Post 3: Defining audience; history
of audience research; death of the mass audience
First, it is
interesting to see how the term "audience" has evolved throughout
history. I have been so focused on audiences as consumers and as audiences
online that it was refreshing to read about audiences in Greco-Roman times and
onwards of books, magazines, newspapers, radio, cinema and television. As
McQuail explains in Ch. 1, the meaning of audience has evolved over time due to
technological advancements. Whereas audiences were considered to be passive
listeners, now:
"The
typical audience role can cease to be that of passive listeners, consumers,
receiver, or target. Instead it will encompass any of the following: seeker;
consultant; browser, respondent; interlocutor; or conversationalist."
This is certainly
revolutionary considering how the term first originated to describe attendees
at a live performance. McQuail also mentions that due to overload, a higher
level of media exposure which leads to a lower quality of attention, and
fragmentation, a process where audience's attention is spread out amongst
multiple media sources, audiences are no longer collective. All choices are
seen as individualizing with a decreased chance of shared experiences or a
sense of common belonging. However, I argue that due to the advancement in
technology, audiences are sharing more experiences and expressing more common
interest than ever before. According to
Google Now Indexes, there are 620 Million Facebook Groups among the 1.19
Billion active Facebook users. Platforms like Instagram and Twitter serve to
collect people who share the same ideas or hashtags, and helps people who
"follow" the same page to gather to share common ideas. Social media
has the unique position of helping audiences become more individualized as an
audiences through personalization and complete control of one's account.
However, it also has the underlying purpose of having each account interact
with one another for both social and commercial purposes. People gather to form
groups according to their interests, such as a facebook group for class or an
interest group for food-lovers, which is a sharing of ideas and a sense of
common belonging.
Furthermore,
contrary to what McQuail stated, audiences are not "more dependent on, and
more vulnerable to, powerful media suppliers than before," nor do they
"have no more power than consumers in any other market." Audiences
are now more powerful than ever and have advertisers at their fingertip
especially due to information overload and audience fragmentation. Audiences
have grown smart with banner blindness, devices that filter advertisements,
spam boxes, caller ID, etc. so they have becoming increasingly difficult to
reach. For advertisers who have to influence attitudes and purchasing
decisions, audiences can never be without power. Advertisers have adapted
accordingly to changes in technology and have shifted their ad dollars to
social media and viral campaigns. Therefore, the end of a mass audience does
not seem likely.
Finally, in Ch. 8, McQuail
offers an interesting model for four stages of audience fragmentation:
I believe we have
just recently reached the Core-Periphery Model and believe the Breakup Model
will never happen. Although the emergence of new television channels and
networks have started to occur, theses networks still serve a mainstream
purpose in one way or another. We will never escape the "core" as
mainstreaming will exist as long as cultures, of any kind, are shared.
Therefore, unless the world comes to a point where audiences have absolutely
nothing to share with one another, audiences will hover somewhere between the
Pluralism and Core-Perifry Model.
As was the purpose
of these three chapters, I liked the reviewing of the term audience and seeing
the new variables that have been added to the tradition term. It is evident
that the term will continue to evolve with time and hope to gain a full
understanding of what audiences today mean.
