Unscripted: Viewers open up about TV
In 2005, millions of Americans climbed aboard the Cornelia Marie with the late Captain Phil Harris and his crew as they braved the frigid waters of the Bering Sea to fish for crab on Discovery Channel’s hit documentary series, Deadliest Catch. Viewers were captivated by the danger and intrigue of life at sea and grew to love the characters and the show’s ratings skyrocketed when Captain Phil died in 2010 during filming for the sixth season. The outpouring of grief from Deadliest Catch fans further proved to Discovery that the show was something special – and something people wanted more of.
The show's overwhelming success spawned several other reality shows that followed a similar formula of people wrangling dangerous creatures in unfriendly waters. However, it soon became clear that all docudrama series are not created equal. Deadliest Catch’s success was not easily replicated. After all, it is a constrained model: How many fishing shows do viewers really need?
The creation and subsequent mild accomplishments of shows mimicking Deadliest Catch indicated to Discovery that establishing a true connection with viewers isn’t as simple as producing a show about death-defying fishing feats in perilous waters. A show has to deliver something greater than the sum of its parts. Clearly, the job of TV goes beyond mere entertainment.
Uncover the relationship
To better understand the role of TV in viewers’ lives, executives at Discovery Communications, Silver Spring, Md., sought to uncover the relationship between viewers’ deep, underlying psychological needs and the TV they watch. What drives TV-viewing and what are consumers trying to accomplish when they watch TV?
This research was initially inspired by an article in the New York Times regarding innovation and how businesses are employing techniques to involve customers as partners in invention. Discovery felt a similar approach could assist with successful programming development.
Ingrid Gorman, senior vice president, research, at Discovery Communications, says, “As technology changes, viewers are becoming much more demanding about fresh, innovative content and things that are really going to connect with them emotionally. Discovery is about igniting curiosity and in research we are also naturally very curious. This is about an evolution of trying to understand, on a deeper level, why people behave the way they do. It was natural for us to pursue that.”
TV as a whole
These goals required examining TV as a whole and how it fits into consumers’ lives. Discovery reached out to Insight Strategy Group (ISG), a New York research company that specializes in media and social sciences, to conduct a wide-ranging study of TV as a whole. Discovery understood that to effectively identify what TV accomplishes in the lives of viewers, it needed to evaluate not only its own programming but that of its competitors – including shows that, on the surface, have nothing in common with Discovery. Discovery wanted to explore what viewers seek when they turn on the TV and apply that knowledge to improve its own programming.
But how? The fundamental question – What is the role of TV? – asked in a traditional research questionnaire doesn’t go deep enough. Boaz Mourad, co-CEO of ISG, says, “If you ask people, ‘Why do you watch TV?’, they would say, ‘Because I like it; because it’s entertaining.’ That’s the surface level. Then you can ask, ‘Why do you like it? Why is it entertaining?’ They might list show attributes – it has characters they like, it makes them laugh.”
Unfortunately, most research doesn’t go beyond the second probe question. In this case, Discovery needed to ask why: Why does it make you laugh? Why is it funny? Why do you like this character?
“The reason most research focuses on the attribute level is because it’s easiest to program to that. The show you like more is going to be the one you’re more likely to watch. But knowing which one you like has no explanatory power. The deepest level is a bit less predictive but it opens up a creative lens for how you can meet a need, separate from how you’ve done it before,” says Mourad.
In short, Discovery wanted to find ways to meet the intimacy needs of viewers with something that isn’t a fishing show.
A three-pronged approach
The project began in 2010. ISG designed a three-pronged hybrid research approach that included expert in-depth interviews (IDIs), viewer ethnographies and a national online quantitative survey. ISG was responsible for all three phases of the research and a Discovery client attended both qualitative phases.
To begin, ISG combed through academic literature on media to find male and female academics, media professionals and psychoanalysts who had developed theories and ways of thinking about the role of TV in people’s lives. ISG then hired a recruiting agency to recruit nine experts for phone interviews.
The expert IDIs were intended to build hypotheses about the job of TV based on the experts’ insights and ISG’s experience in media. “Academics have things like mood management theory. Psychoanalysts look at aspirations and how viewers see characters, what role that plays, who they are and how they use TV as a vehicle to bring out their identity. Each expert had their own language,” says Mourad.
One hypothesis was that people come to TV to fill unmet needs – when they have gaps in their life or when their “real” and “ideal” self don’t align – suggesting that many viewers crave intimacy, freedom, a personal connection, a feeling of belonging, a fulfilling relationship or the opportunity to express themselves. This hypothesis provided a framework for the ensuing research phases.
Unearth the connection
Armed with a working theory on what motivates TV-viewing, ISG conducted 10 viewer ethnographies with men and women in the New York area – not New York City – and Kansas City, Mo. (five from each region). The New York respondents represented the more sophisticated media consumer, while the Kansas City respondents were meant to shed light on Middle America. The ethnographies were conducted to understand consumers’ personal lives and psychological needs; explore the psychological needs that impact behavior; and unearth the connection between psychological needs and TV-viewing.
The ethnography respondents were simply regular TV viewers, not necessarily people who watch Discovery, as Discovery aimed to determine – and appropriate – what other networks were doing well. As you might imagine, the number of American adults who are TV viewers – the only requirement for the ethnographies – is substantial, with nearly all households owning at least one television. ISG sought out well-spoken, “regular” viewers by including screening questions that measured creativity and articulateness. In this case, potential respondents were asked to describe why they like a particular show. Those who sounded most insightful were selected for the ethnographies.
Free therapy
And insightful, they were. Discovery was impressed with the degree to which the respondents were forthcoming and honest. “When we went in to do the ethnographies in people’s homes they were surprisingly honest with us. I wondered why. It seems to me that it’s almost like free therapy. How often does someone come and talk to you for a couple hours and all you have to do is talk about yourself?” says Gorman.
Mourad confirms, “These were the most intense ethnographies we’ve ever done, in many ways. They were really almost like therapy sessions. There was a lot of crying, sharing, connection.”
ISG used the opportunity of being in respondents’ homes to examine their lives as a whole. The vast majority of the discussion did not center around television. Instead, ethnographers spoke to respondents about life in general. Only after they spoke about their life did any mention of TV-viewing arise. Respondents were not asked to make the connection between their life story and their viewing; this was done separately by the researchers.
“Actually sitting with them in their homes, you get information about what particular types of shows are resonating with them but also what’s going on in their lives. What are the things that they worry about? What are the things that they hope for? What are their current circumstances? Is somebody sick in their family? Are they out of work? Did they just have a new baby? All of these things go into this wonderful soup where we can interpret, on the back end, where the connections are being made,” says Gorman.
Cast a wider net
The quantitative phase took the learnings from the expert IDIs and ethnographies to cast a wider net to match up benefits, motivations and underlying psychological needs with particular programs. In an online survey, 2,600 men and women (2,400 from the general population and 200 from an oversample of Discovery viewers) were asked the same personal questions that were asked in the ethnographies, followed by questions about what shows they watch and what those shows provide (i.e., makes me laugh; has a character who’s politically incorrect; gives me inside jokes only certain people can pick up on, etc.). The data allowed ISG to assess which qualities are statistically associated with various types of shows.
“We were finding connections between unmet needs or wishes and the kinds of shows that people watch. You might see that people who yearn for intimacy end up watching all of these different Housewives shows. And guys who feel like they lack a connection and wish they had more time for themselves end up watching Deadliest Catch,” says Mourad.
In total, the research analyzed viewer connection with 26 different programs, from Law & Order: SVU and Family Guy to True Blood and Jersey Shore. The small sample of shows was selected by ISG and Discovery based on an all-encompassing definition of success, including high ratings, fan favor and critical acclaim. Programs from all genres, ranging from comedy to nature, were included and had to be popular so that each show was rated by enough respondents to provide sufficient data.
“We looked at shows that were highly successful to understand why those shows were such hits but some came up organically. When we were talking with people about what they love and what they can’t miss, that’s where some of the other niche titles popped into the study,” says Gorman.
Freedom is key
So what is it? What drives consumers to particular programs? When answering the question of why hit shows become hit shows, the research found that freedom is key.
“Freedom was the strongest, most salient need. There were three freedom needs: freedom to be myself, freedom to act out, freedom from my everyday,” says Mourad. In today’s world, where we are constantly connected and accessible via mobile more than ever before and with the added pressure of the recession, the need to break out and feel free seems particularly pronounced.
The yearning for freedom seems even to transcend the divide between scripted and unscripted programming. In fact, each type of show can be similarly satisfying. For example, compare Deadliest Catch and Entourage, both of which feature aspirational lifestyles and characters who do the things the average person wishes s/he could but can’t. Deadliest Catch is unscripted and Entourage is scripted but both meet the same psychological need: freedom. Essentially, the rules don’t apply on the ocean or to the mega-celebrities on Entourage. Additionally, Mythbusters and Mad Men, two shows most would not think to link together, both provide freedom from the everyday.
Framing real life
However, though scripted and unscripted programming can meet the same need, Discovery has its own set of limitations. As a purveyor of nonfiction entertainment, it doesn’t have the freedom to fabricate characters or write and rewrite content. Instead, Discovery is charged with the task of framing real life in a way that satisfies viewers’ unmet needs.
“It’s an important differentiation between fiction and nonfiction. It’s harder for us since we deal in nonfiction. We have to go find those characteristics in real people that resonate with an audience. But there are certain areas we can explore further with a character if we know what to look for. It’s a different exercise than our competitors,” says Michelle Russo, senior vice president, corporate affairs and communications, at Discovery.
Though that’s not to say they can’t learn from scripted shows how to frame compelling characters. “The beauty of the study, in retrospect, is that we weren’t looking at the nonfiction space only,” says Gorman. “We were looking at television and what is inspiring to people because we can learn, as a company, from just about anything that’s out there and from the things that are working. This research really illuminates the whys behind the ratings and we can certainly try to use that knowledge to determine how we need our characters and stories to be on Discovery,” says Gorman.
Already delivers
In the end, the research was presented to Discovery’s general managers and the creative council and Discovery is using the research to inform future projects and provide the freedom viewers so desperately crave. Fortunately for Discovery, its programming already delivers on viewers’ need for freedom.
“At its best, Discovery’s core strength is taking people out of their day-to-day lives and putting them someplace new – new ideas, new experiences, new places, new people. And that, I believe, is what people crave from their Discovery experience,” says Gorman.
Beyond the obvious
Discovery found that viewers seek true fulfillment from TV, proving that there were more intimate, meaningful reasons Deadliest Catch earned its place in viewers’ hearts, beyond the obvious lure of drama on the water. By focusing on what underlying, unmet psychological needs a show satisfies instead of what attributes it delivers, Discovery stands to deliver characters and stories that connect with viewers on the deepest level – a recipe for compelling television, no matter the genre.