Approaching the cultures of use: Netflix,disruption and the audience

Abstract

This article draws on an empirical research project on cultural consumption in order to respond to particular concerns this project raised about our understanding of the current regimes of consumption for television, or what this article describes as the ‘cultures of use’. While there are rich literatures around many aspects of television consumption, this article argues that there is a gap in our direct knowledge of how individuals and households consume television, across platforms and devices, in domestic spaces. In order to fill that gap and to better understand how television consumption is embedded within people’s everyday lives, television studies may need not only to ask new kinds of questions through its research but also to adapt and modify some of the modes of audience research that marked the beginnings of television audience studies.

Keywords

Television studies audience research cultures of use research methodologies

As the media has reinvented itself for the digital era, the diversity of the experience of television for consumers around the world has radically increased; it is not surprising that academic research into the specificities of that diversity has struggled, in some areas, to keep pace. Significant challenges have been posed by the necessity to understand the roiling changes within the production and distribution industries but, in response, the bulk of research into the contemporary shifts in television has focused on technologies (devices, platforms and ‘datafication’), on the structure of the industries and systems of delivery or on content (most often to do with the textual strategies employed to address new and more diverse modes of audience engagement). Audiences have not necessarily been at the centre of these interests. While there are some areas where we have significant research on audiences (fan studies and mobile viewing are two examples), there is nonetheless some justification for Jonathan Gray’s comment that currently ‘we know embarrassingly little about audiences’ and that therefore we need to ‘revive’ audience studies (2017: 81).

This situation at least partly arises from concerns about what might be the appropriate methods or approaches for contemporary audience research. Kim Christian Schrøder (2018), for instance, has supported the shift from purely qualitative research towards a more mixed method research design for reception studies in the post-broadcasting digital era, which is reflected in the mix of methodologies (surveys, focus groups, interviews and textual analysis) employed in some of the more recent accounts of contemporary television consumption (Bury, 2018; Jenner, 2018; Lewis et al., 2016). Others suggest that we need new tools of analysis to help us rethink how we have conceptualised the audience to date. Lotz et al. (2018), in their ‘provocation’ on ‘internet-distributed television’ research, point out that we ‘lack an agreed-upon vocabulary for describing the experiential dimensions of internet-distributed television’:

User practices of searching, browsing, scrolling, swiping, recommending and favouring require expansion of existing understandings of audience behaviors. Moreover, the use of ‘bingeing’ to describe viewing consecutive episodes – whether two or ten – diminishes the utility of the term and such varied behaviours warrant precise understanding…[F]urther empirical studies of how viewers use and interact with these services is needed before we can theorize the experiential dimensions of internet-distributed television in ways that are conceptually robust. (2018)

Other concerns have seemed more pressing than these, as the schedule has given way to the algorithm. Sonia Livingstone (2019) has noted the urgency with which the field has focused upon datafication as an issue, for instance, but she has also cited the influence of theories of mediatisation as a further factor in pushing audiences into the background.

This article engages with these issues, initially by focusing on the disruption generated by Netflix in a specific location, Australia, where its introduction precipitated a quite dramatic reconfiguration of that ‘zone of consumption’ (Pertierra and Turner, 2013). For my purposes here, the key aspects of this reconfiguration have been, on the one hand, the relatively sudden migration, within domestic spaces, of a significant proportion of the Australian television audience from broadcast to streaming services and, on the other hand, the lack of substantial audience research which might help us better understand how this migration has changed how Australians now experience television. My primary interest in what follows lies in this latter issue – on what I am characterising as the ‘academic disruption’ that has accompanied the so-called ‘Netflix effect’.

In Australia, the industry changes have been rapid and substantial (Turner, 2018). In just 2 years, Australia transitioned from a television system that was overwhelmingly broadcast, national and communal to one which is hybrid and multi-platform, at the level of structure, and increasingly individualised, at the level of consumption. While we know a lot about the changes in structure, we know much less about the multiple, proliferating and contingent ways in which the consumption of television in Australia is now imbricated into the practices of everyday life – that is, in the cultures of use now in play. To address such a gap in the field, as Lotz and her colleagues infer, we may need to reconsider the adequacy of the currently preferred methodologies for analysing media consumption.

The initial provocation for this discussion derived from a research project that investigated cultural consumption within a range of cultural ‘fields’ in Australia – literature, music, visual arts, sport, heritage and television. The Australian Cultural Fields (ACF) project, led by Tony Bennett, designed a questionnaire that was administered by telephone to a sample of 1400 people and sought information about their habits of consumption. Implicit in the framing of the questionnaire was an assumption, defensible at the time, that broadcast television was still among the fundamental components of everyday life for all of our respondents. The survey was followed up by 45 interviews with individual respondents that provided interviewees with an opportunity to elaborate on their answers to the questionnaire. In the case of television, the interviews provided additional information about how each of the subjects consumed or, perhaps more accurately, ‘used’ television. Significantly, the uses of television reported in responses to the questionnaire had changed considerably by the time the interviews were conducted.

During the period between the administration of the questionnaire (2014) and the conduct of the interviews (2016–2017), Netflix had arrived. It commenced operation in Australia in 2015. Until then, Australian television had been dominated by Free-To-Air broadcasters and in particular by the three commercial networks. When pay-TV was introduced in 1995, the broadcasters initially lost some market share but pay-TV never managed to secure more than 30% of the market; in recent years, dogged by constant subscriber churn, its share has hovered at around 27–28% of the market (Roy Morgan Research, 2016). Australia had also been very much a ‘national’ television system; all three locally owned commercial broadcasters and the two PBS providers are networked around the country and Australia’s geographic isolation had long protected it from broadcasters based in other countries. Nonetheless, within just 2 years of its arrival, Netflix Australia had captured 32% of the market (Roy Morgan Research, 2017) and transformed what Australians regarded as television. The ACF project interviews, in which the proportion of interviewees who subscribed to Netflix matched what had been happening nationwide, revealed an exceptionally rapid transition from a predominantly FTA market into a multiplatform online and on-demand environment. This was not just an extension of the long-running transition towards mobile devices and viewing outside the home. Rather, this was a shift in how television, broadly defined, was being consumed in the home.

Some of the interviewees who had previously reported watching only FTA TV now watched none; in a representative example, one interviewee had gone from watching FTA TV in her parents’ living room to watching Netflix on an Xbox with her boyfriend in their apartment. A tendency towards the individualisation of consumption and the decline of the influence of the family upon the viewing habits of younger respondents was evident in the fact that the vast majority of interviewees under 35 watched no FTA TV at all. Many said that this was a deliberate choice: they were ‘over FTA’, they had little interest in commercial mass media offerings and they appreciated the freedom that digital technologies provided. As has been the case in many other locations around the world, age emerged as a significant factor in determining not only what content was consumed but also the preferences for the device upon which it was consumed, with laptops and other mobile devices displacing the television screen for younger respondents.

Considered from outside Australia, of course, there may be little that is remarkable about this story; it reflects what has happened in other markets during the rapid rise of global online streaming services (Lobato, 2018; Steigler, 2016), as well as the steady growth in the use of YouTube, Facebook and other social media platforms as portals for consuming internet-distributed television (Lotz, 2017). The Australian story may not be unique, then, but it is certainly specific. What is notable about that specificity, I am suggesting, is the suddenness and scale of the shift in domestic consumption practices in Australia, in a market in which relatively little had changed for decades. Rather than gradually evolving in the way of the United States or indeed the United Kingdom, the patterns of consumption in Australia after 2015 have been dramatically disrupted. And while there is no shortage of data on such transitions, we don’t know, at present, what these changes mean in terms of what makes up the experiential dimension for audiences.

From the television audience to the cultures of use

Internationally, comparative research in television studies has expanded dramatically over the last decade, becoming increasingly attentive to the diverse contingencies shaping contemporary modes of production and distribution as well as, although to a lesser extent, consumption/reception. Such an approach has come relatively late, however, to discussions that specifically address the post-broadcast environment. While there are accounts of the take-up of, largely, Netflix internationally, the dominant focus has been on the United States (McDonald and Smith-Rowsey, 2016) and, to a lesser extent, the United Kingdom (Jenner, 2018). Ramon Lobato’s Netflix Nations (2018) stands out in this regard for its comparative analysis of the diverse infrastructural conditions obtaining in numerous markets around the world, including China, Japan, India and the European Union. As Lobato demonstrates, the conditions required for Netflix to succeed in its rollout around the world – access to domestic space, disposable income, connectivity, the provision of infrastructure as well as an alignment with culturally specific formations of consumer society – do not exist in the same way everywhere. We are making progress, then, in relation to how we might understand the current industrial formations of television.

There has been less progress, however, in relation to understanding consumption. Analysis of the audience experience is outside the remit of Netflix Nations. Even Mareike Jenner’s more consumption-oriented Netflix and the Re-Invention of Television (2018), which deals at length with the practice of binge-viewing for instance, chooses to do so largely through the analysis of selected texts – such as House of Cards (2013–2018) or Arrested Development (2003–) – rather than through empirical research among their audiences. One of the most substantial collection of studies of Netflix so far, The Netflix Effect (McDonald and Smith-Rowsey, 2016), has chapters dealing with regulation, infrastructure, algorithms and texts but not audiences or ‘users’; three chapters deal with binge-viewing but none actually involve audience research. More generally, much of the recent television research that addresses audiences or reception tends to do so through a focus on technology (Moshe, 2012), or upon behaviours thought to be driven by the technology (Flayelle et al., 2017).

That said, the field is not empty. We do have research that examines audience ‐ and consumption-related topics such as that on television and convergent media (Evans, 2011; Holt and Sanson, 2014; Sparviano et al., 2017) and the volume of research into the audiences of reality television goes back to the early 2000s (Andrejevic, 2004). Nonetheless, as Karen Lury suggests, and citing Helen Piper, television studies could invest more substantially in examining the ‘embedded everydayness’ (2016: 121) of television. There is more to be done in terms of finding ways to describe and understand the cultures of use that have developed around the multiple options now available to consumers through which their personalised practices of television consumption can be articulated to the structures of their everyday lives in their own domestic spaces (Bury, 2018). As Jonathan Gray puts it in his critique of ‘the relative quieting of the qualitative audience in critical cultural studies scholarship’:

As much as we might suspect that digitization, globalization, neoliberalization and personalization have played roles in shifting the ground underneath the audience’s feet in the last two decades, the field of media and cultural studies has too little documentation of these processes, and hence too much speculation. (2017: 81)

This is particularly the case at the moment in television and media studies in my own country, where at the time of writing there is literally no published academic research that could help us improve our knowledge in this regard and provide an updated account of what Australians now do with television.

How should television studies respond to such a situation? Sonia Livingstone suggests that we need to remind ourselves of the early ethnographic work in television audience studies, such as that emerging from Stuart Hall’s Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in the 1970s, when researchers such as David Morley and Dorothy Hobson ‘went out and talked to people, confounding those who preferred staying in their office studying texts or imagining audiences to the quotidian world of unpredictable living rooms, endless cups of tea, and knotty research ethics procedures’ (2019: 173). Even this venerable tradition, however, requires adaptation to the present circumstances. Indeed, Elizabeth Evans, in her 2011 study of ‘transmedia television’, conducted before the global spread of online streaming, pointed to the increasing difficulties involved in conducting academic audience research even at that point in time. How, she asks, do we go about researching ‘the attitudes and behaviours of new media audiences when these attitudes and behaviours can change so quickly’ (2011: 79) in response to continual changes to the technologies available, the services provided, and the manner in which they are used. This is precisely the problem the ACF interviews encountered.

There are other issues, as well, reflecting the different context within which that early ethnographic audience research was conducted. The decline of the mass media paradigm means that we are no longer dealing with the shared menu of choices that gave traditional audience studies such cogency. This is particularly important since so much of the work in this tradition works either with specific textual formats or with audiences of popular texts; even though the subject of study is the audience, the means through which they are accessed has often been their engagement with the specific text, genre or format (Ang, 1985). Furthermore, the audience studied was customarily conceived as a national formation, consuming television alongside the imagined co-presence of some kind of national community (Lewis et al., 2016). However, although in some contexts, the national role of the media has become more direct and centralised over time (Volcic and Andrejevic, 2013), in others, we can see the expansion of what Nick Couldry (2012) has described as a decentred media system. In the United States, the United Kingdom and many other locations, a co-present national audience may no longer be there – either as imagined or in reality. Netflix itself, a service that is both transnational and customised towards local conditions, generates a further challenge to contemporary audience research: that of finding ways to better understand transnational audiences (Athique, 2016).

In Australia, the evidence from the ACF project suggests that the customisation and individualisation of media consumption has disrupted the longstanding connection between the television audience and the national community. For many years a location where one might have remarked upon the exceptional persistence of a national remit for both commercial and PBS television, the state of Australian television is now much closer to those locations within which it is no longer easy to talk of a standard set of relations which structures how television participates in the production and construction of communities and, in turn, generates the commonalities that underpin the original framing assumptions of television audience studies.

What continues to be most useful about the audience studies tradition, prospectively at least, remains its attention to the everyday: to the ways in which television has been embedded in the social through its imbrication into the everyday practices of not just audiences of particular texts but more broadly of consumers, users and households. This is an explicit concern for many of the foundational works in television audience studies (among them, for instance, Brunsdon and Morley, 1978; Gauntlett and Hill, 1999; Morley, 1986; Silverstone et al., 1992; Silverstone, 1994). That influence carries over into the rise of digital media ethnographies since the early 2000s, often from within media anthropology and focused on users of the internet (Horst and Miller, 2012; Miller, 2011; Marwick, 2013).

Even this, however, has become more complicated. Once we move from the broadcast era into the post-broadcast, transnational and multichannel environment, the relation to the everyday becomes more contingent than before. With choices organised around narrow taste fractions as the mass-market fragments, the connection to what previously we might have seen as common forms of everydayness, and to their resulting patterns of consumption, is weakened. The customisation of consumption that marks the new environment changes everything; while the choices being made are certainly organised around the demands and patterns of everyday life, this is ‘not necessarily a shared everyday life’. Indeed ‘what makes the regime of choices attractive is precisely its capacity to be tailored to a highly personalised practice of everyday life’. We can now disarticulate our choices from ‘the time and space of others’ (Pertierra and Turner, 2013: 69).

Getting to grips with what actually now constitutes the ‘everyday-ness’ of television may necessitate reconceptualising our notion of ‘the audience’, and thinking of television consumption more thoroughly as a form of sociocultural practice. In his discussion of Netflix as disruption, Gerald Sim quotes Carolyn Marvin’s classic statement from When Old Technologies Were New (1988), that ‘the history of media is never more or less than the history of their uses, which always lead us away from them to the social practices and conflicts they illuminate’ (2016: 196). Notwithstanding Sim’s expressed reservations, I think that is an idea worth holding on to. The ACF interviews provide evidence not just of a shift in choices of content or devices but rather of the changing patterns of cultural practices that are growing up around the consumption of content we continue to describe as television. It is upon what constitutes and motivates these practices that we should focus in order to better understand the contemporary cultural functions of television.

This is not, then, just about a return to ethnography; it is also about asking new sorts of questions. Evans’ interviews and focus groups (2011), for instance, provide an early example of how we might approach the relation between television and ‘daily life’ through such questions as: On what devices do we choose to consume television content, within what time frames, in whose company, and why? David K Tse’s study of Taiwanese consumption of foreign television also uses interviews to examine how the subjects’ choices of online content are made and shared and how they contribute to the construction of what Tse describes as ‘social togetherness’ (2014: 1547). Matrix analyses young people’s social media conversations about binge-watching in order to understand what she describes as their ‘social viewing practices’ (2014: 119). Jenner’s (2018) history of viewer control helps answer questions about how people make their choices from what is now a limitless but differentially accessed set of options and is suggestive about the extent to which the making of these choices is a socially structured and/or networked process, as against a textually or technologically managed one. Chuck Tryon and Max Dawson’s (2014) study of consumption within a college dormitory focuses on the specific cultural and institutional conditions which over-determine the pattern of choices their subjects make in that context.

Given its importance as one of the key markers of the shifts in consumption behaviours, it is important to note both the value and the limitations of the numerous accounts of binge-viewing. As noted earlier, while there are studies that seek out the ‘motivations’ for binge-viewing (Rubenking et al., 2018), the dominant approach is either through technologies of delivery (Biesen, 2016) or through patterns of textual attributes (McCormick, 2016). While such work is legitimate and useful, many questions remain about how we might understand binge-viewing. For instance, earlier on, engagement in binge-viewing might have been treated as an ‘event’ but as people come to integrate this form of consumption into their daily routines, in much the way they once did with broadcasting, perhaps it is becoming more ‘ordinary’. If so, we need another descriptor that more accurately locates ‘binge-viewing’ as a customary social practice.

Similarly, while there is now a substantial body of evidence on the simultaneous use of multiple devices (e.g. Lee and Andrejevic, 2014), we still need more fine-grained and contextualised information than the currently standard mix of empirical methods – surveys, interviews and focus groups – can provide. Direct and continued observation of how audience members make use of their multiple devices in their domestic spaces would provide us with more detailed and nuanced accounts of how and why these devices are deployed and how attention is distributed across them. These are the kind of investigations that necessarily involve the living rooms, domestic spaces and ‘endless cups of tea’ that Livingstone recalls from the early Birmingham studies. Further, we can draw on some of the approaches of media anthropology (Pertierra, 2018) and other forms of non-media centric research to help us locate television consumption within the wider practices of everyday life within the household. As noted earlier, some such work is beginning to appear, and notable here is Rhiannon Bury’s (2018) recent book which focuses on, among other things, the domestic relations within the household which over-determine how what she calls, ‘Television 2.0’ is integrated into her respondents’ everyday lives. (Even this work, however, rich as the interview material proves to be, would benefit from a more classically ethnographic research component.) The information generated from such kinds of analysis would necessarily be highly contingent and calibrated against the conditions that form the specific zone of consumption. They do constitute the necessary precondition to rethinking the television audience, however, and to the development of the agreed-upon methodological vocabulary Lotz et al. (2018) call for: to enable us to share, compare, contrast and debate what we have learnt.

Conclusion

The provocation for this article was a set of interviews which revealed new information about the changing audience practices resulting from, more than any other single influence, the disruption caused by Netflix’s entrance to the Australian market. These changes seemed to have broader implications, however: not only about the shifting coordinates of television’s everydayness in the present conjuncture but also about the need to boost, and to reconceptualise, audience research in television studies – and this in more places than Australia. The argument proposed here is that the disruption in the industry has had similar repercussions within the academy, disrupting the shape of the dominant research interests within television studies in recent years. While television’s relation to the everyday has been at the core of television studies for decades, it is now extremely difficult to deal with as a site for research due to the expanding range of ways in which it is now articulated and shaped. That, however, makes it even more necessary for us to find ways of responding if we are to understand the consumption of television in the context of the Netflix effect.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Graeme Turner

References

Andrejevic

(2004) Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Ang

(1985) Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination. London: Methuen.

Arrested Development (2003) Fox. Imagine Entertainment/20th Century Fox Television/The Hurwitz Company/Imagine Television.

Athique

(2016) Transnational Audiences: Media Reception on a Global Scale. Cambridge: Polity.

Biesen

(2016) Binge-watching ‘Noir’ at home: reimagining cinematic reception and distribution via Netflix. In: McDonald

Smith-Rowsey

(eds), The Netflix Effect: Technology and Entertainment in the 21st Century. New York and London: Bloomsbury, pp. 129–142.

Brunsdon

Morley

(1978) Everyday Television. London: BFI.

Bury

(2018) Television 2.0: Viewer and Fan Engagement with Digital TV. New York: Peter Lang.

Couldry

(2012) Media, Society, World: Social Theory and Digital Media Practice. Cambridge: Polity.

Evans

(2011). Transmedia Television: Audiences, New Media and Daily Life. New York and London: Routledge.

10.

Flayelle

Maurage

Billieux

(2017) Towards a qualitative understanding of binge-watching behaviours: a focus group approach. Journal of Behavioural Addictions 6(4): 457–471.

11.

Gauntlett

Hill

(1999) TV Living: Television, Culture, and Everyday Life. London: Routledge.

12.

Gray

(2017) Reviving audience studies. Critical Studies in Media Communication 34(1): 70–83.

13.

Holt

Sanson

(eds) (2014) Connected Viewing: Selling, Streaming and Sharing Media in the Digital Era. New York: Routledge.

14.

Horst

Miller

(eds) (2012) Digital Anthropology. London: Berg, pp. 61–79.

15.

House of Cards (2013–2018) Netflix. Media Rights Capital (MRC)/Netflix/Panic Pictures (II)/Trigger Street Productions.

16.

Jenner

(2018) Netflix and the Re-Invention of Television. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

17.

Lee

Andrejevic

(2014) Second-screen theory: from the democratic surround to the digital enclosure. In: Holt

Sanson

(eds), Connected Viewing: Selling, Streaming and Sharing Media in the Digital Era. Routledge: New York, pp. 40–61.

18.

Lewis

Martin

Sun

(2016) Telemodernities: Television and Transforming Lives in Asia. Durham: Duke University Press.

19.

Livingstone

(2019) Audiences in an age of datafication: critical questions for media research. Television and New Media 20(2): 170–183.

20.

Lobato

(2018) Netflix Nations: The Geography of Digital Distribution. New York: New York University Press.

21.

Lotz

(2017) Portals: A Treatise on Internet-Distributed Television. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

22.

Lotz

Lobato

Thomas

(2018) Internet-distributed television research: a provocation. Media Industries 5(2). Available at: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mij/15031809.0005.203?view=text;rgn=main (accessed 5 February 2019).

23.

Lury

(2016) Introduction: situating television studies. Screen 57(2): 119–123.

24.

Marwick

(2013) Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

25.

McDonald

Smith-Rowsey

(eds) (2016) The Netflix Effect: Technology and Entertainment in the 21st Century. New York and London: Bloomsbury.

26.

McCormick

(2016) Forward is the battle cry: binge-viewing Netflix’s House of Cards . In: McDonald

Smith-Rowsey

(eds) The Netflix Effect: Technology and Entertainment in the 21st Century. New York and London: Bloomsbury, pp. 101–116.

27.

Matrix

(2014) The Netflix effect: teens, binge-watching, and on-demand digital media trends. Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures 6(1): 119–138.

28.

Miller

(2011) Tales from Facebook. Cambridge: Polity.

29.

Morley

(1986) Family Television: Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure. London: Comedia.

30.

Moshe

(2012) Media time squeezing: the privatization of the media time sphere. Television and New Media 13(1): 68–88.

31.

Pertierra

(2018) Media Anthropology for the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity.

32.

Pertierra

Turner

(2013) Locating Television: Zones of Consumption. London and New York: Routledge.

33.

Piper

(2016) Broadcast drama and the problem of television aesthetics: home, nation, universe. Screen 57(2): 163–183.

34.

Roy Morgan Research (2016) More Australians now have SVOD than Foxtel. Article No. 6957. 8 September. Available at: www.roymorgan.com/findings/6957-svod-overtakes-foxtel-pay-tv-in-australia-august-2016-201609081005 (accessed 10 December 2016.)

35.

Roy Morgan Research (2017) Netflix hits new high in Australia – 7.6 million. 28 September. Available at: www.roymorgan.com/findings/2343-netflix-subscriptions-june-2017-201709270713 (accessed 15 May 2018).

36.

Rubenking

Bracken

Sandoval

. (2018) Defining new viewing behaviours: What makes and motivates binge-viewing? International Journal of Digital Television 9(1): 69–85.

37.

Schrøder

(2018) Audience reception research in a post-broadcasting digital age. Television and New Media 20(2): 155–169.

38.

Silverstone

(1994) Television and Everyday Life. London: Routledge.

39.

Silverstone

Hirsch

Morley

(1992) Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household. In: Silverstone

Hirsch

(eds) Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic Space. London: Routledge, pp. 15–31.

40.

Sim

(2016) Individual disruptors and economic gamechangers: Netflix, new media and neoliberalism. In: McDonald

Smith-Rowsey

(eds) The Netflix Effect: Technology and Entertainment in the 21st Century. New York and London: Bloomsbury, pp. 173–184.

41.

Sparviano

Peil

Balbi

(eds) (2017) Media Convergence and Deconvergence. London: Palgrave.

42.

Stiegler

(2016) Invading Europe: Netflix’s expansion to the European market and the example of Germany. In: McDonald

Smith-Rowsey

(eds) The Netflix Effect: Technology and Entertainment in the 21st Century. New York and London: Bloomsbury, pp. 219–234.

43.

Tse

(2014) Television’s changing role in social togetherness in the personalized online consumption of foreign TV. New Media and Society 18(8): 1547–1562.

44.

Tryon

Dawson

(2014) Streaming U: college students and connected viewing. In: Holt

Sanson

(eds) Connected Viewing: Selling, Streaming and Sharing Media in the Digital Era. Routledge: New York, pp. 217–233.

45.

Turner

(2018) Netflix and the reconfiguration of the Australian television market. Media Industries 5(2): 129–142.

46.

Volcic

Andrejevic

(eds) (2013) Commercial Nationalism: Selling the Nation and Nationalising the Sell. London: Palgrave.