Uncategorized

White Paper on SHUMIWA ( c ) 2007 as it Applies to the Impoverished.

Keywords: Shumiwa. Lazerfield’s Model.

White Paper on SHUMIWA ( c ) 2007 as it Applies to the Impoverished.


By Jay Willis, Marietta, GA
— BBA Marketing 2001, BA Communications 2006
–3 April, 2009
–[email]
–879 words


We presume that the present state of nutrition and communications in 2009 is the norm.  But the cardinalities and scales are not the same in 2009 as they were in, say, 1909 or 1809.  The exercise, the diet, and the modes of communication have changed drastically from century to century.  This makes for a division based not on class but on diet.  Most people would say that you effect the thinking greatly by what you eat.  Centuries ago, the diet was not as nutritious as it is today.  And today, the diet for the poor is not as nutritious as it is for those who are well-employed.  In tough times, the diet takes a nose-dive.


So how do you communicate to those people who are not eating well?  You cannot suggest that they improve their eating habits.  They cannot afford the improvement.  You have to shift the communication methods to suit the audience.  And what happens to the thinking when people are on poor diets?  They get tired, irritable, and impatient.  Then the messages have to be shorter and more visual.  The messages do not necessarily need to be more sensitive but they do need to be more thought out.  For example, people with good diets score better on tests than those on poor diets.  And the same style of broadcasts to those on poor diets may become tactless at worst or meaningless at best.


Continuing on that same topic, in Lazerfield’s Model, how do you deal with the feedback loop?  The communication goes not just from the viewer to the tube and back again.  The communication goes between the viewer and other viewers.  Their opinions effect the feedback just as much as does the attitude of the viewer to the program that they are watching.  The viewing audience is in clusters.  The nutrition level of the audience is shared.  Then a great majority of the feedback loop of the audience is changed.  But the hosts are well-employed and may not take into account the shift in audience.  They retain the same audience, but the audience has changed because their dietary habits have changed.  In unemployment, the diet changes to carbohydrates.  The stress level increases and demands more from the diet, but the diet cannot satisfy therein.


The host has to then look at the purpose of the broadcast.  This brings into focus the difference between the populist view of communications and the ethical view of communications.  The populist view says that the broadcaster will air what the viewer will find entertaining.  The ethical view says that the broadcaster will air what the broadcaster thinks will educate the viewer.


How do you entertain a constant audience that has changed their attitude due to bad times?  Or, how do you inform a constant audience that similarly changed their attitude?  And lastly, how to you supplement the advertisements so that the advertisers continue to reach the audience that has changed in their attitudes towards the world in general?


The language is the same.  The medium is the same.  The hosts and the viewers are the same.  The item that has changed is Shumiwa ( c ) 2007.  This is the intangible that will make or break the communication.  If you take away one attribute of communication, the basic message is supposed to stay constant.  But when you change the attitude of the audience, the message cannot stay constant because the intangibles of the audience have changed.  As an example, a simple greeting was previously a positive invitation.  But during tough times, a simple greeting can become an unwanted intrusion.  You gave the same words, the same tone, the same gestures, and the same proximity to the receiver; but the Shumiwa ( c ) 2007 was incorrect.  You missed the sale, you missed the delivery of the entertainment, or you missed the ability to inform the audience.


The host has not failed here.  Nor does the host need to go back to the drawing board.  It is just a shift in the conversation.  The host reevaluates his sympathetic broadcasting that he previously had with the camera.  He distances where appropriate and he comes closer where appropriate.  The tragedies, crimes, and political drama evoke a different frame from the broadcaster because the audience “is having a bad day.”  The content will not change but the form will.


So the broadcaster, after he reviews the stats of unemployment, adjusts his manner so that the audience may fully understand the message and purpose of the airtime.  And the audience, as a cluster, views the broadcast while they still agree on the message and know none the wiser.  To them, the Shumiwa ( c ) 2007 is constant but only so because the host adjusted it at the station.  Were a photo-historical-journalist to do a content study between decades, he would surely notice a difference in broadcasting style.  And he would draw inferences about a change in audience but not a change in hosts.  But either way, no station can apply the same Shumiwa ( c ) 2007 to the same message in bad economic times as they do in good economic times.


An audience on collards and pasta hears differently than an audience on skin-less chicken, fish and asparagus.


White Paper on SHUMIWA ( c ) 2007 as it Applies to the Impoverished.

.

Copyright (c) 2007 by K Jay Willis.  All Rights Reserved.

Standard
Uncategorized

The Clotting Factor (c) 2007

Keywords: “The Clotting Factor” ——
.
The Clotting Factor (c) 2007
.
With extremely large populations and fast, cheap, and universal authority to entry points of communication; individuals of decentralized populations can go online to find others of similar experiences. As people of similar experience gather, their mutual agreements are self-verifying. Then as the mutual agreements strengthen the previously decentralized groups, the groups may pull social norm of the entire population off center.
.
Copyright (c) 2007 K Jay Willis.  All Rights Reserved
Standard
Uncategorized

Encourage the Actor (c) 2009

Keywords: “Encourage the Actor” —–
.
Encourage the Actor
.
The three branches of government frequently bad-mouth Hollywood. And the parent frequently bad-mouths the offspring that chooses the entertainment arts. By the time that the actor gets to the age of success, he’s primed to disagree with darn near anything that the standard society advances. Even if the standard society and the actor actually agree on a theme, chances are the actor will disagree simply because it took so much effort and alternative means to achieve the success level of the actor. Better it will be that government encourage and praise Hollywood, that parents encourage their offspring to go into the entertainment industry. Then the result will be an employee or entrepreneur that fought just the industry and not the government to get success. Then the result will be an actor that might support our country when they are on the top. When you are unemployed, you watch the media. When the unemployment rate is high, you have a bunch of people watching the same themes. You need to define success as somebody who is not patently and eternally disagreeable to every idea regardless of the source. Let’s instead build up the actor and actress. Here are some arguments that favor the entertainment industry.
.
GET SKILLED, NOT ANGRY. There are really few channels that play the sitcoms. The others are news, special interest, or reality channels. The actors in the sitcoms are currently getting a bad press. They do show the themes that we want to see more than those of the reality shows. Those in the reality shows are not trained to give the audience what they want. The reality show casting people try to give one-dimensional people that project strongly around which story lines can be written. Actors in sitcoms instead offer a variety of characters around which any writer can write a story easily. The actor or actress could regard the reality show as a casting call or an improvisational attempt with a discount rate of pay. They can then stage the anger, depression, happiness and the gratuitous sex shot at better intervals. There is nothing worse than seeing a non-actor get angry. You are really watching an angry person and that’s depressing.
.
GET NEW CRITICS. Who watches the current sitcom? For example look at 8 Simple Rules, Spin City, and Grounded for Life. They air these shows all the time but, you still cannot name these comedians. The shows failed due to lack of interest or maybe because the critics regarded them poorly from the start. And the critics wait for us to tell them what is funny. The critics look at the viewer looking at the critic while the show gets lost.
.
DON’T WORK SO HARD. The shows get more complicated. The actors learn their crafts to greater extents but the effort is not really necessary. Possibly the actors need to work less hard and writers need to invent less complicated scripts, but both do need a new set of critics. The sitcom offers one 30 minute message in response to a 5 day critique. Who wins? The best show then is that show based on “pass the hot potato” away from the critic.
.
BEEF and BREASTS. The reality shows are deeper into skin than the traditional dramas and sitcoms ever were. The reality shows may even be overtaking the traditional outlets that the actors previously occupied. So where did the writers, directors, and producers go wrong? The viewers still project past values towards the bodies of the actors instead of the bodies of the reality flashes-in-the-pan. Yet reality shows are taking over. We must free up the creative talents of the acting industry to include the body. Build a new portfolio which includes shows for adults, children, and adults/children. But just as there are actors skilled at pure drama, there are also actors skilled at physical comedy. The themes of the reality shows are unreal. The behavior of the participants is similarly unrealistic. No one could survive in those environments. Nor could these people survive long with such pathologically destructive behavior traits. Let the writers blur the lines between fiction and non-fiction then insert REAL actors without the knowledge of the viewer. Lastly, spread the money shots throughout the 30 minute or 60 minute show and work less hard throughout. We tune in to see the strong actor, not the plot. And the plot is well written to show off the strong actor.
.
DRAMA TASTES BETTER. Writers keep on inventing more story lines. While trying to relate to grassroots America, they continually produce cleaned-up versions of base themes. Those humble themes are poverty and prison. Now you cannot get too real with either of these themes so you bring the themes into cleaned-up middle-class settings and perpetuate them with a “sure it will work” attitude. No you cannot get poverty and crime to succeed in middle-class settings. But instead of bucking the trend, the writer must go with what sells. We as viewers, in return, must watch as plausible those themes which currently happen among our peers on the down-side. Watch these shows with a “This IS what is going on in grassroots America. But no this IS NOT what is going on in our own homes.” Writers ARE in touch with modern America. We are not all living in poverty nor are we in prison. But we do like to see people triumph over monumental problems. The trouble is that we rarely share those monumental problems. The writers stage these turmoils in the settings that the viewers share. The mismatch is incredulous, but you have to give the writers credit for pulling it off as believable. Compare a drama with TruTV. Dramas have people triumphing over their own crimes. TruTV has people being hauled off to jail by the trailer full. Regardless of the production expense, the drama is a better show to watch. Once again, the actor holds the highest grade over the non-actor.
.
THE OMNI-WRITER. The writer gleans from a broad base of experience the human stories that will be interesting to the viewer. The writer presents themes which are common to the viewer and mixes those themes with ideas which are just challenging enough to keep the viewer awake. The writer knows what keeps attention better than the viewer.
.
Support Hollywood and those who aspire to be a part of it.
.
Encourage the Actor( c ) 2009 are copyrights of Jay Willis (BBA, BA), Marietta , GA. All rights reserved.

Standard
Uncategorized

Shumiwa (c) 2007

Keywords: Shumiwa —–
.
Shumiwa (c) 2007
.
Shumiwa (c) This communication method starts with Laserfields Model as a base. The sender, encoder, communication channel (message), decoder, receiver and feedback are all included. But the communication channel is split into verbal and non-verbal components. Within those components, the verbal side of communication has its parts as does the non-verbal side. Those parts of verbal and nonverbal communication are described in classical communication science. Where those parts were considered to be in harmony, SHUMIWA ( c ) explores sending different messages via each of the components. The skill of the communicator limits or expands the number of messages. Comprehension is of course important. The width of the communication band is useless unless the receiver can understand each and all of the messages put forth. The content and consequences are left up to the sender and receiver. You also explore the sender who says a lot but nobody can understand anything. You also explore the receiver who received a lot but nobody said anything. Shumiwa covers print, radio, visual arts, movies, television, and cable. The defining components of communication of those media are described by the experts in those fields of media.
.
Shumiwa (c) 2007 are copyrights of Jay Willis (BBA, BA), Marietta , GA. All rights reserved.

Standard
Uncategorized

The Generation of Insecurity ( c ) 2008

Keywords: “The Generation of Insecurity”. GIST. “Children of the Gray Area”. CGA —-
.
The Generation of Insecurity ( c ) 2008
.
To follow the baby-boomer generation (1946-1964), the x-generation (1964-1980, and the y-generation (1980-2000); I have found that the generation from 2000-2020 will be “The Generation of Insecurity” ( c ) 2007. It is bounded by 9/11 and two decades hence.
.
The Generation InSecurity is characterized by high speeds of communication, cheap access to communication tools, and unchecked authority to entry points of communication. Media is the mentor within this environment where the boundaries of information, media, and marketing all blur.
.
Communication speeds of internet, cellular, et al., continue to increase. The download limits continue to disappear through all channels. The cost of access to communication tools continues to drop. Those communication tools are internet, mobile devices, netbooks, laptops and the like. The authority to entry points of communication were checked by parental controls. Previously parents were experts at those entry points. The authority was based on knowledge, expertise, and ownership. As examples, reference the phone, the fax, the wire, and the walkie-talkie. You could also argue that the creation and use of snail-mail was limited to the parent because of the learning curve on literacy. These were instruments of the parent and only options of the off-spring. The internet and the cellphone usurped the parental authority.
.
Where the boundaries of knowledge, expertise and ownership disappeared; the authority for usage is based only on possession. Anybody of any age can possess access to the internet and to a cellphone. After the possession of a communications entry point, the only parental check is on usage. The parent cannot be by the child until the child leaves the house.
.
That leaves only the media to raise the offspring. When the media realizes this, they also must bundle family values along with the sales pitch. Such bundling assures the seller that they will have healthy buyers in the future.
.
Those borne in this era are called The Children of the Gray Area.
.
The Generation of Insecurity (c) 2008 is a copyright of Jay Willis (BBA, BA), Marietta , GA. All rights reserved.

Standard
Uncategorized

The Children of the Gray Area ( c ) 2008

Keywords: “The Children of the Gray Area”. CGA. Media is the Mentor. —-

The Children of the Gray Area ( c ) 2008
.
The Children of the Gray Area ( c ): Those born in an era where they have fast communication speeds, low cost of entry, and the authority to access and pay for both. The teaching falls away from the traditional sources. The teachers, religious leaders and parents have a lessened role. The role of media increases because of the absence of the former. Media is the Mentor.
.

The Children of the Gray Area( c ) 2008 are copyrights of Jay Willis (BBA, BA), Marietta , GA. All rights reserved.

Standard