No TV or live streaming, but a lot of YouTube: an analysis of the current situation of university TV in Spain

^ENG Abstract. Based on the latest studies published on university television in Spain, this study aims to analyse the current situation of the communication model and its possible relevance for young and more digital audiences. In this way, the article aims to fill a research gap and provide a necessary framework for the debate on university reputation. Through a content analysis, the universities belonging to the Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities (CRUE) have been studied. The results obtained have been contrasted or complemented with interviews with experts to determine the possible relevance and importance of university television today, as well as the challenges related to the digital habits of emerging audiences. The results indicate that 50% of the sample does not make efficient use of social media platforms and networks to increase their reach or strengthen their branding. The traditional television model does not survive in Spanish universities, and most of the institutions that intend to use this model do so through online multimedia repositories, with no apparent clear objectives. University television is essential to achieve the transfer of knowledge, if it is currently committed to digital models and the reinforcement of communication through platforms and social networks, more dynamic formats and streaming broadcasts adapted to the digital use and consumption habits of the youngest audiences.

Keywords: Television, university, digital transformation, transmedia, social media.

^ES Ni TV ni streaming en directo, pero mucho YouTube: un análisis de la situación actual de la TV universitaria en España

Resumen. A partir de los últimos estudios publicados sobre la televisión universitaria en España, este estudio pretende analizar la situación actual del modelo de comunicación y su posible relevancia para las audiencias jóvenes y más digitales. De este modo, el artículo pretende cubrir un vacío de investigación y proporcionar un marco necesario para el debate sobre la reputación universitaria. A través de un análisis de contenido, se han estudiado las universidades pertenecientes a la Conferencia de Rectores de las Universidades Españolas (CRUE). Los resultados obtenidos se han contrastado o complementado con entrevistas a expertos para determinar la posible relevancia e importancia de la televisión universitaria en la actualidad, así como los retos relacionados con los hábitos digitales de las audiencias emergentes. Los resultados indican que el 50% de la muestra no hace un uso eficiente de las plataformas y redes sociales para aumentar su alcance o reforzar su branding. El modelo de televisión tradicional no sobrevive en las universidades españolas, y la mayoría de las instituciones que pretenden utilizar este modelo lo hacen a través de repositorios multimedia online, sin objetivos claros aparentes. La televisión universitaria es imprescindible para lograr la transferencia de conocimiento, si actualmente se apuesta por modelos digitales y el refuerzo de la comunicación a través de plataformas y redes sociales, formatos más dinámicos y emisiones en streaming adaptadas a los hábitos de uso y consumo digital de las audiencias más jóvenes.

Palabras clave: Televisión, universidad, transformación digital, transmedia, redes sociales.

How to cite: Berlanga-Fernández, I., Sidorenko-Bautista, P, Merino-Arribas, A., & Moreno-Calvo, M. (2025). No TV or live streaming, but a lot of YouTube: an analysis of the current situation of university TV in Spain. Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico, 31(2), 459-472. https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/emp.99623

1. Introduction

This research aims to examine the television experiences within the Spanish university framework and to document the existing projects up to the 2023-2024 academic year to study their operation and scope. In 2012 and 2016, two specific studies on this topic were published. The first study, a conference paper by Enma Camarero (2012), analyses the formats and management models for communication and scientific and academic dissemination across 64 Spanish universities that offer university television on the Internet. The second study, an academic paper by Professor Julio Cabero et al. (2016), revisits the situation of Spanish university television and conducts a content analysis to present their characteristics and services. At that time, only 35 televisions were documented.

Murillo Guerrero and Caldera-Serrano (2014) reviewed the existing Spanish universities and concluded that 50% of these institutions had their own television channel, serving as a tool for dissemination and knowledge creation. However, they found that all universities, except the University of Zaragoza and the International University of Andalucía, had institutional video channels. These exceptions used Vimeo for their video content.

Subsequently, in 2015, Adelaida Frasquet published a thesis focused on a pioneering television project at the Polytechnic University of Valencia (UPV). The thesis includes a state-of-the-art review of university televisions in Spain from 2003 to 2010.

Since then, there has been a gap in scientific publications that thoroughly examine the state of university television in Spain. This gap coincides with the scarcity of publications on this topic in other parts of the world. The Web of Science lists barely 30 papers that include “university television” in the title, abstract or keywords, and only half of these are from the last 10 years. Of particular note is the contribution of Šula, Čada and Jurásek (2015): it describes an eight-year research process of incorporating television into university institutions and a theoretical and empirical investigation with the analysis of three years of operation of the university television NEON TV at the Tomas Bata University in Zlin. The authors conclude on the success of this incorporation: in the medium term, the medium has become a permanent carrier of information created by the academic institution. And in the long term, an increase in audience and content distribution around the world is expected thanks to the Internet and social networks. Also, the article by Maior and Markert (2018) on The University Television Station of the Western University Vasile Goldiş of Arad (Romania). The authors identify the benefits and contribution of the academic television station TVGoldiş-Net as a support structure for strengthening institutional quality. And finally, research highlighting how Russian universities today use their TV stations to develop the knowledge, skills and professional experience of future media professionals (Urazova et al., 2022). In our case, we believe this topic is of interest due to the nature of the subject and the significance of the university institution in Spain, where universities have existed since the 13th century, two of which are among the ten oldest universities in the world (Moore, 2018). This paper aims to fill this research gap by exploring university televisions as a communication, education, and dissemination medium.

To achieve this objective, existing university televisions are analysed to determine successful cases, identify deficiencies and assess future proposals. Moreover, the research concludes with an updated classification of Spanish university televisions and their respective management models.

2. State of the art

2.1. Television and University

Television (TV) and universities intersect in the fields of education, information and entertainment when targeted towards the university community. Indeed, as Cabero (2005) highlighted, television stands out as an informative and communicative channel, with added fun and entertainment elements and a robust socializing component. Furthermore, television ranks among the mass media with significant societal influence, surpassing other mediums (Aguaded & Macías-Gómez, 2008). These characteristics align with universities, which, as institutions immersed in the knowledge society, face the challenge of competently educating citizens. For Baptista-Belluzzo and Beckman-Cavalcante (2011) the university television is “a communication vehicle that incorporates principles of social structure from the diffusion of culture, knowledge and education dissemination which may lead to the formation of behaviors and opinions instilling critical thought in individuals and promoting the dialogue between society and university by disseminating the knowledge produced in the academic environment” (p. 21).

Academics such as López-Yepes (1992) or Caldera-Serrano and Arranz-Escacha (2012) laid the groundwork for a state-of-the-art university television, emphasizing its positive impact on the academic community. Aguilera (1975) takes a similar stance, highlighting the importance of university televisions as a channel for disseminating knowledge to society. This underscores the shared objective between the university, regarded as the bastion of knowledge, and television in generating and disseminating scientific content, particularly documentary materials (Pérez-Agüera et al., 2004). This is precisely why higher education academic institutions are keen to harness this communication medium to reach the universities’ entire target audience.

Thus far, Spanish university TVs have typically been hosted on the academic institution’s website, facilitating easy access to their content and programs for users within the higher education community who navigate through their institution’s interface. This way, they can discover engaging content relevant to their university life and disseminate their research (López-Yepes & Sánchez-Jiménez, 2007). These televisions host educational programs categorized for easy access, and some even allow for live broadcasts.

Suárez and Navas-Montes (2005) consider university scientific dissemination as an andragogical issue, not only due to its occurrence within an adult education setting but also because it equips university students and faculty with the skills necessary to communicate in an audiovisual format effectively. Another advantage it offers is specific training for future communication professionals to practice creating and publishing information within a digital medium (Torrales & Matus, 2009).

While university television also functions as a practical training ground for students pursuing degrees in communication, its primary purpose remains educational. In other words, university television should not lose sight of its role as an audiovisual channel aimed at transferring knowledge generated by the university community.

Since 2006, coinciding with the recent proliferation of video channels and web televisions (Simpson, 2005), universities have launched audiovisual platforms to interact with institutional sectors and the broader society. In Spain, from 2006 to 2009, approximately 64 university institutions hosted either a YouTube channel or web address on their website, serving as tools for disseminating and communicating content.

Ultimately, the aim is to provide a communication channel from the institution itself and integrate students into it (Nogales-Bocio & Álvarez-Villa, 2020). This channel should also serve as a platform for expression for the university community and as a means of transmitting knowledge to society (Gámiz-Sánchez & Romero-López, 2012).

2.2. University TV

It should be noted that there is no universally accepted definition of university television. The term encompasses a repository of multimedia educational content, live-streaming programs, and the replication of educational content for other television platforms. An example of the latter is demonstrated by the Association of Ibero-American Educational and Cultural Television Stations (ATEI), which provides programs to RTVE’s channel 2.

We start from the premise that university TV is a medium integrated into the structure of the university, following non-commercial programming and is focused on the dissemination of science and university culture (Baptista-Belluzzo & Beckman-Cavalcante, 2011). It welcomes the participation of the education community and targets students as its primary audience (Aguaded & Macías-Gómez, 2008). This implies that this television model should distinguish itself from mainstream media, endeavour to cultivate its own audience, and function as a space for fostering scientific and academic creation and innovation (Camarero, 2013). Promoting synergy in content creation and broadcasting among university members (professors, administrative staff or students) is crucial. According to Aguaded and Ponce (2012), university TV serves as a crucial axis in the cultural dimension and outreach of the university, serving as an open window that educates, generates culture, informs and entertains.

Cabero (2005) and Salinas (2003) highlight the characteristics of university television: its institutional nature and a programming strategy governed by non-commercial criteria. Some see university television as an opportunity to create quality and public interest programmes, independent of political and financial interests (Draganov & Todorova, 2018). Indeed, unlike mainstream television, its effectiveness should not be solely measured by the size of its audience (Cabero, 2012). Additionally, it should allow faculty, students, and administrative and service staff to participate. Its mission is aimed at innovation, experimentation, and the creation and production of new television genres, formats and aesthetics, characteristic of a pedagogical communication tool (Martínez Recio & Conde Ortega, 2012). The role of a new educational medium was reinforced in the wake of the pandemic (Takač & Vegar, 2021).

According to Cabero (2015), university TV must continually reinvent itself to produce high-quality television programs spanning educational, documentary, cultural, scientific, and institutional content. In essence, the defining features of this television medium include its plurality, educational and creative aspects, robust cultural mission, and dedication to promoting media literacy.

Adapting content and technology to the university audience, deeply immersed in a multi-screen and transmedia society, is imperative. Particularly in the case of young audiences, as there is a noticeable consumption of audiovisual content, mainly through digital platforms and mediums (Navarro-Robles & Vázquez-Barrio, 2020). Moreover, new ways of distributing content are emerging, such as streaming, where users no longer need to download the file fully to view it (Gámiz Sánchez & Romero López, 2012). In this context, university television encounters new opportunities to explore new languages and formats, engage students as prosumers, and foster media literacy among citizens (Cabero, 2015). Moreover, it is social networks achieve visibility and promotion of their contents and encourage their consumption (Lopes-Davi-Medola & Frascareli-Lelis, 2019).

Indeed, in 2012, the Menéndez Pelayo International University provided a noteworthy example of successful television integration. Students had the opportunity to attend summer courses via streaming, follow them, and interact through the existing social networks of the time (De Castro-García & Del Molino, 2012).

It is no longer conceivable to create content for the Internet that does not include audio and video (Simpson & Greenfield, 2009). Moreover, university television should serve as a reference point for the institution itself and be a catalyst for its academic and social life (Aguaded & Macías-Gómez, 2008, p. 682).

2.3. Business Models of University Television

According to Camarero’s (2012) research, the university television model prevalent in the first decade of the 21st century can be categorized into four business models:

1. University television is linked to the existence of journalism or audiovisual communication programs. In this model, university television serves as a practical laboratory for students and faculty to equip them with skills and experiences for their professional preparation. Examples include North American university stations like CNT-College Television Network and CSTV-College Sports Television (Aguaded & Sánchez-Carrero, 2010). An example in Spain is the Complutense University of Madrid, which, for its Journalism Degree, has television studios equipped with all the necessary technical equipment. These include a 120 square meter studio, a 240 square meter studio, and a 120 square meter multifunctional studio with multiple cameras. The professor coordinating this program is Graciela Padilla (civil servant lecturer).

2. University television is linked to the institution’s communication Office. The University of Granada exemplifies this model, although its Faculty of Communication and Documentation boasts a comprehensive television studio for students’ practical training.

3. University television is directed by the university but managed by a production company, such as the Image Workshop of the University of Alicante, which curates audiovisual products from university events and disseminates scientific content. However, it does not feature academic production from the university community and often undertakes external projects. It is owned by the General Foundation of the University of Alicante. This model was observed at the Universidad Cardenal Herrera-CEU, which had an audiovisual production company, “Camera”, that produced programs broadcast through local television stations throughout the Valencian region. Similarly, the University of Navarra operated an audiovisual production company, Euroview Producciones, which operated along the same lines as “Camera” (Aguaded & Macías-Gómez, 2008).

4. University television is conceived as autonomous but dependent on the university’s management. With this model, the university can enhance and showcase teaching activities, providing an avenue for students, alums, and those unable to attend to experience or relive the university experience. Additionally, a purely educational objective allows faculty and students to collaborate to create television channel content. For instance, the University of Sevilla currently hosts an institutional video streaming platform overseen by its Media Secretariat. It functions as a web television and repository for videos showcasing the academic life of the Andalusian institution while allowing live broadcasts.

Despite numerous initiatives, many university television projects have struggled to gain traction and minimal consolidation, ending up as mere attempts or project illusions, and some even ceased to exist. In the current landscape of Spanish universities, there does not seem to be a cohesive movement of university educational television with consolidated projects. Instead, what prevails are disparate experiences with a diverse array of operating guidelines. In this regard, the offerings in Spain are much poorer than those observed in Latin America or Europe, contexts with their own educational training channels, both on television and within universities.

According to Murillo-Guerrero and Caldera-Serrano (2014), Spanish universities that have launched their own television channels are not fully maximizing their potential. Instead, they use them as repositories of videos on their YouTube channels. These authors criticize the lack of a clear commitment to transforming university TV into a genuine audiovisual channel for the widespread dissemination of pedagogical content targeted towards the university community. Generally, university televisions in Spain, hosted on university websites, follow three operational models:

a) Universities that use the Internet to upload videos through existing audiovisual portals.

b) Universities that have created their own internet-based channel for audiovisual content but lack a programming schedule.

c) Universities that choose to establish their own television channel with a consistent and continuous programming schedule.

The Polytechnic University of Valencia (UPV) has been a pioneer in this regard, positioning itself at the technological forefront by implementing a multicast system of 30 broadcast-quality television channels, reaching the entire university network (Frasquet-Pascual, 2015). The television department manages the radio-television service, comprising university staff, interns, scholarship students, and professors. Its objectives encompass providing information and communication to university community members, disseminating its activities to society, and educating students. It operates a 24-hour broadcast service and also has a YouTube channel. Additionally, universities such as Carlos III University of Madrid and the University of Vigo have had their own television channel for years, though these channels are only broadcast online.

The primary objective of this research is to examine and ascertain the current state of university television in Spain. The specific objectives it proposes are a.) To explore which institutions, have a university television through their university websites, b.) To analyse the university television channels and the fundamental characteristics of their design, content and services offered, c.) To determine the classification criteria and categorize the types of television each university offers.

3. Objectives and methodology

The main objective is to investigate and understand the current state of university television in Spain through three specific objectives: to identify which institutions have university television, to analyse university television channels and the fundamental characteristics of their design, including content and services, and to determine classification criteria to catalog the type of television offered by each university.

Despite changes in the usage and consumption habits of the conventional television model driven by the advancement of digital transformation and social media, universities still seem to employ this strategy to enhance their reputation, inform about current events, and even attract new students. Therefore, this research is based on the following questions:

RQ1. What is the current penetration of the conventional TV model in Spanish universities?
RQ2. How is the university TV model constituted in Spain?
RQ3. Are there digital synergies in the university television model in Spain today?

The sample consists of the list of universities that belong to the Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities (CRUE). This criterion is followed because ATEI was created within this organization in 1992 and is a reference in the Ibero-American context.

After reviewing the 77 universities that belong to CRUE, we determine which institutions have university television channels or audiovisual repositories featuring informational and corporate content.

The selection process is based on identifying institutions that have:

1. Online audiovisual informational and corporate channels, with or without the designation “TV”.

2. Audiovisual channels that meet specific criteria of university television.

A content analysis is also conducted to determine the characteristics of these communication strategies, especially how they are presented to the public and how they extend their reach. For this purpose, the following categories and codifications have been established:

1. Hosting of the TV or audiovisual repository: Open Cast or Other.

2. Live Streaming Capability: Yes/No.

3. Channel or profile on the audiovisual social platform: YouTube- YT/ Vimeo- VM / DailyMotion- DM / Twitch- TW (an asterisk will be added for those using the social platform as the sole and primary medium for their TV).

4. Content presentation: Chronological order without categorization- COWC / Chronological order and categorized- COC / Categorized without chronological order- CWC / No order- NO.

5. Social Media Reinforcement Strategy: Utilizes the same channels as the University USM/ Has its own social media channels -OSM.

YouTube, Vimeo, Twitch and DailyMotion are excluded from this last category as they were part of a previous study category. Instead, profiles on X, Instagram, TikTok, or similar platforms will be considered. Likewise, if the university does not have a presence in any of these categories, it will be indicated in the analysis table as “Not applicable”- NA.

To address the research questions, a mixed-method research design was implemented. In the first instance, a quantitative content analysis was carried out to map the panorama of university television in Spain, which implied, as already described, the analysis of the online presence and characteristics of university television channels and audiovisual repositories of the 77 universities affiliated to the CRUE. The data collected included variables related to their technology infrastructure (e.g., hosting, live streaming) and content management (e.g., presentation, social media usage). This result was contrasted through semi-structured interviews to provide a deeper understanding of the trends and challenges identified in the quantitative phase. The qualitative data from the interviews provide enrichment and a greater understanding of the quantitative findings, providing context and expert opinions on the evolution and role of university television. This combination has led to a more robust and comprehensive analysis, ensuring that the insights and experiences of key players in the field complement the statistical view.

In short, the interviews were conducted with 6 specialists and communication professors holding managerial positions in departments and projects across various Spanish universities. Additionally, the opinions of the director and secretary-general of ATEI have been considered. ATEI’s mission involves connecting universities with society through audiovisual formats as a conduit for knowledge transfer.

The initial questions and concerns are as follows: What is the strategy and importance of a TV channel for the university? Is it still relevant to discuss university television in traditional terms today? Are there successful cases of university TV? What should be the ideal model of audiovisual communication for the university? How should the challenges arising from young audiences’ digital usage and consumption habits be addressed? Is it advisable to strengthen university audiovisual communication through platforms and social networks? Which networks are the most important? The interviewees were the following:

1. Marga Cabrera is the director of communication at the Polytechnic University of Valencia and a professor of communication at the same university.

2. Gabriel Torres – President of ATEI, Director of Canal 44 (TV of the University of Guadalajara, Mexico), and professor and researcher of communication at the same university.

3. Miquel Francés – Secretary-General of ATEI, Associate Professor in Communication at the University of Valencia, and Director of the Valencian Community’s media system.

4. Daniel Aparicio – Coordinator of the Videofactoria at the Faculty of Information Sciences at the Complutense University of Madrid.

5. José María Herranz de la Casa – Dean of the Faculty of Communication at the University of Castilla-La Mancha and associate professor at the same faculty.

6. Ignacio Aguaded – Professor of Communication at the University of Huelva, Head of the MediaLab at the same university, and former director of its defunct university TV (UniTV). Advisor to the Atresmedia Foundation.

These profiles were selected because they are references in the field of study of institutional communication and journalism in the digital field, as well as specifically in relation to university media.

4. Results

4.1. Content analysis

Out of the 77 universities that belong to CRUE, 45 have university television channels or informational and corporate audiovisual repositories (Table 2). This indicates that 58.4% of the higher education institutions affiliated with this association have specific communication channels that bolster their brand and facilitate knowledge transfer and educational initiatives.

Table 2 shows the hosting platforms used by Spanish university television channels or audiovisual repositories on the Internet. It highlights the web as the primary channel for presenting and distributing content, with fewer web pages directly linking to social media platforms, which function as multimedia repositories. In all cases, the model referenced is Open Cast via the Web.

Regarding the capability of live streaming, out of the 45 cases studied, 14 offer this feature. In other words, as indicated in Figure 1, almost 70% do not have the resources or intention to conduct live broadcasts, which contradicts the conventional concept of television, regardless of its university nature.

The preeminence of the YouTube platform stands out as the primary hosting or resource for enhancing the visibility of audiovisual content for university television channels. Despite conducting additional searches on Vimeo or Dailymotion, Google’s repository emerges as a decisive element in the 45 cases that make up the sample.

Specifically, the following universities have designed their university TV solely on YouTube: University of Burgos, University of Cádiz, Europea University of Madrid, Europea University of Miguel de Cervantes, University of the Balearic Islands, University of Oviedo and University of Valladolid. This platform is an additional means for increasing reach in the remaining cases.

As indicated in Figure 2, content is presented and distributed on the websites of university television channels in the following way: almost 56% present a list of thematic categories in chronological order. In comparison, 22% prioritize temporal order without providing a thematic classification of published content.

Finally, social networks and platforms constitute crucial elements for expanding the reach and visibility of academic content. Figure 3 shows that while 11% of university TV channels have individual profiles on social networks, almost 38% use the institution’s educational profiles. However, it is more noteworthy that 51% of university websites do not use social networks, despite the widespread digitalization among young students, not to mention the current need for marketing and advertising to attract new students.

As a special note, it should be acknowledged that some of the cases studied are outdated. For instance, entry number 39 in Table 1, corresponding to the University of Salamanca (USAL), presents an issue where the USAL TV initiates with a Flash player that does not play the content (because it is a resource that the technology company no longer supports) and refers to a non-existent mobile app in the Google and Apple stores, which is also unavailable.

4.2. Expert interviews

As explained in the methodological section, researchers’ opinions on the Spanish university communication process are also considered to determine critical elements regarding the current university TV model, its success through digital channels and platforms, and its mission in the current higher education context.

4.2.1. Towards a Current University TV model

Marga Cabrera indicates that the Polytechnic University of Valencia had its conventional television over 10 years ago, boasting two sets and studios dedicated to producing audiovisual content, thanks to a large technical team. However, the institution’s authorities decided to discontinue the project as the expenses were too high, and curating programming that appealed to all stakeholders required too much work.

However, when YouTube emerged, the TV programming was uploaded to this online audiovisual repository. The University’s Communication Department managed some of this content. At the same time, another portion came from the efforts of Communication students and professors from the Gandía campus, always under the supervision of the University’s Communication department.

Consequently, the technical staff underwent downsizing, and the current individuals responsible for producing institutional videos now operate within UPV TV, the university’s YouTube channel. These videos are the same ones that may occasionally accompany a press release.

Ignacio Aguaded, Vice-Rector of Technology at the University of Huelva, agrees with this perspective. He was responsible for launching the UniTV project in 2012, which was highly relevant then. However, given the evidence of a constantly evolving world, it would be unjustified today because “planning a university TV today makes no sense”.

On the other hand, José María Herranz emphasizes that, while any communication channel is relevant today, those that can operate via the Internet are likely to be more compelling for training or publishing news. The key lies in developing these channels to remain pertinent to the university’s current context. The objectives must be clear and precise: “Nowadays universities say “let’s set up a television. But for what purpose? What is the objective? If it is to keep people informed, is it the best method?”.

The academic concludes that audiovisual communication has changed considerably. If that communication is targeted at students, it should “take into account that they consume much shorter videos, so a discussion panel would not make sense, for example, because they are not going to watch it.” However, if the aim is to reach professors, the scenario changes. It is crucial to ascertain the audience and segment the message accordingly.

In this regard, Miquel Francés specifies that, at the University of Valencia, in collaboration with CRUE and ATEI, they opted for an audiovisual and online repository from the outset “as the best option” diverging from conventional formats. “We are talking about a time when platforms like YouTube were just emerging, and back then, the potential of digital (technology) was evident. That’s why, in the specific case of our project, we called it “Media Uni”, Francés states.

Marga Cabrera aligns with the perspective that the conventional model of university TV lacks importance nowadays. She asserts that audiovisual resources at her university are now recorded in vertical and horizontal formats to accommodate later adaptation to Reels (Instagram) and horizontal formats (YouTube). According to Aguaded, communication remains the strategic axis of society, cautioning that what worked 10 years ago is no longer applicable. In his opinion, a TV channel for a university remains crucial, albeit with prior considerations such as what audiovisual products users currently consume and through which platforms, they access them. He emphasizes the need for a digital multimedia content manager.

Based on his experience, Gabriel Torres suggests that the structure of a university TV should now be multi-platform, with YouTube being perhaps the most important, followed by DailyMotion: “Social networks are paramount. Everything must be differentiated, betting on a personalized broadcast model, as the Internet allows”.

4.2.2. Digitalization and platformization

Marga Cabrera specifies that university institutional communication should adopt a transmedia framework with possibilities for live streaming. The programming must be of very high quality with current formats such as Broncano or The New Project on YouTube: “In universities, everything will now transition to digital because radio will also cease activities to make way for “Podcast UPV”. She adds that, “the more collaborative and participatory the digital and media content, the better”- She emphasizes that “the university TV of the 21st century must involve professors and students with the backing of the university’s communication department. Transmedia logic determines the communication model”.

Miquel Francés asserts, “We are experiencing a multi-screen moment. Today, Media Uni is strengthened through social networks, and we advocate for a transmedia script”. He highlights that this project facilitated projection and penetration in various domains, suggesting that “it would have made a lot of sense to progress towards a CRUE OTT, which would bring together all Spanish universities”.

Gabriel Torres, on the other hand, highlights the necessary “non-linearity” inherent in this type of media in particular, to which Daniel Aparicio adds that today’s university TV must unequivocally embrace digital platforms to address internal communication, communicate with the student community through service communication and subsequently focus on dissemination and knowledge transfer.

According to Aparicio, “It’s also necessary to visualize university news, but by creating summaries since there’s no point in covering an event for more than two hours because no one will watch that.” He adds that this work should be accompanied by reinforcement through social media because “right now, there are no media outlets that don’t use these channels, right? You can’t rule out any tool that helps you to be visible somewhere.”

However, in the end, we should heed José María Herranz’s warning about the main problem universities face when it comes to the dilemma of launching or maintaining their own TV channel: “What for? What is the goal? The aim is to keep people informed. Is this the best formula?”.

Marga Cabrera notes that corporate matters aimed at enhancing reputation, such as research, alliances with companies, and statements from university authorities, are of considerable interest. However, she also highlights the significance of scientific outreach: “Bringing the scientific work of university researchers to society, having the opportunity to address current issues through explanations provided by the teaching and research staff”.

In light of the sudden shift in audiovisual communication, Herranz anticipates that if communication is directed at students, “we must keep in mind that they consume much shorter videos on platforms, you can’t, for example, put a talk show because they won’t watch it”. However, he qualifies this argument by noting that the scenario changes when the objective is to reach professors, and “that’s why it’s very important to determine who the audience will be and segment the message”.

He adds that digital platforms play a crucial role in reinforcing universities’ messages, with video being the primary tool: “For younger individuals, TikTok and Instagram would undoubtedly be the main platforms. For other segments, from Twitter to Facebook. What would be advisable, though, is a university’s single platform with all these products, bringing them together, like an app, for example”.

4.2.3. Mission and horizon

Miquel Francés is very emphatic when he states that “the main problem with ensuring the continuity of university television in Spain is the inherent nature of CRUE, meaning that not all universities and their authorities are on board because they also don’t understand the importance and need for this”. Francés believes that the mission of university television is to transmit educational information, learn about the environment’s needs, and attract new students. However, this vision should extend to include social actors like companies, organizations, and foundations.

Meanwhile, Herranz asserts that today’s university TV should be regarded as “a platform for consuming audiovisual products in different categories, whether they are more informative, longer or shorter, reports or dissemination.” Echoing Aguaded’s perspective, he states that these products should be aimed at “generating public opinion in society. It is the mission of the University. Dissemination must prevail, reinforced through platforms and social networks, hence the importance of having a media laboratory.

Aguaded emphasizes, “Today, the open doors of the University are this new TV model. The concept of digital open-doors through a MediaLab and the corporate brand.” He underscores the importance of being cognizant of changes, understanding where digital audiences engage, and adapting. It is essential to understand the digital needs of this context well and adjust strategies and messages accordingly.

5. Discussion and conclusions

The contemporary discourse surrounding university TV may compel us to reconsider the concept associated with a studio equipped with technical support staff, cameras, sets, and pre-scheduled live programming assigned to specific time slots.

According to the information in Table 2, the web functions as a place on the Internet where the university medium is located. Therefore, the idea of Hertzian transmission is rendered obsolete because the means of communication is the Internet.

Of the 77 universities comprising CRUE, only 45 met the criteria of this study to determine whether they have a television channel or an institutional audiovisual repository, as previously mentioned in the results section. Consequently, in response to the first research question regarding the penetration of the current conventional TV model in Spanish universities, it should be noted that none exists due to the aforementioned technical circumstances.

These arguments help to explain why nearly 60% of CRUE universities with their own television channels now maintain these projects online, primarily through a website, and to a lesser extent, though still noteworthy, directly hosted on a digital and social platform like YouTube (see Figure 1). According to Daniel Aparicio, based on several unsuccessful attempts to launch a TV channel at the Faculty of Information Sciences at UCM, two significant problems stand out: the voluntary participation of students has been unsustainable due to the enormous technical effort required, coupled with unmanageable costs. Therefore, the main issues are related to irregularities in staffing and costs that are impossible to cover from that department.

With this in mind, it can be asserted that the penetration of the conventional university TV model is non-existent in Spanish institutions, and those who do invest in the concept do so through digital means. This leads to the second research question about the constitution of the university TV model in Spain.

Based on the data collected in Figures 2 and 3, it could be argued that these platforms operate asynchronously, organizing content chronologically and categorically. There is unanimous agreement that YouTube is the main channel, either for distributing content or replicating/duplicating it (see Table 2), despite the characteristics and reach that other similar platforms like Vimeo, DailyMotion, or Twitch may have. José María Herranz emphasizes the significance of digital platforms in reinforcing university messages, highlighting video as the main tool.

Finally, in line with these arguments and addressing the third question of this study regarding the identification of digital synergies in TV initiatives by Spanish universities, it can be inferred from Table 2 and Figure 4 that, in most cases, there is no evidence of communicational reinforcement through alternative platforms and social networks. If such reinforcement exists, it typically occurs through the university’s own channels. In other words, the medium itself does not have additional digital platforms to extend its reach.

In conclusion, the data from this research describe the current landscape of university TV in Spain, revealing that despite its conceptualization as an educational communication medium, its results demonstrate that it has not had much impact.

Furthermore, university TV plays a crucial role in knowledge transfer. This implies the recognition that the audience is not just passive recipients but applies metacognition and engages in mental processes to assimilate information. At the same time, it also determines, among other specifics, the duration of programs, which are strategically kept within 45 minutes. This helps to sustain attention and position university TV as a complementary resource that higher education institutions provide to aid in processing information pertinent to degree programs.

An inherent limitation of this research is that, due to the limited number of scientific publications on the subject, it has not been possible to make comparisons with university television in other parts of the world, which would have been very interesting. And a limitation on the findings is the need for university TV to be economically feasible, both for public and private universities. Moving forward, we highlight that television can serve as a suitable channel for disseminating academic research, which often remains confined to a limited scope. It should be noted that this research is conducted to shed light on subsequent work or as a societal endeavor to inform the public of potential solutions to everyday problems. As a future line of research, it would be useful to analyse the content of this television, as it is sometimes limited to institutional rather than educational programmes, which could be a cause of the low audience figures that these channels tend to have.

Looking ahead, considering the advancement of the internet and the functionalities of mobile phones, it would be advisable to explore the implementation of university TV through applications and OTT platforms, which include educational audiovisual content that can be instantly streamed on websites, smartphones or smart TVs.

6. Funding and Support

This study, part of the project Innovation and Educational Communication through Interactive University Television (ICETUI) (EM24-001), was funded and supported by the Institute for Research, Transfer and Innovation (ITEI) of the Vice-Rectorate for Transfer of the Universidad Internacional de La Rioja.

7. Authors’ contribution

8. Statement on the use of artificial intelligence

No artificial intelligence tools have been used in this article.

9. References

Aguaded, I., & Macías-Gómez, Y. (2008). University television and public service. Comunicar, 31. https://doi.org/10.3916/c31-2008-03-068

Aguaded, J. I., & Ponce, D. (2012). UniTV, canal de televisión de la Universidad de Huelva: hacia una TV universitaria de calidad. EDMETIC, 1(1), 90–114. https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v1i1.2844

Aguaded, J. I., & Sánchez-Carrero, J. (2010). Televisión educativa y universidades en un mundo digital. https://lc.cx/Zy5bIw

Aguilera, J. (1975). Dimensión y sistema de la televisión educativa. Editorial Nacional.

Baptista-Belluzzo, R. C., & Beckman-Cavalcante, L. F. (2011). A competência em informação na televisão universitária: reflexões e contribuições iniciais ao contexto brasileiro. Informação & Sociedade, 21(3), 21-30. https://periodicos.ufpb.br/ojs2/index.php/ies/article/view/10700

Cabero, J. (2005). Las TIC y las universidades: retos, posibilidades y preocupaciones. Revista de la educación superior, 34(135), 77-100.

Cabero, J. (2012). La producción audiovisual en el Secretariado de Recursos Audiovisuales y Nuevas Tecnologías de la Universidad de Sevilla (SAV). EDMETIC, 1(1), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v1i1.2845

Cabero, J. (2015). Aportes de la televisión universitaria a las industrias culturales y creativas en Iberoamérica. EDMETIC, 4(2), 7-28. https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v4i2.3960

Cabero, J., García, L., Query, P., & García, D. (2016). La televisión universitaria por Internet: análisis de la situación española. EDUTEC, Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa, 55. http://www.edutec.es/revista

Caldera-Serrano, J., & Arranz-Escacha, P. (2012). Documentación audiovisual en televisión. UOC.

Camarero, E. (2012). Televisiones Universitarias en internet. Análisis de formatos y modelos de gestión para la comunicación y difusión científica y académica. En Comunicació i risc: III Congrés Internacional Associació Espanyola d’Investigació de la Comunicació (p. 50). Asociación Española de Investigación de la Comunicación (AE-IC).

Camarero, E. (2013). Communication efficiency review of university television through internet. Vivat Academia, 123, 24-40. https://doi.org/10.15178/va.2013.123.24-40

De Castro-García, P., & Del Molino, C. (2012). UIMP-TV. Una ventana abierta al mundo. EDMETIC, 1(1), 132-153. https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v1i1.2846

Draganov, I., & Todorova, V. (2018). Sense and significance of the University television. Yearbook Telecommunications, 5, 119-123. https://193.19.174.119/index.php/YT/article/view/138

Frasquet-Pascual, A. (2015). Televisión y Universidad, televisiones universitarias en España 2003-2010. Un proyecto pionero: UPV televisión (Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Politècnica de València). https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/59423

Gámiz-Sánchez, V. M., & Romero-López, A. (2012). La televisión universitaria, el ejemplo de la Universidad de Granada. EDMETIC, 1(1), 52-67. https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v1i1.2840

Lopes-Davi-Medola, A. S., & Frascareli-Lelis, M. (2019). Televisão universitária, visibilidade e consumo: o papel das redes sociais na promoção dos conteúdos. Comunicação Mídia E Consumo, 16(46), 354-375. https://doi.org/10.18568/cmc.v16i46.1835

López-Yepes, A. (1992). Manual de documentación audiovisual. Universidad de Navarra.

López-Yepes, A., & Sánchez-Jiménez, R. (2007). e-DocuInfo/TVDoc: portal de documentación informativa-canal temático iptv. El profesional de la información, 16(5), 456-467. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2007.sep.08

Maior, C., & Markert, V. (2018). The University Television Station TV Goldiş-Net, Support Structure in Strengthening the Culture of Quality. Quality - Access to Success, 19(164), 80-81.

Martínez Recio, A., & Conde Ortega, S. (2012). La televisión (por internet) en la Universidad de Córdoba. EDMETIC, 1(1), 29-51. https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v1i1.2839

Moore, J. C. (2018). A brief history of universities. Springer.

Murillo Guerrero, M., & Caldera-Serrano, J. (2014). Presencia y difusión de contenidos de las televisiones universitarias españolas en la web. Cuadernos de Documentación Multimedia, 25, 25-38. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_CDMU.2014.v25.47475

Navarro Robles, M., & Vázquez-Barrio, T. (2020). El consumo audiovisual de la Generación Z. El predominio del vídeo online sobre la televisión tradicional. Ámbitos: Revista internacional de comunicación, 50, 10-30. https://doi.org/10.12795/Ambitos.2020.i50.02

Nogales-Bocio, I., & Álvarez-Villa, A. (2020). Presentación Monográfico. El universo transmedia de los medios de comunicación universitarios: acción dentro y fuera del aula en la sociedad postdigital. Ámbitos. Revista Internacional de Comunicación, 47, 61-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/Ambitos.2020.i47.03

Pérez-Agüera, J. R., Jiménez, R. S., & Serrano, J. C. (2004). Adaptación de tecnologías stream y XML a centros de documentación en televisión. Revista española de documentación científica, 27(4), 441-454. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2004.v27.i4.158

Salinas, J. (2003). La televisión educativa. En J. Cabero, F. Martínez, & J. Salinas (Coords.), Medios y herramientas de comunicación para la enseñanza universitaria (pp. 83-100). Sucesos-EDUTEC.

Simpson, W. (2005). Video over IP: a practical guide to technology and applications. Elsevier.

Simpson, W., & Greenfield, H. (2009). IPTV and Internet video: Expanding the reach of television broadcasting. Routledge.

Suárez, J., & Navas-Montes, W. (2005). Educative television as a university methodological strategy. Comunicar, 25. https://doi.org/10.3916/C25-2005-161

Šula, T., Čada, J., & Jurásek, M. (2015). Incorporation of the university practice medium and its transformation into the community medium. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 175, 114-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1181

Takač, F., & Vegar, V. (2021). University television and modern education challenges. South Eastern European Journal of Communication, 3(1), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.47960/2712-0457.2021.1.2.7

Torrales, D., & Matus, M. (2009). WebTV e IPTV: nuevos recursos para la formación universitaria en gestión y producción en televisión, video y cine. Revista Tercer Milenio, 17.

Urazova, S. L., Gromova, E.B., Kuzmenkova, K. E. & Mitkovskaya, Y.P. (2022). Audiovisual media in the universities of Russia: typology and analysis of the content. RUDN Journal of Studies in Literature and Journalism, 27(4), 808-822. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9220-2022-27-4-808-822

Inmaculada Berlanga Fernández. PhD in Social Science (Audiovisual Communication) and PhD in Philology; currently Full Professor at Universidad Internacional de La Rioja. She has two six-year research periods and positive accreditation from ANECA as a Professor. Member of the EuroAmerican Interuniversity Network Alfamed, Technology, Knowledge, and Society, Research Networks. Research interests: Audiovisual Persuasion, Cyberrhetoric, Digital Semiotics, Educommunication. She is coordinator of “Procomm”, Multimedia Communications Prospects. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0135-624X

Pavel Sidorenko Bautista. Universidad Internacional de la Rioja. Spain. PhD from the Faculty of Communication of the University of Castilla-La Mancha. Accredited Hired Doctor by ANECA, with a six-year research period recognized by the CNEAI. Professor at the Faculty of Business and Communication, and member of the Doctoral Program in Humanities and Digital Society at the International University of La Rioja. He researches on emerging narratives in digital communication. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8094-3089

Adoración Merino Arribas. PhD in Information Sciences. Journalist with 21 years of experience in communication groups. She has a six-year period of recognized research and has been accredited as Full Professor by ANECA (Spanish National Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation). Undergraduate and Postgraduate Professor at UNIR. Lines of research: Informative treatment of immigration, social networks, transmedia narrative, social television, media Ethics. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3294-9996

Mariola Moreno Calvo. PhD in Information and Communication Sciences from the University of Toulouse, she seamlessly blends academic rigor with real-world insights gained from her distinguished career as a journalist specializing in European affairs. Currently, Dr. Moreno is at the forefront of groundbreaking research in discourse analysis, unraveling the intricate narratives woven through media coverage of pivotal global events. Her innovative approach sheds new light on how information is shaped and disseminated, offering valuable insights for both academia and industry professionals. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5624-6905