hub “‘2'- ' 0 .~.-» -. Mk V D N) ' . d3, 9- 9 . _' . - ¢ 9. 0 ‘ ' ~ . - ' I " ' ~ -3' ‘ - ‘ -" .- , 9 M“ < l m 8-... ' M W~ . o I: ‘5... .L . ‘ A 4 9|. --... . . . ‘1 A. -. mié‘sg'.‘ ..' ‘ z t: F-‘h- E3 ‘ §~ "‘--‘ . “5“?” “1 n-n. 4K :59}? 3‘3- _._.:;"1 . 315' r . . "—35 on J 2:99:99 L, ”LIL: 921329233} 2 1’9: ”EL-“L I‘m! “Lg... 3-" 9,! ,f‘ 9 ‘9 99" H.019 99:99; 9 :7 9 999993595". 9.99 v '- ,c." ”'2'? 92‘2999957, 1..” L»: '3‘}; #992 II} "29‘"qu I‘LL!“ 9". . .'“"- -- ‘2. I. IL --"I :‘LL ‘ .rI m: "I. {.9992 L "2' ‘3“ #:2929299. *2 in“. . *3 . " '.' . ' ' 9 ' :9” 9;: i E9 :41“ fi_ 9:9 Yflifléi'. *‘ u 9 . 9‘ I . w 2": mini?" - ' l9 . 9'9 5'“ 'L'm': 9L; L '2' I'L:_L'|'7' 9E9 99f 99L "9.9.9.: 999_ 9 1' {9 9 . 9"3'; "‘ I?! “9999.9 9399 1;? .f::2.'9'. . , 9.2;: .-.‘ _ .' f'Léf'L'LL '9‘- 222.722; . .-;,:L:;-"-' 9.1: 9':- E3325.“ {,ws‘w Maw . . . o a - . 9.4-: 1 I 11.1, . ,9- 5'?) “9191‘ L9 . 5239;99:91299999992'9 _;9. 9 . 9‘9 9.92229, I9 999". . 99 39929-59923 9 , -9I9»_L:“9‘9 93719919: 9M9 '- .7 '2'” ""' 'I '1' “'44 II' LL? 9: "F!" L 2' .. ' EL'LLI"Mix}'I'NIICLE‘L‘I'W Pr 7J3} "ng .~ :II,.~‘:.‘,."i. . :1" 277.9 I25 . L .i A 9']. n 9 9 5‘? I u 349': 95.2. .L'” 9. I 2 9 s 9 L 9 :44: -' . '3”. :‘r, Adm?" 'L‘I' L2L 9"”99929'2.7,9‘_'I"‘L939','ILJ99LL" 2"“? '~ 3 ' LILELLL‘LLH '3' L' 925 'L'Ll'9 992993.29 III «'2' J L2 - ‘74” .-. - ”LU" .. ”9 ‘t'L-L‘ngm‘ II wm‘l‘r 142'.“ l . 2.9990 59 |¢9 ~99 3‘9 '9 4&19'9' . .9!" 1299 999.99; {199:1 {LI-9L 9!"? 9:92. 2.9.!!9H799fl'99 ‘9 92999.9”5599' {gig-J. 9131" £99,999 999:! 992.99.“ 311"""' [9.9 |J99 .-, nE9“9.'z ('9; 512912.999 TLHH 9I.9'-29;.‘9IH 9-;59'9499' .. 99919994": (”.99999 '2} "'1‘ -. 4'1'L‘9'L'5'YI'29'III."" " '9 "' LV" "'9; fl" L'LL'M ".Jl' ' LL” "«‘""LL":"' béfifihfim "' '9LIL: 29.;{9 ‘lIdI. Li“ . - -- 3:. .1“... Jaw-:9 .; . I ' ' ' 55-- . 9 9 L21: .I :' ."t' 9L99999L99:._7r5"‘..49 2‘.“ .39‘9299 ML” 'III '2""';' 13";ng .9 929'”"9”“191937999'fi‘l' ' "-929" ‘962L?g%f.i$‘§3.9i..9919%9, ‘99. _ 7 ' "2. .,.L;':_1‘fL.-L.;_- "7:... "' ”IL" 2' {9.99. .1:'2I 952’ 1?:th -'3:'}"::2'r",z';'":,". ”F :I i': if. h. :..'. 9 IIL'I'L {1'2" Lu: 9.293.}: «52;: W," .2 WWW— 922219 .9. 99:9 19594 999999; 999 L99 99 9999991219999929,9I‘79"9L' .912 3:21; 9;%- 99999 99931950“ 247999999“. 9 99-9999” (99999999999999 9 92: 99:;9999999 9-99 {-9919 ‘ nfii 9 9:. ~99 919...? 9232;; a: ;{3'}:,L ‘j. W 9;;1‘ " "' " I" "'I"L ' "1.21119 L 'L' 4 9 999.9 . 9 99- 9 "IL *5. WI .. . '9 M“ ..I . . L "W" LL" 3;: IIIILHLJLLI: . .b‘" “~99 -I. W 229?.1999- I291: :99 - . .121; 2:, 25-. .999; 9; L921... 299999999999 IL'H'L' 9' I ”1:22.222" 5.22 2M” 'L'ILLII 'C'LII'I L .L' -.: 22.122232”'LLLA'L‘I'HLLLIH'.'2érL'2L'mthixl’ Illllllllfll[I'lfllllllllllfllflllll XL 3 2 3 00642 603 blunt-in I Michigan State "m University This is to certify that the thesis entitled TELEVISION PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT: A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS Management Applications Within an All-Volunteer Student Production Organization presented by Cynthia E. App has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for L degree in Jelecomunicat ion Jm Major professor Datew 6 0-7639 M51! is an Amt-mama Action/Equal Opportunity Institution TELEVISION PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT: A CASE STUDY l r Management Applications Within an All-Volunteer :' )“l g. Student Production Organization :1 _ J By Cynthia E. App A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS gge of Communication Arts and Sciences fiepartnent of Telecommunication ' 11.: .z‘ r u tr 1 . l .I‘ . ArmrbtwulwlhlrrlL pr .WJ‘UH 3—. App Copyright BY Cynthia E. 1986 ABSTRACT TELEVISION PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT: A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS Management Applications Within an All-Volunteer Student Production Organization By Cynthia E. App Television production within the academic setting at Michigan State University has traditionally underplayed the part of management in the production of quality television. This case study analyzes television production within Michigan State University’s student television arena, MSU Telecasters. This thesis concentrates upon the lack of effective management within one particular program, FACE TO FACE. The lack of good management contributed to the production of a poor quality program. A before and after analysis of management techniques and program quality was done to determine if a change of management within the program FACE TO FACE was followed by a rise in program quality. Students participating in the FACE TO FACE program were questioned regarding the management techniques utilized, while television industry specialists determined whether program quality rose following the implementation of new management and its techniques. The results for this case study were positive. Students responded that management was effective in meeting their needs and desires as students. In turn, industry professionals felt that program quality was raised to a level to be considered of "broadcast quality". -’$g Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Qéjflélecommunication, College of Communication Arts and t ‘= 1' iences, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment v . s . n, W-E?’ .‘| | . a ithe requirements for the Master of Arts degree. Joe Director of Thesis ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Without the help and assistance of many people, and a lot of technology. the completion of this thesis would have been impossible. It is the thought of this impossibility which provokes me to write. I would like to thank, first and foremost, my parents, Sue Ann and Bob App. Their love, support, and constant nagging to "get out of school" made actually finishing a rewarding reality. Without them, I couldn’t have done it. Thank you both. And to my friend, Bryan, goes more appreciation than he will ever know. I know of no one else who would, or could join me in the consumption of margaritas made from dirty snow. His patience, friendship, and ability to pull my car out of ditches will never be forgotten. Without him, this all would have been lonely. I also want to express my thanks to Bob Albers, who for nearly three years tolerated my asking, "Why?". His support, expertise and friendship will be carried with me forever. Cheese Whiz, I’ll never forget you. Don’t be suprised when you have to bail me out. And to Linda Kohl, who held the keys to the shackles. Thanks. Your tolerance will always be an aspiration for me. Besides, I even like you. iii To Ann Alchin, who always went above and beyond her call of duty. I always knew there was a smiling face waiting somewhere on the 4th. floor. Thanks for helping me get from point "A" to point "B" (or was it point "C"?) And to my friend, Steve Mann, who so willingly offered his ear, his home, and friendship to me, thank you. Don’t worry, I’ll drop a line occasionally. And to technology goes a small bit of thanks and a lot of frustration. Thank you Zenith and Word Star, who through a culmination of efforts, gave me forty pages of the letter "e" in the middle of my text. And to Radio Shack and its Trash-80 I express my appreciation. Without you, I may have actually retained a small bit of sanity. And last, but not least, I thank all of the students who were involved with my television production experiences. Without you people, none of this would ever have been achieved. An additional thanks must go to the Big Man for letting me be here to finish. Thank you. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ACCEPTANCE OF THESIS BY COLLEGE. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . LIST OF TABLES . . LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER THEY SPELL TELEVISION . . . . . . . - INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . The Producer. . . . . . . . . Management Techniques . . . . Television Program Format . . Music . . . . . . Lighting. . . . Set . . . . . Camera Shots. Graphics. . . . Talent. . . . . o e o a I e o o o a e e o o o o o e e o a Summary of Literature Review. . . _ STATEMENT or PURPOSE. . . . . . . . . :3 Insrs AND APPLICATIONS FOR THIS THESIS rsNDNOTEs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I o o a e a Page ii viii ix 5...; oowwmmqmow to) ,HHHI—JH bNi-IO 15 CHAPTER Page BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Need for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 NEW MANAGEMENT COMMANDEERED . . . . . . . . . . 20 Needs Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Planning for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 ENDNOTES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 III. CASE STUDY: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS. . . . . . 41 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Participant Observation . . . . . . . . . . 41 Direct Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Survey Research . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Interview Data Collection . . . . . . . . . 47 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Section I: H1 Analysis of Questionnaire Results for Industry Specialists . . . . . . . . . . 48 Section II: H2 Analysis of Questionnaire Results for Student Participants. . . . . . . 57 Summary of Questionnaire Results. . . . . . 70 ENDNOTES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 IV. THE FINAL WORD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 SOME DRAWBACKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Stationary Crew System. . . . . . . . . . . 75 Inclusion of New Students . . . . . . . . . 77 The Producer Handbook . . . . . . . . . . 78 Managerial Systematic Review. . . . . . . . 78 Contingency Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . 80 The Trouble With "N’s". . . . . . . . . . . 80 vi prfGRAPTER 1 THE GOOD SIDE . . . . . . . . . Hierarchy . . Transition to New Management. Summary and Suggestions . . ENDNOTES. . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘l BIBLIOGRAPHY '.APPENnIcrs A. HIERARCHY . . . . . . . . . . B. LOGO and PRODUCER HANDBOOK. . Logo. . . . Producer Handbook . . . . CODEBOOK: Questionnaire I . . CODEBOOK: Questionnaire II . ‘3'} '. . vii Television Producer . o C. QUESTIONNAIRE I: Industry Personnel D. QUESTIONNAIRE II: Student Volunteers E. EXCERPT FROM PAPER WRITTEN BY PROGRAM PRODUCER/FOUNDER - "Acquiring the Repertoire: The Student as the Page 81 81 82 iv 85 86 V t 89 90 91 124 128 133 144 160 LIST OF TABLES X aszABLE Analysis of Program Elements and Determinance of Quality. . . . . . . Breakdown of Specific Group Elements with Statistical Significance Determining Quality. . . . . . . Noted Strong and Weak Points . Broadcast Quality Determinance . . Analysis of Organizational Climate Analysis of Group Involvement and Sensitivity. . . . . . . . . . Before and After Comparison for Met Expectations and Goals . . . . . . . Frequency Analysis of Expectations and Suggestions for Improvement. . . Analysis of Management Concern for People/Tasks . . . . . . . . . . 1;: by ‘ , viii Page 49 52 54 56 58 62 63 65 71 FACE TO FACE Logo. . . . . his for El ’fbr guy» a” _ it for Jake. .. t' Bht 1's :b a " far-or n; ic‘ -.. M: r‘ "sgrax'lc Nil Lw‘ 71:4“? "ptodurta are Emit; Ndilsen 35s 1n(.. . ‘ "Nuilser. Mug .3" Natl-'60. , It sudden‘; w- ~ star or the the»: man TEuet, and sciliag'a it! different, :48 LIST OF FIGURES 1hr {QF’ no!!! (-211 Q My lfil‘ . PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER THEY SPELL TELEVISION is for Announcer, who always says,"RI!" Then shows you the package and tells you to buy. is for Bunker, that lovable bigot. Some folks can’t stand him, but even more dig it. is for Cigarettes, now off the air (A source of great comfort for Smokey the Bear). is for Detective They all seem defective. is for Election, that quadrennial race When even the loser puts on a good face. is for Films, a parade of great hits, Chopped and ”adapted" in lZ—minute bits. ' is for Game Show with prominent banners That identify all of those second bananners. ,g is for Household, including your pet Who’s included in surveys as "watching the set." is for Intrigue, domestic and foreign. The guys are like Bogey, the women like Lauren. is for Joke. If it’s one that you know, The gag is a spin-off from some other show. is for Kiddies, who won’t be deluded; They know that the batteries won’t be included. is for Laugh Track, as complex as Bach For every slight sight gag, a thunderous yock. is for Migraine and Margarine and Mild. The products are bold and the promises wild. ’is for Neilsen - aye there’s the rub! {‘Ever meet a "Neilsen Family," bub? :is for Option. It suddenly stops . iWhen the star or the show has a rating that drops. ‘is for Product, and selling’s the game: The boxes are different, the contents the same. is for Quiz Show, where riches await The contestant who knows his own name or date. is for Repairman, who makes your heart stop When he says, "It’ll have to go down to the shop." is for Sitcom, with insights astute: Daddy’s a dum — dum, and the Nazis are cute. is for Talk Show, Yackety Yack. Yackety Yackety. We’ll be right back. is for Used-Up, a pretty good label For the junk that they stash in the ole re-run stable. is for Vietnam, "the living room war," Held over this season, with options galore. is for Western, the home of the horse, Where the marshal is kind and the heroine’s coarse. is the brand with inferior flavor. To the rescue, then, comes the sponsor’s lifesaver. is for Yawn, a reaction quite common Toward overviewed persons, like good ole Don Johnson. is for Zoltan or Zorach or Zlud -- Those fiends of the Late Show, all thirsting for blood. ROBERT LASSON and DAVID EYNON1 xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In commercial television, success is measured in terms of ratings and profits. If advertising revenues aren’t generated, a television production is deemed a failure, and the producer of the program may very well find himself without a job. On the. other hand, television production within the academic setting does not have these scales of measurement. Therefore, how does one go about determining the success and quality of student produced programming and its processes? Within the academic arena, television production is i ‘looked upon as a teaching and learning tool. Students are .gllinvolved with television because they desire to learn the .’_‘COrrect processes behind production.2 It is therefore deemed appropriate that they learn to produce programming which meets the standards of the professional industry they will i1bo¢ome a part of upon their departure from academia. ‘ Often times, programming produced by students looks like jthat, programming produced by students. The visual 'of it isn’t quite up to the standards that we, as criminating viewers, expect and look for upon our vision screens. How then, can television that will Tilfy our demands for quality be produced by students? 7...,— One answer is through management, production management to be exact. The television producer, described by Alan Wurtzel as television’s answer to the Renaissance man,3 is the manager behind the screen. It is the manager, or should we say management, that can make or break the television scene. Traditionally, within the student production environment at Michigan State University, the concept of management has been underplayed while process has been promoted. Television production was taught outside of the "curriculum" via a student production company called MSU Telecasters. Here, students learned great amounts about running equipment and putting visual images on videotape, but didn’t learn a whole lot about making a television show that could be broadcast on a "real" television station. The programs produced by the students involved with MSU Telecasters generally lacked the refined "look" that we have become accustomed to seeing on television. The program’s electronic transitions were loose, content did not apply to a wide audience, and formats varied from week to week. Students involved with the production of the programs expressed dissatisfaction with their experiences, claiming they were not receiving the experience they had hoped for, professional production experience. Although it is difficult to assign a real definition to the word "quality" in television (we all know a "good" TV show when we see it, and N we know a "bad one) a statement that would apply to MSU P-V'Telecasters' programs was that they generally were not very “ good. Their airplay came on local cable public access channels rather than even being considered for airing on any of the commercial or public stations in the Lansing area. How could a group of students, who didn’t get paid for the considerable amount of time they were devoting, be ‘.a» .7??- motivated to produce high quality programming which could be broadcast? How could an environment be supplied that would promote such motivation? What production modes and "h 'l- ' 'I" “\‘0' techniques would establish a level of "quality" that could be considered for broadcast? What sort of management techniques could be used that would accomplish all of the above? Throughout this thesis, the questions proposed over the last several paragraphs will be explored within light of one particular program produced by student volunteers. That program is PAGE TO FACE. Changes in the production format and management styles that occurred over a period of two , it years will be examined in this case study of television i5.production management within the student television LITERATURE REVIEW glt'is necessary to establish a running definition of bywords for the purposes of this paper: quality, management, and production. The Merriam — Webster Dictionary defines quality as a certain degree of excellence.‘ Management as defined by Robert Xreitner, author of Management, is the process of working with and through others to effectively achieve organizational objectives by efficiently using limited resources in a changing environment.5 The third word of interest, production, is defined by Merriam — Webster as something produced.° In sum, the production manager can be defined as one who oversees the process of managing an institution or organization in order to accomplish the successful goal of producing a product which possesses a certain degree of excellence. The Producer _—.—_—————— In the television world, the product is a television ‘.program. It is the television producer’s responsibility to develop the program idea, supervise the entire production ll from the first preproduciton meeting to the last videotape f”*t edit. The television producer is the one person With the ‘-;ultimate responsibility for every element - both technical ';gmd creative, that goes into the production.7 H 3: ‘5.“ George Heinemann, an Emmy—winning producer for NBC, flaid, ”Producing is 60% organization and 403 creativity."8 bout oraganizational ability, there’s little chance a F9?! 53?! fr h F893 {65; lane www— television producer will be able to transform a creative concept into a successful television program. The television producer must be an effective communicator in addition to an organizer. When dealing with a production team, a producer must motivate the unit, inspire, guide, and lead it, but most of all, must be able to keep a group of diverse and sometimes temperamental people heading in the same direction for a common goal. Wurtzel writes, "It is the production team that must ultimately turn your vision into a television reality. How well they do their jobs will affect the entire show and ultimately affect you as the producer. "9 The above paragraphs lead to the conclusion, any way you look at it, that a producer is a manager. Peter Drucker defines the manager11° The manager has the task of creating a true whole that is larger than the sum of its parts, a productive entity that turns out more than the sum of the resources put into it. One analogy is the conductor of a symphony orchestra, through whose effort, vision and leadership individual instrumental parts that are so much noise by themselves become the living whole of music. But the conductor has the composer’s score; he is only interpreter. The manager is both composer and conductor. Thus it is the manager who becomes the figurehead of the organization, the one who acts as the liason between peers and other members outside of the organization. It is the manager who is the leader and must assume the responsibility for the organization and its members. The lanager is responsible for motivating, staffing, commmunicating, leading, negotiating, planning and enacting.11 The tone of the organization is usually sounded by its top executive, and the success of the enterprise may well depend on whether he infuses the whole hierarachy with energy and vision or whether, through ineptness or neglect, he allows the organization to stagnate. 12 Management Techniques How then, can a producer/manager interweave all of these various roles into an effective plan for a change in management style? Peter Drucker’s "Management by Objective" (MBO) technique, first initiated in 1954, has become the primary tool for effecting a change in management style within an already existing organization. His philosophy: management’s specific Job is to make what is desirable first possible, then actual.13 This is done through a series of steps, the first being setting objectives. Step two is developing action plans; step three is periodic review or monitoring of performance, and step four is performance appraisal. George Giebold, in his series Management by ijective: A Self-Instructional Approach. writes that managers must set objectives based upon a perceived need to change the structure of, or within, an organization. Several steps a manager must subscribe to are: first, document the need for change, secondly, fill these needs through the establishment of objectives or plans, then lastly, motivate the workers within the organization to achieve and desire the system and processes of change.H Henry Fayol, a French industrialist, and father of the functional approach to management, established his managerial functions in 1916. Fayol identified five functions necessay for successful managerial change: planning, organizing, command, coordination, and control.15 These various managerial techniques can be utilized, in part, with additional methods, for promoting change in management styles. It is through a culmination of these methods that a blueprint for managerial change can be established. Once established, the blueprint can be molded to suit the particular organization for which managerial change is desired. Television Program Format When it comes to the issue of format for an interview television program, and the elements within a television program which make it "broadcast quality", very little published information is available. One piece of literature, Egggbook of Production by Waldo Abbot and Richard L. Rider,16 spelled out what were considered to be the necessary elements within the "format" of a television show. The format provides for some kind of opening (usually involving an effort to attract attention, commercial identification, and credit), the body of the program, Closing credits, some type of pad that can be can be ‘ $20 9. H... ,\X 1 Cr 52*. 9‘: shortened or lengthened as time demands, and a close. The body of the program, which is usually interrupted at least once for a commercial, contains the main elements of the program. These elements, they specify, are usually identifiable as quite separate segments, most of them rather short, and strung together with some kind of continuity. Variety and tempo are determined by the length of the program segments and scenes tend to be short. This is done in an effort to keep the program moving. Music In addition to the "format", there are specific elements within, which are deemed "appropriate" for television news shows. One of these is music. Joanna Woolfolk Cross, in Mediaspeak states: Like other television programs, news shows even have theme music to put us in the mood for what we are about to hear, and the musical accompaniment to these shows is usually intended to convey an impression of brisk efficiency; the tunes themselves are unremittingly cheerful and upbeat. The melodies of most local and network news shows would not be inappropriate in a Broadway musical.1'7 Lighting Of course music isn’t the only element necessary. Lighting for television programs has also been found to be a critical point in the "good look" of a program. Lighting should: 1.) define shape and texture 2.) imitate the quality of natural light, and 3.) set the tone or mood for a r———_ 9 performance. Lighting is critical, as the guests on an interview program are the focus of discussion. It is extremely important that guests are lit well, and the primary focus on them . An overlit set, or underlit guests, will result in the audience being distracted from the content of the program. 13 Set The set for interview programs should lean toward the simple side, as a busy, extravagant set has a tendency to distract the audience from the conversation and program guests.19 Camera Shots The camera shots in an interview program must follow the conversation. This is not to say that a director must go from a Close Up to a Close Up like a ping-pong ball. Shot variety is necessary, as is proper shot framing, and composition. In an interview situation, the best shot may not be one of the speaker, but a reaction shot showing the anger, frustration, or glee on the face of another guest. Graphics Graphics within a program should be clear and concise. This includes character generated graphics as well as those mounted on a card hod. This is paramount, as what is intended to enhance program quality may actually work 9 c f pre hex I] S 61 th Ia pr Hr Dr 10 against it if improperly utilized. Graphics for a news and public affairs program should be designed to complement, usually being relatively straightforward and traditional.20 Talent Host talent on interview types of programs should be informed on the topic of discussion. In the words of Alan Wurtzel, "Talent’s first responsibility is to be thoroughly prepared. There is simply no excuse for an interviewer who has not done his or her background homework."21 Talent should also be supplied with a partial script for the program, with intros and outros. This allows for preparation on the part of the director, whose duty it is to have the next item ready to go at a particular time. Sgggary of Literature Review In sum, effective management must be utilized to motivate a production team. When bringing change about within an organization, it is necessary and critical that the managment and the members of the organization have a common goal and direction. In the television industry, the manager is the program producer, who is responsible for the program production in its entirety. If something goes wrong, there is no one to blame but the producer. A producer’s goal is to turn out the highest quality production possible, and this is made impossible if effective managerial tactics and techniques are not being 11 utilized within the production setting, including a student setting. The determinants of program quality are not so straightforward. Although specific elements are "necessary" within the format of an interview and public affairs program, a method of determining how good those elements are was not found. It appears that quality is a subjective concept which does not have any measure but what "looks and sounds good". There are guidelines for essential elements, but what ultimately may determine the "goodness" of a program is whether or not that program is deemed "broadcast quality" by those who do the actual broadcasting. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The purpose of this work is to outline a technique of 7_management utilized to motivate a student production team to turn out a product which is considered to be of broadcast quality. An investigation into the organizational climate :Vas a learning ground and classroom will be done to determine 3whether students needs were satisfactorily met by the 'pmoducers/managers overseeing the production FACE TO FACE. *Tl.rrncs TO FACE, like the other student productions ‘ oduced by MSU Telecasters, lacked effective managment. lack of managment made itself apparent through flu. . at“? \nun have come to expect from television seen on PBS and commercial stations. This thesis will examine the steps taken by the producers of FACE TO FACE to change management style, and, in effect, raise program quality. This case study looks at the organization both before and after the changes in management style, and in turn, takes a look at two FACE TO FACE programs, one produced before the change in managment and one produced after. This study proposes two hypotheses, both based upon before and after analysis of the program quality and management techniques utilized: Bl: Tape number two, produced after program format and managerial structure change, is of better quality than tape number one, produced prior to program format and management change. 32: Management techniques utilized by the program producers were effective in creating a working environment which satisfied students needs and desires better than the previous management. USES AND APPLICATIONS FOR THIS THESIS This thesis will be a valuable tool and learning _&;mechanism for persons interested in effective production -«';}‘ nwggmmagement. Its applicability may be extended beyond the 'tndent production environment to television production iings throughout the industry, whether commercial, "9, or educational. a a o!”- “I unu- 13 The contents of this paper intends to supply a framework ,* for the establishment of a hierarachy which is successful I within an all volunteer production environment. Minor 'adaptions to include positions applicable to various work ‘environments will make this hierarchy effective for use in other areas. In addition, this thesis will supply the Department of Telecommunication at Michigan State University with a working outline of the management structure used to renovate and successfully produce an individual program within their Student production company, MSU Telecasters. Chapter two of this text outlines the management - Itechniques utilized by the student producers of FACE TO ';E$CE. A background of the program and its parent _ v ;. ,1 :L organization precedes the implementation of the management -~: . 9'.atructure and the decisive factors which led to the managerial changes. CHAPTER I ENDNOTES 1 Wanda Mitchell, Televising Your Message: Producing Effective Television Communication, (Skokie, Illinois, National Text Book Company, 1981), pp. 35—36. 2 Results from Student Interviews, May, 1986. 3 Alan Wurtzel, Television Production, (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1978), p. 478. ‘ The Merriam—Webster Dictionary, (U.S.A., Pocket Books, 1978), p. 567. 5 Robert Kreitner, Management, (Boston, Houghton ‘fl Mifflin Company, 1983), p. 8. 9 Op. Cit., Merriam-Webster, p. 554. 7 Alan Wurtzel, Television Production, (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Compay, 1978), p. 479. 3 Ibid., p. 479. 9 Ibid., p. 479. _; 1° Henry Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work, (New :VYork, Harper and Row, Publishers, 1973), p. 48. 11 Ibid., p. 58. 13 Ibid., p. 60. :. 13 Peter F. Drucker, The Practice of Management, (New York, Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1954), p. ‘ 1‘ William C. Giebold, Management by Objectives: jLeader’ s Manual to the M80 Series, (New York, McGraw-Hill, ‘i‘Imc., 1978), pp. vii— —viii. ,1} Henry Fay 01, from Robert Kreitner Management, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1983), p. 33. 3! Waldo Abbot and Richard L. Rider, Handbook for at '3;t n:, (New York, McGraw-Hill Cook Company, 1957), p. 14-A 17 Joanna Woolfolk Cross, Mediaspeak: Egg Television ,. ¥Les U Your Mind, (Toronto, Canada, General Publishing Co. 111nm“, 1983), p. 58. r- 18 Gerald Millerson, Effective TV Production, (New York, HRastings House, 1976), p. 48. 4 .‘W 19 Robert Wade, Designing for TV, (New York, Pellegini & .‘TCaduhy, 1952), p. 189. I...‘ v} > 3° Alan Wurtzel, Television Production, (New York, _g TMcGraw-Rill Book Company, 1978), p. 452. .L 21 Ibid., p. 452. CHAPTER II MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS WITHIN AN ALL VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATION: A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS BACKGROUND Michigan State University Telecasters (from hereon out referred to as MSU Telecasters) began as a subsidiary of the Department of Television, Radio and Film at Michigan State University in 1958. Originally, known as MSU Broadcasters, the organization operated as a learning ground for students interested in media production. GAMUT, the organization’s first regularly produced program was broadcast on WMSB—TV (later to become WKAR-TV). Produced utilizing the facilities of WMSB—TV located on Michigan State University’s campus, GAMUT was the only opportunity for students interested in television production and broadcasting to gain production experience outside of Departmental courses.1 Produced as a series of half hour programs, GAMUT featured music, drama, and entertainment segments. Unfortunately, lack of student interest and inconsistency among faculty advisors (a different one every two terms) led to GAMUT becoming defunct in the mid—1970’s. Following the demise of GAMUT, Broadcasters lay dormant until the Fall of 1982.2 The organization (having moved to the new College of Communication Arts and Sciences Building) operating under the Department of Telecommunication (formerly the Department 15 of TV stud' Chang the c of TV, Radio, and Film) was revived by several interested students and faculty who decided that, due to technological changes in production mediums, a more appropriate name for the organization would be MSU Telecasters. In addition to renaming itself, the group had to start from the ground up in reorganizing itself and its programming. When Broadcasters died, so did any sort of management that had gone along with it. Run entirely by students (although overseen by a faculty adviser/Executive Producer) the organization updated its goals to include broadening its audience to potentially thousands by cablecasting programming on the Instructional Televison Network. This network, located in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences, and operating under the auspice of WKAR television, cablecast televised courses throughout campus. Through ITV, Telecaster programming could reach MSU residence halls and homes around East Lansing subscribing to cable television (ITV was shown on the local cable system). In addition, the organization established as a goal the inclusion of more students from different departments. At this time, MSU Telecasters was the sole arena for students to receive television production experience outside of Departmental production courses (unavailable to students prior to their senior year in college). Thus, MSU Telecasters became the learning and teaching ground for r——_———— 17 students interested in receiving production experience at Michigan State University. At the time, students were receiving production experience through the production of a new Telecaster program, UPLINK, a variety and entertainment program. This program, produced bi—weekly, provided students with experiences in writing, producing, casting, and the forever present pressure in broadcasting, meeting deadlines. With UPLINK a success, it was decided that a new goal of having a production on commercial broadcast television was, in actuality, possible. Thus FACE TO FACE was born. This program, a hard news and public affairs program, was established to give additional production experience to students in a format outside of entertainment programming. It too, would supply real world experience in production. Established by a Telecommunication Masters student, FACE TO FACE featured an interview format hosted by a student. Presenting two or more guests for a discussion on a campus related issue, FACE TO FACE was produced bi-weekly on Sunday afternoons. Featuring a live audience, participation by the public was encouraged as half of the program’s thirty minute length was devoted to question and answer. The program, staffed by an all volunteer crew drawn from the general membership of MSU Telecasters, flourished under the management of founder and its Executive Producer/Faculty Advisor Robert Albers. As a learning ground, the production , catered to student needs, but fell short of the 18 organization’s goal of broadcast.3 It must be remembered that the production was operating under newly established management and was staffed by relatively untrained students. Need for change There were several faults that were overtly visible within the production of the program FACE TO FACE. Even to the untrained eye, it could be seen that program quality was not comparable to that seen on commercial or public television. 1. The program host, an attractive young man from within the student enrollment in the Department of Telecommunication, did not seem to be sufficiently prepared for program tapings.4 This host: - allowed for dead air while taping program — frequently misstated guests’ position on topic - frustrated guests by repetition of statements - failed to show for program taping on time 2. Program set was unbecoming. 5 - lacked depth due to black curtain background - transparent sign with MSU Telecaster logo supplied no reference to program name, thus making recognition for audience difficult — lighting was poor, contributing to depth problem — colors on set (bright orange chairs) created bleed through on videotape, thus making playback unattractive 3. Production quality was generally poor. 5 - transitions were loose, poorly timed, and generally quite rough - PSA’s were of poor quality - camera shots were poorly shaded and did not match well (very old Norelco cameras that were irreparable) - character generated graphics were poor and difficult to read due to inferior equipment - Program format was inconsistent from week to week In addition to the above, there was also some discontent among the crew members. A rotational crew system utilized by the producer allowed for a variety in crew positioning, but did not allow each student to become well acquainted with one particular piece of equipment. This made students feel that program quality was hurt due to the fact that relatively inexperienced students were operating equipment. With a different crew every week, it was difficult to be consistent in the program quality.7 Program segment producers (associate producers) were frustrated. They would spend a great deal of time researching for their program and then the host would be unavailable for briefing. When their program taping date came, the host was uninformed and did not present the topic as well as the producers (program and associate) would have liked. 3 Members of the production crew were somewhat discouraged with the organization, as quite a few persons who became involved did not stay with the production for long. They felt that there were not opportunities for enough people to 20 work and learn within the program. A complaint among crew members was that the same people were utilized all of the time, not giving enough students the opportunity to participate. 9 The student crew also felt that there was not a fair balance between management’s concern for people and task (that being to turn out a high quality production). It was generally agreed upon among crew members that management did not encourage individual members to use their initiative and creative abilities. 1° Another problem inherent with the system was that there seemed to be no real workable hierarchy. Students often did not know exactly who was in charge (although the program’s founder was the program producer), thus creating ambiguity about who was in command. 11 At the time, the producer was particularly busy, teaching production classes and preparing to assume the executive producer position for MSU Telecasters. NEW MANAGEMENT COMMANDEERED Among the frustrated crew were two students, both interested in pursuing Masters in Production, who had become involved with FACE TO FACE in January of 1984. The two participated in tapings on Sundays in Studio C, a relatively antiquated television production studio utilized 21 by the Department of Telecommunication for the purpose of teaching their television production courses. With the assistance of the founder of the program, one of these two students learned to operate the character generator located in WKAR’s master control, while the other started working on the crew as a cameraman. Despite the fact that the two were receiving some experience in the production arena, they realized there were some inherent problems within the organization that contributed to dissatisfaction among the crew and the lack of program quality. Both students possessed a strong desire to learn about television production, but had little production experience. They had Joined MSU Telecasters to gain the experience that would prepare them for work in the professional production world. There was a realization that they (in addition to the rest of the crew) were not receiving the necessary experience while working for a student production company which turned out inferior programming, particularly since one of the goals for FACE TO FACE was to be broadcast. Needs Establishment The two students decided that what needed to be done for the production of FACE TO FACE was to establish, first and foremost, a workable hierarchy within the organization which would supply leadership to the crew. In order to do this, 22 they decided that they must take over the production of the program. Approaching the program producer/founder and the Executive Producer/Faculty Advisor the students expressed interest in assuming responsibility for the program FACE TO FACE, reassuring the producers that the motivation for making such a move was to uphold Telecaster purposes and, in turn, to make the program FACE TO FACE the broadcast quality it was intended to be from the start. At the same time, efforts would be made to retain the goal of being a learning ground for production students. In addition, a professional atmosphere would be established based upon deadline pressures, broadcast quality expectations, and motivational theory using rewards and praise. The program producer/founder and the Executive Producer/Faculty Advisor agreed that change was necessary. The timing was quite ideal as the program producer/founder had been asked to assume the Executive Producer position along with the Faculty Advisor. It was decided that the two students would assume the roles of Program Producer and Program Co-producer. The first hurdle in the race for broadcast quality had been achieved: The students had been promoted to the program producer position. In turn, they had the sponsorship they needed from Albers (the Executive Prodcuer/Faculty Advvisor) who would support them and give guidance as needed. 23 The new program producers were given blanket privileges to change the program in any way they chose, as long as they kept the needs and desires of the parent organization in mind. In addition, students'desires and needs had to be considered and upheld. Utilizing Frederick W. Taylor and Henry Fayol’s techniques of management, 12 a workable hierarchy was established. It was necessary to have several things within the outline of a hierarchy. l. A well defined hierarchy of authority: This would ensure that there was a coordinated pursuit of organizational goals by all members involved. 2. Unity of command: In order to avoid the problem of conflicting orders, it was necessary that individuals on the production crew answered to only one person. 3. Equal authority and responsibility: The authority in the organization (in this case the program producer) must also assume the responsibility of informing the members of the organization of what must be done. 4. Downward delegation of authority but not of responsibility: It was the responsibility of the program producer to pass onto the crew member the right do to the duties pertaining to a certain crew position, but it was ultimately the responsibility and obligation of the program producer to be sure that the Job was done. This would prohibit passing the buck. In addition to a workable hierarchy, there was a need to supply motivation to students to do the best job that they could. Students needed to have a environment which would encourage them to perform at a high level. 13 Studio C in the Communication Arts and Sciences Building had old Norelco cameras, poor character generation capabbilities, poor audio equipment, and high ceilings which made lighting difficult. 24 Motivation was also necessary in the form of praise for a Job well done. An opportunity to be responsible for certain duties, then producer praise for performing the duties was extremely important, especially in a learning situation. There had to be feedback to crew members regarding their achievements and performance. 14 A fair balance between people and the task at hand needed to be established. 15 It was necessary that the program producer weigh the needs of the students while at the same time weigh the necessity of improving program quality. Ideally,the satisfaction of student desires should accompany an increase in quality. It was also necessary to replace the program host. The fact that the present host was unable to fulfill his responsibilities and had been allowed to remain reflected a serious problem. There was a need for a host who could represent the program well and responsibly. Students within the organization had expressed an interest in having the faculty of the Department of Telecommunication more involved with the production. Up to this time, the faculty had not been active within the program. 15 More faculty participation was needed to raise the visibility level of the program and the students involved with it. The need to tap faculty resources was apparent. 25 In sum, there was a need for several things within the program FACE TO FACE: A new hierarchy supplying unity of command A new and better working environment An establishment of motivation and a method for praise and reward was necessary An increase in program quality More faculty participation was needed More group spirit and cooperation (AND—l (DUI-b Planning for Change The new program producers met outside of the university environment and set about their plans of action. The first thing the new producers decided among themselves was that they had to work smarter, not necessarily harder. 17 They had to work with the organization to achieve the goals of broadcast quality and still maintain the development of the members of the program FACE TO FACE. The program producers wrote down a list of objectives that could be implemented over a relatively short period of time. This list was kept between the two program producers ' and used as a guide for the implementaion of the established [_ objectives. These objectives were: E 1. Establish a hierarchy that would supply a unity of command 2. Better the working environment for students k — move to Studio E as soon as it was installed: better equipment therefore creating a level of higher expectations E - utilize participant management techniques 1 26 3. Establish a qualification system based upon a position granted for high performance - create additional positions on the crew to allow more students the opportunity to work — have permanent crew rather than rotational one to increase consistency for program as well as create pride among crew 4. Raise program quality - replace host with one who possessed the following attributes: - older and more mature - knowledgable and informed — available to devote time and effort to the production - friendly with the crew (important for good stage relations and mutual assistance) — assertive yet participative (important for working with television time limitations and for equal representation of topics among guests) “ - available to program associate producers for briefings - available for at least one year (would allow for audience to identify with him/her, would allow for format familiarity allowing for program consistency) preferably a faculty member (would enhance reputation of organization among Department personnel, and in addition, would be familiar with television business - change program format and appearance — make program a formula, thus repeatable and consistent - build a new set and establish new light plot - have a taped program opening - PSA’s from community, thus making program more visible to public - VTR rollins mandatory for insertion into program (would create remote crew positions as well as editing, plus break monotony of talking heads) - delete live audience segment as recruitment of audience was difficult 27 - Remove associate producers (individual segment producers) who could not be prompt and do their jobs - Create consistency among associate producers — write a producer handbook to supply associate producers with guidelines for production - have production meetings with individual associates to settle problems they may encounter while producing - Go beyond the University for program topics. Produce programs on city, state, national, and international issues in order to broaden audience. - Offer workshops to familiarize crew with new format - acclimate new host - train new students, supply them with written job descriptions - seek Bob Albers’ (Exec. Producer/Faculty Advisor) presence to ensure that quality production standards were practiced - Write equipment operator manuals for Studio E. Specifically outline equipment requirements and procedures for FACE TO FACE. 5. Increase Department of Telecommunication involve— ment. - Increase visibility with Department in order to: - increase credibility for themselves as well as for organization - expose students to those who could assist with the organization — Publish short newsletter to keep faculty updated on what was going on with the production - Seek a host from the TC Department 28 6. Establish team spirit and cooperation. - Have a fund raiser to: - create unity among the crew - allow necessary equipment to be purchased (ie: headsets for producers on production night, batteries for microphones, etc.) — Let crew know of intent for broadcast so group would know of common goal. - Post a calender of events in lobby of production studio. Would increase group visibility and allow for personal touches such as postings of birthdays, special events, etc. - Post a bulletin board in studio lobby to allow for posting of messages, program grade sheets, newsletters, and updates. - Use participant management so as to keep organization unified and prevent too much animosity between crew and program producers. - Assure acceptance of authority through use of Barnard’s Theory of Acceptance: 13 - Use communication that is understood among the members of the organization - Ensure that program producer and crew objectives are consistent with the goals of the organization - Ensure that members feel that actions within the organizations are consistent with their own interests — Ensure that co-workers are mentally and L physically capable of doing their job - Program producers would acquire positions as employees of the Department of Telecommunication — would enhance credibility - would reduce reliance upon teaching assistants for supervison of studio time on taping nights - would allow producers to devote the necessary time to FACE TO FACE production and would give them work experience in the televison production business 1.-...- 29 Long term goals were also established. These goals incoporated all of the short term goals and summed them up into two specific long term goals. These goals were: 1. A workable hierarchy that would allow for the production to remain at broadcast level following the departure of the program producers. 2. The production of a program that was considered to be of broadcast quality. Subsequent broadcast on a PBS or local televison station was hoped for. Like the objectives listed on the last two pages, long term goals were written down by the program producers. All of the objectives were referred back to often, for revision as well as for a guide to implementation. Actions Once plans were established and recorded, the program producers set out to implement them. It took program producers roughly four months to plan and put into action the objectives they had established. The time frame for the actual implementation of plans was an additional three months. Thus, total project implementation took roughly seven months. This time frame was necessary as resistance to change may have occurred if the producers had been overzealous and expected things to move too quickly. During this time, production of the program continued under its original format. Frequent crew meetings were held by the program producers to discuss with the crew the v'vw 30 upcoming changes. Although not all plans for changes were revealed to the crew at once (for fear that too much change at one time would actually inhibit the process) over the period of seven months, all plans were implemented with the knowledge of the crew. In order to accomplish many of management’s goals outlined previously, it was felt there was a need to: 1. Strengthen interpersonal trust, communication, cooperation, and support within the organization. 2. Develop a satisfying work experience capable of building enthusiasm. 3. Supplement formal authority with authority built on personal knowledge and skill. 4. Encourage personnel willingness to change through mutual respect and input into decision making. Although it was the program producers who initiated the ideas for change, these ideas were generated from involvement with other crew members and their grievances. Casual conversations, production meetings, and telephone calls had unearthed problems crew members had with FACE TO FACE and its management. The program producers had discussed the change within the program to the crew. Crew members’ ideas and grievances were incorporated into the format and management structural changes. As a result, the plans made were a culmination of input from the crew and simply put into action by two students who took an interest in bettering the organization as a whole. 31 The first step in fostering the change was to put into action the plans laid out above. 1. A hierarchy was implemented which supplied a unity of command. (Refer to Appendix A) - The program producer assumed responsibility and it was to her that the crew could take grievances, etc.. This was made known to the crew through crew meetings. In addition, she was in charge of overseeing program associate producers and production control. — The co—producer assumed responsibility for overseeing the technical aspects of the program, assigning crew and supervising in studio on production nights. The implementation of such a hierarchy made it known to the crew, as well as faculty members, who was in charge. 2. A better environment for working was created. - Program production moved from Studio C to the new Department of Telecommunication Studio E. This occurred while the program was still operating under its original format and plans for change were being established. - Better equipment led to higher morale among the crew. - The program producers/managers were part of the crew, and made it known they did not know everything but would make every attempt to find answers. Thus, participant management created a more friendly atmosphere among the production team. 3. A qualification system was established based upon a position granted method. - Students had to be checked out on a piece of equipment before they would be allowed to operate the equipment during production or to train new students. Qualification cards were issued to students which needed to be signed by the program producers or the Executive producers (or other students authorized to sign them off). 32 - A permanent crew was established. Once qualification cards were signed for a particular piece of equipment, the holder of the card was eligible to operate that particular piece of equipment. Positions were granted to the persons who showed the greatest proficiency. In addition, students assigned permanent crew positions could have an apprentice who they would train. In this way, new students were always being trained. - Additional crew positions were established to put more students to work. VTR, make-up, hospitality, and teleprompter postions were added. - Students could move up the ladder as positions on the crew opened up due to people leaving the program. New students were told they could not expect to become a permanent crew member immediately, as the ones presently working the positions had invested a large amount of time and effort into acquiring the position. They were told to stick around and they would be put to work. Program producers were looking for students with a committment and dedication to the program. Plans to raise program quality were implemented. - The present program host was dismissed. He had asked the producer how he was doing, and was told that it appeared he did not seem willing to devote the time necessary to do the job. He accepted that, agreeing that he did not have the time. - A new host was found through inquiries within the TC Department. The new host possessed all of the ’characteristics spelled out previously in the Planning Section of this work. - The program format and structure were changed to make the program more formula, promoting consistency from one program to the next. The program format was established through collaboration of the tWo program producers and the Faculty Advisor/Executive Producer Albers. - Program producers designed a new logo for the program, allowing for identification of the program at a quick glance. (see Appendix B) “H" T, 33 A new set was built by the producers which was more representative of the new, updated image. In addition to a new set, a crew member established a new lighting plot to accomodate 2, 3, or 4 guests. The new program logo was present on the set. A new opening for the program was taped by the newly appointed remote supervisor, and edited by the program producers with the assistance of the Faculty Advisor/Executive Producer Albers. This opening featured each crew member, thus creating pride in participation. In addition, the opening created consistency from show to show. PSA’s from the American Red Cross, the Girl Scouts of America, and the Statue of Liberty Foundation were acquired by a crew member appointed to find PSA’s that were applicable to the general public. In addition to applicability, the acquisition from civic organizations increased program visibility. VTR rollins were implemented into program structure. This created remote production positions as well as added to content of the program. 19 The live audience was deleted, allowing for program consistency due to the fact that there was no need to worry about whether there was an audience available. Program associate producers who were not prompt in meeting deadlines were relieved of their responsibilities. In one case, an associate producer had failed to meet deadlines three times. This particular associate producer had been offered assistance in production by the program producer but refused. She was dismissed based on the fact that this was a learning ground for young professionals. In the real world, she would have been fired at the first missed deadline. A Producer handbook was written by program producers and distributed to the associate producers. This handbook supplied guidelines for production. (See Appendix B) It also promoted consistency from program to program (programs were taped on the schedule of two shows per week, every other week). 34 - Production meetings were held weekly to encourage the settling of problems prior to taping. In addition, associate producers were required to meet with the program producers, executive producers, director, and floor director the Friday before their taping date to go over the production. - Program topics were no longer of University interest only. Topics were expanded to cover areas such as nuclear power, suicide, African apartheid, and robotics in the auto industry. These topics were of interest to the broader audience being reached on IPTV, United Cable and Continental Cable Public Access Channels. - Workshops were run over a period of one month. Time was taken off of program taping to thoroughly train the crew to the new format, as well as train new students interested in the program. Students were supplied with written job descriptions to acclimate them to the television production setting. Faculty Advisor/Executive Producer Albers was present for the majority of the training sessions to assist with the "professional" look of the program. Telecomunication Department involvement was increased. - Producers became visible around the department. Spoke with faculty members, learned names. Increased exposure for the program. - Short newsletter was posted on bulletin boards throughout department informing of taping progress, topics, etc.. - Host was found from TC Department. In addition, other faculty were tapped for guest host positions, to participate as guests (for example, the Chairman of Department was a guest on program on Sex on Television) and as suppliers of information for research purposes. An atmosphere of team spirit and cooperation was established. - A trip to the BAHAMAS for two was raffled off to generate additional funds for the FACE TO FACE program. Created team spirit as students sold raffle tickets to raise a total of $400 for the program. Money went towards the purchase of 35 videotape, microphone batteries, and producer headsets for communication on taping nights. A checking account and petty cash fund were set up to allow for necessary purchases to be made on spur of the moment. (Previous to this, two weeks notice for purchases was necessary with the program’s funding source, the ASMSU Funding Board.) Although such practices were prohibited under ASMSU rules, the establishment of such funds alleviated problems producers and crew had encountered in buying last minute items necessary for taping. A calendar posted in the production studio lobby allowed for posting of production dates, special events, birthdays, etc.. This increased the group’s exposure among production students. A bulletin board posted in the studio lobby allowed for posting of messages, program critiques (filled out by Albers), newsletters, and updates. Program producers participated with tapings and students. Crew meetings held were open discussions of ideas, suggestions, and problems encountered. Rather than doing all themselves, producers asked for volunteers to help out and take initiative. In these meetings, program producers made sure that they were understood. If people were confused, they were encouraged to speak up for clarifications. Goals of hopes for broadcast were made known to the crew. Also made known was that production was student oriented and was there to suite desires of students. If students desired to work a particular position or do a particular job, they were encouraged to tell program producers. Program producers made a conscious effort to allow students to work their desired position (found out through information surveys distributed to students). In addition, an effort was made not to put a student in a position they could not perform well in. This was done to prevent feelings of inadequacy on the part of the student as well as to contribute to program quality. 36 - The program producers, due to some persuasion, acquired positions as staff in the Telecommunication Department. One became a Teaching Assistant for MSU Telecasters while the other became Bob Albers technical assistant. This reduced reliance upon teaching assistants for supervision on taping night, as well as allowed for students to devote necessary time to FACE TO FACE production. The hiring of the producers contributed to an increase in credibility for the program and the student producers. Following the implementation of plans, management followed up on the progress of students with informal discussions with the students involved. Prior to taping a program, and immediately after, meetings were held on the program set with the entire crew present. At these meetings the program producer informed crew of her impressions of the production and its appearance. Ideas for change were asked for. Suggestions were implemented if they met the approval of program producers and the Executive Producers. Throughout the entire process of program and management renovation, the program producers received input from the Executive Producers and sought out suggestions from faculty members in regard to their management techniques. In sum, the management techniques utilized by the program producers had three distinct steps: 1. NEEDS ESTABLISHMENT 2. PLAN OF ACTION, incorporating NEEDS 3. IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANS through ACTIONS 37 In the next chapter, it will be determined whether the producers were successful in creating a program which met broadcast quality standards. At the same time, their management techniques will be evaluated in light of how well they served the needs and desires of the students involved in the production of FACE TO FACE. 38 CHAPTER II ENDNOTES 1 Douglas Osman, "Acquiring the Repertoire: The Student as the Television Producer", (East Lansing, Michigan, mimeographed), p. 8. 2 Interview with Donald Kemp, audio engineer for WMSB at time of production of GAMUT. Interview date: 7/30/86. 3 Researcher Questionnaire data from Television Production Industry Personnel. Collection date: May, 1986. 4 Douglas Osman interview. Information gained from work done by Holly Hamilton, Department of Telecommunication Graduate Student, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Date: Unknkown. 5 Op. Cit., Industry Personnel data. 5 Ibid. 7 Researcher interviews with MSU Telecaster Students active with FACE TO FACE production. Date: May, 1986. 8 Ibid., Osman Interview. 9 Ibid., Researcher interviews with Students. Researcher Questionnaire data from Student Questionnaires. May 1986. 10 Researcher Questionnaire data from Student Questionnaires. May 1986. 11 Ibid., Researcher interviews with Students. 12 Robert Kreitner, Management, (Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1984). p. 219. 13 Herzberg Dual Factor Theory, from lecture by Linda Kohl, Fall 1984. 14 Ibid. 15 Blake and Mouton, from Kreitner, Management, (Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1984), p.397. 15 Researcher interviews and questionnaire data collected from students involved with FACE TO FACE production. May 1986. 40 17 Robert Kreitner, Management, (Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1984), p. 211. 18 Barnard Theory of Management, from Kreitner, Management, (Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1984), p. 224. 19 Researcher Questionnaire data from Television Production Industry Personnel. Collection date: May 1986. CHAPTER III CASE STUDY: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS METHODOLOGY Prior to delineation of results, it is necessary to examine the method by which data for this analysis was gathered. This case study, taking place over a total period of two years, consisted of multiple sources of data gathering. Participant Observation Since this study occurred over an extended period of time, and the author of this work spent many hours working with program producers and crew, information pertinent to analysis of management structural changes as well as program format changes was gathered easily. Presence at production meetings and tapings, as well as direct communication with involved personnel, allowed for observations that were exponded upon and tested through interview and questionnaire data gathered later in the course of the study. Direct Participation Participation by the person involved in the writing and documentation of this case study with the actual production 41 LU n\~ a ”up X ESE org 5. C AU 0 r . 6.. r H .oi d e lo} 42 process allowed for collection of data from various sources. Student crew members contributed ,greatly to collection of data as direct communication between the producers and crew in the form of crew meetings, casual conversation in hallways, contact in the television studio on taping nights, and telephone calls were tremendous sources of data collection. Actual work with the production itself was also a source of information, as process could be examined carefully without interruption to program pre—production and taping. Contact with the executive producers on an almost daily basis was a method through which data was gathered. Meetings with executives regarding program overhaul, executive presence at workshops and program production meetings, and casual conversations regarding the organization allowed for direct participation on the part of the program producers. Through these methods, managerial decision making that fulfilled the desires of the executive producers, the producers, and crew members was achieved. Survey Research This form of data gathering was utilized extensively to collect data from both students and broadcast industry personnel. The method used to determine whether H1 was proven follows. 43 H1: Tape number two, produced after program format and managerial structure change, is of better quality than program number one. Three industry personnel (8 college professor who teaches televison production and directing at Michigan State University, the program manager for WUCM TV—l9 at Delta Community College in Bay City, Michigan, and a University Informations Officer from Michigan State University specializing in production for the university) were asked to view two program tapes. Tape number one, FACE TO FACE: Animal Research, was produced prior to the change in program and managerial restructuring. Tape number two, FACE TO FACE: Suicide, was produced after. It must be noted that both programs viewed were taped within Studio E of the College of Communication Arts and Sciences, one before the changes in managerial style and program format, and the other after. After viewing each of the programs, a questionnaire was filled out (identical for each program. See Appendix C, QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER ONE). The questionnaire designed on the basis of a semantic differential scale (with 1 corresponding to the negative and 5 corresponding to the positive) examined various program elements ranging from program set, transitions, program open, to public service announcements and audience presentation. In all, 18 groups of program elements were examined (each program element 44 having multiple aspects), analyzing a total of 102 different variables pertaining to program quality. (See Appendix C) The questionnaire results were then compared using t-tests in order to test the hypothesis (H1). In addition, open ended questions were used to determine factors within the two productions which enhanced or impeded the level of broadcast quality (Appendix C, Questions 26~30). It must be noted at this point, that due to a small N of 3, statistical significance was not expected for many of the groups and variables compared. Nevertheless, the values of the means before and after the change in management would be examined with the expectation that if the hypothesis was correct, the means after the change would be larger than those before. Results from the questionnaire will be examined in part one of the results section of this paper. The second form of survey research involved administering a questionnaire to the volunteer students involved with the production process. This was done to determine whether H2 was true. H2: Management techniques utilized by the program producers were effective in creating a working environment which satisfied students’ needs and desires better than the previous management. All students who were active with the program both before and after the format and managerial structure changes (as well as present throughout the 1985-86 school year, including summer term) were questioned. This population is 45 small as graduation, job opportunities, and leaving the university or the organization have contributed to a depletion in the number of available students. The design utilized divided the two year time period into before and after segments. Students were questioned for both time periods at one point in time, roughly one year following complete implementation. Data analysis was extensive for this questionnaire, as a total of 203 variables were tested. (Appendix D, Questionnaire II: FACE TO FACE CREW AND ASSOCIATES) Identical sets of questions were answered in several topic areas, ranging from the students’ personal reasons for becoming involved with the production to their opinions of the two forms of management used while they were participants in the production. The various sections of the questionnaire were then analyzed using t-tests for significance to determine the success of the new management. Two sections of the questionnaire collected data pertaining to student expectations, participation, and satisfaction with the format and structural change of the program. (Appendix D, Questions 4, 73, 118) The above were measured with scales ranging from 1 (being most positive) to 6 (being most negative). In addition, scales ranging from values of 1 (low) to 9 (high) were utilized to determine student perceptions of management concern for people and tasks .1 A t-test was used to determine if there was a significant difference between management’s concern 46 before and after program format and structural change. (Appendix D, Questions 67-72, 112-117) In addition to the above, questionnaire items ranging from 1 (most negative) to 5 (most positive) were used to measure student attitudes toward the organizational climate. (Appendix D, Questions 35-59, 79-103) These measures were at three levels: ideal organizational climate, the climate as it was prior to structural change, and the climate as it was after the management and program format renovation. Results from these three areas were analyzed using paired t-tests. T-tests were also utilized to determine whether students’ perceptions of group involvement and sensitivities (ie: group leadership needs, amount of group loyalty, amount of attention paid to process) changed over the period of this case study. (Appendix D, Questions 60-66, 104-111) A final method of acquiring data for this study was based upon a series of open ended questions within the student questionnaire. These questions sought to determine student expectations of the program, reasons for becoming involved, additional suggestions for management changes, and their general perceptions of the management during their time of involvement. Data collected was then analyzed through frequency of response. It must be noted that not all questions required a response from each participant, therefore this data was based on those students who felt there was a need to reply. 47 Again, the N for this questionnaire was small, equalling 6, subsequently, statistical significance was not expected. However, the means for before and after management changes will be examined, with the expectations that if H2 is correct, the means after the management changes will be higher. Intereview Data Collection In addition to the above stated methods (direct participation, participant observation, and survey), interview data from student participants was utilized in the writing of the management methods section of this report. Use of data gained through conversation with WKAR personnel, Department of Telecommunication faculty and staff, and student members of the FACE TO FACE crew over the course of this case study were utilized as observational research and incorporated into the paper as such. RESULTS This researcher was interested in two major areas of concern: I) determinance of broadcast quality as expressed through R], and 2) determinance of success for utilized management techniques as expressed through H2. H1: Tape number two, produced after program format and managerial structure change, is of better quality than tape number one, produced prior to program format and management change. 48 H2: Management techniques utilized by the program producers were effective in creating a working environment which satisfied students’ needs and desires better than the previous management. The results for H1 will be analyzed in the following section. Section I: Hl Analysis of Questionnaire Results for Industry Specialists Table 1A presents the results of the questionnaire administered to the video industry personnel. Their ideas and opinions concerning the quality of the two program tapes viewed (before and after management changes) are laid out for analysis. It was found that there was no statistical significance between the overall program quality of the two program tapes based upon t—test analysis (3.18 before vs. 3.97 after). One area of the various program elements in the regime of production elements was an exception to the almost blanket rule of insignificance. The electronic transitions in program number two, FACE TO FACE: Suicide, were significantly better than the transitions in program number one, FACE TO FACE: Animal Research, produced prior to the change in program format and managerial structure change. Using a two—tailed t-test, a significance level of .09 pertaining to quality of transitions was found. This ANALYSIS OF PROGRAM ELEMENTS AND DETERMINANCE OF QUALITY (T Test and Means) (N=3) 49 TABLE 1A Mean Before Format and Mean After Format and Variable Group Structure Change Structure Change Significant Music1 3.11 4.00 Transitions 1.58 3.83 Camera Shots 3.08 3.96 .09 Set 2.71 3.62 Host 3.12 3.85 Guests 4.23 4.38 Program Topic 3.48 4.33 Program Open 3.67 4.33 Light 3.27 3.87 PSA's 2.50 3.58 Program Close 2.07 2.80 Program Elements 3.78 3.89 Bumper into PSA -- -- VTR Roll Ins -- 4.61 Live Audience 4.33 -- Audience Presentation 3.25 -- Host with Audience 3.08 -- Rate2 3.71 4.52 Overall Program Average 3.18 3.97 responses ranged from 1=most negative to 5=most positive 2responses originally ranged from 1=low to 9=high but was converted to a 5 point scale 51 was the only statistical significant result applicable to the 18 element groups outlined on table 1A. However, it must be noted that the means for each of the different groups were consistently higher for program number two, SUICIDE, when compared to the mean results for program one, ANIMAL RESEARCH. While mean differences would indicate an increase of quality, the lack of statistical significance for proving that the quality of tape two was higher than tape one may be a direct reflection of the small N utilized for the purposes of this study. A closer examination of program elements was necessary to fully disclose additional statistical results. While program elements were divided into 18 groups, each group consisted of a series of elements outlined via semantic differential scales, with values ranging from 1 being the most negative to 5 being the most positive. Although statistical significance was noted for only one group, TRANSITIONS, table 1B presents those elements within various groups which in themselves were statistically significant. TRANSITIONS contained three semantic differentials which proved to be statistically signigicant: smooth . . . . rough tight . . . . loose well timed . . . . poorly timed 52 TABLE 18 BREAKDOWN OF SPECIFIC GROUP ELEMENTS WITH STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINING QUALITY (N=3) Mean Before Mean After Variable Group Name 1 Format and Format and Element/Range of Response Structure Change Structure Change Significant Music -- -- -— Transitions smooth...rough 2.00 4.33 .020 tight...loose 2.00 3.67 .038 well timed...poor1y timed 2.00 3.67 .038 Camera Shots —— -- _- Set full...empty 2.67 4.33 .024 Host —- -- -- Guests -- -— -- Program Topic valuable...worth1ess 3.33 4.67 .047 well represented... poorly represented 3.00 4.67 .088 well researched... poorly researched 3.67 4.33 .047 Program Open informative...not informative 3.30 4.33 .010 Light -- -- -- PSA's high quality...low quality 1.67 3.67 .075 Program Close —- _- -_ Program Elements -— -- _- Bumper into PSA -- -- -_ VTR Roll Ins -- _- _- Live Audience -- -_ -- Audience Presentation -- -_ _- Host with Audience —- _- -_ Rate -- -- -- 1Range of response 1 = most negative, 5 = most positive 53 The group headed PROGRAM TOPIC had within it three semantic differential scales which proved to be statistically significant: valuable . . . . worthless well represented . . . . poorly represented well researched . . . . poorly researched Although there were three areas under topic which were determined to be statistically significant, it must be remembered that topic appeal may have varied from one participant to another. It must also be noted that program one, ANIMAL RESEARCH, was produced when only on-campus issues were incorporated into the program. Thus, the relevance of statistical significance for the area of program topic may, in actuality, be flawed. PROGRAM OPEN held one differential that was of significance: informative . . . . not informative Note that the direction of these t-tests imply that the production quality of tape number two, FACE TO FACE: Suicide was better than that of tape one, FACE TO FACE: Animal Research. Table 2A presents those elements which industry personnel considered to be the strong and weak points of each of the productions. This information, gained through Open ended questions regarding general perceptions .of overall program quality, did not ask for strong and weak points in particular. (Appendix C, Questions 26-30) The 54 TABLE 2A NOTED STRONG AND WEAK POINTS1 (N=3) Program #1: Animal Research Program 2: Suicide Before Management Changes After Management Changes Poor/Low (% of respondents) (% of respondents) Set 1 (33%) l (33%) Host 1 (33%) 1 (33%) Camera Shots 1 (33%) -- Light 1 (33%) 2 (66%) Topic 2 (66%) -- Quality 1 (33%) _- Graphics 1 (33%) -- Guest 1 (33%) -- Good/High Program #1 Program #2 Set -- -- Host 1 (33%) I (33%) Camera Shots 1 (33%) 3 (100%) Light -- -- Topic 1 (33%) l (33%) Quality -- 2 (66%) Graphics -— -- Guest -- -- lPoints gathered through open-ended questions re: strong and weak points of productions 55 researcher analyzed the answers to the questions and grouped responses under Strong and Weak. Under the "poor" category, program one was criticized by at least 1/3 of the respondents for seven specific elements, while program two was criticized for only three of the same elements. It’s interesting to note that program one fared better under the category of lighting, with only 1/3 of the respondents specifying poor light, while program two was criticized by 2/3 for the same category. Program two received no criticism for topic selection (in fact, 2/3 of the respondents praised the topic) while program one was scrutinized by 2/3 of the respondents for the same category. All of the industry specialists noted that camera shots in SUICIDE were considered to be good and contributed positively to the overall production quality of program number two (considered to be good by 2/3 of the respondents). Table 2B reflects the responses of industry professionals when asked whether they would choose to broadcast the programs if given the opportunity. All of the professionals responded that they would choose to broadcast FACE TO FACE: Suicide, while only 1/3 would broadcast FACE TO FACE: Animal Research. 56 TABLE 2B BROADCAST QUALITY DETERMINANCE1 (N=3) Program #1: Animal Research Program #2: Suicide Mean (% respondents) Mean (% respondents) Choose to Broadcast i = 1.667 (332) i = 1.00 (100%) 1Question: If given opportunity, would you choose to broadcast this program? 2Responses vary with l = yes; 2 = no 57 Section 2: H2 Analysis of Questionnaire Results for Student Participants Table 3 presents the results of part of the questionnaire presented to students who were active within the FACE TO FACE organization both before and after program and management structure changes. There were several areas within their analysis of the organizational climate which showed statistical significance. Their opinions were measured on three different levels: before management changes, after management changes, and their ideal perceptions of what the organization should be like. When comparing before and after organizational climates, a significance level of .042 using a two-tailed t-test was found upon an examination of the statement "People ask each other how they are doing in reaching their goals". This is significant for the difference between before and after management changes. In addition, there is significance in reference to the statement: "Management balances people and production", with a t—test value of .025. "Management encourages members to use their own initiative" is significant with a significance level of .013 using a two-tailed t-test. Two other statements, both significant at the .004 level when comparing before and after perceptions were: This organization willingly accepts the ideas of its members. This organization realizes its life depends on its members. Nqo. oHo. mw.q oo.q om.m GOfiumecmmuo vmucmwwo manoma was» acmEmwmcmz mmo. moo. mo.q mm.m mm.m mumpsme uwams mam: muonsma kucmfiumaxm who: Hmo. Om.q no.m mw.~ wswxms scamfiomv a“ uaacfi panama mxomm acmEmwmcmz om.c mm.q oo.q mumoumusfi mo mwcmu mvwa m>m£ unease: Hso. oNo. no.s so.m oo.m unmasoso>oo panama aw ummumucfi w>Huom mxmom coaumnwcmwuo Hoo. mHo. mm.q oo.e mw.m m>fiumfiuficw mm: cu muonsma wmwmuaouco couumNficmmuo mmo. 0H. mw.H mw.m oo.e sowumuficmwuo :fizuws mqsouw uso cam cg ouficfimmv mum whose mqo. mmo. mm.q Om.m mw.~ coauusvoum cam oaaooa moocmamn unmsmwmcmz «so. om.o mm.o om.m oHoow ssoso wsssooos CH wcfiov mum hmnu so; umnuo some xmm manomm who. oo.q ow.m mm.m muco>m usmuuso :uH3 a: aoox mumnamz one. Hoe. mm.s mw.m mm.m sofisoos mo osoo ooxou sowoosnsowso H w < H w m < a m HmmpH uwuu< mnemom .sun.wfim .cun .wam .cun.wwm smmz com: com: Aouzv chmmz was ammunhv mHAHuHmon n m cu m>Humwmc I H scum mwcmu monsoammmH 4 mH.q ow.m mm.n mumEHHu HmcHOumNHcmwuo new came HHmum>o wmo. woo. mw.q NH.¢ wo.m mHmst>chH mm wmummuu COHumNHcmwuo mnu «0 oneness Nqo. mw.q oc.q om.m 50Humumaooo mam uHuHam Emma mmwmuaoucm unmamwmcmz wmo. moo. om.q mm.m oo.m wcmeE cOHwHumv :H mumaHoHuuma cu mumnEme mmwmuaoocw usmsmwmcmz oHo. coo. mw.¢ om.m mm.m some COHumUHcssaou «0 mmcHH Nqo. «we. om.q no.m mm.m muanmE Ho wchHmuu :H mHou m>Huum mmxmu acmamwmcmz oo.e oo.¢ mm.m mumnEmE uw>o Houucoo :wHumuHuonusm meoumxm u.:mmov unwamwmcmz no.m mw.m mo.m :OHumNHcmwuo vmucmHuo xmmu was» acmsmwmcmz mHo. wmo. mw.H mm.m oo.m mucmaanHanuom oumumwwmxw wsm mumumum>o ou hocmvcmu o>m£ mamasmz mw.c 5H.q mm.m GOHumNHamwuo cH COHuowun was omoausm Ho wmsmm mNo. one. mm.~ oo.m oo.m mwcHEouuuocm m.uo£uo some usonm kHcmmo xmmaa mumpsmz moo. no.e mw.m no.m :oHumapomcH non mumemEEH smnu umnuo mUHQOu Ho vaMOHGH muonsmz omo. woo. no.q oo.c NH.m muwname so mpsmamv wwHH meHHmmu :oHumNHsmwuo 5H0. woo. om.q mw.m oo.m muonswe mo mmmvH muamuum hchHHHHz aOHumNHcmwuo «mo. Hao. NH.N mm.m no.m umna umuums o: mmocm>mHuw m>m£ unease: H w < H a m < a m HmmvH no one o .aun.me .cun.me .sun.me cmmz cwwm swam AowscHucoov m mHan 59 60 The above statements are the only ones for which statistical significance was found in testing the hypothesis that management techniques utilized by the program producers were effective in creating a working environment which satisfied students’ needs and desires better than the previous management techniques. Attention must be paid to the fact that the means for after management changes are consistently higher for all 25 statements analyzing the organizational climate. The lack of statistical significance for the majority of statements measuring perceptions of the organizational climate may be a direct reflection of the small N (6) utilized for this study. It is worthy of noting that, with the exception of two statements (whose before and after means are equal), all means for after the management changes are closer to the ideal perceptions that students have for the organizational climate. A closer examination of Table 3 is necessary in order to determine additional areas of significance. The table is divided into columns measuring significance between before and after management changes, between before management changes and ideal perceptions, and between after management changes and ideal perceptions. There are multiple areas within this table which show statistical significance. For instance, the statement, "Organization encourages members to use initiative" was significant between before and after, with a statistical level of .013. In addition, the measure 61 for "Management balances people and production" indicated (with a statistical significance level of .025) that management was more adept following managerial changes in handling people and production. For additional areas of significance, the reader should refer to table 3. Table 4 is a measure of group involvement and sensitivity. There are several areas which show statistical significance for changes in management technique. Three areas in particular are signigicant (p<.l) using a two-tailed T-test: Goal clarity p < .05 Group leadership needs met p < .10 Loyalty and sense of belonging p < .10 Referring back to Table 4, notice must again be given to the means generated for before and after management changes. Using a scale with 1=most negative and 5=most positive, results show a consistent difference between means, with those for after structure and format changes higher for all areas. Lack of statistical evidence of improvement may be a result of the small N (6) utilized in this study. Table 5 presents data generated for a measure of expectations, participation, and satisfaction with the change in the program structure and format. As recorded, the attitude toward the program FACE TO FACE improved after format and structural changes, represented by a mean of 1.8 (generated from a scale of 6zmost negative to 1=most positive). In addition, participants felt they were given a more fair chance to 62 TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF GROUP INVOLVEMENT AND SENSITIVITY (T-test and Means) (N=6) Mean Before Mean After Format and Format and Variable Group Structure Change Structure Change Significant Goal clarity1 3.00 4.50 .017 Trust and openness in the group 3.00 3.50 Sensitivity and perception- ness in the group 3.33 3.50 Attention paid to process 4.00 4.50 Group leadership needs met 3.17 3.67 .076 Group decisions made 2.50 2.83 Individual talents utilized 3.00 3.67 Loyalty and sense of belonging 3.33 4.00 .100 l . Responses ranged from 1 = most negative to 5 = most positive 63 TABLE 5 BEFORE AND AFTER COMPARISON FOR MET EXPECTATIONS AND GOALS1 (T-test and Means) (N=6) Mean Before Mean After Format and Format and Structure Change Structure Change Significant Attitude felt toward program FACE TO FACE 2 2.5 1.8 Expectations of program met 1.3 1.4 Change in expectations -- 1.2 Fair chance to participate 1.5 1.0 Management takes part in you reaching goals 1.3 1.2 Satisfied with changes -- 1.0 lResponses range from 1 = Yes to 2 = No 2Responses range from 1 = most positive to 6 = most negative (for this particular item only) 64 participate in program production after the change in management (mean before = 1.5, mean after = 1.0. (l = yes to 2 = no). Utilizing the same scale as above, the mean for whether "expectations of the program met" reflects that students perceived that their expectations of the program were better met prior to management and structural changes (mean before = 1.3 while mean after = 1.4). While the difference was very small, the reasons for this will be further examined in succeeding analysis. There was a mean difference in student satisfaction with "management takes part in you reaching goals". After format and structural changes, a mean of 1.2 was present, slightly better than the mean of 1.3 prior to change. While mean differentials display a change and slight improvement between before and after responses, the small N of 6 utilized for this study may be a strong contributing factor for the lack of statistical significance for data displayed in Table 5. Table 6 is a frequency analysis of expectations and suggestions for improvement. Data generated for this table was collected via open ended questions asking for student opinions. The questions asked are present on the left hand side of the table, with the frequency of each response noted on the right hand side. The percentage of cases for which each answer is applicable is present immediately to the right of the frequency of response. 65 TABLE 6 FREQUENCY ANALYSIS OF EXPECTATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT (N=6) Number of Percent of Responses Responses Why did you join MSU Telecasters? -for experience 6 100 -for resume purposes 4 66.7 -for friendships 1 16.7 -for job opportunities 4 66.6 -for fun 3 50.0 "1‘5 Why did you choose to become involved with FACE TO FACE? ~desirable format 1 16.7 -friends were involved 2 33.3 -recruitment practices 1 16.7 -meeting fit schedule 1 16.7 -more professional atmosphere 1 16.7 "6 Prior to Managment Changes What did you expect to gain from your involvement with FACE TO FACE? -production experience 6 100 -career guidance 1 16.7 -technical knowledge 2 33.3 —experience directing a broadcast quality program 1 16.7 -good time 1 16.7 -improve program quality 1 16.7 2 If your expectations were not met, what did you expect to gain from your involvement that you did not get? a -I was ignored 1 100 If you feel you were not given a fair change to participate in FACE TO FACE production procedures, what would you have liked the management to have done to make you feel more a part of the production? -Give a fair change to everyone 3 100 -Have more workshops 1 33.3 66 Table 6 (continued) Number of Percent of Responses Responses What in particular would you have liked management to do to encourage you to grow and reach your goals? -learn my name 1 33.3 -take personal interest in me 1 33.3 -encourage me 1 33.3 __L§C What in particular did management do to encourage you to reach your goals and to help you grow? -1et me work on my own 1 20.0 -wouldn't let me rely on them to do my work 1 20.0 -showed a personal interest in me 3 60.0 '_§d After Structure and Management Changes How did your expectations change with the introduction of a new format? -opportunity to do more work 2 40.0 -expected higher quality program 3 60.0 -expected show to be broadcast 1 20.0 -thought change may lead to change in process 1 20.0 ‘76 What would you have liked the management to have done to better assist you in reaching your goals and having your expectations fulfilled? -allow more crew movement 2 100.0 -not make promises that can't be kept 1 50.0 -take a personal interest in me 1 50.0 -give more help 1 50.0 __3b What in particular did management do to encourage you to reach your goals and help you grow? -I was given opportunity 4 66.7 -encouraged me 4 66.7 -boosted my morale 2 33.3 -trained me 2 33.3 -were interested in my progress 1 16.7 -allowed me to work post production 1 16.7 -provided strong group spirit 1 16.7 -gave me freedom to be creative 1 16.7 H 0‘ 67 Table 6 (continued) Number of Percent of Responses Responses Regardless of your satisfaction with the changes made, what additional changes would you like to have seen? ~more TC Department involvement 1 20.0 -more advertising for program 1 20.0 -more group input regarding decisions 1 20.0 —management not to be cliquey I 20.0 -shorten canned opening 1 20.0 -better transition to more experienced management 1 20.0 -more concern for the individual 1 20.0 d 68 As noted, all respondents (6) specified production experience as a reason for joining MSU Telecasters. In addition, 4 students specified job opportunities and resume entry as reasons for joining. Responses to the question pertaining to "Why did you become involved with FACE TO FACE" varied from friends being involved with the production to the program having a more professional atmosphere. When asked what they expected to gain from their involvement with FACE TO FACE, all of the participants specified "production experience", while 1/3 of the respondents hoped to gain knowledge of the technical aspects associated with television production. Referring back to Table 5, and the statement of whether expectations were met, one respondent responded negatively, stating that when first becoming involved with the program (before management changes) no one made an effort to get to know him/her and he/she was essentially ignored. After management changes, 2 respondents replied that their expectations could have been better met had the management allowed more crew movement (100% of those responding). Following format and management/structural changes, student participants said their expectations had changed. Three students responding (60% of all answering that question) felt that they expected a higher quality program as a result. Two (40%) felt there would be an opportunity for them to do more work for the production. 69 When asked whether given a fair chance to participate prior to management changes, a frequently occurring response was that the same people were allowed to do everything. The N for this response equalled 3, with all three respondents specifying that they felt the same people were allowed to participate all the time. Following the management changes, all participants felt they were given a fair chance to participate. Respondents were asked what in particular management did to encourage them in reaching their goals (prior to format and structure/managerial changes). 60% of them felt that a personal interest was taken in them, while 20% said management wouldn’t do their work for them, thus encouraging the students to take initiative and work on their own. When asked what management did to encourage them in reaching their goals (following format and structural changes), 2/3 of the respondents replied that they were given opportunity to participate and were encouraged by the management. 1/3 of the cases specified that their morales were boosted by the management and that management took a personal interest in their progress. When asked whether they were satisfied with the changes made regarding program format and structure, 100% of the respondents (N=6) replied that they were (Table 5). The last entry on Table 6 specifies changes that the individual members would have liked to have seen, regardless of their satisfaction with the program and management. The responses 70 included: more Telecommunication Department involvement, more advertising for the program, more member input in decision making, and a better transition to a more experienced management following the promotion of the program producers to the executive producer position. Table 7 is a summary of the above information, being a comparison between the management’s concern for task (the production) and their concern for people (members of the organization). Responses ranged form 1=low to 9=high. Prior to change in management, the student member population reported a mean score of 6.67 for management concern for a high quality production and a mean of 6.17 for members of the organization Following the changes in management structure, a mean of 8.17 for management concern for production was reached and an overall mean of 7.5 was achieved for management’s concern for members of the organization. However, there was no statistical significance generated out of these measures. Summary of Questionnaire Results Mean differences throughout this study (for both program quality and managerial/structure changes) were consistently higher and in support of both hypotheses proposed for this study. Although there was little statistical significance generated from the questionnaires administered to the industry personnel and members of the FACE TO FACE 71 TABLE 7 ANALYSIS OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN FOR PEOPLE/TASKS (T-test and Means) (N=6) Mean Before Mean After Format and Format and Signif- Structure Change Structure Change icant Management's concern for high quality production 6.67 8.17 Management's concern for organization's members 6.00 7.33 Management’s concern for you as an individual 6.33 7.55 Management’s overall concern for people 6.17 7.43 Management's overall concern for task 6.70 8.20 1Responses vary from 1 - low to 9 - high Scale from Blake and Mouton (see Endnote) 72 production crew, there were several areas for which significance was generated. These areas were consistently in favor of the changes made in the management structure. Based upon the analysis of means for both H1 and H2, we can not really reject the hypotheses. In support of H1, stating that tape number two, produced after program and managerial/structural change, is of better quality than tape number one, a mean difference of .79 (3.18 for program one versus 3.97 for program two) was found. The consistent positive difference in means favoring the after change situation leads to support of H2 (Management techniques utilized by the program producers were effective in creating a working environment which satisfied students’ needs and desires better than the previous management). Based upon analysis of management’s overall concern for people, there is a mean difference of 1.2 between before and after (6.2 before, 7.4 after). Concerning management’s overall concern for product, a mean of 6.7 before and a mean of 8.2 after reflects a total mean difference of 1.5. The above results seem to indicate that students perceived a better working environment after changes in management technique. At the same time, program production increased to a level to be considered of broadcast quality. 73 CHAPTER III ENDNOTES 1 Blake and Mouton, from Kreitner, Management, (Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1984), p.397. CHAPTER IV THE FINAL WORD Conclusion Effective managment and its implementation can be rewarded with an increase in quality product output, as illustrated through this thesis. The program producers for FACE TO FACE effectively planned for changes in management style, then systematically implemented the changes to bring about the production of a television program which is now shown regularly on WKAR television in East Lansing, Michigan. It was a long road, but a pot of gold awaited the students involved with the production. Each student involved felt proud when FACE TO FACE was first aired on WKAR, as that was what they had all worked so hard for. Each one could say, "I did it." That road was not without (bumps and potholes. It took two years from the time the program producers first walked into Studio C until the program they had formatted and produced was actually shown on "real" television. Not every goal the student producers set was met, but nearly all were. The only one which was not achieved was the writing of equipment manuals for the FACE TO FACE production. That may be something that will be achieved in time by other students. 74 75 The success of the managment and production can be attributed to two different sectors, both equally responsible. First, without the assistance and go ahead of Mr. Robert Albers, MSU Telecaster Executive Producer and Faculty Advisor, the dreams of the student producers and crew could never have come true. It was his undying support of the students he worked with that led to the production of FACE TO FACE finally making it to "real" TV. Secondly, without the dedication and devotion of the students who comprised the crew of FACE TO FACE, the goal of broadcast would never have been met. This entire effort was made possible through teamwork. Management may have organized, but the people carried it out. Without them, there would have been nothing. SOME DRAWBACKS Stationary Crew System Although it would be easy to blow a horn in celebration, there were some plans that didn’t turn out exactly as the producers had planned. In interviewing students involved with the production, the stationary crew versus a rotational crew was discussed. Although it was generally agreed upon that the stationary crew contributed to an increase in program quality, students felt that they didn’t have enough of a chance to learn additional pieces of 76 equipment that would have "rounded out" their production experience. This "rounding out" was attempted by the student producers. The same students who criticized the stationary crew system were those same students who, when moved off of "their camera" or "their chyron" (character generator), voiced dissatisfaction to the program producers about being moved. Although students may not have received experience on every piece of equipment, moving them from "their positions" resulted in them feeling displaced and dejected. Thus, program producers kept student volunteers in "their place" to keep morale high, as the students had become possessive about their crew positions. But what about those students who did desire to be moved? Were their experiences hurt by a stationary crew system? One must ask him or herself which is a priority when producing for student television, a .high quality production which may not completely satisfy all crew members, or a production of lesser quality which gives everyone the opportunity to work all pieces of equipment? This researcher does not have the answer to that question. It is supposed that the needs of the student should be considered before the needs of the production, especially in a student production environment. That in itself raises an interesting point. Do student needs and desires take precedence over quality when it is that same production ground which is to supply professional 77 broadcast experience to students who will enter the "real world" needing "real world" experience? Once again, that question is not answerable by this researcher, but it can be said that of all students interviewed and questioned, not one was dissatisfied with the changes made, and each felt they had been given a fair chance to participate. That is not to say they did not have suggestions for change. (See Table 6) Inclusion of New Students Another area pertaining to the permanent crew system which is questionable is its ability to incorporate new members into the crew. The producers of FACE TO FACE had set a precedence by telling new students that they could not expect to just come in and be given a permanent crew system. This did have its drawbacks, as not all new students were satisfied. It must be noted that in time, those students who were persistant and sincerely interested in the production were incorporated into the crew. Students who were prepared to make a committment to the program were sought by the program producers. For those students interested in immediate positions and willing to commit themselves, the program producers did supply guest hospitality, make-up, light, and set crew positions. Unfortunately for those students who did not seem patient enough to "work their way up", or were unwilling to devote time and effort to the production, there were not 78 immediate positions on the crew available. These students were encouraged by the program producers to seek work on one of the other three shows produced by Telecasters. These other programs were not as well established as FACE TO FACE. As a result, students could gain introductory production experience without the possibility of harming the quality of the FACE TO FACE program. The Producer Handbook Associate producers within the new FACE TO FACE program were questioned about their perceptions of the Producer Handbook. The general concensus was that it was a good idea and supplied them with answers and guidelines, but that the handbook was too long. If the program producers were to rewrite the handbook, only that information pertinent to the production of program segments should be included. Job descriptions and some of the miscellaneous information inserted should be left out to make the handbook more effective and readable. Managerial Systematic Review Under typical managerial implementation using management by objectives techniques, a period of systematic review and performance appraisal is utilized. A fault in the management featured in this thesis is the lack of this systematic appraisal. Over one year passed from the implementation of the managerial changes until it was appraised. Ideally, the organizational climate should have 79 been investigated a few months after the initial implementation. This would have unearthed student dissatisfaction with a permanent crew, as well as other areas where students may have wanted change. This fault made it particularly difficult to collect data for this case study. It was difficult for students to recall exact instances of dissatisfaction or satisfaction. In addition, the late collection of data came after the student program producers were no longer in charge of the program. Questionnaires originally presented to student volunteers were worded in terms of their impressions of the ”FACE TO FACE program as it is now." The students had a tendency to answer the questions referring to the management of the program as it stands today, minus the management of the program producers presented in this study. This researcher was forced to redistribute the questionnaire a second time, with the wording changed to incorporate the program as it was when the student program producers featured were in charge. This may have confounded results to some extent, as a result of the fact that the students had been previously exposed to the questioning. In addition, the Hawthorne Effect1 may have contributed to the positive results of this study. A change in management’s attention toward the crew (however small) may have been perceived as a gigantic step toward their satisfaction. 80 Contingency Planning In a traditional managerial change situation, the inclusion of contingency plans is necessary. If some plan or action does not go as expected, good managers must have an alternate plan or action to combat the unexpected. In other words, good management requires that you expect the unexpected and prepare accordingly. Within the managerial changes featured in this study were no contingency plans. This was due to the peculiarity of the situation present. The student program producers for the program FACE TO FACE were given a ticket to change the entire organization as they chose. As a result, there were no real road blocks for them to go around or through. There was no need to plan contingently due to the nature of this particular organization. Within other organizations, contingency planning is very necessary and should not be overlooked by the managers. The Trouble With "N’s" As stated previously, due to the small number of cases utilized for this study, statistical significance was not expected to support the two hypotheses presented. Although we can support them based upon their means, a larger N would have made this study more valid, particularly in light of the industry professionals. 81 This researcher made numerous attempts to find more than 3 participants for this study. A number of industry personnel, ranging from general managers for commercial stations in the top 100 markets to program producers at small independent stations, were approached and asked to participate. All but the three study participants featured declined. For this, or any other study of this sort, an ideal number of five panel participants is recommended. THE GOOD SIDE The Hierarchy The establishment of a hierarchy within the production of FACE TO FACE has been rewarded since program renovation. The student program producers found, in applying for a raffle license for the program fundraiser, that a hierarchy, by-laws, and constitution are generally needed for an organization to be recognized by the State as a legitimate non-profit organization. This find provoked the Executive Board of MSU Telecasters (made up of all of the various program producers) to enact a constitution and set of by-laws to govern the organization. Besides giving the organization, as a whole, a framework, these by-laws and constitution have since allowed MSU Telecasters to apply for corporate grants to compliment their monetary allotment from the ASMSU Programming Board. 82 Transition to New Management The hierachy established by the FACE TO FACE program producers made the transition to a new managment easier for the programs’ crew and the new program producers when the student producers presented in this thesis were promoted to the Executive Producer position. The new managers had multiple meetings and training sessions with the old program producers. In these meetings, modes of working with the crew were discussed, and all paperwork and observations were passed on to the new program producers. These meetings were held in an attempt to prepare the new producers to carry on the production at the broadcast level which had been achieved, while still maintaining FACE TO FACE as a student learning ground. Methods of management were discussed and hypothetical situations were set up to acclimate the new program producers to possible situations which were likely to occur. The production has carried on. Methods of management utilized by the current program producers vary somewhat from those utilized by the producers featured in this writing. An evaluation of the organizational climate under current management would be interesting. Summary and Suggestions In sum, although this study has faults, it does supply the reader with knowledge of a system of management which 83 was effective in creating a better working environment for students, while at the same time, raising program quality to a level to be considered broadcast quality. At this point in time, the reader of this study may be interested in reading Appendix E. Within this appendix is an evaluation of the management utilized by the program producers featured in this writing. Written by the founder and original producer for FACE TO FACE, this evaluation supports the techniques utilized by the program producers featured and addresses their applicability to the organization as a learning ground. This thesis also brings to light a very important fact which has traditionally been overlooked within the Telecommunication Department at Michigan State University. That is the blending of production and management. A television program does not simply pop into existence. One can not place students and equipment in a room, shake it up, and pour out a television show. It is simply not that easy. Without effective organization and management, no product which is considered to be of any level of quality will be produced. A suggestion from this researacher is to, in the future, combine management techniques and production within the Department of Telecommunication at Michigan State University. This combination will boost production quality. Formal instruction in production managment will promote Michigan State University’s Department of Telecommunication. 84 In addition, it will round out the production curriculum, giving production students skills which are essential in working within the professional broadcast world. After all, without good managment, what have you got but an inferior product? A reiteration of the production management techniques utilized within this study is necessary at this point. It is necessary first to ESTABLISH NEEDS for change. Secondly, a PLAN OF ACTION incorporating needs must be founded. Third, plans must be IMPLEMENTED THROUGH ACTIONS. The fourth step, present, although a bit late in this study, is PERIODIC REVIEW and PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL. This fourth step is essential as it is the means through which all ends can be measured. In addition, plan for the unexpected, a good manager never knows what may happen. This researcher closes with some words of wisdom from Alan Wurtzel: Television’s answer to the Renaissance man is the television producer. That is because a producer has to know a little about a lot. Since the producer is responsible for evey element in a show, he or she must be sufficiently knowledgeable in all areas of production.2 P.S. That includes management. 85 CHAPTER IV ENDNOTES 1 Alan Wurtzel, Television Production, (New York, McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1978), p. 49. 2 Ibid., p. 479. 86 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbot, Waldo and Richard L. Rider, Handbook for Broadcasting, New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1957. Bretz, Rudy, Handbook for Producing Educational and Public Access Prograns for Cable Television, New Jersey: Educational Technology Productions, 1982. Cantor, Muriel G., Prige-Time Television Content and Control, London: Sage Productions, 1980. Cross, Joanna Woolfolk, Mediaspeak: How Television Makes Up Your Mind, Toronto, Canada: General Publishing Co. Limited, 1983. Drucker, Peter F., The Practice of Management, New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1954. Gibson, Jane W. and Richard M. Hodgetts, Readings and Exercises In Organizational Behavior, Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, Inc,. 1985. Giebold, William C., Management by Objectives: Leader’s Manual to the MBO Series, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1978. Manageflent by Objectives: Volume I, Strategic Planning gpd the MBO Process, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1978. Management by Objectives: Volume II, Objective Setting and the MBO Process, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1978. Manageggnt by Objectives: Volume III, Performance Appraisal and the MBO Process, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1978. Hall, Douglas and Donald T. Bowen, Roy J. Lewicki, and Francine S. Hall, Experiences in Management and Qgganigational Behavior, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1975. 87 Hall, Douglas and Donald T. Bowen, Roy J. Lewicki, and Frencine 81 Hall, Experiencgg, in Management and Organiational Behavior 2/e, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1982. Hodapp, William, The Television Manual: A Practical Guide to TV Production and Programming for Education, Public Affairs and Entertainment, New York: Farrar, Straus and Young Publishers, 1953. Hull, C. Hadlai and Norman H. Nie, SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975. Hull, C. Hadlai and Norman H. Nie, SPSS Update 7-9: New Procedures and Facilities for Releases 7—9, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981. Humble, John W., Managegent by Objective in Action, London: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, 1970. Kingson, Walter K. and Rome Cowgill and Ralph Levy, Broadcasting Television and Radio, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955. Kotter, John P., The General Managers, New York: The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1982. Kreitner, Robert, Management, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983. Levin, Richard 1., Statistics for Management, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984. Millerson, Gerald, Basic TV Staging, Exeter: A. Wheaton & Company, Ltd., 1982. Millerson, Gerald, Effective TV Production, New York: Hastings House, 1976. Mintzberg, Henry, The Nature of Managerial Work, New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1973. Mitchell, Wanda and James D. Kirkham, Televising Your Message: Producing Effective Telegigion Communication, Skokie, Illinois: National Textbook Company, 1981. O’Meara, Carroll, Television Program Prodgction, New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1955. Osman, Douglas, "Acquiring the Repertoire: The Student as the Television Producer," East Lansing, Michigan, 1985 (mimeographed). 88 Schatzman, Leonard and Anselm L. Strauss, Field Research, Strategies for a Natural Sociology, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980. Shanks, Bob, The Cool Fire, New York: Random House, Inc., 1976. Redding, Charles W., The Corporate Manager’s Guide to Better Cogpunication, Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1984. Srivastva, Suresh and Associates, The Execgtive Mind, London: Jossey—Bass Inc., Publishers, 1982. Wade, Robert J., Designing for TV, New York: Pellegini & Cudahy, 1952. Willis, Edgar E., Writing Television and Radio Progragg, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967. Wurtzel, Alan, Television Production, New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1979. Woolf, Henry Bosley, The Merriam-Webster Dictionany, U.S.A: Pocket Books, 1978. APPENDIX A HIERARCHY 89 H MMDUHh 30.6.5: moon 9. moon. _ Ta... H be; .9950 a E umoI abused 233 80395 poouam 30.; 5309.5 £3004 cmEm .o ImODOOEnTOO oa< .m £5.96 mmooooma APPENDIX B LOGO AND PRODUCER HANDBOOK 90 FIGURE 2 FA CE TO FA CE FACE TO FACE LOGO: Designed by program producers featured in this writing to promote program recogni- tion. 91 FACE TO FACE What is "FACE TO FACE"? "FACE TO FACE" is a news and public affairs television program that is currently produced by Michigan State Telecasters. This program, produced by Cynthia App and Bryan Lerin, strives to inform the public of issues that are of interest to the greater Lansing community as well as to the general public. "FACE TO FACE" addresses controversial issues such as abortion, South African apartheid, alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide, and pornog- raphy. The subjects that are covered within the realm of "FACE TO FACE" are endless and ever changing. The producers of the program work to provide opinions on all sides of the topics that are discussed. "FACE TO FACE" is produced out of the Department of Telecommunica- tion's brand new Studio "E" on the Michigan State campus. The program's host, Mr. Roger Srigley, greets guests on the set of “FACE TO FACE" for a half hour discussion on the topic of interest. Guests for the program are from the Lansing area, and in the future will be chosen from around the State of Michigan. The producers and crew of "FACE TO FACE" take great pride in producing a professional student production. The "FACE TO FACE" program format is a boost for education and a strong contributor to a better informed citizenry. 92 I985 FACE TO FACE MSU TELECASTERS MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY VITAL PRODUCTION INFORMATION FORMAT --------------------- PUBLIC AFFAIRS AIRED --------------------- Wednesday, 8:00 p.m., WELM, Channels ll and 26 Lansing/East Lansing Cable Systems TAPING --------------------- Wednesday, 7:30 p.m. (Part 1) Wednesday, 8:30 p.m. (Part II) LENGTH --------------------- Twenty-nine (29) minutes LOCATION ------------------- Studio "E", Communication Arts & Sciences Building Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1212 GUEST ARRIVAL TIME --------- Thirty (30) minutes before taping 7:00 p.m. GUESTS (per program) ....... PEOPLE YOU SHOULD KNOW ----- for 7:30 p.m. program. 8:00 p.m. for 8:30 p.m. program. Three (3) average. Not more than four (4) per program. Mr. Robert Albers, Executive Producer Mr. Douglas Osman, Executive Producer Cynthia E. APP. Producer J. Bryan Lerin, Co-Producer Jane Myal, Director Roger Srigley, Program Host Larry Ames, Remote Supervisor Peter Frahm, Editor 93 FACE TO FACE Supervision Structure Executive Producer ............................ Executive Producer ............................ Producer ...................................... Co-Producer ----------------------------------- Director ...................................... Program Host ---------------------------------- Remote Supervisor ............................. Editing Supervisor ---------------------------- Robert Albers 420 Communication Arts Michigan State University Phone: 355-6559 Douglas Osman 423 Communication Arts Michigan State University Phone: 353-9150 Cynthia E. App W 250 Owen, MSU Phone: 353-3939 (home) 353-7352 (office) J. Bryan Lerin l618 L. Spartan Village Michigan State University Phone: 355-9823 home) 353-7352 office) Jane Myal 303 Center Street East Lansing, Michigan Phone: 351-6174 Roger Srigley 426 Communication Arts Michigan State University Phone: 353-96l3 Larry Ames 614 W. Henry Street Charlotte, Michigan 48813 Phone: (1) 543-2024 Peter Frahm 264 Case-South, MSU Phone: 355-6863 94 "FACE TO FACE" PRODUCTION STAFF DUTIES Program Advisor (Albers) oversees the actual production and program content of FTF. He works directly with the producer and co-producer in determining overall program policy. 1. Executive Producers: In charge of one or several program series and has overall responsibility of complete series. Takes care of budget, marketing, and coordinating of all MSU Telecasters Productions. Producer: In charge of'Face to Facé'series. All production staff report to her. She functions as administrative head of the program. The Producer will keep the Master Schedule, assign program topics, and reserve studio time. Co-Producer: Responsible for all technical aspects of series. Pro- duction crews (students) report to him. He assigns crew positions and oversees all studio operations. Setting up, striking and set maintenance also fall under the Asst. Producer's jurisdiction. This position will occasionally shoot and edit tape segments for inclu- sion in "Face to Face." The Producer must approve all assignments, but the associate producer (program) should make the appr0priate arrangements and also make an attempt to be present for the on- location taping. Director: In charge of directing talent and technical facilities. She is responsible for transforming a script into video and audio images, and for creating the mediums part of the process message. All in all, once we are ready to roll, what the director says - goes. Editing Supervisor: Responsible for editing of all roll-in segments for programs. He is also responsible for editing all taped programs, if editing is needed. Program producers (associate producers) who wish to have roll-ins edited should contact the "Face to Face" editor AT LEAST two (2) weeks prior to taking date. The Associate Producer should attempt to be present for all his/her program's editing sessions. The Editing Supervisor reports to the Producer. Remote Supervisor: Responsible for shooting all remote roll-ins, openings, and out of studio segments. He is to report all activity to the Assistant Producer. It is the responsbilities of each indi- vidual program producer (associate producer) to arrange taping times and dates with the Remote Supervisor. The individual Associate Producer should report all remote taping activities to the Producer. The Remote Supervisor is responsible for the safe operation of all remote equipment. He should be contacted two weeks prior to taping date. "FTF" Associate Producers: A team of "FTF" Associate Producers or a single Associate Producer will be charged with a single day on which to produce a program. It is their responsbility to obtain interesting, 95 provocative guests and topics (with approval of/or assignment by the Producer). This is a creative as well as an organizational effort. All questions should be referred to the Producer. Audio Visual Assistant: She is responsible for obtaining remote footage from "on-air" programs that individual producers with to use as part of their programs' content. Associate Producers should obtain a video tape from the Producer and contact the Audio Visual Assistant at least two (2) weeks prior to taping date. 1p) 1. -——- Te 1’ j -——0 W The 96 Job Descriptions: CREW Technical Director: The T0 executes what the director calls for. He/she sits before a complex board called the switcher, and regulates the shots and effects that the director calls for. This position physi- cally controls the "look" of the show. In addition, the T0 is responsible for the set up of the telecine with the appropriate slides or films. Assistant Director: In the control room, this person sits next to the The The The The The The Technical Director. The principal task of the AD is to keep the director notified of what is coming up. That is, according to the show format, for example a remote tape or a public service announce- ment. The AD will also keep track of segment times and cumulative times. He will tell the director how much time to PSA or how much time coming out of PSA. Audio Director: This person's control room position is to the left of the director at the audio control board. It is the task of the audio director to maintain correct on-air master audio levels. The AD is directly responsible for the set up and checking of the studio microphone system, including placing microphone on the guests and host. VTR Controller: This position may sound trivial, however this is not the case. The activities of this person dictates the on-air condition of our television program. This position requires con- stant attention to detail concerning audio and video inputs. The VTR controller is responsible for operating the program, plays the public service announcements, and plays the remote tapes used in each segment. ‘ Lighting Director: He/she is responsible for making and installing the basic lighting plan of design. During the show the LD sits in control by the main lighting board and controls light changes. The L0 may be re-assigned during production if lighting changes are not required. Floor Director: The F0 ensures everything on the set runs as it is supposed to. He/she is responsible for cues to the talent; for example, when to start and when to stop, when to introduce the PSAs, etc. Chyron Operator: The Chyron Operator is directly responsbile for obtaining title and credit information from the Producer, loading that information into the Chyron memory on the afternoon prior to taping, and then correctly displaying proper "key" information during the program taping. Camera Operators: These are the people that actually operate the cameras. The camera operators are responsible for the correct shots as ordered by the Director. 97 ARRIVE Chyron UP Light and set crew Audio Director & Assoc. Director Associate Producer Crew Call/Remainder of crew arrives All crew Guest Escorts/Host All crew Guests/Escort/Host A11 crew Guest Escort 2nd Program Guest Escorts/Host Crew Lighting Director All crew "FACE TO FACE" PROGRAM TIMELINE - EVENING OF TAPING ACTIVITY Inform loader Assemble Set, Hang Lighting In-w grid sheet Obtain Mics, hook and lay cables, obtain needed audio tapes/cassettes, test mics and cables, ensure ready to extend cables and mic guests. Set up Studio and Control room monitors - test video/audio. Establish and post shot sheets Speak w/assoc. producer to finish last minute details. All crew meeting on set. Director/ Profucer give quick rundown. On station, Director runs through camera shots, and runs through directions to T0, VTR, and audio. Rehearsal of program. Meet guests and escort. 0n station for program taping, all last minute details taken care of. Seat guests, do audio checks. NOTE: No other movement is allowed during this time (7:25-7:30) without per- mission of Producer. Tape program (time inflexible). Close program. Escorts guests out of station. Meet guests and escort. Break (at discretion of Director) Alter lighting (by switch source only!) On station for next program TIME 8:30 8:59 9:00 9:10 9:25 U'D 98 ARRIVE Guests/Escort/Host All crew 'All crew Guest Escort/Guests/Host Production Crew AC_T_I_LU_Y Seat guests, do audio checks. NOTE: No other movement is allowed during this time (8:25-8:30) with- out permission of Producer. Tape program (time inflexible). Close program. Escort guests out of Studio. Strike set/clean studio, VTR op secure tapes, turn over to Producer (label tapes). CCU/Control secured by Asst. Producer and TV on duty. ._... _~_v- . .. VIDEO ROLL TAPE BARS (1:00) LOSE BARS BLACK (:15) SLATE ROLL VTR ONE: OPEN FADE UP VTR ONE CROSS FACE FROM OPENING TO FULL SET W/LIGHTS DOWN - LIGHTS UP CU HOST CAM. 1 CU OF EACH GUEST (AT INTRO) CU HOST AT INTRO TO R-IN FADE VTR l FADE CU HOST CAM 1 99 FACE TO FACE Program Rundown Sheet 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) (Revised) AUDIO TONE (SET LEVELS) LOSE TONE VTR AUDIO UP FTF THEME CONTINUE (VTR) MIC AND CUE HOST (HOST INTRO OF TOPIC AND GUESTS) MIC GUESTS HOST INTRO TO ROLL-IN FADE TAPE (BRING UP IN STUDIO) MIC AND CUE (KILL VTR) VIDEO ALTERNATE SHOTS (FOLLOW CONVERSATION CU HOST CAM 1 DISSOLVE T0 BUMPER (CAM ) ROLL VTR l FADE TO VTR l FADE UP ON CU HOST CAM l VARIETY OF SHOTS CU HOST - INTRO ROLL-IN #2 FADE TO VTR l (BRING UP IN STUDIO) FADE UP CU HOST CAM l VARIETY OF SHOTS TIL CLOSE CU HOST CAM l (CLOSE) TAKE CAM 2 FS SET LIGHTS DOWN DISSOLVE VTR 1 ROLL CREDITS (PAUSE-MSU Telecasters) FADE TO BLACK 100 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) 30) 31) 32) 33) 34) 35) 36) 37) 38) 39) 40) 41) 42) 43) 44) 45) 46) 47) AUDIO MIC GUESTS SNEAK THEME MUSIC UNDER HOST INTRO PSA MUSIC FULL LOSE MICS VTR AUDIO MIC AND CUE HOST AND GUESTS FADE TO TAPE MIC AND CUE HOST AND GUESTS SNEAK THEME MUSIC UNDER MUSIC FULL, LOSE MICS 101 PROGRAM FORMAT - RUNDOWN .b 12. 13. 14. \OCDVO‘U'I . Openingcfi Show, consists of Generic taped opeing. (Standard tape) . Intro Host; Host introduces program format and subject. . Host introduces guests and gives some biographical background to each person Host intro to lst roll-in #l roll-in Guest's views and comments guided by host Host intro PSA PSA . Return to Host and guests conversation, host guides talk to roll-in #2 . Host intro roll-in #2 ll. #2 roll-in Return to Host and guest conversation continues toward Wrap up - Host Credits rolled on Remote #3 or one of the earlier remote Segment Time Running Time :00 :45 :00 :OO :00 :30 :30 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 1 2: 15: 15: 19: 20: 22: 27: 28: 29: :45 45 :30 :30 :30 14: 30 00 30 3O 3O 30 00 00 00 102 "FACE TO FACE" PROGRAM PRODUCER CHECK LIST Please Read 33g Execute Exactlyll The following is a condensation of the Program Producers Procedure. TIME DUTY DATE Four (4) wks prior to tape 1. Program date issued date 2. Subject/topic assigned Wks four (4) 8 three (3) prior to tape date Research topic Write potential questions Lineup and think about potential guests Organize remote shoots b (JON-4 Two (2) wks prior to tape date 1. Have guest selection completed. Contact, confirm, & interview guests 2. Have arranged w/the Remote Supervisor, Editing Supervisor, and Audio/Visual Assistant for £11 remotes. Shoot, and edit all remotes. One (1) wk prior to tape date 1. Arrange for guest escort into studio. Arrange ggg confirm a waiting room for guests. Mail guest confirmation and reminder. All remotes must be completed 'gflg OK'ed by Producer. 5. Turn in program outline. NOTE: To be included in this outline is the following: PROGRAM OUTLINE 1. Brief description of guests w/specific titles for host introduction and Chyron key. 2. Subject's historical research and background. #00“) (continued) 103 Program Outline (continued) 3. List of questions for host. 4. Program outline and order of events, including a script for roll-ins, introduction, PSA's and Close. Time and lengths ofremotes must be exact. The program outline must be personally delivered to the Producer who will go over the information with you. If this is IMPOSSIBLE, the outline should be left on the board in "E" and there should be a specific time on the envelope when the producer can contact you on that day. ‘(Please leave the information in a sealed manila envelope.) Also, be around at the time specified on the envelope. This is imperative. TIME DUTY DATE Friday before Wednesday taping 1. Meet with the following peOple: EX. Producer, Producer, Host, and Floor Director. Have 7 copies of your program outline for presentation to these people. Monday before Wednesday tape date: 1. Rehearsal of program with complete crew and remote roll-ins. Tuesday before Wednesday tape date: 1. Telephone and remind guest of taping times and date. Arrival time 30 mins. prior to taping. 2. Inform producer that guest confirmation complete. Initial status board in “E". 3. MSU Telecasters & FTF meeting. Day of taping 1. Make sure all remotes are in order and at studio. 2. Greet guest at 7:00 p.m. for 7:30 p.m. taping or at 8:00 p.m. for 8:30 p.m. taping. Take guests to pre-arranged room. 3. Make sure there are snacks and refreshments prepared in greeting room. (Get someone to do this for you.) 104 TIME DUTY DATE Day of taping (continued) 4. Have guests fill out Standard Release form. 5. Escort guests to studio 5 minute prior to taping. One (1) day after taping l. Contact Producer to go over program. Two (2) days following Wednesday taping 1. Complete and mail thank you notes to guests. Included in this letter should be the air date and time for the “1 program we taped. F:““ ‘. 105 "FACE TO FACE" PROGRAM STATUS SHEET PROGRAM TOPIC: TAPING DATE: ASSOCIATE PRODUCER: Associate Producer: Please initial duty upon completion of it. Report to producer for confirmation of completion by tele- phone, in person, or by leaving information on bulletin board in "E" in an envelope. SUGGESTED ACTUAL COMPLETION COMPLETION DUTY DATE DATE INITIAL 1. (Tl-DOOM 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Four (4) wks prior to taping: program date topic assignment Guest selection completed Remote shoot date arranged Editing date arranged Waiting room for guests confirmed Guest escort into studio arranged Mail guest confirmation Remotes completed Turn in program outline Meet with producer to discuss outline Meet with Exec. Producer & Producer Co-Prod., Director, Host, F1. Director Telephone guests - remind & confirm appearance Refreshments and snacks arranged (get someone to do this for you) Guests sign Standard Release Form Contact and meet with Produ. after taping Send guest "Thank You" 106 "FACE TO FACE" Guidelines for Guest Selection PLEASE READ CAREFULLY! All good television should both educate and entertain. A gross overemphasis, either way, results in poor TV. Use this premise as a basis for producing each program in the "FACE TO FACE“ series. Guests must INFORM and INTEREST. "FACE TO FACE'S" success will depend on two factors: A) Discussion of all major issues facing our community, state, or nation-hope- fully before they reach crisis and are over-publicized by the press. B) Inclusion of all personalities who are knowledgable and are "newsmakers." These personalities may be from the local area, or from out of town. REMEMBER - these personalities should be the best that you can find in conjunction with the topic of the program. Strive always to obtain controversial interviewers. Controversy creates excitement and is the name of the game for "FTF." You, as producer, should attempt to obtain guests that have opposing or different viewpoints on the subject to be discussed. Please DO NOT set up a "public relations" type of interview. We wish to inform, not take sides or promote one group over another. TV is a visual medium, therefore, every effort should be made to obtain props, demonstrations, or performances that will enhance the interview. Ask guests if they have pamphlets, slides, or video- tapes that represent their point of view that can be used for inclu- sion in our program. REMEMBER - you, as producer, are responsible for remote footage for insertion into your program. Material from guests may be very helpful in fulfilling your responsibility. Keep that in mind. Also, an attempt should be made by you to "balance" the program between guests in regards to visual material, roll-ins, etc. Balanced programming is also a legal consideration. There are no talent fees/scale for persons appearing on "FTF." Keep in mind that television exposure benefits your guests as much, if not more, than us. Try very hard NOT to repeat guests. Dig for new talent. Follow up good programs with additional installments using "different faces" and "different viewpoints." Attempt to ascertain whether or not potential guests are articulate. There is no use fooling with people who can't communicate. The program rolls over on its back and dies. 107 "FTF" Guidelines for Guest Selection (COOtTDUEd) 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Radio/TV newscasts and newspapers are excellent sources for acquiring program ideas. Don't ignore "back fence" tips, neighbors can be a great help. For promotion and publicity reasons, programs should be firmed two (2) weeks prior to date of taping. This is imperative. Regardless of whether the persons you ask to be on the program accept the invitation or not, be friendly and don't forget to PROMOTE the series by informing them of our airtime and date. These people are also potential sources for other guests. Ask them if they know of peOple who are knowledgeable who you may contact. Program producers should be tough on guests. Guests must be aware of the fact that we are relying on them for an appearance. If there is a question as to whether a guest can appear or not, pin them down. If their appearance is questionable, find a backup guest or avoid them. Confirm their appearance and make it known that they are responsbile for showing up on the taping date. Above all, be polite, but firm. As much as we would like, the Program Producers are cautioned from ever promising anything to potential guests. Committments cause too many scheduling headaches and stifle the free-flowing quality of the program. 108 PRODUCER GUIDELINES FOR WRITING QUESTIONS Background research must be done on the topic. This is the first thing to be done. Some suggested sources for information are: A. State News file - all articles grouped under subject heading. B. ASMSU - contact with all university organizations. C. Lansing Area Chamber of Commerce - may be able to supply information regarding community involvement in areas surrounding topic. 0. The Lansing State Journal, Detroit News, The Detroit Free Press, and assorted magazines - are located on first floor of the Undergraduate Library. Look up subjects and topic headings. The Telephone Book - MSU book or the Yellow Pages TE. F. ELPD or DPS G. Colleges and departments in university-professors Other reference sources for: FACTS: 1. Almanacs a. World Almanac b. Information Please Almanac c. Peoples Almanac d. Farmers Almanac 2. Facts on File 3. Statistical Abstract of the U.S. 4. Monthly Labor Review (Cost of Living) 5. Famous First Facts; How Did it Begin? 6. U.S. Government Organization Manual 7. Taylors Enclyclopedia of Government Office 8. All encyclopedias - Colliers, World Book, etc. BIOGRAPHY: 1. Current Biography 2. Contemporary Authors 3. Whos Who, and Who Was Who 4. Biography Index - (Both Periodicals and Books) 5. Websters Biographical Dictionary MICHIGAN: 1. Michigan Manual 2. Statistical Abstract of Michigan 3. Michigan Collection GEOGRAPHIC: l. Columbia-Lippincott Gazatteer 2. Websters Geographical Dictionary 109 Producer Guidelines (continued) SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: \IO‘U'TOWN-d o o o o o o o McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia Dow Jones Business Almanac Black's Medical Dictionary, Current Therapy How Does it Work? How it Works How Did it Begin? Blacks Law Dictionary Periodicals and specific scientific texts BITS AND PIECES: 1. been Quotations a. Bartlett b. Stevenson Encyclopedia of Associations Foundation Directory Alternatives a. Foxfire Books b. Mother Earth News BASIC BACKGROUND (JON-4 II. III. IV. Readers Guide Card Catalogue a. Author, Title, Subject Files Periodical Index After your background research has been done, go over the informa- tion you have gathered with some specific ideas in mind. -how or why is this topic controversial -who would be good representatives for the different sides of the topic (many times you can find names in newspapers) -if the topic is general (ie: Nuclear Power) you must narrow it to a more specific area (ie: Midland's Nuclear Plant - the economic underpinnings of this plant) and go from there. LOOK FOR SPECIFICS. After thoroughly going over information, begin to write some poten- tial questions that you would like to ask potential guests. -Why are your interested? -What are some specific reasons that have led to your opinion on this topic? -What is being done to combat this particular situation? -Who is responsible for this Situation? Basically, cover the who, what, where, why, and how in your questions. Contact potential guests and either line up an interview to speak with them personally or speak with them over the phone. At this time, use your judgment and "Guidelines to Guest Selection" to determine if they would be a good guest. Don't be too hasty in this judgment. 110 Producer Guidelines (continued) VI. VII. VIII. Once you have decided who you want to be a guest (remember that you need guests from opposing/controversial viewpoints) use these guests for more question information. Ask your guests the questions in #111, and ask them if there are specific questions they would: 1. like to have directed at them during the Show 2. like to have addressed to their "opposition" on the program Write down their questions and suggestions. At this time, ask your guest for specific literature surrounding the issue at hand. If in person, take the literature with you (with the promise to return it if he/she wants it back), or if on the phone, request that it be sent to you as soon as possible. Once MMJhave all of your background information, guest ideas and questions, carefully go over the information you have acquired and "weed out" the most important issues, ideas, and topics. REMEMBER- you are narrowing a general topic down to specific areas that fall within that topic. One week before your tape date, your questions should be presented to the Producer. These questions should be clearly written and concise. They Should be written in such an order that the more general questions (ie: Some say there are problems surrounding What is your opinion?) are first and the more specific questions follow the general questions. Although the word "general" is used, the questions should be "general-specific" leading to "very specific" (ie. So-and-so, a guest, was quoted as saying . So and so, is this true, and why so?). If revision of questions is necessary, suggestions will be given and the revised questions should be presented at the Exec. Producer, Producer, Assistant Producer, Associate Producer, Director, Host, and Floor Director meeting on the Friday before taping. At this time, questions, valid background material, and literature should be presented to the host for review. 114 .. 111 "FACE TO FACE" Guest/Talent Bio Information Series: FACE TO FACE Taping Date: FOr Broadcast on Topic for Discussion: Title of Guest for Introduction by Host: Title of Guest for Chyron: (Please check for accuracy in Spelling) What makes guest an authority on topic to be discussed? I 1 ‘uvd- Educational Experience: Community involvement concerning issue to be discussed: Where can guest be reached from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Place: HOME BUSINESS (Name) Address: Telephone (Home): (Business) Producer's Name: Producer's Phone: 112 GUEST CONFIRMATION SHEET Associate Producer: The top of this sheet must be posted on the bulletin board in "E" one week before your taping date. This is imperative. TAPING DATE: TOPIC: GUEST: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone: Dear This is to confirm your television appearance on "Face to Face" on, 3 at p.m. We would appreciate it if you would be at our studio by p.m. We are located in the Communication Arts and Sciences Building on the Michigan State University campus. Please use the main entrance to the building, located on Red Cedar Road. You will be met by a member of the "Face to Face" team upon your arrival. The topic we will be discussing is Please dress comfortably and avoid white, if possible. If you have any questions about the interview, please feel free to contact me at or Cindy APP, or Producer, at 355-3839. Cordially, Associate Producer Enclosure: MSU Campus Map “fl 113 "FACE TO FACE" Instruction Material for Guests General: 1. Arrive right on time... 7:00 p.m. for the 7:30 p.m. show and 8:00 p.m. for the 8:30 Show. If you cannot make it on time, call Cindy App at 355-3839, or leave a message for her at 353-9150. This is a live-on-tape program--please be prompt. 2. Make certain you can locate someone at the studio in the event you will be delayed. Call Cindy App or Bryan Lerin at 355-4463 after 5:00 p.m. on the taping date. 3. Upon your arrival, you will be greeted by the program's producer or a member of the "Face to Face" team. You will be taken to a waiting room where there will be snacks and refreshments for you. 4. You will be brought to the studio approximately five (5) minutes prior to taping. At this time you will be miked and an audio Check will be done. 5. Once the program begins, please converse freely and enjoy yourself. Speaking on Television: Interview: 1. Talk as you normally would during conversation. 2. Talk to one person (ie: direct questions to one person). 3. Talk to the host and/or guests on the program. Dress and Make-up: Ladies 1. Wear a tailored dress or blouse, free from frills or tricky collars. 2. Wear a dress you have worn before and one you know is becoming. 3. Look your best by wearing ordinary street make-up which looks natural under artificial lights. Lipstick should be light to medium. 4. If your eyebrows and lashes are light, touch them up with a medium brown eye make-up. Unless you are an expert in applying it, for- get the eye Shadow. 5. Do not wear jewelry that sparkles under lights. Pearls and dull finished metals are better...keep it simple and uncluttered. Avoid low-haning necklaces that might collide with your microphone. Do not wear black or white. A soft, medium color makes the best setting for your picture. 114 "Face to Face" Instruction Material for Guests (continued) _M_e_n 1. Wear a pastel Shirt, instead of white. White causes a fuzzy "halo" effect on television screens. Wear a suit of medium color. A very dark coat photographs black ' black and will also cause a "halo" effect. For Wear Clothing in which you are comfortable and which is becoming to you. Do not wear tie Clasps or rings which sparkle under the lights. 00 not use hair oil that glitters under the lights. the little ones It is not necessaru for children who take part in a television program to be dressed any differently from the way they dress for school. "FACE TO FACE" EXPENSE SHEET PHONE CALLS DATE PLACE CALLED LENGTH OF CALL CHARGES MISCELLANEOUS 115 116 mfizmzzou mazmzmmHaomm onOH mzoam mHmmao muzmmmmud mom mmmx 11111 moa crew mvmt K158 broken prom. personal inter gave help Futon Mult resp. Iikhav 156 L182/Management balances people & production. SAME L183/In & Out groups in an organization. SAME L184/Organization encourages members use initiative. SAME LIBS/Organization takes active interest in member development. SAME L186/Members have wide range of interest. SAME L187/Management seeks member input in decision making. SAME L188/More experienced members help newer members. SAME L189/Management runs people oriented organization. SAME L190/members always have grievances. SAME Ll91/Organization accepts ideas of members. SAME L192/Recognize life depends on members. SAME Ll93/Members informed of other tOpics. SAME L194/Speak openly about other short- comings. SAME Ll95/Sense of purpose and direction. SAME Ll96/members overstate and exaggerate. SAME L197/Run task oriented org. SAME 36 37 38 39 4D 41 4:: 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 157 Ll98/Management exerCises authoritarian cont. SAME Ll99/Man. takes active role in training. SAME LEGO/Lines of comm. are open. SAME L2ellman. encourages members to partiCipate deCision making. SAME L2E2/Encourages team spirit and coop. SAME L2D3/Members treated as individuals. SAME 53 54 56 57 158 K159/What did man do to encourage you. 12-15 K160 Given app. 1 K161 enc. 2 Mult. resp. K162 morale boost 3 en: you trained 4 int. in prog 5 post prod 6 strg grp spirit 7 free to create 8 Kl63/Are you satisfied with changes. 16 Yes 1 No 2 Kl64/ If no why dissatisfied. 17-20 Kl65-K167 NO RESPONSES K168/Regard1ess of satisfaction. what added K169 changes. 21-24 K170 More TC Dept l K171 More prog adv 2 Mult Resp . More grp decs 3 addcng Mgmt too click 4 shorter open 5 trans inexp mg 6 < concern ind 7 K172/Sex 25 Male 1 Female 2 K173/Class 26 Fresh 1 Soph 2 Junior 3 Senior 4 Grad 5 Kl74/MaJor 27 TC 1 Eng Arts 2 Other 3 K175/Previous production management experience. 29-32 K176 Music Rec 1 K177 HS Club 2 MULT RESP. K178 Comm The 3 Preexp Vid Exp 4 L180/Members keep up with current 34 events. SAME L181/People ask each other how they 35 are doing in reaching goals. SAME 159 Ll98/Management exercises authoritarian cont. SAME L199/Man. takes active role in training. SAME L200/Lines of comm. are open. SAME L201/man. encourages members to participate decision making. SAME L202/Encourages team spirit and coop. SAME L203/Members treated as individuals. SAME 53 54 55 56 57 APPENDIX E EXCERPT FROM PAPER WRITTEN BY PROGRAM PRODUCER/FOUNDER "Acquiring the Repertoire: The Student as the Television Producer" The following is an excerpt from the paper, "Acquiring the Repertoire: The Student as the Television Producer", written by the original founder/producer of FACE TO FACE. FACE TO FACE, a public affairs-oriented program produced by MSU Telecasters, is cablecast weekly over United Cable’s public access channel in East Lansing, Michigan and Meridian Township. The program has a production staff of approximately 35 persons, and is produced in a cyclical fashion (i.e. more than one program is in production at any one time, insuring an element of ’momentum’ in the production process). Two half hour episodes are taped bi- weekly, effectively creating a weekly program for distribution purposes. As student productions go, FACE TO FACE has achieved a noticeable level of finish, and was awarded the distinction of 'Best Public Affairs Program’ on the East Lansing Public Access channel in 1983. During the academic year 1984-85, FACE TO FACE is produced by Cynthia App and J. Bryan Lerin. Cynthia is a graduate student in the Department of Telecommunication’s Masters’ program, and Bryan is a senior in the undergraduate program of that department. Both individuals became involved with the production in January of 1984 and assumed their current responsibilities in July of that year. Though Bryan’s duties were originally intended to be subordinate to those of Cynthia’s, the two have reached a mutual understanding and cooperation in the production of the program. 160 161 Both students joined MSU Telecasters with extremely limited backgrounds in the field of television production, but have acknowledged that, if nothing else, their talent for management and organization have helped them more than anything else. Understanding the technical aspects of production has been a priority for both since the beginning of their involvement. In the process of producing FACE TO FACE, both Cynthia and Bryan seem to understand that a key element in the function is the individual member of their team. They pay close attention to crewing rotations, both for technical reasons and to insure members a fair chance at operating the equipment. Both producers strive to maintain 'proximity’ to their staff; that is, they attempt to maintain a smooth, organized, and regimented operation, yet not lose close contact with the students who help produce the program. They seem conscious of the constraints that most students have, namely time, and try to maintain a balance between the involvement of their crew. If for nothing else, this aspect of their producing style serves to protect the production and its momentum, insuring against the possibility of any one student carrying 'too much weight.’ When analyzing the process by which FACE TO FACE is produced, one interesting element surfaces: what this author has termed "inter-autonomy" and "intra-autonomy." Intra-autonomy is 'the freedom to produce within the context and confines of the program or production itself.’ The 162 parameters of intra-autonomy are defined by the group’s advisors and supervisors (administratrative), available funding (budget), and the other key players (producers) within the organization, as well. The freedom with which the producers of FACE TO FACE are permitted to function within MSU Telecasters (i.e. the freedom they have to spend money, reserve studio time, utilize remote equipment,. . .) is strictly defined by intra-autonomy. The parameters of inter-autonomy are defined almost exclusively by the group’s advisors (administrative). FACE TO FACE (as well as all of Telecaster programming) is given the freedom to produce and operate under the judgment of the program’s producer, but is kept in check by the advisors of that organization. The reason for this seems two—fold: (l) The time it takes to directly produce a student television program far exceeds that which is available to the group’s advisors; (2) the program’s producers are carefully selected for their sound judgment and reasoning. Their abilities are accepted as being more than sufficient for the job. The significance of identifying the existence of this composite definition of autonomy is obvious. Producers in the student production setting, like Cynthia and Bryan, must learn to function within two contexts: The producer as the leader of a team, and the producer as the part of a system. Although there is some overlap between these two contexts, both definitions serve to operate independently. Student producers in MSU Telecasters are given significant freedom 163 to act as the producer of a program (inter-autonomy), but are somewhat restricted as to their freedom within the "umbrella framework" of Telecasters (intra-autonomy). Whether or not his dual-definition of autonomy serves to better the production company or not is a matter of speculation. Within the setting of FACE TO FACE, however, ther seems to be little question as to its overall impact. The structure imposed by the phenomenon of dualeautonomy helps to impose a balance between organization and freedom, permitting individual producers to experiment with their production styles, yet helping to direct that expeimentation, as well. Implicit in the importance of the producer’s image is credibility and professionalism. As mentioned earlier, both Cynthia and Bryan strive to maintain proximity to their staff; they are, after all, members of the same peer group as their crew. At the same time, however, they have managed to exude credibility in the execution of their duties. They seem to have acknowledged that, while familiarity is important in generating a bond with their staff, an image of credibility and authority is needed to reinforce that relationship. Both Cynthia and Bryan must, no doubt, see themselves as models for the more inexperienced members of their program; given the educational nature of the setting, the relationship seems entirely suitable. Furthermore, both producers acknowledge communication as critical to their success. They indicate that 164 communication within their program falls principally into one of two categories: between themselves (producer- producer) and between themselves and their staff (producer- staff). Communication between producers serves to prevent redundancy in duties, and provides a built-in check and balance function. Likewise, communication with staff serves to facilitate the functions of individual crew memebers, and provents the line-of—authority from becoming too confused.