User:Alfred0892/sandbox
Audience Commodity Theory
The theory of the audience commodity was first proposed by Dallas Walker Smythe, claiming that the principle product of the commercial mass media in monopoly capitalism was audience power. This audience power is used to accomplish the economic and political tasks which are the reason for the existence of the commercial mass media.[1]
Smythe argues that audience power is produced, sold, purchased and consumed, which ultimately defines it as a commodity as it is valuable to the mass media and boasts a price. Furthermore, like any other labor power, audience power involves work, which under capitalism is defined as an action for which one receives payment. The difference in this instance is that the payment the audience receives is not in the monetary form, but in entertainment form through the program that they consume by watching as an audience. [1]
Under this theory the audience works to create the demand for advertised goods which is the intention of capitalist advertisers; the advertisers expectations are achieved through these outcomes that gratify the demand management system. This degrades the audience into a submissive form of value for the mass media. [1]
Karl Marx | |
|---|---|
 Founding Theorist of Economic and Social Marxism | |
| Born | May 5, 1818 |
| Died | March 14, 1883 |
| Nationality | German, Stateless |
| Occupation(s) | Philosopher, Economist, Sociologist, Journalist |
| Notable work | Labor Theory of Value, Surplus Value, Alienation in Labor |
Relationship with Traditional Marxism
Smythe's approach to to communication studies and the audience as a commodity is considered to be a study of Karl Marx and Marxist ideologies, which merges theoretical, ethical, and empirical media/communication analysis. [2]
Smythe incorporates eight core categories of the Marxist political economy of communications. These categories include materiality, monopoly capitalism, audience commodification in advertising, media communication as part of capitalism, labour power, technological determinism, consciousness, arts, and learning. [2]
Based on a Liberal outlook, Smythe and Marx's theories share relationships with exchange value of the audience/laborer, as well as capital markets and class struggle between capitalism and the audience/consumer. [2]
Marx defines capitalism with an analysis of exchanged commodities. They are measured by their exchange value, its use value, and the labor associated with it. [2]
During the industrial working era, capitalist exploitation, similar to Smythe's audience exploitation, occurred in the form of exploitation of worker's hours and wages; workers would be underpaid the smallest amount of money possible in order to generate the largest amounts of profit for the capitalist factory owner. They would not be paid for extra labor and would not be paid the equal value of the commodity they were helping to produce. This would generate surplus value for the factory owner and further exploit the workers through their labor. [1][2]
Where Marx focuses on exploitation of the physical laborer within a capitalist society, Smythe references the same concepts within a traditional context and applies them to media audiences as exploitation of their leisure time and viewership. Both arguments rely on the fundamental act of capitalism generating surplus value from taking advantage of the work, paid or unpaid, that is controlled by capitalism. [1][3]
Contemporary Ideas of the Audience Commodity
According to Smythe's implementation of his theories within today's advancing society, modern forms of audience commodification are based upon media (television, radio, internet) that use advertising as a way of exchanging viewers as if they are a product to be traded between networks and advertisers; capitalist media degrades humans to the form of 'consumers of advertisements', as well as forming a type of culture around the commodification of both the audience as a consumer and as a laborer. [1][2]
Audiences consume newspapers, magazines, DVDs, music, television shows, and movies, all through their televisions and computers, also, they consume online media such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Google, all without paying for those services. In return, the audience commodity theory suggests that the audience's personal usage data and advertising viewership is sold to advertisers as a commodity, therefore, audiences are seen by capitalist media as means for economic profit and control. [2]
This ideology works towards merging capital and commodity culture into human subjectivity; human actions and thoughts are restricted and solely pertain to capitalist benefit, and therefore perpetuate capitalism without question of the system. Ultimately these strategies create human audiences that contain no form of subjectivity outside of capitalist interests and further reinforce capitalist domination and exploitation. [2]
Modern scholarly work has agreed with Smythe's arguments towards the audience as a commodity in stating that the increasing growth of privatizated, advertisement-based media has reinforced the notion of commercial digital and social media becoming 'workers' and ultimately being exploited. [2]
This exploitation is argued by Smythe and his supporters as a combination of viewers providing free labor in the form of their leisure media consumption tied in with advertising, as well as a lack of user subjectivity and resistance towards this capitalist control. This implies that there is no form of class struggle between consumers and advertisers, and that the consumer is completely controlled by capitalism to the point of being reduced to a physical commodity being sold to advertisers in a degraded cultural state. [1][2]
Arguments Against the Audience Commodity
There are many scholars and theorists that disagree with Smythe's arguments and theories regarding the audience as a submissive commodity.
One of the leading critics of Smythe's work, Brett Caraway, points out the limitations of Smythe's interpretations and argues that Smythe's theory represents a 'one-sided class analysis' which minimalizes working-class subjectivity; the surplus value generated by advertisers for the media owners disputes the notion that audiences are working for the advertisers. Capitalism does not directly control audience activities and the use value produced by the audience labor is not alienated from them. [3]
Caraway argues that these qualities are required under the Marxist mode of capitalist labor and are lacking within the audience commodity model, which means that the audience is not under the submissive control of capitalists in the form that the audience commodity places them under. [3]
Many other criticisms supporting Caraway argue based upon similar guidelines. Some suggest that network executives and advertisers discuss the buying and selling of audiences, which means that what is being sold is 'time', which from this perspective the audience does not exist as a commodity because no one can 'own' them. Also, in terms of advertising, critics argue that television audiences are not obliged to watch; they are formally free not to watch at all. Furthering this, critics state that, as individuals, we don't feel commodification as we consume media as an audience, and therefore we are not acting towards its production.[4][5][6]
Furthermore, competing scholars suggest that Smythe, in the midst of relieving the audience of any power or control, fails to mention that there are many struggles and 'class conflict' between capital, producers, and consumers of media, nor discuss any of the various forms of product boycotts, wage struggles, or consumer mediation that would reflect some form of audience subjectivity. [7]
User Agency and Resistance Against the Audience Commodity: Contemporary Mass Media & Advertising
As the primary foundation for the audience commodity imposes a lack of agency, subjectivity, and ownership among audience members, there is evidence to support the prevalence of resistance and agency among audience members against being subjected to degradation and capitalist control through media and advertising. Modern advancements in media platforms and their technologies have given rise to more flexible and personal audience power that was once not accessible to them.
New media platforms give rise to a shift in power from the capitalist advertisers to the audience. As new technologies become more highly advanced and readily available the freedom of viewing choices and interaction with control processes begins to favor the viewer. The viewers can also use these improved media technologies to control content through buying/boycotting products or giving input through consumer panels. [8]
Most importantly, audiences and media viewers inherit more power and control of their media by determining for themselves what content they access anywhere and anytime, from any device. This rise in empowerment shifts the balance of mass media power and control from the hands of the advertisers over to the audience. [9]
Digital Video Recorders (DVR)
The digital video recorder (DVR) became available to the public between 1999 and 2000, and allowed users to record and store their favorite television shows for viewing at a later time of the viewer's choosing. [10]
Before this technology became available to the average consumer and mass audiences, traditional television standards controlled program schedules, content structure, and content format. Viewers had no choice but to choose from the content offered by the available channels, and had to comply with the channels presentation; presentation referred to the start time of the program, its duration, and periodic commercial breaks. [11] The creation and usage of DVRs overruled these traditional standards and granted audiences a new level of control and flexibility of their viewing experience with the new digital media platform which counters and begins to disprove Smythe's primary arguments. [12]
The DVR permits viewers to record and store their favorite television programs, skip commercials, pause and rewind live television at any point, and create schedules to record their favorite programs in advance whenever it is desired, all of which provide the audience with more control and choice over their viewing experiences. [13]
Furthermore, Forrester Research surveys concluded that over 50% of all DVR users have indicated that the ability to fast-forward and skip through commercials was their most popular feature. [13] These freedoms that the DVR provide viewers challenges the 4 core established television practices which coincide with Smythe's audience commodity theories: scheduling programs to create flow, the 'bargain' where commercials are watched in return for watching the program, third-party ratings to form audience statistics and advertising prices, and airing copyrighted programs without mass copying/manipulation. [11]
These traditional media practices become challenged by DVR technologies and features, which causes the advertisers and mass media industries alike to realize the power of scheduling is being transferred from the capitalist to the viewers, who can now become their own personal programmers. [11] One of the most crucial functions of the DVR, which was found most notably in the TiVo brand DVRs, was the ability to time-shift programs and shows; this meant shifting the program from network-controlled schedules over to viewer-controlled schedules. This gave DVR users complete control and power over when they watch their shows as well as how they watch their shows. [11] The traditional control that was at the hands of the mass media and advertisers allowed them to build their own schedules and organize the audience in order to maximize advertising revenue, all while the viewers were limited to accepting these restrictions as a precondition of being a viewer of the capitalist programming. The power of the DVR to transfer that power and control over to the viewer eliminates these traditional preconditions and sheds light on many of the issues with Smythe's arguments towards a submissive audience as a commodity. [11]
Reaction to the DVR by Mass media & Advertisers
Upon the uprising and mainstream use of DVRs from almost every facet of audience interaction, the capitalist mass media and advertisers took note of the increasingly fragmented and empowered audiences and they realized that they must either 'adapt or fail to continue'; the more fragmented the media and audience becomes, the harder it becomes, as well as more expensive, to accurately predict, analyze, and measure audiences and viewers. This results in a definite decline in value of the media's 'audience product' in the opinion of the advertisers. [14]
This causes both the mass media and advertisers to acknowledge that there is a struggle between them and the viewers, which causes the media and advertisers alike to produce new and innovative production strategies/methods in which they can reach and appeal to their audiences with. In the midst of struggling against a seemingly 'counter-advertising' DVR technology, capitalism attempted to profit from its usage despite of most users preferring to fast-forward or skip the commercials altogether. [15]
Despite the liberties that the DVR grants the viewer, strategy directors within advertising firms began to focus on the creative, clever, and visually appealing aspects of the commercial so that they could catch the audience's attention in the midst of their fast-forwarding and skipping in order to entice them to stop and replay the advertisement. [13]
Also, the mass media and advertisers consider the viewer's freedom to time-shift their favorite programs to be beneficial in the way that it allows the viewer to record and watch the program, and potentially the advertisements, on their own personal schedule since the media-scheduled airing time would have not complied with the viewers free time without a DVR accessible to them. [13]
Since the program is being recorded, the advertiser has been granted the opportunity to be seen and impact the viewer, since, without the option or ability to use the DVR to record the program, there would have not been an opportunity for the advertisement to be seen by the viewer in the first place. [13]
Even with this optimist outlook on the part of the mass media and advertisers towards the DVR, scholars and critics still agree that the audience's ability to skip commercials and control what is and isn't viewed on their own schedule is not the most ideal scenario for the mass media, the advertisers, or Smythe's audience commodity theory in any sense. [13]
Online Streaming & Downloading
Similar to the DVR, online streaming and downloading poses a similar threat to the mass media and advertisers alike. In terms of online media content, audience accessibility, and control, it is argued that just about anything and everything that a viewer could desire can be found and viewed online, including television programs; this idea eliminates the mass media conglomerate power that decides what to produce, how to produce it, and how/when it is distributed. This counters the audience commodity theory in stating that the viewers are not only active within the context of content accessibility and viewership, but they are also in complete control of their viewing experiences. [12]
Within the online world of internet streaming and downloading, viewers opt to access their favorite movies and television programs that have been uploaded to online media websites, courtesy of either other viewers or a mass media outlet, by either playing it directly on the website or downloading it to their computer hard drive to store and keep for themselves, with total control of what to watch and when to watch it; this further extends the audience's agency and control against being turned into a commodity by the mass media and advertisers. [12]
As an example of resistance to capitalist media control, and government media control in the context of digital copyright, Canadian media streamers decide to circumvent online regulations and policies imposed by media network websites and government laws by using proxy servers which allow them to trick the websites into seeing these users appear online as if they were located in the United States. This allows them to bypass any limited or regulated content that is restricted to American users only and download from those sources. [12] Though these actions violate copyright and piracy laws imposed by the media networks and government policies, they most often fail to fend of viewers from attempting to fight these limitations in whatever way they can in order to access and view content within their own control and freedom, which appears to further support the criticism of the audience as a commodity.
Reaction to Online Streaming & Downloading by Mass media & Advertisers
As the mass media and advertisers began to notice the shift from television viewership to internet viewership, many major television media outlets within the United States and Canada, such as ABC, NBC, and CTV, moved themselves to the online world of streaming alongside already-established media streaming services like Netflix and Hulu so that they could compete and thrive within the shifting market of audience preference and further manage their advertising revenue. [12]
Upon this large shift of content to the online streaming platform, new government policies and regulations were created and imposed by official bodies such as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). These policies and regulations fought to implement limitations on the viewing of foreign programming online from American or other sources. This was argued to impose an online realm that was outside of user freedom and placed in control of major television and digital media outlets. [12]
Alongside this, any attempts to violate these policies or regulations, or to to download any of the online content without permission or legitimate accessibility granted by the television or digital media outlet, was considered illegal and was paired with heavy fines or lengthy prison time. [12] All of this was implemented in order to protect the interests of the mass media and advertisers, all while instilling fear and dominance over any users that attempted to resist or disobey these rules and standards. Ultimately, this does not stop users from circumventing these regulations in order to play by their own rules and fight the system from controlling or exploiting them, which further supports critic's arguments against Smythe's theories that audiences are nothing more than controlled commodities that can be profited from.
References
- ^ a b c d e f g Smythe, Dallas (1981). "On the audience commodity and its work". Media and cultural studies: 230–256.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Fuchs, Christian (2014). "Dallas Smythe Reloaded: Critical Media and Communication Studies Today". The Audience Commodity in a Digital Age: Revisiting Critical Theory of Commercial Media: 267–288.
- ^ a b c Caraway, Brett (2011). "Audience labor in the new media environment: A Marxiam revisiting of the audience commodity". Media, Culture & Society. 33 (5): 693–708.
- ^ Jhally, Sut (1982). "Probing the blindspot: The audience commodity". CTheory. 6 (1–2): 204–210.
- ^ Livant, Bill (1892). "Working at watching: A reply to Sut Jhally". CTheory. 6 (1–2): 211–217.
- ^ Maxwell, Rick (1991). "The image is gold: Value, the audience commodity, and fetishism". Journal of Film and Video: 29–45.
- ^ Murdock, Graham (1978). "Blindspots about Western Marxism: A Reply to Dallas Smythe". CTheory. 2 (2): 109–115.
- ^ Van Dijck, Jose (2009). "User Like You? Theorizing Agency in User-Generated Content". Media, Culture, and Society. 31 (1): 41.
- ^ Jennes, Iris; Pierson, Jo; Van den Broeck, Wendy (2014). "User Empowerment and Audience Commodification in a Commercial Television Context". The Journal of Media Innovations. 1 (1): 70–85.
- ^ "Digital Video Recorder". Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Retrieved 4 December 2016.
- ^ a b c d e Carlson, Matt (2006). "Tapping into TiVo Digital Video Recorders and the Transition from Schedules to Surveillance in Television". New Media & Society. 8 (1): 97–115.
- ^ a b c d e f g Quail, Christine (2012). "Television Goes Online: Myths and Realities in the Contemporary Context". Global Media Journal. 12 (20): 2.
- ^ a b c d e f Fortunado, John; Windels, Daniel (2005). "Adoption of Digital Video Recorders and Advertising: Threats or Opportunities". Journal of Interactive Advertising. 6 (1): 93–104.
- ^ D'Arma, Alessandro (2011). "Content Aggregation in the Age of Online Video: An Analysis of the Impact of Internet Distribution on the Television Business". Journal of Media Business Studies. 8 (3): 1–17.
- ^ Meehan, Eileen (1986). "Conceptualizing Culture as Commodity: The Problem of Television". Critical Studies in Media Communication. 3 (4): 448–457.