Marketing - Data Analysis Report

1

MKTG2010 Individual Data Analysis Report

Focus Group Transcript

Online Focus Group Data (transcribed verbatim) R1 I also share R3’s feeling while watching these 'real-life' tv programs. when you're exposed to (millions of) viewers and know you're being filmed, I would have imagined that some kind of acting is just inevitable. and in fact when you look at the contestants they're all 'carefully' selected. as i recalled some of the programs i've watched, like 'the big brother', 'survivors', and especially the 'temptation island', the girls all look good, with pretty faces; guys are handsome, pleasant. they just don't seem to be the ordinary people that we meet in the everyday life! to me the entire show is a set-up right from the beginning. the shows may not be authentic, but it matters not too much to me as i'm not trying to get anything out of it apart from the entertainment value. sometimes watching these people running around in front of the camera could be fun! R2 Hi everyone once again =o) Just read what R1 wrote and have a couple of thoughts to share here as well...In fact upon catching a couple of television programs here(not too sure if they would be considered as real-life tv shows though), I was rather taken aback by the contents of some of the programs like Temptation Island and Jerry Springer. These shows depict real-life, direct and true reactions of the people participating in them. I do agree with the fact that in most shows everybody's simply playing roles, however for the above two shows which are supposed to be live, I feel that the focus is taken away from the real-life element of what they were meant to be. Partially perhaps the participants give me the impression that they do acknowledge the fact that they are on the show evidently most of the time for a negative reason. Take for instance, in Temptation Island, pairs of couples know that they are being put to the test of love, and for the Jerry Springer Show, knowing some ugly truth will be revealed over national tv to them, yet it is surprising there is a high participation level for people to exhibit their "not-so-nice sides" knowingly, in turn creating not too "live" reactions in the end I feel. I do agree with R3 that in every show it is a stage of actors but they provide the entertainment/leisure for viewers with the storyline and their acting skills. Also with R4 that in Survivor or even the Fugitive, there are still elements of challenge and suspense in such shows. However these factors may not necessarily be present for all programs like for instance the two programs I noticed not long ago, being slightly different, and perhaps more on a negative scale. R3 I do agree with R1 when she says the cast of temptation island are all very good looking. Have you met any couple as perfect as those. Do they look like your couple friends. I was thinkin the other day why such good looking people would like to be tempeted to cheat on each other. It totally does not add up. If you had a boyfriend or a girlfriend that looked like them would risk to lose them for someone else? or would even bother to cheat on them with people you barely know. Come on it can not be for real. No one really relates to it. How about towards the end when the meet to find out if they gonna keep together or if they gonna split up. It hilarious. I havent really watched survivor cause I always found it extremely boring and could never be bothered. However I think it probably the worst one. Who would really put themselves through it if it was not a set up?

2

R5 i have to admit, i am not a very fan of real-life tv. I tried watching programs such as survivors and temptation island, but they just are not appealing to me, which I think has a lot to do with the fact that i see those shows as acting and nothing else. who would be totally comfortable being themselves knowing they are being filmed 24 hours?? who wouldnt be tempted to pretend to be someone that they dont normally get to be on tv, even though the shows are supposed to be 100% real and genuine? real-life tv, depsite their controversial nature, should be treated no differently from other tv programs- their ultimate purpose is to provide entertainment and nothing else, and viewers should not take them too seriously. R1 hi it's R1 again. talking about our reactions to these programs, that reminds me of a similar program I saw a few yrs ago in hk. the idea is probably originated from japan. its about 2 guys in their early 20s backpacking from hk to europe. they're given a very limited budget so they have to find their way out all along. the crew was with these 2 guys all the time and their experience was broadcasted back to hk everyday for almost 3 months. you saw their 'sufferings', frustration, and occasionally some happy moments. This program attracted a very high rating for the tv station at that time. What's interesting about this program, when i compared it with the others we've just mentioned, is that i don't think it so negatively. perhaps there's no reason for their acting. ts not a competition, no winner at the end. the only thing they gain is perhaps an unforgettable experience. they're simply ordinary people. i saw a similar program mentioned by R2 as well. can't understand why people like to face this kind of hostile confrontations knowing that it will be seen by all those who know (and don't) them. wht exactly do these people want to acheive? certainly this is the least effective way to deal with their personal problems. sometimes you see the audience were so involved, it's a bit scary. that goes far beyond the entertaining value. M From our discussion we can see that the different kind of real-life Tv shows are viewed differently among you. What is needed from a real-life TV show to make it interesting to you? Is it the setting (outback/ tropical island/isolated house/ city), a competitive incentive (1m$) or the people participating (looks/age/background/profession)? And what makes it not appealing to you? R2 I feel that an interesting real life tv programme should have the elements of excitement, adventures and "unpredictable development /results" which keep the viewers "busy" trying to predict what will come up next. This will help to keep the viewers stay tuned to the programme. An unfamiliar set up (isolated house / island etc) is good for imaginative. And, yes, the participants have got to be those whom are interesting or of some calibre - who wants to watch some idiots running in front of the camera, right ? Competition with attractive prizes add excitement to the programme when the viwers start to take side. What we should try to achieve here is to get the viwers "involved" in the programme. The concept is like when one watching a sports event (eg : the World Cup), if he/she is indifferent of who is going to win -he/she is not involved and hence may not stay right through the games. In the contrary, when one starts to take side, he/she is involved and the emotions will go with the development of the games and the chances of staying till the end of the games is very high. To some extent, I do agree that for a real life tv programme to have the aforesaid characteristics. It will have to involve some scripts, some acting or even setting-up simply because the real life is never as exciting and as dramatic as that. I hate watching the real life programme which appear to be too "fake" - it gives me the feeling that the producers has taken the viewers for a ride. Looking forward to other's opinion.

3

R5 I totally agree with R2 when s/he says that to have a real-life show like she described you would have to get scripts and acting...so what's the point? I don't know maybe something more like that movie EDTV would be fun to watch. The cameras had to follow him everywhere he went 24hs a day. During that time he would be interacting with a lot of people that could never appear on the show again. Basically he would do what he does in his everyday life but there would be cameras shooting everything. That would probably make the show more interesting and realistic once that you would not have the same people going around all the time. R2 Just to add on to my earlier message, I think real life TV can also be considered as just another form of tv programme.. like an alternative to movies, sitcoms, etc. And, since it is "produced" - we just have to accept the facts that to some extent it is "created". Created with skills & techniques and the ideas to make it interesting and yet not too far from real life. R1 very true. i think these programs all have characteristics R2 mentioned. but why people are interested in seeing these real-life tvs when they know they're not so real? perhaps they don't really care? If we don't take this seriously, and treat it as just another type of program , yes i agree some of them are quite entertaining. you can sit in front of the tv commenting on how silly this guy/girl was doing. and you seem to be in control of everything cos you know something these participants in the contest/competition don't know. R4 i think the reason why people watch it is because it's somehow different from other programs, and as everybody seems to be talking about it, you also want to find out what's about. but the interest/excitement/entertainment doesn't last long. I agree with R2. i'd rather spend my time on something else than watching these programs. that's why we can make our own choices!! M R3 mentioned earlier that it is important that the show gets the viewers to interact. One way of doing this is having the viewers to use the Internet to chat with participants and other viewers. What do you think about this? Is it a good way of engaging the viewers, making them more a part of the show, or is it just a way of making the show seem more serious than it is? Could it even be dangerous if kids who can't tell reality apart from fiction get too engaged in the show this way? R2 I am afraid although I like some real life tv programme especially like survior (I think they have to pay me for keep promoting the show :-))I hate the idea of filming someone's daily life, his work, his family, his interaction with other etc as a tv programme. It's only about someone's normal daily life - like you and me. Why should one be interested in ? Just to satisfy the curiousity one has about other's private life ? As for the question of ethics, I believe before the filming take place, some agreement must have been put in place between the "character" and the producer. I don't think anyone will allow other to invade into their private life that way, unless they are moved with some lucrative rewards. R3 I think the idea of having viewers involved in the shows would be very popular- undoubtedly there will be a lot of real-life tv fanatics out there hankering to be part of the show and to interact with participants. but it's going to raise a lot of ethical concerns. it is too hard to control the demographics of the viewers- for those who are underaged or not mentally mature enough for the shows, or even just those who take the shows way too seriously, they are going to, at some point in time, experience trouble telling reality from fiction. they would probably devote their lives completely in

4

the shows and be extremely and emotionally affected when the shows co me to an end. they would probably feel that part of their lives perish with the shows and attempt to make further contacts with the participants, resulting in violation against privacy and rights (or something even worse) of the participants. and by then, who are responsible for these outcomes? The producers of the shows?? the viewers that got too carried away? or the participants for misleading? I believe that responsibilities don't automatically land on the producers of the shows, viewers are also responsible if things go off hands. again, i believe that real-life tv should be treated no differently from other tv programs. viewers should bear in mind while watching shows as such that they are only good for entertaining and nothing else. if viewers found themselves, at any stage, irrationally addicted to the shows, perhaps it's time for them to switch to another channel and watch something else. R1 didn't realise there's so many discussions going on in just one day. first, about the 'new' real-life tv show in sweden, i think the whole idea is way way too much. how would like to have yourself exposed to the public, without your consent! its not just the legal issues wer're dealing, its the moral principles that are at stake. can't the tv stations find something better to boost rating? but then again its more to do with the value system in that society. perhaps they're more 'open' and liberal??? R1 i think R3 has quite right in pointing out that not all of us are mature enough to handle the situation. some may have just be confused with the so-called realities with reality. and that's something the tv stations have to bear in mind. i think there's the social responsibility issue. sounds cliche but we cannot under-estimate the power of mass media. its easy for them to brush aside the responsibilities - afterall its just a show. what about the effects or impacts they have on the general public? first we have the entertainment/excitement 'survivor', then a bit more into the private life of individuals as in 'big brother', then the swedish tv show.what's next? R2 I agree with R1 and R3 that there is a pressing issue here of controlling the viewership of these programs and the many issues concerned behind them. Many may be confused and affected by the fact that the programs are supposed to be real life and yet they view all the ugly sides of nature over television. This affects their overall outlook of what life should be like and of their society. Other "healthy" real-life programs like educational talk or game shows which provide leisure and entertainment to viewers should be encouraged, to add on to the usual drama serials-which can commonly be seen to follow a story line always. The only alternative I observed is that those less "healthy" programs are screened at timings which they presume younger viewers would not be tuning in like late nights and grading them according to varying maturity levels but this may not be sufficient. Also, it is difficult to decipher if control should be imposed in the first place as different societies/cultures may have different levels of acceptance to violent real-life tv shows eg. US being a more open society may view such behaviour as being acceptable and common as compared to other conservative societies. Thus, perhaps in this case, the higher authorities concerned would have to play a role in intervening and deciding what they would wish to expose their viewers to. Do agree at the same time that there are moral issues to deal with at the same time eg intruding on other's privacy for the pleasure of entertainment. Also, other social issues have occurred in the case of the "big brother" show which I heard of cases of employees viewing the program via the office computers, and getting dismissed from their jobs while watching the first series. Evidently, real-life tv programs has its advantages of providing info-tainment at times but at the same time they do create much controversy as well. M Since there are people who are willing to participate in these shows and the shows are so popular among the viewers, should they be restricted by the government for example? Are regulations the problem solving factor or will the viewers leave these shows if they turn too silly?

5

M One of the major things about Real Life TV vs ordinary shows is that ordinary people are the participants in Real Life TV. They are not in the show because they are famous or have done something extraordinary. Is this a good or a bad thing? Would it be more interesting to view the "rich & famous" rather than just some guy from somewhere? Or is this a good thing, showing "real people" and how they decide to handle different situations? R4 Firstly i do not think that real life shows are threatening in any way nor that they would influence people badly. I think you overeact when you say that people might not be able to distinguish reality from fiction. If someone was to be in front of a camera for a few minutes as it happens in the Sweden show I do not believe that should bea reason for concern. People that live in modern society are mostly used to cameras and movie shootings on the streets anyway so i would not say you would need to be mentally mature to participate in that. Most of people know that this is only silly entertainment and if someone is foolish enough to believe that they are probably foolish enough to believe in any fiction show. Therefore we could no blame the real life shows for their inapropriate acts. I don’t think that you would not fit into society if you did not watch this kind of shows but you probably would feel left out in some conversations. Then again I would not be that interested in hanging around people that only talks about what happened in yesterday's big brother. What was that about two women kissing and the naked showers? Please that was biggest set up. R5 I disagree. They have a profile check before they are cast for the real life shows. That means that if you do not fit the profile they are looking for you are out. That profile does not include everyday life normal human beings...they only ever look for someone that they know will look good in front of the camaras and can entertain the audiences. To me that is acting. Besides most of them became cover of magazines and go on life interviews after the show is finished. That means they would not choose someone that they knew was no willing to do it.