• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand comer of a large dieet and to continue photoing from left to riÿ it in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 p. i 74-21.965 BUSBY. Roy K.. 1936- AN ANALYSIS OF LOCAL 10 P.M. TELEVISION NEWS IN THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH (TEXAS) METROPOLITAN I AREA AS IT RELATES TO CONSUMER PRODUCT BENEFITS. The University of Oklahoma. Ph.D.. 1974 Business Administration University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor. Michigan © 1974 ROY K. BUSBY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Tl-llO r \ l O O C D T A TIOM UAC QCPM M iccnPl I MPH PYACTI V AS RECEIVED. THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE AN ANALYSIS OF LOCAL 10 P.M. TELEVISION NEWS IN THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH (TEXAS) METROPOLITAN AREA AS IT RELATES TO CONSUMER PRODUCT BENEFITS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY ROY K. BUSBY Norman, Oklahoma 1974 AN ANALYSIS OF LOCAL 10 P.M. TELEVISION NEWS IN THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH (TEXAS) METROPOLITAN AREA AS IT RELATES TO CONSUMER PRODUCT BENEFITS DISSERTATION COMMITTEE PREFACE It has been so long a period of time since the pro­ cess started to pick a dissertation topic that I am hard- pressed to keep the chronology of these events in perspective. This idea was the third explored between myself and Dr. Rod Evans and Dr. Jim Kenderdine after they were named to direct my study. I had begun the same process two other times and my first chairman left this University for another, and my second chairman went on a year's sabbatical leave to another country. The final idea for this study grows out of my educa­ tion training in both journalism and marketing, and from my professional experience in public relations with a large corporation and a large metropolitan university. The idea grew quickly when I discovered that no previous formal research could be found on this topic. À great many people deserve thanking for the cul­ mination of this idea and the ensuing study, beginning with a special thanks to Dr. Malcolm Morris, associate dean of the College of Business, who as then Chairman of the Marketing Department assigned me to work with Drs. Evans and Kenderdine. I owe a great deal to the latter two in their patience and understanding, and their straightforwardness as this study progressed. Here begins the mass thank yous: the IV representatives of the four commercial television channels surveyed; statisticians Dr. Dick Burr and Dr. J. B. Spalding; Bob Nash; Jackie Barret; Steve Minnis; Kit Frederick; Nancy Guggenbickler; Jane Niblett; the staff of the Public Infor­ mation Office and the President (my employer) and his staff for their patience; and others who I do not want to forget though the time has been long. And finally, to my family who have really come into being a family through this long struggle. My hope is this study will twinkle an idea or spark a thought to better the subject undertaken here. If that happens, it will be worth it all. Roy K. Busby TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE....................................................iv LIST OF T A B L E S .........................................viii LIST OF G R A P H S ..................... xi ABSTRACT ................................................ XÜ Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ................................... 1 Background of the S t u d y ....................... 1 Previous Experimental Work in This Area .... 8 Objectives of the S t u d y ....................... 9 Implications of the S t u d y ....................... 11 Plan of the D issertation....................... 12 II. THE STUDY’S HYPOTHESES .......................15 Hypothesis 1 .................. 16 Hypothesis 2 ................................... 16 Hypothesis 3 ................................... 17 Hypothesis 4 ................................... 18 III. THE STUDY'S METHODOLOGY...........................20 The Research D e s i g n ............................. 20 Structure of the Questionnaire ................ 26 Sample Size and Structure....................... 32 Sampling Methodology and Experiences of the Field Sample ............ 36 IV. STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES AND RESULTS OF THE STUDY ........................................... 44 Statistical and Computer Techniques .......... 44 Rating on 1 to 5 S c a l e ............ 45 Semantic Differential ....................... 45 Statistical Analysis of the Sample Between the Four Channels............................. 46 Analysis of Variance— Chi Square .......... 46 Chi Square Berween the Four Channels .... 47 Fisher ’ s T T e s t .................... 49 Stepwise Multiple Regression 49 Factor Analysis Between Channels .......... 51 Tabulation Analysis of Questionnaire Parts . 57 Channel Viewer Percentages ............ 57 Analysis of Part 1 ........................... 60 Analysis of Part 2 ........................... 62 Analysis of Part 3 ............................67 Analysis of Part 4 74 Analysis of Part 5 76 Statistical Analysis of the Sample Within Each Channel........................................78 Factor Analysis Within Each, Channel ........ 79 Product Benefits ........................... 81 V. RESULTS OF THE STUDY'S HYPOTHESES ........ 85 Hypothesis 1 ............... ■................... 86 Hypothesis 2 ................................... 87 Hypothesis 3 ................................... 88 Hypothesis 4 ................ 89 Summary of Hypotheses Results ...........90 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......... 92 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS................................... 108 APPENDIXES A. Questionnaire ...............................113 B. T a b l e s ........................................... 121 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................. 284 vxi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Geographic Location of the 400 Study Respondents and Channel on Which Each Views 10 p.m. Local N e w s c a s t .......... 122 2 Analysis of Variance— Chi Square Between Variables of all Channels.................................. 135 3 Fisher's T Test, All Channels— All Variables . 145 4 Stepwise Multiple Regression, All Channels .... 155 5 Stepwise Multiple Regression, All Channels .... 157 6 Stepwise Multiple Regression, All Channels .... 158 7 Stepwise Multiple Regression, All Channels .... 160 8 Stepwise Multiple Regression, All Channels— All Variables.....................................161 9 Stepwise Multiple Regression, All Channels— All Variables (Variables Not Entered) .......... 165 10 Factor Analysis— All Channels.......................166 11 Factor Analysis— All Channels.......................170 12 Factor Analysis— All Channels.......................173 13 Factor Analysis— All Channels........... 175 14 Product Benefits Between Channels As Related to Factor Analysis (All Channels) ................ 54 15 Factor Analysis, All Channels— All Variables . 176 16 Factor Analysis, All Channels— All Variables . , 186 17 Factor Analysis, All Channels— All Variables . 196 18 Product Benefits Between Channels as Related to Factor Analysis (All Channels— All Variables) .......... 56 vixi 19 Television Audience Estimates in Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan A r e a ................ 57 20 400 Responses to Part 1 of Questionnaire......... 206 21 Channel 11 Viewers ................................. 208 22 Channel 4 Viewers ............ 209 23 Channel 5 Viewers ................................... 213 24 Channel 8 V i e w e r s ..................... '............ 218 25 Channel 11 Viewers ................................. 223 26 Channel 4 Viewers ................................... 224 27 Channel 5 V i e w e r s................................... 226 28 Channel 8 V i e w e r s ................................... 228 29 400 Responses to Part 2 of Questionnaire......... 231 30 Channel

Load more

  299

Copy Link