As video-on-demand services have taken a central position in audiovisual distribution in European markets, over-the-top viewing has become increasingly popular. This shift has heavily impacted consumption patterns and exposure diversity, as they are reshaped by non-linear distribution and technological affordances. This article aims to integrate debates on discoverability and prominence within wider research on video-on-demand consumption. It does so by widening the existing focus on the strategies deployed by video-on-demand services to capture users’ contexts and actions in the consumption decision-making process. The framework is based on exploratory qualitative research conducted in Belgium through a diary study and in-depth interviews and can contribute to future audience research on video-on-demand consumption choices. We find that users discover and choose audiovisual content to consume on demand through a combination of formal and informal factors. These are grouped into four thematic categories, namely technological affordances, perceived offering, external ‘nudges’, and process.
AnannyMCrawfordK (2018) Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society20(3): 973–989.
2.
BeckersKVan AelstPVerhoestP, et al. (2021) What do people learn from following the news? A diary study on the influence of media use on knowledge of current news stories. European Journal of Communication36(3): 254–269.
3.
BeerD (2013) Popular culture and new media: The politics of circulation. London: United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
BolgerNDavisARafaeliE (2003) Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology54(1): 579–616.
5.
BourdieuP (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
BurriM (2019) Discoverability of local, national and regional content online: Mapping access barriers and contemplating new orientation tools. Discussion paper prepared for the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Canadian Commission for UNESCO, 8 February. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3366849.
7.
CarrierJGHeymanJ (1997) Consumption and political economy. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute3(2): 355–373.
8.
CarterSMankoffJ (2005) When participants do the capturing: The role of media in diary studies. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. Portland, Oregon: ACM Press, 899–908.
9.
CohnJ (2019) The Burden of Choice: Recommendations, Subversion, and Algorithmic Culture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
10.
CouldryNMejiasUA (2019) Data colonialism: Rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Television & New Media20(4): 336–349.
DhoestASimonsN (2016) Still ‘watching’ TV? The consumption of TV fiction by engaged audiences. Media and Communication4(3): 176–184.
13.
DondersK (2021) Public Service Media and the Law: Theory and Practice in Europe. In: Routledge research in media law, 1 Edition. New York: Routledge.
14.
EAO (2020) Yearbook 2019/2020 Key Trends. Television, Video and On-Demand, Audiovisual Services - The Pan-European Picture. Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory.
15.
EnliGSyvertsenT (2016) The end of television—again! how TV is still influenced by cultural factors in the age of digital intermediaries. Media and Communication4(3): 142–153.
16.
EvensTDondersK (2018) Platform Power and Policy in Transforming Television Markets. Palgrave Global Media Policy and Business. New York, NY: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
17.
EvensTDondersKAfilipoaieA (2020) Platform policies in the European union: Competition and public interest in media markets. Journal of Digital Media & Policy11(3): 283–300.
18.
FlewT (1998) From censorship to policy: Rethinking media content regulation and classification. Media International Australia88(1): 89–98.
19.
FreedmanD (2008) The Politics of Media Policy. Cambridge, UK; Malden MA: Polity.
20.
García LeivaMT (2020) Vod platforms and prominence: A European regulatory approach. Media International Australia180(1): 101–115..
21.
GawF (2022) Algorithmic logics and the construction of cultural taste of the Netflix recommender system. Media, Culture & Society44(4): 706–725.
22.
Gomez-UribeCAHuntN (2016) The netflix recommender system: Algorithms, business value, and innovation. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems6(4): 1–19.
23.
HardyJ (2010) The contribution of critical political economy. In: CurranJ (eds) Mass media and society. London, New Delhi, New-York, Sidney: Hodder Education, 186–209.
24.
HasebrinkUPoppJ (2006) Media repertoires as a result of selective media use. A conceptual approach to the analysis of patterns of exposure. Communications31(3): 369–387.
25.
HelbergerNKarppinenKD’AcuntoL (2018) Exposure diversity as a design principle for recommender systems. Information, Communication & Society21(2): 191–207.
26.
HesmondhalghDLobatoR (2019) Television device ecologies, prominence and datafication: The neglected importance of the set-top box. Media, Culture & Society41(7): 958–974.
27.
HesmondhalghDLotzAD (2020) Video screen interfaces as new sites of media circulation power. International Journal of Communication14: 386–409.
28.
HoplamazianGJDimmickJRamirezA, et al. (2018) Capturing mobility: The time–space diary as a method for assessing media use niches. Mobile Media & Communication6(1): 127–145.
29.
IordacheC (2021, June 3) Local strikes back? A comparison of streaming offerings in Flanders. A decade of Netflix in Europe: Lessons from a small media market, presentation, Brussels.
30.
JohnsonC (2020) The appisation of television: TV apps, discoverability and the software, device and platform ecologies of the internet era. Critical Studies in Television15(2): 165–182.
31.
LivingstoneS (1998) Audience research at the crossroads: The ‘implied audience’ in media and cultural theory. European Journal of Cultural Studies1(2): 193–217.
32.
LüdersM (2022) Self-determined or controlled, seeking pleasure, or meaning? Identifying what makes viewers enjoy watching television on streaming services. Poetics92: 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2021.101639.
33.
MansellR (2004) Political economy, power and new Media. New Media & Society6(1): 96–105.
34.
MazzoliEM (2020) Online content governance: Towards a framework for analysis for prominence and discoverability. Journal of Digital Media & Policy11(3): 301–319.
35.
MazzoliEMTambiniD (2020) Prioritisation Uncovered. The Discoverability of Public Interest Content Online. DGI(2020)19, November. Council of Europe.
36.
McGuiganJ (1992) Cultural Populism. London; New York: Routledge.
37.
McKelveyFHuntR (2019) Discoverability: Toward a definition of content discovery through platforms. Social Media + Society5(1): 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118819188.
38.
McQuailD (1992) Media Performance: Mass Communication and the Public Interest. London; Newbury Park, California: Sage.
39.
MoeHHovdenJFKarppinenK (2021) Operationalizing exposure diversity. European Journal of Communication36(2): 148–167.
40.
MöllerJTrillingDHelbergerN, et al. (2018) Do not blame it on the algorithm: An empirical assessment of multiple recommender systems and their impact on content diversity. Information, Communication & Society21(7): 959–977.
41.
NapoliPM (1999) Deconstructing the diversity principle. Journal of Communication49(4): 7–34.
42.
NapoliPM (2011) Exposure diversity reconsidered. Journal of Information Policy1: 246–259.
43.
NapoliPM (2014) Automated media: An institutional theory perspective on algorithmic media production and consumption: Automated media. Communication Theory24(3): 340–360.
44.
NguyenTTHuiP-MHarperFM, et al. (2014) Exploring the filter bubble: The effect of using recommender systems on content diversity. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2566486.2568012.
45.
PajkovicN (2021) Algorithms and taste-making: Exposing the Netflix recommender system’s operational logics. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies28(1): 214–235..
46.
PauwelsCBauwensJ (2007) Power to the people? The myth of television consumer sovereignty revisited. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics3(2): 149–165.
47.
PauwelsCLoisenJ (2016) Leading by example? European union implementation of cultural diversity in internal and external audiovisual policies. Javnost – The Public23(2): 153–169.
48.
PertierraACTurnerG (2013) Locating Television: Zones of Consumption. London; New York: Routledge.
49.
PicardRPickardV (2017) Essential Principles for Contemporary Media and Communications Policymaking. London: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
50.
RanaivosonH (2019) Online platforms and cultural diversity in the audiovisual sectors: A combined look at concentration and algorithms. In: AlbornozLAGarcía LeivaMT (eds) Audiovisual Industries and Diversity: Economics and Policies in the Digital Era. London; New York: Routledge, 100-118.
51.
SilesIEspinoza-RojasJNaranjoA, et al. (2019) The mutual domestication of users and algorithmic recommendations on Netflix. Communication, Culture and Critique12: 499–518.
52.
SilverstoneR (2004) Regulation, media literacy and media civics. Media, Culture & Society26(3): 440–449.
SundarSS (2008) The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In: MetzgerMFlanaginA (eds) Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 73–100.
55.
SunsteinCR (2014) Why Nudge?: The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
56.
ThomasDR (2006) A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation27(2): 237–246.
57.
TurnerG (2019) Approaching the cultures of use: Netflix, disruption and the audience. Critical Studies in Television14(2): 222–232.
58.
VandenplasRPiconeI (2021) Media as the great emancipators? Exploring relations between media repertoires and cultural participation in Flanders. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies27(5): 1439–1461.
59.
van DijckJPoellTde WaalM (2018) The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
60.
WardeA (2014) After taste: Culture, consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture14(3): 279–303.
61.
WuAXTanejaHWebsterJG (2021) Going with the flow: Nudging attention online. New Media & Society23(10): 2979–2998.
