Horror Host-Audience Relationships: Learning from other TV Hosts - Article Review

“From parasocial interaction to social TV: Analysing the host-audience relationship in multi-platform productions” is a 2012 article by Gunn Sara Enli, discussing the state of host-audience relationships in the era of digital/interactive media and media convergence. The article analyzes several Nordic television productions to discuss the role of audience feedback and interaction in television production today, and how television hosts mediate this activity. Enli discusses how digital technology development has impacted audience interaction, creating an ‘increased capacity’ to process larger amounts of audience data and feedback, and 'continuous dialogue’ where multiple viewers can be heard from at once (Enli, 2012, p. 127). Enli discusses how these new capabilities have been incorporated into the formats of many reality television shows, which use voting, polling, and user-generated content to drive their content (pp. 129-133). In these formats, the audience can be seen as an ‘external production unit’ which generates essential content for the programming (p. 129). Due to the reliance of this audience feedback, Enli notes that television hosts are required to serve as salespeople, teachers, and instructors to encourage feedback. Hosts interact with viewers and provoke responses like salespeople, encourage competition and ‘demystify digital return channels’ like teachers, and repeatedly instruct viewers to vote while emphasizing the importance of their feedback (pp. 129-133). The more essential the feedback to the format of the program, the stronger the appeals from the hosts become (p. 134). Overall, Enli views this interactivity and host-audience relationship as essential to creating and maintaining an engaged audience in the landscape of media saturation, and competition with digital platforms (pp. 134-135). 

While my project doesn’t necessarily focus on programs whose formats rely on audience participation, I still think that this article provides a lot of helpful information for understanding host-audience relationships and the role that interactivity plays. As I’ve read more literature and done more archival research, I’ve noted the significance of online fan communities in the horror hosting conversation, whether it be forums, fan sites or fan efforts to archive content. There is certainly an interactive relationship between horror hosts and audiences, but I’m not sure whether it is dependent on the content and format of the horror hosting shows. Many of the fan sites were created long after the show’s end, so the feedback would be unlikely to impact the show’s content. It’s not clear to me currently whether this interaction was encouraged by the hosts or born from fandom and personal interest, but perhaps I will encounter this dynamic as I read further. I think that further reading on fan communities and activity will enrich my understanding of this relationship. 

What was most useful to me about this article was the framework it provided for understanding host-audience relationships in general, especially before widespread digital media. Enli argues that audience interaction has always been important, noting that “letters and phone calls have been used as return channels in broadcast production since the early days of broadcast television” (p. 126). This participation and feedback has long been used to connect with audiences through formats such as call-in shows, quiz shows and taking requests from viewers (p. 126). Enli cites heavily from Horton and Wohl (1956) who explain that intimacy is an important factor in attracting audiences, with television hosts creating ‘intimacy at a distance’ through speaking informally and directly to audiences. Horton and Wohl coined the term ‘parasocial relationship’ which explains how audiences become attached to public figures emotionally (p. 128). The host-audience relationship depends on viewers feeling ‘socially included’ in the programs, which is facilitated by tools such as live studio audiences that ‘bridge’ the studio and the home audiences and create a sense of perceived ‘liveness’ (p. 128). Enli describes the host as “an emblematic figure for TV programmes and their relationship with home audiences.” (p. 128). In other words, the connection between the audience and the host is vital to the success of the program. A program is only as appealing as their host, and the host’s ability to create intimacy. Furthermore, Enli notes that the popular ‘prototype’ of a host can be heavily dependent on what is culturally appealing to audiences at the time (pp. 128-129). 

These findings are useful to me because it makes it clear that feedback and interactivity, which I view as defining aspects of community and fandom, are essential qualities of the host-audience relationship. This can help explain why horror hosts are particularly successful in creating community and participation amongst their audiences. Additionally, the idea that the success of a host depends on their adherence to current audience tastes could help me explain why some horror hosts are particularly successful in resonating with audiences. For example, Elvira, who is arguably the most successful and impactful horror host of all time, adapted a well established horror hosting character to current tastes by incorporating the ‘valley girl’ accent and attitude that was popular in the 1980s. Overall, Enli (and Horton and Wohl’s) characterization of hosts and host-audience relationships will definitely contribute to my overall understanding of horror hosts and how they function. I feel that the missing piece to this understanding currently is how the fictional aspect of horror hosts factors in. I can’t find very much literature about how characters like horror hosts, who I have been labeling as ‘semi-fictional’ due to their ability to transfer their character to real-world situations in addition to their show’s setting, function differently from more realistic personas or fully fictional characters. 

This week I have been working more on the horror host database (almost done with data entry!) and my annotated bibliography. I’ve been doing archival research gathering media and sources, largely through using Wayback Machine to access defunct websites and forums that were hosted on services like geocities. It has been really fun to look at the old websites with their flash designs and animations, and they have a lot of really great information about the communities/fandoms around horror hosts and information/media about the horror hosts themselves. I have also been working on defining a framework for understanding my topic, specifically in characterizing horror hosts as localebrities, but also hosts, but also semi-fictional characters. I’m building my understanding of how they function, along with the types of community they create as I observe through my archival research. Next week, I plan to continue with the same work, finishing up the database and gathering archival materials, reading and adding to my annotated bibliography, and continuing to form my theoretical framework.

References

Enli, Gunn. (2012). From parasocial interaction to social TV: Analysing the host-audience relationship in multi-platform productions. Northern Lights: Film & Media Studies Yearbook. 10. 123-137. 10.1386/nl.10.1.123_1. 

Horton, D., & Richard Wohl, R. (1956). Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049