the-zarabaxby

[the-zarabaxby]

Week 11: November 21

Hey guys, bittersweet introduction today. This week is my final blog, I am so grateful to have gotten this experience with you, yet I am sad it’s over. This week will be focusing summing up the end of the chapter, and course L. Specifically focusing on how trends in the media can shape audience landscape. As previously stated in other posts, we are living in a time where media consumption is not determined by a schedule, it is accessible 24/7. “Since we.  Are no longer constrained by network television schedules, we are now living in a “post-network” era (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 241). To understand and expand on these notions this blog will be dedicated to reviewing transmedia production, audience polarization, and how audience study has evolved through history, and then we will end of exploring the reading for this week by Sonia Livingstone.

Transmedia is defined as “the coordinated use of multiple use of media platforms (or technologies) to craft a narrative” (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 241). This can be explained by understanding the difference between regular storytelling and transmedia, it is more of a one-way interaction or otherwise known as “single medium communication”. Whereas transmedia encourages its audience to participate and create media dialogue. A. perfect example to help you understand is fandom, which excitingly enough we already talked about! In my seminar we discussed that studies showed that the most popular programs and productions are when it allows it audience to interact and engage with their own imagination. Something that instantly comes to my mind was an episode on a show called Black Mirror. The episode would provide a small introduction and background info, to which then would let the audience pick and choose what decision the main character took. It was huge over the summer, and all I remember was my boyfriend and I took hours to watch it because we kept making horrible decisions for the character, which resulted in long scenes and explanations. Personally, I really enjoyed it… I always complain about endings of movies and shows. Black Mirror gave it audience the chance to create their own story. Isn't that neat? I would definitely try it out if you haven't already, its on Netflix and the episode is called “Bandersnatch”. 

I am actually going to change things up and review the reading for this week. As previously stated, the scholar is Sonia Livingstone, and the title of this article is Audiences in an Age of Datafication: Critical Questions for Media Research. Sonia looks into the power media platforms hold over audiences, which ultimately makes them vulnerable, “ignorant” and “gullible” (Livingstone, 2019, pg. 170). A quote that really impacted me was:

“The emerging forms of digital engagement extend far beyond the traditionally bounded genres of information and entertainment. Seemingly to encompass every dimension of people’s public and private life, hurting us…” (Livingstone, 2019, pg. 171).

It is crazy to think that media has changed and captured the world so quickly that audience members have just accepted and moved  on.  With this thought I move onto datafication, it’s the thought that our movements on social media are tracked and traced for different benefits of companies. Remember how I stated in the past that audience have become so hard to measure that advertisers are finding it hard to target an audience? Well this is how they grew from that. It was stated “academic attention has turned into the analysis of the algorithmic manipulations of audience’s digital traces that increasingly allow everything people do to be tracked, as their data are bought and sold above their heads and below their radar” (Livingstone, 2019, pg. 176).

This quote leads me to propose a question that was asked in my seminar…Knowing the media platforms can monitor and store information on you, does that change your perspective on how you see the platform? I know this isn’t a conversation, but I wanted to give you my take on it. I personally was taught from young that whatever you post or put on the internet it stays there for life, you know longer have the right to it. That being said, I don’t think that I would ever not use media platforms, because it my way of life and its how I communicate. I. do always have in the back of my mind that I need to be careful, and I prompt myself to stay educated on what I am signing myself up for.

Well guys this is it for me, thank you so much for being devoted readers. I really hope you got some good stuff out of these blogs, and you were entertained. I had a great semester, until next time.

References: 

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

Sullivan, John L. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power. SAGE Publications Inc., 2013.

[the-zarabaxby]

Week 10: November 14

Hey guys “how you doin?”… did you get that Friends reference? Well I hope you did but anyways moving on to this week’s topic which is online, interactive audience in a digital media world. This week we will be focusing on more online presence, and how interactive media can place an importance when it comes to understanding audiences (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 216). OUUU INTERESTING... in this week’s blog we will be covering the meaning of convergence, audience fragmentation and autonomy, user generated content, participatory culture, and we will end it off with the assigned reading.

Convergence… what is it? Well like we’ve talked about before in my blogs, the world is always changing. I know for a fact that technology when I was a kid is not even comparable to what technology is like now. When thinking about convergence it is understood as “media content to be displayed on any number of different devices but also enabled the simple reproduction of these media into compute file formats that can easily be distributed…” (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 216). Although that is what convergence is defined as, Henry Jenkins reminds us that it is encouraged to step out of the box and make new info and connections when reading into media. As much as its good to keep on trend and to republish, I do agree with Jenkins I the sense where it’s good to get creative and step outside of the norms.

Following convergence, comes audience fragmentation and audience autonomy. Audience fragmentation is understood as “audiences have been continually fragmented into smaller and smaller groups thanks to the dramatic expansion of media channels…” (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 217). This is basically saying that due to do the change in media platforms and technology like cable, satellite, and handheld devices it is hard to measure audiences. There are so many options now to participate in media and other sites that scholars and researchers are finding it difficult to measure and represent audiences.

Next up is audience autonomy, which is described as “how contemporary characteristics of media environment, ranging from interactivity to mobile to on-demand. Functionally to the increased capacity for user-generated content” … (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 217). This is referring to how exactly audiences are consuming their content. We are at a point where audiences have control over what they are watching and when they are watching. Times have changed from DVD’s to streaming and other sites like Netflix and Disney +. Due to this evolution, the way of target marketing and advertising is having to adapt. There is no sense of space or time, therefore advertisers cannot access you. For example, when you go to the movie theatres, advertisers know what you’re seeing when you are seeing it. Therefore, they can promote and target your assumed interests according to what you’re seeing.  Sneaky, but smart.

Staying on topic to autonomy, we move onto user-generated content. A sentence that stood out to me to best describe this for you is “media corporations are providing consumers the means to create, store, and distribute content that are designed by users themselves” (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 217).  This description is perfectly matched up with the world of video games. What makes that world so popular is the fact that you can interact with one another, players/people are creating their own experienced and interpersonal relationships through the grounds of gaming. 

I am not a gamer, but my boyfriend and his little brother is, so right away I connect this idea to them. My boyfriend and his bro have a shared account on Xbox. Both boys play the same games and sync their friends on the same account. The occasional times, my boyfriend and I will walk in on his 12-year-old brother playing Fortnite with my 21-year-old boyfriends hockey friends. Which is super funny, because they connect really well and enjoy each other’s company, even though there is a gap in years. This notion connects perfectly with what Jenkins was wanting for the world, which was more creativity and dispersed media content. Gamers are “shaping their own media and network usage” (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 218).

Guys this is the end of my second last blog post, I cannot believe we are creeping up to the end of the road. This is it for this week, thank you so much again for stopping by and reading in.

References:

Sullivan, John L. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power. SAGE Publications Inc., 2013.

[the-zarabaxby]

Week 9: November. 7

Ola everyone IMMM BACKK, and not like it matters, but my birthday is TOMORROW! Sorry ill stay focused, this week’s topic is…drumroll… media fandom and audience studies. To start off, I want to explain the meaning of fan. Did you know that the word is short for fanatic? “The term originally referred to a religious membership of or belonging to the temple, a temple servant, a devotee” (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 192). Every topic this week connects to each other. Therefore other ideas I will reviewing are fan stereotypes, social and interpretive aspects, cultural hierarchy, and we will finish with the assigned reading. So sit back, relax and get ready for a good read.

Henry Jenkins, and Camille Bacon-Smith are media scholars that investigated fans in popular culture. Jenkins brought himself into the picture, he noticed that he himself was a Star Trek fan. He noticed that a lot of negative stereotypes surrounded not only Star Trek fans, but fans in general. Fans are seen as brainless consumers, intellectually immature, social misfits, and feminized (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 193). Although Jenkins recognized this, he wanted to do his best to destroy these stereotypes by getting to know fans, interviewing them and examining them.

This leads into the next topic of social and interpretive aspects. As previously stated in other blogs, the audience is given the power to make sense of popular media. Fans follow that same process they are not any different. The social aspect understands fans as coming together. “media fans band together in either informal or more formally structures groups to share mutual interest” (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 195). To understand this a little clearer, think of any fan group that you may or may not be a part of. For me I know my friends and I meet every year to watch the Victoria secret fashion show. It is something we all are super interested I, and we feed off each other when it comes to contributing knowledge about the show. Connected with social aspect is something called subcultures. This occurs when fans participate publicly on their affiliation with their desired media text. Examples of this would be dressing up in costume, creating scripts/characters, decorating etc. I cannot say that I participate loudly on my lowkey fan club with my friends. I do know that for Halloween my friends have dresses up as their favourite Victoria Secret angel. Moving onto interpretive aspect, this is defined as “fans act as interpreters and producers of media content…” (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 195). Interpretive aspect was actually discussed in lecture, and my prof explained it ask fans manipulating endings, or getting tattoos of their favourite character/media. An example that comes to my mind right away is Game of Thrones baby. Boy do I love that show, but boy did I hate the ending. In fact, that feeling was so common that the producers of the show are now looking into creating a better ending for their big fan group.

Sticking to the idea of fan club, and participation I now bring up the idea of fans and cultural hierarchy. Like almost everything in this world, things are changing or have. Already been changed. Fan hierarchy did exactly, it came in waves according to Jenkins and Smith. The first wave is explained it as “viewed fan participation as more than a simple pastime or hobby; it was kind of liberation from the traditionally passively played by the audience” (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 206). Basically, stating it started small, and slowly built. Being a fan didn’t mean you devoted your life to your favourite popular content, but rather people just supported it. Then the second wave came along and is explained as “looking at specific ways in which the. Attitudes and behaviour of fans may be unwittingly reproducing many of the same cultural, gender, and economic hierarchies that they were attempting to escape from” … (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 206). This is where our generation is at currently, people are changing not only their lifestyles but also their personalized lives. For example, Harry Potter, there are so many fan club-based things surrounding that poplar media production. Being specific, people have Harry Potter themed weddings, parties, theme parks, etc.  I myself am a very lowkey fan, don’t get me wrong I fell in LOVE with a few films and TV shows, but never to the extend where I joined any clubs or would theme my wedding over. But hey too each their own. (BTW favourite shows are The Office, Greys Anatomy, Prison Break, and GOT.. incase you were wondering )

I am going to wrap up my blog this week by finishing off with the assigned reading titled Fandom as symbolic patronage: expanding understanding fan relationships with industry through the Veronica Mars Kickstarter campaign by Annemarie Navar-Gill. This article reviews the relationship between fans and producers, and the power fans have. In case you all done know Veronica Marcs was a TV show that generated a big fan base. The Veronica Mars fans actually donated money for there to be a movie, but wanted no say in how it was created. This was due to the fact that the fans placed a lot of trust in how things were produced in the past. The push from the fans worked, and the got the movie they hoped for. This power reminds me of the fan base from the show Friends. Netflix wanted to take off the show from there website to make room for other films, but the fans rebelled and did not like the idea therefore Netflix caved and gave what the consumers wanted.

Well that’s it for this week everyone. Thank you so much for reading in, hopefully you learned some interesting stuff not only from my course but also a little of who I am as a fan! Signing off

References:

Sullivan, John L. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power. SAGE Publications Inc., 2013.

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), 211-224.

[the-zarabaxby]

Week 8: October 31

Happy Howl-o-ween everybody, LOL! This week’s theme was Reception Contexts and Media Rituals; it digs into the interpretation of media and connection it has with different contexts. Sullivan sums it up as “Our media experiences occur during specific times and in a particular physical space…” (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 162). Not only do we look into physical spaces, but we also consider time, interpersonal relationships and interactions. Sullivan explains that space, time, and social environments contribute significantly to how we make meanings from media. It can be from where we consume a movie and who we consume that can alter the overall message and outcome. For example, my boyfriend’s dad loves to stir the pot, and by that, I mean to piss everyone off, jokingly, of course. Whenever we watch a show or a movie, and something funny or crazy happens, he pauses and replays the clip over and over, AND OVER. To the point, I stop paying attention, or go on my phone, or leave the room. This not only affects my overall enjoyment of a film but also my understanding of critical messages.

Now that we have gone over the three elements that situate our media reception, I want to dig into media reception and the domestic sphere.  I want to begin by asking you a question. When you are “home,” what is your media rituals? For me, when I live at school, I wake up to check my phone, go to classes, and on my downtime, I watch Netflix. That changes when I am back home with my family. I still wake up, check my phone, run errands, or on downtime; we watch the show Survivor or a throwback movie with my family. What’s interesting is, the Sullivan textbooks states that “home is arguably the most importance “space” for understanding media reception” (Sullivan, 2013 pg. 167).  It is true when they say home is where the heart is, our downtime, memories, experiences, and adolescence are all created out of our own versions of “home.” Not only that, we share our home with people we love that range on an individualized scale. To reveal this understanding, scholars like David Morley and James Lull participated in an act called naturalistic observation. It is the best way to investigate and learn people in a natural setting. What was revealed was that TV watching, or having it on impacts our social relationships. It creates. A focal point for conversations, or it can even create conflict. This immediately make me think about social settings in my home. To be specific every year my mom hosts Thanksgiving dinner. It is a mix of family, and friends; to keep everyone interested and social my mom always has a sport playing on the TV; like football. She mainly does it to keep the men away from her kitchen, but hey it still gathers everyone in the living room to chat and catch up on life.

Keeping my Thanksgiving example in mind I want to move on to mass media and gender specifically Dorothy Hobsons research. She conducted numerous interviews in 1980 with “working-class” housewives in Britain (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 168). It was noticed that women listened to more radio stations than anything else, because the content was altered towards their interest like childcare and cleaning. What also really interests me is that women actually avoided listening to TV at home, because it was mainly targeted toward a male audience. Interesting, because when we look back to my Thanksgiving example, my mom would put football on (a dominant masculine program) to keep the men out of the kitchen. As much as. women still sit around and “watch”, it appears to be more of a conversational aspect than it is pure interest for women.

I am enjoying the topic of “home,” and how every little aspect can make up out interpretations. So, I am going to continue along those lines with media technology in the home itself. A scholar by the name of Roger Silverstone introduces the idea of a moral economy when thinking about the inner meaning of home. Sullivan’s textbook explains his notion as “a sense that the household is both an economic unit, which is involved, through the productive and consumptive activities of its members…” (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 175). What makes up this economic are three elements that flow from the transactional system. They are appropriation, objectification, and incorporation. Let me give you the low down of what these mean:

·      Appropriation: this is the actual act of possessing a communication technology and placing it in your household.

·      Objectification: this is how exactly the item is placed in your environment, whether it’s for a bedroom or a common area. For example, the TV I bought myself before going to University wasn’t for a common area, but rather my room for myself.

·      Incorporation: lastly, this is the purpose of what you would be using the    technology for. For example, my parents have a TV in both their bedroom and living room. One TV is for a social setting when they want to watch with others, and their bedroom TV is meant for their personalized use (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 175). 

This area of my blog relates perfectly with the assigned reading for this week by Kihan Kim, Yunjae Cheong, and Hyuksoo Kim. Their piece is titled The Influences of Sports Viewing Conditions on Enjoyment from Watching Televised Sports… The authors compare audience experience at home versus in a theatre when watching sports. All external sources were taken into consideration such as lighting, crowed, and noise, which all play a role in how audiences understand and enjoy the game. It was noticed that people were became fans of the game faster in a theatre than they would at home. My take on the results is it all depends, for me personally if I get a good group of people, I love together to watch an intense and exciting game than I become a fan really quick. I suffer from really bad anxiety, so I don’t like being in crowed or around loud noises. So, going to theatre to watch a game would not interest me at all. To prove my points, I look back to the NBA final game that occurred this summer. I watched with a big group of friends and family at my house with a big TV. We had food, drinks and conversations. I had an amazing time. But that’s not to say others can’t have a better time at a theatre, but because of my appropriation, objectification, and incorporation I felt more at “home”.

Well that’s all I got for you today guys, I hope you have a wonderful Halloween. I know I’ll be dressing up as a kid to get my free candy, but hey you didn’t get that trick from me. Have a good week y’all!

References:

Sullivan, John L. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power. SAGE Publications Inc., 2013.

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), 389–409.

[the-zarabaxby]

Week 7: October 24

HAPPY PUMPKIN SPICE MONTH GUYS, so pumped to be back after a Thanksgiving weekend. Shout out to my TA Megan for working her tail off this week to grade all my long assignments. This week’s discussion will be on Interpreting and Decoding Mass Media Texts. This works perfectly off of last blogs discussion on Uses and Gratifications. Why? Well lets dig in.We know that Uses and Gratifications “relies on self-reports”, or also understood as choosing the media we consume. Interpreting and Decoding Mass Media is when coming into contact with media, you understand it in your own individual way. What makes us individually unique? Things like how you were raised, gender, age, sexuality, friends, and others we associate ourselves with; that is how we interpret media.

A man by the name of Stuart Hall identified and explained something called Encoding and Decoding Model. Hall categorizes these notions as “determining moments” involving communication exchange. It starts off with the production of the message, and that is titled as encoding. Sullivan’s illustrations explain it as “the creator must place an idea or event or vision, it must first be transformed”(Sullivan, 2013 pg 140). After the message is created and distributed, decoding then begins to occur. Now Sullivan defines this as ��the second component is the reception of the message by the audience” (Sullivan, 2013 pg. 141).  Decoding is extremely important in the manor of audiences. It is said to be both a creative and social practice. Creative in the sense of individuals are using their own cognitive experiences to make sense of the message, and social because of what is surrounding the individual.

Staying on the topic of decoding, Stuart Hall introduces in this chapter the three subject positions. Hall invites us to understand the connection between the “hypothetical” positions and audience member’s ability to decode or understand messages. What are these three positions called you ask? Well they are called dominant-hegemonic, negotiated, and oppositional positions (Sullivan, 2013 pg. 142). Personally, the best way I understand new ideas are when they are placed in examples. So, I am going to do that for you, recently the movie “Joker” has risen to fame. If you haven’t watched it DON’T WORRY I am providing a trailer, but my examples will still paint a clear picture of what the positions mean. 

Let’s start with dominant-hegemonic position, it is defined as accepting media messages exactly in the way it was produced. Sullivan illustrates it as “The viewer would operate inside the dominant ideology by accepting the transfer of packaged meanings…” (Sullivan, 2013 pg. 142). So, relating this to the Joker movie, the message this position would receive is the fact to never judge a book by its cover. This movie promotes mental illness, and the important to treat people the way you would want to be treated. 

Next up is the negotiated position, which is explained as “viewers making negotiated readings of texts relate to and understand the dominant code, but also filter media content through the lens of their own individualized experiences and worldview. A negotiated position would see the Joker movie as, a mental illness lesson, but also continue the stereotype that the Joker character is still a violent and bad character. It would be a mic of dominant and oppositional.

Lastly, the oppositional position. Sullivan defines this term as, “focusing exclusively on the connotative meanings of the signs in order to mount an ideological struggle against the message and or its producers” (Sullivan, 2013 pg. 142). Relating to the movie, an oppositional position would see the Joker character is a happy and unique individual, trying to create justice in the city by killing off “bad people”.

I would say that after I watched the movie, I was definitely more in a negotiated position but leaned more into the dominant-hegemonic mindset. Looking at how I was raised, my parents always taught me to treat others the way I wanted to be treated, and that two wrongs don’t make a right. I was super into the movie and believed the message behind the movie was inspirational and clear. It was needed for the generation we currently are living in, and I hope that the message that mental illness is not a joke was clear.

To end off this week’s blog, I want to talk a little about this week’s reading by Steven Granelli, and Jason Zenor titled “Decoding “The Code”: Reception Theory and Moral Judgement of Dexter”. This article reviews and investigates the TV show Dexter, and the how audiences reacted and appropriated the actions by the main character. What really interested me about this article was this quote “Their actions are usually duplications, being both moral and immoral and there is often a justification for their “immoral” actions” (Granelli & Zeno, 2016 pg. 5060). After reading that I immediately think of my favourite show, Prison Break. It is a group of individuals that break out of prison and are on the loose committing crimes as they go. The two main characters though are innocent prisoners, but the others are convicted killers, rapists, etc. Despite this I grew a connection with the characters, and when something when wrong in the show I felt bad for them and agreed with the excuses they used, although they were defined as bad people.

Well folks, thats all I have for you this week. I really enjoyed this weeks topics, and im pumped to bring to you some new and exciting theories and ideas. Hope you all have an amazing week, thanks for stopping by and reading in. 

References:

Sullivan, John L. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power. SAGE Publications Inc., 2013.

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

JOKER- Final Trailer – Now Playing In Theatres (2019, August 28). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAGVQLHvwOY.

[the-zarabaxby]

Audience Studies 3P18 Blog Post #2 Week 6: October 10

Hello, my lovely readers, what is up. It has been a bit since I wrote last, but I am back and ready bring to you some intense yet fascinating information. This week’s topic is Uses and Gratifications, which was beautifully summed up by my Prof as “a functional perspective of being an audience member”. In this blog I want to touch upon how uses and gratifications associate with audience as agents, some theorist’s thoughts, and lastly, I want to tackle the how and why audience use media.

After reading the Chapter 5 of Sullivan’s novel, what really stood out to me was “U&G reverses these roles, proposing instead that the audience members actively choose media channels and content to suit their own needs at a particular moment” (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 113). This proposes the idea that instead of understanding the traditional notion, that when an audience consumes media that are likely to be influenced or harmed. U&G suggests that we pick and choose what media we consume, which is based on our individual needs and wants. For example, in my seminar we all went around the room stating what type of shows we like to watch and why. Crime shows was a very popular choice out of the group, and mostly everyone explained it as a want to understand how criminals think. Another girl mentioned she liked to watch Keeping up with the Kardashians because she associated it with a fantasy life that she wants for herself. Sullivan also defines U&G as, “functional perspective on audience activity”, which means that each of us are rational, and are responsible for our own decision making that is backed up by social contexts. The textbook also lists five basic assumptions of uses and gratifications, the third assumption states “Mass media compete with other sources of need satisfaction” (Sullivan, 2013 pg. 113). This assumption broken down is understood as according to your need or craving, you consume media according to that want. For example, WAY back in my high school days, I thought it was a good idea to date this loser on the football team. Ladies, best advice I can give you is study old Taylor Swift songs and live by it. It will save you a lot of tears let me tell you. ANYWAYS, after my boyfriend broke up with me for the 5th time, I needed to consume media that would help my current state. So, what did I watch? You bet, I watched a whole lot of drama and romance movies. Why? Because it was a fantasy of having a perfect relationship that I craved, and the only way I could semi achieve that was watching movies. Depressing I know…

Moving on to bigger and brighter things, there was a study done by Katz, Gurevitch, and Haas regarding specific needs in media among audiences. The 3 individuals investigated audiences in Israel. Their inspiration came from “individuals bring to their media use a pre-existing set of desires and expectations” (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 114). This investigation incorporated surveys with 1,500 Israelis, requiring them to rate how different forms of mass media satisfy their needs. This only resulted in the understanding that different medias, satisfy different needs. The 5 needs that came out of this investigation were:

- Cognitive needs: this need involves strengthening the brain in areas like knowledge and understanding

- Affective needs: this need requires empowering aesthetic appeal, and emotions

- Integrative needs: this need requires enhancing credibility, confidence, and status

- Social needs: this need must increase relationships with family, friends, and world

- Escape needs: lastly, this need must support tension release

Out of all 5 needs, I can think of examples of ways in which I consume for the benefit of satisfying those needs. I will not bore you and go through each and every example, but I will speak upon one. Cognitive, there are rarely times when on my place of leisure that I crave the need of cognition, but there are still times that I do. WHEN IM REALLY BORED. Documentaries satisfy that craving in me. For example, I watch documentaries on artists, food, and even the planet, and I come out of the film more knowledgeable than I was before. You see, it’s something simple as watching a sad movie when you’re sad, or a comedic film when you’re in a good mood, that explains the “needs” of media.

Lastly, I want to touch upon the assigned reading for this week Journal of Broadcasting & Electric Media by Shyam Sundar and Anthony Limperos. In this article something called the MAIN model is introduced. It is defined as “the affordances of modern media will lead users to expect certain gratifications and thereby shape the fulfillment that they receive by using these media” (Sundar & Limperos, 2013 pg. 512).

We start with M, which stands for Modality-based Gratifications. This refers to the different forms of expressing media content, all in ways that appeal to the audience. For example, on the media platform YouTube, if you choose to watch a video or listen to music, you will notice the different presentations like the title of the video, the music it plays, and the picture it produces.

Then we move onto A, for Agency. Sundar and Limperos defined this perfectly as “While the role of gatekeeping has historically been the domain of privileged dew, now anybody can serve as a gatekeeper of content on the Internet” (Sundar & Limperos, 2013 pg. 513). A perfect example of this would be exactly what I am doing now with these blogs. Not only am I producing my own information, but I am also broadcasting information that I read and learn from in my Audience Studies class at Brock University.

Next up is I, which stands for Interactivity-Based Gratifications. This classification is explained as “interactivity affordance goes to the heart of audience activity by allowing users to interact with and through the medium” (Sundar & Limperos, 2013 pg. 515). An example of this can be the app Snapchat, after taking photos you can edit and make captions, or you can even have filters and constantly edit photos you produce.

Finally, we get to N, for Navigability-Based Gratification.  Sundar and Limperos explains it as “The fact that the internet is a space rather than simply a window means that architectural and interior design considerations enter into the communication equation” (Sundar & Limperos, 2013 pg. 516). Going back to my blogs, the website I use allows me to use GIFs, as I’m sure your noticing. If you were to like the GIF and want to use it, it gives you the website and navigates you to the site that produced it!

Well guys that’s it for now, I am so excited to be back with you. There is more to come, so catch me next week with not only more exciting info, but also the GIFs that follow with it!

References:

Sullivan, John L. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power. SAGE Publications Inc., 2013.

Sundar, S., & Limperos, A. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(4), 504-25

[the-zarabaxby]

Week 5: October 3

COMM 3P18 Week 5: October 3

Good morning, good afternoon, or possibly good evening everyone. This my last, and final post for a little while, so let’s make it count. This week’s lecture, seminar, and readings discussed Media Ratings and Target Marketing. I have not mentioned yet, but I am currently studying Business Communications at Brock University, and I LOVE marketing. Part of the textbook reading that really struck my interest was:

“viewers essentially became a new product that media corporations could sell to advertisers: the audience commodity…While we are socialized to think that our media consumption is primarily a leisure-based activity, Smyth suggested that audiences continue to generate economic value to the system of commercial broadcasting…” (Sullivan, 2013 pg. 81).

In the Sullivan textbook, it brings up an individual name Dallas W. Smythe. He introduced something called the “blindspot” debate. This revealed that even when we are innocently consuming, connecting, and communicating, we are contributing to advertising messages and demand product. Society is unconsciously adding marketing, advertising, and measuring rating labor. THAT’S CRAZY.

 To top It off, there is a company out there that was made to just measure TV ratings. The company’s name is Nielsen, according to the Sullivan textbook, the corporation made it possible to sample the number of viewers and listeners. Diving into specifics, Nielsen would use tools like diaries, household meters, people meters, and PPMs. Below I have provided a brief explanation on each!

·      Diaries: small paper pamphlet that records viewing; time spent watching, program, time of show, and members watching.

·      Household Meters: measure TV tuning; small electric box that is placed on TV and it measures what channel is being watched.

·      People Meter: it is an extra remote placed in the household; specific code for dinner people in the house, expressing who is watching and when.

·      PPM: portable peoplemeter; small device the size of a pager, and is worn at all times by viewers. It can pick up what the individual is viewing.

·      This was actually brought up in my seminar, and from the comments that were made, it raises not only a concern but also is frowned on.

I can personally reflect on corporations collecting data, because I see it all the time. In today’s society it is almost a norm to be overwhelmed with advertisements and marketing. If you even go to the length of searching something up online or on a media platform, best believe you will run into ads.  An example that instantly comes to mind is the fair Brock University hosts at the  first week of school. The school makes it almost mandatory to attend because if you don’t, you miss out on getting your “free” public bus pass. The fair consists of booths of different companies promoting their business. Seems innocent right?  WRONG.  Being a student, value FREE stuff, and what does this fair do? …Give away free stuff, but in order to receive it you have to add your name, phone number, email, address, and more.  Since the fair I have received maybe 40 emails from a gym, pizza parlour, salon, that I will never attend. This course. actually, helped me realize that, this fair was actually a form of data collection.

One last bit I want to review this week is the assigned reading by Karen S.F. Buzzard’s “The Rise of Market Information Regimes and the Historical Development of Audience Ratings”. This article studies the content of Nielsen’s inventions and assesses market performance and the importance of it to stakeholders. A specific quote from the article, that was also mentioned in lecture really ties everything together. Buzzard states. “manufactures to decide on products to be produced to select saleable packages sizes and types, to price products advantageously, to use more effective channels of distribution, to avoid overproduction, to determine advertising budgets, and to reduce business recession…” (Buzzard, 2015, pg. 511-512). This basically is saying that data collection goes further than just wanting to contact and advertise directly to you. It stretches to lengths of understanding what consumers want. So, they can adjust things like size, price, packaging, distributers etc.

Well that’s it for my first round of blog posts. I hope you enjoyed; I look forward to starting up again, after reading week (but I am going to really enjoy my week off LOL). I hope to. Bring you some new and exciting information, which I can honestly say I know my Prof will have in store. Have a great week 

References:

Buzzard, K. S. (2015). The Rise of Market Information Regimes and the Historical Development of Audience Ratings. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 35(3), 511–517. doi: 10.1080/01439685.2015.1052219

Sullivan, John L. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power. SAGE Publications Inc., 2013. 

[the-zarabaxby]

Week 4: September 26

COMM 3P18 Week 4: September 26

What is up everyone, hope y’all are ready because this week is filled with lots of interesting points. This week’s overall topic is Audiences as Institutional Constructions- Public Opinion and Audience citizenship. YES, I know a lot of big works here, but don’t worry, I will explain everything nice, easy, and clear. Now before I start, some of the key concepts we will be reviewing audiences and the evolutions, its importance, and views on public opinion. OUUUUU, AHHHH. Get excited…

This week’s lecture started off on the topic of the evolution of the public opinion. In this day and age, everyone has an opinion. Everyone has the right to say and have their own values and beliefs. John L. Sullivan states on public opinion, “has to do with the goals of the people defining the public in particular ways… is a member of the public is. always shifting, depending upon historical context and the agendas of those measuring public opinion” (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 56). These “historical times include the 18th and 19th century, and eventually pours into the 20th.

During the 18th century, the community grew less fond of relying on feudal lords and gained more interest in being independent from the state. As discussed in lecture, that due to this the Bourgeois Public Sphere formed. Sullivan explains it as, “for the first time in centuries, citizens were transacting business and politics with one another without the direct influence of the state” (Sullivan,2013, pg. 59). This was an event that all could attend, come in and listen in on. These places could run from salons to coffee houses that society could gather and discuss important topics like politics at. It is supporting idea that states should be governed by the general will and opinion. Adding onto the power, came the printing press. In lecture, this was understood as giving people the ability to form opinions and allowed people to access information. “The press facilitated the expansion of public conversation beyond the confines of the salons and coffee houses, thereby creating a broader awareness of political issues” (Sullivan, 2013, pg. 60). This allowed everyone (not just the elite) to access viable information, and gave everyone not only fairness, but proper insight.

This can be understood in a different form in today’s society.  Just as the printing press had the ability not only change society, but also the political world, so did social media. The new media platforms that produce information are the popular sites like Facebook, and Twitter. All platforms allow people to not access information, but to also produce it. Facebook gets paid by producers to allow specific content to appear on your feed, it can be either toxic or, rewarding. My Prof enjoys showing a range of tweets in her lecture. One that comes directly to my mind is the one involving Greta Thunberg and Donald Trump. Greta promotes and fights for the planet and ecosystems, she took a stab earlier this week at Donald Trump for not supporting the want for change and took it to twitter. Donald Trump replies back with a. sarcastic tweet stating “She seems like a very happy young girl! Looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!”. Although this may not seem like a very informing tweet, it is the meaning behind everything that is brought to the crowd. Such as a young girl fighting for change, and a man with high power not recognizing or acknowledging it. By participating in sites like Facebook, and Twitter, you absorb the understanding that everyone has an opinion, and sometimes even if you’re not looking for it, information is shoved in your face.

One last bit, I would like to discuss is the Neubaum and Kramer article that was assigned for this week. The authors propose a theory called “Social of Silence”, which illustrates that we are all social creatures, meaning we all crave to fit in. In lecture, it expands on the idea and explains it as my understanding of the “majority rule”. Meaning that the larger the number the higher the power. Unless you are legit wonder women, you have times in your life that you conform to the majority, even though you may have a different opinion. It is that instinct of fitting in that kicks in, it is the inner self that worries about not fitting in if you go a different direction.

Since this is my blog, I think it’s only appropriate that I provide a juicy example of a time that I conformed to the majority, even when I did not agree. Unfortunately, high school is not university. Sometimes the mandatory courses, are the ones you are most likely to fail in. Mine was gym…don’t get me wrong I love exercise and sports, but on my own time. One week, my teacher let the class vote on a sport they wanted to try. She told the class that if one person disagreed on the sport that we would all try again and work to find a sport that everyone agreed on. So, we went counterclockwise down the class, and all I started to hear was “basketball…basketball…basketball”. All I could think was crap there is no way I can agree on this, but everyone is saying it, I cannot be the demi downer that says no. So, it is eventually my turn to participate and what do I say? BASKETBALL. Guys my mom is 4 foot 9, and I got her jeans. It’s safe to say I am horrendous at basketball, but here I am shooting hoops. I can only really thank myself for that.

Anyways guys, thanks so much for reading again! Looking forward to my final week of posting next week. Make sure you tune in!

References:

Sullivan, John L. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power. SAGE Publications Inc., 2013.

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

[the-zarabaxby]

Week 3: September 19

COMM 3P18 Week 3: September 19

HELLO, It’s me back at it again with the white vans… (I’m sorry I had to).

This week my Audience Studies lecture covered the topic of the effects of media messages. The lecture incorporated topics like power and audiences, audiences as objects, and audience involvement with media personae. Linking the idea that movies and other media platforms can affect children’s behaviours and fears. Thus, resulting in experiments being done, and theories being made. Not only do I enjoy this week’s discussion, but I also was in charge of this week’s facilitation in my seminar!  

Let’s start at the origins of media effect theories. During the 20th century manufacturing was becoming big and creating jobs for society. Social, economic, and technological changes were creating stress for elites, scholars, and politicians due to the uncertainty of how it would affect citizens. Then came along motion pictures, which started implementing the idea of sociology.

Due to this a man by the name of Charles Horton Cooley came along and proposed the idea that communication is giving society a sense of themselves, that with observation and imitation children will learn as they go.Cooley believed there were 2 links to individuals developing psyches and world views: 

1)    Their immediate surroundings including social feedback from peers, parents, and other authority figures

2)    The messages carried by communications media via print, telegraph, and telephones. Basically stating, that we learn from young. What we encounter, experience, and are exposed to from media and environments goes towards our overall notion of life. The main concern is what is the information is false? This issue happened not just back in the day, but it is almost a daily occurrence today. 

Growing up I was restricted from a lot of things such as Family Guy, certain types of music and even movies. I believe my dad is an extension of Cooley’s family. To be specific, when I was young I was obsessed with Usher and Sean Kingston. One day my dad walked in on me listening to the songs “Fire Burning”, and “Make Love in this Club”. Those songs have word suicidal, and. “make love”, which my dad seemed to believe would corrupt my brain and soul. Therefore, I was banned from Usher….USHER PEOPLE. 

In the reading by William J. Brown, titled “Examining Four. Processes of Audience Involvement with Media Personae: Transportation, Parasocial Interaction, Identification, and Worship, it illustrates the importance to understand audience involvement with personae. “Personae” can be understood as emotional attachment, the illusion of intimacy, resulting in the creation of trust and increasing involvement. Brown examines 4 processes of audience involvement, which include:

1)    Transportation: where audiences become emotionally involved as they imagine themselves as the actual person or object. This can relate to all forms of media.

2)    Parasocial Interaction: this is understood as imaginary interactions between viewers and personas, which can just be one sided relationship.

3)    Identification: this process involves the internalizing and installation of the attitudes and behaviour of specific personas.

4)    Worship: lastly this process is understood as when an individual sees a figure or celeb as a good type figure, to the point where they actually worship them.

OK GUYS were about to dig deep into my bag of embarrassing moments. When I was young, I was OBESSED with the Disney channel (specifically “That’s So Raven”).  To the point where I was taking on 2 out of the 4 process of audience involvements. Transportation was expressed in my day; I had an Orland Brown poster in my room, and I would pretend that I was Raven and make out with the poster. I imagined myself as a character from the show and took on a role. And yes, my parents did catch it on film, I WAS 10 OK, please don’t judge me. Lastly, I presented Parasocial Interaction, I would use stuffed animals and carry out conversations between actors from the show. Super embarrassing, but I’m here for a good time not a long time.

That’s a wrap folks, thanks for tuning in! Have a great week!

References

Brown, William J. “Examining Four Processes of Audience Involvement With Media Personae: Transportation, Parasocial Interaction, Identification, and Worship.” Communication Theory, vol. 25, no. 3, 2015, pp. 259–283., doi:10.1111/comt.12053.

Sullivan, John L. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power. SAGE Publications Inc., 2013.

[the-zarabaxby]

Week 2: September 12

COMM 3P18 Week 2: September 12

Hey, I’m back and boy do I have some good topics to review this blog. This week’s main idea was “Making Sense of Audiences Throughout History”. Some main subjects I will be reviewing are size, danger, Sullivan’s “trilogy”, power, and reviewing an interesting article by Sonia Livingstone.

We started off the lecture discussing “size” and distinguishing the difference between unmediated (small) and mediated (large) audience groups. This was represented during the times of the Ancient Greeks to the 19th Century. People had to physically be together to hear what was being said. It was through this period in history, that we can notice different categories of people telling stories, often men, with formal education, and owned land.

In early oral audiences like Greek Theatre (4th-5th BCE) and Roman Theatre (1st-3rd BCE), it was noticed that a lot of organized activities were done in nature. Normally in large areas, where crowds could circle around a stage or people with power. It was important to attend these “meetings” so people wouldn’t miss out on important plays and political theatres.  

Relating back to the BCE times, the format of audience creates different forms of dangers. It was noticed that the Greek audiences were very talkative and unruly like, the people would disrupt and interrupt performances, which only resulted in the cast starting over the play.  The audience would also drink, smoke, and engaged with the performers. The crowed abused their rights to judge and direct performances, which resulted in violating social order.

I have provided below a continued timeline of dangers that was noticed from the 19th century to the 20th century:

19th Century: crowds started to get rowdy, and a sense of concern was placed to not just the performers but also the people of the crowd.

20th Century: after the American civil war audiences was redefined.

·      Audience didn’t have rights, they were just seen as having poor manners

·      If you were rowdy you were considered lower class

·      Also was worried about how the messages in the performance could affect the audience, it was feared that the crowed would take action.

This format of meeting up reminds me of when I used to dance. Before recitals or competitions, the whole studio would meet up in one room and we would discuss exciting news, and important dates and times. My attendance was mandatory, if I did not attend, I could not participate in our final recital (what century do we live in, I have a life). Not only would I not be allowed to participate in the final recital but being forced to attend made not only me but other angry about being there. Therefore, people would be disrespectful, not pay attention, and lose out on insightful and important information.

Part of this week’s readings was an article created by Sonia Livingstone (2010), titled “Giving People a Voice: On the Critical Role of the Interview in the History of Audience Research”. Sonia reviews how important it is to give people a voice. Livingstone raises the argument that as new technologies are introduced to society it only results in lost participation and “voice”. “the critical potential of giving the audience a voice has been recognized, now that theories and methods are once again being rethought for a digital age, it seems that we risk slipping back” (Livingstone, 2010). As previously stated in my last blog, WE ARE AND GREW UP IN DIGITAL TIMES. Our way of producing and consuming information is through technology. As much as we produce, we have an opinion.  I personally find the older generation find it difficult to understand our world.

For example, my parents and often grandparents always make comments about me being on my phone. They say I am not socializing and contributing to society, when really, I am. By being an active user online, like tweeting and reading I am staying informed and obtaining power of my own.

Anyways, that’s a wrap for this week material. We got really deep their WOW. But it is interesting to see how audiences went from being rowdy and disrespectful, to high-class and benefited. I can only thank time for what it did to empower culture to have a voice, we would not be where we are today without it. Looking forward to diving into next week’s topic, hope you all have a good week.

Talk soon, xoxo

Sullivan, John L. Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power. SAGE Publications Inc., 2013.

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), 566-571

[the-zarabaxby]

Week 1: September 5th

COMM 3P18 Week 1: September 5th

Hello, Bonjour, Ola everyone!  Welcome to my 2019 blog for my COMM 3P19 Audience Study course. My prof is changing up the game and has instructed me to post and update you on all the fun and interesting concepts and ideas I learn in seminars, lectures, and assigned readings! I look forward to starting this journey with you, and hopefully you gain as much as I am from this cool course.

Week 1: As per usual, the first week of school tends to be light when it comes to introducing new information. This lecture consisted of going over expectations, syllabus instructions, getting to know the class, and starting some course content!

The Prof for this course started the lecture by conducting conversations. This was done through not only oral discussion, but also physical participation on an app called “Top Hat”. It gave the class the opportunity to physically contribute answers to questions like what shows do we watch? Or what concerts have we attended? All of the questions eventually led into the topic of ‘audience’.

In this lecture ‘audience’ is defined as “the act of state of hearing”, “a formal hearing or interview, an opportunity of being heard”, “a group of listeners or spectators”, or lastly “a group of ardent admirers or devotees”. These definitions led the class to understand that if not most all of our time in life is spent being an audience. Which then results in the idea that being a part of an audience is part of our identity and carries into situational and interaction activities.  It turns out that preconceived judgement is false.

Being an audience member is more of a “situated role”, it is something that is not permanent, it is based the productions and representations of audience formality throughout history. My Prof used a perfect quote from the textbook Media Audiences: Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power by John L. Sullivan. It revealed “the story of the audience is no more and no less than the story of the ways in which this concept (of audience) has been imagined and used by communities and society in specific historical and cultural contexts” (pg. 6, Sullivan). This quote paints a clear picture that the idea of ‘audience’ has changed so much over history and time. Revealing that audiences can be situated but contains unconscious freedom due to how audiences have evolved.

The term evolution brought up the notion of how audiences have changes since our parents, and even grandparents time! It’s so true, look at our world today. By evolution I don’t just. Mean technology, culture, norms, and social structures have changed so much since our parent’s time. Relating back to an idea that was brought up before evolution was tiny niche audiences and massive audiences. This is a PURE example of how times have changed. Niche audiences are examples of groups or audiences that were found a lot during my grandparents and parents time. They can still exist in our generation, but it is massive audiences are not only more normal in today’s society, but also more noticeable.

My mom grew up in India. When she was in middle school, her fun with friends was walking to the local theatre and watching a movie. All of her friends remembered the time for the movie, and they would all meet up outside. They would pack snacks and drinks and enjoy their time. This was almost a tradition every weekend.

For me, my life and up bringing was very different.  I was born and raised in Canada, and I grew up in the digital world. In middle school, my fun the weekend was facetiming my friends making different plans for every weekend. The odds times I would go to the movies with my friends resulted in, us having different shows and times we could go to. Having the ability to constantly stay in touch with each other, having text group chats and online social media to show off that we were gathering together. Sometimes I would not even have to go to the movies theatre to watch films, Netflix and streaming is so accessible and it’s easier to get together as a group from a home base.

The example I provided did not show the difference between audience group size, but rather the difference in culture and social abilities are expressed. I cannot change the generation I grew up in, but thanks to this course I can appreciate the growth that has gone into audiences.  I can also understand every aspect of being an audience member.

Next week, I will be reviewing history and concepts of audiences. I cannot wait to dive into some more relatable examples and expand on more knowledge. Thank you so much for reading!

See you next week:)