Appreciation Index

There are three widely known ways to appraise screen material, two of which are systematically representative of the public. For television programs and for movies, the size of the audience is estimated on the basis of representative audience methods. However, in several countries (the United Kingdom, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, and elsewhere) another systematically representative assessment method has been used and in some cases is still used: the measurement of appreciation. Movies and television programs are also awarded prizes (Oscars and Emmys); however, the prize juries, although influential and knowledgeable, are “invisible” and do not represent the public. Thus, this method of assessment is nonrepresentative (and thus potentially misleading).

[Page 101]In a democratic society, in which votes count as opinions, the box office and audience size measures are widely supposed to denote popularity or liking. Yet, many other elements, such as publicity, release times, and channels, also influence how many people see a work; thus, simple audience size is not an automatic index of merit. The faction that treats large audience sizes as simple good news consists of marketers and advertisers. For them, a good program is one with a large audience, which is why they support “the ratings” as measures of value; such ratings do measure marketplace income.

All this obscures an important dimension that has been measured in many countries by an Appreciation Index (AI), as explained by J. Mallory Wober in his 1988 book The Use and Abuse of Television. The AI—usually measured confidentially—is found by asking representative samples of the viewing public to rate each program they see on a scale. Currently, the UK system uses a scale from 0 to 10; the viewers who give an opinion for a program are a representation of its audience, and their marks are averaged and expressed on a scale from 0 to 100. Thus, the AI is a systematically represented evaluation of a program. There is much evidence that the AI is a reliable measure. At least two projects measured AIs for programs in the United States. The AIs in these U.S. projects (both now discontinued) were very similar to AIs for these same programs shown in the United Kingdom.

AI results show that some programs have small audiences and low appreciation and would find it difficult to survive in commercial conditions. Yet other programs have small audiences but high AIs, suggesting a value that has escaped assessment in the market. Such a program might gain a larger audience shown at some other time and thus be valuable to broadcasters; but it also points to a social value or public benefit that broadcasters in many countries have wanted to identify and sustain.

The Encyclopedia of Children, Adolescents, and the Media is likely to have a modest or even low level of circulation (a measure equivalent to the so-called program ratings in TV) compared with that of a Harry Potter movie; yet an assessment (or true rating) by a representative sample of its readers might reveal a score as good as, or perhaps even better than, that given by Potter moviegoers using a similar rating method. The two methods of assessment show some similarities in some situations but are more truly complementary and different. Both are useful and valuable, and the appreciation results should certainly be obtained where possible and not kept confidential.

...