From Era of Plenty to Era of Overflow

Introduction: The Changing TV Landscape

According to John Ellis’ (2000) typology of the television distribution system, we are currently living in the “era of plenty,” brought about by the digitization process and expressed in the immense availability of content. In the early days of television, viewers had access to only a few TV channels with limited content. This content restriction meant that viewers lived a shared social experience; watching the same content and talking about it in private and in public. From 2000 onwards, video content has become increasingly available through a variety of channels, both legal and illegal, and delivered in different formats. Examples of this are specialized niche content and user-generated content online, an extensive number of TV channels with round-the-clock broadcasts and interactive digital TV services (such as pay-TV channels and video on demand services). This extensive choice and availability of content on various platforms can potentially create an information and sensory overload for the viewer. It can thus be argued that rather than an “era of plenty,” we are currently in an “era of overflow” (Van den Broeck, 2011). Indeed, the digitization process has provided the viewer with more autonomy (“watch whatever I want, whenever I want”), but this might also lead to more complex decision-making processes in selecting the content. Furthermore, the pressure to produce more content might lead to a prioritization of quantity over quality, thereby making it difficult for viewers to find their preferred quality programs in an overflow of content.

The research presented in this article is based on data collected in Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Historically, Belgium has had a high cable penetration of around 97%. The traditional analogue TV programming in Flanders consists of about 30 channels, with three major local broadcast companies, offering a mix of local and foreign content (mainly American and British programs). These broadcasters are complemented by a number of foreign broadcasters and thematic channels. During this time, the average Flemish viewer watched only the seven channels of the local broadcasters for most of the time (Bauwens, 2002). In 2005, interactive Digital Television (iDTV) was launched, having currently a penetration of approximately 75% in Flanders (Interdisciplinary Institute for Broadband Technology [IBBT], 2012). Standardly, the iDTV providers offer a package of about 70 channels with additional thematic pay-TV channels. Apart from linear TV, video content can also be obtained through Video on Demand (VoD) services, which allow viewers to preview certain TV programs, catch up on programs they missed, or rent a film. Except for the news, however, all of these programs are on a (mostly) pay-per-view basis. Other commonly used iDTV services include Electronic Program Guide (EPG) and the Personal Video Recorder (PVR). According to the latest data (IBBT, 2012), 79.8% use either the EPG or DVR on a daily, weekly, or monthly base. VoD services for either films or TV programs, however, are significantly less used, with half of the population stating they have never used it.

Outside the traditional TV environment, video content can be obtained via optical media or the Internet. In the latter case, a limited range of Internet services through which films can be bought or rented is available in Belgium (e.g., Mubi, iTunes, Movie Me). Yet this offer is scattered and, to our knowledge, rather obscure. Moreover, in terms of TV programs a service such as BBC iPlayer is nonexistent. On the other hand, data show that in 2011 circa 80% of the Flemish population have watched online video content at least once and 20% do this on a daily basis (IBBT, 2012). This is a significant increase compared to earlier data and seems to indicate that there is growing need for such services. A similar trend exists in the United States, as indicated by Pew survey data (Purcell, 2010). Whereas figures on Flemish online video consumption remain on a generic level, the Pew data show 32% of online adults in the United States have watched either a full movie or a TV show online (Purcell, 2010). In addition, U.S. media, such as Variety (Lisanti, 2012), report that there is an emerging trend where consumers are turning away from cable subscription and are mainly relying on online video distribution. Furthermore, Netflix—a U.S. provider of on demand Internet streaming video reportedly has more than 24 million subscribers in the United States (Liedtke, 2012).

Besides a lack of a qualitative online video offer, Flemish viewers, as compared to those in the United States, are also often confronted with a delay in terms of content availability. Films are traditionally released through a series of geographically and temporally delineated windows (De Vinck, 2011). In the case of TV series, on the other hand, viewers have to wait for either the DVD release or until a local broadcaster acquires the rights and decides to air it. The digital era, with its focus on flexibility, poses a challenge to these distribution cycles (De Vinck, 2011), not least because of the illegal alternatives that viewers may find in downloading and streaming content.

As stated above, viewers in Belgium are, to a certain extent, restricted in accessing video content legally; however, there is scarcely any data on illegal downloading and streaming in Belgium. Yet it can be argued that a significant part of the population is actively involved in online piracy; www.torrentz.eu, a search engine for torrent-files is among the hundred most visited web sites in Belgium. ¹ Moreover, the popular torrent site The Pirate Bay has recently been blocked on the networks of a number of ISPs due to court ruling. ²

Research has shown that motivations for downloading, apart from the cost, include convenience, customization to personal preferences, and control over content (Carey, 2008). In addition, research effectuated by Barkhuus (2009) shows that youngsters consider traditional linear TV impossible to customize and thus control. Conversely, Barkhuus’s study also found that linear TV was associated with a sense of carefreeness, as in watching whatever is on. This finding is similar to the work of Bauwens (2002), which shows that viewers turn to TV not necessarily to watch specific content, but rather for the medium itself and for the actual act of “watching television.” Furthermore, there are different types of engagement with content that can be discerned. Van den Broeck, Lievens, and Pierson (2006) refer to TV in the front (focused viewing), TV on the side (multitasking), and TV in the back (TV as wallpaper). These different contexts appear to have an influence on the type of content that is selected. In the case of TV on the side or TV in the back, the content will probably be less important than in the case of TV in the front when a certain program is actively selected to watch with full attention. In her research regarding use practices on iDTV, Van den Broeck (2011) also found that despite the aforementioned affordances of iDTV, the changes in viewing behavior are rather minor, as viewers tend to watch more of the same instead of exploring new types of content. In addition, her study found that TV continues to be perceived as a social and relaxation device. According to Carey (2008), this meaning also applies to video content obtained outside linear broadcasts (e.g., through the Internet). Moreover, it can be argued that this meaning is rather connected to video content in general, rather than to TV as an institutionalized object. At least this seems to be the trend for those who are familiar with consuming video online. According to Gibs (2009), TV, to a specific, younger and digitally skilled segment, is not so much a companion, but rather a carrier of video content, besides other types of content, such as video games. As such, the difference between a TV set on the one hand and a computer on the other seems to be smaller than expected. Data measuring online video consumption in the United States indicates that age is indeed an indicator of content consumption patterns (Purcell, 2010).

In sum, it can be argued that trend shifts are taking place in terms of video content consumption, yet slowly. In this article we attempt to deepen the knowledge regarding how viewers cope with these shifts, in terms of the channels through which content can be obtained. More specifically, we want to discern to what extent viewers apply an active search process toward video content and what the relevant factors are in this process. In line with earlier research, we focused predominantly on younger viewers because they are acquainted with these newer technologies. Nevertheless, for comparative reasons we also included older viewers.

The concept video content as used in this article includes all the usage of all video in the home: for example, linear TV broadcasts, on demand, recorded films or programs, downloaded or streamed, and so forth. The type of video content we focus on is what Gibs (2009) labels long-form video content (e.g., entire episodes of TV series, films). Moreover, we limit ourselves to the professionally produced video content, including film, TV series and TV programs. The remainder of this article is structured as follows: first, the applied method and study sample used are discussed, followed by the results and a concluding discussion section.

Method and Sample

The data in this article have been obtained through a series of seven focus group interviews, conducted in two stages; the first three took place at the end of 2010 and early 2011, the last four at the end of 2011. These focus group interviews were conducted as part of an IBBT (Interdisciplinary institute for BroadBand Technology) research project called OMUS (Optimizing MUltimedia Service delivery), and served as input for a social recommendation system that was under development in the research project. The first series of focus groups served as input for the development of specific criteria that needed to be taken into account when developing such a system. The interviews focused on applied selection criteria and on the use of existing recommendations (from different sources, for example, existing recommender engines, peers, etc.), thereby resulting in a set of social and functional requirements. The second series of focus groups was conducted with the aim of evaluating the prototype of the developed recommender engine. The first focus group session of the second series was composed of respondents who participated earlier in one of the focus group sessions in the first series. These focus group interviews lasted approximately 2 hours in length, were fully transcribed ad verbatim, and analyzed afterwards using Nvivo 9.

The research sample was composed using purposeful sampling (Sandelowski, 1995), with each of the focus groups targeting a specific group of viewers. The criteria that guided the sampling involved an equal sociodemographic distribution, viewing behavior (e.g., preferred content, viewing duration, social viewing) and usage of different devices for video consultation and playback (e.g., TV, PC, handheld). The medium through which the viewers obtained the consulted content (linear broadcasts, downloaded, streamed) was also taken into account as a criterion. Because of the specific focus of the project, most of the focus groups were aimed at a younger and “advanced” user profile, namely, viewers who use various sources to consult video content.

In total 47 respondents participated in these focus groups, of whom 33 were male and 14 female. Within the 7 focus groups, the average age was 30, the first group being the youngest (24) and consisting of regular streaming and downloading students; and the sixth group being the oldest (47), consisting of digital TV viewers gainfully employed, who mainly watch video content in the presence of others. Other focus groups involved heavy downloaders (FG2 & FG4), young and employed digital TV viewers (FG3), regular streamers and/or downloaders (FG5), and viewers with an elaborated network setup, consulting video on at least 3 different devices (FG7). The summary of the sampling is provided in Table 1 below. The names of the respondents were altered for reasons of privacy and confidentiality.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Overview Sample Configurations

FG	Targeted profile	Sample
1	Students	No. 10
		M: 5
		F: 5
		Average Age: 23,7
2	Heavy downloaders	No. 8
		M: 6
		F: 2
		Average Age: 24,3
3	Young, employed digital TV viewers	No.7
		M: 5
		F: 2
		Average Age: 29,3
4	Heavy downloaders/streamers	No. 7
		M: 5
		F: 2
		Average Age: 24,9
5	Regular downloaders/streamers	No.7
		M: 6
		F: 1
		Average Age: 30,7
6	Older, employed digital TV viewers	No.8
		M: 7
		F: 1
		Average Age: 47,4
7	Elaborated network setup	No. 7
		M: 4
		F: 3
		Average Age: 32

Results

In this research we want to discern the relevant factors in the decision-making process in viewer’s viewing interest. Specifically, what criteria our respondents employ in deciding whether or not a specific content item is of viewing interest and whether it will be watched. Based on the conducted research, three main dimensions can be distinguished: the contextual, the content, and the personal dimensions (Figure 1). In this section all three dimensions will be discussed and analyzed. We acknowledge that these dimensions are interrelated and that the specific viewing context exerts an influence on, among others, the content dimension. Nonetheless, we take on the task of discussing these dimensions in-depth in order to obtain a thorough understanding of the specific viewing decision characteristics when actively searching and consuming content.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The three dimensions that contribute to video content selection

Contextual Dimension

Relevant contextual factors include the intention with which video content is consumed, the spatiotemporal context, and the social context in which the content is consumed.

Regarding viewing intention, it is important to recognize that the video content watched is not always deliberately chosen or decided upon. Consuming video content in itself is the principal way of spending leisure time among Belgians (Glorieux, Minnen, & Van Tienhoven, 2008). According to the latest figures, an average Flemish household spends about 4 hours a day watching television during the week and 4.5 hours a day during the weekend (IBBT, 2011). We already noted that watching television is an activity that’s not always intentionally focused on certain content (e.g., switching on to switch off, see supra) or with the same level of engagement (e.g., TV on the side or in the back). As such, the viewed content can be part of a routine (e.g., watching a soap opera on a daily basis), a random selection (e.g., channel surfing when wanting to unwind), or a TV guide–assisted selection (a traditional paper guide or the electronic program guide). Nevertheless, the focus group interviews made clear that when it comes to watching television, the respondents often have a set of TV channels they regularly watch. It can be argued that this is not an arbitrary or random act but rather the result of applying a set of implicit rules of thumb in order to decide what is watched. Cultural proximity plays an important role because the channels that were generally or most often selected were the top five Flemish channels. There is also often a clear preference for the Public Broadcast Service (VRT) or for commercial TV channels (e.g., VTM) as these channels often function as a “quality indicator.”

Mostly it’s the VRT. Sometimes we switch to VTM … We do have iDTV, but in general we only use about 4 channels. (Ludo, male, 47 years old)

In contrast to linear broadcast TV content and the related TV-viewing behavior as discussed above, recording by means of a DVR, selecting an item in an iDTV-VoD service or online (e.g., streaming series or downloading movies) are actions that are more likely to be the result of deliberate intent. These actions are generally motivated because viewers tend to want to watch something at their convenience. This tendency is closely linked to the specificities of the temporal context. First, TV-programs are often aired at inconvenient times, either too early or too late. Second, content is often selected with respect to the amount of time the viewers have available. Therefore, the runtime of the content is a relevant dimension in viewers’ decision-making process. In this regard, respondents distinguish between films and TV series:

If you have about two hours, then you’d probably go for a movie. If less, an episode of TV-series […] Now, the good thing about TV-series is—if you have them [e.g. downloaded or in a DVD-box], is that you can keep watching. If you don’t feel like sleeping yet, you can just watch another episode … (Karsten, male, 31 years old)

In this case, viewers actively choose a specific content item within existing limiting parameters. Moreover, content selection is more of a “lean forward” rather than a “lean back” practice in this case. Besides the temporal factor, a spatial factor applies as well. Spatiality, in this case, has to be regarded as having access to either the content or a device on which this content can be watched. For instance, when content is consumed on the train, the viewer is limited to the locally stored content on the device at hand (e.g., laptop, tablet). For students living in dorms without a TV set, the computer necessarily becomes the primary device to consume video content. Spatiality can however also apply to the social context. An example of this is the TV set being used by someone else in the household. In this case, respondents either accompany the other viewer and watch content that is not their primary choice, turn to another device (e.g., computer, handheld) to watch video content, or do something completely different.

Normally, I watch along with my husband, unless he’s watching things I really don’t like; he is really into everything that has to do with World War II and that’s not my cup of tea. I just go to my computer, set myself aside. (Magda, female, 55 years old)

Watching video content together with others is a practice frequently indicated upon during the focus group interviews. Others can include partners, family members, or friends. It was often suggested that a specific social context influences the content that is ultimately watched, either in terms of the viewing intention or the specific content:

Among friends, we often turn to reality TV so we can laugh at it. But this doesn’t happen all that often with my girlfriend because she doesn’t like it. (Ronald, male, 25 years old)

Watching content within a family can also be motivated by the establishment of a sort of tradition or as a ritual of family bonding. Selecting a content item to watch within a group is generally subject to some negotiations. This process involves narrowing down to a short list, gathering information on the particular content items itself, and deliberating on the choice of content to watch within a given social setting. According to our respondents, the predominant practice is to try to find an agreement according to shared interests. While it was often indicated that a viewer tends to have similar preferences to his or her social circle, some respondents indicated that sometimes they have to turn to more accessible content, often referred to by sitcoms (e.g., The Big Bang Theory), as this is someone no one really dislikes. It was also stated that agreements are often reached by turning to reviews, ratings, or watching trailers.

What we mostly do is run down the options on the Internet or the iDTV VoD service … and usually there’s someone having a laptop on hand and then we search for some reviews online in order to settle on a definite decision. (Sven, male, 26 years old)

As not everyone is always as knowledgeable on the subject, respondents stated that family/friends possessing the necessary “knowledge” (the “expert” viewers) might persuade the others by giving good arguments regarding a specific content item.

When you are discussing which movie to watch with a couple of friends, and there are about five movies to choose from, then mostly someone will start praising one of them passionately … mostly someone who knows more about the specific films. This is often the decisive element, someone who knows more than just the plot. (Robby, male, 24 years old)

Social viewing also implies that viewers become acquainted with content that they generally would not choose themselves, for example, a genre that is not a part of that viewer’s usual viewing routine. This especially holds true in social or group situations, as described in the quote above. This practice hints at individual differences in terms of knowledge about content. Additional differences will be discussed in the following sections.

Content Dimension

As indicated earlier we focus on the long form content. In the data we can distinguish three types of long form content: films, TV series, and TV programs. Whereas the former has a straightforward definition, the latter two require some elaboration. We define TV programs as those that are, still, typically consumed in a traditional, linear way (e.g., news and current affairs programs, sport events, live shows, for example, “Idols,” and soaps). TV series consist mainly of fictional stories, often consumed outside the linear broadcast scheme (e.g., on optical media or recorded by means of a DVR).

The content-related factors that were indicated during the different focus group interviews included actor or actress, director, content producer, release date, language, plot, genre, runtime, and location or setting of the story. The majority of these descriptors predominantly apply to films; however, actors or directors increasingly gain importance with respect to TV series. Nevertheless, the factor holding greatest importance is genre, followed by actor/actress and director. Genre is an important factor to our respondents because it appears to be one of the more powerful ways of describing and expressing their preferences for a specific content item. Content genre, as well as the featured or leading actor or actress, can play a decisive role in viewers’ decision-making process. For certain viewers, the specific genre or featured actors can be a decisive factor in favor of watching the content, while for others the same factors may elicit a contrary response.

There are certain actors/actresses … if they play in a certain film, I’d rather not see it. Or vice versa. (Pascal, male, 46)

The language factor also appears to play a determining role. The fondness or antipathy regarding a specific language or country may be reasons for avoiding certain content items. A related factor to language and culture is the filmsetting or the particular physical location (e.g., country, city) in which the narrative takes place:

For example, we both love Venice. If there’s a movie, a documentary or a series that takes part in Venice, then we’ll absolutely try to watch it together. (John, male, 37)

The director and/or the production house were also listed as defining components because these provide viewers with an idea of what they can expect. As such, director stands for a certain type of film genre and also acts as a form of a quality label. The same holds true for broadcasters (TV channel) or content producers. In terms of content producers, HBO, for example, is a defining example; in Europe the HBO name or brand is considered a “quality label” for American series.

Today, HBO as content producer has become a quality label. (Arnaud, male, 30 years old)

Alternatively, content items can be regarded as qualitative when they have received critical acclaim. Appearing in top lists, obtaining positive reviews, or being awarded or nominated are important quality markers identified by our respondents. Popular top lists are provided by such web sites as IMDb.com. When deciding between two or more films, respondents indicated that the score they received on IMDb might be a decisive factor. Interestingly, the data shows that respondents have developed their own benchmarks (e.g., more than 6/10), which are applied in a rule-of-thumb fashion. Furthermore, the top 250 movies of all time, or top lists by genre or decade are also considered relevant guides. At the same time, some skepticism exists regarding these scores and top lists. Some of the respondents consider them highly subjective and biased toward new films and specific genres.

IMDb is a bit tricky as well; comedies are always rated low. A film that might be funny to some … And that’s why comedy is actually the most subjective … I frequently go to IMDb, but I’ll always be more cautious when it comes to comedies. Even if the ratings are low or high, I’ll always check some trailers or other reviews. (David, male, 22 years old)

This critique shows that viewers not only take into account the critical reviews but also the reviewer and attach a type of quality label to the latter. Respondents admit they often return to specific sources for reviews or top lists to ascertain whether a specific movie or series will appeal to them. Sources might include not only specific newspapers, magazines, or weblogs, which viewers have come to trust, but also annual awards. For instance Amy, a 24-year-old female working in marketing, who frequently downloads and streams content, admits that she relies heavily on TV series’ awards or nominations in the annual Emmy awards, specifically for the comedy category:

For my TV series, I mostly turn to those that have recently won any Emmy-awards—I don’t go further back than the nineties. As a rule, this is a good indication. Also those that have been nominated, by the way. In general, I can identify myself with these winners, especially the comedy part. (Amy, female, 24 years old)

Besides the sources mentioned above, the most influential or important are friends. It was argued that friends often have a similar taste and sometimes they might even be able to predict which content would appeal to the other. Yet differences also exist, as the following quote illustrates:

If I hear something about a new TV series being mentioned by the person X, I’d say “yeah, well, good for you.” On the other hand, if person Y mentions it, then I might ask for his external hard disk. Just because you know that if person Y likes something, I will probably like it as well. (Kenneth, male, 27 years old)

Recommendations obtained through one’s personal social networks and by consulting top lists or awards are not legitimate in itself but are generally trusted due to the relationship the viewers have developed with these sources. Furthermore, they often function as a starting point for further research in order to determine the relevance of these recommendations. In this process viewers consult trailers or clips as well as some of the aforementioned trusted sources (e.g., reviews). It is important to understand that these criteria are often used in combination and are applied to a specific context. In addition, personal characteristics also have a significant impact in this process.

Personal Dimension

Personal factors we identified include skills and competence regarding content acquisition, the lifestyle and content sources that are used, and the willingness to invest effort. Of course, these personal factors are highly contextualized.

Skills and competence in acquiring content refers to the extent to which various methods and sources are used to obtain content as well as the digital literacy of a particular individual. It can be argued that having extensive skills and competence in acquiring content through a greater variety of delivery channels implies that one also has access to a larger selection of video content. Interestingly, we also noted that those who lack the necessary competences and skills often rely on peers to download the preferred content for them or trust their suggestions and advice. Sanne, a 26-year-old female, admits she really does not know how to search for content online, nor is she willing to invest the effort to learn it, yet she does watch downloaded video content, which she obtains through her friends:

They are often really proficient in it and I just follow them because generally it is good what they propose. (Sanne, female, 26 years old)

Having digital skills, however, is insufficient to be able to use these channels (which is in line with what Selwyn, 2004, states in his article on reconsidering understandings of the digital divide). Willy (FG7), a 62-year-old retired criminologist, does consult news web sites on a daily basis, he even watches video content on these sites, and yet he does not consider the computer as an appropriate playback device:

It’s just a habit, I guess … But there’s an appropriate time to watch TV and an appropriate time to play with my computer. (Willy, male, 62 years old)

There are different technological channels via which video content can be received and or consumed, but we have noted that users do not always associate these affordances with particular technology (e.g., in the case of Willy, he does not consider the computer as a device to watch video content on). Thus specific technological devices need to embody that associative dimension for the user and the particular technological affordances need to become an inherent part of the user’s lifestyle. This same condition also applies to the sources that are used to obtain information about different content items. The research data clearly indicate that the sources used by our respondents to determine what to watch are part of their personal lifestyle and relate to their skills and level of expertise. For some, this is limited to paper TV guides and/or their personal social network (e.g., friends, neighbors, colleagues), while others might also use online sources. These online sources include scores on IMDb, reviews on different weblogs, or film trailers and clips. In the subsequent quote, Sven explains how he came about to watch the TV series Boardwalk Empire:

Recently, for instance, the TV-series Boardwalk Empire show aired in America about four months ago. I stumbled upon it accidently through a trailer on YouTube […] I quickly searched for some information on IMDb, I liked the actors playing in it, the ratings were pretty good … Reasons enough for me to download it. (Sven, male, 26 years old)

It is clear that the more content distribution channels that are used the more the viewer is confronted with a potentially complex decision process. To cope with this complexity, different strategies have been noted in our research. Some might first turn to linear broadcasts and only if nothing appeals to them they will then switch to either their personal media library (DVR, PC, or optical media) or will search online. Also, it is important to understand that these personal factors are not fixed but may change according to a specific context or content item. Amy, for example, is familiar with downloading or streaming TV series. Nevertheless, she admits that sometimes she watches whatever is on. In this case, the act of watching TV takes primacy over the content that is watched. In the following quote she talks about the abundance of content offered through a variety of channels and how this requires an active use of video content. When she watches plain TV she does not want to actively search for or even settle on a specific content to watch:

I’m afraid that if I have to sit in front of the TV and decide for myself, that I wouldn’t know what to watch. I just wouldn’t know. Whereas now, I switch on the TV: the news, fine. But I don’t want to choose what program I’d like to see at what time […] I think I’d say that a lot of things don’t interest me. (Amy, female, 24 years old)

On the other hand, Magda (female, 55 years old) stated she sometimes has film nights with her neighbors. However she’s usually not interested in actively selecting what to watch and just follows her husband, then she discusses with her neighbors what they will watch. For them, this movie night is a very specific “event,” leading to a different selection and consumption of video content. It can be argued then that viewers will modify their usual or customary decision-making pattern according to the specific social context.

Discussion

Our main research questions in this paper were “How do viewers cope with the seeming abundance of content?” and “What are the relevant factors applied when selecting content?”

Related to the first question, we noted in our research that viewers seem to be able to cope with the infinite amount of content by simply restricting their options of video content consumption. Within the group of regular iDTV viewers, we found that people are relatively satisfied with the offer they have at hand and do not actively search for other types of content on other platforms. For the groups of downloaders and streamers, we noted that they are often not satisfied with the regular TV offer, which leads them to actively search for content (the newest [episodes of] series or movies) on other platforms. For these practices we see that skills and competences are important. Not only to locate the different sources of content, and the ability to stream or download content, but also to judge the particular (technical) quality aspects. Here we see that there is a large group of viewers who are interested in consuming online content but lack the necessary skills and, therefore, turn to their peers in order to gain access to this content. This is an important social practice in which content and skills are shared.

In this paper we have discerned three levels of factors, which serve to shed light on how video content is consumed (or not). More precisely, we found that a combination of contextual factors, content-related factors, and personal factors need to be taken into account when talking about the selection of video content.

First, selecting video content is a context-dependent practice. This context is the environment in which content-related factors and personal factors become meaningful and act as constraints as well as facilitators in the consumption of video content. We identified three context subdimensions: viewing intention, spatiotemporal context, and social context. First, video content is often consumed without prior elaborate decision making and takes place mainly within the flow of the television broadcast schedule. Employing a more elaborate decision-making process does also occur within this flow, but the former seems to be the predominant practice when watching video content outside the flow—either by means of the features iDTV offers, via optical media, or online. The spatiotemporal context seems to determine the more pragmatic specificities regarding the selection of video content. The temporal context constrains the number of video content items that are watched according to their runtime on the one hand, and their airdate on the other. The spatial context constrains the access to either the playback device or to the content itself. The social context acts as a constraint in limiting the number of video content items to select from, which results from the need to accommodate diverging interests and preferences when consuming content together in a social context. Here we often see a negotiation process in which different information sources, critical reviews, and recommendation sources (both internal and external) play a part in the final decision. Yet the opportunity lies also in the discovering of new content, the kind that one would usually not consume in another setting or context.

Content-related factors include objective content descriptors as well as the discussion surrounding the content. Content-related factors are informed by the particular expectations a viewer has toward specific content. These expectations involve past experiences with similar content as well as the consulting of reviews, awards, and appraisals of content by authoritative figures. The viewers then actively consider this entire range of content-related factors, which are either pragmatic or symbolic in nature, in their decision-making process to come to a more or less delineated short list. In determining the definitive selection, viewers rely on the values that are assigned to the objective content descriptors (e.g., the runtime of the movie is 2 hours, the genre is drama, the director is Martin Scorsese). This information provides the viewer with either pragmatic or symbolic expectations, built on earlier experiences and based on the specific characteristics the content has been labeled with. The same applies to how the content has been reviewed—either in the form of scores, awards, or written critiques—and the identity of the reviewer. Furthermore, viewers apply active thought processes analyzing and judging the content itself or the way in which a particular piece of content has been talked about. This is effectuated by consulting multiple sources, comparing different reviews, and the value assigned to the content itself, yet this does not always happen in that order or involves all of the listed factors. Data indicated that even for linear broadcast TV, viewers take into consideration the specific channel and use it as a gatekeeper or as a quality indicator. Viewers know what to expect from a certain TV broadcast channel or from a certain production company. This is also apparent in the new digital TV channel “Acht,” which mainly broadcasts HBO series and advertisements, in this way capitalizing on the HBO brand and using its previously successful series as a quality brand, thereby informing the viewer on what to expect.

The personal dimension is rather similar to the contextual dimension in terms of constrains and opportunities. The relevant subdimensions here are digital literacy, lifestyle, and willingness to invest effort. The majority of the new channels or media through which content can be obtained and which confront the viewer with a greater choice range are in digital format and require a certain user skill level and investment. Furthermore, the acquisition and consumption of video content through these channels needs to be part of the viewer’s lifestyle. If one or two of these subdimensions are not a fit with the viewer, the range of video content items is constrained. The positive upshot of this is that the choices that these viewers need to make are less complex. On the other hand, if these subdimensions match or fit the viewer, they extend the range of possibilities and affordances that are at the viewer’s disposal.

Literature shows that paradigm shifts are taking place, which our research confirms. However, our research study also confirms that these shifts are happening gradually and mainly in the younger generational segments. Furthermore, the TV “lean back” concept (e.g., relaxing, switch on to switch off (Bauwens, 2002)) also applies to video content in general, but probably especially for the long form type. It does require a more active viewer to search for video content, either within VoD menus or online, who tailors his or her preferences within a given set of limiting parameters. An interesting finding was that, despite the availability of a larger collection of video content online, we noticed that these more digitally skilled and device literate viewers often choose to consume the same video content items: our research noted, for instance, that often the same TV series were mentioned during the focus group sessions. This suggests that new gatekeepers are emerging, establishing a similar trust relationship that viewers have or used to have with broadcasters. The trust factor seems to be key in the decision process and will be further investigated in our future research. Furthermore, we acknowledge that the selected respondents fit more into a so-called digital natives profile, as most of them are younger and more device-literate. In future research it would be interesting to focus also on those groups who are less digitally skilled.