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.

Advertisements
Standard

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s