This article was downloaded by: [Purdue University]

On: 13 March 2015, At: 02:52

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Advertising
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujoa20

Evaluating the Audiences of the New Media

Dean M. Krugman
Published online: 29 May 2013.

To cite this article: Dean M. Krugman (1985) Evaluating the Audiences of the New Media, Journal of Advertising, 14:4, 21-27,
DOI: 10.1080/00913367.1985.10672967

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1985.10672967

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 EVALUATING THE AUDIENCES OF THE NEW MEDIA
Dean M. Krueman
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 02:52 13 March 2015
Dean M. Krugman is Director of Graduate Studies and an
Aaaociate Professor at the School of Journalism and Mus
Communication, University of Georgia. Prior to that, he waa an
Aaaociate Professor at Michigan State University. He received
his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois, Institute of Com-
munication Research. His research is focused in Advertising
Management and New Communication Technologies. He haa
published articles in Journal of AdlJert;'ing Re.earch, Journal
of Advert;'ing, Journal of Broadcasting, Journal;'m Quarterly,
and several other journals.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this article is to help advertising planners
evaluate audiences aa they relate to cable television and new
technologies. Fundamental usumptiona made about television
audiences and advertisers are examined with regard to new
services. The article reviews and organizes the recent empiri-
cal studies concerning the audiences of new technologies.
It presents a model which analyzes audience similarities and
differences between new and conventional media. Also con-
sidered are directions for planning, research and the immediate
future of cable advertising.
Received October 26, 1984. RelJ;'ion accepted for publication
June 19, 1985.
INTRODUCTION
Cable television advertising expenditures have
grown from $58 million in 1980 to a projected
$621 million in 1985 (24). Most of the top 200
brands are currently using some form of cable.
Approximately 85 percent of the expenditures are
in cable network revenues while the rest are in
national/local spots.
While cable advertising is growing, the medium
still remains an enigma to advertising planners. In
part, this is due to changes in audiences brought on
by a number of new television-related technologies.
<6>JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, Vol. 14, No.4, 1985
An individual with even a passing interest in broad-
cast technology, cable systems and VCR units is
quickly inundated with mformation relating to
industry growth and future predictions.
Prior to 1978, most of the research articles on
cable and technology were related to policy and
regulations. Researchers then began to take an
interest in the viewing behavior associated with such
services. Articles on the nature of audiences began
appearing with regularity around 1978 (13). The
Journal of Advertising Research and the Journal of
Broadcasting devoted special issues to cable and
technology in 1983.
While there is a growing body of empirical study
concerning the nature of the audience, there is too
little synthesis of this information. Many of the
empirical studies tend to use traditional trade press
sources and conventional wisdom as the majority
of literature review and reference citations. While
trade information is useful, it does not typically
concern itself with a coherent body of literature.
Its traditional focus is "how to" orientated.
Researchers are acutely aware that changes in
technology influence the current viewing environ-
ment. Statements such as "new technologies will
alter family life" (10) are quite common. However,
researchers also recognize that they are studying a
dynamic phenomenon.
Some have argued that it is impossible to formu-
late research on television technologies and audiences
because the nature of the medium is changing so
rapidly (28). Subscription Television (STV), where
over-the-air broadcast programs are distributed on
a fee basis, Multi-point Distribution Service (MDS),
a common carrier microwave service that can be used
to distribute pay services to multi-unit structures,
and Direct Broadcast Satellites (DBS), that can link
satellite services directly to the homes, are all in a
state of flux in terms of available products and
audiences. These services have the ability to influence
existing cable services which, although more mature,
are still developing programming and audiences.
This industry dynamism makes it difficult for media
planners and researchers. We constantly are labeling
marketing plans in the new media as "experimental."
Previous articles have not provided a logical model
to understand new media and their audiences. While
cable television services and technology are changing,
there is enough evidence to assess and from which
to learn. Initially, this paper will review the current
articles on new media audiences. It will then provide
a model that examines the differences and similari-
ties in the way audiences relate to conventional
21
 television and the new media. This model gives
planners a better understanding of how to consider
and utilize these new media.
AUDIENCES IN A MULTI·CHANNEL
VIEWING ENVIRONMENT
As we move to a multi-channel environment where
individuals have increased viewing options, it is im-
portant to examine the assumptions about television
viewing. This process will help to focus on areas
needing further investigation, particularly with
regard to the way television is consumed.
Viewing Trends
Viewing has not remained stable over the last
few years. Network prime time shares have dropped
precipitously. They have moved from a combined
91 percent for the three networks in 1976 to 74
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 02:52 13 March 2015
percent in 1983. The decline has been steady, and
others are predicting a movement to 65 percent (32).
As patterns change, we need to have a firmer
understanding of the nature of television viewing.
Part of the decline in network viewing is explained
by cable television penetration, which has grown
from 16 percent in 1976 to 48 percent in 1983.
Viewing options have multiplied, while the number of
individuals using cable has increased. Basic cable
homes can receive a myriad of cable network signals,
local cable and distant independent signals, while
pay cable homes (for an extra fee) receive additional
special variety shows and feature-length movies.
This influx of signals has redistributed viewing
patterns and fragmented audiences (26, 31).
Consumption Differences
It is helpful to identify if television consumption
within homes remains the .same for those individuals
who purchase varying levels of cable services and
new technologies. Three question areas arise:
1) Do the viewers change? Do viewers of cable
television services differ in their demographic
and psychographic make-up?
2) Does viewing change? As individuals purchase
more cable services, does the viewing process
change?
3) Technology ownership. Does ownership of
other technologies play a role in this
consumption?
On the .surface audiences are de facto different.
They form in groups that are traditional television
nonsubscribers, basic cable television subscribers,
and pay-cable television subscribers. They represent
three distinctly varied segments.
22
Figure 1 summarizes the way each group ap-
proaches television. It reflects demographics, viewing
patterns and attitudes toward (and use of) new
technologies for each group. The column on the
left indicates the area of study; the middle columns
indicate the groups. Generalizations reflect studies
that have compared the groups when cable was
available. Cable passes 69 percent of the U.S. homes
with an adoption rate of 60 percent (42% of U.S.
television homes).
Nonsubscribers
Nonsubscribers tend to be older, and to have fewer
children and lower family incomes (31). "Television
is television," and marginal increase in satisfaction
is not enough to warrant purchasing a cable service
(1). They are generally satisfied with television in
its current form (2). Nonsubscribers do not want
to pay for the additional services or are simply not
interested in extra programming (3). They are more
reliant on local media (31). Use of radio, newspapers
and local television is greater for this group (15).
They are less venturesome in the use of other tech-
nologies such as home computers and VCR units
(8,27).
Basic Cable Subscribers
Basic cable subscribers represent 42 percent of
the U.S. television homes. They tend to be a mid-
point between noncable and pay-cable subscribers.
Compared to nonsubscribers, they have younger
household heads, more people, are more affluent
and view more television. They want additional
programming variety (3, 23) and are not as satisfied
with traditional television (2). To a lesser extent, they
purchase cable to obtain better reception and also
to have the opportunity to purchase a pay service
(16). They watch less local television than nonsub-
scribers (31).
These same individuals read fewer newspapers and
go to the movies less often (15). They have a pattern
of viewing late night programming, do more enter-
taining and spend an increased amount of time with
the family. However, they read less, listen to the
radio less and have fewer hobbies than nonsubscribers.
They are more technically oriented (26) and exhibit
a greater willingness to use new technologies (8).
Pay Cable Subscribers
Pay cable currently penetrates 60 percent of all
cable homes (25% of U.S. television homes). They
have younger household heads, more people in the
home, are more affluent and watch slightly more
television than basic cable subscribers (1, 16, 27,
31). They watch less local television than basic
 FIGURE 1
TRADITIONAL, CABLE, PAY CABLE AUDIENCE STUDIES

Nonsubscribers/Traditional TV Basic Cable Pay Cable

58% U.S. Homes 42% U.S. Homes 25% U.S. Homes Studies Conducted *
Demographic
Household Heads Older Younger Youngest Webster 1983; Krugman & Eckrich 1982
Household Income Less Affluent More Affluent Most Affluent Banks & Gagnard 1984; Baldwin & McVoy 1983
Household Size Fewer Individuals More Individuals Most Individuals

General Television Viewing

Local Viewing More local viewing Less local viewing Less Local viewing Webster 1983
Amount of Viewing by Household Less viewing More viewing More Viewing Becker, Dunwoody, Rafaeli 1983
Amount of Viewing by Individual Less viewing More viewing Only slightly more viewing Krugman & Eckrich 1982; Webster 1983
than basic su bscriber

Perception of Television
Television as Entertainment
Television Content
Television is television
Television is ok as is
Television as important
source of entertainment
Seek more variety; not as
satisfied with traditional
television
Television a very important
source of entertainment
Seek qualitatively different
programming
Krugman and Eckrich 1982
Ducey, Krugman, Eckrich 1983; Baldwin &
McVoy 1983; Banks & Gagnard 1984;
Metzger 1978; Becker, Dunwoody,
Rafaeli 1983

Media Use
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 02:52 13 March 2015

Radio News Use radio more for news and weather Use radio less No study conducted Kaplan 1978; Becker 1983
Newspapers Heavier local paper reading Less local reading No study conducted Kaplan 1978; Roth, Harvey, Michael 1983
Local TV News Watch more local news Watch less local news No study conducted Webster 1983; Hill & Dyer 1981
Movies Attend more movies Attend fewer movies Attend fewer movies Kaplan 1978; Roth, Harvey, Michael 1983
Radio Listen to more radio Listen to less radio Listen to less radio Roth, Harvey, Michael 1983

Ownership & A ttitudes Toward Technology

Openness to new ideas
Venturesome toward products
Ownership/Computers
Desire VCR
Desire Home Computers
Less open" Slightly more open More open Krugman & Eckricb 1982
Less venturesome Slightly more venturesome More venturesome Danko & MacLachlan 1983
Lower adoption rate home computers Higher adoption Higher adoption Dickerson & Gentry 1983
Low intention to purchase Medium intention High intention Roth, Harvey, Michael 1983
Low intention to purchase Medium intention High intention Roth, Harvey, Michael 1983

.The works cited apply to one, two, or all of the groups for the attribute in the left-hand column. This is specified in the discussion.

cable subscribers (31) and tend to be newer to the VCR and Home Computer Users
community (11).
Pay cable users are different in the way they ap- Research concerning cable use has included aspects
proach television. They seek qualitatively varied of video cassette recorders (VCRs) and home compu-
programming, such as special. movies. While both ters. They are related under the concept of technol-
cable and pay cable subscribers, watch the same ogy consumption. Three studies (8, 16, 27) correlate
amount of television (on an individual basis not cable ownership with the use of other forms of tech-
household basis), pay cable subscribers rate televi- nology, including video cassette recorders and per-
sion as a more important source of entertainment sonal computers.
(16). They do not appear to be escaping traditional Computers are currently in use in seven percent of
television; rather, they are trying to enhance the value U.S. homes (8). Home computer users are upscale in
of television. These same individuals tend to be more income, occupation and education (8, 30). They are
open to various forms of advertising and new pro- venturesome in their use of new products (30), and
ducts (16) and display both more intention to pur- are significantly more apt to use cable, pay cable
chase and actually purchase more new services and and VCRs (8, 27).
technologies (7, 8). While ten percent of U.S. homes currently have
An interesting issue is the increase in television VCR units, indications are that this figure will rise
viewing as households move from nonsubscription, to 50 percent by 1990 (29). VCR use is also heavily
through basic cable subscription, to pay cable sub- correlated with the use of cable (8, 15) and other new
scription. Household measurement techniques note technologies (8, 27).
a significant viewing increase; however, there are Levy conducted studies on the use and implemen-
more people in the latter two groups. Much of the tation of VCRs. Early adopters of the technology
viewing increase is explained by having more indivi- noted that it was utilized to complement over-the-
duals in the home. This is particularly true for pay air programming (21). A second study indicated
cable subscribers (16, 31). the primary function of VCRs is to "time-shift"

23
 FIGURE 2
A CONTINUUM OF NEW TELECOMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY OFFERINGS AND CONSUMPTION

Standard Consumption Continuous Consumption Dynamically Continuous Consumption Discontinuous Consumption

Least Disruptive Influence More Disruptive Influence New Pattern of Consumption

Over-the-Air Television
Traditional Broadcast fare.
Standard TV Literature Applies.

Basic Cable Subscription

Monthly fee for clarification of existing and bring in distant
over-the-air signals. Redistribution of signals. Specialized
programming networks and information. Viewer relationship
with televison has more opportunity to change. Homes view
more television. Assumptions about programming and
advertising may need to change under certain conditions.

Pay Cable Programming I

Offering movies and special programming for a premium price. Includes R-rated programs, movies and special attractions.
Information content is varied. Consumption altered to a noncommercial format. Audiences no longer view TV per se.
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 02:52 13 March 2015

May require different viewing rules. Television literature on programming and advertising probably not as applicable.

Interactive Services - VCR, Home Computers, Computer Games, Home Shopping

Television set or monitor becomes a central unit performing other functions.
TV literature not applicable.

programming, thus enabling individuals to have more
control over scheduling (22).
DEVELOPING A ,THEORETICAL MODEL
OF AUDIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
How Audiences Relate to New Media
The previous section has indicated that viewers
possess different demographics and approaches to
new television services and new technologies. Tele-
vision is not the same for each of the above groups.
Figure 2 represents a model conceptualizing vari-
ous levels of cable television and other new tech-
nology consumption. The more a product or service
changes, the more users are required to alter their
consumption pattern. Some of these services may
only slightly alter existing use patterns; others require
more dramatic changes on the part of the audience.
The movement from continuous to discontinuous-
products was introduced by Robertson (25) when
he reviewed innovative behavior and communication.
The purpose of the model is to evaluate the way
individuals utilize television and its associated ser-
vices. As consumption patterns change, our existing
knowledge of television programming and advertis-
ing becomes less relevant. In some instances, newer
services call for a different viewer relationship. When
we approach pay cable programming and interactive
services, there is a need to consider viewing changes
with regard to both programming and advertising.
Although the horizontal lines are arbitrary with
regard to the differences between traditional viewers,
basic cable viewers, pay cable viewers and interactive
service users, there is enough evidence to acknow-
ledge that variation does indeed exist. As indicated
in the previous section, the relationship between
television and viewer shifts.
Traditional audiences feel television is acceptable
in its current form. Cable viewers are more closely
tied to television's entertainment value and special-
ized viewing. There is further evidence to suggest
that significant differences exist between cable and
pay cable viewers. Pay cable viewers rate television
as an even more important source of entertainment.
They are more innovative and open to new issues.
They are also more apt to use other new technologies.
The change in consumption extends beyond tele-
vison to include VCRs and home computers. The
cited research indicates that venturesomeness and
openness to new ideas is associated with ownership
of each of these technologies. It also shows higher
use rates and willingness to accept technology. A
recent study among cable users found that individuals
who are comfortable with computers or similar
technology would be more likely to adopt a video-
tex service, such as in-home banking or shopping
(20).
Although more study is needed, the literature
confirms a movement from continuous, more tradi-
tional consumption to discontinuous consumption
during which the viewer-television relationship
changes.

24
 Involvement - Implications for Media Planning
Figure 1 indicates separate audiences for tradi-
tional, cable and pay cable television services. The
model in Figure 2 suggests that exposure may change
as individuals move to different levels of television
consumption.
This change in the way television services are con-
sumed allows us to reconsider one of the standard
assumptions, namely low involvement-passive audi-
ences. In his now classic argument, Krugman main-
tains that much television viewing and subsequent
learning takes place under a condition of less active
viewing (17, 18, 19). Consequently, he argues that
recognition measures are more accurate because
they provide the opportunity for the individual to
have a chance to remember.
In an investigation of advertising and involvement,
Greenwald and Leavitt noted that "it is part of the
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 02:52 13 March 2015
popular lore that print is a more involving medium
than audio or video." This is seen as a justifiable
conclusion because the individual has more ability
to dwell on the message (12). However, they point
out that most advertising media are processed at low
levels of involvement and that we need to explore the
ability of a medium to "boost" involvement upward.
The model in Figure 2 offers an explanation for
a more involved viewer that can be "boosted up" by
way of the new television services. Dynamically
continuous and discontinuous consumption provide
the opportunity for greater involvement. This has
ramifications for media planning and evaluation.
Media evaluation criteria provide a framework for
understanding where this model fits into the planning
process. Cannon and Merz (5) suggest that cost,
audience size, exposure effectiveness and target
market concentration are basic criteria for evaluation.
They extend the concept of cost per thousand
(CPM) by adding effective target market exposure
(ETM).
Exposure effectiveness and market concentration
have the potential to be dramatically influenced by
the new media. The quality exposure or involvement
level of exposure becomes an important considera-
tion when evaluating the effectiveness of exposure.
Specialization of audiences, as evidenced by Figure 1,
also gains increased importance.
RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
The need for information relating to effective
target market exposure (ETM) is amplified when
we consider cable, pay cable and other new services.
These services cannot and should not be asked to
compete on a strictly CPM basis. Both viewers and
viewing may be different. Therefore, information
on audience size, specialization and exposure quality
needs to be enhanced.
25
Ratings and Audience Size
Ratings are generally examined to determine cost
per thousand (CPM). In CPM the prepotent questions
are how many, and who, are viewing? How individuals
view is not seen as particularly important. We use
diaries, meters and telephone studies, Quality of
audience is factored in via CPM by target groups.
While advertisers are always concerned with how the
advertisement fits the program, the overriding con-
cern is efficiency of audience delivery.
The cable industry is still searching for a good
method to account for accumulated audiences
(cumes) on a local level. While it is relatively easy
to measure cable network cumes via syndicated
meters and diaries, it is much more costly and diffi-
cult on a local basis. The difficulty partially arises
through the multiplicity of offerings, which creates
a confusion factor.
Cable operators are using less costly telephone
coincidental techniques. While these do not measure
accumulated audiences, they are less expensive. To
a limited extent, they are using more costly diaries
to obtain cumulative data.
The cable industry recently put together the Cable
Audience Methodology Study (CAMS) to examine
the validity of certain measurements in the multi-
channel environment which includes independent,
basic cable, pay cable and other signals including
public and leased access. The study used two diary
methods (standard and daypart) and two telephone
methods (coincidental and roster recall). They
generally found that cable programming was under-
represented because of confusion factors.
Audience Specialization and Exposure
While the CAM Study is a start in the right direc-
tion, much more is needed. We need to go beyond
cumulative data to understand involvement in pro-
gram and message exposure. Advertising measures
need to be altered to accommodate specialized
services.
If we accept that audiences are changing, we need
to know more about how they are changing (audience
specialization) and how they are viewing (audience
exposure). This is consistent with the concept of
effective target market exposure (ETM). More infor-
mation is necessary to answer the audience specializa-
tion and exposure effectiveness issues. Certainly,
the call for this information is not new. It is, however,
particularly applicable to new media.
Previous research on audiences has confirmed this
need to better understand specialization. Domzol
and Kernan (9) conducted a study to help determine
audience segments according to need gratifications.
Individuals were asked to view programming and
 given a number of profiles. A major conclusion of
this segmentation technique was :
"The 'new technology' - cable, STV, VCRs,
etc. - requires a richer understanding of audi-
ence segmentation, since it is the very basis
of its efficacy (9:47)."
As we change to situations with more specialized
audiences and the potential for greater involvement,
there is a need to better understand exposure effec-
tiveness. Higher order measures, moving closer to
communication penetration and motivation, are
needed. A recent content analysis of cable commer-
cials found more direct response commercials (4).
Others have argued that some commercials over
cable should measure lead generation or other motiva-
tional responses (14). Unfortunately, a study of
commercial techniques has concluded that motiva-
tion is the area in which advertising testing is least
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 02:52 13 March 2015
effective (6,. Clearly, this is an area that needs fur-
ther work.
ADVERTISERS
Information on audience specialization and expo-
sure effectiveness will allow for a much better assess-
ment of effective target market exposure. The cable
industry's strength is its ability to compete on a
specialized audience basis (4).
While it is obvious that cable has the capacity
to deliver uniquely formatted messages to specialized
audiences, it is not so clear how this will actually
transpire. Most national advertisers utilize cable as
a supplement to national schedules.
Many companies do not have the need for spe-
cialized messages, and therefore will not likely
be able to utilize cable's major strength. However,
when special communication objectives are needed
for highly segmented audiences, cable may be a neces-
sary condition.
Marketers who have special information or market-
ing needs will utilize more cable advertising. To some
extent, there will be new participants in television
advertising. The most obvious example is local ad-
vertising, where competition for cable spots is with
radio. New participants will come on line as measure-
ment data for programming and advertising becomes
available.
A certain amount of confusion is to be expected.
There are a number of new channels that have varied
audiences. The advantage 'of specialization can pose
an alternate problem of fragmentation. Media plan-
ners will continually need to update their audience
information with regard to programming. Much
more analysis will be expected in the area of how
viewing takes place.
26
LIMITATIONS OF CABLE AND NEW SERVICES
There are some obvious limitations with cable.
The first is reach. With a predicted penetration of
50-60 percent, it can only serve as a complement
or supplement to major advertisers.
Programming over cable is still a problem. One
study indicates that some specialized programming
such as news, religious, cultural and sports are not
finding a strong following (27).
While consumers tend to be favorable toward
new cable programming, the programming does not
enjoy the same type of ratings commonly afforded
to other new products and services (23). Additionally,
up to six percent of the cable subscribers cancel
all or some of their services on a monthly basis.
CONCLUSION
Cable, pay cable and associated new technologies
have added more than extra services to television.
It has been illustrated that, in some cases, the nature
of television consumption has been altered. Many
individuals are no longer viewing television per se.
There has been a clear movement away from net-
work viewing. In part, this trend is due to new ser-
vices provided by cable operators and other new
television services.
Distinct audience segments are forming in terms
of demographics and approaches to television. There
are opportunities for television consumption to
change as new levels of services enter the home.
This can provide situations where programming
and the exposure level of programming are changed.
Consequently, our assumptions about programming
ratings, audience composition and advertising effec-
tiveness are in need of rethinking.
REFERENCES
1. Baldwin, T. and D. Stevens McVoy. Cable Communication,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1983, pp. 254-55.
2. Banks, Mark and Alice Gagnard. "A Comparison of Media
Use and Attitudes in Two Suburban Cable Areas of a Large
Metropolitan Market," Presented at Association for Education
in Journalism and Mass Communication, August 1984.
3. Becker, Lee B., Sharon Dunwoody and Sheizaf Rafaeli.
"Cable's Impact on the Use of .Other News Media," Journal
of Broadcasting, 27 (4, Fall 1983), pp. 127-40.
4. Bush, Alan J. and James H. Leigh. "Advertising on Cable
versus Traditional Networks," Journal of Advertising Research,
24 (2, April 1984), pp. 33-38.
5. Cannon, Hugh and G. Russell Merz. "A New Role for
Psychographies in Media Selection," Journal of Advertising,
9 (2,1980), pp. 33-36, 44.
6. Coe, Barbara J. and James MacLachlan. "How Major TV
Advertisers Evaluate Commercials," Journal of Advertising
Research, 20 (6, December 1980), pp. 51-56.
7. Danko, William P. and James MacLachlan. "Research to
Accelerate the Diffusion of a New Invention," Journal of
Advertising Research, 23 (3, June 1983), pp. 39-43.
 8. Dickerson, Mary D. and James Gentry. "Characteristics
of Adopters and Nonadopters of Home Computers," Journal
of Consumer Research, 10 (September 1983), pp. 225-33.
9. Domzol, Teresa and Jerome Kernan. "Television Audience
Segmentation According to Need Gratification," Journal of
Advertising Research, 23 (5, October 1983), pp. 37-49.
10. Dorr, A. "Television's Role in Family Life," Presented
at American Psychological Association, August 23,1981.
11. Ducey, Richard, Dean Krugman and Don Eckrich. "Pre-
dicting Market Segments in the Cable and Pay Cable: The
Basic and Pay Subscribers," Journal of Broadcasting, 27
(2, Spring 1983), pp. 151-61.
12. Greenwald, Anthony and Clark Leavitt. "Audience
Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels," Journal of Consumer
Research, 11 (2, June 1984), pp. 590-95.'
13. Journal of Broadcasting, Index of Articles, 26 (3, Summer
1982).
14. Kaatz, Ronald. Cable: An Advertiser's Guide to New
Electronic Media, Chicago, IL: Crain Books, 1982).
15. Kaplan, Stewart. "The Impact of Cable Television Ser-
vices on the Use of Competing Media," Journal of Broad-
casting, 22 (2, Summer 1978), pp. 18-25.
Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 02:52 13 March 2015
16. Krugman, Dean and Don Eckrich. "Differences Between
Cable and Pay Cable Viewers," Journal of Advertising Research,
22 (4, August 1982), pp. 23-29.
17. Krugman, H. "The Impact of Television Advertising:
Learning Without Involvement," Public Opinion Quarterly,
29 (1965), pp. 349-56.
18. Krugman, H. "The Measurement of Advertising Involve-
ment," Public Opinion Quarterly, 30 (1966), pp. 583-96.
19. Krugman, H. "Memory Without Recall, Exposure Without
Perception," Journal of Advertising Research, 17 (4, August
1977), pp. 4-11.
20. Leadingham, John A. "Are Consumers Ready for the
Information Age?," Journal of Advertising Research, 24
(4, August 1984), pp. 31-37.
21. Levy, Mark B. "Home Video Recorders and Time Shif-
ting," Journalism Quarterly, 58 (Autumn 1981), pp. 401-04.
22. Levy, Mark B. "The Time Shifting Use of Video Recor-
ders," Journal of Broadcasting, 27 (3, Summer 1983), p. 264.
23. Metzger, Gale D. "Cable Television Audiences," Journal
of Advertising Research, 23 (4, August 1983), pp. 41-47.
24. Reitman, Judith. "Cable Projections: Agencies Boost
Cable Billings," Marketing and Media Decisions, 20 (2, Feb-
ruary 1985), pp. 70-75.
25. Robertson, T. Innovative Behavior and Communication,
New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1971.
26. Roth, James T., Michael G. Harvey and George C. Michael.
"Perspectives on the New Television," Business Horizons,
25 (6, 1982), p.·55.
27. Roth, James T., Michael G. Harvey and George C. Michael.
"The Impact of Cable Television on Subscriber and Nonsub-
scriber Behavior," Journal of Advertising Research, 23 (4,
August 1983), pp. 15-22.
28. Tannenbaum, P.H. and W.A. Gibson. "The Political
Environment for Change," in E.L. Palmer and A. Dorr (eds.),
Children and the Faces of Television - Teaching, Violence,
Selling, New York: Academic, 1980, pp. 85-122.
29. "Video Forecast," TV Digest, 24 (35,1985), p. 17.
30. Wearden, Stanley T., Douglas W.W. Hughes and Jane D.
Brown. "Psychological and Demographic Predictors of Atti-
tude Toward Micro-Computers: Main Effects and lnteractors,"
Presented at Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication, August 1984.
31. Webster, James. "The Impact of Cable and Pay Cable
Television on Local Station Audiences," Journal of Broad-
casting, 27 (4, Fall 1983), pp. 119-25.
32. "Why People are Turned Off by Television," U.S. News
and World Report, February 14, 1984, pp. 49-51.
(continued from p. 12)
18. Newman, Joseph W. and Bradley D. Lockeman. "Predic-
tive Prepurchase Information Seeking," Journal of Consumer
Research, 2 (December 1975), pp. 216-22.
19. Payne, John W. and E.K. Easton Ragsdale. "Verbal
Protocols and Direct Observation of Supermarket Shopping
Behavior: Some Findings and a Discussion of Methods," in
H. Keith Hunt (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, VOI(-
Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research, 1978, p.
571-77.
20. Ray, Michael L. et al. "Marketing Communication and the
Hierarchy of Effects," in Peter Clarke (ed.), New Models for
Mass Communication Research, Beverly Hills: Sage, 1973,
pp.147-76.
21. Rothschild, Michael L. "Advertising Strategies for High
and Low Involvement Situations," in John C. Maloney and
Bernard Silverman (eds.), Attitude Research Plays for High
Stakes, Chicago:' American Marketing Association, 1979,
pp.74-93.
22. Schmalensee, Diane H. "Today's Top Priority Advertising
Research Questions," Journal of Advertising Research, 23
(April-May 1983), pp. 49-60.
23. Singh, Surendra N. and Michael L. Rothschild. "Recogni-
tion as a Measure of Learning from Television Commercials,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (August 1983), pp. 235-48.
24. Standard Industrial Classification Manual, Washington,
DC: US Government Printing Office, 1967.
25. Wells, William D. and Leonard A. Lo Sciuto. "Direct
Observation of Purchasing Behavior," Journal of Marketing
Research, 9 (September 1982), PP. 123-31.
This
publication
is available in _
microform \'1
from University\.
Microfilms \.
International.
o Pl......nd inform.lion aboul th_ till ..:
Name _
Companyflnstitution
Addr••• _
City _
State Zip _
Phon.,--(_---'- _
Call1oU-froo 800-521-3044. Or mail inquiry 10:
University Microfilma International, 300 North
Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, MI 48106.