How U.S. Television Stations are Responding to Digital Conversion
Dr. Brad Schultz
Department of Journalism
University of Mississippi
111 Forest Ridge Dr.
Oxford, MS 38655
662-236-2846
[log in to unmask]
Abstract
The study focused on the attitudes and responses of U.S. television
stations to the mandated conversion to digital broadcasting. Responses
from different groups of stations were applied to a theoretical model of
organizational response.
Results indicated that the model was a good fit. Public stations were
much more enthusiastic about conversion and more willing to implement;
low-power and religious stations were pessimistic and more likely to resist
conversion or exit the industry.
How U.S. Television Stations are Responding to Digital Conversion
Background
According to the Federal Communications Commission and other important
industry stakeholders, the transition to digital television continues to
move forward full steam ahead. As of January 2003, for example, the FCC
indicated that 93% of eligible U.S. television stations had been granted a
digital construction permit or license. Of stations in the top 40
television markets, 88% of eligible network affiliates are currently
broadcasting a digital signal ("Summary of," 2003). This comes at a time
when the cost of digital television sets continues to decline, and consumer
acceptance of the technology continues to increase. By many accounts, it
appears the digital transition is finally headed for some smooth sailing.
But there are still plenty of signs of dangerous waters ahead, especially
for U.S. television stations required by the FCC to implement the new
technology. The American media landscape has changed drastically in the
generation leading up to digital technology. Deregulation in the 1980s,
which climaxed with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, relaxed rules on
media ownership. The result has been a tremendous increase in media
mergers and consolidations, as larger companies continue to swallow up
smaller ones. At the turn of the new century, the top 15 television
operators accounted for 43% of total industry revenue, with that number
projected to change to 10 companies controlling more than half of industry
revenue within a few years (Mermigas, 1998a).
As media companies combine, their audiences have split. An explosion in
program offerings and alternative channels has resulted in audience
fragmentation and the development of smaller 'niche' audiences. A 1998
survey by Statistical Research Incorporated showed that the percentage of
homes with more than 80 channels had doubled in just one year, while the
number of homes with Internet access had doubled just since 1996
(Lafayette, 1998a).
Another issue for industry executives is the tremendous cost of digital
implementation. Depending on who crunches the numbers, digital conversion
can cost between one and eight million
How U.S. Television Stations
dollars per station. According to a Forrester Research study, 24% of all
stations will spend more than $6 million apiece on digital upgrades
(Tedesco, 1997). The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) says that
by the end of the digital transition, the industry will have invested
approximately $16 billion in equipment, design and manpower (Kapler, 1998).
Consolidation, fragmentation and escalating costs have combined to cast a
shadow of doubt across the entire system of media
economics. Chan-Olmstead wrote, "As the media industry continues to
develop with sophisticated technologies … it renders current models of
competition in mass media obsolete" (1997, pp. 39-40). Industry leaders
have begun to question the standard advertising revenue model and whether
it can support the broadcast media in this new age. According to Lefton
(2001):
Technology is making traditional commercials obsolete. With hundreds of
cable and satellite channels, viewers have more reason than ever to surf
during commercial breaks. And before long viewers will be able to order
programs on demand … probably the deathblow to traditional commercial
breaks.
A study from PricewatershouseCoopers revealed that digital television will
require new business models, new programming models and more efficient
systems (Mermigas, 1998b). But exactly what economic models and systems
will support the untested technology remains a mystery to most station
owners and industry executives. Said former FCC chairman William Kennard,
"Nobody—nobody—can predict, with any degree of certainty how it's all going
to work out" (West, 1998, p. S7).
All of these factors have combined to create an uncertain environment for
digital television and a very uncertain future for television
broadcasters. A few years ago, FCC chairman Michael Powell called the
situation "a potential train wreck. The government-mandated schedule will
force broadcasters to spend billions before they have any inkling of what
consumers prefer" (McConnell, 1998, p. 14).
This study attempted to assess this 'potential train wreck' from the
perspective of U.S. television stations. Would these issues related to
digital conversion have different effects on different types of
stations? Specifically, the study focused on digital conversion in regards
to four groups of U.S. television
How U.S. Television Stations
stations: public, religious, low-power, and commercial. Each of these
groups faces unique challenges associated with the digital conversion, and
could potentially respond to the conversion in different ways.
For example, unlike the other groups, public stations will receive support
from the federal government to help defray digital conversion
costs. Various estimates place the cost of digital transition for all the
country's public stations at around $1.8 billion. Of that amount, public
broadcasters have asked the federal government to pay between $600-700
million over a five-year period, with public stations picking up the rest
("Frequently asked questions," 2000). While Congress has balked at the
proposal and offered much less in terms of funding, there is no doubt that
public broadcasters will get a significant amount of government help,
probably in the neighborhood of 33%-50% of the total digital conversion
cost ("Current funding," 2001).
Low-power (LPTV) and religious stations will certainly face more financial
hardship in the digital transition. Many religious stations do not have
commercial viability, due either to poor program ratings or ethical
reluctance to embrace advertising. As a result, such stations operate with
budgets far less than those of secular broadcasters (Armstrong,
1979). Religious broadcasting has developed an economic model based mainly
on viewer support, but with advertising growing in significance. Many
religious broadcasters say this model will not survive the digital
conversion, forcing many stations off the air or into consolidation
(Schultz, 2000).
LPTV stations operate at less power and have far smaller audiences than
full-power stations, and in formulating digital television policy the FCC
has maintained the 'secondary' status of low-power stations. At one time
the FCC estimated that fully 45% of all LPTV stations would either have to
change their operation or cease to exist ("TV translators," 1999). In
2000, the FCC finally accorded LPTV station owners a measure of protection,
creating for them a Class A television service. Qualifying stations would
be considered 'primary' television broadcasters, subject to the same
license terms and renewal standards as full-power stations ("Commission
adopts rules," 2000).
How U.S. Television Stations
Theory and Research Questions
The study attempted to assess how these different stations would act,
primarily through the application of a theoretical model of organizational
response (Oliver, 1991). It would be much simpler to make assessments
strictly on financial resources, but that may not be the most comprehensive
method. Oliver argued that, "The likelihood that organizations will
conform to institutional pressures is not exclusively dependent on the
legitimacy or economic rationality anticipated by conformity (p. 165)."
Instead, Oliver described organizational behavior as a strategic response
to institutional changes (such as the government-mandated conversion to
digital television). In the face of change or institutional pressures,
organizations react based on a variety of factors. Such outside pressures
must be viewed in terms of what is causing the pressure, which constituents
are exerting the pressure, the content of the norms to which the
organization is being pressured to conform, the means by which the pressure
is exerted and the environmental context in which they occur (see Table 1).
For example, Oliver defined the cause of institutional pressures as "the
rationale, set of expectations, or intended objectives that underlie
external pressures for conformity (p. 161)." This cause is generally
defined in terms of either legitimacy (social fitness) or efficiency
(economic fitness). In terms of the cause, outside pressures can make the
organization either more socially fit (such as laws regarding safety
conditions) or more economically fit (such as laws that promote business
efficiency).
In a similar vein, organizations depend on a variety of constituents. In
the case of multiplicity, such constituencies are multiple and
conflicting. The level of dependence organizations have on such
constituencies also varies. For example, public television stations are
highly dependent on both the government and private donors for funding. By
contrast, commercial stations are more dependent on advertisers and the
viewing public.
The content of the outside pressure is also important. Sometimes, such
content is compatible with the internal goals of the organization. It
could be argued that deregulation of ownership limits on television
stations is compatible with business goals at those stations. If the
organization
How U.S. Television Stations
believes the content is not compatible with internal goals, there is a
higher level of constraints and a lower level of consistency. For example,
many stations might view the legislative ban on cigarette advertising as a
constraint.
The institutional factor of control refers to the level of sanction or
coercion involved with the outside pressure. The threat of legal coercion
or enforcement can be quite high, as in the case of digital
television. The FCC has mandated the conversion, and stations that do not
comply face the potential loss of their operating licenses. In some cases,
control can be voluntary and less severe. This would apply to regulations
and operating procedures of stations that belong to the National
Association of Broadcasters (NAB). The NAB has rules and regulations for
member stations, but compliance is mostly voluntary.
Finally, the context of the outside pressure can influence organizational
behavior. There can be a high degree of environmental uncertainty in which
the pressure takes place. This would refer to a situation in which
business conditions cannot be accurately anticipated or predicted. There
is often a high degree of environmental uncertainty when new media
technologies emerge, such as the chaotic early days of radio and television.
The degree of interconnectedness is also important in the context of
outside pressure. This refers to the level of inter-organizational
relations among occupants of a given industry. It is possible that
broadcast stations act with higher degrees of interconnectivity in the face
of uncertain environments. Such stations might want to work together
(through such organizations as the NAB) to promote common interests and
overcome unforeseen obstacles.
Based on these conditions, Oliver theorized that organizations will make
specific strategic responses. How the organization perceives the outside
pressure for change will determine how it reacts. For example, if an
organization feels like the outside pressure is socially legitimate and
economically efficient, it should respond with high acquiescence and avoid
strong resistance. However, if an organization has strong, conflicting,
multiple constituencies, and the content is viewed as constraining rather
than consistent, the reaction is more likely to be open defiance of the
outside pressure.
How U.S. Television Stations
This model has direct application to television stations and the digital
conversion. The factors related to digital conversion vary for each group
of stations. This would include such things as FCC timetables, the cost of
conversion, the strength of conflicting constituencies, etc. Therefore, it
would be logical to assume that different groups of stations would have
different responses to the digital conversion process. 'Responses' could
mean one of several things in this context. It could be a planned economic
response, a response in terms of timetables for implementation, a response
related to future management styles, etc. This led to the following
research questions, which guided the study:
RQ1: What are the responses to digital conversion for the four groups of
stations?
RQ2: What are the causes or attitudes that are shaping station response to
digital conversion?
Methodology
A questionnaire was developed to answer the research questions and gauge
the attitudes and behaviors of decision-making executives for each type of
station in the study. Most names, addresses, stations and station
information used in the questionnaire sample were gathered from the
Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook (2001). When necessary information was
missing, gaps were filled from TV station application information at the
FCC, which keeps more detailed records than the Broadcasting & Cable
Yearbook. Using these sources, a stratified sample of broadcasting
executives was created. These executives included owners, presidents,
managers or anyone else with ultimate decision-making power at the
station. An nth-series method was used to build the sample, taking every
fifth station from the industry listings. This method led to a total
sample size of 330.
The research questions were assessed with a postal questionnaire in the
fall of 2001. Originally, the questionnaires were designed as an
electronic mail instrument, but a pilot test conducted in the spring of
2001 found low response rate problems with this method. Response was much
better for a postal version of the pilot test; therefore, the researcher
decided to conduct the survey by U.S. mail. The mailings were conducted in
October 2001, and based on Dilliman's (2001) total design method, which
emphasizes
How U.S. Television Stations
repeated contacts. Contacts included a pre-notification letter, the
questionnaire and cover letter, and finally follow-ups by mail, phone and
electronic mail.
Of the 330 initial contacts made, a total of 11 were refused or returned as
undeliverable. This left 319 valid possible respondents, of which 104
actually returned a completed questionnaire, for a response rate of
32.6%. Of this total, the highest return rates came from public (60%) and
commercial (25%) station respondents.
Response for the mailing may have suffered because of some unfortunate
circumstances. Shortly after the first questionnaires went out, television
newsrooms across the country began receiving the anthrax bacteria in the
mail. Three people died, and traces of the bacteria were confirmed in
mailings sent to NBC and CBS in New York. At least three television
station representatives called the researcher and said questions about
safety prompted them to have local law enforcement open the manila
envelopes in which the questionnaires were mailed.
These developments had obvious implications for response rate and potential
non-response error. As a result, the researcher conducted qualitative,
in-depth, phone interviews with executives at commercial, public, religious
and low-power stations. These interviews were conducted in October 2001
and April 2002, and the results were used to supplement the quantitative
data of the study.
Results
RQ1: What are the responses to digital conversion for the four groups of
stations?
Station executives from each of the four groups were asked their specific
responses to the digital
conversion process (see Table 2). In terms of economic response, the top
choices were creating outside
revenue streams (33%), improving the existing economic model (27%) and
developing new economic
models (25%). There were some slight differences among the stations
regarding their planned economic
changes, but overall these differences were not considered statistically
significant at the
.05 level (c2 = 22.25, df = 15, p = .10).
How U.S. Television Stations
But there were some interesting differences regarding new revenue
possibilities and the timetable for digital implementation. Stations were
asked if they had begun investigating new ways of producing revenue after
digital conversion (see Table 3). Public stations were significantly more
likely to have begun these investigations than the other responding groups
(c2 = 10.86, df = 3, p = .01). Public stations where also much more likely
than other responding stations to have already converted to digital
broadcasting (see Table 4). When tested with a chi squire, this was also
significant at the .05 level (c2 = 19.40, df = 9, p = .02).
The proportion of religious stations that indicated plans to sell (9%) was
higher than commercial
stations (4%), public (0%) and low-power (0%) stations. Respondents were
also asked their attitudes
about selling the station on a scale of one to seven, with one indicating
no desire to sell and seven
indicating a high desire to sell (see Table 5). There was a significant
difference at the .05 level between
low-power stations (mean = 4.56), commercial (2.30), religious (2.05) and
public (1.38). An analysis of
variance (F = 11.12, df = 97, p < .001) confirmed that low-power stations
were much more likely to sell
compared to all other station groups. A Scheffe test indicated that the
mean differences between low-
power stations were statistically significant at the .05 level compared to
public (3.18), religious (2.51) and
commercial stations (2.25).
RQ2: What are the causes or attitudes that are shaping station response to
digital conversion?
In addition to specific responses, station executives were also asked
about their attitudes toward digital conversion. In many cases, these
attitudes had a direct bearing on how stations have approached the
conversion process. For example, one question asked executives how they
perceived digital television would benefit their stations (see Table
6). In this regard, an ANOVA revealed a statistically different attitude
among public stations versus other station groups (F = 30.24, df = 100, p <
.001). Public stations had a much higher perception of benefit that did
other station groups, and going by mean responses, only public stations
perceived any positive benefit from the digital transition.
How U.S. Television Stations
Public stations also attached much more importance to digital technology
as a whole. Executives were asked how important digital technology would
be in the future management of their stations (see Table 7). An ANOVA
suggested a significant difference between public stations and other
station groups on this issue (F = 11.29, df = 99, p < .001), as public
stations perceived digital technology as much more important.
In terms of economic attitudes, one question asked executives if current
revenue would continue to sustain the station after the digital transition
(see Table 8). An ANOVA indicated a significant difference between the
station groups on this issue (F = 2.85, df = 103, p = .04). Although a
Scheffe test failed to indicate significant differences between individual
station groups at the .05 level, the data seemed to indicate that low-power
and religious stations were much more pessimistic on this issue compared to
public and commercial stations.
Discussion
Results of the study suggested that public stations perceived much more
benefit and importance from the digital conversion than did other station
groups. This would explain why public stations had begun implementing
digital technology at a faster rate than other stations, and had also been
much quicker than other stations in terms of investigating potential new
revenue streams.
Regarding the Oliver model, it appears that in terms of the cause (see
Table 1), high levels of legitimacy and efficiency were major influences
for public stations. Oliver wrote, "When an organization anticipates that
conformity will enhance social or economic fitness, acquiescence will be
the most probable response" (1991, p. 161). Public station respondents
felt optimistic about the digital conversion, which they viewed as
something that would ultimately enhance the station's economic fitness. As
a result, they have taken a very enthusiastic approach to digital conversion.
Many of these observations were confirmed in an interview with John Henson
of KTXT in Lubbock, Texas. Mr. Henson is the Associate Vice Provost for
Telecommunications at Texas Tech
How U.S. Television Stations
University, which owns and operates KTXT. The station is an affiliate of
PBS, and Mr. Henson estimated that conversion costs would run about five
million dollars.
According to Mr. Henson, the digital conversion process will not mean
substantial economic changes for KTXT. "We will continue to depend on
[government] grants," he said. "I don't foresee increased university
support, which leaves underwriting and viewer support. But there's no
doubt we can come up with the money for our [local] programming and network
programs" (J. Henson, personal interview, April 16, 2002).
Mr. Henson also indicated that public broadcasters in Texas were working on
funding models as a group, through the Texas Public Broadcasters
Association (TPBA). "The bigger stations have taken the lead in
developing foundation and federal grants," said Mr. Henson, referring to
the traditional economic sources from which public broadcasters have relied
on for support (J. Henson, personal interview, April 16, 2002).
Other groups of stations, notably religious and low-power, have resisted
digital
conversion, or at least not been as enthusiastic about
implementation. This also fits Oliver's model in that organizations with
low consistency are less likely to acquiesce or compromise. According to
Oliver (1991, p. 154), "Defiance and manipulation strategies are predicted
to occur most frequently when consistency is low. The organization may
unilaterally dismiss or challenge [outside requirements]."
This was further confirmed in qualitative data provided by Greg Phipps and
Ken Mikesell. Mr. Phipps owns two low-power stations, WOHL and WLQP, both
in Lima, Ohio. Not all low-power stations have to convert to digital, but
the conversion process still has a profound effect on LPTV stations. "The
big danger is displacement," said Mr. Phipps. "Many stations are knocked
off the air because bigger commercial stations need the space. Overall,
the spectrum is really crowded and many low-power stations don't have
channels to move to" (G. Phipps, personal interview, April 16, 2002).
Mr. Phipps said that while WOHL received Class A designation and was thus
protected from displacement, WLQP was not protected. As a result, he said
he would "seriously listen to any legitimate
How U.S. Television Stations
offer" to buy the station. "All I read in the industry papers is to brace
and get ready for a wave of consolidation," he said. "The pundits say all
the [low-power] stations will be bought up" (G. Phipps, personal interview,
April 16, 2002). Such stations are attractive targets for larger media
companies looking to expand their consolidation efforts.
As a result of these conditions, Mr. Phipps said he is doing the digital
conversion as cheaply as possible. He projects total conversion costs for
the two stations at under $100,000. "Long range planning is really tough
because there are so many questions," he said. "With no market and a small
audience, we'll hang on to our analog signal as long as we can" (G. Phipps,
personal interview, April 16, 2002).
Ken Mikesell is the general manager of WTGL in Orlando, Florida. WTGL is a
non-commercial religious station owned by Good Life Broadcasting, which
also owns a commercial religious station in the state. Although he would
not give specific figures, Mr. Mikesell said the cost of converting a
non-profit station was "horrific."
Because of high conversion costs, WTGL will not go digital for at least a
year. "We feel we are being forced to sell a valuable asset to settle for
a non-commercial station," said Mr. Mikesell. "This is a real problem for
religious stations" (K. Mikesell, personal interview, October 10,
2001). Mr. Mikesell added that WTGL needs to create new economic models,
such as leasing unused spectrum space, but the financial reality of the
situation has not allowed the station to do that. "We are really
struggling with this
conversion," he said. There is no money to convert and I don't see any for
several years. Am I missing something?" (K. Mikesell, personal interview,
October 10, 2001).
As for commercial stations, the majority had not yet converted to digital
technology and barely half had started investigating new revenue
opportunities (see Tables 3 and 4). Many of these stations saw little or
no benefit from the digital conversion process, and did not particularly
feel that digital technology would be important in the future management of
the station (see Tables 6 and 7). This environmental uncertainty has
created a situation in which economic changes will come slowly and
tentatively. Thus, while commercial stations expressed a desire to explore
new revenue opportunities,
How U.S. Television Stations
uncertainty has forced many stations to 'play it safe,' and try to improve
existing economic models in the short term.
Again, this has application to the Oliver model. Oliver wrote, "When the
environmental context is highly unpredictable and uncertain, an
organization will exert greater effort to reestablish the illusion of
control and stability. Acquiescence, compromise and avoidance strategies
will be most likely to occur" (1991, p. 170). Until commercial stations
know more about digital implementation, many have taken the road of
compromise, acquiescence and maintaining the economic status quo.
Qualitative data also supported this conclusion. An interview was
conducted with Charles Collins, station manager at WLTZ television in
Columbus, Georgia. WLTZ is a commercial station affiliated with the NBC
network and owned by Lewis Broadcasting. On May 1, 2002 WLTZ became the
first station in the Columbus market to convert to digital technology, with
estimated conversion costs of one million dollars.
According to Mr. Collins, high conversion costs and continuing economic
uncertainty have prevented the station from exploring alternative revenue
possibilities. "We haven't figured out how to recoup the costs yet, so we
have to bite the bullet," he said. "We don't know what we're doing, so
we'll convert as we go along. That means we'll do what we're doing now and
simply convert the signal to digital" (C. Collins, personal interview,
April 16, 2002).
Mr. Collins ruled out alternative revenue models such as
multicasting. Even though the station has the capability of multicasting,
he did not see it as a viable alternative. "We need time to figure out
what's going on," he said. "We're going the cheapest way possible for the
time being" (C. Collins, personal interview, April 16, 2002).
Limitations and Future Research
The major weakness the study was the low response rate, which certainly
makes general applicability more difficult. Every effort was made to
improve response, which as previously mentioned, may have suffered from
some unfortunate problems of timing.
How U.S. Television Stations
It is also important to consider the economic time frame in which the
study took place. The national economy showed consistent weakening
throughout 2001, and when it showed signs of recovery, the terrorist
attacks in September delivered another serious blow. "It will take [our
station] many years to recover from September 11," wrote one public station
respondent. Thus, the results of this study could be considered only a
"snapshot" of a particular moment within the evolving digital landscape. It
is possible
that changes in any of these factors could change the attitudes and
responses of station executives regarding digital television.
The limitations of the study suggest the need for investigation over a
longer period of time. A useful approach might be investigating station
response during several distinct time periods. For example, response could
be measured before the digital conversion, shortly after the conversion,
and then a period of years after the conversion. This would allow the
researcher to account for volatility in the environment, such as the
economy or government activity. It could also measure how respondents'
attitudes and activities regarding digital television have changed over
time. This would give the researcher a greater breadth of information
regarding the actual impact of the digital conversion.
The results also suggest that perhaps future studies should concentrate
more on the differences within each group of stations. The difference
between stations, such as public, religious and commercial, are big enough
as to make comparison difficult. It might be more useful to study the
differentiation in each of these groups, such as responses between
religious group stations and religious stand-alone stations.
There also a variety of other theoretical approaches which could be
applied in this area. According to Rogers (1983), the personal
characteristics, values and belief systems of those adopting the new
technology plays a crucial role in how and when that technology becomes
implemented. For example, the younger 'innovator' group adopts new
technologies earlier and faster than the older, more traditional 'laggard'
group. This theory could have important implications for broadcasters
adopting digital technology, and could possibly fill in any holes in
Oliver's strategic response model.
How U.S. Television Stations
While Rogers focused on individual responses, Greve (1998) applies
diffusion theory to organizations, and specifically the radio industry. In
his study of why radio stations change formats, Greve found that entry into
a new market is a diffusion process where a critical factor is the
imitation of early adopters. His findings provided an important insight
into how stations will adapt and what path they will choose to follow.
Conclusions
The Oliver model seemed a good fit for this study, and suggested that
different groups of stations will respond differently to the digital
conversion process. Public stations had much more positive attitudes about
digital conversion, which has led them to embrace the process much more
quickly. Low-power and religious stations were the most likely targets of
consolidation or getting out of the industry.
The data also pointed out a high level of uncertainty in the current
television environment, which has created an interesting paradox for
television broadcasters. They know that despite uncertainty, extreme
industry pessimism and a poor national economy, their stations remain
extremely valuable properties. This is reflected in the fact that only 2%
of responding stations indicated plans to sell. According to Nat Ostroff
of Sinclair Broadcasting, "Digital television is like an oceanfront
lot. You know you're going to build something very valuable on it, even if
you don't have the design ready" (Lafayette, 1998b, p. 3).
The problem is, while most broadcasters still don't have the design
ready, they still believe that the digital conversion required them to 'do
something.' Looking at all
stations as to their planned response to digital conversion, less than 10
percent indicated that no change would be made (see Table 3).
Again, these responses could likely change as the digital era moves
forward, and station managers get more access to information that makes
long-range planning easier. Exactly what specific response stations will
ultimately make remains to be seen. But many of them face the same
situation as Alabama Public Television. Judy Stone, executive director of
Alabama PTV, figured that starting next fall the
How U.S. Television Stations
organization needs to receive $2.5 million dollars a year from the state
legislature. "Failure," she said, "is not an option" (Behrens, 1998).
References
Armstrong, B. (1979). The electric church. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Behrens, S. (1998, November 9). What value will public TV's funders see
in digital transition?
Current. Retrieved January 1, 2002, from
http://www.current.org/tech/tech820d.html
Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook. (2001). New Providence, NJ: R.R. Bowker.
Chan-Olmstead, S. M. (1997). Theorizing multichannel media economics: an
explanation of a
group-industry strategy competitive model. Journal of Media Economics, 10
(1), 36-49.
Commission adopts rules establishing a Class A television service. (2000,
March 29). Federal
Communications Commission. Retrieved July 5, 2001, from http://www.fcc.gov
/Bureaus/
Mass_Media/News_Releases/2000/nrmm0006.html
Current funding levels for public television programs. (2001). Association
of America's Public
Television Stations. Retrieved July 5, 2001, from
http://www.apts.org/legislative/current_funding.html
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys (2nd Ed.). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Frequently asked questions. (2000). Public Broadcasting
System. Retrieved July 5, 2001, from
http://www.pbs.org/digitaltv/faq.htm#fin
Greve, H. R. (1998). Managerial cognition and the mimetic adoption of
market positions: what
you see is what you do. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 967-998.
Kapler, R. (1998, November 2). Forty-two stations ready for digital. TV
Technology, p. 22.
Lafayette, J. (1998, June 29). Viewer fragmentation on
rise. Electronic Media, pp. 29-30.
_________. (1998b, August 17). The vision for digital still
blurry. Electronic Media, p. 3.
Lefton, T. (2001, March 20). You can't zap these ads. The
Standard.com. Retrieved June 20,
2001, from http://biz.yahoo.com/st/010320/22864.html
McConnell, B. (1998, September 14). Powell raises red flag over DTV
switch. Broadcasting &
Cable, p. 14.
Mermigas, D. (1998a, May 18). Buying stations while getting is
good. Electronic Media, pp.
12-16.
__________. (1998b, November 23). New study has some good news for
DTV. Electronic
Media, p. 28.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional
processes. Academy of Management
Review, 16 (1), 145-179.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). The diffusion of innovations (3rd Ed.). New
York: Free Press.
Schultz, B. (2000). The effect of digital environment on religious
television stations. Journal of
Communication and Religion 23 (1), 50-71.
Summary of DTV applications field and DTV build out status. (2003, January
10). Federal
Communications Commission. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/files/dtvsum.html
Tedesco, R. (1997, November 17). Stations ready to spend for DTV.
Broadcasting & Cable, p.
10.
TV translators and the DTV transition. (1999, April 12). Federal
Communications Commission.
Retrieved July 5, 2001, from http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/vsd
West, D. (1998, November 16). The medium they couldn't
kill. Broadcasting & Cable, p. S17-S19.
Table 1: Antecedents of strategic responses
Institutional Factor Predictive Dimensions
Cause Legitimacy or social fitness
Efficiency or economic fitness
Constituents Multiplicity of demands
Dependence on constituents
Content Consistency with group goals
Constraints imposed on group
Control Legal coercion or enforcement
Voluntary diffusion of norms
Context Environmental uncertainty
Environmental interconnection
________________________________________________________________________
Source: Oliver, Christine. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional
process. Academy
of Management Review, 16, (1), 160.
Table 2: Planned economic changes as a result of digital conversion
______________________________________________________________________
Response Number of responses
Commercial Religious LPTV Public Totals
Improve existing model 6 4 1 16 27
Develop new economic models 3 4 1 17 25
Create new revenue
streams 10 7 4 12 33
Sell
station 1 2 0 0
3
No changes 3 3 3 1 10
Other 1 1 1 2 5
Totals 24 21 10 48 103
______________________________________________________________________
Note: Other included responses such as receiving more government funding,
loans, etc.
n = 103
c2 = 22.25
df = 15
p = .10
Table 3: Whether stations had begun investigating new revenue opportunities
Station group Number of Responses
Yes No
Commercial 12 12
Religious 11 10
Low-power 4 6
Public 39 10
n = 104
c2 = 10.86
df = 3
p = .01
Table 4: When stations would begin broadcasting in digital
Responding group Number of Responses
Already digital Within 6 months 6 months-1 year Longer/1 year
Commercial 1 6 12 5
Religious 1 1 6 12
Low-power 0 1 4 5
Public 9 9 8 23
n = 105
c2 = 19.40
df = 9
p = .02
Table 5: Attitude of responding stations toward selling
_______________________________________________________________________
Responding group n SD Mean
Low-power 9 1.74 4.56
Commercial 23 1.61 2.30
Religious 21 1.83 2.05
Public 45 1.28 1.38
Responding group Compared to Mean difference
Low-power Public 3.18*
Religious 2.51*
Commercial 2.25*
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note: * indicated these differences were significant at .05 level
according to Scheffe test.
Responses ranged from 'one' representing not interested in selling to
'seven' representing very interested in selling.
n = 98
F = 11.12
df = 97
p < .001
Table 6: Station perception of digital benefit
________________________________________________________________________
Responding group n SD Mean
Public 47 1.19 5.91
LPTV 10 2.18 3.10
Commercial 23 1.57 3.00
Religious 21 1.94 2.81
Responding group Compared to Mean difference
Public Religious 3.10*
Commercial 2.91*
Low-power 2.81*
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note: * indicated these differences were significant at .05 level
according to Scheffe test.
Responses ranged from 'one' representing low benefit to 'seven'
representing high
benefit.
n = 103
F = 30.24
df = 100
p < .001
Table 7: Importance of digital technology to future station management
________________________________________________________________________
Responding group n SD Mean
Public 46 1.08 6.26
Commercial 23 1.93 4.87
Religious 21 2.22 4.05
Low-power 10 1.85 3.90
Responding group Compared to Mean difference
Public Low-power 2.36*
Religious 2.21*
Commercial 1.39*
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note: * indicated these differences were significant at .05 level
according to Scheffe test.
Responses ranged from 'one' representing 'no importance' to 'seven'
representing
'high importance.'
n = 100
F = 11.29
df = 99
p < .001
Table 8: Whether stations can sustain revenue after the digital transfer
__________________________________________________________
Responding group N SD Mean
Religious 21 1.76 2.76
LPTV 10 1.66 2.90
Public 49 1.67 3.39
Commercial 24 1.57 4.12
Responding group Compared to Mean difference
Commercial Religious 1.36
Low-power 1.23
Public 0.77
Low-power Religious 0.14
Public -0.49
Religious Public -0.63
__________________________________________________________
Note: Although the ANOVA suggested a statistical difference, a Scheffe test
failed to
identify statistical differences between the means at the .05
level. Responses
ranged from one representing 'definitely will sustain,' to seven
representing
'definitely will sustain.'
n = 104
F = 2.85
df = 103
p = .04
|
