How much weight should be really be placing on family types?

 

Through our research it became apparent that family type does indeed influence viewing modes. But of course, this does not always translate from family to family. For example, a nuclear family may be more likely to consume television over dinner, however, a nuclear family in a different suburb or country may choose only to watch pay per view. It is case by case. Therefore, it is imperative to consider viewership modes over family types as a whole. 



In order to explore this idea Francis L. F. Lee authored ‘The influence of family viewing preferences on television consumption in the era of multichannel services’, published in 2010 via the Asian Journal of Communication.



Lee approaches questions of family, perceptions of family, television viewing and the effect this has on content via the lense of a telephone survey. She initiially acknowledges the general perception that a ‘more individualized TV culture within the household’ now exists, and forefronts Multi Channel services as a key influencer in this change. However, by treating family as a variable to compare preferences and consumption, Lee differentiates pay TV and free to air TV in order to reposition family as a central aspect of TV viewing, rather than a subsection of it – arriving at the following two hypotheses and two research questions:



Free to Air TV

• Hypothesis 1: Preference for family viewing relates positively to consumption and evaluation of conventional mass television broadcasting.
• Hypothesis 2: Perceived family television preference heterogeneity relates negatively to consumption and evaluation of conventional mass television broadcasting.

​

Pay TV

• Research Question 1: How does preference for family viewing relate to consumption and evaluation of multichannel television services?
• Research Question 2: How does perceived family television preference heterogeneity relate to consumption and evaluation of multichannel television services?

Here Lee is referring to the contrast in viewing preferences of individuals within a family when using the term ‘television preference heterogeneity’ (Lee, 2010).



In so doing, Lee arrives at a very important notion. Whereby, ‘if it is simply a habit for a family to watch television together and the ‘togetherness’ itself is all the family members are concerned about, they may continue to watch television together regardless of whether the television contents are designed for family viewing’ (Lee, 2010).



So too, a case study of the predominate and popular shows on French television tell us next to nothing about the families that inhabit the country (unless we are to believe the model themselves on American drama). Despite one of the most popular on French screens is “Des Chifres et Des Lettres’, basically ‘Numbers and Letters’ an analytical half hour game show that tests numeracy and literacy of its competitors, a poll conducted by ‘Promise Consulting reveals that French tastes for regular television are overwhelmingly American.’ (Toot La France, 2012), with the most popular being Criminal Minds followed by The Mentalist and NCIS (CBS must love the French).



Given this evidence, should we be placing such a huge importance on content or should we be looking to specific examples of family viewing to teethe out the reality of families involvement within the TV sphere.



While the above does go some way to engendering a mindset useful for considering television, and the act of watching for the sake of watching, it is imperative that we consider family as a specific audience type if we are to get closer to understanding how they are perceived by producers, and how content is designed for them. Family is changing, thus it essential that TV charts this change.