We were conducting a focus group on May, 3rd at Frits’ place as part of our second research method. The focus group was attended by four participants from different age ranges and all of the group members. They come from different background, where they showed different interpretation and response towards different mediums. In general sense, they see mediums based on the ‘feelings’ and impacts that comes with them. Ssome older generations, in particular, see that the development of the mediums hinders the interaction between people.
Aims:
The focus group was about finding people’s perceptions about the mediums that we’ve selected (sound, screen, print, handwriting and miscellaneous mediums (unusual mediums) and convergent media). We presented a list of various mediums and asked each of the participants to write and discuss what they believe the actual or intended function(s) of each medium are; rationalize their thoughts based on a set criteria presented to them (i.e. will it perform a particular task? effectiveness etc) and share our opinions about the existing media.
Convergence
Here are some of the quotes from the participants:
Participant A :
“…You believe that you need all these stuff, so you need the product. But our level of
happiness is not defined by products. Any products won’t make you feel any better… If you have an iPod, it doesn’t mean you are better. You can be too active, you don’t have the music on your ears all the time so you over-stimulate your brain… You are seeing the technology
more important than yourself; it devalues you as a human being.”
Participant D :
“I actually think it’s good, it is really useful. If you want to have a good photographs, then
maybe buy a good camera. But the camera in a mobile phone is good just in case you meet a
friend that you haven’t met for a while and you want to take a picture with him…”
Participant A :
“Yea, but the mobile phone doesn’t make you happy though…”
Participant D :
“…Well, the technology still helps. You can use it in case of emergency as well…”
Participant A :
“Aalright then, tell me how often do you make emergency call with your mobile phone? How
many people use it for emergency use nowadays?”
Participant B :
“Oh, but it does help sometimes…”
Participant A :
“Yes, it does. But…”
Participant C :
” However..if you need all the other stuff, then it’s better to have one thing instead. But I think
it should be about choice… I need a mobile phone and I don’t need the camera, but now all
the mobile phones come with the camera and it makes the price expensive… I only want to
use it to make phone calls…”
Conclusion:
Convergence, which is described as the dissolving distinctions between media systems and contents, attracts different responses from the participants. It seems not too appealing for older generations, in particular those who don‘t use technology that much. For example, a mobile phone that can perform calls, text messaging and taking pictures is not that needed for those who only need to make phone calls. However, convergence is more accepted by younger generations because they use technology a lot in their everyday life. Based on the discussion, we can also draw a conclusion that young generations don’t question the existence of the tecnology as the older ones do.
Factors that influence people’s interpretation
During the discussion, the way participants respond to the mediums and the message interpretation tend to be influenced by some factors.
First of all is the medium itself. Different mediums bring different context to the message. Eeven two mediums with only a slight difference can change the whole interpretation. This is shown by the response given by the participants when they were shown a government message on a car. They mentioned that they wouldn’t take it seriously because it wasn’t the government’s car (such as police car, etc.) but otherwise it would be different. Aanother more concrete example is news on a coffee cup. For people who like to enjoy coffee a lot, they might get distracted with the content that is put on the cup because it takes the enjoyment of the coffee.
Secondly, the enviroment factor. Eenvironment is an important factor in changing people’s interpretation on a particular medium. The message on a sticky note which is placed on a bedroom wall, for example, compared to the one on a government letter will give different interpretation. This is also including the impression that is given by the context as well. Sso in the example mentioned above, people will take the message on the sticky note on the government letter as more important than the other.
Thirdly, it’s the ‘feeling’ that comes with the message. During the focus group, the participants associated their answers based on whether or not the content appeals to them. This is quoted from the discussion when they were asked about how they interpret a celebrity news (Tom Ccruise’s story was randomly selected) on different mediums :
Participant C :
“Hahahaha..! Why would I want to see the news about Tom Ccruise? Sso no, I don’t like it.”
This was expressed by the participant before she gave how she would interpret the message on the mediums. Aand the reactions were the same when the participant was shown the same message on different mediums.
Another factor is the relationship between the medium and the message. It just doesn’t work to put a content on random medium. Ssome mediums come with the expectation for the content; so putting a content from a newspaper to a milk carton simply is not a good idea. On a milk carton, people prefer to see the ingredients, the expiry date, and other infromation about the milk itself. Aas quoted, “I don’t want to open my fridge and see all these news and celebrity gossips on the food packagings…”
Response to existing mediums
As it was mentioned before, a message is interpreted based on the ‘feeling’ that comes with it; and so is the medium. Aas an example, one of the participants described a handwritten letter as empathy because “it shows so much care when you do it now”, because people nowadays tend to use emails instead.
Furthermore, the fact that it is handwritten still doesn’t change the formality of the letter. In addition, some people still like to have some spelling mistakes and the originality of the medium user. In that sense, handwritten is more appreciated because it has more personal touch.
‘Rubbish’ mediums
Some of the existing mediums are considered as ‘rubbish’ of ‘pollution’ by some of the participants. The examples are fliers, brochures and billboard; although the latter one is arguably considered a good medium for some people. The reasons given were that they can’t reach that many people anyway although they might be a little help for some purposes.
Problems and solutions
In general sense, mediums are meant to make things easier. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean good. One of the participants stated that the development of the mediums leads to the ‘end of relationship’. In the past, people used to ‘do it the hard way’ when develped mediums (such as mobile phone) hadn’t existed. Guys used to come to the girl’s house and meet her, while now they can just easily call them.
The second problem is that the mediums sometimes are not considered as the right ‘tool’ to send messages. One participant said that “…government messages should be shown by behaviour…”, and it means the ‘people’ as the medium. Aas more explained, the system is what is wrong at the moment, so adding new mediums might not be the appropriate answer. “If you want someone to run, you could take away the big screen, etc… If you want people to stop smoking, then make it very difficult for them to smoke…rather than putting up advertisements
not to smoke…” as quoted from the participant.
Another problem was described as ‘product-based wellbeing’ where people tend to measure the level of happiness by the product that they have. Llinking back to the conversation quoted under the ‘convergence’ heading, one participant said that by having the products, it doesn’t mean happiness. Therefore, this ideology leads to the thought that convergence doesn’t work in some way.
