PROJECT ROSCON

MEDIA LESSONS LEARNED

,. .... .

AED· Academy for Educational Developnzent

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The chief, distinguishing feature of Project ROSCON is the fact that it proceeds from a Russian initiative. The founding of ROSCON in 1992 as the "Russian Society for Social Conversion" was accomplished by sixteen (16) independent Russian organizations, each having on its own concluded that the process of economic transformation lacked a crucial ingredient - public understanding and support. The conversion of a command economy into a free market economy could not be accomplished solely through innovative policies or structural and institutional change implemented from above. The transformation required active cooperation from below.

In 1 ight of his tori cal experience, the founders of ROS CON rejected the totalitarian model of "agit-prop" (agitation and propaganda). While committed to public education as a strategy, they realized that the process of change could not await maturation of a new generation. The transformation would require a relatively rapid mobilization of individuals and groups who would drive the process at all levels of the economy and across a vast geographic expanse. Thereafter, the transformation could only be sustained by the active engagement and participation of all Russia's adult citizens. In short, economic transformation would ultimately require major changes in economic behavior at all levels.

Intuitively, the founders of ROS CON were contemplating a program of sqcial marketing. The techniques of commercial marketing had already been introduced into Russia, and an indigenous marketing capacity was under development. The idea of social conversion or innovation as a "product" to be "promoted," however, was alien to Russia and to the founders of ROSCON.

Dr. Zurab A. Yakobashvili, a central ROS CON figure, was introduced to the concept of social marketing by the Academy for Educational Development (AED) in the late spring of 1992. By summer of that year, ROSCON and AED had jointly developed the project as an unsolicited proposal for funding by the United States ·Agency for International Development (AID) . In March, 1993, Project ROSCON was approved and funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and in the first days of May, 1993, the AED/ROSCON field team arrived in Moscow.

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - MEDIA LESSONS LEARNED

Main lessons learned from the ROSCON experiment in programming and audience research include the following:

1. Media meticulous suspicion;

messages must attention to

be cautiously details which

drawn, with might arouse

2. Messages must scrupulously avoid points of social, ethnic, nationalist, religious and other tensions;

3 . Messages should be subliminal, rather than overt; didactic style and format must be avoided in preference for a light and even entertaining approach;

4. Messages should be framed to anticipate rapid changes in the economic environment to avoid being overtaken by events and rendered obsolete;

5. Formative research on target audiences should be an essential part of message design and messages must be thoroughly tested in audience focus groups prior to broadcast.

2

ROSCON MEDIA COMPONENT - RATIONALE

A companion report ("PROJECT ROS CON: SYNOPSIS OF FORMATIVE RESEARCH") sets forth the objectives and findings of Project ROSCON as a pioneering experiment in social marketing. As reflected in that document, and indicated above, social marketing represented an innovation at the commencement of Project ROSCON in May, 1993. It was necessary in fact for the project to develop its own indigenous capacity for social marketing which was accomplished through training workshops and conferences in close collaboration with the Center for Sociological Research (CSR) of the Moscow State University, directed by Dr. Sergei V. Tumanov.

The mass media (broadcast and print) constitute an integral part of social marketing, specifically in the phase known as "promotion" of a new behavior or other innovation. At the commencement of ROSCON, the capacity of the Russian mass media for such targeted communications was unknown. Given the historical reality of Soviet agit-prop ("agitation and propaganda") over a period of seventy-five years, some caution was warranted.

Social marketing begins and ends with the target audience: it closely studies existing knowledge, attitudes and beliefs in order to understand how the audience chooses its current behavior; it seeks to identify knowledge, attitudes and beliefs which may encourage and sustain voluntary adoption of a new behavior. Agit­I?.KQQ drew its bearings from received dogma; to the extent agit-prop may have allowed or employed audience research, its aim was to identify "false consciousness" and "subjective errors" requiring correction.

With this background in mind, the design of Project ROSCON included a media component to consist of pilot print, radio and television products which would:

• enable Russian media producers to select and develop thematic materials relevant to the free market economy and economic transformation;

• expose these same producers to audience research and feedback;

• allow the AED/ROSCON research staff to monitor and take part in the entire process, incorporating all its lessons into the formative research for actual social marketing interventions.

By testing existing capacity for message design, Project ROSCON would identify talented Russia producers and assist them in developing appropriate social marketing skills. By testing audience reactions to actual messages, Project ROSCON would evaluate these specific products and gather concrete information on Russian attitudes toward economic transformation. Finally, by sharing all the foregoing with Russian colleagues, Project ROSCON

3

would serve as a vehicle for technology transfer.

Had Project ROSCON continued, its final phase would have been a collaborative social marketing intervention mobilizing the skills of its Russian media producers, social scientists and leaders of non-governmental organizations. This final phase would have been in fact a process of institution-building.

The media component of Project ROSCON was undertaken simultaneously with (indeed as part of) its complete formative research. To this extent, it did not conform to strict canons of social marketing under which the design of media products must await completion of formative research.

Project ROSCON could not follow these canons, however. It was a pioneering effort undertaken in a crisis environment. Beyond that, Russia is a forum which defies all conventional notions of social marketing and development assistance. A separate report would be required to thoroughly discuss the obstacles to social marketing in Russia today, but a short list of the key factors would include:

• an extraordinarily literate, discerning and attentive audience which has no faith in broadcast media and a skeptical attitude toward the press;

• institutional disintegration, widespread anomie and even psychological dysfunction;

• increasing social stratification and conflict; • inadequate and inappropriate governmental response to all

the foregoing; • diminishing flow of reliable information (essential for

media programming that is accurate, timely and credible) .

Thus, with the concurrence of USAID Moscow, Project ROSCON launched its media pilot programming simultaneously with its formative research. The efforts have in fact complemented one another. Despite the , obstacles mentioned above, AED/ROSCON remains ·convinced that social marketing is possible in Russia and that the work of Project ROSCON can continue even without direct American participation.

4

ROSCON MEDIA COMPONENT - THE PILOT PROGRAMS

As an experimental vehicle, the ROSCON media component posed one basic question: if asked to communicate economic messages, what would Russian producers do? The answer is presented below.

In its social marketing aspect, Project ROSCON encompassed a large variety of potential audiences with the expectation that formative research would identify the appropriate primary, secondary and tertiary target groups. The media component, however, could not prematurely adopt such narrow focus, since it was being implemented simultaneously and parallel with formative research.

As a result, Russian producers were left free to select audiences whom they considered most important for economic transformation as well as messages which they considered appropriate. Their choices are themselves of interest. One studio chose to work in the field of agriculture, focussing upon individual farmers, potential farmers, and collective farm workers. The producers explained that they wanted to draw attention to the agricultural crisis while the 1993 harvest was underway. Unfortunately, their production was disrupted by the violent attack upon the Ostankino studio on October 3, 1993, and broadcasts did not begin until late October. It is noteworthy, however, that these producers sensed that timing of their messages was important and that they hoped to present the Russian public with an alternative to the traditional Soviet "struggle for the harvest" using military conscripts and urban "volunteers."

Two other contractors aimed their programs at students and young people, a choice which ROSCON's own formative research has since validated. Still other audiences included business entrepreneurs as carriers of reform, women in business, and women in all walks of life, the latter choice reflecting the importance of nurturing children and the role of women as mothers in Russian culture, notwithstanding seventy five years of State oversight in

"this domain.

The role of the AED/ROSCON team was to assist these producers in articulating their choices and presenting their messages. The ROSCON research staff reviewed the messages and content of productions with the contractors. A training workshop was led by Paul Solman, noted economics commentator for the "MacNeill/Lehrer Report. " For several months the Moscow team was joined by the celebrated documentary producer, George Vicas, who provided ongoing technical advice to the television producers.

During its eighteen months of activity, Project ROSCON entered into contracts with eleven Russian print, radio and broadcast producers. Two contracts were terminated. In one case, the producer was barred from airing its program for political reasons.

5

This incident itself illustrates unpredictable governmental response to continuing political crisis, specifically displeasure at the studio's coverage of nationwide elections in December, 1993. The second contract was terminated when the producer was unable to complete its work prior to Project close-out.

Over seventy media products were broadcast or printed (in one instance, both). The following is a list of the completed projects:

• A 3-part television series by "Business Wave" studio; • A 12-part series by "Nadezhda" radio station; • A 12-part television series by "Peoples Academy" studio in

Ufa; • A 16-part series by "Yunost" radio station; • A 12-part series of information/op-ed pages in the "Murmanskii

Vestnik" newspaper; • A 7-part television series (and comic book) by "Norma"

production studio; • A 7-part television series by "Vikon" studio; • A single insert on individual entrepreneurial achievements in

the "We/Mbl" newspaper; • A 3-part television series by "TOR" studio.

The broadcasts and articles involved basic concepts of free market economics. The pilots explained the roles of market institutions such as banks, investment firms, and insurance companies. They offered information on how to obtain credit and develop a business plan. Programs for middle school students consisted of a father-son dialogue on money, taxes, inflation, international trade and competition. A pilot series· on farming presented: traditions of land ownership; case studies in private farming; and the marketing of agricultural products.

A variety of formats were used, including: documentaries; info-mercials; discussion programs with live call-ins to stimulate audience interaction; competitions; newspaper supplements; and

·comic books.

Contracts were concluded with both professional and fledgling production companies, governmental media organizations and independent companies. Broadcast products were aired on nationwide and local stations: Ostankino (Channel One); Channel Three; St. Petersburg Television; Tolpar Television (Ufa); Nadezhda Radio and Radio Yunost. The choice of varied formats and organizations reflected ROSCON's need to determine as quickly as possible the medium most likely to reach target audiences and actually influence attitudes, beliefs and behaviors. The nationwide channels boast high ratings (although supporting data is sometimes suspect) . Yet focus group results, independent studies and ROSCON contacts with broadcasters and other USAID contractors such as INTERNEWS, all combine to suggest that the best forum may in fact be small,

6

independent, local broadcast stations who by nature are in close touch with their audiences and who, because of their recent origins, are not burdened with the "baggage" of association with the Soviet era and "bad habits" which it bred.

7

INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS AND AUDIENCE RESEARCH

Audience responses to selected pilot television and radio programs were gathered by use of focus group techniques. Unfortunately, budget constraints did not permit such evaluation of all ROSCON media products.

The focus groups brought to light a wide range of attitudes and beliefs about economic transformation, including entrepreneurship and business, morals and ethics in business, the role and opportunity for women in a period of transition.

What follows is a summary of the productions with focus upon the audience and message choices made by the producers as shared with the AED/ROSCON research staff. For those productions actually reviewed by focus groups, the audience reactions are presented along with additional data on attitudes and beliefs which surfaced in the group discussions.

1. "Business Wave" Television Studio (Contract 212277-02).

Three fifteen-minute programs were produced for audiences of business people by "Business Wave" (Delovaya Volna), an independent production company. The programs were broadcast on Ostankino Television (Channel One) in January, 1994. The programs focused on the motives for entrepreneurship ("The Spirit of Enterprise"), the role of ethics and honesty in business, and on the history of Russian entrepreneurship before the Revolution of 191 7. They featured interviews with successful Russian businessmen, psychologists and religious leaders.

Messages:

• entrepreneurs contribute to and multiply the wealth of nations through their productivity.

• honesty and integrity are integral to sound business development.

• prosperous entrepreneurs give to charities and help society.

• Russian entrepreneurship has a history going back to the 17th century.

Focus Group Results

Focus groups were conducted in Moscow with students and small business owners. General reactions were strikingly different, although there were a number of shared attitudes. The students seemed on the whole uncomfortable with the subject, while the audiences of business people were relaxed and open. Some of the students were "moonlighting" to survive, and were uneasy discussing the matter. In both audiences, some viewers felt that the program was insincere and that it had been "ordered" by someone.

8

Viewers were suspicious of the interviews with actual business people, considering them disguised commercial advertisements. Russian television carries a substantial amount of paid programming which is either advertising or narrowly targeted to business interests. These viewers expressed irritation with such programming, and the irritation affected their views of the broadcast at hand. Students in particular resented moments in the programs when business people appeared marketing 11 upscale 11 goods: "he says that the leather goods are not just for the elite, but for everybody ... Well, this 'everybody' doesn't include me. 11

Students saw the format and presentation as ''consistent with the best Soviet traditions. 11 They found the moderator stiff, insincere and didactic. (In fact, off-camera the moderator is a pleasant individual and reformist in his thinking.) They found the tone of the program too optimistic. They suspected that street interviews of average citizens, in which they called for "honesty" as a chief requisite for business people, were actually staged.

The students' view of businessmen was negative, seeing them linked to organized crime, acquiring capital in a dishonest way, motivated by self interest and "easy money" and providing no benefit to the nation as a whole. In the words of one viewer, what businessmen do is of no use "to the State or the people. 11 Some viewed business as not really work - "an easy job." The "spirit of enterprise" meant "easy money" (living on others) and a kind of boundless "vertigo."

Students did not consider business people as carriers of reform or solutions for Russia's crises: "he doesn't give a damn about our social-political order; he wants a dacha, cars and the like." Student viewers spoke in terms of a hierarchy of economic activities:

• production of concrete goods for concrete people is honorable;

• providing services is less esteemed, although directors of major enterprises (even chain store directors) get some respect;

• small-scale peddlers and "shuttle merchants" (who travel from place to place or abroad, buying cheap and selling high) are despised.

The students' discussion also revealed strong ethnic prejudice against Caucasian nationalities who are widely blamed for rampant criminality.

Students considered morality and ethics irrelevant in business. They viewed the current business climate as too brutal to allow ethics and integrity. Also, they considered businessmen too greedy to be influenced by ethical norms. Rather, the ends justify the means: if an appearance of honesty helps a business grow, then contracts will be honored and customers will receive

9

quality goods. Otherwise, moral values will play no role. One viewer, however, distinguished between dishonesty toward the State and dishonesty between individuals; the former is taken for granted and not altogether bad, the latter is improper even in today's environment. One broadcast touched on the relationship between Russian Orthodoxy and enterprise, an idea which the students rejected or found unclear. As they understood it, the Church discouraged profit and considered entrepreneurial charity to be a way to expiate sin.

Small/medium business owners frankly admired those who achieve success. They added a caveat, however. The truth about any business in Russia today lies in its origins. Where the origins are obscure, most businessmen automatically assumed criminality and/ or privileged access to governmental property in the early phases of privatization. Spectacular business success is by nature suspect. Spectacular profits were of little interest to the business viewers for another reason i.e., their belief that entrepreneurship is more than pursuit of money. It should be a quest for self-fulfillment and a sense of accomplishment.

Audiences of business people frankly and frequently expressed their fears for the future. The State, they felt, continues to view business as illegitimate. The threat of confiscation remains: "Of course there is fear. It was that way in 1991 and last year. They could come and just say, 'Guys, and what have you been up to? We have been toiling there in the factories and you have been buying and selling .... '" [The code words "buying and selling" as well as "trade/ commerce" continue to suggest 11 speculation 11 to Russian speakers, something condemned by the Soviet regime and still looked upon with disdain.]

Beyond generalized fear, the business audiences pointed to oppressive taxation, quixotic regulation, bureaucracy and corruption. These obstacles compound the normal risk of business in a true market economy, making the 11 spirit of enterprise 11 in Russia a very different creature from the rest of the world.

The business audience was skeptical about attempts to associate religion with business. One viewer dismissed it as a new ideological variant: 11 this reminded me a lot of ten years back when in some broadcast or another, there was, say, some economic topic; 11 das Kapital 11 would be opened and it was mandatory to find the appropriate sentence. Now, since that ideology is gone, they run to religion and drag out poor [Orthodox Metropolitan] Pit.rim and ask him."

The audience did not feel that business pursuits should be overly glamorized, and that attempts to do so would alienate the population which remains incurably suspicious of free enterprise. Assimilation of business culture will only come when conditions stabilize, incomes level off, and tremendous gaps between rich and

10

poor are ameliorated. In the end, honesty in business will come only as a practical measure, when businessmen realize that reputation has economic value.

Bribery was a topic which the business audience felt should be brought to light. Until this happens, rules of the game will remain just a noble objective: "We've got one partner who is over all of us the State. It never is honest nor decent. They constantly change the rules of the game. 11

Both audiences were interested in the historical materials; the greater the detail, the greater the interest. The students were favorably impressed by the "pleasant , intelligent" appearance of a descendant of the Abrikosov family of chocolate manufacturers, but were disappointed that the young man's plans and achievements were not specifically presented. The business audience found the absence of details to be suspicious; perhaps the entire sequence was merely a commercial.

The audience of business people was sharply critical of the actual historical film: "precisely because it's all rosy and sweet, you know it's not true." One viewer felt the focus group discussion was more meaningful than the film. The audience questioned that pre-revolutionary traditions could have much relevance to an economy that is in a primitive condition; revival of traditions must come later.

Both audiences displayed uncertainty as to the workings of financial institutions. Students envisioned stock markets as mysterious places where "easy money" was made in unknown ways. The business audience seemed to understand Russia's stock exchanges as some species of government agency used to maintain control over the economy.

Talk of a special "Russian path" for economic development drew mixed reactions, some viewers being quite critical of their own nation: "The Russians, in my opinion, are open [generous], kind­

'hearted, but on the other hand they know how to cheat. 11 Foreign models should be studied, just to avoid repeating their mistakes.

Summary: The "Business Wave" series revealed among business people a genuine appreciation of free enterprise as a forum for self­fulfillment, a framework in which to experience more than monetary success. These business people, dealing day to day with Russian realities, were highly critical of attempts to idealize the past, present conditions or the future promise of a market economy. They are realistic and pragmatic and want their countrymen to attain the same realism and pragmatism.

The depth of suspicion and hostility toward business among students was unexpected. At the same time, these viewers displayed a pragmatism similar to the older business people . From this audience, too, is was clear that propagandistic media productions

11

will have the opposite effect from that intended. The viewers frankly expressed their desire for objective and concrete information. These results may indicate that programs of information, rather than full blown social marketing, might suffice to enable this audience to support economic and social conversion.

2 . "Nadezhda" Radio Station (Contract 212277-03)

Radio Nadezhda began broadcasting weekly a twelve part series of fifteen minute live programs entitled "Women and Business: Pluses and Minuses" on November 19, 1993. Each program featured interviews with experts, practical advice from women entrepreneurs, and an historical sequence on Russian entrepreneurship. Ten programs included a telephone call-in segment. The programs were moderated by noted Russian radio personality, Irina Simonovna .

Messages

• Be informed before you start a business. Know the laws and understand your trade.

• Starting your own business provides personal freedom. • Think through the pluses and minuses before starting out. • Business is a commitment. o You have to balance business activity with family and

other obligations . • To start a business you need to take risk, make

decisions, accept responsibility and adapt to changing circumstances.

• Women can make a positive contribution to the economy.

Focus Group Results

Only one of the series of programs was evaluated by an actual audience focus group in Moscow which consisted of eight women with higher education (evenly divided between the sciences and humanities) between the ages of 26 and 37 years of age, all of whom ·were employed, and slightly more than half of whom had children.

The particular program consisted of two interviews (an economist and a psychologist) with a final piece of historical retrospective. Some of the critical comments were very harsh. The economist came across as a stodgy "Uncle" (dyadya) whose comments were out of touch with Russian reality: "That's how they write in the [Soviet] textbooks on political economics." In fact, the radio guest did employ Soviet categories in his comments, which one of the listeners found "academic" and irrelevant: "business is business. 11

One listener said the format of the entire program reminded her of Soviet style presentations. Along this line, another comment (perhaps reflecting the general distrust of broadcast

12

media) was that the program did not appear to have originated from a free choice and sincere interest on the producer's part but rather that the program was an "assignment" from some other party. The truth, of course, was completely contrary: the producer actually choose the subject and freely developed the program.

The economist also made some invidious comparisons of men and women in business which provoked sharp response. The group participants from their own experience attested to the "primitive" character and irrelevance of the economist's stereotypes: "If the director of a bank is a man, you can be 100% sure that the chief accountant is an energetic and mature, true business women who, as opposed to the director, can answer practically every question."

The audience found that the psycholog:i.st said things more germane to their actual lives. There is a struggle underway between men and women for a place in the market. In Russia women in business do have a difficult time; women in the marketplace are expected to shoulder the burdens of work outside the home and primary care for the family. The audience complained that women's businesses were stereotyped in Russian society as small, home crafts: "when a woman becomes the manager of a dress-making and tailoring establishment, she is really a business woman (i.e., a woman engaged in business), but not when she is engaged in sewing a blouse for her neighbor."

The historical part of the program was generally received well. There was a desire for information about the past. The specific broadcast gave one listener a sense that it was once upon a time possible to engage in business in an unselfish ~ay: "this is a rather remote possibility for those who start up business today. 11

Another listener sensed a romantic aspect to the historical portion: "a fairy-tale, patriarchal Russia where everything was good. Kindly factory owners who ran their businesses well, their charitable activity."

The audience listened closely to portions of the show which ··conveyed practical information, and commented favorably upon it. The audience clearly was hungry for useful information and concrete advice, an example mentioned was Dale Carnegie. They wanted more actual examples from abroad.

Asked to freely associate ideas with the terms "business" and business women, 11 the listeners mentioned "glamour," "energy," "hardness," decisiveness, "diligence. 11 One listener saw the Russian economy harboring two opposed prospects for women: "first the type of Irina Khakamada - smart, strong-willed, emancipated, sufficiently hard, asserting equality with men; the second, a typical secretary behind the broad back of her male manager, the decision-maker."

13

Summary: The important lesson learned from this single focus group session was the need for sensitivity to dormant conflicts and residua of the Soviet past. Women achieved a measure of success and recognition in selected occupations even under the Soviet regime; in many fields, however, the appearance of advancement was more striking than the reality. As in other cul tu res, "code words" and habits of thinking and speech developed to both evade and to maintain the status quo. This broadcast experience illustrates the need to carefully scrutinize and test in advance of airing any materials (including word choice) which carry connotations from the past.

3. "Peoples Academy" Television Studio (Contract 212277-04)

Beginning on November 21, 1993, the People's Academy, a small, women-owned firm in Ufa, gashkiria, broadcast a series of twelve programs on the local "Tolpar" station. The series was seen by approximately four million viewers. Half of the local population is Bashkir and Tatar. The program featured studio discussion with experts in areas such as business plan development, obtaining credit and financing, law and banking. Interviews with local women entrepreneurs were included. The producer and moderator for the programs was Alla Troitskaya, a local television personality and civic activist.

Messages

• •

Entrepreneurs are responsibility. Entrepreneurs must of the law.

people who take risk, and bear

work within the appropriate framework

• Women can make an enormous contribution to the development of small business.

• Preparation is important before beginning a business. • Advanced planning and experience are instrumental to

success. • A market economy creates opportunities for investment.

The program series was not focus group tested during the project.

4. 11 Yunost 11 Radio Station (Contract 212277-05).

Radio 11 Yunost 11 began airing its "Radio Business Center" throughout the former Soviet Union on February 9, 1994. The thirty minute programs were broadcast twice a week. They offered practical advice, business news, commentary and competitions. Profiles were featured from the history of economic thought portraying concepts such as mercantilism and physiocracy.

14

Focus Group

A focus group with young people (ages 18-25) was conducted in St. Petersburg to gauge attitudes and impressions of young people interested in business toward .Radio 11 Yunost. 11

In general, participants found the broadcasts to be uninformative. They noted that information about business should be gleaned from books not radio. This audience, as others, would have preferred specific advice and examples rather than general concepts: "show live examples, as how this or that company failed, tell a story, interview people, 11 "practical situations are needed from which you could show a way out, so that the person who asked the question would get an answer to it. 11

Because Radio 11 Yunost 11 had been affiliated with the Komsomol (Communist Party Youth Organization), some participants automatically assumed that material was tainted. Former Party media organs (despite their wide listener/viewership) are not always effective choices to convey educational messages. Europa Plus and Baltika radio, for example, were most often listened to by focus group participants, as well as foreign media channels.

The participants felt that the most popular formats for reaching youth through radio would be informative and entertaining interviews and discussions. The use of "clever and well-known people" would add to the credibility of a broadcast for this target group. Despite the generally negative views shared by participants, they nevertheless felt that the business center broadcast had potential and could be improved. It would be more effective, for example, not to use academicians and professors in the broadcasts but people from everyday life.

Summary: The reactions of this youthful audience· very much paralleled the reactions of the women's group to the format and content of the Radio 11 Nadezhda 11 program. Even audience members in their late teens still have some recollection of the broadcast media prior to the collapse of the Soviet regime. Thus, the lessons learned from 11 Nadezhda 11 are applicable even to this group as a target audience.

5. 11 Liubava Women's Club 11 newspaper columns (Contract 212277-07)

The Liubava Women's Club in Murmansk received ROSCON support to develop a one page monthly supplement for the regional newspaper Murmanskii Vestnik (circulation 36,000). The supplement included: feature stories about women entrepreneurs and how they overcome the obstacles they face; news of interest for women in business; legal rights for women employees; and, articles of general interest including how women entrepreneurs deal with organized crime.

Messages

15

• Learn everything you can about your business before starting out.

• Objectively evaluate your capacity for success. • Stand up for your rights. Challenge unjust treatment in

the work place. • It's okay to make mistakes as long as you learn from

them. e Your activity can benefit others. • Business isn't easy it takes careful planning,

investment and hard work. • Do not squander profits. Reinvest them into your

business.

While no focus groups were conducted, reader response was highly positive . The supplement led to the creation of a regional women's business association and stimulated local business growth . The project was commended by the city government.

6. 11 Norma 11 Television Studio (Contract 212277-08 and 212277-09).

Norma Ltd of St. Petersburg produced a series of seven five­minute discussions between a father and son which were aired on Channel One (Ostankino) . The programs covered issues such as: What is money? Can we live without money? What is inflation? How does the Treasury work? What kind of taxes are there? Why do we need foreign trade? Why do we need competition? A companion comic book was produced.

Of all the ROSCON media productions, the Norma series called for the closest on-going collaboration between the .. AED/ROSCON research staff and the production studio. The technical, production quality and creativity of the series was outstanding. The scenario was cleverly drawn; the characters and actors were appealing to all Russian audiences.

The content of the Norma series, however, was highly ·politicized . The original version included a series of opening shots with a clown mimicking Brezhnev, Lenin and Hitler, interspersed with archival films of Stalin, the Soviet and Nazi eras. These frames were immediately deleted. In the text, however, there continued to be long passages attacking the Soviet order, the bureaucracy , and in some cases misstating historical facts (at least as Soviet history has been understood by the whole range of Western historians from those sympathetic to those militantly hostile toward the regime)

Long work sessions were required to achieve a balance between the authors' strong convictions and ROSCON' s concerns that the broadcast materials not provoke viewers or aggravate deep dissensions within Russian society. The same process was required in the production of Norma's comic book series, based upon the

16

television programs. On the whole, a balance was achieved, and the creative liberties of the producers preserved . The experience with Norma, however, has highlighted the challenges of media production in support of social marketing in the highly volatile environment of Russian social and economic conversion.

The television series has been approved by the Russian Federation Ministry of Education for dissemination in schools. The Norma firm is presently negotiating production of some accompanying text materials, and has already (separate from the ROSCON project) produced a series of very high quality posters for use in the instruction of free market economics. The prospects are that Norma may play a very important role in Russian social conversion.

Messages:

The series explained the origins of money, the causes of inflation and the types of taxes existing in Russia. Among the messages conveyed were -

• money is the foundation of the economy. ~ it is important to pay taxes to enable the state to

protect its citizens. • Russia should open to the world market gradually

permitting imports while not threatening domestic production.

• foreign trade increases the availability of consumer product.

• competition stimulates quality output at reduced cost.

Focus Groups

Focus groups were conducted in St. Petersburg and in Moscow in March 1994 to test the content of the NORMA series. Separate groups were conducted for pupils ( 10-11 years of age) , middle school students ( 13 to 15 years of age) , their teachers, and parents of such students both with higher and middle educations. Films were used which addressed the following issues: money; ·inflation; taxes; and international competition.

The younger pupils showed the greatest maturity in their understanding of the basic concepts presented in the programs. Teen-age students tended to criticize the program as too elementary, yet they exhibited confusions not noted among the more youthful viewers. While students were optimistic, teachers tended to see the situation in the country as difficult and were concerned about the future.

Parents with higher educations considered the materials to be somewhat simplified, yet appropriate for their children . Parents with middle educations professed despair at the fact that they were no longer able to understand things being talked about by their children nor help them in comprehending the economic

17

transformation. To some extent, the parent groups with higher education echoed this sense of helplessness.

Students understood the difference between business and speculation. Students tended to see the higher echelons of their government as corrupt and noted that Russia lags behind Western European countries in foreign trade. They indicate that the Soviet period was one of stagnation that made people lazy. The students generally liked the programs noting their originality. Both students and teachers indicated that the programs help orient viewers to the new market economy.

Students watched the programs with interest with no distracting conversations. Teachers, by contrast, were mistrustful of the programs and often spontaneously exchanged opinion. Teachers paid more attention to ideological nuances. The father, for example, was thought to be a former military man because he had a 11 typical 11 shirt. The political implication of the son wearing a red tie was discussed.

Other details did not escape the parents' attention. The father was quickly identified in their minds as a businessman. In several frames he was conducting business negotiations over the telephone. Some parents as viewers found him somewhat distasteful for this reason. During one sequence, the father and son were eating breakfast. Several audience members noted that there was a white tablecloth on the table, a custom reserved only for special occasions. They found the scene ludicrous, and the result was that the program became discredited in their eyes.

Teachers tended to underestimate the level of understanding the students demonstrated of economic issues. While students were able to aptly discuss the concepts involved, teachers noted that more simple explanation is needed to make the issues comprehensible. They also felt that television alone is not an effective means of education: a teacher must be present to personally explain the concepts being covered. This attitude is ·reflective of the fact that television has rarely been used in Russia for education purposes. The concept itself is new and skeptically viewed by educators.

Teachers also indicated that economics must be taught systematically -- step by step. Teachers also felt that specific principles have to be taught in context. They did not see an informational television spot as having educational value apart from its integration into a formal educational effort. Teachers, for example, noted that:

The movie may be used in the way to make the teacher's job more convenient. On one hand, the movie may be used as an illustration, on the other hand it may be used to prove a point of view. By itself this movie is not necessary.

18

This is the teacher's skills when he/she will use the movie . The teacher can show it in parts, to set up discussions about the movie, to illustrate his/her information.

In this movie there are no explanatory subtitles, there are no explanatory or comparative diagrams to the presented terms. In other words, the movie cannot be considered as educational. It can be considered only as an illustrative movie. This movie needs a teacher. Prior to the movie and after it he/ she will explain certain terms, certain graphs, tables, diagrams. All these things are needed for the lesson.

Teachers criticized the programs for not providing actual answers for questions such as, "what is money? 11 They also were critical of a slogan "money is freedom minted in metal," which they found to be political.

Students felt that the films helped them understand concepts such as value added tax and annuities. "I find these movies very useful," "I have learned the basics, 11 were common remarks.

Summary: The use of television as a medium for education has been effectively demonstrated by the Norma television series. At the same time, the 11 tendentious 11 side of talented Russian producers became manifest in the production of this remarkable series. By the end of the work, both the AED/ROSCON and the Norma production staff had come to appreciate the crucial role of patient and steady collaboration and of continuing review and revision of basic assumptions in the course of any joint Russian-American social marketing effort.

7 . 11 Vikon 11 Television Studio (Contract 212277-10).

Seven weekly 15 minute programs were produced and aired on ·Channel Three ("Moscow" Television) beginning on October 19, 1993. The programs were targeted to individual farmers, viewers considering farming as a profession, present and former collective farm workers, and obliquely to decision makers in the agricultural sector. The program format consisted of a seven minute film strip followed by an in-studio discussion with an expert.

The series opened with a retrospective view of land ownership in Russian history. Individual success stories included a world renown horse breeder, who had started his collection during the Soviet era by acquiring and raising injured colts, as well as a farmer and three sons who had creatively resolved cash flow problems. Another program was intended to encourage voluntary cooperatives (on the American model) by showing the struggles and difficulties of a farm family brought to the brink of ruin by a car

19

wreck which jeopardized their access to markets and the wife's heal th. The host/narrator visited a farm equipment exhibit and talked with potential customers as well as a consultant offering advice. Two brothers were shown who had made very good use of a small plot of land to raise exotic fish and flowers. The series also included a roundtable on the problems of individual farming in Russia.

Messages:

• Like all Russians, individual farmers have a special bond with the land.

• Individual farmers can succeed against the odds. • Individual farmers need good relations with their

neighbors, including collective farm workers. • Indivioual farmers are free to maximize income from sale

of produce and minimize taxes. • Indi victual farmers provide good jobs to workers and treat

their employees fairly . • Income from sales should be re-invested in production. 9 Individual farmers who voluntarily join cooperatives help

each other. • Agricultural development in Russia eeds not only to allow

people to farm as they wish but to give them the means to do so.

Focus Groups

The focus groups conducted among collective farm workers (kolkhozniki) provided the participants with occasion to speak out on a wide range of topics: As a result, ROSCON rec~lved a rich store of data on their attitudes toward economic reform. Their spontaneous reactions to the program material and their open discussions revealed that these groups of collective farm workers do not believe that economic rewards and benefits are or should be the fruit of actual work or individual productivity.

In these audience groups, the State is openly spoken of as "our father 11

- "without the State, it is impossible to live. If we cannot count upon the State, then we cannot survive." Life in the collective farm means security; it means wages regularly paid and things to buy: "I get paid. Across the road is a store. I gather everything in my bag and carry it. My children wait for me. Today is pay day, Marna or Papa will bring something tasty .... 11

Yet ourchase as such is not the only way to acquire goods and necessities . Kolkhozniki simply help themselves to State supplies: "here you can take everything free," 11 I need to pick up some coal, I go to the kolkhoz and ask for a car. 11

Kolkhozniki see that things are getting worse, however: 11 suppose the gearbox was broken, I would go to the warehouse and

20

take it, but it is not there. 11 The pay is low, and they complain bitterly. People are taking more and more of less and less in the collective farms, and the blame for the declining supplies is seen as the failure of managers to be strong, strict yet fair "masters. 11

Work (not productivity) is mentioned only incidentally in these kolkhozniki discussions. They characterize their life style as that of a "swarm, 11 which they prefer, and work is an occasion for being together: "I like it that there should be lots of people," "I, for example, prefer to be at work all day rather than at home. In the collective there is some variety, but at home its the same thing day after day. 11

Despite their attachment to the collective, the kolkhozniki understand the difference between personal and collective property. In describing how they take care of their personal property, the kolkhozniki actually describe two different work styles individual and collective:

Take me, for example, I feed my [own] cow better and clean it. I go to the kolkhoz - the day is gone, and that's it. I drink there, and would waste the fodder, better for me to give the fodder to my cow than to the government's cow.

Against this background of attitudes, beliefs and practices, the kolkhozniki view economically successful individuals, especially indi victual farmers, as sinister figures who acquire wealth though manipulation rather than work: "Really these people [individual farmers] are clever and smart, too much so, way too

much . "

Among the "clever" manipulations of individual farmers is the device of "employing" others as hired labor which, as these audiences see it, is a refined form of theft - i.e., stealing from the kolkhozniki their "honest labor" (economic value unknown) and making them poorer by paying insufficient wages. That which is

·known in the West as labor-management relations is seen by kolkhozniki as "exploitation, 11 which is not an economic relationship but rather a human relationship of injustice whereby a master fails to adequately care for his wards: "I have many children. I have no money to buy bread . [You think that] I go to bend my back for them. That isn't farming, it's exploitation." The individual farmer (as a "master") does not have to produce anything: "If I were the master and I had equipment and transportation, I wouldn't get up at four in the morning for the milking .... 11

Kolkhozniki view individual farmers as agents of disruption, who upset a natural order and cause such things as short.ages, declining wages on collective farms, and collapse of the farms as such . If peaceful relations between collective and individual

21

farmers are to be achieved, the kolkhozniki feel it is possible only through the establishment of some division of labor which they describe without any reference to principles of a market economy:

I think that the farmer with his family should take their piece of land, cultivate it, maintain their livestock there, hogs, cattle. And we raise what? Grain . Is he going to supply the country with grain? If he is a farmer, he should provide a return in meat, milk and eggs .

The sum of all the foregoing comments among kolkhozniki is a sense of complete dependency, even passivity, in the realm of economic relationships. The kolkhozniki view themselves as victims of incompetent 11 masters 11 and sinister manipulations . They long for a return to the stability and discipline of former masters, and even express this longing in terms of physical appearances: they prefer to have their fates determined by persons who look like themselves, like the stereotypical Russian 11 Van'ka 11 (diminutive for 11 Ivan") .

The attitudes of individual farmers, assembled in focus groups in Moscow and Voronezh Oblasts, provided polar opposites to those of the collective farm workers. For purposes of this research, ROS CON research recruited focus group participants from the 11 ranks 11

of military officers either separated from active duty or facing discharge under reductions in force. In some regions, these officers receive special training in agriculture before discharge to assist them in converting to civilian life.

To the extent kolkhozniki appear passive, dependent and bereft of hope, the individual farmers prize 11 independence, 11 11 freedom, 11

11 satisfaction in ·seeing what you have produced." Obstacles are seen as challenges and opportunities. Despite significant hardships experienced in the transition from city life to the Russian countryside, many participants expressed happiness in having returned to the land. One officer spoke of a "call of the

·1and 11 in the "genes" of those who grew up there . Others felt that the difficulties of country life were preferable to those of urban daily existence .

The individual farmers generally had received professional educations, particularly those with military careers. They were highly informed and interested in life outside their regions. They exhibited solid understanding of market economics and were able to articulate clearly the areas in which they lacked 11 know-how 11 and needed expert advice . They also recognized that relationships with neighboring collective farmers represented one of the most important problems to be resolved in their own careers in agriculture. Those who had already amassed some experience in farming were able to formulate with precision their complaints about the current state of agriculture in Russia : unfair mechanisms

22

for distribution of land; interference in the agriculture market system by local officials; corruption of organizations supposedly dedicated to advancement of farming (AKKOR, for example) ; a non­functioning system of credit for individuals engaged in farming; the absence of legal protections for land ownership or remedies for abuses by officials and criminal elements"

Against this background, reactions to four of the "Vikon" programs differed significantly. The kolkhozniki for the most part received the programs favorably; their reactions revealed intense interest in the human stories being told, and their harsh judgements of farmers in the abstract were forgotten in reference to the specific persons on the screen. By contrast, the individual farmers were disappointed and critical because they felt the programs provided them with no new or useful information. Also, the individual farmers displayed the general skepticism and suspicion toward broadcast media which were observed in other focus groups.

The four programs selected for viewing showed two successful individual farmers, one farm family that had suffered major setbacks, and a visit to an agricultural equipment exhibit. The subject of the first program is Tito Brunovich Pontekorvo, son of a prominent Western physicist who defected to the USSR in the 1950's. During the Soviet era, Pontekorvo grew dissatisfied with his chosen profession and began acquiring and breeding horses, purchasing injured col ts at low prices. His stable has now achieved international renown, but Pontekorvo has experienced extreme hardships along the way to success. His greatest obstacle has been hostility of neighboring collective farmers, who actually drove him away from his original location. Finding a new location, Pontekorvo deliberately cultivated good relations with neighboring kolkhozniki by providing medical services, a riding club for children, and a generous package of benefits for his employees. Taken at face value, the program presented an appealing picture of an entrepreneur who seized an opportunity, took a risk, figured out a way to overcome his neighbors' hostility, and succeeded.

The second program featured a farmer who, with his three sons, had successfully cultivated lands allocated in the governmental privatization program. He encountered, however, serious problems with his tax obligations (especially, the value added tax) which he managed to resolve by opening his own retail outlet. Through barter he managed to convert his perishable crops into durable goods which he could then retail in an orderly fashion and spread out his tax burdens.

The third program depicted the hardships suffered by a farm family whose business was totally disrupted when a car wreck deprived them of their transportation to market and left both husband and wife with residual disabilities. The producers' intention with this program was to point out that voluntary farmer

23

cooperatives can help individual families who fall into such misfortunes in a market economy.

The fourth program was a light-hearted production in which the "Vikon 11 studio narrator paid a visit to a exhibit of agricultural farm equipment. He engaged one of the customers in conversation, eliciting from the individual his need for sound advice. Then the narrator brought into the conversation a consultant on the scene with the intent of illustrating how individual farmers can in fact obtain necessary technical assistance through mechanisms already available in the Russian economy.

In each viewing, the kolkhozniki were most interested in the "human faces" on the screen. They were disappointed that the programs did not show their lives or present the situation of collective farmers in a sympathetic light. They were, however, very much impressed by the figure of Pontekorvo: "why doesn't he become the chairman of a kolkhoz? 11 Pontekorvo came across as precisely the type of strong, stern and energetic "master" needed to restore order in the Russian countryside. On the other hand, kolkhozniki quickly discerned that he was an 11 employer 11 and reacted negatively to certain choices of words. Pontekorvo, for example, said he had built his stable "himself," but the kolkhozniki saw, "he does not work alone, he only gives orders .... 11

The individual farmers approved of Pontekorvo's solution to his problem, and in the discussion they compared their own experiences. They felt, however, that Pontekorvo's line of work, horse breeding, was 11 elitist 11 in nature and not a particularly helpful source of information for themselves.

A special focus group, convened in February, 19 94, as a preliminary test of the methodology, produced rather similar reactions from a similar group of military officers facing discharge in the Moscow area. These officers felt that the origins of the conflict between the kolkhozniki and Pontekorvo was not made completely clear; there was more to the story than was disclosed,

""Something is fishy here!" Still, the audience was sympathetic to Pontekorvo and admired his tenacity and his achievements. Some viewers felt his strong personality may have made him less flexible than he could have been with his neighbors. There was a general sense that the program had highlighted a serious problem in Russian agriculture at this time.

For the kolkhozniki, the underlying problem in the second film (the farmer's tax difficulties) was difficult to grasp. As members of collective farms, individual kolkhozniki never dealt with tax problems because the kolkhoz administration was responsible for such matters. The kolkhozniki did, however, recognize a common problem in the theme of marketing produce and the ambivalent role of intermediaries in the process . The protagonist and his family were accepted sympathetically, although the kolkhozniki suspected

24

that he must have used hired labor to have such a successful farm and that he used influence to acquire his impressive array of equipment.

The audience of individual farmers found the material in the presentation relevant to their situation in all respects (retail marketing, taxation, etc). However, they received no new information from the broadcast . In fact, the discussion quickly moved beyond the theme of the film to the overall difficulty of surviving in a controlled market, where local bureaucrats can limit profits or ban sale of produce outside the district to all except those who have connections or pay bribes.

The special Moscow group of military officers reacted rather differently. They liked the individual protagonist, viewing him as a good, solid and enterprising fellow: "A practical peasant always evokes positive feelings." Yet, his prosperity was suspect, particularly the origins of his thriving family farm. Details in the film led the viewers to dismiss the entire program, as a propagandistic fabrication:

Untrue story. Why? Simply, because the film does not show where this farmer was before. Look at these blocks on the ground. Each block costs a lot of money. The farmer must be either a [kolkhoz] deputy director or former chairman . ...

If you look carefully at the [automobile] registration plates, you will see that all of them belong to the state. These registration plates used to be issued to the chairmen of kolkhozes. ..

In the store, they did not show one single thing made by th.e farmer. They have already tasted the bitter farming taste and started retailing domestic appliances. Pretty soon they will understand that this is the easiest way, and then they will give up farming.

In short, this audience strongly manifested the skepticism and distrust of broadcast media noted earlier in this report . They also shared the impatience of the experienced business people who viewed the "Business Wave" productions: we have already experienced the realities, so please do not show us fairy tales. In the end, the focus group dismissed the protagonist as a clever opportunist and the film as a marginal bit of propaganda. Both films taken together were considered "scary" by the audience, because they tended to make quite vivid the daunting obstacles standing before individual farmers in Russia today.

The third program, detailing problems of a farm family, had a discouraging impact on the kolkhozniki. All their fears of individual farming were confirmed by what they saw. The

25

kolkhozniki readily identified with the protagonists but their sympathy was tempered by feelings that, by going it alone (selfishly , doing "everything for himself"), the farmer brought upon himself a just retribution. The audience of individual farmers readily understood the plight of the protagonists but found objectionable their plaintive attitude and relapse into the kokhoznik's dependency: "What I did not like was this : there i s this woman who talked about 'help.' You understand, the psychology of 'help' is still alive in them, and they are anticipating above all help from somebody [else] . 11

The fourth and final program met with rejection by both audiences . The kolkhozniki found that the equipment being discussed was not suitable for their tracts of land, the prices were outlandish, and besides the procurement of farm equipment was never the responsibility of the average kolkhoznik but rather of a specialist assigned to the collective farm for that purpose. The individual farmers thought the film was aimed at dilettantes, "kitchen-gardeners . 11 Some felt it was a thinly veiled advertisement. The farmer who was interviewed in the film struck the audience as an incompetent, while the consultant seemed a questionable figure also . While consultant services (like American agricultural extension services) would be welcome , the individual farmers felt that the video at hand was more an irritant than a help.

Summary:

The audience · research with respect to the 11 Vikon 11 media products, as noted, captured a rich array of detailed information about attitudes of individual farmers and kolkhozniki during a time of difficult transition in the agricultural sector. The focus group technique proved successful among the kolkhozniki, an audience which ROSCON initially believed would be difficult to reach.

As a result of this research, ROSCON was able to formulate a ··set of guidelines for future media productions on the transformation of Russia's agricultural sector.

1. For collective farmers who would be employed by individual farmers :

• show the "human face" of the individual farmer including charitable or other socially beneficial activities.

• show individual farmers struggling with problems and overcoming them through personal effort.

• show individual farmers as caring people who feel responsibility for their land and treat employees fairly .

• show mixed models of farming where they exist individual farmers within collectives, voluntary cooperatives, etc .

• show that individual farmers re-inve s t profits in their

26

businesses and postpone personal expenditures.

2. For collective farmers who might become individual farmers:

• de-emphasize the difficulties of individual farming or offer concrete solutions.

• highlight kolkhozniki who have become individual farmers to promote 11 peer 11 recognition and imitation.

• show the "how to" of transition from collective to individual farming.

• show the details of start-up to overcome initial fears .

3. For the individual farmers already in business: • show practical solutions to problems of processing and

retail sale of produce • show voluntary cooperatives and advantages for individual

farmers . • discuss options for land ownership and rental. • be frank about security issues, racketeering and the

extortion by local authorities and give advice on how to assert one's rights.

4. For the individual farmers just starting out: c show how to work with the local population • show how urban families can psychologically adapt to a

rural environment; • give practical advice on start-up capital and credits. • give practical tips on sources of information.

8 . 11 We/Mbl 11 newspaper column (Contract 212277-12) .

11 We/Mbl 11 newspaper was founded as a joint venture between the American Hearst publishing firm and Izvestia and published weekly in Russian and in English editions. Its readership cut across several ROSCON target audiences (students, young entrepreneurs, mature businessmen, some enterprise directors, and the cultural

·elite). With Project ROSCON funding, the newspaper designed and published an insert containing profiles of several successful, prominent entrepreneurs .

The project was intended as a test vehicle to determine if such an insert or column could sustain entrepreneurial and free market attitudes among those who have accepted and adopted new economic behaviors. Unfortunately, focus group testing was not possible for this product . Data began to appear from other sources indicating that individual success stories of this type no longer inspired readers but rather aroused suspicions. (See discussion of "Business Wave" above.) Moreover such articles tended to irritate and annoy the general public . As a result, the idea of a series was abandoned.

27

9. "TOR" Television Studio (Contract 212277-13).

In presenting economic messages, "Tor" studio designed a lively format in which a narrator visited a commercial bank, a savings and loan, and an insurance company in each of three programs. In this series, the producers sought to anticipate questions of the average viewer. Each video showed the narrator interviewing employees and officers of the companies, posing these questions, receiving answers and then following up, again, as an typical, educated citizen might do. The contract was concluded somewhat late in the first year of ROSCON operations. The programs were aired in May, 1994, by which time focus group data was already in hand which revealed the high levels of audience distrust previously mentioned in this report. It was concluded that no production could realistically anticipate all questions and assuage all doubts, so that the format was deemed ineffective.

28

CONCLUSIONS

The focus group technique works in Russia. At the commencement of Project ROSCON, Russian and some American participants in the project expressed concern that after seventy­five years of agit-prop, re-inforced by Stalinist terror, · it would be exceedingly difficult to elicit candid opinions from the majority of Russian citizens. This would be particularly a problem in the context of social marketing, where sensitive political and social issues might arise.

The ROSCON experience has shown that these fears were unfounded, even in groups (such as kolkhozniki) where considerable difficulties were anticipated . On only one occasion, that being the recruitment of teen-agers who at the time were studying in school the Stalin purges, did any potential group members express anxiety about political "provocation . " The routine assurance of anonymity given as a matter of course in focus group proceedings was sufficient to overcome these anxieties.

Since January, 1994, AED/ROSCON has conducted approximately thirty focus groups to test its pilot broadcast products on economic conversion and the market economy. With only one exception (a group of ten-year-olds), the audiences have been critical (often harshly critical) of the programs. Russian viewers display a keen analytical bent and a penetrating eye for details. A didactic tone (even a pleasant voice in the narration) reminds them of obligatory Soviet "kino- and telejournals, 11 and frequently evokes distaste for the program and sometimes the message. Unexplained facts or errors are invariably given a sinister interpretation.

ROSCON has not developed a systematic explanation for the jaundiced eye which Russian audiences cast upon the "blue screen." A typical comment from Russian social scientists is that seventy­f i ve years of misinformation and deception has eroded trust among Russians for any mass media products.

Whatever its causes, this distrust of broadcast media seems an ever present factor among Russian audiences. Accordingly, focus groups can be expected to criticize and ridicule programs as a matter of course . While many comments must be (and are) taken seriously, the real value of focus group discussions consists of substantive comments and ideas on the underlying themes of the shows.

While Project ROSCON has derived valuable lessons learned with respect to Russian television and radio audiences, it has also learned about the approaches of Russian producers toward those audiences against the background of agit-prop which, to say the least, steadfastly held that 11 the customer is never right. 11 In the course of Project ROSCON, its contract media producers have through

29

actual experience been awakened to the importance of audience research in programs intended to influence and persuade. This alone may represent a singular achievement of ROSCON as a vehicle of social conversation and democratization.

The impact has not been limited to journalists, however. Beginning in May, 1994, Project ROSCON undertook a special project in collaboration with the ARD/Checchi Rule of Law consortium and the Russian State Judicial Administration. A series of videos were produced to explain and support the re-introduction of jury trials into Russia. The findings of that work are set forth in a separate report: "RUSSIAN JUDICIAL REFORM: ATTITUDES OF THE RUSSIAN PUBLIC. 11

A very significant and somewhat unexpected by-product of this project has been heightened sensitivity to audience feedback at high levels of the Russian State Judicial Administration (GPU) .

In modern Russian history the intelliqentsia (intellectual elite) has proven an ambiguous, often unreliable force in social and political change. The idealism of nineteenth century reformists (eventually, revolutionaries) was marked both by naivete and by isolation from the people. In many ways, the same naivete and isolation are evident among contemporary Russian proponents of democratization.

The judicial reform branch of the GPU, under the direction of Dr. Sergei A. Pashin, has initiated and pressed forward the re­introduction of jury trial, revision of the criminal code and other measures. In launching the video series on jury trial, Dr. Pashin and his associates (as they freely admit today) were convinced that they could on their own design a series of programs which would effectively communicate their messages to Russian television audiences. The GPU staff was highly skeptical about the prospect of audience research but acquiesced to its inclusion in the project work plan.

The actual focus groups were observed by Dr. Pashin and his ·staff through closed circuit television. The impact was immediate and visible. As recounted in the above-mentioned report, audiences were highly critical of the format chosen by GPU writers. Further interpretation of focus group reports convinced the GPU staff that important revisions were required.

As a direct result of this experience, Dr. Pashin and his colleagues now acknowledge the importance of audience research, realizing that the design of any information, communications or social marketing program must begin with the target audience. In this sense, they have become "democrats" in a practical, concrete way. Quite apart from the place of the jury trial videos in Russian judicial reform, it is clear that the production process itself, as a joint Russian-American undertaking, represents a measurable contribution to the democratization of Russia.

30