Stuart Hall, A Pioneer

As a cultural theorist, Stuart Hall critiques the practices of everyday life, particularly systems of meaning channelled through the televisual medium. From his analysis of television, Stuart Hall developed a theoretical model to explain the influence of television broadcasts (advertisements and sitcoms). Stuart Hall’s called this theory the encoding/decoding model. The basic premise of Hall’s encoding/decoding model of communication is that the media apparatus has an interest in production, circulation, distribution/consumption, and reproduction rather than conveying a message (Gurevitch, Scannell, 2003: 139). Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model focuses on the ideological dimensions of message production and reception in a capitalist world.There is much validity to this theory, and it to understand it completely, one must be knowledgeable of Hall’s Marxist background, and the implications of his concepts.This essay will make the case for the utility of this model through an analysis of three Apple Inc. iPod advertisements via Hall’s concepts, arguing that his production-reception model is a useful approach to understanding modern mass media messages, especially advertising.

In order to adequately understand the encoding/decoding model by Stuart Hall, it is necessary to draw connections to the basic foundations of this theory. To begin, Stuart Hall was profoundly influenced by Marxist theory, particularly ideas concerning the proletariat struggle against the bourgeoisie. Hall’s cultural theory is deeply rooted in Marxist theory with which he has translated the intent of media from its base intent of send-message-receive towards an alternative system of production, circulation, distribution/consumption, and reproduction (Gurevitch, Scannell, 2003: 139). In his autobiography, Stuart Hall explains that he was influenced by

the questions that Marxism as a theoretical project put on the agenda: the power, the global reach and history-making capacities of capital; the question of class; the complex relationships between power, which is an easier term to establish in the discourses of culture than exploitation, and exploitation; the question of a general theory which could, in a critical way, connect together in a critical reflection different domains of life, politics and theory, theory and practice, economic, political, ideological questions and so on; the notion of critical knowledge itself and the production of critical knowledge as a practice. (McGuigan, Gray, 1992: 100)

Here, Stuart Hall explains the reasons why Marxism yielded an immense amount of critical analysis for him. He asserted that issues concerning: 1) power, class dynamics, the discourse of exploitation, 2) politics, life, economy, and 3) hegemonic and ideological ramifications towards production and critical knowledge resonated from the media. Understanding the relevance of why Hall utilized Marxism is crucial for the analysis of the encoding/decoding model.

Drawing the connection between Hall’s theoretical origins of Marxism and the encoding/decoding model, one will receive an enhanced understanding of his theoretical conception of media discourse. With the acknowledgement of Hall’s Marxist background, the next step is understanding the potential for his theory in today’s televisual discourse.In the encoding/decoding model of media discourses developed by Stuart Hall, the meaning of the text is located between its producer and the reader (Hall, 1980). The producer (encoder) framed (or encoded) meaning in a certain way, while the reader (decoder) decodes it differently according to his/her personal background, the various different social situations and frames of interpretation (McQuail, 1994). According to Hall, the meaning within a text is neither a fixed concept, nor a totally uncertain ‘polysemy’ (Fiske, 1986). Although Hall notes the polysemic nature of meaning in text, one must inevitably take a ‘position’. Such a position is the balancing point in the process of dynamics of encoder and decoder, the result of tension between encoder’s dominant intention and decoder’s reading strategies. According to this hypothesis, encoder is trying to transfer his / her version of a certain meaning based on his / her personal background and cultural perspective to the decoder, while the decoder will adapt this ‘original’ meaning into a ‘new’ version according to his / her background and particularities. In order to conceptualize this transference of meaning from encoder to decoder, it is essential to refer to Figure 1 (Appendix). In Figure 1, ‘meaning structures 1′ refers to theencoder who attempts to insert his/her own intended meaning, which Hall describes “Production, here, constructs the message” (Hall, 1980: 129). Once the intended meaning is produced, it is then followed by the medium of discourse, but “at a certain point, however, the broadcasting structures must yield encoded messages in the form of a meaningful discourse” (Hall, 1980: 130). Through televisual discourse, meaning is decoded by the audience. Through this decoding process, the ‘new’ version of meaning may be consistent with the ‘original’ one, or be oppositional to it; however, in most circumstances, it is always a result of negotiation. Essentially, Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model has wider implications once the audience manifests their own meaning. In order to conceptualize the implications of Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model and audience effects, three iPod advertisements will be deconstructed to illustrate three reading strategies that Hall asserts as ‘positions’ that decoders take.

Stuart Hall characterized three major reading strategies that, even with a polysemic underlying interpretation, are chosen by the audience in the decoding process. As an artefact to aid in this explanation of the decoding process, three iPod advertisements will illustrate the significance of Hall’s three positions.

Firstly, when the decoder’s position is near to the encoder’s, he / she will interpret within the frame of the dominant code—the “preferred reading” (Hall, 1980: 136). For example, iPod launched their first advertisement (Figure 2) promoting a new product in 2001. The dominant encoded meaning in this advertisement is perpetual dancing through break-dance moves and other very difficult dance techniques. Essentially, the dominant intent of this advertisement is excitement, joy, and how one may experience a mind-altering temporary pleasure from an iPod. Although this reaction to music is unrealistic and many people in real life do not engage their music in random dancing on the street, Apple has instilled this pleasurable, almost innate response from musical enjoyment. When this advertisement was released, Apple Inc., in their annual report of 2001, reported that: “Net gains before taxes related to the Company’s non-current debt and equity investments of $75 million, $367 million, $230 million, and $40 million were recognized in 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1998, respectively” (Apple Inc, 2001: 20), which elucidates the number of people who have decoded the initial meaning of the encoder: the producer (Apple) professed (encoded) consumption of their product (iPod) and were then broken down (decoded) by the audience in the same way as the encoder intended, in which the high volume of sales on iPods is reflected by Apple Inc.’s 2001 Annual Report. Stylistically, In Figure 2 of Apple Inc.’s first iPod advertisement, there were no flashy colours, or exuberant contrasts but with had sophisticated dancing—a feature of Apple’s iPod advertisements it would keep through many years afterwards. Many years later, Apple Inc. formulated a new advertising strategy to excel enthusiasm for the iPod and increase sales (Figure 3 [2005 advertisement] and Figure 4 [2006 advertisement]). As predicted, Apple Inc.’s Annual report in 2006 explained: “Net sales of iPods increased $3.1 billion or 69% during 2006 compared to 2005. Unit sales of iPods totalled 39.4 million in 2006, which represents an increase of 75% from 22.5 million iPod units sold in 2005” (Apple Inc, 2006: 55). In more detail, Figure 3, advertised 2005, illustrates several people coming together to dance with the long white wire coming to their ears. In this advertisement, the dominant code that is reflected is group dancing, also a response the audience will not help but succumb to performing. Once an individual purchases an iPod, their decoded purchases an iPod, the individual may meet individuals who also have an iPod and then proceed to dance with them. This is very unrealistic, although many individuals who succumb to this dominant-hegemonic position are led in this manner in order to purchase an iPod. Seemingly, the dominant code in this revised 2005 advertisement (Figure 3) asserts that individuals purchase the iPod because of a heightened pleasure that is incomparable to other iPods today.

Secondly, when the decoder’s position is opposite to the encoder’s, the decoder will create his/her own version of the message with a totally different intention; the decoder may read subversively and against the dominant meanings from an oppositional point of view (Hall, 1980: 137). When an individual is functioning under this position, Hall states that “He/she is operating with what we must call an oppositional code” (Hall, 1980: 137).In Figure 2, the individual who decodes this in a “globally contrary way” (Hall, 1980: 137) will undermine the initial message and attempt to rationalize that it is an object that promotes mainstreaming, or a unified hegemony that Apple exerts to promote their iPods. In addition, another individual taking an oppositional position may consider that Apple Inc. is causing major environmental damages and poses a severe health risk. For instance, in an interview with an environmentalist, Giles Slade noted that:

Steve Jobs came out recently and pretty much admitted that the iPod should be thought of as a disposable product. It is a slick, sleek thing, and you would never consider that it comes from a fundamentally dirty industry. In fact, the amount of toxins that go into an iPod is enormous. There are more than 68 million of these things out there, and they are full of cadmium, beryllium and lead. And Apple has deliberately created them so they only last a year. The company has a voluntary take-back program, but how many people use it? They won’t say. I am hugely personally disappointed in Steve Jobs. (Tyee Books)

Here, Slade has asserted the negativity of iPod exposure and its long-standing impact on the environment. In a deeply disturbed way, Slade has transformed the initial meaning of Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4 in a way that was contrary to Apple Inc.’s encoded meaning.

Thirdly, and in many cases, the decoder will adopt a negotiated position, which is to accept some aspects of the dominant meaning, but reject and alters others, to suit their understandings and goals. For example, an anonymous blog commenter who initially took a negotiated reading to the dominant code posted:

My friend just gave me his old iPod and I began the investigation on how to change the battery. I couldn’t believe that the unit is made so as the owner is not able to do their own battery replacement. Apple wants $100 to have the battery replaced? NOT! I’m glad I didn’t buy an iPod and won’t. Somebody is getting ripped and it isn’t Apple. (MoPhos & Photos)

This individual had clearly been sceptical about purchasing an iPod after watching, perhaps, Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4 iPod advertisements respectively, favouring a waiting delay period before he/she understood every potential bug in Apple’s iPods. This negotiated reading creates a very sceptical audience who may or may not purchase the iPod. They may be persuaded by each of these advertising strategies slightly, but not enough to fully gain their cooperation with purchasing the iPod. Instead of looking directly at the advertisements and interest with U2 (Figure 4), or group enjoyment (Figure 3), and the first commercial (Figure 2), the decoder may decide to look at the stylistic features, or the specifications of a particular model of the iPod and based on them, the decoder may decide to oppose purchasing an iPod or want to purchase them. In this stage, Stuart Hall calls it the “a mixture of adaptive and oppositional elements: it acknowledges the legitimacy of the hegemonic definitions to make the grand significations (abstract), while, at a more restricted, situational (situated) level, it makes it own ground rules—it operates with exceptions to the rule” (Hall, 1980: 137). The negotiated decoding strategy is oftentimes what the audience undertakes in order to completely understand the product they purchase, in this case an iPod.

These three positions, as Hall has illustrated, function as an imperative decoding strategy that the decoders undertake. It is the intent of the encoder, in this case Apple, to utilize a predictive measure targeting individuals who decode in a negotiated position and oppositional position, especially. Apple Inc. is fully aware that decoders who undertake oppositional and negotiated readings exist and, subsequently, their advertising strategies will always change until they have fully convinced the negotiator to become their product consumer and the oppositional decoder to become at least a negotiated decoder.

Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model is an imperative explanation outlining the intent of advertising strategists, such as Apple Inc. and their three advertisements deconstructed in this essay. Using Stuart Hall’s model, the intent of advertisers becomes clear; advertisers are the dominant encoders of a messages only to be decoded by the audience in a seemingly clear translation from product to consumer. Although decoders may have multiple interpretations, argues Hall, they inevitably take a position in which he outlines three possible routes of decoding: 1) the dominant-hegemonic position, 2) the oppositional position, and 3) the negotiated position. The intent of advertisers and their encoding strategies are maximizing wealth and continuing the means production, circulation, distribution/consumption, and reproduction. Through this process, positions may be confronted with the same encoded messages throughout many years (Figure 2 [2001 advertisement], Figure 3 [2005 advertisement], and Figure 3 [2006 advertisement]). This perpetuating cycle continues to further capital, to enforce the continuation of the product or service. In this sense, Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model proves a valuable utility for the analysis of advertisements, their intent, and the methods of decoding audiences take.

Bibliography

Apple Inc. (2006, December 29). Apple Investor Relations Annual Reports (2001). Retrieved March 24, 2007, from Apple Inc.: http://phx.corporate-ir.net

Apple Inc. (2006, December 29). Apple Investor Relations Reports (2006). Retrieved March 24, 2007, from Apple Inc.: http://phx.corporate-ir.net

Cohen, P. (1997). Subcultural conflict and working-class community. In A. Gray, & J. McGuigan, Studying culture: an introductory reader, 2nd ed (pp. 95-104). London: Arnold.

Fiske, J. (1986). Television: polysemy and popularity. Critical Studies in Mass, 391-408.

Glave, J. (2006, August 1). The iPod is Bad Garbage. Retrieved March 24, 2007, from Tyee Books: Reading B.C. and Beyond: http://thetyee.ca/Books/2006/08/01/MadeToBreak/

Gurevitch, M., Scannell, & Paddy. (2003). Canonization Achieved? Stuart Hall’s “Encoding/Decoding”. In E. Katz, Canonic texts in media research: are there any? should there be? how about these? (pp. 231-248). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hadley, J. (2004, March 16). iPod Problems — Bad iPod, No! Retrieved March 24, 2007, from Mophos and Photos: http://jon.blogs.com/mopho/2004/03/ipod_quirks.html

Hall, S. (1980). Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse. In S. Hall, Culture, media, language : working papers in cultural studies. London: Hutchinson .

McQuail, D. (1994). Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction. London: Sage Publications.

Appendix:

Figure 1: Meaningful Discourse

Figure 1: Meaningful Discourse

Figure 2 (First iPod Commercial): http://youtu.be/mM6InCC_ee0

Figure 3 (Group of iPod Dancers): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwi8_rRq8os

Figure 4 (Last iPod video — Vertigo iPod Advertisement starring U2): http://youtu.be/nljs4kzpebU