Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XXX, Public Diplomacy

115. Research Report Prepared in the Office of Research, Office of Planning and Program Direction, United States Information Agency¹

S–13–77

Washington, December 15, 1977

[Omitted here are the title page and the Table of Contents.]

THE AGENCY AND ITS AUDIENCES IN THE INTERNATIONAL MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS

A. The Assignment

On November 23, 1977, the Deputy Director asked the Associate Director for Planning and Program Direction for an analysis, by December 15, “of our known audiences—area by area—for magazines, films, broadcasting, speakers, etc.”² More specifically, he asked: “What is known of their capacity to handle ideas? Interest in ideas? Comments—pro and con—on the quality of our products by audience members or recipients?” And he invited the judgment of the research staff—clearly labeled and distinct from the analysis—“as to whether we are overestimating or underestimating the intellectual capacities and interests of our principal interlocutors.”

This response to his request is in two parts. The first sums up what can be said by drawing together the results of studies irrespective of area or media lines, and concludes with judgments of the research staff concerning ways in which the Agency may not be properly estimating the capacities and interests of its audiences. The second consists of a series of appendices giving more detailed analyses, medium by medium, with special papers on certain geographic areas where carrying out traditional Agency programs is not possible.

Where comparisons by geographic area are possible (they are not always), we have more often included them in the detailed appendices. We omit information on the caliber of Agency speakers and its lecture and seminar programs for lack of systematic studies in this field.

B. Overview

Over recent years audience measurements for various Agency products confirm the clearly high intellectual capabilities of the Agency’s audiences and their high interest in ideas in most of the thematic areas covered by the Agency’s programming. Over most of the range of its media products, the Agency is doing a very good job in providing materials which meet these audiences at their intellectual level. Its record seems particularly good in the magazine field, and there is little sign of disaffection or dissatisfaction among radio listeners. The Agency-produced films of several years ago had a more variable record of communicating ideas to audiences at their levels. USIS centers and libraries, based on a limited number of studies, seem to attract Agency audience groups only selectively, but to be generally accepted by those attracted.

Nevertheless, within this general very good record of meeting audience levels of intellect and interest, there were also indications of some areas where improvement would be possible, through such measures as: establishing a better balance among thematic areas in Agency products; heightening their relevance to national development or other national priority needs of audiences; introducing (in films, for example) a greater degree of clarity of theme or purpose and a depth of treatment consistent with audience expectations; and seeking to counter, in VOA programming, a certain sense of institutional stodginess and introduce a greater sense of intellectual involvement with issues and events throughout its services. In addition, their intellect and interests suggest that a substantial proportion of the potential priority audience not now being reached through USIS Center programs might be reached through more active programming away from Center sites and in milieux to which persons of this type are more accustomed.

C. The intellectual level of Agency audiences

The Office of Research has not conducted a psychological testing program to measure the degree of sophistication and the ability to handle ideas among our audiences. Nevertheless we have established measurements of a sufficient number of related qualities in our audiences to permit us to draw inferences about aggregate levels of intellectual capability.

Some years ago on the basis of cumulative studies up till that time, the Office of Research posited the existence of an “international informational elite,” an element of varying but generally small proportion within each country which appeared to share intellectual and educational characteristics and interests transcending cultural and national boundaries. This elite, with similarities of educational background and experience, was manifest not only through its interest in information from abroad but also through its higher level of exposure to local media and opinion within the country.

The subsequent research in IOR in more recent years has tended to confirm the existence of such an elite. Although we have not attempted to measure directly the existence of an intellectual capacity for handling ideas, the characteristics from which we might infer such a capability, such as level of education, degree of exposure to the West through study or travel, or the attainment of a senior level in one’s chosen occupation, all seem to bear out the proposition that USIA audiences do represent an exceptionally high level of such capability.

Our best evidence of the caliber of Agency audiences is drawn from our studies of Agency magazines, whose readers for the most part come from post priority audiences.

On the average, 88 per cent of the readers of the magazines studied had at least some college education, and 42 per cent had studied at the post-graduate level. While the coverage in some geographic areas is not sufficiently representative to permit valid comparisons between areas, the consistency of results is significant. About one in four readers had studied in the United States, and at least half had visited the U.S. at one time or another. About half the readers were at the upper level of their occupational fields, although this fact is not necessarily related to intellectual capacity.

The serious reading interests of most Agency magazine audiences also appear to reflect a generally high intellectual capability. The survey evidence suggests that our audiences are interested in a serious discussion of international political and economic affairs and turn to Agency publications in order to keep abreast of political events outside their countries or regions.

Even the Agency’s self-selected audiences, when they can be sufficiently measured, particularly those for VOA, prove to contain a substantial proportion who are of higher than average educational level and, presumably, intellectual capacity.

More than half the listeners worldwide have at least some secondary education, and, among this group, about one fifth have experienced university-level or higher training. These proportions among VOA’s audience are considerably greater than for those corresponding levels of education among the populations at large in most countries studied.

Nevertheless, there are differences in this respect from one audience to another. An audience of specialists in a given field, as our study of Economic Portfolio shows, is much better able to deal with complex ideas in that field than a more general audience. Beyond this to-be-expected difference, however, other factors enter to produce differences, not so much from one geographic area to another as between one level of development and another. Audiences in less developed countries tend to find the quality of Agency publications somewhat higher and to find the ideas they present somewhat more stimulating and important than their counterparts in developed countries, though both give good marks.

Associated with level of national development, there is a similar contrast in the character of audiences in media-rich and open societies compared with those from media-poor or closed societies. The average educational level of VOA listeners in Africa, the USSR, and the Middle East is likely to be considerably higher than the national average; in Western Europe, Latin America, and Japan, on the other hand, the average educational level of VOA listeners is likely to be closer to the national average. We feel that these findings are related to the quality of the prevailing media environment, especially in Western Europe, where VOA competes for a potential audience with a large number of highly developed electronic media outlets often conveying highly sophisticated content. Moreover, listeners in media-poor societies (in some of which the media are also state-controlled) often report tuning to VOA for information not available in the local media. Soviet listeners to VOA are also thought to need a greater depth of background information on items carried by the Voice, not because of a lower intellectual capacity but for lack of access to sufficient information through other channels.

Language is also a factor associated with educational level in differentiating among audiences in intellectual capacities. Those who listen to VOA in English, although fewer in number, tend to be more sophisticated than those who listen in their vernacular language.

But the burden of the data we have indicates that despite these differences from one category to another, on most counts the Agency audiences are on the average far above the general population in those characteristics which would indicate a higher intellectual capacity.

D. Audience interests in ideas

The fact that these audiences participate in USIS programs, the purpose of which is primarily to communicate ideas, is itself an indication of interest in ideas. Their record of attendance or of acceptance of Agency products shows an interest in the thematic areas the Agency has selected for its program. Their interest varies, however, from one thematic area to another within those areas the Agency has selected for programming. Among magazine readers, for example, almost invariably, relatively few show much interest in subjects relating to American art and culture. Here again, there is a difference between less developed and developed countries. Audiences in the LDCs tend to show greatest interest in science and technology, and economics, and relatively little in U.S. political and social processes. On the other hand, audiences in developed countries show predominant interest in international political and security affairs and U.S. politics and society, and less interest in science and technology.

Audiences differ not only in thematic interests. Our study of the relevance of American experience to Kenyan audiences indicated that interest in ideas among Agency audiences is often geared to their perception of national priorities and concerns for their country. Irrespective of their particular occupational or disciplinary specializations, Kenyan elite audiences shared an interest in information from other countries in those areas perceived to have a bearing on internal economic and social development.

On the whole, however, USIA audiences seem characterized more by a common interest in world affairs and in their own regional affairs. A very high proportion of VOA listeners give listening to the news as their strongest reason for listening to radio. More often than among the general population, VOA listeners also regularly read a daily newspaper, including its editorial page, and tend to follow international affairs in news magazines.

E. Audience reactions to the intellectual level of Agency products and programs

On the whole, Agency products seem to be pitched at the right level for the sophistication of Agency audiences. This conclusion is most extensively demonstrated in the studies done of Agency magazines. For only one magazine (Trends) have readers been specifically asked whether they believe it should be at a higher or a lower level of sophistication or is about right. For others, readers have been asked other questions related to intellectual level. Most find the level about right. Agency magazines also rate pretty much on a par with comparable commercial magazines. As a specialized publication for a specialized audience, Economic Portfolio does especially well in satisfying its audience.

Audience comments on the quality of Agency publications do vary somewhat according to the locus of the reader. For example, data on some relevant opinions about the intellectual level of Horizons indicate that Europeans are more likely to score the magazine lower than readers in the LDCs. The opposite is true of Dialogue. On the other hand, the Agency regional magazines, like al-Majal³ and Topic,⁴ could be regarded as competitive with similar magazines available to the readers on such criteria as being serious or “thought provoking.” Economic Impact was rated highly even in West Germany and Japan for providing “sophisticated discussion of economic subjects,” although the rating on that score was somewhat better in Colombia.

There is also ample evidence that VOA strikes a satisfactory level for most of its audience—though this may be a case of circular demonstration, since unsatisfied listeners would tend to tune out. Nevertheless, the high credibility VOA enjoys where tested, the high acceptance its programs have among listeners indicates that it is matching pretty well their intellectual standards. One must add, of course, that the VOA audience apparently covers a fairly broad range of intellectual types, from those with no schooling up to those with postgraduate degrees, and the reaction of the most sophisticated elements of its audience might well differ from that of the listernership in general.

One factor that appears to serve as an index of the intellectual capacity of the VOA audience is regular listenership to VOA news and analysis. A mail survey of known VOA listeners in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America showed that 50 to 60 per cent of those who responded listen to the entire VOA news program, which lasts about 30 minutes and includes 15–20 minutes of backgrounders, opinion roundups, and commentary. Fragmentary data—from field surveys—suggest that 5 to 15 per cent of the regular audience listen to VOA broadcast primarily to hear news analysis and commentary. These figures appear to confirm that although others also listen to these programs, a small segment of VOA listeners is particularly engaged by the ideas they present.

In the films and television domain, the evidence of acceptable sophistication is less strong, at least for Agency films dating from the 1974–75 period. Although audiences gave these films generally favorable ratings, some were clearly much less satisfactory than others in engaging the intellectual level of the audience—sometimes because they dealt with more difficult social problem themes rather than the more widely appreciated, less problematic, science and technology subjects.

USIS Centers and Libraries also received generally favorable ratings from the audiences they attracted (here again the circularity of the appraisal of self-selecting audiences is a factor). There is some indication that USIS priority audiences, while holding a favorable image of the centers, tended to feel that the local center was primarily for younger people and language students. Nevertheless, the available data on the program preferences of actual or potential patrons of our libraries and centers indicate considerable interest in ideas. For example, lectures, panel discussions and seminars held the greatest appeal for non-student visitors to libraries in Beirut and Tehran; in Brazil and francophone Africa, respondents (including non-patrons) also expressed great interest in lectures and seminars in their fields of interest.

Fragmentary evidence suggests that within the total audience universe, those who are reached by centers—a minority of the total—may not differ all that strongly from those who do not attend and are not reached. Where programming is principally in English, those with good English facility tend to be more prominent among those attending the center. Attending audience members also seem more accustomed than non-attendees to visiting foreign centers in general (American or other), perhaps because of having visited or studied abroad. But attendees and non-attendees alike seem to share many of the same interests—including interests in attending lectures in their professional fields, and sometimes in non-professional subjects as well. Those not reached, in other words, would seem in many ways equally susceptible to being involved in USIS programming.

F. Research staff assessment: Areas for improvement in Agency products and programs

Part of our assignment is to assess whether the Agency is over- or underestimating the level and interests of its audiences. The record we have indicates the Agency is doing well on the whole. Within the overall generally favorable picture of a good match between USIA products and USIA audiences, however, we believe there are a number of areas where improvements should be possible.

Frequently discussed by the Office of Research in the past has been the need for a shift in the balance of coverage given different thematic areas, cutting down on attention to cultural subjects and emphasizing more the political and economic themes. It will be some time before our research findings can reflect the results from any changes currently under way in this area in Agency planning and program direction.

Equally important, at least in the less developed countries, is the need for the Agency to assure the relevance of its products to the national concerns and priorities of these countries, not by adopting the rhetoric of the Third World, but by presenting American experience, where appropriate, in the light of its significance for dealing with problems of development, and the efforts in management, planning, training and education that accompany this process.

The lesson of the film-testing experience indicates the need for having clearly in mind and communicating to audiences a definite purpose for a film production, while conveying the importance of the subject and offering an adequate depth of treatment about it. Particularly useful as a device for accomplishing this purpose seems to be the technique of presentation in the form of problem and solution.

The danger of underestimating the intellectual level and interests of the audiences, which characterized film production earlier, seems to us to remain strong in the area of center programs. There, so much effort seems to go into the presentation of cultural programs involving the audience only passively while not stressing programming devoted to the exchange of ideas on key international political and economic issues. The similarity of interests between audiences who attend and do not attend center programs suggests that USIS posts might do better to program more in vernacular languages and away from centers, within the academic, professional or trade association settings where the non-attending elites are apparently more accustomed to look for involvement with ideas.

A particular challenge to VOA, we feel, is the need to counter the impression (which comes up in some of our discussion panels) of being stodgy or rigid in the presentations of news and news analysis. Listener panelists sometimes commend other stations for an evocative kind of treatment, for being particularly adept at engaging their interests and seeming spontaneous.

On the whole, Agency audiences, we feel, are not looking for flashy or glossy products. Films and magazines generally get good marks for technical excellence, and majorities of our magazine readers are not in favor of greater use of illustrations or more extreme forms of layout. Rather, we get the impression that they look for importance in content. Perhaps the basic question, then, is whether the Agency is doing enough in its output to excite and stimulate the thinking of intellectually active people.

[Omitted here are the appendices: “Publications Recipients;” “VOA Broadcast Audiences;” “Film/TV Audiences;” “Center and Library Audiences;” “Audiences in the Soviet Union;” Audiences in Eastern Europe; and “Audiences in the People’s Republic of China.”]

1. Source: National Archives, RG 306, Office of Research, Special Reports, 1953–1997, Entry P–160, Box 37, S–13–77. No classification marking. Engle sent a copy of the memorandum to Bray through Alan Carter under a December 19 covering action memorandum, in which he noted: “It will be apparent from our paper that we have had difficulty making a bridge from the observable things research has measured (demographics, attitudes, and behavior of audiences) to the intangible qualities of intellectual capacity, curiosity, and play of ideas which we were asked to address. I do not feel we have fully succeeded, but this product represents our best effort in the time available. I hope it is useful.” (Ibid.)
2. See Document 106.
3. Published monthly in Arabic for distribution in North Africa and the Middle East.
4. Published bi-monthly in French and English for distribution in sub-Saharan Africa.