Post 4: Theoretical approaches to audience research

In studying the "kings" who have seized control of the marketplace, the audience have the power to make meaning,  to choose, to share and to affect industry practice. Recent technology has allowed audiences to become "prosumers" who can become active creators and sharers of content.

As mentioned by Webster in Ch.2, psychologists and political scientists assume selective exposure, uses and gratification, or social identity to be the underlying reason behind our media choice. I am very familiar with this school of thought but the idea of a rational choice from a conventional economics stand point is new to me. As Webster mentions, I do not think audiences are capable of making a rational choice in media. It is easier to know oneself and one's needs versus an entire range of media options and the one that may best serve you. Although it seems that theories from psychology serve media better, it seems that these ideas are actually varying terms to describe the same concept of people wanting to find what is most needed for themselves whether it be gratification, need, preference, etc. For example, the term "cultural omnivore" serves to show how people satisfy their needs. Instead of being restricted to certain genres solely due to social class, as was mentioned in class on Tuesday, people are choosing to gain much cultural capital and the line between the highbrow and lowbrow is becoming blurred. It seems this serves both utility and fulfills psychological satisfaction.

Furthermore, I completely agree with both recognition and endorsement heuristics. I study celebrity endorsement and past research has proven that people favor faces and options they recognize. They will commit to a brand or try a product with recommendations, especially celebrity endorsements. While it is true that world-of-mouth tactics are powerful, I believe celebrities' influence are just as strong, especially for younger generations who have grown up in the "lowbrow" culture. Also, celebrities are looked up to as opinion leaders and have thousands and millions of social ties with their fans. They can effectively spread novel information whether each of the ties are strong or weak. As Webster mentions, elite opinion leaders like celebrities "constitute only 0.05 percent of Twitter users, but attract about half of all the attention" on Twitter. Whereas the use of celebrities on traditional mediums have come under the spotlight for its questionable effectiveness, social media has created a social bond between the fans and the "real" person behind the manicured public version of the celebrities and have reignited the spark. 

Another aspect is the contagion of content. This is another area of research that I am interested in exploring. As is mentioned, the answers for why things go viral are still being researched but I do agree that not only elites but ordinary people can trigger social contagions. There is truly "a weak correlation between a person's popularity and his or her ability to actually influence other." While it is unknown and unclear why this is the case, I would speculate that unlike traditional media which hosts public figures, social media is for ordinary people and their interaction with one another. In this platform, any account user could become a one-time celebrity. I believe this is why social media has been received with so much attention. It brings a public profile to private individuals.