Audience Meaning-Making and Interactivity in Reality TV
*Originally submitted April, 2025 for The Audience in Media and Communications course for the MSc Media and Communications program at the London School of Economics. Received a Distinction.
Question: Using one or more illustrative examples, critically discuss the experience and meaning making practices of the “interactive audience” of Reality TV.
Introduction
While media scholars have long debated the extent to which audiences can be classified as “active,” the genre of reality television has brought about a new level of interactivity between media audience and media text. These increased modes of interactivity create new challenges and opportunities for audiences to make meaning of the programs they watch, as well as introduce questions around perceived audience power and influence. While audience engagement and participation is not a new phenomenon when it comes to television programming, these activities have become both more visible and accessible thanks to new technologies and social media. This proliferation of activity, in turn, has made the central text of reality TV as well as reality TV audiences more difficult to locate and define. In the following paper, I will discuss audience meaning-making in reality television through direct interactivity in and influence over the text itself, multiple modes of secondary online and offline participation and discussion, and even implications for participants within the program itself.
Audiences and Fans
Conceptualization of the audience in media studies is and has been ambiguous and contested throughout its history. There are multiple ways to define an audience and the relationship between audience and text. Early theories include Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model, in which he described production and reception as key moments within the communicative process (2019). Hall (2019) believed that producers embed biases, meaning, and messages into media texts, which are then interpreted by the audience using social context and knowledge frameworks. This theory, while widely regarded in the field, fails to account for any audience influence over the programming itself (Jeremyn & Holmes, 2006). When discussing modern TV audiences, it is also important to recognize that audiences are actively constructed by the media industry for economic benefit and cultural impact, and subsequently measured and quantified (Bruun, 2014; Jeremyn & Holmes, 2006; Tinknell & Raghuram, 2002). Today’s media landscape is increasingly saturated and fragmented, creating higher competition for viewers, shortened attention spans, and an increasing dependence on advertising (Bruun, 2014; Jenkins, 2006; Penzhorn & Pitout, 2006). The largest audience is not necessarily the most valuable anymore; rather, producers are looking for the most engaged viewers (Jenkins, 2006).
As asserted by Penzhorn & Pitout (2006), “Viewers are more important to broadcasters than are fans, but the program itself is more important to the fans than to the viewers” (p. 87). Fans are frequently categorized as the most active audience members and participants (I will later expand on the notions of active and interactive), as well as likely early adopters of new technology (Jenkins, 2012). Fans are most likely to interact with the program and participate in activities such as voting and online discussions, developing an emotional investment in the show that is valuable to, and often exploited by, producers (Penzhorn & Pitout, 2006). Jenkins (2006) refers to “affective economics” (p. 61) as purchasing decisions being driven by consumers emotions, with scholars noting that media producers frequently attempt to capitalize on viewers’ emotional investment in media (Jeremyn & Holmes, 2006; Jenkins, 2006). With interactivity being central to the success of reality TV, it is important to consider the categorization of fans in discussions of reality TV audiences (Godlewski & Perse, 2010).
Reality TV and Interactivity
Reality TV is an amalgamation of multiple genres that draws largely from successful formats such as docusoaps, talk shows, and game shows and relies heavily on audience participation (Holmes, 2004; Tincknell & Raghuram, 2002). As a basic definition, Godlewski & Perse (2010) describe reality TV as any program unscripted, with non-professional actors participating in “a variety of situations that claim to present reality” (p. 148). While technically unscripted, reality TV narratives are often highly constructed by producers who have the power to shape the environment, edit footage, and use technical elements such as scoring and voiceover to present the show a certain way (Tincknell & Raghuram, 2002). These shows often contain an element of surveillance as well, with questions of surveillance as a form of exploitation (Andrejevic, 2002). All of these elements foster a more direct relationship with the audience through perceived closeness and the “appearance of liveness” (Tincknell & raghuram, 2002, p. 202). The relationship between media text and media viewer has often been cited as a defining feature of the genre, with viewers being asked to both watch and (inter)actively participate (Godlewski & Perse, 2010; Jeremyn & Holmes, 2006).
Like audiences, definitions of interactivity are multiple and ambiguous, but the term is typically discussed in relation to modern communications technologies, convergence culture, and a move away from one-way communication models (Holmes, 2004). Interactivity can be seen as a connective tissue between media industry, media text, and media audiences, operating along a spectrum of engagement from positive to negative, and even disengagement (Hill, 2017; Holmes, 2004, p. 214). Jenkins (2012) emphasizes consumer feedback as a main component of interactivity, with Jeremyn & Holmes (2006) adding that interactivity involves “intervention in a text” (p. 50, emphasis in original). This surfaces issues of power and ideology, asking producers to reconcile audience participation within the text itself. Lastly, Penzhorn & Pitout (2006) distinguish between primary and secondary activity: primary activity is seen as engaging with the program in a way that affects the text itself, such as tuning in and voting (what we might consider interactivity); secondary activity extends to activities that revolve around the program but do not directly impact it, such as online discussions and attending in-person events (p. 87-88). In the following sections, I will discuss how reality TV audiences make meaning from such programming through both primary and secondary activities, as well as through participants within the programs themselves.
Primary Activity: Voting, Interactivity, and Power
As discussed above, primary interactivity implies audience interference, to an extent, in the text itself. The most basically understood and utilized form of this in reality TV is voting, which allows the audience to act as an author in the text (Tincknell & Raghuram, 2002). Voting can take place through multiple technologies such as the Internet, mobile devices, telephone calls, or social media, with the Internet increasing opportunities for such interactivity (Bruun, 2014; Godlewski & Perse, 2010; Holmes, 2004). Programs will often directly address audiences to solicit votes, framing this as democratic participation and urging viewers to “make your voice heard” or “have your say” (Jeremyn & Holmes, 2006). Through voting, viewers are no longer passive recipients of a program’s messaging, but rather actively reshaping a program’s narrative and events (Godlewski & Perse, 2010).
The democratic promise of voting, however, is often called into question. While viewers may feel they are influencing the outcome of a program, it is often the perception or illusion of power that is enough to empower audiences; in reality, this power is typically limited by producers (Holmes, 2004; Penzhorn & Pitout, 2006). Jeremyn & Holmes (2006) dub this the “performance of interactivity” (p. 53). In a study specifically around Big Brother audiences, Tincknell & Raghuram (2002) found that the feeling of agency was more impactful than the actual amount of control the audience could exercise over the show and its narrative, and that production limited and predetermined the ways in which the audience could participate in the show. Similarly, in the case of the UK reality dating program Love Island, producers will ask viewers to vote for their favorite or least favorite couples or individual contestants, limiting viewer power through the phrasing of the question. Further, the audience vote will typically only serve to narrow down the pool of contestants at risk of being dumped from the island, but who actually gets voted out is often decided by the participants themselves.
There is also a question of how widespread this interactivity actually is among reality TV viewers. Penzhorn & Pitout’s 2006 study on viewers of the reality program Project Fame found that all participants who watched on a daily basis also took part in voting multiple times throughout the program, but most viewers who only watched once per week did not vote, and the most common interactivities were the ones that required the least amount of effort (p. 95). The study also found that “several participants did not believe that their votes made a difference, yet they still continued voting” (Penzhorn & Pitout, 2006, p. 98). When discussing the extent to which viewers actually have power over influencing reality TV programs, it is important to consider that even audiences themselves are aware of their limited capacity to enact meaningful influence.
Secondary Engagement: Social Media, Publicness, and Gossip
Social media, like mobile phones, have created new opportunities for primary and secondary interactivity (Bruun, 2014). We must be careful not to suggest new media and social media have created radical change, rather that they have just made many old forms of participation easier or more visible (Baym & boyd, 2012). Going back to the earlier mention of fan engagement, fans have long engaged in secondary interactivity with media and the formation of grassroots communities. The scale and accessibility of social media has, however, increased tensions between public and private and audience and public, or what Baym & boyd (2012) call “publicness” (p. 322). Audiences are both more and less visible on social media, giving rise to more “faceless” online communication, which requires more involved management of identity and interaction online (Baym & boyd, 2012; Penzhorn & Pitout, 2006). Further, online and offline activities create a feedback loop wherein “offline contexts permeate online activities, and online activities bleed endlessly back to reshape what happens online” (Baym & boyd, 2012, p. 327).
Danish political talk show Debatten, for example, invites celebrities to discuss social, political, and economic issues, with a tandem feed on Facebook that allows audiences to participate in the conversation and suggest topics for future program segments (Bruun, 2014). On Love Island, many seasons have the contestants (referred to as “Islanders”) participate in a challenge which requires them to read X (formerly Twitter) posts about themselves and the show. The social media posts, selected by producers, serve to inadvertently shape narratives and create tension between participants.
The expansion of the Internet has also created new opportunities for interactivity such as rewatching footage, seeing unaired or behind-the-scenes content, acquiring additional information about the show or participants from their social media profiles, and engaging in conversations, debates, and strategizing sessions with other viewers (Godlewski & Perse, 2010; Jeremyn & Holmes, 2006). These online and offline conversations can often be classified as gossip, which has been found to be fundamental to social relations and helps audiences to make sense of the viewing experience (Blackwell, 2023; Jenkins, 2006). Jenkins (2006) refers to gossip as “a way of talking about yourself through critiquing the actions and values of others” (p. 85). In an ethnographic study of Real Housewives of Atlanta viewers, Blackwell (2023) found that the women she was observing not only engaged in discussion about the show itself, but that the show also allowed them to engage in more serious discussions of race and class that were brought up around the show.
Penzhorn & Pitout (2006) found in their study of multiple reality TV program audiences that taking advantage of interactive opportunities set out by producers did not fulfill social needs–that was done through watching or discussing the program with friends and family in real life or online. The act of viewing in itself was still the most enjoyable aspect for audiences, with interactive options simply enhancing the viewing experience for those who did choose to engage that way (Penzhorn & Pitout, 2006). In many cases, these activities can evolve into supportive online communities that discuss personal issues outside of the show, and even communities dedicated to disliking a show and talking negatively about it (Penzhorn & Pitout, 2006). Godlewski & Perse (2010) found that a lot of online activity post-viewing reality TV programs actually did center around and was motivated by negative emotion. In the case of Love Island, for example, there are large, formalized Twitter communities with thousands of members dedicated to debating the actions and motivations of Islanders. One such group lists a formal rule urging members to “be kind and respectful” and not to “attack islanders/contestants/each other for their looks, speculate sexuality, or spread unnecessary hate” (love island 2025, n.d.).
Convergence Culture and The Disjointed Audience
Thus far, I have identified the reality TV program itself and social media platforms as important sites of meaning-making for reality TV audiences. For the reality TV genre specifically, though, both the audience and text are increasingly dislocated across multiple sites and platforms, with various consumption points being taken into consideration. Content and audiences now exist across a range of media, platforms and “interactive technologies”–there is no singular, unified site of consumption or production (Jeremyn & Holmes, 2006, p. 50). Big Brother is an oft-cited example of a reality TV program that is highly intertextual, and makes it difficult to pinpoint exactly what the central text is (Tincknell & Raghuram, 2002). The program offers multiple sites for viewing, as well as for the production and consumption of meaning. Content from the show exists across “terrestrial television, digital television, the Internet…the mobile phone…the popular press and magazines” (Jeremyn & Holmes, 2006, p. 50), and is often taken up by other media outside the control of producers. Dedicated Big Brother discussion programs specifically solicit audience feedback, as well as allow actors from the program to phone in and discuss or debate the show (Jeremyn & Holmes, 2006). Depending on where audience members are consuming their content from and how many sources they choose to engage with, they can have vastly different understandings of the show and its participants.
This is indicative of what Jenkins (1998, as cited in Holmes, 2004) refers to as “media convergence,” defined as “technological fusion or producers marketing a text across a range of media platforms,” as well as “cultural convergence,” looking at “the ways in which audiences may relate to this media culture and the meaning-making strategies arising from this” (p. 220). An additional element to consider within convergence culture is the participants themselves, who are often former viewers or fans of the program’s previous seasons or iterations (Jeremyn & Holmes, 2006). According to Godlewski & Perse (2010), “Real people serve as ‘characters,’ and the content is unscripted…For some of these programs, audience participation is a central agent to the shared experience or lived reality of the program” (p. 149). Through interactivity, real viewers outside of the program and the real participants acting as “characters” within the program work in tandem to co-construct the text and how certain narratives are formed. And while contestants may have limited influence over their representation or the show’s narrative while participating, once back in the “real world” they have the opportunity to further reshape the show’s narrative through media appearances, social media posts, interviews, books, and interviews (Tincknell & Raghuram, 2002).
In the case of the program The Salon, which focuses on the lives of the employees within a beauty salon, participants were able to go home at night to their “real” lives and read online commentary about the program, which then gets folded back into the program during filming the next day (Holmes, 2004). WIthin the body of the show itself, they read direct emails, comments, and feedback from viewers, demonstrating that while the technologies can remain distinct from one another, there is still a “textual convergence” where TV content and online content influence one another (Holmes, 2004, p. 220). Even further, viewers at home are encouraged to book appointments at the salon, allowing them to physically enter the text and converse with the “characters.” While this serves as an example of convergence, it also speaks to earlier mentions of producers exploiting fan labor to aid in the production of programming (Holmes, 2004). Another example of convergence comes from Love Island, which, similarly to Big Brother, produces a podcast hosted by former contestants, who then interview current contestants as they are evicted from the show. In doing this, they are able to clarify storylines that are heavily debated online, and provide context to specific interactions and relationships. Through the above examples, it is clear that reality TV programs and their audiences, more so than other genres, exist across a variety of spaces and platforms, creating seemingly endless opportunities for meaning-making and interpretation.
Conclusion
Through this discussion of reality TV, it is clear that the genre requires a level of interactivity from audiences in order to succeed. How impactful that interactivity really is on the program itself is widely contested, but we can see that audiences may actually find more meaning through the act of participating and forming social relations around such texts. Holmes (2004) makes a point to push back against the pervasive negative stereotyping of reality TV viewers as “mindless,” and asserts that these assumptions fail to consider just how active and media-literate these viewers really are (p. 216). By reflecting the (constructed) nature of everyday life back at viewers, reality TV allows audiences to make sense of their own lives and social relations, and to engage in conversations surrounding ethical and moral choices. As technology continues to advance and create new possibilities for interacting with TV programming both on and offline, media texts and audiences may become increasingly difficult to locate and define. Going forward, it may be valuable to examine how social media platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, and Twitch have further blurred the line between producer and consumer, allowing everyday users outside of the formal media industry to become creators themselves, stream content live to their followers, and receive direct feedback and input from viewers. I believe the already-ambiguous genre of reality television will only continue to expand to include new formats made possible by new technology, social media, and increasingly participatory younger generations.
References
Andrejevic, M. (2002). The work of being watched: Interactive media and the exploitation of self-disclosure. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19(2), 230–248.
Baym, N. K., & boyd, d. (2012). Socially Mediated Publicness: An Introduction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(3), 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.705200
Blackwell, G. (2023). Pursuing Ethnographic “Closeness:” A Reflection on Race, Reality Television Audiences, and the Focus Group Encounter. Southern Communication Journal, 88(5), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2023.2232808
Bruun, H. (2014). Conceptualizations of the audience in political talk show production. European Journal of Communication, 29(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323113509363
Godlewski, L. R., & and Perse, E. M. (2010). Audience Activity and Reality Television: Identification, Online Activity, and Satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 58(2), 148–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463371003773358
Hall, S. (2019). Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse [originally 1973; republished 2007]. In D. Morley (Ed.), Essential Essays, Volume 1 (pp. 257–276). Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11cw7c7.16
Hill, A. (2017). Reality TV Engagement: Producer and Audience Relations for Reality Talent Shows. Media Industries Journal, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.3998/mij.15031809.0004.106
Holmes, S. (2004). ‘But this Time You Choose!’: Approaching the ‘Interactive’ Audience in Reality TV. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7(2), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877904043238
Jenkins, H. (2006). 2. Buying into American Idol: How We Are Being Sold on Reality Television. In Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (pp. 59-92). New York, USA: New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814743683.003.0006
Jenkins, H. (2012). 15 Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars? Grassroots Creativity Meets the Media Industry. In M. Mandiberg & M. Mandiberg (Eds.), The Social Media Reader (pp. 203–235). New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814764077.003.0019
Jermyn, D., & Holmes, S. (2006). The Audience is Dead; Long Live the Audience!: Interactivity, ‘Telephilia’ and the Contemporary Television Audience. Critical Studies in Television, 1(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.7227/CST.1.1.8
Love Island 2025. (n.d.). Posts [Twitter community]. Retrieved April 11, 2025, from https://x.com/i/communities/1592248527668875265
Penzhorn, H., & Pitout, M. (2006). The interactive nature of reality television: An audience analysis : research article. Communicare : Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 25(2), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC27688
Tincknell, E., & Raghuram, P. (2002). Big Brother: Reconfiguring the `active’ audience of cultural studies? European Journal of Cultural Studies, 5(2), 199-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1364942002005002159 (Original work published 2002)