New communication technologies such as text messaging and Facebook have certainly made our lives easier, but they also cater to our laziness. Want to avoid an awkward encounter with a love interest? Just send them a text message asking them out to dinner! This saves time and avoids all risk of embarrassment. College students today rely on these social buffers. What better way to control your impression on others than to use an impersonal form of communication? While I personally think that our generation suffers from decreased socialization skills, I recognize the convenience in using “lean media” to communicate. I’ve noticed that when I make decisions about media selection, several factors come into play.
I work as an advertising associate at the Cornell Daily Sun. Recently, I have had to contact businesses and student organizations to see if they are interested in advertising in our new “Going Out Guide”. I debated for a while whether the best approach was calling, writing a letter, or sending out an e-mail with the attached rate card that includes ad prices and contract information. Ultimately I decided on e-mail because I thought it was the most efficient. I could send out the same cover letter to all of the companies and attach the rate card all within the same e-mail. This selection supports the Media Richness Theory which says we chose media by efficiently matching the medium of communication with the respective social task. It was most efficient to send the same message out in writing to all of the prospective advertisers. If I took the time to explain the “Going Out Guide” and the cost of the ads to each customer, I would risk omitting some information because each conversation would flow differently. Although e-mail is a lean form of media, it made the most sense because my message was relatively unequivocal. Less cues in this lean form of media was conducive to delivering the correct message to the prospective customers. While this did act as a social buffer between me and the head of each organization, my ultimate decision was driven by efficiency and not how I thought others would perceive me
On a more personal level, I wanted to contact an old friend that I had not spoken to in a while. I considered the potential awkwardness of the situation, but ultimately I chose to call her instead of just using facebook. Would I really be making progress in our relationship if I clung to the social buffer of facebook? I knew that calling her was the most efficient option to rebuild our relationship, since she lives in
3 comments:
Lindsay,
Your description of the Media Richness Theory in your example is very fitting. I have been placed in a similar situation many times (trying to determine which is the best medium to communicate with), and taking the time to do more than sit in front of a computer and communicate has served me the best.
To comment on your description of certain mediums acting as buffers: I agree with what you are saying, but what happens if that is the only medium available to that person at the present time? A buffer seems to have a negative connotation in this instance, and while it may have one in other instances, it should be looked upon relative to the situation and what medium is present. Good job overall and I enjoyed reading your post.
Having worked in an office this summer, I became accustomed to sending lots of work related emails. As a college student, I'm also accustomed to sending and receiving emails as the way to contact professors and fellow students. While in some ways this reliance on technology may be hurting our social skills, it has become a necessary evil. Most business out in the world today relies heavily on email, and the ability to craft a formal business email has replaced the “business letter” that we learned about in grade school.
As far as connecting with old friends, I've had experiences go both ways. Some friends seem to genuinely appreciate a call, recognizing it as more of an effort than a message on Facebook. I know other people, however, that feel awkward in situations with people they haven't contacted in a while. In one case, I decided to reconnect with a friend I hadn't talked to in over two years. I wasn't sure if she would even want to talk to me, since we had not spoken in so long. In this case I sent a message on Facebook, allowing her the option of responding and moving to a richer medium, or to ignore my message without the awkwardness of a phone call. Both cases worked out well, and it was my knowledge of the person I was contacting that led me to my choice of medium.
Lindsay,
I too agree with your description of media richness. Email really is the proper medium to select at times even if it is a "leaner" medium. I think email is much easier to use for people that you don’t know too well or when time is an issue. Responding to phone call from you someone you don’t really know can happen at the wrong time and can be really awkward. While it is more personal, there are certain situations that just call for email. As Michael mentioned above, office communication is almost entirely based on email. The ability to write clearly is crucial in that setting. Although that makes sense, telephone conversation can be distracting and loud to other employees (another example of media richness theory). I think with ever proliferating technology such as blackberries and cell phones, email will become more and more the medium of choice. Nice post, although would you really want someone to text you to go out to dinner?
Post a Comment