# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
University of Western Ontario, Canada

*Corresponding Author:

Anabel Quan-Haase
Associate Professor
University of Western Ontario, Canada
Tel: 519-661-2111 x81405
Fax: 519-661-3506
E-mail: [email protected]

Received Date: June 07, 2012; Accepted Date: June 09, 2012; Published Date: June 09, 2012

Citation: Quan-Haase A (2012) Is the Uses and Gratifications Approach Still Relevant in a Digital Society? Theoretical and Methodological Applications to Social Media. J Mass Commun Journalism 2:e124. doi:10.4172/2165-7912.1000e124

Copyright: © 2012 Quan-Haase A. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Mass Communication & Journalism

A wide range of new theories, approaches, and methodologies have been proposed as a response to the changes occurring in the digitization of content, the creation and distribution of digital artifacts (e.g., documents, images, and videos), and the increasing production and dissemination of news on the Internet. These new trends have also motivated scholars to revive traditional theories in the field of mass communication and journalism, which could aid in examining digital communication. In this editorial note, the uses and gratifications approach (U&G) is presented as a theoretical lens and empirical means for studying how audiences engage with digital media. U&G provides a unique perspective on digital media as it stresses the relevance of media in the context of everyday life, examining uses, gratifications sought and obtained, and media practices over time. U&G can help address critical research questions that emerge as individuals become further networked and embrace digital technologies for communication, information exchange, and content creation. Research questions that a U&G approach to social media can address include:

* How are information and news from various sources diffusing through social media?

* What social media sites and services are relevant for individuals to keep up-to-date with local and global news?

* How satisfied are users of social media sites with the information they receive in terms of accuracy, relevance, currency, etc.?

* What gratifications do individuals obtain from different information sources and social media platforms on the Internet?

The U&G approach allows examining two different sets of questions. The first set of questions revolve around what types of media users employ and the second set is concerned with why users adopt these specific tools and services. Addressing research questions about why people adopt diverse social media sites and services into their communication and socializing practices, routines, and habits has become increasingly relevant. Data collected by the Pew Internet and Everyday Life Project in 2011 show that social media are being adopted by all age groups in North America, with 64 percent of adults [ 1] and 80 percent of youth using a social network site (SNS) [ 2]. Similar trends are observed in other parts of the world. When examining the usage patterns of young people, the reliance on social media is high. Of those teenagers who use SNS, 40 percent log on to a site several times a day and 24 percent about once a day [ 2]. Quan-Haase and Young (forthcoming) [ 3] argue that "taking into account the widespread diffusion of social media and its ubiquity, it is important to grasp the role that these tools play in our society and what social, economic, and political impact they have on individuals, family ties, communities, and organizations".

The U&G approach occupies a unique place within theories of mass communication and journalism. The digital landscape makes it clear that individuals are employing multiple sources of information, are members of diverse and specialized interest groups, and access both online and via mobile applications a wide range of media [ 4]. This proliferation of media types and sources suggests that different media outlets fulfill distinct and unique needs, making an analysis of U&G essential [ 5]. Because the U&G approach was developed in the 1940s, a group of scholars has questioned its utility for studying digital media. However, Ruggiero [ 6] has dismissed these concerns arguing that "any attempt to speculate on the future direction of mass communication theory must seriously include the U&G approach". This suggests that the U&G approach can make a major contribution to research in an environment, where audiences are fragmented, the boundaries between producers and consumers blur [ 7], and user-generated content supplements, enhances, and competes with traditional media.

The U&G approach developed as a counter perspective to much of the prevalent scholarship in the 1930s and 1940s on the relation between the mass media and their respective audiences. This body of work tended to stress the unidirectional and powerful effect of the mass media on consumers of content without much regard to audience members' agency, needs and preferences, cultural and economic backgrounds, and life styles [ 8]. This neglect led to a rather narrow and limited focus on the propagandistic effect of content on audiences and individuals' uncritical assimilation of mass media messages. For instance, the hypodermic needle model (also known as the magic bullet theory) conceptualized audience members as a homogeneous mass that consumes media messages in an uncritical and superficial manner [ 9]. These early models received considerable criticism for their simplistic views of how audience members use, consume, and make sense of media messages. These models were further refuted by the writings of McLuhan [ 10] and others at the Toronto School of Communication [ 11], as these authors shifted the debate in mass communication from one focused on simple effects of messages toward an understanding of media as complex social tools.

Quan-Haase and Young (forthcoming) [ 3] have identified three central tenants of the U&G approach that distinguish it from other approaches in mass communication and journalism:

(1) Conceptualization of the audience. Instead of viewing the mass audience as passive and neutral, it is conceived of as actively participating in audience's media choices and engaged in content selection, evaluation, and dissemination. The U&G approach distinguishes between media preferences by specific social groups, such as infants, kids, youth, and seniors.

(2) Focus on what people do. The focus is on what people do with the media, how it becomes relevant in their everyday life, instead of assuming that all consumers engage with the media in the same manner [ 12].

(3) Media gratifications sought and obtained. The term media gratifications refer to the personal needs that a medium can fulfill. Key is the distinction between those gratifications sought prior to employing the medium for the first time and those that are obtained after having adopted the medium [ 13]. Long-term usage patterns are influenced by the extent to which specific media can fulfill user needs.

These three central tenants make the U&G approach relevant to the study of social media. One of the key areas of study in the U&G approach is how individuals use media and integrate it into their everyday live routines and practices. As social media platforms continue to proliferate and apps for smart phones and tablets increase in diversity and functionality, individuals are adopting a multiplicity of sites, services, tools, games, etc. This makes it necessary to understand what digital tools they employ, when they use them during the day, and how these fit with their daily routines and practices [ 14]. With the increasing reliance on mobile technology from cell phones to smart phones to tablets (e.g., iPad, Samsung, etc.), it is of great relevance to explore how individuals access social media sites on the go and connect both to content, media outlets, and their social networks. Additionally, how an individual uses social media may largely depend on their level of concern for privacy [ 15]. Privacy concerns about who may access personal information and how this information is stored may influence how individuals present themselves on Facebook, Twitter, and other popular SNS, encouraging certain types of personal information to be disclosed. How much information and what types of information are revealed will in turn have an effect on the gratifications obtained from engaging in the platform [ 3, 16].

The study of gratifications has primarily focused on those gratifications obtained after adoption. The primary reason for this focus is methodological. Predicting what social media platform users will join next is difficult and as a result it is challenging to examine what motivates adoption in the first place [ 5, 17]. Nonetheless, considering the large proliferation of competing sites and services, an examination of why users adopt a specific social media tool can shed light on what characteristics and features individuals consider useful and fitting with their social and information needs [ 18]. It becomes increasingly important for scholars to identify what factors motivate individuals to test and adopt new platforms, and how to compare various platforms in terms of usability, gratifications, and satisfaction. The open source movement for instance has played an important role in providing services that are free of charge and can be modified, re-used, and re-appropriated under a wide range of licenses [ 7]. Quan-Haase and Young [ 5] compared the gratifications sought from Facebook and instant messaging and found friend recommendations as a key motivating factor for adopting Facebook ("friend suggested it"), followed by mass adoption by one's offline social network ("everyone I know is on Facebook"), and social relationship maintenance ("help others keep in touch with me"). In a study of the gratifications sought of Bebo, Dunne, Lawlor and Rowley [ 19] found three key factors that motivated adoption: 1) communication with others, 2) to make new friends, and 3) to alleviate boredom or escape.

A central area of investigation of the U&G approach is the gratifications obtained from a medium after continued use. A number of studies have been conducted that have systematically investigated the gratifications obtained from social media use. For example, a 2001 study by Leung et al. [ 20] examined students' motivations for chatting on the instant messaging platform ICQ. This early study found that students used ICQ primarily for affection: to express appreciation, care for others' feelings, show encouragement, offer help, and show concern for others [ 20]. More recently, a number of studies have emerged examining the gratifications obtained from using SNSs, particularly Facebook. This research has found that affection, while a key motivation for using IM, is of less importance in SNSs [ 5]. In contrast to IM, SNSs are used to pass the time (i.e., for entertainment, relaxation and as a means of escape) [ 5, 17], for social surveillance and social searching (i.e., to learn about others without their explicit knowledge) [ 15], and for relationship maintenance (i.e., reconnecting with friends and family and maintaining a connection with friends and family) [ 16]. This illustrates clear differences in gratifications obtained from each type of social media. While IM is typically dyadic and allows for interactive conversations in real-time that mirror, in some aspects, face-to-face communication, Facebook and other SNSs revolve around a profile and a series of asynchronous messages exchanged via private e-mail messages or wall posts. In this way, IM exchanges support feelings and intimacy and the development of close ties, whereas the communications in SNSs serve as a way for users to have fun and entertain themselves (see Table 1).

Table 1: Gratifications Obtained from Facebook and Instant Messaging [3].

Another social media platform that has received considerable attention in the media is Twitter. Twitter is considered a microblog that allows individuals to connect and exchange 140 character long messages. Even though Twitter is different from Facebook in terms of how profiles are created and information is displayed, studies on Twitter's gratifications show some parallels. Chen [ 19] in her study of Twitter gratifications found that connecting to one's social network of friends, family, and colleagues is one of the key factors for continued use. In the study, Chen [ 19] found that Twitter was also relevant for conveying information. While Facebook also helps in sharing information about social events and events occurring in an individual's personal life, Twitter is often geared toward forwarding links to resources in addition to supporting relationship maintenance.

In conclusion, the U&G approach continues to play a unique and important role in studies of communication, sociability, information science, and journalism. In particular with the increasing adoption of social media, the U&G approach seems promising in providing a theoretical framework from which to examine what kinds of social media are adopted by what segments of the population, and what gratifications individuals obtain from their use of various social media platforms, sites, and services. The U&G approach also provides a methodology from which user preferences and satisfactions can be compared across social media sites. This will help us better understand what motivates users to spent large amounts of time on these sites sharing, liking/disliking, forwarding, adding, and disseminating content.

References

1. Rainie L, Lenhart A, Smith A (2011) The tone of life on social networking sites. The Pew Internet and American Life Project.

2. Lenhart A, Madden M, Smith A, Purcell K, Zickuhr K, et al. (2011) Teens, kindness and cruelty on social network sites. The Pew Internet and American Life Project.

3. Quan-Haase A, Young AL (forthcoming) The uses and gratifications (U&G) approach as a lens for studying social media practice. In Fortner R, Fackler M (Edn), International handbook of media and communication theory. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.

4. Miller C, Purcell K, Rosenstiel T (2012) 72% of Americans follow local news closely.The Pew Internet and American Life Project.

5. Quan-Haase A, Young AL (2010) Uses and gratifications of social media: A comparison of Facebook and instant messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 30: 350-361.

6. Ruggiero TE (2000) Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication & Society 3: 3-37.

7. Bruns A (2008)Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From production to produsage. Peter Lang, New York.

8. Blumler JG, Katz E (1974) The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Sage, Beverly Hills.

9. Quan-Haase A, Brown B (2012) Uses and gratifications. Danesi M (Edn) Encyclopedia of Media and Communication.Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

10. McLuhan M (1964) Understanding media: The extension of man. McGraw-Hill, New York.

11. De Kerckhove D (1989) McLuhan and the Toronto school of communication. Canadian Journal of Communication 14: 73-79.

12. Katz E, Lazarsfeld PF (1964) Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Free Press, New York.

13. Katz E, Gurevitch M, Haas H (1973) On the use of mass media for important things. American Sociological Review 38: 164-181.

14. Quan-Haase A (2008) Instant messaging on campus: Use and integration in students' everyday communication. The Information Society 24: 105-115.

15. Young AL, Quan-Haase A (2009) Information revelation and internet privacy concerns on social network sites: A case study of Facebook. In JM Carrol (Edn). Fourth International Conference on Communities and Technologies. University Park, PA, USA, 265-274. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.

16. Joinson NA (2008) 'Looking at', 'looking up', or 'keeping up with' people: Motives and uses of Facebook. Proceedings of CHI'081027-1036.

17. Dunne A, Lawlor MA, Rowley J (2010) Young people's use of online social networking sites - a uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 4: 46-58.

18. Papacharissi Z, Mendelson A (2011) Toward a new(er) sociability: Uses, gratifications, and social capital on Facebook. In S. Papathanassopoulos (Edn), Media perspectives for the 21st century. Routledge, New York 212-230.

19. Chen GM (2011) Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use gratifies a need to connect with others. Computers in Human Behavior 27: 755-762.

20. Leung L (2001) College student motives for chatting on ICQ. New Media and Society 3: 483-500.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is the Uses and Gratifications Approach Still Relevant in a Digital Society? Theoretical and Methodological Applications to Social Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
University of Western Ontario, Canada *Corresponding Author: Anabel Quan-Haase Associate Professor University of Western Ontario, Canada Tel: 519-661-2111 x81405 Fax: 519-661-3506 E-mail: [email protected] Received Date: June 07, 2012; Accepted Date: June 09, 2012; Published Date: June 09, 2012 Citation: Quan-Haase A (2012) Is the Uses and Gratifications Approach Still Relevant in a Digital Society?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You (TV Series 2018- ) cast and crew credits, including actors, actresses, directors, writers and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2018, 495 scripted original series aired across hundreds of TV and streaming platforms from old-school terrestrial broadcast channels to Facebook Watch. In such a landscape, some gems inevitably get buried. Such is the story of "You," a series based on Caroline Kepnes' best-selling novel of the same name that launched a ten-part first season this fall on Lifetime. "You" is a savvy yet acidic undercutting of the two types of stories Lifetime is known for telling - romance and true crime - but it couldn't find an audience. Now "You" has been reborn on Netflix, where it has become one of Netflix's current biggest hits. But moving the show from one platform to the other has exposed weaknesses in the series' writing, leading to an undermining of the show's central theme.
(Spoilers below.)
"You" is a creatively bonkers take on a standard Lifetime movie trope: woman meets charming man, woman trusts man, man turns out to be a monster. But "You" flips the narrative, telling the story from the point of view of Joe (Penn Badgley), the homicidal stalker boyfriend, whose newest obsession Beck (Elizabeth Lail) knows nothing of his past or his possessive behavior.

"You" is a creatively bonkers take on a standard Lifetime movie trope: woman meets charming man, woman trusts man, man turns out to be a monster.

As with all such tales, audiences figure out this romantic love story is too good to be true long before the heroine does. But by taking the story and telling it from the killer's perspective, viewers are in on it from the start, changing how Joe's actions are perceived. Expected, clichéd stereotypes are revealed to be creepy when viewed through the lens of a controlling man like Joe. This also changes how we think about Joe's victim Beck, because the audience doesn't identify with her. She is, after all, not us. She is "you." Even when the show switches to Beck's perspective in the final episodes, it feels almost too late for the audience to get in her corner or feel much sympathy for her fate.

The show is both unsettlingly creepy and riveting television. And its surprise ending, involving a past girlfriend the audience has assumed to be dead, gives the show's next season a million new directions to go in.

By rights, "You" should have been Lifetime's first big hit in ages. The channel put plenty of advertising dollars behind it, and my inbox can attest to the PR campaign. Lifetime was so sure it was going to be a hit, it greenlit a season two before season one even aired. And yet "You" pulled in barely .6 million viewers on average over the season. In the end, execs threw in the towel and sold off the promised second season to Netflix, along with season one for streaming.

That's where the story gets interesting. This past week, the streaming service took the unprecedented step of releasing actual viewership numbers for several shows as part of its most recent quarterly earnings report. Though these numbers were not given in the traditional Nielsen format, according to Netflix, season one of "You" is on track to hit 40 million viewers in the first month, making it one of the streaming service's most successful shows right now.

The show was caught in a catch-22. Those who would like it didn't watch, those who watched, didn't like it.

So why did the show find success on Netflix and not Lifetime? Part of it is expectations. Lifetime has spent nearly 40 years peddling what often feels like a misogynist's idea of "women's programming." The network has been attempting to slowly rebrand, as fans of shows like " UnReal " already know. But there are so many shows now, on so many channels, "You" may simply have gotten lost, or been written off as little more than a rehabilitation project for a has-been heartthrob. (No offense, Penn.) Moreover, the audience who do tune into Lifetime aren't looking for something that bitterly undermines their favorite programming. The show was caught in a catch-22. Those who would like it didn't watch, those who watched, didn't like it.

Stripped of any Lifetime baggage (the official hashtag is strikingly not #You, but #NetflixYou and #YouNetflix, as if to erase any trace of the original network that aired it) most Netflix users had no preconceived notions about the show when it appeared in their recommended lists.

Netflix clearly believes this is a success story for streaming. Releasing the numbers is a clear rebuttal to the accusations that viewers can't find shows when they come to platform because the volume of options is so overwhelming. "You" couldn't get noticed on Lifetime, but it can here. What once was lost, now is found.

One could argue audiences finding and loving the series is automatically a win. But the assumptions that allowed the show's premise to work were designed for an audience that already understood the stereotypes. On Lifetime, viewers went in expecting to sympathize with the heroine, and the show's bending of those tropes stuck out far more prominently. It felt more purposeful.

Stripped of the Lifetime branding, however, the weaknesses inherent in the show's writing left "You" more open to misinterpretation. On Netflix, many viewers seem to see the series less as a response to standard romantic tropes and more the saga of a misunderstood anti-hero in the vein of "Dexter" or Walter White in "Breaking Bad" - but without the nuance that made both "Dexter" and "Breaking Bad" worth watching. So what if he's a serial killer - he's got angst! He's not an abusive, controlling man, he's just misunderstood! The audience response, especially among women, prompted star Penn Badgley to practically beg fans to stop asking him to stalk them.

It turns out, stripped of context, a dark satire merely reads as a replication of the tropes meant to be punctured. "You" was never meant to be a prestige drama, a complicated unpacking of a bad man with questionable morals. And it will be interesting to see if and how the show's writers try to adjust in season two. Will "You" have to become more like the Lifetime films the show was originally trying to subvert?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinon | Why some fans of Netflix's stalker hit "You" are totally missing the show's point

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2018, 495 scripted original series aired across hundreds of TV and streaming platforms from old-school terrestrial broadcast channels to Facebook Watch. In such a landscape, some gems inevitably get buried. Such is the story of "You," a series based on Caroline Kepnes' best-selling novel of the same name that launched a ten-part first season this fall on Lifetime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Lifetime's YOU, Penn Badgley goes from playing Lonely Boy to playing... Lonelier Boy? The former Gossip Girl star takes on the role of Joe Goldberg, a New Yorker with a love of books and an even greater love of Beck, a twentysomething poet played by Elizabeth Lail. Once Joe meets Beck, there's no turning back. First he combs through all her social media accounts. Next he steals her phone so he can read her texts. And then there's that whole lurking-outside-her-bedroom-window thing. Translation: Joe is stalker who will do anything in the name of "love."

EW spoke with Badgley about his latest role and why he was so hesitant to join the new series (which is based on the 2014 Caroline Kepnes novel of the same name).

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: What was your initial reaction to this role?
PENN BADGLEY: I didn't want to do it - it was too much. I was conflicted with the nature of the role. If this is a love story, what is it saying? It's not an average show; it's a social experiment. And then what was key in me wanting to jump on board were my conversations with Greg Berlanti and Sera Gamble, the creators, and understanding Joe's humanity. I knew that I would be conflicted about the role from day one till the last day, and that is why they thought I would be good for it, is that I'm not psyched to play somebody of this nature.

How would you describe Joe?
He's exceedingly curious and investigative and so sensitive, and ultimately traumatized. But I think if there are any larger social-level questions at work here, the question for all of us as we watch it is: Where do we draw the line in what we would or wouldn't do following in his footsteps?

So you're not like, "Joe's so great!"
Not even close. To be honest, in the beginning of the process, I had no interest in humanizing him. Like, please, spare us. But then I realized the only thing you can do as an actor is bring a character to life, and all that that means.
RELATED: Penn Badgley and Sera Gamble's YOU puts a twist on the modern-day love story
How does the show compare to the book?
The show is different enough from the book. There are some key moments that are there, but they're in a different place and happening in a very different way, and then there are some events that I loved in the book that are not just not there, it's like the opposite happens. So that actually opens up this whole new alternate reality in the show that just doesn't exist in the book. I think that's where people who have read the book will hopefully be excited and be drawn to it, and then people who haven't read the book, what's the difference?

So much of your performance is voice-over. How did that change your experience?
It ended up meaning that my level of involvement was closer to that of sometimes almost an editor, sometimes a producer, sometimes a cinematographer, only in the sense that I had to be conscious of things that I think often actors very specifically do not want to be conscious of in order to maintain a certain level of spontaneity to their performance. It was very technical. Often I would go to work and not actually have any spoken lines that day. I felt much closer to a crew member and just part of this team making this thing. I personally really liked that. It took some of the preciousness away from my particular role.

What was your biggest concern when it came to Joe?
The only thing I was really concerned about was not wetting my own nature make him too human, human in a way that maybe somebody like him can't be.

Are you more or less likely to Google someone after taking on this role?
Because I came into fame so early on, I've never done that. I don't investigate through the internet about people who I know in the same way that I think most people do because I know what that's like to be on the other end of it. I think it gave me a certain kind of discipline, or empathy. I don't really use social media in that way because of my nature to fame, notoriety, whatever it is. [The show] didn't change the way I thought about any of this stuff, except that I learned how easy it would be for somebody to do this.

YOU premieres Sunday, Sept. 9, at 10 p.m. ET on Lifetime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Penn Badgley on why he didn't originally want to play Joe in 'YOU'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Lifetime's YOU, Penn Badgley goes from playing Lonely Boy to playing... Lonelier Boy? The former Gossip Girl star takes on the role of Joe Goldberg, a New Yorker with a love of books and an even greater love of Beck, a twentysomething poet played by Elizabeth Lail.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
So lately I feel like people have been trying to gaslight me into liking Joe from Netflix's hit romance thriller You. The internet is all "sure he's a serial killer, but his heart was in the right place, and if Beck was just a better person, he wouldn't have had to take such extreme measures." No really, this is straight from the comments section on Cosmo's Facebook page. And not just one.

Thankfully, Netflix-which is also trying to get you to stop calling Ted Bundy hot -is fully on my side. On February 4, the streaming platform released a new video on their Youtube page to show you Joe and Beck's relationships without his constant inner monologuing. Turns out, Joe is even creepier than we thought AND can't hold a conversation to save his life. Major turn-off, even if you're somehow looking past all the murder. Watch for yourself:

This may be the most awkward, frightening video I've ever watched. Run, anyone who meets Joe!

Honestly, thanks for this, Netflix. And props for giving Peach the credit she is due for spotting Joe's crazy from a mile away. #JusticeforPeach

Oh, and if you want some actually cute (but maybe kind of creepy) Penn Badgley content, look no further than his column of relationship advice from Elle Girl back in 2005, dug up by my new fave Instagram account @thankyouatoosa.

But...wait:

Ideally?!?! WYD, 18-year-old Penn?!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Somehow, Joe From Netflix's 'You' Just Got So Much Creepier

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
So lately I feel like people have been trying to gaslight me into liking Joe from Netflix's hit romance thriller You. The internet is all "sure he's a serial killer, but his heart was in the right place, and if Beck was just a better person, he wouldn't have had to take such extreme measures."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some mass communications scholars have contended that uses and gratifications is not a rigorous social science theory. In this article, I argue just the opposite, and any attempt to speculate on the future direction of mass communication theory must seriously include the uses and gratifications approach. In this article, I assert that the emergence of computer-mediated communication has revived the significance of use and gratifications. In fact, uses and gratifications has always provided a cutting-edge theoretical approach in the initial stages of each new mass communications medium: newspapers, radio and television, and now the Internet. Although scientists are likely to continue using traditional tools and typologies to answer questions about media use, we must also be prepared to expand our current theoretical models of uses and gratifications. Contemporary and future models must include concepts such as interactivity, demassification, hypertextuality, and asynchroneity. Researchers must also be willing to explore interpersonal and qualitative aspects of mediated communication in a more holistic methodology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some mass communications scholars have contended that uses and gratifications is not a rigorous social science theory. In this article, I argue just the opposite, and any attempt to speculate on the future direction of mass communication theory must seriously include the uses and gratifications approach.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Uses and Gratifications Theory and its Connection to Public Relations

Sarah Turney

The Pennsylvania State University

Abstract

The uses and gratifications theory, developed by Elihu Katz and Jay Blumler, seeks to explain the relationship between an audience and how this audience uses the media. The main questions posed by these researchers is, "Why do people use certain mediums/media platforms and what gratifications do they get from it?" Individuals use media for a variety of reasons and these motives vary depending on one's situation. Professionals in the communications industry, including public relations, can apply the theory to their work.

Introduction

The uses and gratifications theory is one of many used to create effective communications programs when it is implemented properly. It describes the relationships formed between the media and its active audience. The audience (acting actively, not passively) select and use the media to fulfill their own needs and desires. These individuals may use the media for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, entertainment, the desire to learn about world events, or to divert themselves from life problems (Oliver & Nabi, n.d.). Uses and gratifications, even when looked at in depth, is not a complicated concept to understand and can be beneficial in the area of public relations. Communications in general is a complex activity but applying this theory when studying communications processes helps gain an understanding as to why certain decisions are made in the public relations field. Some research regarding uses and gratifications, the media, and its audience began in the 1940's, but this has expanded in more recent years as the communications landscape has evolved. Recognizing the components of this theory helps one realize how often it is used in everyday life and how it can also be applied throughout jobs and campaigns.

Theory

The 1970's was a decade most people might call tumultuous- the fight for equality continued, the Vietnam War pitted countries against each other, and President Richard Nixon challenged people's faith in the intentions of the United States government with his connection to the Watergate scandal. In the midst of these events, two communications researchers, Elihu Katz and Jay Blumler, developed the uses and gratifications theory in 1974 as a reaction to traditional mass communication research emphasizing the sender and the message (Oliver & Nabi, n.d.). This theory has evolved since its adaptation 42 years ago to accommodate changing communications and media platforms. The uses and gratifications theory is based on the idea that media audiences are active rather than passive, meaning they do not only receive information, but also unconsciously attempt to make sense of the message in their own context (Peirce, 2007). Instead of focusing on media content, Katz and Blumber sought to shift their attention to the media audience.

Media audiences will make choices depending on their needs, satisfactions, and motives. They will choose a certain form of media, whether it is a medium (television or radio, for example) or a specific program (television show, for example) over another form in order to satisfy needs or wants (Peirce, 2007). As a result, audiences of a particular program will most likely have similar needs, interests, and tastes and will seek rewards (satisfaction).

Additional research was conducted prior to the emergence of Katz and Blumler's model. In the 1940's, researchers studied what people missed the most during newspaper strikes because this was a primary source of news, the benefits people reaped from soap operas, and why children were appealed to comics (Peirce, 2007). Katz and Blumler then developed a more systematic approach in response to how and why people use different forms of media. This model portrays the main components and ideas that comprise the uses and gratifications theory:

Source: (Matei, 2010).

In addition to identifying the audience as active rather than passive, Katz and Blumler note other aspects of their findings. Audience members are responsible for linking gratification with their personal media choice, the media has the ability to compete with each other in order to gain audience satisfaction, and the audience is a credible source of information when the media needs to obtain current trends of mass media use (Peirce, 2007). Blumler developed four categories as to why people use the media: diversion or escapism; companionship and development of personal relationships; value reinforcement and exploring personal identity; and surveillance or getting information about the world. Katz came up with a slightly different list regarding motives for media use: cognitive needs, affective needs, and social integrative needs (Peirce, 2007).

This theory is heavily dependent on why active audiences make certain decisions based on their expectations and desires. Studies have shown that audience gratifications can be derived from at least three different sources: media content, exposure to the media, and the social context in which one is exposed to the media (Perse, 2014). Uses and gratifications also seeks to explain what combinations of attributes in media content lead to the satisfaction of audience member needs. Different mediums offer a wide range of characteristic content (topics), modes of transmission (print versus broadcasting), and place of exposure (at home, out of home, with or without others, etc.) for the audience to interpret, thus, leading to a need for media to provide as much satisfaction to the public as possible.

Whether an audience member chooses to use media as a distraction from everyday life, to share the experience with other audience members, or to obtain information about the world, this person will often subconsciously take away the messages they personally choose to. Instead of construing media messages in a passive way, the uses and gratifications theory explains how listeners and viewers of the media seek to meet their needs through the media they deliberately expose themselves to. The uses and gratifications approach accentuates the relationship between the sender and the message and how motives and gratifications drive people's actions in relation to the media.

Theory Application in Public Relations

The uses and gratifications theory strives to understand what people do with media outlets and the reasons behind their decisions and actions. Katz and Blumler describe the concept as, "the social and psychological origins of needs which generate expectations of the mass media and other sources which lead to differential patterns of media exposure (or engagement in other activities) resulting in needs gratifications and other consequences, perhaps mostly unintended ones" (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1973). An audience member's role is to select certain media that fulfill their needs and requirements and the media outlet, in turn, provides this content. The public relations field, just like the uses and gratifications theory, requires the understanding of an audiences motives, thoughts, and behaviors.

An organization must use the uses and gratifications theory to focus on a target audience and study how this audience is satisfied by what they expose themselves to. Public relations has numerous meanings and encompasses several concepts and processes, but can in simple terms, be described as, "a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics" ("About Public," 2009). It is important to understand the mutually beneficial relationship aspect when connecting public relations to the uses and gratifications theory.

Public relations' role is to help bring together organizations and individuals and this is effectively displayed when media organizations interpret public opinion, which is then turned into satisfying content in the eyes of those using the media. The media's audience is undoubtedly the most important characteristic in understanding the theory. Public relations practitioners can use the theory to their advantage in order to observe current trends in the industry, which in the long run, will help target the right people. Both parties benefit from this kind of relationship. Public relations professionals can use the theory to determine what needs they have to address in order to engage and gratify their audience. Targeting a specific group of people in a campaign, when aware of their needs, allows the campaign to influence these people to the highest potential, while also effectively grabbing their attention.

The uses and gratifications theory was successfully implemented in a 2016 Esurance Super Bowl advertisement similar to a campaign they promoted during the 2014 Super Bowl. Esurance was able to captivate the attention of a generation heavily involved in social media engagement. Instead of rolling out a Super Bowl advertisement during the actual game, which would have cost upwards of $5 million, the car insurance company opted for the 30-second advertising spot that played right before the game. 114 million television viewers and 75,000 attendees at Levi's Stadium were left with the opportunity to win $1 million in cash if they tweeted "#EsuranceSweepstakes." Esurance decided to run the sweepstakes because they saved money by taking a pre-Super Bowl spot and wanted to pass this extra money down to loyal customers. Alan Gellman, Esurance's Chief Marketing Officer, said the sweepstakes was meant to capture the audience's attention with their message while gaining publicity for the company ("Esurance Super," 2016). Thousands of people took to Twitter following the advertisement, using the hashtag provided. According to data from Spredfast, a company that helps marketers monitor audience experiences and brand engagement, Esurance's Twitter mentions spiked right when the commercial aired, generating 9,000 tweets per minute and 375,000 during the first quarter. The hashtag also trended nationally on Twitter for about 15 minutes (Johnson, 2016).

In this case, the audience's need was to watch a popularized sporting event, which then lead to another need: money. Esurance knew a large percentage of Super Bowl audience members at home would watch their advertisement, despite the fact that it was not aired during the game. The audience was left with the chance to win $1 million and Esurance walked away with a larger social media presence and attention from potential new customers. The company was able to satisfy the audience's affective needs, a motive Katz previously identified as a reason why people use the media they do. Companies can use social media as a platform to their advantage in order to gain exposure, while still meeting the needs of their target audience.

Conclusion

The uses and gratifications theory focuses on an active audience and what people do with media, rather than the effect media has on people. The theory originated in the 1970s as a reaction to traditional mass communication research emphasizing the sender and the message. It is less concerned with media content itself, but more on media audience behaviors. Satisfaction and needs help drive this audience's decisions in regards to what they expose themselves to. Katz and Blumler introduced several reasons as to why people use media including diversion or escapism, exploring personal identity, cognitive needs, and affective needs. Uses and gratifications can be applied to the public relations field in regards to how public relations practitioners can effectively target an audience based on their needs. Public relations' role is to help bring together organizations and individuals, similar to the uses and gratification's goal of bringing together the message and sender. Numerous companies, including Esurance, have effectively used the theory in their advantage to provide an audience with something beneficial, while gaining widespread attention.

References

Johnson, L. (2016, February 7). Esurance's Super Bowl Pregame Ad Helped Generate 9,000 Tweets a Minute. Retrieved February 08, 2016, from http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/esurances-1st-quarter-super-bowl-ad-helped-generate-9000-tweets-minute-169495

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M.. (1973). Uses and Gratifications Research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2747854

Matei, S. (2010, July 29). What can uses and gratifications theory tell us about social media? Retrieved February 5, 2016, from http://matei.org/ithink/2010/07/29/what-can-uses-and-gratifications-theory-tell-us-about-social-media/

Oliver, M., & Nabi, R. (n.d.). The Sage Handbook of Media Processes and Effects. Retrieved February 3, 2015, from https://books.google.com/books?id=pdJ_CgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Peirce, K. (2007). Uses and Gratifications Theory. In Encyclopedia of Children, Adolescents, and the Media (Vol. 2, pp. 841-843). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3470400454&v=2.1&u=psucic&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=c5074e498be9ec0f170f115e3d9f52e5

Perse, E. (2014, January 30). Uses and Gratifications. Retrieved February 06, 2016, from http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0132.xml

About Public Relations. (n.d.). Retrieved February 06, 2016, from https://www.prsa.org/aboutprsa/publicrelationsdefined/#.VrZKIpMrKgR

ESurance Super Bowl Ad 2016 | $1 Million Giveaway. (2016). Retrieved February 08, 2016, from http://www.superbowlcommercials2016.org/latest-updates/esurance-super-bowl-commercial-2016/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Uses and Gratifications Theory and its Connection to Public Relations Sarah Turney The Pennsylvania State University Abstract The uses and gratifications theory, developed by Elihu Katz and Jay Blumler, seeks to explain the relationship between an audience and how this audience uses the media.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary: Uses and gratification theory (UGT) is an audience-centered approach that focuses on what people do with media, as opposed to what media does to people.

Originators and Key Contributors: Uses and gratification theory builds off of a history of communication theories and research. Jay Blumler and Denis McQuail laid the primary groundwork in 1969 with their categorization of audience motivations for watching political programs during the time of the 1964 election in the United Kingdom[1]. This eventually led them to develop UGT later on with their colleagues[2][3][4].

Keywords: gratification, media, audience, entertainment, mass media, communication
Uses and Gratification Theory
Uses and gratification theory seeks to understand why people seek out the media that they do and what they use it for. UGT differs from other media effect theories in that it assumes that individuals have power over their media usage, rather than positioning individuals as passive consumers of media. UGT explores how individuals deliberately seek out media to fulfill certain needs or goals such as entertainment, relaxation, or socializing.
USG History
Uses and gratification theory builds off of a history of communication theories and research. Its beginnings lie in researchers' studies of radio listeners in the 1940s. Other research at that time looked into children's comics and the absence of newspapers during a newspaper strike. USG history can be described as falling within a series of stages:
Stage 1
In 1944 Herta Hertzog interviewed people who listened to soap operas and determined that they sought three different types of gratification from this form of entertainment. These three types of gratification were emotional, wishful thinking, and learning.

In 1954 Wilbur Schramm developed a formula for determining which media an individual might select all contribute to the foundation for modern developments of this theory. This formula took into account the amount of gratification an individual expected to get out of a certain form of media and the amount of effort the individual would have to exert to get it.

In 1970 Abraham Maslow posited that USG was an extension of the needs he had himself organized into his Hierarchy of Needs.
Stage 2
In 1969 Jay Blumler and Denis McQuail studied the United Kingdom 1964 election and categorized people's motives for watching certain political programs on television. These audience motivations formed the foundation for their research in 1972 and led to USG later on.

In 1972 Jay Blumler, Joseph Brown, and Denis McQuail proposed four uses of media: diversion, personal relationships, personal identity, and surveillance.

In 1973-74 Blumler, Brown, and McQuail were joined by colleagues Michael Gurevitch, Hadassah Haas, and Elihu Katz. The six conducted collaborative research on how people viewed mass media.
Stage 3
UGT researchers today are exploring predictive and explanatory possibilities of the theory by connecting media usage with individual factors. There is particular interest in the link between why media is used and the gratification received. Overall, UGT has been crucial to a shift that focuses on the media user and their agency in the field of mass media studies.

Modern-Day Applications

Today, UGT has more relevance than ever as a tool for understanding how we as individuals connect with the technologies around us. These technologies span everything from the Internet to video gaming to mobile phones. UGT research into mobile phone usage has found that people seek a number of gratifications from their phones, including affection/sociability, entertainment, and mobility, among others. As another example of a contemporary technology, when using social media, users can be motivated by factors like a need to vent negative feelings, recognition, and cognitive needs. Animated news and entertainment media are just two other examples of media technologies that UGT researchers continue to explore.
Theory Criticism
UGT has been plagued almost from its inception by criticisms that it does not meet the standards necessary to be a theory. Common criticisms include the fact that gratifications are more dependent on researchers' input than on the subjects', that audiences of different ages will have different motivations for watching the same media, and that much of the information collected in studies is self-reported, and as such, difficult to measure. Despite the criticism, UGT may be more relevant and useful today as media users now have hundreds of TV channels, the internet, and a whole array of other media entertainment options that help solidify the argument that the individual has agency over their media consumption.
For more information, please see:
What's the News?: A Study of Senior Citizens' Television News Uses and Gratifications, authored by Jonathan J. Lloyd and Steven McClung, is a study inspired by the expansion of TV programming as well as of US senior citizens. The study explores the uses and gratifications seniors get from watching TV news.

In Understanding the Misunderstanding, Meng Zhao studies the gratifications that Chinese audiences receive when watching American films. The book also explores misperceptions that Chinese audiences might have of American culture and its relationship to American films.

References

1. Blumler, J. G., & McQuail, D. (1969). Television in politics: Its uses and influence. University of Chicago Press.

2. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523.

3. Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (1974). The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research Volume III.

4. Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (1974). The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research Volume III.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Summary: Uses and gratification theory (UGT) is an audience-centered approach that focuses on what people do with media, as opposed to what media does to people. Originators and Key Contributors: Uses and gratification theory builds off of a history of communication theories and research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the last episode of You's first season, romantic heroine Beck finally realizes that the gorgeous, thoughtful man she's been dating, Joe, is actually a monstrous serial killer who's been stalking her, manipulating her, and will probably kill her. We the viewers have known this from the jump, because You puts us inside Joe's head from the first moments of the show, but the entire first season of You is the process of watching poor hapless Beck fail to recognize the danger she's in. Finally, she discovers his hidden box of serial-killer trophies and the inevitable happens: She's trapped in Joe's snazzy basement dungeon, scrambling to strategize her way out, desperate to avoid what she's sure happened to Candace, Joe's last girlfriend who's been mysteriously missing for months.

Beck does not succeed. She writes a magnum opus, an essay about the falseness of romantic tropes that's an effort to re-seduce Joe so she can escape, but her attempt fails and Joe murders her. In the end, Joe posthumously publishes Beck's work, which has conveniently fingered Beck's therapist as the murderer so Joe escapes suspicion. Then, in the last moments of the season finale, we watch as Joe's internal stalker engine starts all over again. We can hear his intrigued inner monologue as he follows a faceless woman into the aisles of his bookstore, analyzing her appearance for what he imagines is her intended appeal and possible vulnerabilities. We assume that this is his next prey. Then she turns around. The woman is Joe's ex-girlfriend Candace, the woman whom Beck assumed he'd killed, and to his astonishment (and ours!) she's not dead. What a twist!

There are two kinds of questions to ask about this ending. The first kind: Is it well-made? Does it deliver on the story the season had been building toward? Does it feel like a fitting conclusion for the previous nine episodes, are the performances good, does the final twist make sense, is it an entertaining hour of television? Does it hint toward what's to come in a second season? The second: Is the ending of You ... good? Beyond the storytelling and structural ideas, is it good for the world and for its viewers that this is how Beck's story ends?

Those questions are also questions about the whole series. Is it good that a show about a psychotic, narcissistic, self-absorbed killer - a show about a dude who bears a surface-level resemblance to swoon-worthy romantic Prince Charming tropes but who is actually an abusive, violent stalker - exists? Is it good that You prioritizes Joe's point of view over everything else, putting us in the head of a man who murders people and who can only see life through the filter of his own needy obsessions? Is it good that Beck's perspective gets only part of one episode, while Joe dominates everything else? Is it good for us, the viewers, to watch yet another story about a woman trapped in a cage begging for her life?

In her recap of the final episode, Jessica Goldstein asked exactly this question, and comes away with an unequivocal no, it is not good. "It feels like You wants to be edgy and subversive. But a story that gives a violent male character a full, complicated history (or, I should say, attempts to do that) while never revealing more about its female character beyond what said male character can discern and/or chooses to project onto her is not subversive, at all," Goldstein writes. "Was it necessary - was it even remotely good television - for an entire episode to be devoted to Beck's being psychologically tortured until she gets killed?"

Goldstein's further point is that it doesn't matter that You tried to undermine and satirize all of the romance plots that are culturally coded as sweet, but which are actually abusive, manipulative nonsense. Because in the act of satirizing them, You also straight-up replicates them. It is still giving Joe the voice and making Beck the victim. It is still centering Joe's perspective, even as it's trying to turn him into a monster. Badgley's performance is as a highly charismatic, magnetic murderer, which means that while you're watching him be a murderer, you're also watching him be magnetic. It's a point that's hard to argue, especially given how much time Penn Badgley, the actor who plays Joe, has spent on Twitter trying to dissuade the show's fans from falling in love with a psychotic, misogynistic killer.

A: He is a murderer https://t.co/g2g4f3JvaF
- Penn Badgley (@PennBadgley) January 9, 2019

...of problems, right? https://t.co/9NmOGWvSYb
- Penn Badgley (@PennBadgley) January 9, 2019

You is a show about a dude who stalks, tortures, and kills people, in a TV landscape that is already full-up with objectified, tortured, and/or dead women. The existence of any part of the show's audience who finds Joe attractive is pretty incontrovertible evidence that on some level, the show's attempt to undermine Joe fails. You is a ripe target for bad fandom, for viewers who misread the show for their own ends and blithely ignore that every character is supposed to be a loathsome monster. (Yes, even Beck.)

And yet. That first question, the question about whether the finale is well-made, whether it follows on what the beginning of the season started, whether the performances are good, whether the twist makes sense, whether it sets up a second season, whether it is an entertaining hour of TV... in spite of everything, the answer to that question might still be yes. Everything that happens in the final episode is the fitting and inevitable conclusion of what You warned us would happen from the first moments of the pilot. If the show's central engine is to demonstrate the toxicity of masculine behavior when filtered through a rom-com ideology, then Beck's death - and just as crucially, her relative voicelessness throughout the season - is the whole point. I cannot blame the show for following through on all of the things it told us would happen from the start.

I'm also loathe to cede all of You's reception to the bad fans. It's possible to misread everything that happens in the finale and insist that Joe's still attractive, but it's also clear that misreading is totally counter to everything the show tells us. It makes sense to see Beck as one more dead girl on TV and Joe as one more monstrous anti-hero, but that means flattening all the deliberate, skin-crawling contradictions the first season establishes, the connection we're meant to draw between Joe's loving words and his violence, the fact that all of this is sort of a farce, and that Candace being alive at the end is a good twist! I have no idea how You season two will play out, but a woman who knows Joe's true nature and returns from the dead so she can confront him seems like a good start.

Even if this particular show's goal is to satirize and puncture our collective mythologizing of the attention-worthy violent man, it makes sense to feel like TV would be better if it took a break from violent men like Joe for a bit. But that's a broader question about the whole show, and about its cultural goodness on a scale separate from its storytelling. If the question is just about the end, and whether that ending is well-made, then the conclusion of You 's first season is everything the show had been building toward all along. Joe kills Beck, as we always knew he would. The performances work (Hari Nef forever!), and it's an appropriate culmination for a show that's been telling viewers from its very first moments that its protagonist is a dangerous, untrustworthy killer.

Crucially, it's also not really the end. You's final word is not that Joe succeeds, toxic masculinity is the route to romantic happiness, and Beck was too dumb to live. Its last gesture is Candace's return, suggesting that Joe's comeuppance is yet to come. I have to believe that the worm will turn in season two, and that Joe will finally face some consequences. His fate hovers over him like the Sword of Damocles, and if You lets him escape in its final endgame, it'll have become a bleaker and less self-aware show than I'd hoped. For right now, though, I'm happy for the season to end with Joe thinking he's gotten away with it all, blind to what's to come.
Want to know what's new on Netflix? Check out Vulture's streaming guide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Let's Talk About the Ending of You's Season Finale

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the last episode of You's first season, romantic heroine Beck finally realizes that the gorgeous, thoughtful man she's been dating, Joe, is actually a monstrous serial killer who's been stalking her, manipulating her, and will probably kill her.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

Penn Badgley, the star of "You." The show's switch to Netflix from Lifetime made a huge difference in its viewership. Credit Credit Warner Brothers

Throughout the fall, the producer Greg Berlanti was trying to save his cable drama "You."

The series had premiered on Lifetime in September, but its viewership was virtually nonexistent: roughly 650,000 people were tuning in to each episode of the soapy stalker thriller, starring Penn Badgley. Even Mr. Berlanti, one of the most successful and prolific producers in television thanks to shows like "Riverdale," "Arrow" and "Blindspot," conceded in an interview that "barely anybody watched" it.

He made repeated calls to Lifetime executives, asking for patience and making his case for a second season. It wasn't enough. In early December, Lifetime announced it was finished with "You."

But right after Christmas, something happened. "You" started lighting up social media. People were searching for it online. Entertainment sites like The Ringer were writing about the show.

What changed? It began streaming on Netflix.

Mr. Berlanti heard from family and friends about how much they were enjoying his new show, ignoring the fact that it had debuted months earlier.

"It's very often in direct proportion to how young they are," he said. "The younger they are, the more they discuss the show as though it had never existed before Dec. 26."
[Read The New York Times review of "You."]
Last week, Netflix declared "You" had drawn the sort of audience to make it a "huge hit." The streaming service said that "You" was on track to be watched by 40 million households within its first four weeks on the service.

The Netflix viewership disclosure - one of the few times the service has made those numbers public, seven years after it began airing original series - set off something of an earthquake in the industry.

Could the numbers be believed? Could it be possible that a show that premiered on cable television may as well not have existed until Netflix - which now has 139 million paying subscribers, including 58.5 million in the United States - came around to stream it? Netflix is already a television network and a movie studio. Was it one step closer to effectively becoming television itself?

As Daniel D'Addario, a TV critic for Variety, posited, "'You' flailing on Lifetime and being treated by the viewing public as a Netflix original is going to be remembered as a major turning point in what will shortly be a contraction of the TV industry."

And it should be noted that Lifetime is not exactly a ratings wasteland. Its documentary "Surviving R. Kelly" has been one of the year's early hits.

For the time being, Mr. Berlanti is a believer.

"It went from being one of the least-watched shows I've ever worked on and been most proud of - and I'm choosing to take Netflix at their word on this - to being the most-watched show I've ever worked on in 20-something years of being in the business," he said.

Oh, and Netflix is also making a second season of "You." Filming begins next month.

Throughout the weekend, rival television executives groused privately that the viewership number Netflix released was virtually meaningless. Netflix explained that each of those 40 million viewers had watched at least 70 percent of one episode. ("You" has 10 episodes in its first season.)

Image

Mr. Badgley and Elizabeth Lail, who plays the object of his obsession. Credit Warner Brothers

How that 40 million would translate into a traditional viewership figure is unknown. An average of 12.7 million people have watched this season of "The Big Bang Theory" on CBS, but a significantly higher number of people have sampled at least one episode. Few in the television industry would put much stock in such a figure.

When reached for comment, Lifetime referred to an earlier statement it released when it cut ties with "You," saying, "We wish the cast and crew the best as the series continues on at Netflix."

Mr. Berlanti began developing "You" almost four years ago with the producer Sera Gamble. Showtime originally planned to make the series, which is based on a novel by Caroline Kepnes, before passing on it. It then went to Lifetime, which over the summer committed to making a second season.

"You" centers on a Manhattan bookstore manager named Joe (Mr. Badgley) who becomes obsessed with a young woman who stops by his shop. He plumbs her social media channels. He follows her home. He begins reading her text messages. The occasionally hilarious series, which examines internet privacy and youth culture, was warmly received by critics when it debuted in September. The New Yorker called it "a scary, delicious snack of a show."

What it could not find was an audience on cable. On the days it aired, it had trouble gaining bigger ratings than the 7 a.m. edition of "SportsCenter."

Luckily for Mr. Berlanti, "You" had a well-financed supporter.

Months before the series premiered, Netflix signed on to be the streaming partner of the series.

Bela Bajaria, a vice president of content for Netflix who scooped up the streaming rights, had seen success with "Riverdale," another of Mr. Berlanti's series. In its second season, after "Riverdale" began streaming on Netflix, its viewership on the CW shot up 42 percent. Netflix has had that effect on series before, including AMC's Emmy-winning drama "Breaking Bad," which saw increased viewership totals after it began streaming.

Ms. Bajaria was enthusiastic about "You" from the moment she read the script.

"We really felt this hit a sweet spot for our audience, and we felt that our members would love the show," she said. "I was hoping it would be big."

By the time Lifetime decided to renege on its second season commitment in early December, Netflix said it would make a second season even though the series had not started streaming yet.

Ms. Bajaria's confidence in the show was well rewarded. She pored over the viewership numbers between Christmas and New Year's Day and saw Netflix had a hit on its hands immediately after it began streaming.

"It's actually done well in every region, and that doesn't always happen," Ms. Bajaria said, saying she was particularly pleased with its performance in Latin America, France and the Philippines.

For Mr. Berlanti, the sudden success of "You," after months of despair, was reassuring.

"I've never had an experience that has been this delayed in television before," he said. "The fact that it was rewarded by people actually watching made us feel we're not crazy. We actually did make something that was really enjoyable and fun and a real ride for the audience."

Mr. Berlanti, beginning to laugh, then compared the series to the obsessive lovelorn character at the heart of "You."

"If Joe is a man who is simply just searching for love, well, then, our show finally found the right partner," he said.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: The Show 'You' Was Unloved. Enter Netflix. . Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Made the TV Show 'You' a Hit? Netflix

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Throughout the fall, the producer Greg Berlanti was trying to save his cable drama "You." The series had premiered on Lifetime in September, but its viewership was virtually nonexistent: roughly 650,000 people were tuning in to each episode of the soapy stalker thriller, starring Penn Badgley.

# data[].attributes.body
'You' is a very emotional TV show and you can relate is to the Uses and Gratification Theory.  After watching this show you  will never be able to meet people the same.  'You' has an effect of people and I feel as though that was the goal.  