Stuart Halls Encoding and Decoding Model Usefulness in Todays Audience Research - Coursework Example

Stuart Hall’s Encoding/Decoding Model Usefulness in Today’s Audience Research and Introduction Every media product or content that is broadcasted is targeted at a specific audience. Directors, producers and programme commissioners certify those programmes that clearly identify and understand their target audience (Moore, 1993, p. 14). This has necessitated increased audience research to better understand the target audience and, consequently, optimally influence it. In the past, the first and second generation audience researches have focused on psychographic profiling in their audience research studies. These researches tested the audience responses to messages based on their cultural beliefs and individual attitudes (Press, 2006, p. 93). These types of audience researches were apt and fully supported by Hall’s Encoding/Decoding Model which amplified the role that culture plays in interpretation of a message. Hall’s Model, therefore, presumed that in relation to television, only the dominant ideology is propagated and, consequently, that the television as a medium only produced the dominant culture (Hebdige, 1979, p. 55). While this was true and relevant at the time the model was introduced, the same cannot be said in today’s circumstances and technological advancements. This is because there has been a revolution of the role of audience in the consumption of media content and the new ways of consuming the content. The on-demand media, reality TV and the Internet have changed the way audiences are viewed and their characteristics as either passive or active audiences (Hicks, 2009). This paper explores the usefulness of the Encoding/Decoding model in today’s audience research. It identifies how the model situates the audience in light of TV considering all the recent developments, and ascertains whether the Model is still relevant in audience research. Stuart Hall’s Encoding/Decoding Model Developed in 1973 by Stuart Hall, this model was intended to be an alternative model to explain the communication process. Before it was invented, the linear model was in use and was very popular among the media scholars at the time (Press, 2006, p. 94). The linear model of transmission stated that the message was simply relayed from the sender to the receiver. Audience research at this time involved assessing the effects that the message had on the receiver to determine how the message was received. The Encoding/Decoding Model revolutionised audience research in that it refuted the presumption that the audience is a passive consumer of media content as the linear model proposes (Morley, 2006, p. 103). According to the Model, the receiver has the autonomy and independence to decode the message in his or her own way. The meaning is interpreted based on the socio-economic, cultural background, personal expectations and authentic experiences of the receiver (Hall, 1980, p. 129). The Encoding/Decoding model was useful and is still useful presently. Its usefulness in audience research has, however, reduced considerably because of the technological advancements and the changing audience characteristics and media landscapes that have rebuffed the very core characteristics of the model. There are questions as to how active an audience is, how powerful cultural power is, global media and audiences that transcend across international boundaries and effective methodologies in audience research (Press, 2006, p. 95). Cultural Power The Encoding/Decoding Model was essentially based on the presumption that individuals and groups interpret messages informed by their cultural backgrounds and personal experiences. Hall (1980, p. 51) aptly captures this essence when he asserts that decoding messages is dependent on cultural practices and other cultural emanations. According to this view, then, members of the same cultural community were bound to interpret the message disseminated in similar ways. This was the basis of the first generation audience research that tended to generalize the findings of message interpretation in one community to all communities that share the cultural practices. Morley further advanced Hall’s argument to sub-culture level. According to Morley (1980, p. 45), members of a sub-culture also share cultural inclinations and orientations that influence message decoding; the cultural power is acknowledged but has been reduced to more individualized levels. Hebdige in Subculture: The Meaning of Style published in 1979 also examined how sub-culture and its distinctive styles have influenced the perception of the audience acting and influencing one another in a cultural block and concluded that decoding messages in consensus is merely a myth (Hebdige, 1979, p. 18). Therefore, audience researches that presumed that audiences decode messages using a consensus approach were faulted right from the start. Today, the aspect of subculture is non-existent, each individual forms his or her own culture and chooses how to interpret a message hence rendering the Encoding/Decoding Model ineffective and irrelevant in so far as audience research is concerned (Philo, 2008, p.67). However, the Model is still useful in explaining the reception processes in the media (Hartley, 2006, p.30). The Encoding/Decoding Model as advanced by Hall was useful in audience research as it enabled the determination of importance of power in decoding messages. Hall advanced three positions of power that are used to decode the message. The hegemonic position is the easiest to implement in decoding. Hall (1980, p. 132) notes that this is the power position where the consumer of the message takes the literal meaning of the message. Decoding is direct and, therefore, the receiver gets the intended meaning as designed by the sender. The sender and the receiver of the message are at the same wavelength and share the text codes through sharing the point of view. The sender and receiver, essentially, shared the same cultural beliefs and practices and this eradicated any potential misunderstanding of the message. Using this position of power, audiences were viewed as passive consumers of the messages as they did not put any extra efforts in decoding the message in a different way from the way it was encoded (Nightingale, 1996, p. 45). Audience research was straightforward and easier based on this position as advanced by Hall. The TV audience research based on this position of power was focused, and consequently sampled, individuals at the higher social classes because they are more liberal-minded. The second position of power is the negotiated position. This is the position where the receiver exhibits acceptance of the message and rejection of the message concurrently. The receiver acknowledges the dominant aspect of the message but still harbours reservations as the text codes between the sender and the receivers are not fully shared. Hall (1979, p. 516) asserts that this negotiated position is a combination of the hegemonic and non-hegemonic approaches. This position refuted the concept of textual determinism and made audience research more complicated because each audience was seen as independent and autonomous (Hebdige, 1979, p. 65). Audience researches based on textual determinism advance the presumption that text is read as the author intended; that the reader of the text does not have the space or the ability to contradict or vary the meaning of the text. The TV audience researches based on this position of power focused on the middle class people to analyse how message was decoded. In this population, the researchers found the acceptors and rejecters and many variants of decoding. The oppositional position, also known as non-hegemonic position is the third option. Hall (1980, p. 136) asserts that the individuals here understand the literal meaning of the text, but since there is no shared text code the receiver interprets the message differently from the way the sender intended. The different interpretations are brought about by the differences in cultural backgrounds. Hall (1979, p. 517) notes that it is not absurd that the receiver understands the literal meaning of the message but then choose to interpret it in a manner that is contrary to the dominant point of view. Active Audience All these positions used to interpret messages give prominence to cultural power. They propose the use of the concept of hegemony, which states that there exists an inter-relationship between power and meaning (Hartley, 2006, p.40). But the recent developments in the media which have given rise to the active audience rebuff the concept of cultural power and its influence in decoding messages. Right now, each individual has the power to choose the content they consume and have their own inclination towards decoding the messages they receive (Hicks, 2009). Furthermore, with the advent of television on demand and reality TV the audiences have become more active than they were three or four decades ago. On-demand television is a television system where the viewer has the power to choose what he or she wants to view and the preferred time of viewing (Hicks, 2009). It is different from the traditional broadcast television where one has to watch what is being aired at that specific moment (Philo, 2008, p. 540). The traditional broadcast television was rigid and did not give viewers the power of self-determination that on-demand media gives. This empowerment further enhances audience engagement in what they are consuming and even try to influence the content they are consuming, as in the case of reality TV (Holmes, 2008, p. 14). Scholars such as Morley (2008, p. 105) indicate that the younger generation has been used to getting what they want that they have extended their demands to the television content. This audience is more domineering and has varied demands. Conducting an audience research on this audience made up of the younger generation using Hall’s Encoding/Decoding model is difficult because the model did not anticipate this level of activeness or the individuality of decoding of messages that is exhibited nowadays. Whereas Hall’s Model is basically grounded on the Media Reception theory with an explanation of how the audience has a role to play in decoding the message as active participants, today’s audience research should be based on the Use and Gratification Model which envisions the level of activeness currently being exhibited by the different audiences (Moore, 1993, p. 67). The Encoding/Decoding Model was, therefore, suitable and useful at that time when the level of message decoding was restricted to cultural and sub-cultural levels. Today, the level of message decoding has been individualized thereby limiting the use of Hall’s Model in audience research (Press, 2006, p. 98). The Use and Gratification model acknowledges the fact that how the audience consumes the message eventually influences how they interpret that message. This ‘ethnographic turn’ recognises the context within which the message was consumed, and the influence it has on interpretation of the message. The producers and content creators have acknowledged the power that the consumers have in influencing their content creation. This is evidenced by the popularity reality TV has gained in the past decade. Reality TV is the epitome of audience participation (Holmes, 2008, p. 14). The fact that the content creators of the reality TV programmes allow the audience to influence the programme and feel like part of the programme is what appeals the most about reality TV. American Idol is the most popular TV show in the US and has outstanding ratings from the viewers. Scholars attribute this high rating not towards the content that is disseminated but rather on its ability to make the audience feel powerful and part of the destiny makers. The producers, through audience research, have established that today’s audiences do not want to be told to ‘sit back and relax’ to watch their television starts, they want to have power of their star’s destinies. Through offering them ways to influence outcomes such as the toll free numbers and SMS lines used in the American Idol show, it is possible to hook the audience to the programme. Hicks (2009) aptly captures this essence when he asserts that, ‘The most appealing aspect of reality TV is its power to make audiences members feel like part of the action. American Idol is the most popular TV show in America, not because it produces stars but because it turns audience members into what they always wanted to be: star makers’. Employing the Encoding/Decoding model in researching the reality TV audience is inadequate since it only takes into consideration the three positions of interpretations while still maintaining that people with the same cultural ties, by consensus, are bound to decode the message in a similar manner (Holmes, 2008, p. 19). However, this approach would be faulty since it does not take into consideration the personal, more individualized ties that the reality TV audience has with the text, a concept Su Holmes referred to as audience-in-the-text. Holmes (2008, p. 20) observes that the perception of mass audience is problematic in this era and very fragile too. Interactivity, especially in the digital media, has revolutionized the once dichotomized active/passive audience (Philo, 2008, p. 540). Reality TV has a different audience that is focused on entertainment and diversion, surveillance and information, personal relationships and personal identity. Individuals determine where they derive pleasure and enjoyment; get new experiences, find beliefs similar to their own in the TV content, and find relationships with on-screen characters. The interactivity between the audience and the content creators has gone beyond reality TV shows. Even the ordinary TV programmes and movies are incorporating the viewers’ opinions and views in their production, thereby making them a part of the production team (Hicks, 2009). Xena: Warrior Princess, for instance, provides some good insights into how an audience can influence the outcome of a programme. The programme was aired between 1995 and 2001 and offered an understanding into how powerful the audience can be in determining the content they consume. In this programme, the content providers had led the consumers to believe that Xena and her close ally Gabrielle were in a romantic relationship. The producers insinuated, the audience inferred. After the close of the first season, the audience started writing to the producers to have Xena and Gabrielle have a romantic relationship because it was what they would have wished for. The producers eventually had to bulge to the destiny of its characters as envisaged by the audience. The same level of interactivity and influence is exhibited today in many TV shows as producers engage their audiences in social media platforms to determine what the audience wants and offer them exactly that to keep them watching (Hicks, 2009). The audiences, therefore, unlike those envisaged in the Encoding/Decoding Model, do not only interpret the message according to their cultural beliefs and background but also take steps to influence content creation. Using Hall’s Model to research today’s audience may not aptly capture the essence of power that today’s audience has that goes beyond interpreting content (Press, 2006, p. 98). The Encoding/Decoding Model which proposes a dominant ideology is, thus, not suited towards audience research especially when the focus is on audience participation and influence. Reality TV effectively defeats the dominant hegemony on which earlier research was based on (Holmes, 2008, p. 27). Together with Internet television and on-demand media, reality TV has shown the flaws in Encoding/Decoding Model, especially the assumption that the TV propagates only the dominant culture. Audience Research Methodology According to Morley (2006, p. 104), employing a qualitative ethnographic approach has been the standard procedure in audience research for a long time. However, due to the recent technological advancements that have reduced the world into a global village and erased the cultural consensus approach to message dissemination, the extent to which the qualitative findings can be generalised is unclear. The Encoding/Decoding Model which categorised the audience into cultural blocks enabled greater generalisation of findings to similar audiences with common ethnographic characteristics. However, since cultural characteristics and boundaries have been blurred by technologies, using ethnography to justify generalization of audience research findings may be faulty and may lead to anecdotalism (Philo, 2008, p. 540). The researchers become confused with the vividness of their findings to mean wider applicability. Furthermore, Hall’s Model promoted group mentality and study which was relevant and appropriate at the time it was designed. Recent studies are increasingly concentrating on individuals while at the same time retaining their qualitative approach (Hartley, 2006, p. 89). However, not all authorities in audience researches are of the view that a shift in methodology is necessary. David Morley, one of the major proponents of the Hall’s Model argues that the third generation audience researchers are wrong in ignoring the media’s influence in creating ‘cultural citizenship’. He goes ahead to fault the notion that the advent of an active audience necessitates a change in methodology by stating that it is a mere assumption based on ‘false consciousness’ (Morley, 2006, p. 117). Therefore, the ability of the media to create cultural citizenship around the globe cancels the effects of globalisation and active audience and so the qualitative and ethnographic methodology that has been in use for the past four decades should not be abandoned. Conclusion It is evident that the Encoding/Decoding Model as advanced by Stuart Hall was relevant and useful in explaining message decoding and audience participation when it was designed. The Model situated the audience as cultural blocks that decode messages based on cultural backgrounds and experiences (Hall, 1973, p. 76). This notion may have been seen to be working at that time of design. However, the advent of on-demand television and the increased popularity of reality TV mean that today’s audiences have been empowered more than those in the 1970s and 1980s (Hicks, 2009). The audience research models, such as Hall’s Model, that were employed then should not be employed today because they do not take into consideration the technological and other developments that have trivialized the importance of culture in decoding messages. The Encoding/Decoding model is, thus, still useful but in so far as the explanation of message reception is concerned (Press, 2006, p. 108). However, as far as audience research is concerned, the assumption of propagation of a dominant culture reduces its credibility; the Use and Gratification model is more appropriate. This is because it effectively reduces cultural power and concentrates more on audience participation, which should be the basis of today’s audience researches. References Hall, S., 1973. Encoding and Decoding in television discourse. Birmingham: CCCS. Hall, S., 1980. Encoding/Decoding, pp. 128-138 in S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe and P. Willis (eds) Culture, Media, Language. London: Hutchinson. Hartley, J., 2002. Communication, Media and Cultural studies: The Key concepts. London: Routledge. Hebdige, D., 1979. Subculture: The meaning of style. London: Methuen. Hicks, J., 2009. Probing question: Why do we love reality television? Penn State, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 21st May 2014]. Holmes, S., 2008. The viewers have…’taken over the airwaves’? Participation, reality TV and approaching audience-in-the-text. Screen, 49(1), pp. 13-31. Moore, S., 1993. Interpreting audiences. London: Sage. Morley, D., 1980. The Nationwide Audience. London: BFI. Morley, D., 2006. Unanswered questions in audience research. Communication Review, 9(2), pp. 101-121. Nightingale, V., 1996. Study audiences: The shock of the real. London: Routledge. Philo, G., 2008. Active audiences and the construction of public knowledge. Journalism Studies, 9(4), pp. 535-544. Press, A., 2006. Audience research in the post-audience age: An introduction to Barker and Morley. The Communication Review, 9, pp. 93-100. Read More