_
Comparing Consumer Feedback Channels:
Newspapers Versus Television
New technologies, such as the internet and audiotext phone lines,
have begun changing the relationship between news consumers and journalists,
making the relationship more mutually interactive. Editors and news directors
now have the ability to accurately gauge what consumers want in their products
because of these new channels of feedback.
It is unclear, however, how rapidly and in what ways both print and
broadcast journalists are adopting these technologies and to what end they are
using these technology tools. Are media using these technologies to increase
their circulation or ratings? Or are media using these technologies to improve
their products by learning what their customers want?
The purpose of the present study is to examine how these new
technologies have been incorporated into the nation's newsrooms, and whether
these new technologies have been used differently by the print and broadcast
media. Both the nature of the two media and the market pressures they face --
due to factors such as competition -- are markedly different. Thus, we would
assume that the print and broadcast media would differ both on which feedback
methods they would utilize and on which purposes drive their feedback channel
decisions.
Current new technologies, of course, will give way to other new
technologies in the future. And the current generation of media users may not
jump into the interactive life quite as quickly as their grandchildren. Says
Christopher A. Lee, director of information services for Bell Atlantic, "There
is a true possibility that the critical mass for all of this is still in the 8th
grade."[1] Possibly, then, the results of the present study may foreshadow
even closer interactions between news consumers and news organizations.
Regardless, because of the stampede toward interactivity, an
investigation of the new technologies used by the print and broadcast media
seems extremely well timed. And an investigation of which medium is leading the
charge may offer important insights into how the print and broadcast media view
the utility of new technologies.
Background
The news junkie turns on his TV, clicks his way to the all-news
network, snaps a menu up on the screen, scrolls impatiently down a list of
stories, selects the ones he's interested in, presses the play button and
settles in for his customized newscast.
The market maven programs her speaker phone to the local newspaper's
audiotext line, pushes the right buttons several times a day, punches in a stock
symbol, tunes out the intervening advertisement, and gets the quotes she needs.
The teen-ager flips on his modem, navigates the Web to his favorite
zine and browses through the entertainment news, downloading a couple of new
photos of last night's Grammy winners -- one of the few news events that's ever
inspired him to aim his browser at CNN's web site.
People are putting themselves in charge of getting the news they need
and want, and the media are putting themselves on-line - and on the line - to
try to keep their businesses and their traditional role as the Fourth Estate
alive. To call it an "explosion" would be to understate what's happened to
information and its purveyors in the last five years -- although the term
"explosion" does convey the fragmentation and emphatic rearrangement of
communications systems that has resulted.
Information no longer flows in a linear, orderly fashion from
newsmaker to reporter to editor to consumer. Less than a quarter-century ago,
Leroy and Sterling[2] declared that individuals had little substantive power to
influence the mass news system. A decade later, investigators of news content
such as Carroll[3] depicted television news decisions as station-based with
little direct viewer input.
But viewer power was nascent in the increasing attention that A.C.
Nielsen's rating system attracted after its 1948 launch. The goal of such
measurement was, and has been since, to increase broadcasters' success by
clarifying audience desires. Now, every turn of the technological screw - VCRs,
remote controls, audiotext, voice mail and email - embeds audience preferences
ever deeper in the judgments of those who now choose what's news.
Some believe it is inevitable that viewers will take on an even
greater role in program selection. Brandon Tartikoff[4] a highly successful
network programmer, predicts a "democracy of choice, not a tyranny of choice
like before. You will choose what you want to watch, when you want to watch."
Television, through its use of Nielsen ratings up to the introduction
of people meters, has typically taken the lead in utilizing new technologies for
feedback from consumers. Newspapers, meanwhile, have traditionally relied on
relatively passive criteria, such as circulation figures and letters to the
editor, to gauge their success with subscribers. When newspaper circulation
began its precipitous decline in the 1960s, publishers got a bit more
"interactive," turning to marketing surveys and focus groups to assess their
papers' strengths and weaknesses. Correlating buying power and audience tastes
in news, the marketers made it clear that newsrooms needed to deliver an
appropriate product, sometimes regardless of their professional news judgment.
Intermittent feedback began to guide news decisions, but at best, it could be
described as a one-way street that was occasionally opened to two-way traffic.
Recently, however, newspapers have discovered audiotext, which
utilizes phone lines to present information that a caller chooses from a wide
array of topics. In 1989, fewer than 50 newspapers in the United States offered
audiotext or on-line information services. By 1995, that number had soared past
3,000.[5]
Audiotext is seen by some researchers as the bridge between old and
new technologies.[6] Consumers are comfortable with their telephones, for the
most part, and find it relatively easy to follow instructions that move them
from general to more specific information. A 1993 study[7] found that most
audiotext users were regular callers who accessed stock quotes, financial
information, weather reports, horoscopes, trivia and soap opera updates. News
updates were much less popular. But the study's authors suggest that consumer
comfort with phone services may give the media more confidence in its first
forays into the interactive future.
Although much attention has been lavished on big-investment, splashy
interactive systems inaugurated by large newspapers, smaller papers have found
that they can get themselves on line with speed and relative ease. Gene Burd
warned in 1994 that the information highway would bypass community journalism
unless it was ready to "adjust, adapt and thrive with a blend of community
identity combining geographic place and mutual interests across space."[8]
Many have risen to the challenge. For example, a weekly Los Angeles
paper initiated a highly successful restaurant information phone line that
included menus faxed free to callers. The publisher pointed out that the
regional paper could handle information requests about its 140 restaurants in a
timely and user-friendly manner, something the behemoth Los Angeles Times could
not.[9] Some very small newspapers can set up Web sites for under $500.[10] Says
South Dakota editor Walter Munstock: "Someone will have to provide those on-line
services (expected by the young people of today). It might as well be you."
Munstock took his own advice, set up a system and had more than 50 interactive
users in six months - in a town of 3,000.
Smaller dailies and weeklies, in fact, now make up slightly more
than half of the 450 newspapers on line in 1996.[11]
One newspaper has combined audiotext and focus group research to
provide what it calls the "Daily Reader Report Card." Randomly selected
subscribers agree to monitor the paper for a two-week period and call in daily
to answer, via push-button phones, questions about the newspaper.[12] The
newspaper complements its phone survey with occasional breakfasts or desserts
with respondents, and overall, finds the feedback surprising and
thought-provoking. "Use of audiotext technology ... does not eliminate - but it
does inform - guesswork in the newsroom."[13]
Newspapers, of course, aren't alone in this interactive rush hour.
Radio and television stations are jumping on the Internet at a phenomenal rate;
in March 1995, just 18 stations had home pages on the World Wide Web;[14] by
January of this year, nearly 300 broadcasters had established their own sites on
the information highway.[15] Clearly, interactivity is being utilized more and
more in the media industries.
At its core, however, the technological explosion that is
transforming the news chain into an interactive web offers a radically new
perspective on the media/news consumer relationship. In television, for example,
the traditional exchange in which viewers swap their attention (to advertising)
for information[16] may be altered forever. In both newspaper and television
newsrooms, reporters and editors may find their news judgments redefined by
instant feedback from their audiences, providing the journalists little time to
reflect on the long-term implications of their responses.
Journalist Todd Oppenheimer offers another view of the changing
relationship between traditional news providers and their audiences. He recounts
the story of a nationwide real-time on-line Internet discussion he moderated,
apologizing at the end of the session for the paucity of participants - six in
all. But those six thought the whole affair was a great success; they talked to
each other and made great new connections. The moral, Oppenheimer concludes, is
this: "Put simply, this is a medium where we're not the only ones doing the
entertaining. People can entertain each other, sometimes turning us, The Media,
into a mere sideshow."[17]
And how much influence will the upscale technotypes have on news
content if their reaction is judged more critical than those with less-appealing
demographics? Will the news media adjust their interactive goals to the demands
of the few, use new technologies as public relations tools, willingly devolve
responsibility for story choice to news consumers and be able to keep their
profit margins in double-digits?
This study attempts to provide preliminary answers to some of the
above questions by asking newspapers and television stations to assess their
current and future commitment to a variety of interactive methods of
communicating with their audiences, including audiotext, email and the Internet,
focus groups and mail surveys. The study also examines the purposes behind the
use of these interactive methods. Finally, we compare the responses across
print and broadcast media to investigate whether newspapers are continuing to
rely upon traditional methods of reader feedback -- namely, focus groups and
mail surveys -- or if newspapers and television stations are equally using new
technologies.
Method
The present study compares responses gathered through two mail
surveys: one involving newspaper editors, the other involving television news
directors.
Editors' responses were gathered through a random sample of 400
national daily newspapers. Newspapers and addresses were randomly selected from
the 1994 Editor and Publisher International Yearbook. The questionnaire was
addressed to the managing editor -- or the equivalent editor if a managing
editor was not listed -- at each of the 400 newspapers. The questionnaires were
mailed in early February of 1995. A reminder postcard was sent to newspapers
two weeks after the initial mailing. Four weeks after the initial mailing, a
follow-up letter and another copy of the questionnaire were sent to those
newspapers that had not responded.
A total of 227 newspapers responded, for a 57 percent response rate,
an acceptable response rate, according to Babbie.[18] An analysis revealed that
the circulations of the newspapers that returned surveys corresponded closely to
the overall circulation categories of U.S. dailies as reported in the 1994
Editor & Publisher Yearbook.
Television news directors at 650 network-affiliated and independent
U.S. stations also were surveyed. The questionnaires were mailed in December
1994, or slightly more than a month before the newspaper surveys were mailed.
News directors were identified through lists published in Broadcasting & Cable
Yearbook, the directory of the National Association of Television Program
Executives, and rosters of news directors of ABC, CBS and NBC affiliates
obtained from network or station executives.
A second mailing was sent to the directors in early February.
Responses totaled 291, a return rate of 45 percent, again an acceptable rate
according to Babbie.[19]
The questionnaires dealt with several aspects of newsroom operations.
First, editors and directors were asked if they use now or plan to
use:
* E-Mail or Internet access to newspaper/station
* 1-800, 1-900 or other phone line
* focus groups
* mail surveys
Next, respondents were asked the purposes behind their decisions to
use the four methods. The purposes included in the surveys were:
* to get news tips
* promote station/newspaper image
* run opinion polls
* let viewers/readers pick stories
* set coverage agenda
* reduce news costs
* expand news choices
* give viewers/readers sense of control
* use news staff better
* increase ratings/circulation
* improve demographics.
The responses from the newspaper editors and the television news
directors were then compared with a series of chi-square tests.
Results
Table 1 shows the results of the comparisons of the four types of
"interactivity" that were included in our surveys. Three of the four
interactive categories produced statistically significant differences.
According to the chi-square results, television stations were more
likely to use email and phone lines than newspapers were. Newspapers, on the
other hand, were more likely to use mail surveys than television stations were.
The chi-square testing differences in adoption of focus groups across the two
media was not significant. In general, then, television stations were more
likely to use the more advanced interactive technology, such as email/internet
and 1-800 and 1-900 phone lines, but newspapers were more likely to use
traditional methods, such as mail surveys.
Tables 2 through 5 show the comparisons of responses on the purposes
behind the use of each of the four types of interactivity examined in our
surveys. Several trends are worth noting.
First, very few newspapers or television stations implemented any of
the four types of interactivity to reduce news costs. In fact, only for
newspapers and their use of focus groups did this purpose rank higher than last
-- in this case 11th out of the 12 purposes.
Second, television stations generally used the four types of
interactivity for news tips and news coverage comments much more than newspapers
did. Again, newspapers and their use of focus groups was an exception. Only
for focus groups did newspapers utilize any type of interactivity more than
television stations for news coverage purposes.
Third, television stations used the four types of interactivity for
increasing rating more than newspapers used them for increasing circulation.
Focus groups, once again, was the exception.
The chi-square tests show several other differences between
television stations and newspapers.
Table 2 lists the results comparing the purposes behind the use of
email and the internet. Seven of the 12 purposes produced statistically
significant chi-squares. Televisions stations were more likely than newspapers
to respond that they used email/internet to: get news tips, promote their
station's image, run news/opinion polls, set coverage agenda, give viewers
control, increase ratings, and improve demographics.
Table 3 details the results comparing the purposes behind the use of
1-800 and 1-900 phone lines. Only three purposes produced statistically
significant differences across the two media. Television stations were more
likely than newspapers to respond that they used phone lines to: get news tips,
run news/opinion polls, and improve demographics.
Table 4 shows the results comparing the purposes behind the use of
focus groups. Again, three significant differences were found. Here,
newspapers were more likely than television stations to use focus groups to: set
coverage agenda, expand news choices, and give viewers/readers control
Finally, Table 5 lists the results comparing the purposes behind the
use of mail surveys. The chi-square comparisons produced five significant
differences. Television stations were more likely than newspapers to respond
that they used mail surveys to: get news tips, promote station image, set
coverage agenda, increase ratings, and improve demographics.
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to examine how television
stations and newspapers differ on their use of four methods of feedback channels
for news consumers: email/internet, 1-800 or 1-900 phone lines, focus groups and
mail surveys. Data collected from surveys of newspaper managing editors and
television news directors point to a number of differences between the two
media.
Overall, newspapers tended to use the more traditional method of mail
surveys to get feedback from their readers. Television stations, on the other
hand, used new technologies -- such as email/internet and phone lines -- to
allow their viewers to be more interactive. Two explanations for these findings
are especially plausible.
First, television stations may be taking the lead in using new
technologies in gaining feedback from their viewers. Indeed, television is a
more advanced technology. Perhaps, television stations, then, view new
technologies as more important to their future, and thus put more emphasis on
advanced methods of feedback.
Second, mail surveys simply may be a more useful method for
newspapers to get feedback from their readers. Some newspapers have extremely
large circulation areas. Indeed, many large newspapers have circulation areas
across entire states. Phone surveys would be too costly to reach a random
sample of their readers. Mail surveys, therefore, would be a less expensive
feedback method for newspapers.
Not only did television stations show higher use of email/internet,
they also demonstrated a wider range of purposes behind this use. As Table 2
shows, television stations used email/internet most often to get news tips and
to promote the station's image. Improving ratings and demographics were also
important reasons for using email/internet. Not only were these the highest
ranked reasons for television stations to use email/internet, but these purposes
were reported significantly more often by television stations than by
newspapers. Clearly, televisions stations are not only using the internet more
than newspapers are, they also are finding more uses for this new technology.
Only three differences were found between the two media on the
purposes behind their use of phone lines. Television stations, as with
email/internet, reported using phone lines most often to get news tips. They
also reported using phone lines to run news/opinion polls and improve
demographics.
This finding may be due to the perception of what "phone line" meant
to the respondents. In other words, "phone line" may have been interpreted
differently across the two sets of news media managers. Several television
stations use "phone-in" surveys, in which a station has a survey question of the
day. Viewers are encouraged to call in their votes for either side of this
question. Results of the survey are aired either later in the day or the next
day. Thus, news directors may have thought of these phone-in polls when asked
about their use of phone lines. On the other hand, newspaper editors may have
thought phone lines referred to "audiotext." Again, several newspapers have
audiotext phone lines, while other newspapers may have considered installing
such a system. Thus, the term phone line may have meant different things to
directors and editors.
This same problem with category perception also may have come into
play on the results dealing with mail surveys. Since newspapers routinely
receive and publish letters to the editor from their readers, editors may have
perceived "mail survey" to mean "mail feedback." Thus, letters to the editor
may have come to mind rather than mail surveys for the newspaper editors
responding to our survey.
While newspapers reported using mail surveys more often than
television stations did, the editors' responses to our survey did not reveal the
purposes behind this higher usage. As Table 5 shows, none of the editors'
responses on the purposes behind the mail surveys were significantly larger than
the directors' responses. In fact, all five of the purposes for using mail
surveys that produced statistically significant differences show television news
directors reporting the purposes more often than newspaper editors. In other
words, newspapers may have used mail surveys more often than television stations
overall, but the reason behind this finding is not evident here. Again,
television stations used mail surveys for news tips, to promote the station
image and to increase ratings and demographics more often than newspapers
reported these purposes.
Finally, newspapers report using focus groups for setting the
coverage agenda, expanding news choices and giving readers control more than
television stations did. Again, focus groups are a more traditional method of
gaining feedback from consumers, and thus, newspapers in the present study
reported using this more traditional method. Why newspapers used this method
for news choice issues, however, is unclear. Perhaps newspapers feel better
about getting ideas for news coverage patterns from small groups of readers than
from a mail survey and/or the internet. In addition, some newspapers use focus
groups as the topics of stories -- labeling the priorities of these focus groups
"The Citizens' Agenda." According to our findings, editors find this more
intimate, small group setting more useful in gauging reader concerns than other
feedback methods.
As revealing as the purposes behind the use of the four interactive
feedback methods found here are the purposes that were not mentioned by
respondents. Few editors or news directors looked at feedback channels as a way
to reduce news costs. Few looked at feedback channels as a tool for finding
ways to use their staffs better. In addition, few editors used the feedback
methods to allow readers to pick news stories and/or set coverage agenda. This
trend in our findings may be due to an overall anxiety among journalists that
they are losing their social influence. Indeed, sources such as President
Clinton are increasingly speaking directly to the masses, thus circumventing the
media. Perhaps newspaper editors are more concerned about losing their role as
the nation's agenda-setters more than television news directors are.
Taken as a whole, the results here show a number of insights into the
use of feedback channels in newspaper and television newsrooms. Foremost is the
conclusion that television stations looked at feedback channels most often as
ways of getting news topics and coverage ideas from viewers. Newspapers were
significantly less likely to get reader feedback for these purposes. Several
explanations here are plausible.
First, the results here may tell us something about staff size.
Newspapers, with their larger news staffs, may not need tips about where to find
news as much as television stations. Newspaper reporters, in other words, have
the time and resources to find their own stories. Television reporters,
however, may be more reliant upon viewer input and thus be more likely to check
out news leads reported by viewers simply because of time constraints.
Second, newspapers may feel a stronger impulse to retain the power of
story selection. Newspaper editors may feel that they alone should be entrusted
in selecting the news, and that readers' tips are not very useful.
Finally, the newspaper editors here may simply have been more honest.
It should be noted that what a news manager says and what actually happens in
the real world are often two different things. While television news directors
say they use viewer feedback for news tips, this does not necessarily mean that
the television stations actually use the news tips to create stories. Indeed,
any newsroom on any given day may get several messages from news consumers about
what they think would make a good story. The vast majority of these messages
never actually make it onto a medium's news agenda, however.
The age of interactivity between news consumer and news media is just
beginning. What the future holds, obviously, is unknown. However, from the
results here, it appears that television stations are trying to stay on top of
the interactive wave, much more so than newspapers. Future research should
continue to examine differences across media in their usage patterns of new
technologies.
[1] Michael Murrie. Quill, March 1994, p. 29
[2] D.J. Leroy, and C.H. Sterling. Mass News: Practices,
Controversies and Alternatives. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
[3] Raymond L. Carroll. "Content Values in TV News Programs in
Small and Large Markets," Journalism Quarterly, 68 (Winter 1985):877-882
[4] In A. Thomas. "Tartikoff Sees Louisiana in Forefront of
Media Highway," Shop Talk (on-line media newsletter), Nov. 10, 1994.
[5] E&P, Feb. 4, 1995, p. 17TC
[6] David Kamerer and Lori Bergen, "Audiotext Systems,"
Newspaper Research Journal. 16 (Winter 1995):58
[7] ibid.
[8] Gene Burd, "Building Bridges," Grassroots Editor. 35 (Winter
1994):7
[9] M.L. Stein, E&P, March 12, 1994
[10] Walter Mundstock, "Setting Up a Newspaper BBS," Grassroots
Editor, 36 (Summer 1995):13
[11] Steve Outing, "Hold On (line) Tight," E&P, Feb. 17, 1996,
p. 4I
[12] Alan T. Sorensen, "We test our news judgment with real
readers every day," ASNE Bulletin, April 1995, p. 16
[13] ibid.
[14] RTNDA, 1995
[15] E&P, Feb. 17, 1996, p. 4I
[16] J.H. McManus. Market-Driven Journalism: Let the Citizen
Beware? Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1994.
[17] Oppenheimer, Todd. Columbia Journalism Review, March/April
1996, p. 28
[18] Earl R. Babbie. Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth. 1973.
[19] ibid.
Table 1. Adoption of "interactivity" for television stations and
newspapers.
Email Television Newspapers
Use now 36.4% 25.1%
Plan to use 35.7% 26.0%
No plans 27.8% 48.9%
X2 = 9.32, p = .009
Phone line Television Newspapers
Use now 70.8% 46.2%
Plan to use 6.5% 5.8%
No plans 22.7% 48.0%
X2 = 14.22, p = .001
Focus groups Television Newspapers
Use now 40.9% 51.6%
Plan to use 11.7% 13.9%
No plans 47.4% 34.5%
X2 = 3.21, p = ..20
Mail surveys Television Newspapers
Use now 23.7% 46.2%
Plan to use 3.8% 10.8%
No plans 72.5% 42.6%
X2 = 17.94, p = .001
Table 2. Purposes of using email/internet for television stations and
newspapers.
Purpose Television Newspapers X2
Get news tips 69.5% 24.1% 40.65***
Promote station/ 62.3% 17.9% 38.52***
newspaper image
Promote station image
Run news/opinion polls 29.5% 9.4% 12.74***
Let viewers/readers 10.4% 5.4% 1.80
pick stories
Set coverage agenda 20.9% 6.7% 8.14**
Reduce news costs 2.4% 3.1% 0.21
Expand news choices 30.0% 23.3% 1.28
Give viewers/readers 30.4% 17.9% 3.95*
control
Use staff better 15.2% 12.1% 0.39
Increase ratings/circulation 31.9% 13.5% 8.16**
Improve demographics 35.2% 10.8% 14.94***
* -- p < .05
** -- p < .01
*** -- p < .001
Table 3. Purposes of using phone lines for television stations and
newspapers.
Purpose Television Newspapers X2
Get news tips 88.0% 47.5% 34.95***
Promote station/ 46.2% 33.2% 3.54
newspaper image
Run news/opinion polls 71.1% 30.9% 32.43***
Let viewers/readers 12.4% 9.4% 0.48
pick stories
Set coverage agenda 17.3% 15.2% 0.15
Reduce news costs 6.2% 10.8% 1.61
Expand news choices 27.1% 28.3% 0.05
Give viewers/readers 29.3% 28.7% 0.08
control
Use staff better 22.2% 19.3% 0.28
Increase ratings/circulation 37.7% 27.8% 1.83
Improve demographics 33.3% 20.2% 4.34*
* -- p < .05
** -- p < .01
*** -- p < .001
Table 4. Purposes of using focus groups for television stations and
newspapers.
Purpose Television Newspapers X2
Get news tips 16.3% 19.3% 0.31
Promote station/ 28.6% 39.5% 2.21
newspaper image
Run news/opinion polls 11.2% 14.3% 0.41
Let viewers/readers 6.8% 11.2% 0.98
pick stories
Set coverage agenda 21.0% 41.7% 10.22**
Reduce news costs 0.7% 4.0% 0.82
Expand news choices 12.3% 27.4% 6.24*
Give viewers/readers 14.1% 34.1% 9.90**
control
Use staff better 17.0% 28.3% 2.87
Increase ratings/circulation 27.8% 30.0% 0.07
Improve demographics 24.6% 28.7% 0.41
* -- p < .05
** -- p < .01
*** -- p < .001
Table 5. Purposes of using mail surveys for television stations and
newspapers.
Purpose Television Newspapers X2
Get news tips 36.2% 9.4% 20.90***
Promote station/ 80.0% 25.1% 60.65***
newspaper image
Run news/opinion polls 35.0% 26.9% 1.15
Let viewers/readers 16.2% 7.6% 2.32
pick stories
Set coverage agenda 40.0% 21.5% 6.76**
Reduce news costs 1.2% 4.9% 1.35
Expand news choices 21.2% 16.1% 0.53
Give viewers/readers 25.0% 22.9% 0.11
control
Use staff better 26.2% 18.8% 1.03
Increase ratings/circulation 60.6% 30.9% 16.93***
Improve demographics 55.0% 20.2% 24.66***
* -- p < .05
** -- p < .01
*** -- p < .001
Comparing Consumer Feedback Channels:
Newspapers Versus Television
By Wayne Wanta,
Jim Upshaw
and Kathryn B. Campbell
School of Journalism and Communication
1275 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1275
541-346-3752
email: [log in to unmask]
** Paper submitted to the Communication Technology and Policy Division
for consideration of presentation at the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication annual convention, Anaheim, Calif.
** Wanta is an associate professor, Upshaw a professor and Campbell a
graduate student in the School of Journalism and Communication at the University
of Oregon.
Comparing Consumer Feedback Channels:
Newspapers Versus Television
By Wayne Wanta,
Jim Upshaw
and Kathryn B. Campbell
School of Journalism and Communication
1275 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1275
541-346-3752
email: [log in to unmask]
Abstract
A comparison of responses from television news directors and
newspaper editors revealed that newspapers tended to use the more traditional
method of mail surveys to get feedback from their readers. Television stations
used new technologies -- such as email/internet and phone lines -- to allow
their viewers to be more interactive. Television news directors also were more
likely to use feedback from viewers for news tips, to set coverage agenda and to
promote station image.
Comparing Consumer Feedback Channels:
Newspapers Versus Television
Abstract
A comparison of responses from television news directors and
newspaper editors revealed that newspapers tended to use the more traditional
method of mail surveys to get feedback from their readers. Television stations
used new technologies -- such as email/internet and phone lines -- to allow
their viewers to be more interactive. Television news directors also were more
likely to use feedback from viewers for news tips, to set coverage agenda and to
promote station image.
|
