Audience Construction: Race, Ethnicity and Segmentation in Popular Media

Race, ethnicity and segmentation 6/7/00 1
Audience Construction: Race, Ethnicity and Segmentation in Popular Media
Oscar H. Gandy, Jr.
The Annenberg School for Communication
University of Pennsylvania
3620 Walnut Street
Philadelphia PA 10104-6220
Phone: (215-898-7030)
Fax: (215-898-2024)
Paper submitted to the Popular Communication Division
50th
Annual Conference of the International Communication Association
May 2000

Oscar H. Gandy, Jr. is the Herbert I. Schiller Professor at the University of Pennsylvania
[Ogandy@pobox.asc.upenn.edu]
Introduction
Audience segmentation is a social practice readily identified with a variety of modernist
projects marked by a planned intervention in the lives of individuals. Segmentation is
both the product and the source of strategic information about individuals who share an
identifiable status based on any number of attributes. The focus of this paper is the
segmentation of media audiences on the basis of ascriptive, or claimed membership in
groups defined by race or ethnicity. Segments based on language (Hispanics) and race
(African American) are most clearly defined, but other constructions will be considered
along the way.
Audience segmentation is specific case of a more general process of social construction.
It is part of a complex process through which the great variety that sets us apart as
individuals is cast off, or ignored in order to emphasize the similarities that help to shape
and define us as members of groups.
The discourses of a variety of social actors-- advertisers, government regulators, writers
and program producers, as well as political activists, are implicated in the construction of
segments that become the focus of targeted communications. It is for this reason that we
refer to these segments as audiences.
While segmentation is usually explored from the perspective of powerful actors whose
discursive actions define categories and make distinctions, individuals also recognize
themselves in these texts, and then behave in ways that tighten the link between the
description and the experience of membership within groups defined as segments (Turow
1997). Over time, these links may serve to reproduce, and make the boundaries between
segments less permeable, and more stable (Dervin 1989).
Constructing the audience
James Anderson (1997) provides a well-developed approach to understanding an
audience as a theoretical construct. Anderson’s formal audiences can be understood as
being encoded within the texts created by authors, as well as being constructed
theoretically as analytical audiences for more strategic actors. The analytical audiences
are especially relevant to the construction of audiences that Anderson defines as

empirical. The audiences that are created through a process we refer to as segmentation,
can be differentiated further when viewed from different social agents with particular
interests in the behavior of audience segments. We can locate these agents in a variety of
settings that range from corporate boards to college classrooms, and we can distinguish
between them by means of the linkage between their interests, and the interests of
segment members.
As developed in relation to the governing paradigms thought to distinguish among
broadcasters, four relatively distinct perspectives are worthy of our consideration for
audience segmentation more generally. Ien Ang identifies in the case of commercial and
public service broadcasters two perspectives which at one time may have been seen as
unalterably opposed. Where the first sees the audience as a potential consumer, the latter
constructs the audience as composed of “citizens who must be reformed, educated,
informed as well as entertained--in short-- ‘served’--presumably to enable them to better
perform their democratic rights and duties” (Ang 1991), pp. 28-29. Webster and Phalen
suggest that the audience can also be understood as commodity that has been “produced”
for the market (Webster and Phalen 1994). Thus, from within the commercial sphere,
important distinctions can be made between audiences that are the object, rather than the
subject of marketing efforts. Media critics and policy-oriented activists have historically
constructed the audience, or segments of it, as victims who are likely to be harmed by
repeated exposure to dangerous content, or by contact others who have consumed such
fare (Webster and Phalen 1997), p. 126. Let us begin our exploration of audience
segmentation with an introduction to audiences as publics, markets, commodities, and
victims
Audience as public
Common to each of the primary constructions of audience is the assumption that
audiences have interests, and in some formulations, those interests can be understood as
rising to the level of rights. The rights, interests, and reasonable expectations of publics
are often used as the basis for evaluating the performance of mass media systems and
organizations (McQuail 1992). Both public and commercial broadcasters may be
assigned specific social responsibilities under a "public trustee" model (Polic and Oscar
H. Gandy 1991). Where public media have a specific responsibility for the maintenance
of an active public sphere, struggles over the definition of such an ideal have increasingly
turned on an uncertainty regarding the need for a multiplicity of public spheres that
would reflect and accommodate the substantial inequality that exists between groups in
society (Fraser 1993).
The functions served by targeted media or audiences constructed as publics, differs
substantially from those common to other constructions. For immigrant communities,
these media often serve as a vital link to the country of origin. As a conduit between the
homeland, and exiles, or those who maintain an active interest in politics, they are often
used as a means of mobilizing support or opposition. They also serve as a focal point for
the development of a local consensus, and a means of expression of the community's
demands upon the wider host community. The heritage of Blacks in the UK is primarily

that of immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean. This critical distinction is reflected in
the differences in the number and variety of targeted media in the UK (Benjamin 1995).
The specification of the political role for media varies as a function of the size, character,
and social position of minority groups which varies between nations as a function of their
different histories of immigration, as well as different constructions of the idealized
nation. Germany is identified as a nation with a very “narrow ethnic definition of
citizenship.” While large populations of ethnic minorities are denied the benefits of
citizenship in Germany, the state still supports ethnic targeting under the assumption that
such programming will facilitate their return home at some time in the future (Husband
1994), p. 5.
Even where there are similar constructions of the nation and its heritage (Karim 1997),
there are differences in the strategies that are believed to best serve the interests of the
more powerful groups (Riggins 1992). While not always distinct, one can identify
integrationist approaches that may be seen to differ from multiculturalist strategies that
place a higher value on the preservation and celebration of difference. One need not be
cynical in order to find examples of policies that are designed to lessen the force of
minority claims by dividing one group against the other. Such efforts at social control
may also involve the state, or other dominant institution engaging in pre-emptive strikes
by establishing a communications entity under its control before independent, and more
oppositional enterprises are developed by minority communities on their own.
Targeted media may be seen as serving a pacification function. This is seen to be
especially important in those communities in which immigrant groups are in competition
for limited resources with each other, or perhaps with resident minorities at the bottom of
racial hierarchy. An emphasis on popular music programming is seen as one way in
which local broadcasters can be seen as responsive to local communities, while actively
avoiding sensitive issues that might emerge in print, or in discussion (Husband and
Chouhan 1985).
Other instrumentalist goals may lead to the development of minority targeted media by
governments in the belief that education and training, or other forms of desired social
transformation would be produced more efficiently in this way. Similar motivations
govern the investments made in ethnic media by religious organizations.
Simon Cotttle describes the responsibilities of the British Broadcasting Corporation
(BBC) toward Britain’s ethnic minorities as primarily being one of enhancing their
representation (Cottle 1998). In discussing the history of the BBC’s efforts in this regard,
Cottle notes that what is know referred to as “multicultural programming” has gone
through a complex, and often contentious process of evolution. We might understand the
nature of continuing struggles within Britain and other nations that have assigned these
responsibilities primarily to the public broadcasting organization in terms of the conflict
between the need to speak to persons of color, and the need to speak about them to
others.

More generally, however, when racial and ethnic minority audiences are framed as
publics, they can readily be seen as being under-served by mainstream media (Husband
and Chouhan 1985). A variety of responses to criticism, including expanded programs of
research, have emerged. In the US, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting initiated a
program of research that they hoped would improve their ability to serve “the needs and
interests of minority audiences” (Myrick and Keegan 1981). It seems likely, however,
that the rapidly spreading efforts to "reinvent the welfare state" will help to shrink the
size of government budgets allocated to the provision of specialized services to groups
justified on the basis of some loosely articulated social need (Calabrese 1997).
Increasingly the commercial market is presented as not only capable, but ultimately more
efficient that state-run media in responding to a host of concerns subsumed under a public
interest umbrella.
Audience as market
Those who produce and distribute media content see the audience of actual and potential
consumers as a market. The behavior of consumers in the market is governed by tastes
and preferences that vary between individuals, but are assumed to be more similar within
than between definable groups, or population segments. Audience research seeks to
identify and describe the relationships between the attributes of audience segments and
the attributes of the content they prefer. Membership in racial and ethnic groups has
increasingly come to be considered along with other demographic indicators as a
predictor of media choice. Of course, racial and ethnic identity can never be a completely
reliable basis for defining a market for media content. Racial and ethnic identity is only
part of the complex of influences that shape the decision to consume (Davis and Gandy
1999). As Mahan (1995, p. 28) suggests, “it is far from certain that an identity created
through consumption of media or other popular culture products weakens, obliterates, or
is even separable from other identities that operate in the same individual at other times.”
In addition, as Ang (1991, p. 41) reminds us, the pursuit of knowledge regarding
audience segments, actually produces greater ignorance over time because the
“institutionally-produced discursive constructions...are under constant pressure of
reconstruction, whenever they turn out to be imperfect weapons in the quest for control.”
Competition among those who see audiences as markets leads to the production of
alternative, presumably more reliable bases for segmentation. There are other problems
inherent in the nature of markets.
Consumers are assumed to be rational actors, and in the context of efficient markets, the
price they are willing to pay reflects the value they derive from consumption of media
products. Yet, even from the perspective of mainstream economists, it is possible that
some segments of the population can be seen as being “under-supplied” by the market
(Siegelman and Waldfogel 1998), (Wildman and Karamanis 1998). It is in the nature of
the capitalist market that if there is more money to be earned by supplying programs
desired by a large majority of the population, producers will supply more content than is
actually required by this majority. The largest segments will thus be "over-supplied," and
resources will be "wasted." On the other hand, content of interest to smaller, or minority
audiences will not be produced in amounts that will satisfy the preferences of the
minority. The tendency to supply less content than minority consumers would be willing

to buy, is complicated further by the fact that in some media markets, advertisers, rather
than consumers pay for the creation and distribution of content to audiences.
Where the interests of advertisers and minority segments diverge, the under-supply of
content is bound to be severe. To the extent that advertisers place a lower value on
gaining access to particular minority audiences, those who would produce content for that
segment will be punished by the market. As rational actors, they must ultimately
withdraw from the market, and if they are to remain in the business, they must turn their
attention to producing for other audiences.
If having a preference for content preferred by few others is correlated with being
relatively poor, both direct and advertiser-financed markets are almost certain to supply
less of minority interest content than is desired (Wildman and Karamanis 1998).
Audience as commodity
The audience constructed as a market is fundamentally different from that same audience
when it is thought of as a commodity--a product created for sale within the market. Dallas
Smythe is credited with introducing the notion of the commodity audience into the often
heated debates among critical scholars who were, from his perspective, needlessly fixated
on ideological concerns (Jhally and Livant 1986), (Meehan 1993). Although Smythe’s
arguments failed to take root within cultural studies, mainstream media scholars continue
to emphasize his essential point:
“The first and most serious mistake that an analyst of the television industry can make
is to assume that advertising-supported television broadcasters are in the business to
broadcast programs. They are not. Broadcasters are in the business of producing
audiences. These audiences, or means of access to them, are sold to advertisers. The
product of a television station is measured in dimensions of people and time. The
price of the product is quoted in dollars per thousand viewers per unit of commercial
time, typically 20 or 30 seconds” (Owen and Wildman 1992), p. 3.
The production of audiences for the market can be understood as an industrial process
through which different combinations of inputs (such as scripts, music, talented acting,
and special effects) can produce audiences with varying degrees of efficiency. The
relative importance of particular inputs can be estimated through linear regression where
output is measured by ratings or sales, and inputs can be measured in units as precise as
the number of acts of violence (Gandy and Signorielli 1981).
The same approach can be applied to the production of audience segments by estimating
unique models for each segment. Given the assumption that audience attention is
captured by content and forms that are attractive to audience members, it is reasonable to
expect that different music, settings, actors, and outcomes will be more attractive to some
types of viewers than others.
What is critical to understanding the consequences that flow within a media system
governed by a capitalist logic, is that not all audiences are equally valued in the market. If
particular audience segments that are attracted (produced) by particular content are
under-valued in the market, advertisers will be unwilling the pay the same "cost-per-

thousand" they would be willing to pay for more "desirable" audiences. Rational
participants in such markets can not survive by producing audiences that no one will buy,
nor can they survive by producing those audiences if the costs of production exceed the
income that can be derived from their sale. Efforts to attract buyers, or to produce
audiences at a lower unit cost, can have unexpected social consequences that are not
altogether different from the effects of pollution occasioned by the use of cheap fuels in
the production, and sexually-oriented advertising in the marketing of traditional
commodities.
As with all goods sold in the market, producers and distributors of audiences have an
incentive to try and increase the perceived value of their commodities. Producers of
minority audiences have the same incentive to represent their wares as being of high
quality. However, unlike the vendors of other commodities, the need to overcome racial
and ethnic prejudice and stereotypes, represents an additional burden. Ironically, the use
of stereotypes in the effort to sell "problematic" audiences, may serve to reinforce
negative, or extremely limited constructions of the populations from which the segments
are derived.
Audience as victim
Historically, media critics have charged the industry with bringing harm to individuals
and to the society at large. The harm can be direct or indirect. Indirect harm is assumed
be produced through misrepresentation, or marginalization. Critics are most often
successful in bringing about the desired public response when they frame their critique in
terms that define the victims as being incapable of defending themselves. While cultural
criticism can no longer characterize the entire audience as naïve innocents, unable to
resist temptation, or see through the bald misrepresentation of people and relationships,
few hesitate to claim that children represent a population at risk.
Less frequently critics will suggest that there are adult populations that may be incapable
of defending its members against subtle communicative appeals. The paternalism that is
inherent in these appeals is especially troublesome because the population groups are
assumed to have a large proportion of its adult members at risk. Groups defined by
ethnicity and race are believed to be particularly vulnerable to appeals inviting the
consumption or abuse dangerous commodities, or engagement in high risk activities
(Smith and Cooper-Martin 1997). This criticism has been particularly sharp with regard
to the targeted marketing of alcohol and tobacco products to African Americans, Indians
and Hispanics.
There is a particular irony to be examined in this regard. Minority-owned media are more
likely to be struggling financially because they serve an undervalued market. As a result
they are more likely to be dependent upon income from the purveyors of suspect goods
and services. The Black press, for example, has long been criticized for its publication of
ads for "aphrodisiacs, patent medicines, clairvoyants' services, lucky charms and other
appeals to superstition, and skin lighteners" (Wolseley 1990), p. 330.

Audience segmentation
While segmentation became the dominant approach to constructing the audience as
consumer at the end of the 21st
century, the concept of segmentation actually emerged
quite early in the development of consumer culture (Ewan 1976). Depending upon the
perspective of the actor, different approaches will be relied upon for the identification of
audience segments. Divergence in goals will engender reliance on different techniques
for modifying those segments through discursive action. While early segmentation was
based on gender, rather than race or ethnicity, marketers quickly developed specialized
appeals that were designed to capture the attention and loyalty of women as a segment of
the reading and listening audience.
Language use was, and continues to be a primary basis for segmenting ethnic audiences.
The size and stability of linguistically defined audience segments varies widely among
nations and communities, and across historical periods. This variability reflects the
differential rates at which loyalty to one’s linguistic heritage is eroded by adoption of the
language of the majority community. Differences in reliance and use of the mother
tongue among members of French, German and Italian communities in the United States
helps to explain differences in the survival of the associated ethnic press that once served
these immigrant groups (Haller 1988). The decision to maintain, and to reproduce
linguistic competence in the face of fierce pressure to conform to an "English only"
standard, reflects a high level of group identification.
Group identification
Racial and ethnic identity varies as a reflection of the influence of a complex of factors
that push and pull individuals toward diffusion and assimilation or the maintenance of
socio-cultural distinctiveness within the dominant society (Cornell and Hartmann 1998),
(Subervi-Velez 1986).
There has been important work published in recent years that has helped us to understand
the ways in which racial and ethnic identities are formed and transformed (Gandy 1998).
A critical distinction is made between identity and identification. Identity is understood
as a reflection of individual and collective agency, while identification is understood as a
result of the exercise of power by others. Among the more sophisticated analyses of
identity formation that engage both power and agency are those which describe the ways
in which social structures help to determine the salience of particular identities (Cornell
and Hartmann 1998). Unfortunately, there has been only scant attention paid to those
factors that determine the role that racial and ethnic identity, rather than identification
plays in the construction of audience segments. Identity is thought to reflect, as well as
shape the response of individuals to particular media content. Audience segments may
differ to the extent that racial and ethnic identity has a central core that is political and
collectivist.
Anderson (1996) distinguishes between strategic and engaged audiences on the basis of
the extent to which these audiences are formally organized, and engage with each other in
mutually dependent relationships. Strategic audiences may be understood in relation to
associated concepts of interpretive communities, social locations, and cultural capital.

Theorists assume that a high degree of common understanding and appreciation of
cultural artifacts has been derived from similar experiences, and a critical response to
media content reflects common ideological perspective. An acknowledged group identity
of this type is revealed when a particular group, such as African Americans “oppose what
they see and hear from an ideological position as harmful, unpleasant, or distasteful
media representations” (Davis and Gandy 1999), p. 368.
Jorge Schement (1998) has examined the distinctions between racial and ethnic
identification in relation to media segmentation. He suggests that the use of race as a
category advantages Whites because as the dominant group, they can use the language of
race to stereotype, and thereby assign members of groups defined racially to a
subordinate status. On the other hand, he sees ethnicity as a matter of choice, as reflecting
greater autonomy and self-determination in the realm of identity. At the same time he
suggests that “in the calculus of modern media, ethnicity has emerged as a potent
determinant for organizing market segments” (Schement 1998), p. 93.
Whether race, or ethnicity, or some unstable mix of the two forms the basis for the
classification of groups, identification is also the product of a complex of influences that
includes, but extends beyond those actors with a strategic, or instrumental interest in
audiences. Castells (1997), for example, explores the ways in which ethnicity is being
"specified as a source of meaning and identity" which is different from the ways in which
racial identification has been used as a "source of oppression and discrimination" in the
past (Castells 1997), p. 53. His charting of the evolution of African American racial
identity emphasizes the cleavages that have emerged within the population along class
and ethnic lines. He finds a contemporary ethnic division among African Americans
based on religion that is being brought about by the growing importance of Islam in
Black communities. Yet, Castells still suggests that ethnicity does not have genuine
potential as the basis for forming a common identity "because it is based on primary
bonds that lose significance, when cut from their historical context." In the networked
society that he sees developing, "ethnic roots are twisted, divided, reprocessed, mixed,
differentially stigmatized or rewarded" according to a logic "that makes symbolic
composites out of blurred identities" (Castells 1997), p. 59.
Measurement
As Peterson suggests, “the ways that media and market researchers measure audiences
pervasively shape the ways that people in the media and advertising view those
audiences. And at the same time, the ways that these communicators wish to view
audiences shape the ways that researchers measure them” (Peterson 1994), p.171.
The social construction of audiences proceeds from mental images through the
development of simple classifications that become "facts" once captured by checkmarks
on one official form or another. Estimates of the size of current population segments, and
predictions of those to be encountered in the future are based on such facts.
For the most part, when Whites identify minority audience segments, either for
commerce, or for public service, there is a tendency to be guided more by convenience,

than by consideration of the identities actually held by members of target populations.
While people who are identified as Asians in the United States, or Britain, or Australia
may ultimately come to identify themselves in this way, it is clear that their own identity
departs from official classifications upon arrival as an immigrant. The impact of official
classifications is widespread. For example, because the limited budgets of public service
broadcasters such as the BBC have to be distributed among the major minority
communities, the decision to "serve" Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Indians from East
Africa by means of a single program, like Asian Magazine, seems perfectly reasonable to
White program managers. The fact that this ethnic construction is rejected as
unacceptable by the members of these ethnic communities is taken as further evidence of
their unreasonable demands, and insatiable appetites for special treatment (Husband and
Chouhan 1985).
The political economy of segmentation
The development of segmented audiences takes place in the context of an environment
that is shaped by changes in technology, markets, and regulatory philosophy and practice
that both reflect, and are implicated in the transformation of global cultures (Mosco
1996), (Schiller 1999). We are entering into an era in which regulation by so-called
"market forces" is replacing more direct forms of institutional control (Mosco 1989), pp.
85-94, (Polic and Oscar H. Gandy 1991). The reduction of regulatory barriers to the
ownership of broadcasting entities has, somewhat ironically, reduced the number of
stations owned by minorities at the same time that the number of stations targeted to
those populations has increased (Siegelman and Waldfogel 1998).
Differences between media
Understanding the construction of audience segments clearly requires consideration of
the differences between media technologies that make the pursuit of distinctions within
populations worthwhile. A primary constraint on the production of diversity within
audiences is the availability of bandwidth, or channel capacity. An assumption of channel
scarcity has historically been offered as a justification for regulatory control over access
to the infrastructure of broadcasting. A given state of technical development as well as
politicized decisions about the allocation of spectrum to particular functions have, over
time, determined that less, rather than more diversity would be the defining characteristic
of national broadcasting systems.
It is unwise to think about communications technology independently of the regulatory
systems and market structures that govern access to and control of production and
distribution resources. For example, while it may be technologically feasible to
dramatically increase the number of distinctly programmed channels it may not be
economically or politically feasible to do so. The costs of owning and operating
broadcasting entities have meant historically that members of minority groups have been
excluded from positions of administrative authority. However, because operational
control can be separated from ownership, members of minority communities have still
been involved in the production of specialized content. Where the technology of
networking makes it possible to consolidate small, isolated communities into an

economically, or politically viable segment, minority group members may be called
upon, or invited to produce program material. In the United States “Black radio networks
allowed blacks to write, produce, and broadcast news, sports, information, and
entertainment exclusively for blacks”(Johnson 1993/4), p. 183.
Of course, elitist assumptions about program standards may serve to limit the
involvement of racial and ethnic minority group members in the production of targeted
media content within certain media. In Australia, ethnic radio broadcasters employed
large numbers of individuals from targeted linguistic communities in the production of
programs. Yet, responsibility for the production of “multicultural” programs for the
television service was reserved for professional organizations managed by Whites
because of assumed differences in standards and skill (Patterson 1990).
Because of the comparatively minor expenses required for the publication of a
newspaper, magazine, or newsletter, we observe publications serving very small
communities. This fact, in combination with the limited scope of distribution that
geographic segmentation enables, has made it possible for these periodicals to be
published for a specialized readership numbering in the hundreds. With access to
inexpensive computers and desktop publishing software, rather sophisticated examples of
an ethnic community press have been produced.
While the economics that characterize the production and distribution of print media
include incremental costs of paper, ink, and fuel, that may still be a constraint on
diversity, the economics of distribution for the Internet are quite different. This rapidly
developing network makes it possible to imagine, develop, and sustain a system of global
distribution for any number of diasporic communities (Zhang and Xiaoming 1999). Here
the primary constraints are the economic limitations on access to minority audiences that
is described as “the digital divide” (Bikson and Panis 1995), (Ervin and Gilmore 1999),
where the maxim size of the target audience is limited because its members have not
invested in the necessary equipment.
The identification of audience segments may include estimates of the actual as well as the
potential audience. The possibility of being in an audience depends upon a variety of
factors, such as the ownership of the devices necessary to receive and display media
content; being in the community or neighborhood that is served by a particular delivery
system, such as cable television; and having the requisite skills, such as literacy, in order
to be in the market for magazines and newspapers. Attempts to project the size, rate, and
extent of participation in the markets for new technology are both expensive and
unreliable, even for the mainstream audience (Carey and Elton 1996). The task is even
more difficult for populations defined by race and ethnicity.
Demographics
Although the critical points at which a audience segment will considered by observers to
be too small to be worthy of attention will vary across time and space, the relative size,
wealth, and political power of the population within a defined segment is always
important.

The problems involved in estimating the size of different racial and ethnic segments are
substantial. Government statistics are a primary source of such estimates, but the statistics
are far from reliable. Depending upon the ways in which critical questions are asked, very
different estimates and projections can emerge. Projections of the US population in 2025
when framed in racial terms, estimate the proportion of Whites at 78% of the total. This
estimate is inflated because of the fact that Hispanics are classified racially as White.
However, when people are asked to identify themselves in ethnic terms, Whites are
projected to be less than 63% of the population in 2025 (Schement 1998) pp. 94-95.
Part of the problem of estimation is to be found in a growing unwillingness on the part of
many individuals to accept a biological basis for their classification by race (Gandy
1998), (Ratcliff 1994). At the moment, the desire on the part of the children of interracial
unions to reflect the racial heritage of both their parents by identifying themselves as
“multiracial” has been subordinated to the realities of identity politics. Articulate
representatives of the communities which they may, or may not identity with, have
argued successfully that those communities would suffer the loss of "strength in
numbers" should these individuals choose to be counted as something other than Black or
Asian, or Native American. Recently, the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
introduced what can only be a stop-gap solution for the 2000 census. They have agreed to
allow respondents to mark more than one racial category on their forms (Budget 1998).
Commercial estimates are no more reliable. In many communities, minority audiences
remained invisible or poorly conceived because they have been rather poorly measured
by the agencies responsible for estimating circulation and exposure to commercial
messages. Severe undercounting persists in many of these markets because the leading
agencies rely on estimation techniques that have been designed primarily for the
mainstream audience.
While some of the undercounting and bias in the measurement of minority audience
segments is based the exclusion of eligible respondents from samples because of
language, there are other distortions that reflects the influence of aversive racism. Failure
to place diaries, or meters because of real, or imagined differences in security, reliability,
and maintenance of equipment continues to produce wildly varying estimates of audience
size and composition.
Managers of minority media, and those who represented their interests have used a
variety of strategies to generate compelling evidence of population size and value. The
more successful approaches generally involved contracting for special surveys by highly
respected research firms. Even then, most of these surveys remained suspect because of
the obvious self-interest reflected in the design of the surveys, and the interpretation of
the data. Yet, in the absence of special efforts by mainstream agencies, ethnic minority
segments would be inadequately defined.

Tastes and preferences
The identification of minority audience segments represents a classic “chicken and egg”
problem. Gathering evidence for the existence of unique audience segments depends in
part on the availability of the types of content that would encourage their distribution into
different sets of consumers (Barwise and Ehrenberg 1988), (Frank and Greenberg 1980).
Early attempts to determine whether revealed preferences indicated the existence of
segments within the television audience were constrained by the relatively limited range
of program types available at any particular viewing hour. Barwise and Ehrenberg
concluded that “in television there is nothing like the striking segmentation which is
regularly reported for the readership of newspapers and magazines” (p. 36). At the time
of their report, the analyses reported by Frank and Greenberg (1980) represented the most
comprehensive study of television audience tastes and preferences, and very little of the
variance in revealed preference for different program types was associated with either
demographic or lifestyle characteristics of segments. Because the analyses were based on
reported viewing of programs that were actually broadcast by American television
networks, the amount of variety captured in the program “types” that were validated by
factor analysis, the limited success in finding clearly defined segments is understandable.
However, a subsequent analysis performed with the American public broadcasting
system in mind (Frank and Greenberg 1982), did make use of these data to demonstrate
the potential for programming for Black and Hispanic audience segments. Frank and
Greenberg suggested that public broadcasting could serve minority audiences not only by
producing Black or Hispanic programming, but also by producing programs that were
relatively more successful in attracting members of those population segments. They
identified the interest segments that had relatively high numbers of Blacks and Hispanics.
They also identified the program types in which a Black or Hispanic viewing index was
much higher than that of the overall population. Perhaps because of the linguistic
constraint in existence at the time, Hispanics were not as avid viewers of television as
were African Americans. None of the index scores for Hispanics exceeded 200. Three
program types (music, science fiction, and soap operas) were viewed with comparatively
high frequency by Blacks.
Historically, neither producers, nor their financial investors, or primary clients have been
willing to risk substantial investments in the absence of evidence that an audience
actually exists. As the balance between risk and opportunity shifts as a function of
increased channel capacity, the opportunity to demonstrate the existence of
demographically defined clusters of interest increases. Differential tastes and preferences
can only be revealed in the context of a large number of options readily perceived as
different.
As the number of distinct options increases, several possibilities for audience response
present themselves. Consider the expansion of program options that might accompany an
increase in the number of channels available in a market with cable, or satellite delivery.
Some members of the audience viewers can be expected to spread their viewing across a
greater number of channels and programs. Others may increase their viewing of a subset
of the programs available. Increased polarization, or greater intensity of viewing of a

smaller number of program types would be de facto evidence of the existence of
segments definable by taste and preference ((Webster and Phalen 1997), p. 113). Thus, it
would be possible to define segments on the basis of the defining attributes of programs.
These might be definable as taste segments (Cantor 1994) .
Racial and ethnic segmentation is based on the assumption that the preference for specific
content exhibited by members of one group differs substantially from the preferences
exhibited by members of other groups defined by race or ethnicity.
There is convincing evidence to suggest that there are real differences in the media
preferences of particular racial and ethnic groups. It seems clear that Whites and African
Americans have quite different television preferences, even though members of both
groups may be found in substantial numbers in the same audience for any program, or
program type. Despite the fact that African Americans watch nearly twice as much
television as the national average (in part because they tend to extend their viewing into
the late evening hours), when their favorite programs are compared, Black and White
viewers had little in common in 1996. Only Monday Night Football was in the top ten
lists of both groups in the spring ratings sweep (Schement 1998), p. 109.
Differences in racial group identification are also associated with revealed preferences for
Black-targeted media. Younger and more racially oriented African Americans have been
observed to spend more time with, and to be less critical of the programming on BET, the
only national television network targeted to African Americans (Jones 1990). Bob
Johnson, BET’s chief executive and majority owner, is betting that the sharpening
distinctions between the television preferences of Whites and African Americans will
increase his control over the path to this audience segment (1999). As early as 1972,
however, communication scholars questioned the usefulness of race as a basis for
segmentation and targeting in all media. After noting that the audience for black-oriented
radio stations often contained a sizable audience of white youth and college students,
Surlin suggested that “listener’s behavior is based more on psychological ‘blackness’
than on physiological ‘blackness” (Surlin 1972), p. 297.
It is a matter of strategy, informed by resources that determines what the relative
proportion of an empirical audience needs to be of one race or ethnic group before the
genre is associated reliably with a particular audience segment. It is a well-known fact
that because of the relative size of the White population, and because of the popularity of
rap and hip-hop music among White males, the audience for this music in urban centers
often contains more Whites than African Americans. Thus, one can predict with greater
confidence that a young African American Male will be a fan of hip-hop music, than one
can predict the musical preferences of a young White male. At the same time, the
probability that the next purchaser of a hip-hop record will be Black, or even American,
is necessarily quite low.
To date, there is only a woefully inadequate body of research that might be used to
determine the extent to which audiences differ substantially in their preferences for media
content. In the absence of a well-developed body of research on the tastes and

preferences of minority audiences, producers and distributors have to rely on “trial and
error” (Wildman and Karamanis 1998).
There are, of course, other ways to determine the relationship between racial and ethnic
status and preferences for particular media content. The most obvious, though
problematic approach is to ask individuals directly about what they like among existing
programs. The strength of this response may be assessed by direct, or comparative
weighting, as approximated by asking respondents to rank order programs on some
dimension such as “liking.”
One attempt to discover if there were underlying attributes of programs that might be the
basis for differential preferences used 68 descriptors to characterize 74 prime time
programs, and then to associate those characterizations with different demographically
defined segments ( (Neuman 1991), pp. 121-2). The primary conclusion of this analysis
was that there were common perceptions and common motivations governing the
viewing of prime time programs.
Few studies have focused specifically on attributes that one might expect racial and
ethnic preferences to be revealed. Not surprisingly, Frank and Greenberg (1980) did find
that Blacks were more likely to view programs that included African American
performers and situations. Given the segregated character of television programming, this
may also explain the revealed preference for music program in which African American
talent was most likely to be found.
It is also important to consider the extent to which members of the target community
develop and maintain a sense of confidence or trust in the content provider. Despite their
use of mainstream media, African Americans have historically expressed a higher level
of trust in Black-targeted media in matters specifically related to the interests of African
Americans (Gibbons and Ulloth 1982).
Market value
The construction and pursuit of minority audience segments is governed in large part by
the logical calculus of expected value. Information about the expected value of any
segment is at least as unreliable as the information about its size and demographic
composition.
Advertising agencies play a critical role in determining the perceived value of audience
segments defined by race or ethnicity. The incentive for an agency to promote the value
of the segment is to be found in their claim of special competence in reaching that
segment. The value of the segment may be inferred, in part from the number and
visibility, and reported billing of agencies that claim expertise in reaching particular
segments. Some entrepreneurs have chosen to specialize on ethnic audiences in
particular, developing divisions that target Hispanics and Asians as well as African
Americans. In 1988, seventeen agencies, with billing in excess of $235 million, were
listed as specializing in advertising to African Americans (Wolseley 1990), p. 335.

While it has long been argued that advertisers assign a lower value to Black and Latino
audiences, it has been difficult to gather evidence in support of such a claim. In a rare
moment, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) financed an analysis of
advertising rates and audience shares (Ofori 1999). By comparing the share of advertising
revenue to shares of audiences captured by different radio stations, different “power
ratios” could be computed. If stations within a given market received a share of revenue
equal to their share of audience, the power ratio would be equal to 1. If the ratio for
segments of the market were less than one, a reasonable conclusion would be that their
audiences were perceived to be less valuable to advertisers, or of interest to a smaller
number of advertisers. The evidence is clear. Minority format stations had an average
power ratio less than 1.0, while non-minority format stations had an average power ratio
that exceeded 1.0. Other evidence of distortions in the market suggested that minority-
owned stations had an even lower average power ratio than similarly targeted stations
that were owned by Whites.
Evidence of the existence of “reasonable racism” abounds in this market (Armour 1997).
From time to time, advertisers have been accused of instructing their representatives not
to “make ethnic buys.” A variety of rationales might be offered as the basis for making
“reasonable” or legitimate business decisions to avoid media that attract members of
particular racial and ethnic groups. In the absence of knowledge from experience or from
research, stereotypes about the members of racial and ethnic groups leads advertisers to
assume that the costs of producing a customer from within this group would exceed the
additional revenue to be gained. Ignorance of the consumer leads to avoidance. A
similarly uninformed rationale suggests that minority consumers can be reached just as
easily and effectively through mainstream media channels.
There are also decisions that are based on fear of the racialized consumer. This fear has
two related dimensions. Both have a basis in racial prejudice: traditional aversion, and a
modern form of reasonable racism (Armour 1997). Aversive racism is assumed or
projected upon the White consumer (Dovidio and Gartner 1986). It is assumed that
Whites will not want to eat or shop in the company of African Americans. It is even
assumed that White consumers will not want to be associated with commodities known to
be preferred Blacks or other ethnic group members who occupy lower rungs on the ladder
of social status. Thus, a store owner, or product manager is unwilling to risk trading the
White customers they already have for the minority consumers they might attract through
targeted ads.
The reasonable racist avoids the minority consumer because they believe that Blacks and
Hispanics will steal, tip less generously, or otherwise prove to be less valuable customers
(Armour 1997), (Ofori 1999). Avoiding such customers is seen to make good business
sense.
Ideology
The creation of minority audience segments is almost by definition a process of racial
formation (Omi and Winant 1994). As Omi and Winant suggest, racial categories are the
products of a socio-historical process that reflects the differential power and influence of

identifiable interest groups. Members of these groups are engaged in a number of goal-
oriented racial projects that are concerned with shaping the distribution of social and
economic resources along racial lines. Roberta Astroff argues that efforts to define and
then capture a Latino market required the subordination of racial distinctions among the
Latinos living in the United States (Astroff 1988-89). This strategy was particularly
important because of the link between race and social class that finds Black Hispanics
among the poorest members of this group. “When race, language, and culture are
collapsed into each other, their social nature and origins can be safely ignored” and this is
precisely what occurred in the formation of the Latino segment in the United States
(Astroff 1988-89), p. 169.
Nationalism is another ideology that often provides an important influence on the
construction of audience segments. For immigrant groups, there is some period of time
during which they are expected to overcome their characterization as foreign. In many
cases, the children of migrant laborers, even though they are born in the host country, are
still treated by members of the dominant community as immigrants. In Britain, the
children of Asian, African, and Caribbean migrants have consistently been conceived as
"aliens within" by White Britons (Husband and Chouhan 1985).
Racism, nationalism, and xenophobia come together to shape the ways in which the
social demography of these groups develops (Baumgartl and Favell 1995). The
concentration of newcomers into urban ghettos or enclaves is a commonplace. The racial
hierarchies that distinguishes among immigrant groups enables some to become more
diffused into suburban communities, while Blacks, especially African Americans, remain
highly segregated (Denton and Massey 1993).
The political leaders in those nations whose recent history has been marked by substantial
immigration have been repeatedly forced to choose between integrationist and pluralist
national models. In many cases, an explicit policy in support of multiculturalism has been
expressed and implemented. Such policies reflect an effort by the nation-state to
overcome the crippling influence of xenophobic opposition to economic and political
claims made by ethnic minorities (Baumgartl and Favell 1995). As one observer puts it,
"Ethnic radio and multicultural television did not just happen because they seemed like a
good idea at the time" (Jakubowicz 1989), p. 109. The move toward multiculturalism in
Australia was in part a reaction to anxieties generated by news of racial strife in Britain.
The national broadcasting system was called upon to help maintain some semblance of
social cohesion in a nation of immigrants.
In other cases, a multicultural policy evolves as a reflection of an underlying ethos of the
broadcasting establishment. "The ideological virtue of multiculturalism is that whilst it
allows for the recognition of cultural difference it ignores relations of power and
domination" (Husband and Chouhan 1985), p. 285. As a result, however, the
programming content that is provided falls far short of expressing the full range of anger
and resentment that members of minority groups are bound to feel.

To a great extent, the minority press has traditionally been an oppositional press. Often,
its critical function has been to provide an alternative construction of the challenges and
opportunities faced by its primary audience. This oppositional stance has been part of a
continuing "war of images" between Blacks and Whites (Dates and Barlow 1993). Not
only African Americans, but a broad array of persons of color who came to the United
States as slaves, indentured laborers, or immigrants, have been subjected to biased and
distorted representation in the news media (Keever, Martindale et al. 1997), and the
ethnic press has sought to set the record straight.
The decision to increase the supply of content to meet the interests and perceived needs
of minority communities has often meant increasing the participation of members of
these communities in critical production decisions. This has meant increasing their
employment, and more critically, increasing their operational control through ownership.
In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initiated a policy
encouraging minority ownership of broadcasting facilities in 1978. The general
assessment of this policy is that it has failed, and in the wake of the Reagan counter-
revolution, has actually slipped back toward the social conditions that marked its origins
(Ofori, Edwards et al. 1997).
A critical issue that is rarely addressed, is whether a policy in support of the development
of Black or Brown Capitalism should have been expected to produce a result in the
market that would be genuinely different from that which the existing market provides.
Is it likely that minority capitalists could be more successful than Whites in squeezing
profits out of the market. If they could, would it be because they possessed specialized
knowledge of minority segments that was gained from their own experience of minority
status. In the absence of irrationality (and inefficient racism) we would have to assume
that if this specialized knowledge exists, it would be available to White programmers
through the market (Wildman and Karamanis 1998). Evidence that the real, rather than
the idealized market devalues whatever expertise that minority programmers might have,
suggests that limits on the supply of content of interest to minority segments will
continue to be the rule, rather than the exception (Ofori 1999),(Siegelman and Waldfogel
1998).
Targeting Blacks
The history of the African American segment may serve as a model for other segments
based on race or ethnicity. African Americans were ignored by the mainstream, served
primarily by an alternative press motivated by a social mission. The emergence of
African Americans as consumers following World War II also marked the beginnings of
large commercial interest in the segment. The success of the civil rights movement
brought about a degree of integration and assimilation of African Americans into the
dominant culture that was nearly matched by the assimilation of African American
culture into the mainstream. In what might be considered to be the twilight of a rather
long day in the life of American media history, considerable uncertainty remains about
the status of an African American audience segment.

It is clear that American advertisers are faced with a quandary. Marketing to African
Americans has become a serious problem. The industry is unsure about “whether to see
them as a separate cultural entity, like Hispanic Americans, or to target them with the
white population according to distinctions in income, gender, age, and other
characteristics” (Turow 1997), p. 80. To a considerable extent, it was Black media
executives, and the managers of advertising agencies that specialized in the African
American market, who had been complaining about the “mainstreaming” of Black
America. There was also evidence that newly emerging television networks had merely
“used” the African American viewer as a way to establish themselves within the industry,
and then abandoned the segment in order to move on to more lucrative markets (Carter
1996), (Trescott 1996), (Wynter 1998). It wasn’t always this way.
For my people
The Black press in the United States has traditionally been understood as having provided
both leadership and support for African Americans in their continuing struggle for civil
rights (Wolseley 1990). The flagship paper, Freedom's Journal, and some 50 other Black
newspapers were established between 1827 and 1865 in support of the abolitionist
movement (Brie 1977-78). Even during the 20th
Century, the Black press seemed to rise
in response to increases in the oppression of its target population. Reginald Owens
examined the correlation between the numbers of African American publications, their
circulation, and a variety of measures of oppression, including lynching, executions, and
infant mortality. The number of Black publications was higher during periods when the
level of oppression was highest (Owens 1996).
For the most of their history, the publishers of African American newspapers, and
periodicals were motivated by service, rather than profit. Neither circulation, nor
advertising could be relied upon to finance these publications, and the publishers used
income from donations and from other employment to sustain the enterprise (Brie 1977-
78). Of course, there were exceptions, such as Robert Abbott's Chicago Defender, which
reported a national circulation of 200,000 by 1917. It wasn't until the 1940s, however,
that the Black press evolved into a cornerstone of Black capitalism along with funeral
parlors and insurance companies, and beauty product suppliers.
Magazines, highly dependent upon advertising for their success, developed an editorial
stance that was designed to attract the Black middle class. John Johnson, publisher of
Ebony magazine, claimed a special, non-confrontational role for his magazine. From its
earliest days, Johnson's publications revealed an editorial preference for stories that
accentuated the positive, and "happier" aspects of Black life in the United States (Hirsch
1968).
When surveyed in 1989-90, managers of African American newspapers varied in their
estimates of the factors that would determine their continued existence. Contrary to
expectations, competition from either African American, or mainstream newspapers were
not perceived as the primary threat to these weekly publications (Lacy, Stephens et al.
1991). In the view of its mangers, the Black press remains an alternative, rather than a

directly competitor of mainstream newspapers, and few publishers believed that the need
for a racially identified black press would disappear in the foreseeable future.
Market value
Advertisers have never considered the African American consumer to be a very important
segment. Several primary reasons have been articulated (Wolseley 1990), pp. 338-9:
1) African Americans are poor, and are therefore not a viable market, 2) African
Americans are consumers of mainstream media, and can be reached efficiently through
those sources,
3) Association with African Americans is frowned upon by Whites, the primary market,
and attracting Black consumes risks offense, and loss of those more valuable consumers,
4) Media targeted to African Americans are likely to contain more confrontational, and
non-traditional content, that is generally of low quality. As a result, these media represent
an unacceptable environment for mainstream products. The fact that most of these
reasons are based on uninformed racial stereotypes does little to soften their impact on
behavior toward this audience segment.
While there is some debate regarding the historical moment at which the African
American consumer was seen to be worthy of any attention by mainstream advertisers
(Brooks 1995), (Pride and II 1997), the process through which this market was assessed,
and then constructed discursively is not much different from the process that
characterizes the exploitation of other ethnic markets. The first stage always involves
efforts to estimate the size and cumulative value of the market. The African American
market, estimated at $4.8 million in 1942, was by that time being discussed in the trade
press as a market that ought not be ignored.
Eventually government statistics, such as those produced by the Department of
Commerce, and the Bureau of the Census, would be relied upon in estimating the size
and quality of the African American market. But specialized market research was needed
to generate initial interest in this segment. The publisher of the Afro-American
newspapers, in cooperation with the Urban League, contracted for the first
comprehensive assessment of the Black consumer market in 1945. Also important were
middle-men who were able to bridge the gap between the two communities. William Ziff,
a White entrepreneur who later became the head of the Ziff-Davis publishing empire,
served as an agent who specialized in obtaining advertising for the Black press (Pride and
II 1997).
The purchase of advertising with media targeted specifically to the Black audience by a
major advertiser was a reliable indicator that the segment had achieved a new status. At
that point it became worthy of special attention, and a targeted approach. A decision by
the Hoover Company to advertise its vacuum cleaners in Ebony magazine in 1951 was
precisely that kind of marker (Brooks 1995). The geographic concentration of African
Americans in Northern cities following a war-time migration of Blacks from the rural
South, further enhanced the perceived value of this market segment in the eyes of
advertisers.

Black Radio
The history and contemporary status of radio programming targeted to African
Americans underscores the critical intersection between racism and the political economy
of media in the United States (Newman 1988). Because of the economics of radio, and
historic limitations on the accumulation of wealth among African Americans, radio
programs designed to appeal to Blacks was produced largely under the control of Whites
for much of its history in the United States.
The development of a Black radio audience, built largely on the basis of Black on-air
talent, and recordings of Black performers was financed initially by a small, but growing
number of advertisers, expanded markedly following World War II. White owners of
Black-format stations had been led into this market by periodic reports and columns in
the trade press, that also provided guidance for these “adventurers.” One source, Sponsor
magazine, was especially helpful in reporting surveys of the African American audience,
and providing lists of “do’s and don’t’s” for success (Newman 1988).
It seems ironic that during a period in which the United States was just beginning to
dismantle for formal structure of racial segregation, increased involvement and control of
black-oriented radio by African Americans actually sharpened the extent of segregation
within the radio audience. The heightening of Black racial identity and pride coincided
with an appreciation of the economic value of audience segmentation. Black radio
programming, including popular rhythm and blues music, helped to reinforce racial pride,
and the salience of racial identity that would reach a historic peak in the 1960s and 70s.
The establishment of interconnected networks was the best way to create a dispersed
audience into a segment that might be of interest to advertisers. Although it was short-
lived, a National Negro Network was established by a Black entrepreneur, Leonard
Evans, in 1953. Tobacco marketer, Philip Morris, was among the network’s primary
sponsors (Johnson 1993/4). A news service, the Black Audio Network, was established in
1968. The network relied on Black journalists, and emphasized African American
newsmakers and during its heyday, it convinced upwards of 90 stations to carry its
reports.
Changes in FCC policy toward minorities produced a rapid expansion in the number of
radio ventures by and for African Americans. The Mutual Black Network, the National
Black Network, and Sheridan Broadcasting emerged during the 1970s. Not long
afterwards, however, a decline in government support, in addition to changes in the
organization of media industries in the US led to consolidation of several independent
Black networks.
During this period when the dramatic growth in Black networks supplying targeted
programming occurred, there were only 13 stations that were actually owned by African
Americans. By 1995, in response to a shift in FCC policy, African Americans had come
to own some 203 radio stations. The majority of these stations were targeted to Black
listeners. The stations owned by African Americans represent only a fraction of the
stations that maintain Black oriented program schedules. Additionally, these stations

capture an even smaller share of the revenue derived from marketing this segment to
advertisers (Ofori, Edwards et al. 1997). Following the passage of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 which allowed for an expansion in the number of
stations that could be owned in any broadcast market, the numbers of stations owned by
African Americans declined sharply. The profitability of those remaining under Black
control has been threatened severely by aggressive, direct competition by group-owned
stations whose conglomerate status allowed them to share in the increasing good fortune
being enjoyed by the industry (Ofori 1999). The movement of White entrepreneurs more
actively into Black radio may be taken as evidence of an increased valuation of the
audiences produced by Black-format radio. The fact that the perceived value of Black
audiences produced by Black-oriented television has declined suggests that the political
economy of audiences is far more complex than we had assumed.
Linguistic Segmentation: American Hispanics
There is a large and growing body of literature on the development of Spanish language
media in the United States. Attention within the scholarly community does not match, but
clearly reflects the growing interest in this segment being shown by investors, advertisers,
and others who might benefit financially from its exploitation [Gutierrez, 1977 #94].
Commercial interest in the Hispanic market reflects its present size, its rate of growth, its
geographic concentration, and its primary distinction from other segments on the basis of
language. There has also been considerable historical interest in the development of the
Spanish-language television because of the unique role that Mexican investors played in
shaping the American policy response.
Demography
Advertiser interest in that aspect of the Hispanic market defined by Spanish language
usage has increased dramatically since the 1960s. Despite the problems inherent in
estimating the size of the Hispanic population, US Census Bureau continues to report,
and to project dramatic growth in the Hispanic population. Since 1980, the Hispanic
populations was seen to increase at five times the rate of the general population in the US
(Goodson and Shaver 1994). While estimates of the date at which the boundary would
actually be crossed, few doubt that the size of the Hispanic population will exceed that of
African Americans not long after the turn of the century (Soruco 1996).
The fact that this market was growing rapidly was most often cited (82% of respondents)
among the reasons given for targeting Hispanics by Spanish-language advertisers in
1986. An even larger majority of these advertisers were confident that the market would
“continue to grow and become more important in years to come” (Albonetti and
Dominguez 1989), p. 14. In addition to estimates of the size and amount of disposable
income available to this segment as a whole, it was also important for those governed by
market considerations, to be able to estimate the costs of reaching this audience.
Population density is critical component of those costs.
The geographic distribution of Hispanics in the United States into ethnic enclaves is
reflected in concentrations of groups from different regions of the Americas into
particular urban centers. Differences in the circumstances leading to the migration of

Hispanics to the United States explains their concentration in different regions. Over 50%
of the Latino population is concentrated in California and Texas (Downing 1992). Large
concentrations of Puerto Ricans can be found in New York City and in the surrounding
region. Miami became the center of life for Cuban immigrants to South Florida, while
Los Angeles houses the largest group of Mexican-Americans. One result of this
concentration of Latinos has meant that the radio station with the largest audience in Los
Angeles would be a Spanish-language station with a Ranchero format (Schement 1998).
Linguistic sleight of hand
Although there are substantial scale economies or efficiencies that make reaching
audiences that are as highly concentrated as Hispanics in the United States profitable,
even greater efficiencies can be realized through network distribution across several
population centers. In the case of Latinos in the US, this has required programmers to
erase, or ignore many of the linguistic and historical distinctions that would ordinarily set
these communities apart.
There is considerable diversity among those who speak Spanish. A small number,
primarily recent immigrants, speak only Spanish. A far larger number, perhaps 50%,
speak Spanish only part of the time. There is also a not insignificant number of people
who are identified as Hispanic by heritage, who have almost no knowledge or
competence in Spanish (Aquirre and Bustamente 1993). Differential linguistic ability and
preference has been identified as an important predictor of whether an individual will be
a regular user of Spanish language media (Faber, O'Guinn et al. 1986).
Rodriguez (1997) suggests that the decision to produce a idealized Hispanic that would
be attractive to mainstream advertisers required the invention of a panethnic Spanish
language. The resulting “Walter Cronkite Spanish” that came to characterize the widely
viewed newscast, Noticiero Univisión, was stripped of distinguishing accents and
intonations that might otherwise identify the national origin of the speaker. To the degree
that the creation of a Hispanic segment depended upon the creation of a Hispanic
identity, this linguistic invention also contributed to that goal. In the absence of cues to
the contrary, members of the audience would readily identify the newscaster as having
come from their own region, if not from their own social class. In addition, the
journalistic scripts were crafted with a common identity in mind. The choice of collective
personal pronouns like “ustedes” and “Nosotros” was strategic. For Rodriguez,
“Univisión’s use of collective, personal pronouns signal that journalists and panethnic
audience together are the insiders, the legitimated actors” in the newscast (Rodriguez
1996), p. 66.
The creation of a panethnic identity in order to achieve a marketable scale for the
audience for news has parallels in other media markets. Mahan (1995) discusses the
“Latinization” of New York Puerto Rican salsa as part of a marketing strategy developed
by Fania Records (Mahan 1995), p. 21. The Cuban heritage of the music, as well as its
oppositional character, was lost as its commercialization progressed.

The loss of ethnic/cultural distinctions within the United States as a product of a
marketing strategy, shares an ironic relationship to historic concerns about
homogenization and cultural imperialism that identified US-based media as the primary
threat.
Internal colony
At the same time that many in the community of nations were organizing their resistance
to the domination of American media products (Read 1976) and demanding a New World
Information and Communication Order (McPhail 1987) in the hope that global policy
could reverse the one-way flow of cultural materials, a group of American policy scholars
were bringing public attention to bear on an unusual counter example. Félix Gutiérrez
claimed that the Spanish International Network (SIN) had established a dominant
position in the Spanish language television market in the US in the 1960s. It had since
then moved beyond its primitive status as a “bicycle” network that shuttled imported
Mexican programs from station to station, to an unparalleled position of power on the
basis of direct satellite feeds from Mexico City (Gutiérrez 1979). While the Latino
market had generally been ignored by domestic advertisers who tended to think of people
who spoke Spanish in the US as both foreign and poor, in comparison with Hispanics in
Latin America, Mexican entrepreneurs saw this segment cumulatively as a relatively
wealthy population that could serve as a secondary market for Mexican film and video
(Rodriguez 1997), p. 288.
While this example has been presented to scholars and policy actors as a unique example
of media imperialism (Gutiérrez and Schement 1981), (Gutiérrez and Schement 1984),
(Sinclair 1990), the case of SIN also demonstrates the important role of technology in
developing the chain of supply that links immigrants to their homelands.
Market value
Astroff (1989) describes the process of transforming Chicanos and other Latino
communities into valuable commodities as one marked by challenges and difficulties that
went far beyond definition and measurement. She notes that the changes in the ideology
of broadcast regulation in the 1980s made it difficult, if not impossible to support the
development of Spanish-language broadcasting on cultural, or political grounds. Instead,
“Latinos had to be presented as a lucrative and untapped market” (Astroff 1988-89), p.
160. While the social reality of life in the United States had placed Hispanics very near
the bottom the economic ladder, individual poverty could be made to disappear when the
segment is framed as a market. What becomes relevant to marketers is collective income,
or wealth (Gutiérrez 1977). Article after article in the market oriented press offered
wildly optimistic, and greatly varying estimates of the size of this market in dollars
(Downing 1992).
Not only was it necessary to distinguish this group from the mainstream, in order to
justify the investment in the creation of specialized appeals, it was necessary for the
advocates of this market to construct a convincing image of them as consumers. Initially,
some rather innovative stunts were used to convince advertisers of the existence of a
consuming segment. A Spanish-language station in San Antonio Texas, KCOR, appealed

to its listeners to send in box tops, empty containers, and other proofs of purchase to
convince national advertisers that there were loyal customers who were being ignored
(Schement and Flores 1977). In the process of enhancing the perceived value of this
segment, reliance on traditional stereotypes of Latinos meant that “all cultural values and
experiences were translated into consumer preferences and behaviors” (Astroff 1988-89),
p. 163. Stubborn traditionalism became an enhancement when it was reconfigured
strategically as an assurance of brand loyalty.
The Hispanic audience segment continues to be defined and differentiated by class, and
linguistic preference across media, markets, and category of consumer goods. What
remains to be seen is the extent to which the process of assimilation that marks the
dissolution of ethnic segments in general, will determine the future of the Hispanic
segment, and the Asian segment that is just beginning to be defined.
References
(1999). Black power. America's sharpening racial divide may be good for Robert
Johnson, head of Black Entertainment Television. The Economist: 65.
Albonetti, J. and L. Dominguez (1989). “Major influences on consumer-goods marketers'
decision to target US Hispanics.” Journal of Advertising 21(1): 9-21.
Ang, I. (1991). Desperately Seeking the Audience. London, Routledge.
Aquirre, A. and D. Bustamente (1993). “Critical notes regarding the dislocation of
Chicanos by the Spanish-language television industry in the United States.”
Ethnic and Racial Studies 16(1): 121-132.
Armour, J. (1997). Negrophobia and Reasonable Racism. New York, New York
University Press.
Astroff, R. (1988-89). “Spanish gold: Stereotypes, ideology, and the construction of a US
Latino market.” The Howard Journal of Communications 1(4): 155-173.
Barwise, P. and A. Ehrenberg (1988). Television and its Audience. London, Sage.
Baumgartl, B. and A. Favell, Eds. (1995). New xenophobia in Europe. London, Klewer
Law International.
Benjamin, I. (1995). The Black Press in Britain. Staffordshire, UK, Tremtham Books.
Bikson, T. and C. Panis (1995). Computers and connectivity: Current trends. Universal
Access to E-Mail. Feasibility and Societal Implications. R. Anderson, T. Bikson,
S. Law and B. Mitchell. Santa Monica, CA, RAND: 13-40.
Brie, H. L. (1977-78). “Black newspapers: The roots are 150 years deep.” Journalism
History 4(4): 111-113.
Brooks, D. (1995). “In their own words: Advertisers' construction of an African
American consumer market, the World War II era.” The Howard Journal of
Communications 6(1-2): 32-52.
Budget, U. S. O. o. M. a. (1998). Revisions to the standards for the classification of
Federal data on race and ethnicity. Washington DC.
Calabrese, A. (1997). “Creative destruction? From the welfare state to the global
information society.” Javnost--The Public 4(4): 7-24.

Cantor, M. (1994). The role of the audience in the production of culture: A personal
research retrospective. Audiencemaking: How the media create the audience. J.
Ettema and D. C. Whitney. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage: 159-170.
Carey, J. and M. Elton (1996). Forecasting demand for new consumer services:
Challenges and alternatives. New infotainment technologies in the home:
demand-side perspectives. R. Dholakia, N. Mundorf and N. Dholakia. Mahwah,
NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 35-57.
Carter, B. (1996). Two upstart networks courting Black viewers. The New York Times.
New York: C11.
Castells, M. (1997). The power of identity.
Cornell, S. and D. Hartmann (1998). Ethnicity and Race: Making identities in a changing
world. Thousand Oaks, CA, Pine Forge Press.
Cottle, S. (1998). “Making ethnic minority programmes inside the BBC: Professional
pragmatics and cultural containment.” Media, Culture & Society 20(2): 295-317.
Dates, J. and W. Barlow, Eds. (1993). Split Image: African Americans in the mass media.
Washington DC, Howard University Press.
Davis, J. and O. Gandy (1999). “Racial identity and media orientation. Exploring the
nature of constraint.” Journal of Black Studies 29(3): 367-397.
Denton, N. and D. Massey (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of
the Underclass. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Dervin, B. (1989). “Users as research inventions: How research categories perpetuate
inequities.” Journal of Communication 39(3): 216-232.
Dovidio, J. and S. Gartner, Eds. (1986). Prejudice, discrimination and racism. Orlando,
FL, Academic Press.
Downing, J. (1992). Spanish-language media in the Greater New York region in the
1980s. Ethnic Minority Media: An International Perspective. S. Riggins. Newbury
Park, CA, Sage: 256-275.
Ervin, K. and G. Gilmore (1999). “Traveling the superinformation highway. African
Americans' perceptions and use of cyberspace technology.” Journal of Black
Studies 29(3): 398-407.
Ewan, S. (1976). Captains of consciousness. Advertising and the social roots of the
consumer culture. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Faber, R., T. O'Guinn, et al. (1986). “Diversity in the ethnic media audience: A study of
Spanish language broadcast preferences in the U.S.” International Journal of
Intercultural Relations 10: 347-359.
Frank, R. and M. Greenberg (1980). The Public's Use of Television. Beberly Hills, CA,
Sage.
Frank, R. and M. Greenberg (1982). Audiences for Public Television. Beverly Hills, CA,
SAge.
Fraser, N. (1993). Rethinking the public sphere. A contribution to the critique of actually
existing democracy. The Phantom Public Sphere. B. Robbins. Minneapolis, MN,
University of Minnesota Press: 1-32.
Gandy, O. and N. Signorielli (1981). “Audience production functions: A technical
approach to programming.” Journalism Quarterly 58: 232-240.
Gandy, O. H. (1998). Communication and Race. A Structural Perspective. London and
New York, Edward Anold and Oxford University Press.

Gibbons, R. A. and D. Ulloth (1982). “The role of the Amsterdam News in New York
City's media environment.” Journalism Quarterly 59(3): 451-455.
Goodson, S. and M. Shaver (1994). “Hispanic marketing: National advertiser spending
patterns and media choices.” Journalism Quarterly 71(1): 191-198.
Gutiérrez, F. (1977). “Spanish-language media in America: Background, resources,
history.” Journalism History 4(2): 34-41,65-68.
Gutiérrez, F. (1979). Mexico's television network in the United States: The case of
Spanish International Network. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual
Telecommunications Policy Research Conference. H. Dordick. Lexington, MA,
Lexington Books: 135-159.
Gutiérrez, F. and J. Schement (1981). Problems of ownership and control of Spanish-
language media in the United States: National and international policy concerns.
Communication and social structure: Critical studies in mass media research. E.
McAnany, J. Schnitman and N. Janus. New York, Praeger: 181-203.
Gutiérrez, F. and J. R. Schement (1984). “Spanish International Network. The flow of
television from Mexico to the United States.” Communication Research 11(2):
241-258.
Haller, H. (1988). “Ethnic-language mass media and language loyalty in the United
States today: The case of Frency, German, and Italian.” WORD 39(3): 187-200.
Hirsch, P. (1968). “An analysis of Ebony: The magazine and its readers.” Journalism
Quarterly 45(2): 261-270, 292.
Husband, C. (1994). General introduction: Ethnicity and media democratization within
the nation-state. A Richer Vision: The Development of Ethnic Minority Media in
Western Democracies. C. Husband. Paris, UNESCO: 1-19.
Husband, C. and J. Chouhan (1985). Local radio in the communication environment of
ethnic minorities in Britain. Discourse and Communication: New Approaches to
the analysis of media discourse and communication. T. v. Dijk. Berlin, Walter de
Gruyter: 270-294.
Jakubowicz, A. (1989). Speaking in tongues: Multicultural media and the constitution of
the socially homogeneous Australian. Australian Communication and the Public
Sphere. H. Wilson. South Melbourne, MacMillan Co. of Australia: 105-127.
Jhally, S. and B. Livant (1986). “Watching as working: The valorization of audience
consciousness.” Journal of Communication 36(3): 124-143.
Johnson, F. (1993/4). “A history of the development of Black radio networks in the
United States.” Journal of Radio Studies 2: 173-187.
Jones, F. (1990). “The Black aduience and the BET channel.” Journal of Broadcasting
and Electronic Media 34(4): 477-486.
Karim, K. (1997). “relocating the nexus of citizenship, heritage and technology.” Javnost-
-the Public 4(4): 75-86.
Keever, B., C. Martindale, et al., Eds. (1997). U.S. News coverage of racial minorities: A
sourcebook, 1934-1996. Westport, CT, Greenwood Press.
Lacy, S., J. Stephens, et al. (1991). “The future of the African-American press.”
Newspaper Research Journal 12(3): 8-19.
Mahan, E. (1995). “Culture industries and cultural identity: Will NAFTA make a
difference?” Studies in Latin American Popular Culture 14: 17-35.
McPhail, T. (1987). Electronic colonialism. Newbury Park, CA, Sage.

McQuail, D. (1992). Media performance: Mass Communication and the public interest.
London, Sage.
Meehan, E. (1993). Commodity audience, actual audience: The Blindspot Debate.
Illuminating the Blindspots: Essays Honoring Dallas W. Smythe. J. Wasko, V.
Mosco and M. Pendakur. Norwood, NJ, Ablex: 378-397.
Mosco, V. (1989). The Pay-Per Society. Norwood, NJ, Ablex.
Mosco, V. (1996). The political economy of communication. London, Sage.
Myrick, H. and C. Keegan (1981). In search of diversity. Symposium on minority
audiences and programming research: Approaches and applications. Washington
DC, Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Neuman, W. R. (1991). The Future of the Mass Audience. New York, Cambridge
University Press.
Newman, M. (1988). Entrepreneurs of Profit and Pride. From Black Appeal to Radio
Soul. New York, Praeger.
Ofori, K., K. Edwards, et al. (1997). Media Ownership Concentration and the Future of
Black Radio. Brooklyn, NY, Medgar Evers College Press.
Ofori, K. A. (1999). When being No. 1 is not enough: the impact of advertising practices
on minority-owned & minority-formatted broadcast stations. Washington DC,
Civil Rights Forum on Communications Policy.
Omi, M. and H. Winant (1994). Racial formation in the United States from the 1960s to
the 1990s. New York, Routledge.
Owen, B. and S. Wildman (1992). Video Economics. Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press.
Owens, R. (1996). Entering the Twenty-First Century: Oppression and the African
American press. Mediated Messages and African-American Culture:
Contemporary Issues. V. Berry and C. Manning-Miller. Thousand Oaks, CA,
Sage: 96-116.
Patterson, R. (1990). “Development of ethnic and multicultural media in Australia.”
International Migration 28(1): 89-103.
Peterson, R. (1994). Measured markets and unknown audiences: Case studies from the
production and consumption of music. Audiencemaking: How the media create
the audience. J. Ettema and D. C. Whitney. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage: 171-185.
Polic, J. G. and J. Oscar H. Gandy (1991). “The emergence of the marketplace standard.”
Media Law and Practice: 55-64.
Pride, A. and C. W. II (1997). History of the Black Press. Washington DC, Howard
University Press.
Ratcliff, P. (1994). Conceptualizing "race", ethnicity and nation: towards a comparative
perspective. Race, Ethnicity and Nation. P. Ratcliffe. London, UCL Press: 2-25.
Read, W. (1976). Americas mass media merchants. Baltimore, MD, The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Riggins, S. (1992). The media imperative. Ethnic minority survival in the age of mass
communication. Ethnic minority media: An international perspective. S. Riggins.
Newbury Park, CA, Sage: 1-22.
Rodriguez, A. (1996). “Objectivity and ethnicity in the production of the Noticiero
Univision.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 13: 59-81.

Rodriguez, A. (1997). “Commercial ethnicity: Language, class and race in the marketing
of the Hispanic audience.” The Communication Review 2(3): 283-309.
Schement, J. (1998). Thorough Americans: Minorities and the new media. Investing in
Diversity: Advancing opportunities for minorities and the media. A. Garmer.
Washington, DC, The Aspen Institute: 87-124.
Schement, J. and R. Flores (1977). “The origins of Spanish-language radio: The case of
San Antonio, Texas.” Journalism History 4(2): 56-58, 61.
Schiller, D. (1999). Digital capitalism. Networking the global market system. Cambridge,
MA, The MIT Press.
Siegelman, P. and J. Waldfogel (1998). Race and radio: Preference externalities, minority
ownership, and the provision of programming to minorities. Philadelphia, PA,
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Sinclair, J. (1990). “Spanish-language television in the United States: Televisa surrenders
its domain.” Studies in Latin American Popular Culture 9: 39-63.
Smith, N. C. and E. Cooper-Martin (1997). “Ethics and target marketing: The role of
product harm and consumer vulnerability.” Journal of Marketing 61(3): 1.
Soruco, G. (1996). Cubans and the Mass Media in South Florida. Gainesville, FL,
University Press of Florida.
Subervi-Velez, F. (1986). “The mass media and ethnic assimilation and pluralism. A
review and research proposal with special focus on Hispanics.” Communication
Research 13(1): 71-96.
Surlin, S. (1972). “Black-oriented radio: Programming to a perceived audience.” Journal
of Broadcasting 16(3): 289-298.
Trescott, J. (1996). In the black. Small networks seek to win minority audiences. The
Washington Post. Washington DC: G1.
Turow, J. (1997). Breaking up America: Advertisers and the new media world. Chicago,
University of Chicago Press.
Webster, J. and P. Phalen (1994). Victim, consumer, or commodity? Audiencemaking:
How the Media Create the Audience. J. Ettema and D. C. Whitney. Thousand
Oaks, CA, Sage.
Webster, J. and P. Phalen (1997). The Mass Audience. Rediscovering the Dominant
Model. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wildman, S. and T. Karamanis (1998). The economics of minority programming.
Investing in Diversity: Advancing Opportunities for Minorities and Media. A.
Garmer. Washington, DC, The Aspen Institute: 47-65.
Wolseley, R. (1990). The Black Press, U.S.A. Iowa City, IA, Iowa State University Press.
Wynter, L. (1998). TV Programmers drop "Black-block' lineups. Wall Street Journal.
Eastern US: B1.
Zhang, K. and H. Xiaoming (1999). “The Internet and the ethnic press: A study of
electronic chinese publications.” The Information Society 15(1): 21-30.

Audience Construction: Race, Ethnicity and Segmentation in Popular Media

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Audience Construction: Race, Ethnicity and Segmentation in Popular Media (20)

More from Think Ethnic (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Audience Construction: Race, Ethnicity and Segmentation in Popular Media