by Judith LeRoy and David LeRoy
infop@cket 26, January 1996
Everyone agrees that pitching is easier with a face in mind-but who's the face? We have assumptions and anecdotes but very limited knowledge about the characteristics of viewers attracted by our pledge programs. And though we have theories and expectations, we haven't much hard data about who pledges for programs either.
We lack viewing data because we have very limited opportunities to examine demographic composition of audiences during pledge periods. Most pledge periods fall outside the Nielsen sweep periods, and these are the only times we can examine demographics of any TV audience.>/p>
We lack demographic data about pledgers because:
- stations worry that they might alienate pledgers by asking demographic questions, and/or
- development directors don't want to "waste" time asking questions during a pledge break.
But very recently, some enterprising stations have begun gathering demographic data from pledgers-a very revealing experience for all concerned. And Media TRAC's pledge hard and software is now successfully gathering pledger demographics in test markets. Soon, we will have access to a stream of "pledger" information that we lacked in the past.
Given access to the pledger data, the burning question is: how does the group who gives compare to the group who watches? We know from many years of research that audience profiles for programs vary widely. The NOVA audience is very different from Masterpiece Theatre's. Do the pledge profiles also vary? Are the people who give representative of the viewing pool? Are our pitches, premiums and talent eliciting pledges from some segments of the audience better than others?
As we become better at recognizing who to target while creating, scheduling and pledging specific programs, we can craft, manipulate and test pitches for these specific audiences. As we learn more about viewing and pledging audiences, practical applications of this knowledge will help us gain optimal results in our pledge drives.
Who's Watching; Who's Viewing
The study reported on here is a joint venture between TRAC Media Service's Pledge TRAC and PBS Development Services. This study gathered new data that help answer the perennial question: Who watches; who views?
We selected four programs to examine in March 1995. The programs were John Tesh, Remember When, Over America, and Nova-programs that were expected to bring different audiences and a range of ratings. We asked stations to collect demographic data-six stations for each program. KERA, KQED, KOPB, KRMA, KTCA, WCET, WETA, WEDU, WGBY, WHYY, WPBT and WTVS contributed time and considerable effort to this study.
To get audience composition from the programs, we bought Nielsen metered data for the stations that gathered pledge demographics. Then we compared the audience demographics with the pledge demographics. What did we find?
We found a number of things that challenged old "pledge myths."
Myth 1: People within the 50-64 year age bracket-affluent elders with disposable income are strong pledge candidates.
Not in this study!! Households headed by 50-64 year olds have undeniable potential, but they didn't perform well on the programs we examined. Although the 50-64 year olds showed very high viewership levels for all four programs tested, they pledged at a much lower rate than any other age group. The four program average put 50-64 homes at 34 percent of the audience, but only 26 percent of the pledges. Their giving rate is abysmal, given that their average rating among the programs was an impressive 4!
Age Distributions:
Why they underperformed is a disturbing question. Most of these folks are still employed -many of them are at the height of their earning power. They are often business leaders; people accustomed to directing and managing others.
Psychological profiles indicate they pride themselves on rationale, logical decisions and that they are unlikely to respond to baby-boomer "What's in it for me" pitches or the "guilt" pitches that sometimes work for 65+ viewers. The dilemma: how can we balance the rational request for support and institutional appeals with the emotion-the trigger-necessary to evoke a phone call from these folks?
The fact that people within this demographic viewed at such high levels but didn't give is perturbing. One thing is certain, pledge programming and/or pitches didn't push the right buttons for the 50-65 year olds in the programs and markets we studied. The situation needs more contemplation and study... maybe a 50-64 pledge initiative? They view; let's get them to give...
Another pervasive myth was challenged by our data:
Myth 2: Viewers with children aren't as likely to pledge as older, two-person household viewers.
Wrong. People with children did give at very high rates when they viewed. Across the four programs we examined, households with children under 12 comprised 18 percent of the audience. They gave twenty-eight percent of the pledges! This is not surprising in view of data recently gathered (The Tampa Study) in which eighty-five percent of the kiddy-viewing households viewed in other dayparts as well. This high frequency of viewing among households with children should make them excellent candidates for pledge appeals.
Since these people are prime candidates for giving, we should benefit from pledge programming that attracts them. Some recent pledge specials thattracted households with children are Yanni and The Eagles. Regular offerings with appeal to these households (besides children's fare) are how-tos such as New Yankee, Frugal Gourmet and Hometime and science and nature/travel programs like NOVA, Scientific American, and Nature.
Myth 3: Cable homes, with all their viewing choices, aren't good candidates for public TV pledge appeals.
Not so. Cable homes, especially basic cable homes, pledge. Basic cable homes constituted 28 percent of the audience and 38 percent of the pledges! Pay cables made up 18 percent of the audience and gave at exactly that rate. Non-cable households comprised 37 percent of the population, did 55 percent of the viewing but underperformed in giving-44 percent of the pledges.
Despite the fact that cable households have lots of choices and spend less time with any one of them-including public TV-they support us. We can assume that this financial support is a vote of confidence for public TV's programming and goals. Of course, it doesn't hurt that cable households are generally upscale and have the means and inclination to pledge.... Still, these results suggest that our pitches concerning viewing choices, public TV'suniqueness and quality television are not falling on deaf ears. These people care about viewing choices and public TV is obviously a choice they want available to them.
We also found some theories supported by our research:
1. Education and income are the best predictors for pledging.
Absolutely. In all previous research and in this study, the fact is indisputable. Homes headed by a college graduate comprised 43 percent of the viewers and 60 percent of the pledgers. They watch; they give. Homes with incomes of $60,000 or more were 22 percent of the viewing audience and 43 percent of the pledges. These relationships held for every program. No surprises here.
2. Minorities view and pledge at lower rates.
True for these programs. These homes are often headed by individuals with less education and lower incomes. Thus, the finding of lower viewing and giving rates should surprise no one. Minority households comprised 12 percent of the viewers and only 9 percent of the pledgers. In total, they comprised 19 percent of the population studied-they were obviously underrepresented in the audience as well as in the pledge totals. The only program in this study where minority audiences showed a spark of interest was Tesh. Perhaps it isn't surprising that music would be the genre that crosses ethnic boundaries and stimulates viewing and giving. However, none of these programs were particularly targeted to minorities, so the findings are not necessarily conclusive of any pledge situation.
3. Two person households are good prospects for pledge.
Yes. Two person homes made up 33 percent of the population, 35 percent of the audience, and 44 percent of the pledgers across the four programs. Why? Perhaps the answer is a combination of 1) relatively high level of disposable income; 2) prime time and pledge programming well-targeted to the demographics that correspond to two person households- older, retired with more TV viewing time; 3) high basic cable penetration rates; and 4) premiums and pitches better aimed at this familiar target. No question about it; we have more experience programming for this group and more expertise asking for money from them. Maybe that's part of the reason why we're more successful getting pledges from them.
So much for myths and truisms. Another part of the study sought to discover viewing and pledging differences among the four programs. Programs are different, aren't they?
1. John Tesh: Live at Red Rocks
This program got a 2.5 rating. It had a pledge response rate of .57 percent-which was slightly above the average for the four programs tested -- the average was .53 percent. (The response rate is achieved by dividing the number of pledgers by the number of viewing households.) The people who pledged and the people who viewed were quite at odds, though. The typical viewer was over the age of 50 (73 percent of the viewing was done by the over-fifty); but the 23 percent of the audience under the age of fifty were the real pledgers, marshalling 50 percent of the total pledges despite a paucity in viewing numbers. Next time around, we must focus our pitches and premiums at that larger segment of the audience over the age of 50. They pledged for Yanni in later plays, they'll give for Tesh, too.
John Tesh presented the strongest gender pledge skew of any of the four programs. The females overresponded to pledge -- accounting for 55 percent of the viewing but 64 percent of the pledges.
2. Over America
Contrary to the Tesh results, Over America's pledge demographics were very similar to the viewing demos. The primary audience here was older with many retired, two person households and those are the characteristic of the households responding to the pledge appeals. So it appears our pitches, premiums, talent and strategie did what they were supposed to-elicited pledges from the folks who viewed.
3. Remember When
This program gathered a rather low pledge response rate-a .48 percent. The problem appears to be one of demographics in the audience attracted. The audience was the least educated of the four programs in the study. Homes where the head of the household had a college degree amounted to only 37 percent of the viewing audience, compared to a four program average of 43 percent.
College education is a very important variable in giving: for the four programs, 73 percent of the pledgers had college degrees. When a program's audience is comprised of folks with less education, the pledge results suffer. That's exactly what happened here.
Another problem with this program is that the demographic that gave the most-65 plus individuals-were the smallest component of the audience. They were only 23 percent of the audience but pledged 42 percent of the pledges. We needed more 65 plussers in the audience or needed to find a better way to pitch the 18-49 or 50-64 year olds that viewed the program.
This program just didn't target and attract compatible audiences. That doesn't mean that this "nostalgia" genre is inappropriate for pledge. It is. It's just that this particular one wasn't quite up to the chore.
4. NOVA
NOVA had the lowest ratings and also the lowest pledge response rate of the four programs - a .33 percent. NOVA was the least successful pledge program of the four.
NOVA's response rate was suppressed for every demographic group; all of them underperformed. This wasn't true of any other program. Each of the others-even though it might not be particularly successful overall-had "pockets" of interest: demographic groups that pledged in higher proportion than they viewed. NOVA underperformed in all of them.
The NOVA pledge problem isn't unusual among public TV series. Broad skewing programs that aren't constructed as pledge programs frequently manifest "target" problems-this is the case in highly rated nature programs that underperform at pledging. This problem needs solution at the program inception and editing phases, to provide programs that attract, but also provide pledge incentive to the viewing audience.
What's Next?
More research on the 50-64 year olds; study of the pitches and premiums that elicit pledges from audiences with differing demographics; research on targeting different segments within broad audiences... there's a lot to be learned about pledge. And every bit of knowledge that gives us more information about pledgers and the relationship between viewing and pledging will help us make more of those viewers into pledgers. That's a guaranteed way of improving the health of our enterprise and ensuring that we survive coming pledge drives with style and grace.
Dr. Judith LeRoy and Dr. David LeRoy are co-directors of TRAC Media Services in Tucson, Arizona.
CPB funded this report. Opinions expressed are the authors' and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and policies of the Corporation.
