School of Communication

Student
Elisabeth Reeves Student No.: N10218785
Name:

Unit CYB105: Understanding Audiences

Tutor’s
Bonnie Liu Tutorial No.: 7
Name:

Assessment
1 Date Submitted: 09/04/2020
No.:

Assessment
Annotated Bibliography Check In
Title:

Assessment Cover Sheet

In attaching this cover sheet, I confirm that this submission is my own, original work. Any use of
another scholar or person’s words, ideas, or input has been accurately referenced using correct
APA format. I understand that failing to adhere to do so is Academic Misconduct (as stipulated in
QUT’s Manual of Policies and Procedures http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/C/C_05_03.jsp) and will be
subject to penalty, failure, or university sanction.
 Audience Engagement and Participation on Digital Platforms and Streaming
Services

Annotated Bibliography

1. Bird, S. (2011). Are we all Produsers Now?. Cultural Studies, 25(4-5), 502-516. doi:

10.1080/09502386.2011.600532

The article discusses how “the rise of digital media has profoundly changed the everyday interactions
people have with media today” (Bird, 2011, p. 502). The term produser is a combination of producer
and consumer in an interactive environment and is an entirely new way of seeing the media
audience. The cultural shift has realigned roles of audiences; meaning, feedback from audiences and
fans can influence the media produced. In fact, “media producers have been pushed to modify their
products in response to fan demands” (Bird, 2011, p. 506). The use of several mediums (e.g.
Fanclubs and social media) enhances audience engagement. Producers have to consider what the
most suitable medium is, that will enable serious fans to connect and create. The vast range of online
participation must be taken into account when exploring audience practices. As the nature of media
consumption has been transformed and digital interactivity is a fundamental concept.

The article is written to explain our role (as viewers) in media consumption and interaction today.
Substantial evidence is provided to back up the claims in this source. However, the article focuses on
Web 2.0 and not entirely on streaming services (E.G. Netflix). Although the article briefly discusses
the producer in a global context, the author’s scope is limited due to online limitations in developing
countries. The article leaves the question; ‘how far will producers, media platforms and streaming
services go to engage an audience?’ open to interpretation as no direct answer is provided
throughout. Despite this, a greater understanding of the audience in this topic can be reached because
it demonstrates the great influence fans can have on media programs and the importance of the
community. Furthermore, it illustrates convergence culture in action and highlights the need to think
beyond the virtual world and continue to develop offline audience activity (Bird, 2011, p. 506).
 2. Evans, E. (2019). Affect and Affection. Understanding Engagement in Transmedia
Culture (pp. 76-101). Routledge. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

This chapter discussed engagement in transmedia culture and media psychology – not a direct
science – but it still explores the thought process behind how to engage audiences. Three main forms
of response emerged in the source: cognitive; content that requires participants to concentrate to
interpret it: physical; laughing at funny content, crying at sad content. When engaged, some people
reported talking to the screen and gasping in shock. All entertainers/story tellers want their audience
to be engaged; this can be done by challenging them emotionally. “Pop culture makes us think by
making us feel” (Evans, 2019, p. 79). However, it cannot be just intellectual engagement, they must
be able to relate and feel as though they belong. The main difference between sitting in front of the
screen to pass time and watching intently, is an emotional response. A distinction must be made
between an affect from content and affection for content.

The source was written for viewers so they can relate to the interviewees and comprehend media
engagement. A range of perspectives and examples were provided to back up the claims. The scope
was limited in a number of ways due to complexity of scholarly examinations of emotion within
screen or media studies (Evans, 2019, p. 82). Engagement is not just about a type of behaviour but is
“primarily about establishing an emotional connection between audiences and content” (Evans,
2019, p. 100). The author’s findings were that “content may not elicit the same response from all
viewers; the same content may even elicit different responses from the same viewer on different
occasions” (Evans, 2019, p. 76). This should be kept in mind so as to not get discouraged. This
source advances your understanding of the audience concerned in the topic by showing that people
engage with content in different ways. The question; “what response (cognitive, physical or
emotional) drives certain content media producers? was left unanswered because; ultimately, it’s a
personal preference.
 3. Curtin, M., Holt, J., & Sanson, K. (2014). Introduction: Making of a Revolution. In
Sutter K. (Author) & CURTIN M., HOLT J., & SANSON K. (Eds.), Distribution
Revolution: Conversations about the Digital Future of Film and Television (pp. 1-18).
Berkeley: University of California Press. Retrieved from
www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt6wqc5w.5

This chapter claims that the “past 5 years have forced industry leaders to reconsider established
maxims about how screen media is created, circulated and consumed” (Curtin, Holt, Sanson, 2014, p.
1). Furthermore, the “digital distribution revolution dynamic and multifaceted process changes the
ways in which content is created, distributed and enjoyed” (Curtin, Holt, Sanson, 2014, p. 4). With
all of the changes, seeds of transformation have been sown in distribution networks and technologies
and “expansion of digital delivery platforms and cloud-based storage technologies has transformed
when where and how consumers engage with entertainment” (Curtin, Holt, Sanson, 2014, p. 2).
Rather than focusing on the size, the current outlook is audience engagement. The source also
reiterates the importance of social media as a marketing tool, to build online communities around
particular current brands We must continue to change our ways of using media and our ways of
socialising through media.

The source is written for produsers so they know their role in the future but also, business owners so
they are prepared for new technologies and advancements in media production. Media distribution is
an underexplored aspect of the entertainment industries. “The growth of Netflix was achieved by
using data to personalise recommendations which pioneered many principles which came to define
the digital distribution revolution in the entertainment industry” (Curtin, Holt, Sanson, 2014, p.11).
The chapter provides clear recommendations for what companies must do to stay relevant. Such as,
“radically realign business models around fresh modes of delivery or risk losing audiences to hosted
new rivals in digital space” (Curtin, Holt, Sanson, 2014, p. 2). The main question from this source is
determining which approach fosters the greatest audience engagement. When discussing the book
chapter, distribution revolution and the future of film and television can either be seen as disruptive
or innovative, depending on one’s perspective.
 4. Turner, G. (2019). Approaching the cultures of use: Netflix, disruption and the
audience. Critical Studies In Television: The International Journal Of Television
Studies, 14(2), 222-232. doi: 10.1177/1749602019834554

This article discusses Netflix and the disruption it has had on the media industry, particularly in
Australia, as well as, the culture of binge-watching. After 2015, in Australia, patterns of consumption
have been dramatically disrupted (Turner, 2019, p. 225). It must be considered that “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” (Turner, 2019, p. 227 [Athique, 2016]). While the national role
of media has become more direct and centralised – in some contexts -over time, a descended media
system can be seen to have expanded in others. In the context of the Netflix effect, the source can
help those better understand the consumption of television and the customisation of consumption
(Turner, 2019, p. 227).

The article’s findings were that “no published academic research that could help improve knowledge
and provide an updated account on what Australians should do with their TV” were available
(Turner, 2019, p. 226). When evaluating the source, bias must be considered and as the article is
focused primarily on Australia, the scope is not global. Another weakness is that the author provides
more conclusions about television consumption, rather than audience participation. Considering
these factors, the findings could almost be classed as unsubstantial. The source “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” (Turner, 2019, p.
229). The article has a clear topic and audience and helps the reader understand what the audience
wants: accessibility and ease, as well as personalisation. It is customised to cater to the Australian
market, particularly, Australian media producers – so they’re aware of trends.
 5. Elnahla, N. (2019). Black Mirror: Bandersnatch and how Netflix manipulates us, the
new gods. Consumption Markets & Culture, 1-6. doi: 10.1080/10253866.2019.1653288

The article details an interactive genre film produced by Netflix that provides viewers multiple
options which ultimately impact the storyline, altering the narrative flow and changing the fate of the
lead character. Viewers are made to believe they have control over the storyline by making decisions
and watching the consequences of their decisions unfold. “Instead of being passive viewers/
consumers, Netflix has given us (viewers) the opportunity to become the new gods, an omniscient
presence that controls the Black Mirror world. A closer look, however, shatters this reality, for the
more control we are given, the more we are manipulated” (Elnahla, 2019, p.4). This source discusses
the new paradigm of media consumption and proves that “interpreting works of art tells us about
consumer behaviour and how art is consumed” (Elnahla, 2019, p.1).

The article is essentially a film review, that analyses the evolving role played by the viewer. It
provides a clear and relevant example of the interactive genre. A weakness of this source would be
that it discusses product placement more than data mining and a limitation to the scope would be that
some pre-existing knowledge of the programme/the kind of media piece, would be helpful, if not
expected. It could be seen as an unfair advantage if a reader is familiar with the show or genre. The
author describes how producers use technologies and media platforms to engage – although, some
would say, control – the audience. My understanding of the audience has advanced in that now I
know they can be manipulated by the media but led to believe they’re in control. The question: ‘how
far is too far?’ is left unanswered by the author. The source provides an insight into what the future
holds for interactive media, audience engagement as well as influencing viewers’ expectations of
consumption choices.