I I If 1M" 1.111111" 2“ 1 T '1“ ‘xe‘.',"r"‘.'i"i:,' "‘7 ‘T'- 2. 1 ' ' ' gi. i.‘,,'.‘-;““' r ‘ Unix. ‘1 '.f‘,*'f. 1,21,!!‘2 . :1 v3 ‘ My 1 L. 2:, 24,1,“ H.317». Thu, 1311:13I’I‘1-‘3353..11.1'Ia 32.?“ ,3,“ t 111111111311111'1T‘1'1 1II$1I 1 : ItI,1,J~”'1I2" vI""Ii1,I1,1n,-',£§ 11332524,, ...,2.,.,, I1. ' I111 41-, :51! I " "1 w 1,1 i ,2, H111?“ ' 1W2 '1 :2 ,2} I . I 13251“, ”(h ’33 I; ~ ‘1‘ ' 1: . . --..E...r-. fig. a-r; 1 .l‘ ‘1 '53.. C u- ' -4?— .5: ;‘ __.. m...“ h u c. .- .nan—r sf}; 1: II I ,1 ,||LK,,‘1:N 3. ‘210 a "I?“ 3.1::‘Iatugt. 1 I" ' '1‘ . -- _ ,.~.,,.;,',=:,,,2,. '. 1., ,Ma, , «,1, 5,2, M, . 1": ° :I.‘ :11‘I‘1'Ifiué “111,123? 2% ' . 3" ’g. I 51‘: v,” huts}. ‘, ”:12“: :- I l‘ i‘II£‘| $413331 I1 3,3,, (13., ‘ , ,3 . .' ' 22 W2, - .. 22» w. 22.: i 222 :2 . . 11111;” ’1 I11 “1111,11! I IEE‘IILI”: 11§I1I1I1111I11111M ‘id It" “.41 111m} 12‘” 1'1 ”131,9 11131: III" " I‘II11'1,1I:;,,‘”' “11:11.1,11‘1313111 {1;} 3,3,2” 1 l‘,1,.1III3‘I..,;;1. ‘ L 1 , 1‘1..'11J\ ‘ 'f 13:11,“ i, 1,,“ MI I. . ,,:,,, wagwt $51,, 1.1,,“ :1 26.2.2111? .-. .2... . .2, 2;. . , ‘rvv. I». 5 : 3 ~ .2232 2 " ,3 2 ' ‘t l I»:,,:,,.1.:,:2s~§,2,1., 11“: 32‘,» “Wang“: 2: .,,+:i...,.2 ,.,.., ~i {‘1 a-nI‘r . . .',,'IOI,, ”1* 'v. ' ‘3‘11z'3'1 , :5, ,,;:':,~.1, wt. ,,5 $2,? I . ‘4’3‘1 ,LI'. 'I I “2 ”(ya fidl i. .34 “V" II in. wi f it - . ‘‘‘‘‘ "33"? . I I I {£th : ‘21:, 1 2. . 2 , ,. “ . :11- ' ‘§'|‘:3,‘ " ILR h; .‘ ‘;:' I 1 I I t a ‘ I. 3 . i TIA, 2 - .: . ‘ : L"; “1} 54,3471 I“ ' {1,13,}, ‘i fin» 3 ' {“111 ‘U' £3131“ . 31: :1:_.‘-.~ .‘III? I 11I11111311’31SfI1n‘z11121 Ihkh} I13 3,,“ £15} {1 $1"th 341,“? III d. ‘1’11333' T; 3.;31I‘:,3'_‘;‘?.\:: LE" ‘ 21'. 111' ”£131,324, I'13-11‘11'111 1M ‘11I1'II‘1I'1'I I. V, I’IEI'izi‘It" 7'",':§‘: 3" : ‘ 2‘3':.31§~.:.'-?§'-,I:"?3.: ,- 1 ' $1", WIHIJI ,::,‘,,f,§111~,1” “#341,: 5%;,,,,E}Zg2;,_,.,z,.,: v,” ' '11‘1%2'I1:113{1.':1,,}1‘L'1I 1113 {331,11 61,, 4.2.3,, 4,,’ ~12 ,r ”‘1“, r1! 13,~|,3e§ .' ' $131.14..N’1111111111‘I1‘113 , III! :., 45:4,} 3 “II‘I111‘3:;:\:.:_*I€1‘II'm}fufi'1.'1:3l ”1:11;..." ~ 4.13:“: 1 . ii 2 M, «4.: 12.2,; $.13 -,§ ‘6': fi'x ‘ 11h 1., ,8», 1,231,“, M $10.11;“ I,‘ ,IuthtII, 111"”,5 III ,1 , “III :l , I,‘ ,4 I (”I 1 hag : . “33,1 1111 III, 1I‘11,,I\I131II1 11 ,3“ "112,561 121. I, ' X . . :2: 13313,!“ 9,3,, v, 14,3 3.3131311 1331133 11.1% fiz‘dfitéf "'1 :111113‘5II'.713313II.‘311, II 3,4115 r'J ,4 . 2“,? ' .xianI,-,i‘,:§§v V1,”? £34,, I 2: ‘11::1111 III - I.‘ I {1‘3“5,” 301'“ 3:13:11 "1 0.“, . .2:>=':,2‘,1'-‘ 2, w 1 i: M - 11%,: 114i”; . 1,,“ ' 121,521 ‘ LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled USING "BENEFIT SEGMENTATION" STRATEGIES TO DEFINE LOCAL BROADCAST TELEVISION NEWS AUDIENCE SEGMENTS: A SEGMENTATION MODEL BASED ON MEDIA GRATIFICATIONS presented by ROBERT HOWARD WI CKS has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Mass Media \ ,-———\ _ _ t) /7 I gix .2. ’ Luck/«i, 44', —- :1 {1:1 Major professor Date September 25, 1987 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institulion 042771 l¢fl314l LIBRARIES n . RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. w&fl~ “v . ; l .- . #25 25h ft: 223112 2 6 3 AUG 3 I§93l ‘2'39 14 " £23222” MAY 1 9 2002 1 2 0:3 01 fl 4 .3915 029,02 '13.? .—’ USING "BENEFIT SEGMENTATION" STRATEGIES TO DEFINE LOCAL BROADCAST TELEVISION NEWS AUDIENCE SEGMENTS: A SEGMENTATION MODEL BASED ON MEDIA GRATIFICATIONS Robert Howard Wicks A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN MASS MEDIA College of Communication Arts and Sciences 1987 Copyright by ROBERT H. WICKS 1987 USING "BENEFIT SEGMENTATION" STRATEGIES TO DEFINE LOCAL BROADCAST TELEVISION NEWS AUDIENCE SEGMENTS: A SEGMENTATION MODEL BASED ON MEDIA GRATIFICATIONS By Robert Howard Wicks AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN MASS MEDIA College of Communication Arts and Sciences 1987 ABSTRACT USING "BENEFIT SEGMENTATION" STRATEGIES TO DEFINE LOCAL BROADCAST TELEVISION NEWS AUDIENCE SEGMENTS: A SEGMENTATION MODEL BASED ON MEDIA GRATIFICATIONS By Robert Howard Wicks The recent proliferation of communication channels such as cable television and other emerging technologies suggests that programming can be provided for relatively narrow audience segments rather than for the mass audience. This research suggests a model that might be useful in defining audience segments for local television news. Most segmentation studies employ descriptive predictors such as demographics to define audience segments. This study employed benefit-based segmentation--a strategy designed to group like-minded individuals into segment categories. The hypotheses suggested that: H1 Different people expect to derive different benefits from television news and information. H2 Different perceived benefits are sufficient criteria for the task of defining specific audience segments. H3 People within these benefit—based segments are relatively homogeneous with respect to the benefits they expect to derive from television news. H4 A benefit-based approach to clustering audiences according to their television news viewing preferences will produce demographically heterogeneous segments. H5 Benefits other than entertainment may serve as dominant benefits for various audience segments. H6 Cognitive motivations associated with news gratifications predominate for at least one of the segments. The research employed factor analysis to identify the benefits sought from television news. Audiences were subsequently clustered around these benefits. Analysis of variance was used to demonstrate between group differences and within group similarities. Finally, discriminant analysis and the chi-square statistic were used to assess demographic differences between groups. Support was provided for all but the fourth hypothesis. Specifically, the benefit-based segments were somewhat homogeneous with respect to gender and education. This research contributes knowledge in three primary ways: (1) It links the communications literature associated with "media uses and gratifications" with the marketing strategy of benefit segmentation. As such, it provides a model for generating audience typologies rather than providing yet another media usage typology. (2) It _A provides a model by which news suppliers might efficiently segment and target specific television audience segments. (3) It suggests a new direction for journalism education. It specifically recommends that journalism and communication programs must expand their scope by training journalists to specialize in the interest of matching the information processing tendencies of the target audience with the news programs produced. Dedicated to Hilda and Elmer ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The best scholars and teachers are both allies and adversaries. They provide support and reassurance when the student or colleague is on the right track. At other times, they challenge in the interest of stimulating intellectual growth and development. I am indebted to Dr. Fred Fico, my dissertation director, colleague and, most important, friend, for performing these functions on my dissertation committee. I will always be grateful to Dr. Keith Adler, Dr. Martin Block and Dr. Thomas Muth, the other members of my guidance committee, for their help and encouragement along the way. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Russ Haley of the Whittemore School at the University of New Hampshire for serving as a consultant on this dissertation. I must also thank Dr. Stan Soffin and Dr. Tom Baldwin for their continuing support along the way. Special thanks also to Jon Brandt, Tom Ennis, Al Harris, Lincoln James, Steve Lacy, Lauren Oliver, Gary Pizante, Sandy Smith and Mike Steele for their friendship, support and help with data analysis and collection. But most important, thanks to my wife Jan-~who endured the unusual challenge of providing love, support and encouragement while pursuing doctoral studies of her own. I hope that I will be able to return the kindness as you work on your dissertation. vi LIST OF TABLES . . LIST OF FIGURES . . LIST OF APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND JUSTIFICATION . . . . . IntrOductionO O O O O O O O O O O O O Justification of Study fo Mass Communication Theory . . . . . . . . Justification of Study for Broadcast Journalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . Justification of Study for Journalism Communication Education . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOOTNOTES: CHAPTER I . . . . . . . . II. LITERATURE REVIEW Media Uses and Gratifications Prominent Typologies . . . . . . . . Assumptions of the Uses and Gratifications model . . . . . . . 1. An Active Audience . . . . . . 2. Media Choice Based on Needs 3. Media Competition to Satisfy Needs . . . . . 4. Research and Measurement Approaches . . . . . . . 5. Developmental Aspects of Uses and Gratifications . . . . 6. Expectancy Value . . . . . . Market Segmentation . . . . . . . . . The Segmentation Model . . . . . . The Product Concept . . . . . . . Demographics and Personality Bases . . . . . . . . . . Cognitive Approaches . . . . . Benefit-Based Segmentation . FOOTNOTES: CHAPTER II . . . . . . . . vii and Page xi xii 14 15 18 20 21“ 21 25 25 27 28 29 31 33 34 34 36 4O 42 44 51 II I. IV. V. LITERATURE ANALYSIS AND HYPOTHESES . . . Demographic and Personality Segmentation Bases . . . . . . . . Cognitive Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . Benefit Segmentation . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOOTNOTES: CHAPTER III . . . . . . . . RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . Critique of Segmentation Methodologies Research Design and Instrument Development . . . . . . . . . . . . Initial Phase: Item Pool Development . Intermediate Phase: Task Force Survey . Final Phase: Questionnaire Development Data Collection Considerations . . . . Sample Proximity and Size . . . . . Data Collection Techniques . . . . . . Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . Shopping Mall Characteristics . . . Solicitation of Respondents . . . . . . Statistical Techniques Employed . . . . FOOTNOTES: CHAPTER IV . . . . . . . . . RESEARCH RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . Benefit Factor Identification and Scale Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . Factor Invariance and Identification Description of Sample 1 . . . . . . . . Analysis of Benefit Segments . . . . . Segment Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . Segment 2: Sports and entertainment- minded news viewers . . Segment 3: Reinforcement-minded news viewers . . . . . . Segment 4: Credibility-minded news viewers . . . . . . Differences and Similarities Between Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Segment 2 and Segment 3 . . . . . Segment 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Usefulness of Benefits as Group Differentiators . . . . . . . . . . viii 53 53 54 56 59 68 70 7O 72 72 75 76 77 77 78 81 81 81 83 86 88 88 94 99 101 103 106 107 109 111 111 113 114 Assessment of Demographics as Discriminators Evaluation of Demographics Between Segments Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results FOOTNOTES: VI. DISCUSSION Relevance of Findings for Communication Theory and Methodology Relevance of Findings for the Broadcast Industry CHAPTER V AND CONCLUSIONS The Dominant Station in a Market. The The The The Second Station in a Market Third Station in a Market Fourth Station in a Market Fifth Station in a Market Relevance of Findings for the Broadcast News Journalist Relevance of Findings for Journalism Education Conclusions FOOTNOTES: APPENDICES . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . CHAPTER VI ix 116 123 125 '130 134 134 140 140 141 142 144 145 147 148 152 158 159 194 LIST OF TABLES Table 5.1 Factors and Variance Resulting From Sample 1 (Varimax Rotation) . . . . . . 91 Table 5.2 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix . . . . . . 93 Table 5.3 Factors and Variance Resulting From Sample 1 (27 Items) . . . . . . . . . . 95 Table 5.4 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix (Sample 1) . 95 Table 5.5 Factors and Variables Resulting From Sample 2 (27 Items) . . . . . . . . . . 96 Table 5.6 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix (Sample 2) . 96 Table 5.7 Reliability Estimate Coefficients For Sample 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Table 5.8 Final Cluster Centers . . . . . . . . . . 103 Table 5.9 Analysis of Variance . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Table 5.10 Standardized (Unrotated) Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients Using Demographic Bases . . . . . . . . 118 Table 5.11 Rotated Canonical Discriminant Functions Using Demographic Bases . . . . . . . . 118 Table 5.12 Canonical Discriminant Eigenvalues and Correlations Using Demographics . . . . 119 Table 5.13 Canonical Discriminant Functions and Chi-Square Significance Levels Using Demographic Bases . . . . . . . . . . 120 Table 5.14 Classification Results Using Demographic Bases . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Table 5.15 Crosstabs: Clusters By Education . . . . . 124 Table 5.16 Crosstabs: Clusters By Gender . . . . . . 125 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Wenner’s Media Gratifications Map . . . . 23 Figure 5.1 Graph of Segments and Means . . . . . . . 105 Figure 5.2 Pie Chart Depicting The Composition Of segment 2 O O O O O O O O O O O I I O O 106 Figure 5.3 Pie Chart Depicting The Composition Of segment 3 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 108 Figure 5.4 Pie Chart Depicting The Composition Of segment 4 O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 110 Figure 5.5 Scatterplot Depicting Demographic Bases . 122 xi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Construct Generation Survey Instrument . . 160 Appendix B. Task Force Survey Data Reduction Instrument O O O I O O I O O O O O O O O O 165 Appendix C. Survey Questionnaire Instrument . . . . . . 177 Appendix D. Items Comprising Factors In Exploratory AnalySiS O O O O O O O I O O O I O O O O O 187 Appendix E. Crosstabulation and Chi-Square Significance Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND JUSTIFICATION Introduction In his book, The Coming Information Age, Dizard (1982, p. 110) explains: "The big three networks face growing competition from a range of specialized 'fourth networks’ that rely on satellite distribution of their programs. The most extensive of these grids is operated by the Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio which have used satellites since 1978 to provide their member stations with a broad mix of national and regional programs. The result has been to give local PBS and NPR stations more control over their programming choices, a major objective of public broadcasting." Increased competition at the broadcast network level will inevitably trickle down to the local affiliates in the 214 television markets in the United States.1 Commercial broadcasters have historically competed among themselves in an attempt to attract a large and diverse audience (Woal, 1986, p. 348) as defined by program ratings and market share. But new and emerging technologies along with regionalized programming now threaten to erode the viewership base that has traditionally been sliced up by the network affiliates (Katz, 1982). Programming types tend to rise and fall. Westerns, for example, have virtually disappeared while crime programs are now provided nightly. The shift up or down over a two-year period successfully predicts the rise or fall in frequency of program types in the subsequent two-year period (Comstock, Chaffee, Katzman, McCombs and Roberts, 1978, p. 24). But while entertainment program types have tended to come into and fall out of vogue over the years, the amount of time broadcasters devote to television news, information and public affairs has continued to rise steadily. Bower (1985, p. 96) reports that broadcast time allotted for news programming has more than doubled in the span of two decades, increasing from 13 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1980. Coinciding with this was a marked increase in the proportions of the population that chose television over the other mass media as the one which: (1) provides "the most complete" news coverage; (2) delivers the news "most quickly"; (3) presents the "fairest news" and (4) provides the "clearest understanding of candidates and issues in national elections" (Bower, 1985, p. 96). These findings parallel a Roper Organization study which suggests that a majority of the people polled view television as the most credible and believable news source.2 And there are reasons to believe that television news will continue to maintain a pervasive role as an influential information supplier. Dizard (1982) explains that the technological advances of the past two decades are only the beginning-~that communication and information transfer capabilities are bound to advance at an ever faster rate. This is both good and bad news for television news departments at local stations. On the positive side, news departments may benefit from advances such as satellite technology which is capable of instantly bringing news video of local interest to the station from anywhere in the world. On the negative side, new and emerging technologies such as cable television, direct broadcast satellite, video-cassette recorders and even tailoring of program line ups by independent and public television stations in individual markets now threaten to siphon off viewers leading in turn to a decline in profits at stations around the country. One means of shoring up viewership for the "news product" is through "product differentiation" (Caves, 1982, p. 18). Product differentiation implies that consumers have different wants and needs and that provision of these perceived "salient product characteristics" or "benefits" (Haley 1968) will ultimately lead to the cultivation of a loyal consumer following. According to economic theory, the delivery of a product desired by a specific market segment(s) may in turn lead to the development of a loyal following by the target segment(s). Television news economic considerations have become important for station management (Owen, Beebe and Manning, 1974). Local news has become a major profit center during the past decade. To provide some context of the relative economic importance of local news programming, consider that the shift of a single rating point in local news programming in a market like Detroit can mean as much as $1 million annually in advertising revenue (Salisbury, 1984). However, segmentation strategies should be evaluated in terms of public policy as well as economic considerations. Television news originally evolved to its present importance largely in response to licensing requirements laid down in the Communications Act of 1934.3 The Act Charged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with assuring that proper use of the spectrum would result in programming in the "public interest." Since the broadcast spectrum could accommodate only a limited number of stations, the Commission was charged with regulating it on behalf of the public. But the deregulation of the broadcast industry pursued recently by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) implies that local broadcasters may take certain liberties in programming for "mass audience" and consider more specialized programming for particular audience segments as dictated by market forces. Furthermore, certain news programmers may benefit economically by providing news programs for specific and identifiable subaudiences. Hence, under certain conditions, market segmentation may make sense from both an economic and public policy standpoint. Consequently, this research will seek to demonstrate that: 1. an effective readily employable market segmentation method exists which may be useful to broadcast news operations; 2. people can be sorted into discrete groups based on the benefits they expect to derive from television news; 3. these benefits are rooted in the theoretical approach referred to as the "uses and gratifications" perspective in mass communication research; and 4. such a strategy makes sense in an increasingly competitive marketplace from both an economic and journalistic point of view. The specific segmentation model employed required sorting individuals into discrete categories using a marketing techniques know as "benefit-based segmentation" (Haley, 1968, p. 31). Haley contends the benefits people seek from a product can serve as the "base" upon which to segment the market. For reasons to be explained shortly, benefit segmentation was selected over a variety of other segmentation strategies. Justification 9f Study for Mass Communication Theory The blending of benefit segmentation with the uses and gratifications approach underscores a fundamental failing in past local television news audience research--it has rarely endeavored to organize audiences into definable sub- segments. And an attempt has never been made to group individuals into gratification categories using the marketing technique of benefit segmentation. Rosengren, Wenner and Palmgreen (1985) have challenged researchers and scholars to go beyond simply forming lists of gratifications. They argue in favor or research which might lead to audience typologies rather than gratification typologies. The application of benefit segmentation to television news audiences signifies an attempt to explain the causal root(s) associated with information usage. The blending of benefit segmentation with the uses and gratifications approach posits a method of developing a marketing strategy employing gratification typologies to generate "audience typologies." Wenner (1985, p. 193), a noted proponent of the uses and gratifications perspective has made the following recommendation: "Although much is known about the range of gratifications that may be derived from news, we know very little about 'population densities’ for certain kinds of news gratification experiences within a society. How common or uncommon are certain kinds of gratification experiences? How do these 'population densities’ vary among different segments of the audience? Answers here, as well, may be plotted on the news gratifications maps to illuminate what elements of news experience may be shared culturally versus those that may be unique to certain subparts of society." By categorizing people into subparts according to the benefits they seek from the media, it is theoretically possible in virtually any media market to clarify the picture of the ultimate composition of the segments within the market. This is important since it would ultimately help communicators to better understand the effect that particular messages have on specific audience members or groups. As such, it posits a means of assuring that messages might be presented in a fashion such that they will be received and processed by the appropriate target audience segment(s). Benefit segmentation may be the logical "next step" in advancing the uses and gratifications perspective. As Tolman (1932) explains, behavioral patterns in men and animals can be linked to the idea that certain behavior will lead to an anticipated outcome. For example, "purposive behavior" leads to the gratification of specific needs ranging from avoidance of dehydration while wandering in the desert to being entertained by a television situation comedy. Indeed, the uses and gratifications perspective addresses this notion under the guise of "expectancy value." Benefit segmentation may offer a means of operationalizing the expectancy value concept. It may simply provide a means by which groups of people with common expectations or can be classified into benefit-based segments (Haley, 1968). To summarize, linking benefit segmentation strategies with the uses and gratifications approach will provide a means of analyzing the audience based on communally shared gratifications. It is therefore offered as an appropriate means by which to advance the theories rooted in the uses and gratifications tradition. As such, the linkage may serve to solidify the theoretical premise upon which the entire uses and gratifications perspective rests. Justification of Study for Broadcast Journalism The idea of programming local news for market segments is not new. Local news departments have historically targeted news viewers residing within geographic markets. News departments in rural farm markets would be expected to supply more farm related information to their viewers than stations in New York City which would be expected to provide more news about the New York Yankees. But does it make sense for local broadcasters to target subcategories of the total available audience when the obvious goal of the broadcast news medium is to maximize audience size? The answer is yes because: 1. segmentation strategies embrace the notion that people are distinct in their tastes and preferences for products. Therefore, attempts to market a product that will appeal to all segments is a difficult task. Segmentation strategies are intended to reach relatively homogeneous sub-markets. 2. emerging specialized information sources such as cable television and VCR’s threaten to cultivate segments with specific interests, thereby eroding the viewership base for local broadcast television news; 3. targeting and cultivation of specific homogeneous segments may serve as a means of attracting advertisers interested in communicating with specific audience segments; 4. advertisers may benefit if their messages reach their specific target audience--especially if this well defined target segment is affluent. Many of the marketing segmentation studies in the past have been less than illuminating since they have relied on segmentation criteria such as demographic or psychographic measures which are descriptive in nature. This research will specifically address the proposition that perceived benefits associated with information acquisition-~are valid as delineators of audience segments and may be useful in assessing the behavioral forces behind television news selection and preference patterns. The concept and application of market segmentation strategies for local news would be a radical departure from the traditional role played by commercial broadcasters—-that of audience maximization. Programs attract sponsors based upon their ratings-—the number of viewers watching the program. But advertisers are "also interested in who is watching local news as well as how many people are watching 4 a given program." An advertisement for the breakfast cereal Froot Loops will likely reach the preferred target 10 audience when placed among the Saturday morning cartoon lineup rather than inserted in the ABC news program Nightline. Altheide (1976) notes that broadcast managers are acutely aware of the importance of reaching a target audience. He reports that a member of a television sales staff had this to say about target audiences (Altheide, 1976, p. 32): "If we’re selling women’s girdles, we probably should not be playing in the middle of baseball. If we’re selling a soap product or a toothpaste we probably should be hitting in the center of a family or a woman’s program, because the most important demographic, and that is the word we use to talk about the audience composition, is women 18 to 49. Why? Because women 18 to 49 control the purse strings of the average family." The benefit segmentation approach challenges the wisdom of using demographics to describe all television audiences. Certain types of programs such as daytime serials may tend to attract reasonably homogeneous audiences in terms of demographics. But television news programs tend to attract a relatively heterogeneous audience (Frank and Greenberg, 1980). Thus benefit segmentation posits an alternative to demographic segmentation--a means by which news audiences might be described according to the anticipated benefits associated with the program. Dominant stations (as measured by the A.C. Nielson and Arbitron ratings) in a given market will undoubtedly be 11 content to continue programming the for the mass audience as long as a sufficiently large audience is retained. Segmentation strategies may appeal most to stations with poor news ratings or new stations entering a given broadcast market. Fifty-four television markets have gained an independent station during the past five years. The Association of Independent Television Stations is now 160 members strong.5 Hence audience segmentation may be a desirable option for stations wishing to increase ratings by targeting unsatisfied audience segments. The idea of linking the benefit segmentation approach with media uses and gratifications has important implications for broadcast journalism as well as the media establishment. It posits that audience uses and gratifications may be viewed as benefits and that audiences can be segmented according to these benefits. The uses and gratifications perspective suggests that many factors are associated with news viewing. Benefit segmentation is offered as a means of combining these benefits to provide a map detailing the segments present in a given news market. Epstein (1973) argues that television network executives have generally tried to attract television news audiences by presenting news in terms of conflict and by enhancing the production values. But while one segment of the television news audience may turn to the news largely based on a need for titillation and excitement (immediate 12 rewards), the literature suggests that other segments may seek quite different gratifications (delayed rewards). Indeed, the success of ABC News Nightline and the McNeil/Lehrer news hour may be the result of an inadvertent segmentation strategy that has worked. In a nutshell, the serious ”news junkie" and the "titillation seeker" may both have needs for a daily news program, although the needs are gratified in vastly different ways. One may question whether programming for specific segments may dilute the editorial process, thereby leading to an inferior news product. This concern inevitably leads to a fundamental question~~is journalism a business or a 6 profession? Will Irwin addressed this concern in 1911: "More than one editor of a newspaper without fear and without reproach has declared to me that it [journalism] is nothing but a business. 'I am responsible, just like the manufacturer of blankets, for giving people a good product—- nothing more,’ says one. Yet William R. Nelson, owner of the Kansas City Star, a newspaper praised by its admirers for every stable virtue, holds the professional attitude and believes that in creating the professional spirit lies the salvation of journalism." Ethical questions can certainly be raised when the specter of presenting a news product matched to the tastes and preferences of audience segments is raised. Do segmentation strategies simply provide a blueprint for the production of news that will be consumed irrespective of content? Do the news media have an obligation to inform and elevate as well as entertain the public? 13 Questions such as these have been raised throughout the course of American journalism history. They have never been fully resolved. However, the news media compete for the attention of the public. A newscast without viewers, like a newspaper without readers, will cease to exist. Segmentation strategies simply offer a means by which messages can be matched to the tastes, preferences and comprehension abilities of the audience. And, the specification of audience segments may increase the opportunity for broadcast news editors and reporters to align themselves with news organizations suited to their news orientations and editorial philosophies. Reporters working for the National Enquirer and for the Washington Post undoubtedly perceive their "editorial mission" quite differently. While media scholars, reporters and editors are free to make value judgments concerning the relative worth of each of these publications, the final judgment concerning the success of the publications lies with the public. Both publications are protected under the First Amendment. But broadcasters have historically enjoyed somewhat less protection under the First Amendment. In a deregulated environment, broadcasters may welcome the opportunity to seek a market niche rather than program for the mass public. And in a segmented market, it would be possible for editors and reporters to specialize in a manner similar to that of their magazine colleagues. l4 Justification for Journalism and Communication Education Communication and journalism educators may also benefit from this research. Robinson and Levy (1986, p. 15) report that the public has difficulty in processing certain types of information--especially news of a "highly technical nature," stories "containing abstract concepts" or information requiring various levels of "complex reasoning." They assert that the media are largely to blame for this since reporters and editors rarely take into account the "public’s limited skills and interests in processing the news content." McAdams (1985, p. 3) reports that she has often stressed the need to keep sentences short and active when teaching journalism since people "read only simple stories." Broadcast journalism education stresses the presentation of news at an elementary level. Sentences are kept short, stories are concise and visuals and graphic material are included to enhance comprehension. Emphasis on writing and presentation styles presumably insured that the news would be communicated to the general mass public. But Robinson and Levy (1986, p. 16) point out that these techniques did not result from systematic study of the processing and comprehension abilities of the audience, but rather evolved by trial and error. Forward looking journalists and journalism educators must realize that the emerging role of broadcast journalism 15 is not to provide news and information to the mass audience but rather the segmented audience. Robinson and Levy (1986) may be mostly correct in their assertion that the "people" have difficulty with certain types of information. But they have failed to acknowledge that certain people probably have no difficulty understanding while comprehension of certain news items is beyond the capabilities of other audience members. To cope with this intellectual imbalance in society, some broadcast news editors have tailored their newscasts in a fashion that is "least objectionable" to the mass audience (Powers, 1978, p. 31). This philosophy suggests that an elementary style of presentation will suit all tastes since every available audience member is capable of comprehending the information. While such an approach may gratify a large audience, it may also alienate various audience segments. Indeed, certain segments may simply avoid television news because they perceive it as overly elementary, non- illuminating or juvenile. Summary The idea of testing a method of segmenting local television news audiences may be viewed as the broadcast equivalent to market segmentation in the magazine industry (Shoemaker and Inskip, 1985). Broadcast audience segmentation may offer a means by which programming might be 16 aimed at smaller and smaller segments of the market with special interests or special needs. As John Abel, the executive director of the National Association of Broadcasters pointed out in a speech to journalists, the recent explosion of new independent stations combined with other emerging sources paves the way for information tailored for a "segmented audience."7 Cable or satellite television viewers now have access to a myriad of programming news options including Cable News Network (CNN) and Headline news, the health news network Lifetime, the Entertainment and Sports Program Network (ESPN), a political news network featuring live Senate and House proceedings (C-SPAN), a financial news network (FNN), as well as public access programming and local cable programming which covers council meetings and the like. Each of the commercial broadcast television networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) provide news programming in the morning, in the evening, on weekends and newsbreaks throughout the day. The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) provides an hour of evening news as well as specialty news programming such as Wall Street Week and Washington Week in Review. Computer data bases such as Compuserve provide the latest information for people seeking even more information. Add to that newspapers, magazines and radio and it becomes clear that people in the United States have a greater opportunity to obtain information than at any point in history. 17 With such a wealth of available information and new information sources seemingly emerging daily, the notion of targeting specific broadcast audiences makes and journalistic sense. Indeed, the FCC has perhaps tacitly endorsed the segmentation approach by moving in the direction of what former FCC Chairman Mark Fowler has characterized as a "marketplace approach."8 This research may serve as a theoretical model to guide news directors in terms of presenting a news package tailored to the tastes of target segment(s). Journalists and editors enjoy considerable latitude in information selection, delivery and stylistic considerations. If they are better able to understand the perceived benefits of specific audience segments, they may be in a much better position to decide which stories to cover and how to report them. It would of course be inappropriate to present news of multi-car collision that claimed several lives in an "entertaining" manner simply because the primary target audience is, for example, a group defined as entertainment seekers. However, it would be appropriate for news editors to decide to provide more entertaining stories since the target audience is disposed toward entertainment. It is with this point in mind that news programmers may utilize benefit segmentation as a viable alternative to mass oriented news production. FOOTNOTES: CHAPTER I 1 Brggdcasting and Cablecasting Yearbook 1987 (Washington, D.C.: Broadcasting Publications Inc., 1987), p0 C-224. 2 See for example: The Roper Organization 1981. Roper Re orts, No. 5. Richard F. Carter and Bradley S. Greenberg, "Newspaper or Television: Which Do You Believe?" Journalism Quarterly, 42:29—34 (Winter 1965). Bradley S. Greenberg, "Media Use and Believability: Some Multiple Correlates," Journalisp Quarterly, 43:655—70 (Winter 1966). Harvey K. Jacobson, "Mass Media Believability: A Study of Receiver Judgments," Journalism Quarterly, 46:20-28 (Spring, 1969). Burns W. Roper, "Changing Attitudes Toward Television and Other Mass Media 1959-76," (New York: Television Information Office, May 1977). 3 1934 Communications Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 307) provides for the issuing of a broadcast license for three years if applicant demonstrates that the public would be served. The Act acknowledges that the spectrum is owned by the public. The Commission may revoke the license if it was demonstrated that the station failed to perform in the public interest, convenience and necessity. 4 Speech by Neil H. Wasserstein, Research Director for McHugh and Hoffman, Inc., Communication Consultants, at Michigan State University, East Lansing, October 1984. 5 Brogdcasting Magazine, 11 August 1986, pg. 60. 6 Will Irwin, 1911, "The American Newspaper," Collier's Weekly (21 January, 1911): 15. 18 19 7 Speech by John Abel, National Association of Broadcasters, Executive Vice President for Operations. Speech entitled "Bringing in the shares: The challenge of new technology to traditional audience shares." Presented at the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Norman, OK, 4 August 1986. 8 See for example: Mark S. Fowler and Daniel L. Brenner, "A Marketplace approach to broadcast regulation," Texas Law Review 60 (1982): 207. Mark S. Fowler, "The Public’s Interest," Communications and the Law, 4 (1982): 51-58. Todd Bonder, "A 'Better’ Marketplace Approach to Broadcast Regulation," Federal Communications Law Journal, 36: 1 (Summer 1984): p. 27. Eileen M. Trauth, Denise M. Trauth and John L. Huffman, "Impact of Deregulation on Marketplace Diversity in the USA," Telecommunications Policy, 7, (June 1983), pp. 111-120. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW The preceding section of this paper introduced theoretical and applied linkages between the "uses and gratifications" and "segmentation" literature traditions. It suggested that benefit segmentation may provide a means of developing empirically based "uses and gratifications" oriented audience segments. This strain of thinking implies that benefit-based segmentation is in fact a logical approach to operationalizing the theoretical approach rooted in the uses and gratifications perspective. This review will thus provide a summary critique of these two bodies of literature beginning with a critique of the "uses and gratifications literature." This will in turn be followed by a review of the marketing literature concerning "market segmentation." These critiques are intended to serve as a focused review of the literature essential to the linkage of the two perspectives. Exhaustive reviews of the "uses and gratifications"1 and the 2 "market segmentation" literature are already in print. 20 21 Media Uses and Gratifications Prominent Typologies Schramm (1949, p. 260) wrote that news consumption was guided by "reality motives,‘ which have delayed rewards, or "pleasure motives," which have immediate rewards. This simple typology suggests that media usage behavior is largely driven by a search for information or entertainment. Nearly one half of a century later, Rubin (1983, pp. 48-50) concluded that two types of television viewers exist--those who use it "to relieve boredom and for entertainment" and those who use it "to seek information and to learn." Based on the similarities of these typologies, it would appear that the uses and gratifications perspective has not made much progress during the past 50 years. However, an evaluation of several of the prominent typologies may suggest that this approach is potentially useful in terms of characterizing media audiences. The uses and gratifications literature argues in favor of a media audience with specific and identifiable goals associated with media usage. The model assumes the presence of an audience with needs and drives that are satisfied by media and non-media sources. Those which are satisfied by the media are called media gratifications. McCombs and Becker (1979, p. 51) have summarized the media uses and gratifications approach according to the following typology. This typology illustrates the type and 22 range of gratifications that might be satisfied from . 3 television news viewing. 1. Surveillance of the environment rooted in a desire to keep informed on what is generally going on. 2. Use of the media to assist in making day-to-day decisions. 3. To gain information useful in personal discussions. 4. To provide media users with a feeling that they are participating in current events. 5. To provide reinforcement of views already held. 6. To provide relaxation and entertainment. The McCombs and Becker typology is illustrative of a broad range of gratifications that might be derived from television news. Wenner (1985), in his four-part "news gratifications map" (Figure 2.1) agrees largely with the McCombs and Becker typology but polarizes rather than lists the components. The principal axes in the Wenner (1985, p. 175) scheme are anchored by orientational (or self-referent) and social (or other-referent) poles. Orientational gratifications refer to those with the motivations associated with surveillance and curiosity. Para-orientational gratifications refer to reinforcing information which tends to be selectively perceived by the audience member. Social gratifications are derived when information useful in conversations with others is sought. And para-social gratifications are obtained 23 through an identification with the news product or members of the news team. [52-] [omunmaugj \ ca (:21 M K I . l [I .- . - .1 \g [Knxnwmnanj fl FPARA- oumaurloni‘] l [_Amcnv: PRESERVATIOIJ ; I mysm‘ \IVITYJ \ .\. ‘ ' \ \ . \- K \. A} - l \n ‘3 a I I3 '( Dawn—~— \. u/ mumxou 4 —mumnm ---- ADWCAMIM " - ‘ - “cam-u— — mm”. Figure 2.1. illustrates the theoretical reduction of patterns of movement among news gratifications Blumler (1979, pp. 18-20) offers a typology echoing many of the same elements found in the Becker and McCombs typology as well as the Wenner classification map. According to the three part Blumler typology, media are consumed to satisfy three central needs: 24 1. ngnitive needs such as information acquisition. "Consider, for example, the viewing of TV news bulletins. In substance and presentation, they are not necessarily designed to reward only cognitive drives. The personalities of news-readers, the light- hearted sprinkling of humor and banter, and the high-lighting of conflict and drama in many news areas may all cater powerfully to other than cognitive impulses. 2. Diversion and entertainment needs. Palmgreen, Wenner and Rosengren (1985, p. 32) interpret this as media usage in which individuals are relatively uninvolved with the media but utilize it for entertainment and as a form of relaxation. 3. Personal identity and for reinforcement. McLeod and Becker (1981) explain that this broad category encompasses communications that would tend to confirm ones belief that the world [or ones community] is a good place to live. In addition, this gratification would be found when individuals seeking reinforcement during an election selectively expose themselves to content about their candidates. All of the typologies agree that people tend to use media for information gain and to be entertained. “Others such as Blumler (1979), Wenner (1985) and McCombs and Becker (1979) have offered alternatives which they argue adds precision. In any event, a common deficiency among these collective works is that they have focused primarily on the development of gratification typologies. One means of advancing the uses and gratifications perspective would be to determine whether audiences as well as gratifications can be placed into appropriate typologies. 25 Assumptions pf the Uses and Gratifications Model The uses and gratifications perspective is a functional approach representing a means of explaining the myriad of ways in which people use the media and other environmental resources to "satisfy their needs and to achieve their goals (Katz, Blumler, Gurevitch, 1974, p. 21)." The model includes six primary components or assumptions:4 An illustrative explication of each of these assumptions will be provided in the interest of building a foundation upon which linkages between the uses and gratifications approach and benefit segmentation approaches might be constructed. 1. An Active Audience: An assumption that the mass media audience is "active" and goal oriented (McQuail, Blumler and Brown, 1972). The concept of an active audience is critical to an understanding of the uses and gratifications approach. This assumption is in opposition to the old "hypodermic needle" approach in which it was believed that the media establishment provides messages to an accepting and passive audience. Support for the hypodermic needle perspective has declined over the years (Dominick, 1987, p. 464). However, recent research suggests that television viewers are somewhat complacent when it comes to switching stations. Tiedge and Ksobiech (1986) for example, provide evidence 26 that programs with a strong lead—in show inherit a large portion of the audience from the preceding program. But others such as Klapper (1960; 1963) and Bauer (1964) argue vehemently in favor of an active audience--an audience whose members obstinately resist media influences. Recent researchers provide convincing support favoring the active audience perspective. One such study (Heeter, D’Alessio, Greenberg and McVoy, 1983) demonstrated that cable viewers in a Florida community switched channels an average of 34 times per day—-mostly on the hour or half hour. A subsequent study (Heeter, 1985) suggests that cable viewers approach the task of program selection in a variety of ways. The study concludes that "general levels of sensate and cognitive arousal needs have been linked to [the] process" associated with media choice (Heeter, 1985, p. 20). But can these cable televisions studies which suggest the presence of a goal—oriented audience be generalized to broadcast television news audiences? Levy (1977) provides evidence that television news viewers plan their exposure to television news deliberately to satisfy specific cognitive and affective needs. The findings supporting "audience inheritance" and "audience activity" are reconcilable on the grounds that they represent variance among people. The tendency of some audience members to carry over from one program to the next 27 may well suggest that choices are based simply on individual needs in certain situations-~a tenet underlying the uses and gratifications approach. 2. Media Choice Based On Needs: An assumption that the audience members choose media based largely on individual needs. This assumption stresses the belief that media in themselves have no "effect" on audiences. It is the audience that uses television rather than television that uses audiences (Schramm, Lyle and Parker, 1961). To illustrate the functional utility of the media choice assumption in connection with uses and gratifications approach, consider a perspective advanced by Grunig (1979, p. 261): "People use media because they enjoy them. Little further explanation is needed." While the Grunig perspective certainly represents a simple approach, it hardly provides clues as to the meaning of the concept of "enjoyment." Clarification of the concept of "enjoyment" is essential if one hopes to understand what components of the messages are leading people to choose to utilize media in the first place. Generically, the term benefit may be associated with anything "contributing to an improvement in ones 5 condition." A benefit might be viewed as the factors associated with gratifications provided through media consumption. An illustrative example may provide a sense of 28 the range of benefits. Benefits satisfy (or gratify) a wide range of needs. Person one (P1), for example, may chose to watch the evening news because he/she benefits from a sense of companionship (benefit 1) provided by the media. Person two (P2) may choose to view because he/she benefits from the information provided (benefit 2) by the media. Person three (P3) may chose to watch because he/she benefits from the diversionayy outlet (benefit 3) provided through the entertaining banter between anchor persons. Person four (P4) benefits by receiving reinforcement (benefit 4) provided when newscasters report that the world is still intact. The uses and gratifications approach provides explanations for media usage beyond simplistic statements such as that offered by Grunig. 3. Media Competition To Satisfy Needs: An assumption that media compete with other sources of need satisfaction. Media compete with non-media sources and other media for viewer attention. The non-media sources range from interpersonal forms of communication to taking a drive in the country. Of greater concern here is the issue of intermedia competition. Levy and Fink (1984, p. 26) report that videocassette (VCR) users actively alter the broadcast schedule by shifting their favorite programs into more personally 29 convenient time periods. The VCR penetration rate in the United States is currently in excess of 30 percent (Dominick, 1987, p. 179). In a study on station switching in cable households, Heeter (1983) reported that when people switch to Music Television (MTV), they only stick with the program for more than 15 minutes nine percent of the time. She concludes that MTV is used more like radio--people tune in find temporary but immediate gratifications. In effect, the ritual suggests that certain audience members actively survey the available offerings and decide which is most personally valuable, useful or beneficial. 4. Research and Measurement Approaches: An assumption that individual audience members are capable of reporting their interests ip, and motives for media use, when asked to do so. Becker (1979, pp. 54-73) has noted that researchers have employed three strategies for measuring the gratifications sought by audience members. The first involves inferring what gratifications audiences seek based on some separate but related locator (or criterion) variable such as age or gender (Kline, Miller and Morrison, 1974). A second strategy involves asking people to select from a list which media gratifications they found personally relevant (Blumler and McQuail, 1969, pp. 307-61). The third strategy involves goal—directed processing in a laboratory setting. 30 These three approaches (inferential, self-report and manipulation strategies) are based on the assumption that the researcher "adequately understands the relationship between positive gratifications which, presumably, lead audience members to certain media use behaviors, and negative forces, sometimes labeled avoidances, which result in nonuse of the media" (Becker, 1979). In their study in Israel of media uses during the Yom Kippur War, Peled and Katz (1974, p. 66) employ the expectancy value approach in defining expectations of the audience as what the media should provide. The authors found "an active audience with explicit expectations of the media and an apparent ability to assess subjective utility of different kinds of content for different kinds of expectations." They reported that people used television .for information, as a relief from tension and to gain a sense of "social connectedness." Using factor analysis, Greenberg (1974) reported that children use television for six primary purposes: 1. For learning; 2. Out of habit; 3. To relax; 4. To forget; 5. For arousal; and 6. For companionship. While this study pinpoints a variety of possible media uses, it focuses specifically on children and fails to generate data on aggregates of viewers with similar viewing needs or intent. Bower (1985) has pointed out that concurrent with the aging 31 process is a general shift from fantasy oriented programming to reality oriented fare. Survey research has been the mainstay of uses and gratifications research. "What has come to be known as uses and gratifications research is virtually synonymous with questionnaire surveys; or in other words, asking the consumers of media fare to explain their choices" (Zillmann, 1985, p. 225). Zillmann recommends an expansion of the use of experimental techniques to help in the development of a well rounded uses and gratifications theory. 5. Developmental Aspects Of Uses And Gratifications: An assumption that study of audience orientations toward media usage (divorced from value judgments as to the social and cultural relevance of the media establishment) will lead to a more solid foundation upon which to build a formal "uses and gratifications" theory. While typologies detailing media consumption can be readily assembled (McCombs and Becker, 1979; Blumler, 1979; Wenner, 1985) it seems unlikely that individuals--with their complex psychological makeup--are often motivated by a single gratification. Wenner (1985, p. 189) explains that it is more likely that "news consumption comes about because of a variety of countervailing motivations that simultaneously pull on the individual with different degrees of strength." More than two decades ago, Stephenson (1967, p. 2) coined the term "convergent selectivity" meaning the 32 interaction between countervailing forces leading to information seeking behavior more than two decades ago. Yet studies have largely tended to define media gratifications in terms of lists of items rather than specifying the interaction between these gratifications. Wenner (1985) would agree with Stephenson (1967) that people must be viewed in terms of the complex of gratifications sought from the media. Indeed, the viewer of the Baseball World Series might decide to watch the sporting event equally for the following reasons: 1. Cognitive, (Surveillance): To find out which team won. 2. Diversion, (Entertainment): To pass the time. 3. Self-Identity, (Reinforcement): To reinforce the belief that one’s team is the best. The uses and gratifications approach emphasizes the message receiver rather than the message sender. But unlike message sender-oriented research in which the messages are recorded on magnetic tape or clipped from a publication and content analyzed, message receiver research inevitably must focus on the mental states of the receiver. Useful studies must tap the underlying motivations associated with media usage in an effort to explain why consumers gravitate toward certain message components while apparently avoiding others. Much of the uses and gratifications literature has focused on children or adolescents (Johnstone, 1974; Greenberg, 33 1974; Brown, Cramond and Wilde, 1974; Kline, Miller and Morrison, 1974). Others have keyed on age, gender and other demographic factors to describe the groups and segments under study. This research departs from these other studies in that it seeks to categorize people into expectancy value groups based on the benefits they expect to derive from local news and information. 6. Expectancy Value: Expectancy value suggests that people expect to derive certain value from their media choices. The concept acknowledges the assumption that audience value estimations can be measured by media researchers. The notion of expectancy value is inherent to several of the assumptions of the uses and gratifications model. The measurement approaches employed in recent studies have 6 enhanced it. The uses and gratifications approach suggests that the active audience expects to derive specific 'value" from the program. The audience member defines "value" according to his/her own criteria. This perspective endorses the proposition that people select media with the expectation that the media product will contain specific attributes and that the affect (positive or negative) will conform to the individuals preferences (Palmgreen and Rayburn II, 1985, p. 62). The expectancy value approach may be useful in explaining why the Cable News Network (CNN) now has a substantial following when heretofore no programmer would 34 have dared broadcast 24-hour news' (Palmgreen and Rayburn II, 1985, p. 71). It seems plausible that news consumers sample CNN in a fashion similar in nature to that of MTV viewers--brief doses for surveillance and and to receive other sought after gratifications. Whether one finds "value" in the form of cognitive benefits such as surveillance or diversionary benefits such as a search for entertainment--the fact that a premium is placed upon the program is an essential element of the expectancy value assumption. The typologies provided earlier by McCombs and Becker (1979), Wenner (1985) and Blumler (1979) nicely summarize the categories inherent to the uses and gratifications approach. And Becker (1979) has offered a cogent critique of the most common measurement models. However, these approaches fail to address the notion of forming audience segments. To provide a foundation upon which to build, a body of marketing literature focusing specifically on market segmentation will now be critiqued. Market Segmentation The Segmentation Model This review is concerned with the demographic and cognitive bases used to describe consumers in terms of purchase behavior. The term "consumer" means "household 35 consumer" or the end user of the product (Robertson, Zielinski & Ward, 1984). As the name implies "consumer behavior" seeks to explain how and why consumers behave as they do in terms of a particular product. The study of consumer behavior is often associated with predicting how consumers will respond to a product and whether the response will lead to product purchasing. "Segmentation" refers to a division of the mass market into more homogeneous sub—categories. "Segmentation criteria" or "bases" are typically demographically or cognitively oriented. For Barnett (1969, p. 152), market segmentation has been defined as "the notion that the consumer group comprising a market for a product is composed of subgroups, each of which has specific and different needs or wants. Typically, members of each subgroup are identified by one or more 'people’ characteristics" such as demographic, sociographic, or personality variables. Smith (1956) is typically viewed as the starting point when evaluating market segmentation strategies. In his seminal work, Smith (1956, p. 8) argued that success in planning marketing activities requires precise utilization of both "product differentiation" and "market segmentation" principles as components of marketing strategy. An explanation of the concept of the "product" may help illuminate this discussion. 36 The Product Concept Rachman and Romano (1980, p. 639) explain that a product may be viewed as "a good, service or idea offered for exchange that embodies 'benefits’ customers seek." Products contain combinations of dimensions including the core product, the augmented product and the symbolic prodqu. Rachman and Romano (1980. pp. 246-247) define the core product as the bundle 'of tangible and intangible features offered in the marketplace." The augmented product may be viewed as the "values added to a product by packaging, advertising, the reputation of the manufacturer, financing and delivery arrangements, or other benefits offered to the consumer by the seller." The symbolic product is the "psychological feeling about a product that influences a consumer purchase." Hence, the total product is this "complex bundle of of tangible and intangible features which satisfy consumer wants and needs." Also of prime concern is the concept of product markets. Sissors has defined the product market as the individuals who in the past have consumed a given class of products (Sissors, 1966. p. 17). An assumption underlying the concept of the product market is that individuals who will consume a product in the future are similar to those who have consumed it in the past. Hence, a cigarette manufacturer would probably be most interested in testing a 37 new cigarette on smokers (the smokers market) rather than on non-smokers. The link between a "product" and the "market" is clear--individuals who drive tend to comprise the market for automobiles or the "automobile market." Individuals (within a geographic region) who view local television news tend to make up the "local news market." Wilkie (1971, p. 317) views "market segmentation as a two stage process of (1) dividing the mass market for a given product class into meaningful consumer subgroups and (2) creating specific marketing mixes for one or more of these subgroups." Barnett (1969, p. 153) explains that "product 7 segmentation' operates from the assumption that "people differentiate among the various brands in a market according to their perception of the brands’ real or imagined characteristics; they choose brands whose characteristics they prefer. Brands tend to vary widely in their perceived characteristics, but tend to be relatively stable (unlike and individual consumer’s preference). Consequently, each brand occupies a unique 'niche’ in the market, and together the brands present a usable "market structure." Like any product, television news can be viewed in terms of the core product, the augmented product and the symbolic product--although the dividing line between these concepts can be somewhat hazy. Davis and Robinson (1986, p. 179) report that the television news product contains a 38 mixture of "contrasting or even conflicting news stories. Newscasters frequently juxtapose reports on the actions of world leaders alongside human interest features that highlight dramatic incidents in the lives of average persons." This conceptualization suggests that the "core television news product" is comprised of a series of news stories designed to inform the public. The values added or the augmented product might include the selection of an anchor (packaging), advertising appeals indicating that specific attributes will be provided or the general reputation of the news department. These additional benefits inherent to the augmented product may overlap to some extent with the core product. The symbolic product in terms of local television news might best be illustrated in terms of the distinction between commercial and public broadcasting. Many of the programs on PBS seem geared to the most literate in society by providing fare geared to the arts and sciences. Commercial programming appears to appeal primarily to individuals seeking immediate gratifications associated with entertainment. The total news product is thus a complex bundle of information, entertainment, reinforcement, production values, reputations, personalities and the like. Individuals with differing preferences would be expected to gravitate toward the television news product containing all or many of the most important perceived "benefits.' Nimmo 39 and Combs (1981, p. 289) report that the three major television networks took very different tacts in their reporting of the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island. The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) was highly "sensational,' the Columbia Broadcasting Company (CBS) was "reassuring and informative" and the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) was "didactic." It is unclear whether the broadcast networks consciously manipulated the news product in the interest of attracting audience segments disposed toward specific benefits associated with the style of presentation. However, it would seem that consciously or not not, news managers may habitually adjust messages contained within the news product to suit the (expected) requirements of the news consumer. News editors are gatekeepers and shapers of information. They supply that which they deem useful, important, interesting or beneficial. Scholarly journals, for example, contain product characteristics most salient to a specialized population subgroup--professors and scholars. The afternoon newspaper contains product benefits which would probably appeal to a more general audience. For Haley (1968), these salient characteristics are "benefits." The key to product segmentation thus centers on the specification of salient characteristics of the product as specified by consumers of the product. 40 "In his classic work, Smith (1956) wrote that market segmentation is essentially a merchandising strategy . . . representing the adjustment of market offerings to consumer or user requirements." Since the 1950’s, market research firms have studied an array of segmentation strategies. A critique of these strategies will now be provided. Demographics and Personality Bases The segmentation model requires the specification of bases which describe the various segments. Many studies have employed demographic data such as gender, age and race as predictors of purchase behavior. These data are readily available from media and governmental sources and are easy to use in terms of delineating audiences (Plummer, 1974). For this reason, they are provocative as criterion (or independent) variables (Wells, 1974). But conventional demographic indicators tend to be poor predictors of purchase behavior (the ultimate dependent variable). In his study of chain restaurants, Boote (1981, p. 31) reported no difference based on gender, age or race. The proportion preferring either of two restaurant chains did not vary based on any of the demographic factors employed.‘ This general finding is supported by a variety of other researchers (Anderson, 1971; Bieda and Kassarjian, 1969; Peters, 1970) suggesting that demographics are less than ideal for use as a segmentation base. 41 A variety of researchers have also investigated demographic factors associated with socioeconomic status as a possible segmentation criterion. Income is the characteristic that has been considered the most useful in this regard. Myers, Stanton and Haug (1971) have argued that income is a stronger predictor of behavior than social class. Slocum and Mathews (1970) have reported that it is preferable to other variables such as occupation or social class. But Wasson (1969) has argued that income is highly questionable as a useful variable. Frank and Massey (1963) were unable to discriminate between adopters of Folger’s coffee and other consumers on the basis of economic variables. Social class has historically been treated as a composite variable comprised of income, occupation and education (Bieda and Kassarjian, 1969, p. 249). This variable was successfully linked to shopping patterns-~both amount of shopping and type of store frequented--in a study by Rich and Jain (1968). But this variable may simply reflect the ability of people to participate in purchasing at different levels. Personality factors have been tested as segmentation bases. Bennett and Kassarjian (1972) define personality as a consistent pattern in a person’s responses to the world in coping with internal and external environments. But researchers have had most success in using personality as an 42 intervening variable to explain differences between other segments such as demographic bases or usage rate segments (Weisenberger, 1977). Wilkie (1970) argues that personality should be used as a descriptor [of the person] rather than a predictor of purchase behavior. Other studies suggest that personality variables fail to to have much utility in the segmentation process (Evans, 1959; Koponen, 1960). Cognitive Approaches Scholars and academicians then began moving in the direction of cognitive bases largely resulting from a lack of any real success with demographic or personality variables. Twedt (1964) introduced a segmentation strategy that has been called the "heavy half" theory. This approach suggests that it is common for one half of the consumers in any product category to account for 80 percent of all sales. Marketers should therefore concentrate on the half that would be expected to purchase the product most while placing less emphasis on the half that is likely to account for only 20 percent of the sales. But the concept of the heavy user of a product fails to get at the causal root of consumption. Twedt has failed to identify heavy users by any other characteristic, leaving a tautology that "a heavy user is a heavy user" (Twedt, 1964). Lifestyle and psychographics have been used as a segmentation base since the 19603. Lifestyle may be viewed 43 as a composite variable that results from factors such as culture, values, activities, opinions and interests which embody "the patterns that develop and emerge from the dynamics of living in society" (Lazer, 1963, p. 140). The most widely used measures of lifestyle are activity, interest and opinion (AIO) rating statements (Plummer, 1974). Related to lifestyle measures are "psychographics." This term refers to a broad range of general psychological and personality variables. Lifestyle research is different in that it focuses expressly on attitude, interest, opinion and activity measures (Hustad and Pessemier, 1974). Wells (1974, p. v) has attempted to differentiate between the two concepts by characterizing psychographics as "the development of psychological profiles of consumers" and lifestyles as "the distinctive modes of living of a whole society or any of its segments." Despite these distinctions, considerable overlap between the concepts appears to exist. Tigert, Lathrope and Bleeg (1971) discriminated between users and non-users of fast food outlets using AIO (lifestyle) measures. Plummer (1974) successfully used AIO’s to distinguish between "convenience" and "installment" credit card users. But as with other bases, lifestyle measures have had their problems. Weisenberger (1977) failed to find any significant correlation between the use 44 of convenience goods and AIO’s in a study conducted in Indiana. He used soft drinks, breakfast cereals, bath soaps and pain relievers in his study. Each product was then categorized according to attribute. Bath soaps for example, were categorized as deodorant, beauty or general/family use. An exhaustive analysis of the data failed to yield results suggesting that any segment would be more prone to purchase a specific product than any other segment. Arndt (1974, p. 25) has concluded "the search for identifiable sufficiently strong correlates of purchase behavior has mainly turned out to be a wild goose chase." But Arndt argues that segmentation strategies may be extremely useful if more emphasis is placed on finding useful predictor variables rather than simply searching for more powerful statistical tools. The Benefit Segmentation Approach If demographics, psychographics and lifestyle variables are relatively weak predictors of purchase behavior--then other predictor variables must be evaluated. Benefit segmentation has been used for nearly three decades and has been characterized as "a pragmatic and managerially useful technique that has successfully withstood the test of time" (Green, Krieger and Schaffer, 1985, p. 9). Benefit segmentation has never been used to categorize 7 television news audiences. The strategy involves an 45 attempt to group consumers by the benefits they expect to derive from a particular product. It is an extension of the marketing literature focusing on perceived risks and benefits associated with consumer purchase patterns. Domzal and Kernan (1983, p. 47) have suggested that the notion of the mass audience for television needs correction. Benefit segmentation offers promise as a means of developing audience segments based on perceived benefits associated with local television news. Russell 1. Haley, a marketing professor and consultant, suggests that most segmentation bases have failed because they rely on descriptive rather than causal factors for purchase behavior. He believes that psychographic measures which attempt to probe causal factors have failed because they are difficult to use. These problems led Haley (1968) to develop a more easily employable segmentation criteria which he termed "benefit segmentation." Rather than identifying buyers based on demographic, personality, lifestyle similarity and the like, Haley suggests that causal factors be used based on the belief that buyers are differentiated according to the benefits they seek. Several researchers including Hustad and Pessemier (1974), Wiseman (1971) and Appel (1970) have endorsed the notion of benefit segmentation. Haley began working in the area of "benefit segmentation" in 1961 for Proctor and Gamble. His work has 46 focused on positioning consumer products in the marketplace in a manner which will attract specific consumer segments expecting to derive common benefits from the purchase of an item. As such, benefit segmentation is an attempt to group people according to their needs and gggg, and the gratifications they expect to derive from the information rather than by demographics or other descriptive bases. Haley (1985, p. 24) has argued that consumers benefit from advertising messages if they "inform, entertain and provide emotional reinforcement." These benefits in large part echo the fundamental premises upon which the uses and gratifications perspective rests (Blumler, 1979; Blumler and Katz, 1974). Benefits associated with news viewing key on the acquisition of information useful in social interaction, a means of relaxation, a system of monitoring the local community and public officials, a method of developing a sense of community involvement, among a host of other reasons. Indeed, the benefit segmentation approach may provide a systematic means of quantitatively assessing the communication perspective characterized in the "uses and gratifications" literature. The term benefit is typically associated with an improvement in one’s condition. Haley (1985, p. 26) suggests that the benefits associated with advertising messages may typically be categorized according to the follOWing typology: 47 1. Cognitive benefits. Logical and rational benefits such as durability, low price and product performance. 2. Sensory benefits. How attractive the taste, feel, smell, appearance, and/or sound of the product is. 3. Emotional benefits. How you feel when you buy, use or simply own the product. Reinforcement of self-image through user images is the key in this class. 4. Affiliative benefits. Intangibles such as the reputation of the company offering the product or service, liking their style, admiring their advertising. The key to the benefit segmentation approach concerns assumptions that (1) clusters of people are attracted to specific factor(s) and that (2) these factors are are useful in interpreting the perceived benefits associated with product. The uses and gratifications approach (Blumler 1979) suggests that all media gratifications can be reduced to diversion, cognitive and personal identity (or reinforcement). Indeed, these gratifications echo the precise language used by Haley in the typology above. The Richardson-Haley (Haley, 1985, p. 27) model of communication processes posits an active audience in which recipients of messages are active participants in the communication process. An active audience is of course a fundamental assumption underlying the uses and gratification approach. 48 Haley (1985, p. 25) has argued that "selective processing" has important implications for advertisers. He has noted that people process messages based on a conscious assessment of the relative benefits to be derived from the message or product. This assumption suggests that every message, whether or not the advertiser wishes it, selects its own audience, ranging in membership from zero to viewing by the entire audience market. Indeed, this concept is apparent in the uses and gratifications literature under the rubric of media choice, audience activity and expectancy value. Additional parallels between the uses and gratifications and benefit segmentation approaches will be provided in Chapter III. Classic benefit segmentation studies first identify the benefits that people expect to derive from a particular product.8 Haley used the toothpaste market to identify the key factors associated with toothpaste purchasing. The primary factors uncovered were: 1. personal oriented concerns such as flavor and appearance; 2. socially oriented concerns such as teeth brightness; 3. health oriented concerns such as prevention of tooth decay; and 4. price oriented concerns. In a study on cranberry sauce, Haley (1985), reported that people can be categorized into four segments comprised 9 of: 49 1. convenience oriented consumers; 2. enthusiastic cooks; 3. disinterested consumers; 4. decorators. Benefit factors may, of course, overlap between. segments. The benefit segmentation approach simply highlights the primary motivation (or combination of motivations) that prompt specific groups of people to utilize the product. Benefit segmentation differs from most segmentation strategies since it does not rely on general characteristics such as socio-economic status or demographics as predictor variables. General characteristics are defined as those which are "independent of the product under investigation" (Frank, Massey and Wind, 1972, p 117). This violation of an assumption underlying the segmentation model has prompted some to challenge the benefit segmentation technique. Benefit segmentation has come under attack similar to that of the heavy half theory advanced by Twedt. Both are assumed to be demographically, psychographically and otherwise heterogeneous. This has led Plummer (1974) to suggest that benefit segmentation may be useful as a basis for multi-brand development but it is incapable of describing the consumer as a person. Haley (1971) has responded that benefit segmentation is 50 not intended for placing advertisements in the media but rather as a means of determining hgw the advertisements should bg written. In other words, benefit segmentation focuses largely on how the messages (be they newscasts or advertisements) should be prepared such that they are processable by the desired audience segment. In terms of news viewing, benefit segmentation offers the opportunity to sort individuals according to the most important benefits of the news product. One might suspect that virtually every news viewer would utilize television news for surveillance purposes to a greater or lesser extent. One group may be highly disposed toward active surveillance while another group is somewhat less surveillance oriented. Benefit segmentation offers the prospect of charting these waters in the interest of moving the uses and gratifications literature toward "convergent selectivity" as envisioned by Stephenson (1967) more than two decades ago. And it offers the prospect of specifying "population densities" as advocated more recently by Wenner (1985). Hence, this research seeks to bridge a theoretical and methodological chasm that has existed for two decades. FOOTNOTES: CHAPTER II 1 See for example: K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner and P. Palmgreen, eds., Media Gratifications Research: Current Perspectives (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1985). ngmunicgtion Research, Vol 6 No. 1 (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979). J. G. Blumler and Elihu Katz, [eds.], Th3 Egg 9: Mass Communications: Current Perspectives 9g Eggtifiggtions Research (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1974). 2 See for example: D. W. Scotton and R. L. Zallocco, [eds.], Readings ig Market Sggmentgtion (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1980). R. E. Frank, W. F. Massy and Y. Wind, Market Segmentation (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1972). 3 This typology tends to be somewhat less generic than the typologies offered by scholars such as Blumler (1979), Schramm (1949) and "news gratifications map" offered by Wenner (1985). McCombs and Becker (1979) have attempted to provide operational examples of news gratifications. In so doing, the typology tends to expand the Blumler framework by further dividing the categories. The question of which typology is appropriate should be determined by the researcher. However, it should be noted that these are not competing typologies, but rather complementary depictions for behavior associated with media gratifications. 4 E. Katz, J. G. Blumler and M. Gurevitch, " Utilization of Mass Communication by the Individual," in J. G. Blumler and E. Katz [eds.], 1h; Uses Qf Mass Communication: Current Perspectives 93 Gratificatiqng Research (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1974) p. 21. The assumption relating to "expectancy value" is not expressly addressed in this piece of literature. However, the assumption is implicit to each of the uses and gratifications typologies. 51 52 5 Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition, (The New World Publishing Company: Cleveland, 1968): p. 138. Haley conceptualized benefits as factors associated with product usage. Cranberry sauce benefits would be decoration, flavor, etc. News benefits would be gratifications such as information acquisition and entertainment. 6 P. Palmgreen and J. D. Rayburn II, An expectancy- value approach to media gratifications," in K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner and Philip Palmgreen, [eds.], Media Gratifications Research: Current Perspectives (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985) pp. 61-72. Tolman (1932) wrote that men tend to behave in certain ways based on expected outcomes. Hence, a benefit in this case would refer to an improvement in ones condition as a result of purposive behavior. 7 Interview with Russell 1. Haley, Professor of Marketing at the University of New Hampshire and President of Russ Haley and Associates, Inc., a market research firm. Interview April 1987. 8 See for example: Russell I. Haley, "Benefit segmentation: A decision-oriented research tool," Journal of Marketing, 32 (July, 1968), pp. 30-35. Russell I. Haley, ”Beyond Benefit Segmentation," Journal of Advertising Research, 11 (August 1971), pp. 3-8. Russell 1. Haley, "Benefit Segments: Backwards and Forwards," Journal gf Advertising Research, 24 (February/March 1984) pp. 19-25. Russell I. Haley and Philip J. Weingarden, "Running Reliable Attitude Segmentation Studies," Journal 9: Advertising Research, 25 (December 1986-January 1987), pp. 51—55. 9 Russell I. Haley, Developing Effective Communications Strategy: A Benefit Sggmentation Approach, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985), pp. 441-499. This work summarizes the current state of benefit segmentation. It is the first comprehensive work focusing specifically on the benefit segmentation approach. 52 CHAPTER III LITERATURE ANALYSIS AND HYPOTHESES Demographic and Personglity §§gmentgtion Bases The marketing literature reports that demographic bases associated with gender, age, income, occupation, social class and the like are relatively weak predictors of consumer purchase behavior patterns for most products (Arndt, 1974; Frank and Greenberg, 1980; Frank, Massey & Wind, 1972). Others report that demographics actually decreased the efficiency of the media-product match.1 Certain studies also suggest that personality is a poor predictor of purchase behavior and that it is somewhat difficult to use as a predictor variable (Evans, 1959; Koponen, 1960). Researchers have investigated social class as a variable associated with purchase behavior. One problem with social class as a predictor is that it can sometimes serve as a proxy variable for others associated with the "ability to consume" a product. For example, intent to view television news may well lead to successful execution of the act by all social classes. By contrast, intent by a poor person to amass wealth in order to buy a Rolls Royce will 53 54 not necessarily be followed by an effective execution of the intent. Hence social class may actually represent one’s economic condition rather than the social class with which one is associated. Furthermore, members of certain social classes may also feel compelled to keep abreast of the news because they believe they are expected to do so by their peers. Under this scenario, social class may actually be a proxy variable for the true variable rooted in the "perceived risk" of being caught unaware by peers. Social class therefore, appears to have numerous caveats and would be less than ideal as a predictor variable. Cognitive Bases A variety of researchers (Plummer, 1974; Tigert, Lathrope and Bleeg, 1971) argue that cognitive bases such as lifestyle and psychographics hold somewhat more promise. Many believe these measures designed to tap social status, attitudes and an assortment of psychological and social attitudinal variables might offer theoretical explanations not possible with descriptive measures such as demographics (Pessemier & Tigert, 1966; Plummer, 1974; Villani and Lehmann 1975; Wells, 1972). However, these bases have been quite erratic. Weisenberger (1977) formed lifestyle segments but found few "significant differences in manifest 55 [purchase] behavior." He used inexpensive household items in his study. Weisenberger reports that "for these low involvement, brand-dominated product categories, general life style characteristics may not offer enough discrimination between segments" (Weisenberger, 1977, p. 119). Many researchers (Krugman, 1966; Grass and Wallace, 1974) argue that television is a "low involvement product." Unlike newspapers in which the consumer must exert energy to utilize the product, television is aimed at passive viewers. Epstein provides (1973) an analysis of the techniques used to increase viewer involvement with the television news prodLKTttz "To maintain the interest of the audience, happenings involving visual conflict are routinely selected over less violent ones, and the ones involving recognizable figures of authority are selected over less identifiable images." Broadcast news managers apparently presume that the viewer’s involvement with news might be enhanced by providing subjects in motion rather than more static news footage (Epstein, 1973, p. 263). This suggests that they believe that this is a primary benefit associated with viewer involvement. One fundamental aspect of product involvement concerns the "perceived risks" associated with purchasing a product. But television news consumers do not "purchase" news in the classic sense. Viewing television news is a nearly free 56 activity. The primary cost to the consumer is the investment of time. Hence, the risk associated with product usage would be considered quite low for most people. In marketing parlance then, television news might best be characterized as a "low involvement\low risk product." Television news often is garnished with conflict and action to enhance its appeal. This suggests that news managers believe that the news product must provide emotion and arousing elements before the public will chose to watch it. Some television newsrooms have gone so far as to adopt the slogan-—"if it bleeds, it leads."3 Indeed, "tabloid styled" newscasts stressing crime, sex and accidents would lead one to conclude that some broadcasters expect to enhance involvement through the presentation of shocking stories. Hence, psychographics and lifestyle measures which have tended to be useful in high involvement/high risk situations would seemingly be less than ideal for use as a segmentation base for local television news. Benefit Segmentation Influenced by Freud (1934), Schramm saw news consumption as guided by either "reality motives," which have delayed rewards, or "pleasure motives, which have 4 immediate rewards. But as Schramm also noted, news seeking gratifications are a combination of the countervailing forces——people are not drawn exclusively by one or the 57 other. Wenner has observed that "even with the apparent neatness of his construct, Schramm had begun the opening of an extremely messy can of worms" (Wenner, 1985, p. 171). Benefit segmentation may be useful for editors and journalists seeking to organize Schramm’s "messy can of worms" into orderly audience segments. While benefit-based segmentation is presumed to be demographically nondescriptive, it offers the potential of grouping audience members in terms of abstract generic segments such as "reality oriented" or "pleasure seeking" news users. This may in turn lead to a system whereby journalists and editors with particular expertise may provide news and information to specific and identifiable target market segments. Consider the overlap between the uses and gratifications typology suggested by Blumler (1979), and the benefit typology provided by Haley (1985). Both scholars acknowledge the presence of the "cognitive" component associated with information gain and decision making. Haley 7 describes 'emotional benefits" which he characterizes as "reinforcement of self-image." Blumler uses the synonym of "personal identity" to describe information that is "reinforcing" to the individual. Haley describes "sensory" which would represent a "diversionary" component. Using the Becker and McCombs typology, "surveillance" and "decision-making" would be "cognitive benefits.‘ Certain people recognize that they will derive tangible 58 benefits by keeping an eye on local issues such as proposed tax increases and the like. As such, television news consumption in this instance is a logical and rational act driven by an active consumer in search of specific gratifications. Numerous other linkages can also be found. But Palmgreen, Wenner and Rosengren (1985, p. 34) recommend that researchers should move away from simply drawing up lists of gratifications. Researchers are challenged to use the foundation available in the typologies to build a more formal uses and gratifications theory. Implicit to this statement is the notion that these gratification typologies vary according to factors such as the subject pool from which the data is drawn, medium under examination and general social attitudinal changes over time. In response to this challenge, benefit segmentation is offered as a means of advancing the uses and gratifications perspective through the developing and typing audience segments based on media gratifications. Indeed, this approach follows recommendations of several of the most prominent advocates of the uses and gratifications approach. Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch (1974, p. 24) for example, have often explained that mass media studies suffer from the absence of a relevant "theory of social and psychological needs. It is not so much a catalogue of needs that is missing as a clustering of groups 59 of needs, a sorting out of different levels of need, and a specification of hypotheses linking particular needs with particular media gratifications."5 Wenner (1985) concurs with Stephenson (1967) that these needs and desires should be studied in terms of combinations of the items contained in the uses and gratifications literature. Hypotheses The following hypotheses address this issue. The first four hypotheses deal with the similarities gpg differences among people in terms of the benefits they expect to derive from television news. These hypotheses are intended to demonstrate that specific factors associated with television use and nonuse can be identified. And that people can be sorted into segments based on these factors. The first hypothesis suggests that people--with their psychological complexities-—are very different in terms of the gratifications they seek from television news. Specifically: H1: Different people expect to derive different benefits from television news and information. This hypotheses addresses the proposition that local television news programs have heretofore failed to acknowledge differences among audience members. Houlberg (1984, p. 423) notes that local and national news managers 60 believe that people select their news programs largely on the appeal of the news anchor. Epstein (1973) suggests that news managers believe that people want motion and activity in their television news. In response to these criticisms, the hypothesis asserts that programming for the mass audience may be wrong-~especially in view of the emerging program distribution options and those which are now available. This hypothesis also suggests that a better understanding of the news audience will provide evidence that cognitive desires by audience members are not in fact shared across all audience members. The personality of a news anchor may be important to some, but not for all. In the extreme case, the personality of the news anchor may be the only benefit sought by one audience segment while another segment might seek every benefit except factors associated with anchor personality factors. The marketing theory behind benefit segmentation rejects the notion of the mass audience. It posits a means of dividing the audience into relatively homogeneous benefit seekers. The first hypothesis lays the foundation for those that follow. It is a statement arguing in favor of individual uniqueness among audience members. It is in Opposition to the "hypodermic needle" approach which assumes the audience will blithely accept whatever the media choose to provide . 61 Furthermore, the uses and gratifications perspective and the benefit segmentation approach in tandem posit audiences in which people actively participate in the television news viewing act. They suggest that viewing behavior is based on conscious decisions made in the course of searching for specific benefits or gratifications. The benefit segmentation approach is in harmony with the expectancy value perspective in which people expect to derive tangible benefits stemming from certain purposive behavior (Palmgreen and Rayburn II, 1985; Tolman, 1932). For example, if a person values "information about current issues and events" and the affect is positive, then he or she will be motivated to seek such information from television news--if television news is perceived as a medium capable of satisfying the gratification (Palmgreen, Wenner and Rosengren, 1985, p. 22). However, the first hypothesis should not be construed as a suggestion that television news is incapable of satisfying large groups of consumers. To say that no two people are alike in their psychological composition is much like saying that no two snowflakes are alike--an interesting point, but a point of little inherent utility unto itself. While each person may be viewed as a unique segment unto him or her self, certain people are similar enough to be satisfied by one television news program. 62 Hypotheses two and three address this point. These two hypotheses are related and continue to build on the first. The second hypothesis suggests that benefits are sufficient as delineators of segment membership. Specifically: H2: Different perceived benefits are sufficient criteria for the task of defining specific audience segments. The third hypothesis is related to the second in that it states that people are sufficiently homogeneous within time segnmnits. Specifically: H3: People within these benefit based segments are relatively homogeneous with respect to the benefits they expect to derive from television BEHvs. These hypotheses suggest that benefit segmentation is useful in defining groups of people seeking similar benefits inherent to the product—-in this case television news. Hence, benefit segmentation is posited as a means of operationalizing media uses and gratifications in the expectancy value tradition. These methodological hypotheses are statements arguing that factors associated with television news usage are sufficiently powerful as definers of audience segments. Support for these hypotheses will be provided if people can be segmented based on the factors they find important in their search for television news. In other words, failure ”fififl 63 'U)generate segments would suggest that benefit factors are incapable of serving as delimiters of segments. However, one may argue that this hypothesis is not falsifiable. People can be sorted on virtually any set of variables ranging from age to psychographics to the type of car they drive. Computers perform the tasks demanded by their masters-~when ordered to "cluster"--cluster they will. Homogeneity refers to a search for specific and common identifiable news benefits among audience members. The uses and gratifications literature suggests that the benefits might be rooted in factors associated with surveillance, self-identity and diversion. After the segments are developed, an analysis of variance will be performed. The Specifics of this procedure will be outlined in shortly, however, this technique is commonly employed to demonstrate within and between group differences (Nie, Hull Jenkins, Steinbrenner and Bent, 1975). On their face, the first three hypotheses seem simple. However, they lay the groundwork for the integration of the benefit segmentation and the uses and gratifications zipproaches. Specifically, they argue that people are active ill their media choice behavior and are cognizant of the elennents associated with television. Further, these hyjmotheses suggest that benefit segmentation is an ajnmropriate means of advancing the uses and gratifications Ixarspective. And collectively, they posit a new method of 64 viewing the audience in terms of segments rather than as a "mass." The fourth hypothesis suggests that the benefit-based segments will be demographically heterogeneous. For example, a "surveillance-oriented" segment in which significant differences based on income, gender and the like could not be found, would provide a basis for viewing demographics as predictor variables with a margin of skepticism. Specifically: H4: A benefit-based approach to clustering audiences according to their television news viewing preferences will produce demographically heterogeneous segments. The hypothesis suggests that demographics are often proxy variables. While convenient, they are incapable of offering much guidance in terms of segmenting a television news audience (Boote, 1981). To test this, a discriminant analysis will be performed on the benefit-based segments. Where appropriate, cross-tabulations and chi-square tests will also be performed. Details on these techniques will be provided shortly. Hypotheses five and six challenge the conventional xvisdom associated with programming for the mass audience by smiggesting specific benefits that may segment audiences. TWuese hypotheses suggest that certain segments may be zrlienated by current news programming practices that tend to cater to the entertainment and diversionary oriented news viewers. Specifically, certain segments may be motivated primarily by "cognitive" or "reality motives." These final two hypotheses focus specifically on the factors pertaining to the entertainment and cognitive aspects of television news. Epstein (1973) notes that networks tend to present information in terms of action and conflict. Motion is a also a key ingredient in the packaging of television news. This would suggest that broadcasters believe that many of the same factors leading people to tune in entertainment programs will lead people to watch television news. Police and dramatic programs typically include motion, action and conflict. These same ingredients are often stressed by news executives. Recall that Schramm (1949) suggested that news consumption is guided by either reality or pleasure motives. The behavior of the networks tends to suggest that network executives believe that audiences are largely "diversion" or "entertainment" oriented, and that entertaining news will appeal to the greatest number of viewers. The following hypothesis calls this assumption into question. Specifically: H5: Benefits other than entertainment may serve as dominant benefits for various audience segments. 66 Unmider that the relative marketing value of a pmrthnflar segment may vary from market to market. In New lbrk