U.S. International Broadcasting: Challenges Facing the Broadcasting Board of Governors
Published: 2004-04-01T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were a dramatic reminder of the importance of cultivating a better understanding of the United States and our policies with overseas audiences. U.S. public diplomacy activities include the efforts of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees all nonmilitary U.S. international broadcasting by the Voice of America (VOA) and several other broadcast entities. Such broadcasting helps promote a better understanding of the United States and serves U.S. interests by providing overseas audiences with accurate and objective news about the United States and the world. GAO has issued three reports over the past 4 years examining the organizational, marketing, resource, and performance reporting challenges faced by the Board. Our recommendations to the Board have included the need to address the long-standing issue of overlapping language services (that is, where two services broadcast in the same language to the same audience) and to strengthen the Board's strategic planning and performance by placing a greater emphasis on results. The Board has taken significant steps to respond to these and other recommendations.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Broadcasting Board of Governors has responded to a disparate organizational structure and marketing challenges by developing a new strategic approach to broadcasting which, among other things, emphasizes reaching large audiences through modern broadcasting techniques. The existence of five separate broadcast entities has led to overlapping language services, duplication of program content, redundant newsgathering and support services, and difficulties coordinating broadcast efforts. The Board's new approach seeks to overcome these problems by treating all broadcast entities as part of a "single system" it oversees to ensure that broadcast content meets the needs of individual markets. Other challenges include a lack of target audiences within broadcast markets, outmoded program formats and styles, poor signal delivery in many areas, and low audience awareness in several major markets. The Board's approach calls for new initiatives (such as Radio Sawa broadcasts to the Middle East) and existing language services to systematically address these deficiencies. To streamline its operations, the Board has used its annual language service review to address such issues as how resources should be allocated among language services on the basis of their priority and impact, what degree of overlap should exist among services, and whether services should be eliminated because they have fulfilled their broadcast mission. Since 1999, the Board has identified more than $50 million in actual or potential savings through this process. In response to our recommendations on the Board's strategic planning and performance management efforts, the Board revised its strategic plan to make reaching large audiences in strategic markets the centerpiece of its performance reporting system. The Board also added broadcaster credibility and audience awareness to its array of performance measures and plans to add a measure of whether VOA is meeting its mandated mission.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to provide an overview of the three reports  we have issued over the past 4 years on the operations of the Broadcasting  Board of Governors.  These reports have examined a number of  organizational, marketing, resource, and performance management  challenges facing U.S. international broadcasting. Our two most recent  reports have addressed the Board’s principal response to these  challenges—a new 5-year strategic approach to international broadcasting  known as “Marrying the Mission to the Market,” which emphasizes the  need to reach large audiences by applying modern broadcast techniques  and strategically allocating resources to focus on high-priority broadcast  markets. Early implementation of this strategy has focused on markets  relevant to the war on terrorism, in particular the Middle East and central  Asia.
Drawing from our published reports as well as recent testimony on U.S.  public diplomacy, I will talk today about (1) organizational and marketing  obstacles and the Board’s efforts to overcome them, (2) what the Board  has done to manage its limited resources, and (3) the status of Board  efforts to develop meaningful performance goals and measures. I will also  discuss our recommendations to the Board and the status of its response  to them. As part of our work to prepare for this testimony, we met with  Board staff to obtain updated program data and current information on the  steps the Board has taken to respond to our recommendations. The  reports used for this testimony were conducted in accordance with  government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Broadcasting Board of Governors oversees the efforts of all  nonmilitary international broadcasting, which reaches an estimated  audience of more than 100 million people each week in more than 125  markets worldwide. The Board manages the operations of the  International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), VOA, the Middle East Television  Network (Alhurra and Radio Sawa), RFE/RL, and Radio Free Asia (RFA).  In addition to serving as a reliable source of news and information, VOA is  responsible for presenting U.S. policies through a variety of means  including officially labeled government editorials. Radio/TV Marti,  RFE/RL, and RFA were created by Congress to function as “surrogate”  broadcasters, designed to temporarily replace the local media of countries  where a free and open press does not exist. Created by the Bush  Administration and the Board, the Middle East Television Network draws  its mission from the core purpose of U.S. international broadcasting,  which is to promote and sustain freedom by broadcasting accurate and  objective news and information about the United States and the world to  audiences overseas.
In addition to the stand-alone entities that make up U.S. international  broadcasting, Congress and the Board have created other broadcast  organizations to meet specific program objectives. Congress created Radio  Free Iraq, Radio Free Iran, and Radio Free Afghanistan and incorporated  these services into RFE/RL’s operations. Under its new strategic approach  to broadcasting, the Board and the Bush Administration created Radio  Sawa, the Afghanistan Radio Network (ARN), Radio Farda, and Alhurra to  replace poorly performing services, more effectively combine existing  services, and create new broadcast entities where needed. Figure 1  illustrates the Board’s current organizational structure.
VOA, RFE/RL, and RFA are organized around a collection of language  services that produces program content. In some countries, more than one  entity broadcasts in the same language. These overlapping services are  designed to meet the distinct missions of each broadcast entity. Currently,  42 of the Board’s 74 language services (or 57 percent) target the same  audiences in the same languages. While some degree of overlap is to be  expected given the varying missions of the broadcast entities, the Board  has concluded that this level of overlap requires ongoing analysis and  scrutiny.
The Board’s budget for fiscal year 2003 was approximately $552 million,  with nearly half of its resources used to cover transmission, technical  support, Board and IBB management staff salaries, and other support  costs. Among the broadcast entities, funds are roughly equally divided  among VOA and the four other U.S. broadcasting entities. Figure 2  provides a breakout of the Board’s fiscal year 2003 budget.
section_title: Disparate Structure and Outmoded Broadcast Approach Hamper Efforts to Reach Large Audiences in Strategic Markets
paragraphs: Our reviews of U.S. international broadcasting reveal that the Board faces  the challenges of operating a mix of broadcast entities with varying  missions and structures in an environment that provides significant  marketing obstacles. As we reported in July 2003, the Board has adopted a  new approach to broadcasting that is designed to overcome several of  these challenges. The Board’s key organizational challenge is the disparate  mix of broadcast entities it is tasked with managing. To address this  problem, the Board has adopted a “single system” approach to  broadcasting whereby broadcast entities are viewed as content providers  and the Board assumes a central role in tailoring this content to meet the  demands of individual markets. The Board also faces marketing challenges  that include the lack of a unique reason for listeners to tune in, the general  lack of target audiences within broadcast markets, and poor to fair signal  quality for many of the broadcast services. Recent Board initiatives such  as Radio Sawa and Alhurra have addressed these deficiencies in priority  markets and the Board has required that all broadcast services, to the  extent feasible, address these issues as well.
subsections: section_title: Disparate Structure of Broadcast Operations Remains an Ongoing Challenge
paragraphs: The Board’s major organizational challenge is the need to further  consolidate and streamline its operations to better leverage existing  resources and generate greater program impact in priority markets.  According to the Board’s strategic plan, “the diversity of the Broadcasting  Board of Governors—diverse organizations with different missions,  different frameworks, and different constituencies—makes it a challenge  to bring all the separate parts together in a more effective whole.” As  noted in our 2003 report, senior program managers and outside experts  with whom we spoke supported considering the option of consolidating  U.S. international broadcasting efforts into a single entity.
The Board intends to create a unified broadcasting system by treating the  component parts of U.S. international broadcasting as a single system.  Under this approach, VOA and other U.S. broadcast entities are viewed as  content providers and the Board’s role is to bring this content together to  form new services or entities as needed. The single system approach to  managing the Board’s diversity requires that the Board actively manage  resources across broadcast entities to achieve common broadcast goals. A  good example of this strategy in action is Radio Farda, which combined  VOA and RFE/RL broadcast content to produce a new broadcast product  for the Iranian market. In the case of Radio Sawa, the Board replaced  VOA’s poorly performing Arabic service with a new broadcast entity. The  Board’s experience with implementing Radio Sawa suggests that it can be  difficult to make disparate broadcast entities work toward a common  purpose. For example, Board members and senior planners told us they  encountered some difficulties attempting to work with officials to launch  Radio Sawa within VOA’s structure and were later forced to constitute  Radio Sawa as a separate grantee organization. While this move was  needed to achieve the Board’s strategic objectives, it also contributes to  the further fragmentation of U.S. international broadcasting.
section_title: New Initiatives Address Marketing Challenges
paragraphs: The Board’s strategic plan comments openly on the marketing challenges  facing U.S. international broadcasters, including that many language  services lack a unique reason for listeners or viewers to tune in; few  language services have identified their target audience—a key first step in  developing a broadcast strategy; many language services have outmoded  formats and programs with an antiquated, even Cold War, sound and style;  and three-quarters of transmitted hours have poor or fair signal quality.
Consistent with its “Marrying the Mission to the Market” philosophy, the  Board has sought to address these deficiencies in key markets with new  initiatives in Afghanistan, Iran, and the Middle East that support the war  on terrorism. The first project under the new approach, Radio Sawa  (recently added to the new Middle East Television Network), was  launched in March 2002 using many of the modern, market-tested  broadcasting techniques and practices prescribed in its strategic plan,  including identifying a target audience, researching the best way to attract  the target audience, and delivering programming in a contemporary and  appealing format to the Middle East. The Board’s other recent initiatives  also have adhered to this new approach by being tailored to the specific  circumstances of each target market. These initiatives include the  Afghanistan Radio Network, Radio Farda service to Iran, and the Alhurra  satellite service to the Middle East. Table 1 describes the Board’s recent  projects supporting the war on terrorism.
Although we have not validated available research data, the Board claims  that implementation of these marketing improvements has led to dramatic  increases in audience listening rates. For example, the Board notes that  Radio Sawa is now the number one international broadcaster in the Middle  East, with a weekly audience of over 30 percent of the target audience in  countries where it is broadcast on FM. In addition to these new initiatives,  the Board has tasked all language services with adopting the tenets of its  new approach, such as identifying a target audience and improving signal  quality, to the maximum extent possible within existing budget  constraints.
section_title: Language Service Review Used to Reallocate Millions to Higher Priority Broadcast Needs
paragraphs: The Board manages its limited resources through its annual language  service review process which is used to address such issues as how  resources should be allocated among services based on their priority and  impact, how many broadcast services should be carried in total, what  degree of overlap and content duplication should exist among services,  and whether services should be eliminated because they have fulfilled  their broadcast mission. This process responds to the congressional  mandate that the Board periodically review the need to add and delete  language services. The Board has interpreted this mandate to include the  expansion and reduction of language services. Since 1999, the Board has  identified more than $50 million in actual or potential savings through the  language service review process by moving resources from lower to higher  priority services, by eliminating language services, and by reducing  language service overlap and transmission costs.
subsections: section_title: Review Process Used to Address Complex Resource Issues
paragraphs: As noted in our July 2003 report, the Board’s strategic plan concludes that  if U.S. international broadcasting is to become a vital component of U.S.  foreign policy, it must focus on a clear set of broadcast priorities. The plan  notes that trying to do too much at the same time fractures this focus,  extends the span of control beyond management capabilities, and siphons  off precious resources. As discussed in our report, the Board determined  that current efforts to support its broadcast languages are “unsustainable”  with current resources given its desire to increase impact in high priority  markets. Our survey of senior program managers revealed that a majority  supported significantly reducing the total number of language services and  the overlap in services between VOA and the surrogate broadcasters. We  found that 18 of 24 respondents said that too many language services are  offered. When asked how many countries should have more than one U.S.  international broadcaster providing service in the same language, 23 of 28  respondents said this should occur in only a few countries or no countries  at all.
The Board’s annual language service review process serves as the Board’s  principal tool for managing these complex resource questions. This  process has evolved into an intensive program and budget review that  culminates with ranked priority and impact listings for each of the Board’s  74 language services. These ranked lists become the basis for proposed  language service reductions or eliminations and provide the Board with an  analytical basis for making such determinations using measures of U.S.  strategic interests, audience size, press freedom, and a host of other  factors. Since the first language service review process began in 1999 and  up through 2002, the Board has reduced the scope of operations of over 25  language services based on their priority and impact rankings and  reallocated about $19.7 million to help fund higher priority broadcast  needs such as Radio Sawa and Radio Farda.
As discussed in our February 2004 report, a clear example of the language  service review process in action was the Board’s recent proposal to  eliminate 17 Central and Eastern European language services which  served to reduce the overall number of language services and eliminate  several overlapping services where the Board believed each broadcast  entities mission had been completed. This decision resulted in non- recurring budget savings of about $8.8 million for fiscal year 2004 and  recurring annual savings of about $12.1 million. Our only criticism of this  decision was that the Board’s language service review process did not  include a measure of press freedom that gauges whether the press acts  responsibly and professionally. This is a significant omission in the  Board’s current measure, given the congressional concern that RFE/RL’s  broadcast operations not be terminated until a country’s domestic media  meet this condition. Board officials acknowledged that their existing  press freedom measure could be updated to include information on media  responsibility and professional quality, and work is under way to develop a  more comprehensive measure for the Board’s 2004 language service  review.
section_title: Overlapping Language Services Addressed Remains an Issue of Concern
paragraphs: In our September 2000 report, we cited the Board’s concerns about  overlapping language services and its plans to address this issue in  subsequent iterations of the language service review process. In our July  2003 report we again raised the issue of language service overlap and  content duplication between VOA and the surrogates. We also noted that  while the Board’s strategic plan identified overlap as a challenge, it failed  to answer questions about when it is appropriate to broadcast VOA and  surrogate programming in the same language.
The Board has responded to our observations and recommendations by  incorporating a review of overlapping services in its language service  review process for 2003. The Board developed several approaches to  dealing with overlap. For example, services can be “merged” by having one  service subsume another (as was the case Radio Farda). A second  approach is to run alternating services as is the case with the Afghanistan  Radio Network, which runs VOA and RFE/RL programming on a single  broadcast stream. Another approach is to simply terminate one or both  overlapping services. All of the Board’s overlapping services were  assessed with these different approaches in mind. As a result of this  analysis, the Board identified an estimated $4.9 million in fiscal year 2004  and 2005 savings from overlap services that could be redirected to higher  priority broadcasting needs, such as expanded Persian language television  for Iran and expanded Urdu language radio for Pakistan.
section_title: Strategic Planning and Performance Management System Revised to Place a Greater Focus on Results
paragraphs: Mr. Chairman, the Board has revised its strategic planning and  performance management system to respond to the recommendations in  our July 2003 report aimed at improving the measurement of its results. In  that report, we recommended that the Board’s new strategic plan include a  goal designed to gauge progress toward reaching significant audiences in  markets of strategic interest to the United States. Our report also  recommended that the Board establish key performance indicators  relating to the perceived credibility of U.S. broadcasters, whether  audiences are aware of U.S. broadcast offerings in their area, and whether  VOA is achieving its mission of effectively explaining U.S. policies and  practices to overseas audiences.
subsections: section_title: Reaching Large Audiences in Key Markets
paragraphs: In response to our recommendation for a goal that would measure  progress in reaching large audiences in markets of strategic interest to the  United States, the Board replaced the seven strategic goals in its plan with  a single goal focused on this core objective. The goal is supported by a  number of performance indicators (at the entity and language service  level) that are designed to measure the reach of U.S. international  broadcasting efforts and whether programming is delivered in the most  effective manner possible. Weekly listening rates at the entity level and  target audience numbers by language service provide key measures of the  Board’s reach. Other program effectiveness measures include program  quality, the number of broadcast affiliates, signal strength, Internet usage,  and cost per listener.
section_title: Broadcaster Credibility
paragraphs: In response to our recommendation for a measure of broadcaster  credibility to identify whether target audiences believe what they hear, the  Board added such a measure to its performance management system.  Reaching a large listening or viewing audience is of little use if audiences  largely discount the news and information portions of broadcasts. Our  survey of senior program managers and discussions with Board staff and  outside groups all suggest the possibility that U.S. broadcasters (VOA in  particular) suffer from a credibility problem with foreign audiences, who  may view VOA and other broadcasters as biased sources of information.  InterMedia, the Board’s audience research contractor, told us that it was  working on a credibility index for another customer that could be adapted  to meet the Board’s needs and, when segmented by language service,  would reveal whether there are significant perception problems among  key target audiences. However, to develop a similar measure, Intermedia  told us that the Board would need to add several questions to its national  survey instruments.
section_title: Audience Awareness
paragraphs: In response to our finding that the Board lacked a measure of audience  awareness, the Board has added such a measure to its performance  management system. We determined this measure would help the Board  answer a key question of effectiveness: whether target audiences are even  aware of U.S. international broadcasting programming available in their  area. Board officials have stated that having this measure would help the  Board understand a key factor in audience share rates and what could be  done to address audience share deficiencies. We found that the Board  could develop this measure since it already collects information on  language service awareness levels in its audience research and in national  surveys for internal use.
section_title: VOA Mission Effectiveness
paragraphs: Finally, in response to our finding that the Board lacked a measure of  whether target audiences hear, understand, and retain information  broadcast by VOA on American thought, institutions, and policies, Board  officials we spoke with told us that they are currently developing this  measure for inclusion in the Board’s performance management system.  The unique value-added component of VOA’s broadcasting mission is its  focus on issues and information concerning the United States, our system  of government, and the rationale behind U.S. policy decisions. Tracking  and reporting these data are important in determining whether VOA is  accomplishing its mission. Officials from the Board’s research firm noted  that developing a measure of this sort is feasible and requires developing  appropriate quantitative and qualitative questions to include in the Board’s  ongoing survey activities.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to  respond to any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may  have at this time.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For future contacts regarding this testimony, please call Jess Ford or  Diana Glod at (202) 512-4128. Individuals making key contributions to this  testimony included Janey Cohen, Rick Barrett, Melissa Pickworth, and  Michael ten Kate.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.