Changing Publishing Strategies



This chapter discusses how streaming impacts television publishing—that is, how online and on-demand television contest the traditional publishing strategies of linear ‘flow’ television, and how the industry responds by developing new ways to present, contextualise and distribute drama content. This chapter is organised according to three key publishing strategies for television drama: to reinvent ‘flow’ and ‘liveness’, to create transmedia universes and to present events. This chapter demonstrates how these publishing strategies increasingly explore new ways of telling stories, and distribute and promote drama series, while adding layers of meaning for the audience to explore. This chapter uses Lilyhammer, SKAM and blank to illustrate the key tendencies and arguments.


Event Liveness Publishing models Streaming Television drama Transmedia 


  1. Aanstad, Kristin Helle. 2017. SKAM-skuespillerne samlet igjen: - Vilde er det såreste i meg, og hun stiller alle spørsmålene jeg lurer på. Aftenposten, 21 September.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, Jacob. 2019. Herman Flesvik setter ny NRK-rekord – slår både Exit og Parterapi., 16 January.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, Benedict. 1991 [1983]. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  4. Bengtsson, Emilie, Rebecka Källquist, and Malin Sveningsson. 2018. Combining New and Old Viewing Practices: Uses and Experiences of the Transmedia Series Skam. Nordicom Review 39 (2): 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bettvik, Ida. 2017. Production Leader on SKAM (S4) and blank at NRK, in-person interview, Oslo, 24 November.Google Scholar
  6. blank. NRK. 2018–2019.Google Scholar
  7. Boorstin, Daniel. 1992. The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-events in America. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  8. Booth, Paul. 2016. Crossing Fandoms. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bourdon, Jerome. 2000. Live Television is Still Alive: On Television as an Unfilled Promise. Media, Culture & Society 14 (4): 531–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bricker, Tierney. 2017. TV’s Top Couple 2017 Has a Winner and They’re Thanking ‘the Coolest Fanbase on Earth’. EOnline, 8 March.Google Scholar
  11. Bruun, Hanne. 2020. Re-Scheduling Television in the Digital Era. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Busse, Kristina. 2018. Afterword. Fannish Affect and Its Aftermath. In Everybody Hurts: Transitions, Endings, and Resurrections in Fan Cultures, ed. Rebecca Williams, 209–218. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cavicchi, Daniel. 1998. Tramps Like Us: Music and Meaning among Springsteen Fans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Couldry, Nick. 2002. Playing for Celebrity. Big Brother as Ritual Event. Television & New Media 3 (3): 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dayan, Daniel, and Elihu Katz. 1994. Media Events: The Live Broadcasting of History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Doctor Who. BBC. 1963–1989, 2005–present.Google Scholar
  17. Ehn, Billy, and Orvar Löfgren. 2010. The Secret World of Doing Nothing. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ellis, John. 2000. Scheduling: The Last Creative Act in Television? Media, Culture & Society 22 (1): 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eriksen, Thor Germund. 2019. Broadcasting Director at NRK, in-person interview, Oslo, 14 March.Google Scholar
  20. Erlandsen, Kim. 2017. Online Developer on SKAM and blank at NRK P3 Event and Development, in-person interview, Oslo, 30 November.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2018. SKAM Statistic—Likes and Comments on Blog. Information Given in a Meeting at the NRK, Oslo, Norway, 21 March.Google Scholar
  22. Evans, Elizabeth. 2011. Transmedia Television. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Faldalen, Jon Inge. 2016. -Nerven i ‘Skam’ skal være sterk og relevant., 4 April.Google Scholar
  24. Feuer, Jane. 1983. The Concept of ‘Live Television’: Ontology as Ideology. In Regarding Television: Critical Approaches, ed. E. Ann Kaplan, 12–22. Los Angeles: American Film Institute.Google Scholar
  25. Flesjø, Nicolay. 2015. Editorial Director of On-Demand Services at NRK, in-person interview, Oslo, 26 January.Google Scholar
  26. Furevold-Boland, Marianne. 2016. Project Leader on SKAM at NRK, in-person interview, Oslo, 13 December.Google Scholar
  27. Genette, Gerard. 2001 [1997]. Paratexts. Thresholds of Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gitlin, Tom. 1983. Inside Prime Time. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  29. Graatrud, Gabrielle. 2016. SKAM-frustasjon skapte Viral Hit. Dagbladet, May 25.Google Scholar
  30. Grainge, Paul, and Catherine Johnson. 2015. Promotional Screen Industries. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gray, Jonathan. 2010. Show Sold Separately. Promos, Spoilers, and Other Media Paratexts. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Grossberg, Lawrence. 1992. Is There a Fan in the House? The Affective Sensibility of Fandom. In The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, ed. Lisa A. Lewis, 50–65. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Gulliksen, Hildri. 2017. Head of NRK Super, in-person interview, Oslo, 19 May.Google Scholar
  34. Guttu, Ane Hjort. 2016. Minutt for Minutt. Kunstkritikk, 23 December.Google Scholar
  35. Harrington, C. Lee, and Denis D. Bielby. 1995. Soap Fans. Pursuing Pleasure and Making Meaning in Everyday Life. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Helle, Birk Tjeldflaat. 2019. Strømmesuksess for ‘Parterapi’ – sett over en million ganger. Dagens Næringsliv, 28 October.Google Scholar
  37. Helsingen, Arne. 2015. Head of Television at NRK, in-person interview, Oslo, 16 January.Google Scholar
  38. Hepp, Andreas, and Nick Couldry. 2010. Introduction: Media Events in Globalized Media Culture. In Media Events in a Global Age, eds. Nick Couldry, Andreas Hepp, and Friedrich Krotz, 1–20. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Hesmondhalgh, David. 2007. The Cultural Industries. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Hill, Annette. 2019. Media Experiences. Engaging with Drama and Reality Television. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Hills, Matt. 2002. Fan Cultures. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. ———. 2015. Doctor Who: The Unfolding Event. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. ———. 2018. Always-on Fandom, Waiting and Bingeing. Psychoanalysis as an Engagement with Fans’ ‘Infra-Ordinary’ Experiences. In The Routledge Companion to Media Fandom, eds. Melissa A. Click and S. Suzanne Scott, 18–26. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Horton, Donald, and R. Richard Wohl. 1956. Mass Communication and Para-social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance. Psychiatry 19: 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ihlebæk, Karoline A., Trine Syvertsen, and Espen Ytreberg. 2014. Keeping Them and Moving Them: TV Scheduling in the Phase of Channel and Platform Proliferation. Television and New Media 15 (5): 470–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jenkins, Henry. 1992. Textual Poachers. Television Fans & Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. ———. 2006. Convergence Culture. Where Old and New Media Collide. New York and London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Jensen, Jolie. 1992. Fandom as Pathology: The Consequences of Characterization. In The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, ed. Lisa A. Lewis, 9–29. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Jerslev, Anne. 2017. SKAM’s ‘lige her’ og ‘lige nu’. Om SKAM og nærvær. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Informationsvidenskab og kulturformidling 62 (2): 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Johnson, Catherine. 2019. Online TV. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. King, Anthony. 2001. Violent Pasts: Collective Memory and Football Hooliganism. The Sociological Review 49 (4): 568–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. King-O’Riain, Rebecca Chiyoko. 2020. ‘They were Having So Much Fun, So Genuinely…’: K-pop Fan Online Affect and Corroborated Authenticity. New Media & Society. Online first.
  53. Kjus, Yngvar. 2009. Event Media. Television Production Crossing Media Boundaries. PhD thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  54. Køhn, Ivar. 2017. Head of NRK Drama, in-person interview, Oslo, 29 November.Google Scholar
  55. Lang-Ree, Kari Anne. 2017. In-house Lawyer at NRK, in-person interview, Oslo, 27 October.Google Scholar
  56. Lilyhammer. Rubicon TV for NRK and Netflix. 2012–2014.Google Scholar
  57. Lindtner, Synnøve Skarsbø, and John Magnus Dahl. 2019. Aligning Adolescent to the Public Sphere: The Teen Serial Skam and Democratic Aesthetic. Javnost—The Public 26 (1): 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lost. ABC. 2004–2010.Google Scholar
  59. Lotz, Amanda D. 2007. The Television Will Be Revolutionized. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  60. ———., ed. 2009. Beyond Prime Time. Television Programming in the Post-Network Era. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. ———. 2017. Portals: A Treatise on Internet-Distributed Television. Michigan Publishing.Google Scholar
  62. Magnus, Mari. 2016. SKAM – når fiksjon og virkelighet møtes. Nordicom Information 38 (2): 31–38.Google Scholar
  63. ———. 2017. Online Producer on SKAM, in-person interview, Oslo, 12 January.Google Scholar
  64. Melbø, Karine Brøste. 2017. Head of Casting on blank at NRK, in-person interview, Oslo, 23 November.Google Scholar
  65. Miége, Bernard. 1989. The Capitalization of Cultural Production. New York: International General.Google Scholar
  66. Næsheim, Knut. 2017. Director and Writer (Showrunner) on blank at NRK, in-person interview, Oslo, 27 September.Google Scholar
  67. Nordlie, Hege Gaarder. 2017. Assistant Scriptwriter on blank at NRK, in-person interview, Oslo, 6 December.Google Scholar
  68. NRK. 2013. NRKs årsrapport 2013. Oslo: NRK.Google Scholar
  69. NTB. 2017. ‘Skam’-skole Stenger Dørene for Danske Fans. Aftenposten, 9 January.Google Scholar
  70. Nyborg, Ingvill Marie. 2012. MIA – et stort og stille drama på nett., 3 May.Google Scholar
  71. Øverlie, Tom. 2017. Online Developer on SKAM and blank at NRK P3 Event and Development, in-person interview, Oslo, 5 December.Google Scholar
  72. Pearson, Roberta. 2010. Fandom in the Digital Era. Popular Communication, 8 (1): 84–95.Google Scholar
  73. Pedersen, Bernt Erik. 2019. Ikke siden ‘Skam’ har NRK-seerne strømmet en dramaserie like mye som den denne. Dagsavisen, 22 October.Google Scholar
  74. Petersen, Line Nybro, and Vilde Schanke Sundet. 2019. Play Moods across the Life Course in SKAM Fandom. Journal of Fandom Studies 7 (2): 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Revheim, Hanna Huglen, and Pedja Kalajdzic. 2017. Dansker på ‘Skam’-safari: -Vi synes det er så gøy. NRK, 11 April.Google Scholar
  76. Sandvoss, Cornel. 2005. Fans: The Mirror of Consumption. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  77. Scannell, Paddy. 2014. Television and the Meaning of Life: An Enquiry into the Human Situation. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  78. SKAM/SHAME. NRK. 2015–2017.Google Scholar
  79. Skarstein, Dag. 2018. Lesingar av Skam – seriens kommentarfelt som tolkningsfelleskap. In Dramaserien Skam. Analytike perspektiver og didaktiske muligheter, eds. Synnøve Skarsbø Lindtner and Dag Skarstein, 197–219. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
  80. Sørensen, Håkon Lund. 2017a. SKAM Statistic. Internal Document Given by E-mail, 17 February.Google Scholar
  81. ———. 2017b. SKAM Statistic. Internal Document Given by E-mail, 20 September.Google Scholar
  82. ———. 2019. SKAM Statistic. Internal Document Given by E-mail, 7 May. Google Scholar
  83. Sprus, Nathalie. 2018. NRK’s Press Contact on SKAM and blank at NRK, in-person interview, Oslo, 19 February.Google Scholar
  84. Sundet, Vilde Schanke. 2017. ‘Det er bare du som kan føle det du føler’ – emosjonell inverstering og engasjement i nettdramaet SKAM. 16:9 filmtidsskrift, 25 June.Google Scholar
  85. ———. 2019. From Secret Online Teen Drama to International Cult Phenomenon: The Global Expansion of SKAM and its Public Service Mission. Critical Studies in Television 15(1): 69-90.Google Scholar
  86. Sundet, Vilde Schanke, and Espen Ytreberg. 2009. Working Notions of Active Audiences: Further Research on the Active Participant in Convergent Media Industries. Convergence 15 (4): 383–390.Google Scholar
  87. Sundet, Vilde Schanke, and Line Nybro Petersen. 2020. Ins and Outs of Transmedia Fandom: Motives for Entering and Exiting the SKAM Fan Community Online. Poetics. Online first.
  88. Svendsen, Maiken. 2016. Derfor skjermer NRK ‘Skam’-skuespillerne. VG, 16 February.Google Scholar
  89. Teen Wolf. MTV, 2011–2017. MTV. Google Scholar
  90. The Matrix. 1999. Warner Bros.Google Scholar
  91. The Vampire Diaries. 2009–2017. CW. Google Scholar
  92. Todd, Anne Marie. 2011. Saying Goodbye to Friends: Fan Culture as Lived Experience. Journal of Popular Culture 44 (4): 854–871.Google Scholar
  93. Tolonen, Kristian. 2015. Lilyhammer Statistic. An Internal Document Given by E-mail, 6 February.Google Scholar
  94. Van den Bulck, Hilde, and Hallvard Moe. 2017. Public Service Media, Universality and Personalization through Algorithms: Mapping Strategies and Exploring Dilemmas. Media, Culture & Society 40 (6): 875–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Villumsen, Katrine Villareal. 2016. Utsolgt på 10 minutter: 350 danske fans spiste fiskekaker og tok farvel med Skam. Aftenposten, 19 December.Google Scholar
  96. Wallace, Petter. 2015. Head of External Productions at NRK, in-person interview, Oslo, 15 January.Google Scholar
  97. Williams, Raymond. 2005 [1974]. Television: Technology and Cultural Form. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  98. Williams, Rebecca. 2015. Post-Object Fandom. Television, Identify and Self-Narrative. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  99. ———. 2017. Fan Tourism and Pilgrimage. In The Routledge Companion to Media Fandom, eds. Melissa A. Click and Suzanne Scott. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  100. Woldsdal, Nicolay, and Ingunn Michelsen. 2016. Skam slår alle rekorder., 21 December.Google Scholar
  101. Ytreberg, Espen. 2009. Extended Liveness and Eventfulness in Multi-platform Reality Formats. New Media & Society 11 (4): 467–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. ———. forthcoming. Media and Events in History. Book under contract, forthcoming at Polity Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Media and CommunicationUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations