Journal of Communication Management Volume 5 Number 2
Academic Papers
Applying communication theories to the
Internet
Johanna Fawkes and Anne Gregory
Received: 20th July, 2000
School of Business Strategy, Leeds Business School, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds
LS6 3QS; tel: +44 (0)113 283 7520; fax: +44 (0)113 283 7453
Johanna Fawkes is course leader for BA
Public Relations at Leeds Metropolitan Uni-
versity (LMU), where she teaches mass
communications and social psychology.
She has also led the Institute of Public
Relations Diploma at LMU. Jo began teach-
ing in 1990, at the London College of Print-
ing, after 15 years as practitioner, mostly in
local government and trade union public
relations. After completing an MA in Crea-
tive Writing at Lancaster University in 1994,
she helped develop, deliver and eventually
lead the BA in Public Relations at the Uni-
versity of Central Lancashire until 1998.
Anne Gregory is head of the School of Busi-
ness Strategy at Leeds Metropolitan Uni-
versity. Her main area of interest is in
public relations as a management function.
She headed up the university’s Public Rela-
tions Studies Group until 1994. Before
moving into academic life eight years ago,
Anne was a full-time public relations practi-
tioner and held senior appointments both
in-house and in consultancy. Anne con-
tinues with consultancy work and has writ-
ten a book on planning and managing
public relations campaigns. She is editor of
the Institute of Public Relations/Kogan
Page series ‘Public relations in practice’.
ABSTRACT
The Internet has brought about change in the
way that public relations is practised. Not
only has it provided another channel of com-
munication, but the communication dynamic
itself has changed because of the Internet’s
unique combination of characteristics.
Much public relations practice is still pos-
ited on dated theories of the system of commu-
nication along the linear lines of sender,
channel, receiver (with feedback). The public
relations professional is there to transmit a
message with the purpose of persuading pub-
lics to the point of view being promulgated.
There have been suggestions that a new
model of communication is required in order
to explain the Internet medium.
This paper re-examines three of the older
communication systems models to establish
whether there are elements within them that
can be helpful in explaining the dynamics of
Internet-based communication. The authors
use the three models, in turn, to examine this
medium by focusing on the message sender,
the channel itself and the user of the Internet.
The conclusion is that together they can
throw valuable light on Internet-based com-
munication and that there are lessons to be Journal of Communication
Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2000,
drawn from these models that are useful for pp. 109–124
# Henry Stewart Publications,
the contemporary public relations practitioner. 1363–254X
Page 109
Applying communication theories to the Internet
KEYWORDS: Internet, communication
models, Westley–McLean Maletzke, Blum-
ler and Kate, uses, gratifications
THE INTERNET AND COMMUNICATIONS
MODELS
The advent of the Internet has pre-
sented many challenges to the public
relations practitioner. One of those is to
question whether the predominant
model describing communication sys-
tems underpinning much public rela-
tions practice is still valid.
So what is this model? Most texts
start from, and many end with, the
simple linear transmission model:
source–message/medium–receiver–
effect (+feedback). Gregory suggests
that most practitioners rely on this
simple transmission model of commu-
nication, a linear process of distributing
information, or messages, and expecting
effects to follow naturally.1 This view is
supported by Grunig and Hunt, who
suggest practitioners are too attached to
the ‘domino model’ whereby the sen-
der’s message creates knowledge, lead-
ing inexorably to attitude and thence
behaviour change.2 Cutlip et al. also
compare practitioners ‘engaged only in
message sending’ to basketball players
aiming at a hidden basket.3
The Institute of Public Relations/
Public Relations Consultancies Associa-
tion (IPR/PRCA) Internet Commis-
sion claims that a new communication
model is necessary because the old
model is made redundant by the Inter-
net.4 As Morris and Ogen say, how-
ever, ‘A new communication
technology such as the Internet allows
scholars to rethink rather than abandon
definitions and categories.’5
Before calling for a new model, it is
worth examining existing models to see
what they have to offer. Communica-
tions models have been evolved over the
Page 110
past half-century to describe relation-
ships which are mediated through a vari-
ety of channels and in a variety of ways.
Undoubtedly, the Internet will force
practitioners to re-examine the assump-
tions they make about communication,
in the light of the changing communi-
cation environment. They will need to
draw on the rich array of models
developed by the various schools of
mass communication — many of
which are useful to the PR practitioner,
but largely ignored in PR texts. Only
then will it be clear if a new model is
required for the Internet age.
This paper sets out to do three
things. First, to examine briefly the dif-
ferent levels of communication that
take place in human society and to see
how the Internet addresses these. Sec-
ondly, to look at three selected models
in an attempt to explain the communi-
cation process from different perspec-
tives, and, thirdly, to draw out the
implications of these models for public
relations practitioners in an Internet-
based communication environment.
THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF
COMMUNICATION
Communication is traditionally seen to
fall into various levels.6,7 At the first
level there is intrapersonal communica-
tion — that which takes place within
individuals themselves. At the second
level there is interpersonal — that
which takes place between individuals,
for instance a one-to-one conversation.
At the third level is group communi-
cation. According to Rosengren a
group can be characterised as being
relatively small (say up to 20 people),
with a joint identity, having a goal (or
common interest), with a more or less
informal structure, and an informal or
semi-formalised leadership.8 Group
communication takes place both within

groups and between groups. For exam-
ple, a pressure group in the USA will
have its own meetings and decision-
making process, but may link up to a
similar group in Australia to undertake
a project of mutual interest or may
seek to engage in dialogue with an
organisation that they oppose.
Fourthly. there is organisational or
institutional communication. Organisa-
tions can be defined as a group with a
formalised structure of communication,
a defined goal, and a system for recruit-
ment or exclusion, for decision making
and for communication with the envir-
onment.9 Organisations often cross
boundaries between groups and social
units. An example given by McQuail
includes a business organisation.10
Again communication can be intraor-
ganisational (for example employee
communication) or interorganisational
(for example, company to suppliers).
McQuail also identifies a fifth level
of communication — society-wide —
and gives the church as an example.11
This is the level at which mass commu-
nication traditionally operates. Com-
munication can also take place between
the various levels and can be directly
between the participants, or mediated
(more on this last concept later).
As the communicator moves through
these levels, the opportunities for mis-
interpretation multiply.
The Internet is a mechanism where
all these elements can be drawn
together. Intra-personal communication
can be enhanced by using the Internet
to inform personal thinking, analysis
and decision making — for example,
interrogating various information
sources to decide which holiday to
select. Interpersonal communication is
also facilitated, for example via e-mail
(although it is naive to presume that e-
mails will remain secure and personal
Fawkes and Gregory
to the two participants involved).
Intragroup and intergroup communica-
tion is possible through, for example,
chatrooms and extranets connecting
suppliers and distributors, and societal
communication is allowed through the
availability of websites to all those who
have access to the Internet. Chatroom
‘groups’ can, however, often be much
larger than the traditional group, as
Rosengren points out.12 Potentially,
every website could have a societal
impact given their mass communica-
tion capabilities, but examples of influ-
ential sites are Friends of the Earth, the
BBC and political organisations.
These types of communication have
always been available through a variety
of media, but the contribution of the
Internet facilitates them all. In addition,
the Internet has three features which
distinguish it from traditional media: its
reach is vast, to virtually all parts of the
world — access does not depend on
location; it is not time-bound, it can be
accessed when the user wishes; and it is
capable of providing interactivity in a
manner unprecedented in any commu-
nication medium.
For example, an organisation may
publish an annual report and accounts.
Traditionally, these are distributed by
the organisation to individuals and spe-
cific groups — city analysts and
employees. Accompanying the report
may be a covering letter in which there
may be messages tailored to the audi-
ence to whom it is addressed. Control
is maintained through the discrete
nature of the distribution, the assump-
tion (admittedly high risk) being that
audiences are broadly separate, but to
accommodate overlaps, care is taken to
ensure the messages are not conflicting.
If, however, the report is posted on a
Web page with an attendant commen-
tary, access by all groups and indivi-
Page 111
Applying communication theories to the Internet
duals is unimpaired. They all can draw
down the same messages. Some users
may also follow links to related mate-
rial from the same or another organisa-
tion that would be sought using other
means, for example postal enquiry.
Furthermore, the report may be
debated in special-interest or general
chatrooms on the web and these too
are widely accessible. Even if intranets
and extranets are used to try to ‘fire-
wall’ information, the interconnected-
ness of the Internet community means
that security is impossible to guarantee.
In reality, individuals and groups have
always been interconnected, but the
reach and speed of the Internet add a
new dimension.
The convergence of communication
capability on the PC also means that
the practical difficulties of using, coor-
dinating and integrating a multitude of
communication techniques (for exam-
ple, letters, telephone, newsletters etc)
are overcome.
There are dangers in not thinking
through the consequences of using the
Internet for every specific communica-
tion situation. In the example given
above, the organisation may be
applauded for making their report and
accounts available to the global audi-
ence — openness and transparency is to
be welcomed, generally speaking. Legal
and regulatory requirements on finan-
cial disclosure, however, differ from
country to country, and transparency
in one country in which the organisa-
tion operates may lead to difficulties for
the organisation’s public relations staff
who work in different parts of the
world.
The Internet also allows for human
intervention so that messages can be
altered at the point of source or further
along the line. For example, websites
can be hacked into and altered so that
Page 112
information seekers obtain erroneous
information. Shadow advocacy or
rogue sites can exist in parallel with
original sites, providing additional
information sources and, indeed,
diverting traffic intended for the origi-
nal site.
The fact that the Internet facilitates
interconnection means that information
can jump from network to network
while at the same time being altered or
added to at any point, and this adds a
potency to the communication
dynamic. Clark and Lipski illustrate it
as in Figure 1.13
Other media have allowed all these
things but, to date, they have not been
so all embracing, for example listening
to radio can be an individual or group
activity. Interactivity is allowed
through phone-ins, but comment is fil-
tered though producers and restricted
to certain topics. Outdoor posters can
be defaced so that the original message
is distorted, but the impact is restricted
to those who physically pass by them.
What makes the Internet different is the
capability to facilitate all levels of com-
munication and to permit human inter-
vention without the limitations of time,
location or permission.
Interconnectivity makes it difficult
for traditional gatekeepers, such as
public relations professionals and jour-
nalists, to control or withhold informa-
tion but, conversely, has facilitated the
appearance of ‘e-influentials’ — people
who use and know the Internet and
influence the attitudes and behaviour of
other Internet users.14
ELEMENTS IN THE COMMUNICATION
PROCESS
There are dozens of models describing
communication systems, but they are
normally categorised as falling into one
of two major traditions. The first, men-

Figure 1: One-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many Internet communication
# Alison Clark 1999
tioned earlier in this paper, based on the
transmissive system, focuses on the trans-
mission of information/ideas/emotions
from a person or group to another or
others in an essentially linear way.15 The
second tradition is based the participa-
tive system and focuses on notions of
meanings and mutual understanding. It
recognises that the communication pro-
cess has value in itself, and that social
constructions of identity, meaning and
knowledge require the active involve-
ment of all parties in the communica-
tion process. While the linear nature of
communication is generally questioned
in academic circles, in practice most
Fawkes and Gregory
professional communicators still design
and implement communications pro-
grammes on the basis of information
transmission in order to persuade.
Of course, it is clear that transmission
of information is entirely appropriate in
certain circumstances. For example, a
product recall requires an informative,
unambiguous message to be transmitted
to purchasers of the product, similarly
an increase in the interest rate offered
on bank accounts.
There are other situations, however,
usually more complex, where participa-
tive communication is essential. For
example, public relations campaigns on
Page 113
Applying communication theories to the Internet
health issues such as healthy lifestyles
require common meanings of ‘healthy’
to be established and a movement in
social attitudes which can only happen
when there is mutual understanding
and acceptance.
The discussion about the transmission
or participation system is important in
the context of the Internet. The nature
of communication on the Internet is
certainly partly about the transmission
of information, but it is also about
having ‘conversations’, many of which
can be ‘listened in to’. The Internet has
made global gossip possible.
There is a wide range of communica-
tion models developed in the social
sciences over the last half century, espe-
cially in psychology and media studies.
Many of these models have great sig-
nificance and relevance for public rela-
tions, but are largely ignored by core
public relations texts.
Different approaches to communica-
tion theory place differing emphases on
the definitions of the terms ‘channel’
and ‘medium’. For some the channel is
a purely technical element such as a tel-
ephone wire, where the medium is the
spoken voice.
Many of the texts are heavily influ-
enced by US approaches to communi-
cation based on post-war empirical
research into military and health appli-
cations of persuasive communication,
and measuring effects of media mes-
sages on receivers. The emphasis on
source and credibility and the power of
persuasion permeates much public rela-
tions literature.
Many commentators and most prac-
titioners conflate these two terms, and
for the purposes of this paper the
authors draw no distinction.
The best-known public relations aca-
demic in the Anglo-American tradi-
tion, James Grunig, uses a simple
Page 114
transmission model to demonstrate the
problems of relying on a left-to-right
linear process which privileges the
source over the receiver.16 His concepts
of symmetry in communication
between an organisation and its publics,
developed in the same text, stem from
the rejection of the transmission
approach in favour of mutual relation-
ships in communication. He is extre-
mely interested in the transactional
dynamics of communication, but he
does not point out that the linear pro-
cess has been challenged almost since it
was defined.
Other well-known authors provide
useful and critical overviews of com-
munication theories, located strongly in
the US social psychology tradition,
which investigates persuasion and
media effects.17,18 But they make little
reference to the different European
schools of media studies, which exam-
ine how people use the media. None of
these texts uses the models suggested in
this paper.
There is, however, a rich tradition in
communication and media studies, and
it is from these that the three models
below have been drawn. These com-
munication and mass media models
have been selected because a) they seem
relevant to public relations practitioners
and b) they may aid understanding of
how the Internet does or does not
change communication. There are of
course many other models and
approaches worthy of attention — in
particular, this paper does not look at
marketing models or consumer beha-
viour, though both are valuable sources
of material, worthy of exploration else-
where.
The models chosen are those of West-
ley and McLean,19 Maletzke20 and one
first proposed in a series of articles
edited by Blumler and Katz,21 better

known as the uses and gratifications
model. The authors have used these
models in turn to examine the Internet
medium, first from the perspective of
the sender, secondly the channel and
thirdly the receiver (or user). The
models can be used in different ways,
but these perspectives yield useful
insights into how the Internet impacts
on the practice of public relations.
COMMUNICATION MODELS —
FUNCTION AND VALUE
Some terms
Before examining any models it is
worth establishing some terms, in parti-
cular distinguishing between mediated
and unmediated communication, mass
and direct media, and trying to describe
the Internet using these terms.
There are two main elements to
mediation, and one is the channel or
mechanism that carries the communica-
tion, for example the telephone or the
newspaper. In reality, most public rela-
tions communication is mediated, that
is transmitted through a channel,
whether print, broadcast or electronic
media, rather than face to face, and the
models examined here all reflect that
reality. The second element in media-
tion is the human agent who acts as a
gatekeeper or interpreter of the infor-
mation. Here, a distinction needs to be
made between mass media, such as
newspapers, radio and television, where
inclusion is dependent on the editorial
decisions of ‘gatekeepers’ (see Westley-
MacLean, below), and direct media,
such as exhibitions, leaflets or corporate
videos, where the content is wholly
controlled by the initiator of the com-
munication.
Internet application
This raises the question of what kind of
medium the Internet is, using the above
Fawkes and Gregory
categories. Phillips describes its techni-
cal features as:
— one-to-one (e-mail is the fastest-
growing forum of one-to-one
communication)
— one-to-many (Internet newsgroups
and personal websites include 550
million global transactions per day)
— many-to-many (Internet chat,
usenet exchanges . . . are now usual
for 250 million people every day).22
All of these communications are
mediated, that is they are conducted via
the PC and the phone (WAP) or digital
television. Some of them could be
classed as mass media — portals for
example, news services run by all the
media organisations and other online
publications. Others are direct media,
allowing an organisation direct contact
with stakeholders23 and, of course, vice
versa. A dimension which does radi-
cally alter the landscape is the ability of
stakeholders or publics to talk to each
other very easily.24,25
Few communication models are
media-specific, however. They describe
a series of relationships, and the
medium provides the connection. The
elements are not necessarily altered if
the medium shifts, for example, from
radio to television, though of course a
change of medium changes some of
those relationships. Radio phone-ins
allow faster feedback than letters to the
editor, but feedback is still feedback,
whatever the speed of return.
McQuail sets out the following func-
tions of the media and their uses:
— social function: enable people to
relate to each other, shared cultural
events
— expressive function: to express a
point of view, a set of values
Page 115
Applying communication theories to the Internet
— control function: to alter others’
attitudes and behaviour
— information function: to transmit
knowledge.26
The Internet provides space for all of
these functions and this typology forms
a useful framework for examining how
people are using the media — although
it was evolved in an earlier context —
again suggesting that existing commu-
nications theory has much to offer
Internet analysts.
In principle, the use of the Internet as
a medium should not invalidate a com-
munication model, any more than the
use of radio or television does.
The Westley and McLean model
The Westley and McLean model of
1957 was the first to address the role of
the mass media in communication. The
perspective taken here is to examine
Figure 2: The Westley and McLean model27
Page 116
whether placing the Internet into the
model alters the relationships within
the model, in particular those of the
sender/gatekeeper.
The main feature of Westley and
McLean is that it introduces the role of
the gatekeeper or channel (C) into the
communication flow. It also shows
events in the environment (X), and
highlights the role of the source or
advocate (A), the first time the public
relations professional appears so clearly
in a model. A has to gather relevant
information from the internal and
external environment and create an
appropriate message (Xi) to pass
through the channel C, or gatekeeper
who may alter it (Xii), before it can
reach the public (individual or group)
over whose behaviour (B) influence is
sought. The model reminds the public
relations professional that the journalist
or gatekeeper has access to information

(X3c) other than that which they
supply, and that feedback loops run
between them and the journalist, them
and the public and the public and the
journalist, though the feedback via
mass media is delayed.
There are many aspects of this model
that can be and have been studied, such
as how the advocate gathers relevant
information, or tries to screen the jour-
nalist from other sources; what criteria
the journalist uses to filter news or
other content; and what the public does
with the information received. The
influence of the public is illustrated by
the pressures on C to select information
suitable for their needs. The power of
the source to ‘push’ messages is now
constrained by the agency of the mass
media. The public is free to exert pull,
but only via the gatekeeper.
Limitations
Some elements of the transmission
model seem to remain here — the
behaviour role can be seen as the recei-
ver end of the communication, and the
advocate as a source who is not
expected to change in the course of
communication. This model, however,
is actually based on Heider’s28 balance
theories and Newcomb’s29 ABX model
and is related to the coorientational
approach, thus the direction is reversi-
ble, if B wishes to play the A role.
Nonetheless, the channel role is seen
as non-purposive or neutral, a view of
the media that is not shared by many
media academics. The political econ-
omy school and reception theorists
argue that mass media act as a carrier
for the dominant ideology, since it is
owned and regulated by those with
power.
Implications for the Internet
Much of the current discussion about
Fawkes and Gregory
the Internet and public relations focuses
on the elements described here and
their relationship. So, has the power of
A, C or B risen with the changing
technology?
Substantial public relations activity is
devoted to satisfying the needs of the
media, in their gatekeeper role, in
order to acquire the all-important
third-party endorsement and its conco-
mitant Holy Grail, credibility. Like-
wise, journalism is about meeting the
growing demands for particular kinds
of information, from financial com-
ment to celebrity trivia, exerted by
readers and viewers. Broadly speaking,
the dynamic has been between A and
C collaborating (however reluctantly)
to satisfy B. As long as B does not have
access to the same information shared
by A and/or C, they can maintain con-
trol of the process.
The Internet gives B access to all the
X’s in the universe. There is almost no
event or data that cannot be accessed
directly from the Web, without the
need for a gatekeeper. This direct access
enables B to transform him/her/their
self into an advocate. As Clark and
Lipski say, public can talk to public.30
The feedback loops are all between Bs,
leaving public relations and journalism
to work out a new role. This is the
sense in which the Internet changes
things. It means that instead of relying
on the mass media to provide the pri-
mary means of communication with
stakeholders, organisations need to
establish direct interaction channels.
The Maletzke model
If the Westley and McLean model
encourages reflection on complex
sources of information (senders), Mal-
etzke, a German scholar, takes a much
larger view. His model details the com-
plex interaction of variables at the com-
Page 117
Applying communication theories to the Internet
Figure 3: The Maletzke model31
municator and receiver end of commu-
nication.
There are many useful points for
public relations practitioners in this
model — particularly salutary is the
attention to the communicator’s per-
sonality, social context, working envir-
onment and other pressures. The
‘source’ is here shown to be subject to a
number of pressures. Likewise, the
receiver is placed in a social context,
subject to his or her own environmen-
tal pressures.
The model can provide a practical
checklist to public relations profes-
sionals, encouraging greater self-aware-
ness as well as challenging assumptions
about the receiver, as part of the plan-
ning process. It makes the processes of
encoding and decoding quite detailed
and explicit. The element to be
explored here, however, is the central
section concerning the medium (or
channel).
Page 118
Maletzke suggests that the medium is
surrounded by a series of pressures or
constraints. From the communicator’s
perspective there are choices to be
made. First, the content, then the way
in which the message is shaped. Usually
the communicator has more material or
messages available than will actually be
communicated, and the way they shape
the material depends on the situation.
Thus financial information is presented
differently from gossip. Furthermore,
one message may be part of an overall
communication package and is con-
strained by that. The medium itself has
constraints — material prepared for
broadcast is different from material pre-
pared for press. There is also the com-
municator’s self-image and role to
consider: are they a committed prosely-
tiser of a specific cause, or a mouth-
piece for someone else? Can they
express their personal values, and what
is their personality? The fact that the

communication is public also brings
restraints. These can all affect the selec-
tion and structuring of content and
might also cover awareness of such ele-
ments as the legal aspects of the
medium and relevant news values.
From the receiver’s perspective, there
are also constraints. Each medium has
its own characteristics that affect the
way the receiver experiences the con-
tent. They are connected to it in space
and time. Use depends on accessibility
and cost, and the receiver’s image of
the medium (a reader of a quality
broadsheet may not wish to be seen
reading a tabloid).
The receiver is also placed in their
own context — their ‘reading’ will be
affected by their self-image, personality,
social environment and membership of
the media audience. Each of these con-
cepts is underpinned by considerable
research and a wide body of social psy-
chology theory concerning attitudes,
ego involvement and social conformity,
for example.
Implications of the Internet
This model allows the way the medium
itself changes relationships to be exam-
ined. The supply and demand of com-
munication on the Internet is clearly
laid out as the site of tension and possi-
ble conflict. The medium has a quite
different range of constraints than, say,
a newspaper deadline. Clearly access,
cost and skill in use are all issues. As of
March 2000 it was estimated that there
were almost 333 million people online
worldwide.32 147 million of these,
however, were in Canada and the USA
and only 3 million in the whole conti-
nent of Africa.
Mass media have traditionally been
characterised as one way, but the Inter-
net facilitates two-way communication
through e-mail post boxes on websites,
Fawkes and Gregory
chatrooms, bulletin boards and online
discussions.
Suppliers and users of information
carry images of the medium, some
positive, some not. For some the Inter-
net is a door to unlimited knowledge,
to others it is an impenetrable and
frightening maze of information. In its
earlier days the Internet was perceived
as being the domain of the upper and
middle classes; now the largest growth
in use is from blue-collar and manual
workers.33
The medium itself is characterised by
user behaviour traits. The Internet has
its own user etiquette (or netiquette)
with ‘spammers’ attracting opprobrium
from regular users. Users can be anon-
ymous or can have a different personal-
ity online and act differently. Internet
users take on a different mindset; as
Badaracco puts it, ‘technology wields
philosophical power that has to do
with how interconnected publics
engage with one another, how collec-
tive groups have the ability to form
and define themselves before the
world’.34
There is not space here to explore all
these possibilities fully, only to suggest
that the Maletzke model shines much
richer light on the communication pro-
cess than does the old linear model. But
it is also flawed because, like most mass
media models, it assumes the receiver
only has the power to consume or not
consume.
Uses and gratifications (Blumler and
Katz)
A third model views the communica-
tion process from the point of view of
the user. The basis of the model was
built on research done in the 1940s, for
example by Lazersfeld and Stanton35
and Berelson,36 when audiences were
asked why particular media and parti-
Page 119
Applying communication theories to the Internet
Figure 4: The uses and gratifications model
cular content appealed. In 1974, Blum-
ler and Katz proposed the uses and
gratifications approach following
research into how audiences used the
media and the gratification they
derived from that use.37 The underly-
ing assumption is that audiences are
active and they seek out that content
which provides the most gratification.
The level of gratification depends on
the level of need or interest of the indi-
vidual. The theory is modelled by
McQuail and Windahl as shown in
Figure 4.38
The model starts with identifying the
factors that influence the choice of
media by audiences and ends with audi-
ence gratification. The ‘sender’ is
excluded. The starting point is posited
as rooted in the individual’s needs. Ori-
ginally these needs were seen to be
basic, allied to Maslow’s hierarchy of
human needs, but more recent develop-
ment of the theory suggests that these
can be at other levels and of a more
superficial nature, for example security,
and tension release.39
Motives arise from needs and prompt
action. McQuail lists the following:
— getting information and advice
— reducing personal insecurity
— learning about society and the
world
Page 120
— finding support for one’s own
values
— gaining insight into one’s own life
— experiencing empathy with
problems of others
— having a basis for social contact
— feeling connected with others
— escaping from problems and worries
— gaining entry into an imaginary
world
— filling time
— experiencing emotional release
— acquiring a structure for daily
routine.40
A conclusion from this drawn by
Windahl et al. is that there are a variety
of motives for media use, but there is a
widespread and often mistaken assump-
tion among communication planners
that people in the audience attend to
messages for the reason the sender
intends.41 For example, the consumer
of a corporate brochure may not be
interested in the content, but in the
design and use of colour.
Publics choose the preferred medium
and content on the basis of what they
perceive will be the outcome — their
needs being fulfilled (or gratified). This
may be immediate or long term.
In an extension of the uses and grati-
fications theory, Palmgreen and Ray-
burn developed the expectancy-value

model, which states that publics choose
media on the basis of their past experi-
ence.42 The concept behind this model
is that, on the basis of their past experi-
ence of certain media, users expect a
certain result: the satisfaction of their
needs. That satisfaction can, however,
be to a greater or lesser value. The
model also predicts an increased use of
a particular medium over time where
gratifications obtained are larger than
gratifications expected. Here audience
satisfaction is high. If gratifications
expected consistently outweigh gratifi-
cations obtained, however, the reverse
will pertain and users will avoid the
medium over time.
Implications of the Internet
The relevance of this theory to the
Internet is manifold. First, the sheer
range of content means that the oppor-
tunities for gratifications are expanded
in a way that no other single-point
information source can provide. At the
time of writing there were an esti-
mated nearly 2 billion Web pages,43
many with some websites having
almost 1 million pages (for example
the BBC). Surveys of Internet use
show that personal information, work,
education, entertainment, shopping,
communication and time wasting are
primary uses; in other words a large
proportion if not all of McQuail’s
motives list given above can be satis-
fied via the Internet.44
Furthermore, the availability of
wider bandwidths means that users can
experience increasing levels of sensory
stimulation such as high-quality ani-
mated graphics or live pictures, good
sound reproduction and immediate
interactivity.
Thus, the users and gratifications
theory with its expectancy-value exten-
sion provides an explanation of many
Fawkes and Gregory
aspects of the Internet and its appeal.
Users see it as a potent mechanism for
satisfying their needs at a range of
levels, from simple information gather-
ing (for example, the time of a train to
Berlin), to being a means for expressing
complex social and potential motiva-
tions (for example chatrooms about the
environment which in turn lead to
actions — Greenpeace’s use of the
Internet to initiate action being a case
in point), to personal and group sexual
fantasisation, and thereby to gratifica-
tion.
The question of how far users expect
and value aspects like reliability, famil-
iarity and credibility may vary from
situation to situation. Truth may not be
a requirement for readers of the Daily
Sport, whereas scandals follow where
television documentaries turn out to be
‘faked’. The Internet makes it harder to
distinguish between these types of
information, given the opportunities
for ‘faking’. According to the theory, if
users find the information unreliable
and they value reliability they will no
longer use those sites.
In this, the Internet is not different
from other media — viewers switch
channels, or stop buying magazines
when they fail to deliver what they
promised, or as in the case of the Liver-
pudlian boycott of the Sun after Hills-
borough, when they offend a section of
their users. The range of sites available
on the Internet is so much greater than
the number of titles available in any
newsagent, however, that the emphasis
is increasingly on the desires of the user
who logs on and bookmarks a page,
and less on the intentions of the sup-
plier. The Internet is increasingly
recognised as a ‘pull’ rather than ‘push’
medium, and the uses and gratifications
theory helps illustrate how the ‘pull’
mechanism works.
Page 121
Applying communication theories to the Internet
CONCLUSIONS
The three models outlined above pro-
vide some good insights into commu-
nication on the Internet. A re-
examination of the Westley-McLean
model calls into question the gate-
keeper role in mass communication,
normally undertaken by the journalist
filtering and amending material sup-
plied by public relations professionals,
In the past, the relationship between
the public relations practitioner and the
journalist was considered an essential
elements in ‘controlling’ the flow of
information about an organisation or
client. Now, organisations are becom-
ing more transparent, with more infor-
mation widely available to a huge
range of publics. Organisations are also
becoming more porous or leaky, with
any number of individuals or groups,
external or internal, supplying their
own information to those publics. The
public relations function cannot control
the movement of information and opi-
nion on this scale.
Of course, public relations profes-
sionals have never had the levels of
control they sometimes imagined, as
the earlier discussion makes clear. The
over-reliance on the transmission
model of communication may have
misled the practitioner into an illusion
of control, while in reality users have
always constructed their own meanings
from messages, according to their own
social and psychological needs. The
Maletzke model illustrates the stages of
this process, and while it elaborates
some of the elements of the transmis-
sion model, it extends deeper into the
complex contexts of all parties in a
communication process. Examining the
central section of the model allowed
further discussion of the impact of the
Internet on those who provide infor-
mation and those who retrieve it — a
Page 122
distinction that is becoming increas-
ingly blurred. The Internet’s reach,
richness of content and interconnectiv-
ity, regardless of time or distance, exert
their own pressures and constraints on
all those who use it, regardless of role,
as Maletzke illustrates. Maletzke also
highlights the complex needs of those
seeking information, and allows profes-
sional communicators to think more
about building direct links with a
varied public and less on relying on
journalists. Indeed, the role of the
media professional is also changing in
the new communication environment.
The emphasis on the varying needs
of different publics brings in the uses
and gratifications theory, with its useful
expectancy-value extension. Web users
will create the successes and failures in
the new medium. It is users who are
shaping it, whether for use as a source
of personal amusement or political
involvement.
Professional communicators will
have to work harder to understand,
anticipate and meet these needs before
the mouse clicks elsewhere.
The discussion of these models iden-
tifies areas in which the Internet chal-
lenges long-held assumptions and
illustrates the degree to which the com-
munication environment is changing.
We need new ways of visualising and
conceptualising the communication
nexus — and perhaps new metaphors.
The engineering concepts in the trans-
mission model belong to early in the
last century. A paradigm shift is taking
place, at least as important as, and not
dissimilar to, the shift from linear equa-
tions to chaos theory, from Newtonian
physics to quantum mechanics.
REFERENCES
1. Gregory, A. (1999) ‘How the Inter-
net radically changes public relations

practice’, paper submitted to the
Institute of Public Relations (IPR)/
Public Relations Consultants Associa-
tion (PRCA) Internet Commission.
2. Grunig, J. E. and Hunt, T. (1984)
‘Managing public relations’, Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, New York.
3. Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H. and
Broom, G. M. (2000) ‘Effective
public relations’, 8th edn, Prentice
Hall, London.
4. IPR/PRCA (2000) ‘The death of
spin’, report of the IPR/PRCA Inter-
net Commission.
5. Morris, M. and Ogen, C. (1996) ‘The
Internet as mass medium’, Journal of
Communication, Vol. 46, No. 1.
6. McQuail, D. (1994) ‘Mass communi-
cation theory’, Sage, London.
7. Rosengren, K. E. (2000) ‘Communi-
cation’, Sage, London.
8. Ibid, p. 88.
9. Ibid, p. 106.
10. McQuail (1994) op. cit., p. 7.
11. Ibid.
12. Rosengren (2000) op. cit., p. 93.
13. Clark, A. and Lipski, R. (1999) ‘Put-
ting the comm(unication) in e-com-
merce’, paper given at the Institute of
Public Relations Annual Conference,
Birmingham, UK.
14. NUA (2000) ‘Roper Starch: On-line
opinion leaders are highly impartial’,
available from http://www.nua.ie/
surveys, accessed 7th July, 2000.
15. Theodersen, S. A. and Theodersen,
G. R. (1969) ‘A modern dictionary
of sociology’, Crowell, New York.
16. Grunig (1984) op. cit.
17. Cutlip et al. (2000) op. cit.
18. Riel, C. B. M. V. (1995) ‘Principles
of corporate communication’, Pre-
ntice Hall, London.
19. Westley, B. H. and McLean, M.
(1957) ‘A conceptual model for com-
munication research’, Journalism
Quarterly, Vol. 34, pp. 31–38
20. Maletzke, G. (1963) ‘Psychologie der
Masser Kommunikation’, Hamburg,
Verlag Hans Bredow Institute,
quoted in McQuail, D. and Windahl,
Fawkes and Gregory
S. (1996) ‘Communication models’,
Addison Wesley Longman, Harlow.
21. Blumler, J. G. and Katz, E. (1974)
‘The uses of mass communication’,
Sage, Beverley Hills, CA.
22. Phillips, D. (1999) ‘Managing your
reputation in cyberspace’, Thorough-
good, London.
23. Gregory (1999) op. cit.
24. Phillips (1999) op. cit.
25. Gregory (1999) op. cit.
26. McQuail (1994) op. cit.
27. Taken from Windahl, S. and Signit-
zer, B. with Olson, J. T. (1992)
‘Using communication theory’, Sage,
London.
28. Heider, F. (1946) ‘Attitudes and cog-
nitive information’, Journal of Psychol-
ogy, Vol. 2, pp. 107–112.
29. Newcomb, T. (1953) ‘An approach
to the study of communicative acts’,
Psychological Review, Vol. 60, pp.
393–404.
30. Clark and Lipski (1999) op. cit.
31. Taken from Windahl and Signitzer,
with Olson (1992) op. cit., p. 126.
32. NUA (2000) ‘How many on-line’,
available from http://www.nua.ie./
surveys, accessed 7th July, 2000.
33. NUA (2000) ‘Forrester Research:
Internet no longer elite medium in
UK’, available from http://
www.nua.ie/surveys, accessed 7th
July, 2000.
34. Badaracco, C. H. (1998) ‘The trans-
parent corporation and organised
community’, Public Relations Review,
Vol. 13, pp. 542–554.
35. Lazarsfeld, P. F. and Stanton, F.
(1944) ‘Radio research 1942–3’,
Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New York.
36. Berelson, B. (1949) ‘What missing the
newspaper means’, in Lazersfeld, P. F.
and Stanton, F. (eds) ‘Radio research
1948–9’, Harper and Row, New
York.
37. Blumler and Katz (1974) op. cit.
38. McQuail, D. and Windahl, S.
(1993) ‘Communication models’,
Addison Wesley Longman, Harlow,
p. 134.
Page 123
Applying communication theories to the Internet
39. Windahl, S. (1981) ‘Users and gratifi-
cation at the crossroads’, in Wilhoit,
G. C. and deBock, H. (eds) ‘Mass
communication review year book.
Vol. 2’, Sage, Newbury Park.
40. McQuail (1994) op. cit., p. 320.
41. Windahl and Signitzer with Olson
(1992) op. cit.
42. Palmgreen, P. and Rayburn, J. D.
Page 124
(1985) ‘An expectancy-value
approach to media gratification’, in
Rosengren, J. E., Palmgreen, P. and
Wenner, L. (eds) ‘Media gratification
research’, Sage, Beverley Hills.
43. Cyveillance (2000) ‘Facts and figures’,
available from hppt://www.cyveil-
lance.com/resources.
44. Phillips (1999) op. cit.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.