Can the Mediated Experience Surpass the Authentic? A Case Study on Professional Football.

By nn297 October 20, 2014

Posted in 2014 The Gnovis Blog

As I walked through the club concourse of FedEx Field, prior to the Washington Redskins’ home opener against the Jacksonville Jaguars, I couldn’t help but notice the number of fans who were enjoying the club’s amenities. The lines for concessions were long as usual, the Hooters Restaurant inside the stadium was packed to capacity, and there were groups of people huddled around the multiple televisions placed in the concourse. While none of these occurrences are abnormal for FedEx Field on game day, it was what was being shown on the televisions that inspired me to write this blog. I noticed that the televisions were actually showing the players’ pre-game warm ups. These fans purchased tickets to view the Redskins in-person, but chose to watch the warm-ups on a television screen inside the concourse.

The Club Concourse at FedEx Field

1. What are the specific features of a mediated football game that make the mediated experience potentially more desirable than the real experience?
2. Has today’s technology changed the way we experience the real? What are the political ramifications of the way we experience the real today?

In a much-discussed moment in the Redskins game against the Jaguars, Redskins star quarterback, Robert Griffin III (RG3), injured his ankle early in the game. At the game, during the time of the injury, neither I nor anyone sitting around me knew what happened to RG3. The PA announcer only addressed the stadium to say that the backup, Kirk Cousins, was coming into the game. The fans around me began frantically using their smartphones seeking any source with information on the injury. Although, we were experiencing the event in-person, we were receiving less information than people watching the broadcast from home. Television viewers immediately knew RG3 was hurt . So while we were getting the authentic experience, we were still missing specific events in the game that the mediated viewers were receiving.
Alternatively, being at the game provides experiences that cannot be had through a mediated viewing of the game. There are many subtleties of attending a Redskins game that someone who only watches the games on television would never know existed. For example, after every touchdown the Redskins score all of the fans sing “Hail to the Redskins”. This is an important tradition for game attendees, but this aspect of the experience is cut out of broadcasts because stations immediately cut to commercial following all scores. NFL team owners are very much aware of the lessened desire for the authentic football experience. Because of this, owners have begun to create experiences that can only be enjoyed by attending the games.
Beyond the usual giveaways and promotions that are common at games, owners have started to attach more value to a game ticket. The Redskins for example, are the only professional team with a marching band that plays pre-game, at halftime, and postgame. The problem for team owners is that they are selling an experience marketed under the promise that the experience will bring them closer to the players. However, the technology used in bringing games to the household today, compromises this promise.
In 1953, sociologists Kurt and Gladys Lang published an article comparing and contrasting the MacArthur Day authentic experience with the broadcast experience. In their article the Lang’s make a very interesting, overarching claim about the broadcast  experience. They claim, “Yet unlike the participant, (the viewer) was completely at the mercy of the instrument of his perceptions. He could not test his impressions–could not shove back the shover, inspect bystanders’ views, or attempt in any way to affect the ongoing activity.”^[1] While I don’t doubt that this was the case for the Lang’s in their 1953 research, new technologies have changed the way audiences participate with a televised experience.
According to Forbes, “17% of viewers are engaging with each other on the web around TV content.”^[2] So audiences can participate, and football fans can communicate and give each other virtual high-fives after every touchdown. During Sunday Night Football, NBC simulcasts its game on the web. What’s most fascinating about this, is that the online audience is able to switch through multiple camera views of the on-field play. Whereas the audience of the television broadcast is limited to whichever camera the producers want them to view at a given time, the audience viewing the stream is able to see all angles of the game. Viewers are even provided the option to switch to any camera on the field, even being provided the option to position view either team’s sideline. Still, even with increased viewing participation, Lang & Lang’s article is not completely out of touch with today’s viewing. These participation tools are still limited to online viewing, and broadcasters are still ultimately in control of the camera options.
It is because of the way both experiences work together that I do not foresee the mediated experience surpassing the live NFL experience. Realizing the mediated broadcast provides an experience in itself, owners have begun to re-define the in stadium experience. By offering both the mediated and in-person experience at the stadium, attending the game will continue to be the optimum NFL experience in the foreseeable future.

FedEx Field Installed two 100×30 Foot, High-Definition Screens in 2010.