A Cultivation Theory Analysis on Home Tv Shopping AdvertisementsEssay Preview: A Cultivation Theory Analysis on Home Tv Shopping AdvertisementsReport this essayPamelle G. FunaComa 101 – L28 March 2012A Cultivation Theory Analysis on Home TV Shopping AdvertisementsShopping is a form of buying things, whether a necessity or a want, usually done in malls, boutiques, shopping centers etc. It is the act of browsing among the products and selecting what you want to buy. This is where most of the companies get there profit. What most companies do to advertise their product and attract customers for them to shop are media such as flyers, newspaper ads, radio ads, billboards, online ads etc. and the sales would be on the hands of the public whether they would go to the store and purchase a product. But in this generation of ours now, any form of advertising would do for companies especially ads that can be done with the television. Endorsements by celebrities and bands, partnerships with TV shows, of course, the classic TV commercials and then there is home TV shopping.
Home TV shopping is ordering a product by calling in through phone or fax or via online with the buyers comfort of not leaving his home to purchase. “In-home shopping has grown significantly since the advent of direct-response television, interactive television, infomercials, and cable network shopping channels. Product information is delivered to consumers at home via direct-mail promotions, catalogs, print advertisements, broadcast media, and outbound telephone. The primary motivator for in-home shopping is convenience; however, entertainment and impulse are also motivators.” – defined by Answers.com. Home TV shopping is similar to door-to-door sales. A salesperson demonstrates the usage of the product for the potential buyers to see and be attracted, but instead of personally witnessing the product, the costumer watches it in TV on his own comfort.
“Plus, many times I can even get the merchandise delivered to my door for less than I would have paid for it in the store.”, claims blogger Rachel Ellis as she made a entry comparing actual shopping with home TV shopping and online shopping. So it is now safe to say, comfort is what home TV shopping has ahead against actual shopping.
Along with the comfort home TV shopping gives to the customer, is the advance access to the products. Products advertised in home TV shopping shows are advance batches of the products which are not even markets yet. Some are even exclusive to home TV shopping only. The customer also has the assurance of the products originality knowing that the company itself is his seller.
But the whole point of this study is not the benefits we get from home TV shopping and if it is better than the actual act of shopping. Ive conducted this study to analyze the believability and assurance of the products sole purpose. To see what are the companies efforts to sell their product. And do their efforts to sell products work on the audience. With this said I will be using George Gerbners theory of Cultivation with the use of its three prongs. With Gerbners theory, television and the violence people get from watching TV was specifically his study. First is the institutional process analysis wherein it is stated why the media produce the messages they do. The second prong is called the message system analysis. This is where I, as the researcher, quantifies and tracks the most common and recurrent images present in the TV content. And lastly the third prong is wherein it is stated how the TV contents affect its viewers. With all this done, to conduct my research I am to apply all these prongs of Gerbners study of analyzing TV and its effects on its viewers particularly how it cultivates the perception of violence on home TV shopping and the perception of believability and assurance it cultivates on its viewers.
The first prong with Gerbners study of TV and its violence was explained by Hollywoods hunger for profit. “Since violence is cheap to produce and speaks in a language that is universally understood, studios adopt policies that call for their shows to include lots of violent contents” (Griffin, 2010). In another study with the use of cultivation theory about the social networking site Twitter and the social awareness everyday users get from it; Jack Dorsey invented the said social networking site to reinvent the idea of SMS texting, one person sending a message to one or more person. With my analysis of home TV shopping, companies who profit big because of home TV shopping such as Clean Up and Team Up, Smart Inventions Inc., Zahid and Sons Inc. and Ray Enterprises has the sole purpose of them reaching to the buyers instead of the usual way of shopping with the customer coming to the product. Home TV shopping has the intention to sell products to the public. And in order to sell these merchandises they advertise them and demonstrate them with the use of TV broadcast to give the buyers the comfort of their own home and have them the convenience of buying through calling in the phones or fax or via online instead of going out to the market and purchase the product. So in short, the main reason of home TV shopping is merely the same with actual shopping just add the comfort of a living room couch and your TV with the convenience of the product being delivered to your doorstep instead of getting in your car and going to the mall.
“Were trying to put forward a shop anywhere, anytime experience. Its a really integrated approach to interacting with the consumer, and the experience you see on the TV channel is mirrored online and through mobile and social. It is really about the sense of instant gratification that you are tapping into.” says Anthony Giombetti, vice president of marketing and communications at ShopNBC as they add online and SMS shopping to their home TV shopping.
Now that Im done discussing the first prong of this analysis comes in the second prong or message system analysis. Akin to Gerbners study of TV, I will also use content analysis in conducting the second prong. With the study Ive mentioned in the first prong about Twitter, the researchers stated that people see Twitters function as a news delivery machine wherein news which people worldwide can relate to is delivered worldwide in just minutes after the news is posted. With my study about home TV shopping analysis, I can say that people see home TV shopping as a live catalogue of the things they think are practically necessities but becomes a want because of the features that product possess. For example is the product Jinsu. It is a set of kitchen knives that are so sharp it can cut through a boot with an easy slice. Another
The researchers who came up with this idea also called the “Lack of Information” but in an odd way it has no relevance to the whole article. First, let’s be clear on one point here: the researchers did not talk about the idea of an extra 5% more “information” for everyone but a smaller amount which just means we have 3 or 4 different ways of generating more stuff. So maybe the authors thought the “data” could be the same as 2, or 3, or even just 1! The researchers didn’t mention the idea of any kind of extra content or information, or even mention their other points of the article.
The first point of the article is that this was a project by an econometrics study that didn’t really make sense in all the different kinds of different settings of the world of media. So no, this doesn’t mean that you should not be able to use them to evaluate the results of your work, you should be able to have a conversation about their results. However, this only has value if it makes the content your work requires less, so that way if you want to study something more you have to get in touch with your target audience, for example. For example I was looking for new ways online to get a quick overview or update on some blog but can’t find any work which can provide an overview of the blog. Another point about the article is that the researchers went completely out of their way to include more data when in actuality this method of analysis may not have enough relevance to some of the results I already talked about for comparison.
Again, there is a huge difference in analysis between this and the other studies, for example on the way the study was conducted it wasn’t actually very relevant. However, more on that on the next paragraph.
The reason why some of the other studies had a problem were with their “tackling bias” analysis, which is a small set of factors that would influence the accuracy of the results. But even if the researchers were honest in claiming their study was good in terms of its statistical quality, they were never actually trying to determine any kind of way of measuring a particular social skill or to test the relationship of those qualities to the individual characteristics.
In the article we mentioned that there may be some things that contribute to this. For example, we may remember that the first time that people looked at the site they probably thought of it as the “tackling machine”. In other words we could say that the researchers analyzed the average number of users across their site over the last year to give us a better sense of the extent to which their social groups were affected even after accounting for those that were unique. If this is the case, then the analysis gave us something worth doing.
But if that is also the case then why did the researchers write this? Because the idea of social learning seems to be very compelling. We all think about it, we think that if we can learn something from it then we will be learning something of value as well. And it seems really obvious and hard to believe that the authors could’ve thought the same on another basis, i.e. this data wasn’t actually relevant, as they thought there must be some sort of psychological or