751.1EUMM a 0z 40 'DOCUMENT RESUME 4 'ED 209 711 CS 503 666 . .' AUTHOR- ='.Goldmin, Ronald 4.; LaRose, Robert , ITLE , ;Assessment of Audience Feedback Systems for Research . #. 'and,Brogramming. INSTITUTION Corporltion tor Public Broadcasting, Washington, D.C. Office of Communication Research. %, ItEPORT'NO ISBN-O- 89776-069 -7 .2 N. PUB DATE. f 81 - 4- ROTE ., 86p: . 3. EDRS'PRICE MF01/PC04 Plus Postage. ,.. DESCRIPTORS *Audiences;' *COmmunications; *Medbacx; Programing --- . (Broadcast); *Public Television; Research Tools; . c! *Technological Advancement; Television Viewing IDENTIFIERS *Audience RespOnse; Interactive Syitems A ABSTRACT (3 Defining audience feedback ,systems astechnicai ..configdrations that llow'viewers in their own home- to respond . electronically to television programing via telecommunicatiOns '2..,Tetworks, this report examines research into the use of audience .. 7. feedback systems as a means of reducing the cOt and.lahor of eliciting viewer opinions and attitudes to a levelthat:local public ,televisibn stations can afford. The first section of the report, ,specifies four ap.plipations in which audience feedback systems could . .benefit public television stations; pretesting, quAlitative ratings, public-Opinion polling, and. interactive Programing The second section. defines these applications, describes them in teals of their uses and operational limitationi, and offers.exaaples of how each applicatidh could be implemented., The third section.*of the report %covers the cost, limitations, and appropriateneqsofeaCh.of the 'possi4le applications, While"the'fourth.section discuiSwesthe general barrier's to the use of-te systems'. The- fifth section compares each ,system to conveptnal7feO 11',k dback methods and to its competitors, and the sixth sectioknotbs thia,best.technologiessuited for each --application. The systems are'liSted.'in.an appendix. (P11 ''.' 1,4 k 0 O , * Reproductions supplied by'EDRS are the be'st that can be made #. * from the originml.document. * ******************************************************************* U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION %. CENTER (ERIC) ff., This documentument has been reproduced as received from the person ororgaiTization a onginating a o Minor changes have been made to Improve reproduction quality , Points of view or opinions stated in this docu ment do not necessanly representofficial NIE -$ position or policy ASSESSMENT OF AUDIENCE FEEDBACK SYSTEMS FOR RESEARCH ANDPROGRAMKtNG-1, 0 Ronald J. Goldman, Ph.D. Roberi. LaRose, Ph.D. Applied' Communications Networks, Inc. Santa' Monica, California March 31, 1981 S r. A Report Prepared for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Office of Communication Research "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCETHIS MATERIAL HAS BEENGRANTED.BY Corporation for Public Broadcasting , TO THE EDUCATIONALRESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER)ERIC)," r) 6 z / TABLE'OF CONTENTS PREFACE V I. INTRODUCTION :T \ , 1, ii A. The Probleth .1 N B.' Approach ,,. 1 C. Overview of This Report is e II. APPLICATIONS 7 . 4 . /A. Pretesting_ 7 , t 13:' Qualitatie Ratings 12, - C. Public Opinion Polling 15 D. Inter'active Programming 18 III. AUDIENCE FEEDBACK SYSTEMS 21, , 'A. Two-Way Cable 23 ... B. ,Telelp4 hone-Based Single Response Systems 27 C., Telephone-Based Multiple Response Systems 35 IV. A PILOT STUDY OF COMPUTERIZED PHONE -BASED DATA ACQUISITION " 51 V. THE COST OF AUDIENCE FEEDBACK SYSTEMS 59 , . A. Cost Comparisons' for Pretesting 60 . B. Cost Comparisons for Qualitative Ratings 66',.. C. Public Opinion Polling,CoStNnsidexations 69 1' D. Coft-CompaHsons for Interactive Programming 30 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 75 N. A. Conclusions. 75 e B. Recommendations 79 81 REFERENCES' - APPENDIX I\ AUDIENCE4 FEEDBACK SYSTEMS I. e 4 z ;PREFACE Within the emerging "new technologies" environment, fOre- sighted pJannlrig of optimal roles for public television requires careful surVeillance of the telecommunications horizon. New communication channels tnd new content possibilities within those channels are already presenting our industry with citing challenges and opportunities. iThe follow4ng paper was commissioned by the-Office'of Communication. Research to survey the currexit and near- future telecommunications bniverse and to suggest potential appkiations of new de6elopments both for audience res9s,arch and program production. OThe'result of the authors' overview is an intriguing menu of new audience feedback possibilities. It is our hope that the dissemination of these findings will encourage innovative approaches in the development and evaluation of new programming material. 0 Howard A. Myrick, Ph.D: Carofkeegan,Ph.D.. Director AssOciate Director .Office of.Communication Office 'of Communication. Research Research a f tr r` 4 V I.' INTRODUCTION A. The Problem Many of the "blue sky" interact veresidential servicespop- ularized during the early 1970s are now becoming a-.reality thraighTe marriage of computer and telecommunications tech- . nologies. A variety of information and transaction services are already avgrlabie which individuals can accessin their JO"' homes by connecting to computer-base d systems via cable or telephone networks. These services include. shopping, banking, 4 informaticT retrieval and entertainment. For television broadc'asters, these very same te-chnOlogies hold the pate'ntialforAramaticaLychanging the traditional models of programniing and audience research. They offer channels through which viewers can respond to-,television programs and \ convey their opinions and attitude's to the bradcaster almost instantaneously, thus allol4ing vlewers to '11t k back to'their TV sets." Audience feedback systemi will ena le viewers to expresst their opinions about the programs they% mew and even allow them to.be active particioants iri the program itself. Such capabilities may even alter the basic nature of television t viewing, transforming it'from a passive to an active experience. Electronic audience-... feedback systems have much to offer public . 4 television stations. , These technologies can give local stations..4. i . tools, by.whi:ch they can become more responsive to the needs and . inerest. s of specializ-d-audiences and continue to develop innovative programming concepte. This kind of capability. is '2. especially needed at a) time when public television iS being _confronted by competition from dbmmercial interests Whoare- entering into programming areas whin were previously the sole purview of public television. The'Office of Communication Research at theCorporation for Public Broadcasting (cm commissioned this paper as part of its continuing commitment to exploring innovative research methods of use to oUblic broad- casting. "Itspur se is,to identify promising technologies that could meet the special needs of public broadcasters. In par- ticular, we will explore the possibility that audience feedback systems could reduce the cost andlabor of eliciting viewer, opinions and attitudes to a level which could be:readily af7 forded by lotal public television entities. I N_ ti , 0 J. , 104 ti 2 3-, B. ,ApproAch Audience feedback systems are,defined in this report as technical configurations which allow viewers to respond electronically to television programming via telecommunications networks. The reportis limited to those systelVs which are, or are soon to be, marketed by commercial venders and are accessible for use by any public television entity. In addition, the sygtems must allowviewerNprespond to the video materials froM-.the natural v4 wing environment, in the hOme.,. Audience feedback systems were identified by reviewing com- munications andmarketingresearch publications and bydaontact- ° irig research practitioners in those industries. Announcements were placed in leading trade journals to solicit information "out relevant systems. The marketers df the various identified systems were then contacted andintervi4Wed in person or via telephone. D. 4 1 1 4'. ,, V V C. Overview of This Report This report begins by specifying four appaications in r- which audience feedback systems Could benefit public television organizations. They are pretesting, qualitative .ratings, public opinion polling and interactive programming. These applications were formulated, based upon two conference( I) 4t, sponsored by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB, 1980a; °1980b) and the authors' own experiences Working for local public-televsision stations. These applications are defined in Sectiori TI of this report and are described in terms of their uses and operational. parameters. Prototypical examples of how C each application could be implemented with an electronic audience feedback system are als offQxed. \'t 4 The operational' description of the systems and their cost, limitations, and appropriateness for each bf th'e identified applications are coveredin Section III. Some of thesgeneral4 barrier to 'utilizing audience feedback systems are discussed- in Sec ion IVbased upon ademonstration of one of the iden-/ tified gystemS. Each of the recommended systems is analyzed. in Section V against conventionalamethods and against its com- petitors. Particular attention is paid to the relative cost .3) 5. , 0 advantages of the different systems. Based upon the analysis of the operational characteristics/a we identify-'the tech- nologies best suited for each application in SeCtion VI. 0 C I 9 q 7. II. APPLICATI\ONS A. Pretesting Definition. Pretesting is research conducted to determine the