Let's Create

How people engage with and interpret media texts has changed in the last decade. Advancements in technology have put the power to create in the hands of ordinary fans. Which in turn, has lead to parodies, fan fiction, and content reviews by fans/critics of programs. This content has lead to mixed responses from the original producers. On the one hand, the original producers are pleased that their fans are enjoying the content, but at the same time, they do not want others to profit off content that they worked long and hard on. This is where the lines are blurred. How much content is fair to show for the purpose of a review or a parody? Should the people who create the original product be the only ones who are allowed to profit off the material, even if it is only a percentage of original content that is being used? In this blog I will discuss the nature of fan involvement in the creation of their own, unique content that is legally protected under Fair Use Law. Also, I will be examining how audiences have transitioned from being passive to active due to the rise of participatory culture, and how audiences hold power.

In the textbook, the idea of fans speaking for themselves was mentioned. "The range of fan activities and interpretations uncovered by Jenkins and later scholars demonstrates that fan audiences are deeply engaged in their favourite media texts. Fans often reinterpret media content and create their own cultural productions in response." (Sullivan, 2013, 193). Fans creating their own media texts have revolutionized the commercial media industry. For instance, 50 Shades of Grey began as fan fiction for Twilight. We live in a time where anyone can get involved in the creation of content due to technological advancements in the computing industry and the film industry. Also, content can be viewed almost anywhere since geographical barriers have been essentially eliminated due to the Internet. This gives fans an opportunity to create meaningful content that speaks on behalf of fans. It also allows fans to flex their creative muscles and make something worth watching.

Watch from: 0:00-1:15

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1KTxxOyokA

This parody is a great example of how audiences can get involved in the creation of their own content that was inspired by a show or an event. This relates to the idea that Sullivan mentioned in the text. Fans can create their own content in response to programs they enjoy. (Sullivan, 2013, 219). Some people wonder how content like the Simpsons parody can be posted since they are using copyrighted material. Well legally, parodies are protected under the "Fair Use" section of copyright law. According to copyright.gov, for content to qualify under Fair Use they have to meet four criteria. They look at the "Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes", "Nature of the copyrighted work", the amount used, and the effect it has on the original work. (http://www.copyright.gov). In the textbook, this is referred to as remixing. When creators take existing content and make something new out of it, it is remixing. (Sullivan, 2013, 221). In order for the criteria of Fair Use to be met, the new content should be new and distinguishable from the original work. Parodies are a great example of new content generated from original works. Even though they use copyrighted material, it should not intrude upon Fair Use as long as the copyrighted work is not overused. In the Simpsons example, it is clear that the characters need to be used in order to establish to the audience that this is what the parody is about. Also, there should be no negative effect on the original work (The Simpsons) because it is clear that it is a joke and should not be taken too seriously. Parodies allow audience involvement to shift from passive to active.

In chapter 9 of the textbook, Henry Jenkins discusses participatory culture. "Fans and other consumers are invited to actively participate in the creation and circulation of new content" (Sullivan, 2013, 219. Cited Jenkins 2006, 290).

This neat take on the popular television show "Storage Wars" is a good example of participatory culture. These individuals from Brampton mimicked and parodied the popular cast of Storage Wars. Instead of just mindlessly watching Storage Wars on television, fans are encouraged to actively engage in media due to technological advancements. One critical reason why fan made creations circulate prominently online is because fans are given the opportunity to publish their works on popular platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and of course, YouTube. YouTube has been described in the textbook as "perhaps the single most important online tool for empowering audiences in the 21st century" (Sullivan, 2013, 220). The platform has given bountiful opportunities for individuals to express their views, opinions, and display their talent. YouTube has given a voice to independent creators if they chose to use it. Plenty of people now currently live off the money they make from the videos they post. We have seen the shift from audiences following traditional media outlets such as radio and television, to people following their favourite content creators on YouTube. As a result, fan subcultures for popular YouTubers have been established. Each YouTuber with a substantial amount of followers often has a group of people who follow them and stay up to date with their content.

The two video examples I have provided in this blog resemble the idea of "User Generated Content". Napoli (2010) highlights the three criteria needed for user generated content. They are "content made publicly available over the internet, content that reflects a certain amount of creative effort, and content that is created outside of traditional professional routines and practices." (Astigarraga, I. Pavon, A. & Zuberogoitia, A. 2016). In the twenty-first century, amateur creators have been given a chance to shine. According to YouTube statistics found in the textbook, 50% of the content on YouTube is user-created (Sullivan, 2013, 221). Audiences are enjoying non-professionally made content at high levels. The aspect of having an "average joe" creating content that is available to the masses is appealing to audiences because they can relate to the average video maker more than the professional film maker. The increase in popularity for user generated content has lead to more individuals attempting to create their own content. Everyone with access to a computer and the Internet has the potential to create something amazing. More audiences are becoming producers rather than pure consumers and it is important to promote these independent content creators in order to inspire more artists in the future.


Resources:

Office, U.C (n.d). "More Information on Fair Use". Us Copyright Office. Retrieved November 30th, 2016.
From: http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

Sullivan, J. (2013). Media Audiences: Effects, users, institutions and power. Sage Publications Inc., New York, NY.

Sullivan, J. (2013). Cited Jenkins 2006. Media Audiences: Effects, users, institutions and power. Sage Publications Inc., New York, NY.

Astigarraga, I. Pavon, A. & Zuberogoitia, A (2016). "Active Audience?: Interaction of young people with television and online video content." Communication and Society, 29(3), 133-147.
  

Blogging About Bar Rescue

Bar Rescue has been one of my favourite television shows for a few years now. The show follows Jon Taffer around America while he saves failing bar owners' businesses. It is always interesting seeing how these owners conduct their day-to-day operations considering the mountain of debt they have each accumulated. Some owners are just down right ridiculous. For instance, in a follow-up interview with "Paulie" from the Canyon Inn Barr & Grill, he stated that he "blamed Obama" as one of the reasons why his bar was failing. I assume this generated plenty of laughs from viewers across North America, and this is just one reason why my family enjoys this program.

An interesting point brought up in the show is Jon Taffer's ideology of the bar being the "third place" for his customers. Your house is the first "place", where you work is the second "place", and the third "place" is somewhere you spend a fair amount of your free time at.

Take a look at this bar featured in season 3 (originally named "O'banions", now it is "Sorties Tavern"). This sign is interesting when looking at the idea of the signifier and the signified highlighted in the textbook. De Saussure (2000) claims that the signifier is the "form of the sign" and the signified is "the concept the signifier represents." (Sullivan, 2013, 137). Basically, the signifier is the phyiscal form of the sign. In this instance, the physical form of the sign is the actual bar sign which reads "Sorties Tavern". According to the episode, "Sorties" is a military term for missions, and of course "Tavern" refers to a drinking establishment. However, the signified represents connotations attached to the sign. In this case, "Sorties Tavern" represents an eating/drinking establishment for military men and women to go to since the name resonates with them. Individual meanings such as companionship, relaxation, and fun all come to mind when looking at how people view bars and taverns. These connotations relate to Jon Taffer's idea of the "third place", where people frequently go for entertainment, relaxation, and/or fun. He believes that if customers make the establishment their "third place", then they will continue to return.

Warning: Profanity is used when Jon talks to moronic bar owners

(I've included a picture for an individual sign of Jon Taffer being angry)

Jon Taffer is known for how vocal he gets when dealing with failing bar owners. He will point out fairly obvious things that the owner is doing wrong (e.g, not cleaning the bar/kitchen, drinking on the job, or poor customer service) and scream at the owner for not seeing what he sees. Stuart Hall highlights three positions audiences can take when they decode media texts. These are the dominant-hegemonic position, the negotiated position, and the oppositional position. The dominant-hegemonic position is when audiences "might accept the media message exactly in terms of the code in which is was produced." (Sullivan, 2013, 142). Audiences tend to interpret what they are seeing as factual information. (Sullivan, 2013, 142). According to this position, audiences should believe that the bar owner is negligent based on how Jon presents himself and how the bar owner (Dave) reacts. Jon states that the bar is filthy and that Dave would rather play poker than help out. This is a statement backed up by the footage aired on television. Dave can not effectively defend himself because he is shouting profanities back at Jon, rather than defending how hard he works. This communicates to the audience that Dave is struggling to justify his work ethic, and that Jon's position looks correct. In the textbook, Sullivan states that "Viewers making negotiated readings of texts relate to and understand the dominant code, but also filter media content through the lens of their own individualized experiences and worldview." (Sullivan, 2013, 142). Based on this idea, I believe a "negotiated meaning" of this clip would be when audience members understand why Jon is yelling at Dave, but they also understand that they do not have proper context of the situation. For instance, Dave had been dealing with emotional problems ever since his mother died. I personally can see why people lose passion for their work after such an emotional event. The oppositional position is when audiences focus "exclusively on the connotative meanings of the signs in order to mount an ideological struggle against the message and/or its producers." (Sullivan, 2013, 142). An example of an oppositional position to a Jon Taffer rant is when audiences reject his outbursts due to their belief that they are "staged". Since this is reality TV, I understand why viewers believe that some events are planned or scripted. I personally fall into the realm of the negotiated meaning. I believe that if I knew the context during each outburst, I would understand the owner's position more often.

One great thing about Bar Rescue for my family and I is that both of my parents watch the show. My mother and I normally watch the show live, and my dad and I sometimes watch re-runs together. The family dynamic is split because my parents are divorced. Andrew M. Ledbetter discusses the different communication patterns families have in his paper "Family Communication Patterns and Communication Competence as Predictors of Online Communication Attitude: Evaluating a Dual Pathway Model". One interesting point mentioned in the paper was that "low conversation orientation families discourage talk and open expression of emotion, whereas high conversation orientation promotes mutual family discussion and decision-making." (Ledbetter, A. 2010). I feel as though my family actually fits into both categories of high and low conversation due to the parental split. When my father and I watch Bar Rescue, we rarely discuss anything. In fact, we mostly just stare at the television and wait for something to happen. This is because my father is a quiet man who uses television as his main relaxation tool. I do not believe he enjoys conversation around the television because he does not want to have to pay attention to multiple things at the same time. Therefore, most of our time spent around the television is just about watching television. In contrast to my father, my mother enjoys having conversations during Bar Rescue. Sometimes she even sends me text messages during the live show on Sunday if I am not at her house. We also discuss what is going on during the episode together and we contemplate whether or not the bar will turn into a success. I wonder what this difference boils down to. When comparing my mother and father, my mother is more social while my father is more independent. These differences are evident when I sit with either of them around the television. If my parents had stayed together, I wonder if "family television time" would include conversation or emphasize silence.

Finally, the viewing of Bar Rescue every Sunday has become a ritual for my family (more so my mother and I). The textbook states that "Ritual can simply mean your regular, habitual activities - you may make it a 'ritual' to eat your dinner in front of the television and watch the six o'clock news every evening." (Sullivan, 2013, 178). I look forward to Sunday each week because the new episode of Bar Rescue comes on at 10pm. Watching the show has definitely become a routine or "ritual" for my mother and I because we consistently watch the new episode live. Rituals tend to have a varying degree of importance to people. Personally, I think my Bar Rescue ritual is important when it comes to maintaining common interests with my mother, and occasionally my father when we watch re-runs. Rituals do not just have to revolve around religious ceremonies. Rituals are also about celebrating the little things that make life worth living.

Jon Taffer is the Gordon Ramsay of the bar industry. He screams, he gets angry, and he insults businesses and their owners. However, he teaches, he solves problems, and at the end of the day, he changes peoples lives for the better. Whether you agree with how Jon solves problems, or you are skeptical of how legitimate the show is, one clear aspect of his life is that he is a success. Watching his week-to-week bar hopping has become a unique ritual for myself and my family, and as long as he is out there changing lives, I will be watching.

References:
Ledbetter, A. (2010). Family communication patterns and communication competence as of online communication attitude: Evaluating a dual pathway model. Journal of Family Communication, 10, 99-115.
Sullivan, J. (2013). Media Audiences: Effects, users, institutions and power. Sage Publications Inc., New York, NY.
Sullivan, 2013, 137, cited De Saussure (2000)
Sullivan, 2013, 142, cited Hall, J. (1980)

They Are Ahead By a Century

The Tragically Hip have always been one of "Canada's bands". They have toured Canada, donated money from their shows back into Canadian cities, sang about national issues, and have entertained us for decades. This is why the recent news about Gord Downie was so heart breaking. Gord Downie, the lead singer for the Hip, was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. Tears were shed, people were shocked, and Canada stood still for a second wondering what would happen to Gord and the band.

What has happened in the months after the announcement of the diagnosis reflects how important the Tragically Hip are to Canada. It was amazing to see how Canada rallied around Gord Downie and the band. They announced a summer (final) tour, and tickets did not last long. For weeks it seemed that everyone wanted to talk about the Tragically Hip. The way Canadian news stations presented stories on the Tragically Hip's final tour relate to the agenda-setting effect highlighted in the textbook. The agenda-setting effect is "The ability of the mass media to transfer the salience of items and their attributes from the news agenda to the public." (Sullivan, 2013, 70). Whether it was Global news covering stories from shows across the tour, CTV covering news from ticket sales, or CBC broadcasting the Kingston concert live and advertisement free. It was evident that the Tragically Hip were being framed as a popular Canadian interest. And rightfully so in my opinion! Even the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network has a "Tragically Hip archive" section on their website. This shows how diverse the Tragically Hip's audience is since Canadian Aboriginal's values are traditionally different from the majority of Canadian society and are more collectivistic.

The rest of this blog will be focusing on the Kingston concert. One takeaway from the concert was the lack of advertisements. This is significant when looking at Dallas Smythe's idea of the audience commodity. This is when viewers "become a new product that media corporations (can) sell to advertisers" (Sullivan, 2013, 81). CBC's broadcast aired commercial free because they believed it was the right thing to do. Does this mean that the audience was not viewed as a commodity for advertisers? Possibly, but that does not eliminate the idea of audiences being a commodity in other ways. For instance, they could still be viewed as a commodity for merchandisers. There are always trinkets, clothing, or memorabilia available for people to buy at concerts. However, the main point of emphasis in regard to the transfer of money between advertiser and consumer during the event was when the CBC selflessly encouraged their audience to donate to the Gord Downie Foundation for Brain Cancer Research. The audience could be viewed as a "commodity" in that sense, but it is promoting a very good cause that will aid a significant amount of people in the future. (The shirt says "brain cancer awareness")

Another noteworthy part of the Hip's final concert was when Gord Downie referenced how Canada has treated their Aboriginal population.

"He cares about the people way up north that we were trained our entire lives to ignore. Trained our entire lives to hear not a word of what's goin' on up there, and what's goin' on up there ain't good."
-Gord Downie

This powerful statement from Gord Downie references the spiral of silence that has been going on in Canada for almost a century. Spiral of Silence Theory "claims that individuals naturally fear social isolation and will therefore monitor the political views expressed in the media and repress their own opinions if they are in the minority." (Sullivan, 2013, 71). For decades now it has been socially acceptable to state how unfair Canada has treated their Aboriginal population, but not much progress has been made in fixing the situation. It has come to the point where people do not express these ideologies as frequently as they should be if they want things to change. Media coverage on Canada's Aboriginal population on our news networks is uncommon and it often does not display their cultural values. If you want to gain a better perspective on Aboriginal cultures and values, you should watch the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. However, this is not mainstream media, and it appears that the ideology of "Aboriginals have been unfairly treated by Canada" has either been suppressed or become unpopular. This is evident when you look at the dominant discourses of our society. This example also relates to the agenda-setting effect. Canadian news networks have come under fire for the lack of coverage on Aboriginal stories. A small sample from "Buried Voices, Media Coverage of Aboriginal Issues in Ontario" displays that there were 3,338 Aboriginal stories and 725,827 total stories in Ontario media from 2012-2013. (Pierro, R, Barrera, J, Blackstock, C, Harding, R, McCue, D, & Metatawabin, M. 2013).
Further reading: http://www.jhr.ca/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Buried_Voices.pdf

The Hip's Kingston concert was viewed/listened by 11.7 million people according to the CBC. In lecture, we talked about why we should quantify an audience. One reason is numbers are easy to understand. It is clear that the impact the Tragically Hip have/had on Canadians is significant due to the amount of people tuning in to their final performance. However, numbers do not tell us why those individuals chose to tune in to the concert. Uses and Gratifications Theory studies why people chose certain media to fulfill their needs. U&G Theory acknowledges that "Audience members actively choose media channels and content to suit their own needs at a particular moment." (Sullivan, 2013, 113). When it comes to the Hip's concert in Kingston, there are numerous reasons why audiences chose to view/listen to the concert. For instance, as previously stated, The Tragically Hip are one of "Canada's bands", and Canadians are proud to say that. Citizens may have tuned in merely to pay respect to the band and acknowledge that they are important to Canada. My dad fell into that category. Also, a more shared need from viewers was the need to hear them perform live one more time. Whether it was watching them on TV, listening through the radio, or streaming it via CBC, it is clear that the live performance had a significant impact on many people in different ways. The multitude of ways to interact with the content relate to the concept of "Modality-based Gratifications" brought up in "Uses and Grats 2.0: New Gratifications for New Media". The authors state that "Modality refers to the different methods of presentation (e.g., audio or pictures) of media content, appealing to different aspects of the human perceptual system (e.g., hearing, seeing)." (Sundar, S & Limperos, A. 2013). This is interesting when looking at how many ways audiences could view or listen to the concert. I personally listened to the concert in the car via the radio, and watched it on TV when there was a television available. I felt more in tune with the music in the car because that was all I could focus on, but I felt more connected with The Tragically Hip when I watched the concert live on TV.

Finally, I would like to talk about why I tuned in to The Tragically Hip's Kingston concert. To be honest, if you asked me a week before the concert what my favourite Hip song was, I would not be able to answer you. I knew absolutely nothing about the band, but I knew how important they were to Canada's culture based on people reacted to the news about Gord Downie. The concert was important to me because I felt that I should learn more about the band considering how important they are to Canada. I definitely fell victim to the bandwagon effect, but I wanted to be part of the Hip's audience at least once so I could witness why they are so special. I definitely satisfied my need for learning more about the Hip, and throughout the show I recognized songs that I had heard when I was a kid, but I never knew the Tragically Hip sang them. Their lyrics spoke about Canada and Canadian issues (past and present). Whether it was Wheat King's message about the wrongful conviction of David Milgaard, or the tale of Bill Barilko. It was easy to see just how much the country influenced their music, and in return, how much The Tragically Hip influenced Canada.

Take it away Gord!

References:

Sundar, S. & Limperos, A. (2013). "Uses and Grats 2.0: News Gratifications for New Media." Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media. 57(4), 504-525

Sullivan, J. (2013). Media Audiences: Effects, users, institutions and power. Sage Publications Inc., New York, NY.

Pierro, R, Barrera, J, Blackstock, C, Harding, R, McCue, D, & Metatawabin, M. 2013 Buried Voices, Media Coverage of Aboriginal Issues in Ontario".

From: http://www.jhr.ca/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Buried_Voices.pdf

Comm 3p19 Blog Entry 1- Drew Meyer

One of the most interesting phenomena in the realm of audience studies is sports fandom. The activities fans get involved in may seem strange or even borderline crazy to outsiders who are not as involved in sports. Whether fans are painting their face (or even body) a certain colour to display who they are cheering for, or they are furiously screaming at their television set over a missed call by a referee, the audience involvement in the realm of sports crosses all borders and generations. In this blog, I will be looking at sports audiences and how they immerse themselves in audience activities. Also, I will discuss how social media has affected sports communities. The blog will look exclusively at NFL audiences, and my favourite team, the Buffalo Bills.

It is always encouraging to see fans of certain teams band together. However, it does not end at just going to the stadium or arena. Fans gather around their television sets, at local bars, and even on social media! There are numerous ways to connect with people who share a love for the same team you do. The textbook brings up the idea of audience members acting as "free agents" when selecting media. "Audience members are regarded to be reflexive about their own media use - selecting specific media and content to fit their own needs and desires" (Sullivan, 2013, p.8). One way I personally fit into this model presented in the chapter is when I watch Buffalo Bills' football games. I purposely select the local television station to watch the game because the announcers know more about the team. Their opinions on the team are slightly more informed than the broadcasters on a separate channel. I feel as though I am more connected to the team when I am listening to the broadcasters who know about the Buffalo Bills. The idea of being a "free agent" is particularly unique and interesting when looking at the sports world considering "Free Agent Frenzy" is part of every major North American sports organization. Athletes who are not currently under contract are free to choose any new team to play for. Which is similar to how each individual is able to choose which media they want to engage with. Also, the multiple options available for individuals to watch their team(s) mean a wide range of audience members can be involved with the game.

One major research question I consider when looking at the abundance of options available for viewing sports programs is how audience member's experiences differ in different locations. For instance, how does experiencing a sporting event on a mobile device differ from someone watching that same event at a local bar? Also, you can even compare these mediums to the live stadium environment. You'll find that people experience the same media in different ways, but they may obtain the same level of enjoyment from it.
 
From: http://www.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/first-debate-pool.jpg
Professor Good referenced this picture in lecture (September 29th, 2016) and I think that it relates well to what I am talking about. The man playing pool is not as engaged with the Presidential debate as someone who is actively watching it. Is his audience experience hindered because of this? Or, is the social aspect of being with friends and occasionally listening to the debate enhancing his experience? Also we should consider whether he cares more about Monday Night Football over the debate because both appear to be on. One way to obtain a somewhat clearer idea on this issue is to interview people at different establishments (e.g, bars, stadiums, and people on the street who claim they watch most of their sports content privately) and note how they experience sporting events and what makes them choose the establishment that they go to. The textbook discusses different kinds of surveys in order to gauge public opinion. The survey that would provide the most effective information in this scenario would be person-to-person interviews because a variety of opinions can be obtained from the people that were surveyed. A person-to-person interview is when "the researcher sits down with a respondent, establishes a rapport, and asks in-depth questions." (Sullivan, 2013, p.64). Obviously a bulk of information would not be obtained because it would be too time consuming, but talking to individuals at different venues experiencing the same media would provide some insight into why they choose to experience the sports event there.

Next, I would like to refer to this unique mashup of audience experiences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiM2_Va8h-k

Here you can see an abundance of rather interesting ways to display support for a team (in this case the Buffalo Bills). It is quite obvious that a fair few of these fans are under the influence of alcohol or other substances. Some actions such as body slamming others into tables, jumping off an RV onto a table, (possibly drunken) sparring between fans, and the guy plowing his head into an RV can lead to moderate or even serious injury. The actions from these fans resemble early 19th century audiences when audiences were described as "crowds". "The audience as 'crowd' referred to working-class commoners who came together at specific times and places to experience some for of routinized behavior." (Sullivan, 2013, p. 13). "Drunkenness, unruliness, and a lack of deference to hereditary rulers was tolerated for brief periods of time." (Sullivan, 2013, p. 13). However, most of these fans are regular people with jobs who just like to party during their free time. It is amazing to see what people do in social gatherings when rules are (to an extent) thrown out the window. What they are doing is indeed normal for some fans. They get drunk, get wild, and then they watch football. An outsider to this subculture may characterize these fans as "unruly", and it brings up the concept of "moral panics", which was mentioned by Stanley Cohen in the text. Moral panics "describe very strong negative public reactions to the spread of new social behavior." (Sullivan, 2013, p. 29). Even though I understand why people would be relatively unnerved by these types of audience behaviours, what they have to realize is that people have engaged in these types of behaviours for centuries. At the end of the day, all they are there to do is have fun and be a part of the Buffalo Bills' audience. Of course some people go a little bit too far, but no one is perfect. Finally, I know I should not have to point this out, but I feel as though I have to anyway. These fans do not represent ALL BILLS FANS OR ALL SPORTS FANS. Some people tend to stereotype an entire group of sports fans based on the actions of a few individuals.

The final points I would like to discuss are how audiences engage in social media to enhance their audience involvement in sport, and how watching sports has evolved beyond the stadium and the home television set. Sports organizations have a huge impact on social media platforms. To put this into perspective, the NFL Facebook account has 14.7 million likes, the NHL Facebook page has 4.2 million likes, the NBA Facebook page has 31.3 million likes, and the MLB Facebook page has 6.6 million likes. Not to mention the millions of twitter followers each league has. These platforms are significant for audiences because the ability to connect with other people who care about your favourite sports team is now easier than ever. All you have to do is connect with people on social media sites that you are more than likely already apart of. Here you really see the transformation of audiences. We have moved from gathering in physical spaces, to gathering together online. Even if we are in different countries! Each subsection of the four major north american sports organizations (e.g, each team that makes up each league) carries a unique and diverse community with it. Each sports team carries with it a discourse of the day. Whether they are discussing injuries, player transactions, excitement for the upcoming game, or anything in between, the community aspect of the sports page brings in heaps of people. What social media has done to sports audiences is provide audiences with a more efficient way to interact with each other and with the sports team. Each platform represents a new way audiences can interact and communicate with each other. Ideas, information, and news about sports gain recognition from fans very quickly when the news is shared on various social media platforms.

One major example of how sports audiences have evolved with the times is the NFL recognizing that a good percentage of their market livestreams their content. The NFL conducted an experiment last year when the Buffalo Bills played the Jacksonville Jaguars in England. They partnered with Twitter and Twitter streamed the game live so people around the world could watch the game. The numbers state that "Football fans streamed over 480 million minutes of the game, with 33% of streams coming in internationally, across 185 countries worldwide." ("National Football League Announce Streaming Partnership for Thursday Night Football" From: https://nflcommunications.com/Pages/National-Football-League-and-Twitter-Announce-Streaming-Partnership-for-Thursday-Night-Football.aspx). After seeing the success of the broadcast, the NFL realized that they should provide a service for the audience members who like to stream games because there are always people who either do not have access to a certain game, or are constantly on the move. They decided this year to partner with Twitter again in order to livestream every Thursday Night Football game. This move shifts the league into the 21st century and has enabled the expansion of broadcasting content beyond the television set. Audiences can now truly be anywhere at any time when they stream content.    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgE8lkPNHtk

Before I go, please watch Ben Affleck's reaction to the BILLS BEATING THE PATRIOTS!!!! OH YEAH, GO BUFFALO!!!!!!!!!

References

National Football League Announce Streaming Partnership for Thursday Night Football" From: https://nflcommunications.com/Pages/National-Football-League-and-Twitter-Announce-Streaming-Partnership-for-Thursday-Night-Football.aspx

Sullivan, J. (2013). "Media Audiences: Effects, users, institutions and power." Sage Publications Inc., New York, NY.