We present to you the opposite of television: YouTube!

YouTube and television both take on a similar task: they try to attract the largest audience possible. In order to make sure that they attract the largest audience, they need to offer either information, entertainment, or a mixture of both in the form of infotainment. However, the mechanisms of organising content varies between these two media. Television channels are designing/buying certain transnational show formats in order to appeal to local audiences; an example of this are the numerous global adaptations of the Masterchef format. On the other hand YouTube lets its users upload the available video content.[1] YouTube distinguishes their programming by the number of ‘likes’ and the amount of times it’s been watched in order to measure its popularity. This also leads to innovation in how they generate profit by ‘buying’ certain videos/programmes. YouTube organises payment via sale of advertisement space, they keep a deal of the money and use the rest as payment for the uploader of the video.[2] YouTube also makes money by letting viewers pay to watch certain videos. Television makes profit by selling advertisement space during ‘commercial breaks’ and lets the channel organise the programming and the time schedules. Moreover, they use the distribution of technology, i.e. developments in the technoscape (for example ‘voting’ by call/text), in order to generate additional profit.[3] Thus, there are notable differences in the mechanisms behind organising payment. What are the functions of cooking shows on the internet compared to cooking shows on TV in relation to globalization? In this essay we will address this question by comparing the YouTube (food)vlog Munchies and the television program Masterchef Australia.

A initial remark has to be made in order to state why these examples are chosen. Of course, a deal of various television and YouTube programmes or channels are about food; yet these programmes show comparable elements in respective food programmes on YouTube and television. Munchies could be seen as a representation of digitally available food programmes on YouTube and Masterchef Australia as a representation of televised food programmes. Of course there are other programmes available, television programmes similar to Munchies and YouTube videos similar to Masterchef. There are a number of reasons to choose these programme. Firstly because of their widespread acclaim and the fandom of these programmes, but also because of the elements they share with other shows on YouTube and television. In spite of the programming being informative and educational, the primary reason for creating or watching these videos is entertainment. Therefore, the focus in this essay will not be placed on informative and educational qualities; it will primarily look at the entertainment-value of the respective programmes/videos.

The format of Masterchef Australia became a huge hit, since it was the first cook-off on television.[4] Contestants are chosen on the basis of them being a good chef and the need to prove that they engaged in continuous self-improvement throughout the program. This means that the show revolves around the notion of competition.[5] These elements of competition and self-improvement are situated in a central storyline not dissimilar to scripted entertainment and reality television.[6] The combination of individual contestants and an overarching format-based storyline is commonplace in most (popular) television shows today. A certain dichotomy becomes visible between television show, which usually revolve around receiving a prize, gaining success or at least improvement in the end. According to the program everyone but the winner is unsuccessful, or it will cost the contestant the prize.[7] Only a few ‘failed’ contestants are able to gain something from the show, for instance they receive attention or manage to create a career. It should be noted, that this is only a small fragment of the entire number of contestants. The objective of winning and the winner-takes-all mentality is clear in entertainment programmes; educational/informative programmes have other interests on both the television as well as YouTube.

YouTube has other priorities, with the primary aim of offering a platform for artists and celebrities with (newfound) fame, either via vlogs, music, instructional videos.This becomes clear in the example of the webseries Munchies. Artists are uploading their own videos; by which they simultaneously give approval to the company to spread and make use of these products. Some of these videos go viral, when the immediate and online availability leads to content being watched all across the world. This is a notable difference compared to television; televisions companies need to make sure that interested (broadcasting) companies will buy formats first. Producers or companies develop a format and try to make the format a success in one country. When it becomes successful other (global) companies are interested and thus it is possible for the program to gain worldwide popularity. Therefore the aim of television companies is both to create successful formats, as well as making it a success on television when buying such a format. For YouTube the uploaders want to profit from the YouTube paying system; therefore they try to come up with clever formats to gain as much views as possible. Munchies has created a new type of ‘YouTube-format’, it is a cooking program but focuses on different cultures and food traditions across the world. Episodes in the webseries are hosted by local cooks, which introduces the audience with the crafts and knowledge behind cooking traditions of local lifestyles. The element of competition is absent in the program; it aims to show audiences what is available in the world. It steps away from the ritualized and repetitive labour of cooking.[8] At the same time it does not have any narrative suspense, but tries to elaborate on different food traditions in a global field. Although episodes are aimed to entertain, they at the same time incorporate educational knowledge in the episodes. One of the most popular videos is that of the diet of a strongman. The video explains the daily life and eating rituals of the strongman, high performance athletes with a diet over 20,000 calories. Yet, while videos made by Munchies may receive many views, it is not nearly as popular as Masterchef (Australia).

Although Masterchef and Munchies are both cooking programmes, there are numerable differences between the two shows. Masterchef tries to stimulate the gastro-world of culinary restaurants where criticism is praised; the competitive programme is thus placed within the culture of aspiration.[9] The culture of aspiration means that the contestants are trying to better themselves throughout the program and are able to eventually win the prize. It is the constant striving for becoming or being the best. Television programs such as Masterchef Australia create linguistic incongruity between the contestants as well, it is the ‘biggest challenge yet’ ‘the best dish so far’ etcetera.[10] A lot of superlatives are being used in their programming. The key word in the competition is ‘challenge’’; it is thus creating space between what the contestants have already done and what they still need to do in order to remain in the competition. Look for instance at the first minute of the summary of the episode. 

Whereas Munchies have a more laidback approach, it usually starts in media res. The layout of the different format is changed to fit into the profile of what the audience of the medium wants. People who are watching television want to be on the edge of their seat , whereas on YouTube it is easier to start a new video if you do not like it. It is also possible for television to easily switch, but since it is a competition, it is less compelling to do so. The viewer is interested in who is going to win, perhaps trying to make sure that his/her own judgement is correct. This means that although it might seem that YouTube and television might want the same thing, gain as many views as possible, they use different strategies. The video uploaders try to sell their story, keeping it interesting for them to remain watching. Whereas television tries to get the audience come into grip with the competition to be interested in who is going to win. Especially the skill competition, is the most popular reality format of the world. Meaning that there is a set of rules built around a premise that is produced locally. These set of rules are forming a liberal policy regime, meaning that there is a clear objective with a certain set of rules and that only the best can win.The format is a consideration of food culture as popular culture. Whereby the TV competition serves as spectacle and value, with the role of repetition and recombination. The strength of these programmes lies within the conversation with cultural forces and preoccupations, to make sure that it becomes a global success.

This means that both mediums are both dependent of liberal policy regimes.[11] Because of digitalization the choices are endless to watch; available content has amplificated because of the internet. After the liberalization of national policies, broadcasting companies know that higher audience share demands new and creative programming.[12] Thus, both are dependent of models of view rates. For both YouTube and television it is interesting that the companies or broadcasters only pay for the videos which receive a certain degree of success. For YouTube this success lies in the number of views and likes, for television on the success of the format (elsewhere). Television focuses on buying successful (global) formats. For both these mediums intellectual property rights are of great importance, since this means that the format which the show/video is presented to them either has to be following the same structure or is in an adaptable and repeatable format.[13] Although the methodologies in the mediums are varying, they still held the basic rule namely that the show which attracts the most viewers is the most successful. The television format which is perceived to be a success, since it a new formula or it combines certain other success formulas, will usually be aired. When it has become a success in one country, the format is adjusted to the culture of the audience. This means that the format is only slightly adjusted, the key components which made the television show an original success need to be available. There is to a certain extend a re-made version of the format, only adapted to the view of the audience. Yet the way they try to achieve this success does vary between YouTube and television, for instance if they aim to add informational pieces or make it about entertainment in general. An example of this would be the contrast between cooking programmes on YouTube and on television The selling and spreading of formats of programs in television is a multibillion dollar industry.[14] With the coming of YouTube the uploading of videos for online viewing has also become a billion dollar industry. Uploading a successful video leads to the rise in advertising sales for YouTube, thus more money. For television the billion dollars are between televisions channels, who are selling formats and advertisement space.

Thus there is difference visible between YouTube and television in the means of organising the content made for watching. Where television is trying to attract the audience by having a similar format in various countries, YouTube tries to attract the audience by having a global network. The mechanisms of the payment between television and YouTube vary yet at the same time use the same strategies and oppositions. Perhaps YouTube can be seen as a new type of television, which has gained freedom from the format industry. However, the differences noticeable are mechanisms behind the mediums but the content they show. Television is usually based on competition, whereas YouTube tries to upload unique viewing content.  Although exceptions can be made to various other cooking programs on YouTube and on televisions: there are certain elements visible on television programs and certain elements in YouTube which are difficult to find elsewhere. For instance the ‘winner takes it all’ mentality within the medium of television and the ‘globalized’ viewing experience for YouTube users. Another example would be the language used. A YouTube uploader mostly uses normal ‘everyday’ language, to connect to the ‘average’ audience. In television mostly the emphasis would be on ‘superlative’ words as well as words such as challenge, success, wanting in television. With this type of choice of language, a dichotomy is created. As television would announce YouTube: we present to you the opposite of television, YouTube!

Initials:

A.D.

E.T.

J.M.D.O.M.

M.v.d.V

M.v.R

Tweet: Differences between YouTube and Television are visible in strategies, (selling) mechanisms and content #Munchies #MasterchefAustralia

Bibliography

Andrew Beattie (2015), ‘How Youtube Makes Money’ via                                                     http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/053015/how-youtube-makes-money- videos.asp (accessed on 14-11-2015).

Chalaby, J.K. (2011), ‘The making of an entertainment revolution: How the TV format trade   became a global industry’, in: European Journal of Communication 26 (4), 2011.         

Meizel, K. (2010), ‘The United Nations of Pop: Global Franchise and Geopolitics’, in: Idolized: Music, Media, and Identity in American Idol. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.        

Oren, T. (2013), 'On the Line: Format, Cooking and Competition as Television Values’, in:         Critical Studies in Television 8 (2).

---

[1] Jean K. Chalaby (2011), ‘The making of an entertainment revolution: How the TV format trade became a global industry’, in: European Journal of Communication 26 (4), 2011, pp. 294.

[2] Andrew Beattie (2015), ‘How Youtube Makes Money’ via http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/053015/how-youtube-makes-money-videos.asp (accessed on 14-11-2015).

[3] Katherine Meizel (2010), ‘The United Nations of Pop: Global Franchise and Geopolitics’, in: Idolized: Music, Media, and Identity in American Idol. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 206.

[4] Tasha Oren (2013), 'On the Line: Format, Cooking and Competition as Television Values’, in: Critical Studies in Television 8 (2), pp. 28.

[5] Jean K. Chalaby (2011), ‘The making of an entertainment revolution: How the TV format trade became a global industry’, in: European Journal of Communication 26 (4), 2011, pp. 294.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Katherine Meizel (2010), ‘The United Nations of Pop: Global Franchise and Geopolitics’, in: Idolized: Music, Media, and Identity in American Idol. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 197.

[8] Tasha Oren (2013), 'On the Line: Format, Cooking and Competition as Television Values’, in: Critical Studies in Television 8 (2), pp. 28.

[9] Ibid, pp. 31-32.

[10] Katherine Meizel (2010), ‘The United Nations of Pop: Global Franchise and Geopolitics’, in: Idolized: Music, Media, and Identity in American Idol. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 197.

[11] Jean K. Chalaby (2011), ‘The making of an entertainment revolution: How the TV format trade became a global industry’, in: European Journal of Communication 26 (4), 2011, pp. 304.

[12] Ibid, pp. 304.

[13] Ibid, pp. 305.

[14] Ibid, pp.294.