21st Century Communication A Reference Handbook Media U.docx

21st Century Communication: A Reference
Handbook
Media Uses and Gratifications
Contributors: CarrieLynn D. Reinhard & Brenda Dervin
Edited by: William F. Eadie
Book Title: 21st Century Communication: A Reference
Handbook
Chapter Title: "Media Uses and Gratifications"
Pub. Date: 2009
Access Date: February 26, 2019
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.
City: Thousand Oaks
Print ISBN: 9781412950305
Online ISBN: 9781412964005
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412964005.n56
Print pages: 506-515
© 2009 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please
note that the pagination of the online
version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
javascript:void(0);
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412964005.n56
Media Uses and Gratifications
From one end of the globe to the other, people in all walks of
life use media—in their homes, at their daily
labors, and as they move by foot or vehicle from place to place.
Every one of these uses involves an audience
member making a conscious or unconscious, habitual or new
choice among an increasing explosion of me-
dia options: traditional choices of radio, TV, and newspapers,
magazines, and books and newer options such
as Internet sites, video games, DVDs, and MP3 players. In
addition, each user is faced with ever-increasing
avenues for getting access to their media choices. Users, thus,
make “choices” of what to seek and how. In
the tradition of media studies known as “uses and
gratifications,” the fundamental questions have been the
following: Why do people make particular media choices? What
needs are they filling by doing so? What im-
pacts do their choices have on them? Under what conditions are
some choices made and not others?
One person, coming home from a stressful day, may turn to an
often-viewed TV drama, not so much for its
content but because one of the actors is a familiar favorite,
someone welcomed as a “friend.” Another may be
suspecting that she has some kind of digestive disorder and goes
online to find health-oriented Internet sites.
Another is becoming increasingly upset about the state of world

events and turns to his favorite politically
oriented news show for confirmation of his worldview. A crafts
fanatic turns to a do-it-yourself TV channel; a
lonesome college student seeks refuge in a guilty pleasure,
listening to rap music, while none of her usually
critical family are home. Accounting for these kinds of audience
choices is the essential focus of the uses-
and-gratifications approach.
Historical Origins: From Media Effects on Audiences to
Audience Effects on Media
A number of intersecting events led scholars both in the social
sciences and humanities to become interested
in the relationships between media, audiences, and society. One
was the rise of the mass media themselves,
with the increasing presence in people's lives resulting from the
rapid diffusion, in turn, of newspapers, film,
radio, and television. With each new technology, media use rose
exponentially. A second major impact was
World War II—the first war in which mass media were
deliberately used on a massive scale to reach and
in many cases to persuade citizens. Post-war documentation of
the seemingly enormous impacts of media
campaigns in Nazi Germany led social scientists in the United
States to initiate research programs focused
on media effects.
These interests in “audience research” took on a number of
forms, each of them interrelated to each other.
One interest in audiences resulted directly from becoming aware
of the Nazi use of media. On the basis of ac-
counts, it was expected that media could have immense direct
“hypodermic”-like effects on audiences, where
everyone would be affected the same way. This assumption led
some social scientists and policymakers to

a concern for the possible negative effects of media and to a
host of the now familiar questions on media
effects. One common example is how violence portrayals by
media affect audiences. A second early interest
in audiences was essentially the opposite of a concern for
whether media have negative impacts. Rather, the
question became “How can media be used to sway audiences to
societally approved impacts?” One familiar
example is the question of how to use media to persuade
citizens to stop smoking.
A third interest in audiences was also driven by a focus on
media effects. As soon as media began to prolif-
erate, media institutions needed to account for themselves—to
their investors, advertisers, and society. This
need led them initially to an interest in audience counts—how
many people were using this or that channel or
attending to this or that program. Soon, this interest evolved to
asking what persons used what media, with
initial attentions focused on such questions as whether more
educated citizens were more likely to use news-
papers or newly immigrated citizens less likely.
SAGE
© 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
SAGE Reference
Page 2 of 14
21st Century Communication: A Reference Handbook
Each of these three early interests in audiences dominated
media research in the 1940s through the 1960s.
Each continues to be a major part of the media studies agenda

today. Each is, at root, an interest in media
effects on audiences. Yet, despite early anticipations of strong
and direct effects, the quest to identify effects
has been far more difficult and elusive than expected. It became
a byword to suggest that audiences were
difficult and expensive to reach, even “obstinate” (Bauer,
1964). “Effects” research moved from the early em-
phasis on finding direct effects to identifying limited or indirect
effects. To discern indirect effects, researchers
had to identify other factors that stood between media use and
media impact. Increasingly, for example, it was
proposed that a host of “selectivity” processes stood between
media and its effects, usually summarized as
selective attention, perception, and recall. A plethora of
alternative theories of what mediates media effects
began to be explored, including explorations of how
characteristics of spokespersons (e.g., source credibility),
messages (e.g., one-sided vs. two-aided presentations), channels
(e.g., radio or television), receivers (e.g.,
audience member age), and contexts of media exposure (e.g.,
home or car) stood between media use and
media effect.
This emphasis on understanding the conditions under which
media affect audiences continues today. There
is a general consensus that in fact media can affect audiences,
sometimes in directly observable ways, but
most often indirectly, and sometimes in hidden, concealed ways.
The journey from the general acceptance in
the 1960s, when at best media were seen as having only limited
effects, to the current more complex under-
standings has been a long one. Various research traditions have
pursued different lines of inquiry into these
questions, often in relative isolation from each other. Thus, for
example, media researchers in the “critical-cul-
tural tradition” (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1972) have focused

more on how media negatively affect audiences in
concealed ways, while those in the “quantitative empirical”
tradition have focused more often on how media
may be used to achieve societal-mandated ends such as a
citizenry more involved in political life or more at-
tentive to health concerns. Alternatively, “audience reception”
(Hall, 1973; Morley, 1992) and “sense-making”
(Dervin & Foreman-Wernet, 2003) studies have focused more
on how audiences use media to make sense
of their lives within the context of sometimes facilitating and
sometimes hindering societal conditions. In con-
trast, uses-and-gratifications researchers have focused more on
goal-oriented needs fulfillment.
These different ways of looking at media audiences are often
called research traditions. Another name for
them is discourse communities. This term is useful because it
reminds us that research traditions differ not
only in how they focus on audiences and their relationships to
media but also in their assumptions and vocab-
ularies that become like private languages. The very way these
communities talk about media is influenced
by and influences how they understand media. This is one
reason why many media audience studies seem
so contradictory.
Our focus in this chapter is specifically on the uses-and-
gratifications tradition, providing a picture of the dom-
inant emphases and accomplishments of that tradition as it
began to slowly emerge in the late 1950s and
stands today. It is important to note that in the very earliest
years of media studies in the 1940s, there was
an interest in how people use media to function in their lives,
which arose almost simultaneously with the
emergence of the emphasis on how media affect people. For
example, in work that preceded any of the now

formalized attentions to audiences, it was found that audience
members were filling needs by listening to ra-
dio quiz shows and soap operas, and these provided more than
mere diversion or entertainment. For some
audience members, media provided education and emotional
release as well. Likewise, researchers in these
early years found that newspapers were being used not just for
information but also as tools for daily liv-
ing, respite, social prestige, and social contact. This early
emphasis on audience motivations was, however,
eclipsed by the massive focus on media effects that resulted
from widespread public concern for preventing
negative and promoting positive media impacts.
Despite marked differences in the various early attentions to
media effects, all efforts to study media effects
ended up challenged in one way or another by the “obstinate”
audience. It came to be generally understood
that audience members were using media for specific functions
in their lives in ways that seemed to defy re-
searcher attempts to identify media impacts. It was this
challenge from recalcitrant audiences that served as
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 3 of 14
an impetus for the turn toward understanding audiences in
audience-oriented ways—to understanding why
audience members use media and what they use it for.

Media researchers in various traditions took this turn toward
audience-oriented studies of audiences almost
simultaneously, although in very different ways. Thus, for
example, marketing research began to focus more
on audience motivations and lifestyle contexts rather than
merely audience counts. Critical-cultural studies,
formerly focused primarily on identifying biases and hidden
ideologies in media messages, began to have a
more intensive focus on how audiences make sense of media
messages, attempting to unravel why it is that
sometimes audiences passively accept media messages and
sometimes they argue and negotiate with them.
Using primarily qualitative approaches, this turn became known
as audience reception analysis. The tradition
that became known by the name uses and gratifications grew out
of and remains anchored today in quantita-
tive social science studies. This tradition was the earliest
vigorous and systematic turn to audience-oriented
studies of media-audience connection.
The Foundational Assumptions of the Uses-and-Gratifica-
tions Approach
The most fundamental conception of media audience uses and
gratifications came from Elihu Katz (1959),
who penned the term uses-and-gratifications approach in 1959.
A media research pioneer and one of the
many scholars who attempted to find elusive media impacts, in
1959 Katz called for research to no longer
focus solely on “what media do to people” but instead to
concern itself with “what people do with … media.”
The turn toward audiences in this way was in actuality one of
the first turns toward looking at media-audience
relationship as a communication relationship rather than merely

a transmission relationship. The focus in the
various approaches to looking at effects assumed that media
were transmitting particular meanings in their
messages and that audiences were passive recipients of these
messages, for good or for bad. In contrast, the
uses-and-gratifications turn toward audiences was opening the
door to a larger question. Media institutions
were no longer seen as the sole source of determining the
meanings of media messages. Rather, audiences
were proposed as having independent roles. In the media effects
paradigm, it was assumed that there was
only one way—the producer's way—of making sense of a movie
or hearing a song or understanding a story.
Furthermore, it was assumed that there was only one way media
could be used—in the way media producers
predicted it would be used. In contrast, the foundational
assumption of the uses-and-gratifications approach
was that audience members have some degree of independent
control over what they get out of media and
how they use what they get.
While Katz laid down the call for attention to how audiences
use media in the late 1950s, the approach known
today as the uses-and-gratifications approach did not begin to
emerge formally until the 1970s, when Mc-
Quail, Blumler, and Brown (1972) began to put people's use of
media under their microscopes. It was Blumler
and Katz who began to formalize the emergence of the approach
in 1974.
Since these earliest formulations and continuing till today, the
many researchers working in the uses-and-grat-
ifications tradition have adhered to a central set of core
assumptions. These have been discussed in a wide
variety of ways but can be summarized as involving five
essential propositions: (1) audiences are actively se-

lecting from different media; (2) audience media selection is
goal directed; (3) the media and other potential
sources compete for audience attention; (4) personal, social, and
contextual worlds mediate audience activi-
ty; and (5) the uses people make of media and the effects media
have on people are interconnected. Each of
these assumptions is reviewed below.
Audiences are actively selecting from different media. In the
uses-and-gratifications tradition, it is assumed
that audience members are active in their selections and uses of
different media. The terms used to describe
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 4 of 14
the different media that audiences are selecting can be very
confusing because they vary across authors and
across time. For example, what is meant by channel in one line
of work may be described as technology or
medium in another. Across many studies, the possibilities have
included channels, mediums, technologies,
genres, texts, and content. Channels, mediums, and technologies
are often used interchangeably and refer to
distinctions such as television, film, radio, newspapers, book,
cell phones, the Internet, or sometimes a spe-
cific television station, cable network, or magazine. Genre is an
often overlapping term but usually refers to
classes of selections within a medium, such as soap operas,

video games, or television news. Texts usually
refer to specific content packages, such as a particular movie,
game, or news article.
The body of work known under the label uses and gratifications
has assumed that audiences actively select
their uses of media from the array of possibilities available in
society. It is assumed that what drives this me-
dia use reflects each person's conscious or unconscious
consideration of the usefulness of media to his or
her life. Seeing audiences as active in this way has led uses-
and-gratifications researchers to have debates
with media effects researchers, who have tended to characterize
audience members as passive recipients for
whatever comes their way. The active audience characterization
implies that people are more impervious to
influence than media effects theories have allowed. Also, being
active in general, people are also assumed to
be able to report what media choices they have made and why.
Across the now almost 50 years of uses-and-gratification
studies, it is fair to say that the most used “predictor”
of audience gratifications has been the particular medium used.
Study after study has explored the uses of
this medium or that, this genre or that, this particular content or
that, and then looked at the extent of and
reasons for audience uses.
There have been studies, for example, of the gratifications
obtained from traditional categories such as quiz
shows, soap operas, and TV talk shows, and more recently the
newer types such as video games, cell phone
use, and MP3 player use. Usually, these studies focus on one
media type at a time. Thus, for example, one
sees many recent studies of audience uses of cell phones.

When multiple media types have been compared, the results
show a commonsensical pattern to the findings.
As examples, newspapers more often gratify needs for
information, whereas TV does so more often for en-
tertainment and pleasure and cell phones for connecting to
friends and relatives. In saying this, however, it is
important to emphasize that all studies show a great deal of
variety in how audience members use specific
media. Even for quite specific genre types, for example, quiz
shows, the array of gratifications is diverse, in-
dicating that individual audience members use media in
different ways.
Audience media selection is goal directed. People are assumed
to have specific reasons for selecting the me-
dia that they do. The fundamental idea is that audience members
turn to media because they expect media
to gratify specific needs. For example, a person alone in her
apartment may feel the need for companionship
and may turn on the television to engage in imagined interaction
with characters on some show. While this
link between the need and the expectation of a gratification is
not considered the only predictor for media
use, in the uses-and-gratifications approach, it is considered an
important contributor once other factors such
as access to media are taken into account. Furthermore, this link
between need and expected gratification is
central to the basic idea of uses and gratifications. Indeed, this
link is the source of the approach's very name.
One of the primary goals in some 50 years of research has been
to develop a catalog of possible media
gratifications. Two basic approaches have been used. One is to
simply ask members of a particular audience
their reasons for media use, allowing them to answer in their
own words. The second has been to ask audi-

ence members to indicate the extent to which a roster of
gratifications applied to them and their media en-
gagements. Researchers then developed from these responses,
using various content analytic and statistical
tools, categories of potential gratifications. With both
approaches, the aim has been to develop typologies, or
categorical lists, of underlying gratifications.
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 5 of 14
Because the studies that have pursued the goal of developing
lists of possible media gratifications have dif-
fered widely in their attentions, no agreed-on list of
gratifications has yet been developed that can be applied
to all forms and instances of media use. Studies differ in ways
almost too numerous to account for—what sub-
groups of audiences are studied, for what media, in what
contexts. For example, a study focusing on children
and television produces a somewhat different list of
gratifications from one focusing on general-population
audience uses of
public television or on teenage users of video games.
Furthermore, as new media have proliferated and ge-
ographical locations of media use have multiplied, studies
attending to these “new” media in “new” locations
have added new gratifications to the roster or variations on
older ones.

Despite all this often overwhelming diversity in media
gratifications, there are some core coherencies. A basic
set of four categories of gratifications permeate almost all the
lists, albeit under different names and described
in different ways. This basic four appeared, for example, in a
1972 study by McQuail, Blumler, and Brown
under the labels diversion, personal relationships, personal
identity, and surveillance. Some 15 years later,
in his review of numerous studies, McQuail (1987) produced a
summary of gratifications organized into es-
sentially the same four categories but now with slightly
different labels—entertainment, integration, and social
interaction; personal identity; and information. McQuail also
added a roster of illustrative subcategories. This
roster of common reasons for media use serves as a useful
illustration of the kinds of typologies that have
been developed and still are being developed. It is shown in
Table 56.1.
Media and other potential sources compete for audience
attention. The third essential proposition that is foun-
dational to the uses-and-gratifications approach is that
audiences can gratify their needs in a variety of ways
using both media and nonmedia sources such as family and
friends. These alternative sources are in compe-
tition with each other as potential sources of audience need
gratifications. This phenomenon is referred to by
uses-and-gratifications researchers as the “functional
alternatives” proposition (Rosengren & Windahl, 1972).
Basically, it says that we exist in a world where there are a
number of ways in which our needs for things such
companionship and information can be fulfilled. Media are
simply a portion of the possible sources we turn to
for gratifications.

The proposition that media compete for audience attention has,
of course, been a long-term understanding.
The idea that audiences have alternative media to turn to in
gratifying any particular need has, however, de-
veloped much more slowly. There was a time once when with
few media available, it was assumed, for ex-
ample, that audiences turned to television to be entertained and
newspapers to be informed. It was assumed
that if you knew what kind of media an audience member turned
to, you knew what gratification the audience
member sought. This simple proposition, however, never
offered a satisfactory explanation because even in
the early days of media development, different audience
members were deriving diverse gratifications from
single-medium engagements. Thus, for example, if a group of
100 audience members turned to the latest
Harry Potter movie, in a gratifications study, we could easily
find at least a few mentions of every possible
gratification.
Table 56.1 Common Reasons for Media Use
Gratifications as listed in McQuail (1987) Examples
Entertainment
Escaping, or being diverted from problems
Working-class man whose work challenges his aging
body collapsing at home into escape into sports TV
Relaxing
Teenager turning to the reggae music his father intro-
duced him to in order to relax when school is stressful
Getting intrinsic cultural or aesthetic enjoyment Besieged
parent of twins sensing the joy of being human

SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 6 of 14
in a Longfellow poem
Filling time
Patient filling time with a portable electronic game player
in doctor's office
Emotional release
Third-grade boy working out aggressions with a video
game
Sexual arousal
Young woman feeling sexual stirrings watching romantic
movies
Integration and social interaction
Gaining insight into circumstances of others,
gaining social empathy
Voter coming to understand how lack of health insur-
ance is affecting his neighbors
Identifying with others and gaining a sense of
belonging

Lonesome teen learning he is not the only one interest-
ed in collecting rocks
Finding a basis for conversation and social in-
teraction
Secretary anxious to discuss last night's TV drama with
friends at work
Having a substitute for real-life companionship
Isolated mother comforted by feeling she shares in hu-
man compassion on a talk show
Helping carry out social roles
Young boy seeing that even world-famous jocks have to
apologize sometimes
Enabling onetoconnect with family, friends, soci-
ety
Grandfather comforted by the e-mailed photos of his
grandchildren
Personal identity
Finding reinforcement for personal values
Mother seeking confirmation that her decision to instruct
her daughter about birth control is wise
Finding models of behavior
Mother seeking models for convincing her daughter to
practice abstinence until she marries
Identifying with valued others
Teenager gaining a sense of self by hearing a teenage
celebrity share his views

Gaining insight into one's self
Employee struggling with boss seeing in a TV drama a
possible way to think about his own behavior
Information
Finding out about relevant events and condi-
tions in immediate surroundings, society, world
Father concerned about his son's draft status seeking
information on military actions
Seeking advice on practical matters or opinions
and decision choices
Woman just diagnosed with high cholesterol seeking
medical advice
Satisfying curiosity and general interest
Newspaper reader doing his habitual morning skimming
of latest news
Learning and self-education Student writing essay required for
his English class
Gaining a sense of security through knowledge Passenger
seeking assurance that weather is conducive
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 7 of 14

for flying
SOURCE: As Reported by McQuail (1987, p.
73).
Now, as the traditional boundaries between media-defined
functions have become blurred, no direct connec-
tion between type of medium and gratification obtained can be
assumed. Understanding what predicts how
audiences see connections between media and the gratifications
they obtain has become even more criti-
cal. Uses-and-gratifications researchers now increasingly
attempt to determine under what circumstances a
specific medium will be chosen for a particular gratification.
Recent research has documented that as new
media source and content combinations are introduced into
media landscape, audiences are actively com-
paring new ways of satisfying needs with old ones, sometimes
retaining past choices, sometimes choosing
new ones, and sometimes adding new ones to a personal set of
media gratification options.
Personal, social, and contextual worlds mediate audience
activity. This fourth foundational proposition grows
out of the preceding one. Since the link between media choices
and how audiences see those choices as
filling needs has been shown to not be directly predicted by
media type, uses-and-gratifications researchers
have turned to identifying what mediates these relationships—
what stands between media choices and how
audience members are gratified by media use. The major thrust
in this quest has been to predict audience
reasons for media use. This has led to the development of a

catalog of various predictors for the origins of
needs. Three major classes of predictors of audience needs have
been identified: (1) demographic, (2) psy-
chological, and (3) environmental/contextual variables.
The most common set of variables offered as predicting the
origin of needs has been the demographic char-
acteristics of media audiences and users. Such variables have
sometimes been referred to as the “social
circumstances” of media users because demographics reflect the
social categories and roles society uses
to categorize people. Demographic variables commonly include
measures such as age, level of education,
gender, and ethnicity.
Personality or other psychological characteristics have been the
second major group of predictors of audience
needs. Using psychological motives for predicting
communication behavior was given its first extensive con-
sideration by McGuire (1974). Since that time, a variety of
psychological variables have been tested as pos-
sible explanations for gratifications sought and obtained. Some
have been derived from what is commonly
called the “big five” personality model, which categorizes
people based on five dimensions: (1) extroversion,
(2) neuroticism, (3) openness to experience, (4) agreeableness,
and (5) conscientiousness. Others have fo-
cused on qualities such as loneliness or a need for sensation
seeking and arousal. Still others have gone
further to suggest that these psychological differences are
rooted in genetic makeups that then affect human
temperaments, including traits such as activity level,
adaptability, and attention span.
The third major group of predictors of the origins of audience
needs has been factors external to media

users—contextual and environmental factors. The reasoning
here
has been that the life conditions audience members find
themselves in may produce tensions, create problem
awareness, frustrate real-life satisfactions, reinforce particular
media-related values, or provide a field of ex-
pectations about media use (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974).
A woman who just broke up with her signifi-
cant other may decide to watch a movie for solace, whereas
another may watch the very same movie to learn
how to cope with a cheating spouse. These external factors may
interact with audience personality and other
traits, creating a complex picture of media use.
Researchers have in fact demonstrated the interconnect-edness
of these predictors and how they relate to
audience needs and gratifications through media use. As this
work has advanced over the years, audience
needs have been increasingly defined as both innate to and
descriptive of the individual and at the same time
relating to the individual's place in society and the constraints
and freedoms associated with that societal lo-
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 8 of 14
cation.

The uses people make of media and the effects media have on
people are interconnected. Throughout the
years, ongoing attempts have been made to link media
gratifications research with media effects research.
It has been argued that audience members who turn more to
particular media to meet their gratification
needs—whether these choices be conscious or unconscious—
will be more likely to be affected (either neg-
atively or positively) by the content and characteristics of that
media. Such impacts have been hypothesized
for a host of potential audiences—for example, young children
who rely more heavily on media for informa-
tion because of their relative lack of life experience and
background information and get a distorted view of
politics, teenage girls who rely heavily on teen magazines as
their sources of models for being female and
become obsessed with weight issues, isolated older adults who
turn to television for feelings of being social
but end up seeing the world as more fearful and threatening.
In this sense, it can be seen that the media uses-and-
gratifications tradition, although actively pursuing an
agenda of understanding audiences in audience-oriented ways,
still straddles between effects-oriented and
audience-oriented approaches, struggling with how to
simultaneously see audience members as unique indi-
viduals and as anchored in societal conditions and highly
constrained by media choices society offers them.
Underlying Mechanisms: Theories of the Media Use/Media
Gratification Connection
A great many studies such as those described above have been
done focusing on predicting audience mem-
ber needs and gratifications. Because of differences in how
researchers measure the many variables involved

and, in particular, what media they focus on and how they
categorize gratifications, it is not easy to extract
consistent patterns across studies. Many of the patterns that
have emerged do, however, meet commonsen-
sical expectations. Thus, for example, a large number of studies
have shown that in general, younger adults
have been more likely to name personal identity and
entertainment as media gratifications, whereas higher
educated adults have been more likely to name information and
women more likely to name integration and
social interaction. Likewise, studies have shown that audiences
using newspapers report more information
gratifications, those using radio more diversion gratifications,
and those using television more diversion and
companionship gratifications. Most important, however,
although differences have often been statistically sig-
nificant, research has increasingly shown that predicting user
needs and gratifications is not the same thing
as understanding how users make connections between different
kinds of media and how they use them.
As a result, the more sophisticated turn in this work has begun
to dig much deeper, focusing in particular on
mechanisms or theories of what it is that explains the
connections audience members make between their
media use choices and the gratifications they obtain from media
use. Several consistent guiding propositions
have emerged from this work, which we summarize below as
four sets of explanations focusing on under-
standing the underlying mechanisms. None of these is
considered the single explanation of audience media
uses and gratifications, but taken together, they provide a
developing complex set of understandings of what
is involved in the media use/media gratifications connection. In
addition, they have begun to provide empirical
support for the basic assumptions on which the uses-and-

gratifications tradition rests.
The first set of explanations has focused on understanding
audience members' activities as ongoing process-
es. Thus, for example, Levy and Windahl (1984, 1985) were the
first to propose that audience activities can
change during single engagements with media. They were also
the first to empirically study differences be-
fore, during, and after media engagement. This work has
provided support for the idea that audience mem-
bers are actively engaged in ongoing self-monitoring of their
media use activities as these are embedded in
time. On the surface, this may seem a commonsensical idea.
But, given that uses and gratifications as a tra-
dition emerged from a media effects paradigm, which expected
constant and unchanging effects to operate
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 9 of 14
directly from media to audiences, beginning to understanding
how audience activities change during single-
medium engagements constituted an important breakthrough.
The second set of explanations is also related to the
understanding that audience members are self-moni-
toring and that their evaluations of media use change as a result
of this self-monitoring. In a thrust of work
known under the label expectancy value theory, researchers—in

particular Palmgreen and Rayburn (1982,
1985)—drew on theories focusing on attitude change in
psychology to propose that audience member activity
is a result of a person's belief in the probability of success
(expectancy) for that behavior and the evaluation
of potential consequences should that behavior succeed or fail.
Media users' expectations for their needs to be gratified have
been a part of the uses-and-gratifications ap-
proach since its inception, of course. Nevertheless, this theory
formalized the attention. A major focus in this
work has been accounting for differences between gratifications
sought and those obtained. For example, a
user turns to the Lord of the Rings DVD set because she loves
the books but on trying to view the movies
finds them too violent. As a result, the gratification she sought
is not sufficiently obtained. Failing to be grat-
ified, her expectations for future similar media uses may be
altered. This kind of theorizing has opened up
deeper inquiries into how expectancies and evaluations of media
use are formed.
The third set of attentions to underlying mechanisms also builds
on the idea of media audiences as self-regu-
lating. This development has begun to examine media as sources
of affective regulation and mood manage-
ment. Developed in part in response to criticisms that the uses-
and-gratifications approach has placed too
much emphasis on audiences as rational decision makers who
weigh how best to gratify needs, this theory
has proposed that media use is at least in part a function of
audience members' needs for emotional regula-
tion (Zillmann, 1988).
The idea is that media users select their media choices to
minimize bad moods and maximize good moods.

The choices may be conscious or unconscious and, indeed, may
have started off as an accidental media en-
gagement that over time became imprinted in user memories
driving future media choices. Thus, an audience
member may stumble across a comedy that makes him or her
feel good, and the next time he or she feels
blue, he or she may choose to watch that comedy again to
achieve the same happy results. To some extent,
it can be said that this theory has simply added another category
of gratifications to those offered in Table
56.1, but some researchers are now pursuing it as a fundamental
explanation of media use in its own right.
Although the underlying mechanisms described above may be
considered as psychological in emphasis, the
fourth is more sociological. As described in the section on
predictors, some researchers have created inte-
grative models whose aim has been to show how characteristics
of individuals work in tandem with character-
istics of societal conditions to predict media uses and
gratifications. The intent has been to show that needs
arise not only from biological and psychological traits but also
from the connections people have with society
and culture, including media economic structures and
technology and social and situational circumstances.
The uses and dependency theory offered by Rubin and Windahl
(1986) is an example of a theory focusing on
how media industries and society may affect audiences' choices.
Society, they reasoned, can affect how ac-
cessible media are to audiences and how audiences perceive
their needs and expectations for media, where-
as media industries control the type of content available for
audiences. For example, a given audience mem-
ber may have a high need for information that compares liberal
and conservative views but lack the money

to purchase periodicals that are more likely to present such
coverage. The audience member has become
dependent on weekly Web surfing visits to political magazine
sites. In this way, this theory has argued that
these converging factors result in the user becoming dependent
on some aspect of media to gratify partic-
ular needs. The theory has provided for understanding how
individual and societal factors combine and has
opened up additional avenues for complex analyses of media
engagements.
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 10 of 14
The Big Unanswered Questions
When one reads the academic literature, one finds a confusing
and contradictory set of criticisms within the
community of uses-and-gratifications researchers and between
this community and other discourse commu-
nities pursuing related issues. We provide here a general
overview not of the specific criticisms about this kind
of scholarship or that kind of method but rather of the big
unanswered questions that researchers are contin-
uing to debate. These same big unanswered questions are the
source of ever-present debates among those
using the uses-and-gratifications approach as well as among
those in the critical/cultural, audience reception,
and sense-making traditions of studying the society-media-

audience relationship. In can be said, in fact, that
these are the same big questions that dominate all media
studies. We present them here without any attempt
to review the plethora of arguments in the literature about each.
Rather, we offer them to the reader as fodder
for thinking.
How do we explain both external forces acting on audiences and
internally motivated audience activities?
This is, by far, the biggest and most central unanswered
question. Among the many subquestions that are
the focus of animated arguments are issues such as the
following: If audiences are seen as the commodities
they see to advertisers, can we even say that audience members
have the freedom to actively select what
media they use? How do we explain audience members' active
and conscious choices of programs society
would deem to be negative, such as pornography, while still
respecting audiences' freedoms to choose? How
do we explain when audiences' media choices reflect or defy
larger social or cultural expectations when, for
example, a member of a cultural subgroup does not reflect the
dominant media uses and gratifications of his
or her group?
It is at the juncture of these questions that we find young
researchers in the various research traditions be-
ginning to move toward each other in an attempt to explain the
conjoint interactions of societal and individual
forces on audience choices and uses. The overarching term for
this issue is the structure versus agency de-
bate—the question of when and under what conditions audience
behavior is explained by societal forces or
as a result of audience activity independent of these forces.
If there is any consensus emerging from the debates, it is that

efforts must not explain what happens as
“structure versus agency” but as “structure and agency.” The
idea is that a media user's behavior must be
addressed with multiple converging explanations focusing on
both social forces and individual freedoms and
coming to understand when society dominates, when the
individual dominates, and when both work conjoint-
ly, whether it be in struggle or convergence.
If we look at the media life of a single user, we can illustrate
this. Mary, a 20-year-old college senior, prides
herself on being an independent woman, somewhat a feminist.
Her dad encouraged that as well, and she
loves TV shows such as The Closer, with strong, sassy women.
Yet Mary also has a “secret” TV-viewing
life. When she comes home exhausted by the strains of classes
and paid work, she admits she has a “guilty
pleasure.” She watches hiphop MTV, with all the scenes of men
brutalizing women. She says she doesn't
understand why, but she is addicted. On the other hand, when
Mary drives her car, she purpo-sively chooses
to listen to NPR but then hardly listens at all. She describes it
as having “1/100th of my ear” listening while
thinking of other things. Mary also admits that she is a far too
loyal member of the American consumerist so-
ciety. “I am constantly buying things I do not need.” Mary
acknowledges to herself that society may look down
on her decision to watch MTV while applauding her choice to
tune into NPR, but her preference for either
medium does not reflect these social expectations. Mary's media
use is complicated, as qualitative studies
are beginning to show most media use is.
What is active or passive? Conscious or unconscious?
Ritualistic or purposive? Habitual or goal directed?
Collective or individual? Each of these pluralities pervades the

various criticisms and countercriticisms levied
between and within discourse communities. A host of very
specific methods-oriented debates ensue. As one
example, cultural studies researchers charge that uses-and-
gratifications researchers assume that audience
activity is conscious, purposive, active, individualistic, and goal
directed and that audience members can ar-
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 11 of 14
ticulate what they use media for. To counter these claims,
cultural studies researchers ask these questions:
What of unconscious needs—such as a youngster unconsciously
feeling comforted by a particular show be-
cause the lead actor looks like his or her deceased father? What
of socially ritualistic media use, where friends
play video games while simultaneously listening to hip-hop?
Are these uses purposive? In what way? What
of inarticulate users, not used to reflection and explanation?
These pluralities form the fodder for not only de-
bates but also future research directions.
Figure 56.1 Three Ways of Looking at Media-Audience
Connection
What is the difference between a media effect and a media
gratification? In one sense, this unanswered
question rests on layers of subtle differences in complicated

academic assumptions and vocabularies. But in
another it is a fundamental question. On the one hand, the
effects paradigm assumes that media are acting
on people. On the other, the uses-and-gratifications approach
assumes that people are acting on media. But
some researchers counter this by suggesting that if media make
offerings available that users use in par-
ticular ways, that in itself is an effect. When audience members
choose to use particular media, expecting
specific gratifications, aren't they predicting how media will
affect them?
Conclusion
The tradition of media studies known as uses-and-gratifications
research does not offer a grand or coherent
theory of media use. Rather, it is best seen as a set of
complementary and sometimes competing understand-
ings of the connections between media uses and media
gratifications. It is primarily psychological in orienta-
tion. In essence, it is an attempt to develop understandings of
the psychological functions to which audiences
put their uses of media.
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 12 of 14
In quantitative social sciences, mass media studies have
consisted of two empirical emphases. Media effects

researchers have focused on what impact media can have on
people. The goal of that approach has been
to prevent negative effects from harming people, promote
positive effects that can help people, and provide
media producers with the means by which to do either. In
contrast, uses-and-gratifications researchers have
sought to examine the reasons people have for using media they
do. The differences between these two ap-
proaches are illustrated as rows 1 and 2 in Figure 56.1 media.
Row 3 provides a far more complex picture
where somehow media, audiences, and society interact to yield
media effects and/or media gratifications.
This is a fair representation of the current state of attentions not
only in uses-and-gratifications research but in
all media studies focusing on the media-audience connection. In
one sense, the complexity of row 3 may be
seen as a step backward, as if somehow in 50 years there has
been no resolution of the questions focusing
on how media affect people versus how people affect media.
But the important change is that the question
has begun to focus more on multiple converging forces that
acknowledge the power of society, media, and
audience members. The uses-and-gratifications approach will
continue to be one evolving avenue for explor-
ing these complex relationships.
CarrieLynn D.Reinhard Roskilde University BrendaDervin Ohio
State University
References and Further Readings
Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M.(1972).The concept
ofenlightenment. In M. Horkheimer & T. Adorno (Eds.), Di-
alectic of enlightenment (J. Cumming, Trans., pp. 3–42). New
York: Seabury
Bauer, R.The obstinate audience: The influence process from
the point of view of social communication.

American Psychologist19319–328. (1964).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0042851
Blumler, J. G.The role of theory in uses and gratifications
studies. Communication Research69–36. (1979).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365027900600102
Dervin, B., & Foreman-Wernet, L.(2003).Sense-making
methodology reader: Selected writings of Brenda
Dervin. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press
Hall, S.(1973/1993).Encoding, decoding. In S. During (Ed.),
The cultural studies reader (pp. 90–103). New
York: Routledge
Katz, E.Mass communication research and the study of popular
culture. Studies in Public Communica-
tion21–6. (1959).
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M.(1974).Utilization of
mass communication by the individual. In J. G.
Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications:
Current perspectives on gratifications research
(pp. 19–34). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Levy, M. R.Windahl, S.Audience activity and gratifications: A
conceptual clarification and exploration. Com-
munication Research1151–78. (1984).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365084011001003
Levy, M. R., & Windahl, S.(1985).The concept of audience
activity. In K. E. Rosengren, L.A. Wenner, & P.
Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratification research: Current
perspectives (pp. 109–122). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
McGuire, W. J.(1974).Psychological motives and
communication gratification. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz
(Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives
on gratifications research (pp. 167–196).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
McQuail, D.With the benefit of hindsight: Reflections on uses
and gratifications research. Critical Studies in
Mass Communication1177–193. (1984).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295038409360028

McQuail, D.(1987).Mass communication theory: An
introduction (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
McQuail, D., Blumler, J. G., & Brown, J. R.(1972).The
television audience: A revised perspective. In D. Mc-
Quail (Ed.), Sociology of mass communication: Selected
readings (pp. 135–165). Harmondsworth, UK: Pen-
guin Books
Morley, D.(1992).Television audiences and cultural studies.
New York: Routledge
Palmgreen, P.Rayburn, J. D., IIGratifications sought and media
exposure: An expectancy value model. Com-
munication Research9561–580. (1982).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365082009004004
Palmgreen, P., & Rayburn, J. D., II(1985).An expectancy-value
approach to media gratifications. In K. E.
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 13 of 14
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0042851
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365027900600102
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365084011001003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295038409360028
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365082009004004
Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media
gratification research: Current perspectives (pp.
61–72). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Rosengren, K. E., & Windahl, S.(1972).Mass media
consumption as a functional alternative. In D. McQuail

(Ed.), Sociology of mass communication: Selected readings (pp.
166–194). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin
Books
Rubin, A. M.Ritualized and instrumental television viewing.
Journal of Communication3467–77. (1984).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1984.tb02174.x
Rubin, A. M.Windahl, S.The uses and dependency model of
mass communication. Critical Studies in Mass
Communication3184–199. (1986).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295039609366643
Schramm, W.(1963).The science of human communication: New
directions and new findings in communica-
tion research. New York: Basic Books
Zillmann, D.(1988).Mood management: Using entertainment to
full advantage. In L. Donohew, H. E. Sypher,
& E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Communication, social cognition and
affect (pp. 147–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum
• media use
• uses and gratifications approach
• audiences
• media effects
• media
• media studies
• media selection
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412964005.n56
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 14 of 14

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1984.tb02174.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295039609366643
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412964005.n5621st Century
Communication: A Reference HandbookMedia Uses and
Gratifications
freedom of expression
Freedom of expression is often regarded as the most important
civil liberty or constitutional right because of its role in the
working of an effective democracy. Without freedom to debate
political issues, a liberal democracy would soon degenerate into
an authoritarian state. But there are other justifications for
freedom of expression, notably John Stuart Mill's argument that
it enables the discovery of truth and social progress, and the
argument that it is essential to the self‐fulfilment of individuals.
The term ‘freedom of speech’ has generally been used in
the common law, and is also used in the First Amendment to the
US Constitution: ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press…’. But the European
Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) and other international
instruments guarantee the ‘right to freedom of expression’.
Article 10(1) of the ECHR, now part of United Kingdom law
under the Human Rights Act 1998, provides that the right
includes ‘freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public
authority…’.
Freedom of expression (or speech) obviously includes the right
to disseminate information and ideas verbally, in writing, or by
other means of communication, such as broadcasting and the
new electronic media. One aspect of the freedom is press
freedom or media freedom. Some forms of expressive conduct,
such as desecration of a national flag or the burning of a draft
or identity card in protest against the government, may be
treated as an exercise of freedom of expression. But apart from
those cases, the distinction between expression and conduct is

important. It would be wrong to treat an act of violence, for
instance, as an exercise of freedom of expression, even though
the perpetrator intended to communicate a message in this way.
Freedom of expression is primarily a liberty against state
interference. It does not confer positive rights, for example, that
the state provide premises for speech or subsidize, say, the
theatre or art exhibitions. Nor does the right to receive
information and ideas, recognized by the ECHR, give members
of the public a right to compel a public authority to provide it.
That right is often conferred by a freedom of information law,
but it is quite distinct from freedom of expression. However, a
few positive rights are recognized, for example, the right of
candidates to use public halls for election meetings. Freedom of
expression is particularly strongly guaranteed
against censorship, often described as ‘prior restraint’ because
it is applied prior to publication. This applies most clearly in
the case of the print media and theatre; press censorship was
abolished in England as long ago as 1694, although scrutiny of
stage plays existed until 1968. But censorship of films and
videos by independent agencies still exists in the United
Kingdom and in many other countries, particularly to stop the
showing of unsuitable matter to children.
Political speech lies at the heart of the freedom, and is the type
of expression most strongly protected against the restrictions
imposed by either criminal or civil law. Consequently, courts
are reluctant to uphold limits on the expression of views on any
matter which engages the attention of the public, whether it is
an issue of electoral and political debate or one of general
social concern—for example, whether the abortion laws should
be relaxed or tightened. But freedom of expression in many
jurisdictions has been extended far beyond the realm of political
speech. It may include literature, artistic expression (including
painting and other works of art), pornography, and commercial
speech (including advertising). But extreme hard‐core
pornography is generally not regarded as ‘expression’; so a law
can ban or restrict its dissemination without the prospect of a

legal challenge that it contravenes the freedom. Also excluded
from the scope of freedom of expression are those types of
speech which have no value at all: blackmail, bribery, perjury,
and direct incitement to someone to commit a specific crime.
Equally, statements made during the course of commercial or
other transactions are not covered by freedom of expression:
contractual promises, representations inducing a contract, or the
exchange of marriage vows.
It is unusual to treat freedom of expression as an absolute right,
although the First Amendment to the US Constitution, on a
literal understanding of its words, appears to preclude any
abridgement of the freedom by Congress. Even in the United
States where freedom of speech is very strongly protected,
exercise of the right may be limited, provided the restriction is
necessary to protect some vital public interest. The ECHR
allows states to impose restrictions on the exercise of freedom
of expression, provided they are necessary to further one of the
stated aims, for example, national security, public order,
morality, the reputation and rights of others, and the authority
of the courts. But they cannot penalize expression on the ground
either that it communicates shocking or offensive ideas or that
it uses unpleasant or vulgar language. Freedom of expression
gives speakers the right to choose their own vocabulary.
In most countries, including the United Kingdom, the law
imposes significant restrictions on expression. For example, it
is generally an offence to disclose official secrets; courts will
rarely uphold an argument that official secrets statutes infringe
freedom of expression. Other restrictions are imposed by
criminal laws penalizing sedition, blasphemy,
obscenity, contempt of court, and the encouragement
of terrorism. Sometimes it is successfully argued that these
laws, or their application to the particular circumstances,
infringe exercise of the freedom of expression, so that the
speaker or publisher cannot be prosecuted. Courts are very
sympathetic to that argument when the publication concerns a
matter of political or social controversy, but much less so if the

publication is, say, pornographic. One matter of great
controversy now is whether laws penalizing hate speech—a
publication intended or likely to stir up hatred against a racial
or religious group—should be upheld or whether they infringe
freedom of expression. These laws would be regarded as
infringing freedom of speech in the United States, but in the
United Kingdom and Europe are usually considered compatible
with freedom of expression. Holocaust denial is not proscribed
in the United Kingdom, but it is in France, Germany, and some
other countries.
Other restrictions are imposed by the civil law, in particular the
law of libel and laws protecting personal privacy. In these
circumstances, freedom of expression has to be balanced against
the competing rights of individuals to safeguard their reputation
or privacy. In the United States greater importance is attached
to the former; under the rules established by the Supreme Court
in New York Times v Sullivan (1964) and subsequent decisions,
public officials and figures can only win a libel action if they
prove that the libel was published with knowledge that it was
false or with indifference to whether it was true or not. In
contrast UK courts treat freedom of expression on the one hand,
and the right to reputation or privacy on the other as equally
important; neither right has pre‐eminence. Freedom of
expression will prevail if the particular publication has great
importance because it concerns, say, politics, rather than
celebrity gossip. In contrast to their approach in privacy cases,
the courts attach little importance to broad freedom of
expression arguments in copyright and other intellectual
property cases; when a reporter or satirist infringes copyright,
he or she must argue that the infringement was covered by a
specific statutory defence in order to avoid liability.
In addition to the restrictions imposed by law, the exercise of
freedom of expression may be limited by the rules of a
professional association. These rules significantly restrict
commercial or professional advertising, a type of expression
which enjoys less protection than political or literary discourse.

Employers, school, and university authorities may impose
tighter restrictions on the expression of their staff or students
than those imposed by the law. An employee, for instance, may
be disciplined if he comments adversely on the conduct of his
employer, even though the comments concern a matter of public
importance such as the management of a hospital. Freedom of
expression arguments sometimes succeed in such contexts; but
speech at work or on a university campus does not usually
contribute to general debate and it is therefore reasonable to
give it less protection than public discourse.
The scope of freedom of expression has widened considerably
over the last few decades; it covers much more than the
expression of opinion on topics of political interest. For
example, it has been argued, sometimes successfully, that
restrictions on nude dancing or on the amount of money that can
be spent on election campaigns engage freedom of expression.
The same argument was made when the government denied the
leader of a militant organization permission to enter the
country. As a result, freedom of expression law is now far from
simple; with the ingenuity of civil liberties lawyers, it is likely
to become even more complex.
Eric Barendt
Bibliography
E Barendt, Freedom of Speech (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2nd edn, 2005)
21st Century Communication: A Reference
Handbook
Media Economics and Ownership
Contributors: Fang Liu & Alan B. Albarran

Edited by: William F. Eadie
Book Title: 21st Century Communication: A Reference
Handbook
Chapter Title: "Media Economics and Ownership"
Pub. Date: 2009
Access Date: February 26, 2019
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.
City: Thousand Oaks
Print ISBN: 9781412950305
Online ISBN: 9781412964005
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412964005.n94
Print pages: 851-858
© 2009 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please
note that the pagination of the online
version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
javascript:void(0);
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412964005.n94
Media Economics and Ownership
Media economics is a field of study used to analyze the firms,

industries, and activities of media enterprises,
drawing on theories and concepts from economics. The earliest
scholarly literature involving media econom-
ics began in the 1950s with the newspaper industry;
contemporary scholars now address all forms of media,
including new media technologies and multimedia. Historically,
media economics tended to focus on a par-
ticular media industry. However, globalization, regulatory
reform, social changes, and technology continually
modify approaches to the study of media economics. In the 21st
century, media economics must be exam-
ined across a broader spectrum of inquiry, as it cuts across
numerous areas and levels of activity.
This chapter consists of two sections. The first section describes
the field of media economics by examining
key approaches and perspectives guiding research, the primary
theoretical domains, and methodological ap-
proaches. The second section examines issues involved in media
ownership, centering on the impact of reg-
ulation, consolidation, capital and financing, and new
technologies.
The Field of Media Economics
Economics is studied in terms of macroeconomics and
microeconomics, and the field of media economics
follows suit. Macroeconomics examines the aggregate economic
system and is usually studied at a national
or global level. Macroeconomics includes topics such as
economic indices (interest rates, the supply of mon-
ey, and employment) and national production and consumption
(GDP or GNP). Most of the media economics
studies in the macroeconomics tradition are policy and
regulatory studies analyzing the impact of specific reg-
ulations and policies on media markets and industries. For

example, studies investigate topics such as the
impact of deregulation of media ownership on concentration of
local television markets, the impact of inter-
national deregulation on transnational media corporations, and
the impact of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 on consolidation of media industries.
Microeconomics examines specific aspectsofthe economic
system, including individual markets, firms, orcon-
sumers. Many media economics studies applyamicroeconomics
approachto examine market structure and
firm conduct and behavior. Such research has focusedonthe
structure, conduct, and performanceofthe agri-
cultural trade journal market; the structure of the cable
television market; and an analysis of market competi-
tion in the television syndication industry.
A third approach to studying media economics is the critical
perspective. This area of study is related to media
economics but uses different theoretical domains and
methodologies. Today, this field is known as political
economy. Initially drawing on a Marxist orientation,
contemporary critical scholars in the political economy of
the media are concerned about topics such as media hegemony,
technological determinism, political power
over media enterprises, and the impact on social policy.
Media economics research is dominated by studies involving
microeconomic perspectives. There is a much
smaller group of literature that follows a macroeconomic
perspective, although globalization has been a cata-
lyst for a growing body of macroeconomic research. Both macro
and micro perspectives are used in conjunc-
tion with a theoretical foundation to examine research questions
and hypotheses posed by researchers.

Primary Theoretical Domains in Media Economics
Much of the literature in the field of media economics has
traditionally followed neoclassical approaches,
which are led by the industrial organization model (the I/O
model). The “old” I/O model, or the Bainsian I/O
framework of analysis, is based on the assumption that there is
a causal link from market structure to firm con-
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 2 of 12
duct to firm performance. The structure-conduct-performance
paradigm (the SCP paradigm) first proposed by
Bain (1968) is the most representative of the old I/O model and
is a commonly used analytical framework in
media economics studies. Analyzing media industries using the
SCP paradigm often involves three factors:
market structure, market conduct, and market performance. The
majority of the studies of media firms and
markets in the old I/O tradition focus on the analysis of market
structure, which refers to the number and size
distribution of firms in a market.
An important emphasis of the studies in the old I/O tradition
had been empirical testing of the SCP hypothesis.
These studies focus on the impact of industry structure on
industry performance. As a consequence, initial I/
O analyses did not pay too much attention to firm conduct. On

the contrary, the “new” I/O model developed
through the 1980s and the 1990s views the once assumed causal
relationship between market structure and
performance as a relationship influenced by strategic interaction
among firms and thus pays more attention
to firm decisions, conduct, and strategic interaction in markets.
The new I/O model is especially useful for un-
derstanding firm behavior in conditions of oligopoly, where a
market is dominated by a small number of sellers
offering either homogeneous or heterogeneous products.
Scholars continue to extend the I/O model to media economics
research. Some studies look into a single
component of the I/O model, market structure, firm conduct, or
firm performance. Using the I/O model, re-
searchers examine the changes in the market structure of local
broadcast television, radio, and newspaper
markets; the structure of the electronic newspaper market; and
structure of the multichannel video program-
ming market. Additional studies focus on the structural
relationships among market structure, firm conduct,
and firm performance. For example, researchers examine the
relationship between market structure, con-
duct, and performance in the newspaper industry and the effect
of increased competition on the conduct and
performance of local television news departments.
Other theoretical domains are also found in media economics
research. Concentration studies look at the
levels of concentration among media markets and industries.
Concentrationofmediaisproblematic because
media markets are not only a marketplace for media products
and services but also a marketplace for in-
formation and ideas. Concentration of market share refers to the
proportion of a particular market controlled
by the major players operating in that market. Commonly used

measures of concentration of market share
include concentration ratios and the Herfindahl-Hirschman
Index (the HHI). Researchers employ these mea-
sures to evaluate concentration of media markets. For example,
concentration ratios and the HHI are used to
investigate concentration of the advertising market for
agricultural magazines; concentration ratios are used
to examine concentration in the U.S. daily newspaper industry
at the national and local levels; and the HHI is
used to assess concentration in the U.S. book publishing
industry from 1989 to 1994. The HHI has also been
used to evaluate concentration in local television markets based
on measures of audience shares.
Niche theory has been used to study competition among the
media industries, especially between traditional
media and new media. Niche theory is based on the assumption
that a new medium competes with traditional
media for audience and advertiser spending. For example,
researchers examine the impact of the Internet as
a new medium on traditional media in the daily news markets,
the competition between cable as a new medi-
um and broadcast media in the advertising market in the 1980s,
how cable networks use branding strategies
to attract cable system operators and national advertisers, and
the survival rates of new magazines.
The principle of relative constancy (the PRC) is another
theoretical domain that examines audience and ad-
vertiser spending on mass media over time. According to the
PRC, a relatively constant proportion of the
available wealth of audiences and advertisers is devoted to the
mass media. The PRC asserts that introduc-
tion of new media cannot increase audience and advertiser
spending on mass media. As a result, new media
grow by competing with traditional media for audience and

advertiser spending or from the growth in the gen-
eral economy of a nation, which decides the amount of audience
and advertiser spending available on the
mass media. Researchers found support for the PRC by
providing evidence on the constancy in audience
spending on mass media over time using a longitudinal
approach.
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 3 of 12
In media economics, one can find demand studies, based on
audiences, advertisers, or those desiring to
own media properties. Many media companies serve a dual
market—offering content to audiences in the
consumer market and selling access to audiences in the
advertising markets. The majority of media demand
studies focus on audience demand for content. Examples of
audience-based studies include studies that ex-
amine factors determining demand for international films, the
impact of audiences' willingness to pay high
subscription prices for business magazines on publishers'
differentiation strategies, the relationship between
newspaper price and circulation demand, and factors
determining household demand for basic or pay ca-
ble television services. In the literature, there are also studies
examining advertiser demand and demand
for media properties. For example, studies investigate advertiser
spending on mass media over the years,

the dramatic increase in investment in media industries in the
immediate years following the passage of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, and a method of pooling
equity for purchasing a portfolio of media proper-
ties.
The theories and frameworks reviewed above are among the
most commonly used in the field of media eco-
nomics. In addition, in the media economics literature, one can
also find studies that use policy analysis to
gauge and analyze regulatory actions, especially the impact of
regulation on the structure of media markets
and on welfare, and studies that use game theory, information
economics, behavioral economics, and trans-
action cost economics.
Methodological Approaches in Media Economics
There are many methodological approaches used in media
economics research, encompassing both quanti-
tative and qualitative applications. Some of the more common
methodological approaches found in the litera-
ture are detailed in the following paragraphs.
Trend Studies
Researchers use trend studies to identify patterns among media
firms and industries. Trend studies are used
to track things such as advertising expenditures, ownership
transactions, financial data, and demand. Trend
studies tend to be descriptive in nature and visual in their
presentation through the use of charts and graphs.
Trend studies have been extensively used by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). Trend studies
conducted by the FCC include the Annual Report on
Competition in Video Markets, Cable Industry Prices,

Review of the Radio Industry, and others. Scholars use trend
studies to investigate changes in media markets
and industries over time. Some examples include a trend
analysis of the revenues of the U.S. media indus-
tries between the 1980s and the 1990s, analysis of the change in
consolidation of media industries before
and after the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
and a trend analysis of the adoption rate of the
VCR among audiences in the early 1990s.
Survey Research
Survey research is a means of gathering information by asking a
set of questions to a sample of respondents
who represent a population with specific characteristics. Survey
research is a relatively cost-effective way
to collect a large amount of information. Implementations of
survey research methods include mail surveys,
telephone surveys, personal interviews, and Internet surveys.
Surveys have been employed to investigate a
variety of media economics topics, such as news managers'
attitudes toward partnerships between newspa-
pers and television stations; the relationship between corporate
newspaper structure, profits, and organiza-
tional goals; the influence of owners or advertisers on news
correspondents' news reporting; factors affecting
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 4 of 12

audiences' willingness to pay for content; factors leading to
audiences' adoption of new media technologies;
audiences' satisfaction with multichannel video programming
services; and advertising decision makers' per-
ception of media effectiveness and substitutability.
Content Analysis
Content analysis is a research method for a systematic analysis
of content. Content analysis can take on two
different forms. One is conceptual analysis, which identifies
concepts for examination and then quantifies and
tallies their presence, and the other is relational analysis, which
identifies concepts present in some given
content and further explores the relationships between the
concepts identified—strength, sign, and direction
of relationships. In media economics, content analyses have
mostly been conducted on newspaper and tele-
vision content. For example, researchers use content analysis to
examine the effects of group ownership on
daily newspaper content and to investigate the relationship
between market size and local television news
content.
Intensive Interviews
Intensive interviews are used by researchers to collect
information from a small number of respondents who
are hard to reach by other means, such as top executives of
media firms. Intensive interviews can be struc-
tured, semi-structured, or unstructured, and which form to use is
decided by factors such as the nature of
the study, characteristics of the interviewees, and whether
comparative analysis is involved. Semistructured
interviews are more often used with media executives in

organizational research, because this form gives in-
terviewers more flexibility in deciding the choice of questions
and the order of questions during the interview
process and also allows comparability across different
respondents in data analysis. The application of inten-
sive interviews in media economics research includes interviews
with cable system operators to investigate
their perception of the competitiveness of the cable television
markets, interviews with book wholesalers to
study the transformation of the wholesale sector in the U.S.
book-publishing industry, and interviews with me-
dia professionals to understand the economics of buying and
selling audiences in the television advertising
market.
Case Study Approach
The case study approach has been widely applied to examine the
economics of media firms and industries.
In case studies, multiple research methods are used to
investigate a phenomenon embedded in its real-life
context. In media economics studies, cases or units of analysis
can be media firms, industries, markets, ad-
vertisers, audiences or others entities, depending on the nature
of inquiry. Case studies can be classified into
two types by the number of cases included in one case study—
single-case studies or multiple-case studies.
Although multiple-case studies may be more time-consuming
and costly to conduct, this research method
has been employed in a number of media economics studies due
to its advantages such as providing more
compelling evidence and improving the robustness of the study.
Examples of single-case studies include the
book-publishing industry's transition to the BookScan system of
measuring book sales, the merger of U.S.
West and Continental Cablevision Inc., and Nielsen in the TV

ratings history from 1984 to 1999. Examples
of multiple-case studies include the impact of intra-industry and
interindustry competition in the evolution of
satellite broadcasting in the United States, Japan, England, and
France and the competitive strategies em-
ployed by two all-news channels—CNN and BBC—in Asia.
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 5 of 12
Secondary Data Analysis
In media economics, secondary data refer to data previously
collected by individuals or organizations for pur-
poses other than those of a particular media economics research
project. There are a variety of secondary da-
ta sources on media firms, industries, and markets available to
researchers. A number of databases such as
Thomson One Banker (Thomson Analytics), Hoover's Online,
and Standard and Poor's provide comprehen-
sive business and investment information, including industry
surveys; corporation records; and key financials,
ratios, and growth rates for companies worldwide. Industry-
specific directories such as the Cable & Television
Factbook, the Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook, and the Editor
and Publisher International Year Book provide
comprehensive information on specific media industries.
Trade organizations such as the Radio Advertising Bureau

(RAB), the Television Bureau of Advertising (TVB),
the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), the National Cable &
Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Motion
Picture Association of America (MPAA), the
Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association (SBCA)
of America, the Newspaper Association of
America (NAA), and the Magazine Publishers of America
(MPA) provide continually updated industry statis-
tics, including annual revenues (e.g., advertising revenues and
subscription revenues), audience-size statis-
tics (e.g., ratings, the number of service subscribers,
circulations, or box-office sales), and industry trends
such as the changes in annual revenue or audience size over the
years.
It is usually less expensive to collect secondary data than
primary data, and the time required for searching
secondary data sources is much less than for collecting primary
data. Media economists have taken advan-
tage of a variety of secondary data sources. Examples of
secondary data sources used in media economics
studies include programming schedules of broadcast television
stations, syndication industry reports on pro-
gramming, the database on corporate transactions complied by
the Securities Data Company, data on box-of-
fice sales provided by the online movie information service
IMDb, the report of the Follow-Up National Survey
of Cable Television Rates and Services complied by the U.S.
General Accounting Office, and data on mass
media expenditures by categories collected by the Central
Statistical Office of the United Kingdom.
Issues in Media Ownership
Media ownership is one of the most important areas of media

economics, and it has been extensively re-
searched. In this section, issues including media ownership
regulation, concentration of media ownership,
and capital and financing of media firms are discussed.
Media Ownership Regulation
The goals of media ownership regulation are to promote
diversity of ownership, and thus diversity of voices,
as well as to prevent concentration of economic power. Many
jurisdictions have specific regulations for media
ownership rather than leaving it to general competition law,
from the concern that these goals may not be
adequately addressed by market competition. The U.S. media
ownership rules are designed to promote the
FCC's policies of competition, diversity, and localism. The U.S.
media ownership rules restrict concentration
of media ownership at both local and national levels by setting
up ownership caps, either on the total number
of media outlets that can be owned in local markets or
nationally by a media firm or on the maximum percent-
age of households that can be reached nationally by a media
firm.
When an ownership regulation is relaxed or lifted, it has
immediate influence on the status of concentration of
media ownership, or media consolidation, which refers to the
control of the majority of the media outlets by a
small number of media conglomerates. According to an FCC
media ownership study released in 2002, there
SAGE
SAGE Reference

of 12
was substantial consolidation across most forms of media,
including television, radio, newspaper, cable, and
satellite in the 1990s, especially following the passage of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, which relaxed
or eliminated some local and national ownership limitations on
television, radio, and cable as well as some
cross-ownership limitations (Duwadi, Roberts, & Wise, 2007).
Some jurisdictions have a long history of regulating media
ownership from an industry-specific approach. This
approach is under pressure due to the development in
communication technologies and industry expansion
across traditional industry boundaries. The media industries
have been advocating deregulation of this in-
dustry-specific regulatory approach. The trend toward media
ownership deregulation is detectable in some
countries. For example, the FCC amended the ban on common
ownership of a broadcast station and a daily
newspaper in the same market in 2007. This amendment would
allow a newspaper to own one television sta-
tion or one radio station in the 20 largest markets in the United
States (FCC, 2007, December 17).
Another emerging issue in media ownership regulation is
whether and how the Internet should be subject to
media ownership regulation. Media conglomerates can expand
their success from traditional media to new
media such as the Internet. The Internet as a new content
distribution platform is dominated by the same
group of media conglomerates that dominate traditional media.
These media conglomerates have the major-

ity of the traffic on the Internet. However, no regulation on
Internet ownership exists yet.
Concentration of Media Ownership
The U.S. media markets are controlled by a number of top
media conglomerates, such as Time Warner, Com-
cast Corp., Walt Disney Co., News Corp., NBC Universal, CBS
Corp., Cox Enterprises, Echostar Commu-
nications Corp., and Viacom. These media conglomerates have
concentrated ownership over the U.S. me-
dia—they control more than half of the total U.S. media
revenue. As a result, these media conglomerates
together have a great impact on what audiences listen to, watch,
and read via different media platforms, in-
cluding radio, television, newspapers, the Internet, and others.
Some media conglomerates are vertically integrated, having
control over media outlets at various levels
of media products (i.e., production, distribution, packaging, and
exhibition). For example, Time Warner, the
largest media conglomerate in the world, has operations in
various forms of information and entertainment,
from magazines, comic books, motion pictures, television, and
home entertainment production, cinemas, to
broadcasting, and others. There are also horizontally integrated
media conglomerates; that is, they have con-
trol over more than one media outlet at one single level of
media products. Comcast Corporation, for exam-
ple, operates more than 1,000 cable systems in the United
States, providing multichannel video programming
services to about 24 million subscribers.
Concentration of media ownership, including vertical
integration and horizontal integration, can help media
firms improve economic efficiencies. For horizontally

integrated media firms, the primary advantage of having
concentrated ownership is economies of scale, which refers to
the reduction in cost per unit as more units are
produced. One of the basic economic characteristics of the
media business is high fixed costs and low vari-
able costs. Horizontally integrated media firms such as radio
and television groups can achieve economies of
scale by spreading fixed costs over a larger number of stations.
For vertically integrated media firms, the pri-
mary advantage of having concentrated ownership is economies
of scope, which exist when the cost of joint
production of several products is lower than the total cost of
producing each product separately. The benefits
for vertically integrated media conglomerates with multiple
products in multiple markets include improvement
in profitability, reduction in financial risk, and increase in
market power.
One of the assumptions of media ownership regulation is that
there is a link between the number of different
media outlets in a market and the diversity of voices. Increasing
concentration of media ownership has raised
concerns of the public and the academic community due to the
belief that source diversity influences pro-
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 7 of 12
gramming diversity. A number of studies show that diversity of

the media marketplace has been declining, and
concentration of ownership is one of the key factors that led to
this decline. According to studies on broadcast
radio and television ownership conducted by Free Press in 2006
and 2007, women ownership and minori-
ty ownership are at extremely low levels in the broadcast radio
and television industries (Turner & Cooper,
2007).
When the marketplace of ideas is controlled by a handful of
media conglomerates, localism and public interest
may be hindered. Due to the relaxation of media ownership
rules at both local and national levels, radio and
television station groups and newspaper chains were able to
acquire more outlets. In many local markets,
there are fewer and fewer locally owned radio and television
stations or newspapers. Corporate owners are
mostly profit driven, and centralizing operations is one of their
common practices for the purpose of cost sav-
ing. Therefore, interest in local matters and public interest may
not be incorporated in the station group or
newspaper chains' daily operation.
The development in communication technologies made it
technologically possible and economically feasible
for media conglomerates to establish distribution and
production networks across continents. A number of
U.S. media conglomerates that dominate the U.S. media
markets, along with a few Asian and European me-
dia conglomerates such as Sony Corp., Bertelsmann, Vivendi,
and Pearson, dominate the global media land-
scape. These media conglomerates have operations worldwide
and distribute their content or provide ser-
vices to a world audience.
Different countries have different approaches to foreign

ownership in media. Some countries encourage for-
eign ownership for the sake of cultural diversity. The United
Kingdom allows foreign companies, especially
non-European companies, to invest in media in order to
introduce new perspectives to the British media. On
the contrary, some countries have passed regulations to limit
foreign companies' equity of media to a minority
role and thus to control foreign ownership in media in their
countries. For example, the Chinese government
only allows foreign companies to provide certain media services
via joint ventures with Chinese companies
and has passed regulations to restrict foreign companies to
minority equity holders.
Capital and Financing of Media Firms
Most media firms need to raise capital to support daily
operations, purchase equipment and facilities, and
acquire other media properties. The process of raising capital is
different for privately owned media firms and
publicly traded media firms. Capital can be directly invested in
privately owned media firms, whereas capital
can only be invested in publicly traded media firms in stock
markets. For example, investors cannot invest
directly in Hearst Corporation, which is a private company, but
can invest in the publicly traded McClatchy
Company through share purchase in a stock market. Capital
markets play a critical role in media firms' growth
and expansion due to the large amount of capital required for
media start-ups and for acquiring media prop-
erties. Capital markets are essential for media firms that intend
to acquire other media properties. Without
capital markets, it would be impossible for media companies to
grow.
Media firms use a variety of financial agreements, such as

mergers, acquisitions, leveraged buyouts, spin-
offs, and others. Media firms employ these financial agreements
to improve performance and pursue growth
opportunities. Mergers and acquisitions are very commonly used
by large media firms seeking growth and ex-
pansion. A merger refers to the combination of two companies.
In a merger, two companies agree to combine,
and the new entity retains all the assets and liabilities of both
companies when the transaction is completed.
In an acquisition, one company acquires the operating assets of
another.
Liberalizing media ownership regulation has removed some of
the conventional regulatory barriers for merg-
ers and acquisitions. Since the passage of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, the number of mergers and
acquisitions in media industries has increased, and the average
value for these transactions has been in-
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 8 of 12
creasing too. Capital markets make mergers and acquisitions
possible for media firms—media firms use cap-
ital borrowed from capital markets to acquire other media firms.
The influx of capital into the media markets,
and therefore a large scale of mergers and acquisitions in media
industries, led to the increasing concentra-
tion of media ownership.

Characteristics of media markets, such as strong cash flow
dynamics, relatively low capital expense, and high
growth rate are appealing to investors. Private equity firms
showed an increasing interest in media markets
and invested in a number of billion-dollar deals involving media
firms since the late 1990s. For example, the
buyout of Tribune Co. by the private investor Sam Zell,
completed in December 2007, was valued at $4.3 bil-
lion; the buyout of Thomson Learning Inc. by an investor group,
announced in July 2007, was valued at $7.8
billion. Private equity firms eventually sell off their
investments. This is one of the factors that contributed to
the increase in change of hands of media properties.
Conclusion
The first section of this chapter described the three key
approaches to studying media economics, including
microeconomics, macroeconomics, and critical perspective.
Microeconomics, which examines specific as-
pects of the economic system, including individual markets,
firms, or consumers, is the approach guiding the
majority of media economics studies. The SCP paradigm is the
most commonly used analytical framework in
media economics. The fundamental assumption of this
framework is that there is a causal link from market
structure to firm conduct to firm performance. Market structure
is the focus of most media economics stud-
ies in the I/O tradition. Other theoretical domains applied in
media economics include concentration studies,
niche theory, relative constancy, demand studies, and others.
The majority of media economics studies are empirical research.
With different theoretical domains, media re-
searchers use a variety of quantitative and qualitative research

methods to examine research questions and
hypotheses. Some of the common research methods employed in
media economics studies include trend
analysis, survey, content analysis, intensive interviews, case
study, and secondary data research. Media re-
searchers use these methodological approaches to investigate
media firms, industries and markets, audi-
ences, and advertisers.
In the second section, media ownership issues were discussed,
including media ownership regulation, con-
centration of media ownership, and capital and financing of
media firms. Media ownership regulation restricts
media ownership at both local and national levels to prevent
concentration of economic power and to promote
diversity of voices. Emerging issues in media ownership
regulation include whether or not the industry-spe-
cific regulatory approach is still appropriate in the convergence
of media industries and whether and how the
Internet should be subject to media ownership regulation.
The relaxation of media ownership regulation, combined with
development in communication technologies
and the increase in investments in media markets, led to more
mergers and acquisitions in media industries
and thus media consolidation, in the form of horizontal
integration or vertical integration. On the one hand,
media consolidation can improve the economic efficiencies of
media firms due to economies of scale or
economies of scope; on the other hand, it can hinder
competition, diversity of voices, and localism.
FangLiu and Alan B.Albarran University of North Texa
References and Further Readings
Albarran, A. B.(2002).Media economics: Understanding

markets, industries and concepts (2nd ed.). Ames:
Iowa State University Press
SAGE
SAGE Reference
Page 9 of 12
This book provides an introduction to basic economic concepts
and principles and their application to the
analysis of U.S. media industries, including radio, television,
cable television, motion picture, recording, news-
paper, magazine, and book publishing.
Albarran, A. B., Chan-Olmsted, S. M., & Wirth, M. O. (Eds.).
(2006).The handbook of media management and
economics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
This handbook discusses theories and frameworks, quantitative
and qualitative research methods, current
issues, and future directions for research in the field of media
management and economics. Each chapter
focuses on a specific area of media management and economics.
Albarran, A. B.Dimmick, J.Concentration and economies of
multiformity in the communication industries.
Journal of Media Economics9(4)41–50. (1996).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327736me0904_3
The authors use concentration ratios to evaluate concentration
within and across U. S. media industries over
the time period1990–1995.
Alexander, A., Owers, J., Carveth, R., Hollifield, C. A., &
Greco, A. N. (Eds.). (2004).Media economics: Theory
and practice (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

This book focuses on the process of media economics decision
making. It consists of two parts: The first part
provides an overview of economic value and structure, and the
second part analyzes the economics of U.S.
media industries.
Bain, J. S.(1968).Industrial organization (2nd ed.). NewYork:
Wiley
This book is one of the earliest and most prominent textbooks
on industrial organization.
Bates, B.Concentration in local television markets. Journal of
Media Economics6(3)3–21. (1993).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08997769309358242
This study investigates concentration in the broadcast television
industry from the standpoints of both media
economists and policymakers.
Chan-Olmsted, S. M.Mergers, acquisitions, and convergence:
The strategic alliancesof broadcasting, cable
television, and telephone services. Journal of Media
Economics11(3)33–46. (1998). http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327736me1103_4
This article examines mergers and acquisitions in the
broadcasting, cable television, and telephone industries
after the passage of the Telecommunication Act of 1996.
Chipty, T.Vertical integration, market foreclosure, and
consumer welfare in the cable television industry. Amer-
ican Economic Review91(3)428–453. (2001).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.3.428
This study examines the impact of the vertical integration
between programming and distribution in the cable
television industry on program offerings, prices, and
subscriptions.
Dimmick, J. W.(2003).Media competition and coexistence: The
theory of the niche. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum
In this book, the author uses niche theory to analyze intramedia
and intermedia competition for audiences

21st Century Communication A Reference Handbook Media U.docx

21st Century Communication A Reference Handbook Media U.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 21st Century Communication A Reference Handbook Media U.docx

Similar to 21st Century Communication A Reference Handbook Media U.docx (11)

More from vickeryr87

More from vickeryr87 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

21st Century Communication A Reference Handbook Media U.docx