Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1960)

MONDAY MEMO from DR. DONALD LUCKY KANTER, executive director of creative research, Tatham-Laird Adv., New York A creative perspective of research Too much current broadcast research is done to prove a point by marshalling impressive statistical evidence. This is all right, I suppose. But there are some other things which might be done to help today's programming climate. Although broadcast research is largely concerned with audience measurement, it has been used in program development and selection. Many packagers and broadcasters have used some form of research to analyze audience reactions to a show — with the hope of using this information to help make a sale. In other words, research has been used to prove — in scientific terms — that one package will be viewed by a bigger audience than another. I am not suggesting that this is a misuse of research. But I believe it has put potentially valuable research contributions into a rut. This has led to hohum reactions on the part of buyers towards research, not to mention audience reactions to program monotony. I think that the trouble with research in program development and selection is that it's ashamed to be artistic, insightful and creative. I think that today's research, by and large, is too concerned with being scientific in the traditional sense of the word and not enough concerned with producing penetrating, even unprovable, analyses of program responses which make sense to producers and broadcasters. As long as researchers are unwilling or unable to be artists, to some extent they will produce in the programming area results that are accurate but arid. Insight Research • For instance, in the development of advertising compaigns "insight research" is used all the time at Tatham-Laird. We are interested in having our staff of interviewers and analysts talk with consumers about their attitudes and feeling towards a product class or a particular brand, come back to the agency and write up, impressionistically, a report of how their subjects see the world. From this kind of information, the ad-makers get a sense of whom they're talking to and what the problems of reaching them may be. The point: We never use this kind of insight research to prove anything or to sell anything; we use it to help us talk to our consumers meaningfully, laconically and, above all, more realistically. Our job, in other words, is to find out — sans the conventions of the physics laboratory — the range of things which might be important, relevant and interesting to our audience. In program development the same thing is possible. Fresh insights into the nature of the American character, its aspirations and feelings, could be very revealing to broadcasters before a program format is worked out, in the stage where the idea is still undeveloped. One trouble is that audience research is usually done after the pilot is made. At that stage of the game, the selling problem becomes acute and the use of a scientific authority becomes a help. Even though a pilot has been created, there is still time to do insight research for purposes of doctoring and script change — if creative judgment demands it. Shows, like advertising campaigns, have a goal — an image or impression to convey. lust as it's possible to get insights from rough advertisements about whether the campaign goals have been met — it would be possible also to get insight into whether a show's goals have been achieved in viewers' minds. Pertinent Questions • For instance, how do you feel about the main characters, about the situations? Is the format and execution living up to its producers' concepts and intentions? What can be done to beef up the involvement of the listener? Dr. Donald Lucky Kanter, as executive director of creative research for TathamLaird, is responsible for administration of research, development of creative advertising campaigns through psychological research and evaluation of campaigns. Before joining T-L, he was with Social Research Inc. and in charge of motivational research for Gould, Gleiss & Benn, both Chicago. These are a few of the questions which might be answered insightfully, imaginatively and usefully. Too much program research is conducted on merely a "like or dislike" basis. We should take more advantage of the pre-testing techniques communications research people have developed. I'm sure that an empathetic, creative producer, himself, could conduct inquiries which would provide insights to programming development and analyses of program execution. Usually, though, the time and too much selfinterest intervene so trained researchers have to codify these insights. I know a case where a producer got an idea to do a series of profiles on American business leaders. Before any scripts were written, research was done to find out how various segments of Americans view the problems of success, what they want to hear about the other fellow's success — and what they want to take away from such a show in terms of their own needs for self-help. The producer told me after listening to 50 or so representative Americans, he felt better able to tailor his program direction into areas which would be more significant to his potential listeners. He developed new insight and confidence as a result of being able to tell his writers specifically to whom they were talking. This same producer is looking forward to testing his pilot on some captive audiences to find out whether or not he has been able to communicate his program goals. This is, of course, a very different kind of research from that which asks the audience only if they like or dislike a show. Qualifications • Finally, it must be said that research is sometimes, not always, an aid to creative decision-making. An audience is not always a proven guide on the first exposure to a new program concept or a fresh treatment. Even as a complement to existing devices for rating, qualitative information cannot always give you an answer in the idea development stage. Audiences need direction and can't always tell you where to go when they don't have a dial in their hands. As if these problems of the creative product are not enough, there is always the one of slotting. One thing is certain, though — when research is used as an artistic tool, not only for a sales device or for an audience profile, its chance to make contributions to program content are greatly increased. 16 BROADCASTING, February 29, 1960