An Inquiry Into Socioeconomic Barriers In Regard To The Adoption Of Surround Sound Audio Technologies.
This paper outlines research and an inquiry into socioeconomic barriers which are present in the application and accessibility of surround sound technologies. Opening with a look into what socioeconomic barriers permeate technologically developing areas of industry, with a wide overview then narrowing to industry specific contextualisation. Identified barriers will then be investigated further through a discussion by industry professionals. Those in discussion back both sides of societal and industry response to the technologies in question, and inquiring into this will glean insight on what attitudes permeate with regard to this developing area of industry and technology.
The purpose of this inquiry is to identify and determine whether or not there are any significant socioeconomic barriers impacting the wider-spread adoption of these technologies. This paper will span across relevant socioeconomical aspects of the technology such as it’s application, accessibility, appeal and demand. The outcome of this inquiry will aid in gaining wider understanding of this particular niche of the audio production industry and will inform my approaches with regards to my related major project proposal, as well as further prospects of entry into this area of industry. Defining existing barriers of the technology will then highlight problematic areas where future development may take place, which will provide myself with insight into areas and issues to be aware of with regards to this developing technology. As these problem areas are also potential areas for future development it is an important aspect of research, as I aim to work in this rapidly changing area of technology within industry.
Through the critical lens of socioeconomics, we can identify barriers which impact the wider-spread adoption of surround sound technologies on both consumers and industry. With the entry of any new technologies, a crucial hurdle to overcome for wide adoption are the factors within the broad term of socioeconomic barriers, Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak(2022).
These common barriers associated with adoption encapsulate monetary and informatory aspects related to the application / accessibility / appeal / demand of any given service or product. The significance of these barriers is a distinct factor in societies’ weighing of the value of technologies through its emergence. This has a key impact on the societal response and implicated economic demand and growth in relation to specific technologies during dispersion. As well as this, these factors can sway the direction further development takes to appeal to consumers, further shaping the adoption and usage.
To distinguish, the social factors within socioeconomics which apply across industry are well summed as stated within the following resource. Ankit R. Patel et al (2022) refers to adoption of electromobility technologies in the transportation industry, however the area of relevance is the identification of barriers which indicate the level of societal and economic acceptance and appeal.
These factors maintain a direct relevance to wider technology market entry including audio technologies such as surround sound. They highlight the interconnectivity and interdependence of industry and consumer from a socioeconomic viewpoint.
Considering these factors with regard to new applications determined by social interest in innovation, and trends associated with early adoptions such as diffusion into the early majority within the model of innovation and diffusion theory, D. Hooks et al(2022).With this we can determine these are still shaped by economic factors defined in business models to appeal to potential customers. Social factors such as customer preferences / openness to experience, by definition also merge under appeal with economic factors such as market penetration [Advertisements / PR] as companies strive to attract income through marketing and brand incentives.
Relative to surround sound technologies, considering specifics such as a willingness to buy into the high potential cost for production teams must be weighed against consumer openness to experience and willing budgets. As this factor then directly implies the demand for such services, it defines the potential income which could then be generated by middle market business from their targeted market. When this exclusivity shinks a target market, it must be pushed through marketing and brand incentives to maintain demand and market share, Jeffrey R (2005). Considering maintenance and installation costs of products themselves also directly factor into this adoption with regard to the production sector, as successful business models weigh the investment cost as a route to increase both income and broaden their own potential revenue streams. Whilst bridging into new trends as consumer demands shift to a more accentuated willingness to buy, the latter of which must outweigh the business costs to remain viable for expansive interest.
Although through this critical lens of socioeconomic analysis, the paradigm to these findings skew towards interpretivist and subjective, the areas of application / accessibility / appeal / demand also skew towards this as they’re not objective with their formation being derived from subjective consumerism and economic approach. However to remain impartial in my interpretation of this research and mitigate bias, following industry context will be presented the current response and discourse within this sector of industry.
As current trends within technological paradigms define a trajectory (search - selection - maturity), Giovanni Dosi (2009), towards the diffusion of immersive technologies similar to VR. The potential for growing anticipation and willingness to buy-in to these business and consumer interests around other related sectors, such as the audio industry, could be implied to follow suit. As customer and industry preferences shift, identification of problematic barriers should be accompanied by appeals tosocietal and economic factors This ensures that a more complete picture regarding social indicators, Kenneth C. Land et al(1975), reflecting wider aspects of the entry of these technologies into the realm of audio production, is achieved.
Along with this, whilst some barriers such as income / occupation may be more fixed, there are a number of shifting influences on demand which could rapidly develop and redetermine the intrinsic and impacting socioeconomic factors related to adoption.
One particular area of socioeconomics relevant directly to the emergence of surround sound technologies which is both relevant to industry and consumer is cost, Evan Valentine et al (2016) [section 4.5]. In this referenced study conducted to assess the socioeconomic ties between consumption and sustainability, a crucial area which is identified which is applicable here is the higher premium attached to goods which benefit from increasing awareness / appeal through exclusivity marketing or PR. As stated in their Conclusions of Findings, the expensive premium on purchases, such as on surround sound technologies, results in an inaccessibility to less privileged socioeconomic groups and a reduced target market. Therefore demands for such premium delivery formats by established distributors, or costs for services, could then be seen as building the industry “gate” (barrier to entry) higher to protect big business interests and consumer (both audience / artist / production sector) dependance on such businesses.
As the culture of music creation has shifted towards an independent approach with the advent of aggregators and accessible home recording equipment. The barriers which restrict against widespread application and accessibility may not just be detrimental to widespread consumer adoption, but also essential to the maintenance of demand for established conglomerate media companies which benefit from the privilege of excessive expenditure demands for such specialist and inaccessible technologies, which then incentivises appeal towards their services, increasing their potential income.
With the arrival of Apple’s Spatial Audio, we can see this exclusivity of service present in the products and services sold by Apple. Within the sector of surround sound music distribution, here we can begin to see that certainly the barrier to access these specific technologies is explicitly determined by the company providing the service, on the backing of their existing reputation and premium costing attributed to branding and status. Alongside marketing influence to convince consumers of this, the front to consumers that presents spatial audio as uniquely provided by Apple services for Apple products is a business and marketing model to emphasise the requirement of infrastructure (Apple Products) to gain accessibility at a premium cost. Similarly with Dolby Atmos technologies, with the crucial marketing label “Atmos” masking technologies that are employed under the hood. With its expensive surround sound playback systems staking that the area of this technological application can only be best done through their services. These business strategies to mitigate accessibility by reducing supply directly pushes up the cost which can then be charged for such services as demand is restricted to a handful of companies which have achieved market penetration.
To counter this however, as the research & development of such technologies come with extensive cost themselves, it could be argued that this justifies the cost of these two businesses in surround sound, as there are requirements for large budgets in the initial stages of research, design and application. This then is also accompanied by added risk which must be insured against if adoption projections and income forecasts are not met. As the largest forerunners of this sector within the industry, they also take on the most of this financial risk and therefore the trend to price against that can be understood from a business perspective as essential not just to maximise profits but to mitigate risk in the widespread adoption that they’re pushing through. This hinges however on the maintenance of consumer preference towards these companies through marketing and PR, as well as on the lack of market penetration and education around alternative companies and routes to surround sound production which, although lower in cost, may be perceived as of a lesser quality to big brands who reinforce their proliferation in these sectors.
As societal factors are not determined by singular individuals, here I will be bringing in some perspectives other than my own into this inquiry. Following are four examples of individual industry professionals in varying social and economic positions who provide their insight and subjective interpretation on the growing demands and adoption of surround sound technologies with regards to both societal consumer appeals and business economics.
Beginning with Chris Tadd (2023), an audio production associate, Tadd is in the process of organising a surround sound experience event aimed at increasing accessibility to the technology through such exhibitional events. During a conversation he explained his perspective that surround sound technology is on the trajectory to become the norm of audio delivery formats He wants to be ahead of the curve with positioning of his business model, organising and providing event showcases which bring the experience of these technologies out from current formal setups (limited primarily to studio usage) and into accessible events for interested audiences at a low ticketed service cost. The model here is a good demonstration of the types of application possible with surround sound, and supports the growing interest from young demographics into these formats. Utilising full range PA monitors, the setup does encourage a social experience determined by the wide auditory focal of the Atmos system which agreeably Tadd encourages as an appealing use of the technology as a shared experience.
The statement here of “The future is immersive” is a recurring one in the discourse on surround sound adoption, and is raised by Josh Seawell (2023), audio engineer of 20+ years. During his segment on how he feels the push towards Atmos is contrived, Seawell refers to how “some of the hype compared to the reality of the financial situation” can lead to what he views as risky investments by purchasers of the technology. With reference to raising capital to gain accessibility, loans that are contingent on the success of financial gain from the implementation are warned against, as they bring economic risk directly to the consumer to an unattractive degree to cover the large cost of access. This highlights the premium cost barrier to consumer adoption, and as Seawell advises against these risks he states that in his own experience a pervasive lack of interest and appeal by his clients for such formats would mean the economics of the investment for himself would not make it a viable business expense in his production company.
On the contrary however, there are those who see the initial investment cost as coming with a potential high return under the guise of the movement of industry towards these technologies as establishing norms. One industry professional who takes this stance is Ray Mia (2022), immersive audio engineer of 3 years, who makes compelling points on developing technologies and the appeals towards new forms of audio engineering for producers aiming at “pushing the boundaries of what one can achieve sonically”. Ray brings into the discussion alternatives to surround sound playback such as binaural rendering which delivers similar surround sound experience over stereo formats. These formats however as he states still require specialist recording equipment such as the Neumann KU100, and Atmos software for processing, once again limiting the perception of accessibility to premium paying customers of established businesses. Ray also emphasises the technologically deterministic societal trend of trajectory towards immersive audio in his statement that it is already the “current frontier”.
Lastly Devon Graves (2023), audio engineer of 20 years, brings us to the industry perspective on a speculation as to why industry might be pushing towards surround sound formats despite the barriers that exist to consumer and middle market business entry and accessibility. In his discussion on Atmos, he raises that as the music industry today sits in the paradigm of more independent and small form factor production focused organisation with regard to music production. As societal norms and trends shifted away from dependance on big multinationals due to the rise of widening accessibility to the required equipment for quality recording. It is of his view that this push for dependence again on specialist technologies, and in turn big industry players who can cover the costs and take on the risks, is an industry play for established conglomorate businesses to take back some control of the production services industry. If market entry is dependent on accessibility to infrastructure and that is then pushed out of reach financially from a growing portion of demanding consumers, industry organisations providing these technologies can then financially benefit significantly from this curated lack of access, by increasing premiums for the privilege of their granted access. This accompanies his statements on deliverables by streaming platforms which demand as a requirement atmos surround sound format mixdowns for any music which accesses publishing on their platform. This in my view illustrates this barrier very well, highlighting the issue of conglomerates maintaining ownership of both the delivery position and the premium service position required for that delivery.
Finally, to bring in a study which goes beyond the social views of audio industry professionals, the following is a table compiled by Maria Cahill et al (2023), on Technology Integration in Storytime Programs, with the specific figure highlighting the barriers faced during integration of surround sound technologies to a library storytime function. This has been included to contrast against the previous subjective and speculative takes with a real-world scenario of application and integration.
Throughout this research, the barriers which have been identified have highlighted some of the problem areas which the industry of surround sound is yet to address and overcome to establish itself firmly as the new frontier of audio production and music playback. Whilst there are futurist ideals and economic gains driven by big business interests based on deterministic technological perspectives which permeate through this area and push societal trends, the potential for the technology still cannot be understanded. It is important to consider new technologies as they emerge as they can bring around large paradigm shifts and industry changes but it is crucial to maintain a grounded approach when it comes to widespread accessibility strategy. This perceptive barrier of technologically deterministic perspective is well highlighted by Rabeh Abbassi (2022) as it demonstrates the captivating belief in something which is yet to fundamentally be determined, and cannot be assumed due to the unpredictability of societal factors as socioeconomic barriers are established and subverted.
-
Bibliography
Ankit R. Patel et al (2022), User’s Socio-economic Factors to Choose Electromobility for Further Smart Cities, Algoritmi Research Center, Fig 1 / Fig 2, Online : Available at : https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ankit-R-Patel/publication/362174001_Users'_Socio-economic_Factors_to_Choose_Electromobility_for_Future_Smart_Cities/links/62e15fc67782323cf18002e9/Users-Socio-economic-Factors-to-Choose-Electromobility-for-Future-Smart-Cities.pdf [Accessed : 14/07/23]
Evan Valentine et al (2016), Material Attachment, Identity, and Sustainability: Understanding Consumers’ Ethical Decision-Making in the Free Market, McGill University, Thesis, Online : Available at :
https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/papers/h128nh58p
[Accessed : 10/07/23]
Giovanni Dosi (2009), Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change, SSRN Laboratory of Economics and Management, Online : Available at : https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1505191
[Accessed : 12/07/23]
Chris Tadd (2023), Unpublished Interview / Conversation, Tadd to Sharp.
Devon Graves (2023), We Need To Talk About ATMOS, Youtube, Online : Available at :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68g-Y1Sy91I
[Accessed : 12/07/23]
Josh Seawell (2023), ATMOS doesn't make sense, Seawell Studios Youtube, Online : Available at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fwMneAnfyc
[Accessed 12/07/23]
Ray Mia (2022), What is Binaural Sound?, Audible Youtube, Online : Available at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDJsGE_DlJU&t=238s
[Accessed : 12/07/23]
Rabeh Abbassi (2022), “A Modern Approach towards an Industry 4.0 Model: From Driving Technologies to Management”, Sensors of Digital Twin Systems, Online : Available at :https://www.hindawi.com/journals/js/2022/5023011/
[Accessed : 27/06/23]
Maria Cahill et al (2023), “Technology Integration in Storytime Programs” Provider Perspectives, Table 3. Barriers to integrating technology in storytime, Online : Available at :https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ital/article/view/15701/11805
[Accessed : 30/06/23]
Cieciura (2022), “Optimising audio reproduction in the domestic environment incorporating ad-hoc devices” ,University of Surrey, Online : Available at : https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.847798
[Accessed : 28/06/23]
Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak et al(2022), ”Remove barriers to technology adoption for people in poverty”, Online : Available at : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01323-9#Sec1 [Accessed : 12/07/23]
Kenneth C. Land et al(1975), “Socioeconomics Indicators: Theories and Applications”, International social science journal, Online : Available at : https://unesdoc.unesco.org/in/documentViewer.xhtml?v=2.1.196&id=p::usmarcdef_0000262060&file=/in/rest/annotationSVC/DownloadWatermarkedAttachment/attach_import_ba497d2a-6541-46a2-8a25-4e7217108fb9%3F_%3D013186engo.pdf&locale=en&multi=true&ark=/ark:/48223/pf0000262060/PDF/013186engo.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A62%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22XYZ%22%7D%2C0%2C678%2Cnull%5D [Accessed : 12/07/23]
D. Hooks et al(2022), “Exploring factors influencing technology adoption rate at the macro level: A predictive model”, Technology in Society Volume 68, Online : Available at :https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160791X21003018 [Accessed : 20/07/23]
Jeffrey R (2005), “Market Size Matters”, The Journal of Industrial Economics, Online : Available at : https://www.jstor.org/stable/3569752
[Accessed : 22/07/23]
CS Odessa (2023),”Diffusion of innovations graph”, Fig 3, Online : Available at :https://www.conceptdraw.com/examples/diffusion-theory-diagram
[Accessed : 22/07/23]
