Smith and Mounter (2008:41) note that “uses and gratifications theory suggests that the audience actively consumes their chosen media, often using it in unanticipated ways”. It is where the audience will be engaging with their preferred media in many ways and it differs from one person to another in terms of age, social class, ideology etc.
Metaphorically, the audience is the “master” of its own media choices, and they will act according to how they want to engage with it within the social media context. It differs between one’s personal interpretation, assumptions, and anticipation to the actual message and information. Bryant and Thompson (2002:129), mention: “Particular kinds of gratifications sought by the viewers, as well as the viewer’s attitude, determine the viewer’s attention to the content of those messages”.
This model explains that the media audience will act according to the way they prefer to be involved with the message and that will indirectly affect their thinking abilities, emotions, and behavioral patterns in satisfying their needs. It is all about the audience satisfaction in generating their attitude towards the content of the message.
As a Taekwondo student, I will be searching for the information pertaining to the steps and movements of Taekwondo rather than seeking for information on Wushu or Karate. This is where I will determine the kind of information that I need to acquire from the relevant sources i.e. internet, books, videos etc and indirectly learns about the Korean culture. I might also search for Taekwondo videos on YouTube.com in learning the steps and movements efficiently. The more I involve with the information, the more I will be experiencing social change resulted from the delivered message. Therefore…I am a Master!
Bryant, Jennings & Thompson, Susan. (2002). Fundamentals of Media Effect. United States of America: McGraw-Hill.
Smith, Lyn & Mounter, Pamela. (2008). Effective Internal Communication. (2nd edn). United Kingdom: Kogan Page.
Hi Shebley,
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with this thesis.
Today´s Customers are able to choose the channels they prefer and they also decide how much they want to get involved or not. In my blog for MCM I called this new kind of customer the iCustomer: A person who can be addressed directly, a person who interacts in a particular way and mentions his/her wishes and needs (the personal iNeeds) enabling a company to react accordingly.
Through Social Media, communication moved from few-to-many to many-to-many communication, Kaye and Medoff (1998) stated. This change leaded to new opportunities for Grunig and Hunt´s two-way symmetrical model (1984) and opened the doors for forward-looking methods of customer relationship management. Today´s interactive Web 2.0 communication involves customers and other audiences more than ever before. The Internet launches a form of user-generated communication that includes interactivity as a central feature through increasing ease of exchange on email, bulletin boards, freenets and the birth of cyber-communities and networks (see Rheingold 1994). “Conventional media, particularly television, continues to sustain audiences, however, the Internet provides signs of overtaking media.” (Cohen, Salazar, Barkat, 2010)
Today´s iCustomers “use the Internet to give faster and franker feedback to producers and retailers – and even they take part in product development. But it´s not all upside. Virtual communities are aware more than ever of their power, and approval can opprobrium overnight (just ask the poor 27-year old West Australian who dreamed up iSnack 2.0).” (McColl et al, 2010, §6).
In this case it was the iCustomer the new Web2.0 audience who decided that iSnack 2.0 was the wrong name for the new product of iconic brand vegemite. They went sour on the brand, published their opinion and finally achieved a change of the name to Vegemite cheesybite.
Cohen, H., & Salazar, J., & Barkat, I. (2010) FROM: Screen Media Arts: An Introduction to Concepts and Practices. Audiences and Interactivity. Retrieved, March, 27, 2010, from, https://vuws.uws.edu.au/webct/entryPageIns.dowebct
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kaye, B. K., & Medoff, N. J. (1998). The World Wide Web: A mass communication perspective. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
McColl, G. (2010, February 4). Killer marketing ideas: How to steal the best. BRW. p. A27.
Rheingold, Howard, (1993)The Virtual Community. Retreived, March, 27, from, http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/intro.html
Shebley say...
ReplyDeleteYes Eva...we should be controlling the marketers activities and not the other way round. Metaphorically, if the marketers want to get into my wallet, they have to provide me with something which is worth it. Or else, they should just forget about the whole thing as there will be more marketers waiting for their turn to get into my wallet. They dont care whether I have money or not as they know if they are able to pursuade me, I will get the money by hook or by crook in engaging with promotional products and services
Interesting point, Shebley.
ReplyDeleteWith the profusion of new online advertising techniques, it is possible for people to get overwhelmed and confused by it all, or perhaps fall victim to it all from some points of view. But if consumers use marketing and online media to satisfy themselves, to learn about what they are interested in and view whatever information they are interested in, the consumer reverses the control in the relationship, becoming the master of his/her media.
Grish
Shebley say...
ReplyDeleteYes Grish...just like what has been discussed in Media Context class yesterday where there are some TV audience who are still reluctant to switch from analog TV to digital TV. It proves that they are in control of their preferred TV viewing choices regardless of the improved TV quality offered by the digital TV. In a simple word, the marketers must role up their sleeve, get out from their comfort zone and conduct consumer behaviour research as the analog TV audience will always say “NO MEANS NO!”