10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17329
This article discusses the evolution of the concept of flow from the producer-controlled phase to the user-controlled phase, thus proposing the concept of circulation as a new framework for understanding the new TV ecosystem. The multiplication of screens (from the traditional TV set to handheld mobile devices) has made TV content accessible anytime and anywhere and, furthermore, has provided an interactive space where the digital life of content is managed by the audiences on social media. Such multiplication of screens has created forms of TV consumption that lead to the deconstruction and subsequent reformulation of the concepts of space, time and medium. This article examines this ongoing process, beginning with observations of audience consumption practices that are analysed using Osservatorio Social TV 2015, an Italian research project.
application/pdf
2038-3460
17329
2
en
Romana Andò
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
networked media space
From Linearity to Circulation. How TV Flow Is Changing in Networked Media Space
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
7
Essays
2017-01-24
2023-06-21
2017-01-24
2023-08-21
103-127
TS
Romana Andò
2016
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17329
103
University of Rome “Sapienza”
2038-3460
2
networked media space
en
127
From Linearity to Circulation. How TV Flow Is Changing in Networked Media Space
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/17329/16180
7
                                                                                            Essay
                                                                                                103




From Linearity to Circulation
How TV Flow Is Changing in Networked Media Space

           Alberto Marinelli                                    Romana Andò
       University of Rome “Sapienza” (IT)                  University of Rome “Sapienza” (IT)



     Abstract: This article discusses the evolution of the concept of flow from
     the producer-controlled phase to the user-controlled phase, thus
     proposing the concept of circulation as a new framework for understanding
     the new TV ecosystem. The multiplication of screens (from the traditional
     TV set to handheld mobile devices) has made TV content accessible
     anytime and anywhere and, furthermore, has provided an interactive space
     where the digital life of content is managed by the audiences on social
     media. Such multiplication of screens has created forms of TV consumption
     that lead to the deconstruction and subsequent reformulation of the
     concepts of space, time and medium. This article examines this ongoing
     process, beginning with observations of audience consumption practices
     that are analysed using Osservatorio Social TV 2015, an Italian research
     project.

     Keywords: TV flow; social TV; audience; digital circulation; networked
     media space.

     Corresponding author: Alberto Marinelli, Department of Communica-
     tion and Social Research (CoRiS), Sapienza University Rome, Via Salaria
     113, 00198 Rome, Italy. Email: alberto.marinelli@uniroma.it




1. Introduction

    Flow is not just a concept or something intangible and immaterial; it
reflects the TV viewing experience and our perception of the medium. It
is a complex set of variables that includes productive and distributive
models, content structure and organisation and, above all, cultural and
social practices enabled by a specific technological screen configuration.
Although Williams ([1974] 2003) introduced the concept in the early
1970s, it has remained valid even now, when television (both as a medium
and a device) seems to finally be converging with the Internet.
    The original “disciplinary power” of television as a medium found its

TECNOSCIENZA
Italian Journal of Science and Technology Studies
7 (2) pp. 103-127 - ISSN 2038-3460
www.tecnoscienza.net                                2016
104                                                         Tecnoscienza – 7 (2)

expression in the linear form (producer-controlled flow) through which
broadcasters managed their full control over the schedule, genres and au-
dience experience (Ellis 2000b). The technological limits of the TV set
and its user interface (remote control), in addition to constraints in the
broadcasting systems (number of channels) and business models (license
fee and/or ADV), have guaranteed the long-term success of the “planned
flow” as “technology and cultural form" (Williams [1974] 2003). Accord-
ingly, TV content had a top-down circulation, and content life was re-
stricted by TV scheduling.
    At the beginning of the new century (in the so-called “age of plenty”;
Ellis 2000a) we saw the first major transition in television in the most de-
veloped markets. This phase led to some important changes such as new
distribution systems, which provided an unlimited number of TV chan-
nels, and the introduction of a pay-per-view business model that trans-
formed the medium in terms of content accessibility. The medium, there-
fore, becomes “an aggregator of a broad range of niche and on-demand
viewing audiences” (Lotz 2007, 34), and flow is thus no longer a required
condition for audience consumption. Even if the notion of flow has basi-
cally remained the default television structure on which the viewing expe-
rience is based, the disciplinary power of flow is substantially compro-
mised for an increasingly large sector of the audience. Emerging technol-
ogies (such as PVR – Personal Video Recorder) produced an initial shift
in the viewing experience; they changed the audience’s relationship with
the timetables of TV content by providing more access points.
    The viewer-centred model started to become dominant as television
progressively began to converge with the Internet and online distribution
systems. Linear flow, which expresses the medium structuring power, is
increasingly being replaced by a circular flow where the user – as in all
other contexts characterised by technological convergence – becomes the
center of the system. Place-shifting enhances the time-shifting process;
the experience of television takes place in a plurality of multiple screens
(personal and/or domestic devices) at different moments of the day, in
accordance with the viewer’s needs. Thanks to the interface of each indi-
vidual device, control and choice features are completely in the hands of
each user. Viewers can access TV content using different screens for dif-
ferent purposes (search, watch, share, and participate). In fact, multi-
screening practices relocate the viewing experience within the networked
media space (Chamberlain 2011); the set of connected and interchangea-
ble devices (smart TV, smartphone, PC and tablet) that are currently
available provide viewers with real-time access to audiovisual content and
online platforms that enhance the TV experience.
    We can therefore observe that linear flow as described above is no
longer a default condition of the medium. However, we do not wish to
assert that it is now only user generated (Uricchio 2010). As a matter of
fact, new configurations of TV sets and the most innovative viewing prac-
tices have given way to the personcasting experience (Lotz 2007, 244).
Marinelli and Andò                                                      105
However, this does not lead to fragmented and isolated media consump-
tion. Instead, television flow may be perceived in terms of content circu-
lating on different platforms, and audience participation in content creat-
ing and sharing within social media. In other words, this new conception
of flow requires devoted audiences who actively consume television con-
tent and engage in its production on screens and technological interfaces
where the flow itself is continuously renewed (actualised).
    Thus the viewing experience overcomes the boundaries between dif-
ferent devices, distribution platforms, and content forms and genres; it
actually results in an expanded creative process. At the same time, TV
content has become spreadable (Jenkins et al. 2013) on various distribu-
tion platforms and it requires engaged audience participation to define
and complete its value. The digital life of content and its circulation de-
pend on both producers and consumers. Producers provide multiple
“touch points” to make the content accessible, thereby focusing on multi-
platform storytelling and audience engagement strategies. Consumers
manage and improve the circulation of content by appropriating and
sharing online meanings and pleasures connected to the consumption ex-
perience (Fiske 1992), and by expanding the television text beyond its
pre-defined boundaries. Television flow can now be effectively under-
stood as a content circulation process that takes place within a networked
media space.
    This article examines this ongoing process, starting with the observa-
tion of audience consumption practices. More specifically, we discuss
these issues in relation to research data collected in 2015 by Osservatorio
Social TV (http://www.osservatoriosocialtv.it/) that was concerned with
transformations in the television viewing experience. Osservatorio, a re-
search project that explores innovative audience practices from multi-
screening to social TV, was established by the Sapienza University of
Rome in collaboration with major Italian television networks (RAI, Medi-
aset, SKY, FOX Channels Italia, Discovery, VIACOM, Laeffe and AXN).
    The research demonstrates that the TV consumption experience has
become extremely diversified; the widespread availability of devices sets
the stage for the coexistence of complementary audience practices. From
traditional viewing settings (TV + sofa + broadcasting flow) to advanced
scenarios based on mobile screens and personcasting, audiences are ex-
ploring – at various speeds and intensities – the increased accessibility of
TV content and the spreadability of TV programmes. Moreover, user
generated content production and sharing remediate the original TV con-
tent and begin a highly unpredictable circulation of the content itself. In
other words, we are faced with a proliferation of consumption styles
based on the circulation of content and programmes and on the extension
of their digital life.
106                                                          Tecnoscienza – 7 (2)


2. TV Flow: From Linearity to Circulation

    As noted earlier, the concept of television flow was developed by Wil-
liams when the structural power of the medium was absolutely decisive.
“In all developed broadcasting systems the characteristic organisation,
and therefore the characteristic experience, is one of sequence or flow.
This phenomenon, of planned flow, is then perhaps the defining charac-
teristic of broadcasting, simultaneously as a technology and as a cultural
form. [….] The difference in broadcasting is not only that these events, or
events resembling them, are available inside the home, by the operation
of a switch. It is that the real programme that is offered is a sequence or
set of alternative sequences of these and other similar events, which are
then available in a single dimension and in a single operation” (Williams
[1974] 2003, 86-87).
    The “disciplinary power” of the TV medium found its expression in
the linear form (producer-controlled flow) whereby broadcasters man-
aged absolute control over the schedule, genres and audience experience.
Viewers only have to turn on the television and proceed to consume the
flow of programmes, commercials, promotions and advertisements that
are graphically attached to the identity of the channel (Ang 1991). The
technological limits of the TV set and user interface (remote control), in
addition to constraints in the broadcasting systems (number of channels)
and business models (license fee and/or ADV), guaranteed the long-term
success of the “planned flow” as a technology and as a cultural form. In
other words, the producer-controlled flow expresses a type of “televisual
essence” (Uricchio 2004, 234) that, in part, has survived some of the
transformations of television and still maintains its imprint in the general
channels of digital terrestrial TV.
    This cultural, more than technological, essence is also related to the
concept of “liveness” (Couldry 2004), which is closely related to the idea
of linear flow television. Such flow, therefore, became the symbol of the
power of television and its ability to colonise imagination and consump-
tion practices while building a collectively shared liveness that reflects the
ideological dimension (or “false consciousness”) of the medium itself.
Williams regards it as “the replacement of a programme series of timed
sequential units by a flow series of differently related units in which the
timing, though real, is undeclared, and in which the real internal organi-
zation is something other than the declared organization” (Williams
[1974] 2003, 93). This undoubtedly questions the agency that the broad-
cast exercises as a “cultural form” under the control of producers, which
marks a particular phase of capitalist development and expansion of the
consumer goods market in western countries. Television scholars have
known about the concept of flow since its initial definition (Ellis 1982,
2000a; Fiske 1987; Hartley 1992; Gripsrud 1998; Grasso and Scaglioni
2003; Buonanno 2008; Barra 2015). This definition was put to the test by
Marinelli and Andò                                                        107
transformations in the medium during the phase of multi-channel seg-
mentation (Ellis 2000a; Lotz 2007, 2009; Scaglioni and Sfardini 2008) be-
fore being completely redefined by the current hybridisation of the televi-
sion medium with the Internet (Uricchio 2004; 2009; 2010; Gripsrud
2010; Gillan 2011; Kackman et al. 2011; Strangelove 2015). In examining
the transformation of the concept of flow, it is possible to trace the transi-
tion of television to its hybridisation with media environments arising
from the development of ICT (information communication technology)
and the Internet. At one end of the spectrum we can see television broad-
cast in its purest form in the United States, as analysed by Williams. This
is a mainstream medium embedded almost uniformly in domestic and
family lifestyle practices and human cognitive processes. At the other end
of the spectrum we can see the current situation where the segmentation
of content, the plurality of platforms, the ubiquity of (personal) screens
and profound alteration of the temporal regime – no longer limited to the
disciplinary power of broadcasters – have given rise to a strong diver-
gence in how to access to the television medium and in related social
practices. This seems to question the very nature of the medium, which
becomes hardly recognisable in some consumer practices, especially gen-
erational ones that are being reinforced by the widespread use of multi-
screening. In the middle of this continuum there is a long transitional
phase whose various steps are still highly visible in the complex ecosystem
of technologies and viewing practices known as “connected television”
(Marinelli and Celata 2012).
    The state of flux between innovations in technology, distribution
methods, and consumption practices signals a “shift away from the pro-
gramming-based notion of flow that Williams documented, to a viewer-
centered notion” (Uricchio 2004, 239). The introduction of a device that
we now consider trivial because of its very limited original functions, the
remote control device (RCD), was significant. With the mere touch of a
button the viewer mastered the function of control and choice, even if
this was initially limited to channel change only. As the RCD became do-
mesticated and used almost exclusively to change channels during com-
mercial breaks, broadcasters became alarmed because this questioned the
basic logic of commercial television, that is, the convergence of pro-
gramme flow and economic flow. This is why Uricchio (2004, 243) cor-
rectly considered this innovation as to be “subversive technology”, and its
effects have continued to have a major impact on the viewing practices of
contemporary television.
    Following the advent of the RCD, it became almost impossible to
make a distinction between the form of the viewer-television interface
and the notion of flow. Each redefinition of both the technological envi-
ronment and the user experience is reflected in a different configuration
of the flow, which in any case involves ever-increasing audience participa-
tion. Somewhat paradoxically, even as the expression “couch potato” be-
came more common, the introduction of the videocassette recorder
108                                                          Tecnoscienza – 7 (2)

(VCR) dealt a second blow to the programme-driven temporality of the
producer-controlled flow. This not only allows the audience to escape
planned flow by changing channels, but it gradually re-defined viewing
practices by favoring the choice of specific content, whether serial or sin-
gular. Consumers could now be segmented, also generationally, in ac-
cordance with their preferences and they became increasingly mobile and
unpredictable. Time-shifting dismantles the isochronic logic and unique-
ness of the experience. The criterion of repetition thus became a constitu-
tive component of the flow.
    New important changes also emerged as television entered the “age of
plenty” (Ellis 2000a). New distribution systems (cable, satellite and video-
on-demand) provided an unlimited number of TV channels, and the in-
troduction of the pay-per-view business model transformed the character-
istics of the medium, which became “an aggregator of a broad range of
niche and on-demand viewing audiences” (Lotz 2007, 34). The general
linear channels of free-to-air television, which continued to collect a sig-
nificant portion of the audience, could not avoid “redoubling their efforts
to maximize something like Williams’s notion of flow in its most literal
sense, linking program units in such a way as to maximize continued
viewing” (Uricchio 2004, 247). As broadcasters began to follow the logic
of multi-channel television, they had to adopt a strategy that relinquished
their function as central agency, and invested in the viewers’ autonomy.
Narrowcasting proposes the aggregation of content planned by television
producers in a “vertical” and highly segmented mode. A hundred chan-
nels were created and any topic could require its own specific televised
flow (for example, not just one sport channel but a channel for each
sporting activity, including horseback riding, fishing and billiards; not just
live events but also time-shifting and/or re-runs). “In this new regime –
the era of narrowcasting – not only was the once mass audience frag-
mented, but it gained a greater degree of agency in arranging its own pro-
gramme sequence, in shaping its own patterns of interpenetration (zap-
ping through advertisements, switching channels) and, thanks to the
VCR, in defining its own course of programme repetition and recycling”
(Uricchio 2010, 35).
    The full development of narrowcasting gave way to a further redefini-
tion of television flow that introduced many of the basic elements of the
contemporary viewing experience. With the definitive entrance of televi-
sion into the ecosystem of media and Internet-enabled communication (a
consequence of the convergence process), television flow was no longer
dependent on distribution channels. Access to on-demand content –
through non-linear, IP-based systems – started to become a vital feature
of viewing practices, regardless of the type of screen and specific context
of use. A plurality of devices (laptops, tablets, smartphones, smart TV,
set-top boxes) are available to individual users to build a highly personal-
ised and contingent TV experience that is in constant transition between
different screens (place-shifting), at home, on-the-go, or wherever they
Marinelli and Andò                                                     109
may be. We have entered the era of anytime-anywhere TV where the tele-
vision flow incorporates interactivity (as for all other IP-based technolo-
gies) as the driving principle of the viewing experience (Jensen 2008;
Marinelli 2015). This is an era in which broadcasting linear channels are
flanked, and progressively replaced, by a new form that Amanda Lotz
(2007, 244) identifies with the expression “personcasting”.
    We can agree with Jensen’s assertion that in contemporary television,
“thanks to digital technology, interactivity, convergence, etc. now differ-
ent forms of user-controlled content emerge”, and that the viewing expe-
rience is deeply conditioned by “three prevailing forms of shifting: time
shifting, space shifting, and format shifting” (Jensen 2008, 131). These
technological innovations for distribution systems and screen devices give
the user a greater power of control and more choices; the user is no long-
er “just a viewer” but is now increasingly skilled at handling multi-
screening practices and multi-touch interfaces. However, this technologi-
cal redefinition of television flow would be unable to express its full po-
tential if it were not backed up by another form of audience leadership
that was the product of the “convergence culture”, as described by Jen-
kins in 2006. User-generated flow (Uricchio 2010), which redefines televi-
sion viewer practices, corresponds with user-generated content, which re-
fers to content appropriation, creation and sharing processes carried out
by the audience on platforms for online video aggregation (such as
YouTube), peer-to-peer sharing, and the practices of conversation and
sharing of content, links, and recommendations that have played a role in
the extraordinary rise of social media.
    When every single television screen operates as a “network node",
each user becomes a potential “node” that is increasingly active in the
practice of remixing and sharing content and in all other social practices
related to TV viewing; this is the so-called social TV (Andò 2014; Andò
and Marinelli 2014; Barra and Scaglioni 2014; Colombo 2015). Thus, the
extreme segmentation of tastes and consumption practices (per-
soncasting), that characterises a large part of contemporary television, in
no way implies a isolation of viewers and the end of the dimension of
shared cultural experience that has always accompanied viewing. On the
one hand, television producers have learned to promote and manage,
along with viewers, an experience of flow that radically differs from the
flow exemplified by the broadcasting powers. As Gillan (2011, 76) notes,
“Today’s flow is more circular, with one platform encouraging viewers to
access another, which, hopefully, prompts them to return to the on-air-
text”. On the other hand, the transformation of television into a medium
that requires audience engagement necessarily implies an appreciation of
the discursive production that is independently generated by the audi-
ence, and an extension of the viewing experience on second screen devic-
es and social network sites.
    If “engagement describes the larger system of material, emotional, in-
tellectual, social and psychological investments a viewer forms through
110                                                         Tecnoscienza – 7 (2)

their interactions with the expanded television text” (Askwith 2007, 154),
then the practices of social TV represent one of the basic elements of the
format-shifting process that redefines the circular television flow. In the
social TV experience, both inter-user and user-to-content relationships
are at stake. On the one hand, social TV deals with the way that people
stay in touch with each other and this includes all kinds of interaction
generated by audiences with respect to the devices used (tablet,
smartphone, laptop), inhabited in online environments (social media and
apps), live/non-live interaction flows, before-during-after programme
conversations, TV genres, and motivations for interactions (such as shar-
ing, support for the programme, looking for rewards). On the other hand,
social TV involves a digital relationship with the content, namely all the
interaction – managed on second screens – aimed at gathering and shar-
ing information about television content, and related to different pro-
grammes, celebrities (TV show hosts, actors), content, brands, and com-
mercials (Andò and Marinelli 2014).
    This circularity is therefore the new regime that characterises the evo-
lution of television flow. On the one hand, it involves the practices that
allow users to perform personcasting on the different screens available to
them – these may be screens that alternate, overlap and recall each other
in the flow configuration, depending on the time of day, the type of con-
tent, the device available at the moment, and their potential for connec-
tivity and sharing. On the other hand, it involves practices that, on the
basis of participatory cultures, consider media content not as a closed ob-
ject but, rather, as an expressive form that extends to conversation, and
the rewriting and sharing of practices that contribute to its circulation
and constant redefinition through audience interpretation.


3. Circulation: The Life of Digital Content

    The changes described above in terms of technological convergence
and evolution of the user-interface, have actually released the audience
from the constraints of space and time. The evolution of the concept of
flow – from producer-controlled flow to user-generated flow – has the
advantage of ultimately highlighting the changes that affect the relation-
ships between viewers and content and, more specifically, the issue of au-
dience agency with respect to digital circulation and the life of digital
content, which we observe today in the most innovative consumer prac-
tices.
    For this reason we have decided to expand the context of user-
generated flow that characterises the contemporary viewer experience,
especially for the younger generations (see Fig. 1 and the discussion about
time-shifting practices), by hybridising it with the concept of circulation.
Circulation is something more complex than the simple digitisation of
media content and multiplication of access technologies and platforms. It
Marinelli and Andò                                                        111
views media content as something unfinished – as an ongoing project, en-
abled by networking technologies and supported by audience participa-
tion that make its boundaries permeable with respect to space and time
and its own materiality. “In other words we refer to the circulation in
terms of digital life of a content that is definitely spreadable” (Jenkins et
al. 2013, 4).
    The concept of spreadability clearly refers to circulation. “Spreadabil-
ity refers to the technical resources that make it easier to circulate some
kinds of content than others, the economic structures that support or re-
strict circulation, the attributes of a media text that might appeal to a
community’s motivation for sharing material, and the social networks that
link people through the exchange of meaningful bytes” (Jenkins et al.
2013, 4). However, we prefer the notion of circulation. Spreadability ac-
tually refers to structural elements of the content (and, to some extent,
the logic of the medium) that benefit from – and require – audience par-
ticipation (“if it doesn’t spread, it’s dead”). In this sense it overcomes the
idea of transmission and virality, but it is not necessarily opposed to TV
linearity and flow. Instead, the concept of circulation, as the effect of con-
tinued audience manipulation on the digital life of content, refers more
effectively to a structural condition of the consumption experience, re-
sulting in the consequent transformation of television flow.
    It is therefore appropriate to take a step back and to rethink flow and
its related concepts in the framework of circulation. For example, time-
shifting and place-shifting are key concepts that, when applied to the idea
of flow, underline the audience’s freedom to choose when, what and
where they want to view, regardless of the media and scheduling. These
practices are clearly significant in justifying extending the framework
boundaries, not only of traditional television but also of singular media,
and in identifying the new producer-audience balance of power in the
management of user-generated television flow. However, for scholars
studying these phenomena, significance goes well beyond the tangible
dimensions of content consumption, which (not coincidentally) continue
to be calculated by market research that adapts various metrics systems to
the multiplicity of screens and viewing slots. In fact, audience and media
scholars regard these practices as the momentary expression of a wider
circulation of content performed through audience practices in a net-
worked media space, blurring the boundaries of traditional versus online
social media.
    The processes of “shifting” (time, space, format) (Jensen 2008) can be
placed at the intersection between the interfaces of emerging media de-
vices and pervasive communications networks, producing an ever-
changing configuration of the viewing experience through media tech-
nologies. The way individual users come into contact with television con-
tent tends to resemble more and more the ways we use other digital
things we come into contact with in our daily lives through online prac-
tices such as searching, linking, sharing, etc. The principal characteristic
112                                                             Tecnoscienza – 7 (2)

of this new networked media space, which is made up of “flexible techno-
social-spatial relations” (Chamberlain 2011, 15), is precisely its ever-
changing and temporary nature; it is a space that needs to be constantly
worked by the user and that takes on individualised and short-lived con-
figurations.
    We will try to define this networked media space where contemporary
television viewing practices are performed, by presenting data collected
by Osservatorio Social TV in Italy in spring 2015. We have selected the
most significant data from the quantitative survey (CAWI) that was con-
ducted with a sample of 1,082 Italians aged from 12 to 641. The aim of
the study was to analyse the transformation of TV consumption experi-
ences in relation to increased technological availability, which means
more screens to access TV content and multi-screening practices to ex-
pand the viewing experience on online platforms.
    More specifically, the research addressed: 1) the definition of various
TV consumption scenarios with respect to settings, technologies, content
and level of engagement; 2) the mapping of several online practices of
sharing, fandom and searching that definitely expand the consumption
experience; and 3) the evidence of a TV content circulation that happens
on different screens, on diverse online platforms, and by means of audi-
ence practices without limits of space and time.
    For the purpose of this article we have selected data regarding audi-
ence practices that can demonstrate our theoretical reflections on circula-
tion in the new media ecosystem with which we are faced. We used gen-
erations as interpretive category of such phenomena (Aroldi and Colom-
bo 2003) to discover the audience that has a greater or lesser tendency to
use the more innovative ways of consumption. Obviously, this means that
the most innovative practices are more commonly used among the young-
er generation, especially with respect to regular behaviours (“usually”).
However, in presenting the data we intentionally emphasise the “not usu-
ally” statistics because they can be considered as indicators of the aware-
ness of TV transformation. These exploratory behaviours effectively rep-
resent the starting point in broadening the understanding of more ad-
vanced consumption practices.

3.1 Screens and Multi-screening

      Even if not so evidently associated with the notion of circulation, in

1
  The CAWI survey was managed in two different tranches (May 2015) through
SWG online platform, with a sample of 1,000 individuals (18–65 years) and 100
minors (12–17 years), segmented by gender, age, residential area, socio-economic
conditions, educational level, and Internet connection. The questionnaire was
made up of over 250 questions related to the availability of devices and use,
consumption settings and scenarios, multi-screening, and social network sites use
related to TV content .
Marinelli and Andò                                                               113
order to see what part of the audience engages in innovative forms of flow
construction we first have to consider the use of different screens for
watching TV (Tab. 1), the use of time-shifting and place-shifting practic-
es, the user experience and motivations for multi-screening. As suggested
by Uricchio (2004, 236), the transformations of television flow are actual-
ly a valuable indicator of the “coherence of generation, of clustered ex-
pectations, technological capacities, daily practices”.

Tab. 1 – The use of different screens for watching TV content (only regular use).
                                                           Baby
                     GenZ     Millennials    GenX                        Total
                                                          boomers
 PC                  20.0%      9.7%          8.5%         3.9%          9.4%
 Laptop              28.2%     16.4%          6.9%         3.2%         11.8%
 Tablet              20.6%      8.8%          5.0%         1.1%          7.4%
 Smartphone          36.5%     13.9%          6.6%         3.2%         12.2%
Age Groups (yrs): GenZ (12-20); Millennials (21-34); GenX (35-49); Baby boom-
ers (50-64). Source: Osservatorio Social TV 2015 – CAWI – 1,082 Italians aged
from 12 to 64 in May 2015.


Fig. 1 – TV, PC, Laptop, Tablet and Smartphone use by time of day.




Source: Osservatorio Social TV 2015 – CAWI – 1,082 Italians aged from 12 to 64
in May 2015.

   Laptops and Smartphones are the main alternative screens for per-
soncasting and they are used by just under half of those surveyed. Users
114                                                                 Tecnoscienza – 7 (2)

under the age of 34 predictably exhibit the most innovative practices
since they have rapidly become familiar with screen devices, using them
in their daily activities (work/study/leisure time). The Smartphone is the
preferred screen for users under the age of 20: more than 70% use it to
watch TV content, with 36.5% stating that they use it for their usual
viewing practices.
    As for the temporality of consumption, the multiplication of screens is
managed by the audience, who consciously and naturally do so during the
day and progressively absorb time slots not previously destined for
television.
    Young people are exceptionally willing to circulate content across
screens: more than a quarter of GenZ usually start watching TV content
on a mobile screen and continue on a traditional TV screen; or they start
to watch individually and then continue on a bigger screen sharing the
experience with others.


Tab. 2 – Content circulation across screens (only regular users).

                                               GenZ       Millennials       Total

 I begin to watch TV content on my mobile
   screen and then I share it with others on   25.5%        19.8%          10.0%
   the TV screen
 I begin to watch TV content on my mobile
   screen and then I continue on the TV        27.7%        18.0%          10.0%
   screen
 I watch TV content on the mobile screen
   while I move in different rooms of the      40.9%        30.0%          15.6%
   house
Age Groups (yrs): GenZ (12-20); Millennials (21-34). Source: Osservatorio Social
TV 2015 – CAWI – 1,082 Italians aged from 12 to 64 in May 2015.


    Screen availability, along with access to time-shifting services, create a
variety of consumption scenarios that take place during the day,
providing a new definition of TV temporality that is actually based on
audience needs. Due to greater complexity in managing work and other
obligations, viewing pre-recorded content with PVR devices is used by
the majority of people up to age 50, especially by the middle-aged group.
As for the contexts of usage, where time-shifting and place-shifting over-
lap, we observe that watching TV on the web is also a viewing practice
that is uniformly present across generations. “On demand” services pro-
moted by broadcasters (Sky and Mediaset in Italy) is the usual viewing
practice for almost 25% of teenagers but it decreases as age advances, in
large part because current technological devices are not necessarily user-
friendly.
    Second-screening practices while watching TV on the main screen is
Marinelli and Andò                                                       115
used, at least for the Smartphone, by a major component of the popula-
tion (over 60%) and is split between regular and non-regular users.
Around 20% fewer combine TV viewing practices with a laptop and/or
tablet. The profile analysis shows significant generational differences: se-
cond screening involves a high proportion of people up to age 34 (80%
on a Smartphone, and more than 50% on a laptop), whereas the mature
and older generations are not far behind in these multi-screening practic-
es, although their usage is, for the most part, “non-habitual”.


Tab. 3 – Second screening while watching TV (only regular users).
                                                          Baby
                      GenZ      Millennials   GenX                  Total
                                                         boomers
 TV+Laptop           21.8%        25.5%       13.0%        6.3%     16.2%
 TV+Tablet           25.3%        21.2%       13.8%        7.7%     16.1%
 TV+Smartphone       49.4%        43.6%       18.3%       12.0%     28.5%
Age Groups (yrs): GenZ (12-20); Millennials (21-34); GenX (35-49); Baby boom-
ers (50-64). Source: Osservatorio Social TV 2015 – CAWI – 1,082 Italians aged
from 12 to 64 in May 2015.


3.2 Multiple Touch Points with the Content

    If we try to identify the reasons underlying the practices of time-
shifting, place-shifting and multi-screening, we realise that these forms of
access to television content, that no longer depend on the medium’s logic,
are the result of the availability of multiple touch points with the content.
These can originate from producers and their engagement strategies, but
increasingly come from the construction of meaning that is produced and
shared by the audience.
    In terms of the media content, this is related to the growing narrative
complexity of television (Mittell 2015) and the emergence of media busi-
ness models that are built for a world of participatory circulation. On the
other hand, In terms of the audience, this is the result of audience en-
gagement (Askwith 2007) with media content, of the environment of par-
ticipation (Jenkins 1992), and of fandom practices that have become
normalised in everyday consumption (Andò and Marinelli 2012; Booth
2015). Thus, circulation is “a mix of top-down and bottom-up forces
[which] determine how material is shared across and among cultures in
far more participatory (and messier) ways” (Jenkins et al. 2013, 1).
    If, therefore, the heterotopia and heterochrony of digital content
make the content itself constantly searchable, accessible, and consumable,
the narrative complexity of contemporary media content further enhances
their essence as objects without borders (i.e. fluid within the original me-
dia frame), and makes them endless (persistent in time and space), con-
116                                                                Tecnoscienza – 7 (2)

tinually explorable, completable, spreadable, and shareable by the en-
gaged audience. As Mittell (2015, 53) states with regard to serial forms:

          This account of narrative complexity suggests that a new paradigm of
      television storytelling has emerged over the past two decades, with a
      reconceptualization of the boundary between episodic and serial forms, a
      heightened degree of self-consciousness in storytelling mechanics, and
      demands for intensified viewer engagement focused on both diegetic
      pleasures and formal awareness. By exploring the formal structure of this
      mode of storytelling we can appreciate connections with broader concerns
      of media industries and technologies, creative techniques, and practices of
      everyday life, all of which resonate deeply with contemporary cultural
      transformations tied to the emergence of digital media and more
      interactive forms of communication and entertainment.

    It is these formal structures of television storytelling – and their re-
working by the audience – that serve daily as touch points between the
audience (and among the audience) and the content, in a continuous pro-
cess of circulation that takes place in a networked media space, vertically
and horizontally, synchronously and diachronically.
    To empirically understand the circulation process we can attempt to
represent content digital life on a map by tracing the process activation
(who) and its temporal dimensions (when). With respect to process acti-
vation, we can consider media content circulation to be the result of pro-
ducer and distributor planning or audience activation. For the temporal
dimensions we can look at the temporality of circulation by comparing of-
ficial content release and the timing of audience consumption.
    In the TV broadcast framework – as much in a regime of scarcity as in
the age of plenty (Ellis 2000a) – content circulation was directly linked to
its broadcast and essentially contained within it; in the connected digital
TV circulation inevitably relies on distribution logic (such as the latest
modalities introduced by Netflix) along with audience engagement in the
process of content diffusion. In other words, along a continuum, at one
end we find circulation that is fully managed from the top, which was typ-
ical of the broadcasting era. At the other end, we see circulation that is
mostly managed by consumers, originating primarily from fandom expe-
riences (Jenkins 1992; Bacon Smith 1992) and reflected in contemporary
consumption strategies.
    On the one hand, we have media content that begins circulating upon
market release, that follows the schedule set by the broadcaster, and dis-
appears at the end of transmission. On the other hand, we have media
content that is either removed from the schedule or is unavailable on offi-
cial distribution channels (such as international products that are inacces-
sible simultaneously in different markets), which begins to circulate
among various channels (even illegal ones) because of fans’ emotional in-
vestment or their influence on the production and distribution of the
product.
Marinelli and Andò                                                        117
    Although it is currently difficult to isolate such widely varying modes
of circulation, co-participation between producers and audience under
the label of social TV (Andò and Marinelli 2014) appears to be prevalent.
As stated earlier, within this definition there are very broad and diverse
practices that are carried out by the audience and the producers, both of
whom work on expanding television consumption beyond the boundaries
of individual content through activities of commenting, sharing, searching
and producing.
    To better understand this step it is worth considering one of the sim-
plest aspects of television content circulation: the launch phase of the
product, which is ideally considered as the starting point of the circula-
tion process. In the framework of broadcast television and television flow
described by Williams, the television promo had the purpose of announc-
ing the start of a new product in a specific time scale (the next few hours,
the same day or, at most, the next few days) and a specific space (that of
the TV network), essentially enabling the viewer to be pulled into a view-
ing experience from which it was difficult to escape, also due to these
narrative junctions (Johnson 2013). Osservatorio’s data confirm the
relevance of TV promotions (74% considering usual and not usual be-
haviours), of zapping activity (91% considering usual and not usual be-
haviors) and of EPG (electronic programming guide) (84% considering
usual and not usual behaviours).
    Today, in addition to these more or less traditional communication
formulae, there are others that depend on the social strategies of the
broadcaster (see Tab. 4). In a context of strong competition for the atten-
tion of a niche audience, networks tend to personalise the relationship
with the audience using quasi-informal channels of interaction through
which new content is signalled in order to urge viewing, create engage-
ment and participation, and strengthen audience loyalty.
Tab 4 – Social strategy of the broadcaster
                                                Usually         Not usually
  I follow the Facebook account of the
                                                13.4%              25.3%
    channel/network
  I follow the Twitter account of the
                                                10.2%              22.3%
    channel/network
  I follow the Facebook account of the
                                                12.4%              25.5%
    programme
  I follow the Twitter account of the
                                                10.6%              21.6%
    programme
  I follow the Facebook account of the
                                                11.9%              22.8%
    programme’s anchorman/star
  I follow the Twitter account of the
                                                10.4%              21.4%
    programme’s anchorman/star
Source: Osservatorio Social TV 2015 – CAWI – 1,082 Italians aged from 12 to 64
in May 2015.
118                                                                  Tecnoscienza – 7 (2)

    This continuous production of (supplemental) content related to
(original) television content that is created by networks, programs, and
presenters/stars, acts as a multiplier of visibility and access (see Tab. 5).
The circulation of content can therefore be initiated by any of the differ-
ent entities that produce the content, with their digital narration commu-
nicated through social media.


Tab 5 – TV content as expanded text in consumption experience
                                                                              Baby
                                         GenZ     Millennials   GenX
                                                                             boomers

 I watch only TV programmes
                                         50.0%         56.1%    73.3%        83.5%
   (original format)

 I watch both TV programmes and
   related contents (UGC on social       44.1%         33.9%    18.3%        12.0%
   media, mobi/webisodes, video extra)

Age Groups (yrs): GenZ (12-20); Millennials (21-34); GenX (35-49); Baby boom-
ers (50-64). Source: Osservatorio Social TV 2015 – CAWI – 1,082 Italians aged
from 12 to 64 in May 2015.


    As a matter of fact, content appropriation and constant engagement
encourage the audience to take charge of the viral diffusion process, cre-
ating more potential touch points for the connected audiences (as exem-
plified in Facebook’s algorithm that weighs the actual and potential audi-
ence – friends of friends – of a particular post).


Tab 6 – How to decide what to watch
                                                           Usually        Not usually
 I turn on the TV because of Whatsapp interactions
                                                           13.6%            25.8%
   about what’s on the air
 I turn on the TV because I am on social media and I
                                                           13.6%            30.1%
   am discussing something on air that intrigues me
  I choose what to watch because of the information
                                                      18.3%         40.7%
    and/or suggestions on social media before airing
Source: Osservatorio Social TV 2015 – CAWI – 1,082 Italians aged from 12 to 64
in May 2015.


   However, what is even more interesting for the purposes of our dis-
cussion is the media circulation that begins with the audience as a result
Marinelli and Andò                                                         119
of their interaction and online sharing practices. Falling into this type of
behaviour are all those cases where audiences access media content on
the basis of suggestions, recommendations, and live interactions. Consid-
ering both regular and not regular users, over 58% of the sample sur-
veyed by Osservatorio Social TV decide what to watch on TV based on
the information received from interactions on Facebook and/or Twitter,
or decide to turn on the TV (44%) on the basis of online discussions ac-
cessed or participated in, or receive suggestions and/or recommendations
via Whatsapp (40%).

3.3 The Expanded Digital Life of the TV content

    In the cases described above, content circulation begins in a broader
environment than one that defines the medium of television and its logic.
Content comes to the attention of the audience through forms of hybridi-
sation between the TV and the Internet, as in the case of television social
media strategy, or from collective online sharing, as in the case of social
networking sites or chat.
    In this broad transmedia and connected environment, the expanded
television texts that the audience interacts with offer other touch points
with content that guarantee a more substantial consumption experience
that enlarges the boundaries of simple viewing. Returning to the question
of the narrative complexity of television content, today’s media content
offers the audience infinite points of access and opportunities for en-
gagement that revolve mostly around the recreational aspect of consump-
tion. In learning from fandom practices, from textual poaching to collect-
ing and cosplaying (Fiske 1987; Jenkins 1992) that expand the borders of
the cult content to a total appropriation of the product, media producers
now know that they have to respond to the desires of the audience to
build an intense relationship with the product. In search of a relationship
that is defined by Meyrowitz (1985) as para-social, which guarantees me-
dia content a life far beyond viewing practices, they have created the op-
tion of following and/or interacting with the stars of the media content.

Tab 7 – Audience practices off screen.
                                                   Usually       Not usually

 Buying premium content related to the
                                                    9.6%           20.2%
  programme (music, dvds)
 Online shopping of products shown in TV
                                                    9.8%           21.9%
  content or during commercials
  Following the celebrity on Twitter, Facebook
                                                  11.9%             21.8%
   or Instagram
Source: Osservatorio Social TV 2015 – CAWI – 1,082 Italians aged from 12 to 64
in May 2015.
120                                                            Tecnoscienza – 7 (2)


     As documented by Osservatorio Social TV, a third of audiences are
engaged in following celebrities on social media and posting and sharing
their images in order to satisfy a need to feel close to the content (Mar-
wick 2011); they may even be interested in copying outfits (Andò 2015)
or buying product brands seen on screen and using them as transitional
objects (Hills 2002) or identity markers. In all these cases we find con-
sumer behaviour that becomes a true replication of television content,
which definitively goes beyond the screens and is reflected in everyday
life, where it is used in interactions with others, thereby initiating further
processes of circulation and sense-making. According to Osservatorio,
these practices that take advantage of the potential use of a connected se-
cond screen, either during or after watching TV content, are seen in
about 30% of the Italian sample (as both an habitual and non-habitual
practice), mostly in the younger generations, but they potentially involve a
further 15% of the subjects.


Tab. 8 – Why do you use TV companion apps?
                                                         Usually     Not usually
It lets me to find information on TV programme/star      20.0%          28.0%

It lets me participate in the programme (voting, etc.)   20.9%          26.1%

It lets me to access exclusive content                   17.3%          24.1%
It lets me keep in touch with the TV programme and
                                                         15.1%          24.7%
  its characters
It lets me play with the TV show and its characters      15.0%          20.1%
It lets me share my engagement with the TV
                                                      15.1%        19.7%
  program (i.e. check-in apps)
It lets me connect with brands mentioned during the
                                                      13.4%        19.3%
  show and its products
It lets me be part of the show with content generated
                                                      14.5%        18.1%
  by the user
It lets me get in touch with a programme/channel
                                                      13.6%        17.8%
  community
Source: Osservatorio Social TV 2015 – CAWI – 1,082 Italians aged 12 to 64 in
May 2015.


    The audience, therefore, appears committed to constantly keeping the
bond alive with their object of interest, thus helping to extend its longevi-
ty and pervasiveness as well as its cultural centrality. In their nomadic ap-
proach to the connected media-scape, the most active audiences experi-
ence whatever media form is able to expand or amplify content consump-
Marinelli and Andò                                                            121
tion. The digital life of content expands along a greater spectrum that
crosses the same time and space while taking on another form of the con-
tent and thereby representing an extension, a reference, a continuation.
The programme’s music becomes a further segment of the original media
content that can be claimed and which keeps the content alive; the pur-
chase of the DVD becomes a collecting strategy to replicate the viewing
experience whenever you want.
    At the same time, the downloading of applications built for the se-
cond screen allows the audience to expand the recreational content space
using innovative means that are unavailable in the original content and
are experienced in transmedia forms, as seen in our research data. Apps
enable users to discover additional information about programmes and
characters (48% of the sample), and to play with (35%) and participate
in (47%) the programme. They encourage audiences to follow the stars
even after the programme has aired (40%), maintaining an ongoing rela-
tionship with the familiar faces of the stars and providing access to exclu-
sive content (41%) that represents a transmedia expansion of the original
content.
    In a way, this group of practices represents an extension of the con-
tent itself and its re-actualisation in audience consumption experiences.
This practices and media forms clearly indicate the rigidity of theoretical
reflections that focus on an individual device and its original technologi-
cal form.


Tab. 9 – UGC (user generated content) creation and sharing (while watching TV).
                                                         Usually    Not usually
Share on social media a video from the web/online
                                                        18.7%         31.2%
 newspaper
Share on social media a video from YouTube/Vimeo        19.7%         32.3%

Share a video posted by others on social media          15.8%         32.1%
 Make a video of TV content and then share it on
                                                      10.4%         22.0%
  social media
 Take a picture of the TV screen and then share it on
                                                      13.9%         34.2%
  social media
 Make a live video of the TV screen and then share it
                                                      11.4%         28.2%
  on social media
Source: Osservatorio Social TV 2015 – CAWI – 1,082 Italians aged from 12 to 64
in May 2015.


   This is an important point for understanding the production of user-
generated content that is related to specific products and their circulation
122                                                           Tecnoscienza – 7 (2)

on the web. The screen shot of a programme broadcast on a television
screen or any other device is not the programme itself, even if it contrib-
utes to the circulation of the original content. In the same way, videos,
photographs, and drawings that the audience use to produce their own
revised version of the original content act as a reinforcement of – or a
touch point to – a specific content and determine its long tail in the mar-
ket (Anderson 2006; Napoli 2010). We are speaking of practices that, tak-
ing account of both habitual and sporadic consumption, are not so un-
common, especially among the younger generations (their statistics are 7
to 10 percentage points higher than the total audience average).
    These are no longer exclusively fandom or niche practices whose pur-
pose was primarily to strengthen the relationship with the object of wor-
ship among the fans within the framework of a closed community, but
they are becoming normalised daily activities that nourish the social life of
the audience and make the media content pervasive and timeless.
    The question of viewing times leads us back, then, to our map and the
management of content circulation time with respect to the needs of pro-
ducers or consumers. This is the battlefield where producers and audi-
ences are constantly engaged, which the latter are still unable to domi-
nate. Or at least this is true as far as regards the first release of a product
on the market. Even when we look at the most innovative OTT (Over the
Top Television: see Wolk 2015) strategies (as in the case of Netflix)
(Braun 2013), which make a serial product available to its subscribers in
its entirety, ultimately dismantling the logic of the schedule (Ellis 2000b),
we should keep in mind that the timing of the release is still set from the
top and that in these cases the liveness, understood as content (and im-
agery) that is available to all the audience, remains a constitutive and de-
fining aspect of the television experience. However, it is equally clear that
the degree of audience freedom in the creation of new user-generated
consumption practices is still greater than it is in traditional television
flow, even when based on market strategies that try to anticipate audience
viewing behaviours. In on-demand television systems, therefore, it is
worth referring to De Certeau’s idea of trajectory: the audience can act in
environments defined by strategies using tactics (De Certeau 1984) and
adjusting and modeling the temporal dimension of consumption, alt-
hough this happens anyway in the framework imposed from above.
    Another issue is the length of time and the unpredictable circulation
of digital content following the release of media products on the market.
We refer here to the circulation that can arise from the spread of user-
generated content related to media content, or the use of cross-media
outlets such as YouTube (Uricchio 2009). As evidenced by the most re-
cent reflections of fandom online (Booth 2015), previously unknown con-
tent can be discovered on a video seen on YouTube, in an article in a
blog, in a discussion online, and by the sharing of images, animated gifs
and memes. This can happen thanks to suggestions and recommendations
that are typical of peer culture, which is the basis of the idea of collective
Marinelli and Andò                                                         123
intelligence, set forth by Jenkins (2006) regarding the affirmation of the
Web 2.0. Once the touch point with the content is activated, the audience
can appropriate it, freeing it from the logic of the medium, as seen in the
phenomenon of binge watching (Jenner 2016) or post-object fandom
(Williams 2015). The first phenomenon is useful in understanding how
the time of consumption can be placed directly in the hands of the view-
er, and even condensed to the maximum. A significant example of this is
the experiment by fans of “24” (Imagine Entertainment, 20th Century
Fox Television) who watch an entire season in 24 hours to adapt to the
temporality of the story (Mittell 2006). The second phenomenon is ex-
tremely relevant with respect to the persistence of content over time and
its infinite circulation: the online presence of fandom communities en-
courages their emotional bonds through media content beyond the time
of cancellation, through user-generated content shared with other enthu-
siasts. This is indicative of the effects of audience participation in the con-
tent circulation process.


4. Conclusion

    The evolution of the concept of flow from producer-controlled to us-
er-controlled to circulation, as discussed, describes a trajectory that leads
to the deconstruction and subsequent reformulation of the concepts of
space, time, and medium.
    The space is deconstructed in two senses. First, it is broken down
through the use of different screens in which the flow is construct-
ed/generated/exchanged and the specific use of contexts that govern or
induce the choice of technology. Second, it is deconstructed by extending
the conversations and social contacts that begin during consumption and
which form a major part of the networked media space.
    Data from Osservatorio Social TV confirm that place-shifting practic-
es are widespread, especially among the younger generations (GenZ, Mil-
lennials), and TV content circulates on different screens during the day,
accompanying other activities such as studying, working or relaxing. At
the same time, multi-screening practices, mostly using a smartphone, pro-
vide real time access to the networked media space where it is possible to
find information and to start social interactions.
    Time loses its original constraints and is restructured on the basis of a
continuous negotiation. The circulation of content is nurtured and re-
vived by the producer in expanded ways across multiple platforms and
modes of release of digital content; audiences selectively choose the con-
tent produced in their own personal flow, assigning it a time and, there-
fore, a digital life.
    Even with respect to temporality, the viewing practices identified by
Osservatorio demonstrate the audience’s ability to enhance the specific
heterochrony of digital content that is distributed through multiple plat-
124                                                             Tecnoscienza – 7 (2)

forms, constantly searchable, accessible on demand, and consumable at
the right time by users.
    Finally, with respect to the medium, the evolution from the concept of
flow to that of circulation inevitably blurs the well-established boundaries
between technological and cultural forms, leading to their hybridisation
with the formats of interpersonal conversation in online environments. In
the networked media space, the domains of communication are defini-
tively mixed through “techno-social-spatial relations” (Chamberlain
2011) that can be established through the audience’s active contributions
and participation.
    As demonstrated by research data on TV content circulation within
online environments, social media act as an inter-change platform where
needs, desires, and pleasures of the audience converge. This results in the
perception of an endless experience of TV consumption and the simulta-
neous extension and independence of content life-time from those
boundaries imposed by producers and broadcasters.
    It is evident that the crumbling of technological and space-time barri-
ers represents a condition that encourages and supports the extreme se-
lectivity of the user in flow construction. Likewise, the visibility and
traceability of consumer behaviour and interactions online provide a
wealth of knowledge (Big data) that establishes new forms of potential
audience discipline.
    As for television, the ancient wisdom exercised by broadcasters in the
construction of linear schedules will probably be replaced by the wisdom
in Big data management by new-generation television operators (OTT
services such as Netflix). What appears to the users’ free expression of
their selectivity in the construction of personal flow within the circulation
framework, will remain as a form of mediation between the careful plan-
ning of the flow from producers/distributors/market researchers and the
consumption practices carried out by the audience in the complexity of
the pre-selected media content.


References

Anderson, C. (2006) The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of
   More, New York, Hyperion.
Andò, R. (2014) What Does TV Actually Mean? New Consumer Experience and
   Generations, in “Participations. Journal of Audience & Reception Studies”,
   11 (2), pp. 156-181.
Andò, R. (2015) ‘I Dress Really Well’. Fandom Identification and Fashion
   through TV Series and Social Media: The Case of Claire Underwood’s Power
   Dressing, in “Critical Studies in Fashion & Beauty”, 6 (2), pp. 207-231.
Andò, R. and Marinelli, A. (2012) Dal textual poachers al Like/Dislike: quale va-
   lore dare all’engagement delle audience 2.0?, in “Comunicazioni Sociali”, 2
Marinelli and Andò                                                             125
    (2), pp. 347-357.
Andò, R. and Marinelli, A. (2014) Multiscreening and Social TV. The Changing
   Landscape of TV Consumption in Italy, in “View. Journal of European Tele-
   vision History & Culture”, 3 (6), pp. 24-36.
Ang, J. (1991) Desperately Seeking the Audience, London, Routledge.
Aroldi, P. and Colombo, F. (2003) Le età della TV, Milano, VP Università.
Askwith I.D. (2007) Television 2.0: Reconceptualizing TV as an Engagement Me-
   dium, Master’s Thesis, Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Bacon Smith, C. (1992) Enterprising Women. Television Fandom and the Crea-
   tion of Popular Myth, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Barra, L. (2015) Palinsesto. Storia e tecnica della programmazione televisiva, Ro-
   ma, Laterza.
Barra, L. and Scaglioni, M. (2014) TV Goes Social. Italian Broadcasting Strategies
   and the Challenges of Convergence, in “View. Journal of European Television
   History & Culture”, 3 (6), pp. 110-124.
Booth, P. (2015) Playing Fans: Negotiating Fandom and Media in the Digital
   Age, Iowa, University of Iowa Press.
Braun, J. (2013) Going over the Top: Online Television Distribution as Soci-
   otechnical System, in “Communication, Culture & Critique”, 6 (3), pp. 432-
   458.
Buonanno, M. (2008) The Age of Television: Experiences and Theories, Bristol,
   Intellect Books.
Chamberlain, D. (2011) Media Interfaces, Networked Media Spaces, and the
   Mass Customization of Everyday Space, in M. Kackman, M. Binfield, M.T.
   Payne, A. Perlman and B. Sebok (eds.), Flow TV: Television in the Age of
   Media Convergence, New York, Routledge, pp. 13-29.
Colombo, F. (ed.) (2015) Social TV. Produzione, esperienza e valore nell’era digi-
   tale, Milano, Egea.
Couldry, N. (2004) Liveness, ‘Reality’, and the Mediated Habitus from Television
   to the Mobile Phone, in “The Communication Review”, 7 (4), pp. 353-361.
De Certeau, M. (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life, Berkeley, University of Cal-
   ifornia Press.
Ellis, J. (1982) Visible Fictions: Cinema, Television, Video, London, Routledge.
Ellis, J. (2000a) Seeing Things: Television in the Age of Uncertainty, London, IB
    Tauris.
Ellis, J. (2000b) Scheduling: The Last Creative Act in Television?, in “Media, Cul-
    ture & Society”, 22 (1), pp. 25-38.
Fiske, J. (1987) Television Culture, London, Routledge.
Fiske, J. (1992) The Cultural Economy of Fandom, in L.A. Lewis (ed.), The
126                                                                Tecnoscienza – 7 (2)

      Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, London, Routledge, pp.
      30-49.
Gillan, J. (2011) Television and New Media: Must-Click TV, New York,
    Routledge.
Grasso, A. and Scaglioni, M. (2003) Che cos’è la televisione, Milano, Garzanti.
Gripsrud, J. (1998) Television, Broadcasting, Flow: Key Metaphors in TV Theory,
   in C. Geraghty and D. Lusted (eds.), The Television Study Books, London,
   Arnold, pp. 17-32.
Gripsrud, J. (ed.) (2010) Relocating Television. Television in the Digital Context,
   London and New York, Routledge.
Hartley, J. (1992) Tele-ology. Studies in Television, London, Routledge.
Hills, M. (2002) Fan Cultures, London, Routledge.
Jenkins, H. (1992) Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture,
   New York, Routledge.
Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide,
   New York, New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Ford, S. and Green, J. (2013) Spreadable Media: Creating Value and
   Meaning in a Networked Culture, New York, New York University Press.
Jenner, M. (2016) Is This TVIV? On Netflix, TVIII and Binge-Watching, in
   “New Media & Society”, 18 (2), pp. 257-273.
Jensen, J.F. (2008) The Concept of Interactivity – Revisited. Four New Typologies
    for a New Media Landscape, in UXTV ‘08 Proceedings of the 1st Interna-
    tional Conference on Designing Interactive User Experiences for TV and
    Video, pp. 129-132.
Johnson, C. (2013) The Continuity of ‘Continuity’: Flow and the Changing Expe-
   rience of Watching Broadcast Television, in “Key Words: A Journal of Cul-
   tural Materialism”, 11, pp. 23-39.
Kackman, M., Binfield, M., Payne, M.T., Perlman, A. and Sebok, B. (2011) Flow
   TV: Television in the Age of Media Convergence, New York, Routledge.
Lotz, A. (2007) The Television Will Be Revolutionized, New York, New York
   University Press.
Lotz, A. (2009) What is U.S. Television Now?, in “Annals of the American Acad-
   emy of Political and Social Science”, 625 (1), pp. 49-59.
Marinelli, A. (2015) L’interattività della televisione. Da innovazione mai realizzata
   a pratica quotidiana nel networked media space, in S. Arcagni (ed.), I Media
   digitali e l’interazione uomo-macchina, Roma, Aracne, pp. 275-304.
Marinelli, A. and Celata, G. (eds.) (2012) Connecting Television. La televisione al
   tempo di Internet, Milano, Guerini e Associati.
Marwick, A. (2011) To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter, in “Con-
   vergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technolo-
Marinelli and Andò                                                              127
    gies”, 17 (2), pp. 139-158.
Meyrowitz, J. (1985) No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on So-
   cial Behavior, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Mittell, J. (2006). “Narrative complexity in contemporary American television”.
   The Velvet Light Trap, vol. 58, issue 1, pp. 29–40.
Mittell, J. (2015) Complex TV: The Poetics of Contemporary Television Storytell-
   ing, New York, New York University Press.
Napoli, P.M. (2010) Audience Evolution. New Technologies and the Transfor-
   mation of Media Audiences, New York, Columbia University Press.
Scaglioni, M. and Sfardini, A. (2008) MultiTV. L’esperienza televisiva nell’età del-
   la convergenza, Roma, Carocci.
Strangelove, M. (2015) Post-TV: Piracy, Cord-Cutting, and the Future of Televi-
    sion, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
Uricchio, W. (2004) Television’s next generation: technology/interface cul-
   ture/flow, in L. Spigel and J. Olsson (eds.), Television After TV: Essays on a
   Medium in Transition, Durham, Duke University Press, pp. 232-261.
Uricchio, W. (2009) The Future of a Medium once Known as Television, in P.
   Snickars and P. Vonderau (eds.), The YouTube Reader, Stockholm, National
   Library of Sweden, pp. 24-39.
Uricchio, W. (2010) TV as Time Machine: Television’s Changing Heterochronic
   Regimes and the Production of History, in J. Gripsrud (ed.), Relocating Tele-
   vision. Television in the Digital Context, London and New York, Routledge,
   pp. 27-40.
Williams, R. ([1974] 2003) Television: Technology and Cultural Form, London,
   Routledge.
Williams, R. (2015) Post-Object Fandom: Television, Identity and Self-narrative,
   London, Bloomsbury.
Wolk, A. (2015) Over the Top. How the Internet is (Slowly but Surely) Changing
  the Television Industry, Leipzig, Amazon Distribution.
