CONCEPTUALIZING AUDIENCE
LECTURES
WEEK 1: AUDIENCES AS A CONSTRUCT: MASS, CONSUMER, USER
A passive view to one mass audience is only 1 perspective, there are other perspectives (users: active way,
publics, consumers, networks). Terms in media use such as audiences are not neutral, they prioritise a certain
research question. Media policy documents talk about audiences in a way that is not neutral.
The push for audience research was commercial: were their messages being received? (week 3)
There are 3 reasons for why producers invest more and more in audience reasons:
1. There is a change from media users to producers.
There is an increased control of media users over the content that they consume. Think of journalism:
when there were only a couple of broadcasters, audiences were easier. Now we can find news
everywhere and you have to take audience feedback into account.
2. Fragmentation of audiences
Shifting patterns of media use and user preferences. Media use was initially with a certain routines:
you were watching a particular show at a set time on TV. But nowadays we do not have these
routines, or they are more scattered. This means even thought are tools for audiences researched
have become more fine grained, at the same time the audiences have become much harder to grasp
and harder to make sense of.
3. Third party platforms
Increasing dependence on third party platforms for disseminating media content. this means that
producers can’t directly access data on who is downloading their content. they have to rely on a
platforms infrastructure to gain insights in who does what. A way to circumvent this is to hand out
surveys.
There is also a reason for academics on why we invest more in audience research:
- Increasing impact of media in society.
people routinely spend a huge amount of time with media in comparison to f2f communication.
, Mediatization of society: media both in the meaning of technology and organizations have extended their
influence into all spheres of society and social life.
According to Deuze there is no longer a distinction between media and society. “Our life is lied in, rather than
with media – we are living in a media life”. Media have become so ubiquitous and only present that our life has
lived in media. Aka: media audiences = media everyone.
There are several theories that study what people do with media.
when looking at these theories, think about:
- How are audiences being conceptualized in these theories
- What aspects of media use do they highlight / ignore
- What type of research questions do these conceptualizations drive?
The general aim of media research is to understand the relationship between media audiences and media with
which you engage. You can study this from both perspectives.
The media effects tradition looks at the audiences: what media do to people? It is a technology-centred
approach. Does exposure to particular media content or platform technologies affects people? Example of this
can be found in the article of Livingstone where he refers to Girvin’s classic study about watching TV and
violent behaviour among children.
1920/30/40
After WWII, where propaganda Had had a lot of influence, the government sought our populations as
vulnerable to the media messages. A popular theory from this time is Laswell’s hypodermic needle (magic
bullet) theory which sees media messages as being injected into the brains of the vulnerable masses. This sees
media effects as uniform, immediate and evident. Aka: we are all the same and we respond to the media
messages the same.
Is media all powerful? Research on the minimal effects goal demonstrates that media do have effects, but that
they are mitigated by other factors. There are 2 factors:
- User selectivity
- People’s interpersonal relations
Example: two-step flow model (Lazarsfeld). This argues that media don’t affect us directly, but the media
effects are mediated by opinion leaders (politicians, celebrities, parents).
Example: selective exposure method (Clubber). This argues that audience members have a tendency to select
media messages that reinforce their existing opinions, attitudes and perceptions. These are shaped by social
contacts. Media re not agents of change but that these mitigating effects mean that people select the media
that sustain and support their own views (filter bubbles).
1960’s.
The idea of a powerful media is revisited. Different this time was that it was more nuanced. Examples from this
time:
- Girvin’s cultivation theory
how watching television changes people’s perception of reality
- McCombs & Shaw’s Agenda setting theory
most influential. Media does not tell us what to think, but it shapes what we think about.
- Framing theory
certain aspects of perceived reality are selected to make them more salient to audiences.
LECTURES
WEEK 1: AUDIENCES AS A CONSTRUCT: MASS, CONSUMER, USER
A passive view to one mass audience is only 1 perspective, there are other perspectives (users: active way,
publics, consumers, networks). Terms in media use such as audiences are not neutral, they prioritise a certain
research question. Media policy documents talk about audiences in a way that is not neutral.
The push for audience research was commercial: were their messages being received? (week 3)
There are 3 reasons for why producers invest more and more in audience reasons:
1. There is a change from media users to producers.
There is an increased control of media users over the content that they consume. Think of journalism:
when there were only a couple of broadcasters, audiences were easier. Now we can find news
everywhere and you have to take audience feedback into account.
2. Fragmentation of audiences
Shifting patterns of media use and user preferences. Media use was initially with a certain routines:
you were watching a particular show at a set time on TV. But nowadays we do not have these
routines, or they are more scattered. This means even thought are tools for audiences researched
have become more fine grained, at the same time the audiences have become much harder to grasp
and harder to make sense of.
3. Third party platforms
Increasing dependence on third party platforms for disseminating media content. this means that
producers can’t directly access data on who is downloading their content. they have to rely on a
platforms infrastructure to gain insights in who does what. A way to circumvent this is to hand out
surveys.
There is also a reason for academics on why we invest more in audience research:
- Increasing impact of media in society.
people routinely spend a huge amount of time with media in comparison to f2f communication.
, Mediatization of society: media both in the meaning of technology and organizations have extended their
influence into all spheres of society and social life.
According to Deuze there is no longer a distinction between media and society. “Our life is lied in, rather than
with media – we are living in a media life”. Media have become so ubiquitous and only present that our life has
lived in media. Aka: media audiences = media everyone.
There are several theories that study what people do with media.
when looking at these theories, think about:
- How are audiences being conceptualized in these theories
- What aspects of media use do they highlight / ignore
- What type of research questions do these conceptualizations drive?
The general aim of media research is to understand the relationship between media audiences and media with
which you engage. You can study this from both perspectives.
The media effects tradition looks at the audiences: what media do to people? It is a technology-centred
approach. Does exposure to particular media content or platform technologies affects people? Example of this
can be found in the article of Livingstone where he refers to Girvin’s classic study about watching TV and
violent behaviour among children.
1920/30/40
After WWII, where propaganda Had had a lot of influence, the government sought our populations as
vulnerable to the media messages. A popular theory from this time is Laswell’s hypodermic needle (magic
bullet) theory which sees media messages as being injected into the brains of the vulnerable masses. This sees
media effects as uniform, immediate and evident. Aka: we are all the same and we respond to the media
messages the same.
Is media all powerful? Research on the minimal effects goal demonstrates that media do have effects, but that
they are mitigated by other factors. There are 2 factors:
- User selectivity
- People’s interpersonal relations
Example: two-step flow model (Lazarsfeld). This argues that media don’t affect us directly, but the media
effects are mediated by opinion leaders (politicians, celebrities, parents).
Example: selective exposure method (Clubber). This argues that audience members have a tendency to select
media messages that reinforce their existing opinions, attitudes and perceptions. These are shaped by social
contacts. Media re not agents of change but that these mitigating effects mean that people select the media
that sustain and support their own views (filter bubbles).
1960’s.
The idea of a powerful media is revisited. Different this time was that it was more nuanced. Examples from this
time:
- Girvin’s cultivation theory
how watching television changes people’s perception of reality
- McCombs & Shaw’s Agenda setting theory
most influential. Media does not tell us what to think, but it shapes what we think about.
- Framing theory
certain aspects of perceived reality are selected to make them more salient to audiences.
