MiT3: television in transition

Plenary Conversation 2:

Reality Television

Henry Jenkins, MIT
Stacey Lynn Koerner, Initiative Media
Ghen Maynard, CBS alternative programming
Moderator: David Marshall, Northeastern University

An audiorecording of Reality TV is now available.

SUMMARY

DAVID MARSHALL, moderator, set the mood by showing some clips from recent episodes of Survivor: the Amazon and American Idol. He then introduced Ghen Maynard.

GHEN MAYNARD began by describing what he looks for in new programming. One difference between cable and broadcast networks is that broadcast networks have to appeal to a broad range of people. A mistake some networks made in the recent past was to target younger demographics. When CBS heavily promoted Central Park West to their older audience, it was a huge disaster.

Appealing to a broader audience takes time to be successful. Survivor is a good example of a show that can appeal to a broad audience, because the cast includes a range of individuals who appeal to many segments of the audience. Additionally, almost everyone can relate to the themes of rejection and abandonment, which are at the core of the program.

Another thing Maynard looks for the promotional possibilities of a show's format. Before it was even produced, Survivor received more press attention than any CBS program in history.

The structure of Survivor is also carefully designed for maximum drama. Every act break is either an unanswered question, a moment of joy, or a moment of conflict. The program relies on traditional dramatic strategies. The show could have taken a more documentary approach, but it is essentially a drama.

Reality programming has actually been around for a long time. Shows like COPS and America's Most Wanted are clear ancestors of today's reality series. The main difference now is that today's programs place ordinary people in extraordinary situations; they are like social psychology experiments played for drama.

Maynard receives pitches for 20 to 25 shows per week. Most pitches are tasteless, and many are even unethical. The Amazing Race is a favorite project of his because its format was developed originally by CBS. Logistically, it is more challenging to produce than Survivor because the producers are also racing with the teams.

Discussion

QUESTION: On The Amazing Race, some contestants are downright rude to the citizens of countries in which the race takes place. Is this an ethical problem?

MAYNARD: We make no apologies for putting villains in the show. When we go to other countries, we employ locals, so it's good for their publicity and business. Also, many of us may think that in such a situation, we wouldn't be so insensitive, but you'd be surprised. Many people whom we cast act in surprising ways. The show is really about the effects of stressful situations on relationships.

QUESTION: Does that make The Amazing Race hard to sell to other countries?

MAYNARD: No, it is actually a bigger success in many foreign countries. Singapore loves the show, and it performs very well in other Asian countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand.

STACY LYNN KOERNER began by pointing out that technology does not always have the impact we anticipate. One example of this involves the way people use Personal Video Recorders. Only 1.5-2% of homes in the U.S. currently own PVR's. Forty-three percent of homes without PVR's are skipping through commercials in some way. Fifty-nine percent of homes with PVRs are fast-forwarding through commercials.

This means that only about one percent of commercials are actually being skipped through PVR technology. Most PVR deployment will be through cable systems that have no incentive to let customers skip commercials entirely. In fact, a popular use of PVRs is the way children are saving ads of the products they want to play them back for parents.

Reality TV fits in into this context. Many forget that television began with advertisers as programmers. Reality programming is also a way for us to address newer issues such as audience fragmentation and escalating program costs. Fragmentation makes it harder for advertisers to appeal to a broad audience, so they are looking towards product placement, and interactive viewing and purchasing. Reality TV allows us to understand at a basic level how viewers want to communicate with their television set, as well as the convergence of behavior with the Internet.

Reality programming is like special event programming, because more promotion is involved. Reality TV is also "TiVo-proof," because a viewer must know what happens in real time in order to engage in discussion the next day. This also promotes group viewing.

Discussion

QUESTION: What are the economic changes related to reality TV?

MAYNARD: The shows cost less than most scripted dramas, but not necessarily. As a show becomes popular, more money is spent on getting talent. Part of the attraction is that it's supposed to be less expensive. However, you make a lot more money on successful shows like ER in terms of back-end sources, such as merchandising.

KOERNER: With reality TV, you can't really repeat episodes either, so you don't have any profits from syndication.

CHARLES FERRIS: Will the fear of zapping through commercials lead advertisers to greater integration of commercials into the program content itself?

KOERNER: There has been interest in that integration, but advertisers are aware that viewers don't always like this, and there is a fear to push this. I think we'll see more advertisers becoming producers of content themselves, rather than bring product placement elements to existing shows.

HENRY JENKINS introduced himself as a Survivor fan. His central thesis is that reality TV is the "killer app" of the age of media convergence. For him, convergence is both grassroots and corporate driven.

Jenkins would emphasize the audience side of reality TV and the notion of multi-platform content. Many reality shows are also computer-based programs. The classic example is Big Brother, which was available online 24 hours a day. The Internet becomes a second revenue stream for content. Cross-promotion with morning and late-night talk shows also works well for reality shows. They are also good testing grounds for product placement.

There is a strong notion of participation. So far, the best example of consumer interaction with network television is reality TV. First of all, the actual participants in the show inhabit a world with access to personal media; they film their own application tapes and send them in. There is a blurring of the line between fan and participant. Meanwhile, on American Idol, the way viewers phone in the results is an example of structured interactivity.

However, some audience participation does not please producers. For example, what happens when American Idol polls go against the judges' wishes? The spoiler community has done investigative work on reality TV contestants and results. Fans also like to discuss ethical issues. Scandalous revelations from websites like "The Smoking Gun" have affected outcomes on American Idol.

Jenkins believes that viewer participation in reality programming will expand. He has interviewed a man who wrote two full seasons of Survivor fan fiction. Meanwhile, on episodes of Big Brother, outsiders have tried to get their political messages into the live feed, or tried to communicate to the members of the cast in order to influence player dynamics. These are all examples of audiences exploiting the media environment to interact programs. Reality TV seems especially open to such interventions.

Discussion

QUESTION: We journalists used to think we were reality TV. What does this say for the future of news?

JENKINS: Look at plummeting approval rates surrounding the two Gulf Wars. There's one representation of that in the news, and another grassroots representation that shows greater support for antiwar sentiment. I think the response to reality TV teaches modes of engaging critically with television that may slide into the activism around the Iraq war.

MAYNARD: Producing reality TV makes me more conscious of what goes on in news. It's important to me that everything you see on my shows has integrity. Unlike some interview shows, we don't piece together unrelated clips to add drama. We hold to a higher standard than the news, in that regard.

QUESTION: To what degree are reality shows actually scripted?

MAYNARD: Most reality shows don't do that. The only time something is scripted is what a host says. In an interview, we might ask if people can say things again, if it's not clear what they're talking about.

JENKINS: The real structure comes in the storytelling and editing. A lot of dramaturgy goes into that.

QUESTION: To what extent is CBS concerned about fans' attempts to spoil the endings? What measures do you take to prevent that?

MAYNARD: I love that fans want to do that; it's good for us. It also poses challenges. We can go to huge extremes. We have a no-fly zone over the area on Survivor. After the first season of Survivor, not even the crew knows the winner until the last episode when it airs, since we shoot the final vote without people in the control booth.

QUESTION: I found myself losing interest in the clips, partly because I know the format. Yes it's dramatic and like a soap opera, but what is the extent to which it really is spontaneous? What is the editing you do about? I'm wondering whether this is like dramatic fiction at all.

MAYNARD: I think television is about whether you identify with the people on screen. For this season's Survivor, the program is skewed to younger viewers. Last season, most of the last contestants were over 40. In terms of the editing, there's too much footage to show everything, but what you are seeing is still what happened, and we don't change the meaning of things.

KOERNER: We've started to research what people think about reality TV. Towards the beginning, a lot of people told us they liked it because it's unexpected, and they don't know how they are going to turn out. But now they are getting familiar with the conventions of reality TV, as much as they are familiar with those of TV dramas or sitcoms.

JENKINS: I want to tackle your question from an aesthetic perspective. Yes, there are differences between reality TV and melodrama. However, there is an intense projection of character. Reality TV relies on type casting, but I think real people have more layers and nuances than the simplified dramatic characters we are used to seeing on TV.

At the same time, reality TV contains a traditional dramatic device: the soliloquy. The inserted interview segments are like the soliloquies in Elizabethan drama. This device is the dramatic linchpin of reality TV where people spill their guts. I wish we had soliloquies on The West Wing.

QUESTION: I'm interested in self-reflexivity in reality TV. People weren't aware of what the first Survivor would look like, and perhaps that's part of the reason it worked so well. I find as a viewer that some of the interesting contestants are the ones who are the most die-hard fans - they've played out strategies in their minds. Is that a help or a hindrance?

MAYNARD: It's both. After the first season, the innocence is lost. The new overt alliances make for more complex plotting. Finding more genuine people is harder in casting, but the savviness of contestants can be more interesting for viewers.

QUESTION: When you hear pitches for reality programs, how much emphasis do you place on free media promotion?

MAYNARD: We're always looking for water cooler talk. Press is a huge thing. If I go "wow," that's all I need. It's more of a gut reaction; I don't really think about how to generate free publicity.

QUESTION: The notion of advertisers producing content petrifies me. Does it bother you that advertisers may be increasing their increasing control of programs?

KOERNER: One example of an advertising group creating content is the Family Friendly Forum, who created the Gilmore Girls, a drama for families that uses traditional commercials. It's not always bad, it can be done well.

JENKINS: I'm talking about what happens on TV being only one aspect of this culture of convergence. Phenomenal things can be done in activism and viewer power. The structured participation of audiences is having a major impact on the content of highly rated shows like American Idol.

QUESTION: Tech Review recently advertised the future of TV as everything-on-demand. Are you looking for radical ways in which TV will be financed in the future?

KOERNER: Yes, we actively consider the on-demand future. A piece of content could be developed as a long form commercial that could be accessed on demand.

--compiled by Lilly Kam
--photos by Nicole Burkart and Lilly Kam

back to top