Uses and Gratifications, as a recognizable, discrete theory, had its greatest influence in the 1970s and 1980s. The limited effects paradigm held sway at the time, and media theorists needed a framework within which they could discuss the obvious presence of media effects without straying too far from disciplinary orthodoxy. This is not the reason that Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch formalized the approach, but it is why the approach took on its particular character.

Two other factors shaped how it would be and is now used. The first is the simple nature of its development. Its founders were interested in how people use media in quite specific situations. They were political scientists and sociologists, so their focus was on political and informational campaigns. Therefore, researchers in traditional Uses and Gratifications Theory studied how people used the information provided by media. They approached media as outlets of information rather than of symbols. It is only logical, then, that they envisioned the possibility—even the probability—of discerning, reflective audience members selecting the information they wanted and needed. Uses and Gratifications, therefore, is quite straightforward when discussing how people use newspapers (newspapers are made up of discrete sections, each aimed at a specific type of reader seeking specific types of information) or magazines (publications with very specific, demographically targeted readers) to come to some specific decision or judgment.

Finally, the heuristic nature of the theory is without question. The research has spanned several decades, and the theory has framed a number of research studies. In addition to the early pioneers Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch and their colleagues, others have employed the theory and its thinking into their research on home computer use (Perse & Courtright, 1993; Perse & Greenberg-Dunn, 1998), the remote control (Bellamy & Walker, 1996; Ferguson, 1992), and the Internet (Morris & Ogan, 1996).

Uses and Gratifications Theory is not without its critics. First, the notion of the active audience has been questioned. Some researchers (Kubey & Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) note that people report that their television watching in particular is passive and requires little concentration. Further, the theory seems to highlight a reasoned media consumer, one who does not accept everything the media present. The theory does not take into consideration the fact that individuals may not have considered all available choices in media consumption. For instance, Ryan Grant has considered two choices: stay at home or go out to the movies. What other options could he consider? Uses and Gratifications does not pay attention to the myriad unconscious decisions made by individuals.

Denis McQuail (1984) believes that the theory suffers from a lack of theoretical coherence. He thinks that some of the theory's terminology needs to be further defined. He also notes that the theory relies too heavily on the functional use of media, because there are times when the media can be reckless. For example, there have been instances of sloppy, inaccurate, or unethical journalism: In 1999, a Kentucky journalist was fired after falsely reporting that she had AIDS; in the late 1990s there was an erroneous CNN report about the U.S. government's knowledge of its military's use of poisonous gas in Vietnam. What if the active consumer sought out these media for information about AIDS or the U.S. involvement in Vietnam? This irresponsibility of the media is not addressed in the theory.

The value of Uses and Gratifications Theory today is in its ability to provide a framework for the consideration of the audience and individual media consumers in contemporary mass communication research and theory. Uses and Gratifications may not be the defining theory in the field of mass communication, but it serves the discipline well as a "perspective through which a number of ideas and theories about media choice, consumption, and even impact can be viewed" (Baran & Davis, 2003, p. 241).