Television and The Internet: How Convergence Affects Audience Consumption

brunel university
film and television studies
school of arts
“tELEVISION AND THE iNTERNET - hOW cONVERGENCE aFFECTS aUDIENCE

cONSUMPTION.”
BY
rYAN oLIVER lEWIS
sUPERVISED BY
jULIAN sAVAGE
dATE SUBMITTED: 29TH aPRIL 2010
a sPECIAL pROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE ba: fILM &

tELEVISION sTUDIES dEGREE.
Ryan Lewis ryan@razzlewis.com www.razzlewis.com
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
1 – INTRODUCTION 1
i Aims
ii Debate
2 – THE IDEA OF CONVERGENCE 4
3 – PROGRAMMING REACHING ITS AUDIENCE 6
4 – AUDIENCE BEHAVIOURS 9
5 – INVESTIGATION 13
i Area of Research
ii Methodology
6 – STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 16
i The frequency with which the audience watches television

and how it receives the programming
ii What the audience desire from their viewing experience and
how the internet is associated with it
7 – FINDINGS 23
8 – CONCLUSIONS 28
I Summary of findings
ii Suggestions for further study
iii Evaluation
Bibliography
Appendix
i
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contributed
in any way, shape or form to the completion of my special project and this
resulting report.
To all the university staff, friends and family who have helped me with
planning, materials and proof reading, and even those who would have
helped more had I only asked, thank you.
Lastly, I must acknowledge the memory of my mother; I hope the completion

of my degree work would have made you happy, I know you were always
proud no matter what I did.
ii
INTRODUCTION
(i) AIMS
In this project I shall be focusing upon the Internet and television,

looking at ways in which they are evolving in response to each other and
analysing how this has an effect upon the audience consumption of their
respective media output. I am expecting to find that the manner in which
people now view television broadcasts has shifted away from the traditional
means of viewing, bringing with it an adjustment to the behaviours of the
audience, whilst showing no real change in the frequency with which
programmes are viewed.
(ii) DEBATES
This topic is of particular interest at this moment in time as the Internet

remains a relatively new sector of the mass media and, as such, still
something of an unknown quantity in many ways. Its potential in terms of
audience reach is unprecedented given that it can be “available to anyone
with access to a computer… [and] defies traditional national boundaries”
(Orlik and Day, 2007: 243) allowing for distribution of content to be more
widespread than ever before.
However, the relative youth of the Internet is also matched by the
speed with which it is still changing and adapting. Part of this is the way in
which the technology itself used within a computer is improving. There has
been the advent of better connection speeds, computer screens and
graphics or sound cards all of which make the notion of using the Internet to
see video content more attractive to the audience, and more content is now
available in response. This can be seen in the setup of legal online video
services such as Hulu (2007), iPlayer (2007) and YouTube (2005), which The
Economist reports took up around 27 percent of all Internet bandwidth in
2008 despite their young age. It is the emergence of video streaming sites
1
such as these that truly signalled the arrival of the Internet as a broadcasting
platform.
So, given the opportunity to distribute shows to a wider catchment
area of people and using popular new platforms with broadcaster support, it
is almost certain that the Internet is to remain as a method of viewing
‘television’ shows. New methods of distribution are still being developed,
and opportunities to explore their commercial possibilities looked at. Yet it is
not just the way in which television shows can now be viewed that has
resulted in the Internet making an impact upon the consumption of television,
the role of the audience itself is of considerable importance.
Where there traditionally has been a debate between the activity or
passivity of the audience based around the uses and gratifications model
developed by Blumer and Katz In 1974, the development of the Internet as a
platform for television may change the scope of this debate considerably.
Whilst there has been a “shift in thinking… to the view that it is active”
(Nabi and Oliver, 2009: 22) over recent times anyway, the level of choice has
increased significantly, allowing them to gain more active control than ever
over their choice of consumption. Where in 1990 James Lull noted
“audience members watch programs that simply happen to appear on the
same channel to which the television is already tuned” (p. 87) such a series of
events could now be becoming passé; the “passive audience” become lost
in response to the familiarity of choice, fostered by multi-channel television.
How the audience consumes programming does, therefore, need to be
revaluated once more in response.
There could additionally be a change in what the audience perceives
the uses of television to be, whether they still feel the need to undertake
shared television viewing is worth questioning. It could have been
supplanted by feeling gratified just by watching the shows they enjoy with or
without company. Indeed, given the nature of online viewing it may be that
rather than actual company a virtual alternative is sought out. By watching
television on the Internet it could be that the audience simply joins those who
get the reactions of other people online, discussing shows like ‘Heroes’ “into
2
the wee hours of the morning on countless message boards and Internet
forums.” (Lavery, 2010: 130)
There are also issues with regards to the proliferation of unauthorized
access to programming online. Torrent sites and unregulated streaming
outlets such as WiseVid provide access to copyrighted material at no cost to
the audience, and such activity is difficult to control. One newspaper article
has contained quotes claiming that “there are hundreds of web services out
there – it’s incredibly easy to find [what] you want to see” (Harris and Nixon,
2009) and reported audience members stating that they “can look past
quality issues, it’s free.” (Harris and Nixon, 2009) As a result, some indication
as to the amount and frequency of such activity could help to shape the
future priorities of broadcasters.
Certainly in this case the increase in the “active audience” could lead
to the reception and influence of mass media being altered significantly. Not
only are broadcasters facing a struggle to keep the audiences for their
channels and shows, but it could also be the case that the broadcaster sees
absolutely no return for its investment despite the shows still having an
audience. For the long-term health of the industry, it is understandably a
critical concern if the relationship between audience and programming is to
develop in this way.
This paper will, therefore, outline the recent changes that have taken
place within the spheres of the Internet and television. It will look at the
audience for television and how it consumes it, then focus on researching the
effects this has had on the viewer; how and how often they watch television
programming, what they want from the experience and what this may mean
for the future of both television and the Internet.
3
THE IDEA OF CONVERGENCE
Other studies regarding the convergence between television and the

Internet as a programming platform are not as numerous as those to be
found on other topics. This comes as no real surprise given that the Internet
only experienced its “period of explosive growth in 1995 and 1996.”
(Coffman and Odlyzko, 1998: 2) Still, even then it was only upon “the
substitution of broadband for dial-up access [that] resulted in millions…
being able to download large data files within a reasonable period of time”
(Held, 2006: 36) and the UK’s first home broadband customer did not appear
until the year 2000.
As a result, many of the scholarly articles that do exist on the
convergence between the Internet and television pay specific attention to
technological convergence. They look at ways in which the Internet can
appear on television in order to achieve greater market penetration.
One early study that broadens its definition is that of Thielman and
Dowling, “Conversion and Innovation strategy for service provision in
emerging Web-TV markets”. (1999) In it, they refer to a definition of
convergence developed in a their 1998 paper, that convergence is “the
complimentary merging of products or services or both at once” (Thielman
and Dowling, 1999: 4) They acknowledge that convergence has altered both
broadcast platforms and content.
Still, as such, texts reference an Internet that has evolved considerably
in the intervening years. They could be seen to be a little outdated,
commenting as they are upon something that has undertaken a different
evolutionary path since their publication. They acknowledge “online services
are often a substitute for TV viewing” (Thielman and Downling, 1999: 4) but,
by focusing their conclusions upon “internet-on-TV” and the idea that
“convergence… is likely to become an important market in the form of
enhanced-TV” (Thielman and Downling, 1999: 8) and not online access to
programming, the fact convergence has occured differently to their
expectations is highlighted.
4
More recent is Henry Jenkins’ book “Convergence Culture – Where

Old and New Media Collide”, (2006) an in depth study of convergence across
all aspects of the media landscape, new and old, the relationship of which is
considered; from books to Internet programming and mobile phone
downloads.
Jenkins’ book considers the notion, put forward by Trippi (1993) that
convergence will be “One box. One screen… check your e-mail and order
your groceries and check your child’s homework all on the one screen”,
(Jenkins, 2005: 212) to be merely a “black box fallacy”, (Jenkins, 2005: 14)
suggesting that technology is not the main consideration when looking at
convergence.
Instead, his beliefs are more in tune with 2002’s Ciskin Research that
states, “the hardware is diverging while the content converges”. (2006: 15)
Plurality of platform choice is considered central to the Jenkins definition of
convergence, where consumers “must assume the role of hunters and
gatherers, chasing down bits… across media channels” (Jenkins, 2006: 21)
and “the public… live[s] betwixt and between… multiple media systems”.
(2006: 212)
This redefinition of the topic from “what it’s usually meant to describe
in media and technology circles” (Sinnreich, 2007: 44) is contentious and
during the process of Jenkins explaining the process “we must ultimately
take it on faith that these events are somehow united by the geist of
convergence.” (Sinnreich, 2007: 44) He demonstrates there is some weight
behind his ideas on modern communications culture by presenting six case
studies, but all only manage to imply the validity of the thesis as opposed to
construcing an clear, logical connection.
According to these ideas, the audience are looking beyond what
platform they use to obtain the content, happily dividing their attentions
across many of them and using each for different purposes. As such, this
convergence and his idea that “companies may be forced to renegotiate their
relationship with consumers” (2006: 243) provide a valuable centrepiece to
an analysis of how audience consumption has been affected by the
5
relationship between television and the Internet. This ‘renegotiation’ is what

will shape the future of both platforms, and as such, understanding the
audience is a key consideration for those in the industry.
6
PROGRAMMING REACHING ITS AUDIENCE
Firstly, it is important to know the size of the audience and their levels
of consumption, how frequently they use both the Internet and television sets
to watch videos and television programming. This gives insight into the
levels and type of provision the media should be supplying to the platform.
Essentially, the relationship between the Internet and television is governed
by its ability “to deliver an audience to advertisers”. (Alperstein, 2005: 2)
It makes sense to begin reviewing these figures by looking at those of
the oldest content provider, looking at the numbers viewing programming on
a television. Using the founding of the Internet’s largest video platform
(YouTube - February 2003) as a starting point, we can see that the amount of
time spent viewing the television has remained stable, if not increased. From
27 hours, 53 minutes per person per month then, it reached 28 hours, 14
minutes upon the launch of iPlayer in December 2007 and currently stands at
28 hours, 16 minutes as of March 2010. Television viewership then remains
strong.
Unfortunately though, reliable figures for the usage of Internet video
are not so prevalent, Livingstone (2004: 8) going so far as to say, “there are
no industry records of audience ratings categorised by demographics”.
There are however some interesting findings in a few reputable surveys.
The first set of figures of relevance is from a survey conducted by ICM
for the BBC in November 2006. In this study, those between the ages of 16-
24 were found to be the biggest users of Internet video, with 28 percent
mentioning how they viewed in excess of one per week, compared to 13
percent of 25-34 year olds and less than 7 percent of those older. The poll
also reported that 43 percent of Britons had started to watch less television
as a result of having access to either online videos.
With this research having being undertaken before the creation of any
real provider of “long form (10 minutes or greater)” (Poole and Bradley, 2003:
56) video online, these statistics are interesting to compare with my findings.
They should provide insight into what change, if any, such provision has
7
produced.
One other set of audience statistics of great interest is that of the “3
Screen Report” undertaken by The Neilsen Company in the United States.
The report publishes statistics on video consumption over three platforms;
those of the Internet, television and mobile phones, obtaining its data from a
mixture of surveys and the collection of electronic usage reports from both
the Internet and television audience. The results of this are published
quarterly and the study began in the first half of 2008, allowing a level of
insight into trends that have developed over the last two years in this quickly
expanding area of the industry.
The findings of the most recent “3 Screen Report” show that older
viewers that make up the greater number of users, with 30 percent of the
audience for online content aged 35-49, compared to 24 percent aged 18-
34. Those aged 18-24 (6:35) and 25-34 (4:58) view around twice as much
content in hours per month, however, when compared to those in other
demographics (range between 1:25 and 3:40).
The most recent statistics in the area of online video in the UK are
those published by comScore in April 2010. In this report, the amount of
videos viewed online on a range of video content sites were compared to
figures from one year earlier providing an insight into the growth of the
Internet as a platform. The findings show that there has been an increase in
consumption across the board, with 37 percent more videos viewed on all
sites in February 2010 than in the same period last year; a total of 5.5 billion
videos.
The statistics in this study include a breakdown of the age
demographics for the viewers of online video hosted by the terrestrial
television broadcasters, namely the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. Information is
provided on the composition index of viewers and how many videos on
average they viewed. Age bands were set at 15-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54 and
55+.
The data shows a somewhat different spread of viewers than that of
The Neilsen Company’s findings, with those aged 35-44 (17.5, 20.9 and 13.5)
8
watching more videos per individual than those aged 25-34 (15, 17.4 and
12.1) across every one of the sites. Even more interestingly, every other age
group had more individual viewers to both the BBC and ITV sites than that of
the 15-24 demographic. This suggests though that the audience behaviours
in the UK may differ to those of American audiences, and, as a result, the
findings generated from comparisons with the ‘3 Screens Report’ may be
flawed. It will however provide an interesting comparison.
Six of the ten sites most popular sites were also shown to have at
least doubled the number of videos viewed using them as a platform over the
past year, including those of the BBC (143% growth), and ITV (134%)
alongside less mainstream providers such as Blinkx (204%) and Megavideo
(103%). In those channels, without a link to a major broadcaster, there are
areas of particular interest with regards to the audience consumption of
television.
Loebbecke and Fischer produced a paper entitled “Pay TV Piracy and
Its Effects On Pay TV Provision” which highlights a number of concerns held
by commercial broadcasters when considering the effects of the Internet. In
their study, they concentrate on the ways pirate subscription television can
be obtained through the Internet, highlighting six methods of “illegally
decoding CAS [Conditional Access Systems] encryption” (2005: 26) in order
to obtain subscription television services through a set top box without
paying. Piracy on the Intenet was considered by The European Commission
to be its use as an outlet to find “manuals for manipulating smart cards…
and for decoding keys that can be downloaded”. (Loebbecke and Fisher,
2005: 23)
However, Loebbecke and Fischer note that “the rapidly spreading
Internet, has promoted the growth of pay TV piracy” (2005:1) and given the
expansion of streaming websites and there are certainly concerns that “the
rise of file sharing threaten[s] old ways of doing business”. (Jenkins, 2006:
243)
Indeed, their suggestions of “decreasing their subscription costs and
”more frequently… changing their decoding keys” (Lebbecke and Fischer,
9
2005: 29) are less likely to change the behaviours of that share of the
audience when the alternative is not “a cheaper, illegal pirate” option
(Lebbecke and Fischer, 2005: 30) but a free one. The speed with which
illegal Internet television sources are growing their audience and providing
free easy access to programming can be assumed to be making it more
likely than in 2005 that pay TV stations would “consequently lose their
customers”. (2005: 27)
10
AUDIENCE BEHAVIOURS
Understanding the nature of the audience then is just as important as

knowing just the quantity of viewers and what they view. Study into how
they consume the programming when they are watching television allows for
insights to be that may guide the levels of convergence in future. Indeed, if a
significant proportion of the audience finds it has no use for something, such
as ‘Internet-TV’, then it makes sense that the nature of relationships at their
convergence will change.
A leading paper on the power of the audience in what media they
chose to consume and how is, “Utilization of Mass Communication By the
Individual”. (Blulmer, Katz and Gurevitch, 1974) They set out in this paper
how “gratifications studies have demonstrated that one and the same set of
media materials is capable of serving a multiplicity of needs and audience
functions” (Blumer, Katz and Gurevitch, 1974: 44) and conclude by
establishing “the audience as a source of challenge to producers to cater…
to the multiplicity of requirements and roles” (Blumer, Katz and Gurevitch,
1974: 48) that they expect from the media.
By proposing that the audience has a set of needs they require from
the process of media consumption, they establish the idea that the audience
will find gratification for these needs among various sources; “some kind of
division of labour among the media for the satisfaction of audience needs”.
(Blumer, Katz and Gurevitch, 1974: 42)
In the years since this paper was published however, the amount of
media content available to the audience has grown considerably; a level of
choice which sits well with the idea that the audience makes its decisions
upon what to consume with considerable thought. It stands to reason that
this “division of labour” will have also been considerably altered in response
and audience consumption will have changed with it.
In 2000, Thomas E. Ruggiero published his paper, “'Uses and
Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century”, in an effort to apply the theories of
outlined in the above study to the new media landscape and audience needs
11
that had evolved since 1974. Drawing upon the ideas of the Perse and Dunn
(1998) he notes how “personal computers may be displacing the use of
traditional media” as “they are increasingly filling similar needs”, (Ruggiero,
2000: 17) and how “different individuals tend to display different types and
amounts of activity in different communication settings and at different
times”. (Ruggiero, 2000: 8)
Within his own work Ruggiero addresses the criticisms of the theory,
noting, “mass communication scholars have contended uses and
gratifications is not a rigorous social science”. (2000: 1) Citing White (1994)
he mentions how “the U&G theory overextends its reach in asserting that
people are free to choose the media fare and interpretations they want”.
(Ruggiero, 2000:11) Indeed, the presence and reach of major broadcasters,
not to mention media conglomerates with other sources of mass media
output, has grown along with the Internet. It will, surely then, still have a
considerable impact on the habits of the audience given its increased
presence and availability.
Still, he notes that Gilder (1990) sees that development of the “Internet
will empower users” (Ruggiero, 2000: 29) and given the increase in content
providers available on line and the amount of ‘user-generated content’
(Childs, 2003 cited by Livingstone, 2004: 2) it could indeed be the case that
“any attempt to speculate on the future direction of mass communication
theory must seriously include the uses and gratifications approach”.
(Ruggiero, 2000: 1)
Still though, being ten years old in a quickly evolving sector of the
media industry, the paper can be considered dated to an extent. It makes
limited reference specifically to Internet television, instead considering the
Internet as a platform to fulfil communication needs within the audience, yet
it is important in showing theoretical developments.
Sonia Livingstone begins to address Jenkins’ ideas of an audience
obtaining their content across a variety of platforms, noticing how “users of
new media are increasingly active… and they are increasingly plural”.
(Livingstone, 2004: 4) She also mentions though that the Internet is difficult to
12
assess as an audience theorist given that “a survey about an evening’s

viewing is tricky but my no means as tricky as recording an evening’s surfing,
game playing or instant messaging”. (Livingstone, 2004: 8)
Essentially, an audience member’s use for the Internet could be one of
many things, and with this increasing plurality comes a difficulty in assessing
their relationship with Internet television amid everything else. This, combined
with her noticing that theorists “tend to defer the study of audiences and
users of new information and communication technologies to the last stage
in a long chain” (Livingstone, 2004: 3) the reason for a lack of abundance in
relevant studies becomes clear.
Still, in her statement that the audience now “routinely multitask
across platforms and applications” (Livingstone, 2004: 8) an interesting
question with regards to whether the new “celebrated, resistant, active
audience” (Livingstone, 2004: 3) is still just as active in interpreting the texts
they view comes up.
Neil Alperstein undertook a survey of college students in 2005; looking
at how they used the media and paying particular attention to how attentive
they were when engaged in simultaneous media use. In his report, he
mentions how Gunter and Furnham (1995) reported “40 percent of the time
viewers are in front of the television, they are not looking at the screen”
(Alperstein, 2005: 6) and his own research presents the figures that “88
percent of... college students surveyed used media simultaneously”.
(Alperstein, 2005: 20)
Also of interest is a set of statistics in the “3 Screen Report” (2010)
that finds that 59 percent of American’s use their televisions and the Internet
simultaneously at least once a month. Furthermore, between December
2008 and December 2009 the amount of time they spent doing so had
increased by 34.5 percent, although this was still only a period of three and a
half hours per month.
While Gunter and Furnham show television to be a broadcasting
format prone to having a distracted audience prior to the Internet, the
indication is that the television consumption among the 18-24 year old age
13
group may be considerably affected by its presence.

One of the suggestions Alperstein makes as a result of his findings is
that there may be “a shift toward more individualized or private consumption
of media” (2005: 17) and in order to test the validity of a claim such as this
use of television as a social medium needs to be reviewed.
James et al (1995) are cited as saying, “suggested Internet forums

such as electronic bulletin boards fulfil many expectations of both mass and
interpersonal communication” (Ruggiero, 2000: 27) and similarly Jenkins’
ideas on “transmedia storytelling” (2006: 96) also include online discussions
as a key component.
Yet television is also an activity that is undertaken with company, as
the studies of James Lull suggest. His 1980 paper, “Family Communication
Patterns and the Social Uses of Television” studied 85 families using a
mixture of observation and interviews in order to study how different families
use the watching of television within their home to achieve social
gratifications.
In it, he found that the television audience does indeed “recognise the
utility of television as a social resource”, (Lull, 1980: 333) but that the uses of
television differed between different types of people. In this case, he noticed
differences between socio-centred and concept-centred families, where
“socio-centred families have high levels of total television viewing” (Lull,
1980: 321) and “employ the medium for a variety of social purposes not so
used by their concept-oriented peers”. (Lull, 1980: 329) These findings
indicate that there may be a number of different reasons given by for
television audiences for their viewing habits, though such family related
specifics will be absent from the results of this project.
Given the study is now 30 years old, and that the media landscape
has been altered considerably in the intervening years, looking at this study
will allow some insight into whether there has been a change in the audience
use of television in this way. Indeed, by comparing such findings to the
thoughts of Jenkins and Ruggiero, who believe the Internet may now fulfil
14
some of the social uses of the Internet, an interesting element of media

convergence could be highlighted.
15
INVESTIGATION
(i) AREA OF RESEARCH
Briefly, the main areas of questioning within my study are:
1) The frequency with which the audience watches television

programming and how it receives the programming.
2) What the audience desire from their viewing experience and how the
Internet is associated with it.
To gain insight into the former, I shall be asking simply how often the
respondent watches a piece of television programming using the television or
the Internet and its various sources.
For the latter, there are three key things which the questions are
attempting to gain an insight into, namely: if the Internet is used as a regular
platform to view programming, if the Internet distracts from the programming
in any way, and the use of the Internet with regards to the social aspects of
viewing television programming. These questions should help to ascertain
what people see the ‘uses’ of television to be; whether Internet television
succeeds in delivering television in a way the audience want.
(ii) METHODOLOGY
I decided upon commencing that I would undertake this study using

the data-finding methodology of quantitative research, in order to provide
quantifiable evidence for any trends in viewing figures, habits and methods of
programming consumption. This would be administrated through the
distribution of a questionnaire. I believe that this is a suitable way to
approach this topic, as some empirical evidence is certainly required in order
to prove or disprove the effects that the Internet has had upon the viewing of
16
television programming. As I am trying to find indicators of particular trends,

I feel a method that leaves me with raw data to analyse is highly appropriate.
My study bears a resemblance to that undertaken by Mojsa and Rettie

in 2002, “Attitudes to Internet Advertising: A Cross Cultural Comparison.”
This study consisted of a quantitative survey of 200 students in response to
US studies in the same field, in order to obtain comparisons as well as
generate new information. In it, the participants were asked sixteen
questions, all based around the five point Likert scale as I used myself for six
of the twelve questions. Obviously though, where their area of study was
Internet advertising, mine is Internet television.
Ten people in each of three different target age ranges received a
copy of the questionnaire allowing for a comparison of analysing any age
related trends. Group A was that of people aged around 16-24, people who
would have been young children at around the time of the mass consumer
uptake of the Internet, and who could therefore be reasonably expected to
have grown up with familiarity and access to the medium. My belief is that
this demographic, now reasonably mature and with freedoms and autonomy
with regards to their consumption, will offer the best possible indication as to
any trends which offer a chance of causing further changes.
In addition, I had also distributed two more sets of questionnaires to
people of the age range 25-34 (group B), people who would have been of a
similar age as the respondents in the first group when the Internet was
starting to become a mainstream form of media. Lastly, group C contained
those aged 35+, people who would have been without any exposure to the
Internet at school, if indeed at all, during their youth.
In addition to them being appropriate in terms of their developmental
exposure, these age ranges will also allow me to compare them directly to
the ICM study from 2006, whilst the Three Screen Reports also mentioned in
my critical review use similar age groups aside from further stratifying those
over 35.
The study used quota sampling in order to obtain the required number
17
of questionnaires, resulting in a sample that is neither random nor

representative of the population. However, I feel that the ways in which the
groups are split allows for a reasonable cross section generationally, bearing
in mind that one of the aims of the study is to attempt to find any trends that
may continue to affect the two platforms in the years to come. In this
instance a focus among the younger members of society could be beneficial.
Unfortunately too, the number of people within the sample is
somewhat small and this serves to impact upon the reliability of the study as
a whole. However, it can still serve to give some indication of audience
patterns within the targeted age groups.
Initially I was also contemplating the inclusion of a more open
interview-based approach in order to see if any unforeseen points of interest
came up. However, based upon the level of detail given in response to the
testing of the questionnaire I attempted it a more pared down approach with
a structured/semi-structured basis was adopted. This would ensure that the
responses I got were all full enough to work with, as well as not so long and
differing as to render it somewhat troublesome to form the respondents
opinions into clear results.
Semi-structuring allowed for the easier spotting of indications that
trends are forming; the use of Likert scales allowing mathematical
representations of responses to be easily formed. The scales were used with
the distribution range of never, once a month, once a fortnight, weekly and
daily which were, whilst not specific enough to provide statistics such as a
general number of viewing hours, are able to present a broad indication of
the habits of those within the sample.
At the end of the questionnaire there were then still a few open-ended
questions that remained, all except one relating to a question previously
asked. These questions were included in order to obtain a little more detail
about why they may be unsatisfied with the state of Internet television. It
should also help to illustrate what the audience perceive the ‘uses’ of
television to be in the modern day. These two topics are cornerstones in
establishing the extent to which audience consumption of television
18
programming is open to the convergence between television and the

Internet.
Once these results were gathered in this manner, I then began a
statistical analysis of them in an effort to ascertain whether there is any
indication of trends, habits or attitudes present in the participants’ viewing
habits.
19
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
In this section of the investigation, I analyse the results obtained from

the questionnaires received from groups A, B and C individually, and
highlight anything that stands out as significant. Then I look at the combined
results of all three groups together in order to get an indication of the
relationship between television and the Internet at this point in time. In the
findings, I then look at these results in comparison to other studies and
literature in the field.
As previously mentioned however, these results do have to be
considered far from conclusive. There is a small survey sample of only ten
people for each group and they were chosen without stratification; it can be
merely a guide, not a representation of the actual population.
(i) THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THE AUDIENCE WATCHES

TELEVISION AND HOW IT RECEIVES THE PROGRAMMING.
In group A, every single respondent said that they still watched

television programming on a weekly basis, with the 80 percent majority
saying it was a daily thing. The figures from groups B and C were similar,
with everyone again saying that the viewing of television programming was a
weekly pastime at worst. However, 70 percent of the people within group
B’s 25-34 age range were daily viewers, a figure matched by group C.
Undeniably then, television programmes are still popular and an important
part of the day-to-day lives of the respondents, although it appears to be
slightly less important with age.
When asking participants how often they use a television to view the
programming (Table 2) some surprising results were found. 30 percent of
people in group A indicating that the Internet is their main form of television
viewing. Indeed, whilst everyone in both groups B and C matched their
answers to the first question, 50 percent of those in group A changed theirs.
It appears that there is indeed a shift, then, within this youngest demographic
20
toward Internet television viewing, with only half of those who watch
television on a daily basis using a television set, compared to all of the
corresponding group B and C’s.
Even more surprisingly, it appears that those 4 respondents who do
watch Internet television on a daily basis do not even watch the television at
all. This could very well be as a result of their not possessing a set, maybe
deciding that they are perfectly happy with the quality received through
Internet television.
Upon discussing the question of whether the Internet was used as a
platform for viewing programming (table 3) even larger discrepancies than
expected appeared between the groups. Within group A the majority of
those questioned still professed to viewing a television show on a daily basis,
though this time at a figure of 60 percent. One respondent did say, however,
that they never watched television programming over the Internet. Therefore,
only 90 percent of group A can be considered Internet television audience
members on, at a minimum, a weekly basis. Yet, the youngest demographic
was again the one which appeared to embrace the idea of Internet television
the most.
Group B also provided something of an expected result, with again 10
percent fewer people than in group A indicating that they viewed television
programmes over the Internet on a daily basis. Of the remaining 50 percent,
40 percent were weekly viewers though, so both groups A and B have 90
percent of respondents using Internet television weekly.
Group C is fairly interesting, with a large split between those that do
watch television on the Internet at least weekly (50%, with 10% daily)
compared to 20 percent who watch monthly, and 30 percent who never view
Internet television at all. Again, there is no real surprise in the elder group
showing something of a drop off, but the disparity between the two is
somewhat unexpected. It would be interesting to know more about the
demographic of the respondents in order to theorise upon the reasons for
this, whether jobs or family are a factor.
Just over two thirds of the respondents then watch Internet television
21
on a weekly basis, with 22 out of the 30 stating this in their viewing habits.
Interesting to note is how over half of those questioned watch Internet
television daily, despite only one of those over 35 being in that number. This
again goes some way toward indicating how there is a generational gap with
regards to the uptake of Internet television viewing.
The fourth question (table 4) is one in which the frequency of answers
given by the respondents drops considerably more than I would have
expected. Within group A only 30 percent of people claimed to use an illegal
torrent or streaming site weekly, despite three times as many people using
the Internet for television during that time. Two others claimed to use them
fortnightly, with four accessing programming illegally on a monthly basis.
With groups B and C the results are largely as would be expected
from the responses received to the previous question. The vast majority of
those who view Internet television regularly also undertake the viewing of
some programmes using illegal means. Twenty percent of each group said
they never used sites unaffiliated to those of the broadcasters of the shows,
and similarly twenty percent less than used Internet television used those
sites daily.
There is no surprise here in that almost everyone does view an illegal
programme at some point, although the recorded frequency is lower than I
expected in group A. Still, the question was one about undertaking illegal
activity and this may have altered the legitimacy of their responses; it is an
unexpected result in theory that is certainly understandable in practice. Even
so, when 73 percent of the respondents stating that they access
programmes from such sources, and 50 percent do so on a weekly basis, a
possible area for concern for programme makers and broadcasters is
certainly highlighted.
When asked why they chose to use one of the unaffiliated sites at any
point however, there were a large variety of different reasons put forward;
many respondents choosing to give more than one, and in one case as many
as six.
Despite minor differences in the phraseology, there were two
22
particular reasons that at least half of those respondents that view content on
these sites brought up. Eleven of them mentioned that they did it when they
had issues with the legal video platforms (50%), whilst sixteen (73%) did so
when accessing what would otherwise be unavailable content, either in it
only being available abroad or on a subscription channel.
The fact around half of those questioned reported problems with the
current online video platforms (ITV player, 4oD, Demand Five and iPlayer) is
possibly grounds for concern among those involved. However, given as the
nature of the complaints were usually transient (“when iPlayer is loading
slowly”) or purely aesthetic (“I don’t like how ITV player looks or 4oD does
downloads”) it probably is not too big an issue, especially when you consider
even the oldest of these services has not been around for 3 years yet.
The latter though, could possibly indicate that there is a market for
subscription stations to provide a platform for viewing their content on, with
those channels currently only available through digital satellite currently
somewhat conspicuous by their absence. The two people that complained
that they could not get Sky due to living in halls may be the type to consider
such a service.
However, given that purchasing a Sky subscription is already an
option for the majority, those 36 percent who use streaming sites to watch
football or wrestling are likely doing it in order to avoid the cost. The other
significant proportion (45%) mentioned that the content had aired elsewhere,
but was currently unavailable here with people mentioning ‘24’, ‘House’ and
‘Fringe’ as examples of shows they download. Going from these results,
restricting access to content like this does appear to be a challenge the
industry has to face, more so than ensuring their services are working well.
(ii) WHAT THE AUDIENCE DESIRE FROM THEIR VIEWING

EXPERIENCE AND HOW THE INTERNET IS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
In the first of this category of questions (table 5) we begin to look at

what the audience uses television programming for, in this case whether they
23
see it still as a shared social experience. In this question, we have the

second instance of the frequency increasing with age. 60 percent of those in
group A viewing television company on a weekly basis compared to 70
percent in group B and the entirety of group C. Indeed, over half of group C
watch with company on a daily basis compared with 10 percent of group A
and 20 percent of group B.
This result is particularly interesting when looked at along with the
results in table 2. In doing so you can hypothesise that almost every time a
member of group C watches the television, and they do so with someone in
their company. Television is certainly part of the social experience for those
questioned who were aged over 35, and this could lie in how they would be
of the age to have a settled family life.
Similar ideas about the lifestyles could also account for the results of
those in the other age bands. Those aged 16-24 are most likely primarily
students, house sharing with people on different timetables possibly
accounting for the fact they watch television with others on a regular basis,
but not daily. Those in the 25-34 age bracket may have families and partners,
accounting for the 20 percent rise, whilst others may be single or more
career driven so have less opportunity to watch with others when at home.
Included next was a comparison question with regards to the social
wants of the television audience; question six (table 6) looking into whether
discussion and reaction to television programming in a virtual environment
was as common as the watching of television in company. This question is
significant in assessing whether the audience has the desire to discuss what
they view with others, outside of their company or if they had none.
Unsurprisingly, group A is again the leader in such communications
with 70 percent of them indicating that they did so at least once a week and
only 20 percent that they never do so.
The responses to this question demonstrated far more equality
between the three groups than I thought it would. With groups B and,
especially, C undertaking more television viewing in the company of others I
thought there would be a significant reduction in the number feeling the need
24
to discuss the programming elsewhere. Instead, it appears that public

discussion online is now a valuable addition of the experience an audience
derives from a television programme and as a result of this 60 percent of
those questioned overall took part.
Question 8 (table 8) is a question specifically regarding the direct
impact of the Internet’s presence upon the viewing experience, whether or
not it was the transmission platform. In response to it, the majority of the
respondents (63%) said that the Internet distracted them from watching the
television at times. Those aged 35+ appeared be less prone to the problem
though, with only half of them considering it an issue.
When asked how this distraction manifested itself however, the
responses to question ten were intriguing, mainly because the reasons given
for were almost always exactly the same. Indeed, of people who do find
themselves distracted by the Internet, 82 percent of them mentioned the
same reason. The sounds of an online message or an email appear to be the
primary offender in distracting people; the distraction for the other 18 percent
being a compulsion to research something they had seen or, simply,
because “its there”.
Interestingly though, without being prompted to mention when they
were distracted during the programming, 36 percent of those who were
mentioned that the distraction occurred during the advertisements. Many of
the responses were prefixed or suffixed with phrases such as “during the
ads”, “when the adverts come on” and “in the break”. Such a result is
interesting with regards to its possible impact of the future of commercial
television when faced with these audience patterns.
The final question that was asked had the respondents comparing
their experiences of viewing programming on a television set to viewing it on
the Internet when with company. This provides some indication as to the
reasons people have for choosing one platform over another in a social
context; a context which the study has found to be frequent for the majority.
Generally, those who responded did so by expressing dissatisfaction
with the Internet as a viewing platform as opposed to noting anything good
25
about a television set, with 73 percent of the answers given to this question
falling into the former category. Some of the responses given were, again,
specific to particular sites finding that “4oD’s adverts are annoying” or that
“Megavideo always has loads of pop-up screens”, issues again that do not
point to overall trends.
There were also indications though that using the Internet, as opposed
to the television, impacted upon the enjoyment of the viewing experience.
Indeed, 64 percent mentioned issues with the delay of streaming Internet
video, one commenting, “if it starts to stop all the time with someone else
there, it just feels awkward” whilst plenty of others used the words “lag”,
“freeze” and “slow” in their responses.
Also relevant are the 21 percent who indicated that there were
practical problems with regards to the social viewing of Internet television.
These included that “having to get up to change programmes is the worst
thing if you’ve just got comfy” and that it is “awkward to know where to put
the laptop watching it… the screen is too small to be far away, but it gets too
hot to put on your lap”. Such problems show the active audience is very
specific in what it wants when consuming media content and that the
platform can be just as important as the programming.
26
FINDINGS
Firstly, there are a couple of very basic conclusions that can be drawn
from the results that are still worth mentioning. People do still seem to have
a strong appetite for viewing television shows, with the majority of
respondents watching on a weekly basis, and this sits well with the BARB
ratings figures.
Furthermore, the television is still the main platform for television
viewing amongst for the majority of the respondents; only those within the
youngest demographic appeared to use the Internet to watch television to
the same or a greater extent. However, 77 percent of respondents did say
they watched television over the Internet on at least a weekly basis; itself a
strong figure and something the “3 Screen Report” (The Neilsen Company,
2010) suggested would be the case.
This does suggest then that the idea “online services are often a
substitute for TV viewing” (Thielman and Dowling, 1999: 4) has not developed
into a large-scale migration from a television audience to that of an Internet
video audience. The huge decrease from the 67 percent of people saying
they would "never watch and cannot envisage watching" (ICM, 2006) online
video, along with the increase in consumer choice, suggest television
audience figures are not going to be considerably affected by online video.
Yet, despite this, 65 percent of 16-34 year olds questioned said they
would consider selling their television and access programmes through the
Internet, demonstrating that people do not feel the same attachment to the
television set as they did as few as four years ago. It could be that Ruggiero
is correct in thinking that “personal computers may be displacing the use of
traditional media”. (2000: 14)
One of the primary factors in this, outside of Internet television being
more widely available, could be the accessibility to content they would not
otherwise be able to view on the television. As mentioned in my results,
around half (45%) of those who used torrent and streaming sites unaffiliated
with broadcasters did so to view either subscription channel content, or that
27
which was only available abroad at the time.

Indeed, “several pay TV providers have reported losses for the past few
years due to… falling revenues caused by pay TV piracy” (Loebbeke and
Fischer, 2005: 21) something that supports the idea of a significant number
of people obtaining access to subscription television content on sites that are
hosting copyrighted material they have no rights to. The fact that, according
to the comScore data from April 2010, web platforms of broadcasters such
as Channel 4 (39.3m) and ITV (28.2m) are obtaining similar online video
viewing figures as Dailymotion (31.4m) and Megavideo (53.5m) pay testament
to that.
Still, this method of obtaining content “only reduces demand and
revenue if we assume that the pirates would alternatively pay for the
subscription”. (Loebbeke and Fischer, 2005: 28) Or, indeed, that they would
wait for the latest episodes of their favourite shows to be broadcast legally.
However, with the prominent "spoiler community" (Jenkins, 2006: 54) and the
audience knowing the shows are there to be accessed this may be
something they are not willing to do.
Another thing apparent from the results of the study is the distraction of
the Internet itself on the audience; over 63 percent of those questioned
responded in the affirmative when asked whether the Internet served to
disrupt their television viewing experiences. This, when considered
alongside the findings showing 59 percent of people using the Internet and
television at the same time regularly, (The Neilsen Report, 2010) indicates
Alperstein’s suggestion that “concurrent behaviours while watching television
and simultaneous media use are integrally woven into the fabric of everyday
life” (2005: 20) could indeed be correct.
Interesting as it was to find more than half of the respondents found
that they were distracted from their viewing by the Internet, it is just as
important to consider the reasons the respondents disclosed for this
distraction. The most common reason cited was undoubtedly some form of
Internet communication, but the fact 36 percent of respondents mentioned
how they were more distracted during the advertisement breaks is
28
interesting.
This amount of Internet usage whilst watching programming, alongside
Alperstein’s findings that “only 4.6 percent of the respondents said they were
highly likely to look up from their computer in order to pay attention to the
television when a commercial came on”, (2005: 16) indicates that television
advertising audiences are, in terms of active viewers, not quite so numerous
as those of programming audience.
Harry Jenkins notes a shift in the idea of the audience over the last ten
years; the idea that “if the old consumers were assumed to be passive, new
consumers are active.” (2006: 18) The television audience are now required
to make more effort to find the content they want due to the advent of multi-
channel television and the on-demand nature of Internet television. This,
coupled with their rejection of traditional television components such as the
advertisements when offered another choice, shows the audience as a whole
to be an active one.
Yet it appears that the audience is often an audience to both the
Internet and television at the same time. It may be that they are an active
audience when their attention is on the television, but the interactivity and
immersion of the Internet is, at times, preventing them from even engaging
with the programming they have selected, making them passive. Rather than
being an active television audience then, emails and social networking sites
are co-existing with broadcast media in order to provide gratifications for the
user.
As Ruggiero concludes it could be time “to question stock assumptions
about the active audience concept”, (2000: 26) referring as it does to the
consumption of one form of media at a time where now “all audience
members are not equally active at all times”. (Ruggiero, 2000: 26)
These findings, of course, are something that should be of great
concern to those in commercial broadcasting where already “major
broadcast networks are attracting a smaller slice of the [revenue] pie as
audience fragmentation continues” (Jenkins, 2006: 66). Any indication that
those viewing the programming may not be viewing the channel with
29
“consumers… showing a declining loyalty to networks” (Jenkins, 2006: 19),

and then that those viewing the channel may be paying no attention to the
adverts can be of no benefit to their future security.
Interesting findings can also be drawn from the study in relation to the
social applications of television, and how that has altered in response to the
Internet. The data regarding how frequently communal viewing occurs shows
the future of watching television as a social activity to be strong, one third of
the respondents saying they watch programmes in company daily whilst 76
percent do so at least weekly.
This result then is far more supportive of the established ideas of Kubey
and Csikszentmihayi (1990) that “socializing, is an important part of the
greater television experience” (Alperstein, 2005: 3) than it is to the
speculation of Neil Alperstein himself who said his study “may indicate a shift
toward more individualized or private consumption of media” (2005: 17)
The statistics regarding the use of a television set for viewing in
comparison to the frequency of viewing the television in company make for
more interesting reading though, given that there is a much closer
resemblance in the two among the older respondents than was found in the
16-24 year olds. I proposed the idea that this may be as a result of a family
influence, and this sits well with the James Lull who acknowledged how the
family uses “the medium is also used… as a resource for conversational
topics and for providing a desirable social activity - the viewing experience.”
(1980: 331)
Indeed, his further findings that the audience “use it [television] often
and in various ways as a resource for constructing their desired social
realities at home“ (Lull, 1980: 333) could indicate why 70 percent of the
respondents over the age of 25 watch programming on a television set daily;
by viewing it in such a manner, they encourage family interactivity.
Lull’s findings may also explain the disparity within the 25-34 age range,
his findings that “concept-oriented family members have relatively low
television consumption overall” (1980: 321) could point to their difference
from socio-orientated families being significant. This would not explain the
30
fact those at 35+ appear to be more inclined to view television socially again
though, yet given the small sample any of these results may be unreliable.
In a social situation too, the dislikes for aspects of the Internet television
experience that are raised are reaffirming. With a television set you can be
“sitting quietly on the sofa” (Livingstone, 2004: 10) in a prominent room of the
house watching content delivered with immediacy, a situation far more open
to social interactions occurring than the “small screen” and “slow streaming”
mentioned by the respondents of this study.
Similarly, the 21 percent who mentioned practical issues with regards to
watching Internet television in company demonstrate a desire possibly for an
element of technological convergence. They have attempted to watch
Internet television socially, and are therefore clearly receptive to the idea.
However, issues such as “having to get up to change the programme” and
the “screen being too small” on their laptop. As Thielman and Dowling noted
then in 1999, “PC-based television faces quality or convenience limitations to
become an equivalent substitute” (p. 5) and over ten years later, this still
appears to be the case.
Still, despite the regular consumption of content in company, a
significant proportion (60%) of those questioned use the Internet to discuss
television programming at least once a week, again demonstrating the inter-
relation of the two platforms in providing the audiences with gratification.
This statistic would definitely back up Jenkins’ idea that the audience over
the Internet are “collaborating to ensure that everyone who invests time and
effort will come away with a richer entertainment experience”. (2006: 21) As
their actions towards advertisements show, if this new level of active
audience didn’t gain anything from it, they would not be slow to respond
accordingly.
31
CONCLUSIONS
(i) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results of the study have shown, as expected, that the Internet
has had an impact on how television is consumed. There has been a
substantial increase in the frequency with which Internet television platforms
are used since 2006, with those amongst the younger demographics leading
the way as expected.
The attentiveness of the television audience in competing with the
Internet is something that may worry broadcasters, with a large number of
people indicating they simultaneously use both. Indeed, advertisers have
more reason to worry if, as indicated, people move from viewing the
television to browsing the Internet on their commencement. Yet, the
willingness to engage with the actual programmes is still there, maybe even
on a greater level given how many of them discuss the shows online.
There also appears to be a reasonable level of piracy with regards to
the access of content on the Internet as people watch programming from
outside of the authorised sources. Combined with the worries of advertisers,
the future revenue streams of commercial broadcasters could be threatened,
particularly when half of those questioned said they would consider using
only the Internet to view content.
Still though, the appetite for television programming received in the
traditional manner remains. The majority still watch content on television
sets and numerous concerns were expressed with regards to the quality of
Internet platforms. Indeed these issues, combined with the how social
viewing has still shown to be a regular occurrence, suggest there is still
plenty of scope for the traditional manner of television viewing to remain
prominent in the face of the Internet’s competition.
(ii) SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
32
I think further study could, and should, certainly be undertaken into

the area of illegal downloading, using torrents and streaming websites not
authorised by the programme makers or distributors. This is an area in which
I did not go into much depth in the study, but the results of my research
seem to imply that there may be around as many users as there are for legal
video streaming websites.
Insights into this area then may yield important findings, particularly
regarding the urgency of establishing an effective copyright protection
system to prevent the illegal distribution of material. It is clear from my
findings, even with a small and unrepresentative sample, that the Internet has
an issue with restricting the number of people who download content using
illegal means. Although it may seem like a minor issue with regards to the
audience watching the same programming either way, without curbing to
some extent there could very well be a large budgetary issue for
broadcasters, in the near future if some are not struggling already.
In the words of Will Page, the chief economist at the Performing Right
Society, “Doing nothing will see the problem getting worse and worse [but]
neither is disconnecting people from the Internet a good way of increasing
revenues." (Frost, 2009) Therefore, to make the best judgment with regards
to the future of television and its connections with the Internet more
information can be of no harm.
Also, with regards to the Internet, it could be interesting to research
whether the audience is distracted more when using it as a platform for
viewing content than when using a television set. Over half (63%) of the
respondents to the study mentioned that the Internet does distract them from
the programming at times, a similar proportion (59%) to that reported by The
Neilsen Company (2010) in the US as using the Internet and television
simultaneously. As Neil Alperstein quotes Bunn (1982) as pointing out, “the
extent to which television viewers remain ‘present’ during commercial breaks
is an important issue for advertisers and media analysts”. (2005:2)
I also feel that research on this topic would benefit greatly from a
study utilising the observational method of data-finding, namely directly
33
recording data on the usage of a large stratified sample of the population.

From this raw data you would then be able to analyse how much time was
spent on which websites, how much time was spent watching television and
how frequently the two activities were seen to occur concurrently without
having to rely on any subjective judgments or participant errors.
There could, of course, be numerous ethical issues if a study was

undertaken in this manner due to issues regarding intrusion into their privacy,
and behaviour may be changed in a way that user downloaded content
would come from different sources. However, if anonymity could be
guaranteed and ethical concerns resolved, a really insightful dataset could be
produced if developed over a reasonable length of time.
(iii) EVALUATION
With regards to this study, I believe the project to be hampered by a

few flaws that prevent it from being as good as it could be. The open-ended
questions found within the questionnaire would have been improved greatly
by asking them as a separate series of interviews in the data gathering
process. Whilst the responses were detailed enough to attempt a reasoned
analysis in conjunction with the other findings from the questionnaire, the
opportunity to have gone into a little more depth would have bestowed any
conclusions derived from them with more clarity and insight.
Similarly, an increase in the sample size would have resulted in much
more valid and reliable figures upon which I could base my findings. Instead,
they can only be considered suggestive as opposed to truly representative of
the opinions and habits of the population as a whole.
I feel the topic of the project itself is a good and highly relevant one,
examining as it does an issue of key importance to the industry at the
present day. Obviously though, given the nature of innovation in the subject,
the study will become dated relatively quickly as many others in the field
already have.
34
There may have been more benefit if the study was more focused in
looking at the issues with regards to the audience response. I feel the
insights into Internet television as a method of communal viewing are
interesting, but a specific question with regards to the frequency of this
taking place is lacking.
Lastly, the critical review would have benefitted from the existence of
more recent studies into the area of Internet television and more statistics
with regards to the use of illegal steaming and torrent sites. As it stands,
there was only breakdown of the viewing figures received by UK Internet
television platforms, whilst figures on the illegal sites were restricted to how
many visitors it received not what they downloaded or saw. The availability
of this information would allow better comparisons to be made, and for more
reliable and valid conclusions to be drawn.
35
PRIMARY BIBLIOGRPAHY
Lewis, R.O. (2009). Questionnaire On the Internet and Television Viewing

Habits. Date Completed 19 Dec 2009.
i
SECONDARY BIBLIOGRPAHY
Alperstein, N. M. (2005). Living in an age of distraction: Mulititasking and

simultaneous media use and the implications for advertisers (Research
report): Loyola College, MD.
This version available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1473864
BARB. (2010). Monthly Multi-Channel Viewing Summary. Available:

http://www.barb.co.uk/report/monthlyViewing
BARB. (2009). Monthly Total Viewing Summary 1992-2009. Available:

http://www.barb.co.uk/report/monthlyViewingSummaryOverview
Blumler, J., E. Katz and M. Gurevitch (1974). Utilization of mass

communication by the individual. In: J. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.). The uses of
mass communication: Current perspectives on gratifications Research.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 19–34.
Bryant, Jennings and J. Alison Bryant. (2001). Television and the American
Family. London: Routeledge.
Coffman, K.G and A.M. Odlyzko. (1998). The Size and Growth Rate of the
Internet. AT&T Labs.
This version available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.28.1057&rep=rep
1&type=pdf
Held, Gilbert. (2006). Understanding IPTV. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
ICM Research. (2006). Online Mobile Video Online, November 2006. [Data
File]
Available:
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/pdfs/2006_november_bbc_online_mobile_vid
eo_online.pdf
ICM Research. (2006). Online Mobile Video Online, November 2006. [Data
File]
Available:
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/pdfs/2006_november_bbc_online_mobile_vid
eo_telephone.pdf
Jenkins, Henry. (2006). Convergence Culture – Where Old and New Media
Collide. New York, NY: NYU Press.
Lavery, David. (2010). The Essential Cult TV Reader. Lexington, KY:

University of Kentucky Press.
ii
Livingstone, Sonia (2004) The challenge of changing audiences: or, what is

the audience researcher to do in the age of the Internet? European journal of
communication, 19:1. 75-86.
Loebbecke, Claudia and Matthias Fischer (2005). Pay TV Piracy and its
Effects on Pay TV Provision, Journal of Media Business Studies. 2:2, 17-34.
Lull, James. (1980). Family Communication Patterns and the Social Uses of
Television. Communication Research. 7:3, 319-333.
Lull, James. (1990). Inside Family’s Viewing – Ethnographic Research On

Television’s Audience. London: Routeledge.
Mojsa, Magdalena and Rettie, Ruth (2003) Attitudes to internet marketing: a

cross-cultural comparison. Kingston upon Thames: Kingston Business
School, Kingston University.
Nabi, James and Mary Beth Oliver. (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Media
Processes and Effects. London: SAGE Publications.
Orlik, Peter B. and Louis A. Day. (2007). Exploring electronic media:

chronicles and challenges. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Poole, Curtis and Janette Bradley. (2003). Developer's digital media

reference: new tools, new methods. Oxford: Focal Press.
Ruggiero, Thomas E. (2000). 'Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st

Century', Mass Communication and Society, 3:1, 3-37.
Sinnreich, Aram. (2007). ‘Come Together, Right Now: We Know Something’s

Happening. But We Don’t Know What It Is’, International Journal of
Communication, 1: 1, 44-47.
Stempel, Guido Hermann. (2003). Media and Politics In America – A

Reference Handbook. Oxford: ABC-CLIO.
The Neilsen Company. (2010). Three Screen Report, 4Q 2009. [Data File]
Available: http://en-
us.nielsen.com/etc/medialib/nielsen_dotcom/en_us/documents/pdf/three_scr
een_reports.Par.56095.File.dat/3Screens_4Q09_US_rpt.pdf
Thielmann, Bodo and Michael Dowling. (1999). 'Convergence and innovation

strategy for service provision in emerging Web-TV markets', International
Journal on Media Management, 1: 1, 4-9
Valkenburg, Patti M., Marina Kramar, Allerd L. Peeters and Nies M. Marseille.
(1999) 'Developing a scale to assess three styles of television mediation:
“Instructive mediation,” “restrictive mediation,” and “social coviewing”',
iii
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43: 1. 52-66.
iv
INTERNET SOURCES
BBC News. (2010). Introducing UK’s Broadband’s First Customer, Ten Years
On. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8589853.stm. Last
accessed 25 Apr 2010.
ComScore. (2010). U.K. Online Video Viewing Up 37 Percent During Past

Year. Available:
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/4/U.K._Onlin
e_Video_Viewing_Up_37_Percent_During_Past_Year
Frost, Vicky. (2009). Ignore illegal downloading at your peril, music industry
warns TV. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/29/ignore-
illegal-downloading-peril-tv. Last accessed 26 Apr 2010.
Harris, Nick and Katie Nixon. (2010). Pirates v the Premier League – A War
On the Web. Available: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-
and-comment/pirates-v-the-premier-league-a-war-on-the-web-
1798224.html. Last accessed 26 Apr 2010.
The Economist. (2010). Video on the internet: Why are public broadcasters
experimenting with the “peer-to-peer” technology beloved of online pirates?
Available:
http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15582215.
Last accessed 25 Apr 2010.
v
APPENDIX
Questionnaire On the Internet and Television Viewing Habits
Please circle one of the following as describes you.
AGE 16-24 25-34 35+
Please indicate your responses to the following questions with a number on

the following scale:
1 – Never / 2 – Once a Month / 3 – Once a fortnight / 4 – Weekly / 5 – Daily
1) How often do you watch a TV programme?

2) How often do you watch television programming on a television set?
3) How often do you use the Internet to watch a TV programme?
4) How often do you use the Internet to watch a TV programme using a
download unaffiliated with the makers (e.g. Torrent, allsp.com,
WiseVid)?
5) Do you watch TV programmes with company?
6) Do you ever talk about TV programmes with others on the Internet?
Please respond yes or no to the following:
7) Would you consider selling your TV and watching programmes only

with your PC/laptop?
8) Do you find that the Internet distracts you from watching a show?
And lastly, can I have a brief paragraph on the following:
9) If you do use unaffiliated torrents or streaming sites, why do you

make that choice?
10) If the Internet does distract you from viewing a programme, how
does it do so?
11) If you view TV programming over the Internet with company, how
does the experience differ to watching it on a television set?
i
TABLE 1 – How often do respondents watch a TV programme?
16-24 25-34 35+ OVR

Never 0% 0% 0% 0%
Once a Month 0% 0% 0% 0%
Fortnightly 0% 0% 0% 0%
Weekly 20% 30% 30% 27%
Daily 80% 70% 70% 73%
TABLE 2 – How often do respondents watch a TV programme on a

television set?
16-24 25-34 35+ OVR

Never 40% 0% 0% 13%
Weekly 10% 30% 30% 23%
Daily 40% 70% 70% 60%
TABLE 3 – How often do respondents use the Internet to watch a TV

programme?
16-24 25-34 35+ OVR

Never 10% 0% 30% 13%
Weekly 30% 40% 40% 37%
Daily 60% 50% 10% 40%
TABLE 4 - How often respondents use the Internet to watch a TV

programme using a download unaffiliated with the makers (e.g.
Torrent, allsp.com, WiseVid)?
16-24 25-34 35+ OVR

Never 10% 20% 50% 27%
Once a Month 40% 0% 0% 13%
Weekly 30% 40% 40% 37%
Daily 0% 30% 10% 13%
TABLE 5 - Do respondents watch television with company?
16-24 25-34 35+ OVR

Never 0% 0% 0% 0%
Once a Month 10% 10% 0% 7%
ii
Weekly 50% 40% 40% 43%

Daily 10% 30% 60% 33%
TABLE 6 – Do respondents use the Internet to talk about TV

programming?
16-24 25-34 35+ OVR

Never 20% 20% 40% 27%
Weekly 50% 40% 40% 43%
Daily 20% 20% 10% 17%
TABLE 7 – Would respondents consider selling their TV and accessing

programming only over the Internet?
16-24 25-34 35+ OVR

Yes 70% 60% 20% 50%
No 30% 40% 80% 50%
TABLE 8 - Do respondents find that the Internet distracts them from

watching a show?
16-24 25-34 35+ OVR

Yes 70% 70% 50% 63%
No 30% 30% 50% 37%
iii

Television and The Internet: How Convergence Affects Audience Consumption

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Television and The Internet: How Convergence Affects Audience Consumption

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

brunel university

film and television studies

“tELEVISION AND THE iNTERNET - hOW cONVERGENCE aFFECTS aUDIENCE

rYAN oLIVER lEWIS

dATE SUBMITTED: 29TH aPRIL 2010

a sPECIAL pROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE ba: fILM &

2 – THE IDEA OF CONVERGENCE 4

3 – PROGRAMMING REACHING ITS AUDIENCE 6

i The frequency with which the audience watches television

Lastly, I must acknowledge the memory of my mother; I hope the completion

In this project I shall be focusing upon the Internet and television,

This topic is of particular interest at this moment in time as the Internet

THE IDEA OF CONVERGENCE

Other studies regarding the convergence between television and the

More recent is Henry Jenkins’ book “Convergence Culture – Where

relationship between television and the Internet. This ‘renegotiation’ is what

PROGRAMMING REACHING ITS AUDIENCE

Understanding the nature of the audience then is just as important as

assess as an audience theorist given that “a survey about an evening’s

group may be considerably affected by its presence.

James et al (1995) are cited as saying, “suggested Internet forums

some of the social uses of the Internet, an interesting element of media

(i) AREA OF RESEARCH

Briefly, the main areas of questioning within my study are:

1) The frequency with which the audience watches television

I decided upon commencing that I would undertake this study using

television programming. As I am trying to find indicators of particular trends,

My study bears a resemblance to that undertaken by Mojsa and Rettie

of questionnaires, resulting in a sample that is neither random nor

programming is open to the convergence between television and the

In this section of the investigation, I analyse the results obtained from

(i) THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THE AUDIENCE WATCHES

In group A, every single respondent said that they still watched

(ii) WHAT THE AUDIENCE DESIRE FROM THEIR VIEWING

In the first of this category of questions (table 5) we begin to look at

see it still as a shared social experience. In this question, we have the

to discuss the programming elsewhere. Instead, it appears that public

which was only available abroad at the time.

“consumers… showing a declining loyalty to networks” (Jenkins, 2006: 19),

(i) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

(ii) SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

I think further study could, and should, certainly be undertaken into

recording data on the usage of a large stratified sample of the population.

There could, of course, be numerous ethical issues if a study was

With regards to this study, I believe the project to be hampered by a

Lewis, R.O. (2009). Questionnaire On the Internet and Television Viewing

Alperstein, N. M. (2005). Living in an age of distraction: Mulititasking and

BARB. (2010). Monthly Multi-Channel Viewing Summary. Available:

BARB. (2009). Monthly Total Viewing Summary 1992-2009. Available:

Blumler, J., E. Katz and M. Gurevitch (1974). Utilization of mass

Lavery, David. (2010). The Essential Cult TV Reader. Lexington, KY:

Livingstone, Sonia (2004) The challenge of changing audiences: or, what is

Lull, James. (1990). Inside Family’s Viewing – Ethnographic Research On

Mojsa, Magdalena and Rettie, Ruth (2003) Attitudes to internet marketing: a

Orlik, Peter B. and Louis A. Day. (2007). Exploring electronic media:

Poole, Curtis and Janette Bradley. (2003). Developer's digital media

Ruggiero, Thomas E. (2000). 'Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st

Sinnreich, Aram. (2007). ‘Come Together, Right Now: We Know Something’s

Stempel, Guido Hermann. (2003). Media and Politics In America – A

Thielmann, Bodo and Michael Dowling. (1999). 'Convergence and innovation

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43: 1. 52-66.

ComScore. (2010). U.K. Online Video Viewing Up 37 Percent During Past

Questionnaire On the Internet and Television Viewing Habits