In the highly competitive field of commercial broadcasting a program survives only as it produces the desired results. These are clearly defined and usually predetermined on a very scientific basis. In most cases the productivity of a program can be determined by cold facts and figures, which in the final analysis are usually based on the balance sheet of the sponsor. Business is business, competition is exacting, and therefore there is little room for mediocrity. Consequently, only the best programs remain on the air.
If the same rigid competitive standards that determine the life and success of a commercial broadcast could be applied to religious programs, there would be little, if any, sustained mediocrity such as is all too frequently found in contemporary religious broadcasting. Inasmuch as the life and success of the religious program is not subject to the same rigid competitive standards, nor is its support so de pendent upon the ring of the cash register, we find there a degree of mediocrity that would not long be tolerated in commercial broad casting.
Although these standards may differ in their application to the religious program, still there is really no good reason why certain over-all standards should not be applied in a practical way to this very deserving and highly technical field of denominational endeavor—religious broadcasting. Certainly it would tend to reduce mediocrity to a minimum, and produce a healthy and more productive type of program. In view of the vast experience in this field, there is little excuse for mediocrity in religious broadcasting today.
This desired standard of excellency might best be interpreted in a practical answer to the following questions: Is the program paying its way financially? What are the desired results, and is the broadcast actually producing these ? How, and on what basis, will the productivity of the program be determined? Is the potential of the broadcast being fully exploited?
First) let us consider the finances. A program that enjoys a sustained, liberal, financial support directly from the listening audience is usually considered successful, and on the high road to sustained productivity. Curiously as it may seem, a religious program may ostensibly pay its way financially and still be quite mediocre. This is usually relative, and depends on the financial outlay required and the genuis of the broadcaster in raising the necessary funds. These can be obtained from various sources, some of which may be entirely unrelated to the broadcast appeal and audience response. Therefore, the fact that the broadcast operates on a balanced budget, at least for a while, is no criterion of program excellency or satisfactory productivity.
Getting to the Heart of the Problem
The next question brings us to the heart of the problem. What are the desired results, and is the broadcast actually producing these? These should be as clearly defined by the religious broadcaster as by the commercial. Many broadcasts fail because of too much wishful thinking or just plain lack of objective planning. Once the purpose of the program has been determined, and the desired results clearly defined, the broadcaster should proceed to keep such records, conduct such surveys, and experiment sufficiently to convince himself that the broadcast is actually producing the desired results.
When we speak of broadcast response, or results, in the sense of program productivity, we are thinking in very practical terms of tangible, definite, direct results. This should be our first objective in all our evangelistic endeavors. Admittedly, every good work has indirect results. In times past we have heard all too much about intangible or indirect results. Usually when a broadcast fails to produce properly the broad caster is tempted to succumb to .wishful thinking; and in an effort to justify the worth of an unsuccessful broadcast he may talk much about the obvious intangible results, which are vaguely assumed to be found in some great imaginative unseen audience, which assumedly listens and is impressed. And even though the response is negligible we are assured that on some happy tomorrow these results will be fully evident.
Maybe so—at least everyone hopes so—but usually such ethereal thinking- brings forth results just as ethereal. And what is more, such mediocrity is sometimes cloaked in a fictitious robe of faith. And for lack of results, this so- called faith supposedly fills the vacuum. Yes, in reality, it does take a lot of faith to see the wisdom of such an unproductive broadcast, and it is not surprising that conference committees are often moved to end such unprofitable projects.
Fortunately, most broadcasters aim at more direct results, and define their goal in more specific terms. One will broadcast perhaps for the specific purpose of advertising his evangelistic services. If so, does the broadcast actually bring out the desired number of people? Others broadcast for the long-range purpose of awakening interest, creating confidence, and bringing this interest in the message to action in securing the names of the interested ones in one form or another, usually as enrollments to the Bible correspondence school. In such a case, is the broadcast actually bringing in the desired number of names from among definitely interested listeners? If not, why not?
Our third proposition presents a very definite problem: Is the broadcast profitable ? And how shall we determine this? How and on what basis will the productivity of the program be determined? The importance of knowing the results of the broadcast cannot be overemphasized. After a heavy investment in time and talent, as well as broadcast expense, the broad caster cannot estimate carelessly the results of such an investment.
Here again we find a tendency to wishful thinking. As a rule every broadcast will bring some response. The problem is to evaluate this in comparison to the potential, as well as the actual amount of time, talent, and expense involved. Many times the broadcaster is tempted to magnify to terrific proportions results of which he should in reality be ashamed. Sometimes we seek questionable comparative basis for computing our results. The mere fact that the program draws a larger mail than another like program on the station is no criterion of success. Or because a given number of radio converts are baptized over a given period does not necessarily prove that the program is yielding satisfactory results.
Seeking Basis for Comparative Analysis
Obviously this is not an easy problem, and perhaps no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down by which this can be governed, inasmuch as each broadcast presents its own peculiar problems. It would be impossible to devise a plan of checking, a survey, that would work in all cases. However, each broadcaster should establish certain fundamental standards which may serve as a basis for comparative analysis. Some system or method for tabulating- results should be devised. These must be so devised that the broadcaster has his finger on the pulse of his audience at all times,-and can instantly note the tendency in one direction or another. It is just as important to know that the broad cast plan is succeeding as that ft is failing. It is important that the broadcaster carefully consider:
1. What information is desirable?
2. What is available?
3. How can this information be had with the least expenditure of labor?
Obviously, this comparative basis might be more perfectly standardized by some type of audience survey, correlated with a series of well-planned experiments. If these surveys pay in the commercial field, they should likewise be valuable to the religious broadcaster, not only as a means of determining the productivity of the program, but also to assure himself that he is exploiting the full potential of his broad cast.
Survival and Arrival o£ Fittest
This brings us to the last point of our discussion. It is important that every broadcaster know the full potential value of his broadcast. Although this will be determined to an extent by the accessible audience and power and popularity of the station, still every broadcaster should continually seek to exploit the full possibilities of his time on the air. He should never forget that he may be competing with a score of highly entertaining broadcasts at the very moment that he goes on the air. This competition should consequently force the radio evangelist to recognize the importance of consistent creative effort.- Mediocrity cannot stand up long to this competition. Not only is it, then, a survival of the fittest, but in successful broad casting it is the arrival of the fittest that holds his place on the ether.
Here lies the crux of the matter. Lack of creative thinking is the principal deterring factor in our effort to exploit the full potential in religious broadcasting. Why not try to do things differently? Why not try your imaginative force to bring variety into religious broadcasting? Mediocrity in our present-day broadcasting comes primarily because many broadcasters are satisfied to follow the beaten path in using the same program formats and techniques that have characterized our denominational broadcasting during the last twenty years. Creative thinking is stymied by this tradition. Our broadcasting results will never be come full grown unless we can grow with the times, and arise to' the challenge of modern radio programming.
This fault is recognized in religious broad casting by many; but it was left to Robert Saudek, vice-president of the American -Broad casting Company, to bring the challenge to radio preachers, when he said: "Don't be a Peter Pan. He never grew up. Radio is no longer in the 2o's. Now it is ... 1950. But as I tune across the- dial on Sunday mornings the religious broadcasts are no different than they were in 1920. . . . There are other ways to do it-" (Quoted from his Ten Commandments for Religious Broadcasters.}
True, it takes courage to indulge in self- analysis and to look objectively at the results we are realizing. No one will willingly admit mediocrity. But religious broadcasters must be pragmatic. Let's face the facts, analyze them, then arise to the challenge and do something about this mediocrity. Satisfaction with present .attainments is deadly poison to creative thinking and progress. Religious broadcasting is still in its pioneering days, and beckons to men with the spirit of pioneers. There are new horizons to be explored in radio programming. There are millions of potential listeners who will never listen to the traditional gospel broadcast as we know it today. What shall we do to reach this great untouched potential?
Progressive broadcasters will constantly blaze new trails in the development of new broadcast formats and approach techniques. If one type of program does not give adequate response, then try another. If the other does not give better results, then try to find out why. There may be certain impediments in your present broadcast that, if eliminated, would increase your listener appeal. Then be courageous, and get rid of them. Be frank with yourself, search out the weak points, acknowledge them, and either strengthen them or eliminate them. Radio has come of age, and can well stand careful self-analysis. Concentrate on obtaining direct, tangible, 'satisfactory results, and maximum productivity. Modern religious broadcasting demands the best, and anything less is deplorable mediocrity.
