Author: Nazarov M.M.
Communicology. 2019. Vol.7. No.2
Nazarov Mikhail Mikhailovich, leading researcher at the Institute of social and political studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor at HSE.
Abstract. Distinctive feature of the modern media environment is its fragmentation. The work contributes to the current debate on whether there is a growing “dispersion” of the audience by an increasing number of small media channels or in the current environment continue to operate patterns of structuring media consumption, which were inherent in the media space in the “pre-digital” era? The theoretical and applied basis of the work is the concept of double losses (double-jeopardy) in the media market. It is argued that the phenomenon of mass media popularity is rooted in the nature of information behavior of individuals. With regard to the Russian situation, it was revealed that for TV channels with high coverage rates, there is a great loyalty of the audience. Channels with small penetration (coverage) lose to big players also in terms of the loyalty of their viewers. It is concluded that in the framework of competition in the media market for the audience, the strategy of mass coverage is more preferable.
Keywords: media environment, media space, media popularity, information environment, media consumption
Text: PDF
For citation: Nazarov M.M. Patterns of Sstructuring Media Consumption in the Modern Information Environment. Communicology (Russia). 2019. Vol. 7. No.2. Р. 98–108. DOI 10.21453/2311-3065-2019-7-2-98-108.
References
American sociology: problems, prospects, methods (1972) / Ed. Osipov G.V. M.: Progress (transl. from English: American Sociology. Perspectives. Problems. Methods / Parsons T. N.Y.: Basic Books, 1968) (In Rus.).
Anderson C. (2006a). The long Tail. Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More. New York: Hyperion.
Anderson С. (2006b). The Longer Long Tail. NY. P.100-105.
Nazarov M.M. (2018). Modern media environment: diversity and fragmentation. Sociological Studies. No. 8. P. 54-64 (In Rus.).
Nazarov M.M. (2015). To the question of fragmentation of the modern media landscape: theory and empirical results. Information society. No. 2-3. P. 91-100 (In Rus.).
Political science: new directions (1999) / Ed. E.B. Shestopal. M.: Veche. P. 243-244 (In Rus.). Bairwise P., Ehrenberg, A. (1997). The Liking and Viewing of Regular TV Series. Journal of
Consumer Research. Vol. 14. June 1987. P. 63-70.
Donthy N. (2001). Double Jeopardy in Television Program Choice. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science. Vol. 22. No. 2. P. 180-185
Ehrenberg А., Goodhardt G., Barwise P. (1990). Double Jeopardy Reviseted. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 54. P. 82-91.
Ehrenberg A., Bairwise P. (1988). Television and its Audience. London: Sage.
McDowell W., Dick S. (2001). Using TV Daypart “Double Jeopardy Effects” to Boost Advertising Efficiency. Journal of Advertising Research. No. 6. P. 43-51.
McDowell W., Dick S. (2005). Revealing a Double Jeopardy Effect in Radio Station Audience Behavior. Journal of Media Economics. 18(4), 271–284.
McPhee W.N. (1963). Formal theories of mass behavior. New York: Free Press.
McQuail D. (1994). Mass Connunication Theory. An Introduction. 3rd ed. London: Sage. Morgan D. (2017). If content remains king, might data & tech make audience or performance
King Kong? Presentation on egta (European trade association TV channels and radio stations sales houses) CEO & Top Executives Summit. 08-09/06/2017, Stockholm [el. source]: http://www.egta. com/index.php?page=event-individual&idEvent=92.
Nelson J., Webster J.B., (2016). Audience Currencies in the Age of Big Data. International Journal on Media Management, 18:1. P. 9-24.
Tarkiainen A., Ellonen A. (2015). Does offline market share drive online loyalty? Double jeopardy phenomenon in the context of print magazines and magazine websites. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising. Vol. 9. No. 3.
Communicology. 2019. Vol.7. No.2
Nazarov Mikhail Mikhailovich, leading researcher at the Institute of social and political studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor at HSE.
Abstract. Distinctive feature of the modern media environment is its fragmentation. The work contributes to the current debate on whether there is a growing “dispersion” of the audience by an increasing number of small media channels or in the current environment continue to operate patterns of structuring media consumption, which were inherent in the media space in the “pre-digital” era? The theoretical and applied basis of the work is the concept of double losses (double-jeopardy) in the media market. It is argued that the phenomenon of mass media popularity is rooted in the nature of information behavior of individuals. With regard to the Russian situation, it was revealed that for TV channels with high coverage rates, there is a great loyalty of the audience. Channels with small penetration (coverage) lose to big players also in terms of the loyalty of their viewers. It is concluded that in the framework of competition in the media market for the audience, the strategy of mass coverage is more preferable.
Keywords: media environment, media space, media popularity, information environment, media consumption
Text: PDF
For citation: Nazarov M.M. Patterns of Sstructuring Media Consumption in the Modern Information Environment. Communicology (Russia). 2019. Vol. 7. No.2. Р. 98–108. DOI 10.21453/2311-3065-2019-7-2-98-108.
References
American sociology: problems, prospects, methods (1972) / Ed. Osipov G.V. M.: Progress (transl. from English: American Sociology. Perspectives. Problems. Methods / Parsons T. N.Y.: Basic Books, 1968) (In Rus.).
Anderson C. (2006a). The long Tail. Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More. New York: Hyperion.
Anderson С. (2006b). The Longer Long Tail. NY. P.100-105.
Nazarov M.M. (2018). Modern media environment: diversity and fragmentation. Sociological Studies. No. 8. P. 54-64 (In Rus.).
Nazarov M.M. (2015). To the question of fragmentation of the modern media landscape: theory and empirical results. Information society. No. 2-3. P. 91-100 (In Rus.).
Political science: new directions (1999) / Ed. E.B. Shestopal. M.: Veche. P. 243-244 (In Rus.). Bairwise P., Ehrenberg, A. (1997). The Liking and Viewing of Regular TV Series. Journal of
Consumer Research. Vol. 14. June 1987. P. 63-70.
Donthy N. (2001). Double Jeopardy in Television Program Choice. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science. Vol. 22. No. 2. P. 180-185
Ehrenberg А., Goodhardt G., Barwise P. (1990). Double Jeopardy Reviseted. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 54. P. 82-91.
Ehrenberg A., Bairwise P. (1988). Television and its Audience. London: Sage.
McDowell W., Dick S. (2001). Using TV Daypart “Double Jeopardy Effects” to Boost Advertising Efficiency. Journal of Advertising Research. No. 6. P. 43-51.
McDowell W., Dick S. (2005). Revealing a Double Jeopardy Effect in Radio Station Audience Behavior. Journal of Media Economics. 18(4), 271–284.
McPhee W.N. (1963). Formal theories of mass behavior. New York: Free Press.
McQuail D. (1994). Mass Connunication Theory. An Introduction. 3rd ed. London: Sage. Morgan D. (2017). If content remains king, might data & tech make audience or performance
King Kong? Presentation on egta (European trade association TV channels and radio stations sales houses) CEO & Top Executives Summit. 08-09/06/2017, Stockholm [el. source]: http://www.egta. com/index.php?page=event-individual&idEvent=92.
Nelson J., Webster J.B., (2016). Audience Currencies in the Age of Big Data. International Journal on Media Management, 18:1. P. 9-24.
Tarkiainen A., Ellonen A. (2015). Does offline market share drive online loyalty? Double jeopardy phenomenon in the context of print magazines and magazine websites. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising. Vol. 9. No. 3.
