Content-Type: text/html

The PBS Brand versus Cable Brands: Assessing the Brand Equity 
of Public Television in a Multichannel Environment




Submitted to the Media Management and Sales Division, AEJMC

March 2000



By



Sylvia M. Chan-Olmsted, Ph.D.
Department of Telecommunication
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Phone: 352-392-0954 (office)
352-379-3908 (home)
Fax: 352-846-2899
E-mail: <a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0101B%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D8744880%26B%3D--%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D_13735188%253D%253D_%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>

And

Yungwook Kim, Ph. D.
Department of Communication
Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4480
Phone: 309-438-3671 (office)
Email: <a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0101B%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D8744880%26B%3D--%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D_13735188%253D%253D_%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>      


The PBS Brand versus Cable Brands: Assessing the Brand Equity 
of Public Television in a Multi-channel Environment


With the increase in cable television penetration and ratings success, cable has developed into more than just a means of delivering over-the-air broadcast signals to subscribers. Cable television has become a collection of channels delivering a substantial amount of original programming to specific audience groups. Some of these channels provide highly rated documentaries and children's programs and serve the same audiences that have been the province of public television stations.  In fact, many of the same programs produced by public television stations became staples of cable channels like Discovery, Art & Entertainment (A&E), and Nickelodeon. In a high-profile joint venture, the Children's Television Workshop (CTW) and Nickelodeon formed "Noggin," a commercial-free children's cable network targeting preschoolers, one of public television's core audience segments (Snyder, 1999). In addition, many commercial cable competitors are offering commercial-free preschool programming blocks, further blurring their differences with public television. Some argued that the growth of these educational cable networks has caused identity confusion and diminished the purpose of public television. 
In response to the growing competition in today's multichannel environment, public television, namely PBS, has begun to harness the power of the PBS brand, rated in 1995 by the advertising agency Young and Rubicam second only to Disney as the most distinctive media brand in America (Schweitzer, 1997). PBS increased the strategic use of its "brand name" through more creative corporate sponsorships, merchandising/licensing agreements, and other back-end programming rights to generate more revenues. PBS has also significantly raised its promotional budget to fortify its already trusted PBS brand (Schweitzer, 1997; McConnell, 1998).  According to a 1995 PBS survey, the PBS logo represents the words "informative," "educational," "enlightening," "respecting intelligence," "responsible," and "unique" (Rubel, 1995); however, with increasing competition from a number of growing cable brands such as Nickelodoen, Discovery, and A&E, does public television still hold a franchise for informative, educational, and enlightening/intellectual television programming? What is the value of the PBS brand today amidst a multichannel environment filled with programming choices? As economic factors are critical to understanding the function and power of local noncommercial media (Dorer, 1997), public television needs to find its particular characteristics and value (i.e., a distinctive brand image) that would appeal to loyal followers and offer opportunities to generate additional revenues in the midst of downward public funding and intensified competition from niche cable networks. 
This paper assesses the brand equity of public television stations and PBS in a multichannel media environment by examining the brand image of public television and PBS in comparison to other competing cable networks and by exploring the impact of cable on the perceived value of public television. To provide more strategic insights for the management and marketing of public television, the authors also investigate the differences in brand equity among various segments of public television audiences (e.g., nonpublic television members versus members) and the variables that contribute to an audience's decision to become a public television member.[1] 
 
Branding Public Television in a Multi-channel Environment

The Development of a Public Television Brand

Public television has been associated with education and specialty programs in a variety of forms since the beginning of the service authorized by the FCC in 1952. In 1968, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) was established to provide federal funds for public television and radio stations. In 1972, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) was formed by public television stations across the country to exchange programs with each other via tape and interconnected service. These new programs expanded on programs being produced by local public television stations.  Included in the mix were newly designed programs like Sesame Street and a nightly news presence, The MacNeil/Leherer Report.  The PBS member stations began funding and producing programs and acquiring programming already produced (from the BBC and other sources).  Many of these programs were educationally based, such as documentaries, science and nature programs, and "how-to" programs.  Nova, Great Performances, The Victory Garden, and This Old House were among the programs developed, funded, and aired by public television stations.  Sesame Street, Mister Rogers's Neighborhood, Zoom, and The Electric Company were among the children's programs developed, funded, and made successful through public television.  Many BBC programs were imported including comedies and costume drama presented under umbrella series titles like Masterpiece Theatre and Mystery (Fuller & Furgeson, 1997; Stewart, 1999). The nature of these well-known public television programs established the public perception of public television as informative, educational, and intellectual and the observation that public television offers niche formats of documentaries, children's programming, in-depth news, how-tos, and British programming, rather than entertainment programming that attracts a mass audience.
Though they appeal to mostly an affluent, educated audience segment desirable by advertisers, public television stations were not very business savvy in the early days of funding PBS programs.  It seemed to be enough to develop and produce programs that could further education and could be aired by member stations.  In essence, the member stations "rented" the programs while the producers retained ownership and merchandising rights to the programs (Stewart, 1999). Under the pressure of diminishing federal funding, since 1994, PBS has planned to reinvent itself as a more "nimble, responsible, entrepreneurial organization" (Brunelli, 1995; Albiniak, 1997). As part of its battle plan to achieve this goal, PBS is working on building and maintaining its recognizable "PBS" brand, hoping to capitalize on the brand equity through strategic alliances and innovative revenue generating ventures (Beam, 1998). For example, PBS allied with Reader's Digest Association for the production of magazine-inspired TV programming. The shared revenues from video sales and other after-market ventures will provide an estimate of $75 million for PBS television program production during a five-year period. Strategic alliances with magazine publishers seem to be the trend not only for PBS but other cable networks to extend their brands and reach. For example, CNN works with Sports Illustrated on CNN/SI and the Learning Channel with Popular Science for various educational programs (Beam, 1998).
As part of its expansion strategy, PBS also tried to change the perception of its growth merely through increased financial support and enhanced member service. PBS has proposed to brand its services as "the Smithsonian, the Metropolitan Museum, the public library, the university of the air." To implement such strategies, PBS has a broadened program reach through PBS Home Video and is successful in catalog, transactional activities such as the web site, shopPBS (Schweitzer, 1997; Albiniak, 1997). 
At the local level, more public television stations are approaching sponsors with strategic program packages that match the sponsors' products and missions (Mundy, 1997). There have also been tremendous growths in the use of the public television brand to generate additional revenues through merchandise licensing and partnership between the stations and educational product merchants such as the Store of Knowledge (Rubel, 1995). Realizing the importance of cultivating the value of its brand name, public television, especially PBS, has taken actions to protect its "brand" through various licensing agreements to cover the use of the PBS logo, brand name, trademarks, and the animated "P-Pals" logo characters on computer software, educational and developmental toys, CD-ROMs, games, and books (Rubel, 1995). 
Seeking to reassert its position among the A&Es and Nickelodeons, PBS is also committing more resources into promoting its shows and its "brand" as the last word in children's and documentary programming (Albiniak, 1997). In 1998, PBS increased its promotion budget by 17 percent (McConnell, 1998). The promotion efforts are mostly aimed to differentiate PBS from other cable networks and create co-branding opportunities with local stations such as spots that plug a station's local call letters along with the PBS logo.
In response to the arrival of the digital age, PBS member stations have suggested revenue-generating ideas such setting up some of the extra spectrum as separate subscription channels (Mundy, 1997). Corporation for Public Broadcasting is also weighing the creation of a second Public Broadcasting Service network to take advantage of distribution infrastructure that it has in place and the digital possibilities with different ownership, operational structures, programming and financial resources (Brockinton, 1997). Regardless of the operational and financial structures that might be implemented when the conversion is completed, public television will be expanding its territory with more channels to program. The success of these expansion plans will largely depend on public television's efforts to maintain and further its trusted, quality brand image in the increasingly crowded media marketplace. 

Multichannel Media Competition

Raboy (1998) proposed that, in its simplest terms, the multichannel environment represents a structural change to which all broadcasters, public and private, must adapt. He suggested that developing new services, making innovative partnerships, and focusing on serving local needs and interests are paramount for success in this multichannel environment (Raboy, 1998). As a noncommercial entity, public television does not regard itself as a noncompetitive market participant. While the commercial broadcast television has lost a significant audience share to cable (Stanley, 1998), public television is feeling the heat from a growing menu of cable programs that resemble public television programming.  As media consumers' perceived value of the PBS/public television brand is influenced by the programming options available to them, it's important to review the alternatives of public television programming in today's multichannel environment.  
The Discovery Networks (including Discovery, The Learning Channel, and Animal Planet) are some of the strongest niche programming competitors to public television. The Discovery Channel, once thought of as a repository for off-PBS reruns, has managed to become a video showcase of historical and archaeological discovery with the help of original programming like Wild Discovery. Another strong contestant, Arts & Entertainment, which designs its programming to attract a select, affluent audience, has grown to become one of largest cable networks, generating relatively significant ratings during prime time with signature programs such as Biography. The History Channel, as one of the fastest-growing networks on cable, is steadily gaining viewership with signature programs such as 20th Century with Mike Wallace (Worrell, 1998). As for children's programming, with a mission to "connect kids to their world through entertainment," Nickelodeon is one of the top media organizations that deliver the 2-11 demographic segment sought after by advertisers. Filled with original animations as well as live action programs, Nickelodeon's average ratings grew over 10 percent from 1997 to 1998 (Burgi, 1998).
The competitive force of the multichannel environment is especially evident in the children's television market. Faced with more competition from Disney Channel, The Cartoon Network and Fox Family Channel, Nickelodeon increased spending on its original programming budget by 25 percent in 1998 (McConville, 1998). The arrival of the digital age in a broadband environment attracted even more niche children's programming providers. While Niceklodeon launched GAS (Games and Sports) in 1999, Disney introduced Toon Disney and the Discovery Networks added Discovery Kids (Higgins, 1999).
Public television is also facing an unprecedented pressure to keep existing and new shows from migrating to other cable networks as more cable outlets are looking for documentaries and children's programming. For example, in addition to its alliance with Discovery to establish a BBC America cable channel, BBC is launching a free digital children's channel (Davenport, 1998). PBS's The Magic School Bus went to Fox in 1998. And as one of the most serious threats for the PBS children's franchise, CTW and Nickelodeon jointly created a new commercial-free cable network, Noggin. The educational channel targets the 2-11 audience, one of the PBS core segments. In fact, Noggin is the "flagship network" of four Nickelodeon channels in the 10-channel MTV Networks digital tier. Noggin is drawing heavily from CTW and Nickelodeon programming libraries. The network includes vintage Sesame Street titles and Nickelodeon's popular Blue's Clues show. First-run episodes of both programs continue to run on PBS and Nickelodeon. Noggin is beginning to produce original programming and has a web site that complements programming and is designed for use by kids, parents, and teachers, similar to those provided by PBS's popular web site, www.pbs.org (Snyder, 1999). 
The competing cable networks are veterans in branding their media properties. Managers at the Discovery Networks have indicated the necessity of marketing their services as a brand. A&E has also identified its brand image as the source for biographies, mysteries and specials for affluent, educated audiences (Burgi, 1995). Nickelodeon and CTW have implemented a branding campaign for Noggin with the help from an ad agency, Ogilvy & Mather (Snyder, 1999). Though many broadcasting industry practitioners have viewed branding as a design and copyrighting function, some argued that branding is about relationships with consumers, not graphics (Chan-Olmsted & Kim, 1999). All in all, branding or brand management has become an increasingly important marketing concept for both commercial and non-commercial broadcasters as they face the reality of media proliferation and audience fragmentation.

Branding and Brand Equity

Research has shown that the PBS logo represents the words "informative," "educational," "enlightening," "respecting intelligence," "responsible," and "unique" (Rubel, 1995). It seems that public television has acquired a relatively positive brand image over the years. What exactly is a brand and what is the value of a brand? A brand is simply a collection of perceptions in the mind of the consumer. At its simplest, a brand is a recognizable and trustworthy badge of origin, and also a promise of performance. The purpose of branding is to create high brand familiarity and positive brand image, which contribute to the building of brand equity. 
        Brand equity has been the focus of numerous marketing and advertising studies 
(Aaker, 1991; Aaker & Biel, 1992; Cobb-Walgren, Ruble & Donthu, 1995). Brand equity 
may be defined as the "added value" of a brand to a product, which can be measured from either the firm's, channel member's, or the consumer's perspective (Farguhar, 1989). Biel (1992) suggested that from a consumer's perspective, brand equity reflects the consumer's psychological judgment such as willingness to pay for a branded product and all related-image factors. Keller (1998) provided a conceptual framework of what brands mean to consumers and what this implies for marketing strategies. He defined this perspective as "the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the marketing of that brand" (p. 45). Thus marketers would try to increase brand knowledge of their products in consumers' minds. Brand knowledge can be categorized into brand awareness and brand image (Keller, 1998). He argued that customer-based brand equity occurs when the consumer is familiar with the brand and holds some favorable, strong, and unique brand associations in memory. He went on to propose that brand equity is closely related to two dimensions of a brand: brand awareness or familiarity, which includes brand recall and brand recognition; and brand image, which is a combination of the types of brand association, favorability of brand associations, strength of brand associations, and uniqueness of brand. 
        The goal of marketing and promotion is to enhance the brand value among consumers, that is, brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Aaker & Biel, 1992). Researchers have repeatedly argued that brand equity enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of marketing activities and provides more margins to the firms due to higher perceived quality and brand royalty (Aaker, 1992; Belch & Belch, 1995). There are two approaches in measuring brand equity: measuring sources of brand equity or measuring outcomes of brand equity (Kelly, 1998). Measuring sources of brand equity implies an indirect measurement of brand equity. "The indirect approach attempts to assess potential sources for the customer-based brand equity by measuring brand knowledge structure" (Kelly, 1998, p. 75). On the other hand, measuring outcomes of brand equity is a more direct approach of brand equity measurement, which may include comparative methods (assessing the value of consumers' perceptions in the market) and holistic methods (estimating the overall dollar value of a brand) (Blackstone, 1990; Yovovich, 1988; Kamakura & Russell, 1993). Both outcome measurements are closely related to financial valuation, the ultimate goal of the marketing efforts. 
        As public television is not a for-profit entity and is directly supported by its audience's "perception" of its value via membership (as opposed to advertisers' perceived value of the audience), this study subscribed to the customer-based brand equity framework and attempted to measure the sources of brand equity rather than outcomes. 
Accordingly, the authors addressed the following research questions:
1.      What is the brand equity of public television, especially for PBS, in today's multichannel environment?
2.      How has cable affected the perceived value of public television among its viewers?
3.      What different audience segments are there for public television considering the competition from comparable cable channels? 
4.      What factors contribute to an audience's becoming a member of his/her local public television station in today's multichannel environment?

Following Kelly's (1998) conceptual approach, the authors assessed the brand equity of public television through the examination of its brand image as perceived by public television viewers (including members and non-members). As indicated earlier, brand awareness including recall and recognition is also an important tool for measuring brand equity. However, the authors did not measure brand awareness in this study because public television, especially PBS, garnered a perfect level of awareness during our focus groups research phase as well as the pretest of the survey instrument on both members and non-members. The factor of brand awareness could not have made meaningful differentiation to the subjects of focus. Thus, the assessment of brand equity was re-characterized to consist of only brand image variables.

Methods

A two-step data gathering procedure was applied for this study. The authors first conducted three focus groups to explore the current brand image of PBS and public television in general. The focus groups also investigated participants' attitudes and opinions toward various types of public television programming and cable television. The focus group research method was chosen to generate impressions and in-depth discussions of public television and cable television, which in turn facilitated the design of the survey instrument for the audience survey phase. Focus group participants were recruited from a public television station's list of current members as well as non-members randomly selected from the white pages of a local phone book.[2]  The randomly selected subjects were contacted by phone and evaluated according to a pre-qualifying screening questionnaire that ensured the participants were regular public television and cable TV viewers.[3]  Each focus group session consisted of 8 participants with equal numbers of members and nonmembers, who were interviewed in an informal setting at a local public TV station in the spring of 1999. 
During the second phase of the study, an audience telephone survey was conducted. The authors decided to use a disproportionate stratified sample, using public television station membership as the stratification variable to ensure an adequate presence of the current public television members. Thus, while half of the sample was randomly drawn from a public television station's membership list, the other half was randomly selected from the non-member television audiences resided in the viewing area of that particular local public TV station using a random digit dialing technique.[4] Only households that regularly watched at least one hour of public television and one hour of cable specific programming were invited to participate in the telephone survey. After a pilot survey of 15 participants, a telephone survey was conducted during a two-week period by trained student interviewers in the spring of 1999. A total of 213 telephone questionnaires were completed with an overall response rate of 45 percent. The respondents included 115 members (60 percent response rate) and 98 non-members (40 percent response rate).[5] The member stratum was over-sampled because the authors considered the current member's perceived impact of cable television to be essential in assessing the brand equity of public television. 
A mostly closed-ended questionnaire was designed to measure four types of variables: audience characteristics variables describing demographics and media usage; perception variables measuring the perceived impact of cable on public television and the value of both public and cable TV; satisfaction variables assessing interviewees' degree of satisfaction toward various types of public television programming and the comparable cable networks[6]; and finally, image variables derived from the focus groups' discussions of public television and prior PBS image literature (Rubel, 1995). Accordingly, the audience variables included age, income, education, size of household, presence of children in the household, and number of hours spent using television, public television, newspaper, radio, and the Internet (both participant's household and children's TV usage, if any). The perception variables compared the perceived quality and variety of programming as well as educational value[7] between public and cable television. The authors also investigated the perceived importance of public TV amidst the availability of comparable cable networks. The perception variables were measured on a 1-5 scale (5- strongly agree, 4-agree, 3-neutral, 2-disagree, 1-strongly disagree). The terms used to assess the image of PBS against other comparable cable networks included words such as "trustworthy," "unique," "enlightening," "variety," "relaxed," "intelligent," "informative," "quality," "educational," "exciting," and "responsible." The respondents were asked to rate each of the image descriptions on the specified networks using a 1-10 scale with 1 being definitely inappropriate and 10 being definitely appropriate. Instead of the general term of public television, PBS as a specific national programming network was used in the survey to create a more comparable environment in assessing network images. To select the comparable cable networks for making perception and image comparisons, the authors interviewed two public television station general managers to name the cable networks that they perceived to be in direct competition with public television. The cable networks identified were The Discovery Channel, Arts & Entertainment, The Learning Channel, Nickelodeon, and Disney.

Results

Brand Equity of Public Television in a Multichannel Environment


        The focus group participants overwhelmingly indicated that "quality" programming and the commercial-free viewing environment were the most valuable assets of public television. For participants with children in the households, the ability for them to "trust" the PBS institution, and the quality of its children's programming, is another strong appeal. The focus groups also disclosed that while they view public television as a source of quality programming, they do explore cable channels such as A&E and Discovery for similar types of programming, especially for their signature programs such as Biography and Wild Discovery. 
Table 1 shows the comparative brand image of PBS and the selected cable networks. The Discovery Channel was perceived to be the most comparable cable counterpart to PBS, while Nickelodeon was the least. PBS scored higher than all other cable networks in all terms except for "exciting," in which Discovery took the lead. Overall, PBS's equity seemed to rest especially in its trustworthiness, intelligence, and  informative/educational value. It's interesting that while A&E was mentioned frequently by the focus group participants as a comparable cable network to PBS, it garnered the lowest score in trustworthiness along with Nickelodeon. Its image scores also differed the most from those of PBS when children's cable networks were excluded from the comparison. The authors performed paired-sample t-tests on the image variables of each pair (e.g., trustworthy between PBS and Discovery) and found all differences of means between groups to be statistically significant (p < .05).

Differences in the perceived brand image of PBS between public television members and non-members.  It seems that public television station members and non-members had significantly different images of PBS (see Table 2). Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was administered using the membership variable and the image terms as independent and dependent variables. As suspected, members scored higher than the non-members overall (Wilks' Lambda = .887, F = 1.874, df = 11, p = .046). Specifically, PBS was perceived by members to be more "exciting" (F = 11.838, p = .001), more "enlightening" (F = 6.913, p = .009), and of higher "quality" (F = 6.897, p = .009) than by the non-members.[8] The terms "trustworthy," "unique," "variety," "relaxed," "educational," and "responsible" did not show any significant difference between members and non-members. Other analyses on cable networks found that non-members were much more likely to regard The Learning Channel, Disney, and Nickelodeon to be "trustworthy" than members. Also non-members were much more likely to regard The Learning Channel as "unique" than members and to perceive Nickelodeon and Disney as "enlightening" than members.
After obtaining a significant F test with a MANOVA, the authors also performed a discriminant analysis to measure the role of different brand images in differentiating members from non-members (Wilks' Lambda = .887, chi-square = 19.936, df = 11, p = .046) (see Table 3). The most important image terms for differentiating membership seemed to be "exciting," followed by "enlightening" and "quality." Image terms such as "responsible," "educational," and "trustworthy" were relatively non-critical in determining membership. The discriminant functions seem to indicate that an image of lively, quality content is a much better predictor of public television membership than an image of a socially responsible learning institution. 

        Relationship between audience characteristics and perceived brand images of PBS. Audience characteristics did not seem to influence the perceived brand image of PBS as the majority of the demographic and media usage variables did not show any significant relationship against the image terms investigated. The exceptions were "number of hours watching television per week" in relation to "educational" (r = .212, p = .003), and "age" in relation to "enlightening" (r = .200, p = .005) and "exciting" (r = .234, p = .001).[9] It seems that the more established audience segment (higher income and age) was more likely to view PBS as interesting and lively and heavier TV viewers, after sampling hours of TV programming, were more likely to regard PBS as educational.

The Perceived Impact of Cable Television

        Table 4 compared the perceived quality, variety, educational value, and importance between public and cable television. It seems that public television was not  perceived strongly to be offering the quality or variety of programming that cable cannot emulate. While the participants, to a certain degree, perceived public television to have higher quality programming, they did not definitely agree that such public TV quality is not replaceable by cable. Contrary to the authors' expectation, the interviewees did not agree that cable has changed their public TV viewing behavior, nor did they concur that public TV is less important now considering the availability of cable. The only statement that the interviewees agreed on was public television's role as the leader of educational programming. In essence, the good news is that cable has not created as big an impact on public television as perceived by its viewers at the time of the survey. The bad news is that public television, while perceived positively, is not unmatchable by its cable counterpart.
        To investigate the impact of the perception variables on membership, a discriminant analysis was administered. One valid discriminant function was obtained from the analysis (Wilks' Lambda = .839, chi-square = 33.109, df = 6, p = .000)  (Table 5).  The structure matrix clearly indicated that the perceptions of superior quality and educational programming played a major role in differentiating members from non-members. On the other hand, the perceived impact of cable on public television did not contribute to the difference in membership status.

Public Television Audience Segments in a Multichannel Environment

Two distinct public television audience segments emerged from the focus groups analysis. One audience segment may be labeled as "Avid Media Users," who spent long hours using media and/or the Internet and whose children, if any, were medium to heavy TV users who watched children's programming on public TV regularly. These viewers were overall very satisfied with public television, especially in the area of children's programming.  "The Avid Media Users" were not as enthusiastic about public television's documentaries, arts and music type programming. They were also more open to cable programming, especially to those on Nickelodeon. The other audience segment maybe labeled as "the Sophisticated Public TV Traditionalists," composed of viewers who were more educated, mature, and affluent. They did not spend time on new media such as the Internet and they did not watch as much TV as the other group. While these viewers were satisfied overall with the public TV, they thought public television stations should offer more local programming. They were more satisfied than the other segment with dramas, comedies, documentaries, arts and music, and science and nature programs. 
The majority of the public television audience appeared to be light public television viewers as 47 percent of the interviewed households spent 3 or less hours a week watching public television programs. About 25 percent of the audience households watched between 3 to 7 hours a week. While 16 percent of the households spent 7-14 hours on public television, less than 12 percent were heavy users, watching over 14 hours of public television per week. Note that an average household spends over 7 hours a day watching TV in the U.S. The level of public television viewing was significantly related to the number of hours spent reading newspapers (r=.283; p=.000), number of hours spent watching TV (r=.411; p=.000), number of  hours the children in the household spent watching TV (r=.395; p=.021), income (r=.193; r=.009), and age (r=.356; p=.000). It's interesting that subscription to cable and the number of hours spent watching cable programs were not significantly related to the level of public television viewing. In regards to membership differences, members tend to be heavier newspaper readers, spent more time watching public television, and generally had higher education, income, and age (see Table 6). 

Factors Contributed to the Acquisition of Public Television Membership 

        A discriminant analysis was performed to assess the role of audience characteristics in determining public television membership. One valid discriminant function was obtained from the analysis (Wilks' Lambda = .682, chi-square = 58.640, df = 10, p = .000) (Table 7). As indicated in the structure matrix, age was the most sensitive variable, followed by the number of hours spent watching public TV, annual household income, and level of formal education. The structure matrix seemed to indicate a discriminant function representing "social stability" latent variables. The audience's time spent with other media such as newspapers, radio, television or the Internet was not overall an important factor in affecting his/her membership status. It is evident that public television members are a very unique group of media users who are more established, mature, and with a lifestyle not driven by media usage. 
The authors also investigated the interviewed non-members' likelihood to become a public television station member using a 4-point scale (1-not likely at all; 2-not likely; 3-likely; 4-very likely). To assess the factors that might contribute to the acquisition of membership, the relationship between likelihood of becoming members and the perception, audience characteristics, image, and satisfaction variables were measured.
The Pearson correlation procedure was applied to each relationship. The perceptions about cable TV and public TV such as "public TV offers quality programming that cable TV cannot provide" (r = .298, p = .004), and "public TV has the best quality program" (r = .437, p = .000) have significant positive relationship with the likelihood of being members. The perception of quality programming seems to be a strong motivator of becoming a public television member. To a lesser degree, the perceptions that "public TV is the leader in educational programs (r = .246, p = .017)" and "public TV offers variety of programming that cable TV cannot provide (r = .262, p = .013)" also related to the membership status. As expected, satisfactions with various programming types on public TV have significant relationships with the likelihood of being members. The correlations were especially strong for arts and music (r=.517; p=.000) and science and nature programming (r=.414; p=.000), followed by dramas and comedies (r= .339; p=.004) and documentaries (r=.323; p=.004). It's interesting that satisfactions with other comparable cable channels did not show any significant relationships with the likelihood of becoming members. Surprisingly, none of the audience characteristics were significantly related to the likelihood of becoming members except for the obvious media usage variable of  "the number of hours per week spent watching public TV" (r = .240, p = .023). The authors also found that non-members are more likely to become members when they are satisfied with their public TV stations' local, arts and music, and science and nature programming (surprisingly, not children's programming).  
        As for the brand image factor, the Pearson correlation procedure revealed that as a non-member perceives PBS to be more "exciting" (r = .511, p = .000), to have higher "quality" (r = .381, p = .000), to be more "educational" (r = .345, p = .001), to have more "variety" (r = .335, p = .002), to be more "informative" (r = .320, p = 003), and to be more "intelligent" (r = .310, p = .003) (in that order), he or she would be more likely to become a member of a public TV station.  Again, it's interesting to find that none of the brand image variables of other comparable cable channels showed a significant relationship against the likelihood of becoming a public TV member. It seems that the positive perception of public television, especially for PBS, matters more in an audience's decision to contribute to a public television station than the factor of competition posed by its cable counterpart. 

Discussion and Conclusion

        This study found that public television continues to enjoy a very positive brand image among its viewers. Its equity rests primarily in the area of "quality," "educational value," and "trustworthiness." The popularity of the comparable cable networks such as A&E, Discovery, and Nickelodeon did not seem to dilute the positive brand perception of public television, nor did it change significantly the perceived importance of public television and the audience's viewing behavior (as reported by the audience). Furthermore, the level of satisfaction with the comparable cable networks did not play a role in determining a non-member's decision to become a member. In essence, while comparable cable networks may compete for the viewer's eyeballs to a certain degree, they are not the competitive force that may threaten the development of public television membership. The authors conclude that public television still enjoys a degree of brand awareness and favorable image that are currently unmatchable by its cable counterpart's; however, the obstacle of growth for public television in an increasingly fragmented multichannel environment will stem from public television's inability to develop beyond an "unexciting" brand personality. As cable programming continues to evolve, public television needs to face the fact that its loyal contributors, who grew up mostly from the pre-cable era, are aging, while the younger media consumers' perception of public television continues to be shaped by the programming content and format available on cable. In other words, public television must rethink its brand equity building efforts so to solidify different potential contributor segments. 
        It is evident that the majority of current public television members are an elite group of media users who are more established, older, and have a lifestyle not driven by media usage. They are the audiences who loyally consider PBS to be exciting and enlightening, quite different from what non-members considered it to be. In fact, the brand image of an exciting and enlightening public television significantly increases a public television viewer's potential to contribute to his/her local public television station. It seems that the challenge for public television today is not the competing programming offered by cable networks, though they may somewhat impact the ratings performance of public TV programming, but the tasks of repositioning public television as a source of lively, interesting quality programming, amidst all the fast-paced, seemingly exciting cable programming.
























Table 1
The Comparative Brand Image of PBS versus Selected Cable Networks

                                        	
Image Variable                        PBS        Discovery        TLC        A&E        Nickelodeon       Disney

                	
Trustworthy    Mean                   4.56           4.02/-.54*    3.98/-.58  3.36/-1.2      3.36/-1.2         3.56/-1.0
                    SD                  .77            .78                .88            .83         1.20                     1.22

Unique             Mean               4.24           3.97/-.27      3.72/-.52  3.77/-.47      3.44/-.8           3.47/-.77
                          SD                    .90            .94                  1.02         .97             1.30                 1.23

Enlightening   Mean             4.38         4.22/-.16      3.89/-.49   3.79/-.59            2.72/-1.66       2.94/-1.44
           SD                   .84            .84                   .99         .98         1.17                 1.18

Variety            Mean         4.14         3.77/-.37      3.65/-.49   3.82/-.32            3.05/-1.09       3.37/-.77
           SD                   .90            .89                 1.04  .88         1.14                     1.17

Relaxed           Mean          3.95         3.64/-.31      3.52/-.43   3.73/-.22            2.96/-.99         3.30/-.65
                           SD                   .96            .92                    .90        .88         1.23                     1.18

Intelligent       Mean          4.56         4.32/-.24      4.07/-.49   3.99/-.57            2.75/-1.81       2.97/-1.59
           SD                   .76            .82                    .98           .91         1.16                     1.10

Informative    Mean             4.53         4.36/-.17      4.00/-.53   3.76/-.77            2.59/-1.94       2.85/-1.68
           SD                   .83            .80                  1.07         1.00        1.15                      1.26

Quality            Mean         4.39         4.19/-.2        3.90/-.49   3.95/-.44           3.16/-1.23       3.39/-1.0
                   SD                    .90           .89                    .98        .98         1.22                 1.23

Educational    Mean             4.49         4.39/-.1        4.16/-.33   3.66/-.83           2.90/-1.59       3.00/-1.49
           SD             .83          .81                    .97         1.02       1.20                     1.20

Exciting          Mean          3.55         3.72/.17       3.43/-.12   3.55/0       2.94/-.61         3.06/-.49
           SD                 1.05           1.00                   1.13         .99         1.28                     1.13

Responsible    Mean             4.41         4.12/-.29      3.91/-.5     3.82-.59            2.97/1.44        3.31/-1.1
           SD                   .83            .92                   .95         .96         1.26                 1.16

*The difference in means between PBS and the specified cable network.












Table 2
PBS Images between Public Television Station Members and Non-members

Image                           Members              Nonmembers
                        Mean            SD              Mean             SD

Trustworthy             4.58            .84             4.55              .67
Unique                  4.33            .89             4.12              .91
Enlightening            4.55            .72             4.15              .92
Variety                 4.30            .78             3.93            1.00
Relaxed         4.05            .89             3.81            1.05
Intelligent             4.67            .62             4.41              .88
Informative             4.64            .68             4.38              .98
Quality                 4.54            .79             4.18            1.00
Educational             4.54            .81             4.42              .86
Exciting                3.81            .92             3.21            1.12
Responsible             4.46            .81             4.35              .85



Table 3
Discriminant Function Coefficients of Brand Image Variables

Image Variables                 Standardized Coefficients       Structure Matrix

Exciting                                        .744                            .735
Enlightening                                    .559                            .562
Quality                                         .388                            .561
Intelligent                                     .168                            .444
Informative                                     .255                            .434
Variety                                           -.187                         .387
Unique                                            -.028                         .313
Relaxed                                   -.080                         .303
Responsible                                       -.214                         .182
Educational                                       -.713                         .169
Trustworthy                                       -.295                            -.002

Wilks' Lambda = .887, chi-square = 19.936, df = 11, p = .046








Table 4
Perceptions of Public Television Versus Cable Television

                                                               Mean*                    SD


Public TV is the leader in educational programs 4.08                    0.91
among all available TV channels (including cable)	

Public TV has the best quality programs among   3.75                    1.06
all available TV channels (including cable)     	

Public TV offers quality programming that               3.68                    1.03
cable TV cannot provide

Public TV offers variety of programming         3.30                    1.13
that cable TV cannot provide

Cable TV has changed the way I watch                    2.92                    1.28    	
public TV

Public TV is less important today because               2.66                    1.25
of all the cable channels available


*All perception variables were statistically significant (p=.000).




 










Table 5
Discriminant Function Coefficients of Perception Variables

                                        Standardized Coefficients       Structure Matrix


Public TV has the best quality programs among   .870                    .923
all available TV channels (including cable)                

Public TV is the leader in educational programs         .366                    .697	
among all available TV channels (including cable)  

Public TV offers quality programming that              -.345                    .446
cable TV cannot provide                 	

Public TV offers variety of programming         .089                    .419
that cable TV cannot provide            	

Public TV is less important today because                  -.069                        .414
of all the cable channels available

Cable TV has changed the way I watch               -.092                        .325
public TV


Wilks' Lambda = .839, chi-square = 33.109, df = 6, p = .000




















Table 6
Audience Characteristics between Public Television Station Members and Non-members

Characteristics*                                    Members                             Nonmembers
                                        Mean            SD              Mean            SD

Age                                     3.79            1.35            2.63            1.58	

Number of hours per week spent          6.97            5.72            3.56            4.44
watching public TV

Annual household income                 4.59            2.89            2.78            2.02

Level of formal education                       4.06              .99           3.29            1.20

Number of hours per week spent          4.77            3.18            3.32            3.44
reading newspaper


*Only statistically significant variables are listed here (p<.01)


Table 7
Discriminant Function Coefficients of Demographic Variables

                                        Standardized Coefficients               Structure Matrix

Age                                             .612                            .564

Number of hours per week spent                               -.033                              .528
watching public TV

Annual household income                         .597                            .505

Level of formal education                               .217                            .379

Number of people in the household                                    -.101                                   -.273

Number of children ages 2-11                          .088                                   -.233

Number of hours per week spent                              -.033                               .164
reading newspaper

Number of hours per week spent                       .019                               .105
listening to radio              	

Number of hours per week spent                             -.254                                     -.068
watching TV

Number of hours per week using                              .025                                     -.035
the internet



References


Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1992). The value of brand equity. Journal of Business Strategy, 13(4), 
        27-32.
Aaker,D.(Sep.1992). Managing the Most Important Asset: Brand Equity. Planning 
            Review, 20(5), 56-58.
Aaker, D. A., & Biel, A. (Eds.) (1992). Building strong brands. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence 
        Erlbaum Associates.
Albiniak,p.(1997,Oct 27). Commercial, without commercials. Broadcasting & Cable, 
            127(44), 20.
Anantachart S.,Sutherland, J.C. (1998). Developing a measure of consumer brand equity : 
            A new perspective. American Academy of Advertising.
Anaonymous.(1997, August). Commercials on public TV proposal stirs many questions. 
            Fund Raising Management, 28(6), 9. 
Anaonymous.(1998 Nov). Trying to build brand?  Don't have a cow, man! Potentials, 
            31(11),8-11.
Bawer, B. (1995, Mar 27). How cool is PBS? Not very, on the whole. The New Repubic. 
            212(13). 15.
Barton, D.(1998 , Nov2). Customer vs. brand management. Brandweek, 39(41), 32-34.
Belch, G. E. ,& Belch, M. A. (1995). Introduction to advertising and promotion: An 
integrated marketing communications perspective. Chicago, IL: IRWIN.Berry,S.T., 
Biel, A. L. (1992). How brand image drives brand equity. Journal of Advertising 
        Research, 32(6), RC6-RC12.
Blackstone, M. (1990). Price trade-offs as a measure of brand value. Journal of Advertising Research, August/September, 107-11.
Brockington, L.(1997, Nov 10). A double vision at PBS. Mediaweek, 7(42), 5. 
Chan-Olmsted, S.M., and Kim, Y. (1999). Perceptions of branding among television station managers: An exploratory analysis. Unpublished paper.

Davenport, H.(1998,Oct 29). Kids' channels fear competition from BBC.  New Media 
            Markets, 16(39), 8-9.
Farquhar, P. (1989). Managing brand equity. Marketing Research, 1(3), 24-33.
Fuller, J.W., and Ferguson, D.A. (1997). Public television programming, in Eastman S.T. and Ferguson D.A. Broadcast/cable programming: Strategies and practices, 5th ed. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. pp. 220-246. 
Goerne,C.(1992, May 11). Funding losses, competition force PBS to pitch itself as a 
          "Marketing Company". Marketing news, 26(10), 1.
Green,M.Y.(1996,Sep.9). Educating is a tradition at PBS. Broadcasting &Cable, 126(38), 
           24-26.
Jacobson, L.(1999, May 1).A new attack on PBS, National Jouranl, 193.
Kamakura, W. A., & Russell, G. J. (1993). Measuring brand value with
scanner data. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10, 9-22.
Kelly, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Keller, K.L (1993,Jan). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand 
           equity, Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-21  
Keller, K.L., Heckler, S.E., & Houston, M.J. (1998,Jan). The effects of brand name 
           suggestiveness on advertising recall. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 48-57.
McConnell, C.(Aug 10,1998). PBS keeps its head above cable, Broadcasting & Cable, 
           128(33), 20-23.
Mundy,A.(1997, Sep.21).  Public TV's purple haze, Mediaweek, 7(32), 18-22.
Mundy,A.(1997,Sep 1). King world eyes public TV. Mediaweek, 7(32), 6.
Richard, I.,Foster,D. & Morgan,R.(1998,Sep). Brand knowledge management: Growing 
           brand equity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1), 47-54.
Ross,C.(1998, Mar 2). Key PBS stations cut deal with ad rep. Advertising Age, 69(9), 3.
Rutledge, J.(1998,Nov 30). How to protect brand value. Forbes,162(12), 154.
Simons, P.(1997, Oct 9). Sizing up a brand's equity. Marketing Week, 20(28), 38-39.
Schultz,D.E.(1998,Nov 23). Branding the basis for marketing integration, Marketing 
           News, 32(24), 8.
Schlosser,J.(1997,July 28). E is for Entertainment. Broadcasting & Cable, 127(31), 42-
           43.
Schumuckler E.(1999, Feb 1). Up in the air. Mediaweek, 9(5), 5. 
Stanley, T.L.(1996, Sep.2). Comeback for PBS kids series. Mediaweek, 6(36), 25.
Stewart, D.C. (1999). The PBS companion: A history of public television. New York: TV Books.
Tedesco, R.(1998, Feb.16). Barney and his friends. Broadcasting & Cable, 28(7), 44. 
Walfried,L., Banwari, M. & Arun S. Measuring customer-based brand equity.  Journal of 
            Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 11-20.
Wechsler, A.(1998, Oct 19). Making investments a tangible commodity, Brandweek, 
            39(39), 24.
Worrell,K.(1998,May 4). The past is present on History. Broadcasting & Cable, 
            128(19),72-76.
Yovovich, B. G. (August, 1988). What is your brand really worth. Adweek's Marketing
Week, 18-24.

Endnotes
[1]  In the context of this paper, a person will have to contribute a certain minimum amount of money directly to a particular local public television station in exchange of certain membership privileges to be classified as a member of a public television station.
[2]  The public television station is located in the southeastern U.S. The non-members selected were residing in the area served by the particular local public television station at the time of the research.
[3]  In order to be qualified to participate, the person contacted had to watch at least one hour of public TV programming and one hour of cable programming per week. The participants also had to be unaffiliated with any media organizations and had not participated in any focus groups for the last three months.
[4]  A randomly selected household was excluded if it indicated that it contributed to a public television station at the time of the survey to draw the non-member half of the sample.
[5]  The authors have anticipated that the members would be more inclined to participate in the survey than the non-members.
[6]  The degree of satisfaction on a 1-5 scale with 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest was measured on the audience satisfaction of children's programming, dramas and comedies, documentaries, arts and music programming, and science and nature programming on public television. The same scale was used to measure the overall satisfaction with the comparable cable networks.
[7]  The educational function of public television was specifically discussed since it is historically the main mission of public television.
[8]   To a lesser degree in statistical significance (p<.05), the members perceived PBS to be more intelligent (F = 4.313, p = .039) and more informative (F = 4.126, p = .044) than the non-members.
[9]  To a lesser degree in statistical significance (p<.05), "number of hours spent watching television per week" was related to "enlightening" (r = .174, p = .015), "variety" (r = .164, p = .022), "quality" (r = .177, p = .016), and "responsible" (r = .180, p = .014); "number of children ages 2 to 11 in the household" was related to "informative" (r = .153, p = .040); and "income" to "intelligent" (r = .171, p = .027).