O .V
. ‘ .
- —. --I .
n .

' “-0 .0 ‘
v o D
It. ,.. , "‘
. . ‘ c

.15
l.J

A STUDY OF THE pusuc summons PROGRAMS AND
(nuances or EDUCA‘HONAL TELEVESION STATIONS
{N n+5 UNITED 5mm ’

Thesis fob “10 Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY
Raymond Lee Gil-e:-
1963'

.00 '\ 'Oflfi‘n...‘

'H.

 

'3‘1'“ 1:”
tug-34.. ith

w—‘«

A SEUDY O? ‘5‘?! EUBuIv iSZATICE 1:3 PRCSILAAIJ ARA-a AJ‘Lh‘uLlCDS CF
“UUVALI EAL MLU’IUIUL‘ LEATICZEJ I." Tfld UE‘IITQJD SIATAHQ

by Raymond Leo Gilca

This study was conducted to investigate the public
relations programs and practices or educational television
stations in the United States at the close of the first
decadc of educational telecasting.

For the purposes of this study, "public roloticns"
was de inod an the planned effort to ncti vote or influence
opinion favorably toward the station.

The study was instituted an an initial step in ex-
ploring the public relations of ZPV by: l) investigating
the public relations history of 52V as determined from gub-
lianed sources; 2) reporting a current survey of putlic
relations practices conductoo; and 3) suggesting new areas
for rcaearcn as indicated by the conclusions drawn from
those data.

It won proposed that ETV should be aware of its
important relationships with public relations, in meeting
the obligations of serving the public interest. Eiucaticnal
television anould to integrated within the community it
serves. and communicnto with its public: constantly to pro-

vide optimum underctoniing.

heyncnd Lee Giles

A review of the literature in the field of public
relations and educational television indicated that public
relations seeks to create a favorable image that is more
an abstract quality than a concrete quantity; that public
relations is personal, human relations, as much as it is
the practice or calculated strategies; and that the best
public relations for broadcasters, educational especially,
is public service responsibly administered.

The recognized importance of public relations in
contemporary society and the lack of recent, eignificent
research data relative to public relations and educational
television led to the hypotheses upon which this study was
based.

These hypotheses were tested in a survey of the
current public relations programs and practices of all of
the educational television stations in the United States
listed as broadcasting a regular schedule of progress as
of January, 1963.

The mail questionnaire was used in seeking responses
from a total of 72 educational television stations. The
managers of these stations were questioned because of the
manager's unique position of having both the authority to
set policy and the knowledge to evaluate the overall serv~
ice of the station.

A response of 91.7 per cent was received on the
questionnaires, with inventories returned from 66 of the

72 stations.

haynond lee Giles

The results of the survey indicated that in spite
of important interrelationships of public relations and
educational television, the majority of educational tele~
casters have not yet adopted the practice of public rela-
ticns as an integral element of station operation. It was
determined, however, that or the several divisions of eta—
tions catalogued in the survey, those stations classified
as ”community owned" generally have better developed public
relations departments and prcgrams than do stations in any
other classification.

it was also indicated that many 3?? broadcasters,
particularly those in metropolitan areas and the leaders
of ET? organizations, are increasingly aware of the impor-
tance of practicing public relations.

‘inally, since this study was an initial investi-
gation, it was concluded that much more research or both
general and specific nature is needed to investigate fully
the implications that the practice of public relations has
for educational television.

Specific areas needing research included: the proper
place of public relations in the station's administrative
hierarchy; the impact of budgeting and fund~raieing on a
station's public relations program; the training and place-
ment of public relations personnel; and the future of pub-
lic relations in the field of ETV.

This study was an initial attempt to investigate

Raymond lee Giles

the public relations programs and Fractions of the nation's
educational teleoastera, but it was prepoaed that once the
vital interrelationships of public relations and 3?? are
more fully realized, significant and continuing research
will be devoted to this area. as it is in many other areas

of educational television.

A STULI C? THE PUELIC hJLATICN“ IKOGRALS AND PRACTICES CF

“”"CATICSR lleVISION STATICSE IN THS CRITZE STATES

La'vU

35'

Raymond Lea Giles

A THESIS

Submitted to
Richigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for tho degree of

MASTER CF AETS

Sepertment of Television-Radio

. A "1'“.3'7 "vac-V -* 7.05:1
I‘LvitoiLIiLuu‘Ju “no. 3

Greteful appreciation is expreeeed to Er. halter B.
inery, lrcfeeeor of Television-nadio, for his wise counsel
and patient guidance during the planning and preparation
of this theeie.

The writer is also grateful for the cooperation
of the station managers of educational television stations
across the nation for their eeeietance in supplying vital

date during the survey of public relations practices.

11

"‘ 7’ - fi" .1 . " “~.
Ingres-

it has been ten years since the.first licensed edu-
cational television station in the United states signed
on the air with a regular broadcast schedule of progress.
luring this time a unique broadcast medium has grown and
prospered to the point where there are educational tele-
vision stations in nearly every state in the Union.

Yet educational television is still an infant me-
dium with unique problems of growth and policy, and frequent
surveys and analyses are necessary both to report its hie~
tory and to project its future.

Public relations is one area of ETV policy and plan-
ning worthy of study at tnis point in the develOpnent or
the medium, because of the need to motivate and maintain
favorable support for a medium that depends upon public
acceptance for its very existence.

This study was instituted as one effort to investi-
gate the public relations programs and practices of EIV
by: l) exploring the public relations history or 42? so
determined from publisned sources; 2) reporting a current
survey of public relations practices of educational tele-
osstersg and 3) suggesting new areas for research as indi-
cated by the conclusions drawn from these data.

it is hoped that this study will stimulate additional

111

date so that there will be a new basis for further research

in the area of public relations for educational television.

iv

1A6"
. 11

P:
m
0
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
C
I
O
O
o
O
I
I
I

KCK: C” “11:13::
E'L'LFN'JJ o o o o u o o a O o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o 11.1

1:3: {.1 $i";&;—'3. a o o o o o o o o o o o o o I o o o o oViii

C LIA} 1‘ LI LL

'7 *1: “5' fol'l"~l\‘
.LcALILLLV~bVLLbao000.000.00.000...

The lfipBCt Of LUblic halationao o o o o o o a
futile nelations T.efi." ed. . . . . . . . . . .

ihe Corporate Lelinition o o o o o o o o o

The "Refldeflicn Le; ”inition. o o o o o o o o
A Ifi Lefinltion for trfi Jtudv. . . . . . .
Ina lmportar.ca of Eublic i.elation3 . . . .
Lne Impoxtanos of L L110 Ieletious to 42V . .

OsQ-slkfl-b-UN H

‘ 9~fln —. p’. - -. '7‘ I'- '1‘ '0“.
14.. LULJLLVJJ VI: *‘i-‘A QLUulo o o o o o o a u o o o o o 11

The filJ‘QO‘LLéBiao o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o 12
LbJUOtiVeB Of the Eta-55' o o o u o o q o o o 0 14
subject Areas fa lnvestLgation . . . . . . . 15
The inblio }.318tion Lunation o o o o o o I o 15

3116 if“! 9; '53:..CLLH E'LflCtiono o o o o o o o o o 16

:49 atfiif LunCtion o o a a 0 o o o o o o 0 16
2133 111309533 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o a o 16
The 10019 of wan411cn+1cn. . . . . . . . . . 17
int) beliCB o o c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 17

Fund 3.9181ng. o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o 13
i;:.'.z..:?;’w..:................13

.- as v-- a?
, . I.
.

,. a. s .-.1

III. A LJViLJ CF ELTLZLE IULVS‘E J KB 3
J 1310!! 19

., "7;: q ‘L,.“.LHH ‘
lhu LUL-LJIV I...LJI~L1\JL‘J £211.: :Jiz‘bv

T116 l‘Jblic lL‘C. ldtior.g "illrifieu Of 131."; o o o o o 19
135 CEICUlath ctratefiifls o o a o o o I o o o 24
Lowe “EV”££‘. Vii‘é’wfiJOir‘LtSo o o o o o o o o o o u 25

ft .‘uflCi—Lpitulation o o o I o n o o o o o o o 31
Survey flapcrtao o o o o o o o c o o o o o o o 32
T56 bullet StUdJo o o o o o o o o o o o o o a 3
The fiandereon Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A dumary o a o o o o o o I o o o o o o o o o 38

CHAPTLfi

IVI A SU'RVZY 0? Luf'a
AND rnACTICES CF LQUGATIUHAL IEIJVIBIQF
JrATILfiI-s IR 196} O 0 O O O O I O O O O I O
The Bubjeot for Investigation . . . . . .
The A3th°d of investigation . . . . . . .
The “Jagtionnflira I I I I I I I I I I I I
The Jaaationnniro Analyzed. . . . . . . .
Tnaflample. IIIIIIIIIIIIII
V. hikOhI Aflb ANALYSIS OF T55 LAZA . . . . . .
section I. hasponae to the Inventory .
Section 11. methods of Analysis . . . .
Section 111.The Lata~~General Background
Information. I I I I I I I
section IV. Gen ral Cate.;ory I. . . . .
E‘ull-Lioae E.~L l‘eraonnel. . .
Control Over z; lereonnal .
Kart-Time £3 Personnel. . .
Th :32. 3Jdflat I I I I I I I
1):}: i‘Olicy I I I I I I I I I
Specific EH Goals . . . . .
Frequency of getting or ivalu-
atinj‘; 1:1 l’OliCyI I I 'I I I
Keeping Star! lfi Conscious.
Jatnods of keeping btaff
connCiouSI O I O I I I
Frequency of Staff .aetin gs
u.ost Valuable in fort . .
Use of Communication Levices.
writ era of ‘rcno.ional
rials. . . . . . . . . . .
11.0;{1‘353 GuidGaI I I I I I I
Size or Guides. . . . . . .
Irinting Bethoda and Costs.
£81.11an List, I I I I I I I
Erase gelationa . . . . . .
Section V1. Car .6131 Category III. . . .
Fan Letters . . . . . . .
StUdio {BQ’JCG CfLeI‘ad. I I I

MCI?!

PUBLIC RELATIOES

Talent rvailcolo. . .

IaocnKms

Contributions to Charities.

Iroxroma elated to Com
Iroblems I I I I I I

vi

:unity

”:1

39

3‘3
41
42
43
44

47
47
43

49

51
52
53

55
59
61

64
64

65
63
70

73
74

74
76
79
79
82
83

85
86
87
89
83

91

W

Section VII. General Category IV. . . . . 91
Eeotion VIII. Some Additional Couaent. . . 95

VI. SUAJALY, CCYCLUSICJS, AND IiiLICATILfifi C? THE
0

LIVL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 99
1211er I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 99

Summary of Survey Responses . . . . . . . . lOl
Conclusions f the Study. . . . . . . . . . 108
{alitianfil frega for ResearCh I I I I I I I 109
A é‘inal é'ordO O O O O O O O I O O I O O O O 110

v~-‘~~v‘,-v
AJ’P‘.3.¢J.A.LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII112

113
114

Li?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

t
t

m

he h -
S}

91 >1

0

O

O

O

C

O

D

O

O

O

I

O

O

O

C

O

O

O

O

Ai’P::il‘/Ij; II I O O O O I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 115

f. v-fi'v ’- . '§ ; '-.-‘D‘I
DADJJA'NU‘IJLéillOOOOIIOOCOIOOIICOOIOO124

vii

TABLE
1.
2.

3.

4.

5.
6.

9.
13.

11.
12.
13.
14.

15.
16.
17.

18.

LIST 0? TAELES

I“

A -
flG

nangc of Eercontngec or "in-;cnool" irogranming . 51

numbers and Forcentagea of Full-Find Eublio hela~
tiOflSlBI-BQHUBIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Iublio holationa nnttera bequiring the nanugarn'
QECiflionsI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Station Earaonnel nandling In Lutius anon otation
nan no Full-fine Public nelationa Eersonnol. . .

The EUblic ital-ations Budéget I O I O O O O O O O O

otationo deporting an organized lublio Relations
£01183 or irogram. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Frequency of getting or nvnlunting Public hula—
$1058 kalicy I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Lfforts A339 to Keep Staff nonbors iublio neln~
tioiia 00128610118. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Frequency of staff naotinns . . . . . . . . . . .

Stations Lntoring Competitions for Iniustry
Awards . . . . .

Io-
. I

The Use of Promotional and lublicitj Lovioen. . .
lritorn of Fronotional interiala. . . . . . . . .
Frequoan of Irogran Guide iublioation. . . . . .

Irinting Methods and Joata of Euclisning Erodram

Guides I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
The Formulation of nailing Lists by 427 otntiono.
frequency of Contact with the Press by Stations .

Use of dtation Publicity and flown Items by the

irQBQI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Stations Inviting Viewers to Attend Stuoio Broad-

033t3o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

viii

53

60

64

69
75
77
78

80
82
84

at
O\

Q

lAfiLn

19.

20.

21.

22.
23.

noport of Fan nail hcoeivod Each week by Etna
tionBIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIea

ntationa Offering studio SpacI for Local Srou;
ieetifléaIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEB

Availability of walent or iaroonncl for local
FUIICtionaI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 89

ctationa with irogruia nelatod to Community neIda 91

nnnlyaia of Financial support of Community Sta-

ticllsooo00.0.0000000000000095

ix

IflIRODUCTICN

In the little more than ten years that have passed
since the Federal Communications Commission‘s historic Sixth

l reserved television channels for educa-

Hcpcrt end Crder
tion, there have been many significant strides in the serv-
ice. From a single station in the United Etetss in 1953,
to nearly 80 stations on the air as of January, 1963.2 the
overall growth of educational television hos been extra-
ordinary.

eincs the University of Houston put KUHT on the
air more than a decade ago, numerous other educational in-
stitutions, school systems, foundations. and community or-
ganisations have established h"V stations in 32 states and
the Listrict of Columbia.3

From the standpoint of pure physical growth, than,
it seems apparent that the past decade has meant much in

the establishment and dsvsIOpment of educational television

stations.

 

lfiederal Communications Commission. figxth jggprt
and Order. 17 Federal hegulstions. 3909~4ioo (key 2, 1592).

2national nducstionul Television and lsdio Center.
Educational Television Director; (New York, Jen.. 1903).

31b14.

Yet in spite of this rapid station growth, educa-
tional television, as a concept and a reality, is still
an emerging service. And wnile tne physical, technical,
production and programming develOpments of early ETV may
have set a growth pattern, it may not be the best one to
follow in the future.

inst is why educational television is being studied
in this and other countries. asperully, every phase or
the medium will be subjected to exhaustive study to deter-
mine how best to fulfill its potential for information and
entertainment. Educational television, although still too
young to be precisely characterized, should be carefully
surveyed and analyzed to determine its role in the future.

such researCh has been done on the instructional
and educational values of television, as well as the tech-
nical aspects. However, the administrative phases of the
industry have not yet come under such close scrutiny. lub-
lic relations is one such area. Yet, public relations may
prove to be one of iEV’e best tools for achieving acceptance

and growth.

THE InEACT “ PUBLIC hiLATICNS

increasing emphasis is being placed upon public
relations programs by institutions and organizations or
many types and kinds. Even as private citizens, we are
aware of public relations programs of our businesses and

industries, our universities and colleges, and even our

iublic relations

churches and religious organizations.
has become a major industry in our country during this cen-

tury, as more and more businesses and organizations discover

a need to crests better rs,yort with the puhlics they serve.
It has been

lu‘lic relations is a new science.
the roots of today's [public relations;

3 date from
”Since

"Inning-.321

stated tnst,
the ésfinitc beginning

practice extend for Lock,
."1 And lotion Corwsll asserts that,

the early 193 s

tcrld war ll. the nscsss‘ty for a well-defined blueprint

for public relations has been increasingly raccgnized by
2

rcnsgensnt of profit and nonprofit organizations alike."

-.... ' rpm?“ -. 1-7..“
LL3L$LNJ unsIELy

P:B~&U L
anon the subject or "public relations" is introduces,

it is necessary to define the term as one chooses to use

it. not only is the term relatively new, but it leads it-
self to fiifrsront interpretations, since it involves varied

areas, skills and techniques.
At the outset of any public relations study, it

should be understood that. so Cutlip and center point out,

" . . . public relations as a concept and practice is still
tscli‘.”3 A review of various

in the fluii state of defining

.....

?ffcctivs
I." 'fim‘. 'm

 

ocott l. Cutlip and Allen a. Center, 1
' lj'rei’lblé'x~iiall.

 

 

1. n
Iublic Eelotionq (lnglswood Cliffs, N.J.3
1110.. i'JQ'J). ii. 500
2“ i H. r in
":ersonaliscd rh," 29;: Jog:::;,

lsrion Sorwell,
V01. 29. 210. 2 (JilJ‘fiUdUHt. 1.3%)2). p. 230

3outlip snd Gunter. p. 3.

definitions of the term "public relstions" reveals its

nebulosity.

The Corgorste Lefinition

 

artist-«e4 tor oefires "putlio relations" as

.ne scti vitiss of a corporation, union, §;:ovszn-
ment, or other organization in buile in; end main-
tsining solid er d productive relations witn egoc-
isl publics s'.x~n as cu stomers, employees, or stock-
holders, and with the public at large, so as to
adapt itself to its environment and interpret it
self to society.1

A similar definition states that

. . . public relations is a two—way interpreta-
tion and connunicstions uncertsking. it interprets
tns viewpoint of the public to management and it
connunicetes tne resulting yclicies and activities
of management to the :utlic. The purpose being,
of course, to win public favor for the business,
tne industry. or the union es the case may no.3

A little less comp lax is the definition of Church,
who concludes that public relations is ” . . . that course
or action which guides an institution, or an individual,
in a course wnich will earn sni hold the favorable opinion
of the public."3

fisrwood L. Childs' 1940 definition stated that "lub-

lic Lelstions may be defined as tnose aspects of our personal

 

leerster's New Collsvists Eicticnnnl (Sprianield,
$388.: Go & Us mcrrlafl C00, leU). y. b3).

 

'3
‘Jcnn Cameron Asplsy and L. F. Van Ecuten, The Eart-
£331 jtzblic fielnticno $na£tog§ (The Dertnell Corp.. thicabo,

 

330): p0 4)}-
’nsvid a. Church. Ens. utlic felations Cemmittses-
tog end flow it Works (Rational lunlic city touncil for neslth
snc nilffird services. inc., new lork.19$9), p. 4.

and corporate behavior which have social and public signif-

icance. . . . Public relations is based on public interest."1
Those are repreeontctive definitions of the term

as interpreted by commercial concernc.- But. as should be

apparent below, there is a slightly different connotation

of public relations in the realm of the educator.

The "Academic” Eerinitiog

Elmer Suleer, Director or Radio-Television at In-
diana University, has said. 'Good public relations is the
nrsctioe of instilling;angucaintcining the moctwiavorsblc
attitudes possible among tha9grectcst number of_people¢;oa-
eible on a continuing and permanent beeie.”2

Professor Byron Christian sees PH es the ' . . . con-
eoioue effort to motivate or influence people. primarily
through communication, to think well of an organization.
to respect it. to support it, and to etick with it through
trial and trouble.”3

Another educator. hiss ficricn Cornell, chairman

of the Rational Association of Educational Broadccetore'

 

1fisrwood L. Childe. quoted in Edward L. Bernoye,
goblic Relations (Sermon: University of Oklahoma Press,

zzloer Sulncr. ”Educational Broadcasting and Pub-
lioahclstione,' £538 Journal. Vol. 18. No. 5 (Feb., 1959).
p. .

6 3Byron Christian, quoted by Cutlip and Center,
p. e

public ralations committee, reports that, "iublic relations
has been defined so 'morcly hJJ? on decency . . . which flows
froo a good heart . . . genuine aai atardy enougn to be
reflected in deeds that are adoirablo and praiaoaorthy.'"1
Finally. Cutlip and Center interprot the use of

the tar: piblic relc ticn a to mean. ” . . . t%o_£1~<rcfl ei-

 

 

fort to infllence crioion throqgfifnccegtpble herforrqnco

and too-way connirization."2
Judging froa the comments above. here scene to

to no coagon agraeoent on a definition of public relations

suitable for coaral usage. Lven though a common thread

(*4

may be woven throughout the several preceding definitions.
Karlua and Scott have declared that

It would be impossible to get sagreoment on
one definition of public relation. Irintor'e
£33, in on attcrpt to arrive at a 3uniform iéfini-
tion, soufht t“. e answer Iron loading public rela-
tions organizations, and each one had a different
interpretation of tho tern.3

 

the problem of defining "p‘JbliO relations 'mny then

evolve into the problem of choosing that warticular deocri -
.4 3 p

tivo ernoc which most closely floooribeo the porticulor

Koo.

situation in glee ticn and which can be oozmunioctcd to others

It

with tfio higuest ;oaoihlo correlation of unficrstr: i“

f.
*‘c: 0

C

 

 

liorion Corwall, p. 28.
2;, utli »
p fizd Center, p. 4.
3‘ene fiarlan ani ll 3 Scott, Cortehporcrg_?otlic
}elnt*~*3--irinci lo 3 ~2‘f '". o) (Jew lozx irontioe-uall.

 

IJ))}| yo 30

A P3 LLFilelCN FCR THIS SIULY

For the purpose of this study, "public relations"
is defined as tne planned effort to motivate or influence
Opinion favorably toward the station.

Inie definition, specifically intended for non in
studying the public relations of educational television,
is simple enough to to understandable, yet comprehensive
enough to prove valid in usage throughout all areas of this
ctudy. It can mean any act of the station that yromotea
favorable opinion, from personal, human relationships to

the were calculated strategies of public relations.1

Tun ILlOLlAHoL OE :ULLIC LgliTIcfio
Ielevieion and modern public relations are contem~
porerica. Sney have cone into existence to serve a func-
tion or fill a need created by cnnnaing times.
lernepa Gutlip and Center boot describe the eriat-
once and importance of public rcleticnc in our society in
too following pnrngrepnez

The function of public relations will continue
to drew in scope nnfi importance no the American
environment acceleraton in interdependence and com-
plexity. end accelerate it will. Once the needs
are underatood, rh'a purpoec and place become clear.
noreovcr, as the nature of the function as a iirect
response to its environment unfolds, its in vit3~
bility and permanence can be eauily seen.

I C I I O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

 

13‘ "oalouletei trntegies" is meant the planned
publicity campeirn, promotion, covertieing, press relations,
and otner connlnicntion tools of in.

Any public enterprise to prosper and endure
today :uet (l) ucce :t t:.c obi iga tionn of public
reepnneibilit, im;oeed by an increasingly interde-
genocn t eociety; (2) find ways and nenne of con~
euniontin; with unseen, remote publice over linen
len-t :;cnei Ly yhycicnl distance nni pngchoio lo 41
eif ference and complicated by cultilein: barriers
to communication; (5) find ways of achieving inte-
gration into tne connunity tnet the orgnni: ation
was erected to eerve.1

rublio relations then becomes very much e part of both its
age and its environment. Certainly the foregoing pnrngreph
must be accepted as a basic condition for existence by any
or rgznizeticn that depence u1>on public support. Eublic re-
lations ie the ncien .ce deeig:ned to help an ortanizetion
meet these requirements through planned effort and calcuu
leted etrntcgiee.
And as Cutlip and Center conclude
The comnon purpose of all that is labeled pub-
lic relaticne ie to influence public cpi..ion. . . .
The practice or public relations ie pr rediceted on
the belief t; not onl1_en ‘r’or e‘ nonlic con re a
vice public. . . . .he tonic pr oble:o ie to adjust
.ne ine.i uticn to t e climate of eccial cnn..;e

in a we) the.r t will eerve both tne public and pri-
vate intezee to insofar as t.ie ie poccitle.<

 

'0 ET”

v—‘i
L.
L 1
F‘
’3 .
”n
C ‘3
:1]
he:
:1
Cr
E1
C.
,1‘ .
9-!
f"
{‘V 0
>1.
H
g.
H

in speaking of the implications of the complex eo-
ciety in which we live, hlner culzer asserts that " . . . edu-
cational stations require good will even more than our com-

merciel brothere . . . [eel . . . tonic euppcrt uuet come

 

lCutlip and Center, p. 46.
2

1135.30. PC a.

from having many, many friends."1
Sidney Eigoo, although a commercial broadoaotcr,
would aoom to support Er. Lulzor's View when he aoya
iaintaining good public relations is nothing
loss than flood businooo for a televioion or rod:
station. Good public relations increase a eta-
tion's acceptance by its gublio. it is this yob-
lio. and no one else, that in the final analysis
determines the success or foiluxa of & oiation.
TLo progressive Lroaicootor voluntarily mo-
aumea and discharges to the fullest n13 responsi-
bilities to his public and to his ccomunity. To
do so 13 cannon agnoe. good business. and good
:utlio relations.“
ihoeo statements adé further credence to the views
expressed earlier by Cutlip and Center. Tho importance
of p blio relations to ET? is summarized by two other ET'
broaficootero.
ailliam Leogaey notuo that, "another you like it
or not, whether you planned it or not, your community has
a stereotyped picture of your Operation fixed in mind!"3
To which Ihomaa Iatry adds, "Ibo volue of gooé ;utlic ra-
lationa and continuing publicity and promotion must not

be underestimated for any LIV station which uitimatoly

 

lglmor Lulzer, p. 20.

’L‘

‘;idnoy a. Ligoo. "zublic Relations for Television
and Lodio Stations," Chapter 25, kalio iolotiocc ”chorock,
ed. inilip Losly {End ed., onglowood oiiiis. 5.».2 ixon-
tice-iall. inc., 19o2). pp. 410-411.

 

3williom C. Eompsoy, "a iho Ltcals iy kuraa Steals
Trash," figMJ azurnal, Vol. :0, Eu. 1 (J a.-Eob., 1991),

Po 4.

10

depends on active viewer response."

Lducational television need: good public ralationa
basically to (1) meet the obligations or the public respon-
sibility it shares; (2) com nunicato with its many publics;
and (3) achieve integration into the community it sorvea
and thereby win public acceptance for its procrumuing.

Yet how well is 31V developing its putlio relations
programs: Joan I. nighlw cor says:

he have {ton failed to make ourselves felt

in our community. korhopo one of too reasons this
may to no is because we have never really atudiod
our comounity. . . . Fe have tended to stand apart
rather than to get "azixod- u‘" with the pcOplo and
toe affair: of the ooLmunity. indeed, we may to
guilty of a you came to me" attituio v;icn is
likely to ozcll doom for a broadcaster

by investigating the public roletionu practices
of our nation's educational television hroadcswtcra, this
study attempta to provide some noedod answers in this im-

portnnt area of public relations and LTV.

 

honas lotxy, "0n Llouing One' a Cwn morn, " “II?

m,“

Jourrol. Vol. 1'9, No. 2 L orch~Ixril, 1960), pp. 45- -40.

2John l. 315? lander "Tduoationnl Proadcoeting Roads
heuppraioal," RiLB Jourrrl, ‘o’ol. 21, Lo. 5 (oept.—Lct.,
1952)! P0 34.

CdAPIER II
PULPQSW 0? THE STUEY

The preceding chapter contained statements of fact
and knowledgeable Opinion regarding the important interreu
lationenips of public relatione and efiucetional television.
A careful analysis of these data has led to the following
conclusions:

1) The practice of public relations in designed
to motivate and influence favorable opinion toward an or-
ganieaticn through acceptable performance and two-way com-
munication of the organization with the publics it serves.

2) As the American environment grows continually
more complex and interdepenoent. the function of public
relations constantly grows in scope and importance.

3) Because of the nature of its function in this
complex contemporary society, educational television depends
upon public support for its very existence.

4) Therefore, for continued survival. ETV should
through the practice of public relations meet the obliga-
tione of serving the public interest always; achieve inte-
gration within the community it serves; and communicate
with its publics constantly to provide for an optimum cli-

nate of understanding.

ll

12

The insufficiency of data and reliable, recent re-
search nakasit impossible to know whether the importance
of ER in recoanized by the administrators of educational
television, or whether the majority of ztv broadcasters

even provide for a public relations program.

233 HYPGTHJSIS

The hypothenia for this study can be stated as fol-
lows:

The mafiority of educational television broodcnatern
have not yet recognized the importanca and value of a sound
public relations pregram, as defined in this otujy, and
do not presently conceive of public relations as an inte~
gral element of otntion Operation.

Stated more simply. educational television in not
adequately public relations conscious.

This basic hypothesis appears to be supported by
the following theories:

1) Only a small minority of the total number of
EIV stations have full-tine public relations directors or
departments.

2) The majority of stations have no written gublio
relations policy not down for staff and management alike
to follow.

3) The majority of the "public relations" programs
of if? stations which state that tncy do have such proxrans

are primarily promotional or publicity pragrazs.

l3

4) Those stations that depend upon constant fund-
rciaing activities for their existence have better dovelcpsd
public relations programs and staffs than do stations which
are supported by state appropriation or.otbcr similar and
regular grants.

5) dimilsrly, those stations unich are school-system
or school-board owned and primarily broadcast instructional
programs for in-clcss use generally hcvc the least dcvoloycd
public relations effort in the entire fisld.

Since FCC regulations require educational broadcast-
ing to be noncommercial. most ETV stations are supported
by sons type of appropriation. There are those stations
tnat depend entirely or in part on tnc solicitation of funds
from the public or from foundations or other philanthronio
organizations, but those remain in the minority.

Since ET' does not have to sell its time to sponsors
(and legally can't). and thereby does not have necessarily
to produce programs with mass pepulnr appeal. theoretically
ETV has much greater freedom of cnoics in prcgramnina.

As such, tnc administrators of ETV may come to feel that
they are pr05ranning for a special audience (which they
are undoubtedly) or a captive audience. if they feel theirs
is a gaggizg’audisncc, however, these educational telcccstcrs

-srnans may not be so concerned with their public acceptance,

   

or public relations, as a commercial broadcaster.

To continue this lino of reasoning, it might be a

14

valid contention that ETV has been so concerned with win—
ning intellectual and governmental support for the medium
that it has largely ignored (or has been less concerned
with up to the present) winning the support of its other
publios.

The relative absence of recent and significant re-
search data in these areas indicates the definite need of
findings to support or disprove these hypotheses and thereby

provide new knowledge {or further research.

CBJSCTIVES OF 1&3 STUBY

in summary. these were the overall objectives of
this study:

1) To explore the public relations history of 3??
as could be deternined from published resources;

2) To conduct a current survey of the field to pro-
vide new data about the public relations practices of ETV,
and also in doing so.

3) To report the current re practices or SIV, in
order to:

4) Erove or disprove the basic hypothesis that the
ad.lnistrators of iIV are not adequately public relations
conscious;

5) irove or disprove the related theories concern-
ing the practice of public relations by educational tele—
casters which are derived from the basic hypothesis;

6) lrovide educational telecaeters with the

15

Opportunity to exyreee their public relations philonphiee:
7) fredict the future of the practice of public
releticnc within the field of educational television:
8) Suggeet new areas for research in public rele-
tionc for ET? as indicated by conclusion: drawn from this

date.

SUSJ;CT ALElS PCB lfiVLJTIGATICH

in carrying out the coaectivee of this study, it
was necessary to eurvey and analyze definite arose within
the organizational framework of the administrative function
of £27 to determine the eccpe of the public relations prac-
ticc.

Tnece areas specifically include the overall YR
function; the public relations process as currently deter-
mined; the tools of communication in use; the publice of

ETV; and the financial beeia of support.

TEE PUELIC EELATIA33 EUNCTIOH

Cutlip and Center eay, "Public relations in c etaff

1 Yet tilliem C. fiempeey contends. "Cnly the

function."
manager (or top official) can set the image goal (of the

station), and only the manager is in the position of hav-
ing both tne perspective and the authority to see that the

right efforte are made to achieve his selected imege. . . . "2

 

1
2

Cutlip and Center, p. 174.

Killian C. lempcey, p. 5.

16

If some confusion exists here, it ie likely that
this confusion eleo exiete in the minds of the educational
telecaetere. ficre then likely it is e matter of semantics,
but a matter which was subjected to study in this report.
It eeened important that the attitudes of those in KY? be
analyzed with respect to this matter of interpreting public

relations as a management or staff function. or both.

:33 Ennngenent Function

For the purposes of conducting the survey contained
in this study, the public relations of if? was considered
to be a management function with the survey directed to
ETV management. The basic reason for this decision ie ex-

plained in more detail later in the study.

The 3teff Function

in important part of this study concerned on inves-
tigation of the staff function of the public relations de¢
pertmente (if any) of the ETV stations. Among these inpcr~
tent areas were included an analysis of the working of the
PH depertnent or division; the size of the PR staff; the
scape of the FR function: the PR department's handicepe
and 86V83t8§0$8 and the division of responsibility for the

in department or officer.

The actual public relations proccee cf LTV. as

17

determined by the station managers. is important. That
is to say, it seemed much could be learned from what the
station managers consider "public relations" to be. and
whet functions belong to this process..

Among these subject areas are the planning and con-
nunicsting processes of the ststions' public relations pro-
grams which determine the strategies and tactics they use;
the kind of planning they have (if any) and how long-range
it is; the ER man's role in the overall setting; and the
manner in which the station communicates with its publics

other than by the use of its own medium.

THE 2018 C? CfidififilCATICfi

important to public relations always are the tools
of communication used in promotional and publicity campaigns.
including the amount of personal contact, and the use both
of controlled media and public media. Press relations is
significant since the systems of effecting good press re-
lations or relations with other members of the mass media

are integral elements of good in.

THE TUELICS

The publics of an organisation ere important to it.
for without supyort from its publics an organization is
doomed to extinction. The general public incorporates all
of a station's or organization‘s publioe, but among the

general public there are such further groupings as employee

18
publics, the canmunity publice and other special putlics.

FUfis-hilzlfls

william Dempsey says, "Eund raising, I believe, is
an important area of public relations. . . . "1 To some
LTV stations which exist solely on their ability to raise
funds from the general public. it wouli seam to be _33 most
important area of public relations. A special effort was

made in this study to analyze the im;aot of fund-raising

upon a atntion's overall in program.

wormini'

An expressed in the title of this etuiy, this was
an initial effort to investigate both the public relations
pro;rntg and practioeo of eéucotional television stations.
Basically, t was hoped that this study would serve the
purpose of gathering data to show exactly how ETV is hanfling
its public relations now, and what is indicated for the
area of public relations within aduontional television in

tne years to cone.

 

lltid., p. 8.

03311}? Lift III

. ‘. ‘~ " ' 7".“ ‘7‘” * "‘— "“ "'Y"‘, '.Y“‘ I"' 1‘7“ " 7—“ -5: '1 .’ '\ “'3'.“ ‘6'. ‘f’ "d if u
A Cup {I ..;. t 0.1! U "JAY! 13.1.4.3. DJ.” V Eryn.) 113.1.) “-La:’\1-l.k 4} C'VA‘U JA|,-_‘.LJ\‘{J

“a '1- ' ‘1‘ v as". ' p” c . .0 \ ‘Qf ~D:‘§Q'~ -O.A 5...! Q 5' ‘9 “_ ’A
JJJuIV roman rt.LA Abe‘s) Add puJuALJvu’AL T...L¢u .Lu' UK

It is true t; :st the re have been limited studies
conducted and royorts written concerning the yrnctics of
public relations as it is related to educational television.
it has already been noted that various specialists in the
two fields have oxa minad trio prvotice in efforts to :ief ins
terms can! set standards for development.

?hs Tutionnl association of Lducstions Broadcnetcrs
tnrouuh its Zublic hclations Committee has done a grant
deal to trinr t s in; ortnncs of public rels tions to the
attention f eiucotior nnl tronicast-ro. Other efforts have
been made in lesser degrees by individusls interested in
this sc;sct of brondcssting.

It is one yurpooa of this charter to pull together
these isolatei stufiiss and reforts in an effort to ascor-
tain both the current trends in public relations for edu~

I

cut ionrl tslevis ion, and the earlier patterns for Ln ;rac—

1

ties as out by th, pioneering 31V stations.

.'

$33 331110 znsnii;’s ”IKJGJ" C? L?”
Lducstional television. like any other radium, is
Judged by the ”image" or tn mental concc‘tion that the

‘

19

20

general public has of it. Thus, ET? on both the national
and local level is Jufiged by what the general public comes
to know of it through ocuntlese io;reeoione. unetner or
not tnie ”imnge” is the one that if? administrators would
wish to be projected, it is a vital factor in public rela-
tions plenninz and practice.
is eillien Lenpeey has said:
"image" by any Other name would still oxiot.
another you like it or not. whether you planned
it or not. your community has a stereotyped pic-
ture cf your operation fixed in mind! . . . Ky
concern here is with the brooficnot station as a
whole-~uhot it per: nifiee, it you will. to moot
of your coamunity.
lhe ineye of ETV. then, is a product of everything
that a atation doea thet is rBCOgnizod by the fiuhlic. This
may involve the station operation itself. the role or the
station nennver, programminz, rreae releticne. community
service. and nu eroue other day-to—dcy functiorc tuet com-
bine to make the etetion kn wn to its publico.
To quote a furtner onlient point of 3r.

"Everything 3 man aces and everything a won in rakes up

hie character. Einilarly, everything your station down
2

and everything it 13 makes up its image."
;ince public relationo is designed to influence

"#(nv

Opinion favorably t0wara the station. the image concept"

 

Million C. Bespoey, gp. 4—5.

2- -
J“{‘z L}. D.

u. 5"

21

as interpreted hero becomee synonymous with public relations
itself. That is, public relations attempts to net the image
or the station, which in turn influences the public's know-
ledge end Judgment.
Zherefore, xr. Lemyeey etatee:
There are two rudimentary steps necessary be-
fore any order can to cede out of the ”image" chaos.
eiret, you must learn Just what kind of picture

your operation conjures in the minds of men. aeo-

cnd. what kind of picture do you tie? than to have?1

m.»

~ne point 13, then, that a station inevitably has
some type of imafe, but the practice of putlic relations
can do much, if not everything, to produce the desired image.
Cnce it ie understood that public relations is cerv-
inz the yurpose of creating (or attempting to create) the
preper image goal, the overall acti ities of the station
and its employeee can then be viewed in the context sug-
gested by Hr. hemyeeg, that everything a etetion does end
everything_n station is makes op its irere.
Earhape this is the reason that Elmer Sulzer main-
teine that " . . . public relations is a mental attitude
that must permeate the etetione' every action. . . . 2
The proper state of mind will find fruition in the proper

types of public relations methods and media."3

 

lbido

 

Slmer Suleer, p. 7.

1515., i... 20;

22

fierion Corwell reaffirms tent, before the practiced
strategies and techniques of public relatiooe come into
gley, there moot he a setting of he rind toward the image
{on}. hoe Lentione the were erotiorel.ouelities c! ”gor-
eonalizee 1%" when she states that:
interaction of the erployer serving the test
interests of his employees. and the emgloyees. im~
bded with spirit and enthueinee to sell a quelity
yroduct, cannot fail to produce personalized pub~
lic reletione--reeulting in manifold good “111.1
"“l: whicn one also adds the comment, “ . . . eclid
public reletione erbodiee more than the . . . calculated
promotion strategies nmgloyed by the public relations pro.
it ie high-caliber :uhlic etoteewnrcoig from top management
on down."2
glrer Sulrer supporte rise Cnrwell in her statement
when he eeeerte that ” . . . educational station gutlic

relations 13 rare on ettitude of mind then it is the pin-

! ectivitios. find our edgceticrrl

55- 1
..

~-'

pointing of egeoific

directors must think gutlic reletiore twenty-four hours a

day."3

In this context, garlic relations teccroe something

rore than a busineee practice. It is a ouelitv rather than

   

a were action, and its practice becouee a qualitative matter

 

lmmricn Carmel], p. 3C.

2?
i?“ "3

3

"9
o. '0 ‘-

 

ilmer :ulzer, p. 7.

23

in addition to a quantitative function. The station, too,
has a geraonality.

Iublio relations then becomes peraonc 1, bacon re-
lations. And whcn personal. human relations use involved,
so are the auctions toot guide men in all areas of life.
is “liar collar succinctly phraaea it, "rublic relations
is not Just a collection of tcchniquca. Lather, purl ic
relations is some to 15.; that must be livci."1

Based on these observations. it would seem to he
the Opinion of tacos peOple that he public relations of
£27 is made Up f every activity of t1.e otstion. it scams
obvious that t? a proper pruc tice of public relationa requires
a constant, unrelenting mphssis on tic person.l, humyn
relationships involved in everyfcy life, in adsiticn to
toe Cu lculstud c.1otugiea tnat bcl ion” to the realm of the
in practitioner.

These personal. human relationships are fairly ob-
vious to us, ca Larisa Corwcll points out:

LVcrjonc practices public relations in ‘.ia as~
sociation witn o.nez3 cv:s:y finy. iha o¥ee ful ”good
cornint“ of tno boon Hroc .inr cia secretary. or
tic plcacontlica ea cuwnroo wit:: the elevator apar-
atcr. no cord of ehcoirugciout to tho janitor all

oil up to piblic relations~~porccncl, huicn relo-
tiona.

V,

in the acne ,c ”30281 way, evcrg' #mplcjcc is

 

Elmer Sulzer, A Furlic Piloticne-gggic forking Vou-
Cztltfzsl Llcilcfffiii; Qtéuicl, “atluuul unduulutiuu u; cau-

cational slouccaotcrs, orbaua, 111., 13cc. 9. l.

 

 

24

a public ralationa rcprooentative of his organiza»

f“ _ ¢ 4 «.., . .-. 5“ . .5 -. _ ‘ . H .... L ..
tion. ch- act¢tgj09 ruc‘ocvoi by 3393 cm fissu-

coru"-~regardleao or their positiono 1n the organia
?otion--nro notod on: juflyad occorflingly.

r‘\ . - ., J _ .‘,‘,. - ., . .. .) ’
1313 19 utfioabtoclj vnrt nI”. ”Riga? Hw‘nfi wnsn “a

cage putlic relations must be givafi.

- N

2d: CALUULAILL dSAATLS Jo

Goes the concept of public relations as a humane
qunlity is underatocd. or at loaot put forward, moot LTV
public relations writors ccncontrote on :utlirir: the tnaic
techniques that are calculated to ougport the in gregrnm
through communicating understandin: of tho statiors’ goals
and purposes.

Eetora those scretogieo are examinad, henevcr, it

is neceeoorv at thia soint to men i"n 133 two iorortant
5'

(1‘-

factors of pyOgrom content and audience that serve for her
to aegarate educational broccccoting from congerciol tread-
coating.

John E. shite, preeiflont of the rational féucvticnal
Iclevioion and Ladle center (h;2), points out that he pr0¢
gram content of va is unique b sauce of the fact tnst,
"huring mornings and afternoons, educational stations pri»

marily broadcast classroom notarinl for local schools and

collecea.”‘

 

garion Corwoll, p. 2d.

John E. finite, ”caucationol Television," rutlic

i’

l
2
(as

LelfltIE

25

Tnua. the ETV station in many inctancoc has what
has been termed a "captive audience” for its pragranming.
But in spite of this, Er. thitc asserts:

Generally spanking, KIT stations have the cane
audience potential as the commercial stations in
their respective localities. The actual audienccs,
of course, are dependent on the quality or drawing
power of the prOgrcn.

Inc audiences watching the community educa-
tional stations do so with a carious purpocc.1

The audiences of ETV and the program content of
the medium are special qualities that deserve consideration
in a public relations program.

With these considerations in mind, the following
material is submitted as an analysis of various writings
in the field of public relations for ETV, with rerpect to
the subject areas of investigation outlined earlier in Chop-
ter ll: the overall public relations function; the public
relaticnc process as currently determined; the tools of
IR communication in use; the publicc of LTV; and the finan-

cial basis of aupyort of he medium.

SOME HIV-IR VIEEPCIRIS

Sidney Eigea is director or public relation: and
promotion for the National broadcasting Company (NBC) in
Eew York City. He is very definitely a commercial bread—

caetcr. Yat Er. Ligcc is one of the few authors (1! not

 

lbid.. p. 561.

 

26

the only one) of a generally complete and current outline
of public relations practices for television and radio ete-
tions. his treatise, written in 1962.1 is a timely and
valuable outline for is in broadcasting, and much of it

can also be applied to educational television.

Mr. Liges finds most facets of station Operation
are also integral elements of a public relations pregrsn.
Those most applicable to ETV include the station itself,
the manager, and the station's programming as constituents
of the overall in function.

G! the station hr. Eigee says, "The station should
be something more than a . . . channel on a TV dial; it
should be quickly identifiable in the public's mind as a
physical port of the community."2

This immediately points up the recurring theme that
public relations her so involves the image or personality
of the station and constitutes or attempts to form a favor-
able ettitude in the mind of the general public toward the
station.

The image or the station is then transferred to the
public through programming, tr. Eigee believes. He says:

lhe station can achieve its best or suffer
its worst public relations through [progrsmej.

 

1Sidney H. Eiges, "Public helstione for Television
and hsdio Stations," Chapter 25, F‘blic Relations handbook.

21bid., p. 411.

27

Ecedlcsc to any, a station interested in the best
public relations must maintain the hifi neat pregram
atandarda conaiatent with itc cconon 1c aeourit§.1

cervicc to the public in still the best kind
or public relations

It is in this context or public relationo that tr.
ligco noon the station manager as ‘ . . . an active commu-
nity loader . . . he rust accept and diocr .nrgc his recpon~
sibilitieo to the community."3

Since many ET? stations are actually owned and/or
supported by the community financially. this PH philosonhy
o! ccrvico to tho community cocoa ecpccially applicable.
:2 stations have been created and liCEnaed to serve the
public. nr. E1599 simply maintains that serving the public
in public relations at its best . . . regardless of other
tactics of the practice.

But there £33 numerous tactics that should be in-
cluded in the planned public relations pragram. the most
important of these as outlined by fir. 3133: included the
following: maintaining proper relations with the press;
competing for awards; receiving vicitora properly and an-
swering all mail; conducting tours or the ntaticn and cup-

;lying free broadcast tickets; responding to criticism:

and maintaining membership in industry associations. Among

 

it 1d.. p. 411.
21b” ’10. ‘30 4130

 

’1b14.. p. 412.

"important little things to do,” he enumerates:

. . . Hake your officials freely available for
appearances as guest speakers. . . . Hake your local
talent available for entertainment at worth-while
city functions and for outstanding local groups. . . .
When sufficient space is available, you should of-
fer some of your studios for meetings of your women's
clubs, civic organisations, and similar groups. . . .
therever possible, your station should make finan—
cial contributions to all worth~whils community
undertakings.1

fist in the final analysis, nr. Eiges still summarizes
the overall public relations function in one statement,
”Inc best public relations for s station can be scnieved
by giving the best public service possible."2
This returns to the concept of public relations
as an all-pervading element of station operation. It re-
fers perhaps most specifically to ur. Dempsey's proposal
tnat "ivorythinr we iii and everything we DO contributes
to our station's image."3' To which he adds:
. . . Building a desirable image takes time
and consistent effort. iince the total station
Operation involves so nany peeple and so many do-
partaents, only a tsp management individual can
have the perspective overview and therefore th
ability and the responsibility for Operation Image
Buildup.‘
Mr. Eempsey then puts management in perspective

in the overall Pn function as responsible for the image

 

llblde’ Ps 425.
2

Ibids. p0 4260
'1
’flillism C. Lenpsey. p. 10.

‘Ibis.

23

or the station achieved through a public relations program.
However, this is only true insofar as the manager is the
person with the authority to mold the program into a joint
effort of the entire staff, end as such be then becomes,
by the nature or his office, the chief in officer.
it is in communicating with its public that a sto-
ticn uses tn planned strategies or tools that are the de-
vices of publicity and promotion. is Jacob gvans puts it:
The dissemination of information about pro;rsms
is the primary basis for stimulating viewer or lis-
tener interest and action. ironcticn and publicity
are the station's "voices" to the public.
And Church integrates the function by stating:
Publicity is the exocsition of an idea. and
good publicity can only be based on sound public
relations.

0 I O O
fiublic relations and
iney are interdependent.

publicity go hand in hand.

Petry likewise finds it importnnt to consider the
public relations/promotional function on a single, integrated
practice. is he says,

The value of good public relations end contin—
uing publicity end promotion must not be underesti-
mated for any ETV stat on which ultimately depends
on active viewer response.

0 C O O O 0 O O 0 O I O 0 O O O O O O I O O O O O
is first he to learn .not good programming
and adequate reception did not in themselves fluor-
entee en audience. . . . If we do have a better

 

l u q - e
Jacob A. ovnne, gellinfi and irovotigj :94io and
Television, Sew York: lrinter's inn inflliflfliflé Co.. 1954).
3". H A
p. 4/3.

2 'V' ~ 5 n ‘ .. --
uavid L. onurcn, p. 5.

30
product. ae we firmly believe, we have all the more
reason and reepcneibility to advertise.1
And fir. Eigee reiterates, "Continuing and good pub-
licity ie a vital ingredient of any good public relation-
prcgrem." .
The beet tool or communication for a particular
station to use may depend on many rectcre. ivnne claims
that, "Tee use of tb .e station's own fecilitiee ehculd be

"3

its primary method of building euéiencee. while fir. Dempo

eey believes that, “The eingle moot important outside or-
genizetion is. of ccuree, the press."4 but whatever the
method. the use of promotion and publicity an an integral
part of the practice of public relations cannot be empha-
eized enough. Thomas Tetry summarizes this quite succinctly
by eteting the leeecn learneo by Lhnfi'e early failure to
attract the interest of the public:

. . e greet part or the initial failure wee due
to leak of effective and persistent promotion.
The potential audience had not been reached, its
interest had not been aroused.

interest in the etetion yrew in direct ratio

to the involvement that econ new viewer felt. The
public was made to feel responsible for the end
product. himE created an image which in a very
real eenee reflected the community to iteelf.

 

1Thence retry. pp. 45-46.
2cidney tires. p. 416.
3Jacob A. Evans, p. 219.

4tilliem C. tempeey, pp. 8-9.

31

“Sublic relatione" proved to be the prime (it
obvious) answer to building initial euppcrt and
convincing key citizens and agencies to do much
of the groundwork for the station.1

Saking the public feel responsible for and involved
in the station's activities is good public relations, and
it can be achieved through gainin$ financial support for
the etation at the came time.

Speaking of fund-raising as an important area of
public relations, tilliam Dempsey says, " . . . The people
who give money toward your Operation have a feeling of be—
longing—~1n fact, at times tney have a feeling of downright
ownership."2

And Lavid o. Letchun summarizes fund-raining as a
in function by saying:

Certainly campaign direction ie allied to the

practice of public relations as it is practiced
in other fields. It utilizes practically every
channel of publicity. It depends on strategic
decisions at the board level. The success of a
fund-raising campaign depenea on action.3

A Eecngitulrtion

These, then, are some of the major ideee exyreeeed
about the econe of public relations practice for educational

television. It is the intention now to turn toward surveys

 

l
2

h 3David S. Ketchum, "The lrofeaeionel Eirector in
Fund—Raising Campaigns,” inklic negationa Journal, Vol.
llV, ho. e (August, 1958), p. 5.

Thomas Ietry, pp. 36-39.

ailliam C. nenpsey, p. 8.

of the actual practice of public reletione by the nation's
educational broadcasters. To meet this end, date were col-
lected that indicated the practices of 13 at strategic and
important tinee in the deveIOpment of ETV. two of these
eurveye will be reported below. The other survey, that
which forne the current basin of this thesis, will be re-

ported in Chapter V.

‘ tr— "‘4‘

coats! l:1£fi.a

This study he: been undertaken to report the gut-
lic relations programs and yrscticee of educational tele-
oeetere at the close of the first ten years of LT? broad-
casting. To provide a perspective for the present study,
the general findings and conclusions of two surveys con-
ducted near the “id-point of this period, or in 1957-58,
will be reyortod below.

20th of these surveys were undertaken by educational
broadcasters to investigate the activities of these broad-
casters in the field of public relations end/or promotion,
depenoing upon the definition of ”public relations" chosen.

Since the findings and conclusions of these eurveys
carry the most import here, much of the material will be
quoted in full, to report the enact conclueione of the re-

spective authors.

in november, 1357. Elmer G. Bulzer undertook a study

35

of educational broaacaeting which resulted in a paper en¢
titled "Eromoting Educational Broadcasting," published in
1953.1 The express purpoee of this etudy was outlined by
fir. Sulzer:

Station promotion in one form or another is
a favorably recognized activity by a large number
of the nation's educational broadcasting outlets.
nowcver, nothing cyprcecning e eyetematic study
or these activities has ever been undertaken nor
have there been any plans placed in Operation for
research or promotional ideas.

hecognizing this neea. James S. nilee. while
Chairman of the lublic neletions Committee of the
intionel Aeeociation of Educational broadcasters,
requested tno writer to conduct a preliminary eur-
vey wuich would inéicate. to a partial degree at
leeet. the extent and types or promotional media
and methods employed by the member stations. This
paper is a result of that annignnent.
Since this has been a pioneer venture, the
results indicate many areas where further research
and inventigntione are extremely deeirnblc.3
it should be apparent that this etudy.wae deeigned
to determine primarily the pronotioncl efforts of educational
bronioenting. It was limited to member etntione of the
EALB; end the study was conducted among both elucntional
radio and television stations. However. an hr. Sulzer notes
above, the reeulte of his study are of a pioneer venture in

this area or research and are valuable in this respect.

 

' lfilmer G. Sulzer, ”Eromoting Educational fireadcaeta
ing.” Lrbnna, £11.: fictional Association of lduontional
trOndcnetern, 1338.

21bid‘. p. l.

of

\fl

the conclusions of tne uulzer study are incicntivc

tne public relations efforts of educational bro? licestere

in late 1357 and early 1953. Theee conclusione are reported

below:

"|
A.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

the participation in public relations activi-

tiee by educationnl tr noone.i.~ stations is
epott3,a and rungce tron an intense progrnn by
none etatione, to situations where there is
little or nothing done.

In general, the communitJ-the at ntione exhibit
more pro eeeionalien in puolic relations tnan
the others. The college otetione would rank

so ooni. She aveilnbilltJ of Janey. n'JJurently,
is the roost important factor in mnkin.; this
eituntion extnnt.

the lack of recovnition of the trnée J.:r;ea no
a manna of publicizin:g educati onol broadcast-
in; etetione‘ aotlvit ice is evilent.

llninls, ecucationnl brouccneti n3 etetione are
not doin5 tneir duty by the 11-3 publications.

For the moat part, proceeeec program schedules
are frowned upon by those who aunt Jot than
out.

tile diecrennnoiee in the printing costs of
pro.r in eoneuulee veould see; to indicate that
the Eitfiii could noonnor none helpful resenrcn
along t..eee linen.
.nie orello.,.zy survey iniiontee a lerge area
of possible research in the public relations
*ivitiee of oiucetionnl troedcaetin: etetione
that ohould be ex lored on a eyetematic and
scientific bqeie. 1

Cf these conclusionn, the ones most applicable to

of 2:7 would econ to be nuotere one. tno. nnd seven.

 

11334., pp. lfiulb.

'*.1‘fi' H1

LJJ UAW~UHQU¥ ULUDY

Another study, conducted about the time of the Sul-
acr study, surveyed public relations activities of hEV.
Entitled "iublic nelsticno in Lducstionsl television." it
was conducted by Lichard A. osmosreon, vho ctatsd in his
introductory note:

This is too report of a lit“ ited inquiry ism
public relations activities of cducstionel tele-
vision stations, showing how educational broad-
casters have at least one problsm in common with
tocir cc'oercisl tzctnrcn-~nomsly. the used to
publicize their eficrts.l

tr. canderooo states the belief that 5TV has been
intent mainly on programming and production. But he asked
those questions:

In performing their services for the public.
have oclcotior ol telecootoro cotoblis r.ed a 300d
two-way communication between tbs station and the
public: is the public fully aware of too oiferin s
of such stations and are toesc ctationa performing
services tooir oblics need or d want?

To anso'cr those questions and solve the prob-
lems to 6] 1 ply, an educational station needs a
well-organised and of active puclic relations pro-
gram. 0 c o
O I O O I O O O O O O I I O O O O O O O O O O O O

. . . But how can an educational station, cpsr-
sting on a small tud3ct. r3.nize and build on ex-
tensivc public relations pr03rsm wnic .i will coin-
tsin th s two-way communications channel oith the
public?

To answer these questions, gr. Sanderson surveyed

 

"fiublic Loloticns in Lanca-

‘

l. , , . J”

. oiCOO Jprd 4"... cat". '
91 f onrtoosting, Vol. 11, KO.

5 .
tionsl iclcvicion "gou

2‘%4S

1L .‘-..
M

56

all 33v stations broadcasting on regular as edules prior

to July, 1957. His findings indicate replies from 19 eta-
tiono and one network or three stations. The moot pertinent
findings are included below:

Seventeen of tne twenty otsti no surveyed re~
ported they had definite need for an organized,
full-tine public relations pro:rnm.l

The is ortn: .99 or public rsletiona sctivi ties

for ed.uontionel stat ions is reflected ty t s {set

the eighteen stations reported personr el were spe-
cificelly aseitned to public relations work. Hoa—
uver, only half or ti1sse stations had at least one
pers3-n 999i gnsi to gutlio rel9tion s in s full-t ine
ca;3c1+ vied

Other findings by Er. Sanderson:

Thirteen of tr 6 stations surve3 so had a formal 3
written statcner t of station 30110193 and objectives.

fie sleo noted that TTV did not aim 1 a pro9r9mning
at tr .e entire potential audience, but:

The public relations director (lTV) is there-
fore involved in arousing, maintaining, and build-
ing the attention 9? d interest of various groups
within the potential audience.4
0 O O O O O O 0 I O O I O O O 0 O O O I O I

Educational television stations are attempting
to know their euéienco and to discover how program-
ming is being eeiveri. {ifteen atatior 9 had taken
so u tv;:e of eug ionee poll or survey or were in
the process of doing so.D

 

 

11919.
‘lbid., p. 533.
31:13.
4;111., p. 331.

 

bitid-. 99- 331-332.

37

Kr. Sanderson also surveyed the particular proso-
tionsl devices in use by the ET? stations. His findings
indicated that the media most effective in promotional can-
psigns were the press, personal contact. and the station's
own programming, in the order listed. Other promotional
devices included speaker's bureaus and station announcements.

In his conclusions he reported that:

This survey of public relations policies and
objectives of twenty educational television ste-
tions revealed seven major items which appeared
significant in s majority or reports:

(1) Sufficient public or professional acknowledg—
ment snould be given persons or organizations as-
sisting tns educational station in its progressing.
(2) An important phase of the educational station's
operation is participation in some type of civic

or institutionsl television workshop or training
program for which station facilities are made eveil-
9919. These progress offer opportunities and means
for good public relations.

(3} The prepsr handling or visitors st the educa-
tional station necessitates the use of a reception-
ist and guide. . . .

(4) Programming should include some shows in which
the audience can in some way directly and actively
participate.

(5) ihe publication of an annual progress report

or some type has been found to be a useful tool

for public relations.

(6) The most effective media for reaching the edu-
cational station's audience have been found to be
the press, personal contact, and the station's own
programming.

(7) deny stations have conducted some type of sur-
vey or poll to determine audience Opinion and re-
sction towards the station, the general pregrnmming
or towards certain programs.

Following these general conclusions. ir. Sanderson

summarized his survey by stating:

 

litid.. pp. 333~334.

38

it the educational station is to be devoted
to public service and wishes to provide this serv—
ice to the largest number of persons possible. it
should feel obligated to establish and maintain
a two-way flow of communications between the sta-
tion and its audiences. Gnly through understand-
ing the needs and desires of its public. then at-
tempting to fulfill these needs through prcgrsmuing
and by giving its viewers a feeling of personal
participation. can the educational station accom-
plish its complete objective.1

A SUEAAAY

The preceding pages have surveyed the historical
materials and current thinking of those in the field toward
the practice of public relations in educational television.
It has been a review of the published data available about
this subject as gathered from research in books, Journals,
and periodicals pertaining to the field.

In analyzing this material, there seem to be these
recurring themes among the several reports and surveys:
public relations seeks to create a favorable image that
is more an sbetrsct quality than s concrete quantityt pub-
lic relations is personal. human relations. as such as it
is the practice of calculated strategies; and the best pub-
lic relations for broadcasters, educational especially.

is public service responsibly administered.

 

11515.. p. 334.

CfiAITLR IV

A SULViY GE $33 PUBLIC hLLATICfio EgCGhAES ARE LhfiCTICES

'fi 1.. -— v9 ’ g .—~. 5 7n? ‘r- :-. ‘5‘; . .- . “ v. {v f
u? uroCAIloNAL TiLLVIQ o3 STAFICRJ 15 1903

lroliminary investigations in the fall of 1962 in-
dicstsd that there were no recent sources of information
raniily available regarding the current tractice of public
relations by educational television stations in the United
States. It was further dstermined that thsrs apparently
had been no suca overall studies conducted in the area of
public relations for ET? in the past five years. and thoro-
tors what information was available was for all practical
purposes comyletely outdated.

Eslieving this lack of data constituted an alarm-
ing void. and believing in the important interrelationships
of public relations and ET? as outlin d in the preceding
chapters. the writer determined to initiate a research proj»
act fissiéned to examine current Ix practices of the nation‘s

ducntional television stations.

The subject was submitted to a graduate research
seminar and to administrators and teachers in TV-radio and
public relations at iicbigsn Stats Snivsrsity, both to get
Opinions concerning the value of such a study and to form

a definitive course of action.

\d
\O

40

In audition. the proposed study was outlined to
two national educational broadcasting organizations, and
consents were requested, an a further check on the poten~
tisl worth of the project.
Letters were therefore personally typed and sent
to nice norion Cornell, Chairman or the iublic helations
Committee of the national Association of lduoational Broad-
casters. onfl to the information Cffice of the National hou-
cetional Television and hndio Canter. Both sources cipreased
encouragement for such a study.
Edward J. Ifister, information Services Chief of
5:2, stated, "Certainly I feel any such study so you plan
for your tnesie project would be not only worthwhile but
of very great value to LEV on the national level. I know
of no such studies that have been done in this area. . . . "1
miss Corwsll replied, "You are right in your promise
that LIV stations, in general. could do a better Job in
the area of public relations."2
Following these exploratory seminars and personal

investigations, it seemed apparent that l) a need for such

a study was definitely established, and 2) the study could

 

1letter tron Edward J. lfister, Information Serv-
ices Chief, fictional Lducotionsl Television and hedio Cen-
ter. flew York, New York, April 22. 1963.

2letter from Eerion Corwell, Chairman, Eublic ne-
lotions Committee, national Association 0. nducstional
Broadcasters. bearborn, iicnigcn, fobrunr; l, 1963.

41

conceivably prove of importance to ETV broadcasters on the

national level.

T33 ahTJGJ OF INVLCflSATICN
fieceuse of the lack of information pertaining to
public relatione end hTV, it was decided that the survey
approach would conetitute the best research method for con-
ducting such a study. Both the case study method and the
questionnaire method were considered as the research tools,
and both offered unique advantages and disadvantages.
it was thought that the case study method might
provide more depth reports than a questionnaire, but the
research project would then be limited to only a few ee~
looted atetione. On the other hand, while a questionnaire
could be distributed to all broadcasting 2?? stations, there
was reason to believe the response would be limited. As
nine Corwell stated:
Concerning your proposed etudy: I am sure you
are aware that everyone in business in weary (I
on being kind; I could use a much stronger word)
of graduate studente' surveys. The feeling is that,
in many cesee, the professionals are asked to do
the writinfi for the student-~end the result is.
the survey questionnaire is deposited in the round
file.1
But as nice Cornell further stated, "The survey may

be essential to your thesis; in fact, it might be useful

I)
to the industry to have this information."“ It was decided

p...

r 4
rr
’1.
n.
I

 

N
H
(1‘
H-
C]-
U

 

42

that the use of the questionnaire approach would be eeeen—
tiel and this approach was need to gather data for the study,
the decision made largely on the basis that only a complete
survey of the field would prove statistically valid in mak-

ing conclusions from the study.

Th5 QULSIlCfifiéth

the need was evident for a questionnaire that would
be manageable on the port of the interviewee and eleo pro-
vide information in acne depth. Thus. the design of the
questionnaire was considered one of the most important ele-
manta of the study, if not 333 most important single factor.

For this reason, several months went into the prep-
aration of the instrument on the port of the writer. Sev-
eral ouch questionnaires were designed and revised after
consultations with the major professor on the_etudy and
other colleagues in the field. The resulting questionnaire
(see Appendix) ooneieted of a total of 40 questions. includ-
ing 35 questions to be eneworcd by all respondents and five
eupplementary questions to be answered only by those to
whom they specifically applied. (The letter pertained to
matters of fund-raising not applicable to all Itetione.)

These 40 questions were primarily of the multiple
choice type. They demanded a minimum of time to answer
and provided for a uniformity in compiling data. Open-end
questions were need wherever it was deemed neceeeery and

advisable, however.

43

The total questionnaire consisted of eight dupli-
cated pages with ample space at the end of the 40 questions
for additional connent by the respondents. The length of
the inventory was purposely kept as short as possible in
order not to discourage the interviewees from answering,
and also to facilitate in the handling and mailing of the

instruments.

on”? =" -.~-.;« *. Z.‘ 5 .YW":
Ant“ ‘UiaV-‘G*Vh$plabt“ti¢ fiNAMxébd

Tne inventory of public relations practices was
designed to seek information in the following four general
categories:

I) The scope of the overall practice of public rele-
tiona as currently determined by the station managers of
the 12? stations, including the staff function, the division
of responsibility, the overall goals, and the organizational
netting or the practice;

ll) The efforts being made by the stations in the
apecifio arena of promotion and publicity, including preeo
relations;

11:) Ihe amount of community involvement and service
of the etetionn no a factor in etetion public relations:
and

IV) The function of fund-raising (where applicable)
as an element of the public relations practice of the ete-
tionu.

Specific questions were then designed to gather

44

information concerning these four general areas. The in-
ventory included instructions to the station manager on
well as the definition of public relations chosen for this
study. The letter was incorporated to provide a common
backgrounfl for answering the questions on the port of dif-
ferently oriented respondents.

nueetione l, 2. 3. and 4 were designed to gain gen-
oral background information about the station and its phys-
ical organization.

uueetions 5-14. plue questions 26. 34. and 35. were
designeo to compile information sought in the General Cete~
gory l. or the IOOpe of the overall in practice.

information pertaining to General Category 11. or
the arena of promotion and publicity. was intended to be
derived from questions 15-25.

uueetione 27-33. or General Category 111. were de—
signed to determine the involvement of the station in its
own community.

And the final five questions, 3o-40. were devoted
to the area of fund-raising. or General Category 1V.

in open-end space at the clone of the inventory wee
designed to obtain opinions by nanegere that they may have

been unable to report elsewhere in the inventory.

inn Sinili
In the light of the suggestion by ties Cornell and

others that the queetionneire ie frowned upon by some, it

45

was decided to use a special approach in sending the ques-
tionnairee to the ET stations.

First. it was decided to send the questionnaire to
the station menezerg of the LT? stations for the reason
stated earlier that only the manager is in the position
of setting policy and hnving the perspective to see how
his overall pregrens are carried out.

Secondly, the study was being conducted under the
supervision of Lr. halter B. inery of the Richigan State
University lelevieion~hadio Lepartnent, and because of his
belief in the validity and worth of the study. he suggested
that his name be used in conjunction with the survey.

The writer then sent an individual letter to each
station manager, together with a questionnaire and a stamped.
self-addressed return envelope. A 0093 of this letter is
included in the Appendix.

These personal letters and questionnaires were sent
to the station managers of a total or 72 educational tele-
vision etn ions (plus three affiliate or satellite stations)
in 32 states and the Lietrict of Columbia. listed as being
on the air with a regular schedule or prorrame as of Janu-
ary, 1963. The source used to confirm the number of broad-
casting stations on the air and the names and addresses of
station managers was the January, 1963, qucctional Tole-
vision Lirectcry of the national Educational Television and

hadio Center cited earlier.

46

The letters and questionnaires were sent to the
station managers in late April, 1963. After approximately
one month, in late lay, 1963, individually typed and per-
aonalized follow-up letters (use Appenfiix) witn question-
naires were sent to a email percentage of station managers
who had not yet responded to the first letter and question-
naire.

The response to the survey and the resulting data

are reyorted in the following pagea.

CEAPTER V

‘. L ' V "_.. 'I ‘ ‘.' .~ ’I i s. V ‘1 ~. '0 ‘. "1‘ ‘1): 2‘ . ‘- . ufi ."
I'll-ax “(0‘ 153‘“ [LP‘J‘oLItJA-kl Ll; _&Aau ul'K‘Jl

L”
(

(

*1
be
h
a}.
H

Lobilfiéi To To; iKVQEIChY

Questionnaires were mailed to the managers of 72
educational television etations (plus three affiliata or
satellite UHF ntationa which were Operated under the some
organisational policies 38 their sister V5? otatione) listed
as being on the air an of January, 1963.1 A roagonoe of
31.7 gar cent was received to the inventories, with ques-
tionnaires roturned from 66 of the 72 station managere.
(A 67th manager returned his inventory unanswered because
of a personal Policy of not answering survey research ques-
tionnoiras.)

thus. usable questionnaires were receivad from 66
otations in 52 stotaa and the Liatrict of Columbia, or in
other wordn, from every state in the United otates with
on Operating Open-circuit 3:? station, and from moot of
the aflucotional TV otationa in the country. Cf the six
stations not replying, three of these were in flew York,
one in lllinois. one in louieiann, anfi one in fiiaoonain.

:gducotionml Colovioion Lirootorx, national Lduca~
tionol Television and iaaio poster.

47

43

However. replies ssrs received from other stations
in those states to form s completely representative sample
of station activities in the field of public relations in
all states throughout the nation with.sitbor VA? and/or

U3? broadcasting educational television stations.

2;CTICN ll
E;T€O;5 CF AKALYSIS

The data, the hypotheses projected and tho instru-
ment used to asks the investigation suggested a aunnary
of data in terms of percentages of responses to particular
items, general averages, numerical listings and tables, and
direct quotations where practicable.

The data were therefore analyzed in this manner
with respect to the four general categories of information
sought from the station managers.

For reasons of clarity and accuracy, it was neces.
sary to classify the returned inventories according to the
type of ownership of the stations. That is. because of
the hypotheses projected, it was deemed necessary to cats-
goriso stations by ownsrsnip to show public relations prac-
tices of stations in various ownership groups. Therefore,
the following divisions of stations were nods:

A) Community owned stations;

5) School system or school board owned stations;

C) Lnivsrsity or college owned stations; and

49

D) A general division of stations owned by miscel-
laneous groups, soon as ETV authorities, foundations, cities,
and so on.

ln the analysis of the data reported, an effort was
made to present complete responses of stations in each own-
ership division whore practical, as well as the total re-

sults of the survey.

SECTION III

In: rATA--Gixihnl BAChGhCUKfi lkFcnnATlofi

As stated earlier, the first four questions on the
inventory were designed to get basic information about the
stations to form a basis for further evaluation purposes.

lhe total of 66 stations replying to the survey
included g; stations which were listed as university or
college osned; lg stations owned by community organirstions;
lg stations owned by school systems or school boards; and
nine {22 stations which were owned by a verietz of organi-
sational groups. This latter division included three sta-
tions under the ownership of a State ETV Commission, two
stations owned ty a State 32V Authority, 3 station owned

by a municipality, a station under the ownership of a library

 

1Hots: Since the station managers were told the
information they supplied would to treated confidentially,
in an effort on the part of the writer to gain more complete
and open reelies, no stations were specifically identified
in this analysis. where necessary, general descriptive
Lnrnses were su;plied to clarify geographical locations
of some stations.

50

and another owned by s foundation, and one station owned
Jointly by s university and a school system.

In addition, there were two community owned and
one school system owned satellite or affiliate stations
that were not counted as separate stations because the sta-
tions were determined to be under the some organisational
setup as their parent stations, at least for the purposes
of this study.

if the E6 stations, there was a total of 45 V3?
stations, and 21 U3? stations. Ins number of broadcast
hours per week of each station varied greatly, ranging from
a low of 10 to a high of 77 hours per week, or from a nin~
imam average of the four divisions of stations of 25 hours
to s maximum average of 73 hours per week. Ehe approximate
average number of broadcast hours for the 66 stations was
45 hours per week.

Eighteen of the 66 52V stations hsd sister F2 rsdio
affiliates, two stations had An radio effilietee only, and
seven stations had both in and FE radio affiliates.

A totsl of 59 of the stations reported they devoted
some percentage of their broadcast time to instructional
television (meaning here "in-school” lessons only), while
four stations did not answer this question end two stations
reported no ”in-school” programming. Since there was no
apparent reason why the four stations did not answer the
question, it wee assumed thet the four also did not devote

any tine to this form of instructional television.

51

Inc percentage of ”in-echool" prograr sin; of the
total amount of programming ranged from 24 per cent to 66
per cent in the division of community owned stations; from
25.1 per cent to 75 yer cent in t? e miscellaneous grouping
of stations; from 1; percent to 100 per cent in the division
of school system owned stations, and from 5 per cent to 100
per cent in the university owned group of stations. The
average percentece of "in-eohocl" pro 'remMinI of the 53
ate etic no see 4I .5 per cent.

Ineee ngproxinnte percentages and ranges of percent—

ezo of "in—noncol" progrem.inc are shown in Table l.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tfifiii l. Lnfidfi C? I. CJSILJLJ CF "lX-JCJCCL" CJHH.4136
Jtetion 4 Average
Classification: Ier Lent
Community [“45' ee;) » 44.45
Niecelleneous Fijilfi 753] 46.05
School System Lljé' lJij 56.1%
University [pa léfigj 37.8
FLLCLSIAGn 0 10 20 30 4O 50 60 70 80 90 100

 

 

JBCI 53 IV
Gigs “$3.1. CI‘LI‘JGL J'IY I

guestione 5-14, 26, 34,

a

nd 35 on the inVentory
were deaignod to gather data pertainL ng to the scope of

the overall 'rectico of public relations as currently

52

determined by the station managere. and here cleeeiried
ae General Category I.

Thus, the first question in tnie section was de-
signed to learn how many ETV stations had one or more full-

time people eesigned to a public relations function.

FULL-Tlnfi re EnESQRNEL

Cf the 66 stations. a total of 19 etatione bed one
or more full-tine public relations personnel, while 47 ata-
tiona bed no full-time peeple assigned to the public rela-
tions function. Thus, only 28.8 per cent of the nation's
educational television etatione now have full-tino_§ublig
{elationo of icere or departments.

0! the 19 ctetione with full-time ER people, nine
stations have a single PR person, while 10 etntione have
more than one person.

The community owned etntione reported the highest
percentage of rull~tine public relatione personnel, with
10 of tne 18 etatione in the group. or 55.5 per cent or
the stations. with one or more pecple eeeinned full~tine
to the public relations area.

Rineteen per cent of the university owned eteticna,
16.5 per cent of the school system owned stations. and 23.6
per cent of the miscellaneous group of stations had full-
tine IR peonle.

Theee figures, ee shown in Table 2, lend support

to the hypothesis tnet only a enell percentage of the

53

nation's ET stations currently have full-tine public re-

lations personnel.

TABLE 2. 351333313313 M533 I'di.C.;i§i'2AGLIS OI’ FULL-T1553 F51. I‘LZE‘LILCREIEL

Station Humber ' aith Anith more

 

 

 

Clessifi» of filth Full- e One Th Then Cne
cation: Stations fine PE With Person Eh Person
Community 18 10 55.5 4 6
fiiscelleneous 9 2 28.6 1 1
School System 18 3 16.6 1 2
University 21 4 19.0 3 l
TGTAL 66 19 28.8 9 10

 

 

Of the 10 stations with more than one fullutime 1R
person, the largest staff, five full-time and one half-time
persons, was kept by s east Coast station. An East Coast
station had {our people. Five stations had two peeple on
the PR staff, two stations had three people, and one ete-
tion had one full-time person and another assigned half-tine.

The titles of these yeOple varied from station to
station, but included directors of public relations, essie-
tent directors of re, directors of develoynent and assistants,
audience promotion assistants, publicity and pr notion di-

rectors, and special projects coordinator.

Question number seven was designed to determine the

54

amount of authority these full—tins public relations people
had, and conversely, to determine how much control the sts~
tion managers kept over the 13 departments.

Ins results, as shown in Table 3, show the station
managers split about evenly in supervising their TR depart-
ments, with eight managers being asked their decision on
nearly all matters pertaining to station relations with
the public, and eight managers consulted onl" on setters
of major policy (defined as involving significant capital
expenditures, policy changes, etc.). Three managers reported
their decision was asked on 3233 matters considered to in-
volve major policy.

It is apparent, however, that of the stations with
full-tine In people, the manager kept a firm hand in policy

decisions.

 

 

 

 

TABLE 3. PUBLIC iLIATItuJ niIT;-3 fibrdltlfii texts J’

LLOIfiICfi

nearly @042 ofliY

Station ALL ”nsjor Pol- "nsjor
Classification: setters icy" Ketters Policy" TCTAL
Community 4 4 2 10
miscellaneous l l O 2
School System 2 l O 3
University 1 2 l 4
TGTAL 8 J 19
TOTAL Pin cent 42.1fi 42.15 15.8.

 

55

PART-TIRE PR chSChHEL

Since the majority of otctione did not have full-
time public relations personnel or departments, it was im-
portant to learn who. if anybody, haniled the Eh duties
or the station. Again there was a wide range of answers
and these are reported in Table 4.

From these data, it appears many zmv stations let
their public relations duties fall in almost any direction.
Certainly there is no general pattern that can be reported
concerning the type of personnel handling En duties when

no full-tine person is available.

TS; in EULGll

Since it seems that many times the public relations
effort is largely depenflent upon the amount or money avail-
able to it. information was sought concerning the amount
of money budgeted annually for the public relations func-
tion on the part of the ETV stations. Here again there
were wide individual differences, but the figures provided
some interesting computations for analysis.

The public relations budget of the community-owned
stations ranged from a low of 3250 to a high of $82,000;
the miscellaneous group of stations from zero to 310.000;
the school ayetcn—ownod etntions from zero to £20,000; and
the university-owned stations from zero to 315,000 per year.

Fourteen stations reported no huigot for public
relations at all, while ton etntione did not answer the

question and several staticno gave only partial answers.

56

 

 

 

TABLE 4. SIAT ICS 13L""S;L 1*YTLI 3 Eh LU? 33 KEYS SI CS
dAS SO FULL— Tia: IUBLIC h LITICJJ :AEJQRN"

station IrOgram News

Cleanifi- Lanager Lireotor Director Students Other

cation: '

Community 1 1 Cperationa
Lirector (1)
Cperations

Committee (1)
Ian. informa-
tion Dir. (1)

Luties split Iractionally (} stations): f manager-é aa-
oictant manager; 5 managerug program director; g manager-
: director of doveloyaont

 

Riscollaneoua 5 Producers-
Lirectors (1)
Lirector of
ETV (1)

Eutiea split fractionally (2 stations): 1/} monarer-l/B
pragraa director-I/B yroducar-director: é assistant program
director-fi- part- otima Ih person

 

School System 4 4 School IR
Lirector (1)
Director of
Iorzonnel (1)
Radio-2V he-
oouroo per-
son (1)

Duties split fractiorally (4 ototione): 3 program director-
3 news director-2 student-fin miniatrative asaiatant; é
manager-g promram director; fi monager-fi secretary; i mun-
agar-g program director-r newa director~z continuity depart-
Hunt

 

University 2 3 Up ivoroity
1'1. 369‘. (2)
Continuity or
Traffic (2)
Operations (1)
No one in ar-
ticular (1

57

Duties split frnc otionolly (6 ntations): % nounror-fi tro-
gram director; a manager-z program director—4 continuity-
: producer-director; g monaxer-t trn fic- -oontinuity, public
relatior s-promction ooord inatora 1/} mar .53 er—l/3 proa ram
director-l/3 university 4L dept.; : L-“3u.r—& write redi-
rector-proootion person x 1/3 administrative assistant- 1/}

university rn dept.-l/3 prQ ram director

 

r4243 5. :3; PUBLIC 44L4r1o4; sorozr

 

 

ier Cont of Amount Actually
Station Station Budget in Budgets-3 or
Clossifioation: for 13 Lollors atL :ztod
Community Station
Allocationat 7% 315,000 :stinntei
32AT105 4 2 13¢ 63,000 Budgeted
STATICS 3 3 10% 25,000 intimated
LTAIICS f 4 3i 10,000 Estimated
3253103 4 5 5p 3,500 isti 4te1
blAIiCJ j 6 54 20,000 Estimated
STAZIQS g 7 4} So Answer No Answer
criiicd J 8 2} 250 7No Answer
LIRJILA 7 9 l-EQ 500 No finswer
SIAZICS w 10 1} 2,400 Eudgetefi
bIAIIQm r 11 55 35,003 Eud*atod (And
14oludeo
salaries)
Loununitj 55 23,000 Estimated
SIAIICN H 13 39 17,000 Budgeted
STATICH y 14 So Ansmer 2,500 Estimated
STATION f 15 7.54 62,000 (Includes bud—

get for fund-
raifii‘fi P

Iv‘bdfl;

activities)

”Three stations did not an owor or an id they had no set
amount of money not aside for public relations activities.

 

58

 

 

Ier Cent of Amount Actuelly

Station Station Budget in budgeted or
Classification: for Tn Icllsrs Estimated
Liscellaneous ,

otation Group‘ Ho Answer $0,000 Ho Answer
STgTICR fl 2 To Answer 500 fio Answer
SIAIICK § 3 .1; No Answer Kc Answer
SIATICH i 4 To Answer 10,000 50 Answer

'Cne station hed no 2R budget, four stations did not answer.

 

School System

Staticns* 1.5% 6,000 Budgeted
STATICH g 2 £0 Answer 1,000 Budgeted
:2:T1C4 g 3 4.7% 13,000 Pietimatsd
(includes
applicable
salaries)
STLIICT g 4 To Answer 250 to Answer
crazies r 5 1% 2,500 No Answer
STA.I1C3 y 6 3i 20,000 Estimated
5TA Tlofi' g 7 5% No Answer Eo Answer
“111’” 3 8 .65 1,500 '00 Answer
STATION 4 9 .15% 1,000 Estimated
STA TICN v 10 24 No Answer Bo Answer

*Ssven stations nad no budget, one station did not answer.

 

University Cwned

Stations“ 20$ 2,500 Lstimatsd
STATES} o 2 1% 2,000 No Answer
STATILK fl 3 3% 8,000 fio Answer
“TATICN 3 4 4.7% 13,000 intimated
(Includes
applicable
salaries)
SIAIICH fi 5 1% 1,000 Estimated
BTATICJ . 5 10% 8,500 Budgeted
STATIQR n 7 43 15,100 Eudgetcd

 

 

 
   
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
   

Stones . ..
‘ f ‘

‘ 9:0.

lieeelleseoee

Stetioe Greer D Jan euoh
82‘210' I I ’ tug gt...
811210! I 3

BIAIIOI I 4 t the two

.0“. .‘.’:’.’. so do not have

 

School ant“ t n
stetione° """

SIAIIOI I I
STAIIOI I 5,390

’1L:-e

,3 in 'Pa POLIC! on

source I "e ‘°"‘

 

     
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 

     
 

 

 

«mos Or 9 .. ' _
ounce e: e h. ‘ ,4 , _ ,j ’2
some: i 1

nirxoi '44.; .14 22.2',‘

senio- e e 7* 22.2%

"“1” 621 14- 22.2%

Wemmm y 16 '2:.o¢

um. 5

IIASIOI seen-ins that station

ogren.
xnyl

 

 

“tr.
.\

    
  

that there eee practic-
' go or etetione vith rs

 
 
 

4.43{ }«« or etetione, end thet

L

s
I III. III'
'W W
7 .. 7‘ 97
‘Othét 9'M9{
LA J, L 5

Int“!

    
   
 
   

 

53

‘—

 

 

ier Cont of Amount Actually
Station Station budget in Budgeted or
Ciacsification: for 13 Eollpro Estimated
SIJKZlLJ 3 8 73 311.030 Budgeted
333316 3 3 9 13 450 30 Answer
STATICN 3 10 63 1.500 Estimated
QIJEIUH 1 ll Loan inan 13 45 Budgotod
thfl' 3 g 12 No Answer 1,000 cotincted

'51x stations royortod no budget. and two stations did not
answer. Uno station reported no budget other than salary
for full-time 15 birector.

 

 

orhapo the only conclusion that could be made from

the figures in Table 5 is that there was no general pattern
of budgeting for public relations by ETV stations across
the nation. while a row stations seemed to buflget quite
adequately, the reports of the majority of stations revealed
an alaraing lack of budgeted funds for the public relations
area.

Cf course. it was impossible to make any definite
conclusions based on t? 33 so Momzat inoonyloto IétUIT a received.
This matter of the 33 budget should undoubtedly be given

more serious study.

in ELLIS!

in determining the scope of the overall public ro-
lntiono function. it see: ed important to ask u nether otc~
ticno had on or onisod ,iotrn or policy of public relations

recorded for all not hero of the station staff to become

60

familiar with and follow. The results showed that loco
then one-goorter o! the stetio one had such a_policy oryoro-
EZEE-

Of the 66 stations. 15 reported they did have such
a policy, 49 stations reported they did not. and two eta-
tiona did not answer. if it can be assumed that tho two
stetior e that did not answer the question also o.o not have
such a program, then only g2.7 per cent of the total number
of stations report on organizod outlio inlotio"n_;ro reg.

.._

These data are reported in Table 6.

 

 

 

 

Iibio 6. 33331635 erCnIijd £3 oianfliiio in IQLIJY CR
E a. fit". . iii

éithOut Tot 1 £—
Station number of fit: :3 in @121 Eh
“leseificJ ion: Etoticno 53°43f33ioeri2333 irogrcr_
Community 18 4 14 22.2}
miscellaneous 9 2 7* 22.2%
School System 18 4 14* 22.23
University 21 5 16 23.83
TC? L 66 15 51 22.73

'includos one otntion not onotoiino nsouning that station
had no public relations policy or program .

 

 

It was interesting to note not there was practic-
ally no difference in the perocntngo of stations with IR

programs among the {our divisions of stations, and that

61

wgile 2o.8 yer cent of the total number of of stations

had full-tile putlic relationc people. only 22.7 per cent

of this total had an organized public relations program

or policy. The latter obviously indicatea that at least

a few “TV stations have full-tine public relations person-
nsl. but have no PE policy with which to guide them in their

efforts.

a; 51340 in GOAIS

Those ntotiono that reported they had organized
public relations policies or programs were asked to outline
briefly their specific public relations goals. Since each
station anawereé this question differently. the greatest
benefit might be doriVed here by reporting the unsiitod
quotations of the station managers.

997TEQ1tIASt9t10531

S ociiic iublic relations Goals:

AL

STAIltfl g l "Courteous service. encourage visits, build
image of community interest; on potivs_intereot.”

 

STAZICN # 2 "l. A non-commercial community service 'imagc'
to indiccto public usage and support.
"2. To create an impression that (the station)
is 'Eig and Getting Bigger.’ Everybody loves
a winner.”

Sfiilofi A 5 "Audience and donationc, favorable image, rag-
ulor viewing.”

5*
‘ )

I
'4
15‘
5

”Got all residents of the area to view at least
one of our pragrama each week."

 

1"
consecutive station numbers merely are used to
identify the comments of different station ounagura.

62

One additional etntion toot eeid it had no organized
public relations program said its IR goals were: "To inform
the public about the offering: of an HIV station. tnue build-
ing an ewareneee of the value of ouch e facility as a com-
munity cultural neeet."

Eieoelleneoue Station Groug

ggecifio lutlic helntione Goele:

STAIICK y 1 "To maintain a conetnnt projection of poeitive
information on well an a reel sensitivity to
felt needs."

STATION 9 2 "Builc up audience. emphasise service aspects
of station.”

ficnool System Owned Etntione
Sgocific Public Relations Gonle:

STATICH 5 l "gointain favorable image of station through
1) quality programming; 2) adequate none cov-
erege; 3) considerate handling of all calls,
letters, etc.. and following this obtaining
a broadened bone of financial support for the
station." ‘

STATlCfi # 2 "Create e favorable image of the station . . .
inform community re programs on the air . . .
eeteblien close relationship with community
leaders . . . eetnblien favorable editorial
support for the station."

ETATICX n 3 "Create image of etation no one with good
pronrnme that offer enlightenment with show-
manenip. Build understanding of economic
need of station."

Billion g 4 "Good communication as to objective of TV . . .
nocourega parent participation wnere poe-
eiole . . . through uee of 'rion' resource
pereon, snow program on bell and related to
current society."

63

University Owned Stations
ggeoific Putlic relations Scale:

STATION 9 1 "All program publicity should emit from P.R.
Cffioe. Any publicity concerning personnel
should enit from office.. Better promote [the
station; through cooperation with Civic or-
ganizetions and groups (Library, Clubs, etc.).”

STATICN n 2 "1. Inform general public of eervice and pur-
pose of station.
"2. inform general public of epecific programs
being broadcast.
”3. Keep University administration and fec-
ulty informed of our activities.
“4. Provide internal communication among
staff of station.
"5. Promote the image of the University and
he station nationally."

SIAIICN J 3 (No full-time PR person) "Inform general &
specific audiences of our general e specific
program cervicee--eerving all media."

TATICS n 4 ” . . . We design pregreme for segmented aud~
iencee--cur main goal is to pace information
about epecific programs to those for whom
tneee programs are intended-~and generally
to make the public aware. The specifically
directed promotion is most important."

A fifth etation reported an organized FR policy,
but listed no apecific public relations goals.
inile those stated In goals may not be entirely
indicative of the etationa' public relations policiee or
programs, at least they add some support to the hypothesis
that the majority of in "programs" are primarily promotional
or publicity programs. fhere ie a recurring indicntion

here that publicity and promotion of the ltntion and its

pr05rama are possibly the prime elements of the majority

of stated PR goals.

64

FhEQUEfiCY CF SETTIRG OE EVALUATIRG IR POLICY

Although only 15 stations reported they had specific
Pd programs written down for the staff to become familiar
with and follow, nearly all stations reported they made
some effort to set or evaluate public relations policy.
This discrepancy may have been caused by the fact that while
few etetione had written policy. many may have had word
of mouth policy or other more internal policies. In any
case, the date in Table 7 should be reviewed with the cou-

tion in mind that the foregoing discrepancy did occur.

TABLE 7. thrUQhQY CF SifflfiG CK EVALUAIIRJ in ICLICY

 

 

btetion Classification:

 

 

Policy Set or Con- miscelo

zvelunted: runity laneous dchool Univ. Total in
Occasionally 5 3 3 5 16 24.2%
Eonthly l 0 l O 2 3.0;
Annually 3 1 3 O 7 10.6;
irregularly 7 l 5 10 23 34.9%
Hot since sta-

tion signed on 1 l l 2 5 7.63
Never 0 2 5 3 10 15.2}
do Answer 1 l O l 3 4.5;
Total 18 - 9 18 21 66

 

 

JEPING STAFF Pu CCHLCIOUS

To determine the station nonegers' efforts at keeping

their eteffe public relatione conscious. the managers were

asked with what kind of frequency they attempted to keep

eteft member. aware of their IR reeponeibilitioe.

A8 re-

ported in Table 8 by station classifications, a total of

25 managers reported Q_ce§iongl efforts. while 25 stated

they attempted to keep their staffs In conscious at all

times. 10 at regular intervals. and three station managers

said never.

Three stations did not answer the question.

The evidence here would indicate that 3?? station

managers are aware of the importance of keeping staff mem-

bere IR oonecioue. since 92.5 per can

t reported efforte in

this area, from occasional attempts to regular and conetent

 

 

 

 

 

 

attempts.

TABLE 8. LPLCLTS Lfi-3 To K“ P SIAF? lefiihS In CLESCICUS
Ltation At All negu— ecce-

Cleesificetion: Tioee lerlg eionelly Never $0 Answer
Community 9 3 5 O 1
Miecellaneoue 3 2 3 0 1
School 7 2 8 l 0
University 6 4 9 l 1
Total 25 ll 25 2 3
Total for Cent 37.93 16.7} 37.95 3,0; 4,55
ELTuCLS CF hfizllfid SIAF? Pa CCRSCICUS

There was, of course. a great

deal of individual

66

difference in the methods of keeping staff members public
relations conscious. These methods are summarised in the
paragraphs below.
Corrunity Cease Stations
A West Coast station manager stated this method of
keeping his staff aware or In responsibilities: "Through
periodic staff meetings. personal contacts with those most
often in direct touch with the public. and through staff
news bulletins." in {set Coast etsticn manager said, "Hot
by any 'progrsn,‘ but by working closely and personally
with other members of the staff." And a third manager said,
"1. Assign projects appropriate to positions which are
part of overall plan. Policy of involvement. 2. Constant
flow of information.“
Other methods mentioned by stations were staff meet-
ings (by nine stations). nence (3). Personal contact (2),
publications and bulletin boards (3}. precept and example.
ask staff participation, stuffere in pay envelopes. and by
calling for assistance with civic groups, speekers, and
meetings in and away from studios. .
Hisoolleneons Station Grou'
Cne station keeps its staff in conscious
Througn modifying offerings to meet the needs
and criticisms of the public; also we try to in-
press uoon then that they are representing educa-
tion to the public in a way tnet hes not been pos-

sible before, and that the image of education may
be good or bed as they impress the public.

67

A second station said by "fishing them feel individ-
ually part of [the station].” Other methods mentioned were
staff meetings (by three stations), personal relationships
(by five stations). and memos (1).

School Systen Owned fitations

The manager of a southeastern station said, "I-form
staff members of new programs and projects--ksep staff in
touch on Fund Erivs activitiee--encoursge staff members to
let friends and neighbors know about the station."

Other methods used were staff meetings (by six eta-
tions), conferences, and precept and example on the part
of the station manager.

University Juned Stati n3

Generally these stations used such methods as staff
meetings (eight stations), personal contact. memos. "cour~
tesy, conduct and cheerfulness,” seminars, and informal
methods to keep staff members aware of En. sore specific-
ally, six stations made these comments:

STATIC? a 1 "meeting the public, both in and out of th
station; appearances at meetings; distribution

of monthly program booklets."

SIAIION y 2 "Iresent public relations problems have 2 as-
pects-~csmyus-wide and community-wide. Cam-
pus problems handled in staff nectings-—ccm-
munity ignored by regular stuff."

EIAL;§N y 3 "1) To keep i.fi. Eirector informed of program
information concerning local productions for
publicity purposes.

"2) try to stress tne importance of one news
outlet for publicity."

STATICN 3 4

STATICS f 5

STA? CB # 6

FREQUiNC! 0F
Stnti

asked to repo

£26, in order

of regular co

TABLE 9. it:

63

”Regular etaff meetinge include interpretation
of program and public relatione approaches

for up coming months in order that staff may
be aware and use in contacte with public.”

"Liplnnatione of station policy and the pur-

pose of University & etation decieiona and

actions. Pointing out the need for two-way

information exchange.”

"They are told by the preaidont of the Univer-
sity and by me to become involved in as many

professional, state and local organizations

as possible and to contribute to tnooo organi-

zations. fhey are altaye advised to speak

& publish as much as possible."

STAFF ELETISGS

on managers who conducted otarf meetings vere
rt the frequency of thee. meetings in guoetion
that a judgment might be made an to the amount

ntact by the manager with hie entire staff.

gUENCY CF STAFF fijLTIRGS

 

 

 

 

Station he 50
Classifi~ Ei- Irregu- Moet- An-
cotion: Iailx Weekly :onthly yonthly lorlx; logs ewer
Community 0 5 2 O 9 0 2
xiocellanoouo 3 2 O O 4 0 0
School system 0 3 3 l 9 O 2
University 0 5 2 l 9 l 3
Total 3 15 7 2 31 l 7

Total for Can

t 4.65 22.7; 10.6% 3.0; 47.05 1.5; 10.61

 

 

The f

iguros in table 9 indicate thzt tna majority,

69

or 47 per cent, of these atation managers meet only irroéu~
19:1; with their entire staff, 'hilo 22.7 per cent oo duct
weakly staff meetingn, with the re'aindor a; lit in much
smaller peroentagoo. it is interesting to note, however,
that only one manager of the entire 66 rogorto no staff
meetings at all.

To Judge the stations' involvonont in industr; of~
fairs, as well as their offorto in national p~omotion and
put11C1ty, at ion mafia oro were as 36 whether their sta-
tion competed actively for industry awards and honors (uueow
tion 634). Cnly 14 stations, or roughly 21 per c=nt, re-
ported rogular congetition for thM .o honors, «3118 25 sta—
tions, or 37.9 per cent, reported occasional efforts. Lignt~
eon stations, or 27.3 per cont, never competed.

Cna station mono ;or of a western station, in report~
that his station never oo ;otoo for awords, 3315, "as
exist to provide quality educational Opportunitiea to our

puoils and otoff.not to enter contests.”

P‘ 1“. {I‘m . m In‘p -? -' ~n ‘y g our-1‘“ ~ *fl. ~oa-flr 191‘ I‘Ij.' Q I, 'U t'r'-..Y ‘ 1" ‘ 7%.?!
$35.29;; ’3. -,.AJl ‘~. .w ..:uLA.J..LL‘iJ any“; “Lil-$3....) it“. 4&..- ya”- Ann." ‘3

 

Qta.tiou
Cloosif ic . tion: 3L.Jlorlj Cc orrl.:r]ly Enrol] lover To 31

 

Community 7 a 5 O 18
Eiaoollaneouo 2 S 0 2 9
School System 1 4 3 13 15
University 4 8 3 6 21
Total 14 25 9 18 66
Total Per Cent 21.2; 37.9; 13.63 27.3;

 

70

n03? VALUAELE ra arsonr

In an attempt to summarize the General Category I
pertaining to the overall scope of the public relations
function. etation managers were asked to describe their
most valuable public relations effort (Question 535). Of
course, each station manager answered this question differ-
ently, but the comments of the individual managers are worth
noting here. there possible, unedited quotations were used
to summarize this area.

Coraunity Cwnei Stations

root Valuable rublic Relations affcrts

 

An East Coast station manager said, "No one project;
Just a great cool of dey-to-dey hard work. we try to make
sure that everything that leaves this office is useful to
the people to whom we send it." Another East Coast station
manager was more specific. when he said his station's best
effort was:

istablishmont of a community fund-raising cam-

paign in our 2nd year of operation. This involved
OOOperstion with 4 area oomnercial TV stations,
heavy newspaper support, corporate and associations
aupyort and a strong push for subocribers on a per-
eonal level.

Several stations mentioned outstanding programs so
their best public relations. three stations value an annual
fund-raising suction, one station's best effort was a 1363
Cpen House which attracted 5.000 pectic, and one manager

said his test effort was "575 speeches . . . precedin: open-

ing of the station.”

71

Five stations had no answer to the question, one
station said, "Can't single one cut,” end a nidwestern mar-
eger reported. "inch of the 18 {board} members of [the sta-
tion} would give a different answer depending on the cir-
cumstances. The station has 5.5. aotivitiee in addition

to member 1.3. activities.”

"7“ ann‘1nn4-Lhtnp 13+r15‘nr :11";qu
1- - ‘ 5.1 ”'1‘- a- . --v~ l L. 1"1 "a, C -b ". . L '_. L: K

“Tin 1'; “Infirmrn 9?? win.
no... ‘5‘ .e.--A.-.-. --...C.- .e

--- L' 6

’r‘

fleet Valueble
Only five stations answered this question in this
station classification. The answers:

STATICT e l ”Lifficult to any. lernepe best was to bury
onnouncenente in pregrnme during political
conventions to see if people would tire of
said conve;tiene & turn to our stetiwne.
iooklet we 0 'fored wee a;5 TO ct£33 1133.3
2;:i. 5e gave away about 350 of those with
a prone for 52¢ attached.”

STnTicfi r 2 "* Hoe .a..ce b3 the 2 LnJor educetio. el neon—
cies in city the t reeyoneibi lity for getting
station goir.g ere theirs. "

3 ”Good *vOQ’nH'lug, excellent preea relations,
'xeet tn Lrese' type public affaire pragrem."

‘42.

UEILLIUH

U)
D 3
p
F]
P1
(3
:3:

5 4 ”Public ETV Report over the station's facil-
itiee."

BTATled 5 5”1‘oo new yet to make any oetir etion."

«0‘ .n _. ‘ ", -.
enhool ugoteo MWde utctiong

 

Kent Volupble Fublic EL lotio .ne Lffcrte:
oTiTICJ # l "Lditoriel support by too press and local
ecumercizl TV——a "nod reinte.i n in tne com-
munity."
STATltS 5 2 "Quality pregrnm production."

Other stations mentioned q olity programming and

72

the program guide: word or mouth. meetings and speakers;
TV Guide, news releases. speakers; ads in local papers (2
stations); outstanding lessons (programs); promotional cem-
peign when station came on air; an in—eervice program for
teachers; the purchase of the station from commercial in»
tereetss and a brochure put out before the station signed
on.

University finned Stations

fest Volunhle Public Eelstione Efforts:

 

STATICR y l "irogrsmmins is the key to audience building.
Unless viewers can find satisfaction in the
cultural. information programming being eup-
plied. promotional efforts are to no avail.
Good programs are good public relations. Our
most valuable promotion piece is our monthly
program guide."

STATICH o 2 "rho initial and only fund-raising campaign,
in uhicn {the vice-president of the University}
raised nearly $2,030,000 in money, goods, and
services to build and equip the station.“

STATICB e 3 "News etcries, both factual and feature. about
tne growth or the station which were published
in area newspapers.”

STATICH # 4 "Having special meetings at studio with rep-
resentatives of all local civic groups. The
mailing out of promotion bits on a monthly
basic to 203 local civic leaders."

(I?
| 3
,2:
"'3
F4
C
21.".
“h
\J‘

"l. Talks made by the manager and director
of community relations before service clubs.
EIA'e, etc. 2. hewspcper advertising."

Other stations mentioned promotional efforts in
behalf or particular programs, the establishment of better
working relations with the newspapers, advertising in newee

papers. the reputation of a sister En station, an annual

cpen house. and the stations' prcgram guides.

73

Again it is very evident that many of these station
managers speak entirely in terms of publicity and promotion
when supposedly speaking of their staticne' entire public
relations efforts. The evidence would indicate, as hypoth-
esized in this study, that public relations oer se remains
indistinguishable from publicity and promotion to much of

the management of bTV.

U}
L“
(J
a
H
C!
a
q

Gjfizhil CAT£3OEY II

Questions 14-25 on the inventory were designed to
determine the scape c! the promotion and publicity efforts
of the stations, including press relations and relations
with other media. This area of publicity and promotion
was included under General Category 11 for the purposes
of this study.

Question 515 asked, "to you make use of press re-
lessee, feature stories, program guides and/or other devices
to promote your programs?” and station managers were asked
to note their use of these devices.

Cf the 66 stations, a total or 55 stations, or 83.3
per cent, reported reruler use or such devices, while eight
stations made occasional use, two stations said they seldom
used such devices, end one station did not answer.

This high percentage of rerulnr use indicates that
these LIV station managers reCOgnize the importance of pub-

licity and promotion to their stations.

74

A fact or some interest is that of the two stations
that reported infrequent use or promotional devices, one
station was in the community owned category and one see

in the school system owned category of stations.

03: C? CC“'L2IC£ 13” EiVlCES

To get an indication of what promotional devices
stations used across the country, and which were most and
least popular, the managers were asked to check the communi-
cation devices used by their stations.

It was discovered that the printing of trogrsm logs
in local and area newspeyers was the device used nest by
th .e stations. flirty-three of to e 66 stations reported tlxeir
legs were printed by loosl papers. studio tours, station
promotion announcements, letters and bulletins, news releases,
and pregreu guides were also extremely high in popularity.

The con plots breakdown of tneee con enunicetion de-
vices as used by the four divisions of stations is reported

in detail in Table 11.

.hIIEIS G? IRCHCTICK" LiTcLlALS

iuestion 517 was somewhat similar in nature to sues—
tion #8 on tne inventory. That is, Question 58 sought in-
formation regarding the yereonnel handling In duties when
no full-time in {Merton el were ezeployed, s. hile uueetion #17
sought information concerning the personnel assigned to

write publicity and prouotionsl materials. Thus, some

75

H
L
m
(I:
L.-
M
(I
”a
I"
3

TABLE 11. ch‘fiAL 133 25311817! LEVICSS

 

 

fcvices station Classification: Total
Used: Com— Hiacol- Univar- Using
munitj lancous School city icvices
irogrcm logs
in papers 18 9 16 20 63
Program Guides 15 7 15 19 56
Station Eromo'a 17 7 14 18 56
flows releases 17 9 9 19 54
Letters, etc. 17 6 13 16 52
Studio tour: 17 7 10 15 49
TV Guide 16 S 1‘ 16 47
Advertisements 13 2 10 15 40
Posters, etc. 12 4 8 12 36
speakers 15 6 7 7 35
Eeetinga 13 5 9 7 34
Stories to
trade press 14 5 7 7 33
Diaplays 11 3 7 8 29
special ivente 11 2 5 9 27
lnearta 13 2 S 8 25
Stories to 5&53 '
publicationa 8 2 5 8 2
Cross-promotion 4 3 3 9 19
Infor. racks 3 3 4 6 16
Contests. etc. 4 4 3 2 13
Auto stickers 6 0 2 2 10
fitoriee to A533
publications 1 1 2 2 6
Othera‘ 3 1 3 1 8

‘Other devices included cross-promotion with commercial UHF
station; oar carda; personal apyvarnncco; spots on commercial
TV; utility bill atuffera; special high school bulletin
boards; and the distribution of matariala in the schools.

 

#.

76

stations without full-time IR personnel reported much the
sane personnel involved in each area. The data is reported
in Table 12.

it is difficult to make any conclusions concerning
the data included in Table 12, tut it seems apparent that
most stations depend on piece-meal efforts in getting pro-
motion fievices written. A number of stations depend on
port-tine putlic relotions/groooticnsl p rscnnel, with only
IE or the stations, or 22.7 per cent of the 66 stations,
having a full-time public relations person in charge of

this area.

 

Interesting here is that in Table 2 the data showed
that 25.8 per cent of these stations had full-time public
relations peeple. the apparent discrepancy in the two per-
centages is assumed to lie in the {not tnst in some stations,
the full-time 1R peeplo are not the sole source of prooo~

tionsl and putlicity materials.

It was assumed that many stations would depend upon
program guides for regular promotional uses, and the fact
that more than 80 per cent of the stations reported they
published guides validated this assumption. Station nan-
agers were then asked to report the frequency of publica-
tion of tnese guides. the size, the printing process used.

and the cost of printing.

77

TABLE 12. fiRITEfiS OP IkCMCTIGHAL fiATEEIALS

 

 

 

Station station IR lrogrsm
Classification: Esnsger Director Firector chsrs
Community 1 7 ,O Asst. lsnsgsr (1)

Operations mgr. (1)
Program Informs-
tion Lirsotor (l)

Duties split froctionally (7 stations): 1/} monsg er~ 1/} pro-
ran director-l/B part time re person; 4 part time 1h person-
produosrs~snnouncers; 1/5 manegsr-l/S prOJrss director-l/S

pert- ~tine in personul/fi Trustee volunteers41/5 president of
Corporation; t manager-g part-time FF person; 5 psrt- -tims PR
person-t foundation members; 4 director of devlepment- 3/4
Operations coordinator; and 1/3 ssnsgsr-l/D program director~
1/3 pert-tin s l‘i person

 

Miscellaneous 1 2 0 Eirsctor of ET? (1)

Duties split fractionslly (4 stations): 4 manager-e program
director; 4 producer-director—é pert-time rs person; a pro-
gran directorafi pert-tine in person; 4 manager-g program
director 4

 

School 4 2 3 Director of Traf-
fic & Continuity (1)
isrt-tims in
person (2)

Duties split froctionslly (6 stations): 4 program director~
4 news director-4 students-4 sdzeinistrstive assistant; 4 pro-
gram director~$ network clerk; 4 program director-4 pert-tins
in person (2)34 ' manageroa pert-tins In person; 4 mens44jsr-

4 program director-4 noes director-4 part-tims in person

University 2 4 1 Traffic (1)
Fart-tins rs
people (3)

Duties split freotionslly (10 stations): 1/} msnsgsr~l/’3
reduction msns4er-1/3 secretary; s continuity dspsrtmont~

i university Ih department; i program director-4 pert-time

IR person; 4 mansg sr-4 pr04rsm director-4 continuity depart-
sent-4 producer-director; 1/3 msnsgsr-l/B program director-
1/} traffic department; 1/} none :er-1/3 program director-

1/3 university 1h department; 1/3 Operations department~l/3

university in department 1/} students; a manager—4 program
director; 4 msnsger~4 psrt- ~tine In person; 1/3 administrative

sesistsnt-l/3 pert-time ZR psrson-l/3 university In department

 

 

 

78

A total of 55 atationa reported they published pro-
gram guidaa with some regularity, 12 stations reported they
did not publish glides. ond one station did not unawar.
(Since 55 stations were reported as using guides in Table
11. it wan assumed that the loan of the three atationa in
this category was due to the fact that the three stations
did not publish guides regularly.)

A total of 81.8 per cent of the 66 stations publish
program guides regularly, while only 13.2 per cant do not
publish guidoa. These data are further analyzed in Table

13.

TAELE l3. FiaioUg'i‘iCY C! l";'lC/"Cii.A.-s’a GUILB I'UELICA 1L5.”

 

 

 

Fre1uoncy of otatIOn classification:
inblicaticnx Com- miacel- Uni- _
monity Igneous School vereity Totol *fi
aeexly 1 2 6 2 11 16.7%
Semi-monthly 1 O l O 2 3.1%
ionthly 13 2 4 16 35 53.0;
Quarterly 0 O l 1 2 3.1%
Bi-monthly l O 0 O l 1.55
Thrice yearly O 2 O O 2 3.1;
Ho Guidoo 2 3 S 2 12 18.05
30 Anawer O O l O l 1.5;

Total 18 9 18 21 66

A #4 .

“1-.-

 

'4 A. -.'.'. .
.Q‘ m. H ‘—"—‘

I. ..
.11

79

c2 ovisos

(I?
Is;
1‘;

The number of pages or the individual guides varied
iron station to station and among such division of stations.

in the community owned division of statione, the
n moor of pages of the guides varied from one to 32 pages,
with tne average being approximately ll pages.

in too mi oelluneoue group of statiOns, no number
of pages ranged [roe one to eight pages, with the average
being alscut four p: gas.

The size of the guinea of the school system owned
stations varied from two pages to 24 pages, with the average
being approximately six pages.

.Tno university owns: group of stations had prob- rem
guides ranging from one page to 20 pages, but the sVerngs
was eignt pages. The range of sizes of tr e guides is in~

eluded witn tns motnod and cost of printing in Table 14.

33-1id 5.”-ALL3 is; CCJTé

ioet etatione (30) used the offset printing process
for publishing their guidm , while the letterpress method
finished n poor second with 12 users. The costs of print-
ing the guides varied from me etr ode used to t1ze size of the
editions. opecif ic information is included in Tools 14.

fisny vnrinbles exist which cause the wide Ci fier—

enoss in the cost of the printing of tnc guifles, including
the number of £8563, the di:non ions of the publications,

tr e mstnod of printing, the locale of the station, and so on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80
2132; 14. ILlelnG ALIXOLS A53 COSTS CE IUBLIJEIEG ILCGnAM
SQIJLS
gunner 'J96333““ 05§t*33 iffnting
Connunity Size of of 0! (includes
égmei Stations ‘jition is4es Irinting hosteiel
station r 1 3,500 0 Offset £150.00
Station s 2 16,000 3 Letterpress 1,200.00
Station 9 3 5,000 6 Letterpress 475.00
Station s 4 2,000 24 So Answer 205.00
Station i 5 1,203 10 Offset 175.00
Station s 6 8,000 5 Effect 30 Answer
Station o 7 60 l Duplication 10-15
Station n 8 2,700 4 Offset to Answer
Station g 9 4,000 12 Letterpress 575.00
Station 5 10 15. 03 8 Cffset 350.00
station R 11 1,000 6 Ho Answer No Answer
Station s 12 6,000 15 Letterpress 220.00
station a 13 0,200 32 Cffeet 530.00
station n 14 450 15 Luplioetion no Answer
station J 15 17,000 12 ”fleet _l,OO0.00
nieoellsneoue
Station Group
Station 9 1 4,000 4 Offset 75.00
Station # 2 4,000 4 Offset 75.00
Station s 3 so Answer 6 Euplicetion No Answer
Station # 4 So Answer 1 Bupliostion Vo Answer
Station # 5 1,400 5 Duplication 140.00
School System
Stations
Station J 1 15,000 4 Cffset 425.00
Station E 2 4,600 4 Cffsst 230.00
station # 3 400 4 Duplication 30 Answer
& Cffeet
station F 4 40,000 8 Letterpress 350.00 (sic)

 

 

 

'"Eumbor iotncd Qaat of irinting
School System Size of of of (includos
:totiooa Sfiitioo Injea irintiog lootogo)
Station 3 5 5.000 No Cffset 3500.00

Answer

Station 9 6 12,000 24 Cfrset' oonutod
Station y 7 5.000 12 Crfsot 230.00
Station 0 8 13 3 Daplicated E0 Anawer
Station 3 9 1,000 3 Cffaet 10.00 (510)
Station f 10 400 2 Duplication 30 Answer
Station § 11 50 2 uuplication 5.29
Station 5 12 75 3 Luylicotion 7.50
Station f 13 13,000 8 Letterpress 360.00 égzt)
Station f 14 6,000 8 Offset 150.00
Univeroity
boned otationu
Station f 1 3,000 5 Letterpress 200.00
Station E 2 025 18 Cffoet 40.00
Station f 3 2,500 7 Cffaet £50.00
Station y 4 4,000 1 Cffset 250.00
Station a 5 650 4 Lup ioation 15.00
Station 3 6 1.200 6 0ffoet 65.00
Station 9 7 3.000 18 Gifsot 300.00
Station f 8 5,000 10 0ffoat 100.00 (010)
Station # 9 14.530 12 Offset 450.00
Station E 10 7.000 1 Luplioation 150.00
Station 9 11 2,500 e Letterpress 350.00
Station y 12 3.500 4 Offset 200.00
Station f 13 2.00 4 Offset 135.00
itotion n 14 1,000 8 Letterpress 230.00
Station 3 15 900 8 Cffset 160.00
Station 5 16 4.500 4 Letterpress 350.00
Station V 17 14,000 2 {ffoet 350.00

 

82

Thus, the figures in Table 14 anould be accepted as overall
approximations of these factors for general information

purposes.

LAILI‘G 113T:

All but four etations of the total of 66 had mail-
ing lists of nor e size. Two of the community owned stations,
and two of the university owned etatior .3 he d no such lists.

These lieto varied in size from 453 to 60,000 among
the community stations, from 300 to 3,500 among the miscel-
l.-neoue group of stations, from 60 to 12,000 among the school
oyat em station .8, an d froze 200 to 14,000 sszong: the university-
owned stations. There seemed to be no general pattern of
an "average" size mailing list, since here again no two
situeti one war 8 truly alike.

ototione also noted many different ways in which
their mailing lists were compiled. Kany reported a combina

tion of methods.

 

 

 

 

TAELZ 15. T33 ?CiiUL 103 OF EAILIEG 115:3 LY 327 STATICRS
station nu ubacrip- noqieete ‘Lequeeta original Ltner*
Classification: t1‘(2911#i in0h6)(Ctherl {wilihrs
omnunity 13 6 9 4 4
Eiacellnneoue 0 4 S 1 4
School 2 12 6 9 5
University 5 15 13 12 4
Total 20 37 33 26 17

'Other included membersniyn in associations. lists of legis-
lators 8nd pioqinont yoiaons, list building and annoying,
visitor refistxetiona and contributors, lists from otner ata-
tions, Air, and 8050013, fan mail ruspor so, response to spank-
ero. li.te of probable ingene°+<1erenve.

__ _ ___.

83

23333 1&1121035

Thirty-six etetiona reported regular, personal con-
tact with members of tee prose, «mile 16 etetione reported
the holding of press conferences when there was news of

significance. Fourteen otetione reported irregular contact

if

‘itn the press, but only seven stations seldom acct tn

Thus, slightly more than 50 per cent (54.5 per cent)
of the 66 stations have regular contact with the prone,
while only 10.6 per cent seldom meet with the preoe.

Eoteblo is that 16 cf the 36 stations that had regu-
ler contact with the press also heli prose conferences, and
three etatione that not only irregolarly or seldom with the
press found that the prone also had little time for them
and their projecte.

02 the publicity and news items that the stations
send the preee, 49 stations, or 74.2 per cent of the total,
r gorted that the prose need those itene rewularlx. Twelve

stations reported the press used their iteme ccoaoiooqllx,

 

while only three stations reported the press used than e~

 

Two station. did not answer this question.

If any euemnry statement could be made here about
the use of oromotion and publicity by the 66 LTV etetione,
it would be that the meterity apparently recognize the value
of getting the word out about their programming.

ioro than 80 per cent of all stations used many

84

TAELL 16. liLoULaoY LP 01 HTL‘ T 11TH THE ELZJS BY LTLTICNB

 

 

 

 

 

ireae
Station hogu- Hold Erase Irreguu ioldcm
Cl"“"*”*c"ticn: lorly Confororcoe lrrly Fclfion nod Tine
Cemmunity 16* 8 2 O O
miscellaneous 6" l O 2 0
School 7? 7 6 2 5
Univoroity 7om 5 6 3 2
Total 36 21 14 7 7

*ocvon etntione reported regular contact plus press ccn~
foroncee, one reported press ccnfarencee to t otherwise only
irre12ulnr cor: toot.

*'Cne station reported regular cor tsrct plus press conforencee.
ooix of seven etatione rc~orted rcaulor cor tnct plus press
conferences; one station reported reguln.r contact pilue press

conferences, but at ill ouné the prose boo lit tlo time for
its ,rojocte; one etation reported preee co: forencee out
otnerwiee only irregular contact, and two stations seldom

not with the press and founi that the press seldom had time
for town.

vwlwo stations reportod regular contact plus preee confer-
ences; two atotione reported press ocnf erenco a but otherwise
only irregular contact; one station not irregularly and found
that the prose eeloom had time for its projects.

 

 

 

 

 

1A2 1?. 33; C? STLTIC' PUBLICIIY 3&3 34:3 TL.3 LY TH;
iLLoS

-:tfition i.eyu~ occasion- no
Llnooificntionx lnrly ally Saloon Never Annwor
Community 18 O O O O
Niecellancoue 6 2 O O l
bcnool System 10 S 3 0 0
University 15 5 O O l
Iotal 49 12 3 O 2

c"
P"
09
O
N

C‘

Total lcr 3ozzt 74.2' 4.53 0.0; 3,1;

 

 

85

different kinds of publicity and promotional devices regu-
larly. which included the publication of program guides;
more than 90 per cent of the stations reported mailing lists
of varied sizes; 54.5 per cent reported regular, personal
contact with the press; and 74.2 per cent of tho 66 stations
reported that the press used on a regular basis news and
publicity items sent them.

These figures, compared with thcso in other cats-
gorios of the study, would seem to indicate support further
for the hypothesis that ETV makes its greatest "public rc-

lctions“ effort in the fiold of publicity and promotion.

SiCTION VI
GsfishAL CAIidthY III

The third general category of questions on tho 1n-
vsntory was concerned with identifying the amount or com-
munity involvement and service of the ETV ststions in a
public relations capacity. Questions 27 through 33 sought
information in this category.

To determine whether viewers of the station were
welcome gussts. station managers were asked whether or not
viewers were frssly invited to attend studio broadcasts.

Hinstsen of the 66 stations answered that viewers
were invited to attend g1; studio broadcasts, while 20 sts-
tions said viewers were invited to selected broadcasts.

Twenty~tnrss stations never invited guests to attend broad~

casts, but eight of these qualified the answer by stating

86

they had no room.

Four etetione did not enewer the question.

 

 

 

 

”AELi 18. SIATlLNé lNVlTIRG Vlieihfi TO A ELSE LTULIC EhOAD-
CAJTo
station All nroada oelected never 30 in— Total
glaeeigicetion: crrte Broodceete Invited ewer
Community 5 7 6 3' 2 18
Eisoelleneoue 2 4 3‘ O 9
fiohool System 4 5 9' 0 18
University 6 5 8* 2 21
Total 19 20 23 4 66
Total For Cent 2S.8fi 30.3; 34.85 6.1%

“A total of eight of these stations eaid they had no room

for viewers

 

 

All divisions of stations eeemed to be eplit fairly

evenly in thin area, in that there
in policy noted between any of the

This plus the foot that 49
earlier that they conducted studio

where there wee room for guests in

were no great differences
classes of stations.

of the 66 stations reported
toure indicated that

the studios. guests were

invited to visit etotione in tne majority or cases.

At another check on community involvement in the

station, managers were asked to eetimete the number of "fan"

letters their statione received on

the average each week,

and whether or not their promotional efforts actively

87

encouraged letter writing on the part of their viewers.

Nearly all stations received eons fan mail each
week, but the majority, 28 stations or 42.7 per cent. said
they only encouraged letter writing on occasion. Seventeen
stations, 25.8 per cent of the total, answered "yes" to
actively encouraging letter writing, while 20 stations,
30.3 per cent, reported they did not actively campaign for
letters. Cne station did not answer.

ihe range of letters received varied from station
to station and among the different classifications of etc-
tions. Among the community stations the range of letters
received was from 5-10 to 700-800 per week; among the mis-
celleneous group from core to 400 per week; among the school
system stations from cero to 500 per week; and zero to 300
per week among the university owned stations.

These percentages and average numbers of letters

received per week are further analyzed in Table 19.

STU?IO SPACE OFFEHED

It was interesting to note that while many stations
conduct tours of their studios and nearly 59 per cent of
the stations invite viewers to attend at least some studio
broadcasts, only 18 stations, 27.3 per cent, offered studio
space for meetings of local civic groups and clubs. Again
no great differences were noted in policies between differ-
ent classes of stations, with the exception that the com-

munity stations made their studios available a moon greater

88

TABLE 19. ESEORT CF FAR EAIL RESEIVLD EASE fiiin BY SIATIOHJ

station Classification:

 

 

 

 

 

Letters Com— niecel~ .
Encoureoed: munity leneoue School Univ. Totol E
Eange
received 5—800 0-400 0-533 0-300
Yes 6 4 5 2 17 25.8%
Lettere
received' 238 163 119 50
Ho 6 O B 6 20 30.33
lettere
received“ 29 O 5 13
Ccceeionelly 6 5 5 12 28 42.7}
letters
received* 65 6} 27 41

2 o 2):;

Ho Answer 0 O O l 1

 

'Indicetee evereae number of letters received each week by

the ouncer of stations given immediately above.

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 20. STATlCfio Ciroiled filUfiiO SlACE FCh LOCAL CLCUB
mLthKGB

Station Studios Jtudioe EL? 30
Classification: Offered Offered finower Totale
Community 9 9 0 18
Xiecelleneoue 1 B O 9
School System 2 16 O 18
University 6 13 2 21
Total 18 46 2 66

Total ler Cent 27.3% 69.7% 3.0d

 

 

39

:ercentnge of the time than did any or the other station

divisions.

TALERZ AVAILABLE

Station n nngere were naked whether or not station
personnel were made available for community activities.
The majority of station managers. 29 of the 66, said this
was an individual decision on the part of the talent or
personnel, but 20 stations said their talent wno available.

IABLE 21. AVAILABILITY a? TALLBT en rahscxgzi yen LOCAL
reeceices

 

 

 

Station Inlent available: individuél
Cleeeificetion: Yen fio booeeionellyf Lecieion
Community 8 2 2 7
miscellaneous 3 3 1 2
School Eyetem 5 2 4 ‘ 9
University 4 4 4 11

“" f" I

“affix Ho tctale or percentages are given here since many
stations answered in more than one category in quel-
ifying their answers.

 

CLKILISUIILR; 23 Cfiihlflis

stations were almost unanimous in their reeyoneee
to cueetion j32 neking whether or not they made financial
contributions to charities or community undertakings. As
a group they do not. Actually. tne answer might have been
anticipated since tneee stations as non-commercial enter—

prieee generally have no such {undo for contributions.

r
jO

few stations noted regular or On crei .. cl contri-
butions on the part of employeee, but not a single return
indicated that any gletion node regular contributions to
outside organizations

Jonever, mun3 or the comments of the station men—
egere concerning their policy in this mntter were of some
interest. The at etion mn.eyere of the universitv, eohool
system-owned, and the miscellaneous station group either
said that they had no funds for donations or that school
or state policy fortede such contriou tions.

Among the connunity owned stations, the consensus
was t. .et no funds more nvni leblc there either. no one etc-
tion manager put it, "Linoe we depend on contributions cur-
eelvee we feel our funds should be ueed for our own work."
To oh oh another adios, is a comma nity supported station,
we feel we are not out? orized to divert gifts to other uses."

Two other etntion managers, with tongues-in-cheek
perhaps, acid, "ea ere clone to a c..erit3 ourselves!" and
"an believe that it in more desirable for non-profit cor-
porations to receive then to 5:13."

nowever, a nest Coast station cane Up with the answer
of now to contribute to other non-profit organizations with-
out making financial contributions. Said the station man-
ager, "‘ur contributions are in the form of epeciel program a

to train their volunteer solicitors.“

Incsnkzsl LL¢-IEZ To CclJCRI"Y Ii OBLLJ‘

Tnirt3~eignt stations, or 57.6 per cent of the total,
reported tney regularly precontod programs related to com-
munity problono or issues. chntJ-sovon stations, or 40.9
per cent, reported they had no such pregrnma. n station

did not answer the question.

 

 

 

 

TABLE 22. STATICHE alra 2.63h.225 RELATSU TC CngUHIIY NLLDS
utdthfl otctiono fiitu ctat tiOEB "liquor 50
glossification: Fragra2s Iro ;ra; rtater
Community 12 6 O
wiccellonocus 4 4 1
School system 8 10 0
University 14 7 0
Total 33 27 1
Total For Cont 57.61 40.9; 1.5%

 

Programs mentioned by those stations presenting
them included local public affairs programs, documentaries,
panel discussions, co tmux2ity affairs programs, a connunit3
calendar, 3 tolepnouo panel discussion chow, and other gro—
gran 5 produced in behalf or apecific civic and ccn:nunity

groups.

LMCTlLE V11
6:34.}le Cal'3..oC-.2.Y 17

Lne fin 1 five questions on the inventory were

92

intended primarily for comuunitywoonea stations. or thooe
stations that depend on financial contributiono from the
public or outside organizations to ougport their stotiono.
ln afiflition to the community stations. however, two stations
in the division of school system-owned stations, on: two
university-owned stations reported some fund-raising activ-
itieo.

All four or the latter stations reported that only
5 to 10 per cent of their inc mo came from outside contri-
butions and none of the atations had a full-time person in
charge of solicitations only. Three of the four stations,
however, considered fund-raising an integral part of their
public relations programs.

Conounitg Statiova

Cf the 13 omzunity otationa in his division of
stations, 12 stations provided partial or total answers to
Question $36 which sought a breakdown on their financial
support. Six stations did not answer this question. Of
the 12 stations responding to the question, there was a
variety of answers. The analysis of this financial pattern
in presented in Table 23.

Ten of the community stations had a planned fund-
raising campaign in Operation at all tiggg, five conducted

campaign: anoooll , one ototod it would begin ito cagpaign

 

shortly, and two stations did not answer this question.

 

 

 

T121; 23. AfiAl‘ll; C? FIY£3313L JZTFoIT CF CC CUTITY -IAT 33‘
:uxo outaéc of station income i'roms
_ fit 'Iho .uhlio -vufilvtiOL uovoin;zezit Lthor
otaticn 3 l 305 ho Answer ho Lnawar 303 (luolic
Schools)
30» {L18081fi
lanooua)
Station a 2 60$ to Answer Ho Answer Ho Answer
Station r 3 10—1 10% Ho Answer 20-25% (Cpora-
tionc)
station 9 4 105 203 25$ 10: (Commercial
TV)
39" (416061-
laneoua)
Station 5 5 30H 53 OH 65: (Programming
Contracts)
Station w 6 609 10$ 03 30; (rublic
Sohoola)
Station a 7 4i 6% OJ 80; (rublio
Cohoola)
102 (Cperationa)
station o 8 25¢ 09 0% 75$ (Iublic
Schools)
Station # 9 259 0% 754 03
Station y 13 10% SN 30; 55» (Schools,
buoineoc
& industry)
ototion 5 ll 20w 206 3a 573 (lutlic
Schoola
& county
if. It?!“ .t)
Station o 12 60A 25} DJ 15y (Euaineas

& hieoel-
laneoua)

 

94

Similarly. ton stations reported they employed full-
timo fund-rcicsro, while seven stations reported they did
not. and one station did not indicate an answer.

The full-time fund-raiser was known as the dircctor
of dovcloyocnt at six stations. and as business manager.
director of community relations. community coordinator,
and assistant general manager for community relations and
finance at each of the other four stations.

Ct the stations without full-tine Iund-roiccrc.
this duty was handled by the goncral manager at three sta-
tions, and by an assistant general manager, administrative
assistant, and a finance committee at three of the other
four stations. The fourth station made no designation of
who handled tnic duty.

Twelve of the 18 stations considered fund-raising
to be an integral part or their public relations pragrans.
Three stations did not, although one or these said it was
closely related. Ono station acid. "PR is an integral psrt
of our Iund~raicing program." and one station did not answer
this question.

The fund-raising activities uced to best advantage
by the community stations included direct TV appeals (by
nine stations); campaigns conducted by volunteer solicitors
(8); direct mail appeals (7); auctions (3): Personal con-
tact (2); solicitation by corporate team and persons of com-

munity stature (1 each). Two stations did not answer.

93

In summary. 67 per cent of these station managers
considered fund-raising to be an integral part of their
public relations pregrame, while one station considered
public relations integral to its fund-raising program.

most stations, or 83.3 per cent, had a fund-raising
program in Operation either at all times or annually. and
55.5 per cent of these stations had a full-time person in

charge of fund-raising activities.

SECTICH VllI

sore AEDiiICEAL Ctinndl

At the end of the inventory. station managers were
given the opportunity to eXprees their Opinions concerning
any phase of the study they felt might be worth additional
comment. Eeny of these opinions were of great interest.
and the most valuable are included here, as much as possible
in their unedited form.

Concerning the importance of public relations to
educational television. the manager of a metropolitan com-
munity-owned station said:

Cne of the greatest problems facing ETV today
is the fact that too many ETV stations undervalue
the importance or a planned and well executed pub-
lic relations program for their station's programs.
if station managers do not do a better Job in this
area, or do not employ the professional personnel
needed to do this Job pronerly the entire EIV move-
ment will suffer. The image or educational tele-
vision now being projected is calculated in many
communities to disinterest the public rather than
intrigue it. This is a fatal flow. it is s top
principle of pregressive education that the student
must be intrigued and titillated if he is to learn.

96

A deep-south university owned station had s similar
comment on this situation from its etstion manager:

Public helstions in 22V has a special duty.
It must erase the preconceived idess of educational
television end activate interest in the LIV of today.

The lublio helatione person or persons must
work closely with other communications media and
LL? staff members to promote the Operation in tne
community. Leon person working for 52V must do
his share of En.

It would be interesting to note how many ETV
stations in the country have one person assigned
‘0 2.11. GUtiea along.

The director or s two-station network in the nidweet
said:

P.h. for most ETV stations is a luxury which
they can't afford but union is sadly needed. I
don’t think any one knows just what brand of P.h.
is most acceptable. We are working on the problem
now and none to arrive in the not too distant future
at what so believe will be a true answer to what
is tne best approach to ?.R. for EIV stations. I
tnink the present approach both for sTV & Commero
cisl interests is all wrong.

several stations noted tneir lack of public rela-
tions efforts by explaining the cause of such obstacles to
good public relations and what their plans were for the
future.
Said tne manager of s university-owned test Coast
station:
so are a small. new station owned by a public
Junior college district. us hope shortly to remove
some of the legislative restrictions on our program-
sing and promotion.
kublic relations e promotion is an area on which

we will begin to concentrate much more heavily next
season. we felt we needed ecmotning to promote first.

97

The mnnsger of s nidweet universityucened station
bed siniler problems:

it is envisioned that the present somewhat lim-
ited staff of [the station} will be greatly expanded
when it is provided with permanent quarters in about
two years. That expended staff will provide, as
will the greatly enlarged quarters. for the carry-
ing out of many public relations procedures which
are deemed advisable by [the station's) present
management but which cannot be carried on because
of the comparatively limited staff end physical
{3011112168.

Two other university~owned stations also had finen-
cinl and personnel problems. A midwest ststicn manager said,
"This station has been on the air less than 4 months. Time
and personnel are not available to do what needs to be done."
And a test Coast station manager reported:

to are having to operate our TV stations on
a shoestring, s situation 1 do not recommend. is
a result, our public relations and promotional ef-
forts ere limited slthcugn tnis is not so serious
as the limitation imposed on our local program pro-
ductione.

A southwestern station presented s more unusual sit-
usticn:

interesting local problem: management feels
it would be unwise politically to have a Public
heletions Lepartnent lsbeled so such end so bud-
geted. This is one reason for lack of organiza-
tion in this area.

A bi-nontnly program guide. formerly published,
has been discontinued to save money. feeling that
our coverage in commercial publications is suffi-
cient.

to were formerly carried in TV GUlbi but vol-
untarily withdrew our schedules because of their
insistence on listing us as "educational" and our
insistence on being listed as ELI, paralleling sec,
End, Abs, etc.

98

The Eh director of an East Coast station, community
owned and in a large metropolitan center made this statement:

So feel strongly that practical newspaper train-
ing (not public relations theory) is essential for
the publicity work. Since our advertising and pro—
motional budget is severely limited, the emphasis
here has to be on using our wits, not our pocket—
book.

Finally, some rather surprising comments were made
by three school system-owned stations in noting that their
UHF facilities were located in predominantly VHF markets.
One station manager, with his station located in a large
metropolitan East Coast ares, seemed to sum up the Opinions
of all three stations:

Since our station is UHF in a VHF market at

the present time we are not spending much money
on promotion. Our chief effort is directed to

classroom programming-—in due time more serious
effort will be directed toward community program-

‘I

ming so interest develops in UK: receiving equip-
sent. (Underscoring mine.)

CflAPIEH v1
sunniir, conczuslcus, in: IfizllCATIONS cs THS 32'31

S’JALL’ MY

This atuoy was conducted to investigate the public
relations pragrama and practices of educational television
stations in the United States, after it was established
that recent reaccrcn findings were lacking in the area of
public ralationo and educational television. and that this
lack of data constituted a void in the general knowledge
of the field.

"Lublio relations” was defined. for the purposea
of this study, as meaning the planned effort to motivate
or influsnce opinion favorably toward the station.

the study was instituted as an initial step in ex»
ploring the public relations of if? by: l) investigating
the public relations history of STV, from putlisncd sourcea;
2) reporting a current survey or public relations practices
on conducted by educational tolecncters; end 3) nuggcstinj
new arcas for research as infiicatad by the conclusions drawn
from the data.

in deternininx tnc important interrnlntionvnip.
of public rclctions and siucntionnl televinion, it was con-
cluded tnnt:

1) Inc gractioo of public relations in decijned

99

to motivate and influence favorable opinion toward an or-
ganization through aocc;tnble performance and two-way con-
nunicction of the organization with the publics it serves.

2) is tne American environment grows continually
more complex and interdependent, the function of public
relations constantly grows in soups and importance.

3) Because of the nature or its iunction in this
complex contemporary society. educational television depends
upon public support for its very existence.

4) Therefore, for continued survival and prosperity,
:TV should, through the practice of public relations, meet
the obligations of serving the public interest always;
achieve integration within the community it serves, and
communicate with its publics constantly to provide for an
optimum climate of understanding.

A review of the literature in the field or public
relations and educational television pointed out these re-
curring themes among the several reports and historical
surveys: public relations seeks to create a favorable image
that is more on abstract quality than a concrete quantity;
oublic relations is personal. human relations. as much as
it is the practice or calculated strategies; and the best
public relations for broadcasters, educational especially,
is public service responsibly administered.

The rscOJnized importance of public relations in

contemporary society and the lack of recent. significant

101

research data available led to the hypotheses upon which
this study was based.

These hypotheses were tested in a survey of the
current public relations pregrsns and practices of educa-
tional television stations broadcasting s rsgulnr schedule
of programs as of January, 1963. The findings resulting
from this survey were reported in Chapter V, with the re-
sults analyzed hers relative to the hypotheses projected
in the study. A summary of the important overall findings
is included, along with conclusions made and suggestions

offered for further research.

if! q

cosmos! CE 43L4~I LQJLCRJWJ
gusstionnnires were cont to a total of 72 educational
television stations listed as bein5 on the sir with a regu-
lar broadcast eczeduls of gregrsns as of January, 1963. A
response of 91.7 per cent was received to the questionnaires,
wits inventories returned from 66 of the 72 stations.
The responses to the survey were analyzed with first
consideration being given to the basic hypothesis that:
The majority of eiucstionsl television broad-
casters have not yet recoHnized the importance and
value of a sound public relations program, on de-
fined in this study, for their industry, and as
soon, do not sressntly conceive of public relations
as an integral elsnsnt of station operation.
in gsnersl, the data reflected the validity of this
hypothesis.

It was determined that only 19 cf the 66 stations,

162

or 23.8 per cont 0! the total. had iull-tima putlio rela-
tions personnel or écpartnents. It Was also discovered
that or the remaining 47 etaticnc without full-time In
pacpla, tncrc was no general rattorn of handling public
relations duties, and the majority of these stations seemed
to delegate "public relations” duties almost in a random
mannor.

A majority of ntntiona mnoe Bonn Lrovision for a
public relations budget, although 14 stations reported no
IR budget and tan other stations did not indicate whether
or not funds were budgeted for public relationo. rho con-
clusion wan that while a few stations seemed to budget quite
adoquntaly. the reports of the majority of stations revealed
a lack of rudgetcfi funds for the 1k area.

It was further determined that only 22.7 per cent
of the total number of atationn had on organized, written
program or policy or public relations, with the indication
that some stations with full-tile PR personnel had no written
public relations policy.

Those atationa that reported upcciric 23 goals in~
dicatcd that many of those goals were primarily rolated
to publicity and promotion rather than the entire area of
public relations. Similarly. the results or the survey
indicated that many stations considorcd their moot valuable
public relations effort to ho one connectod with publicity,

promotion, and/or prena relationo.

103

Cf those stations that reported efforts at setting
or cvalusting IR policy. the majority. 34.9 per cent, aid
so only irregularly, with 24.2 per cent reporting occasional
efforts at policy evaluation.

A majority or the stations, 31 of the 66 or 47 per
cent, reported only irregular contact with station person-
nel through staff meetings, but all but one station conducted
staff rootings.

tbout one~third of the stations, 30.3 per cent,
invited viewers to attend selected studio broadcasts; 34.8
our cont of the total never invited viewers to attend broad-
casts. tinilsrly. only 27.3 per cent of the total number
of stations offered stuiio Space for meetings of local civic
groups and clots.

Co the other hand, 50 o: the 66 station ornagsrs
reported they sitter Loos efforto at all times or occasion-
ally to keep staff masters public relations conscious.
31milarly. 59.1 per cent of the stations said they conystsd
sithor occooionolly or rogulorly for progrsmning awards on
a national level; a total of 83.3 per cent or the stations
reported regular use of put icity and promotional devices;
36 stations reporteu regular personal contact with the press;
' of gro-

3‘:_
k.

and 57.6 gar cont rogorted tho rogu nr schedulin
granting relotod to connunit; issues or needs.
lzuo, the sviéonco inflicotco that l) the majority

of tho eouootionsl tolocoutors either did not, or were unable

104

to. support a comprehensive public relations program. and
that 2) only in the areas of publicity and promotion, in
efforts made at keeping staff members rn conscious, and in
presenting programming of community service did the major-

ty of replies indicate a significant public relations of-
fort ond awareness of IR responsibilities.

The general renulte of the survey would seem to
indicate rsthor conclusively that public relations is not
yet considered to be an integral element of educational
television station Operation by the majority of ET station
managers.

Two other cytothesec proposed in the etucy were
proved to be valid when survey results were analyzed.

it was stated in the second hypothesis that:

Lnly a small minority of the total number of

317 stations have full~time public relations di-
rectors or departments.

The survey results showed that only 19 of the total
of 66 stations, or 28.8 per cent, had full-tine public re-
lstiOne personnel or departments, proving the validity of
the hypothesis.

Another hypothesis proposed was that:

The majority of stations have no written put-

lic relations policy not down for staff and non»
agenent alike to follow.

The data showed that 51 of the 66 stations, or 77.3

per cont of the total, had no such written public relations

policy, thus proving this to to a valid hypothesis also.

105

A fourth hypotheeio was proposed with respect to

the theory that:

The majority or "public relations" programs
of Lif stations whicn state taut they have such
prograns are primarily promotional or publicity

pregrzno.

Ina results of the survey more not so conclusive
in this area.

it woo notod that of the stations “nick listed apo~
oifio in goals, the majority indicated an enghnoia on pub-
licity and promotion, but it could not be stated finally
that tnia has the only elanent of tnuir overall goals. A:

a nutter of fact, most stations 1181:; eeVorol cougzehonoive
(3.08118.

notever. f tno atotions which lioted a moat valu~
able qulio relations effort, tze Licatoet nunoor of efforts
in any nimble category hda noted to Le in the Llcbfi of pub-
licity £Ld gronotion.

Inns, indications note tout good publicity and pro-
motion were muntioned b" a majority of station nannboro no
the‘“ goblic zelotiona goals and oinhlo moat VLluuLle in
effort, but it could not be definitely established tout
the hypothesis was 00nglozulj Valid when ,rcjcotcj for the
entire industry.

{to final related ttgotnceuo were trogoaed to th
effect that:

”3308-: s'tztiotfi "omit ilk-‘«£:1.d MIL-1; constant fund-

raising activities for their very existance have
Lottor oLthCpcd ;uhlio rtlntiono tzogrono and staffs

106

than do stations which are supported by stats sp-
propriatioo or other similar and rugulor grants;
and

Similarly, those stations which are school sys-

tom or school board owned and primarily broadcast
instructional trogroms for in-olosa use generally
have the least developsd “oblio relations efforts
in too entire field.

Th as hyyothsseo more related syooifioolly to two
of the {our divisions of stations cotaloqusd in the survey,
the conounity stations and the school system stations.

the overall results of the survey infiicstso th
hyyothcaos to to volio.

it mos discovered that 55.5 par cent of the com-
munity owned stations, the highest per cent of any station
division, hsd fill-time torsonnsl. Cnly 16.6 per cent of
the school cysts: osnod stations, the lowest of any station
division. too full-tire gutlic rclotiono personnel.

nly three of tie lS canouoity canto ststions made
no grovision for n in budget, while ochn of the 13 school
systam stations regortod no budget for It. However. while
the comwunity etatiors rogortod the greatest percentage
of stations tuogoting for Ft, there ops little difference
noted in this area tetween the school ownoo stations and
the other two station GiviolOKc.

C! the stations reporting an organized public rs-
lstions iolioy or preyr83, thorn was no significant differ-

sroo tstnscn any of the station divisions.

There was little 815nificsnt difference in the

107

frequency of setting or evaluating public relations policy
between any of the station divisions. with the exception
that five school system stations reported they had £3133
set or evelueted policy. while all community owned stations
reported some frequency of efforts in this area.

In other areas, there was little difference noted
in the efforts made in any station division to keep staff
members 1R conscious, or the frequency of conducting staff
meetings.

However, on a national recognition basis. all of
the community owned stations competed on some basis for
industry awards, while ten of the 18 school system stations
3313; competed, and only one station competed on a regular
basis as apposed to seven of the 18 community ststions reg-
ularly competing.

In cross of community involvement, only three of
the 18 community stations never invited viewers to attend
studio broadcasts, while nine of the school system stations
did not invite viewers. Nine of the community stations of-
fered studio space for club meetings. but only two of the
school system stations did. And 12 community stations re-
ported programming related to community needs, while eight
of the school system stations reported such pregremming.

Thus, these overall results indicated that, in gen-
eral. community owned stations, or that group of stations

depending largely on the regular solicitation of funds for

108

continued existence, have better developed overall public
relations efforts, while school system stations, largely
supported by state appropriation. generally were noted to
have the least developed public relations efforts in those
areas where significant differences in policy and execution

were noted among the different divisions of etatione.

CcfiGLUdlofis CP Ten STUDY

The results of this study indicated the following
general conclusions:

1) In spite of the important interrelationships of
public relations and educational television, the majority
or educational telecaeters have not yet adapted the prac-
tice of public relations as an integral element of station
operation.

2) The majority of eev stations have neither full-
time public relations personnel nor organised, written pub-
lic relations programs or policies.

3) Of those etatione without full-time ER personnel.
public relations duties are generally assigned in apparently
random fashion by the majority of station managers.

4) The majority of ET? stations reveal an alarming
lack of regular budgeted funds for the public relations
area.

5) Publicity and promotion continue to serve as the
main "public relations" tools of the majority or educational

telecaeters.

109

6) Those types of stations which depend upon the
solicitation of funds from the general public for financial
support generally have better developed public relations
departments and progress than do those types of stations
which are supported by regular appropriation.

7) In spite of the above footers. there is an in-
dication that there is a growing awareness or the importance
or the practice of public relations to ETV. especially on
the part of the managers of stations in larger metropolitan
areas. and on the part of the leaders of educational broad-
casting organizations.

8) This growing awareness of the importance of pub-
lic relations to ET? will continue to spread among other
educational teleoastere as continued practice and research
indicate the relative value of PR to ETV.

9) The practice or public relations for div will
not grow, however, as long as the idea is prevalent that
the practice of public relations denotes only the use of
the tools of publicity and promotion.

10) huch more research or both a general and spe-
cific nature is needed to investigate fully the many impli-
cations that the practice of public relations has for edu-

cational television.

ADDITIOhAL AREAS roa EESEAhCH
Since this study was an initial investigation into

the area of public relations for educational television,

110

much additional research is needed in this field of investi-
action.

This study indicated the f0110wing specific areas
as among the most important needing additional research:

1) The precise location of the overall public rs~
lations function in the hierarchy of administrative elements
of station Operation.

2) The financial budgeting of station funds for
public relations.

3) The educational background and training needed
for public relations personnel in BTV.

4) The overall impact of fund-raising on a station's
public relations pragran.

5) The future of the practice of public relations

in the field of educational television.

A FINAL echo

This study must be viewed as an initial and explore-
tory attempt to investigate the public relations programs
and practices of the nation's educational telecasters.
Therefore, it is difficult to generalize specific findings
for an entire industry on the basis of these first probinga.

Certainly this study is at best a beginning for
further research. it is believed. however, that once the
vital interrelationships of public relations and educational
television are grasped on an industry-wide basis, signif-

icant and constant research will be devoted to this area

111

as it already is being done in many other areas of STV.
Such contemporary subjects as public relations and
Z?V need time both for development and research. How that
the first decade of educational teleoaoting has laid the
groundwork, the future anould provide an interesting and
important climate for the practice of public relations in

the field of eéuoational television.

APELHDIK 1

iii? A

April 29, 1963

Dear 3311':1

in are interested in studying the public relations practices
of educational broadcasters.

One of our graduate students, Mr. Lee Gilee, is undertaking
a study or the public relations practioee of ETV. he are
asking you to assist in making this worthwhile project e
eucceee by completing the encloeed inventory and returning

it no econ on possible in the stamped pre-cddreeeod enveIOpe.

I realize tnat you are busy and that you especially are
over-burdened with eurvoye and questionnaires. However,
we have formulated the questionnaire in euch a way that
it should not take much or your time.

to hope to publieh the roeulte of thie study in one of the
educational Journnln and we believe that the findings will
be moat infornntive and useful to you. Your identity, of
course, will not be disclosed and the overall results only
will be publicized.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

oincerely yours,

halter B. Emery, Professor

incl: 2

 

linen letter was individually typed and carried a
personal greeting to tno station manager to whom it was
addressed.

113

pa
(‘3
H

0. 'v‘- ‘cn- 0
4A.“ flo‘u l

FAET 3

any 27, 1963

Lear Sirtl

A few weeks ago we asked your assistance in ocupleting an
inventory of the public relations practices of your eta-
tion as part of a general survey of the public relations
of etv. to have now heard from most of the other stations
we queried end we are most anxious to include (your ete-
tion) in the survey.

eince you may have misplaced our earlier material we are
enclosing additional copies and hope that you may find time
to relay this information to us.

Thanks again for your oooyerstion.

Sincerely yours,

waiter B. Emery. Professor

 

lleach letter was individually typed and carried a
personal greeting to the station manager to whom it was
addressed.

114

APPLEDlX II

AN IHVZTTQEY CF FUELIC 171£TICF3 FEACTITES

Instructions to the Station unnageré Ilsnse complete this
inventory by checking the appropriate spaces and/or supply-
ing the desired information.

goblin Lelations Defined: For the purposes of this study.
”iuolic helations" is defined as meaning, gno‘glenned ef-
fort to activate or influence coinion favorably toward the
station.

1) inst are the call letters of your station, what is its
channel and location. and the number of its broadcast
hours per week?

Call letters Channel

Broadcast hours per week Location

 

4) is your station (Please check apprOpriats spaces):
University or college owned? Community owned?
School-system owned? member of s network group?

Other. or combination of above (Flease eXplsin)

 

 

5) Lo you have either an an or F3 radio affiliate? (ilease
check): An affiliate rs affiliate
4) II this question is applicable. what percentage of your
programming is devoted specifically to instructional IV
(in-school lessons)?
5 Levoted to in-schocl lessons Not applicable

5) Does your station have a full-time public relations of-
ficer or department under your supervision? (Please check):

Yes Kc

PLEASE ccsrlnus on T0 norm PAcz‘

115

6)

7)

3)

9)

10)

116

It the above answer is "yes," hos many peeple are as-
signed to the public relations division or department
specifically?

One

Two or more (Ileana specify number assigned and the
lee of each member)

 

 

If you have a public relations officer or department.
does our chief PR officer ask your decision on (Please
check :

Nearly all matters pertaining to station relations
with the public?

Only those matters considered to be "major policy”
decisions (involving significant capital expenditures.
PR policy changes, etc.) of the station?

Ecst matters considered to involve "major policy"
decisions?

If your station has no full-tins public relations of-
ficer who handles the public relations duties? (Elease
check):

station manager Hews Lirector

Fragraa Birector Student Personnel

Other staff member (Please note his regular Job

.)

shat portion of your total station budget do you allo-
cate for public relations/promotional functions?

 

n, which amounts to 3 (llaass note whether
this is actual dollars budgeted or an estimate.)

So you have an organized pregran or policy of public
relations involving specific strategies and tactics

and set down for all members of the staff to become

familiar with and follow?

Yes no

PLJABS CCKIIflUE CH TC NEXT PAGE

117

11) If your answer to the stove question is "yes," what

12)

1))

14)

15)

do you consider your specific public relations goals
to be?

 

 

 

 

 

1n the pest, how often has your station set or evalu-
5533 public relations policy? (Please check appropri-
ate spaces):

Cocssicnslly nonthly

Annually At irregular intervals

Rot since the ststion Never
signed on the air

Lo you nuke an effort to keep staff members aware of
public relations responsibilities (Please check):

it all times? Regularly?
Occasionally? Never?

If you attempt to keep staff members public relations
conscious, please explain briefly how this is done:

 

 

 

 

 

20 you make use of press releases, feature stories.
program guides, and/or other devices to promote your
programs (Check):

Eegulsrly? Ccossionnlly?

Seldom? Rover?

rLries confines on T0 HEXT rice

118
16) fihioh of the communication devices below does your ata-
tion use? (Eleaao check applicable items)
?rogran Guides General flows Releases

Fragram lags in local Stories and pictures to
poper(a) the trade press

Program schedule in Stories to the Haafl Journgl
TV Guide and Rewslotter

letters or bulletin: Stories to Jourrfll of
Eroodcaoting and icodback

 

Footer: and billboards
Cross-promotional campaigns

Advertisements with sister otationia)
Auto otiokoro or Information racks
”plates"

___Insorts and enclosures
4___Spcaker'c bureau

___keetinga
l___3pocial events

___pioplayo
___Studio Tour:

___Station promotional spots
‘___Uiva~awaya. contests

___Othoro

 

 

l7) Eho writes the material or supervises the handling of
the above applicable items? (Please check)

Station Manager Public relations or pro-
motion director
frogram director

Other, or depends on item (Please oxplain):

 

 

13) If you publish and mail out a program guide to your
viewers, in this guide published: \ileaso check)

Weekly? Semi-monthly?
Eontnly? Quarterly?

Other (119390 explain):

 

 

19)

21)

22)

23)

119

that in the average size of each edition of your pro-
gram guide?

(number of peace)

 

that in the size of your mailing list?
(hunter of addressee on your mailing liet)

that process is need in printing or dualicating your
pr05rae guide?

Letterpreae printing process
Ctr-eat proceae

Duplication (aimeo or ditto) proceee

Other (Fleece explain:

 

 

fihat ie the average cost per edition of your program
guide and the total number of coyiee of guides printed?

8 (lncludinr postage) for (number of copiee).
How are your mailing lists compiled? from (ileaee check):
___Subeoriptione?

___xail and telephone requeate?

Lequeata from follow—ups of station promotional an-
nouncehente?

Original mailings to faculty and staff?
etudent enrollment mailinge?

Other (Please explain):

 

 

24) In your relatione with the areas, do you (Fleece check):

Have regular personal contact with the reporters of
your local pagere or news outlets?

ILBASS CCETINUS UK T‘ NEXT PAGE

25)

h)
0”»
V

27)

23)

30)

120

Conduct preee conferences when you have new: of major
significance? (auch es the acquisition of a new VTH
which will have great meaning for eXpanded program
offerings.)

Keet with the preee or reportere only irregularly?
Seldom meet with the members of the prose?

find that the preee seldom has time for you and your
projects?

or the items that your Itation eende. do the local and
regional preee use these items (Please Check):

hegularly? Occasionally?
Seldom? Never?

If you conduct staff meetings with your personnel. are
these meetings scheduled (lleaee check):

.___£aily? l___eeekly?

___honthly? ___At irregular intervals?

Are your vieuere freely invited to attend (Ileaee check):
"__All etudio broadcasts? ___§elected etudio broadcaste?
___Sever invited to attend etudio broadcasts?

In your eetimetion, how many ”fan" lettere does your
station receive during an average week?

(lumber eetinated per week)

eould you any that your promotional efforts eotivel
encourage letter writing by viewers? (fleece check a

Yes he 0n occaeion only

Comment?

 

Does your station offer etudio space for meetings of
local cluhe, organizations, civic groups and the like?
(ileeee check):

PLLKS£ CCH?IRU3 on T0 nzir EAGE

51)

33)

34)

121

In your talent or etation personnel available for en-
tertainment for city or community functions? (lleaoe
check 3

Yea

Occasionally
Lecioion route with individual staff membere

50

Does your etation make financial contributions to worth-
while community undertakings (such as the Community
Cheat, New torch of Eimee, other charities, echool proj-
ects, etc.)? (fleece check): .

hegularly Occasionally
Only when requested Sever

It you have a policy governing the above, please explain:

 

 

So you have any regular program features that are ee~
pooinlly related to community problems or projects (such
an the production of local dooumentariee, a policy of
"editorializing" on community ieeuee, "specials" to
boost none local endeavor, etc.)w

Yes (if no, fleece explain)

 

 

30
Does your etetion compete actively for awards or honors
(such as the Ohio State awards and awards presented by
trade publications and public eervioe organizations)
(:leaee check):

hegularly? Occasionally?
harely? Never?
Comment?

 

 

PLEASE CUETlfiUE C3 TO RiiT kAGE

122

35) that do you consider your eingle moat valuable public
relations effort to be or to have been?

 

 

 

 

£233: The next five queetione will apply to come eteticne
only. ilence check and answer if they apply. If
theec questions do not concern you. please check
fiot Apnlioeble.

36) if you must solicit funds from outside agencies, organi-
zations, and individuals, both public and private, to
eupport your etetion. how much of the etetion'o income
is derived from tnie source?

g prom foundations 5 Government (Local or
other)

5 Contributions from the general public

fl Other (Please explain):

 

 

37) Do you have a planned fund-raising program in Operation

monthly? Annually? At all times?

33) Loee your station employ a full-time pereon or persons
whose main duty is to solicit funds or grants for ete-
tion operation (Hot Just funds to underwrite specific
program eeriee)?

Yes (if so. what is the title(e) of this pereon(e)

 

do (If not. who oversees this duty?

 

 

n1
H
C 1
{‘1
(

t

J
*3
5-
5r.
(1..
(in
Q
or.
hi
0
:4:
>
hi
hr I
:r»
(.3
tn

123
39) Do you consider fund—raising an integral part of your
gublio relations program?
Yes 30

Comment?

 

40) chat fund-raising activities have been used to best
advantage by your station? (ileese check applicable
items):

Bireot TV appeals Direct mail appeals

‘___Senefits (tinners, ‘___hellies
bazaars)
Contests
___Cnnpeigns conducted by
corps of volunteer
solicitors

Ether (Please explain):

 

glooce add any onnonte toot_yo' believe mignt prove valu-
eEle and njglicable to 8

Thank you very much for your cooperation. fleece mail the
inventory now in the enclosed, pro-addressed, stamped en-
velope to: aalter B. Emery, Erofossor, Television and nadio
iepnrtnent, michigsn State University, East lensing. Michigan.

BIBLIGGhAYfiY
ECCnB

Aepley. John C.. and Van Houten, L. F. (ede.) it Lertnell
oblic ieletione fiendtook. 3rd ed. revised. Chi-
oeg-z lne -nrtneil Corporation, 1951.

Barneys, Seward L. I1blic Relatio r:e. fiorrxan: University
of Cnlahcmfi 21353, lfijc.

 

 

Canfield, Bertrand h. icblic ielnticne: lrirzcigle 91 Cases,
6:: :TOblfij 8. 51d dd. IuVifiuJ. UOmcnOOJ, 4111n0188
:1. Lo fiII-vin, 1960.

an
5.1.
:1
O
r.
’- A
C)
U
9
5?
a
a’

Center, Allen a. utlio Lelaticns lien.
York; £c3r3w~nill 60., i337.

 

e". (C mpiler) A luklic Lolaticna Fitlicarnh 111
51d lefererce end Film 341d989 nucleon: univern ity
0f— lliSCLIan-iil 11633. 15/70

 

and Center, Allen J. iffective intlic Leletione.
m" . '5 . -- f—i ' ”i ‘
43d Cd. unéleWOOd bllfle. the‘ LIehbiC —'h;&'
lnc., 195$.
Svana, Jacob A. Cellin "1‘ 51¢ ntir; ’o‘io 21% ”gl'vie‘on.

 

 

new York: :rinter' e irzk .ubliehing to., I: :4.

Fletcher. Leon c. TV'e ?ew .nxi;éwent: “on“ 111119 one

Echolnrehifi. can :runoieco: genron rublienere.

‘ ‘t: 0,":
4- :? (“J 0

 

"olden, uni. and neneon, kitty. fifiw to 31 an, *rvnoe and

 

Inklicize Jreciel “vents. new text: beuUfi 'uo-
llOflthllB 11:90 1:10»).
0 0
Th 'ehvnio" e of norkin1 with the workin313rees.

 

 

O :- v e

bobbe JGIIJ, n.¥.: onenne sunlicatione, inc., 1502.

Harlem. Gene, and :cott, Lien. 131*“"ngffiy Futlic Pele-
t re-~irincigles and Cones. new role: grantioe-

$33.11. 4:100. lj)‘)o

Lesly, lnilip (ed. ). P1blio helntinne 75ndtoc?, .
”iition. unklewood Ciilfs, f..J.: 113.2169

an., i962.

“C .

 

1
{1,11

124

125

Iundbo r', Louis 3. Iuhlic Fainticns 1n the Zonal Comma» t'.
Haw York: Karper{—1533.

Eelcher, Lanial, and Larrick, Kenny. I'rintin Infi Prono-
Elan 1‘“cbqu 2nd ed. New Yorxx Icaraw-dill
CCU, 1})50

..q-'4.9-I|Kfi I!“ ‘.Q'; A‘T~" I
AHIIUIIU nub IIIIVUIUALU

'5‘

Corwoll, Enrion. ’Ieraonallzod In," 3‘"? Journ:.;, Vol.
21, No. 4 (July-Iu;;uet,1962), au-Ia, j).

 

Lempsay, 71111am C. ”is Rho Steals fiy Purse dteala Trash."

 

3 id Journgg, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Januarv-‘ ebruarg,
13*» 1), 4-10. (iaper read befgre the 1953 NAIR Con-
van ntion in Iatrait. Iic hi.Ian.)

hetcnua, :avié 5. "The rofessiona l Lireetor 1n Fund-Iaia-
ing Campaigns." ublic _ne].at10ns Jo zrnn.l, Vol. XIV,
No. 8 (August, lw': i. d. 1U.

. '1‘.

 

 

 

 

Ietry, Thomas. "On Blowing Ono's Own qun,' ”7‘“ Journal.
Vol. 19. 30. 2 (Iarch-April, 1903}. 3?— 40.

 

1

fianaeraon, Licharé A. "Public helationa in Educational
I31; vision," gpurnal of Broadcasting, 701. II, He.
4 (call. 13)U}. 3&5-3§¢-

Sulzer. leor U. "gducational Broadonating and Tublic ho-

lations,” NA ;33 Jou“na1. Vol. 18, No. 5 (February,
1959). 6- 7. iv-EJ-

I z,li--
r:\mu4£L§.J-J

Church, bavid E. Efie lublic 9alationa fiazzfi ”fit a--*1y fir d
30% It harks. flaw York: ‘ 103711 ..ubiicity Coau—
c11 for mealth an uelfare :ozvioes, Inc., 1949.

. . a .1 ;01.I',. ‘ .- q,- _' q . _ ‘ "a. . 1 ‘ u‘ fl... T a
Lauaage, Vhdrlafl d. :41I01133Iunienvéu II? IIIcntiohnl

 

 

 

 

 

10610 Ir“*rfiwa. UILILI, 41113013: lfgtitute of
Cougunicuticna :eaealch, University of Illinois,
1331.

Sulzer. Ilmer G. A Eutlio Eelstgcns £3150 far tha Educa—
tional Brordcasting Qtfitiifi. Lrboua 11113513:
Iational Isaociatlcn I “Identicnn Brosdcrsters,

1360.

T‘y‘.fi»r§ ‘: n “'
.L -. ~., 13-:‘tléA4

v a
. f. ' .v’_, A" '0
..uc ** (1

. UI'EWI a,

 

. *b‘v‘Eiwfn(1:jn(Jiitinf
lllinqu: uazicaal AawucIauiun OI
Eroaécasters, 1955.

Madcahikd’na l

~33LIC ECCUmISI;
Broderick, bartrude. sac So and InwagLfiiz 31I3<HI,II>V.

 

U.J. Iapartmant oi
effica of

Semaral Communications team:

I7 reiurgl :03
JLZJ 2. 19,320

«0.10,

I a" v
n

., ~ [’
\. z. IIIIID.

letter from nation corwell,
nittee, ja tionnl
castera, Iesrhcrn,
Letter Iron mJ1~.r d
IationaI
Raw York,

J.
flew York,
Television

iureau of Adva

in tilt“! UOJOJEO'

:Ifiql $14,
.Zoducpttlohb O
ornIeut :rinting Cffico,

SE31

uletio as 3

Chni
association of
fiicniqun, fabr‘Ia 3

“fix tar,
“ducational

flpril 22’

rtiaing, __
A Leport on Telavision Audi enco Composition.
13.)).

 

.- 11—“.th wk

amt filigre,
p.30: Uowo {50V-

X‘. 'J Uh”), 01.0.“,
ncton,
1990.

xasni

.3 1+5

-:. *'-v~.

C)b-QJ.V\II

Ch.

‘ 3“" "‘ f" .-
‘Jvkdfiod -JIJ

rmqn, rublio relationa Com-
ducatio.a1 Broad-

1’ 1:65.

:ation
Television and
1953.

1'“ P0:'- I

7Grviue3 Cniuf.
Annie Center,

. I. , I
—I "\L l‘ . a n ,.‘
Inc . Ina To r;".5 -aopla.

Irinted

1235355 U SE 0 2.1

 

 

 

HIGH 6

Mi

9 IES

3

   

fl’fiflllflffiflflflmflflifllifi

117/1!