How Did Studying Theories Help to Understand the Relations Between Consumers and Producers - Term Paper Example

Running Head: Studying Theories Studying Theories [Institute’s Studying Theories Several theories have been put forth in the passage of time regarding the building of relationship between a producer and a consumer, which have helped me understand their association in today’s world fir the paper. The first theory that I would be incorporating in my paper is the uses and gratification theory, which also serves as the basis of one of the approaches of mass media. Examining the theory itself, it advocates that the audiences or the consumers seek to have certain kinds of their needs fulfilled by using media as a tool. Here, of course, the different kinds of media are the producers that hunt for the prevailing attitudes of its consumers and pertain to the most prevailing ones to give the consumers the best outlet (Ruggiero, pp.7, 2000). Examining this approach, I comprehended that since, there are a number of general needs of consumers associated to the media, like stimulation and relaxing, catharsis, social utility and being updated, the producers are compelled to achieve sustainability by sticking to the consumers’ demands and needs. This way, the producers are more dependent on the consumers than otherwise and subsequently, audiences or the consumers have more choices and control over the utility of the services and the products they receive. While, control in hands of the users makes the functions more consumer-oriented than role of producers as the decision makers (Ruggiero, pp.7 & 15-16, 2000). Additionally, pertaining to the same theory, I perceived that the consumers’ perception of the producers, which in this case is the Television media, might be that of a leisure time-consuming-agents who should get the users’ attention when they do not have any significant task to perform. Thus, the significance of the producers might remain low in the consumers’ mind. The above theory leads to one more approach and that is the dependency theory. As said earlier that the producers of the media are dependent on the individuals’ demands, it is also significant that the relationship between the consumers, producers and the whole society is interrelated (Ruggiero, pp.8-9, 2000). For example, it helped me understand that when the consumers of the news media feel to get their need of cognition and getting updated satisfied by the use of media, they will always be dependent on them irrespective of the consequences. This way, I believe that the producers are merely performing their tasks of information dissemination without being dependent on the consumers’ interests. Furthermore, the theory of active audience in the mass communication model also suggests that it is holistically the consumers’ nature of behaviour to suggest or not to suggest anything regarding the particular services or goods produced to them (Ruggiero, pp.8, 2000). As the researches suggest that not all the consumers become active participants of the media, thus, the involvement of the audiences varies in all forms. In addition, thus, their relationship with the producers might be vague and incomprehensive, when the decision makers do not tend to recognize the specific needs and demands to be gratified. The above mentioned theory also gets the producers to identify and learn through the process of feedbacks (Wadman, pp.148, 2000). This is an interactive learning process for both producers and consumers. They tend to learn from each other regarding each others’ perceptions. This relates to the hunter prey theory, which also advocates the fact that the producers are hunting for the specific characteristics of the consumers that persuade them to be willing to pay for the products they introduce. I understand this phenomenon in a way that the producers are always pursuing for specific attributes by which they can achieve the consumers’ interests. Apart from a theory that represents a mass communication perspective, there is one more theory that reflects the nature and relation of the consumers and the producers who once acted as consumers. This is termed as the diffusion of innovation theory. It advocates that everything that is introduced in the market goes through a certain life span with regards to awareness, demonstration, trial and lastly, adoption (Perner, pp. 1-5, 1999). Studying this particular theory made me understand that the association between the producers and consumers also has a varying degree which depends on the stage of diffusion the consumer stands on. Beginning with the first stage of awareness, the consumers might have feelings of suspicion and lack of trust over the innovators/producers. Taking the example of the Automated Teller Machine (Perner, 2-6, 1999), introduced in the 20th Century and paving its way successfully to the 21st century, it could be further understood. The introduction of the machine in the society saw a mixed response of suspicion and confusion. Some potential consumers underestimated the power of the machine while others did not want to be a part of the innovation. Thus here, the relation between the producers/innovators and the consumers was quite aloof. Gradually, when the machine reached the demonstration and the trial stages, people started having the element of trust over the producers and tried the innovation themselves to subsequently accept or discard it. When the machine and the innovation itself got a trust among the consumers, the relation started to take a strong position, so much so that we see the consumers embracing the idea of Advanced ATM readily. Nevertheless, the dependency on the innovators/producers might make the consumers not try out other available options under the same domain (Perner, pp. 19-20, 1999). Here, the relation between the two becomes dynamic in a sense that the consumers expect and aspire for whatever options they might get from those particular producers. For example, the innovation of online banking has made consumers entirely dependent on the producers while leaving behind the manual procedures. In this case, the relationship between the two becomes family-like in reliability and dependency. I think that the most important issue that addresses the notion of the relation between the two separate entities is the advantage of the product or the service itself. In the 21st century, when people already have a wide range of varieties of almost everything possible on the face of the earth, the consumers seek or perfection in any innovation introduced to them. The brands, which are already in the market with a perceived image, are likely to succeed with the innovation and gain the trust and likeness of the potential consumers. However, it is upon the newer brands or producers who have to struggle to get their voice marketed to the consumers. Here, one appropriate example might be that of the iPod which was introduced in October 2001 by Apple, Inc. Initially, when it was introduced in the market, the consumers reacted passively towards the innovation. They were not very enthusiastic about either the producer or the product. However, it took one year for the Apple iPod to penetrate the market successfully and the consumers started trusting the producers after getting an experience with the product. Likewise, modernity also plays a vital role to understand the relation of both in any society in the 21st Century. For example, in Britain and Saudi Arabia, much importance is given to the traditional values and products (Perner, pp. 11-13, 1999), the consumers depend deeply on the ongoing producers whom they trust on the basis of their traditional norms, they are less likely to involve in a process of consuming products or services produced by new producers in the market. One more important fact in today’s world is that of giving more importance to the foreign producers than the local ones. This usually happens in today’s underdeveloped countries. The consumers in these countries look forward to the producers of the developed countries to avail products and services from them. This goes parallel with the example of the Apple iPod as well. After one year of its introduction, when it was introduced in the European market, they were ready in making a positive perception of the company/producer. On the other hand, the neoclassical theory appears to be quite interesting in making us understand the relation between the two. It advocates that the producers are not only involve in he motive of making profits from the consumers but they also engage themselves making and producing such products and services that are beneficial for the consumers (Walt, pp.278-279, 2005). Thus, in a view, they care about the consumers’ advantages and disadvantages. In the same way, the consumer’s behaviour can also be judged. A consumer is also not after his/her preference regarding the producers or the brands irrespective of other characteristics, but, s/he seeks perfection and equivalent quality in the product in which s/he utilizes money. In this way, both the producers and consumers perform varying actions within their domains. One more important factor that I understood from the theories is that one consumer might not just consume everything produced by one producer (Wadman, pp.147-148, 2000). This leads to the fact that the consumers might not be loyal to one or more specific producer. In today’s 21st Century, the competition in the market is increasing everyday. One kind of product is made by hundreds of thousands of the producers and that also in one specific geographic area. Thus, the competitive market for the producers has compelled them to market their products, services and ideas extensively to the consumers. Here, I could also relate the theory of repetition that producers employ to get the attention of the consumers. When the consumers frequently encounter marketing and advertising of one specific producer, they might end up building two different kinds of perceptions regarding the producer. One might be that of appreciation and producer-following. This means that the repetition might leave a sense of loyalty towards the producer and the consumer might tend to follow the same producer on every product or on a single product many a times. However, the other possibility is quite contradictory. It reflects the fact that the consumers might find it frustrating and might feel overloaded with encountering the same producer every time. I believe there is a huge possibility of the producer to leave a bad image of themselves in the consumers’ minds. Coming towards the subject of mass communication, relating to the film industry the Payne Fund Theories also gave me an overview to the relationship between the two entities. The theory actually, suggests that the consumers indulge in receiving the services from the producers (media) in order to acquire information and to stimulate emotions. The relationship between the two remains such that the consumers of the films learn from the subjects that the producers incorporate in their films. They tend to look for the material that might tech them something pertaining to the real-life phenomena. Furthermore, emotional arousal is one important element that the consumers look for to get from the producers’ products. I can relate this theory to any kind of producer-consumer relationship in a way that the consumers seek to get their internal desires fulfilled with what they get from the market. In the 21st century, when the Internet users are scattered worldwide, the consumer-producer relationship is quite open. This means that the consumers having control to select the kind of product they want, they can also have independence in manipulating the message that they want (Ruggiero, pp.14, 2000). For example a consumer who reads a kind of newspaper has to buy the whole paper; however, a consumer who is using online media for reading the newspaper can buy a specific section that he desires to read. In this way, the relationship is open-ended having more opportunities for the consumers. I learned this concept from the theory demassification (Ruggiero, pp.14, 2000). The theories teaching the consumer-producer relationship also essentially revolve around the point of making profits. This capital base theory (Walt, pp.277, 2005) made me learn the kind of techniques that the producers orient themselves with, to get the maximum number of consumer-attraction. This way the relationship between the two builds in a manner that one (producer) tries to manipulate and dictate the interests of the other (consumer). Here, the relationship between the two becomes that of a dictatorship that every other producer tries to do. They frequently have to be within the consumers’ everyday world so that their interests and values could shift towards those of the producers. The techniques, certainly, are the marketing and advertising techniques. But, the point to focus here is the manipulation of consumers in the way producers want because of their profit motives. At this point, I also realized that as long as the producers have the power to dictate, the consumers have a power to choose. Since, every producer of a certain product or service, who is in competition with the others, is employing the strategy of dictating the consumers. But, at the same time, the consumers have a wide variety to pick-and-choose. This is due to the extensive competitive market in the 21st century. The expectation-experience theory (Wadman, pp.144, 2000) regarding the relationship between the two remains mutual for both. This applies to the producers in the way that they expect their products to be used by the consumers in a way that they want while they might experience the above mentioned desired scenario or otherwise. In case of the consumers, they expect the producers to come up with their demands and then, while adopting the product, they might have good or bad experiences. Thus, in this case, I found the relationship between the two entities mutually inclusive. References Perner, L. (1999). Diffusion of Innovation. USC Marshall. Ruggiero, Thomas E. (2000). “Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century”. Mass Communication & Society. Vol. 3(1), pp.3-37. Wadman, William M. (2000). Variable Quality in Consumer Theory: Toward a Dynamic Microeconomic Theory of the Consumer. M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Walt, AJ. (2005). Theories of Social and Economic Justice. Sun Press. Read More