As a cultural theorist, Stuart Hall critiques everyday life practices, mainly meaning systems 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 called this theory the encoding/decoding model. Hall’s encoding/decoding communication model argues that the media apparatus is interested 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. To understand it completely, one must know Hall’s Marxist background and the implications of his concepts. This essay will argue 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 practical approach to understanding modern mass media messages, especially advertising.

‍To adequately understand Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model, it is necessary to draw connections to the basic foundations of this theory. Stuart Hall was profoundly influenced by Marxist theory, particularly ideas concerning the proletariat’s struggle against the bourgeoisie. Hall’s cultural approach is deeply rooted in Marxist theory. He has translated media intent 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 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, and 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 analyzing the encoding/decoding model.

One will receive an enhanced understanding of his theoretical conception of media discourse by drawing the connection between Hall’s theoretical origins of Marxism and the encoding/decoding model. 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 discourse developed by Stuart Hall, the meaning of the text is located between its producer and the reader (Hall, 1980). The producer (encoder) frames (or encodes) the meaning in a certain way. At the same time, the reader (decoder) interprets it differently according to their background, social situations and frames of interpretation (McQuail, 1994). Hall says text meaning is neither a fixed concept nor an uncertain ‘polysemy’ (Fiske, 1986). Although Hall notes the polysemic nature of importance in text, one must inevitably take a ‘position.’ Such a position is the balancing point in the encoder and decoder dynamics, resulting in tension between the encoder’s dominant intention and the decoder’s reading strategies. According to Hall’s hypothesis, the encoder tries to transfer their version of a specific meaning based on their background and cultural perspective to the decoder.

In contrast, the decoder will adapt this ‘original’ meaning into an ‘ updated’ version according to their background and particularities. To conceptualize this transference of meaning from the encoder to the decoder, refer to Figure 1 (Appendix). In Figure 1, ‘meaning structures 1’ refers to the encoder who attempts to insert their intended meaning, which Hall describes as “Production, here, constructs the message” (Hall, 1980, p. 129). Once the intended purpose is produced, the discourse medium follows it. However, “at a certain point, however, the broadcasting structures must yield encoded messages in the form of a meaningful discourse” (Hall, 1980, p. 130). Televisual discourse decodes meaning by the audience. Through this decoding process, the ‘original’ version of importance may be consistent with the ‘original’ one or be oppositional; however, in most circumstances, it is always the result of negotiation. Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model has broader implications once the audience manifests its meaning. Three iPod advertisements will be deconstructed to conceptualize the impact of Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model and audience effects. These advertisements illustrate three reading strategies Hall asserts that decoders take’ positions.

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

Firstly, when the decoder’s position is near the encoder’s, they will interpret within the frame of the dominant code—the “preferred reading” (Hall, 1980, p. 136). For example, the iPod launched its first advertisement (Figure 2) promoting the product in 2001. In this advertisement, break-dance moves and other complicated dance techniques dominate the message. Essentially, this advertisement is about excitement, joy, and temporary mind-altering 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 Apple, in their annual 2001 report, stated 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, 2001, p. 20). The number of people who have decoded the initial meaning of the encoder: the producer (Apple) professed (encoded) consumption of their product (iPod) was then broken down (interpreted) by the audience in the same way as the encoder intended. Apple’s first iPod advertisement had no flashy colours or exuberant contrasts but sophisticated dancing—a feature of Apple’s iPod advertisements it kept for many years afterwards. Apple created an updated advertising strategy for their iPod, and sales increased (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. iPod sales totalled 39.4 million in 2006, representing an increase of 75% from 22.5 million iPod units sold in 2005” (Apple, 2006, p. 55). In more detail, Figure 3, advertised in 2005, illustrates several people coming together to dance with the long white wire coming to their ears. In this advertisement, the dominant code is group dancing. Also, a response the audience will not help but perform. When an individual purchases an iPod, they may meet someone with an iPod and dance with them, which is unrealistic. However, many people who succumb to this dominant-hegemonic position are convinced to purchase an iPod. Seemingly, the dominant message in this revised 2005 advertisement (Figure 3) asserts that individuals buy 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 their version of the message with a different intention — the decoder may read the dominant meaning from another point of view (Hall, 1980, p. 137). When an individual functions in this position, Hall states, “He/she operates with what we call an oppositional code” (Hall, 1980, p. 137). In Figure 2, the individual who decodes this in a “globally contrary way” (Hall, 1980, p. 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 boost their iPods. In addition, another individual taking an oppositional position may consider that Apple Inc. causes significant environmental damage 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 environmental impact. Alarmingly, Slade has transformed the initial meaning of Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4 in a way contrary to Apple Inc.’s encoded purpose.

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

My friend just gave me his old iPod, and I began investigating how to change the battery. I couldn’t believe that the unit was made so the owner could not replace their battery. 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 been sceptical about purchasing an iPod after watching, perhaps, Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4iPod advertisements that advocated a considerable delay before they understood every potential bug in Apple’s iPods. This negotiated reading creates a sceptical audience who may or may not purchase the iPod. These advertising strategies may partially persuade them, but more is needed to convince them fully. Instead of looking directly at the advertisements and interest in U2 (Figure 4), group enjoyment (Figure 3), and the first commercial (Figure 2), the decoder may look at the stylistic features or the specifications. A particular iPod model, and based on them, the decoder may oppose purchasing an iPod or wanting to buy one. At this stage, Stuart Hall calls it “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, p. 137). Audiences frequently use the negotiated decoding strategy to understand products such as iPods fully.

As Hall has illustrated, these three positions function as an imperative decoding strategy that decoders undertake. The encoder’s intent, in this case, Apple, is to utilize a predictive measure targeting individuals who decode in a negotiated or oppositional position, mainly. Apple Inc. knows decoders capable of oppositional and cooperative readings exist. As a result, their advertising strategies will always change until they have thoroughly convinced the negotiator to become their product consumer. In addition, they will convince the opposing decoder to become at least a negotiated decoder.

This essay deconstructs Apple Inc.’s three advertisements using Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model. Using Stuart Hall’s model, advertisers’ purpose becomes clear. Advertisers are the dominant message encoders, only to be decoded by the audience in a straightforward 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 interpretation: 1) the dominant-hegemonic position, 2) the oppositional position, and 3) the negotiated position. Advertisers and their encoding strategies aim to maximize wealth and continue production, circulation, distribution/consumption, and reproduction.

Consequently, 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 generates capital, ensuring the continuation of the product or service. In this sense, Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model is valuable for analyzing advertisements, their intent, and the methods of decoding they follow.

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.