The Twenty-First Century Television: Interactive, Participatory and Social

  • Pauliina TuomiEmail author
Part of the Media Business and Innovation book series (MEDIA)


The process of digitalization has detached television content from the television screen with a tendency of media convergence. In the twenty-first century social mobile media and the Internet with the help of different mobile devices have gained more and more ground in TV-production. In this chapter the media convergence(s) taken place around television, acting as a central cluster, is studied through the aspect of second screens. It concentrates on the convergence of twenty-first century’s television and mobile devices that are acting as second screens in facilitating TV watching experience.


Mobile Phone Mobile Device Social Medium Participatory Television Eurovision Song Contest 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Antonini, A., Pensa, R. G., Sapino, M. L., Schifanella, C., Teraoni Prioletti, R., & Vignaroli, L. (2013). Tracking and analyzing TV content on the web through social and ontological knowledge. In Proceedings of the 11th European conference on interactive TV and video (EuroITV’13) (pp. 13–22). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2465958.2465978.
  2. Bachmayer, S., Lugmayr, A., & Kotsis, G. (2010). Convergence of collaborative web approaches and interactive TV program formats. International Journal of Web Information Systems, 6(1), 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolter, J., & Grusin, R. (2000). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge ja Lontoo: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cesar, P., Bulterman, D. C. A., & Soares, L. F. G. (Eds.). (2008). Human-centered television. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications (TOMCCAP), 4(4): 1–7.Google Scholar
  5. Cesar, P., Geerts, D., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2009). Social interactive television: Immersive shared experiences and perspectives (pp. 1–362). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-60566-656-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cortez, J., Shamma, D. A., & Cai, L. (2012). Device communication: A multi-modal communication platform for internet connected televisions. In Proceedings of the 10th European conference on interactive TV and video, EuroiTV’12 (pp. 19–26). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  7. Gruzd, A., Wellman, B., & Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining twitter as an imagined community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hanski, M.-P., & Kankainen, A. (2004). Pelien laadun kehittäminen käyttäjien näkökulmasta. Teoksessa Marja Kankaanranta, Pekka Neittaanmäki & Päivi Häkkinen (toim.): Digitaalisten pelien maailmoja. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto, 67–76.Google Scholar
  9. Harboe, G., Metcalf, C., Bentley, F., Tullio, J., Massey, N., & Romano, G. (2008). Ambient social TV: Drawing people into a shared experience. In: Proceeding of CHI 2008, 1–10.Google Scholar
  10. Harrington, S., Highfield, T., & Bruns, A. (2012). More than a backchannel: Twitter and television. In J. M. Noguera (Ed.), Audience interactivity and participation (pp. 13–17). Brussels, Belgium: Transforming Audiences, Transforming Societies.Google Scholar
  11. Hautakangas, M. (2008). Yleisöä kaikki, tuottajia kaikki: toimijuuden neuvotteluja Suomen Big Brotherissa. In K. Nikunen (toim.), Fanikirja: tutkimuksia nykykulttuurin fani-ilmiöistä. Jyväskylä University, Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  12. Heinonen, U. (2008). Sähköinen yhteisöllisyys. Kokemuksia vapaa- ajan, työn ja koulutuksen yhteisöistä verkossa. Kulttuurituotannon ja maisemantutkimuksen laitoksen julkaisuja 14. Turun yliopisto, Pori.Google Scholar
  13. Hellman, H. (1988). Uustelevision aika? Helsinki: Hanki ja jää.Google Scholar
  14. Highfield, T., Harrington, S., & Bruns, A. (2013). Twitter as a technology for audiencing and fandom: The #Eurovision phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 16(3), 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill, A. (2005). Reality TV – audiences and popular factual television. Abingdon: Routledge. 231 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press. 308 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Jensen, J., & Toscan, C. (1999). Interactive television: TV of the future or the future of tv? Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jungnickel, K., & Schweiger, W. (2011, March 14–16). Twitter as a television research method. General Online Research Conference GOR 11, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
  19. Kaplan, A. M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68. Elsevier, Indiana University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lugmayr, A., & Zheng, H. (2012). Forecasting the usage of ambient media in TV broadcasting in the year 2016. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Ambient Media Experience (SAME).Google Scholar
  21. Marwick, A., & Boyd, D. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13(1), 114–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murray, S., & Ouellette, L. (2008). Reality TV: Remaking television culture. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Näränen, P. (2006). Digital television – analyses on history, politics and TV-system. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tampere, Tampere.Google Scholar
  24. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? – Design patterns and business models for the next generation software.
  25. Obrist, M. (2007). Finding individuality in the technological complexity: Why people do it themselves? The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 2(1), 203–212.Google Scholar
  26. Ollikainen, V., Aalto, E., Norros, L., Seisto, A., Lugmayr, A., & Lindqvist, U. (2011). NELME—Next generation electronic media multiproduction and multicasting processes, services, solutions and tools. Espoo: VTT Technology.Google Scholar
  27. Parikka, J. (2004). Interaktiivisuuden kolme kritiikkiä. Lähikuva, 2004(2–3), 83–97.Google Scholar
  28. Prata, A., Chambel, T., & Guimarez, N. (2012). Personalized content access in interactive TV-based cross media environments. In Y. Kompatsiaris, B. Merialdo, & S. Lian (Eds.), TV content analysis: Techniques and applications series: Multimedia computing, communication and intelligence. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis group. ISBN 9781439855607.Google Scholar
  29. Rautiainen, M., Heikkinen, A., Sarvanko, J., Chorianopoulos, K., Kostakos, V., & Ylianttila, M. (2013). Time shifting patterns in browsing and search behavior for catch-up TV on the web. EuroITV, 2013, 117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rodriguez-Alsina, A., & Carrabina, J. (2012). Analysis of the TV interactive content convergence and cross-platform adaptation. In Y. Kompatsiaris, B. Merialdo, & S. Lian (Eds.), TV content analysis: Techniques and applications series: Multimedia computing, communication and intelligence. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis group. ISBN 9781439855607.Google Scholar
  31. Silverstone, R., & Hirsch, E. (Eds.). (1994). Consuming technologies. Media information in domestic spaces. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Simmons, N. (2009, June 3–5). Me TV: Towards changing TV viewing practices? Euroitv09, Leuven. ACM 978-1-60558-340-2/09(06).Google Scholar
  33. Simmons, N. (2011, June 29–July 1). Television audience research in the age of convergence: Challenges and difficulties. In Proceedings of the 9th International Interactive Conference on Interactive Television (pp. 101–104). Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  34. Sundet, V., & Ytreberg, E. (2009). Working notions of active audiences: Further research on the active participant in convergent media industries. Convergence, 15(4), 383–390.Google Scholar
  35. Tuomi, P. (2008). SMS-based human-hosted interactive TV in Finland. In ACM international conference proceeding series: Vol. 291 archive (pp. 67–70). UxTV, Silicon Valley, CA.Google Scholar
  36. Tuomi, P. (2009). Television interaktiivinen pelihetki – Television pelillisyys ja merkitys pelikokemusten tuottamisessa. Teoksessa: J. Suominen, R. Koskimaa, F. Mäyrä, & O. Sotamaa (toim.), Pelitutkimuksen vuosikirja 2009 (s. 34–48). Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto.Google Scholar
  37. Tuomi, P. (2010, June 9–11). The role of the traditional TV in the age of intermedial media spectacles. In Proceedings of the 8th international interactive conference on interactive TV & video 2010 (pp. 5–14). Tampere, Finland.Google Scholar
  38. Tuomi, P. (2012). Teletext + Twitter =a new form of social TV? MindTrek’12 Proceeding of the 16th international academic MindTrek conference (pp. 249–254). New York: ACM. ISBN: 978-1-4503-1637-8. doi: 10.1145/2393132.2393188.
  39. Tuomi, P. (2013). TV-related content online: A brief history of the use of webplatforms. Euroitv ’13 Proceedings of the 11th European conference on interactive TV and video (pp. 139–142). New York: ACM. ISBN: 978-1-4503-1951-5.
  40. Tuomi, P., & Bachmayer, S. (2011, June 29–July 1). The convergence of TV and Web (2.0) in Austria and Finland. In Proceedings of the 9th international interactive conference on interactive television (pp. 55–64). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  41. Turtiainen, R. (2010). Tulos ei päässyt edes teksti-TV:lle. Miksi vanhanaikainen teknologia on säilyttänyt asemansa di gitalisoituneessa mediaurheiluympäristössä? Tekniikan Waiheita 4/2010. 32–48.Google Scholar
  42. von Feilitzen, C. (Ed.). (2004). Young people, soap operas and reality TV. International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth & the Media, Gothenburg University, Nordicom, Yearbook 2004.Google Scholar
  43. Weller, K. (2011, June 28). Approaches to analyzing scientific communication on twitter. The World According to Twitter Workshop, Brisbane, Australia.
  44. Weller, K., Bruuns, A., Puschmann, C., Burgess, J., & Mahrt, M. (2013). Twitter and society. New York: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ytreberg, E. (2009). Extended liveness and eventfulness in multiplatform reality formats. New Media and Society, 11(4), 467–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhao, D., & Rosson, M. B. (2009). How and why people twitter: The role that micro-blogging plays in informal communication at work. Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work. Retrieved March 4, 2012, from

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tampere University of TechnologyPoriFinland

Personalised recommendations