be adopted when it is compatible with an sure. In the case of reality programming, Hall (2009) pro- individual’s job responsibility and value system. Addition- posed audience involvement as a three-dimensional con- ally, prior innovation diffusion research found that com- Media and Communication,