Critical aspects of different approaches

So far, this chapter has introduced three different theories related to consumers’

media choices. Now we discuss the similarities and differences among these theories (namely consumer theory and uses and gratifications theory) and some problematic issues. Uses and gratifications theory and consumer theory are surprisingly similar, if we get past the differences in terminology. These theories share the same ontological origin: the assumption of the inner rationality of actions (Marewski et al.

2009). In economics consumers maximize their utilities, and McQuail (1997) says that rational utility maximizing is a very important aspect of Uses and gratifications, too. He says that an audience is assumed to know its needs, and all relevant variables are assumed to be measurable (motives, gratifications, media choices). Gratifications sought and utility can be seen as the same phenomenon. According to Dimmick (1993), gratification is quite close to the economics term utility. Dimmick notes that gratification is a term familiar to media researchers but neglected by economists. A few terms have been juxtaposed in Figure 6 to illustrate reciprocity of the terminology:

Figure 6. Differences and similarities in economics and uses and gratifications studies

The other variables are quite similar also. Consuming and using media are the same thing. Other consequences are called externalities in economics. Expectations are quite similar in both disciplines. The evaluation of the media experience for future decisions is called consumer learning in economics. Both disciplines see that audience members/consumers are perfectly able to make the decisions, that they expect to gratify their needs best/will provide the maximum utility. The disciplines also agree that audience members are aware of their needs and motives/that consumers know their preferences.

The main difference between uses and gratifications theory and consumer theory is the structure of science. Consumer theory is part of a well-organized, well-defined, mathematically precise system of theories, which are all interrelated. In order to create a perfect setting for mathematical calculations, the economists have been forced to make some quite far-fetched assumptions that are a long way from reality as such. Uses and gratifications theory is more practical, but unfortunately not that well-organized. The scope is naturally very different in these sciences: Uses and gratifications is interested in media use, and consumer theory in consumption of all products and services in general. One major difference, which is relevant to this study, is the attitude towards motives. Uses and gratifications theory has been very

%' $&

%%*

)+&%%*

)%#%$

$&##

$&#$

##$

$

#%%

#%*$

% $"&$

)!%% $)!#$

&/$#$

$ %'$

interested to find out what the needs are and how people use media in order to gratify the needs. Economists presume that the motive to consume simply exists.

The origins and characteristics of the motives are left for other sciences to explore.

These two theories have been combined in this study, which takes elements from both and uses the common elements. One of the principal common elements is the assumption of causality; the media use decisions are caused by some other variables or actions. Since there are so many similarities between the disciplines, the criticism towards them is also somewhat similar.

There have been quite a lot of critical discussions about consumer theory and its assumptions. The criticism has been heard from economists and those in other disciplines as well. Some of the criticism is based on misunderstandings (mainly from other disciplines), and some is more justified. The main misunderstanding is about the concept of rationality (which in economics means inner consistency of the decision process; to others, it means reasonableness). Since Uses and gratifications theory resembles consumer theory in many ways, it is not surprising that it, too, has been criticized for the concept of rationality. In Uses and gratifications theory, people are assumed to know what their needs are and to have an understanding about which media content might satisfy those needs. Some researchers have argued that people cannot know their needs exactly and their expectations might be

“wrong” (Pietilä 2007; O’Guinn et al. 1991). In this study it does not matter if needs or expectations match the objective reality. People make their choices based on their subjective perceptions.

Sometimes the economic term “utility” is confused with the utilitarian way of thinking, which is a completely different concept. Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy concept, in which the moral goodness of an act can be judged only by the amount of utility. Some people have argued that economics is a science of selfishness and the fact that people do behave unselfishly (charity) proves that economic theory does not hold. This is a misunderstanding. The argument of selfishness is based on the limited view of utility. But utility is not only monetary; it contains such variables as the well-being of others, social respect, self-respect, etc.

Some economists agree with this view (Gravelle and Rees 1992, p. 7; Hirshleifer 1984; Vihanto 2004), but others do consider utility maximizing a selfish goal and thus see unselfish behavior as irrational by definition (Sen 1987; Uusitalo 1997). The main problem of economics is not the rationality issue, nor the selfishness claim, but

the lack of connection to reality. Economics is way too mathematical and in love with the methods (Luukko 2001; Vihanto 2012). The basic assumptions (for example, perfect information) and the usage of complicated methods lift the economics far beyond practical use. Tammi (1997) argues that the problem is caused by the economists’ desire to bring economics as close to the natural sciences as possible. This is why, in this study, only the useful concepts of economics (listed in chapter 2.3) and the language are used, not the methods. Whereas economics is seen to be too theoretical, uses and gratifications is criticized for the quite opposite:

namely, lacking the theory (McQuail 1994; Severin and Tankard 1987).

Furthermore, Uses and gratifications theory has been accused of being too vague in key concepts (McQuail 1994; Severin and Tankard 1987; Swanson 1977). The combination of economics and uses and gratifications theory attempt to solve this problem in this study.

3 TOWARDS THE MODEL OF CONSUMER MEDIA