Advance Search

The appeal of 7de Laan: selected viewers’ self-identified reasons for watching

selected viewers’ self-identified reasons for watching

Nadia van der Merwe
University of Johannesburg
Keywords:
Copyright and Licensing:
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Share:

How to Cite

The appeal of 7de Laan: selected viewers’ self-identified reasons for watching. (2022). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 31(1), 36-58. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v31i1.2076
  • Articles
  • Submited: November 10, 2022
  • Published: November 10, 2022

Abstract

What is described as ‘a major leap of faith’ by producer Danie Odendaal (Labuschagne, 2010:
62) has turned out to be somewhat of a cultural phenomenon. For one, 7de Laan was, at the
time of the study, the most popular Afrikaans soap in that it reached a bigger audience than any
other Afrikaans soap, such as Binneland2 (M-Net and KykNET)3 and Villa Rosa (kykNET) (TVSA,
2010). It further held its own in the fiercely competitive timeslot of 18:30 during which two other
soaps, namely Isidingo (SABC 3)4 and Rhythm City (e.tv), were then broadcast. The soap has
also received the Voters’ Choice Award for best soap opera two years’ running at the South African
Film and Television Awards, thereby confirming its popularity. Although initially commissioned for
the upper-income category (De Lange, 2007: 3), 7de Laan now has a much wider audience
base, which includes viewers from different socio-economic, racial and language groups. Using
reception analysis as point of departure, this study used in-depth interviews with a cross-cultural
sample of viewers to describe the appeal of 7de Laan.

pdf
pdf

Article Metrics Graph

Article Views | PDF Downloads
Chart Graph | Range Graph

References

  1. Abercrombie, N. & Longhurst, B. (1998). Audiences. A sociological theory of performance and imagination. London: Sage.
  2. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446222331 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446222331
  3. Allen, R.C. (1995). Introduction. In R.C. Allen (Ed.). To be continued … Soap opera around the world. London: Routledge.
  4. Ang, I. (1985). Watching Dallas. New York, USA: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
  5. -. (2006). On the politics of empirical audience research. In M.G. Durham & D.M. Kellner (Eds), Media and cultural studies. Keyworks. USA: Blackwell Publishing.
  6. Armstrong, P. (2000). All things Bold and Beautiful: researching adult learning through soaps. Retrieved February 16, 2010, from http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca/aerc/2000/armstrongp1-web.htm
  7. Barker, M. (2006). 'I have seen the future and it is not here yet…' or, on being ambitious for audience research. The Communication Review, 9, (2), 123-141.
  8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420600663310 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420600663310
  9. Barker, M. & Brooks, K. (1998). On looking into Bourdieu's black box. In R. Dickinson, R. Harindranath, & O. Linné. Approaches to audiences. A reader. London: Arnold Publishers.
  10. Beyers, Y. (2007, April). Odendaal & Basson onbpk. Insig, p. 82. Binneland.(n.d.). Retrieved March 8, 2012, from http://www.tvsa.co.za/mastershowinfo.asp?mastershowid=93
  11. Brown, M.E. (1994). Soap opera and women's talk. The pleasure of resistance. USA: Sage.
  12. Brunsdon, C. (1997). Screen tastes: Soap opera to satellite dishes. Great Britain: Routledge.
  13. Bryman, L. (2004). Social research methods. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Cantor, M.G. & Pingree, S. (1983). The soap opera. USA: Sage.
  14. Compesi, R.J. (1980). Gratification of daytime serial viewers. Journalism Quarterly, 57, (1), 155-158.
  15. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908005700126 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908005700126
  16. Cresswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Choosing among five approaches. (2nd ed.) USA: Sage.
  17. De Lange, A. (2007, 4 April). 7de Laan blaas vandag 7 kersies op koek dood. Beeld Plus, p. 3.
  18. Ellis, J. (2000). Seeing things: television in the age of uncertainty. London: I.B. Tauris.
  19. https://doi.org/10.5040/9780755604784 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9780755604784
  20. Ferreira, T. (2010, 31 May). Latest daily viewership for SA's biggest TV channels. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://teeveetee.blogspot.com/2010/03/breaking-latest-daily-viewership-for.html
  21. Ford, S.E. (2007). As the world turns in a convergence culture. Unpublished Master's thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts.
  22. Fourie, P.J. (2007). The effects of mass communication. In P.J. Fourie (Ed.). Media studies: Volume 1. (2nd ed.) Landsdowne: Juta.
  23. Gillespie, M, (1995). Sacred serials, devotional viewing, and domestic worship. A case-study in the interpretation of two versions of The Mahabharata in a Hindi family in west London. In Allen, R.C. (Ed.). To be continued … Soap opera around the world. London: Routledge.
  24. Gillham, B. (2005). Researching interviewing. The range of techniques. England: Open University Press.
  25. Gledhill, C. (1997). Genre and gender: the case of soap opera. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation. Cultural representations and signifying practices. Great Britain: Sage.
  26. Greenberg, B.S. & Woods, M.G. (1999). The soaps, their sex, gratifications, and outcomes. Journal of Sex Research. 36, (3), 250-257. Retrieved March 22, 2007, from: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is-3-36/ai-61487445/print
  27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551995 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551995
  28. Hargrave, A.M. & Gatfield, L. (2002). Soap box or soft soap? Audience attitudes to the British soap opera. Retrieved 20 January, 2007, from: www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/bsc/pdfs/research/soap.pd
  29. Hartley, J. (2004). Democratainment. In R.C. Allen & A. Hill (Eds). The television studies reader. London: Routledge.
  30. Hermes, J. (2005). Re-reading popular culture. USA: Blackwell Publishing.
  31. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470776568 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470776568
  32. -. (2010). Active audiences. In D. Albertazzi & P. Cobley, (Eds), The Media. An introduction. (3rd ed.). United Kingdom: Pearson Education.
  33. Jooste, I. (2005, 28 June). Delicate positioning. The Media Online. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from http://www.themediaonline.co.za/themedia/view/themedia/en/page4212?oid=3858&sn=Detail
  34. Kielwasser, A.P. & Wolf, M.A. (1989). The appeal of soap opera: an analysis of process and quality in dramatic serial gratification. Journal of Popular Culture, 23, (2), 111-124.
  35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3840.1989.00111.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3840.1989.00111.x
  36. Kilborn, R. (1992). Television soaps. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.
  37. Kuhn, A. (1997). Women's genres. Melodrama, soap opera, and theory. In C. Brunsdon, J. D'Acci & Spigel, L. (Eds), Feminist television criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  38. Labuschagne, C. (2010, May). Man agter 7de Laan. Sarie, p. 60-66.
  39. Lemish, D. (1985). Soap opera viewing in college: a naturalistic inquiry. Journal of Broadcast and Electronic Media, 29, (3), 275-293.
  40. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838158509386585 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08838158509386585
  41. Lewis, J. (2002). Cultural studies. The basics. London: Sage.
  42. Liebes, T. & Livingstone, S. (1998). European soap operas: the diversification of a genre. LSE Research Online. Retrieved 2006, March 30, from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/402/1/European_soap_operas_EJC_1998.pdf
  43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323198013002001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323198013002001
  44. Livingstone, S.M. (1988). Why people watch soap opera: an analysis of the explanations of British viewers. European Journal of Communication, 3, 55-80.
  45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323188003001004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323188003001004
  46. Livingstone, S.M. (1998). Audience research at the crossroads: the 'implied audience' in media and cultural theory. Retrieved 20 January, 2007, from LSE Research Online. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/392/1/EJofCulturalStudies1(2).pdf
  47. https://doi.org/10.1177/136754949800100203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/136754949800100203
  48. Madill, A. & Goldmeier, R. (2003). EastEnders. Texts of female desire and of community. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 6, (4), 471-494.
  49. https://doi.org/10.1177/136787790364005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/136787790364005
  50. Merriam, S.B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. In S.B. Merriam & associates (Ed.), Qualitative research in practice. Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  51. Michelle, C. (2007). Modes of reception: a consolidated analytical framework. The Communication Review, 10, (3), 181-222.
  52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420701528057 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420701528057
  53. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. (2nd ed.). USA: Sage.
  54. Miller, D. (1995). The consumption of soap opera. The Young and the Restless and mass consumption in Trinidad. In R.C. Allen (Ed.). To be continued … Soap opera around the world. London: Routledge.
  55. Milton, V.C. (2008). "Local is lekker": Nation, narration and the SABC's Afrikaans programmes. Communicatio, 34, (2), 255-277.
  56. https://doi.org/10.1080/02500160802456197 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02500160802456197
  57. Modleski, T. (1979/1982). Loving with a vengeance. Mass-produced fantasies for women. USA: Routledge.
  58. Moores, S. (1993). Interpreting audiences. The ethnography of media consumption. London: Sage.
  59. Morley, D. (1993). Active audience theory: pendulums and pitfalls. Journal of Communication, 43, (3), 13-19.
  60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01299.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01299.x
  61. -. (2006). Unanswered questions in audience research. The Communication Review, 9, 101-121.
  62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420600663286 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420600663286
  63. Murphy, P.D. (1999). Doing audience ethnography: a narrative account of establishing ethnographic identity and locating interpretive communities in fieldwork. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, (4), 479-504.
  64. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049900500403 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049900500403
  65. O'Shea, C.M. (2004). Making meaning, making a home: students watching Generations. Unpublished Master's dissertation, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa.
  66. Perse, E.M. & Rubin, R.B. (1989). Attribution in social and parasocial relationships. Communication Research, 16, (1), 59-77.
  67. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365089016001003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009365089016001003
  68. Pitout, M. (1998). Reception analysis: a qualitative investigation of the parasocial and social dimensions of soap opera viewing. Communicatio, 24, (2), 65-82.
  69. https://doi.org/10.1080/02500169808537891 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02500169808537891
  70. Rasmussen, T.A. (2004). Interactive television - social use or individual control? Paper to be presented at the 2nd European Conference on interactive television: Enhancing the Experience, Brighton 31 March - 2 April 2004. Retrieved March 14, 2009, from www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~jmasthof/EuroITV04/P13.pdf
  71. Ruddock, A. (2001). Understanding audiences. Theory and method. London: Sage.
  72. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020178 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020178
  73. Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8, (2), 15-34.
  74. https://doi.org/10.1080/08855072.1984.10668464 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08855072.1984.10668464
  75. Schrøder, K.C. (1999). Beyond the pioneer days. Where is reception research going? Crossfertilization of paradigms: a synthesizing approach to qualitative audience research. Inaugural lecture delivered at Roskilde University Denmark on 25 October 1999.
  76. Spence, L. (2005). Watching daytime soap operas. The power of pleasure. United States of America: Wesleyan University Press.
  77. Tager, M. (1997). Identification and interpretation: The Bold and the Beautiful and urban black viewers in KwaZulu-Natal. Critical Arts, A South-North Journal of Cultural & Media Studies. 11, (1/2), 95-110. Retrieved 27 March, 2007, from Ebscohost database.
  78. https://doi.org/10.1080/02560049785310091 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02560049785310091
  79. TVSA. (2010, 20 May). Primetime TV viewing figures. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from: http://www.tvsa.co.za/default.asp?blogname=tv_ratings&ArticleID=14345
  80. TVSA. (2011, 20 February). Primetime TV viewing figures. Retrieved, 30 March 2011, from http://www.tvsa.co.za/default.asp?blogname=tv_ratings&ArticleID=16527
  81. Van Coller, H. & Van Jaarsveld, A. (2009). Identiteitskepping en die strooisage - die geval van 7de Laan. Stilet, XXI, (1), 19-38.
  82. Warhol, R.R. (1998). Feminine intensities. Soap opera viewing as a technology of gender. Genders, 28. Retrieved 29 October, 2010, from http://www.genders.org/g28/g28_intensities.html
  83. Welch, C. (claire@saarf.co.za). (25 May 2009). Re: 7de Laan audience figures. Email to Van der Merwe, N. (nadiavdm@uj.ac.za).
  84. Woman divorces over soap opera ban. (2009). The Telegraph. Retrieved 17 November, 2009, from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6591267/Indian-womandivorces-over-husbands-soap-opera-ban.html
How to Cite
The appeal of 7de Laan: selected viewers’ self-identified reasons for watching. (2022). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 31(1), 36-58. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v31i1.2076

Send mail to Author

Send Cancel

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Custom technologies based on your needs

  • ORCID
  • Crossref
  • PubMed
    • Clarivate