CEU eTD Collection In partialfulfillment oftherequirements for thedegree ofMaster ofArts TV PROGRAMMING AND VIEWER PREFERENCE Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology Social and ofSociology Department Supervisors: T HE CASE OF prof. Jean-Louis Fabiani Central European University European Central Budapest, Hungary Budapest, Anastasia Zasorina Submitted to “G 2012 ENERAL By prof. Alexandra Kowalski prof. Alexandra H OSPITAL ” : CEU eTD Collection the network’s concept of audience and attempt to utilize such concept for their own ends. forown their concept utilize such to andattempt audience conceptof network’s the viewers. I will also show how the members of “Save our Soap” group demonstrate awareness actual of preference on than expressed rather networks by of TV the andimagined constructed in“audience”isby industry,argue thatTVcontent way dependsonthe which television I communication duringthecampaign utilized waysandis the in audience which conceptualized assess degreeof the success,analyzingcampaign’s and the channels andstrategies of to analysis content Using narrative. serial’s that into changes introduce aimed Soap” our to campaigncalled“Save serial “General thefan-initiated and running American Hospital” daytime examine of Tolong-viewers. preferences theexample of thisstudy this question, uses the existing reflect andthus to whichcontents of TV programming extent producers, the the by account into taken viewers are which of preferences to namely, the extent audience, intended and their of between TV programming producers investigates relationship the This study ABSTRACT i CEU eTD Collection distance. vital evenat support proved ofCEUfriends mycloseFinally, whose I am outside to grateful Many gotomythanks family for their and support encouragement. mekept unduly sane and not duringstressed demanding the year. academic me andfrequent alotconversations criticism,inspiration, offered of program constructive – our I am inindebted tomy fellowalso students the Masters’ Sociology Anthropology and Social Fabiani, whom would without work this be notpossible. likeI wouldexpress Professor myAlexandra to to gratitude Kowalski and Jean-Louis Professor ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii CEU eTD Collection REFERENCES 48 ...... APPENDIX 47 ...... CONCLUSIONS ...... 45 5. ANALYSIS 4. METHODOLOGY 3. DESCRIPTIONOFTHE CASE 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK REVIEW LITERATURE 1. INTRODUCTION 4 ...... ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ii ABSTRACT ...... i Contents 5.4 Speaking in 5.4 Speakingin networkese Case atpoint– ABC 5.3 InsiderAccess 5.2 Channelsofcommunication by degree ofmanageability 5.1 Influence ofcampaign and ratings 2.3 Structuraluncertainty andthe problem ofknowledge 2.2 Marketinformation regime 2.1 Economic imperatives androle ofaudience 1.4 Industry’sconceptions ofaudience and it’s influence over content 1.3 Fanstudies 1.2 Culturalstudies approach economyapproach 1.1 Political 30 ...... 13 ...... 27 ...... 39 8 ...... 10 ...... 20 8 ...... 25 ...... 18 ...... 30 ...... 35 iii ...... 18 22 ...... 32 15 ...... CEU eTD Collection “General Hospital” and a particular group of fans of that show who, being displeased with the advertisers (Allen1992). includes and networks, television stations,system that programmingon TV screen–a just although indispensible, one, component of system the in whichitis whatdetermined appears The viewers are ishighly 1993). (Hayward mediated into content production the the of factored of preferences of the viewers power the about assumptions generous most in However, of even speak about. case allowed to to influence TV content, how andare they inwhat viewers the of by preferences the feel constrained often tightly content the way in which those they inimposeare their position upon unwillingto preferences audience,of producers TV preferences are feeling contrary to that, that note (Brennan2004) At others sametime, the (Kellner 2009). tastes from and insulated peddle of their viewers,any preferences tothe sort content almost position to merely influencestelevision existingsocial or relationships. reproduces answering programs in would towards which contribute proportion the question of offered possess. already theviewers of reference andpoints preferences stereotypes, discourses, draws upon to muchso far lesseris extent which thedegreeto only not thetelevision society,fashions but the concepts of class, gender, ethnicity, race and sexuality (Kellner 2009). What has been studied mediamass by –influencesincluding, of society, aspects means though different no limitedto, In this thesis, I will use an example of the long-running American daytime serial is industry in that cultural from content originates entirely claim TV Somethat authors findviewer inTo examinewhetherexisting preferences any “menu”of the reflection TV Much has been written about the ways in which television – the most ubiquitous form most form in ubiquitous –the theMuch hasways been written of whichtelevision about INTRODUCTION 4 CEU eTD Collection general. in television commercial mass of type” “ideal an as serials daytime treat me to allows This in a few days. but arecreated episodes asnew of production, standardization and rationalization extreme pressures; commercial of independent art” “quality of appearance an maintaining with concerned not are serials daytime most as form, commercial explicitly years; recent muchlostit’s in longer 1995),despite of having popularity genre(Allen than time any other for countries inmore more viewers attracted have consistently operas” as “soap mass appeal, genres,namely: other on bediluted sometimes can which massTVprogramming commercial of traits exemplify the “Soap operas” content. over of audience influence possible and interaction in make my ideal opinions, materialdaytime for serials an studying audience/producer in show. andthe ratings group Soap” the werereflected “Save our of the preferences ifwhichdiscern any,extent, expressed –inorderto into campaign was active whichthe conduct a content analysis of“General Hospital” episodes of 2009 through 2010 – the timeframe and show, of the producers the with forms ofcommunication different utilize and perceive group, analyze “SaveSoap” inwhichthey of the ways I will our activity the account give the of this end, To show. of the in thecontent arereflected the campaign through articulated preference expression viewers’of preferences through ratings andless active, bounded expression of limited and aggregated which passive, to degree the between is a difference whether the discern to attempt incorporation. Iwill beforemediated possible and channeled opinions are channels intolook which viewers through and canmaketheir preferences“count”, howviewers’ which preferencesin ways the examine of to thein order serial viewersdaytime that of direction the ofinfluence to theorder in Soap” show are factored into it’s contents. in 2009, launcheda called “Saveour “General Specifically,developments undertook campaign Hospital” I will I chose a daytime serial, or “soap opera”, for my investigation due to several factors that, factors several fordue to my investigation “soapopera”, or adaytime serial, I chose 5 CEU eTD Collection survives ordies6, 1983,p. in (LaGuardia, 2005),andfacilitatingScardaville inclusion or influencing agiven whether 2005), show’s for decisions character (Scardaville cancellation firedpopular actors by (Hayward1993; network the reversing Hayward 1997;Ford 2008), reinstating Scardaville 2005).Among them arebreaking(Scodari 1995), couple upan unpopular viewers of havehas can daytime serials and influencebeenestablished do (Levine 2001; isintroduced, (Bielby storyline are & that overstated precedents 1995), the Bielby & Harrington, isitdebatable, and the influencewhen the some likely changes ofviewerpreferences, that to like to present havelotimpactof preferencesleast storylinethe upon at a (Hayward 1993; Scardaville 2005), or it that way to the viewers.1995; Baym 2000). While gain information her thatany him would “hook” or intothe watchingany from (Allen single episode degree isto and unlikely characters plots of opera” of“soap histories familiar intricate the with not viewer truth of suchpleasure from watching the show and thus join the ranks of reliablestatements audience, as casual first-time extract in to investmentorder makecognitive andemotional needto asignificant Viewers is course of during the seriesthe (Hayward 1993; Scardaville2005); in made, can but episodes following alreadybeen be incorporated have decisions the rather the whenhoc” all “post only not producers the to beknown can theviewers of reaction the inbroadcasted formatradio(Hayward 1993; Allen 1995; Lavin 1995); through specific forms are: interaction audience/producer of interaction with it as far as in 1930 when daytime serials were Of ofdaytimeserialsmost TVgenres, insist audience’s that Of often producers all other the succeed. for serial agivento daytime in viewerhigh loyalty order The need for degree of means that which “in constantly asawork progress”, daytime of serial Open-endedness Long history interactionof started such – producers gatherinformationto audienceabout Additional factors that allow me to treat “soap operas” as a good example of 6 CEU eTD Collection emphasized. is role bythe the producers instead, of inwhichaudience ways isconceptualized particular relationship, and describe wayto viewer-producer such areanadequate account preferences into lack from take influence viewersneither of to of industry nor attempts the direct indicates that the results of my analysis of the case of by of specificwithinthe concepts audience“General adopted industry.the Inthelastchapter Iwill present Hospital” and “Save our Soap” whichframeworks add the clarity to audience-producer relation by isgroup,how itexamining mediated which and theoretical producer, describe influences to audience of itrelation how production and TV of imperatives economic sketchthe Iwill in afewwords second chapter In the therein. areconceptualized between andproducers topic inwhichrelationship audience andtheways research. further allowsisolate me a“nicely to bound,self-defined audience community” (Baym2000,19)for 2012). ofviewers Focusonaparticular active &Lotz (Hartley Ang1994;group Gray 1989; implied inmany ways remain suchaudiences audiences, scholarsresearch the even for who andso identify audience”, themselvesas”the viewers rarely of groups isthat study audiences of in challenges main the of One show. TV a of contents the influence to attempt who viewers of interaction. audience/producer angle fromapproach theproblem of a good to serials,which example are of daytime (Hayward 1993; Hayward 1997). homosexuality asrape,drugaddiction and issuesexclusion such ofcontroversial discussion of In the first chapter of this thesis I will provide a brief overview of literature related to my to related literature of abrief overview thesisIwill of provide chapter this firstIn the group active isolate aparticular me to allows campaign “Save Soap” our of An example All of the above allows me to conclude that daytime serials, and “General Hospital” as an 7 CEU eTD Collection thought, specifically the idea that the mode of production determines, or at least at greatly or modeof the specificallytheideadetermines, production that thought, is influenced by Marxist It greatly 2009). (Napoli and capital accumulation commodification logicadhere of tothe to institutions andpracticesarethought namely, 2009), television & Perren (Holt of TV system imperatives commercial the to drawsattention industry” “culture of Frankfurt School. Theconcept is the within coined level, onindustry cultural producers for concerning indispensable any which research industry”, is “culture indeed, very the term Perren 2009,7),and itanalyses television primarily aset institutionsas of (Casey and 2002), in & constitute 1996 production,the distribution, consumption and (Mosco resources” Holtof mutually that relations, power the particularly relations, social “study the of the as described broadly be can economy Political 2009). (Napoli inquiry of direction this to significantly contributed also Schiller Herbert and Chomsky Noam by works as such studies media Critical and Adorno, totheworkofSchool can betraced foundersFrankfurt MaxHorkheimer. Theodor media the to analysis economy political of application The analysis. economic political through and conceptualization producers’ with inquiriesinteractions TV producers of intoaudience. viewers’ of studies Iwillfocusthe on chapter of this part second In the them.integrating outline the strengths inisstudies -and whichactivity theof audience them. conceptualized also ways Iwill within and limitations and cultural – audience economy intended it’s mediapolitical and content relationship between of these two approaches, as well as point out the works REVIEW LITERATURE 1. One of the most prominent ways in which the media industries have been studied is studied been have industries media the in which ways prominent most the of One 1.1 Politicaleconomyapproach will In this main I overview two of the chapter, study the abrief give of to approaches 8 CEU eTD Collection economy framework. Some of the recent research explores the possibility explaining political explaining possibility the Some research explores of recent framework. the economy mightput on content the of can finally beTV programming madevisible within political the survival of TV network, presence or absence of constraints which the preferences of audience for necessary imperative of economic asapart viewer satisfaction of extent if limited, certain, political work within By identifying approach. economy audience preference inthe recent the mainly in terms of how it is affected by TV. approach in this isconceptualized audience Nevertheless (Napoli 2009). structure regulatory dynamics and market patterns interests, media of ownership, corporate onestablished depends it that concluded instead and media elites, of preferences the of expression as adirect content the broadcasting. Later developmentin this direction of analysis mostly dispensed with the idea of 2009) with insteadtheir tastes, own of those of audience,the finding expression on TV it(Kellner controls that elite economic ruling the of preferences and ideology the of reflection mere as seen was program of television content the analysis, economy political of early days the tastes and preferences of which are formed by instead industry the of being into taken account. In from industry assumed aone-way flow passive of the towards communication audience, the due least to theoriginal vision industry of by cultural constructed Adorno and Horkheimer which itsprocess figure cultural into in not producers’ audienceanalysis, notdecision-making the did the into research as well as analysis industry-level historically, However, 2009). (Napoli screen and offers provideto an explanation as towhy certain type of contentinstead of other appears on toan itmedia behavior of understanding approach the than of contributes industries any other more because of TV shows, content over influence of audience’s degree study the to researcher production of This a givensociety.. type of beanalysis full appearstoenableof potential to modemedia insituates approach thedominantthe in within of particular and television general Accordingly, society. this relations within practices andpower structures, influences, the Market dynamics proved to be an excellent entry befor Market dynamicsan of examining provedentry point to effects the excellent 9 CEU eTD Collection early political economists. Instead, the concept of “active audience” is championed by such ischampioned of audience” concept the “active Instead, economists. early political inheritedfrom produce decideto TVnetworks whatever consume eagerly would audience that 2001). (Levine economy political early of determinism” “economic an and audience, over ideology both a pessimism of Frankfurtthe School implies which total power of producer-imposed in against asareaction least part, canbeseen,at as andcounter-hegemonic, resistive interpreted readingscanbe especially asfar focus This readings, these onan approach. audience’s is for cultural ofinterest studies themain “intended”bythe area interpretation producers, andthe communities audience by particular signs TV of interpretation between differences the especially messages, of TV interpretation An audience’s TV content. of consumption studies, it shifts from emphasis industry-level media production to audience perception and broadly as described cultural Formedstudies. in1970,itdraws mainly from cultural British of viewersbeenamajorapproach. of this the weakness activity lackhowever, ofattention to influence TVprogramming, might viewers of preferences which in ways the of analysis industry-level for basis the provided approach economy Political by advertisers violentand the quantity of programming by (Napolioffered TV networks 2009). between audience(see Hamilton the of 1998) uncoversdependency the mostpreferences valued some research vein, 2005).In asimilar economic (Meehan due to reasons areignored, audience audience “counts”for cultural the caterindustry to to their desires andpreferences of which of & a given what (Gentzkow 2006inNapoli Shapirooutlet inquire into 2009). Others kind of slant ofmedia through outlets understanding productpreferences of the targetthe of consumers One of the greatest achievements of this approach is reexamining the concept of of concept of isachievements the a passive this reexamining One greatest approach the of scholarship of in area the found mediacanbe of study the majorto approach The other studies1.2 Cultural approach 10 CEU eTD Collection observations of tointeractwithobservations evenattempts members’ audience if producers, the such contain studies many communities relatedaudience toreception. of limited tothat Nevertheless, appears determine whatscreeninon firstplace (Kellnerthe 2009). that factors economic the ignoring nearly while perception audience and analysis textual the muchon emphasis place too cultural studies claim that to common rather become ithas Indeed, cultural culturalstudies towards isproduction unnoticed not by scholars within the discipline. any thus might influencehave audience itpossible hadover (LevineThis “blind 2001). of spot” historically,in field the of cultural lessstudies attention was paid tothe cultural andproduction, in However, 1972, 1982). Morley society an audience (Eliott message as as asourceof to own discourse (Hall notions1980). Similar are expressed who by linksElliott, theidea of society audience’s andproducers themselvesnoting drawupon discourse production, over adaptto that usedin audience political approach. economy aggregated andby insight to static as offered cultural studies, somewhat opposed model of audience valuableis communities activitiesactual members and of another everyday audience well as community-making activity alsoaudiences,of are studiedFocus (Lembo2000). on of such as use activity,audience in make ways viewers of the life, as everyday their television “active audience” rubic& (Holtal Perren 2009,Casey et 2002, Ang1985); however, other types them (“decoding”). This decoding activity of is mainthe one activitiesaudience studied under as interpreting making (“encoding”)anda siteproducts, struggle between those those texts of media via discourse the of version dominant own its impose to power the as primarily seen industries, of thecultural power articulate studies incultural with mainwhich the scholars tools of one been long time for a model Encoding/Decoding approach. for the bases oneof the offers Hall latter as Fiskemodel Encoding/Decoding writers John Stuart (1987)and (1980), of the Accordingly,audience studied underactivity thecultural framework is studies usually Hall’s original model Encoding/Decoding intoaccount take did influence the of audience 11 CEU eTD Collection lead them to conceive,preferences affect the industries in economically and waysinthe which needsthe industriesof and act upon, a particular audience into ways inwhich the as aninquiry be characterized can approach economy political vision of their the within direction One such industries. and viewers between interrelation the directly with audience. Within the emerged somemore there of cultural dealing directions research studies, activity centered cultural influence whatwould eventually be produced (Levine57-58). 2001,pp. “productive” in is, elements cultural the consumption, that way inwhich patterns consumption texts, audiences and socioeconomic contexts but, more importantly, draws attention to the R. Johnson’s (1987)“circuit of culture”, which not insistsonly onlooking both at production, persists. One of models notthe confine does that audiencestrictly activities isto of interpretation infrequent, however,not are and reception production both thatexamine in unexamined. Studies production factors for many of them the leaves this convergenceassociation theof question often audience how increasingly approaches proliferate, of audience incompatibility between political economy and cultural studies, combining and the works both exclusively with reception 35). this 1989, discrimination”(Fiske industries, the very existencewhich“upon of depends their meet ability tosurvive theseto tastes, vulnerability of cultural the asperhaps greatest discriminate to audience the ability describes of and whetherwatch to what deciding on to but ways, watchdifferent in TV on see they what interpreting only anything not of at all, even meaningcapable areperfectly as thatviewers of nature audiences, “discriminatory” the attention to he continues to focus even if to, occasionally alluded examined not indetail. forFiske explicit draws (1989), one, on the interpretation.also is production cultural of possibility the for preferences audience of significance Economic He activities not are focusthe of studiesthe in (Bielby question et al.1999; Baym 2008). Ford 2000; Nevertheless, both within political anindustry-centered economy approach and audience with studies is Although notion increasingly the recent dispense there that inherent 12 CEU eTD Collection details about interaction with the producers. Interestingly, it also includes of fans’interaction italso accounts Interestingly, detailswith about producers. own the usually include extensive details about fan letters, fan clubs contact with the network, and similar opened by electronic meansof communication (Bielby et al. 1999;Baym Ford2008) 2000; al. oropportunities et 1999) (Bielby claims show’snarrative the of 1998), concerning expertise fandom of (Scodari 2012),politics 1994; Grey (Jenkins creativity andderivative reinterpretation however, even though studiesthe main the of focus which is community building (Baym 2000), 1999). Those studies focus explicitlyrelations uponthe rarely between fans and theindustry; relationship and between of producers consumers into analysis etal.television, the (Bielby such magazinesas it andelectronic and the communication, way channels shapes and activity more explicitly the within industry;television production and byincludingmedia, other situating viewers with producers, the inclusion of interaction the for studied, allows which previousupon audience researchin following rangeways:the expanding of activities improve approach, they in studies cultural research enshrined more general the audience area of function as “institutions interpretation”of (Baym 2000, 16), in continuation with the traditions of numerous studies of fannotion While prominentplace. fan ofaudience expands communities the Research activity.on communities, such fans hold of screen, studies on what appears intoaffect withorder interactproducers to as those of H. Jenkins, focused primarily on their TV industry. decision-makingin on working those is illuminating, of prove process the ethnographic accounts Anotherproducers. direction,in studies which due todifficulty are infrequent of access butoften studies inquiry approach, direction is promising one of the thestudy audienceof towards activity Among the research of audience activity as related to deliberate attempts of the viewers of the deliberate attempts to related as activity audience of Among research the 1.3 Fanstudies 13 CEU eTD Collection viewers (see Bielby et al. 1999), which means that the accounts of fan behavior can be behavior fan can means accounts of the that which al. Bielby et viewers 1999), (see average fans and between differences significant are there Although building. community is related to the tendency of certain TV genres, such as daytime series, toserve as a focus forfan toeffectorder changesas incontent, simplyopposed to switching turning channel or off, TVset in deliberatelyis likelihood thatstudy ideathatindustry ofviewersto the the in engage with the isshow interest like they onesuchrareexample of 2005).One (Scardaville onair findingsof the keep and methods the of theirfans results to “activist” campaign andmotivations, account of doactually notpressure groups media consume the they product Scardaville’s engage with. whatthey is be extent can many involved consideredviewers debatable, since in those of the influenceattempts of (see forto examplepressure groups TVcontentto but Montgomery 1990), the about is available information more Much is scarce. explicitly covering it literature the keep aprogramor on isair extensively referredto(Hayward 1993; 1983;Baym Gitlin but2000), industry (Bielby al.et 1999). the within working those of eyes in the opinion fan the to lend channels different legitimacy channels of communication differ in what kind of feedback they allow through and how much andhow different is out, it which carried media by through is shaped different interaction Bielby tothestudy contributes interactionof audience-producer by examining how this ifdesires of audience, inthe mediatedand someonly heavily ways limited 1993). (Hayward tothe respond content producers of the andthat of aware preferences, their make networks the finishedis product Jenniferfinds Hayward,who thatviewers are very active intheir to attempts industry influences whichit the interact cultural the their andaudience, degreeto with the attention. explicit given but rarely present, whichare –accounts producers in to relation consumers cultural as theirrole of conception The topic of deliberate fan campaigns to introduce particular changes in television show intelevision changes introduce particular fan to campaigns deliberate The of topic in working those which in ways the to attention call explicitly to authors few the of One 14 CEU eTD Collection audience – through tests, ratings, focus –in to “predict unpredictable”the audience groups tests, (Gitlin order –through the knowing of means reliable controllable, creating by uncertainty minimize to attempts the network executives’ desire for rationality, calculability and minimization of risk, and describes TV the with isincontradiction audience of inherent unpredictability that notes examination. He industry depend heavily viewers’ thenotion taste, on the closeuncertainty of receives which typethat of research.In work, thatsuccessesandfailuresthis reaffirms of television whichkeep on made, foraboutair work canprobably beconsidered aseminal TVshowto are manage the issues of uncertainty (ibid) uncertainty of issues the manage industry to for a tool as audience of conceptualizing the to attention draw who andHirsch, Paul DiMaggio analysisby is bymacro-level Paul This account complemented 2009). ethnographic & Perren (Holt research the of such direction of example are one andwriters, executives both in todiscern participant observation in by order ways areconceptualized the audiences which and Powdermaker’s(1950)studies film, of Hollywood in whichthey employed interviews and and institutional outbyseveral isthereof (Angconception (1941) scholars pointed 1994).Rosten decisions aboutprogramming. between difference This pointthe of view“actual” of audience intofactors their of for result processesof them,their andhowthe specific knowledge-making is useful in waythat the audience conceptualized the about knowledge television get business of in the those way the on rather but be), might notion this problematic (however audience “actual” industry from relationship as industry the noticeendmuch took not of “actual”the activity of into relationship insightvaluable the viewers andbetween of producers TV content. extrapolated upon majority the viewers onlywithof caution,great such accounts still provide Todd Gitlin’sTodd viewer- approaching the whoviewers’activity, scholars tothose study As opposed overcontent ofaudienceandit’sinfluence Industry’s conceptions 1.4 Inside PrimeTime (1983), with its (1983), step-by-step accountofhowdecisions 15 CEU eTD Collection kind of knowledge of audience should be gained) and actual properties of of andbeproperties actual kind people the of should gained) audience of knowledge by necessity both what (which industrial voluntary determineddetermines completely and are are not industry operates ofaudienceunderwhichtelevision b)industries conceptions and the needs of television and administrative with in economic imagined accordance are audiences a) both made that be can point be, andthe to is thought audience what basis of onthe part, always serves needs the of institution. producingthe their own survival” (Hartley The way inwhich 1989, 227). imagesthe of audiences are produced are “produced institutionally in for various charge order institutions totake of mechanismsthe of which he fictions” calls“invisible arewhat audiences, preferences, aswelltheir that proposes for those andmodesrhetoric ofjustification speak“for” devices whoclaim audience.to the He as serve constructions these roles what furthermore, and, constructed, are analysis of subject a their main use is to justify decision-making as “rational” . since modes of obsolete, make knowledge gaining notit their however, preferred does industry, preferences beis (whichcan only known post-factum) well-knowntothose inworking the “actual” audience andit’s the “operation” about knowledge mismatch between such that observes also Gitlin decision-making. of operationalization for need the to contributes reliability producers. Inability useto their own tastes to predict success or failure with a sufficientdegree of cultural makes accountlife of Hollywood of inhisethnographic everyday Zafirau also (2009) capital of the members cultural between the least difference inthe becauseof not be incorrect, the to often proves of broadcasting elite judgmentwhatlikesee. viewers judgmentso Such would the employforced about own to their and their target audiencein of courses are endexecutives so the action, support contradictory numbersof to canbe used – a point alsobe deployedsince the Resulting knowledge immediately,1983, 32). sameset cannot aggregated made by Both Both decisionsGitlin industry least made, thatin incultural at suggest are and Hartley as audiences in which ways various the ideaexplores Fictions” “Invisible John Hartley’s 16 CEU eTD Collection the waysthe in is of knowledge which both preferences soughtandaudience constrained. highlights again which Hospital, General team of by employed production feedback audience the She usual production” ofseekinghandling (Levine2001,78).the also describes and procedures itof by industry the and inactual it’sactivity is members,all of “lurking of throughout aspects in conception the both audience, that the notes she her essay In serial. daytime of particular one audiences of duringforproduction and relation contexts course texts, between the account social model in to culture Richard circuit order She Johnson’s drawsupon thisof throughout work. production of whodraws a the account detailed by (2001), is Levine they industry Elana the are accessed process of General their areconsidered hypothetical valuablepreferences, by industry (Meehan the 2005). Hospital imperatives– profitof and reliance for profiton advertising determines viewers, alongwhich with an account ethnographic political accounthow making with of analysis of economic producers’ decision to which withinindustry wouldI TV want. Authors them prefer suchto Eileen as Meehan enhance the will returngroup, not to mention the rest of the viewers want, but it also does not match what thoseseveral working of valuedmight might audience match wants – which viewers what actual or not the in thetarget times specificmake contentbased ontheir of decisionsideas aboutthe programming categories about underknowledge). words, Inother of “invisible framework the fiction”, television executives gain specific attemptto of the result the determines (which asaudience conceptualized Another author to include forAnother authorto preferencesmethods bywhich concern audience and the 17 CEU eTD Collection 2009). – commodity being the audience (Gitlin Allen1983; 1992; Morley 1992; Meehan 2005; Napoli make money broadcasters advertisers andby Instead, a commodity selling cultivating different to for of viewers broadcasting asource become industry. profitto could never asconsumers (ibid),consumerspay for “selling” and suchproduct compelling them of to directTV programs creatingtimes and “units”without duetodifficulty additional of product, identifying of consumption and thus can be by consumed numberof unlimited unlimitedpeople numberof from thetypean economic standpoint, of isused upinproduct that not of process the commodities –namely, they that can beclassified as“public (Napoli goods” which2009), is, makespecific of as traits TV programs Dueto profit. (BielbyTheir aimisto etal. 1999). meaning,about significance and surrounding rituals in television the dailylivesviewers of care they particularly do nor (Allen 1992), service public a provide or enlighten entertain, to not is aim viewer:the from isfunction broadcasting it’sto very of broadcaster different commercial gained, and the ways in which such knowledge isincorporated into production process. is audience’s preferences knowledge about areconceptualized, waysinthe audiences which shape practices and goals network’s how out pointing and them, reach to necessary preferences theories outlining the discontinuity between producers’ goals and knowledge aboutaudience’s achievement of dependstheir onsatisfyingviewers’ Iwill goals demands.Later several describe of inviewers hold economic activity producersof the of whichTV programs and to extent THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2. Most authors are2.1 Economicimperativesandroleofaudience in consensus that the function of TV content to the program for In the beginning of Iwill chapter, this provide abrief of overview place the preferences 18 CEU eTD Collection even more prevalent in the production of daytime serials, due to the incredibly fast rate of rate fast incredibly the to due serials, daytime of production in the prevalent more even 2009).The maximize is optimize andminimizerisk efficiency pressure to (Schatz efficiency account. into take to attempt of preferencesserials viewersdaytime of question the producers which level additional about to adds garner – acontradiction that high andpredictably reliably necessary ratings loyalty to viewer build to time long a taking and decades for lasting as serials daytime of specifics the to a contradiction poses however, (ibid).This, be replaced. much constantly agesand viewerbase 1999). In addition, is there for“younger” search an eternal demographics – the previous al. fan loyal et (Bielby viewer than rather invested particularly a “marginal”appeal andnot to to In order to extend the size of audience and thus potential revenues from advertisers, the show has require, is advertisers interest, what degree of and to viewer investment opposed viewers,of as women between agesof the 18 and49(Intintoli 1984, p.63, quotedin Scodari 1998). As number audience and the household, for daytime andbeauty products, health thus target are serials of byproducers sponsored typically Daytime are serials advertisers’ desired customer. match audience profileof demographically to the isbounded “target” of all,satisfied. First keep strive to networks of parts audience limits which significantly advertisers’ demands compelling” (Hayward 1993,101). compelling show, which means networks must keepclose tabs whaton viewers consider keeping ratings up; high ratingsprofitable show,networks mustincrease advertising revenues; increasing revenuesrequires imply satisfied viewers; it, sums neatly (1993) As Hayward viewers. for the satisfactory somewhat least viewer satisfaction demands a willing to pay willing pay forto (Allen 1992) Operatinglogic by ofbusiness strive the first networks enterprise, to, andforemost, in to response is produced that asacommodity audience of Conceptualization TV programming is the hook are desireisto attract audience which advertisers the and thehook TV programming . In order to deliverIn orderto required programminghas tobeat audience, 19 “ To produce a To produce CEU eTD Collection which audience is commodified and used in economic exchanges with advertisers (Hartley audienceiswhich and advertisers used with 1989; commodified (Hartley ineconomic exchanges in America. with of TV set total households percent 1 approximately represents point rating single –a ratings into are converted way that gathered numbers The on. was turned set which agiven TV time at register devices which measurement households belonging sample tothe which self-report they programs watched, and electronic population. The fortools gathering include information viewer diaries,in which peoplethe in the households and statisticalutilizes methods the results toextrapolate upon total the viewing information from system viewingmeasurements uses habitsabout gathered asample of of This measurement. audience of system main currently the – ratings Nielsen of terms in mainly both aredefined ofit’s successof the audience hypothetical network showandpreferences the 2002; Meehan 2005; Jamieson & Campbell 2001; Napoli 2009), from pointthe view of of conceiveanaudience andit’s executives preferences. goal making of maximizing profit in of and efficiency arereflected network waysinthe which seamlessly inintegrated productionthe andprocess optimizefurther it (ibid). insuch and asbe way collected sought, as to demographic isextensively inviewers the target preferences of the information failureprocess, about production the chances of optimize and minimize to the order (Brennan calculable2004). In controlledhighly “efficient, genre” and direction of the show have aboutthe theproducers new between production during conflicts episodes, whichthe the of to be resolved as quickly as possible, which makes soap operas an These ratings, often demarcated along demographic lines, along mainmechanism by arethe demographic These often demarcated ratings, As numerous authorsconcur (Gitlin Webscter 1983; & Phalen & Lichty 2000; Doyle 2.2 Market regime information In of followingthe parts Iwill chapter, this several describinghow the present theories 20 CEU eTD Collection objectivity, their actual objectivity, actual flaws their industry are well-known the within (Gitlin and main 1982), the advertisers is focused. It is interesting tonote that, while Nielsen measurements project the air of and broadcasters both of attention information which the upon supplier of independent and numbers that “speakrationalization,“scientific” data, by claimto latter appeal often enhanced and –that objective for themselves”. informationbeneeds market sides, perceivedasneutral In interested regime to between different the case of ratings, effectively understandingfor serve to 2000). In astool common (Anandorder & Peterson Nielsen can be seen asconvey impressionthe thisthat typeparticular information of is validsuch and vitally important independent supplier.information set of Such availablehas to toallinterested and parties, by activity marketto be informationto the provided sought relevant regularly through updated constituted is regime This operate. to well sufficiently it understand to necessary is information “the constitutes whatmarket” notions andsort of for about andupon granted what taken is, information on usually regime,agreed that “the through such cognition market” occurs of needed, isalready information of somereliable sort for which by experiencedparticipation, abstract entitymutually setofinformationutilized upon which to base Asmarketdecisions. in itself is an which organizations within thesame generalfield be – or partners they competitors –develop thesame, is not “out information isdevelopedregime and prominence into comes several when profit-seeking there” for Market world. their makesenseof participants market and other observe each which producers participants to observe, desirability forwhich thenetworkof Ihave above. outlined but rather comecan to suchonly importance, be allows(2000) Peterson to describe mostlythe mechanism by self-perpetuating ratingswhich the as well as their Anandinformationin offeredby and market regime, ratings and ideaof them.are reflected The role in the optimizationMorley 1992), and preferences of audience are only taken intoaccount in as far as they influence of the production process, According to Anand and Peterson, market information regime is the medium through is medium the information regime market Anand andPeterson, to According 21 CEU eTD Collection problem of structural uncertainty. createswhatGitlin factor seeasa anddependence Hartley upon an unknowable (1989) (1982) Minimization of risk and maximization of efficiency neededfor profitable business and eventual fundamentally due tothe producers sheerunknowable massto size of (Gitlinaudience 1982). some authors, to are,according preferences These into them somehow. figure viewersstill the will ratings. As gain high fickle operationalized dependable and mightbe, of ratings preferences therethat is nosurerisk-free might wayby know inwhich producers the advance which show inexist any tangibleother verifiable or form (Napoli 2009). viewers, who are flesh and blood people negotiationfor 1992;Casey2002;Meehan2005),ascommodity (Allen whoto audience (asopposed do exist), for which ratings stand,basis are themselves ratings because fine,the it bequite would watched, no one in “reality” but does not really (Allen 1992, 19),whichif means by that of some fluke the chance program gathered highratings decisionswhich market aremade. are the“yardstick Ratings by istime which television sold” around becomes in asitan itself object lessrelevant, becomes inreality itwhat corresponds to exactly set, data aparticular around isestablished information regime market particular the streamlining and process the allowingincrease to efficiency 2005; (Meehan 2009).Once Meyers in tobuy order andand selladvertisingnumbers”, time “bythebook” “according to this them use can employees low-level which with ease in the lies industry the for ratings of strength in 2000).The Anand 1998,quoted & Peterson aroundit (Vogel practices constructed arealready satisfaction – or evenreason the simple for usenumber of themof viewers is not - inbut theirin the degreeaccuracy to which in the institutional degree to which their meaure viewers’ Even with ratings as the sole measure of the show’s success, it still remains to be noted to itremains still success, show’s the of measure sole asthe ratings with Even 2.3 Structural uncertainty andtheproblemof knowledge 22 CEU eTD Collection 2004), if 2004), in byrelationshipmodified with advertisers demand that advertiser a particular itexpect conform more to less or closely tothesimple logic of supply anddemand (Brennan some authors from gain advertisers, in to revenue order isnecessary which large audience, appears on TV screen. In as far isa airing onlyjustified byit’sattractprogram of ability to content of sort what determining in role mediated, heavily if significant, play would viewers operates given at the beginningagree. of this of humanchapter factor in order to serve as a tool for arbitration of conflicts to which everyone wouldleads independent andscientific data reliable impersonal, objective, of imbuedbe appearance with the me to suppose involved in“invisibleactors fiction” between different that of hasproduction, an too to audience that preferencesmaking within production isprocess far from monolithic and in itself involves negotiation of the can decisions.As that audience be for decision- network’s usedasabasis andjustification of account plausible – aninstitutionalized fiction” an “invisible as what Hartley describes by structural creating toovercome problem uncertainty of the attempts unknowable, industry the preferences those acknowledged, preferences of Importance audience 2000). Anand& Peterson and,moreimportantly, be agentive can used as a basis for action in(Fligstein 1996, quoted makes sense construct anaccountof that world their to attempt asproducers above, described regimes information market of adoption the to linked be might – predict to difficult notoriously (Gitlin1983, 31) the vagaries of public taste and tolerance, to mitigate uncertainty they institutionalize theirquest” shape and tap to seeks that industry any Like failure. and success predict to ways reliable impersonal, A brief outline of the economic imperatives under which commercial broadcasting commercial which under imperatives economic the of outline A brief This for paradox rationality – need and efficiency dealingwith when phenomenon the “The networks place a premium on rationality, searching forseemingly systematic, 23 CEU eTD Collection in influencing the direction “General of direction the in Hospital”. influencing sense-making fluctuationsthat suppose leadsme in activity ratingsto havedecisive would role central role ofthe ratings pointed out both through economical analysis and through the prism of the Specifically, audience. of preferences asexpressed show of TV content the over influence an impersonalin solvingargument conflicts production-related leasthave– would at asmuch pressures rationalizationtowards and efficiency, possibility the and using such of knowledge as by the informed –ways gained preference of their andknowledge areconceptualized audiences in specific that the suppose which ways to It isplausible onaudience’s depends preferences. a certain degree inwhichsuccess to industries to the inherent uncertainty problem structural of the by is complicated expectation simplistic this However, 2005). (Meehan content the into andaudience isit thepreferences audience, of of instead total,that viewership whicharefactored 24 CEU eTD Collection being canceled. also “General Hospital” of possibility the about worried campaign became Soap” “Save our is lowwas canceledinincluded), ratings dueto groupof initiated 2009, the later viewersthe who originated it which from serial radio the (if years 72 full for air the on being broadcast, daytime serial,“Guiding Light”,which is credited as longest-runningthe program ever popularity. “Generallong-runningAs American of Hospital” positions the declined, and another show's the affect positively would believed they that changes promote to importantly, more inin 2009toexpress theirorder with dissatisfaction directionthen-current of showand,the opera” to consistently remaining at about 4-th place). popularity to 2.1 in 2008/2009 season) and in relative positions (from 2.1 in popularity season)to (from positions and inrelative 2008/2009 peakof at the yearly in numbers average (from 11.4 both by absolute declined steadily ratings Once1988) a American (from highest-rated 1979 to it's daytime serial, as measured popularity every episode 60-minute weekday. It is andproducedby broadcast in Company format American the Broadcasting of (ABC), the with it's rivaling criminal organizations takingplace. prominent anddoctors it otherinhabitantsthe nursesworking there, shifted focus eventually to of city,the only received it's name,Charles, Port inlate 1970s) and ontheinterpersonal of relationships city city (the fictional in athen-unnamed Hospital eponymous General onthe Initially focused series. of TV daytime representative as can beand a good so world, seen the across products imitations and similar “General spawned numerous Hospital” inproduction. currently drama “General andthe namedfan-organized Hospital” campaign “SaveourSoap”. DESCRIPTION OFTHECASE 3. A campaign named Soap” has out “Save beenlaunchedby fans agroup the of serial the Launched in “General 1963, Hospital” is American longest-running the soap opera The cause upon this focusesis which thesis of that an American television daytime 25 ʋ 1 American “soap 1 American CEU eTD Collection can be indicate this time as the time of effective to end chosen have I of thehowever, campaign,date, ending as little“official” any been to no never activityThere 2010. July till relatedyear, to it networkthe executives with informationthe of their preferences changes.and suggested contacting of later, detail further in described be will which methods, several utilized it end this To writing. boring and bland generally and ones, “hospital” to opposed as storylines “mob” the lack on “immoral” behavior focus screen, the on of excessive enduring romanticrelationships, being by newly-includedestablished excessivequantity the overshadowed ones, of characters inwritten a way inconsistent history with establishedtheir previously and personality, characterslimitedincluded, though were not to: with inpresence a long-standing the show Hospital” “General of direction then-current the with displeasure of sources common most the what of toarticulate was for thisitviewers group itposition attempted held”.Specifically, once the to GH restore and viewers back win to ABC/Disney with “work to was campaign the of goal the nonetheless According press-releases, butthe size respectable. to for significant afangroup, pageMeyer and K.Picard. Kecia It's Facebook has 1600 members, isa about which not Ward, with the mainher playing Megan andKate actress the for (http://www.meganhaven.com.) “Megan Haven” site for the campaign Haven”forElizabeth, (http://z11.invisionfree.com/the_liason_haven/index.php) Jason and maintained and “TheLiason & andKate, for Sonny Hope” the such as“TheHeart characters, tothe dedicated press releases messageboards written Internet particular on the initially congregated in who and– particular, Carly by Dana L. Jax andRobin, and Patrick JasonandElizabeth, Kate, and -Sonny couples particular character The group andThe group campaign lasted2009 and for sinceJune were active approximately a This consisted of self-identifiedgroup “General fansof not only in butHospital” general observed 26 on a latter date. latter on a CEU eTD Collection of lessof noscreentime 266hoursof over 400hour-long and evenwhen episodes totaled to consisted which analysis, for material of amount sheer the addition, In made. have would members which, even were I qualified to make them, would not necessary match those that “Save our Soap” or“emotional development” as“character balance”–judgments features such contains particular scenein whether anyfeatured about judgments make many subjective me too would to require it because second, and, research of my current scope the of lies outside way that characterization it first, reasons: history “General and storylines Hospital”wouldand of previous knowledge the require detailed following the for problematic, quite be to proved narrative Hospital” “General “Save our Soap” group “Save Soap” are following our “Ten the Remedies”: time. months that after it several July –approximately to the time when effectively 2010 –and ended covers a time period months of several campaign before the “Save Soap” started–Juneour 2009– from a numberend the beginningof episodesGeneral Hospital the 2009 to of 2010, which of which itwas conducted. in way andthe its results interaction: of such aspects two focus on the to decided have I interaction, 4. METHODOLOGY Assessing the degree to which these particular suggestions are implemented into the implemented suggestions are which these particular Assessing the degreeto The particular suggestions about the direction of the “General Hospital” offered by the offered Hospital” “General the of direction the about suggestions The particular 2002) of (Neuendorf quantitative former,content-analysis I have To examine conducted the campaign examine Soap” “SaveIn order to as acaseof our the producer/audience 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. More Romance & Humor & Romance More Less Sleaze Enduring Couples Increased Focus on Families Emotional Balance Charactersfor & Storylines Characters Veteran for Respect Historical Continuity Development & Growth Character Character-driven Storylines Overall Enjoyable Escape 27 CEU eTD Collection sounds,is and devoid information of visual as as contain transcriptwell description.not does The The lines as contains by spoken transcript only well transcript. characters as accompanying the find out that some of information the available via contained image isnottelevision within the the relation of the transcript tomakein not order surecontain thetranscriptI am that establish using does inaccuracies, and to to the televisionwatched 20 episodes of General Hospital at random, comparing them to the transcriptI have Ihad at hand,picture.transcript, particular that on settling Before I’ve http://tvmegasite.net/day/gh/transcripts.shtml. found no inaccuracies, however, I did not. were they that indicate surely would their absence followed, suggestions were group’s “Save Soap” that our indicate necessary wants to endure have to be present on screen in thefirst place. While their mere presence would not Soap our Save couple members of or characters” “veteran as identified characters berealized, character. alongthe with undesirable, with “sleaze” andthusconsidered were strongly associated mentioned above, such as, for example, when the character of Claudia was discussed,her storylines the show wereubiquitous Soap” impacts press-releases. “Savenegatively our throughout or positively their presence onwhether andopinions particular characters about suggestions list, following due to reasons: indicator, in –assuch a given character scene the line)of by spoken (indicated isapresence appearance character one my of purposes research, the for - appearances character of number the chosen have I automatically. utilize to betime possible and same group atthe Soap” our “Save of would preferences the the that indicator reflect another findmakecomputer-assisted manageable,mein toitmade coding soI’ve decided to resort to order leftisout, toanepisode, hour allocated an of amount aconsiderable up takes advertising, which The episodes were coded using full and detailed transcript available at usingfullanddetailed transcript The werecoded episodes to “Enduring or couples” for veteran characters” for such as“Respect In order suggestions thesuggestions with as associated described often was characters certain of Presence werefeatured in particular “ten the characters suggestionsremedies” While noconcerning 28 CEU eTD Collection identified recurring the topics, themes anddevices rhetoric by utilized group. the finally,activities;intended and, asamessage topersuade.Inthis lastaspectof have analysis I documenting group’s the above; asasource use in analysis described preferences content to in group’s about of the ways: as following data a source press-releases the analyzed these issued 04.06.09and Of lastthe 11.06.10. numberthat 22wereissued in 2009and in4 2010. Ihave first the in with total, were26press-releases There group. by the produced press-releases on the focused , with specialattention the http://z10.invisionfree.com/saveoursoapsabc/index.php?act=idx at board andmessage http://www.saveoursoapgh.com/ at members “General Ihave occurred, Soap” and“Save Hospital” examinedthegroup’swebsite our form, so Ihave excluded the weeks that had one or more “missing” episodes from the analysis. available intranscribed not were episodes numbers. of instead Several others absolute relative to characters of focus set onproportion one of to I’vedecided misleading, accordingly, been and have would given character featuring scenes of number analysisof simple that, scene. Becauseof length the of and the episode sceneswithin the separate of number inthe variety both considerable scenesfixed of length(Brennan Hospital”2004), “General follow doesnot and this pattern shows no for obstacleposed this –thoselimitations research. of transcript particular episode per appearances characters’ of number –the however Ihave chosen, indicator the Considering audible, nor does it contain the description of the location or even indication of the location. of purely aside interaction or actions position, relative characters’ the about any information In order to take an account the way in which the interaction between the producers of producers between the interaction the an wayinwhich the account totake In order number of hasaset in eachepisode which structure follow rigid operas” While some “soap 29 CEU eTD Collection however, it still helps to clarify the degree of the influence such campaigns could potentially have potentially campaigns could such influence the of clarify degree the helps to itstill however, activism changing the course of show described brieflyin TV introduction the of essay,this offan invalidate precedents not the anddoes 2005) activism (Scardaville opera soap Internet-based for actually unusual isnot of success Such low ifany. rate minimal been has of show the contents the trend after “Save our Soap” group started it’s activity are visible (Table 1). has been increasing, throughout timethe range covered bymy significant No research. changesin number group by disliked of while the appearances of persistently that characters decreasing, the decrease. lower ratings, conversely, with the associated characters of andappearances of series, of number the increase during course the would higher ratings with associated characters of numberappearances of have decisions,inthe I analyzed producers’ increase,would whichwould showthat thiswas able group influence to the content of serial.the thenumber “liked”set inthe of wasthat introduction, appearances of program briefly the described hypothesis, based on the precedents of successful attempts by viewers to change the direction of TV “disliked” group)set (by that of changedcharacters after started group it’sthe activity. first My – the on set appearancesand other if (byweek)“preferred” checked thenumberof and of the more –toput focus focus thisless anda certain of expressed proposals on group set of characters direction TV daytime serial General Hospital takes, Ihave chosen one of the more frequently 5. ANALYSIS This lack of change in the trend indicates that the impact of Save our Soap group upon group upon indicatesthe impactinThis lack of that of the Save ourSoap thechange trend has been Soap”group by “Save our favored characters of The numberof appearances However, analysis shown that neither of these hypotheses appears to be supported by data. To testmy secondhypothesis concerning the decisive role ratings playin the show’s findwhetherIn orderto Soap had group out activity the our any influenceSave of on the 5.1 Influence of campaign andratings 30 CEU eTD Collection below: be ascan seen correlation, none-to-negative indicated lower ratings higheror with their association expectations. with line in well was hypothesis, initial my to contrary though even result, such Nevertheless, chosen. have I analysis of methods the through canbeassessed themale lead,noneof which of relationships romantic orderly more somewhat such still reported, as more focushospital, onthe eponymous of popular and one emergence couple were direction fan-preferred the moves towards certain were unsatisfactory, a whole as campaign contributing to campaignthe not having anysignificantimpact. observations allow me to suggest that insufficient offline presence was one of the factors such campaigns in toavoid order being dismissed asmerely insignificantan Internetactivity. That is crucial World,action fanAnother offline in caseof of opera the activism in soap heraccount and avoid overestimating the probability of their success. In addition, as Scardaville (ibid) notices show on show on ratings and of being thegoal ratings and exchange value of commercial TV programming the of content the about decisions their basing executives network of accounts the since However, show. the of content the in determining role decisive the play not did ratings hypothesis, the to contrary lowmight group andsuggest that, ratings. This Soap resultSave retained consistently our direction of the show, which consistently expanded the focus on the characters notpopular with the lower This ratings. focusshift of bothwas reflected in week-by-week analysis andin overall the Analysis of the possible correlation between the number of character’s appearances and appearances of number character’s betweenthe correlation possible of the Analysis It shouldbe noted that, in the eyes of the Save our Soap group itself, while the results of the Emphasis was consistently shifted on certain set of characters despite their association with association their despite ofcharacters certain set shifted on wasconsistently Emphasis Average per low-rated week low-rated per Average Average her high-rated week week per Average Preferred set Preferred 31 63.60% 76.77% 70.65% Disliked set 36.40% 23.48% 29.35% CEU eTD Collection they is, they an manageableand form by are in reducedto – that operationalized – network, the the with. work can they preferences audience attempted channels type togetthe by GeneralHospital producers of which knowledge about the make membersand known theirto preferences attempted Soap which our through Save of same. the andown concept viewers’ bynetwork generated the audience incongruence preferencesvaluable knowledgethe about much of about information contain out to turned aspects, other most in group’s preferences and aboutthe peripheral of data myas asource to only research initially though boards, relevant message and press releases Soap’s meaningof “success” hereratings. the growth Other ways of information gaining were employed to end, that with various degree of success – needed. whatis producers changed,change is kind initselfto continuedbut say of or cannot as Peterson 2000; ZafirauIt isascertain 2009). usedto whether show the shouldbe cancelled, & Anand arequite 1983; wellaware(Gitlin needed producers what of –aflaw are which changes so. Ratingsdo by arenot, and themselves are notdesigned be, to afinely-tuned tool for determining to create content that would correlate desire network’s between inconsistency andexamine the in chapter theory the outlined uncertainty with high ratings and knowledge necessary from of view structural the andcontent point of lackthe between ratings apparent dependency of for the ability to numerous and well-documented, I think itis more fruitful to approach the explanation of this in general(Gitlin Allen 1983; Anand & 1992; 2000; Peterson Meehan 2005; Napoli 2009) are Different in channelsby viewers communication of degreewhich used both differ the to 5.2 Channelsof communication by degree of manageability examiningTo start question,will this I of anaccount give channelsthe of communication This problem from knowledgeof can also be tackled fan the group’s end, asSave our 32 CEU eTD Collection discussion on the ABC-affiliated messagesay, is areborderlineboards, cases,that to they discussion ABC-affiliated the on are the sought, andin some case actually considered undesirable ifinevitable nuisance (Bielby et al. 1999). not end, receiver and,on restricted not the is still feedback end this the sender’s feedback, on “negative” mail being only in letters the which viewers say they that watching.will stop with “negative”, and “positive” into iscategorized Mail contents. summarized the illustrate to order do, and chain, from include those reports often selective quotations although reports mailin the Actual and in reports. appropriate mail anyone contents write higher rarely production reaches the mail,interns,summarizeclassify the andthe who by student read andsorted writers’ assistants is itself Mail follows: as Hospital” “General of team production the by handled isroutinely mail level. feedbackLevine (2001)gives ontheorganizational of way account the in viewers’ which with such way of and routinized dealing anestablished often of exists content message. There the form and places no ontheinitial solicited thenetwork and they by restrictions not network the are in that loosely-manageable be feedback can considered of similartypes other and cards, petitions type offeedback. aspecific gather todeliberately by network They are used the contact. the of timing the controls questions and for of possible topics which assessment opinion by are formulated network, the also of which beare known to employed byABC(Levine 2001) -arestrictly-manageable,is, that the forms,ABC phoneout – commentinfocus surveys, participation episode testing groups all groups, borderline. Polls sites the of official show ornetwork-affiliated network, of the magazine,filling and manageable loosely strictly-manageable, into channels various available separate broadly decision-makingby (Bielby producers the al.et 1999).This degree ofmanageability can be used to for of which source data isthem alegitimate degree to perceived as through received feedback the Utilizingphone comment official linesprovided in by ABC, aswell as participation the But even such efficientandwith system indeal such operationalized placeto with of type On the other hand, letters to executives and to the show, direct phone calls, sending post 33 CEU eTD Collection was one of few of was one the exceptions. ABC/Disney executives of change insisting12000 postcards direction to on their preferred about parts of this chapter. latter assigned alot by importance of aswill Soapgroup, Save members of the be inour the described press-releases – strictly-manageable still heldchannels role significant in campaign the and were petitions, ofcommunication 2005) utilized channels loosely-manageable – sendingpostcards, (Scardaville fan activity of tomore usual course asopposed fan campaign, the specificactivity to of the most Although occurred. contact of channels network-initiated is,of that norejection site comment forms, sending postcards and petitions, vote in polls on ABC out filling lines, comment Hospital General and lines comment ABC on phone by calling personally, executives ABC/Disney the to and serials daytime covers that both press the to directed be the case. to out turned not did that below, seen be can as however, ones, strictly-manageable of than more channels determinedgroup make to themselves heardby would network the make useloosely-manageable of channelthe is managed by are inversely network the proportional, which would suggestthat the by isdelivered moderated network. the is it way butthe which define contact, of the timing through and the topic arefreethe Viewers to them. through it’s formulates questions own with or viewers the contact initiates phone lines) provides never andbutrarely (in case or message network case channels (in controls of boards) of , participation in independent boardsparticipation various message –both discussions andABC-affiliated, on Not muchNot Soapgroupsent offline–aninstance when activity was conducted Save our Methods of contact employed by Save our Soap group included writing emails letters included emails and group writing Soap by employed our Save of Methods contact As Bielby (1999)argues, potential for empowermentof which viewersthe the degree and to 34 ABC Soaps in Depth ABC and on ABC CEU eTD Collection message board is closed to the unregistered viewers, so I was not able to analyze it’s contents, analyze able to not I was so viewers, unregistered the to isclosed board message more strict was ABCThis InsiderAccess messageboard created. new ABCAccess had board much Insider procedure version of anew Instead, an end”. to was coming used itwas for which research of “phase the that to gain membership,messageHowever, that wasclosedboard atDecember with 23,2009, a telling messagebyABC anddepartment. ABC the research to aresent board message that on occurring viewer discussions access of transcripts the that claimed was it importantly, most and, ABC by maintained towas it however, it was severelynetwork, no prompting by little to the with free-form answers gavea and topics discussion restricted.is, new the created manageable– viewers wasalmostIt’s content that loosely this entirely chapter. The middle ofloosely-manageable/strictly manageablecontinuum I have outlined beginning nearthe of new alluded to throughout and chapter inthis groupSoap press-releases by Save our -used tobe in the informationchannel. through gathered affordedthat importance to perceived the of rise and accompanying manageable manageable strictly loosely to from relatively ABCan undergoing of feedbackviewers to network transformation channel from once account of give I’ll Below focused. already is regime information the which upon and quantifiable, objective, justification of andtheir decisions arbitrating conflictswithin production itself by team appearing prefer torely informationtool for that canbemanagedstrictly an and agood provides on Hartley Anand& 1989; Peterson 2000) suggested, thosein charge of productionthe of showthe 1983; essay (Gitlin of this in part examined theoretical the authors asthe Meanwhile, manageable. be toother group, fan fanactivity loosely opposed channelsSoap tend to as to specific activism As been noted above, while strictly-manageable channels were not abandoned by Save our Save by abandoned not were channels strictly-manageable while above, noted been As ABC Insider Access - an ABC/Disney affiliated message which wasfrequently board ABC/Disney ABCaffiliated Access -an Insider 5.3 Caseatpoint – ABC Insider Access 35 CEU eTD Collection introductory message to the newly-accepted members of of readlike board the members message newly-accepted this: tothe introductory the feedbackviewers. Indeed, getimmediate from to inorder forum designed thisthat was team moderation Insider ABC new the of members the by said explicitly been has It producers. the Which strongly states the existence of quota. message: more requirements. onone Infalsified data or accessafter providing successfully getting membership finally anddenied addition, some of being repeatedly the reported several people it because existed, that is evidence strong there however, rejected applicantsincluded age,location sex, and income level,among others. Exact is quota unknownfor me, reported receiving criteria These access. the for criteria learnthe some of able to been Ihave operas ABCsoap other the following General however, open messageonline to other the boardsrelated research on though and Hospital 2 1 Ibid., http://greatmindsthinklikemerainlillie.blogspot.hu/2009/02/abc-and-view-are-looking-for-few-dumb.html you the opportunity to help shape your favorite shows, so your participation is critical.“ is participation your so shows, favorite your shape help to opportunity the you have behind-the-scenes access tothe people calling the shots. Most importantly,your input will give from level attention of direct message unprecedented enjoyed board This newly-restricted interest!” your for again Thanks online. you seeing to forward look We forums. and boards message sites, fan many our including spaces, other our of many in feedback your hearing to forward we look However, “Thanks forjoining ABC InsiderAccess. Asamemberof thisexclusive you willgroup, “At this time, we are seeking people with adifferent criteria match forthis community. 1 36 2 CEU eTD Collection managementby –into network the atightly-controlled meticulously “representative” focus group fans the same possibilities of actual dialogue with the network. the offer and function same the fulfill not could it ABC, with affiliation actual any having not but channel “official” former the after modeled being that, suggest also might life short It’s heard. be mightactually asfeedback thata channelfor message board ABCInsider of importance official the underlines the perceived board establish such“mirror” attemptthe to However, initiative. and contained approximately 150 messages,which makes itlittle-known a and short-lived section)Feedback to9May in 2010 (last post General Daily Hospital section) Feedback Storyline was inin lastthe 2009(firstactive post 23 December post from Hospital General Daily Storyline viewers and send it directly to the network executives and writers in charge of the show. That board asa“soundingboard messagein feedbackfrom togather board”, an order episode-by-episode board - as a reaction to the changes on ABC Insider. than episodes usuallessto the feedback structured allowedbymessageboards. Save our Soap of tests andin-house focusfrom gained groups tothat of closer comes viewers managed group group intended to use this for theproducers. audience’s information sources about of preferences of indeed privileged the one message was board thatABCInsider made suggests such claimswere faninterest to isnegligibleopinions (Hayward1993;Scardaville however, very fact 2005), the that point out that TV producers assome debate, is scholars upto team of theactualattitude production reflects such reports extent often claim to follow their audience’s concerns even if their actual Direct interaction between producing team interaction between Direct producing team and the aswell. viewers isreported which To The transformation of in –borderline of terms messageboard network-affiliated The transformation of the ABCmessage Soaps! it’s messageour -SOS/Save board groupcreated own Save Soap our This information, gathered in accordance with strict quotas from a very restricted and tightly 37 CEU eTD Collection 1983; Hartley Anand& 2000).1989; Peterson Producers donot ignore viewers’ preferences do nor (Gitlin audience of conceptions anoperationalized beingbasedon executives network andwriters process of production. “invoked” (Grey 2012, 57)as animpartial with argument which settleto the conflicts arising in the be enough bounded and“phaseto andunambiguous ongoing research”, of - production process an to muddle audience the picture, feedback managingthe of is in already which integrated the ofviewership lessvaluable no parts with advertisers of preferences inthe with accordance gathered is – that An “audience” useful with. have relationship to such “audience” bounded nicely create the less operationalized and thus unwelcome activity of the fan group. As Hartley succinctly puts it, falling than ratings the findto solution into role the attempts the playedimportant more of quotas careful message use on through board mostthe of created and, of audience all, construction stable profile valuedby advertisersthe was whichsought, fits the observations of Meehan (2005). the fit who viewers those of opinion only However, all. at equation the into enters barely opinion it, contrary upon suggestionsto the audience’s of that economists, early political whosupposed conclusions: first, the production team feedbackwas it within granted the generated status. highly privileged making an effort and sametime atthe contact, of of channels category to strictly-manageable the into firmly itplaced learn audience’s opinion and act That is fully in line with the theories concerning the decision-making process of TV show to effort the of part as seen be can board message Access Insider ABC new the effect, In audiences--to invent them in ownits imageforits own purposes.” (Hartley 1989, 237-238) relations with audiences as already constituted trading partners, but, on the contrary, to reliable, operationalized, iscarefullyMy second rationalized bounded, thatthe conclusion The level of attention allegedly paid to it by producers allows me to come to the following “the institutional organization of the industry seems designed not to enter into active 38 produce CEU eTD Collection (1999) idea fan of as lyingempowerment inmake ability to theirclaims expertise of over the show “open” ABC Insider Access board – a notion which might be perceived as contradictory Bielby’sto be thedissolution of describing to heard in – sayscompliments the press-release bythose charge” complaints, and had concerns, channel for they adirect their because empowered thoughts, it.felt “Viewers but because by of management in network not the theirmediums of spite in such fan out cases, seek some A that press-release ismadeintheSave Soap charge.claim our someone importance feedback in andhigherin to probability greater actually conveying their havemediums infans them to from expect a way that unaffiliated the asseparate emphasized affiliated mediumsfanfor discussion, in such ABC as Soaps Depth and ABCInsider, are ABC- releases press of a number In internet sites. independent than show the in of charge those actually reach to morecapability having as areperceived mediums ABC-affiliated communication. although 2008), rarely attention.explicitgiven understandingis –aphenomenon by that researchersother noted as 1993;Fordwell (Hayward articulatefinding themselves to ways theways the show inthe compatible to producers’ by preferences own and their show the take producers the direction the between disconnect of the problem the overcome seekto they Asaresult, network. by the are conceptualized audiences ways regime. information beas apartof market included to are viewers preferences is components necessary – and rationalization logicoperationalization of to see aresubject to viewers want to see, and the methods by they thatproduce the show the think attemptto they viewersthey want –rather, they what give which they come to conclusion about what viewers want One of this way is the use of strictlyInterestingly, manageable Save our Soap members demonstrate a high degreeand of awareness borderline about the channels of 5.4 Speaking in 5.4 Speaking networkese 39 CEU eTD Collection group's ownclaimsgroup's representwider to audience andspeakfor it storyline towards the direction preferred by Save our Soap group and as a way to legitimate the asthis: such press-releases. Soap Saveour throughout creatively advertisersvaluableis foremost toandthrough ratings and defined first isused widely and make theirpoint. The concept of audience asa iscommodity which onlyvaluable inas much itas manageable by aremore network the conductive toonetype notbut of to empowerment other. the less channels might as wellbethat It toinfluencechange. attempts deliberate than rather narrative the of ownership symbolic and power interpretative on more focused kind, similar of others by uninterrupted although network, the itin be should mindkept thatBielby’slike essay, most 4 3 http://www.saveoursoapgh.com/SOS%20PR%203%206%2029%2009.pdf http://www.saveoursoapgh.com/SOS%20PR%202%206%2022%2009.pdf previous alltime low of 761,000 (week ending April 24, 2009).” only 754,000 womenin the18-49demographic watched the show,7,000 viewers down from GH’s what used to be an enjoyable experience. Evidence of this is apparent in last week's numbers when Ratings mostare utilized inseveral notably ways, for argument thechangesas an in the viewers have beenat a steady 1.9, adecline of 14-17% from 2008». week ending April 24,2009). For the last three weeks (ending June 12, 2009), forratings total women inthe HH,18-49 demographic (2,360,000, and 1.1rating 1.8rating and respectively,the for ratings,about with opened a report group Soap by our Save half press-releases of than More The way inother is as of by industry conceptof to adoption the audience embraced order “This separation[of couples favoured by Save ourSoap group] is depriving many viewers of «Since the beginning of April of 2009, General Hospital has hit new lows in total viewers, 40 4 3 CEU eTD Collection advertisers: as value potential andthus to theirbeconsumers appealing not spending power exactly ignored to using the logic of rationalization and profit: don't match their own, attempts are made to in women all-important the 18-49 demographic, which iseither highly valued by advertisers.” devalue the importancekeep: “GH its has would ashell self former of become wantto network viewers type the the of that of such demographic exactly alienates Hospital General direction of current make that flaunted to apoint are advertisers be Demographics valuedaccount. intoby advertisers –is to known –value to difference taken also relatively small – and obscure fangroup are shared by “many viewers”. 5 http://www.saveoursoapgh.com/SOS%20PR10%20final.pdf are the viewers who are now in the workforce and will spend their income on hair color, medicine, color, hair on income their spend will and workforce the in now are who viewers the are These shows. the to grandchildren and children their introduce often would past, the in that, viewers the are These integrity. historical and storylines character-driven for watch and appreciate and years should which of preferences of viewers the part asa demographic showcase alienated Or to effective” therefore,spending so time and much money thiscourting agegroup isrecklessnot cost and Additionally, this portion of the total viewing audience is but afragment of the total audience; dwindling. is day a an hour for sit to willing viewers younger of number the that finding are of demographicwhich whatpreferences tothe ascatering when they Whereas perceive Different importance afforded to different types of viewers,Note how as ratingswell as the aresource used of tothis make claim that preferences of Save our Soap group – a “The 35-54 female audience and beyond are often the viewers who have watched for many for watched have who viewers the often are beyond and audience female 35-54 “The “In an effort to attract new, teen viewers, soaps, including GH, have castyounger actors, but 5 41 CEU eTD Collection saying: retort, and acknowledgment their offer they notion such To sentiments. similar expressed which quoting the interview with producer “Generalof then-executive the Hospital” Farren Jill Phelps whilepotentiallylost be (Levine network, tothe actual ofviewermatters loss an 2001),even only might a viewer that indicator an as not and viewers from investment of sign a as comments negative 6 http://www.saveoursoapgh.com/PR%209%209.11.pdf They are also aware that producers often, and not without some reason (see Baym 2000) see programming” advertisements paid for by their sponsors as well as the advertisements for their very own nighttime audience that is no longer there is made up of individuals who are no longer watching the has lost 29% of its audience. One has to wonder if management at ABC/Disney realizes that the Reliance on advertisers in itself is also used as an argument. best” their feel and look to continue beauty and skin care products and more, not only because they are maturing, but because they want to in the original)in the continue to watch,they are apathetic and have quit watching. Obviously, this is they while mad not are fans very These viewers. regular as back them get GH to for take would 20 years or more, have beenletting management know that they have quit watching, why, what and it glued to the set. With the dramatic fall in the ratings, long-time fans, some who have watched GH for “Since the “Sinceweek the of episode, that 2008, 7, April the and incoveted 18-49demographic, GH “Sadly, GH has gone well beyond the point of creating stories that have people mad, but 6 42 not good.”(emphasis CEU eTD Collection services, assumed to be always right. addition, an in understanding, or, incorrect instead of terminology beincorrect acaseof might customers attempt to claimviewersas to above, referring quotes the from beinferred ascan However, an advertiser. to the title offered product audience a and a commodity themselves as significantdemonstrates awareness of of a customer group previously,Save ourSoap asI’veis consideringwhichthat, established somewhat surprising who would then relationship isthe insistence with as“customers” viewersarereferredwhich ABC/Disney, to of be, in analogy to retail current General Hospital storylines unsatisfactory for aesthetic reasons, but that they also don't sell. only not are the that claims group often Soap Saveour thenetwork with effectively communicate to in attempts and commercial success, appeals to byfrequent supplemented also they are prevalent, are continuity and preference itself, aesthetic text the basedon arguments While complicated. account of Save our Soap group, however, demonstrates a picture that is somewhat more The 1999, 37). (Bielby and“what between sells” et al. “what’s good” perceive tension aprofound narrative in terms of quality, aesthetics and continuity, with they arguments demonstrating that they (Bielby et al. 1999; inBaym whichviewersareshown2000) asjustify trying to their claimsto influence forcenot marketenough to producers. they presentdo awarenessthat express “valuable”. Some viewersinsuchas age “lessvaluable”demographics the thetargetabove those areconsidered which ideacategories about have clear arather and for advertiser, desirability of interms viewers value networks the that aware are quite Buckman, they to According show. the base of which they part, and that if they withdraw their loyalty itmight as wellviewer meanloyal cancellation of without ratings high draw consistently cannot show the that know They limitations. (1985, In Ford 2008) describes as a “political sense of their own power”, as well as of it’s All this suggests that the members of the Save our Soap group whatAll membersthe Buckman Soap demonstrate suggeststhatthis of Saveour the The only break from such high degree of awareness about audience-advertiser-network awareness about of from such highdegree breakThe only perception earlierof studies those audience’s offered bysome contradicts This account 43 CEU eTD Collection value of which they incessantly insist– in to order persuade the network. valuable the viewers– on from to transforming commodity community rhetorically of themselves in and same toadoptthe attempt 1989), (Budd &Steinman of conception audience, turn group of receives ofas a not audience industry conceptualizes the that aware it. They adapt to are to TV and attempt process messages but as a commodityproduction. Members of ahigh Soapgroupdemonstrate Savethe our degree of awareness of this form developed only butbe existing renderedoperationalized intheway known and of compatible with routines to be sold to advertisersand made known to the industry. In order to affect the show, preferences of viewers have to be not explained through wayin the viewerswhich themselves and their preferences areconceptualized better are Hospital of upon General contents the “passive” one asa ratings and preferences viewers' littleaudience’s relationshipan industry viewers with and too giving credit. channels really gain their profits(Budd & Steinman 1989; Allen mightbe1992) oversimplifying by which means it the and surrounding relations economic the to oblivious entertainment, “free” a source of idea just that viewers mostitprogramming suggests the as regard still television that broad tomore categoryof can beis but production viewersthe process uptodebate, extrapolated of such awareness extentwhat To 1992). (White audiences anddesirable sponsors onratings, reports regular broadcasting, with of“soapopera” aspects someeconomic on place publications often such 2008)andtheemphasis which Ford al. 1999; et (Bielby fandiscussion early magazines tothe “soap” formative the of the role noting both such viewer awareness, to factors contributing be of the one might of serials daytime subject the focused on magazines the suggestthat authors productionthe of show(Jenkinsthe al. 1992;Bielby et 1999;Baym In additions, 2000). some viewers,from deriveknowing, pleasure circumstances andsharing of,surrounding the knowledge most type other of to fans, that asopposed by bean observation explained might conceptions Such awareness of the industry’s conception of themselves and deliberate use of such useof themselvesand deliberate of conception industry’s the of Such awareness To summarize, the apparent lack of effect of both fan campaign as an “active” expression of expression “active” as an both fan campaign of lack effect of apparent the summarize, To 44 CEU eTD Collection channels andforms being privileged over others. Contrary certain to thewith suggestions preference, of such Bielbyconvey and to used form and channel the on heavily depends program people they’ve conjured upwantto see and hear” (Gitlin 1983, 203). “whatadvertising tailorandthey (Meehan to 2005), programs cardboard the producers think their supports universethat perception symbolic of producers’ rather but of audience, preferences television and for operational in providesdata procedures, behavior viewers asfarthatbehavior of the entertainment imagecreate of the that level and operational onindustrial audiences the on actual procedures tends imagine executives which in depends andprofessional corporate audiences, both on turn producers to reflect appears be TV might what on way atleastinpartiallyPeterson, the explained through which not reality, authors’ the industryor into equation. executives’by made operationalized knownand isconceptualized, audience adding waysinwhich through the personaltheir tastes intended of points viewintroduction in areconstrained– outlined producers the by that the orof preferences the audienceBoth show. into the byadvertisers valued as a of describedaudience bestgroup viewers commodity and that they preferencesa particular of incorporate to Hospital” “General of from producers the attempts lack of disregard as beinterpreted not should suchresult ratings. However, through expressed viewers of category such preferences of preferences particularina restricted of that viewersinvolved campaign and aggregated the entirely expressed preferences both and of show the contents between the correlation significant any discern – can be reconciled The degree towhich influenceexpressed preferences of viewers might contentof TV andAnand& by inoffered Hartley, tothe Gitlin theories In other words, accordance My analysis of the case of “General Hospital” and the “Save our Soap” campaign did not CONCLUSIONS 45 CEU eTD Collection chance make inchance their reflected preferences TV programming. differentsuccessfullychances navigate theindustry’s to of conception and thus greater themselves “fan”.issuch difference If tobefound, itwould suggestthatdifferent groups of viewers have beingdifference levelofincome, the oractivity in between education, “viewer” and as distinction conditions and theirdiscern production capability to the regardsto similarsuggest with differences that plausibleto impact upon content would isinterpretations byMorley andof TV contentestablished, others, seems (1992), among it be different forwill various provegroups of viewers,to reflecting upon conditionsthe ofit’s further butIthinkproduction, direction researchin that that be withfruitful. contentwithout aboutTV judgments making andideological aesthetic as audience of only capable That groups is itwith views about the in in viewers on whether thus and contradiction general, extrapolated of viewersandfor creativelyby perchance it groupcan utilizing demonstrated “Save ourSoap” be differ in their capabilityAudience”. to audience constituted ratingsjustifythrough in to order claimstheir represent“The own to offer resistivecommodity and possibility ABC stressing such valueof andappeal to the through audienceadopt the viewof asacommodity of deliberately losingsometimes they consideration, into preferences it,their taking of necessity the as in network well as widely utilizing In in the less managed ofcontact. forms topersuade addition, strictly viewer-initiated order the codes of networkoperationalizedmore channelsby amenable the management beingto producers the privilegedover such as which viewers in areconceptualized TVindustry the commodity andas audience, about appearto managedmore by strictly impact producers havemoreupon the content. the be can that channels – observed be can tendency opposite An channel. the of use the of impact independence degree from of doesnot greater inHarrington, seem result network the to greater It was not the question of this whether such awareness of industry’s conception of industry’saudience of conception of such awareness was notwhether this of question the It group The membersSoap of demonstrated our clear awarenessboth Save about waysin the 46 CEU eTD Collection and after the time of group’s activity Proportion ofcharacter sets preferred anddisliked by“Saveour Soap” group, before, during Table 1. APPENDIX Week Mar 8-12 2010 Mar 1-5 2010 Feb 22-26 2010 Feb 15-19 2010 Feb 8-12 2010 Feb 1-5 2010 Jan 25-29 2010 Jan 18-22 2010 Jan 11-15 2010 Jan 4-8 2010 Dec 14-18 2009 Dec 7-11 2009 Nov 30-Dec 4 2009 Nov 16-20 2009 Nov 9-13 2009 Nov 2-6 2009 Oct 26-30 2009 Oct 19-23 2009 Oct 12-16 2009 Oct 5-9 2009 Sept 28-Oct 2 2009 Sept 21-25 2009 Sept 14-18 2009 Aug 31-Sept 42009 Aug 24-28 2009 Aug 17-21 2009 Aug 10-14 2009 Aug 3-7 2009 Jul 27-31 2009 Jul 20-24 2009 Jul 13-17 2009 Jul 6-10 2009 Jun 22-26 2009 Jun 15-19 2009 Jun 8-12 2009 Jun 1-5 2009 May 18-22 2009 May 11-15 2009 May 4-8 2009 Apr 27-May 1 2009 Apr 20-24 2009 Apr 13-17 2009 Apr 6-10 2009 Mar 30-Apr 32009 Mar 23-27 2009 Mar 16-20 2009 Mar 9-13 2009 Mar 2-6 2009 Feb 27-27 2009 Feb 16-20 2009 Feb 9-13 2009 Feb 2-6 2009 Jan 26-30 2009 Jan 19-23 2009 Jan 12-16 2009 Jan 5-9 2009 rfre e Dsie e Week Disliked Preferred Set Set 67.96% 72.73% 70.03% 79.42% 78.03% 68.09% 71.39% 77.06% 71.67% 68.50% 69.71% 71.79% 77.44% 80.12% 75.82% 72.75% 68.77% 67.97% 68.62% 57.76% 64.49% 70.06% 70.06% 71.46% 65.52% 73.49% 60.64% 64.84% 77.75% 68.72% 65.44% 73.03% 69.57% 70.39% 73.19% 70.82% 76.80% 81.01% 80.86% 84.30% 84.81% 80.65% 79.89% 77.64% 81.51% 90.48% 86.19% 78.83% 82.46% 84.21% 83.40% 90.03% 88.30% 88.53% 93.11% 89.87% 32.04% 27.27% 29.97% 20.58% 21.97% 31.91% 28.61% 22.94% 28.33% 31.50% 30.29% 28.21% 22.56% 19.88% 24.18% 27.25% 31.23% 32.03% 31.38% 42.24% 35.51% Dec 13-17 29.94% 2010 Dec 6-10 29.94% 2010 28.54% Nov 15-19 34.48% 2010 Nov 8-12 26.51% 2010 Nov 1-5 39.36% 2010 Oct 18-22 35.16% 2010 Oct 11-15 22.25% 2010 Oct 4-8 31.28% 2010 Sept 28-Oct 1 34.56% 2010 Sept 20-24 26.97% 2010 Sept 13-17 30.43% 2010 29.61% Aug 23-27 26.81% 2010 Aug 16-20 29.18% 2010 Aug 9-13 23.20% 2010 Aug 2-6 18.99% 2010 19.14% 15.70% 15.19% 19.35% 20.11% 22.36% 18.49% 13.81% 21.17% 17.54% 15.79% 16.60% 11.70% 11.47% 10.13% 9.52% 9.97% 6.89% 2010 Nov 29-Dec 3 2010 Aug 30-Sept 3 Jul 26-30 2010 Jul 19-23 2010 Jul 12-16 2010 Jun 28-July 2 2010 Jun 21-25 2010 Jun 14-18 2010 Jun 7-11 2010 May 24-28 2010 May 17-21 2010 May 10-14 2010 May 3-7 2010 Apr 26-30 2010 Apr 19-23 2010 Apr 12-16 2010 Apr 5-9 2010 Mar 29-Apr 22010 Mar 22-26 2010 Mar 15-19 2010 47 Preferred Set Disliked Disliked Set Preferred Set 67.50% 60.47% 59.79% 53.20% 59.13% 63.90% 62.94% 59.64% 64.44% 64.47% 60.36% 64.60% 55.96% 57.23% 62.46% 50.25% 67.99% 64.56% 65.07% 69.71% 63.17% 59.95% 51.86% 61.99% 61.97% 68.45% 75.87% 69.00% 56.46% 65.98% 67.83% 60.85% 66.30% 69.45% 70.83% 32.50% 39.53% 35.44% 34.93% 30.29% 36.83% 40.05% 48.14% 38.01% 38.03% 31.55% 24.13% 31.00% 43.54% 34.02% 32.17% 39.15% 33.70% 30.55% 29.17% 40.21% 46.80% 40.87% 36.10% 37.06% 40.36% 35.56% 35.53% 39.64% 35.40% 44.04% 42.77% 37.54% 49.75% 32.01% CEU eTD Collection Buckman, P.1985. Budd. M., Steinman, C. 1989. “Television, Cultural Studies, and the "Blind Spot" Debate in Critical Brennan, E.2004. “Soap Opera, Commercialisation and the Proletarianisation of Cultural Bielby, D.,Bielby, W., Harrington C., 1999. “Whose stories are they? Fans’ engagement with soap Baym, N. K. 2000. ------1994. Understanding Television Audiencehood. In Ang, 1985. I. Allen, C.R. 1992. Introduction. In REFERENCES Anand, N., Peterson R. A. 2000. “When Market Information Constitutes Fields: Sensemaking of 1995. ------published in 1984 in UK)the Oaks R. J. (eds) (1989) Praeger.R. J.(eds)New York. (1989) In Research.” Communications Production.” Vol. 43, Iss. 1, opera narratives in three sites of fan activity.” Newcomb, H.Oxford University Press. Oxford, New York, 1994. 2000), pp.2000), 270-284 Issue: Cultural LearningIndustries: from Organizational Evolving Practices (May -Jun., contemporary criticism. Markets in the Commercial Music Industry.” in Music Commercial Markets the to be continued… Soap operas around theworld Watching “Dallas” Tunein,log on online. : soaps,fandom,and All Love:A Study inSoap for Opera Irish Journal of Sociology,2004,Vol. 13Issue 2,p66-83 Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press. , London: Methuen London: , Channels of discourse,Channels of reassembled:television and Television Studies: Textual TelevisionAnalysis Studies: 48 Organization Science Journal ofBroadcasting& Electronic Media , Salem, NH: Salem House, 1985 (first Television, the Critical View . Routlege. London; New York. SAGE Publications. Thousand ,Vol. 11, No. 3, Special . Burns, G., Thompson , . Ed. CEU eTD Collection Hartley, J.1989. “Invisible Fictions: Television Audiences, Paedocracy, In Pleasure.” Hamilton, J. T. 1998. Hayward, J.1993"Day Tomorrow":after Audience Interaction Opera and Soap Production.” Hall, S.1980. “ Gray, J., D Lotz, A. 2012. Gitlin,1983. T Gentzkow, M., Shapiro, J. M. 2006. “Media bias and reputation”. S.2008. Ford, “Soap andoperas history the fanof discussion.” Fligstein, N.1996. “Markets as politics: A political-cultural approach to market institutions.” ------1989. “Popular Television and Commercial Culture: Beyond Political In Economy.” Fiske, J.1987. Elliott, P. 1972. Doyle, G.2002. Casey B., Casey N., Calvert B., French L., Lewis J. 2002. Reader Studies: Textual Analysis Programming Cultural Critique 114, 280-316. Cultures, Sociological Rev American York Television Studies: TextualAnalysis Routledge. London. . New York University Press, New York, 2000. Television Culture Inside Prime Time Encoding/Decoding The Making a ofTelevision Series no. 1 Understanding mediaeconomics . Princeton University Press, Princeton. Channeling Violence: The Economic Violent Market for Television , No. 23 , 1992-1993), pp.(Winter, 83-109 Television Studies . Burns, G., Thompson J.R. (eds) (1989) Praeger. New York . Routlege. London; New York. . Routlege, London iew 61656-673. ”, Ch.10 in Marris P, Thornham S. (eds) In . Burns, G., Thompson R. J. (eds) (1989) Praeger. New . Polity Press, Cambridge 49 . SAGE publications. London . London: Constable London: . Television Studies: The KeyConcepts. Transformative Works and Journal of Political Journal of Economy Media Studies: A Television CEU eTD Collection Meehan, E.R. 2005. Levine, 2001. E. “Toward a paradigm mediafor production research: Behind the scenes general at Lembo, R.2000. Lavin,“Creating M.1995. in Consumers 1930s:Irnathe Phillips and Opera.” theRadioSoap LaGuardia, R.1983. Kellner, D.2009 Media Industries, Political Economy, and Media/Cultural Studies: An Johnson, R.1986/87.Whatis cultural anyway?studies ------(1994) Star Trek Rerun, Reread, Rewritten: Fan Writing as Textual Poaching. In Jenkins,1992. H. Jamieson, K. H.., Campbell,K. K. 2001. Holt, A., Perren, A. 2009. (eds) 1997 “Consuming------Pleasures: Active Audiences and Opera.” In Soap Intintoli, M. J. 1984. control hospital.” Journal ofConsumer Research;Vol. 22Issue Jun95, 1,p75-89 Method Articulation. In Holt, A., Perren, A (eds) 2009 the Critical View York:Routledge. and theMass Media by Dines, G., Humez, J. M. in media:atext-reader. Sussex Wiley-Blackwell Sussex . Lanham, Md. : Rowman & Littlefield, . Chichester, West Sussex. Wiley-Blackwell Thinking ThroughTelevision Critical StudiesinMediaCommunication Volume 18, Issue 1,2001 Textual poachers: Television andparticipatory fans culture. Soap world Why TV isnot our : fault television programming, viewers, andwho's really in Taking soaps seriously: Theworld of“GuidingLight . Ed.Newcomb, H.Oxford University Press. Oxford, New York, 1994. . Wadsworth SAGE publications. Thousand Oaks; London; New Delhi, edited Media Industries: History,TheoryandMethod . New York: Arbor House. The Interplay ofInfluence: News, Advertising, Politics, . Cambridge University Press. 50 Media Industries: History,Theory and Social text, 16, 33-80. ”. New York: Praeger. ”. NewYork: Gender, race,andclass New . Chichester, West Television, CEU eTD Collection Schatz, T 2009. Film Industry Studies and Hollywood History. In Holt, A., Perren, A (2009) Scardaville, M.2005.Accidental Activists: FanActivism in OperaCommunity Soap the Rosten, L.1941. Rosten, Powdermaker, H. 1950.Powdermaker, H. Neuendorf K. A.2002.The ContentAnalysis SagePublications. Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, Napoli, P.M. 2009. Media Economics and the Study of Media Industries. In Holt, A., Perren, A Morley,1992 D. Moores, S.Moores, 2005. Meyers, C. B. 2009. “From Sponsorship to Spots: Advertising and the Development of Electronic Montgomery, K. C. 1990. V. Mosco, 1996. ------2005. Watching Television:A Political Approach.Economic InWasko,J. (ed)2005. Industries: History,Theory and Method Behavioral Scientist, Vol.48Issue 7,p881-901 New York Makers London, New Delhi Wiley-Blackwell (eds) (2009) Media” In Holt,A., Perren, A (eds) (2009) Entertainment Television Companion toTelevision Chichester, WestSussex. Wiley-Blackwell Chichester, . Little, Brown, Boston. . Television,audiencesandcultural studies Hollywood: TheMovieColony,the MovieMakers Poltical Communication:Economy of and Renewa Rethinking Media/Theory. Thinkingabout media andcommunications Media Industries: History,Theory and Method Hollywood: TheDreamFactory:AnAnthropologistLooksatthe Movie- Target, Prime Time: Advocacy Groups and theStruggleover . Blackwell Publishing Blackwell . . Oxford University Press: New York. . Chichester, West Sussex. Wiley-Blackwell 51 Media Industries: History,Theory and Method . Routlege, London; New York . Harcourt, Brace, New York. . Chichester, West Sussex West . Chichester, . Routlege, London and l. Sage, London. American A Media . CEU eTD Collection Zafirau, “Audience S.2009. Knowledge and Everyday the Lives of inCultural Producers White, M.1992.“Ideological Analysis and Television”. InAllen Channels(1992) (ed) of Webscter, J. G., Phalen, P.F., Lichty, L. W. 2000. J. Wasko,2005. Introduction. Vogel,H. 1998. H. ------(1998) “No Politics Here” Age and Gender in Soap Opera “Cyberfandom” in Scodari, C.1995 (May). “He’s May. She’s September, but are they both from AnotherWorld? Mass University Press, New York. Cultural StudiesofMedia Industries. Hollywood.” In Mayer, V., Banks, M. J., Caldwell, J. T.(eds) 2009 Carolina Press. North discourse, reassembled : television and contemporary criticism. Chapel Hill : University of Research Audience Publishing,2005 edited by Dines, G., Humez, J. M. and classinmedia:atext-reader NM. Albuquerque, Association Conference, InternationalCommunication at the presented Paper man taboo.” woman/younger andtheolder opera media, soap Entertainment IndustryGuide Economics: A Financial Analysis for . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ. In A Companion to TelevisionIn A . Sagepublications. Thousand Oaks;London; New Delhi, New York :RoutledgeYork New 52 Ratings Analysis:The Theory andPractice of , edited by Wasko, J. Blackwell Production studies: Gender, race, . Cambridge CEU eTD Collection 53