19 Media Audiences

The Tricky Business of Media Audiences

Defining an audience is complicated and has become even more complicated in the digital age. Is the “audience” for a Renaissance painting the person who commissioned it? Is the audience the people likely to see it where it was meant to hang some 500 years ago? How about museum visitors who will see it this week? Or people who see it on the coffee cup in my office? Or people who stumble on the image online, or in an ad?

Given these complications, it might seem then like the “audience” is irrelevant to what a media text means, but media audiences are not just passive recipients of content; they actively interpret, negotiate, and co-construct media messages as they engage with them. A thing means what it means to me in ways that are informed by my personal experience, the cultural attitudes, values, and meanings I’ve absorbed, and the particular context for my experience.

Traditional media like television and print often had more easily identifiable audiences based on demographic data such as age, gender, and socioeconomic status. But in the digital age, audiences are fragmented and fluid. Online platforms like YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter host diverse communities that are not easily categorized. Users can belong to multiple, overlapping audience groups, making it hard to pin down a singular definition of an audience.

And the concept of “audience” has evolved. In the digital age, the boundary between content producer and content consumer is blurred. Social media users, for instance, are both creators and consumers of content. This participatory culture complicates traditional notions of audiencehood, requiring a more nuanced understanding that accounts for the active role of users in content creation and dissemination.

Researching Audiences

Researching audiences in this fragmented and dynamic landscape poses challenges. Traditional methods like surveys and focus groups may not capture the complexity of online interactions and behaviors. Digital analytics tools, while powerful, often provide quantitative data that lacks the depth of qualitative insights. Additionally, issues of privacy and data ethics complicate the collection and analysis of audience data. Researchers must navigate these challenges to develop methodologies that accurately reflect the multifaceted nature of contemporary media audiences.

One way to engage “audience” in a qualitative way is to look at a very particular audience experience within a specific context. For example, I might study the way Taylor Swift fans at a particular school experience the meaning of a particular song. This will not tell us everything about what the song “means,” but it could offer a very rich, nuanced account of how fans construct meaning in ways significant to their own lives and identities.

In other words, your own particular experience of media is valuable, especially if you analyze and explain it very carefully, and offer a lot of context and detail.

The Imagined Audience of Media Texts

While it might be very hard to define any particular audience, audience often looms large in the minds of media producers, shaping the creation of media texts. Content creators tend to tailor their messages based on their understanding of who their audience is and what they want. This anticipation can influence various aspects of media production, including language, tone, visuals, and even the platforms used for dissemination. For example, a YouTube content creator may adopt a casual, conversational style to appeal to younger viewers, while a news organization might use formal language and in-depth analysis to cater to an older or more educated audience.

Of course, the imagined audience is not always accurate. Misjudgments can lead to content that fails to resonate with actual audiences, pointing to the value of ongoing audience research and engagement. In the digital age, the ability to quickly gather and analyze audience feedback allows creators to adapt and refine their content in real-time, enhancing the alignment between media texts and audience expectations.

Encoding and Decoding Media Texts

The complexity of making and interpreting media messages is reflected in Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model. Hall notes that media messages are encoded by producers with a particular meaning, but this meaning is not fixed. Audiences decode these messages based on their own cultural contexts, experiences, and perspectives.

Important here is paying attention to the ways a single media text often has multiple meanings. For instance, a political ad may be decoded differently by various audience segments. One group might interpret it as a compelling call to action, while another might see it as manipulative propaganda. The active role of audiences in interpreting media messages underscores the importance of considering diverse perspectives in media research and production.

Decoding Media Messages

The process by which people decode media messages is influenced by factors such as social background, cultural norms, and personal experiences. Hall identifies three primary decoding positions: dominant-hegemonic, negotiated, and oppositional. In the dominant-hegemonic position, the audience fully accepts the intended meaning of the message. In the negotiated position, the audience partially accepts the message but adapts it based on personal experiences. In the oppositional position, the audience rejects the intended meaning and interprets the message in an entirely different way.

So while media producers can often create more effective messages by paying close attention to likely audiences, media messages take on a life of their own as they are engaged by both audience members producers had in mind, and by people whose lives and worlds producers could never have imagined.

Reference

Hall, S. W. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies (pp. 63-87). Hutchinson.