Early Adopters of Audio Digital Workstations:
Say Goodbye to Conventional Radio Production
Jerry Renaud
College of Journalism and Mass Communications
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
118 Avery Hall
Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0131
(402) 472-3056
[log in to unmask]
Nancy Mitchell
College of Journalism and Mass Communications
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
45 Avery Hall
Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0130
(402) 472-5647
[log in to unmask]
Paper submitted to the Radio-Television Journalism Division
for presentation at the
1995 AEJMC Convention at Washington D.C.
Early Adopters of Audio Digital Workstations:
Say Goodbye to Conventional Radio Production
Abstract
The radio industry is in a state of change because of new technology. One
of the major
developments has been the impact of digital recording. This was first evident
in the adoption of
compact discs in the 1980s to replace records. Now a new technology, digital
audio workstations
is forcing radio stations to make a decision about adopting this new technology
and replacing
reel-to-reel machines and audio cartridges. This paper, based on 279 responses
from surveys
mailed to radio stations, looks at the characteristics of early adopters of
digital audio
workstations, how managers of radio stations view the process of adoption, and
how this new
technology could have important ramifications for radio in terms of technology,
employees, and
employee training.
Introduction
Most of today's radio stations look very different than they did in the
1960s, 1970s, and, in
some cases, the 1980s. The introduction and adoption of new technology has
changed
dramatically the way stations operate. No longer will visitors at radio
stations hear the clattering
sound of typewriters pounding out copy for commercials, board announcers cueing
up records in
the control room, or the newswire teletype machine spewing out copy by the yard.
Newsrooms
have become computerized, with almost all copy written on word processors, and
compact discs
have become the industry standard for playing music. Another new technology is
available that
will again force radio stations into making crucial decisions about their
operation.
Digital workstations or tapeless audio editing on computers could do away with
the need for reel-
to-reel machines and audio cartridge machines. Production personnel and
engineers will no
longer have to meticulously mark tape, cut it with a razor blade, and then
physically splice it
together with editing tape. All audio editing can now be done on a computer.
This editing is
faster, cleaner, and offers less chance of making a mistake. The purpose of
this exploratory study
is to look at the technology of digital tapeless workstations to try and find
out who the early
adopters are and what this could mean for radio operations in the future.
Changes in radio technology usually take one of two paths: changes that
are a benefit to the
listener or changes that make operation of the station easier. Many new
technologies have made a
significant impact on listeners, helping them to make a decision concerning what
radio station they
will listen to. Early adopters of compact disc technology could offer their
listeners more
consistent quality in musical playback since the digital reproduction would not
scratch like a
record, would not stretch and wear out like audio tape and would be more
consistent with each
play. Compact discs became the industry standard in a short period of time.
However, digital
workstations may not have as immediate or significant an impact on the listener.
The initial
advantage is an easier way of editing commercials and completing audio
production, although
some radio executives feel economics could enter into the adoption process in
the future
(Broadcasting and Cable, 1994). The high initial cost of digital workstations
combined with the
fact that new technologies normally take a long time to integrate into an
organization could mean
a slow adoption process: "New technologies are growing at an explosive
rate...however, it is
matched by a much slower rate of organizations adopting them" (More, 1992).
The result is
what More calls the development/adoption gap. However, few industries can
grow or even
survive for long unless they meet successfully the challenge of advancing
technology with a
succession of improved products and processes (Preece, 1989). It is also
possible that attitudes
may vary widely from product to product even within a given firm (Parker, 1974
), making it
more difficult for a new technology to be adopted. This exploratory study
attempts to identify
the early adopters of this new digital technology and the implications for
radio.
Background
Radio seems to be in a state of flux concerning technology. There is
always a new piece of
gear, a better machine with more capabilities, or a better way of improving the
sound. Sometimes
these new technologies are accepted readily; sometimes they fall by the wayside.
Little research
has addressed the innovation of audio digital workstations and how this
technology could change
the way radio operates.
Perhaps one of the most far-reaching developments in sound was the
discovery of digital
recording to replace analog recording. The Journal of Broadcasting & Cable
predicts, "digital
audio will let broadcasting keep pace with the consumer's perception of good
sound"
(Broadcasting, 1993). The first major breakthrough in digital occurred in the
mid-1980s with
the development of compact discs. Compact discs utilize a digital binary code
language to store
audio information that can be recreated in an exact replica of how it
originated. It loses none of
the quality no matter how many times it is played. This was a revolution in
radio, and compact
discs have now become the industry standard for playing music. However, not all
digital
technology has fared as well. At the 1991 National Association of Broadcasters
annual meeting,
researchers introduced compact disc recorders, which would allow radio stations
to record on
cds (Broadcasting, 1991). This technology was not well received and has not
been adopted by
radio stations.
Digital audio tape (DAT) was developed in the early 1980s (Grant, 1993).
This was a way to
both record and play back digital recordings. However, problems developed when
record
companies and DAT manufacturers could not find a solution concerning the
prevention of home
recording. The paucity of recorded product has prevented this technology from
being adopted by
the general public; however, audio professionals and some radio stations have
taken advantage of
this recording equipment. With new digital products available on the market
today, it remains to
be seen whether DAT will ever enjoy the success of other digital innovations.
At the same time recordable cds were being introduced, digital audio
workstations were
introduced to radio owners and managers (Broadcasting, 1991). A year later
several systems
were available and on display at the National Association of Broadcasters
convention
(Broadcasting, 1992). Manufacturers were pushing the efficiency of the new
system in creating
spots, finding archived material, and storage of production material. Would
this technology be
embraced by radio or go the way of recordable cds or DAT? Should all new
technology be
adopted? Rogers (1983) says not necessarily. He observes what he calls a
pro-innovative bias, a
belief in society that an innovation should be diffused and adopted, and adopted
quickly (Rogers,
1983). Rogers says what sometimes seems to be a solution through an
innovation can later be
just as big a problem.
Diffusion
Diffusion scholars have discovered that decision making by an individual
about an innovation
is not a decision made instantaneously (Rogers, 1983). It is a process that
occurs over time and
consists of a series of actions. Part of that action is the communication
process by which the
individual learns about the new technology. Diffusion is defined as a process
by which the use of
an innovation spreads and grows (Parker 1982). New adopters of technology,
while learning
about the technology, can be very much involved in the early stages of the
communication process
and can be very active in determining future modes of communication about the
technology.
As a theory of communication, diffusion theory's main focus seems to be on
communication
channels, how information about an innovation is transmitted to or within a
society (Mahajan,
Muller, and Bass, 1990). Both the mass media and interpersonal communication
can be used.
Some of the early key diffusion studies include the hybrid corn study (Gross,
1943), the voting
study of Erie County, Ohio residents (Lazarsfeld, 1948), the two-step flow
model of
communication (Katz, 1955), and the multi-step flow model of communication
(Katz ,1957).
Katz looked at personal contact and the role it had in effective information
flow. The implication
was that people are more successfully persuaded by interaction with other people
than by
influence of the mass media. Opinion leaders in a community or group shared
their ideas with
others. Katz emphasized that people are affected by and become a part of the
diffusion of
innovation process and change the results.
Rogers, one of the leading authorities on the diffusion process,
suggests that adopters
encounter five steps in the process: knowledge (exposure to an innovation),
persuasion
(formation of an attitude toward the innovation), decision (activity resulting
in a choice to adopt
or reject the innovation), implementation (putting the innovation into use),
and confirmation (the
reinforcement or reversal of the innovation decision). This study is based on
Rogers' theory, and
it attempts to identify characteristics associated with adopters of new
technology. Five key
attributes of adopters as suggested by Rogers are: relative advantage (the
degree to which an
innovation is perceived as being better than its precursor), compatibility
(the degree of an
innovation being consistent with existing values and in this case equipment),
complexity (the
degree which an innovation is considered difficult to use), trialability (the
degree with which an
innovation can be experimented with before adoption), and observability (the
degree with which
an innovation's value is observable).
Methodology
To accomplish the goals of this research, a questionnaire was used. Key
decision makers at
radio stations were selected across the country and sent a survey. To get a
reasonable balance
between large market stations and medium to small market stations, radio
stations were selected
from the 1992 Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook. In order to achieve as much
equality as
possible in actual numbers of stations, all radio stations in the top ten
markets were sent a survey.
Then, to give every other radio station an opportunity to be involved in the
survey, we chose a
number at random between 11 and 20. The number selected was 11. All stations
in the number
11 market and every seventh market after that received a survey (i.e. radio
station in market size
18, 25, 32,...were sent a survey) until we had approximately the same number of
stations as in top
ten markets. A total of 998 stations were selected. Two hundred seventy-nine
stations
responded, making the overall response rate 28 percent. However, 115 of those
responding
stations were AM-FM combinations.
The surveys consisted of three parts containing questions based on Rogers'
diffusion theory.
Question one was a short answer about the effects new technology was having on
their business.
Questions two through four concerned the purchase of this technology or reason
for not making a
purchase. If the answer to question two was yes, the respondent moved to
question five and
answered the rest of the survey. If the answer to question two was no, the
respondent answered
questions three and four, then jumped to question 27 and filled out the rest of
the survey.
Questions 27-37 requested demographical information concerning size of station
and personal
information on the person filling out the survey. There was also a place for
additional comments
at the end of the survey.
In this study Rogers' five-step approach model was used as a way to
analyze communication
uses and needs as radio stations made their decision to adopt or not to adopt
digital workstations.
His template served as a reminder of the steps involved in diffusion and the
role of individuals in
the process. The surveys were pretested in several area radio stations that had
already adopted
the technology. Since the survey was designed to gather information from
adopting stations we
did not think it necessary to test it on stations that had not yet adopted. The
surveys were mailed
in January, 1993. A reminder card was sent out in March 1993 and the final
survey came back in
August 1993. The results were then compiled and tabulated using frequency and
correlational
analysis.
Findings
Two hundred seventy-nine stations responded to the survey with 115 of
those being AM-FM
combinations. About 40 percent of the stations responding were from markets
of 500,000 or
more, the rest being from markets of fewer than 25,000 to 500,000. See appendix
for a complete
breakdown of station participation and survey results.
The results of the survey can be broken down into several different
components: the five
adoptive steps as determined by Rogers, information about the stations and the
person filling out
the survey, and the actual results from those stations that adopted the new
technologies.
Adopters
About one-quarter of stations returning the survey
have already adopted this new technology (see figure
1). Sixty-three stations (25 percent) had already
purchased a digital workstation in some form. An
almost equal number of stations indicated they were
going to adopt this new technology in the very near
future. Fifty-four stations (21 percent) said they had
plans to buy a digital workstation. Since this new technology has been on the
market only since
1990, this appears to be a very fast rate of adoption with nearly 50 percent of
all stations
responding to the survey indicating they have or will adopt it. The main
reason given for not
adopting this technology was cost. A secondary reason for non-adoption was that
stations
indicated it wasn't the right time to make this type of decision. Just over ten
percent of the
respondents indicated they were not interested in this type of technology.
Knowledge
The information about this new technology was spread in a variety of ways.
Not surprisingly,
the engineers at the stations were the most knowledgeable and passed on this new
information to
the decision makers. Thirty-eight percent of those
making the key decision first heard about digital
workstation from their engineers (see figure 2).
The second highest area of information came from
the owners of the stations. Almost 20 percent of
decision-makers first heard of this new technology
from owners.
Concerning the specific equipment purchased,
personal contact was a major factor in the information process. Some
decision-makers first heard
about the product they purchased at conventions featuring equipment displays.
Others heard
about the workstation from another person who had already adopted the new
technology.
Decision
The actual decision to adopt the digital
workstation was made a majority of the time by
tation owners (see figure 3). Fifty-eight
percent of owners made the final decision, 21
percent of general managers made the decision,
and 14 percent of the decisions were made by
engineers. More than half of the stations
making the decision to adopt cited efficiency of
the station as being the key area of determination, wanting the station to
operate better with the
new technology; while 17 percent said the key advantage was making the station
sound better.
Several other items were a major concern in the decision-making process.
The first, as
expected, was cost. Cost is always a key factor in the purchase of new
equipment in radio. In
fact, only 10 percent of the stations claimed cost did not enter into the
decision-making process.
Having the opportunity to test the new technology (trialability) was also a key
concern for
decision-makers. Thirty-eight percent of stations were allowed to test the gear
before purchasing;
28 percent were not allowed to test the gear; 18 percent did not ask, and 15
percent said it was
not necessary. More than half of the stations reported that having the
opportunity to test the
equipment was important in making the decision to adopt. Compatibility with
equipment
currently at the station was another consideration for decision makers.
Twenty-nine percent said
it was a necessity to be compatible; 22 percent said it was very important, and
22 percent said it
was not important.
Implementation
Once the new technology was selected by the
stations, decisions had to be made concerning
implementation of the new equipment. The first
was when to adopt. Almost 30 percent made the
decision to purchase within six months of first
hearing about it, and all but 18 percent adopted
within two years. The other key factors
concerning implementation were training of current and future employees.
Forty-seven percent
stated it was important that current employees could be trained easily on the
new gear
(complexity); 27 percent said it was somewhat important; 19 percent said it was
a necessity, and
only nine percent said it was not important. Future employees would also have
to be looked at
differently (See figure 4). Thirty-eight percent said it was somewhat
important that future
employees have some computer skills; 26 percent said it was very important;
three percent said it
was a necessity; 33 percent said it was not important.
Confirmation
Most of the stations responding in the survey were pleased with the purchase and
felt the
equipment was operating at or above expectations (observability). Sixty-three
percent of the
decision-makers said the equipment was performing as expected, while 18 percent
said it was
performing better than expected, and 19 percent said it did not perform as
expected. Managers
had an even higher rate of acceptance for the new technology. Eighty percent
of managers said
it performed as well as expected; 10 percent said it performed better than
expected, and only 10
percent said it was worse than expected.
Justifying cost seems to be an important element
in the diffusion process (See figure 5). Eighty-
eight percent of adopters said the cost was
justified based on performance, while 12 percent
said the cost was not justified. Eighty-eight
percent of decision-makers said they would
make the same decision knowing what they know now about the new technology, ten
percent
would not make the same decision, and two percent didn't know. This despite the
fact that a
majority of respondents did not know or did not think the audience was aware of
any change.
When asked if the audience noticed any difference after the adoption of this new
technology, 46
percent of decision makers did not know if the audience was aware of the change,
39 percent said
the audience didn't notice, and 15 percent did not know.
Correlational Analysis of Characteristics of Adopters
Zero-order correlation. Correlations were computed for several variables
involved in the
radio technology study: if digital workstations had been bought within the last
year, length of time
elapsed between hearing about the new technology and the decision to buy,
justification of the
cost of the new equipment, length of time respondent worked in the broadcasting
industry,
importance of new employees' having computer technology when hired, market size,
numbers of
stations in the market, importance of the opportunity to test the new
technology, importance of
investment size in the decision-making process, and ease of training on the new
equipment.
Analysis revealed several interesting significant relationships (See table
1). Not surprisingly,
markets with many stations were more likely to report they had purchased ditigal
workstations,
although the correlation was relatively weak, but significant (.14). Large
markets were associated
with respondents indicating that cost justification and opportunity to test new
equipment were less
important. Those indicating that size of the investment was important to the
decision-making
process were associated with those indicating that compatibility of the new
technology with
existing technology was important. Those who indicated that size of investment
was important
were also those who reported waiting longer before making their decision to buy.
Ease of
training was important to those who responded that the cost of the new
technology was justified.
Those who reported being in the industry longer thought it more important to
hire new employees
who had computer knowledge that did those in the industry for shorter lengths of
time.
Manufacturers of digital workstations could use some of these correlations
to help pinpoint the
types of managers interested in this technology. It should also help in
determining key selling
points based on market and need of stations. Acknowledging relationships such
as those that
emerged in this study, those encouraging adoption can stress what is important.
For example, a
seller can identify the buyer who is more interested in the investment, realize
it will take longer to
convince to buy and stress training on the technology. Those in larger markets
appear to be less
interested in pretesting equipment and less concerned that the cost can be
justified.
Discussion
This study adds to the body of research concerning diffusion of technology
in radio stations
and the changing process of radio station operations. Responses to the survey
generally support
the profile of early adopters of technology based on previous diffusion
research. Early adopters
were generally more educated. Almost 80 percent of adopters had completed
either a two or four
year college. About 64 percent of non-adopters had the equivalant educational
background. A
higher percentage of adopters were also more aware of the new technology and
other stations
besides their own that were using it. They interacted with opinion leaders in
making the decision
to adopt; they then became opinion leaders when talking with others about the
new technology.
The study also revealed some interesting data concerning perhaps some
fundamental changes
in the way radio stations will have to operate in the future. Computer
knowledge has not been a
prerequisite for getting hired at a radio station. It appears in the future
this trait may be more
important for employers. It certainly will present some interesting challenges
in the training of
future workers in the radio industry. Computer technology will become more
important as
stations continue to adopt this and other new digital technologies. About
two-thirds of adopting
stations in the survey think that computer technology is an important skill for
future employees.
That was not the case just a few short years ago. As more of this type of
equipment becomes
available and stations begin to adopt more digital technology, the need for
computer skills will
only increase. It is possible that without these skills, a person will not be
hired in radio. Our
survey showed, the longer managers had been in the business, the stronger the
feeling that
computer technology was going to play a more important role in radio in the
future.
The satisfaction rate with digital audio workstations was very high. About
80 percent of
decision-makers were pleased with the technology, and for management it was even
higher. Only
ten percent were disappointed. And only ten percent of decision-makers would
not make the
same decision again, after having used the equipment, despite the fact that a
majority of decision-
makers did not think this purchase had any impact on the listening audience.
The study indicates
a very high level of satisfaction with the new technology, and early adopters as
opinion leaders
will be instrumental in other stations becoming adopters. With these changes it
is also possible
that in the near future radio stations will be able to operate in an almost
tapeless environment.
Everything will be recorded with digital equipment and played back with digital
equipment, no
generation loss from dubs, no problems with a splice breaking, getting a bad
cart, or problems
with the tape. Not surprisingly, data comparison suggests that manufacturers
of this new
technology who are interested in communicating with key decision makers should
contact
engineers and general managers. They were the key links in the adoption chain
for knowledge
making the decision. Letting new clients talk to current product customers
would also be
instrumental in showing how effective the equipment can be. Adopters were
pleased with their
decision to adopt and were willing to talk with others about the technology.
Conventions are also
a key place to attract new customers. Our survey shows that some groups in
smaller markets are
more interested in pre-testing the equipment than stations in larger markets.
Also the more
competition a station faced in their market, the more likely it was to adopt.
Manufacturers
should be aware of past compatibility problems concerning new technology such as
DAT and AM
stereo. They should be interested and concerned with how changing technologies
must address
the needs of radio stations in the future. With the explosion of information
technology available
today, if a station's computer system is not able to communicate and access
computers in other
locations, that system may not be valuable. Compatibility could be a key to
manufacturers who
want to survive. Decision-makers in radio are clearly interested in new
technologies and how
they affect the operation of the station.
Continued exploration is needed concerning the diffusion process of this
and other new
technology in light of the current trends in the radio industry. As technology
changes, it will be
necessary to see how those changes will affect the make-up of the stations and
how radio itself
could change. This study is limited to studying digital workstations and
management decisions
concerning adoptions. How will this new technology and future technologies
affect those people
who want to work in radio? How will it affect long-time employees without
computer knowledge
who must now make a change in their working environment? What kind of impact
might new
technology eventually have on the audience with the advent of more interactive
forms of
communication? These questions and others must be answered if users and
manufacturers are to
understand the diffusion process of new technology and where it will lead the
radio industry.
Continued studies are needed to fully understand the diffusion of innovation in
radio and to
monitor this changing process.
References
"Ampex makes audio editing easier." (1990, September 10). Journal of
Broadcasting and Cable.
"Broadcasters give an ear to Digital Audio." (1990, April 2). Journal of
Broadcasting.
"Broadcasters see revenue growth in radio's future." (1994, October 24).
Journal of
Broadcasting and Cable.
Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook (1992).
"Companies Combine to Customize Radio." (1994 October 3). Journal of
Broadcasting and
Cable p. 46.
Davison, W. P., Frederick, J. B., Yu. T.C., (1976). Mass Media Systems and
Effects. Praeger
Publishers Inc., New York.
Dearden, J., Ickes, B.W., Samuelson , L. (1990, December). "To Innovate or Not
to Innovate:
Incentives and Innovation in Hierarchies" American Economic Review,
pp.1105-1124
"Digital Audio" (1993, November 1). Journal of Broadcasting and Cable.
"Digital audio: Now that I can hear it, it looks so much better" (1993,
November 1). Journal of
Broadcasting and Cable p. D-13.
"Digital Compression" (1991, December 9). Journal of Broadcasting and Cable p.
28.
"Digital to Dominate Radio Equipment Demonstrations" (1991, March 18). Journal
of
Broadcasting p. 54.
Gilly, M. C., Zeithaml, V.A. (1985. December). "The Elderly Consumer and
Adoption of
Technologies" Journal of Consumer Research
Grant, A. E., Wilkinson, K..T., (1993). Communication Technology Update:
1993- 1994
Technology Futures Inc.
Head, S.W., Sterling, C.H., (1990). Broadcasting in American. Sixth Edition
Houghton
Mifflin Company.
Huff, S. L., McNaughton , J., (1990, summer). "Diffusion of an Information
Technology
Innovation" Business Quarterly pp. 25-30.
"In the matter of AM Stereophonic Broadcasting" (1982, March 18). Federal
Communications
Commission, Washington D.C.
Katz, E., Lazarsfeld, P.F., (1955). Personal Influence: The Part Played by
People in the Flow of
Mass Communications Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois.
Katz, E. (1957). "The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-To-Date Report on an
Hypothesis, Public Opinion Quarterly, 21:61-78.
Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B.R. Gaudet, H. (1948). The People's Choice
Columbia University
Press, New York.
Mahajan, V., Muller, E., Srivastava, R.K., (1990, February). "Determinatioin of
Adopter
Categories Using Innovation Diffusion Models" Journal of Marketing
Research
pp. 37-50.
Mahajan, V., Muller, E., Bass, E., (1990, January). "New Product Diffusion
Models in
Marketing: A Review and Directions for Research" Journal of Marketing,
pp. 1-26.
More, R. A. (1992, spring). "Managing New Technology Adoption" Journal of
Broadcasting.
Parker, J.E.S., (1974). The Economics of Innovation, Longman, London, New York
Parker, R. C. (1982). The Management of Innovation John Wiley and Sons,
Chichester New
York.
Preece D. A. (1989). Managing the Adoption of New Technology Routledge,
London, New
York.
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovation The Free Press, New York.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovation Third Edition, The Free Press,
New York.
Ryan, B., Gross, N., (1943). "The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in Two Iowa
Communities
Rural Sociology 8: pp.15-24
"Saving Time, Space, Costs with Digital Audio" (1992, March 23). Journal of
Broadcasting
pp. 68-69
Severin, W. J., Tankard Jr.,J.W. (1988). Communication Theories Longman, New
York.
"Survey: Efficiency valued over news quality" (1994, October 31). Journal of
Broadcasting and
Cable
The Answer to the Marketplace Decision (1982). Motorola Inc. intro.
Appendix
2) A)--25 Percent B)--75 percent
3) A)--21 percent B)--79 percent
4) A)--11 percent B)--48 percent C)--8 percent D)--23 percent E)--11
percent
5) A)--38 percent B)--11 percent C)--5 percent D)--2 percent E)--18 percent
F)--10 percent G)--16 percent
6) A)--10 percent B)--33 percent C)--13 percent D)--21 percent E)--11
percent
F)--2 percent G)--10 percent
7) A)--6 percent B)--10 percent C)--21 percent D)--61 percent
8) A)--26 percent B)--19 percent C)--8 percent D)--3 percent E)--27 percent
F)--16 percent
9) A)--21 percent B)--11 percent C)--42 percent D)--25 percent
10) A)--17 percent B)--53 percent C)--0 percent D)--3 percent E)--13
percent F)--13 percent
11) A)--29 percent B)--22 percent C)--17 percent D)--32 percent
12) A)--58 percent B)--21 percent C)--2 percent D)--0 percent E)--14
percent F)--5 percent
13) A)--38 percent B)--28 percent C)--18 percent D)--15 percent
14) A)--27 percent B)--18 percent C)--18 percent D)--38 percent
15) A)--15 percent B)--51 percent C)--25 percent D)--10 percent
16) A)--29 percent B)--29 percent C)--15 percent D)--18 percent
17) A)--19 percent B)--47 percent C)--28 percent D)--9 percent
18) A)--3 percent B)--26 percent C)--38 percent D)--33 percent
19) A)--63 percent B)--18 percent C)--19 percent
20) A)--80 percent B)--10 percent C)--10 percent
21) A)--88 percent B)--12 percent
22) A)--39 percent B)--46 percent C)--15 percent
23) A)--88 percent B)--10 percent C)--2 percent
24) A)--84 percent B)--16 percent
25) A)--55 percent B)--45 percent
26) A)--53 percent B)--44 percent
27) A)--19 percent B)--36 percent C)--9 percent D)--2 percent E)--20
percent F)--13 percent
28) A)--90 percent B)--10 percent
29) (adopters) A)--7 percent B)--0 percent C)--15 percent D)--12 percent
E)--48 percent
F)--17 percent G)--2 percent
29) (non adopters) A)--8 percent B)--5 percent C)--23 percent D)--9 percent
E)--39 percent
F)--16 percent G)--0 percent
30) (adopters) A)--13 percent B)--6 percent C)--22 percent D)--60 percent
30) (non adopters) A)--11 percent B)--20 percent C)--15 percent D)--54
percent
31) (adopters) A) 0 percent B)--1 percent C)--7 percent D)--7 percent
E)--85 percent
31) (non-adopters) A)--4 percent B)--6 percent C)--5 percent D)--9 percent
E)--76 percent
32) (adopters) A)--8 percent B)--7 percent C)--18 percent D)--12 percent
E)--55 percent
32 (non adopters) A)--7 percent B)--9 percent C)--10 percent D)--10
percent E)--64 percent
33) (adopters) A)--3 percent B)--0 percent C)--15 percent D)--15 percent
E)--21 percent
F)--46 percent
33) (all) A)--5 percent B)--2 percent C)--10 percent D)--23 percent E)--15
percent
F)--46 percent
34) A)--5 percent B)--7 percent C)--7 percent D)--9 percent E)--5 percent
F)--62 percent
35) (adopters) A--15 percent B)--29 percent C)--22 percent D)--7 percent
E)--7 percent
F)--5 percent G)--15 percent
35) (non adopters) A)--34 percent B)--26 percent C)--12 percent D)--3
percent E)--0 percent
F)--4 percent G)--20 percent
36) A)--18 percent B)--26 percent C)--20 percent D)--36 percent
37) A)--27 percent B)--27 percent C)--46 percent
* numbers are rounded off to the nearest percent
** every respondent did not answer every question
|
