audience analysis paper

Cloying and false. Fraud and hack. These are emotionally charged words used by Harry Siegel in his review of Jonathan Safran Foer’s book Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. Siegel’s New York Press [NYP] review dated April 20, 2005, is entitled “Extremely Cloying & Incredibly False--why the author of Everything Is Illuminated is a fraud and a hack.” One look at NYP’s “about us” section in the website http://www.nypress.com/, confirmed the identity of Siegel’s audience immediately. (.Com shows commercial intent.) NYP’s subscribers are an average age of 39.7 with an average income of $130,000. They are intelligent, hardworking, and well-read people wanting quality journalism about New York’s cultural issues--controversial “edgy topics.”
But make no mistake--Harry Siegel is not a flashy and trendy writer grabbing at a glimpse of fame. He is an experienced and well-known lifelong Brooklynite writer who has spent most of his life writing about and working in politics. His experiences include editing positions for several important newspapers, and he also worked for political consultant Hank Sheinkopf and New York state gubernatorial candidate Tom Suozzi. Add to this list of impressive accomplishments a book he co-authored with his father Fred Siegel, The Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York and the Genius of American Life, many well-known TV appearances, and numerous published articles.
With that said, an important point must be raised; Harry Siegel wrote this review with the NYP’s “paying” subscribers in mind. The words cloying, false, fraud, and hack in the title of Siegel’s review certainly cater to the subscribers’ expectation for controversy. But for audiences outside of the NYP readership, his review may appear quite hostile. Foer’s book never had a chance of a glowing review by Seigel! What is interesting to note, however, is both Siegel and Foer were born in 1977, both Jewish (though Seigel refers to Foer in the article as a Jewish atheist), and both currently live in Brooklyn, New York. Wouldn’t it be ironic if they were actually friends laughing all the way to the bank together? Or as Siegel refers to Foer in his review “...wear your flip-flops all the way to the bank.”
But it isn’t just Siegel’s review that caters to the needs of the NYP subscribers--it is also the website itself. The purpose of this website is multifaceted: to entertain, to inform, to give an opinion, to give personal confirmation to the NYP subscriber, and most importantly to sell subscriptions! The advertising, the design, the photos and pictures, and the tone all send the discerning NYP subscriber a subtle message. That message is the feeling they “belong” to a group of people who have the same virtuous standards and ideas about life. It is a ploy at getting the reader to buy into the image of what a NYP subscriber should and can be-- educated, hip, well-off financially, cultured, and special.
Supporting the target audience age of 39.7, at the very top of the website, is the advertisement “Eldersexual—over 25% of people ages 57 to 85 still have sex--and are at still at risk for HIV.” Though demure in appearance the words send a racy message. Next to this ad is the Forex Club ad letting the reader know they can have financial freedom because Ben Franklin says so, and below that William Shatner suddenly pops up letting the reader know it is his “full-time job to shop around for inexpensive priceline.com” flights for them. All ads are geared toward both male and female NYP subscribers who have “disposable income to enjoy the city and all it has to offer.” The rest of the site looks like a typical newspaper website with its name in large letters at the top left side by the logo and all the different columns directly underneath-- just like the sections of a paper newspaper.
This was also not a review written about some obscure author whose book no one recognized. It is the type of book that the typical NYP subscriber would know about—written by one of their own local starlets and more importantly about their neighborhood tragedy of 9/11. As Siegel states in his review, “… he snatches 9/11 to invest his conceit with gravitas, thus crossing the line that separates the risible from the villainous... which Foer tosses in just to make sure we understand what a big and important book we're dealing with.”
Who reads the book isn’t necessarily important to NYP, but who reads the review is important. Siegel doesn’t necessarily want people to stop buying Foer’s book; he just wants to keep the number of NYP’s subscriptions increasing. For those readers who have not read the book, Siegel provides supportive information, though biased as it may seem. He knows his audience is very literate and able to connect to other authors’ works. For instance, he alludes to Foer’s borrowing of other authors’ ideas and techniques by referencing them to the reader, “Foer is indeed a sampler, throwing in … Calvino (a tale about the sixth borough that floated off, ripped off wholesale from Cosmicomics), …Night of the Hunter (the grandfather has Yes and No tattooed on his hands) and damn near every other author, technique, reference and symbol he can lay his hands on, as though referencing were the same as meaning.”
Siegel’s tone and diction used in the review also incorporates NYP’s philosophy of a commitment “to the cause of narrative journalism at its best.” Because of the readers’ higher level of education they expect the use of words such as: admixture, gravitas, paean, precocious, banal, epistolary saga, and syllogisms. Siegel even creates words to keep his readers satisfied such as: Oprah-etic, writerliness, brain-gurble, and nafs. He sets the tone of the review by using negative descriptive words such as “ hater” in his introduction , “Call me a hater, then” in reference to Foer’s own words “Why do people wonder what's "OK" to make art about…Too many people hate art.”
In conclusion, it is difficult to take this entertaining review seriously once realizing Siegel wrote it for NYP’s subscribing audience. Siegel’s comment at the very onset of his review “Foer isn't just a bad author, he's a vile one,” immediately notifies the reader of suspicious dramatic pomp. In fact, Siegel becomes what he admonishes Foer for being, “Foer, squeezing his brass ring…threw in 9/11 to make things important, to get paid…How could someone so willfully young be so unambitious?” Doesn’t it sound as if Siegel is talking about himself?