INSIGHT

The rise of cable and streaming

I think there were several transformations that happened, several milestones that in some way, were like red flags that marked, or should have marked, a warning that there were transformations underway, and that other decisions had to be made. The first, I believe, is when cable television appeared and the channels themselves – many of them, including Channel 13, for example – began to generate alternative channels that would go to cable television, which competed for audiences from lower socioeconomic strata, while TVN and especially Channel 13 were going to somehow respond to the needs of audiences from higher economic strata.

With the 24-hour cable news channels, the four remaining channels were left fighting for the same audiences, that is, those from rather middle and lower strata, because high-end audiences went to cable television and then also later, they went to streaming platforms, and it’s the same thing that happened again with the younger age groups. In that logic, those that best understood the middle and lower audiences, of course, were Mega and Chilevisión (CHV), and in fact, they are the ones that have best withstood the attacks and crises over time, from the 2014-2015 crisis that put Mega in a much better position.

What happened at that juncture? In 2014, Mega bought the Turkish soap operas. It was much cheaper to pay for the translations, or rather, the dubbing, and offer this content. And it’s hitting the jackpot. The soap opera productions started to decline, and these channels abandoned their own fiction productions because they started to do poorly. They weren’t able to compete with Mega and its Turkish soap operas. And what Mega did next is to use the crane – that is, take away producers, directors, and actors, and in the end, they were the only ones producing soap operas, and had a business model linked to platforms. They also have paid streaming on a site that allows viewing, therefore, at any time and at any moment of their productions and with diversified business models.

Why am I talking about soap operas and why do I think it’s important? Because the telenovela, in the Chilean case, has always been a programme that draws audiences. That is, the telenovela that won a certain semester drew viewers to its television newscast. This could be seen with a type of audience that is loyal to the channels, versus what happens now, with audiences that are much more volatile and can easily change channels and lack a certain attachment or tradition.

Only television can build common discourses about a territory, about a group of people. … And if people are only on social media or only consuming global platforms and proposals, they tend to disconnect from what’s happening in their own localities.

Now, what happens with the telenovela also happens with news programmes: people become accustomed to watching a particular newscast. And in the case of TVN, it never knew how to adapt to its new audiences, that is, the audiences of broadcast television: these middle and lower-middle strata, which are in some ways the strength of the other two channels, which knew how to reach them.

Updating TVN’s mission

Why do I think TVN needs to update its public service mission? It’s not just that it’s lost the key points that allow it to secure audiences, but one can also see how it’s happened. Its programming schedules have begun to feature a number of programmes that haven’t been sustained over time, and that denotes a bit of a blind attempt to connect with those audiences, which of course aren’t just those of broadcast television following a fixed programming schedule, but are also audiences that have other viewing methods. That needs to be addressed – that is, the fact of being able to position its own productions on some websites that work or link them to the platforms’ offerings.

There are also other viewing habits that are worth exploring. There are programmes that performed poorly in ratings during their broadcast on open television, but that performed very well in other types of viewing (YouTube, for example) and were trending topics on social media. The channels that have managed to sustain themselves over time (Mega and CHV) present programmes that focus on public service. Although this is a somewhat elitist way of understanding their audiences, this formula has worked because these audiences feel heard, their demands can be brought to the attention of the authorities, and their problems can be resolved.

TVN and Channel 13 adopt a perspective in which they believe that they give that audience a different place in the negotiation of the construction of meanings or proposals. In other words, they treat them, if you will, differently. And so there, TVN hasn’t been successful. I’m referring to reality shows, documentaries – it can be in other formats. In other words, we shouldn’t be afraid of these formats. If people and audiences are consuming these types of proposals, it’s because they’re addressing a need, and audiences aren’t stupid; they know what they’re doing.

So, for example, there was a period reality show, I think it was called 1870. It was a reality show, but there were historians constructing some of the setting proposals, taking them to places in Santiago and telling them what was happening at that time. That is to say, it was also a learning opportunity, and they had their share of issues and love triangles and competitions, but there was also a foundation of things they explained, places they showed, customs that encouraged curiosity, the desire to learn, and that planted some historical milestones that could be relevant for the construction of memories.

And, above all, it did something that I believe only television can still do, which is to build common discourses about a territory, about a group of people. That is, to make known in its different formats that audiences, especially younger audiences, share a territory.

And there you have an important political root, yes, because politics would have to continue to be based on certain territories and common problems. And if people are only on social media or only consuming global platforms and proposals, they tend to disconnect from what’s happening in their own localities.

Will anything happen without political appetite?

I don’t know if Chilean politics is interested in having public media. I think it’s never really been interested. And one would have to build a proposal, but it won’t be the proposal built in England or France. It will be a proposal tailored to a bit of the development path and what has been happening in Chile and its relationship between politics and the media. Therefore, we would have to venture into that discussion.

In the case of boards, public service media cannot be in some way protected or governed by politicians who don’t necessarily know anything about television and audiences and Chile or about a kind of public mission in a medium like television. So, I know there have been many directors in television with very good ideas, but they haven’t been able to do much.

And there’s also the same thing that’s happening now with the crises in public institutions, the same can happen to television hosts or personalities. There are also people who operate as public servants, or as the worst kind of public servants. Therefore, in terms of costs and expenses, there are also all these bureaucratic hurdles that are complex to navigate, making it much more difficult to compete.