电视仍是消费时间最长的媒介?

【电视仍是消费时间最长的媒介?】新媒介出现后,人们可选择的平台和内容更多更丰富了,然而人们最常用的却还是那几样。研究表明,为工作而使用电脑、看电视、移动媒介、在线媒介是每天人们的媒介四重奏。“易得性”是受众选择媒介的重要因素。电视仍是消费时间最长的媒介,尤其是对于老年人和教育层次不高的人群更是如此。

文章题目:Mediaconsumption across platforms: Identifying user-defined repertoires

文章原文:

Abstract

New media have made available awide range of platforms and content choices. However, audiences cope withabundant choices by using more narrowly defined repertoires. Unfortunately, weknow little of how users create repertoires across media platforms. This studyuses factor analysis to identify user-defined repertoires from data obtained byfollowing 495 users throughout an entire day. Results indicate the presence offour repertoires that are powerfully tied to the rhythms of people’s daily lives.These were in turn explained by a combination of factors such as audienceavailability and individual demographics.

 

Keywords

agency, audience behavior,audience research, cross-platform consumption, media

repertoires,mobile, new media use, online media, structuration, television

 

Discussion

 

Our study identified four distinct repertoires thatAmericans use to manage a growing

supply of media content and services. The results offer aparsimonious illustration of

cross-platform media use in an increasingly abundant andcomplex environment. As both

academics and practitioners are just beginning to make senseof how individuals consume

media in this dynamic digital age, our study lays thegroundwork for this emerging

body of research. At first glimpse, the repertoires appearto reflect simple affinities for

specific media that are available tousers at given locations. A closer examination

suggests that the composition of these repertoires is guidedby the social context within

which the medium is used.

 

The patterns of availability and use, we observed, aredeeply embedded in the rhythms

of day-to-day life such as work, leisure, commute, andsleep. The repertoires created by

our respondents are essentially structures that arerecursively activated within their daily

social practices. Users thus rely on habit and iteration increating their media repertoires,

reflecting the agentic dimension of routinized action(Giddens, 1984). However, apart

from this ‘iterative’ aspect, human agency also has a‘practical-evaluative’ dimension,

which reflects the ‘unproblematic patterns of action bymeans of which we orient our

efforts in the greater part of our daily lives’(Emirbayerand Mische, 1998: 975). The

user-defined repertoires evidenced by our subjects reflectboth these dimensions of

agency as we note in a closer examination of each repertoirethat follows.

 

The largest repertoire in terms of time spent is ‘media athome’ that weds a place-based

medium (television) to its predominant uses. Although, asexpected, this repertoire is

more common among older viewers and those with lower education(compared to ‘media

at work’ and ‘media online’), the large mean suggests thattelevision, on average, remains

the most-viewed video platform, with viewer availability athome its most salient explanation.

Further, negative correlations of ‘media at home’ with‘media at work’ and ‘media

on mobile’ also illustrate that usage of repertoires isdriven by availability. Finally, the

usage of ‘media at home’ is uncorrelated with ‘media online’suggesting that access to

on-demand media (85%  had home internet), does not displace lineartelevision viewing.

In sum, we can conclude that linear television remains apredominant visual media source,

illustrating the importance of routines in determining mediause in the digital age.

 

Likewise, two distinct repertoires – ‘media at work’ and‘media online’ – are both

constructed by platforms accessed through the computerscreen. These are evidenced by

similar users (better educated people) and have a highcorrelation. Yet the platforms that

make up these repertoires are distinct (see Tables 1 and 2).Time spent at work could

strongly predict the former but not the latter. In otherwords, people were predominantly

using computers for office productivity during work hours,occasionally accessing news

and sports websites. This result illustrates the ‘practicalevaluative’ dimension of agency,

where users exercise their choices in ways that createrepertoires, acting within structural

constraints. Similarly we find that the ‘media on mobile’repertoire is evidenced during

one’s commute, when other media are unavailable, even thoughmobiles are available at

all other times.

 

The fact that repertoires are tied to specific media offersan important insight into

media use in a digital age. Theorists might well haveexpected user-defined repertoires

to be more closely wedded to content genres than mediumtypes. For instance, we could

have evidenced a ‘news’ repertoire that combined internetand television news (e.g.,

Dutta-Bergman, 2004; Yuan, 2011). Likewise repertoires couldhave emerged based on

‘sport’ and ‘entertainment.’ Similarly platforms like email,instant messaging and mobile

text messaging could have constituted an ‘interpersonalcommunication’ repertoire.

Indeed, prior studies on cross platform repertoires(Hasebrink and Popp, 2006; Reagan,

1996; Van Rees and Van Eijck, 2003) have revealed suchfindings. Our results, therefore,

are novel and a significant point of departure. This wewould attribute to both theoretical

and methodological differences fromearlier studies.

 

First, prior studies did not consider the role ofavailability in explaining media repertoires.

This, in our opinion, was a major theoretical drawback sinceavailability has historically

explained much variance in different aspects of televisionviewing. Second,

earlier work relied on self-reports, a method prone toinaccuracies (Prior, 2009) and one

that probably overemphasizes the role of preferences inmedia choice.

 

Of course, no method is perfect. Certainly in our data,having someone watch respondents

use media throughout the day may have led subjects to limittheir consumption to

socially desirable content choices. However, two factorsmitigate these concerns. First,

our study is limited to platform and genre use (CRE did not measureconsumption of

individual channels, programs, and websites). Second, ourrespondents are former Nielsen

panelists, who may have been better acclimated to theirroles as research subjects.

 

According to a recent review on online news consumption (Mitchelsteinand

Boczkowski, 2010) existing approaches in scholarship ononline media use ‘have generated

valuable knowledge, but have also exhibited ... importantlimitations: the assumption

of a division between print, broadcast, and online media;the notion that the analysis

should treat media features and social practices separately’(Mitchelstein and Boczkowski,

2010: 1093). In this study, the use of cross-platform dataenabled us to take an analytic

approach that avoided a ‘division’ between traditional andnew media. Further, by measuring

subjects’ locations and activities in addition to media use,we were able to integrate

‘social practices’ with media consumption.

 

In sum, this research makes both theoreticand methodologicalcontributions to the

study of media repertoires. To our knowledge, this is thefirst research to use a combination

of individual demographics and patterns of availability toexplain user-defined

cross-platform media repertoires. We find that audienceavailability, which has been a

powerful determinant of linear TV viewing, continues toshape repertoires. This suggests

that despite the increased prevalence of anytime, anywheredigital platforms, daily routines

and the media structures that support them still play animportant role in shaping

patterns of media use. At the same time, individualcharacteristics, such as age and education,

also contribute to this more nuanced explanation of audiencebehavior.

 

In a world where users move in rapid succession from onemedia platform to another,

studies relying on simple self-reports of media use will beincreasingly problematic. We

were fortunate to have access to cross-platform behavioraldata, providing us with highly

accurate measures of audience availability. Prior studiesmeasured availability as time

spent viewing, overstating its importance. We overcame thatlimitation by accounting for

times users were available but did not consume a medium. Ourmodels therefore avoided

an overemphasis on either structural or individualdeterminants to predict media repertoires.

Moreover, we were able to replicate our initial analysiswith a second round of

data.

 

Newer media technologies are proliferating at a fast pace.Many platforms that we

included, such as online video and mobile internet, havebecome more common since

our data were collected. Other platforms that we had toexclude due to low consumption

levels, such as TV viewing through DVRs or online socialnetworking, have grown in

penetration. Consequently, future studies would do well toincorporate an even wider

variety of platforms. Perhaps the use of larger sample sizesand the inclusion of more

discrete media resources will reveal more granular and fullyelaborated repertoires.

However, our findings strongly suggest that these will reflectnot only individual needs

and preferences, but also how users commandeer the availablemedia resources to manage the routines of day-to-day life.

文章作者:Harsh Taneja,James G. Webster, Edward C. Malthouse and Thomas B. Ksiazak

 

文章来源:New MediaSociety 2012 14:951

文章下载:


Comments are closed.



无觅相关文章插件