Why Access to Diverse Video Content Matters

A Television Showing the Netflix Logo

We enjoy riveting conversations about ‘The Last of Us’ and ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’ or ‘Ted Lasso’ and ‘A Man Called Otto’. That should be corrected – a class of society enjoys cultural conversations. Those who do not use subscription video streaming services to access premium titles that are prominent within the current zeitgeist and popular culture are not included in these cultural conversations. Instead relying on free-to-air television or advertising-supported video-on-demand platforms for their dose of cultural content, this class is not included in the premium windowing of content. Their inclusion in the cultural conversation comes too late if at all. This division of consumption may be labelled by some as merely a difference of perspective on the value of cultural goods. According to this view, the interested spend their disposable income on content and the uninterested do not consume premium video content. This conclusion fails to identify an issue of cultural exclusion that is associated with access to video content.

Why does consuming a diverse range of video content matter? Firstly, cultural conversations are valuable. We ‘binge-watch popular new series or … rediscover older shows’.[1] We converse on social media excitedly as content becomes the talk of the town.[2] Content sparks ‘water-cooler moments’[3] in physical or digital spaces. At this level, it would be equitable to include as many people as possible in this activity which is a form of what Matthew Hills terms ‘just-in-time fandom’.[4] However, these cultural conversations are more valuable than simply a method of passing time. Content consumption is a collective family activity.[5] ‘Co-viewing’ is popular.[6] Consuming cultural goods is gratifying.[7] On a purely consumer outcomes approach, the demands of consumers for greater choice should be satisfied.[8] But there are additional dimensions to cultural conversations, which enlarge their importance.

Content produces meaning.[9] Cultural goods bind people together.[10] Content is not merely entertainment but rather ‘cinematic and cultural gestures’[11] with ‘social meaning’.[12] ‘New cultural experiences’ are sought – boundaries are pushed.[13] Intellectual conversations follow consumption,[14] for example, whether Joel’s actions were justified in The Last of Us. Semiotic democracy enables universal participating in ‘making cultural meaning’[15] – ‘joyful life’.[16] Further, audiences ‘benefit when they are represented’ in art.[17] Access to cultural goods is certainly an imperative of cultural policy objectives.[18] The 2023 National Cultural Policy exhibits the Australian Government’s view that cultural goods ‘bridge our divides’ and ‘strive for shared purpose and understanding’.[19] To summarise, there is desire for diverse content.[20] Consumers attempt to avoid monotony with their cultural goods.[21] Additionally, diverse content exposes us to different ideas and perspectives.[22] This can enhance democratic culture.[23] Ultimately, what is on the ‘menu’ matters.[24]

Diverse content is required, but wide access to that content is also an imperative. The major issue in the content consumption environment is who is missing out. There are numerous aspects of the content consumption environment that are problematic for cultural inclusion. 90% of the population consume internet video content.[25] These platforms have become the popular gateway for our content consumption. These platforms are in the business of copyright aggregation,[26] and monetising cultural goods.[27] The streaming services rise and fall on their collection of diverse content.[28] The platforms battle for subscribers.[29] They ‘algorithmically curate’ and recommend to the viewer.[30] They now produce original content.[31] The power of the platforms only rises. The monetisation aspect is where the conflict arises. They become exploitative ‘gatekeepers’[32] – distributors with immense ‘cultural control’.[33] The current system of distribution means that those who cannot afford a multitude of platforms are excluded. There are a high number of streaming services available in Australia: no ‘one service to rule them all’.[34] $39 per month is the average monthly spend of Australians on video streaming platforms:[35] three services on average.[36] As the monthly cost of a collection of the major services would be $96.88, or $134.35 for the premium viewing plans,[37] choices between different platforms must be made. The gatekeeping is exacerbated as video content is not substitutable.[38] Peaky Blinders is not a substitute for Succession. Further, libraries are ‘constantly changing as content licenses expire’,[39] and content is fragmented.[40] This makes it difficult for consumers to discover the location of the content they seek to consume and hence what platform they must subscribe to.

Cultural conversations are valuable. Cultural conversations necessitate a diverse range of content or, in the words of Jonathan A. Knee, ‘a deep inventory of long-tail content, sprinkled with some newer material, and a great recommendation’.[41] The inclusion of all persons in these conversations becomes an important issue for research. The next blog post will interrogate the current system of distribution.


References:

[1] Chuck Tryon, ‘TV Got Better: Netflix’s Original Programming Strategies and the On-Demand Television Transition’ (2015) 2(2) Media Industries Journal 106 <http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.15031809.0002.206>.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid 107.

[4] Matthew Hills, Fan Cultures (Taylor & Francis Group, 2002) 140–141 <http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qut/detail.action?docID=180483>.

[5] Daniel G McDonald and Benjamin K Johnson, ‘Is Time Money? Media Expenditures in Economic and Technological Turbulence’ (2013) 57(3) Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 282, 287.

[6] Ibid 289.

[7] Ibid 296–297.

[8] John Dimmick, ‘The Theory of the Niche and Spending on Mass Media: The Case of the “Video Revolution”’ (1997) 10(3) Journal of Media Economics 33, 40.

[9] Pirongrong Ramasoota and Abhibhu Kitikamdhorn, ‘“The Netflix Effect” in Thailand: Industry and Regulatory Implications’ (2021) 45(7) Telecommunications Policy 102156, 15.

[10] Toby Miller, ‘Screening the Nation: Rethinking Options’ (1999) 38(4) Cinema Journal 93, 95.

[11] Adrian Martin, ‘Ozploitation Compared to What? A Challenge to Contemporary Australian Film Studies’ (2010) 4(1) Studies in Australasian Cinema 9, 19.

[12] Kate Bowles, ‘“Three Miles of Rough Dirt Road”: Towards an Audience-Centred Approach to Cinema Studies in Australia’ (2007) 1(3) Studies in Australasian Cinema 245, 254.

[13] Roderik Smits and EW Nikdel, ‘Beyond Netflix and Amazon: MUBI and the Curation of On-Demand Film’ (2019) 16(1) Studies in European Cinema 22, 23.

[14] See, eg, Madhavi Sunder, From Goods to a Good Life: Intellectual Property and Global Justice (Yale University Press, 2012) 51 (‘From Goods to a Good Life’).

[15] William W Fisher, ‘Theories of Intellectual Property’ in Stephen R Munzer (ed), New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property (Cambridge University Press, 2001) 168, 34.

[16] Sunder (n 14) 1–2.

[17] Australian Government, ‘Revive: A Place for Every Story, A Story for Every Place’ 38.

[18] Ben Goldsmith, Stuart Cunningham and Julian Thomas, ‘Convergence and Australian Content: The Importance of Access’ (2012) 144(1) Media International Australia 13, 13.

[19] Australian Government (n 17) 4.

[20] Shiva Koul, Suhas Suresh Ambekar and Manoj Hudnurkar, ‘Determination and Ranking of Factors That Are Important in Selecting an Over-the-Top Video Platform Service Among Millennial Consumers’ (2021) 13(1) International Journal of Innovation Science 53, 63.

[21] Sangyeon Kim, Insil Huh and Sangwon Lee, ‘No Movie to Watch: A Design Strategy for Enhancing Content Diversity through Social Recommendation in the Subscription-Video-On-Demand Service’ (2022) 13(1) Applied Sciences 279, 2.

[22] Philip M Napoli, ‘Deconstructing the Diversity Principle’ (1999) 49(4) Journal of Communication 7, 10.

[23] Sunder (n 14) 9.

[24] William W Fisher III, Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of Entertainment (Stanford University Press, 2004) Ch 1-Subpart ‘Dangers’ <https://viewer.books24x7.com/toc.aspx?bookid=10336&resumebookmarkid=5f02394b-54bd-ed11-80c8-0050569562bd>.

[25] PwC, The Streaming Shakeup: A Battle for Video Consumers in 2020 (No 664176–2020, PwC, 2019) 3.

[26] Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow, Chokepoint Capitalism: How Big Tech and Big Content Captured Creative Labor Markets and How We’ll Win Them Back (Beacon Press, 2022) 84–85.

[27] David B Nieborg and Thomas Poell, ‘The Platformization of Cultural Production: Theorizing the Contingent Cultural Commodity’ (2018) 20(11) New Media & Society 4275, 4282.

[28] Koul, Ambekar and Hudnurkar (n 20) 63.

[29] Michael L Wayne, ‘Netflix, Amazon, and Branded Television Content in Subscription Video On-Demand Portals’ (2018) 40(5) Media, Culture & Society 725, 736.

[30] Ramon Lobato, ‘Rethinking International TV Flows Research in the Age of Netflix’ (2018) 19(3) Television & New Media 241, 241.

[31] Wayne (n 29) 726.

[32] Giblin and Doctorow (n 26) 11.

[33] Ramon Lobato, ‘The Politics of Digital Distribution: Exclusionary Structures in Online Cinema’ (2009) 3(2) Studies in Australasian Cinema 167, 169.

[34] Amanda Lotz and Ramon Lobato, ‘Apple, Disney and Netflix’s Streaming Battle Isn’t Winner-Take-All’, The Conversation (8 November 2019) <http://theconversation.com/apple-disney-and-netflixs-streaming-battle-isnt-winner-take-all-125360>.

[35] Susannah Binsted and Mark Neilsen, ‘Streaming Statistics: 68% of Aussies Use Streaming Services | Finder’, finder.com.au (10 February 2021) <https://www.finder.com.au/internet-tv-streaming-statistics>.

[36] Communications and Media in Australia: How We Watch and Listen to Content (Australian Communications and Media Authority, February 2023) Part 5 <https://www.acma.gov.au/publications/2023-02/report/communications-and-media-australia-how-we-watch-and-listen-content> (‘Communications and Media in Australia’).

[37] The priced platforms were Netflix, Stan, Disney+, Binge, Paramount+, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+, AMC+ and BritBox. These platforms were considered to be major players and generalised approach to collecting the greatest access to the most amount of content.

[38] Ramon Lobato, ‘On the Boundaries of Digital Markets’ in Petr Szczepanik et al (eds), Digital Peripheries: The Online Circulation of Audiovisual Content from the Small Market Perspective (Springer Open, 2020) 51, 52.

[39] Ramon Lobato and Alexa Scarlata, Australian Content in SVOD Catalogs: Availability and Discoverability - 2019 Edition (Report, RMIT University, 29 October 2019) 6 <https://apo.org.au/node/264821>.

[40] Ibid 15.

[41] Jonathan A Knee, ‘Why Content Isn’t King’, The Atlantic (7 June 2011) <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/why-content-isnt-king/308551/>.

Previous
Previous

What Makes the SVOD Platforms Tick and What’s the Problem?