Che materia stai cercando?



LSE Research Online

Book Section

The changing nature of audiences :

from the mass audience to the

interactive media user

Sonia Livingstone

LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of

the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the

individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print

one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for

non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or

use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute

of the LSE Research Online website.

the URL (

Cite this version:

Livingstone, S. (2003). The changing nature of audiences : from the

mass audience to the interactive media user [online]. London: LSE

Research Online.

Available at:

First published as:

Valdivia, A. (Ed.), Companion to media studies. Oxford, UK : Blackwell

Publishing, 2003, pp. 337-359 © 2003 Blackwell Publishing

Contact LSE Research Online at:

The Changing Nature of Audiences:

From the mass audience to the interactive media user

Chapter to appear in Angharad Valdivia (Ed),

Blackwell Companion to Media Studies

Sonia Livingstone



London School of Economics and Political Science

Changing media, changing audiences

Modern media and communication technologies possess a hitherto unprecedented

power to encode and circulate symbolic representations. Throughout much of the world,

though especially in industrialized countries, people routinely spend a considerable

proportion of their leisure hours with the mass media, often more than they spend at work

or school or in face to face communication. Moreover, leisure is increasingly focused on the

media-rich home, a significant shift in a matter of a single generation. Despite the popular

anxieties that flare up sporadically over media content and regulation, it is easy to take the

media for granted precisely because of their ubiquity as background features of everyday

life. Yet it is through this continual engagement with the media that people are positioned in

relation to a flood of images and information both about worlds distant in space or time and

about the world close to home, and this has implications for our domestic practices, our

social relationships, our very identity. This chapter overviews current debates within

audience research, arguing that although developments in technology may threaten to

overtake these debates, audience research will be better prepared to understand the

changing media environment by adopting a historical framework, looking back the better to

look forward. But let us begin with a scenario from the future:


‘You’ll go to the electronics story and buy a “home gateway” box the size of

today’s VCR for maybe $300. You’ll hook it to a broadband cable, then

connect it to your wired or wireless home network. You’ll call the cable

provider and sign up for its custom-TV digital recording service for maybe

$50 a month. You’ll hang a flat plasma display … on the living-room wall

and connect it to a wall socket that also taps into the home grid. You’ll put

modest displays in other rooms, too. As you leave the bedroom you’ll say

“off” to its screen, and as you enter the kitchen you’ll say, “Screen, show

me my stock numbers.” During a commercial you’ll use a little wireless

remote to instruct the hidden gateway box to find, download and play an


r Trek episode. When the episode ends you’ll grab the game


controller off the coffee table, become Captain Kirk on the plasma screen

and engage in a live, online dogfight in the Neutral Zone with an opponent

from Tokyo’ (Fischetti, 2001: 40).

Notwithstanding the hazards of attempting to predict the future, it is notable that such

futuristic - or realistic – scenarios are becoming commonplace. Moreover, in certain

respects, this quotation neatly illustrates what is, perhaps, happening to ‘the audience’, at

least in industrialized countries, my focus here. It reflects an already-present pressure to

develop and market intelligent, personalized, flexible information and communication

technologies that increasingly bring the outside world into the domestic space. These

technologies converge on the electronic screen, while screens are themselves increasingly

dispersed throughout the home. We are promised the satisfaction of our egocentric desires

to have our individualistic tastes or fandom precisely catered for, whether on television,

computer games, etc, thereby permitting us the satisfying shift from passive observer to

active participant in a virtual world.


Contextualising technological change in everyday life

There is a tension, however, between such visions of radical technological change and

our knowledge of the slow-to-change conditions that underpin identity, sociality and

community. Hence it is imperative to put media, especially new media, into context, so as to

locate them within the social landscape, to map the changing media environment in relation

to the prior communicative practices which, in turn, shape that environment. The very

multiplicity of contextualising processes undermines the simple account of the impacts of

technology on society which circulate in popular discourses. The practices of our everyday

lives, both material and symbolic, are dependent on structures of work, family, economy,

nation, and cannot be so quickly overturned by technological change. For example, changes

in disposable leisure time, in working practices or in the gendered division of domestic labor

profoundly shape the ways in which new information and communication technologies

diffuse through society and find a place in our daily lives.

Furthermore, given what we already know from today’s technology, the above

scenario leaves open some crucial questions. Where is everyone else in this scenario – the

people we live with, the people who want to watch something other than Star Trek, who

laugh us out of our pretence at being Captain Kirk or who, irritatingly, have lost the wireless

remote? The history of researching mass communication is a history of how the mass

mediated world relates to the social world of the viewer and, even in the short history of the

internet, research has already moved beyond characterizing the supposedly autonomous

online world towards exploring its complex connections with the offline world (Slater, 2002).

Surely, the social consequences of new technologies will be mediated through existing

patterns of social interaction. Further, how does our protagonist know in this scenario that

he or she likes Star Trek? We know we like it because that was what everyone watched on

Wednesday evenings for years, so that it became embedded in our daily lives as we


compared the different series with friends, laughed at the clothes, and followed the lives of

the stars on the talk shows. For the generations with a common culture already established,

this individually tailored future may be enticing. But how will the new generation establish

content preferences in the first place, faced with an overwhelming range of unfamiliar

choices. And once they’ve made their choice, how will they share the experience with

others, drawing media into the common discourses of playground and office?

This is not to say that the media have no influence on society, but rather that such

processes of influence are far more indirect and complex than popularly thought. Central to

recent work on media audiences is an analysis of the ways in which people can be said to

be active in shaping their media culture, contributing to the process of shaping or co-

constructing their material and symbolic environments. Today such research has two main

use interpretation

, the other on the of media

foci, one centered on the contexts of media

content. Though one or other of these foci tends to dominate the agenda at any point, it is

assumed in this chapter that both are integral to an adequate theory of audiences. In

adding a reflexive spin on the consequences of both social and technological change, Pertti

Alasuutari (1999: 6) argues that ‘the audience’ as a social phenomenon ‘out there’ must be

replaced by the recognition that the audience is ‘a discursive construct produced by a

particular analytic gaze’. Hence the analysis of audiences must also include the very

discourses which construct people as audiences (or publics or markets, etc), including ‘the

audience’s notions of themselves as the “audience”’ (p.7).

History does not stand still

While in the main, media research restricts itself to the contemporary, it is clear that

researchers are studying a moving target: what were once ‘new’ media become familiar

while yet newer media emerge. Changing social and cultural contexts also shape audience

practices. Consider the shift from the physically contiguous mass spectatorship of the


eighteenth century theatre or show to the spatially separated 'virtual' mass of press and

broadcasting audiences in the nineteenth and twentieth century. Even the half century of

national television - which in the USA, Europe, and many other countries spans the period

from the 1940s to the 1990s - has witnessed major social transformations, including world

war, post war austerity and then consumer boom, the unsettling conflicts of the sixties, the

fin -

de-siecle uncertainty, these affecting all aspects

rise of free-market ideology and, now,

of society from economic globalization to the patterns of family life.

Yet, too often media researchers talk of ‘television’ – and, by implication, ‘the

television audience’ - as if it were unchanging over its own history. Thus throughout the

many decades of audience research, researchers have asked important questions about the

uses of media, and about the effects of the media (McQuail, 1997). Yet audience research

has shown too little inclination to seek a historical explanation for research findings, though

this may help to explain the often unwelcome variation in findings. Only since the 1990s - or

a little earlier in some countries - has ‘television’ been so transformed by the expansion in

channels, especially global and narrow-cast ones, by the crisis in public service – especially

in Europe - and by the advent of new technologies such as the VCR and now digital

television, that it has become obvious that specifically new questions are arising for the

audience as much as for the medium (Becker and Schoenbach, 1989; Neuman, 1991). What

will these changes mean for audience theory? And could it lead to a new sensitivity towards,

interpreting audience findings in relation to the specific period within which research studies

are, or were, conducted?

Making audiences visible in media theory

Media theory has always been committed to the integrated analysis of production,

texts, and audiences. While traditional approaches to mass communication analyze each as

separate but interlinked elements in the linear flow of mediated meanings, cultural and


critical approaches stress the interrelations of these elements in the (re)production of

cultural meanings (Hall, 1980). But in practice it has too often been the case that the

analysis of production and texts has been primary, while the interpretative activities of

audiences has been neglected (Livingstone, 1998a). Audience research rectifies this

tendency by fore-grounding the cultural contexts within which meanings are both encoded

and decoded and acknowledging the importance of the socially shared (or diversified)

aspects of those contexts. As Klaus Bruhn Jensen (1993:26) argues:

‘Reception analysis offers insights into the interpretive processes and

everyday contexts of media use, where audiences rearticulate and enact

the meanings of mass communication. The life of signs within modern

society is in large measure an accomplishment of the audience’.

Thus, audience research asks, how do the media (through institutional policy, genre

conventions, modes of address, etc) frame relations among people as one of ‘audience’?

Indeed, do certain kinds of texts or technologies produce certain kinds of audience? Or, to

put the opposite question, how do the social relations among people, at home, in the

neighborhood or the nation, shape the communicative possibilities (electronic or otherwise)

of those locales, enabling some and inhibiting others?

During the 1980s and 1990s, empirical audience research became prominent in media

studies. I have argued that this success was due to the productive convergence of several

traditions, within each of which compelling arguments led inexorably towards empirical

research on audiences and, especially, their interpretive activities (Livingstone, 1998b).

Indeed, for a while, the perception was that 'the concept of audience is more importantly

the underpinning prop for the analysis of the social impact of mass communication in

general' (Allor, 1988: 217), and that the audience is 'a potentially crucial pivot for the

understanding of a whole range of social and cultural processes that bear on the central


questions of public communication...[which are] essentially questions of culture'

(Silverstone, 1990: 173).

Things move fast in audience studies, and one may now observe with some disquiet

various attempts to retell this convergence as a linear, indeed canonical narrative in which

audience reception studies provide a stepping stone in the rise of cultural studies

(Alasuutari, 1999; Nightingale, 1996). As Vincent Mosco (1996: 251) observes, 'cultural

studies reminds political economy that the substance of its work, the analysis of

communication, is rooted in the needs, goals, conflicts, failures and accomplishments of

ordinary people aiming to make sense of their lives, even as they confront an institutional

and symbolic world that is not entirely of their own making'. Important though this claim is,

by subordinating audience research to the heroic narrative of cultural studies, audience

research has in turn become separated from some of the diverse interdisciplinary traditions

that stimulated its development, and whose potential contributions have yet to be explored

fully. So, let us review briefly the central arguments of these diverse traditions.

Multiple traditions of audience research

We may begin by noting the crucial influence of literary and semiotic theory for the

the implied

understanding of popular culture. Particularly, in developing the concepts of

reader or model reader, reception-aesthetics theorized how texts anticipated, invited, and

so were fitted for, readers with a specific interpretive repertoire of codes, presuppositions,

and interpretive frames. Thus Umberto Eco (1979) stressed how readers must strive to

realize the necessarily virtual meaning of a text by drawing on their own cultural resources

during the process of interpretation. Or, as Wolfgang Iser (1980, p.106) put it, ’the work

itself cannot be identical with the text or with its actualization but must be situated

somewhere between the two... As the reader passes through the various perspectives


offered by the text, and relates the different views and patterns to one another, he sets the

work in motion, and so sets himself in motion too’. encoding/decoding paper,

A parallel argument, encapsulated by Stuart Hall's (1980)

began by rejecting the linearity of the mainstream, social psychological model of mass

communication in order to stress the intersections but also the disjunction between

processes of encoding and decoding, contextualising both within a complex cultural

framework. Influenced by Eco, Hall (1980: 131) incorporated elements of reception

aesthetics into his neo-Marxist account of popular culture, proposing that "the degrees of

'understanding' and 'misunderstanding' in the communicative exchange - depend on the

degrees of symmetry/asymmetry (relations of equivalence) established between the

positions of the 'personifications', encoder-producer and decoder/receiver". On this view,

mass communication is understood as a circuit of articulated practices - production,

circulation, reception, reproduction – each of which represents a site of meaning-making

(see also Morley, 1992).

Crucially, this cyclic process contrasts with the widespread metaphor of communication

transmission (Carey, 1989) that assumes that communication merely requires the more-or-

less efficient transport of fixed and already-meaningful messages in a linear manner from

sender to receiver. However, the social psychological tradition attacked by Hall and others



ive o

r selective audience , making choices

re-launched itself through the promotion of the

about media use. Thus uses and gratifications researchers saw audience reception research

as setting the scene for building 'the bridge we have been hoping might arise between

gratifications studies and cultural studies' (Katz, 1979, p.75; see also Blumler et al, 1985),

while the social constructivist paradigm in social psychology applied itself to understanding

mediated, rather than just face-to-face sources of social influence, thereby uncovering the

sense-making’ activities of audiences in negotiating the conventions and rhetorics of media

‘ 8

texts. Through such concepts as the interpretive ‘frame’, social constructionist researchers

sought to understand how people’s tacit or local knowledge variously ‘filled the gaps’ or re-

framed the meaning of media texts, resulting in divergent interpretations of the very same

texts (Gamson, 1992; Hoijer and Werner, 1998; Iyengar, 1991; Livingstone, 1998c).

Research on these sense-making activities was appropriated by critical

resistant audience as part of the theoretical

communications research in its advocacy of the

shift from dominant ideology theory to the hegemonic struggle between attempts to

incorporate audiences into the dominant ideology and sources of resistance to such

incorporation, even if this resistance remains tacit or implicit. Although for some, the

evidence for resistance or divergence has been overplayed (Curran, 1990; Schiller, 1989),

this argument was partly fuelled by a desire to uncover the limits of cultural imperialism

through an exploration of the sources of local resistance to imported meanings (e.g. Liebes

and Katz, 1995). As David Morley (1993: 17) concludes, 'local meanings are so often made

within and against the symbolic resources provided by global media networks'. Also

influential among critical theories, particularly in identifying resistant audiences engaged in

the construction of alternative cultural rituals and practices, feminist approaches to popular

culture promoted a reconsideration of the often vilified popular culture audience within

cultural theory, developing a revaluation of, and the giving of a voice to, hitherto

marginalized audiences (Ang, 1985; Radway, 1984).

Making sense of television

Having argued that media texts are polysemic, that meanings emerge from a context-

dependent process of interpretation and so will be mutually divergent (Fiske, 1987), it

became obvious that research should investigate the activities of actual audiences in order

to know how they interpret programs in everyday contexts. Hence, the stimulating

convergence – or at least intersection – of these arguments in favor of empirical audience


research produced something of a research ‘boom’ in the 1980s and 1990s. Yet the

generation of a sound basis for understanding the activities of audiences was accompanied,

theoretically, by a move away from a careful consideration of particular reception theories

such as those of Iser, Eco or Hall to a looser grounding in the blanket notion of 'reception

theory' or 'audience reception analysis'. This project quickly justified itself through findings

showing that audiences indeed do differ from researchers in their reception of media

content, and that audiences are themselves heterogeneous in their interpretations – even,

at times, resistant to the dominant meanings encoded into a text (in the form of a ‘preferred

reading’; Hall, 1980). This further undermined any claims to presume audience response

from a knowledge of media content alone, or of arguing for a direct link between the

meanings supposedly inherent in the text and the consequent effects of those meanings on

the audience.

As a result of these arguments, attention was redirected to studying the interpretive

contexts which frame and inform viewers' understandings of television. Hence, empirical

reception studies have variously explored the relationships between media texts – typically

the television genres of soap opera, news, among others (Hagen and Wasko, 2000; Hodge

and Tripp, 1986; Livingstone, 1998c; Tulloch, 2000; Wilson, 1993) – and their audiences.

Audience interpretations or decodings have been found to diverge depending on viewers’

socio-economic position, gender, ethnicity, and so forth, while the possibilities for critical or

oppositional readings are anticipated, enabled or restricted by the degree of closure

semiotically encoded into the text and by audiences’ variable access to symbolic resources.

The point is not that audiences are 'wrong' but that they construct their interpretations

according to diverse discursive contexts which are themselves socially determined. As a

result of this now considerable body of work, audiences are no longer thought of according

to the popular image which always threatens to recur, as homogenous, passive and

0 10

uncritical or vulnerable to the direct influence of meanings transmitted, and perhaps

manipulated by, the mass media.

Media-centric research?

Critiques of audience research have grown in tandem with its success, centering on

the supposed untenability of the central concept of the audience itself: how can we define

it, measure it, place boundaries around it, and in whose interest is it if we do so anyway

(Ang, 1990; Erni, 1989; Seaman, 1992)? One outcome has been a charge of media-centrism

(Schroeder, 1994), attacking audience research for defining its object of study purely in

terms of a technological artifact (the television audience, the movie-goer, etc). This critique

ad hoc collection of objects is included in the

has force partly because an increasingly

category of ‘media’, and partly because if audiences are defined in relation to technology,

researchers are drawn into tracking how audiences change as technologies change rather

than as society changes. Hence, one may ask whether anything, apart from the label

‘audience research’, integrates such diverse projects as identifying the pleasures of video

games, investigating the agenda setting role of the press, incorporating the Internet into

schools, or exploring the role of music in peer culture?

The defense from reception studies, I suggest, is that there is indeed a consistent

communication . Each is concerned with

focus underlying these questions, one centered on

the conditions, contexts and consequences of the technological mediation of symbolic

communication among people (Thompson, 1995). It is charting the possibilities and

problems for communication (i.e. for relations among people rather than relations between

people and technology), insofar as these are undermined or facilitated, managed or

reconstituted by the media, that offers a challenging agenda, and one which puts audiences

at the center of media and communication research, rather than locating them - or worse,

deferring their study - as the last stage in a long chain of more interesting processes.

1 11

The ethnographic turn

‘The qualities and experiences of being a member of an audience have begun to leak

out from specific performance events which previously contained them, into the wider

realms of everyday life’ (Abercrombie and Longhurst, 1998: 36-7).

An influential response to doubts over media-centrism has resulted in a further strand

contexts of media use,

of audience research, namely a more systematic exploration of the

thereby moving ever further away from the medium itself in search of the local sites of

cultural meaning-making which shape people’s orientation to the media. Several arguments

led to this focus on context. As Robert Allen (1987) argued, once textual and literary

theorists had made the crucial transition to a reader-oriented approach, context flooded in

for two reasons: first, the shift from asking about meaning of the text in and of itself, to

asking about the meaning of the text as achieved by a particular, contextualised reader (i.e.

vir t

ual realized

to the text); second, the shift from asking

the shift, in Eco's terms, from the

about the meaning of the text to asking about the intelligibility of the text (i.e. about the

can make sense). Thus the

diversity of sociocultural conditions which determine how a text

crucial transition was made, from text to context, from literary/semiotic analysis to social

analysis (Morley, 1992).

Of course, these should not be posed as either/or options, for the moment of

reception is precisely at the interface between textual and social determinations and so

requires a dual focus on media content and audience response. But in practice, the

demands of more fully contextualising reception in order to understand how audience

activities carry the meanings communicated far beyond the moment of reception into many

other spheres of everyday life, as well as the converse process of the shaping of reception

by the symbolic practices of everyday life, has led to calls for what Janice Radway (1988)

called ‘radical contextualism’ in audience research. By this she means the analytic

2 12

displacemen t of the moment of text-reader reception by ethnographic studies of the

everyday, a focus on 'the kaleidoscope of daily life' (Radway, 1988: 366) or, for Paul Willis,

an analysis of 'the whole way of life' (1990). Like Radway, Ien Ang (1996: 250-1) also sees

the ethnographic approach displacing reception studies. Thus, she observes that:

'Television's meanings for audiences - textual, technological, psychological,

social - cannot be decided upon outside of the multidimensional

intersubjective networks in which the object is inserted and made to mean

in concrete contextual settings … this epistemological move toward radical

contextualism in culturalist audience studies has been accompanied by a

ethnography as a mode of empirical inquiry'.

growing interest in

Following these arguments, the 'ethnographic turn' in audience research shifts the

focus away from the moment of textual interpretation and towards the contextualisation of

culture o

f the everyday . Thus ethnographic audience studies have

that moment in the

explored the ways in which media goods become meaningful insofar as they are found a

particular kind of place within the home, the domestic timetable, the family’s communication

ecology. Simultaneously, it is becoming clear that this process of appropriation also shapes,

enabling or restricting, the uses and meanings of the medium for its audience or users.

Studies of the radio (Moores, 1988), telephone (Moyal, 1995), television (Spigel, 1992),

satellite television (Moores, 1996), and diverse other media (e.g. Flichy, 1995; Mackay,

1997), trace the specific contextualisation of the media in today’s media-rich home.

Media-as-object, media-as-text

Where does the ethnographic turn leave reception studies? Through the concept of

qua material objects such

double articulation, Roger Silverstone (1994) contrasts the media

as the television or walkman, namely as technological objects located in particular spatio-

qua texts such as the news or the soap opera, namely as

temporal settings, with the media

3 13

symbolic messages located within particular sociocultural discourses. Broadly, to focus on


j ect use

is to invite an analysis of media in terms of consumption in the

the media-as-text

context of domestic practices. On the other hand, to focus on the is to invite

an analysis of the textuality or representational character of media contents in relation to

the interpretive activities of particular audiences. By implication, then, the audience is also,

consumer-viewer .

necessarily, doubly articulated as the

Frustratingly, researching audiences simultaneously in terms of reception and contexts

of use seems hard to sustain. In the classic figure-ground illustration of the Gestalt

theorists, we see two heads facing each other with a gap in between, or we see the vase in

what was the space while the surrounding objects become invisible. Understanding

surrounding on

, or what's the screen has something of

audiences in terms of either what's

this character: the further one stands back from the television set to focus on the context of

the living room, the smaller the screen appears and the harder it is to see what’s showing.

And vice versa. Yet clearly, the box-in-the corner is the occasion for social interaction - or

isolated pleasures - precisely because of its symbolic content.

interpreters users

of the media-as-text and of the

In short, people are always both

media-as-object, and the activities associated with these symbolic and material uses of

media are mutually defining. And clearly, ethnographic studies of audiences draw on the

same insights as reception studies - the stress on active audiences making contingent and

context-dependent choices, on fragmentation and plurality within the population rather than

the normative mass audience, on audiences as joint producers rather than merely

consumers of the meanings of media – in order to develop the study of the local, typically

domestic contexts within which media-as-objects are appropriated as part and parcel of

everyday life. Hence, it should not be so hard as it seems to be to keep both these

activities, reception and use, in the frame simultaneously.

4 14

Historicizing audience research

Understanding why a focus on either use or reception seem to be unnecessarily

bifurcating audience research requires a historical lens. Consider the early days of television,

and indeed the following thirty or forty years, when households were proud to acquire a

television and place it in the living room, albeit sometimes frustrated with each other

regarding how they were going to use it (Morley, 1986). In Europe, America and other

Western countries at that time one could view just a few channels, each addressed to ‘the

nation’ according to a predictable schedule (Scannell, 1988). Given these circumstances, the

interesting questions for researchers concerned texts more than contexts of use. While the

dynamics of family life seemed relatively homogenous and deeply familiar, it was the texts

which seemed most innovative, as national cultures transferred, and transformed, their

traditions of news, drama, comedy, etc, into audiovisual content.

By contrast, as today’s households acquire multiple television sets along with the

capacity for multiple channels, multiple video recorders, personal computers, mobile phones

and, most recently, the Internet, the proliferation of new media technologies at home has

something of the character of old wine in new bottles. For in the main, these intriguing new

media objects have carried old media messages, recycling the broadcasters’ archives,

proliferating new shows using old formats, uploading existing print media onto the world

wide web. As yet, the promised transformation in content or text is not much in evidence.

Hence the figure-ground image in the research literature is shifting, and now it seems to be

the ethnographic contextualisation of the changing media environment that poses the most

interesting challenge to audience researchers. Judging from recent historical work on past

‘new’ media, this challenge of the new is stimulating some to reevaluate our understanding

of the arrival of these past media (e.g. Corner, 1991; Hansen, 1991; Marvin, 1988;

5 15




329.56 KB




+1 anno fa


Questa dispensa fa riferimento al corso di Interfacce, contenuti e servizi per le tecnologie interattive, tenuto dalla Prof.ssa Poggiani. Si tratta di un documento frutto di una ricerca sull'audience da parte di Sonia Livingstone in cui evidenzia come nel tempo sia cambiata la natura di un pubblico prevalentemente di massa, che ha ceduto il posto ad un pubblico fatto di utenti interattivi, diversi e frammentati.

Corso di laurea: Corso di laurea magistrale in industria culturale e comunicazione digitale
A.A.: 2010-2011

I contenuti di questa pagina costituiscono rielaborazioni personali del Publisher Atreyu di informazioni apprese con la frequenza delle lezioni di INTERFACCE, CONTENUTI E SERVIZI PER LE TECNOLOGIE INTERATTIVE e studio autonomo di eventuali libri di riferimento in preparazione dell'esame finale o della tesi. Non devono intendersi come materiale ufficiale dell'università La Sapienza - Uniroma1 o del prof Poggiani Alessandra.

Acquista con carta o conto PayPal

Scarica il file tutte le volte che vuoi

Paga con un conto PayPal per usufruire della garanzia Soddisfatto o rimborsato

Ti è piaciuto questo appunto? Valutalo!

Altri appunti di Interfacce, contenuti e servizi per le tecnologie interattive

Piano marketing
Marketing Mix - Politiche di promozione
Principi di marketing e marketing relazionale
Web - Requisiti e design