i!

 

 

THE-:5“:

0469

COMMUNICATION HABITS AS PREDICTORS

Date

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

OF COWCIAL SUCCESS AMONG

UNITED STATES FARM BROWASTERS
presented by

BILLY N. WOLFE, JR.

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. degree in SECGCh

May 15, 197(

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan St we

University

 

BIND! "6le

‘ mm: a 3m ., X’

N‘auax mm mc. NNN

i“ uamv nmoms

 

ABSTRACT
COMMUNICATION HABITS‘AS PREDICTORS OF COMMERCIAL

SUCCESS AMONG UNITED STATES .
FARM.BROADCASTERS

BY
Billy Nelson Wolfe, Jr.

This is a study of the communication habits of the
members of the National Association of Farm Broadcasters.

It is a study of how 70 per cent of these men in radio and
television communicate with their guests and broadcast
audience and other reference groups such as their sponsors,
their broadcast colleagues, and those who attend meetings.
The data are correlated with a measure of "success", and
significant differences are found among three levels of
success.

This is a study of the relationship between a special
kind of mass communicator and several reference groups which
affect the nature of his programming content, the validity
of his image of the audience, as well as the function of his
behavior for the stability and maintenance of the social
system within which he works.

A mail questionnaire was sent to 179 members of the

National Association of Farm Broadcasters, and of the 72

Billy Nelson Wlee, Jr.

per cent who returned the survey instrument, the data from
69 per cent (125 respondents) were used in the analysis.
Fewer than 6 per cent were non-commercial farm broadcasters.

The questionnaire is a 56-item instrument containing 76
variables related to communication habits on and off the air
as well as to personal attributes. Most of the response
Options require the use of simple check-marks on either
multiple-choice items or 7-point semantic differential scales.
Other items require short answers which are coded for tabula-
tion. The entire methodology is explained in Chapter II.

The literature on mass communicator-audience relation—
ships is reviewed in Chapter I, and a form of analysis
utilized by Melvin DeFleur in his study of the mass media

1 is used to determine the role of such rela-

as social systems
tionships in preserving the equilibrium of the respective
media systems.

The frequencies of response for each questionnaire item
are presented in Chapter III, giving both the head count and
the percentages for radio and television farm broadcasters.
Mean scores are presented for the scaled questions.

Two major hypotheses are solidly supported by the data
in Chapter IV:

I. Sponsor-related communication habits are highly_

correlated with one's success in obtaining program

s onsorshi .

Billerelson Wolfe, Jr.

II. There exist significant differences in both the
communication habits and personal attributes
between the various level§_pfpsucces§.

Furthermore, communication habits and personal attributes
which are ppp_sponsor-related were found, and they, too,
differentiate among the three levels of success.

“Success", as used in this study, refers to the relative
percentage of each commercial farm broadcaster's programming
which is usually Sponsored. Sixty per Cent or less sponsor—
ship is designated "Low Success"; 60-80%, "Medium Success";
and 80-100%, "High Success".

In the same manner as it was applied to the analysis of
the research literature, "functional analysis" is applied to
these data, and the findings suggest that the relationship
of the commercial farm broadcaster and his audience functions
as a means for obtaining program Sponsorship. .Information
about the audience serves as a means to financial ends more
than as a basis for improving the mass communication system.
These findings are presented in Chapter V with a reminder
that nearly 95 per cent of all commercial farm broadcasters
are personally involved in the sale of their programming.

A composite of the more successful farm brOadcaster's
communication habits and personal attributes is also summar-

ized in Chapter V.

 

1Melvin DeFleur, Theories offMass Communication
(New York: David McKay, 1966), pp. 141-158.

COMMUNICATION HABITS AS PREDICTORS OF COMMERCIAL
SUCCESS AMONG UNITED STATES

FARM BROADCASTERS

BY
Billy Nelson Wolfe, Jr.

A THESIS

Submitted to
. Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Speech and Theater

1970

Copyright by
BILLY NELSON WOLFE, JR.

‘ 1971

Accepted by the faculties of the Department of Speech
and Theater and the Department of Television and Radio,
College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor

of Philosophy degree.

   

P J, A I flapgf
Director of ThesIs

Guidance Committee: Kenneth G. Hance, Chairman
J. David Lewis
David C. Ralph
Ralph Nicholas

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The germinal idea for this study was discovered in
prayer during the Summer of 1966; and it is to Him, the giver
of every good and perfect gift, that grateful acknowledgement
is made for the gift of curiosity.

The wise King Solomon penned the words which capture for
me the privilege of this endeavor in Proverbs 25:2:

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing:
but the honor of kings is to search out a
matter.

Grateful acknowledgement is also made to those scholars
whom God gave the sometime wearisome task of training up the
child in the way he should go:

Dr. David Ralph conveyed to me the contagious joy of
research well-done and convincingly expressed;

Dr. Ralph Nicholas opened to me the needs of a larger
world for dedicated scholarship and service;

Dr. David Lewis kept before me the high standards of
meaning what I wrote, and writing what I meant;

While, Dr. Kenneth Hance, throughout, provided that
patient ear and kind correction which makes any man's
fUmblings more "catChable".

Add to my Shulammite Princess, whose tender hands have
suffered much for the mail and for me, I offer my insufficient
thanks for her sacrifices.

 

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . .
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Significance and Justification of the
Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methods of Research . . . . . . . . . . .

I. SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Mass Media As Social Systems. . . . .
The Relationship of the Mass Communicator
and His Audience . . . . . . . . . . .

1. "The Communicator and the Audience,
by Raymond A. Bauer . . . . . . . .

2. "Newsmen's Fantasies, Audiences, and

Newswriting," by Pool & Shulman . .
3. "The 'Gatekeeper': A Case Study in

the Selection of News," by D. M.

White . . . ( . . . . . . . . . . .

4. "News is What Newspapermen Make It,‘

by Walter Gieber. . . . . . . . . .

5. "Mass Communication and Sociocultural

Integration," by warren Breed . . .

6. "The Creator—Audience Relationship in
the Mass Media: An Analysis of Movie

Making," by Herbert J. Gans . . . .

7. "Television Producers: A Sociologi-

cal Analysis," by Muriel G. Cantor.

8. "Programmer's Choice: Eight Factors

in Program Decision—Making" by J.
David Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . .
Application of Functional Analysis to the
Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Local Broadcaster and His Audience. .

II. DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . .

The Selection of a Methodology. . . . . .
The Pre-pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page

vii

vii
viii

ix

X

comrkl-‘P

12

14
17
18

19
25

27

29
4O

45

45
44

TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued

CHAPTER

The Selection of a Mailing List. . . . .
The Cover Letter . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Final Questionnaire. . . . . . . . .
The Follow-up Letter . . . . . . . . . .
The Returns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. A REPORT OF FINDINGS IN TERMS OF THE SURVEY
ITEMS 0 C O O O O C C O O O C O C O C O C

General Information. . . . ... . . . . .
Some Communication Habits On-theeAir . .
The Farm Broadcaster and His Audience. .
The Farm BroadCaster and His Sponsors.

The Farm Broadcaster and His Meetings. .
The Farm Broadcaster As A Person . . . .

IV. A REPORT OF FINDINGS IN TERMS OF THE
HWOTIESES . O O C C O O O O O O O O O 0

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Group I: The Unsupported Hypotheses.
Group II: The Partially Supported

Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . .

Group III: The Supported Hypotheses.

Part II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . .
The Composite of Success . . . . . . . .

The Function of the Farm Broadcaster's
Communication Habits. . . . . . . . .
Suggestions for Further Research . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

46
47
48
49
50

104
109

111

LIST OF TABLES

Significant Differences Between Paired Levels
of Success for Radio Variables. . . . . . . .

Significant Differences Between Paired Levels
of Success for TV Variables . . . . . . . . .

Tentative Significant Differences Between
Paired Levels of Success for Radio Variables.

Tentative Significant Differences Between
Paired Levels of Success for TV Variables . .

vi

Page

89

9O

91

92

INTRODUCTION

The Purpose of_the Stgdy

A survey of the literature concerning the relationship
of the mass communicator and various of his reference groups,
of which the mass audience is only one, reveals that such
studies have failed to include the local, on-the-air broad-
caster. A purpose of this study, consequently, is to fill a
portion of this research gap.

The maps audience, the persons who are on the receiving
end of the media message, are not always the sole target of
the mass communicator. Studies of newspaper writers, wire
editors, film and TV creators show that the audience, as a
reference group, may exist only as a vague image, may be the
fantasized fabrication of a rationalization, or may, in the
end, be mere residual recipients of messages intended for
other less obvious, or conscious "targets".

This study was designed to provide an opportunity for a
specialized group of on-the-air broadcasters--farm broad-
casters--to report their communication habits in terms of
several reference groups. .These groups include program quests
as well as the broadcast audience, sponsors and station
personnel, and several types of groups whom the farm broad-

caster encounters at meetings which he attends.

vii

The responses of these farm broadcasters are then ana—
lyzed for the purpose of testing two broad hypotheses:

I. Sponsor-related communication habits are highly
correlated with one's success in obtaining
program sponsorship.

II. There exist significant differences in both com-
munication habits and personal attributes between
the various levels of success.

Limitations

This is a mail questionnaire study of the 179 commercial
and non-commercial members of the National Association of
Farm Broadcasters.

The.13 non-commercial members have been included for
purposes of exploratory comparison; but because the analysis
of this study focuses on the criterion variable of “success",
which is defined in terms of commercial sponsorship, the com-
parisons are not presented in this report.

An earlier proposal to send questionnaires to the wife
and station manager of each farm broadcaster was discarded
after numerous field interviews. Because of the extensive
traveling which the farm broadcaster does in the course of
his work, it became evident that neither the wife nor the
manager could be expected to verify the farm broadcaster's
report of his far-flung communication habits. It also became

obvious that complete sets of returns would be difficult to

obtain, rendering much of the data useless.

viii

An analysis of the 56 non-respondents (28%) indicates
that their distribution fairly closely approximates that of
the respondents on the dimensions of power, media used, and
geographic representation. AGeneralizations from the 72%,
therefore, can be made without substantial reservation to
include the non-respondents.

Significance and Justificatipp_
pfqthe Reseaggh

The growing pervasiveness of the electronic media re—
quires that the local broadcaster-audience relationship be
systematically explored. Studies have been made for other
media, and for different levels of geographical coverage;
but the transient, illusive qualities of electronically—
mediated communication continues to go unexplored. Survey
research verifies that receivers are on, and some can even
verify that the audience is in the same room as the receiver;
but, while there is some speculation as to various roles
which mass media content can play for the audience, there is
unnecessary ignorance about the function of the audience for
the mass communicator, especially for the broadcaster.

Reams of speech and communication publications regularly
pmip_discussion of the economic environment which provides
the context and capital for much of today's mass media con-
tent, ignoring the profit motive and economic incentives

which influence the communication process. This study explores

ix

the communicator-sponsor relationship and its effect on the
communicator and the audience.

In contrast to the methodologies most frequently found
in other studies of the mass communicator and his audience,
this study focuses on the observable behavior of the com-
municator rather than on the internal processes of his mind.

.And, finally, this study reaches out into the many
worlds of the communicator--into the office, the studio, the
meeting-~and then proceeds to determine the function which
these various habits perform in the maintenance of the over-

all communication system of the farm broadcaster.

Method§:pf Reseapgh

The survey of the literature in Chapter I is the result
of a systematic investigation of library materials to locate,
describe, and analyze the research which pertains to the
subject of the communicator-audience relationship within the
context of mass communications.

Chapter II is devoted to a detailed description of the
data-gathering procedure. Suffice it to say here that the
data were collected through a mail questionnaire survey.

The data collected from 125 respondents were analyzed
with the help of a CDC 3600 computer, made available through
the National Science Foundation and Michigan State University.

Simple frequency distributions for the responses to the

56-item questionnaire are reported in Chapter III, while, in

.Chapter IV, the findings are presented which indicate the
nature and direction of the relationships among the 76 varia-
bles, as determined by measures of correlation and significant
differences.

Chapter V represents both a summary of the findings
and an analysis of these findings in terms of their function

in an economic environment.

xi

CHAPTER I
SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

The focus of communication research and theory in the
recent past has been almost exclusively upon the question
of "effects".1 It is quite reasonable to ask questions about
the result of a communication act, particularly when it is
the intention of the communicator to influence the receiver
of his message in some way. Only the mentally ill or in-
competent can be content to send forth a steady stream of
communication and yet remain oblivious to the results of
their efforts.

Attention to effects, then, is a common feature of the
normal human organism. The ability of the person varies,
however, with respect to his capacity for seeing, understand-
ing, and responding to indications of effect. While the
mentally ill person is an extreme example, numerous instances
are known in which-individuals have exhibited varying degrees
of attention to the results of their communication efforts.

The "social bore" is a frequently mentioned illustration of

 

lMelvin L. DeFleur, Theogies of Ma§§ Communication
(New Yerk: David McKay Company, 1966), p. 141.

the person who does not know when to stop talking. rHe per-
sists when he ought to refrain from talking.2

Variations in ability lie within the organic and psycho-
logical makeup of different people. But one's ability to
perceive and respond to the effects of his communication are
also a function of the channels used in the communication
situation.

In face-to-face situations under normal conditions, the
communicator has direct access to communication response.

He can both see and hear the receiver and can observe the
other's response to what is said.

In personal, but mediated, communication situations,
such as when one talks with a friend over the phone, the
visual channels of effect are absent; but the aural cues are
relatively unhindered, and the response is almost as spon-
taneous as in the face-to-face situation.

Neither the facial cues nor the spoken response is avail-
able in the case of the personal letter, and a time lag factor
is introduced into the process. Feedback is delayed for
days, or even weeks.

In all three cases--face-to-face, mechanically mediated,
and time mediated--it has been assumed that the communicator
and the receiver were already acquainted and that their mutual

expectations for each other‘s response had developed over

 

2David K. Berlo, The Procegs ofpgommunication (New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960), p. 109.

time. But what happens in those communication situations when
the source and receiver have not established any successful,
personal communication ties? What happens when the source
addresses numerous unknown receivers? And what is the nature
of their relationship when he must communicate to them through
channels that are almost exclusively one-way?

These are the dilemmas of the mass communicator, the
person whose communication is directed toward a "relatively
large, heterogeneous, and anonymous audience.“ Wright defines
the “large" audience as that which is of such a size that the
communicator cannot interact with its members on a face—to-face
basis.3

Given such a communication situation, the problem of
assessing the effects of the mass communicator is extremely
difficult, though not impossible. In the past twenty years,
for example, a number of audience research firms have come
into existence with the purpose of supplying to the mass media
at least some information about the effects of their efforts.4

Unfortunately, the data provided by these organizations
tend to be restricted to summaries of quantitative effects
rather than qualitative. "How many?" however, is an important

effect for advertisers, for they must give an accounting of

 

3Charles R. Wright, Mass Communication: A Sociological
Perspgctive (New YOrk: Random House, 1959, paperback), p. 15.

4Berlo, Proce§§ of Communication, p. 114.

their effectiveness in terms of cost-per-thousand people
reached. It is not surprising, then, that much such research
on effects has been underwritten by commercial advertisers.
But there are other questions to be asked than those
about effect. As DeFleur has pointed out, "there are other,
and possibly equally important, aspects of the media that
deserve theoretical and empirical attention." To DeFleur,
one of the most intriguing issues has been the ability of the
mass media to survive, particularly while providing content
to their audiences which the more artistically sensitive
elite have regularly condemned as being in bad taste or even
dangerous.5
In an effort to understand the relationship between mass
media content and public taste, DeFleur has taken the tack
of viewing the media as social systems which operate within

a specific external system--in this case, within the American

society itself.6

The Mass Media Ag Social Systems
Rather than limiting research to questions of effect
of mass media messages on the audience, DeFleur acknowledges
the effect of "attention" and proceeds to ask the question;

What is the function of this kind of effect for the mass media?

 

5DeFleur, Theories of Maps Communication, p. 141.

6(The entire eighth chapter, "Mass Media as Social
Systems," is devoted to this area, pp. 141-158).

DeFleur's conceptualization of the mass media as social
systems will be used as a framework for describing and ana-
lyzing the literature which concerns itself with the rela-
tionship of the mass communicator and his audience. However,
before this body of literature is approached, some attention
must first be given to the method which DeFleur uses to
think of the mass media in terms of social systems.

General sociological theory, according to DeFleur, has
become increasingly preoccupied with the nature of social
systems. Of particular interest are the functional relation-
ships which exist between the parts of such systems, and the
consequences that partiCular items occurring within the sys-
tem have in maintaining the Stability of the system as a
whole. The term "particular items" refers to patterns of
actions exhibited by individuals or subgroups who relate them—
selves to each other within such systems. The strategy of
functional analysis, then, is to concentrate upon the visible
conduct of people. Stable systems of social action can
thereby be mapped out, components can be identified within
the system, and the relative contribution of these components
toward stability can be inferred, and presumably, verified.
It is not so much the component, as it is the repetitive
forms of action by various components which are supposed to

contribute to this stability.7

 

7Ibid., p. 145.

DeFleur uses this functional analysis approach to answer
the question of why the mass media can successfully continue
to produce and distribute so-called low-taste content. He
uses functional analysis, then, as a "strategy for inducing
or locating hypotheses that can be tested empirically by com-
parative studies or other appropriate research methods."8

Carl Hempel explains the basic logic of functional anae
lysis:

The object of the analysis is some 'item' i, which is

a relatively persistent trait or disposition . . .

occurring in a system §_. . .; and the analysis aims

to show §_is in a state, or internal condition, c.

and in an environment presenting certain external

conditions ce such that under conditions Ci and ce

(jointly referred to as g) the trait i_has effects

which satisfy some 'need' or 'functional requirement'

of p, i.e. a condition p_which is necessary for the

system's remaining in adequate, or effective, or

proper, working order.9
DeFleur defines 'item' i, for his purposes, as "the portion
of the content of the mass media that is in 'low' cultural
taste or provides gratifications to the mass audience in such
a manner that it is widely held to be potentially debasing."lo

Once having identified this ”relatively persistent trait
or disposition," item i, DeFleur begins to identify the

boundaries of the social system within which this item occurs,

so that he can inductively hypothesize its contribution to

 

albid., p. 148.
9Ibid.

1°Ibid., p. 149.

the system. He identifies nine major components of the social
system with which he is most concerned--the mass communication
system. These include the audience, the market research-
rating service organizations, the distributors of the message
content, the producer of content, the advertising agencies,
the regulatory bodies, the private voluntary associations, the
general set of external conditions, and, within the system

itself, the principal internal condition which is a financial

one.11

Then, by a process of induction, he outlines the rela—
tive contribution of the low-taste content to the stability
of the system.

It keeps the entire complex together. By continuously

catering to the tastes of those who constitute the

largest segment of the market, the financial stability
of the system can be maintained.12
DeFleur summarizes this function by saying:

At present, however, the function of what we have called

low—taste content is to maintain the financial equilib-

rium of a deeply institutionalized social system which
is tightly integrated with the whole of the American
economic institution.1

The question asked of the following studies has come
quite logically from this analytic framework. The question
is: What function does a mass communicator's relationship with

the audience have for the maintenance of the social system in

which he operates?

 

11Ibid.. pp. 150-155.
l21bid., p..156.

13Ibid., p. 157.

The Relationship of the Mass Communicator
and His Audience

In their book, People, Society, and Magp Communications,
Dexter and White have a series of five articles to which they
have given the collective title THE COMMUNICATOR AND HIS
AUDIENCE.l4 Each of these five articles, concerned, for the
most part, with the newspaper medium, will be reviewed in
turn.

An article by Herbert J. Gans, "The Creator-Audience
Relationship in the Mass Media: An Analysis of Movie Making,"15
will then be reviewed, as well as Muriel G. Cantor's disserta-
tion study, I'Television Producers: a Sociological Analysis."16
A look will also be taken at J. David Lewis's article on tele-
vision programmers, "Programmer's Choice: Eight Factors in
Program Decision—making."l7

First, the literature will be described, one source at a

time; next, the literature will be analyzed in terms of

DeFleur's functional analysis framework; and finally, a case

 

l4Lewis Anthony Dexter and David Manning White (eds.)
People, Societyj and Mass Communication§_(New York: Free
Press, 1964), pp. 125-201.

15In Bernard Rosenberg and David Manning White (eds.)
Mass Culture: The Popular Arts in America (Glencoe, Illinois:
Free Press, 1957), pp. 515-524.

1aMuriel G. Cantor, "Television Producers: A Socio-
logical Analysis" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of California, 1969).

17In Journal of Broadcasting, V01. XIV, No. 1 (Winter,
1969-70). PP. 71-82.

will be presented for the need of research on the local broad-
caster and his audiences.
1. {The Communicator and the Audience."
by Raymond A. Bauer.18
Bauer notes that researchers have had to shift their at-
tention from the communicator's initiative to the audience
itself in order to find out with what sorts of people communi—
cators are dealing and under what circumstances. In his own
attempts to understand a series of problems in the field of
international communications, this social psychologist has
come to entertain seriously the following three propositions
concerning the role of the audience in communications:
I. The audience influences the way in which the com—
municator organizes new information and thereby
what he himself may remember and/Cr believe at a
later point in time.

II. A communication once completed has an existence
external to the originator. It is a sample of his
behavior which he must often reconcile--as a result
of social and internal pressure—-with other
behavior.

III. Communications are seldom directed to a single
manifest audience. Secondary audiences or refer-
ence groups, usually internalized and often imagi—
nary, are important targets of communication and
may at times play a decisive role in the flow of
communications.1

The larger portion of Bauer's article contains a explica—

tion of these three major propositions which he conceptualized

 

leIn Dexter and White (eds.) People, Society, and Ma§§_
Communications, pp. 125-140.

l91bid., p. 127.

10

from his own survey of social-psychological literature. In
addition, he reports the work that he and others have done

or were planning to do which might contribute to the testing
of these propositions, their implications, and their practical
significance.

In the context of organizing his thoughts concerning the
impact of foreign travel on American businessmen, Bauer cred?
its his colleague, Ithiel Pool, with suggesting:

a person might never formulate his impressions of a

foreign country systematically until he was in the

position of having to communicate them to someone else.

In this event, the first audience to whom he addressed

himself would influence the way he would organize his

information and the terms in which he would couch his
conclusions.20
Bauer cites extensive experimental literature on the effect
of "set" on perception and retention. He credits C. H. Cooley
with spelling out the notion of the process that might be at
work in such a case. The anticipated audience would serve--
in Cooley's words--as an "imaginary interlocuter" with whom
the subject would hold internal conversations in anticipation
of the eventual communication. Cooley contended, according to
Bauer, that the human personality is formed via such internal
conversations with audiences real and imagined.21

Bauer goes on to say that it may be useful to look at the

intended audience as an induced reference group of high

 

2°Ibid., pp. 128-129.

21;§;§,, p. 129 (original source: C. H. Cooley, Human
Nature and the Social Order (New York: Scribner, 1902), pp.

61-62.

11

salience. He cautions, however, that not only one's image
of the audience, but the information itself and the communi—
cator's values appear to be in a state of active interrelation-
ship in which any one of the elements may affect any one or
combination of the others. "Communicators committed strongly
to the subject matter may 'distort' their image of the pros-
pective audience to bring it more in line with either their
own values or the content of the incoming information and
thereby reduce the 'audience effect'."22
Omitting his second proposition, which has little rele-
vance to this present survey, a note is made of Bauer's third
notion, that of reference groups as secondary audiences.
Systematic work on reference groups~-to which I am refer-
ring in this context as potential secondary audiences--
has been confined largely to their influence on the
attitudes of the subjects under investigation. But, un-
less we consider the interview situation in which the
attitudes were evoked as an instance of communication,
there has been little direct research on the role of
reference groups or secondary audiences in the flow of
specific messages.23
Studies done with college students give some support to
these three propositions by Bauer.
Descending from the rarified athSphere of almost pure

conceptualization, we turn now to an empirical study of

specific communicators and their "imaginary audiences."

 

221bid., p. 132.

23;p;g., p. 156 (underlining not in the original version).

12
2. "Newsmen's Fantasies, Audiences, and
Newswriting," by Pool & 8hulman.24

Pool and Shulman give as two purposes for this study
(1) the empirical ascertainment about the population of
reference persons who actually flow into the consciousness
of a communicator as he communicates, and (2) whether these
spontaneously produced images influence a communication in
the same way that experimentally induced audiences do.25

Using Bauer's framework, Pool and Shulman developed a
three—phase study. First, they conducted thirty—three ex-
ploratory interviews with newsmen. On the-basis of the
hypotheses formed in these sessions with newspapermen, a con-
trolled experiment was performed on a class of journalism
students. Two years later, many of the newsmen were reinter-
viewed.

Pool and Shulman argue that while most studies of communi-
cation address themselves to the problem of how the message
affects the audience, in the communication process effects
go both ways: the audience also affects the communicator.

The messages sent are in part determined by expectation

of audience reactions. The audience, or at least those

audiences about whom the communicator thinks, thus play
more than a passive role in communication.2

 

24In Dexter and White, Pegple, SocietyLAand Mass Com-
munications, pp. 141-159.

 

251bid., p. 144.

261bid., p° 145.

15

They describe this communicator-audience relationship, a
relationship which occurs in the mind, a reference group
phenomenon.

The major hypothesis generated from the interviews was
this:

Where a person's images are incongruent with the char-
acter of the event being described, his accuracy in
reporting is reduced.27

Tested in an experimental study with a large class of journal-
ism students, this hypothesis was supported.

Another interesting cluster of variables was discovered
in the thirty—three interviews with newsmen:

The variable in the writer's flow of associations which
appeared to influence most markedly what he wrote was
the affective relationship that he conceived to exist
between himself and his imaginary interlocuters. Some
respondents thought about persons who were disliked,
critical, or hostile; others thought of persons who

were liked, supportive, or friendly. Thus, for most of
our respondents, the act of writing seemed to provide one
of two kinds of gratifications. For some, writing pro—
vided the opportunity to bestow pleasure on readers, who
would reward them for it by admiration and affection.
For others, the gratification came from awareness of the
weapon of words which they had in their hands and the
damage that it could do to the 'bad guys.‘ Both the
gratification of winning affection and the gratification
of aggression are predicated upon the power of the
printed word. They involve a fantasy of someone's read-
ing the text and being strongly moved by it.28

Pool and Shulman liken the newswriting situation to that
of political oratory--frequently instances of one-way com-

munication to a secondary audience. And since the audience

 

27Ibid., p. 155.

281bid., p. 145.

14

consists of secondary contacts, at best, notions of power
and deference replace and symbolize more tangible and inti-
mate rewards.29 -

In the third phase of this study, the newsmen were
reinterviewed to see how much the images, or orientations to
the world, were the result of personality or the mood of one
day. Pool and Shulman found that temperament is probably
the more important factor.30

Pool and Shulman's research focuses on the writing stage
of the communication process. The next study also involves
the newspaper medium, but this time the process under con-
sideration is the selection of previously written copy for
inclusion in a specific newspaper in a single city.
5. "The 'Gatekeeper': a Cape Study in the

Selection of NewsL:_by D. M. White.31

In the same volume from which these five articles are
taken, Walter Gieber32 credits this study of White's with
giving "impetus to research in a critical area--the channels
of mass communication themselves. What happens to news
stories as they are handled by newsmen within these channels?”

White, in turn, credits the late Kurt Lewin with coining

the term_"gatekeeper". Dr. Lewin, says White, pointed out that

 

291bid., p. 156.

 

301bid., p. 157.

 

31In Dexter and White, People, Society, and Mass Communi-
cations, pp. 160-172.

321bid., p. 174.

15

the traveling of a news item through certain communication
channels is dependent on the fact that certain areas within
the channels function as "gates".33

In this case study by White, the unit of analysis is a
single wire editor of a morning newspaper in a Midwest city
of 100,000. The focus of research was on the copy which did
ppp_get into the paper. This amounted to approximately nine-
tenths of the total available copy received on the three wire
services.

"Mr. Gates", as White labeled him, saved all the unused
wire copy. At the end of the working day, he "went through
every piece of copy in the 'reject' box and wrote on it the
reason why he had initially rejected it, assuming that he

"34 This process went on for a week.

could recall the reason.
When he had turned over the raw material of his choice for
the week's period, White tried to analyze his performance in
terms of certain basic questions which presented themselves.
White's theoretical assumption was that "all of the wire edi-
tors' standards of taste should refer back to an audience

who must be served and pleased."35

One of the questions asked of "Mr. Gates" was, "What is

your concept of the audience for whom you select stories and

 

33Ibid., p. 162 (original source: Kurt Lewin, "Channels
of Group Life," Human Relations, Vol. I, No. 2, p. 145).

341516., p. 164.

351bid., p. 169.

16

what sort of person do you conceive the average person to

be?"

Mr. Gates responded:

Our readers are looked upon as people with average intel-
ligence and with a variety of interests and abilities.

I am aware of the fact we have readers with above-average
intelligence (there are four colleges in our area) and
that there are many with far less education. -Anyway, I
see them as human and with some common interests. I be-
lieve they are all entitled to news that pleases them,
(stories involving their thinking and activity), and
news that informs them of what is going on in the world.36

From his analysis of each rejected item of newswire copy,

and from his evaluation of "Mr. Gates's" replies to several

generalized questions, White concluded his report with these

observations:

It is a well-known fact in individual psychology
that people tend to perceive as true only those happen-
ings which fit into their own beliefs concerning what
is likely to happen. It begins to appear (if Mr. Gates
is a fair representative of his class) that in his posi-
tion as 'gatekeeper' the newspaper editor sees to it
(even though he may never be consciously aware of it)
that the community shall hear as fact only those events
which the newsman, as the representative of his culture,
believes to be true.

.This is the case study of one 'gatekeeper', but
one, who like several hundred of his fellow 'gatekeepers',
plays a most important role as the terminal 'gate' in
the complex process of communication. Through studying
his overt reasons for rejecting news stories from the
press associations we see how highly subjective, how
based on the 'gatekeeper's' own set of experiences,
attitudes, and expectations the communication of 'news'
really is.37

 

351bid., p. 170.

37Ibid., p. 171.

17

4. FNews i§_What Newspapermen Make It."
by Walter Gieber.38 ‘

,This study concentrates primarily on the newsmen and

39 The methodologies employed are depth inter-

their sources.
views and participant observation.

Gieber argues that while most critiques of the press are
concerned with the effects of the press on society--as though
the press were an autonomous force--the examination of the
press ought to start where the news begins--"within the insti—
tution of the press, within the walls of the newsroom or any
other place where a newsman gets and writes his stories."40

This study, then, is of the same genre as David Manning
White's: it is a "gatekeeper" study. The goal of such stud-
ies, according to Gieber, is hopefully to make a contribution
toward a better understanding of the behavior of mass-
communications specialists, and ultimately to contribute to
a sociology of the journalist.41

After reviewing the reasons for gatekeeper-type studies,
which are in essence the study of information channels,

Gieber reports on three studies which he made between 1956

and 1960. He summarizes the three in this way:

 

38InDexter and White, People, Society, and.Mass Communi—
cations, pp. 173-182.

39Ibid., p. 174.
4°Ibid., p. 175.

411516., p. 174.

18

The ultimate rationale of the press--the reason for its
license--is to serve the audience. The news-gathering
machinery and the news-gathering bureaucracy are the
means; the audience needs are the goals. In the teleg-
raphy editor survey, the means all but replaced the
goals. In the civil liberties study, both the sources
and the reporters rationalized audience needs but neither
seemed to know the audience; both communicators shared
responsibility for a communication breakdown resulting
from their antagonistic frames of reference; each was
communicating thought by the means of his bureaucracy.
In the city hall study, the communicator allowed himself
to be caught in a frame of reference which was only in
part of his own making, the proper goals were all but
forgotten.42

5. "Mass Communication and Socigcultural
Integration," by Warren Breed.4

Breed hypothesizes that one function of the mass media
may be to "omit or bury items which might jeopardize the
sociocultural structure and man's faith in it."44

To test this hypothesis, he analyzed eleven sociological
studies of various communities, noting all statements which,
to the best of his knowledge, he believed would ppp_be featured
in that city's press; and then he looked in the newspapers to
see if, in fact, these items had been omitted. In essence,
Breed is suggesting that a newspaper and a community study

both function in similar wayss in that-they both survey the

activities of a specified geographical area. Assuming,

 

421516., p. 180.

43InDexter and White, Peopley Society, and Mass Communi-
cations, pp..185-201.

 

44Ibid., p..169.

19

apparently, that the social scientific research is more com-
plete in its reporting of community events, he proceeds to
isolate situations which, in his judgment, are not likely to
have found their way into the public newspaper.

He reports that roughly two-thirds of the suppressed
items were political and economic; another one—fifth were
religious; and the remainder were concerned with such areas
as justice, health and the family.45

His conclusion is based on an assumption about the nature
of the relationship between mass media communicators and
their audiences:

An important difference between personal and mass com-

munication is the lack of feedback available to permit

questions and discussions of problematic points in the
latter.46
Hence, concludes Breed, the mass media withdraw from consider-
ation of some issues.

Having considered five studies which concern themselves
with the relationship of communicators in the press and their
audiences, attention is turned now to another channel, the
medium of film.

6. "The Creator~Audience Relationship in the

Mass Media: An Analysis of Movie Making"
by Herbert J. Gapp,47

 

4511616., p..169.
461516., p. 199.

‘7In Bernarleosenberg and David Manning White (edsJL Mass
Culture: The Popular Arts in America, pp. 515-524.

20

For purposes of analysis, Gans isolates the creator's
image of the audience from the creative process as a whole
and postulates that the audience has an active role in the
creative process through its image in the creator's mind.

,Every creator is engaged to some extent in a process

of communication between himself and an audience, that

is, he is creating pomething for somebody. This some-

body may be the creator himself, other people, or even

a nonexistant stereotype, but it becomes an image of

the audience which the creator develops as part of

every creative process... .~. This image, though pro-

jected by the creator, functions as an external

observer—judge against which he unconsciously tests

his product even while he is creating it.

Gans suggests that the audience image is not a single,
unified concept, but a set of numerous impressions, many of
which are latent and contradictory. These impressions involve
primarily how people live, and how they look at and respond
‘to the roles, personalities, relationships, institutions, and
objects that movies portray. Gans contends that these im-
pressions develop and accumulate in the mind of the creator
"in his contacts with potential audiences."49

Gans emphasizes that the creator not only anticipates his
audience, but also tries to create or attract an audience for
his product. Recognizing that many "publics" or groups of
audience types exist, the movie creator tries to incorporate

elements into his product which he thinks will be attractive

and pleasing to them.

 

451516., p. 516.

‘9Ibid., p. 517.

21

The 'great' movie-maker may be able to create a loyal
audience precisely because he knows or feels something,
perhaps within himself, that is shared by a large
number of publics, but has not been sensed by other
creators who are perhaps equally bold or adept in other
aspects of movie-making.
Every creator has a somewhat different life history and
consequently a distinctive image of the audience. Some—
times, he shares enough of the characteristics of an
actual audience so that by creating for himself, that is,
for his self-image, he is also communicating to a larger
audience.50
Im summary, Gans is saying that the audience image func-
tions to bring the movie-maker in contaCt with one of his
major refpgence groups, the audience. He recognizes that
other reference groups also affect the creator's total image;
for example, colleagues, superiors, critics, and respected
creators in other fields. The demands of these reference
groups, according to Gans, may sometimes conflict with those
of the audience, that is, the imagined ticket-buyers. These
conflicts, however, may broaden and diversify the creator's
own audience image.51
The basic data for the preceding analysis are contained
in a 1952 study by Lillian Ross of the movie production of
" The Red Badge of Courage".52 While her study was intended

for other purposes, Gans reanalyzes the material for insights

into the role of conflicting audience images.

 

5°Ibid.,
511bid., pp. 517-516.

52Ibid., pp. 519-521 (original source: Lillian Ross,
Picture, New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1952).

22

In brief, Gans demonstrates how rewrites of this specific
film were performed by three "creators" who possessed three
distinctively different images of the audience. For the sake
of simplicity, he uses the terms "highbrow", "middlebrow",
and "lowbrow".58 Specific indications of these varied orien-
tations are revealed in correspondence between the parties
involved and in the various scripts. Gans concludes by noting
that the audience (through the audience images held by these
three creators) has an active role in the creation of the
mass media product.

He argues, further, that the audience affects not only
the content of the product but'also the structure and the
culture of the mass media industries themselves.

For example, note the indirect part the audience has in

the oft-mentioned insecurity of the mass media creators,

and the apparently irrational decision-making patterns
that have been sometimes observed. Every mass-media
creator, whatever his skill, is to some degree dependent
on the validity of his audience image for his status

and standing in the industry. However, publics are so

numerous and so fickle in their infinite combinations

that it is impossible to tell in advance whether a once
successful image is still accurate . . . the turnover
of creators probably also reflects the role of the
audience and the turnover of publics within it.54

The role which one plays in the production process is,
according to Gans, another important variable. The studio

executive, for example, works intimately with financing;

therefore, his images are likely to seek out the largest

 

53Ibid., p. 519.

 

541516., p. 522.

 

25

number of people. .The director and writer, on the other hand,
are able to give fullest rein to their audience images; and
it is these whom Gans has used for models in much of his
.discussion. The producer, by contrast, occupies the ambiva—
lent position of having to take into account the studio as a
profit-making institution and his own image as a creator.55

And, it is the producer in this ambivalent position to
which attention turns in the following study. The medium is
still film; however, the product is not for the movie theater
but for network television programming.

7. "Tplevision Producers: A Sociological
Analygis" by Murielpg. Cantor.

This is a dissertation study of fifty-nine “working (on
the line) television producers of films for prime-time shows"
for American network programming. The data were collected
in 1969 through tape-recorded interviews.57

.Cantor is concerned with three major aspects of the pro-
ducer's craft: (1) how they select the content for their
shows, (2) how they perceive this selection as controlled
and conStrained by the various features of the television

industry and film production company, and (5) how the pro-

ducer's personal values and reference groups relate to his

 

551bid., p. 518.

§6Unpublished Ph.D. disseration. University of California.
1969--the pagination is from an unbound manuscript.

57Ibid., p. I-1.

24

selection of content.58

In particular, she wants to find out how much social
constraint or conflict and social support the producer thinks
come from several reference groups when decision.about con-
tent are being made. She is concerned not only with the
audience, but also, with the censors, the economically-oriented
segments of the business, outside pressure groups, and other
reference groups which represent artistic and professional
interests of the producer.59

These reference groups were obtained by direct question-
ing of the producers. The groups which came to have the most
interest for the researcher were:

those in control of the medium, studio and network

executives, sponsors and their representatives, the

advertising agencies,

those groups which might represent artistic excellence
or achievement, and

the viewing audience whom the producer may be trying
to reach.6

It is interesting that Cantor uses the term "audience"
in a sense large enough to include even those who sit in
judgment upon whether or not the film is shown. She suggests
that the most important reference group of a communicator is
the audience who must approve of the communication. For

newspapermen, the most important reference group would be the

581516.
591bid., p. 11-11.

6°Ibid.

25

publishers; for the producers, in this case, it would be the
network officials and censors.61

Though Cantor is interested in the relative contribution
of several reference groups, prime attention here will be
given to her comments on the viewing audience as a reference
group.

No hypotheses are tested in her study, because it is
primarily descriptive and analytical. She does, however,
summarize her findings by formulating a typology of three
types of producers. The details of her typology, though, will
not be presented.

In terms of the relationship of these TV film producers
and their viewing audiences, it is interesting to note:

The majority of producers thought their audiences lived

in the smaller towns and the country, and there seemed

to be a consensus that if your show had a format which
appealed to the rural or semi-rural kind of audience,
the show's chance for success was greater than if the
show were sophisticated and urbane.62

In describing their nation-wide, prime-time audiences,
40%;of the television producers pictured the people as rural
and unsophisticated, 22% described them as urban and sophis-
ticated, 25% imagined them as a mixture of both urban and
3

rural, while 14% did not categorize their audiences.6

According to Cantor, however,

 

61Ibid., p. VI-7
82 -
Ibid., p. VII-5.

63Ibid.

26

The producer's images of his television audience seem
.to have little relation to actual survey data about
the geographic distribution and character of the show.64

Cantor describes the interesting process of rationaliza-
tion which accompanies these discrepencies between the pro-
ducer's perception and the actual audience. She illustrates
with examples:

. . . both producers seemed to shift their conception
of their audience when the ratings showed they appealed
also to city people as well as those in the less popu-
lated areas. This did not cause them to shift from a
theme they thought would be basically less appealing

to an unsophisticated audience. Instead, they seemed
to shift their view of the city audience from more
sophisticated to less 80.65

From her interviews with the fifty-nine TV producers,
Cantor concluded that surveys and ratings were too impersonal
and sterile to many of them, especially those who had been
performers or playwrights and who missed their contact with
live audiences.

Many of the older producers formed opinions about their

audience from the fan mail and the personal contacts

they had with people they met who watched the show.

Even those producers who were aware that, of course,

just a tiny part of the audience can be reached through

direct contact seemed to put more credibility in the
comments of friends, family and people met casually
than in reports from the survey and marketing research
firms available towthem.66

This differential response to first-hand and secondary

forms of feedback from the audience is a fascinating

 

54Ibid., p. VII-5.
65429.” pp. VII-6,7

66Ibid., p. VII-9.

27

phenomenon, and one which has been given empirical attention
in the following study.
8. "Programmer' 3 Choice: Eight Factors in

Program7 DecisioneMaking" by J. David

Lewis.

In this national study of programming executives in com-
mercial TV stations, Lewis investigates the program decision-
making process in an attempt to discover how mass media
organizations function without the aid of immediate, direct
feedback on the effects of their messages.68

From extensive factor analyses of responses to his 45-
item questionnaire, Lewis was able to isolate eight factors,
or clusters of items, whiCh the programmers use in their
decision—making process.

1. DIRECT FEEDBACK: Information such as letters, phone

calls, and meetings with the external audience of

the station.

2. REGULATORY: Rules, regulations, and policies of the
F.C.C., the broadcasting industry, and the station.

5. INFERENTIAL FEEDBACK: ,National and local ratings and
rating-derived information.

4. CONDITIONAL: Family, friends, and critics whose
opinions may be subject to bias.

5. PRODUCTION STAFF: Members of the production-oriented
station staff, such as production manager, producer/
directors, etc.

6. PERSONAL: Respondent's own insights derived from
background, experience, and personality.

 

7In Journal of Broadcasting, V01. XIV, No. 1 (Winter,
1969- 70), pp. 71- 82.

6815161., p. 72.

28

7. FINANCIAL: Sales considerations, cost, and the
sponsor.

8. TACTICAL: Programming methods and gambits such as
program balance, strip programming, trends, etc.69

Lewis then ran simple and multiple correlations to
determine if certain characteristics of the programmer or
his market had any effect upon his use of the factors or
specific types of information found within the factors.70

Below are ennumerated a few examples of his findings:

.1. As the market size increased, so did the importance
to the programmer of feedback from groups.7

2. The F.C.C. items scored quite high in overall 1-
importance to the programmer; however, these items
showed no relationship with any of the personal or
market variables.72

5. Ratings were important to the programmer, aiding
chiefly in determining competitive position and
as a form of feedback from the station's audience.
Local ratings, consequently, were moSt important.73

4. The programmer's background and experience as a
professional programmer-~his tastes, instincts, and
.plain common sense--consistently scored as more
important than any other factors except for the
Regulatory factor. As might be expected, his years
in broadcasting and years in the community corre-
lated highly with these Personal factors. 4

 

69Ibid., pp. 74-75 (taken verbatim, however, from his un-
published Ph.D. dissertation, J. David Lewis, "Feedback in
vMass Communication: Its Nature and Use in DecisioneMaking,"
Michigan State University, 1966), p. 2 of Abstract}

7OLewis, Journal of Broadcastipg, p. 78.

7lIbid.,

721bid.

731bid., p. 79.

74Ibid., p. 80.

29

5. Strong negative correlations between the Financial
~factors and such things as market size, sponsor's
opinion, and sponsor-relayed comments from the viewer,
suggested to Lewis that sales items decline in im-
portance as security increases, i.e. while the small
station may need every sponsor it can obtain, the
larger market station may be more financially stable
and able to exert its own power.75

Lewis concludes that the process of decision-making is
not a completely random process.76

Application of Functional Analysis
to the-Literature

Following this survey of the literature concerning the
relationship of the communicator anthis audience, DeFleur's
social systems framework will now be used to analyze these
studies of the mass media. It will be important to look for
the function which the mass communicator's relationship to his
audience has for the maintenance and stability of the social
system in which he operates.

Three basic questions, derived from functional analysis,
will be asked of each study reviewed above: (1) What are the
important, repetitive communication behaviors of the mass
communicators? (2) What are the major components of the
social system in each study? And (5) what functions do these

communication habits serve in the preservation of the social

system?

N7§Ibid., p. 81.

751516., p. 82.

5O

.1. What are the importgpt, pgpetitive compgnication behavigpg
pf the mggs communicators?

Bauer reports that American businessmen who have recently
returned from abroad appear to organize their overseas eXperi-
ences in terms of the first audience--or more precisely, in
terms of their image of the first audience--to which they must
Speak. The image of this first audience becomes a type of
secondary audience when he prepares for subsequent speeches.

Pool and Shulman's study of the writing habits of newsmen
indicates that fantasy images of the audience are consistently
conjured up by the communicator and serve as indicators of
expectation about how the audience—-that is, the real audience--
will react to what they write. These images are consistently
of two types: persons who are disliked.and persons who are
liked.

The repetitive communication behavior observed by White,
in his study of the wire editor, is the "gatekeeper's" con-
sistent rejection of wire copy on the basis of his own value
and taste system. The inference is that what interests him
will also be interesting to his audience.

In the three studies by Gieber, neWSpapermen and their
sources are consistently constructing audience images which
will support what they have already decided to communicate.

In no case does Gieber find that these mass communicators have
much actual knowledge about, or orientation towards, any

audience which is external to their daily routine.

51

Breed finds that the neWSpaper, as a corporate communi-
cator, regularly suppresses information about the environ-
ment which might potentially jeopardize the sociocultural
structure of the community and the citizens' faith in it.

The feature film creators in Gans' study make differen-
tial changes in the same film because of their varying images
of the audience they wish to reach. Gans considers that a
creator's self-image may be his primary point of reference
in the creation process and that those with the greatest
diversity are the most successful.

Cantor reports that TV film producers orient their crea-
tive processes to that audience which must approve of their
communication, i.e., the network executives and censors.

She reports that this "audience" is their most important
reference group. A second habit observed by Cantor is the
consistent dependence of”the producers upon personal contacts
with a sample of the potential audience rather than dependence
upon survey data of the total, actual audience.

Lewis suggests that the communicator in the mass media,
under conditions of restricted or non-existant feedback,
turns to substitute sources of information, found mainly with-
in the internal system of the mass media organization. He
makes this generalization from his study of commercial TV
programmers.

Having identified the important, repetitive communication

behaviors reported in each study, it becomes necessary to

52

identify the boundaries of each system within which these

behaviors function.

2. What are the mgjp; components gf_the socialpystem 1p each
study?

Before approaching each study, it might be well to re-
member that the authors of these studies were not consciously
applying the rigor of functional analysis; therefore, in most
cases, the information being sought will not be obvious;
neither, consequently, can it be very precise. NIn many in-
stances, the information mUSt be guessed at. With this in
mind, the major components of the social system in each study
will be sought.

Bauer's article is in large part an exercise in concep-
tualization, with only scanty reference to empirical Situa-
tions. Those situations involving the American businessmen;
however, seem to have a number of components in common: the
communicator, who has had recent eXperiences overseas; a
manifest audience for his first subsequent Speech; secondary
audiences or reference groups; the message itself, which has
an existence apart from the communicator; and behavior of the
communicator, which must frequently conform to what he has
previously said.

In Pool and Shulman's study of audience images in the
newswriting situation, the following components are most
noticeable: the communicator; his imaginary audience or

reference groups; his real audience, who for the most part is

55

unknown; the message written; the reward for his communica-
tion, which is primarily internal; the writing context,
which is the newSpaper organization; and the pressures of
deadlines, space, and the editor's blue pencil.

White describes the world of his solitary wire editor
in very simple terms: the gatekeeper, who is described as a
rather passive communicator and more like a channel; the flow
of incoming wire stories; the communicator's self-image,
projected by him to represent the tastes and values of his
imagined audience; the pressures of time, Space, and ease
with which a story can be fitted into the layout of the news-
paper page. No mention is made of the influence of the office
"culture" on his decision-making.

In Gieber's study of newsmen and their sources of informa—
tion, the social system encompasses primarily these two com-
municators, their reSpective bureaucracies, their communicated
thought, and their "rationalized audience" which they conjure
in their minds to justify their communication. Gieber's
observation is that their communication process does not take
into account any realistic reference to anything resembling
.an external, or "real" audience. The rewards come, apparently,
from within their respective organizations.

The community is the social system and frame of reference
for the study by Breed. The components to which he alludes
are: the population of “events"; the reported events, as

found in the community press; the suppressed events, as found

54

in sociological studies of these communities; the sociocul-
tural structure of the community and the implied faith which
its citizens have in it; limited feedback channels to the
press from the audience; and, of course, the corporate organi-
zation of the press itself. The reward, it seems, is commun-
ity equilibrium to which such suppression of controversial
items is supposed to contribute.

Determination of social systems becomes even more diffi-
cult when attention is turned to a communication process of
national or international scope. .The neWSpaper studies cited
above have a much more circumscribed system. In the next two
studies cited, however, the communicators are creating for
audiences throughout the nation; in the first case, through
film theaters, and in the second case, through the channels
of network television. In these situations, the relationship
of the audience and the communicator are even more tenuous
because of the extreme geographical area involved.

Gans refers to a number of components in the social sys-
tem, of which film—making is one. He Speaks of the creators;
images of the audience which they hold; reference groups of
varying salience; feedback from.the theater box offices; and
the pervasiveness of financial criteria, which serve as guide-
lines for content and as indications of success. The actual
parameters of such a study, as with the others in which the
audience is supposed to have its effect within the communica—

tor's mind, are extremely difficult to locate. Who can define

55

the boundaries of a man's mind?

-A similar difficulty is encountered in Cantor's study
of the television film producers. -Even though she describes
her study as a sociological analysis, her taped interviews
with the producers seem more psychological or psychoanalyt-o
ical--more concerned with thoughts than behaviors. It is
true that she is concerned with the relative effect of several
reference groups on the producer'sacreativeqprocess. The
"effect", however, occurs primarily within the mind of the
producer. It is difficult, then, to specify the components
of this social system. There is the communicator; his refer-
ence groups, both real and imagined; his TV film product;
the audience, real and imagined; his orientation, which is
far more craft-oriented than audience-oriented; and his goals,
which are frequently for advancement into feature film pro-
ducing, where his target audience coincides more completely
with his self—image. There is a system of rewards and punish—
ments in his social system. To get past the censor is one
-reward, and large audience numbers, as indicated by the polls,
constitute another. Punishments come from rejected content
or, in the extreme case, removal of his prpduct from network
programming. There is also a continuing conflict between the
audience images held by the network officials, including the
censors, and by the producer. In some cases, the producer
adopts the others' images to stay in business and to get the

necessary experience so he can move up into feature film

56

production; in other cases, the conflict is more or less con-
tinuous.

In the study by Lewis, the social system is contracted
once more to include the local community, or TV coverage
area, as the focal point for decision-making by the commercial
station programmer. But even in this case, where his deci—
sions about programming affect a small geographical region,
the factors which affect him come from far and wide.

The social system for a commercial TV programming execu-
tive involves regulatory bodies, such as the Federal Communi-
cations Commission in Washington, D. C.; financial consideray
tions, involving sponsors that are local, regional, and .
national; craft considerations, which are acquired from ex—
perience and conventions; and numerous other components which
are more local in orientation, such as competition, local
ratings, feedback from the audience, and feedback from within
the station itself.

Before proceeding to the third question, it might be
well to pause and consider the nature of the audiences re—
ferred to in the studies above. They are certainly not all
of the same genre.

.For Bauer's subjects, the "real audience" probably refers
to those assembled for a speech. When the speech is broad-
cast, or reprinted in some form, however, the secondary
audiences become important. .In fact, Bauer suggests that

for governmental spokesmen, in particular, the manifest

57

audience, or the audience present for the speech, may not be
the target audience at all. Witness how frequently the
President addresses the nation via a speech to some smaller
audience.

Throughout the studies reviewed in this chapter, there
runs the notion of "real“ versus "imagined" audiences. -Mass
communication by definitiOn is almost exclusively one-way
communication to an anonymous audience. There is no known
evidence which measures the relative difficulty of "picturing
the audience" either at the local level or the national.

The evidence cited in the above studies suggests that it is
rather much a “hit or miss" proposition. Audience survey
data are not very helpful, as yet, because they tend to be
more quantitative than qualitive. It is difficult, therefore,
to verify whether one has actually reached the intended audi-
ence.

Following this brief detour into the nature Of the audi-
ences, as mentioned in these studies, attention is turned
now to the third question in this functional analysis of the

literature.

5. Whapgfunctigp§_do the§§_communicaf;9p_habits serve in the
preservatigp_pf the socigl system?
The function of the audience in Bauer's study is exten-
sive. It not only serves as a target for which to arrange

information, but even prior to this point in the process, it

58

affects what the communicator actually perceived in his experi-
ences and what he remembers of what he sees. If it were not
for these images of the audience, or potential audiences,

one would perceive little and retain even less. The audience,
therefore, is not the passive recipient of a message, but
functions to affect the entire communication process,.from
event to presentation of that event.

For the news writers in the Pool and_Shulman study,
audience images serve two major functions: first, they provide
a target for communicating, and secondly, they provide a source
for imaginary reward. In the absence of substantiating feed-
back from all of the audience, the communicator creates an
audience image which meets his own psychological needs. Perhaps
he is retained on the staff because his "fantasies" correspond
with these of the editor and publisher.

The content of a newspaper is so varied, and its compon-
ents are capable of pleasing so many different publics, that
it is difficult to determine the specific contribution of a
specific communicator to the continued success of an entire
publishing enterprise. It is difficult, for example, to
establish the precise contribution that "Mr. Gates" makes in
his selection of wire stories according to his own personal
values and tastes. White infers that this man is successful,
because it is an important and responsible position.

In the "gatekeeper“ studies by Gieber, it is evident

that communication specialists can stay in business without

59

a very valid concept of the audience. The bureaucracies for
which they work--the city government and the neWSpaper--
operate in such a fashion that one-way communication can bon-
tinue without much apparent harm to the communication system.
It would seem that as long as the press can continue to make
money from its advertisers, it is not terribly important
whether or not Specific components of the news gathering and
news reporting systemsxare Operating at optimal communicating
efficiency.

The function of suppressed news in Breed's study is
hypothesized to serve as a buffer to the community and as a
preserver of the social structure. It is not evident whether
or not what Breed calls "suppressed news" may, in fact, be
primarily news of which the press is unaware. The "beats" of
the reporters may not bring to attention the same types of
information sought out by social science researchers, such as
those who penned the reports which Breed analyzed.

The test of "success" for a feature film is easier to
discern than for that of broadcast media, because the receipts
at the box office provide concrete proof that the product has
reached a specified number of receivers, and the reward to
the producers and financial backers is available almost im—
mediately. In the study by Gans, of creators in the film
.industry, audience images function to maximize box office
returns. Success and failure are clearly demonstrated. It

is not always clear why some films are so appealing and others

40

not, nor why some appeals work one time and not the next;

but it is virtually indisputable that film creators can
consciously incorporate content which is designed to appeal
to various publics. The most successful creators do not

have to guess about the size of their audience nearly so much
as does the local newspaperman, whose product is buried among
a multitude of other articles and advertisements. It is
still not clear, either, if the film creators' audience
images are any more accurate than the other mass media
creators'.

-An excellent example of this phenomenon is demonstrated
in Cantor's study of TV film producers, who sometimes, perhaps
frequently, reach audiences not intended. Some producers
with little “audience orientation" are by industry standards
very successful at capturing large audiences. Cantor suggests
that one's personal experiences may be important in building
a multi-facted self-image, so that by pleasing oneself, the
various publics represented in one's self-image are reached
through the communicated product. Whatever the explanation,
there is rather universal agreement that the creative process

involves dialogue within the mind of the creator.

The Local Broadcastg; and His Audience

The preceding survey of the literature indicates that
much attention has been given to the relationship of the

communicator and his audience in the media of the press,

41

feature film and TV film industries. With the one exception
of Lewis's study, however, there has been virtually no re-
search on the relationship of the broadcaster and his audi-
ence. And even his study does not focus on the relationship
td‘the audience, but considers audience contact and informa-
tion about the audience within a much larger number of

factors utilized by programming executives in decision-making.

There is great need fOr research on the "live" broad-
casters who address their audiences daily through the elec-
tronic media of radio and television. Their relationship to
the audience needs to be systematically explored.

There is reason to believe that if the communication
habits of local broadcasters are carefully analyzed, a more
definitive understanding can be achieved concerning the process
by which mass media communicators relate to their relatively
anonymous audiences.

It is suggested not only that this process of relating
to the audience should be described, but also that these
communication habits be analyzed for their relative contribu-
tion to the maintenance of the financially-oriented social
system of broadcasting.

It is further suggested that a category of broadcasting
be selected for whom a social system can be easily determined
and preferably one whose target audiences and reference

grOUps can be readily identified.

42

While "audience images" ought to be explored, it would
appear to be methodologically sound to concentrate on more
observable communication habits. It is difficult to verify
what goes on inside a man's head, and frequently difficult
for him to convey this experience to the researcher. .It has
been suggested in some of the literature that a communicator's
personal experience is an important contribution to his audi-
ence images. It seems logical, then, that research on the
local broadcaster ought to look for background information
about the communicator and fOr information about the similarity
and differences between his self-image and his image of the
audience.

.Realizing that the local broadcaster may have opportunity
for direct contact with a greater proportion of this potential
audience than, say, a network film producer, effort should be
made to explore this relationship. What is the context of
the contact; what are the channels used; and what is its im-
portance in terms of broadcast content?

In order to avoid misleading generalizations drawn from
psamples which are too homogeneous, research on the local
broadcaster and his audience should incorporate representative
broadcasters from radio and television stations--large and
small, urban and rural, commercial and non-commercial.

Such a study has been designed and executed. Its metho-
dology and findings are reported in the following chapters on

SOME COMMUNICATION HABITS OF FARM BROADCASTERS.

CHAPTER II

DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY

This chapter on the methodology used in gathering the
data is organized into eight sections: 7(1) the selection
of a methodology, (2) the pre-pilot study, (5) the pilot ques-
tionnaire, (4) the selection of mailing list, (5) the cover

letter, (6) the final questionnaire, (7) the follow-up letter,

and (8) the returns.

The Selection of a Methodolggy

Two types of eXperience and interest related to this re-
searcher provide the basis for the selection of methodology
for this study. One pertains to the fact that he has had two
years of experience as a non-commercial farm broadcaster and,
consequently has had contact with an organization known as
the National Association of Farm Broadcasters. The other per-
tains to the fact that he has an interest in the farm broadw
caster as a Specific genre of mass communicator and in the
development of a conceptual relationship of mass communicators
handl‘their audiences. The two areas of experience and interest

develOped in parallel fashion, with the result that a study

43

44

embracing the farm broadcaster and problems of mass communica-
tors-and their audience emerged.

It became obvious quite early that a study of the rela—
tionship of the mass communicator with his audience, and more
specifically, the relationship of the farm broadcaster with
his audience and other reference groups, would require a
national study. .A 1969 membership directory of the National
Association of Farm Broadcasters revealed that there are
approximately two-hundred voting members--seemingly a very
manageable number for a study. It was also apparent that a
study of the entire population of farm broadcasters was both
financially feasible and would avoid some of the obvious prob-
lems of sampling.

.The two-hundred farm broadcasters are located from
New YOrk to California and from North Dakota to southern-Texas.
Because such geographical dispersion made the use of personal
interviews quite impractical, the mail questionnaire appeared

to be the most appropriate instrument.

The Prezpilot Study

 

The NAFB Directory showed that over ninety percent of
the membership is composed of commercial farm broadcasters.
Because the bulk of this researcher's experience has been in
non—commercial farm broadcasting, it became apparent that
before a questionnaire could be meaningfully composed, some
initial study had to be made of the commercial variety of

farm broadcasters.

45

The first effort in this direction was to attend the
1969 Annual NAFB Convention in Chicago in November. There,
through casual conversations with about ten broadcasters,
and from information gleaned in numerous professional pre—
sentations, a "picture" of the commercial farm broadcaster
began to come into focus. -A more systematic inquiry was
required, however.

Therefore, a series of on-the—job interviews was set up
with all seven NAFB members in Michigan, one in Indiana, and
three in Louisville, Kentucky (including the National Presi-
dent). .Approximately one-half day was spent with each of
these eleven farm broadcasters, watching the manner in which
athey put together their day's programming. These observations
were followed by intensive, semi-structured interviews to
formulate a more comprehensive picture of the total working
week, as well as to locate variations in procedures so that
these variations could be anticipated in the eventual question-
naire. -At the close of each interview, the farm broadcaster
was told to expect a "trial questionnaire" in the mail shortly.
He was asked to fill it out and make any suggestions as to how
its form and content could be improved.

.A fifty-item, seven-page questionnaire was then mailed
to a total of sixteen farm broadcasters, the list including
those who had been interviewed either at the Chicago conven—

tion or on-the-job.

46

The sixteen persons selected to participate in the pilot
study were chosen on the basis of three criteria: first,
personal acquaintance; second, their potential contribution
and c00peration; and third, their overall representativeness
of the total population of farm broadcasters. In their number
were both radio and television stations--very large and very
small, commercial and non-commercial. It was important to
grasp the great diversity of eventual respondents so that the
questionnaire would not be grossly biased and slanted toward
a small segment of the group.

.Twelve of the sixteen returned the "trial questionnaire,"
their comments being very helpful and illuminating. .In fact,
it became necessary to make some drastic change. 'Most of the
open-ended questions had to be abandoned because no one took
the time to fill out that kind of question. In response to
complaints about the length of the questionnaire, it was some-
what shortened. Finally, attempts were made to reduce an
apparent radio bias in the form and content of the instrument.

-After extensive rewriting, collapsing of categories, and
making provision for both radio and television answers, a
second questionnaire was drafted.and printed. It was not re—
tested, but was then mailed to the entire population of farm

broadcasters.

The Selgction g; a Mailing List

In the 1969 directory, voting membership was accorded

to both commercial and non-commercial farm broadcasters.

47

It was on the basis of this list that the mailing was initially
to have been.made. -However, at the November convention in
Chicago, all non-commercial farm.broadcasters were deprived of
their standing as voting members and placed on the list of
Associate members. .When the new membership list became avail—
able in March of 1970, the voting membership had been reduced
to 166, all of whom were commercial farm broadcasters.

Because a very large number of the 240 Associate Members
are not actually broadcasters, it was necessary to analyze
this list person-by-person. It became apparent that only 15
are clearly full-time, non-commercial farm broadcasters; and
these were added to the 166 previously designated. This brought
the total number of the mailing to 179, and the questionnaires
were mailed during the latter part of March.

Several respondents returned their questionnaires without
having completed them, attaching a note which said that they
did not actually broadcast programs, though a few did produce

tapes for distribution.
.The Cover Letteg

The cover letter was produced by a photographic-printing
process (Insty-Prints) on 8é'x 4%; white textured copy of
the Michigan State University Department of Television and
Radio letter head. Four phrases were underlined in red pencil:
(1) SOME COMMUNICATION HABITS OF FARM BROADCASTERS, (2) shift-

ing rural-urban mixture, (5) 20 minutes, and (4) simple

48

check-mark. Each letter was personally signed. The inten-
tion, of course, was to personalize it as much as possible.

The envelopes, also white and textured, were individually
typed; and a postage stamp was affixed to each. The return
envelope, which was of an attractive tan texture, was self-
addressed and stamped. 'The object was to minimize the mis-
placing of the test instrument.

“The respondent was asked to complete the questionnaire

and to return it, if at all possible, within 48 hours.

The Final Questionnaire

 

The research instrument which was mailed to 179 farm
broadcasters was made up of seventy-six variables, in thirty—
six items, distributed in six major divisions. .The six di-
visions included (1) general information about the station,
farm programming, and communication of the farm broadcaster
with station personnel; (2) on-the-air communication habits;
(5) questions about the farm broadcaster and his audience;
(4) communication habits in the area of sales, sponsors, and
commercials; (5) communication habits at the meetings he
attended, and (6) background questions about the demographic
details of the farm broadcaster as a person.

.The items were very professionally laid out on one sheet
of 8é'x 22 yellow daffodil textured paper, folded to make
four pages. Most questions required only a simple check—mark

to answer. A few required a single sentence or phrase, and

49

for two it was necessary to circle a number or insert a number
in the blank. .Answering the questionnaire required approxi-
mately 15-20 minutes.

The questionnaire used a variety of approaches to secur-
ing answers from the respondent. (Most items were multiple
choice. Others required ranking each item first, second, and
third in relative importance. Seven-point semantic differen-
tial scales were employed for three questions of six compon—
ents each. The respondent checked each component on scales
of Useful-Not Useful, Very Important-Not Important, and Hi-
Low. Some questions were the direct, "forced-choice" type
while others required unstructured responses to see where the
respondent's own values lay. And finally, provision was made
so that answers could be given for radio and for television,
realizing that the same question might have different answers
when using the different media as frames of reference.

Forty-eight percent of the questionnaires had been re—

turned by April.1st, when a follow-up letter was mailed.
The Follow-up;;gtter

By April lst, eighty-six of the one-hundred seventy-nine
questionnaires had been returned. On that date a brief
follow-up letter was sent out to the nearly one-hundred farm
broadcasters whose questionnaire had not then been received.
Photo-printed on standard Bé'x 11 letterhead, it began with

-"thanks” to all who had already completed theirs, and then

50

addressed those who had intended to participate but whose
questionnaires might somehow have become mislaid. .A second
questionnaire accompanied this letter.

>Again, each letter was hand-signed. The return, self-

addressed envelopes were white this time, instead of tan.
The Returns

Questionnaires continued coming into the departmental
office daily between March Sist and April 13th, when the
124th questionnaire was recorded. In all, 69% of the 179
questionnaires found their way back to East Lansing. If ad-
justments are made, taking into account one questionnaire sent
to a NAFB member in India, and the three university farm
editors who did no broadcaSting, the percentage of returns
can be reported at 70%.

(Note: an additional 5 returns came on April 19th,
raising the level of returns to 72%. These, however, were not

included in the analysis.)

.CHAPTER III

A REPORT OF FINDINGS IN TERMS OF
THE SURVEY ITEMS

The organizational basis for this chapter is derived
from the six major divisions used in the questionnaire. The
results for each of the thirty-six questions will be pre-
sented in sequence, and only the larger response clusters
will be reported here.

The complete data represent the responses of one-hundred
twenty-two separate individuals, one-hundred eleven of whom
use radio and fifty-eight of whom use television. .The per-
centages quoted, therefore, relate to two separate categories--
radio and television--not to the total group of one-hundred
twenty-two.

In those cases where the percentages for the item do not
equal 100%, three possible factors can be considered:

(1) responses with small percentages have been omitted,
(2) responses are‘missing because some individuals failed to
answer the item, and (5) multiple responses were permitted

for the item.1

 

1In cases where too many responses to an item were given,
a coin was flipped to determine which response was to be
coded.

51

52
General Information

1. Are the broadcasts commercial or non-commercial?

Given the opportunity to declare their farm broadcasts
either "commercial" or "non-commercial," 95%Iof the radio
and 95% of the TV farm broadcasters replied that they are

"commercial".

Radio. TM
No. % No. %
Commercial 105 94.6 54 95.1
Non-Commercial 6 5.4 4 6.9

2. What is the power of your radio statign?

Slightly more than one-half of the radio men broadcast
from stations of 5,000 watts power; 20% utilize the full-
power 50,000 watt facilities; and 18%:use either 1,000 or

10,000 watt radio stations.

ME.
(1) 500 5 2.7
(2) 1,000 15 11.7
(5) 5,000 57 51.4
(4) 10,000 7 6.5
(5) 50,000 27 24.5

5. Please identify each program produced by your farm depart-
ment, inserting the appropriate information in the spaces
below. Include programs produced for distribution.

 

Item number three of the questionnaire asked the re-

spondent to identify each program title produced by his farm

55

department. The purpose of this question was to see what
urban-, or consumer-orientation could be inferred from program
titles alone. The titles show that their orientation is
primarily towards the farmer: 74% TV and 69% radio listed

no titles suggesting anyone other than the producer of agri-
cultural products. However, nearly one-fifth of both radio
and TV farm broadcasters listed one title, such as the most
frequent one, "Town and Country". Only 5% radio and 5%‘TV

listed two or more such titles.

MP. 2X
(1) 0 76 68.5 45 74.1
(2) 1 25 22.5 12 20.7
(5) 2 4 5.6 5 5.2
(4) 5 1 0.9 0 0.0
(5) 4 1 0.9 0 0.0
(6) 5 1 0.9 0 0.0

4. How much of your farm department's programming is designed
for a non-farm audience? .Check separate percentages for
radio and TV.

With the realization that program titles might mask the
communicator's intentions, the farm broadcaster was asked
how much of his programming was intended for a non-farm audi—
ence. Fully one-half of the respondents indicate that less
than one-quarter of their programming is designed for anyone
other than the farmer. However, nearly one-third indicate

that between a quarter and a half of their so-called farm

broadcasts are consciously aimed at the urban audience.

54

A surprising 15% design 50-74% of their "farm" programming
for this non-farm audience. The television farm directors
have more of the urban-oriented programs, perhaps because of
the limited range of their broadcast signal.

An interesting rationale for the strategy of urban orien-
tation is given by a 50 year farm broadcaster of a 50,000
watt radio station:

Faced with the need of attracting the largest possible
listening audience each hour of the broadcast day, many
radio stations look with question upon aiming their
programs toward a Specific segment of the potential
listeners, especially when that segment represents only
ten to twenty per cent of an area's population.2

32942. I!
(1) 0-24% 53 56.8 21 35.2
(2) 25-49% 37 33.3 15 25.9
(3) 50-74% f a 7,2 18 31.0
(4) 75-100% - 2 1.5 2 3.5

5. Much of the work that a farm broadcaster does is general
Preparation for any and all shows that hegproduces; but,
which of the followingistatements most accurately des-
cribes the specific preparation usually made for the
average show? .Check one statement for radio and one for
111!-

.Another dimension of general information was explored
in a questionnaire item that asked which of three statements
most accurately described the specific preparation usually
made for the average broadcast. Among both radio and TV

respondents, more than twO-thirds say, "Most of the shows

follow a regular routine; so I am able to organize each show

 

2From a promotional booklet, "Evaluation of Modern Farm
Broadcasting," by Jay Gould, WOWO Farm Service Director
(Ft. Wayne, Indiana), p. 5.

55

in a fairly short time." Oneefifth from both media, by
contrast, describe their preparation as careful, lengthy and
detailed for each specific show. The data confirm that more
careful attention is required of television broadcasts than
of radio.
R352 1!
(1) My secretary, or an assistant handles most of the
day-to-day details for each show. I usually look
over the materials shortly before going on-the-air.

2 1.8 4 6.9

(2) Most of the shows follow a regular routine, so I am
able to organize each show in a fairly short time.

87 78.4 55 60.5
(5) Each show is carefully planned, and many hours of
preparation are specifically devoted to the prepara-
tion of a definite show.
20 18.0 19 52.8
6. What do you talk most frequently about with people in your
Station who are not in the farm department? Check one.
The farm broadcaster was asked what he most frequently
talks about with station personnel not in his farm department.
The ranking is the same for both radio and TV: over 55% talk
most about sales, secondly about formats and specific program
content, and nearly one in five admits to "passing the time
of day with the usual coffee chatter."
w W
(1) sales 65 57.8 51 55.5
(2) (5) format & content 27 24.5 17 29.5

(4) the usual coffee chatter 21 18.9 10 17.2

56
7. IQ whichggf the followinggareas do you feel your manage-
ment most wants you to improve? Check one.

When asked in which of five areas he feels that his
station's management most wants him to improve, "program
Sponsorship (sales)" polls 55% for both radio and TV. One-
fourth of the radio broadcasters rank "personal audience
contact" as the most-needed improvement; whereas, one-fourth

in TV list "production quality".

22412 I!

(1) production quality 25 20.7 16 27.6
(2) personal audience contact 27 24.5 11 19.0
(5) program sponsorship (sales)59 55.1 20 54.9
(4) content changes 9 8.1 "2 5.5

Some Communication Habits On-the-Air

In a series of four questions, the farm broadcaster was
asked: (1) what impression his audience has of the style
with which he communicates, (2) how he presents material,

(5) how he obtains his program guests, and (4) to what extent

he interacts with his quests on-the-air.

1. As your audience views or listens to your programsi Which
of the following impressions of the waylyou conduct your
broadcasts are they most likely togget? Check one for
radio and one for TV.

Both radio and TV respondents check "The farm broade
caster speaks directly to me most of the time," as their

number one impression of how the audience perceives their

style. Interestingly, however, the percentage is nearly

57

half-again as large for radio broadcasters. When given the
alternative "impressions"--(1) "The farm broadcaster lets me
overhear his conversation with others most of the time," or
(2) "The farm broadcaster provides the Opportunity for others
to Speak to me most of the time,"--"others" was chosen more
frequently by TV than by radio broadcasters, suggesting that
in radio the dialogue form of presentation may be used more
frequently than in TV.
gadio 21
No. % No. %

(1) "The farm broadcaster speaks directly to me most of
the time."

87 78.4 54 58.6

(2) "The farm broadcaster lets me overhear his conversa-
tion with others most of the time.

.12 10.8 9 15.5

(5) "The farm broadcaster provides the opportunity for
others to speak to me most of the time"

9 8.1 15 22.4

2. YOu speak directly to your audience in several ways, In

which of the followinggways do you speak most of the time?

Check one for radio and one for TV.

The next question looked more carefully at the direct

form Of addressing the audience, and aSkéd howzmaterial is most
frequently presented. The most frequent mode used by TV
broadcasters is to speak’fromhnotes whiChuthey have made,

followed by the mode of re—wovding printed material. Radio

broadcasters operate in the reverse fashion, preferring the

58

re-worded method to that of preparing notes. Nearly one-fifth
of the TV men choose "speaking without notes" as their way
of presenting material, while among their radio counterparts
only one-third as many "look straight into the mike". Also
among the radio broadcasters, 7% read the material "as is".
.1292 IV_
(1) you speak from notes you have made

44 59.7 26 44.8

(2) you speak without notes 7 6.5 11 19.0

(5) you read printed material "as is"

8 7.2 0 0.0

(4) you re—word printed material

52 46.9 21 56.2
5. XQu have other people on your programs from time to timg.
What arrangements are made? Check as manyias are applic-
able, for radio and TV. (Note: a coding error reduced
the responses to one_per medium)

When asked what arrangements are usually made for procur-
ing guests for their programs, both radio and TV farm broad-
casters responded similarly. In each group nearly half
contact participants on a weekly or monthly basis. One-third
enlist "regulars" whom they schedule for indefinite periods
of time. Six per cent of radio and 9%'of the TV group arrange
regular time slots but allow someone outside of the station to

select the actual participants.

59

Radio 1y;

(1) you enlist regular participants who are scheduled
for indefinite periods of time

45 58.7 20 54.5

(2) you contact participants on a weekly or monthly
basis

47 42.5 27 46.6

(5) you arrange regular time slots but let someone out-
side the station select the participants

10 9.0 4 6.9

4. How are these participants usually7handled? Check one.
Roughly 70% of both radio and TV interact continuously
with their program guests, as opposed to introducing them
and then allowing them to present their material uninter-
ruptedly.
329.12 LL!

(1) you introduce them but usually allow them to present
their material uninterrupted

.29 26.1 11 19.0
(2) you continuously interact with them

78 70.5 40 69.0
The Farm Broadcaster and His Audience

In a series of six questions, the farm brOadcaster was
asked: (1) in which ways his audience most frequently par-
ticipates in his programs, (2) how useful various sources are
in forming a picture of the audience, (5) which surveys he has

had access to in the past five years, (4) what use he has made

60

of the survey information, (5) what percentage of his audience

he believes does not live on a farm, and (6) what factor he

thinks most fully accounts for the size of this non-farm
audience.

1. Ip which of the followigg ways does your audience most fre-
guently participate in your_programs? Check one for radio
and one for TV.

While 42%tof the radio broadcasters chose "They send in
announcements of meetings" as the most frequent way their
audience participants in the programming, 47% of the TV broad-
casters selected "They are mentioned or interviewed because
they are newsworthy enough". The answer, "They request in-
formation which is then given one-the-air," was chosen as the
largest participatory method by 26%Iof the TV, and 19% of the
radio respondents.

m TV
(1) they send in announcements of meetings
47 42.5 8 15.8

(2) they request information.which is then given on-the-
air

21 18.9 15 25.9

(5) they are mentioned or interviewed because they are
newsworthy enough

40 56.0 27 46.6

(4) they are part of the "live" audience present during
remote broadcasts

5 2.7 2 5.5

61

2. How ugeful are the following sourcesyin forming a_pipture
of yogr augience? Ingigate the relative usefulnesspof
each source by placing chegk marks on the scalepprovided
for each. '

In light of the literature reviewed for this research
project, it has been of particular interest to learn the rela-
tive usefulness of various sources in forming a "picture" of
the audience. The mean scores from»a seven-point semantic
differential scale, labeled "Useful-Not Useful". allow the six
sources to be ranked in the following fashion:

Radio broadcasters: (1) comments at meetings, (2) gen-

eral experience, (5) mail requests, (4) reports from

sponsors, (5) phone calls, and (6) audience surveys.

TV broadcasters: (1) comments at meetings, (2) general

experience, (5) mail requests, (4,5: a tie) reports

from sponsors and audience surveys, and (6) phone calls.

3.42149. 1y.

(1) mail requests m = 5.6 m = 5.0
(2) phone calls m = 5.2 m = 4.6
(5) reports from sponsors m = 5.5 m = 4.8
(4) comments at meetings m = 6.2 m = 5.6
(5) general experience m = 5.8 m = 5.6
(6) audience surveys m = 4.8 m = 4.8

5. Which of the following surveys have you had access to in
the past five years? Check all appropriate items.

Both radio and TV broadcasters checked similar surveys
to which they have had aCcess in the past five years. Using

the average number of "checks" counted for each survey source,

62

the following ranking has been made: (1) National4Association
of Farm Broadcasters' 1967 Farm Radio Study, (2) professionally-
administered audience survey, (5) United States Census of
Agriculture data, and (4) Standard Rate and Data broadcast
market information. AMore than one-half of the radio men have
had access to station-administered audience surveys, whereas
only one-third of the TV men have had similar access. Two in-
dividuals wrote in an extra Category, entitled "client-
sponsored survey".

229.49 Tv

(1) professionally-administered audience survey

78 70.5 40 69.0
(2) 1967 NAFB Farm Radio Study 87 78.4 44 76.0
(5) Standard.Rate & Data 52 47.0 25 45.1

(4) station-administered audience survey

52 46.9 20 54.9
(5) United States Census of Agriculture data

68 61.5 55 60.5

(6) no access to any survey information

5 4.5 5 5.2
(7) --a write-in--client-sponsored survey
1 0.9 1 1.7

4. What use has been made of the audience survey information?
Check all apprOpriate items.

It is important not only to know which surveys these

farm broadcasters have had access to, but also to determine

65

the use to which they have been put. Over three-fourths of
the TV, and four-fifths of the radio broadcasters indicate
that the sales department uses the information. One-third
of all respondents mentioned format and content dhanges as a
result of the surveys, and approximately one-fifth published
the survey results. While nearly one-fourth of the radio
broadcasters added or dropped programs as a result, only one
in eight among the TV broadcasters used the surveys in this
manner.
25549. 22
(1) no use was made 8 7.2 6 10.5
(2) farm programs were added__ or dropped__
'* 26 25.4 7 12.1
(5) formats and content were changed
41 57.0 21 56.2
(4) sales department used the information
90 81.1 44 75.9
(5) farm department published the information
25 22.6 12 20.7
5. What percentage of your audienceppwopld you guessp does
hot live on a farm? Check one for radio and one for 2y.
It is estimated by eighty per cent of all respondents
that 26-75% of their audience does not live on a farm.
Because of ambiguity in the question, however, this item is
difficult to analyze. The respondent may have interpreted

the term "audience" to mean either (1) the potential audience,

64

i.e., those persons living within the signal coverage of his

station, or (2) the actual listening audience.

52942. IE;
(1) 0-25% 11 9.9 .1 1.7
(2) 26-50% 59 53.2 50 51.7
(3) 51-75% 30 27.0 18 31.0
(4) 76-99% 10 9.0 9 15.5

6. Which of the following accounts most for the size of_your
non-farm audience? Check one for radio and one for TV.

The preceding question's ambiguity may have been re-
deemed, however, by the following question which asks, “Which
of the following accounts most for the size of your non-farm
audience?" :The nature of the alternatives strongly suggest
that the term "audience" is being used to refer to an actual
audience, and not a potential one. Whatever the case, nearly
40% of bOth radio and TV respondents replied that "program
content and orientation" account m9§£_for the size of their
non-farm audience. One in four of the TV broadcasters list
"time of the day your show is on" as the number one factor;
whereas, one in four of the radio communicators rank"coverage
area of broadcast signal" as the most significant factor.

Radio 1y_
(1) time of the day your show is on
28 25.2 16 27.6
(2) program content and orientation

45 40.5 22 58.0

65

Rifle LIL!
(5) coverage area of broadcast signal
50 27.0 9 15.5
(4) location in the program schedule

6 5.4 10 17.2

The Farm Broadcaster and His Sponsors

Four questions were asked in this area: -(1) personal in-
volvement in sales,.(2) services to sponsors, (5) amount of
sponsored farm programming, and (4) the reason for continuing
farm broadcasting.

1. To what extent are youppersonaliy involved in sales?
Check only one.

The largest group of both radio and TV farm broadcasters
report that they service commercial accounts occasionally.
The second largest group has extensive sales responsibility,
and fewer than one-fifth have no personal involvement in
sales.

5452 I!
No. % No. %
(1) no involvement 18 16.2 11 19.0
(2) occasionally service accounts
47 42.5 21 ' 56.2
(5) extensive sales responsibility

27 24.5 14 24.1

66

2. How important are the following_services to your sponsors?
ngicate the relative importance of each by checking the
scale provided for each service.

In order to explore the sponsor-broadcaster relationship
more thoroughly, a seven-point semantic differential scale
between Important-Unimportant was constructed to measure the
relative importance which each broadcaster attached to various
possible "services" which he could render to the sponsor.
-Mean scores have been used for ranking. Both radio and TV
broadcasters agree on the relative importance of the first
three factors, which, placed in order of importance are
(1) delivering the largest possible audience, (2) presenting
the commercials personally, i.e., as opposed to letting a non-
farm department announcer present them, and (5) providing the
sponsor with information about the audience. The mean scores
are too close on the remaining "services" to rank them, but
they include: prohibiting all competing accounts, giving free
announcements about sponsor-related events, and making personal
appearances for all sponsor events.

.Radio TV
(1) presenting the commercials yourself

m = 6.1 m = 5.7
(2) prohibiting all_competing accounts

m = 4.4 m = 4.5

(5) giving free announcements about sponsor events

m = 4.5 m = 4.5
(4) making appearances for all Sponsor events
m = 4.7 m = 4.2

67

R2449. TV
(5) delivering the largest possible audience
mw= 6.6 m = 6.5
(6) providing sponsor information about the audience
m = 5.5 m = 5.4
5. How much of your farmpprogramming is usually sold? Check
one fpr radio and one for TV.

When asked, "How much of your farm programming is usually
sold?" nearly half of the radio and a fourth of the TV broad—
casters answered, 80-100%. These have been classified "High
Success". One-fourth of both radio and TV respondents list
60-80% of their farm programming sold,.and they have been
classified "Medium Success". The "Low Success" group is com-
posed Of 25% TV and only 4% radio broadcasters. Unfortunately,
however, 17% radio and 22% TV failed to answer this question.

(Note: six categories were collapsed into three)

33.9249. 1'!
(1) less than 60% 4 5.6 16 27.6
(2) 60-80% 28 25.2 14 24.1
(5) 81-100% 60 54.1 15 25.9

4. What is the biggest reasonflfor your station's continuing
with farm broadcasting? Check one for radio and one for
1y.-

When asked "What is the biggest reason for your station's
continuing with farm broadcasting?" radio broadcasters indi-

cated the moneydmaking aspect of their programming much more

frequently than did the TV broadcasters. TV ranked "farmers

68

constitute a majority in the coverage area" above "it is a
money-making venture.
R_3<li_e I!
(1) promises to the FCC: needed for license renewal
15 11.7 14 24.1
(2) it is a money making venture
50 45.1 12 20.7
(5) farmers constitute a majority in your coverage area

27. 24.5 18 51.0

(4) there's no good way to fire a man who's done so
well for so long

1 0.9 2 5.5

The Farm Broadcaster and His Meetings

Farm broadcasters tend to travel extensively and to attend
numerous meetings: some are with producers such as the farmer;
some are with sponsors who demonstrate their products and
services; and some meetings are with consumers, who are primar-
ily urban.

Six questions were asked of the farm broadcaster: (1) to
determine the frequency with which he attends meetings,

(2) to ascertain his organizational position with the farm
broadcasting department, (5) to see which types of meetings
he most frequently attends, (4) to determine what he does most
frequently at these meetings, (5) to seek out the relative
importance of several reasons which he might have for going

to these meetings, and (6) to find out the extent to which

69

he perceives himself to be similar to, or different from,

others who attend these meetings.

1. As a farm broadcasteryphOW’many meetings have you averaged
per week? Insert a number in each space.

One ingredient in the communication process is a channel
for communication. In an effort to determine the extent to
which the "meeting" is used as a channel of communication for
the farm broadcaster and a portion of his potential broadcast
audience, he was asked the average number of meetings attended
per week (a) in the past year, and (b) when he first began as
a farm broadcaster.

The differences between (a) and (b) are negligible for
both radio and TV broadcasters. The TV broadcasters average
2.91 and 2.92 meetings weekly, while the radio communicators.
average 2.7 and 2.6 meetings per week. However, because these
are mean scores, the wide range of meetings attended is some-
what masked. Some broadcasters average 5-6 meetings weekly,
while many go to only one. (Note: the means are presented
here)

Radio TV
(1) meetings in the past year or so

m = 2.7 m = 2.
(2) meetings when you first began

m = 2.6 m = 2.9

2. Are you the top man on your station's farm staff? Check
one.

70

In most cases, the respondents were one-man departments
of farm broadcasting. This partially explains why 67%iof TV
and 80% of radio broadcasters can say they are the t0p man on

their station's farm staff.

£9.12 .T_v
No. % N0. %

(1) yes 89 80.2 44 75.9

(2) no (Please specify:_____) 22 19.8 14 24.1

5. You attend some kinds of meetings more frequently than
others. Rank the following 1-2-5 in order of frequengy.

 

Broadcasters from both media ranked similarly the types
of meetings they attend. .Most of them ranked first the pro-
ducer-related meetings, i.e., when farmers come together.
Sponsor-related meetings rated second, and consumer-related
meetings placed third. It is not clear from this data, however,
the importance which is attached to each kind. The farm broad-
caster may go to more producer-related meetings because there

are many more available than there are of the other two varie-

ties.
BEQiQ. EX
(1) consumer-related meetings m = 2.5 m = 2.5
(2) producer-related meetings m = 1.2 m = 1.2
(5) sponsor-related meetings m = 2.2 m = 2.5

4. What do you do most frequently at these meetings? Check
only one item.

When asked what he most frequently does at these meetings,

both the radio and the TV farm broadcasters' responses were

71

the same. They fell into the following ranking: (1) record
and film interviews, (2) speak or emcee, (5) mingle informally,
(4) enlarge acquaintances, and (5) take notes. While this
question asked them to check only one activity which they most
frequently performed at these meetings, the next question

sought to determine the relative importance of several activi-

ties.
3.8512 EX
(1) speak or emcee 20. 18.0 .12 20.7
(2) record or film interviews 55 47.8 27 46.6
(5) mingle informally 19 17.1 8 15.8
(4) take notes 2 1.8 2 5.5
(5) make presentations 0 0.0 0 0.0
(6) enlarge acquaintances '15 11.7 6 10.5

5..§oW important is each of the fpllowing ppssible reasons
for your going to these meetings? Check each item.

Using again the semantic differential scales between the
polar adjectives of Very Important and Unimportant, the fol-
lowing ranking was achieved:. (a) to gather information for
use in broadcasts, (2) to build an audience "by being seen",
and (5) to contact current or potential sponsors. (Note,
also, that the first mean is the lowest; in fact, it has the
highest mean were it not inverted for coding purposes.)

5252 II

(1) to gather information for your broadcasts

m = 1.67 m = 1.7

72

w W
(2) to build an audience "by being seen"
m = 5.6 m = 5.5
(5) to contact current or potential sponsors
m = 4.1 m = 5.5
6. How dopyou compare yourself with the majority of persons
who attend these meetings? Check each item.

,Asked to compare themselves with the majority of persons
who attend these meetings, both radio and TV broadcasters '
rated themselves (1) younger, (2) more educated, (5) similar
in income, and (4) the same in religious commitment. It is
difficult to evaluate (5) and (4) because, for one, the income
question confuses gross and net income, and because few per-

sons are probably willing to admit to being irreligious.

Radio 3y
(1) in age:
more 14 12.6 7 .12.1
less 48 45.2 28 48.5
same 46 41.4 22 58.0
(2) in education
more 65 56.8 57 65.8
less 5 2.7 1 1.7
same 40 56.0 19 52.8
(5) in income
more 26 25.4 17 29.5
less 25 20.7 7 12.1
same 58 52.5 55 56.9
(4) in religious commitment
more 7 6.5 4 6.9
less 14 12.6 7 12.1
same 82 75.9 41 70.7

75
The Farm Broadcaster As A Person

Nine questions were asked in this final section, involv-
ing (1) age, (2) formal education, (5) father's primary occu-
pation, (4) previous occupation of the farm broadcaster,

(5) years as a farm broadcaster (total, and at present sta-
tion), (6) location of dwelling place, (7) orientation in
terms of honors and awards, (8) orientation in terms of indi-
cations of success, and (9) self-assessment on six professional
skills.
1. Your age i§_in the 20's, 50's, lgLSLpSO's, 60'§y_70's.

Check one.

In terms of age, the farm broadcasters (54%) are in
either their 50's or 40's. Some 20% are in their 50's, and

about 15% are in their 20's. Another 10% are in their 60's.

BQQLQ. IX
No. % N0. %
(1) 20's 16 14.4 9 15.5
(2) 50's 50 27.0 16 27.6
(5) 40's 51 27.9 13 22.4
(4) 50's 25 20.7 14 24.1
(5) 60's 11 9.9 6 10.5
(6) 70's 0 0.0 0 0.0

2. Your highestpyear of formal education was (what)? Circle
only one number.

In terms of formal education, roughly 45%tof all farm

broadcasters are college graduates, and 25% (radio) and 51%

74

(TV) have some graduate education. Another 20% (radio) and
16% (TV) have some college background, while 12% (radio) and
9% (TV) are high school graduates. Fewer than 1% of the

radio farm broadcasters have less than a high school diploma.

32912. .12
(1) some high school 1 0.9 0 0.0
(2) high school grad 15 11.7 5 8.6
(5) some college 22 19.8 9 15.5
(4) college grad 49 44.1 26 44.9
(5) graduate school 25 22.5 18 51.0

5. What was your father's primary occupation at the time you
left home? Check onlypone.

It is not surprising that 70% (radio) and 78% (TV) come~
from homes where the father was a farmer or rancher. -Fathers
of 18%Iof the radio farm broadcasters, however, were urban
employees, while only 10% of the fathers of TV broadcasters

were similarly employed.

32922 .2!
(1) farmer/rancher 78 70.5 45 77.6
(2) urban employee 20 .18.0 6 10.5
(5) other (specify: ) 15 11.7' 7 712.1

4. What was the last job you had before becoming a farm broad-
caster? Please be as gpecific as possible.

,In an effort to determine the vocational background of
the farm broadcasters, they were asked, What was the last job

you had before becoming a farm broadcaster? Surprisingly,

75

one-third of the radio men and nearly half of the TV men came
from some area of communication arts, i.e., radio, TV, journal-
ism, entertainment, etc. TV men tend to come more from back-
grounds of extension service than agri-business; whereas,

radio broadcasters came more from agri-business than extension
service backgrounds. Coming directly out of school were 5%

of the radio men and 9% of the TV. (Note: the answers were

coded afterwards)

93444 It
(1) agri-business 50 27.0 9 15.5
(2) extension service 18 16.2 15 22.4
(5) communication arts 45 58.7 27 46.6
(4) student 5 4.5 5 8.6
(5) other 14 12.6 4 6.9

5. How many years have you been a farm broadcaster? At your
present station?

When asked how many years they have been farm broad-
casters, one-fourth of the TV men replied 0-5 years; one-fifth
have had 6-10 years. Over one-fifth have had more than 21
years. In radio, the bulk (48%) have had either fewer than
5 or more than 21 years. The remaining three categories are
fairly evenly distributed.

Nearly half of both radio and TV farm broadcasters have

been at their present station fewer than 5 years.

76

Radio :11
(1) total
0-5 50 27.0 15 25.9
6-10 22 19.8 12 20.7
11-15 18 16.2 10 717.2
16-20 .17 15.5 9 15.5
21+ 24 ~21.6 12 20.7
(2) at your present station
0-5 49 44.1 26 44.9
6-10 18 16.2 10 17.2
11-15 14 12.6 6 10.5
16-20 14 12.6 10 17.2
21+ 15 15.5 5 8.6

6. What is the nature of the_property on which ypuplive now?
Check only one.

The reasons for asking about the nature of the property
was to find out the "culture" in which the farm broadcaster
and his family are living. Is is thought that an urban cul-
ture might tend to alienate him from the mores, values, and
rural habits. As was expected, nearly half of both radio and
TV farm broadcasters live in the city, while another one-fifth
live in the small towns. Only:20%iof the radio and.14% of

the TV farm broadcasters live on a farm or ranch.

9.41149 11':
(1) suburban acreage 17 15.5 9 15.5
(2) small town lot 20 18.0 8 15.8
(3) city lot 52 46.9 33 56.9

(4) farm or ranch .22 19.8 8 15.8

77
7..What honor or award havepyou received of which you are
most proud? Please bg_§§_specific as possible.

The largest category of awards and honors, for both radio
and TV, is at the Regional and State level. Roughly 15% of
both groups indicated that they were most proud of some
National or International award or honor, and fewer than 5%
mentioned an office in their national organization. (Note:

answers were coded for geographical scope)

53912. E!
(1) NAFB office 4 3.6 3 5.2
(2) National/International 15 15.5 9 15.5
(5) Regional/State 49 44.1 21 56.2
(4) Local 12 10.8 6 10.5
(5) Miscellaneous 5 4.5 2 5.5

8. What are the three best indications of your success as a
fggm broadggster? There are probably manyy_but choogg
the three which you thlnk best tell the story.

The farm broadcasters were asked to write the three best
indications of their success as farm broadcasters. The re-
plies to this open-end question fell roughly into six cate-
gories: (1) program sales, (2) years as a farm broadcaster,
(5) audience-oriented replies, (4) professionally-oriented
replies, (5) indications of personal income level, and (6) a
miscellaneous "other" category. The two most frequently
mentioned categories of success indicators, which tied, are

Professional and Audience-oriented replies. Program Sales

ranked second, and the miscellaneous category collected about

78

one-third of the designations.

.R_a<.i_i_9_ Iv.
(1) program sales 60 54.1 29 50.0
(2) years 12 10.8 5 8.6
(5) audience orientation 81 75.0 45 74.1
(4) professional orientation 81 75.0 45 77.6
(5) personal income 15 11.7 4 6.9
(6) other 52 28.8 20 54.5

9. HOw do you pate yourself on the followipgltems? Check
each item.

The final item on the questionnaire asked the farm broad-
caster to rate his competence on six items related to pro-
fessional skills. He was asked to check them on a semantic
differential scale between the polar adjectives labeled "hi"
and "low". The six items were ranked in the following way,
using the mean scores for each item: (1) face-to-face con-
tacts with your audience, (2) polish in program production
and preparation, (5) skill as a newsman, (4) expertise in
agricultural knowledge, (5) salesmanship, and (6) skill as an
entertainer.

644.12 u

(1) expertise in agricultural knowledge

m = 5.5 m = 5.5
(2) salesmanship m = 5.5 m = 5.5
(5) Skill as an entertainer m = 4.5 m = 4.2
(4) face—to-face contacts with your audience

m = 6.0 m = 5.9

79

Radio TV
(5) skill as a newsman m = 5.5 m = 5.5
(6) polish in program production & preparation

m = 5.6 m = 5.4

In this chapter, little attention has been given to the
possible reasons for variations in response, and no atten-
tion has been given to the question, "Which communication
habits are most highly correlated with a farm broadcaster's
success?" For answers to these kinds Of questions, the

fdllowing chapter is presented.

CHAPTER IV
(A REPORT OF FINDINGS IN TERMS OF THE HYPOTHESES

lptroduction

In contrast to Chapter III, which illustrates the
distribution of responses to each questionnaire item, this
chapter is designed to report the relationships which exist
among these items, particularly in terms of the variable
designated."Success".

This chapter is organized on the basis of two broad
hypotheses:

I. Sponsor-related communication habits are highly
correlated with one's success in obtaining
program sponsorship.

II. There exist significant differences in both
communication habits and personal attributes
between the various levels of success.

In Part I of this chapter, the findings will be presented
which support, or fail to support, a series of low-level hy-
potheses which are postulated to show high positive correla-
tion with the variable of "Success“. .In operational terms,
the word “Success" refers to the farm broadcaster's reSponse
to the question, "How much of your farm programming is usually

sold? Check one for radio and one for TV.“ The percentage

checked by the farm broadcaster was then coded in one of three

80

81

categories, indicating High Success, Medium Success, or Low
Success.

.The remaining variables of the questionnaire have been
coded so that correlations can be computed between each item
and the variable designated "Success". The nonparametric
test of correlation used in Part I is "C", the Contingency
Coefficient.

In essence, if the probability, associated with the
occurrence under the null hypothesis of a value as large as
the observed value of the statistic, is equal to or less than
the predetermined level of significance, then the null hy-
pothesis is rejected and the conclusion is reached that the
observed association in the sample is ng£_the result of
chance but rather represents a genuine relation in the popu-
lation.

The level of significance has been set at the .05 level;
and in the following pages of Part I, both the Contingency
.Coefficient and the exact level of significance are reported

for hypotheses which are confirmed, or supported.

Part I
Each of the following 24 hypotheses was predicted to have
a high positive correlatibn with the degree ofpsuccess, as
indicated by the percentage of farm programming usually sold.
For ease in understanding, the hypotheses are presented in
three groups: the hypotheses in the first group were not sup-

ported by the data, those in the second group found partial

82

support, and those in the third group were completely sup—

ported.

Group I: The Unsupported Hypotheses

1. GREATER DEGREE OF APPARENT INFORMALITY IN PROGRAM
PRESENTATION

Finding: The data failed to confirm this hypothesis.

2. GREATER DEGREE OF PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE
SELECTION OF PROGRAM GUESTS

,Finding: The data failed to confirm this hypothesis.
5. HIGHER AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Finding: The data failed to confirm this hypothesis.
4. MORE EXTENSIVE SALES RESPONSIBILITIES

Finding: The data failed to support this hypothesis.
5. HIGHER AVERAGE NUMBER OF WEEKLY MEETINGS ATTENDED

Finding: The data failed to confirm this hypothesis.

6. GREATER PROMINENCE OF THE FARM BROADCASTER AT
MEETINGS

Finding: The data failed to support this hypothesis.

7. GREATER GEOGRAPHICAL EXTENT OF RECOGNITION AND HONOR
FOR THE FARM BROADCASTER

Finding: The data fail to support the idea that the
more successful farm broadcasters receive awards
and honors from greater distances and at higher
organizational levels than others.

8. GREATER LONGEVITY AS A FARM BROADCASTER
Finding: The data fail to support the idea that the
more successful farm broadcasters have been around

longer.

10.

85

.SELF RATING OF HIGH ON PERSONAL SALESMANSHIP

Finding: The data failed to support this hypothesis.

SELF RATING OF HIGH ON FACE-TO-FACE AUDIENCE
CONTACTS

Finding: The data indicated no correlation with
this variable and the farm broadcaster's degree of

success .

The Partially—Supported Hypotheses

MORE SEEING AND BEING SEEN THAN GATHERING INFORMATION
AT MEETINGS

Finding: The data indicate a significant correlation
between degree of success and the item "to contact
current or potential sponsors", with a C 5 .49 at the
.001 level. However, neither "building an audience
'by being seen'" nor "gathering information for use
in programming" Was shown to have a significant
correlation with success.

IN COMPARISON TO THOSE AT THE MEETINGS, THE FARM
BROADCASTER IS (1) SIMILAR IN AGE, (2) SIMILAR IN
INCOME, (5) MORE EDUCATED, AND (4) LESS RELIGIOUSLY
COMMITTED.

Finding: The data support only the variable of com-
parable age, yielding a Contingency Coefficient of

.57 at the .01 level of Significance.

SIMILARITY WITH THE AUDIENCE OF HOME.AND EMPLOYMENT
BACKGROUND.

Finding: The data support only the similarity of
home background, as indicated by the item which
shows the farm broadcaster's father to have been a

farmer or rancher (C = .50 at .02 level).

84

Group III: The Supported Hypotheses

1.

HIGH STATION CONCERN WITH SALES
Finding: This was supported with a C = .27 at the
.05 level of significance.

DIRECTNESS WITH WHICH BROADCAST AUDIENCE IS
ADDRESSED

Finding: This was supported with a C = .50 at the
.05 level.

HIGHER INTERACTION WITH PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
Finding: This was supported with a-C = .56 at the

.001 level.

.GREATER USE OF FACE-TO-FACE CHANNELS OF FEEDBACK

FROM THE AUDIENCE

Finding: The data supported this hypothesis, giving
to the item "reports from sponsors" a C = .50 at the
.001 level of significance, and giving to the item
"general experience" with the audience a C = .41 at
the .02 level.

HIGHER RANKING 0F SPONSORéRELATED MEETINGS

Finding: The data supported this hypothesis, giving
the ranking of sponsor-related meetings a C = .41 at
the .001 level of significance.

AWARENESS OF "SALES" AS AN UNSOLICITED INDICATION
OF SUCCESS

Finding: Enough respondents listed "sales", when
asked to write the three best indications of their
success, that a Contingency Coefficient of .24 was

obtained at the .02 level.

10.

11.

85

SELF RATING OF HIGH ON AGRICULTURAL KNOWLEDGE
Finding: This was supported, yielding a.C = .59 at
the .05 level of significance.

PROFITABILITY THE BIGGEST REASON STATION KEEPS FARM
PROGRAMMING

Finding: This was strongly confirmed with a Con-
tingency Coefficient equal to .70 at the high .001
level of significance.

HIGHER ACCESS TO AUDIENCE SURVEY DATA

Finding: This was supported, giving the item "pro-
fessionally-administered audience survey" a C = .29,
significant at the .01 level.

MORE EXTENSIVE USE OF AUDIENCE SURVEY DATA

Finding: This was supported by two significant uses:
the item "sales department used the information"
obtained a C = .51 at the .001 level, and the item
"farm department published the information" achieved
a Contingency Coefficient of .29 at the .02 level.
MORE SERVICES PROVIDED TO SPONSOR

Finding: This was the most strongly supported hy-
pothesis of all. All six services to the Sponsor
received extremely high Contingency Coefficients

and were significant at the .001 level. "Presenting

the commercials yourself" had a C = .75, and
"Prohibiting all competing accounts" had a C = .67.
A C = .69 was achieved by the item "Giving free

announcements about sponsor events", while "Making

86

appearances at all sponsor events" had a similar
Coefficient. "Delivering the largest possible
audience" earned the second largest strength of
correlation with a.C = .71, and "Providing sponsor
information about the audience" polled a healthy

C = .64.

In summary, it is evident from the data that there are
other communication habits and personal attributes which
correlate with one's success in obtaining program Sponsor-
ship. Because this study is both exploratory and hypothesis
testing, it was thought to be important to measure the corre-
lation strength of variables other than those which are
obviously sponsor—related.

Only two sponsor-related communication habits, however,
failed to reach the specified level of significance. It was
thought that the more successful farm broadcasters would have
more extensive sales responsibilities, but the data failed
to confirm this idea. Also, it was predicted that the more
successful farm broadcasters would rate themselves high on
salesmanship. While they may have, the difference was not
significant enough to set them apart from the less successful.

The remaining eight, sponsor-related communication .
habits were supported as hypothesized. In fact, the six
separate items indicating various services which the farm
broadcaster might give to the Sponsor--each a separate com-
munication habit--were not only supported, but at an extreme-

ly high level of correlation strength and significance.

87

In answer to the question, What do farm broadcasters
do when ppp_engaged in sponsor-related communication habits?
it may be answered that the more successful farm broadcasters
address their audiences more directly, interact with their
guests extensively, find face-to-face channels of feedback
important, work for stations who keep farm programming be-
cause of its profitability, and rate themselves high on

agricultural knowledge.

Part II

In this part of the Chapter, findings will be presented
which indicate if there exists any significant difference in
the communication habits and personal attributes among the
three categories of "Success". These findings are based on
tests of significant differences between the scores of each
paired category of success and their values for the seventy-
four variables of the survey instrument.

In other words, comparisons are made on the average score
of, say, the variable "importance of the use of mail in form-
ing a picture of the audience" for (1) those broadcasters
who ranked as "High Success" and those who ranked as "Low
Success". The three comparisons which are possible are
(1) between High and Medium Success, (2) between High and Low
Success, and (5) betweenTMedium and Low Success.

It is assumed that there will be some differences between
the groups, but to determine if the observed differances are

too great to have been very likely caused by chance, three

88

parametric tests of significant differences are used: the
Student-t test which assumes equal variances in the pOpula-
tion parameters, the Student-t test which assumes unequal
variances in the pOpulation parameters, and the F-test.

In the following four tables are listed those variables
for which there exist significant differences when compared
across the three groups of "Success". All variables so
listed are significant at the .05 level or better. In each
table the variable is listed, the levels of Success between
which significant differences have been found are listed,
and the exact level of significance is shown for each of the
three tests.

Tables 1 and 2 are divided on the basis of the medium
in which the observed difference was found: Table 1 is for
Radio and Table 2, for TV.

Tables 5 and 4 differ from Tables 1 and 2 only on the
basis of the measurement assumptions which underly the vari-
ables listed. The statistical tests of significance used in
this section assume equal interval data. The variables listed
in Tables 1 and 2 meet this requirement without qualification.
For those remaining variables, however, for which there is
some question at this point, caution has been exercised, and
their Significancethas been.separately presented in Tables 5
and 4.

It is interesting that for the most part radio and TV

have a separate set of variables for which significant

89

 

mmpwa3ocx

 

 

Won . 3OMSVAOMZ. HMHDuHsoHHmm CH Omauuwmxw

0 mo 0 .m co meaumulmamm swam

No. 30A v 602 magma

Imocsoccm mmum Homcomm

mcH>Hm mo mocmunomEH

mo. pm: v Hm common Ca mamwoumafioo

msflucmnmum mo wosmuuomEH

. . mocmflpsm

mo wooo. UMIRVVBMA mcflusuoflm a“ Oucmflummxm

moo on .m Hmumsmm mo mmmcHsmme

. wocmflpsm

0000. 3mm vvvwz mcflnsu0fim ca manomwn

0000 A .m Hancomm mo mmwcasmmmD

fio. 002 V am mocmfipsm mcwusuoflm

ca flame mo mmmcHsmOmD

ummuum Aamsvmcsvu Amocmaum> amsqmvu mmmoosm mwanmwum>
mocmOflchqwm mo mumma mouse mo MHO>OA

 

moanmwum> prmm Mom mmmoosm mo mAw>0q

pwuwmm cmm3umm mmocmummmwa uchawflcmwm

.d OHQMB

90

 

 

mo. Umz.A 30A mflnmcmEmemm
60. mo. OOE_A Hm co mCHumuumamm swam

. . . mmcwummfi um soon

«0 no mo omz_v 304 mason mo mocmuuomEH
moo. pm: A 309 mmcflumma um coflumeuomsfl
aoo. COS.A Hm mowuumm mo mocmuuomEH
NO. NO. pm: A Hm mocwflpsm umwmnma

No. NO. BOA A Hm mcHHO>HHOU mo OUCMDHOQEH

mucm>w noncomm

No. Umz_v 30A gas now mmocmnmmmmm
mcwxmfi mo mocmunomEH

No. No. pm: A,Hm mucmemocsoccm mmum Homsomm

no. «0. 30a A Am mcfl>flm mo mucmuHomEH

. . common ca mamfiOHwEEoo

mo pmz_v 30a mswucmmmum mo mocmuuomEH
#0. m v 30 mocwflpsm mcflHDDOHm
moo. p M an as mmcwumms Eoum
U S v .m mucoEEoo mo mmmcasmmma

ummuum Aamsvmasvu AOOCMHHM> Hmsvmvu nmmoosm moanmwum>

 

 

mocmOHmwcmflm mo mumme mouse

mo mam>mq

 

 

moanmflum> >9 Mom mmmousm mo MHO>OA

Uwuflmm cmeumm MOUCOHOMMHQ DamoflMHcmHm

.N magma

 

91

chflxcmu a HOQEDC 0p
meoHU mwumoflpcfl mums VV

60. 304 v 002 mmsfluwmfi pmumamuluomcomm

mo. 30A v Hm mcflpcmuum mo msflxcmn swam

. . . umummopmoun Esau m umnflm
0000 N000 no pmz_A Hm. cm£3 OOOCOuum mmCflummz

mocmwpsm Hmuou as

no. eo. 602 v as on 0u unooonu moccaoom
EHMMICOG m0 usmonmm

mump >m>uom

 

 

0000. 30A v Hm mucwwpsm Mo mm: 02

. 3 m mump >m>usm

«0 04 v p z mocmflpsm on mmmuom oz

. >0>Hsm

oooo. 3”} A 0M2 OOCOAUSM Communacwapm

0000 on A .m Isowumum Op mmmuofl

. . “OH“

0000. no. 3mm A 002 ImEuomcfl umxuma mama 0cm

0000 no A A Hm mumm.pnmpsmum ou mmmoud

. . >0>Hsm mucmfipsm

me do 30A A Hm Hmcowmnmmoum ou mmmuod

do. 309 v am OOCOAUSO gonna

do. no. 00: v «m Mom 00cmwmmp acousoo

moo. 304 v Hm mmauflu Emumoum mo cow»

Imucmfluo HmEsmsooncmnHD

umwulm Aamsqmcsvu Amocmflum> Hmsqmvu mmmuosm moanmwum>
mocmowmflcmflm mo mumwa mouse «0 MHO>OA

 

 

MOHQMAHM> oflpmm How mmmuosm m0 ma0>wq powwow
C003umm mmucmnmmmfln UCMUHMHcmHm m>flumucma .m OHQMB

92

 

mocwwpsm Hmuou CH

 

moo. do. 002 A 30A O
. . , Q on unwsonu mocmflpsm
woo woo 30A v «m EHOMICOC m0 unmonmm
doo. 002_A 30A mump
mo. cm: A .5 >0..qu no 33333
. . >0>Hsm mocwflpzm
mo #0 30A A.Hm HMCOHmmmmoum on mm0004
ummulm AamsqmcsVu Amosmflum> Hmsqmvu mmmousm mmanmwum>

 

wocmowmflcmwm m0 mamwa mouse

«0 mam>mq

 

 

mOHQMflHMNV >9 .HOH mmmUUn—m HO mH0>m1H GOHHMQ.

cmm3umm mOUCOHOMMAQ ucmowmwcmwm,m>flumucma

.4 dance

95

differences can be seen between the three levels of Success.
Both media are-found to have significant differences on the
two variables: (1) presenting commercials personally, and
(2) giving free announcements for sponsor events. But, even
for these two variables, the observed differences are not
between the same pairs of success levels.

While the use of mail for forming a picture of the
audience differs among the radio levels of success, the use
of comments at meetings in forming a picture of the audience
makes the difference among the T! levels of success.

‘For services to the sponsor, free announcements about
sponsor events is significant in differentiating the levels
of success in radio, but appearances at sponsor events is the
more critical variable for the levels of success in gy,

.Among the radio levels of success, general experience and
agricultural expertise differ significantly; while, in 3y,
gathering information at meetings, being seen, and a high
self-rating on salesmanship are the variables which separate
the levels of success.

Tables 5 and 4 Suggest other variables for which signifi-
cant differences exist between the three levels of success,
but because of the questions surrounding their level of
measurement, they will not be reiterated here.

The data in Tables 1 and 2, however, provide abundant
evidence in support of the second broad hypothesis, that there
do exist significant differences in both communication habits

and personal attributes between the various levels of success.

94

In the final chapter, a summary is made and conclusions
are presented which indicate what these findings have added
to the body of knowledge about the relationship of the com-
municator and his audience and the function which the communi-
cation habits shown here may have for the stability and
equilibrium of the social system in which the United States

farm broadcaster operates.

CHAPTER V

.SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this concluding Chapter is to draw
together some of the more important findings of this study
in a composite portrait of the more successful United States
farm broadcaster. Then it will be necessary to ask of the
study the same three questions used in the review of litera-
ture which provide an analytic framework for these new data.
And finally, some of the questions raised by this study will

be presented in terms of their potential for future research.

The Composite of Success

From the correlations of the questionnaire responses to
the variable of "success", it can be said in summary that

the more successful farm broadcasters tend to:

o . . . talk more frequently about sales than about

 

any other topic when with other station personnel;
0 . . . speak more directly to their broadcast audience;
0 . . . interact more with their guests;
0 . . . find reports from Sponsors and their own
personal experiences more useful in forming a picture

of their audience;

95

96

o . . . have had greater access to professionally-
administered audience surveys in the past five years;

c . . . have sales departments which make use of the
audience surveys and have farm departments which
publish the results;

0 . . . give extensive service to their sponsors,
including:

presenting the commercials personally,
prohibiting all competing accounts,

giving free announcements about Sponsor events,
making appearances for all sponsor events,
delivering the largest possible audience, and
providing the sponsor with information about the
audience;

0 . . . work for stations whose biggest reason for con-
tinuing with farm broadcasting is because of the
revenue which is generates;

o . . . rank sponsor-related meetings higher in priority;

9 . . . give as a more important reason for going to
meetings the contacting of current and potential
sponsors;

0 . . . come more frequently from homes where the father
has been a farmer or rancher;

o . . . mention sales more frequently as one of the
three best indications Of their success as farm
broadcasters; and

o . . . rate themselves higher in agricultural knowledge.

97
Thepgunctionppfpthe Farmpgroadcaster's
Communication Hapits

The data generated in this study are now subjected to
the same type of analysis as was applied to the literature
reviewed in Chapter III. Functional analysis asks (1) what
is the repetitive item with which one is concerned, (2) what
are the parameters of the system within which this item
Operates, and (5) what function does this recurring pattern
of behavior have in the maintenance of the social system
within which it is found?

This study of the United States farm broadcaster has
focused on a number of repetitive items which have been
labeled "communication habits". By definition a “habit" is
a repetitive behavior, a recurring phenomenon. The communica-
tion habits of the farm broadcaster are reported in full in
Chapter III, revealing not only how many persons checked any
given communication habit or personal attribute, but what
proportion of the whole for each medium responded in that way.

Of particular interest in this study have been the com-
munication habits of a subset known as the "High Success"
group. This category encompasses 54% of the radio farm broad-
casters and 26% of the television farm broadcasters. -These
are the persons whose farm programming is Sponsored 80%For-
more most of the time.

Part II of Chapter IV demonstrates that the communica-
tion habits differ significantly on.a number of factors

among the three levels of success. And these differences

98

frequently originate in factors which are not obviously
sponsor-related. Part I of this chapter itemizes some of
the ways in which the more successful farm broadcasters
behave.

The second focus of’analysis involves some delimitation
of the social system within which these communication habits
operate.

-At the very outset of this study, as indicated in the
research proposal, it was thought that communication habits
of the farm broadcaster should be observed in his private,
as well as his professional Spheres of action. .It was also
thought that he ought to be observed in the context of his
meeting with sponsors. .But following a series of on-the-job
interviews with a large cross-section of farm broadcasters,
it became apparent that these men did not want their home
life, or other such "personal" affairs scrutinized; and,
furthermore, it became evident that the sponsor-communicator
relationship is frequently a fragile, personal bond, which
persists on bases other than factual knowledge about the
effectiveness of the advertiser's investment.

One farm broadcaster confided that obtaining sponsors
was a skill all its own, requiring person-to-person ”skills",
such as, using the sponsor's grandchildren in the filmed
commercial, for example.

It has become necessary, therefore, within the limita-

tions of this study to circumscribe the parameters of the

99

farm broadcasters' social system in a manner which excludes
these two components--the private home life and the intimate
sponsor-communicator habits.

Because of the nature of the research instrument, and
the geographical scope of the study, it has also been neces-
sary to exclude directly the broadcast audience and its
relationship to the farm broadcaster.

-For purposes of this analysis, then, the social system
of this study can be said to have seven major components:
the individual mass communicator, his radio and/Or TV farm
programming, the broadcast audience as a reference group of
the mass communicator, the meetings which he attends, his
sponsors as a reference group, his personal attributes and
background, and the general context of the commercial.broad—
cast station with its topics of conversation and general
profit orientation. (The data clearly support DeFleur's
thesis that the prevailing internal condition of the mass
media is economic.)

Once having identified the repetitive behaviors under
consideration, and the boundaries of the system within which
they Operate, the next task of the analysis is to determine
the contribution which these recurring behaviors have for
the maintenance and stability of the system.

It can be said that the state of equilibrium of a com-
mercial broadcast station is one of profitdmaking. .The

"interest, convenience, and necessity" of the public

100

notwithstanding, a broadcast station is a business; and if
it is unable to make a profit on its investment, it cannot
long continue to serve its audience.

.Radio broadcasters (45%) confessed that the biggest
reason their station is Continuing with farm programming is
the profit which it brings to the station. -This was thought
to be the case for only 21% of the TV farm broadcasters,
who (51%) ranked higher the reason that farmers constitute
a majority in their station's coverage area.

Furthermore, when asked what the most frequent topic
of conversation is among station personnel, 58% (radio) and
54% (TV) responded "sales".

It is not without reason, therefore, that an economic-
orientation prevails in the system within which the commer-
cial farm broadcaster works.

.The question remains, What is the function of his com-
munication habits for the maintaining of this equilibrium of
profitemaking?

The data show quite emphatically that the orientation
of the more successful farm broadcaster is very much towards
the sponsor. This is consistent with the findings in
literature reviewed earlier. -The mass communicator finds
his more salient reference group in those who determine
whether or not he can communicate at all. The TV producers
had network executives and censors to please; the feature
film creators had profit-minded executive producers to answer

to; and the newSpapermen had a publisher to satisfy.

101

Likewise with the commercial farm broadcaster, his service
to the farm community is in large part a fufiction of his
success in obtaining sponsorship of his program.

.The farm broadcaster differs in large degree from most
of the mass communicators mentioned above however, for
they, more than most mass communicators, are responsible
not only for creation of content, and the presentation there-
of, but also for securing financial backing. It must be
remembered that only 16% of the radio, and 19%tof the TV
farm.broadcasters indicated no personal involvement in
sales.

-Another significant difference for this special kind of
mass communicator is the close relationship between specific
sponsors, the communicator, and the audience. Sponsorship
in print media, for example, is sponsorship of the entire
publication, not sponsorship of any one of its creative
staff. Even in broadcasting, the pattern is frequently found
in which sponsors "buy time" or "participate" in whatever
programming is available at the rate they are able to pay.

But, in the case of the commercial farm broadcaster,
the sponsor, because of his product and his target audience,
has a much more direct relationship with the producer of
the specific mass media content. The sponsor knows that the
farm broadcaster has greater face-to-face contact with
potential members of the audience than almost any other

person. The sponsor, in effect, is purchasing access to the

102

relationship between the farm broadcaster and his audience.
.It is a symbiotic relationship in which the farm broadcaster
barters his access to the audience and to such programming
components as weather, markets, and farm news, for Sponsor
support.

Status accrues to the farm broadcaster from the audi-
ence, because he is a broadcast personage; and status accrues
to him from within the station and among his colleagues in
proportion to the "profitability" of his programming.

Without the profit, the activities, if not the very existence
itself, of the farm broadcasts would probably diminish to
nothing. It requires profits to be able to afford to send
the farm broadcaster on his extensive travels and face-to-
face contacts with the audience.

In conclusion, then, there is reason to believe that
the relationship of the communicator and his audience, in
the case of the farm broadcaster, is in large part correlated
with the requirements of obtaining program Sponsorship. .The
communicator-audience relationship is in large part a means
to this financial end rather than an end in itself.

Lest these conclusions leave the reader with the impres-
sion that such a mutually beneficial relationship between
the commercial broadcaster and his audience is somehow
deceitful, and that the broadcaster is "using" his audience
for personal ends, it shOuld be remembered that this entire

analysis is predicated on the biased assumption that

105

profit-making is the balanced state of the system. .It should
also be remembered that the data are derived from measures

of correlation which do not demonstrate the time-order rela-
tionship of success and other communication habits.

.It is possible that the relationship of the communicator
and his audience in this context is the result of conscien-
tious efforts on the part of an audience-oriented mass com-
municator, who, because of his success in meeting the needs
of his public, has been justly rewarded by the ensuing
investments of the sponsors.

There is a philosophical and rhetorical basis for sug-
gesting that the purpose of communicating is to influence.
Perhaps, however, communication researchers have been too
quick to assume that the manifest audience—-the broadcast
audience in the case cited here--is the target to be influ-
enced.

The research reviewed in Chapter I, and supported in
measure by this study, suggest that secondary audiences,
particularly those reference groups who hold the power to
permit or deny access to the public are, in fact, the more
salient targets of communication in many mass communication
situations, particularly if the context is commercial.

If such is the case, more attention needs to be given
to the communication relationship which exists among mass
communicators and their sponsors,.in which Circumstances the
mass media audiences may be benefiting only in some residual

sense .

.104

There is reason to believe, however, that economic re-
wards are helpful in encouraging the face-to-face contacts
of the mass communicator and his audience. In this study,
farm broadcasters ranked among the three most important
services to the sponsor that of providing him with informa-
tion about the audience. In fact, it is this very type of
contact and first-hand knowledge about the audience which
make the farm broadcaster such a valuable "salesman" for the
sponsor; and, because of this relationship, the sponsor is
willing to purchase commercials. The farm broadcaster,
therefore, has at least this motivation to engage in face-to-
face contacts with his audience. Whether motivated primarily
by some altruistic regard for the welfare of the broadcast
audience, or by the inducement of financial reward, the
communicator—audience relationship which results is based
on more fact and experience than might otherwise be possible

in the absence of economic incentive.

Suggestlons for gurther Research

Because of the assumed influence of the economic incen-
tive in the commercial broadcast situation, it would be well
to control for commercial sponsorship while exploring the
nature and extent of the communicator-audience relationship.
Fewer than 6% of the participants in this study are non-
commercial--a total of 10 persons; therefore, insufficient
numbers would have made any comparisons between commercial

and non-commercial farm broadcasting rather tenuous.

105

It would be possible, however, and very useful, to
compare the communication habits of agricultural extension
agents with those of the commercial broadcasters in this
study. There are hundreds of county agents who are part-time,
non-commercial broadcasters and who share many of the same
relationships with the audience as their full-time, commer—
cial broadcasting colleagues. Remember, too, that nearly
one in five of the commercial farm broadcasters have come
from backgrounds in extension service.

.In addition to exploring the relative effect of commer-
cial support on the communication habits of theSe two cate-
gories of broadcasters, it would further be useful to explore
their relative emphasis on "change" as a desired reSponse
in their audience. In what ways do ”commercials" and experi-
ment station "bulletins" differ in their efforts to induce
change in the audience? for example.

(A second area which needs to be eXplored more fully is
the use of the broadcaster's audience image in his day—to-day
mass communication. .This was to have been one of the facets
of this study; but in the pre-test questionnaire, when asked
to describe their audience in terms which they might use in
a farm department brochure, the farm broadcasters refused to
reply. An open-end question in an already lengthy question-
naire may have simply appeared to be too much work. On the
other hand, their reluctance may be an indication of the
elusive nature of a mass audience and their inability to

articulate meaningful descriptions.

106

This dilemma is certainly not restricted to the broad-
caster. vAn editor of Ladies' Home,Journal remarked recently,
before a meeting of social science researchers, that he
conducts research on the size of his readership, how the
audience makes and spends money, and how they read and re-
spond to what is read; but . . .

how does all this research help determine what I put

in my magazine? Very little. .It leads inevitably to

an editor's idealized perception of his audience, to

a gap between perception and reality, to the recogni-

tion that the proper editorial goal is to condition

appetites as well as feed them. . . .1

More research is needed on the origin, function, and
changes associated with the audience image in the mind of
on-the-air broadcasters. -Perhaps the participant-observer
technique, coupled with in-depth interviews following a
broadcast, would be appropriate methodologies.

A related area for further research is the exploration
of the nature, function, and use of audience research. The
most frequent use, as observed in this study, has been to
take favorable information and publish it, using such informa-
tion as a sales tool. In radio (81%), and in TV (76%), the
farm broadcasters used the survey data in this manner.(

One-third mentioned changing format or content as a re-

sult of their surveys, while 25% (radio) and 12% (TV) indi—

cated that they had added or dropped farm programs as a result.

 

lJohn'Mack Carter, "Perceptions of a:Mass Audience" in
ABehayloral,Science an fthe-Mass Media. ,Frederick T. C. Yu
(ed.) New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1968, p. 205.

107

Pressure is being brought by the more sophisticated
advertising agencies to enlarge the qualititative dimensions
of audience research. In the past, the farm director has
been able to secure national accounts on the basis of general
demographic data made available by the United States Census
of Agriculture or broadcasting market reference works.
Research is needed on the process of audience research in the
mass media, as well as on the use to which such information
is being put.

A final suggestion for further research is a follow-up
on an observation made in the study of TV programmers'
decision-making2 in which Lewis noted that the programming
executive of the larger stations are not so dependent on
the comments of sponsors as are the smaller stations. .It was
suggested that the larger station might be more financially
independent of individual sponsor pressures and that it might
make decisions on bases other than those attached to the
purse-strings. It would be interesting to know in what ways
financial security, that is, a history of fully-sponsored
farm programming, affects the communicator-audience relation-
ship. .Does the farm broadcaster, for example, attend fewer
meetings once he has built a faithful retinue of sponsors?
Does he reduce the emphasis on service to the sponsor? And

do either his descriptions of the audience, or his content

 

2Lewis, Journal of Broadcasting, p. 81.

108

designed for the audience, change significantly? The case
study approach might be the most fruitful methodological
approach in such research.

While these suggestions certainly do not exhaust the
needs of research in this area, they do point to the signifi-
cance of economic matters in broadcast communication. It is
hoped that the answers to these intriguing questions will
enable broadcast practitioners to increase the effectiveness
of their communication, utilizing facts about the process

rather than substitute fantasies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arneson, Wilfred Milton. "A Survey of Some Programming
Practices of Radio Farm Directors." Unpublished M.A-
thesis, Michigan State University, 1951.

Bauer, Raymond A. "The Communicator and the Audience."
PeOpl , Sgciaty, and Mass Communications. -Edited by
Lewis A. Dexter and David Manning White. .New York:
The Free Press, 1964.

Berlo, David K. The Pgocess of Communication. ,New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1960.

Breed, Warren. "Mass Communication and Sociocultural Inte-
gration." PeOple, Soclety. and Mass-Edmmunications.
,Edited by Lewis A. Dexter and David Manning White.

New YOrk: The Free Press, 1964.

 

Cantor, Muriel G. "Television Producers: A Sociological
Analysis." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of California, 1969.

Carter, John Mack. "Perceptions of a Mass Audience."
Behavioral Sclences and the Masp Medla, Edited by
Frederick T. C. Yu. .New York: Russell Sage Foundation,
1968.

~DeFleur, Melvin L. Theories of Mass Communication. Social
Science Series. New YOrk: David McKay Co., 1966.

Dexter, Lewis A., and White, David Manning, eds., People,
Society, and Mass Communications. New York: The Free
Press, 1964.

Gans, Herbert J. "The Creator—Audience Relationship in the
Mass Media: An Analysis of Movie Making." Mass Culture:
The Popular Apts ln America. Edited by Bernard Rosenberg
and David Manning White, Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1957.

Gieber, Walter. "News Is What NeWSpapermen Make It." People,
‘ §pcietyL and Mass Communications. Edited by Lewis A.
Dexter and David Manning White. New York: The Free

Press,,1964.

109

110

Gould, Jay. "Evaluation of Modern Farm Broadcasting."
Fort Wayne, Indiana: By Author, WOWO Radio, n.d.

Grace, Harry A. "Effects of Different Degrees of Knowledge
About An Audience On the Content of Communication."
The Journal of Social Psychology. XXXIV (1951), 111-
124.

Kerlinger, Fred N. gpundations o; Behavioral Resgarch.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964.

Klapper, Joseph. The ngects pgpMass Communication.
Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1960.

Lewis, J. David. "Programmer's Choice: Eight Factors in

Program Decision-Making." Journal of Broadcasting.
XIV: 1(Winter,.1969-70), 71-82.

. "Feedback in Mass Communications: Its Nature
and Use in Decision-Making." Unpublished Ph.D. disser-
tation, Michigan State UnLVersity, 1966.

 

Oppenheim, A. N. Questlonnaire Deslgn and Attitude Measure-
ment. .New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966.

Osgood, Charles E.; Suci, George J.; and Tennenbaum, Percy H.
The Measurement of Meaning. Illini Books. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1957.

Pool, Ithiel De Sola, and Shulman, Irwin. "Newsmen's
Fantasies, Audiences, and Newswriting." People, Society,
and Mass Communications. .Edited by Lewis A. Dexter and
David Manning White. NveYOrk: The Free Press, 1964.

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametplc Statlstics for the Behavioral
'Sciences. New YOrk: .McGraw—Hill, 1956.

"The Farm Director: An Essential Breed." Broadcasting.
(December 4, 1961), 64-67.

Turabian, Kate L. -A Manual for erters oprerm Papepa,
Theags, and Dissgptations. 5rd edition, revised.
Phoenix Books. Chicago: >The University of Chicago
Press, 1967.

White, David Manning. "The 'Gatekeeper': A Case Study in
the Selection of News." People, Society, and Mass
Communications. Edited by Lewis A. Dexter and David
Manning White. New York: The Free Press, 1964.

Wright, Charles R. Mass Cpmmunication: A Sociological
Perapective. Studies in Sociology. .New York: Random
House, 1959.

APPENDIX

114.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY msr msmo - mot-Item 48823

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF TELEVISION AND RADIO 0 322 UNION BUILDING

The information requested from you in the enclosed
questionnaire will provide the most comprehensive
survey of the U.S. Farm Broadcaster ever compiled. The
information, which is being gathered and analyzed in
connection with a Ph.D. project, will be presented at
the next NAFB convention in Chicago. Also, a summary
of the findings will be distributed to all members.

This study of SOME COMMUNICATION-.HABITS _QF FARM
BROADCASTERS is conducted after consultation with
some sixteen members and officers of the NAFB, but is
the idea and responsibility of this one person.

It is believed that this study will be helpful to all
Farm Broadcasters who face the problem of encroaching
urban influence, which complicates their communication
responsibilities and practices. It also will be of aid
to those persons working in the developing countries
who are facing similar problems. Their populations are
primarily rural; yet their broadcasters operate under
strong urban influences. Your replies will indicate
how U. S. Farm Broadcasters have responded to this
shifting rural-w -urban mixture.

HUI-fl.

 

It should take you about 20 minutes to answer the 36
questions. Most require only a simple Check-mark. If

at all possible, please try to complete the questionnaire
in the next 48 hours and return it in the enclosed
envelope. Completing this says much for a busy man who
makes time to help us solve some of the crucial
communication problems of our time.

Warm re ards,

March 70

 

 

112
SOIE COIIIHHCIIIOI IIIBIIS 0F Fill IIOIDCISIEIS

 

GENERAL INFORMATION
Are your farm broadcasts (l) _ commercial or (2) _ non-commercial? Check one.
knaat.is the power of your radio station? Check one. (Skip if you use TV only.)

(1) _ 500 (2) __ 1,000 (3) _ 5,000 (4) _ 10,000 (5) _ 50,000

Iflease identify each program produced by your farm department, inserting the appropriate information in the spaces
bezlow. Include programs produced for distribution.

 

P R 0 G R A M T I T L E S D A Y S B R O A D C A S T H 0 U R S R A D I O T V

 

M T W T F SA SU from to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How much of your farm department's programming is designed for a non-farm audience? Check separate percentages for
radio and TV.

a. radio: (1) __ 0-24% (2) __ 25-49% (3) __ 50-74% (4) __ 75-IOOZ
b. TV : (1) __ 0-24% (2) __ 25-49Z (3) __ 50-742 (4) __ 75-1002
5. Much of the work that a farm broadcaster does is general preparation for any and all shows that he produces; but,

which of the following statements most accurately describes the Specific preparation usually made for the average
Show? Check one statement for radio and one for TV.

Radio TV
(1) __ __ My secretary, or an assistant, handles most of the day-today details for each shOW. I
usually look over the materials shortly before going on-the-air.
(2) __ __ Most of the shows follow a regular routine, so I am able to organize each Show in a fairly
Short time.
(3) Each Show is carefully planned, and many hours of preparation are specifically devoted to

the preparation of a definite show.
6. What do you talk p255 frequently about with peOple in your station who are app in the farm department? Check one.
(1) __ sales (2) __ format (3) __ specific program content (A) __ the usual coffee chatter
7. In which of the following areas do you feel your management most wants you to improve? Check one.
(1) __ production quality (2) __ personal audience contact (3) __ program Sponsorship (sales)

(A) __ content changes (Please specify:

\J

 

:11J5

II. This next section asks questions about some Of your communication habits which occur while you are on-the-air.

1. As your audience views or listens to your programs, which of the following impressions of the way you conduct your
broadcasts are they most likely to get? Check one for radio and one for TV.

Radio TV
(1) ___ __ "The farm broadcaster speaks directly to me most of the time."
(2) __ ‘__ "The farm broadcaster lets me overhear his conversations with others most of the time."
(3) __p ___ "The farm broadcaster provides the opportunity for others to speak to me most of the time.“

2. You speak directly to your audience in several ways. In which of the following ways do you Speak most of the ties?
Check one for radio and one for TV.

Radio TV
(1) __ '__ you speak from notes you have made
(2) __ __ you speak without notes
(3) you read printed material "as is"

(4)

you re-word printed material

3. You have other people on your programs from time to time. What arrangements are made? Check as many as are
applicable, for radio and TV.

Radio TV
(1) you enlist regular participants who are scheduled for indefinite periods of time

(2) you contact participants on a weekly or monthly basis

(3) you arrange regular time slots but let someone outside the station select the participants

4. How are these participants usually handled? Check one.

Radio TV
(1) you introduce them but usually allow them to present their material uninterrupted

(2) you continuously interact with them

III. This section asks questions about you and your audience.

1. In which of the following ways does your audience most frequently participate in your programs? Check one for radio
and one for TV.

Radio TV
(1) ___ __ they send in announcements of meetings
(2) __’ __ they request information which is then given on-the-air
(3) __y __ they are mentioned or interviewed because they are newsworthy enough

(4)

they are part of the "live" audience present during remote broadcasts

2. How useful are the following sources in forming a picture of your audience? Indicate the relative usefulness of each
source by placing Check marks on the scale provided for each.

(1) mail requests.............................USEFUL _______ NOT USEFUL
(2) phone calls...............................USEFUL _______ NOT USEFUL
(3) reports from Sponsors.....................USEFUL ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ .__ NOT USEFUL
(4) comments at meetings......................USEFUL _______ NOT USEFUL
(5) general exverience........................USBFUL ___ ___ _____ NOT USEFUL
(6) audience surveFS..........................USEFUL NOT USEFUL

3. Which of the following surveys have you had access to in the past five years? Check all appropriate items.
(1) professionally-administered audience survey __ (4) station-administered audience survey __
(2) 1967 NAFB Farm Radio Study __ (5) 0.8. Census of Agriculture data

(3) Standard Rate & Data ___ (6) no access to any survey information

114

' lo. What flhas bee“ made of the audience survey information? Check all appropriate items.

(1) _ no use was made (4) _ sales department used the information
(2) _ farm programs were added _ or dropped _ (5) __ farm department published the information
(3) _ formats and content were changed

5. What percentage of your audience, would you guess, does not live on a farm? Check one for radio and one for TV.

Radio TV
(l) __ _ 0-257.
(2) ___ __ 26-50%
(3) __ .__ 51-75%
(4) ___ 76-99%

6.‘Which of the following accounts most for the size of your non-farm audience? Check one for radio and one for TV.

Radio TV Radio TV
time of the day your show is on (3) coverage area of broadcast signal

(1)

(2) program content and orientation (4) location in the program schedule

TV. If your station is non-commercial, omit this section and go on to section V. This section asks questions about
your communication habits in the area of sales, sponsors, and commercials.

1. To what extent are you personally involved in sales? Check only one.
(1) __ no involvement (2) __ occasionally service accounts (3) __ extensive sales responsibility

2. How important are the following services to your sponsors? Indicate the relative importance of each by checking
the scale provided for each service.

(1) presenting the commercials yourself................. VERY IMPORTANT _______ NOT IMPORT.
(2) prohibiting all connecting accounts...”............. VERY IMPORTANT _______ Nor IMPORT.
(3) giving free announcements about sponsor events...... VERY IMPORTANT _______ nor IMPORT.
(4) making appearances for all sponsor events........... VERY IMPORTANT _______ NOT IMPORT.
(5) delivering the largest possible audience............ VERY IMPORTANT _______ NOT IMPORT.
(b) providing sponsor information about the audience..., VERY IMPORTANT not IMPORT.

3. How much of your farm programming is usually sold? Check one for radio and one for TV.
Radio.....(1) __ less than 502 (2) __ 50-60% (3) __ 60-702 (4) __ 70-801 (5) ___80-901 (6) __ 90-1001
Tv,,......(l) __ less than 50% (2) __ SO-GOZ (3) __ 60-702 (4)‘__ 70-801 (5) ___80-901 (6) __ 90-1001

Q. What is the biggest reason for your station's continuing with farm broadcasting? Check one for radio: one for TV.

Radio TV
(1) ___ __ promises to the FCC: needed for license renewal
(2)___ .__ it is a money-making venture
(3) ___ __ farmers constitute a majority in your coverage area
(4) ___ ___ there's no good way to fire a man who's done so well for so long

!L_This section asks questions about your communication habits at the meetings you attend.

1. As a farm broadcaster, how many meetings have you averaged per week? Insert a number in each space.
(1) ______meetings in the past year or so (2) _____ meetings when you first began

2. Are you the tgp man on your station's farm staff? Check one.

(1) __ yes (2) __ no (PLEASE SPECIFY: )

115

3. You attend some kinds of meetings more frequently than others. Rank the following 1-2-3 in order of frequency.

(1) consumer—related meetings (2) producer-related meetings
a. What do you dp most frequently at these meetings? Check only one item.

(1)
(2)

__ Speak or emcee

(3)
(4)

__ mingle informally
__ record or film interviews __ take notes

5. How important is each of the following pgssible reasons for your going to

 

(3) sponsor-related meetings

(5) _
(6)

make presentations
_ enlarge acquaintances

these meetings? Check each item.

(1) to gather information for your broadcasts.....VERY IMPORTANT a. E; :; j; i; f; E; UNIMPORTANT

(2) to build an audience "by being seen"..........VERY IMPORTANT __' __ __ ‘__ '__ __' UNIMPORTANI

(3) to contact current or potential sponsors......VERY IMPORTANT ___ __- ___ ___ ___ __ UNIMPORTANT
6. How do you compare yourself with the majority of persons who attend these meetings? Check gé£h_item.

More Less Same More Less Same

___ __ (1) in age ___ __ (3) in income

(2) in education (A) in religious commitment

VI. In this final sectionpyou are asked some background questions aboutgypurself.
1. Your age is in the: (1) __ 20's (2) __ 30's (3) __ 40's (4) __ 50's (5).__ 60's (6) __ 70's. Check one.
2. Your highest year of formal education: (Circle only one number)

(1) High school 9 10 11 12 (2) College 1 2 3 4 (3) Graduate school 1 2 3

3. What was your father's primary occupation at the time you left home? Check only one.

(1) __ farmer/rancher (2) __ urban employee (3) __ other (SPECIFY:

 

A. What was the last job you had before becoming a farm broadcaster? Please be as specific as possible.

 

 

5. How many years have you been a farm broadcaster? years. At your present station? years.

6. What is the nature of the property on which you live now? Check only one.

(1) __ suburban acreage (2) __ small town lot (3) __ city lot (A) __ farm or ranch

7. What honor or award have you received of which you are most proud? Please be as specific as possible.

 

8. What are the three best indications of your success as a farm broadcaster? There are probably many, but choose the

three which you think best tells the story.

 

 

 

(1)

(2)

(3)

9. How do you EEEE yourself on the following items. Check each item.
a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

(l) expertise in agricultural knowledge...................... HI ___ __ ___ ___ __ __ __ LOW
(2) salesmnship............................................. HI _ _ _ __ _ _ _ Low
(3) skill as an entertainer.................................. HI _ __ _ __ _ _ _ LOW
(A) face-to-face contacts with your audience,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.., HI __ __ .__ ‘__ ‘__ __ __ LOW
(5) skill asanewsman...........................'............ HI _ _ _ __ __ _ _ LOW
(6) polish in program production & preparation,,,,..,,,,,.,,, HI LOW

COMPLETING THIS BRIEF QUESTIONNAIRE SAYS MUCH FOR A BUSY MAN WHO MAEES TIME TO EVALUATB HIS LIFE'S WORK. THANK YOU FOR

YOUR SPLENDID COOPERATION. A SUMMARY OF NAFB'S COMMUNICATION HABITS WILL BE PRESENTED AT THE NEXT CHICAGO CONVENTION.

1115

hilCliICLAIV STVKTTZ UHVIVTLRSJITY suntannno-nnmmemsann

 

DIPAI‘I'KINT OP TELEVISION AND RADIO ' 521 UNION BUILDING

Y
a

r

the best laid plans of t
3

mice and men often go a

A couple weeks ago I sent a questionnaire across the
desk of 179 farm broadcasters. As of April 1, eighty-
six of these men have returned theirs to me. If you
have just put yours in the mail, then ignore this
note and accept my sincere thanks for your help.

If, on the other hand, you intended to take the 20
minutes to make the necessary check marks, but
somehow mislaid the questionnaire in the shuffle,
I've enclosed another one for you.

Your participation provides us with vital information
about how Farm Broadcasters are responding to
pOpulation and audience shifts. The knowledge gained
will be sent to you and to persons working with
similar problems in the developing countries.

I know you must want to have a part in this vital
undertaking.

Warm regards,

73.2”

Billy W 1fe
April , 1970