Audience Studies - 3P18

Blog for Audience Studies (3P18) at Brock University - Just a university student studying abroad and curious about audience studies in 2019

[elrickaudiencestudies]

Audience Studies (3P18) Blog #2 - Week 11

Welcome back, reader, to the final week of this blog! It feels odd to be ending this after 11 weeks of writing blogs for this, ready to submit for class, and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t going to miss this. This class has undeniably been my favourite, and I know it will stay with me for a long time to come. I hope readers of this blog can see the passion with which I have tackled this class, and can understand that I truly love my subject, and the topic of audience studies. I’ve learned a lot this semester, and I hope some people have come across this and been able to gain an understanding of audience studies. Therefore, I think it is fitting that we consider what we have learned from this blog, and also see where we can go from here.

 In the lecture, our professor commented that we were coming full circle with the module, coming back to Livingstone’s work in our final week of official class. One major thing to consider in the current era of audience studies – we are putting a lot of focus on the online world. Audiences have shifted to new media technologies, and so now, as Sullivan points out, we live in the period with the “digitalisation of content and convergence of media technologies” (Sullivan, p. 241). There has been a definitive shift in audiences with the digital age, and audience studies has had to adapt its ways of studying audiences in order to keep up with the new ways that audiences exist, with the blurring boundaries of media and the ‘post-network era’ (Sullivan, pp. 240-242).

 The post-network era makes reference to the fact that audiences are no longer constrained by television networks, as online media has shifted the way that audio-visual content is consumed. Researchers have found that audiences are engaging more with online technologies in order to enjoy the media that they were already consuming (Sullivan, p. 242). Many researchers, including Croteau, have pointed out that with the shifting nature of media technologies, the way audiences are studied must adapt to newer ideas and consumption methods; focus must not be placed on single-screen viewing, as media technologies and consumption become more complicated (Sullivan, p. 242).

 How can we move forward, in a world where it is said that there is a large quantity of fragmentation in the media (Sullivan, pp. 243-244)? How can we move forward when definitions of audience are changing, to the point where it is questioned if audiences exist any more (Sullivan, pp. 245-246)?

 Livingstone questions how the conversion of the things that we, who could arguably be called prosumers, put on the internet into data to be monetised will impact the future within media studies, and how that leads to conflicts of power within the world (Livingstone, p. 171). It is arguable that audiences hold power within society, but there is a question of how much power audiences truly hold, as our data is monetised and valued by the companies we provide it to (Livingstone, p. 171). In a truly digital age, is power a struggle between audiences and large companies, or is it more collaborative, as audiences negotiate the power they hold (Livingstone, pp. 172-174)?

 I know that this final blog sounds pessimistic or melancholic, but for this entire class, we have been able to look forward to the next moment in time that is clearly defined in audience studies, and the final few weeks of class have been able to be defined by the fact that we don’t know what is going to happen. I don’t know how audience studies will shift in this rapidly changing digital world, nor do I know how I, as an audience member, or perhaps a prosumer, will exist in said digital world. Livingstone speaks of the dystopic nature of the way audiences could go, and the rapid shifts that have occurred in society, and I honestly cannot say how the future will exist with audiences, if audiences are even conceived of at all in the future (Livingstone, pp. 170-183). The only thing I can say is that this class has helped me feel like I have a better understanding of media studies as a whole, and I’m curious as to how the future goes with regards to audience studies. It has been an absolute pleasure to be able to try and understand audience studies with you, reader, and I hope that you have been able to learn something, even in the jumble of the final few blogs.

Sources and Readings of Interest

Sullivan, J. L., (2013) ‘Chapter 10: Conclusion: Audience Agency in New Contexts’, Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, SAGE Publications, pp. 239-250

Livingstone, S. (2019). Audiences in an age of datafication: Critical questions for media research. Television & New Media, 20(20), pp. 170-183.

[elrickaudiencestudies]

Audience Studies (3P18) Blog #2 - Week 10

As we come closer to the end of this class, it is time to look to the present and the digital age of the 21st century. As we live in the online world, it is arguable that audiences hold a great deal of power. We live in a world where anyone can upload videos to YouTube and have them seen by millions of people relatively quickly, if you get lucky, and this means that it can begin to be questioned if there is a solid concept of audience in the current day (Sullivan, pp. 213-215). The growth of the internet, and sites such as Instagram, YouTube and others, which rely on the uploads of user-generated content to continue, has blurred the lines between producer and consumer, putting forward the idea of ‘prosumers’, as discussed in week 9 (Sullivan, p. 216).

 Sullivan puts forward that in order to understand the changing nature of audiences in the digital age, then the shifts in technology that have enabled this needs to be considered (Sullivan, p. 216). Sullivan talks about digitalisation, which is the way that media is able to be widely disseminated with relative ease due to the fact that media is now all in the same code (binary) and able to be used on multiple systems through the process of convergence (Sullivan, p. 216). This means that content such as films can be put out on DVDs as well as the internet, and these versions are the same and therefore relatively inexpensive to produce. Sullivan points out that because of digitalisation and convergence, pirating has been able to become more widespread, as it is easier to reproduce and distribute content online (Sullivan, pp. 216-217).

 It is argued that audiences can hold more power through control over when they watch content; it is pointed out that in the digital age, we are no longer tethered to the television schedules, and are able to use on-demand and streaming services, such as Netflix or Amazon Prime, to watch when they want (Sullivan, p. 217). The idea of audiences holding power has been proposed to continue through user-generated content, as consumers are relying less on major companies to produce content to be viewed (Sullivan, pp. 217-219).

 The idea of user-generated content is explored within the Athique article, where Athique points out that the content on YouTube is provided free-of-charge, and so there are questions of how to monetise the internet when the content is provided to consumers for free (Athique, p. 60). The internet is becoming the subject of questions of digital economics, and whilst I am not claiming to understand it (economics is not my strong point in the slightest), it is interesting to consider how the internet is considering audiences and the content, and therefore data, that they produce (Athique, p. 59).

 Sullivan poses questions of if user-generated content can be argued to be exploitation of the free labour of producers for profit by companies, as well as questions of ownership of content in the digital world (Sullivan, pp. 229-232). Questions of audiences in a digital world is interesting to comprehend, as it is arguable that audiences, as content producers, are shifting the way that media is beginning to be interpreted; the definition of audience is blurring as we participate in the online world, and our profiles are converted into data that is sold by companies, such as Facebook and Twitter (Sullivan, p. 232).

 As this comes to an end, I want you, the audience of this blog, to consider how you see yourself in the context of modern audiences. Are you a producer of content? Do you feel like the concept of the audience has shifted in the 21st century? Maybe, most importantly, how do you think audiences will change in ten years’ time? I’m aware this blog makes less sense, but I think it is just because this kind of content is getting harder and harder to comprehend for me as the weeks have gone on, as it concerns things we live through now.

Sources and Readings of Interest

Sullivan, J. L., (2013) ‘Chapter 9: Online, Interactive Audiences in a Digital Media World’, Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, SAGE Publications, pp. 213-238

Athique, A. (2018). The dynamics and potentials of big data for audience research. Media, Culture and Society, 40(1), pp. 59-74.

[elrickaudiencestudies]

Audience Studies (3P18) Blog #2 - Week 9

For this week, reader, I’d like to let you in on exactly why I chose Tumblr, of all the platforms, to host this blog: it was the place I first discovered the idea of internet fandom. I’m sure many of you who come across this blog have some involvement in fandom, even if it is reading fanfiction or having investment in those TV shows or films you love. This week’s topic focuses on something I am incredibly familiar with: fandom and fan culture.

 Fans are actually really interesting to consider; after all, fans are part of the audiences that I am currently studying through this module, and can be defined by their identities within the audience, and therefore it would be remiss to miss out such a vital part of audience culture. To start this week, I’d like you to consider your role as a consumer; do you consider yourself a fan of anything? How do you define the term ‘fan’? What kinds of things would you consider fans to do?

 When considering the idea of the fan, media theorists have to start by defining the idea of the ‘fan’. ‘Fan’ derives from the word ‘fanatic’, which has a religious background, and arguably the definition of ‘fan’ no longer encompasses religion (Sullivan, pp. 192-193). Some media theorists propose a ‘continuum of fandom’, in which there is a categorisation of four types of fan, spanning from the consumer, to enthusiast, to fan, to producer (Sullivan, p. 194). This model describes specific types of fan, and explains the level of engagement that each type has; a producer, for example, would be defined as someone who produces their own content, such as fanfiction, and provides that to the fandom at large (Sullivan, pp. 194-195). This idea of the continuum of fandom has been challenged and different definitions, such as the idea of the dedicated fan, exist to help explain fans and fan culture (Sullivan, pp. 194-195).

 Now that we have an idea of what a fan is, the next question is how fans interact, both with each other and in relation to the media they are fans of. Theorists have focused on the social aspect of fandom, considering the interaction of sharing media with others and going to events such as conventions as parts of fan culture (Sullivan, pp. 195-197). Tumblr is a place where you can find fans interacting without looking much further than the trending page. Social interactions amongst fans can also lead to fan activism; who remembers the uproar when Brooklyn 99 got cancelled, and then picked up by a new network after fans petitioned for it to get another season, especially after pushing from celebrity fans such as Lin-Manuel Miranda? That was an example of fan social interaction and fan activism. The same could be argued with the subject of this week’s article, which surrounded fan support of the Veronica Mars movie and how it was achieved thanks to fan funding via Kickstarter (Navar-Gill). Fan interaction with each other, as well as the media text itself, is important to study in order to understand fans.

 Another part of fan culture that is often studied is the proliferation of fan-works, such as fanfiction, fan-art and fan-zines (Sullivan, pp. 203-204). The idea of the fan as a producer allows for an interesting idea to be pushed forward, which is the idea of the audience as a ‘prosumer’ (a portmanteau of producer and consumer, intending to show the duality of identity of an audience member as a consumer of media but a producer of their own media) (Sullivan, p. 187). I know that my interaction with fandom has taken on a prosumer role within the past, and this idea of the fan as a producer has given audience studies theorists an understanding of how certain audience members interpret, and reinterpret the content they view, manipulating elements of canon that they may not agree with to create a new meaning, mixing with the idea of negotiated meanings to create a new dominant meaning (Sullivan, pp. 202-206). It is acknowledged by Sullivan that there are limits to reinterpretations of media, but it is important to consider when looking at the audience as active users and interpreters of media. There is the idea that in the 21st century, fandom isn’t a fringe set of groups any more, but is more prolific in society, which we can see through the websites, such as fanfiction.net and Archive Of Our Own (AO3), which host thousands, if not millions, of fan works and host fandoms (Sullivan, pp. 206-210). I’d argue that even the proliferation of ‘Stan Twitter’ and ‘Stan Tumblr’ has allowed for fandom, through social media sites, to become a normalised part of society; shows such as The Big Bang Theory show those heavily into fandom not as the butt of the joke, but as the protagonists. It is interesting to consider, and I’m curious as to how you, reader, might now consider the idea of fans and fandom, knowing what has been spoken about in this blog.

Sources and Readings of Interest

Sullivan, J. L., (2013) ‘Chapter 8: Media Fandom and Audience Subcultures’, Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, SAGE Publications, pp. 189-212

Navar-Gill, A. (2018). Fandom as symbolic patronage: Expanding understanding of fan relationships with industry through the Veronica Mars Kickstarter campaign. Popular Communication, 16(3), pp. 211-224.

Brooklyn 99 Cancellation and Saving: https://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/brooklyn-nine-nine/273845/how-brooklyn-nine-nine-was-saved-from-cancellation-exclusive

[elrickaudiencestudies]

Audience Studies (3P18) Blog #2 - Week 8

This week is an interesting one, and I’d like to start out by asking you to consider where you consume the most media. It could be watching TV, be it on an actual TV or a laptop, reading books, using social media, or anything else you do that you would consider ‘media consumption’. Where do you sit? What do you use to consume different types of media? Is it around people, or alone? Are there multiple places where you consume media, depending on where you call home, or how many places you call home?

 This may not seem like it relates much to the idea of audiences; why should it matter where you consume media? This week’s concepts relate to ideas of where we consume media, and how that impacts the way that we interact with it. The article for this week relates to the different ways that sports can be watched, and how interaction differs between viewing at home and viewing in a larger public space, such as a cinema. However, for us to understand why this distinction is important, we must first work out why people study where we consume media in the first place.

 Interests in where we consume media have existed since we started watching in our homes (Sullivan, p. 167). As time has shifted, our viewing habits have shifted; when we would once sit in front of the television or listen to the radio, allowing for a more social experience whilst watching, we now watch on our own devices (Sullivan, pp. 167-173). Of course, people still watch television, but we now have access to many different types of media at our fingertips.

 One way of studying audiences in this concept is through ethnography, which means that audience members are observed or interviewed, and their experiences within the context that they watch in are observed and considered. This has allowed for the idea of gendered ways of viewing the home, and how different genders use the different media technologies within the home (Sullivan, pp. 168-170). Research into housewives, as well as families in general, has allowed for researchers, such as Hobson, Morley, and Gray, to consider technologies in the home and the ways that audience members interact with them (Sullivan, pp. 168-170). Hobson found that distinctions were made on the radio by housewives between masculine and feminine programmes, and that housewives used media as a chance for leisure within their lives (Sullivan, p. 168). This is interesting to consider when questioning the ways that media technologies are interpreted and used in the home by the audience members, as it allows for an understanding of the social aspect of consuming media in the home (Sullivan, p. 168).

 As time has shifted, research has shifted to begin to focus on the way media consumption is shifting, with a distinction made between social and individualised behaviours of media consumption, and particularly viewing. Consider what you use to watch visual content, such as YouTube videos– television tends to be a more social way of viewing visual content, as you are more likely to be watching with others, whilst watching on your phone is highly individualised (Sullivan, pp. 171-173). This idea of how content is viewed, and particularly the social aspect of viewing content, is the basis for the Kim, Cheong and Kim article regarding the way people interacted with a major TV event, which in their case was the FIFA World Cup, at a cinema and in the home.

 Kim, Cheong and Kim examined the differences between the conditions of a cinema compared to a living room, and found that the cinema had a better-quality screen and access to surround sound, as well as a darker room, with less distractions, which made a difference when considering how the World Cup was viewed (Kim, Cheong and Kim, p. 391). By contrast, living rooms had smaller screens, and were more likely to be bright and filled with distractions of people moving around and noises outside the room (Kim, Cheong and Kim, p. 391). The act of being in the cinema, Kim, Cheong and Kim argue, allows for the audience member to feel physically present within the event, and creates a sense of greater connection to the event (p. 392).

 I’d argue that this could be seen at the 2018 FIFA World Cup, where in the UK (as shown in the video in the Sources and Readings of Interest section), crowds turned out in their thousands to large areas, such as Hyde Park, to watch the England team, and a sense of presence at the event could be argued to be seen within this clip. In the clip I have linked below, the audience are stuck in one place with few distractions outside of the match playing on a large screen, and they are cheering and socialising within the context of watching the match on the screen. Whilst this may not seem like it fits with the idea of reception contexts, it was the first thing I could think of when learning about this, as it felt like there was a sense of solidarity and a social element to watching, as fits with the theories stated in this blog.

 Now I have been able to explain reception contexts, I’d like to go back to the questions I posed at the beginning of this blog. How would you define the contexts in which you consume media? Can you relate to any of the concepts put forward in this blog? How do you understand audiences as a result of the work this week?

Sources and Readings of Interest

Sullivan, J. L., (2013) ‘Chapter 7: Reception Contexts and Media Rituals’, Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, SAGE Publications, pp. 161-186

Kim, K., Cheong, Y., & Kim, H. (2016). The influences of sports viewing conditions on enjoyment from watching televised sports: An analysis of the FIFA World Cup audiences in theater vs. home. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(3), pp. 389–409.

England fans react to goal in semi-final in Hyde Park, 2018 FIFA World Cup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA7X2Hh-iTw

[elrickaudiencestudies]

Audience Studies (3P18) Blog #2 - Week 7

This week is focusing on how audience members interpret and decode media, which sounds boring but is actually quite interesting. In this blog, we are going to consider the way that audience members look at and interpret the content of what they consume. The article by Granelli and Zenor, which was a class-mandated reading for this week, focused on the TV show Dexter, which I have never seen before (shows about serial killers don’t really interest me much) and how audiences interpreted Dexter as a character, especially as he is morally ambiguous as a character. However, to begin to understand that, we do have to go through theory.

 I’m going to be honest and say that even after approximately 3 years of studying semiotics for my degree, it still confuses me just a little, so don’t worry if you need to seek out external resources to understand the ideas of semiotics and how it could begin to relate to audience studies. Sullivan uses semiotics to aid with understandings of how we can communicate in the first place. Semiotics is defined as being the study of anything that can be used for communicating, and depends on the use of signs (Sullivan, p. 136). Signs are anything – they could be pictures, words or objects, and are defined by the interaction between the ‘signifier’ and the ‘signified’ (Sullivan, pp. 136-137). For example, take a look at the picture that I have put in. What do you think of when you look at it?

If you associate it with a cat, then you have created a connection between the sign, or the signifier, and what it signifies. Don’t worry if this is confusing – it can be a lot to get your head around! But the reason you might associate this image with a cat is because you know what a cat looks like – you decoded the image to associate it with a cat. In a nutshell, that is an explanation of semiotics and the idea of decoding. That is what we are focusing on this week – the idea of decoding media and considering how we interpret media.

 The idea of decoding comes from the work of Stuart Hall – anyone who has a sociological background may be familiar with Hall, but I know not everybody who comes across this blog will be familiar with this concept, so I will break it down. The producer of the media encodes a message into the media – this could be that a certain character, such as Kylo Ren from the sequel Star Wars trilogy, is a villain; we see this as he wears dark clothing and carries a red lightsabre, which fans of Star Wars will associate with the Dark Side. The audience, when they see the film, will decode the fact that Kylo Ren is a villain, and will interpret it in different ways (for further information on encoding and decoding, see Sullivan, pp. 140-141).

 Three types of ‘readings’ are proposed to explain different ways of interpreting messages in the media; these are the dominant reading, the negotiated reading, and the oppositional reading (Sullivan, pp. 144-147). The dominant reading fits with what the producer intended for the audience to see; in this example, the audience member would accept the idea that Kylo Ren is a villain. A negotiated reading is the audience member negotiating their own meaning for the text, incorporating their own interpretation with the message that the producers of the media have coded; in this example, it could be that an audience member accepts Kylo Ren as a villain, but has the idea that he could be redeemable or has redeemable qualities, so he isn’t fully evil. An oppositional reading rejects the meaning that the producers place within the media, and instead the audience member commits to their own interpretation; in this example, it would be the rejecting of the coding of Kylo Ren as a villain, and instead the audience member may see him as being misunderstood or lost in some way.

 Star Wars isn’t the only example of media that holds these readings – consider any media text and you will find many different interpretations of people who view the media differently. The example of Dexter, which was used in the article this week, considers how audiences interpret the character of Dexter and his motivations, and there is a consideration of morals by Granelli and Zenor. This is particularly evident when considering how audiences interpret the character of Dexter and his morals – audiences pass moral judgement and consider whether it could be good or bad (Granelli and Zenor).

 I know that this blog may feel odd, and I know I have thrown many concepts around within this blog today. I want you, reader, to go away and just think about how you interact with the media – what kinds of interpretations do you have for the media you consume?

Sources and Readings of Interest

Sullivan, J. L., (2013) ‘Chapter 6: Interpreting and Decoding Mass Media Texts’, Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, SAGE Publications, pp. 133-160

Granelli, S., & Zenor, J. (2016) Decoding “The Code”: Reception theory and moral judgment of Dexter. International Journal of Communication, 10, pp. 5056-5078.

[elrickaudiencestudies]

Audience Studies (3P18) Blog #2 - Week 6

This week’s topic marks a shift from what we have been talking about before; whilst prior to this we have been considering audiences as passive consumers, we are moving into the ideas of audiences as active users. For those of you who may be confused, I will break it down: up to this point, perspectives of audiences that we have been considering focus on what the media does to the audience, but now we are going to spend the next set of blogs considering how the audience interacts with the media around them. Even with that explanation, I understand that it still may not make sense, but I hope that eventually it might be able to!

 When considering audiences as active users, we are confronted with multiple theories, all presenting ideas of how the audience might interact with the media they are involved with. One such theory, which will be examined in this blog, is called uses and gratifications; put more simply, uses and gratifications presents the idea that the media that we, as audiences, choose the media we want to consume at any one moment, and that is chosen to suit our own wants and needs (Sullivan, p. 113). Sullivan uses Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch to explain that when using the uses and gratifications approach, five assumptions must be made (Sullivan, p. 113). These five assumptions are: the audience is active and chooses specific media to fit their own goals; the audience member chooses different media for different needs; the mass media is in competition with other ways of satisfying needs, such as face-to-face interaction; the audience are aware of their own specific needs when choosing media; and that researchers should not make value judgements on the choices of the audience member, and should understand why the audience member chooses the media in question (Sullivan, p. 113).

 Now, I understand that that is a massive wall of text that may be a bit incomprehensible sometimes, especially when you are just getting your head around a theory. I needed to list all of those needs to be able to explain the core ideas of uses and gratifications theory – that the audience is active and chooses media to fulfil their own wants (Sullivan, p. 113). The large part of this theory focuses on the fact that an audience member chooses what they want to use in terms of media; an example of this could be that when I am sad, I choose to watch a John Mulaney special to cheer myself up. My motivation behind that would be escapism, as well as a need for entertainment. A number of researchers have examined uses and gratifications, including Herta Herzog, who looked into women who listened radio serials in the 1940s. Herzog wanted to understand what these women got out of listening to these serials. She found that the women she studied gained three main gratifications from regular listening to serials: emotional release from problems, wishful remodelling of their own lives and instructions for adjustment to their lives (Sullivan, p. 112). When breaking this down, it means that these women listened to radio serials to gain emotional release from their own problems, to be able to fantasise about things that were unattainable to them or missing from their lives, and as a source of advice for how to live their lives (Sullivan, p. 112). This research helped to explain why the women were listening to the serials, and gave ideas of why they chose to listen. The media fulfils specific functions for people.

 Then again, what about today? It’s all very well talking about the 1940s, but the media we use has shifted since then, and it is clear that we need to consider how media exists in the 21st century. Sundar and Limperos put forward the idea of ‘new gratifications for new media’ (Sundar & Limperos, p. 504), using the acronym MAIN to explain their ideas. MAIN stands for modality-based, agency-based, interactivity-based, and navigability-based gratifications (Sundar and Limperos, pp. 512-517); obviously, this doesn’t explain exactly what they are, so I’ll break them down.

 Modality-based gratifications explains that new media, such as the internet, uses multiple types of media, such as music and video to try and draw our attention and engage multiple senses, and so we expect certain gratification through that (Sundar and Limperos, p. 512). This means that we begin measuring things by how cool or novel they seem to us, or how realistic it is, such as with a news website (Sundar and Limperos, pp. 512-513). Agency-based gratification is based on the idea that we are all agents and in control of what we use, and therefore provide the information (Sundar and Limperos, p. 513). As an example of this, why not consider Tumblr, where this blog is hosted? Tumblr is full of user-generated content, and we will consider what other people say on this website; we build communities surrounding media and consider what other people have to say, often sharing things because others might be. Interactivity-based gratifications depends on how we can interact with and change the content we interact with, and so we expect the ability to interact with the websites we visit (Sundar and Limperos, p. 515). Finally, we have navigability-based gratifications, which is about how easy it is for us to navigate between different pages on the internet. Who hasn’t looked up an actor in a film or TV show we’ve watched, found their Wikipedia and ended up on a completely different page a few hours later, with no idea how we got there? In these senses, new media gives us new gratifications.

 Now we have established how uses and gratifications works, I’m going to pose a question to you, reader: why do you choose the media you choose to use? What purpose does that media serve for you?

Sources and Readings of Interest

Sullivan, J. L., (2013) ‘Chapter 5: Uses and Gratifications’, Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, SAGE Publications, pp. 107-131

Sundar, S., & Limperos, A. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(4), pp. 504-525.

[elrickaudiencestudies]

Audience Studies (3P18) Blog #1 - Week 5

When considering the theme of this week being target marketing and media ratings, I’d like to invite all readers of this blog to go on Instagram or Facebook, and scroll until they find an advert. Once you find one, click on the three little dots in the corner of the post and find the section that says something similar to ‘Why am I seeing this ad?’ and check what it says.

 This task may seem difficult to connect to the idea of media ratings and target marketing, but I always find it interesting to see why I get the adverts I do. For example, on my Facebook profile, I’d get adverts for the dating app Tinder; when I clicked to see why I received the advert, the page stated that I was seeing the advert due to the fact I was an 18-24 year old woman in the UK, and at the time listed my relationship status as ‘single’, and Facebook had permission to share that information with advertisers, even though I didn’t even broadcast the fact I was single to any friends on Facebook. This meant that, to Tinder, I was a potential consumer. It made me begin to wonder exactly what advertisers really knew about me, and I found out how I was classified by what I put up on my social media and the brands I followed. Now, this story may raise questions of how I’m actually going to relate this back to my class – me talking about how I’m classified by advertisers doesn’t exactly scream ‘audience studies’. However, in Sullivan’s text, the ideas contained within my anecdote can be linked to audience studies, with Sullivan explaining that use of information provided by consumers, in his example by Wal-Mart, demonstrates two purposes: “(1) that sophisticated surveillance mechanisms have been put into place in modern post-industrial economies to be able to measure and track individuals’ thoughts, attitudes and behaviours and (2) that these tools are often used by powerful institutions and organisations to advance their own goals, thus bringing into play fundamental issues of power” (Sullivan, 2013, p. 28).

 Of course, this quote from Sullivan may mean nothing to you, if you do not study media or audience studies at a university level. A way to break down this idea is to apply it to the context that we may most be familiar with – social media advertising. As I understand this concept, the way that companies use the information we provide to them, be it with the tracking of adverts and links we click on, or pages we follow on social media, helps to tailor adverts or sponsored posts to us, which help the companies and institutions to advance their own goals, which could be profit or the spread of ideas. In the anecdote above, Facebook tailored adverts for Tinder to me due to the demographic I was in, as well as due to my interests – as a student, I may want to use a dating app to find partners, and I interacted with articles regarding dating apps. Another application of this idea could be within the 2017 UK General Election, which I understand may not be widely understood, but works for the purpose of this example. Depending on the area of the UK that profiles were set to, as well as the demographics identified on social media and possible political sympathies of users, adverts were targeted to try and sway how people may vote in their constituency. Facebook was identified by many to be the platform where this was spread the most. I use this example due to the fact that I experienced it on my own social media feed; it was the first time I was allowed to vote in an election, as I had just turned 18, and so I received adverts that were being targeted towards my demographic: young, new voters who would be focusing (most likely) on issues such as university funding, tuition fees and housing provision. If you take a look at elections that are currently happening, this targeting of audiences has become something that is more evident in modern society, and it has been put forward in news articles (which will be linked at the bottom) that it is becoming a norm for election advertising; on the other hand we cannot discount television as a force within this either, due to the way ratings can be measured on TVs.

 Television ratings are examined in an article by Buzzard (2015), as well as by Sullivan, with a consideration of the Nielsen system of ratings. The Nielsen rating system classifies television ratings; those familiar with Tumblr fandom may recall posts telling people to watch shows to boost the television ratings to keep shows on air (either that or I am seriously showing my age here!). The Nielsen rating system quantifies viewers and sells the numbers of viewers to companies hoping to use that; this can help with tailoring advertising, and factors into the idea of targeted marketing, as television viewers can be quantified by when they watch TV and the demographics of those in the household (for more information, see Buzzard, 2015).

Sources and Readings of Interest

Buzzard, K., (2015) ‘The Rise of Market Information Regimes and the Historical Development of Audience Ratings’, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 35(3), pp. 511-517

Sullivan, J. L., (2013) ‘Chapter 4: Media Ratings and Target Marketing’, Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, SAGE Publications, pp. 77-104

Facebook and UK 2017 Election: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/05/will-dark-ads-facebook-really-swing-2017-general-election

Facebook and UK 2017 Election: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/07/tories-and-labour-use-social-media-to-target-ads-at-specific-seats

[elrickaudiencestudies]

Audience Studies (3P18) Blog #1 - Week 4

Considering public opinion and audience citizenship is interesting, as that could encompass a lot of things. This week’s topic considers public opinion and the importance of it, as well as how it has developed over time and how public opinion is expressed in today’s society, as well as the impact of it. This post will be considering this, as per usual, in the context of social media, as it is the form of media I interact with the most and am the most familiar with in my day-to-day life.

 Public opinion can be expressed in multiple ways: one of the most common ways is through surveys. Think back on the last time you took a survey – it may be before watching a video on YouTube, or it may be some form of customer satisfaction survey for a brand you may have bought from. These surveys give an idea of public opinion on ideas, algorithms or advertising. A recent YouTube survey I received before a video asked which upcoming games I had heard of, and after I responded, I noticed that my adverts began being tailored towards the games I said I had heard about, and that is also a way that targeted marketing, which will be spoken about in the week 5 entry, works.

 Public opinion has shifted across time to become the form we see it in now; Plato spoke of doxa (opinion) and episteme (knowledge) and the way that the two interacted, particularly with regards to politics, where Plato believed that opinions shouldn’t impact politics and political decisions, as episteme represented truths that were unchanging, informed by science (Sullivan, 2013, pp. 57-58). This shifted to a feudal system in the Middle Ages, where the ruler held all the power and made decisions, with little public opinion as we know it existing in society (Sullivan, 2013, pp. 58-59). However, once the feudal order collapsed and the Enlightenment began, power shifted and was slowly pushed into the hands of people, aided by printing presses and the advent of places to discuss public opinion, such as coffeehouses (Sullivan, 2013, pp. 59-60). In the 19th century, public opinion started to be gathered through polling, and we can see this continuing even to now; surveys have become a rather large part of life, and audience research into public opinion has grown (Sullivan, 2013, pp. 61-65). I participate in public opinion gathering as part of YouGov, a survey organisation that gathers opinion and sells it on to organisations, including governments, in order to understand public opinion on specific issues.

 On the other hand, when considering the proliferation of surveys and need to understand public opinion in modern life, I am drawn to an episode of a television show that a comedian named Dave Gorman did, named ‘Modern Life Is Good(ish)’, in which he considered audience research and public opinion, and how that exists in the world we live in today. I have left a clip in the ‘sources and readings of interest’ section at the bottom, and would highly recommend finding the full episode and watching it, but I include this as one of the things he asked in this clip stood out to me – “why does everything have to be turned into data these days?” – and this stood out to me as it describes the way that public opinion through surveys exists – it is opinions turned into data and sold to interested parties.

 Neubaum and Krämer’s (2018) article brings up the idea of how we may restrict ourselves online and not express certain opinions due to fear of backlash, and I can understand that to an extent. In the world we live in, where ‘cancel culture’ exists, there can be a legitimate fear of expressing opinions that could be problematic or simply against public opinion, as it can result in intense negative backlash. An example of ‘cancel culture’ can be Jack Maynard getting taken out of I’m A Celebrity in the UK in 2017 due to the emergence of old tweets that expressed opinions that, while he assured viewers he did not hold any more and decried his previous tweets, still prevented him from pursuing a move that could have boosted his career. This is a very British example, I know, but I would argue that there are countless examples that are more recent, such as with James Charles. However, this fear of backlash in this sense tends to extend to celebrities, as they are public figures and so are more likely to be publicly scrutinised, but it is interesting to consider this with Neubaum and Krämer (2018), whose study showed that people were more likely to agree with public opinion online than in person, as there is a greater fear of sanction or punishment from online sources than in person. This example may be a gross misunderstanding of the concept and may confuse some as to the concept of Neubaum and Krämer’s findings, but it makes the most sense to me.

 It is interesting to consider public opinion, as it is so closely tied with the audience as an identity, and so I’d like to invite any readers of this to think about how they consider public opinion online, and if you ever choose to censor yourself to fit with public opinion online or in person.

Sources and Readings of Interest

Neubaum, G., & Krämer, N., (2018) ‘What do we fear? Expected sanctions for expressing minority opinions in offline and online’, Communication Research, 45(2), pp. 139-164

Sullivan, J. L., (2013) ‘Chapter 3: Public Opinion and Audience Citizenship’, Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, SAGE Publications, pp. 53-76

Dave Gorman – Modern Life Is Good(ish) Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXN-9hvRgyk

[elrickaudiencestudies]

Audience Studies (3P18) Blog #1 - Week 3

The theme of week 3 of class was considering effects of media messages on audiences, which may sound like a lot to consider, or even slightly complicated, but it just means the consideration of research into media effects on audiences. A way of thinking of this is thinking of the studies done into how violent acts can be impacted by violence in video games. Inevitably, we will have all seen some form of news article or report that focuses on the correlation between violent media and violence committed by people who are said to have consumed said media.

 Media effects research is nothing new; the idea of audiences being affected by what they consume has caused concern within researchers since industrialisation occurred and newer forms of media emerged, including film, radio and television (Sullivan, 2013, pp. 26-27). Moral panics, a term that may or may not be familiar to any readers of this blog, are defined as being “strong negative public reactions to the spread of a new social behaviour” (Sullivan, 2013, p. 29). Moral panics tend to occur around media effects, particularly when considering violence or other negative effects, and moral panics can lead to false correlations whenever something negative happens, especially with regards to children committing violent acts. One case, that may be lesser-known to readers of this blog but is important to consider with regards to media effects research, is the case of James Bulger, a toddler who was killed by two children for seemingly no discernible reason. The case attracted attention due to the fact two children committed the killing, and the motivation for the killing was based on the accusation that the children watched a violent film before going out and committing the act of violence. I am leaving out details from this story as I fear it may lead to restriction of this blog post, but also because the details are available online for those who wish to research the case, but I do not want to disturb any readers in this case. However, the James Bulger case is considered to be an instance where media effects research is used to try and examine and understand an act of violence, and the media, which in this case was a violent film, is used to explain violence. The idea of a film affecting children to commit violence has been the basis of multiple studies, including the Payne Fund Studies, which were performed between 1929 and 1932 (Sullivan, 2013, pp. 30-33).

 The Payne Fund Studies aimed to try and understand the effects of newer media, such as films, on children, and consider their reactions and retention of information within the films (Sullivan, 2013. pp. 30-33). However, one major criticism is that these studies pushed the narrative that films were dangerous to children, and helped to cause moral panics of the impact of what children were watching on their behaviour and emotional development (Sullivan, 2013, p. 33). Of course, this assumes that audiences are passive and automatically impacted by the media they consume, and that they do not have an interaction with the content that allows for a negotiation of the meaning of the content.

 But how does this relate to our own society? When considering this within the medium of social media, we have to consider how moral panics have shifted across time; with the advent of social media, concern has begun to shift to the impact that social media has on the health of children and adolescents who use social media regularly, as well as young adults. Studies now are being conducted to consider how social media affects people, particularly with regards to body image and ‘influencer culture’. However, there has been research that has proven that exposure to social media could have a relatively low impact on overall happiness of teenagers. A way of seeing this idea is to consider it with regards to other moral panics in the past – when considering the idea that violent media causes violence, the principle behind that is mirrored within concerns regarding social media today. I am not saying these concerns are unfounded, but it must be considered, and is interesting to consider.

Sources and Readings of Interest

Brown, W., (2015) ‘Examining four processes of audience involvement with media personae: Transportation, Parasocial interaction, identification, and worship’, Communication Theory, 25, pp. 259-283

Sullivan, J. L., (2013) ‘Chapter 2: Effects of Media Messages’, Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, SAGE Publications, pp. 25-52

Social media impact: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48147378

[elrickaudiencestudies]

Audience Studies (3P18) Blog #1 - Week 2

The theme of this week is a continuation of our considerations of audiences, as well as an understanding of the history of audiences and how audiences have shifted over time. In order to understand audiences today, it is important to understand models of audiences that help define ‘audience’ within the field of audience studies.

 When defining the concept of ‘audience’, the Merriam-Webster definition states audience to mean ‘the state or act of hearing’ or ‘a group of spectators’. Of course, we cannot understand audiences and their experiences solely from the definition; it doesn’t tell us anything about what it means to be an audience member, nor does it help us understand why we choose to study audiences. Sullivan (2013, pp. 1-24) considers the two ways of understanding audience that help to form the core of audience studies, especially when considering processes of communication. These methods are referred to as the transmission view of communication, and the meaning-based view of communication. Both of these methods see audiences in different ways, and are used within the field of media and communication studies to help try to understand audiences and the way that media communicates with them.

 The transmission view of communication focuses on how messages are transmitted to audience members, and tends to be seen as a one-way communication system, as it only focuses on how messages (content) are received by audiences. A way of seeing this that isn’t as academic is an example of television – producers, such as Fox News, choose what content gets put out. This could be an opinion piece, or even just the news, and the content is put out in some form. This content is shared, such as by television, and is received by the audience. The views put forth within the content can be disputed by the person within themselves, such as if they disagree, but there is no immediate communication between the audience who receive the content and the producer. This dispute is referred to as noise, and the communication is seen to be achieved once the message is fully received by the audience (Sullivan, 2013, pp. 2-3). This example should hopefully clarify how this model of audience communication functions, and it should be noted that this model of audience communication relies very heavily on a delayed feedback system, as well as the audience being a large anonymous mass. This method does draw the criticism that it is inaccurate to how audiences work now, with the advent of social media and the ability to therefore communicate directly at the time when feedback is being given, rather than waiting for feedback to be acknowledged later in time (Sullivan, 2013, p. 3).

 The alternative communication model, which some could argue better explains audiences as we understand them in the age of social media, is the meaning-based view of communication. This view considers the meaning of media messages and the interaction of the audience with the messages they are being given – this presents the idea of the ‘active’ audience, compared with the ‘passive’ audience in the previous view, where it is assumed that messages will generally be accepted en masse. A way of considering the meaning-based view of communication is suggested by Sullivan (2013, p. 3) to be in the form of a conversation, where feedback of someone not listening to another is more immediate, and the communication process is more of a give-and-take process of communication, rather than the feeding of information from the producer to the consumer. Livingstone considers this when considering interviewing audiences, with more immediate feedback being given and the newer perception of audiences as being more active, which we may be able to argue today, particularly with the advent of social media. Social media allows audiences to be more active, and there is more immediate feedback and interaction with producers of the content we as audiences consume.

 We are considered now to be ‘mediated’ audiences, with a wider distribution of information; going back to the example of social media, this means that people who are not gathered physically in the same place can all interact with the same information at different points in time, and so there is a shift in communication (Sullivan, 2013, p. 11). Audiences have shifted across time; they have been seen as a wide, anonymous mass, as well as active individuals who participate with the content they consume. Sullivan (2013, p. 16) draws comparison with the past and present, pointing out that in Greek and Roman times, communication was face-to-face and often required participation, whereas now it has been theorised that audiences are more passive, potentially in part due to size and interaction. However, I feel the argument can be made that due to social media, we as consumers are being more active within our interaction and consumption, particularly as power shifts as modes of production shift. One major thing to consider in 2019 when studying audiences is the fact that audiences can become producers themselves, and thus audiences have the ability to be more active in terms of interaction with content.

Sources and Readings of Interest

Livingstone, S., (2010) ‘Giving people a voice: On the critical role of the interview in the history of audience research’. Communication, Culture & Critique, 3(4), pp. 566-571

Sullivan, J. L., (2013) ‘Chapter 1: History and Concept of the Audience’, Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power, SAGE Publications, pp. 1-24

[elrickaudiencestudies]

Audience Studies (3P18) Blog #1 - Week 1

When considering audience studies as a student, one important aspect of that is to actually consider our own lived audience experiences. In this digital world, it is arguable that we are constantly audience members, with the proliferation of social media across all aspects of our lives, but also producers who are engaging audiences of our own. With the consideration of social media, I’d have to argue we are all content producers in some form; if we hold a social media account and post any content, I would make the argument that we are content producers to an audience, however large or small that audience may be.

 Audience studies encompasses so many elements of media studies; for example, when considering fan culture, we are considering the active participation of audiences in what they consume, even if we do not automatically associate the study of fan culture as being a specific way of studying audiences. Simply by being on Tumblr, I would like to acknowledge that this platform is widely used for fandom and fan culture, be that through the distribution of fan art, fanfiction, or even through gifs. I would like to explain that this is only in my experiences with Tumblr, and so I have participated in the curation of my own audience experiences on this platform in the past, as well as in the present day. It feels a little odd to be examining this in the context of a class for university, but I hope that anyone who comes across this blog understands that this is a blog aiming to explain concepts and consider the understanding of audiences in the 21st century. As a note, these posts may be written within the format of academic papers; I will try and improve on this in the future, as I learn more about the blogging format.

 I am acknowledging that due to the platform I am posting this blog on (Tumblr), there may be some people who come across this blog and express confusion over the terms I am using or concepts I am presenting within this blog. I will try and explain them as best I can, and I will be sure to make reference to the sources I use in each blog post. For anyone interested in reading further on this topic, one book I will be heavily referencing within my blogs over all the entries will be John L. Sullivan’s Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power (2013). This book is an excellent resource for anyone wishing to look further into audience studies, and provides a good starting point for study.

 In the first week of classes, the introductory discussions focused on the definition of audiences as a concept, as well as considering the differing views of audiences within scholarly sources, and these ideas will be expanded upon in later blog entries. This blog will focus on mainly Western sources, as I am a student in the West and experience media from within the UK, and now Canada, and so I will be speaking from my own experiences at times and explaining from that.

 The idea of niche audiences compared to massive audiences was explored within the first lecture of audience studies, and this interests me as this is something visible across multiple forms of media. When considering definitions of niche audiences and massive audiences, niche audiences are considered to be audiences that tend to be smaller. However, the question of how small an audience has to be to be considered niche arises; while I would argue that many would agree that Game of Thrones and Harry Potter are examples of media that attract large audiences, that could potentially be explained as these media stretching to reach vast audiences worldwide, and generate large amounts of audience engagement. By comparison, the Channel 4/AMC TV show Humans (2015-2018) may be considered to have attracted a more niche audience, as the audience engagement for that show does not stretch in as large quantities worldwide when compared to Game of Thrones, but cannot be denied to still exist. I understand that that reference may go over the heads of some who read this blog; I only reference it as I was part of the community who engaged with it, particularly during the third and final series of the show, back in 2018, so I have first-hand experience of this group and I personally consider it a more niche audience, despite the fact that the show itself reached viewers into the millions. Audience engagement can be people simply consuming a piece of content, or it can be engagement through social media, be it with hashtags associated with whatever is being spoken about, or the production of content surrounding the media in question. This blog will make reference to audience engagement in later posts.

 I’d like to invite any and all readers of this blog to consider what they think of audiences. How do you define audience as a concept? How are you an audience? Do you engage with more niche media, or is your media consumption regarding larger content? What do you want to learn about audiences? How do you think audiences have changed? How do you think audiences have shifted over time?

Maybe, most importantly, what has drawn you to want to study audiences in the first place?

[elrickaudiencestudies]

Introduction

I’d best introduce myself! My name is Isobel and I am currently studying for a degree in History and Media! I am studying abroad this year for my degree, and so am able to consider new contexts of audiences outside of my home country!

This blog is for my work for Audience Studies at Brock University, and will detail my observations regarding audiences and consider how that relates to the work of theorists in the field of media and audience studies! I have done some work on audience studies in the past, so this should help record my work and broaden my horizons with regards to audience studies!