Newlandia is faced with the need to ensure its message gets out to potential consumers and is direct and on point. This means it is precise and concise. In deed what Newlandia needs is a campaign that will be able to improve on its image to the public, make it more visible, generate more interest in Newlandia while raising awareness on the education foundations operations. With this in mind the models and strategies chosen in an effort to achieve this must as guarantee the intended message gets out unencumbered.
To achieve this, the campaign will employ a number of communication theories and models either singularly or in combination in order to achieve the intended result.
Models by their very nature are just snap shot that seeks to capture the dynamics of communications and message passage while freezing this interactive or transactive process into a static picture. In some instances models can be viewed as metaphors because of their ability of allowing the viewing of one thing in terms of another.
By their very nature this serve a very important component in understanding issue in that they will grant to people the opportunity to ask questions, they clarify complexities while ultimately the lead to new discoveries-this is very important (Mortensen, 1972). From the onset, while using and designing models, great care should be taken to avoid oversimplifications, confusion between the reality and the ideal captured in the model and premature closure.
Shannon’s model of communication; it is in important ways, the beginning of the modern field. It provided, for the first time, a general model of the communication process that could be treated as the common ground of such diverse disciplines as journalism, rhetoric, linguistics, and speech and hearing sciences. Part of its success is due to its structuralist reduction of communication to a set of basic constituents that not only explain how communication happens, but why communication sometimes fails. Good timing played a role as well. The world was barely thirty years into the age of mass radio, had arguably fought a world war in its wake, and an even more powerful, television, was about to assert itself. It was time to create the field of communication as a unified discipline, and Shannon’s model was as good an excuse as any. The model’s enduring value is readily evident in introductory textbooks. It remains one of the first things most students learn about communication when they take an introductory communication class. Indeed, it is one of only a handful of theoretical statements about the communication process that can be found in introductory textbooks in both mass communication and interpersonal communication.
Like all models, this is a minimalist abstraction of the reality it attempts to reproduce. The reality of most communication systems is more complex. Most information sources (and destinations) act as both sources and destinations. Transmitters, receivers, channels, signals, and even messages are often layered both serially and in parallel such that there are multiple signals transmitted and received, even when they are converged into a common signal stream and a common channel. Many other elaborations can be readily described. It remains, however, that Shannon’s model is a useful abstraction that identifies the most important components of communication and their general relationship to one another.
For the Newlandia assignment, this model shows the basic hurdle that the campaign will have to overcome. It will have to face competition for the message consumers from other causes and destination and it is not automatic that it will win. It could end up being blocked out and as such the message getting lost before reaching the recipient (final intended consumer). What this model looks to remind is the potential for distraction that exists in the world. That despite all efforts to create an effective message, there will be the fight with the noise (distortions) that has to be won if the message is to be effective. In deed as an improvement of this model feedback is introduced connecting the destination with the information source. This makes it have a complete circuit feel and as such communication becomes depicted as it should – a continuous process. Feedback does not suffer the noise interruption since this is direct and intended for a specific recipient. Thus feedback achieves a much higher level of abstraction that is does message.
The transactional model; it is best known for addressing the difference in the level of abstraction introduces in the upgraded Shannon-Weaver model of communication. In this model, neither the consumers nor creators of messages are acknowledged. It instead chooses to label the people associated with the model as communicators who both create and consume messages. The model presumes additional symmetries as well, with each participant creating messages that are received by the other communicator.
This is, in many ways, an excellent model of the face-to-face interactive process which extends readily to any interactive medium that provides users with symmetrical interfaces for creation and consumption of messages, including notes, letters, C.B. Radio, electronic mail, and the radio. It is, however, a distinctly interpersonal model that implies equality between communicators that often doesn’t exist, even in interpersonal contexts. In face-to-face head-complement interactions, the boss (head) has considerably more freedom (in terms of message choice, media choice, ability to frame meaning, ability to set the rules of interaction) and power to allocate message bandwidth than does the employee (complement). The model certainly does not apply in mass media contexts.
The “mass personal” media of the Internet through this implied symmetry into even greater relief. Most Internet media grant everyone symmetrical creation and consumption interfaces. Anyone with Internet access can create a web site and participate as an equal partner in e-mail, instant messaging, chat rooms, computer conferences, collaborative composition sites, blogs, interactive games and other media. It remains, however, that users have very different preferences in their message consumption and creation. Some people are very comfortable creating messages for others online. Others prefer to “lurk”; to freely browse the messages of others without adding anything of their own. Adding comments to a computer conference is rarely more difficult than sending an e-mail, but most Internet discussion groups have many more lurkers (consumers of messages that never post) than they have contributors (people who both create and consume messages).
The ecological model; it seeks to improve on the previous two models. Given their shortcomings, this model is created as an answer to this and also as an improved model incorporating aspects missing in the other models. It incorporates, the concept that receivers of messages really consume messages and that noise is generated within the listen rather that without. That engagement of messages is thorough selective attention and that the one thing that can truly be improved with respect to communication is to learn how to listen and that the mass media audience have choices.
The ecological model is an attempt to provide a platform on which these issues among others can be explored. It asserts that communication occurs in the intersection of four fundamental constructs: communication between people (creators and consumers) is mediated by messages which are created using language within media; consumed from media and interpreted using language. This model is, in many ways, a more detailed elaboration of Lasswell’s (1948) classic outline of the study of communication: “Who … says what … in which channel … to whom … with what effect”. In the ecological model, the “who” are the creators of messages, the “says what” are the messages, the “in which channel” is elaborated into languages (which are the content of channels) and media (which channels are a component of), the “to whom” are the consumers of messages, and the effects are found in various relationships between the primitives, including relationships, perspectives, attributions, interpretations, and the continuing evolution of languages and media.
Debasish & Das, 2009)
A medium of communication is, in short, the product of a set of complex interactions between its primary constituents: messages, people (acting as creators of messages, consumers of messages, and in other roles), languages, and media. Three of these constituents are themselves complex systems and the subject of entire fields of study, including psychology, sociology, anthropology (all three of which study people), linguistics (language), media ecology (media), and communication (messages, language, and media).
Even messages can be regarded as complex entities, but its complexities can be described entirely within the scope of languages, media, and the people who use them. This ecological model of communication is, in its most fundamental reading, a compact theory of messages and the systems that enable them. Messages are the central feature of the model and the most fundamental product of the interaction of people, language, and media.
Models are a fundamental building block of theory. They are also a fundamental tool of instruction. Shannon’s information theory model, allowed scholars decompose the process of communication into discrete structural elements. In deed Shannon’s model has proved efficient across the primary divides in the field of communication.
The ecological model of communication cannot, by itself, remediate differences, but it does reconstitute and extend these models in ways that make it useful, both pedagogically and theoretically, across the normal disciplinary boundaries of the field of communication. The ecological model is useful in understanding interpersonal communication, mass medial communication, organizational communication, and communication ethics, communication in relationships and communities, and new communication technologies. What this models offer to the campaign is a variety of avenues from which to choose from. In their design they could either be used individually or in unison with each participating in a part of the big picture.
Debasish, S & Das, B (2009). Business Communication, PHI Learning Private Limited, Patparganj, Delhi.
Fiske, J (1990). Introduction to Communication Studies, 2nd Ed, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY.
Narula, U (2006). Handbook of Communication: Models, Perspectives, Strategies, Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi.