Josh Bentley is a doctoral fellow at Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Oklahoma. He has previously worked at Christian radio stations in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Alabama. This report was originally submitted at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication 2011 Conference in the Religion and Media Interest Group.
Abstract
The process of gatekeeping has been studied extensively in the context of news reporting, but has received less attention in the context of entertainment media. This study examines various forces and routines that influence Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) radio stations in their music selection process. These forces include different philosophies of radio programming, song and artist factors, and outside influence factors. CCM radio is a unique format because it is defined primarily by lyrical content rather than musical style, and because most Christian stations are listener-supported.
Gatekeeping in Contemporary Christian Music Radio
click for full size image
Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) has grown from its humble beginnings in the Jesus Movement of the 1970s (Peacock, 1999) to an important musical format in the radio and recording industries (Kelly, 2003; Lochte, 2007). In 2009, the ratings service Arbitron reported that CCM radio reached more than 16 million listeners a week and tied for 12th out of 55 formats in nationwide market share (Radio Today, 2010, pp. 12, 59). According to the president of the Gospel Music Association, Christian and gospel music represented about 6.5% of U.S. record sales in 2009 (Price, 2009). However, CCM has received only limited attention from academic researchers.
This paper considers the role of Christian radio stations as “gatekeepers” in the CCM format. Within mass media, gatekeepers are decision makers who “must winnow down a larger number of potential messages to a few (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996, p. 105). At Christian radio stations, the primary gatekeepers are the people involved in choosing which songs to air and which songs to reject. Shoemaker & Reese argued that gatekeepers are often more influenced by the routines of their industry than by their individual opinions.
This study uses an online survey of 88 Christian radio stations to explore the routines and other forces that influence how CCM programmers select music for their playlists. Because gatekeeping research has historically focused on news content rather than entertainment or religion, this paper seeks to extend gatekeeping theory into a neglected area. Additionally, this paper adds to a relatively small body of literature on religious music radio.
Literature Review
Within communication studies, gatekeeping theory is an attempt to explain how media select content to transmit to an audience. Gatekeeping theory is an examination of the people and processes that shape media messages. Even before scholars began using the term “gatekeeping,” they were aware that media did not convey any and all possible messages to the public. In 1922, Walter Lippmann observed:
Every newspaper when it reaches the reader is the result of a whole series of selections as to what items shall be printed, in what position they shall be printed, how much space each shall occupy, what emphasis each shall have. (p. 354)
Limitations of time, money, and audience attention all force media practitioners to make choices about what to say and what not to say. Lippmann argued that these choices shaped people’s perception of the world and, thus, influenced public opinion.
Development of Gatekeeping Theory
click for full size image
Kurt Lewin, the German-born experimental psychologist, coined the term “gatekeeping” (Rogers, 1997) as part of a study on why people eat certain foods. In a report published posthumously, Lewin (1951) described the different channels through which food flows from producers to retailers and eventually to consumers. He conceptualized each decision point in the process as a gate, guarded by a decision maker, or gatekeeper. Lewin suggested that this model was not limited to food channels, but could also be used to study the flow of news.
White (1950) conducted the first case study of gatekeeping in mass media. He enlisted the help of a newspaper wire editor, whom he called “Mr. Gates,” to track which wire stories made the paper and which did not over the course of one week. White found that Mr. Gates only used one tenth of the wire copy he received and that he rejected stories for a variety of reasons, including length, poor writing, boring subject matter, and his own biases or opinions. Based on this case study, White concluded that communities are likely to hear “only those events which the newsman, as the representative of his culture, believes to be true” (p. 392).
Subsequent studies have found that most gatekeepers are not as autonomous as Mr. Gates appeared to be. Gieber (1956) observed 16 newspaper wire service editors and concluded that these editors were “caught in a strait jacket of mechanical details” (p. 432). Time and budget pressure, along with editorial mandates from employers, meant that the wire editors spent their time cutting stories and writing headlines, not pondering which stories to print. In Geiber’s words, “As a ‘gatekeeper’ in the channel of telegraph news, the wire editor appears to be passive” (p. 432). Snider (1967) found that even the original Mr. Gates did not have as much freedom 17 years after White’s (1950) study. New management at Mr. Gates’ paper meant that more decisions were dictated by news events, editorial policies, and available resources.
As Shoemaker and Vos (2009) observed, White’s (1950) early gatekeeping model was quite simplistic. News sources sent items to gatekeepers who allowed some items through and stopped others. However, Westley and MacLean (1957) added the concept of feedback to this model, noting that communicators would need a way to determine how useful their information was to audiences. McNelly (1959) argued that gatekeeping occurs at every level of a media organization, from the reporter, to the news bureau, to the wire service, to the local papers and broadcasters, and even to the audience. Shoemaker and Vos (2009) suggested that news flows through various channels to a news “table” from which audience members help themselves by selectively paying attention the information they deem relevant.
Forces that Affect Gatekeepers
click for full size image
Gatekeeping research suggests that within these various models, there are numerous social, structural, technological, and personal forces that affect gatekeepers’ decisions. Scholars have found that government regulation has an influence on mass media, especially broadcast media that are licensed by the FCC. For instance, Loomis (2008) found that after Janet Jackson’s controversial performance at the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, television station managers were especially concerned about airing any offensive content that might lead to a fine.
The audience is a major influence on gatekeepers. Mass media desire to serve the public, but also need to satisfy commercial considerations. Applegate (2008) argued that media must build large audiences in order to attract advertisers. This means “the news has to focus on topics that are interesting to the majority of readers/viewers and has to be packaged in such a way that readers/viewers find the news attractive” (p. 12).
Different audiences are interested in different things. Buckalew (1969) discovered that small town newspaper editors were more concerned with localism, while big city editors focused more on timeliness and providing the most current news. Brown (1979) noted that news magazines published more stories about birth control when the economy was bad and people were worried about the future. Beam (2003) found that more market-oriented newspapers tried to please their readers with extra sports and lifestyle news at the expense of “content for the public sphere” (p. 377). One survey of newspaper editors found general agreement with the idea that “editors should keep target audiences in mind” (Attaway-Fink, 2004, p. 149). Another found a divided opinion, with half of the respondents worried about the “crumbling wall between the news and the business sides of the newsroom” (Gade, 2002, p. 149).
Along with pleasing the audience, the mass media also has to please advertisers. An and Bergen (2007) surveyed 219 newspaper advertising directors and asked them to respond to four ethical scenarios. The scenarios ranged from featuring an advertiser in a special section about lawn care, to spiking a news story about an advertiser’s arrest. An and Bergen found that advertising directors at smaller newspapers were more likely to accept these practices than ad directors at larger papers.
Some gatekeeping influences, like government regulation, or economic factors, may seem obvious. However, subtler forces like technology can also play important roles. In a content analysis study, Stempel (1985) found stronger similarity between television news than between newspapers. He suggested that the visual aspect of TV might influence content decisions. Similarly, in case studies of 13 newspapers and television news stations, Abbott and Brassfield (1989) found that television gatekeepers placed more emphasis on “visual possibilities” (p. 856) than newspaper gatekeepers did when considering which stories to cover. This consideration was not as strong as other news values such as proximity and significance, but it illustrates how the attributes of a medium, itself, can affect the gatekeeping process.
Technology also plays a gatekeeping role by determining which stories journalists are able to cover. Livingston and Bennett (2003) identified an increase in event-driven news over managed news (e.g., press conferences) on CNN’s international desk between 1994 and 2001. They hypothesized that reporters had more flexibility to leave major cities and cover breaking stories because they had new equipment like portable video cameras and satellite phones.
New technologies have also made more people into gatekeepers. For example, Internet users can email news articles or blog posts to one another. In a 2008 conference paper (as cited in Shoemaker & Vos, 2009), Shoemaker, Seo and Johnson, tracked items on the New York Times most-emailed list. They reported that readers showed more interest in odd or unusual stories than journalists did, suggesting that audiences “use different criteria for gatekeeping decisions than those used by journalists” (Shoemaker & Vos, 2009, p. 128). Other scholars have pointed out that Internet news portals such as Google News and Yahoo News create an additional gate through which information must pass (Bui, 2010).
Along with technology, there are other practical considerations that may influence the gatekeeping process. As the gatekeeping models recognize, journalists can only report news if they know about it. News sources represent a channel of information, but using a source requires news outlets to devote certain resources to that source. For example, Soloski (1989) went to work as a copy editor for a local newspaper to study which news sources it used. He found that the paper had to choose which beats to cover or not to cover because of staffing limitations. He also noted that the paper relied heavily on governmental sources, presumably because they were easy to access and to verify. In a case study of an Indianapolis TV news station, Berkowitz (1990) observed a preference for stories about accidents, crimes, and politicians. He attributed this to the fact that “these stories required less research effort and less expertise to develop into an airable story” (p. 63).
click for full size image
Gatekeeping research has shown that the process is more complicated that White’s (1950) original Mr. Gates study. However, it would be a mistake to think that personal opinions never influence gatekeepers. Sometimes, this influence may be entirely unintentional. Gatekeepers may believe they are simply responding to audience demand, when in fact they are acting on their biases. For example, Hardin (2005) surveyed sports editors and found that most of them were confident that they gave their readers what they wanted, even though most papers did not have a formal way to measure readers’ interests. Female and minority editors were more likely than white male editors to believe their readers were interested in female sports. Whether this was accurate or not, it suggests that gatekeepers have the potential to influence content without fully realizing it.
So far, this review has focused on news gatekeeping because journalism studies dominate the gatekeeping literature. However, gatekeeping is a process that also influences entertainment content and the next section of this paper will consider the role of gatekeeping in radio programming.
Gatekeeping in Music Radio
As a mass medium, music radio is influenced by some of the same forces that have been discussed in the context of news media. However, because it is primarily an entertainment medium, there are also gatekeeping forces that are unique to music radio. In the next several pages, the structure of the music industry will be considered, followed by a comparison of news gatekeeping to music radio gatekeeping.
Music radio is part of the broader popular music industry. Rothenbuhler (1985) described this industry as a system with four basic parts: “(1) the creators, (2) the record industry decision makers, (3) the radio industry decision makers, and (4) the audience members” (p. 212). The creators are the musicians who write and perform the songs. The record industry decision makers are the people who sign artists to recording contracts and finance the production and distribution of the music. The radio industry decision makers are usually program directors or music directors who select which songs will receive airplay. Having songs played on the radio is important to an artist’s success (Pareles, 2007). The audience is comprised of people who listen to music radio, as well as those who attend concerts or purchase music. Rothenbuhler suggested that the “imitation of past successes is the primary response to feedback in the system” (p. 212). When record companies see an artist that is financially successful, they tend to promote similar artists in the future. When radio stations find a song or musical genre that leads to more listeners, they play more of the same type of music.
Many of Rothenbuhler’s (1985) observations still apply, although cable music channels and the Internet now provide other avenues for marketing musical artists (Pareles, 2007). Radio continues to play an important gatekeeping role in determining which artists succeed commercially and what music reaches the audience. Having looked at the structure of the music industry, we will now compare the specific forces that influence music radio gatekeeping to the forces that influence news gatekeeping.
Forces that Affect Music Radio Gatekeepers
This section discusses parallels between music radio gatekeeping and news gatekeeping, as well as important differences. As with news broadcasters, music radio stations are regulated by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). FCC rules prohibit any programming between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. that “describes or depicts sexual or excretory organs or activities in a patently offensive way” (McConnell, 2002, p. 42). Radio stations often edit songs to remove offensive lyrics before airing them. However, sometimes even the edited songs spark controversy. In 2000, the FCC issued a fine against a station that played an edited version of Eminem’s song, “The Real Slim Shady” (McConnell, 2002). The FCC declared that the edited version still contained “unmistakable offensive sexual references” (p. 42). However, that decision was eventually reversed after the radio station appealed.
An international example of governmental influence on gatekeeping can be found in Canada, where radio stations are required to broadcast a certain amount of “CanCon” or Canadian content (Berland, 1990; Sinclair, 2010). This determination is based on the music, artist, production, and lyrics. At least two of those four elements must be Canadian in order to qualify as CanCon.
As with news, government regulation probably plays a smaller role in the gatekeeping process that other factors – especially audience demand. Berland (1990) explained, “Music-programming is not the main commodity produced by radio, but is rather the means to the production of radio’s real commodity – the audience – to be sold to advertisers in exchange for revenue to the broadcaster” (p. 183). Most radio stations seek to build a certain type of audience by playing a certain type of music. Greve (1996) observed, “music formats are made to appeal to the tastes of specific demographic groups, allowing stations to sell a specialized audience to advertisers” (p. 29). Music formats include rock, adult contemporary, classical, country, and CCM. Rock music tends to attract more male listeners, while adult contemporary music appeals to more women (Arbitron, 2009). Top 40 stations usually have younger audiences than, for instance, classical music stations. Thus, once a station has selected a target audience and a music format, these become important considerations in the gatekeeping process. Several authors have noted that the first gate a song must pass to receive radio airplay is the format gate (Berland, 1990; Greve, 1996; Negus, 1993). Songs that do not fit the format are automatically rejected.
Audience demand is evaluated is several ways. Berland (1990) argued that radio programming was becoming an “industrially rationalised [sic] process” (p. 183) as more stations rely on audience research to determine what music they will play. Barber (2010) traced the history of “smooth jazz” radio and concluded the entire genre was a product of market research. At the same time, different radio programmers have different programming philosophies (Ahlkvist, 2001; Ahlkvist & Faulkner, 2002). Some programmers see themselves as opinion leaders that help listeners discover worthy music, while other just try to give the audience what it wants. Still other programmers view themselves as allies with record companies to help make artists successful. These different programming approaches will be discussed in more detail, shortly. The current point is that audience demand influences music radio gatekeeping, just as it influences news gatekeeping.
click for full size image
Along with government regulation and audience demand, sources of content also play a role in the gatekeeping process for music radio. While news media rely on eyewitnesses, public officials, and press releases for news, radio stations rely on artists and record companies for music. A trade publication for aspiring musicians noted, “MDs [music directors] receive hundreds of singles weekly from major labels, small labels, and artists. They must listen to the music and decide what works for their station’s format” (Sinclair, 2010, p. 62). Radio programmers may not have time to listen to every musical submission. Therefore, part of the gatekeeping process is deciding what music to consider for the station. In an observational study of one rock station, Rothenbuhler (1985) found that most music decisions involved multiple people. However, the music director was usually the first to receive new music. By excluding songs from consideration before anyone else even heard them, the music director “had a strong agenda-setting influence on programming decisions” (p. 215).
The recording industry also influences what sources of music are available to radio stations. Artist and repertoire (A&R) managers at record labels “decide who ‘gets a break’ and who does not” (Zwaan & ter Bogt, 2009). These gatekeepers cannot prevent independent artists from sending their own recordings to radio stations, but studies suggest that radio programmers pay more attention to music being promoted by record companies (Negus, 1993; Rothenbuhler, 1985; Wall, 2007). Furthermore, record companies determine what musical format an artist or song fits into, leading most radio stations to ignore songs that are not the right format (Negus, 1993).
Government regulation, audience demand, and sources of content are all external forces that influence gatekeepers.
However, the internal force of personal taste or bias deserves consideration, as well. Although Berland (1990) declared that audience research rationalized radio programming, Ahlkvist (2001) found that some programmers still thought of themselves as musical connoisseurs who introduced listeners to great music. These programmers relied less on research or promotion from record companies, and more on their own expertise. Even for programmers who rely on music research, personal biases may play a role. Radio stations cannot test every song, so the programmer’s selection of which songs to test represents a type of agenda-setting bias. Only songs that are tested have a chance to be played on the air.
There are two more external forces that were identified in the literature on news gatekeeping but were not found in the literature on music radio programming. These forces are advertising and technology. Of course, advertising plays an indirect role in music radio just as it does in news. Stations must attract large audiences to attract advertisers. However, it seems less probable that advertisers would try to directly influence the songs on a radio station.
Technology is the other gatekeeping influence found in news media studies, but not in music radio studies. This omission may be due to the fact that technological advances in music distribution are fairly recent. For example, record companies used to send music on discs, but now use digital technology, such as the Digital Media Distribution System, or DMDS (Sinclair, 2010). Morris (2009) advised independent artists to use Web sites or emails to distribute MP3 files to radio stations. Given these digital technologies, it should be easier for radio stations to access the songs they want. In fact, the technology may make it harder than ever for any given song to stand out from all the others.
Having discussed certain similarities and differences between news gatekeeping and music radio gatekeeping, it is worth looking at one unique factor in the music radio industry: programming philosophy.
Programming Philosophies as Media Routines
As Shoemaker and Reese (1996) discussed, media routines are the “repeated practices and forms that media workers use to do their jobs” (p. 105). They went on to explain that the “standardized, recurring pattern of news and entertainment content result in large part from these routine practices” (p. 106). At music radio stations, program directors or music directors are the primary gatekeepers who determine which songs will be played on the air. Different radio programmers have different concepts of how to select the music they play. These philosophies are similar to Shoemaker and Reese’s media routines. This section outlines four different programming philosophies, based the work of Ahlkvist (2001) and Ahlkvist and Faulkner (2002).
In a series of qualitative interviews with radio personnel, Ahlkvist (2001) determined that there were four types of programmers: (1) the musicologist, (2) the surrogate consumer, (3) the programming professional, and (4) the conduit. Ahlkvist and Faulkner (2002) adapted this list into a typology of “programming repertoires” that they described as “subjective,” “populist,” “objective,” and “synergistic.” Each of these four types will be discussed in detail.
The Musicologist
Ahlkvist’s (2001) musicologist follows the subjective repertoire (Ahlkvist & Faulkner, 2002). These programmers are musical experts who use their own tastes to select music. Musicologists tend to believe that audience research produces stale, cookie-cutter radio stations and removes all art from radio programming. They also distrust record companies and promoters because they consider those voices to be influenced by commercialism. Musicologists want to help listeners discover music that the listeners might otherwise overlook.
The Surrogate Consumer
The surrogate consumer (Ahlkvist, 2001) employs the populist programming repertoire (Ahlkvist & Faulkner, 2002). These people may regard the musicologists as condescending. Instead, surrogate consumers want to listen the way their listeners do, and select music based on how their audience will respond to it. However, surrogate consumers do not believe music research is particularly reliable. Instead, they try to “get to know” their listeners so that they can understand their musical tastes.
The Programming Professional
The programming professional (Ahlkvist, 2001) works from the objective repertoire (Ahlkvist & Faulkner, 2002). This is the research-driven approach that Berland (1990) described as an “industrially rationalised [sic]process” (p. 183). It discounts any subjectivity and is the most conservative programming philosophy of the four. The programming professional surveys listeners to identify which songs are most recognizable and most popular. If songs do not test well, they are not aired. Interestingly, this approach requires the programmer to have relatively little knowledge of the musical genre. The skills required to be a programming professional are the same from one musical format to the next.
The Conduit
The conduit (Ahlkvist, 2001) follows the synergistic repertoire (Ahlkvist & Faulkner, 2002). These are programmers who want to work with record companies to make songs and artists successful. Instead of distrusting record promoters, conduits regard them as helpful sources of information about how well a song is doing in other parts of the country. Conduits like to take advantage of free prizes or other promotions from record companies. Conduits often assume that if a record company is not heavily promoting a song, that song is not worth playing.
These four programming philosophies lead to routines that affect the music radio gatekeeping process. It is easy to see how these philosophies interact with other factors, such as audience demand and sources of content. Therefore, the present study seeks to explore whether not this typology applies to the CCM format, specifically.
The Unique Position of CCM Radio
Having looked at music radio in general, it is worth considering the unique characteristics of CCM radio. First, this format is defined primarily by lyrical content, not musical style (Creasman, 1996; Price, 2009). This may mean that CCM programmers place a greater emphasis on lyrics when selecting music. Second, many CCM radio stations are non-commercial and supported by listener donations. One industry Web site, insideradio.com, reported that 82% of Christian radio stations were non-commercial. (“Inside Radio Format Counts,” 2009). Studies of college radio have found that these stations do not always follow industry programming practices, in part because they are not usually funded through advertising revenue (Desztich & McClung, 2007; Wall, 2007). Perhaps the non-commercial nature of CCM stations influences their gatekeeping processes, as well.
Because CCM radio is both a growing and a highly specialized format (Lochte, 2007; Price, 2009), it deserves greater attention from researchers. It represents a potentially fascinating opportunity to study several unique gatekeeping factors.
Research Questions
This study explores the media routines that guide the gatekeeping process at CCM radio stations. Based on the preceding literature review, the following research questions are posed:
RQ1: What programming philosophies are most prevalent at Christian radio stations?
RQ2: What factors determine whether or not a song is played on a Christian radio station?
RQ3: Do commercial and noncommercial stations differ in their approach to programming?
Method
Based on the literature review, a 58-item survey instrument was developed and hosted online through SurveyMonkey.com. The survey items were divided into four categories. First, respondents were asked questions about their job titles and their radio station. Second, they were asked about their station’s programming philosophy, using 12 survey items developed based on the four types of programmers identified in Ahlkvist’s (2001) research. Third, respondents were asked about factors that influenced song selection at their station. Fourth, they were asked about the process their station used to select songs.
Potential respondents were identified in three steps. First, CCM radio station Web sites were identified through the online directory of an industry site, HisAir.net. This Web site provided contact information for 600 stations. Stations that played primarily talk shows or sermons were excluded, along with duplicate stations that were part of the same network and shared the same programming staff. Several stations were found to have gone off the air or changed format. These were all excluded, leaving a sampling frame of 322 unique Christian music stations.
Once the stations were identified, their Web sites were visited to identify the most likely gatekeepers. In general, staff members with titles such as “program director,” “music director,” or “general manager” were chosen for the study. If email addresses were available, the gatekeepers were sent a personalized email invitation to take the survey. In other cases, there was only a generic Web form for submitting comments. These were used when necessary. The first survey invitations were sent between December 12, 2010 and December 29, 2010. A second set of invitations was sent January 14 – 15, 2011.
Results
At total of 88 Christian radio stations responded to the survey for a response rate of 27%.
Descriptives
Respondents. For most stations, the program director completed the survey (n = 42). Other personnel taking the survey included music directors (n = 19), general managers (n = 14), operations managers (n = 9) and assistant program directors (n = 4). Years of radio experience ranged from one year to 40 years (M = 17.4 (SD = 19.8, Mdn = 15).
Markets. The stations represented a wide range of U.S. cities, with 22% (n = 19) located in the top 50 radio markets, as defined by Arbitron. Another 32% (n = 28) were in markets 51-150, 27% (n = 24) were in markets 151 – 282, and 12.5% (n = 11) were in small, unrated markets. There were also five responses (6%) from radio networks with stations in more than one market.
License and ownership. Most stations had noncommercial licenses (81%, n = 71) rather than commercial (19%, n = 17). Colleges or universities owned 15% (n = 13) of stations, churches owned 8% (n = 7), and a Christian high school owned one station (1%). By far, the majority of stations were owned by some other non-profit organization (65%, n = 57). Only 10% (n = 9) were owned by for-profit organizations and one station was family owned (1%).
Music format. Stations were asked to identify their musical format. Adult Contemporary (AC) was the most common response with 54.5% (n = 48), followed by Contemporary Hit Radio (CHR) with 14% (n = 12), Inspirational with 14% (n = 12), and Rock with 9% (n = 8). One station identified its format as Southern Gospel, and one identified itself as Urban Gospel. Six stations selected “other.” Two of these described their music as “hymns” or “traditional.” The rest listed a mix of genres. One programmer wrote, “I play a very wide range and sometimes pick 250-350 different songs representing many different genre [sic].” Overall, the stations in the sample devoted an average of 80% (SD = 26.6, Mdn = 92%) of each broadcast day to locally programmed music.
Playlist size. The total number of songs played on each station ranged from 100 to 5000 (M = 762.6, SD = 951.3, Mdn = 324). A relatively small number of stations with large playlists skewed the data in a positive direction. It is more illustrative to note that 25% of stations had playlists of 250 songs or less, and 75% of stations had playlists of 721 or less. When playlist size was broken out by music format, the averages were as follows: AC (M = 576.7, SD = 823.6, Mdn = 250), CHR (M = 500.5, SD = 669.7, Mdn = 295), Inspirational (M = 1393.6, SD = 1385.9, Mdn = 500), and Rock (M = 1143.9, SD = 1068.5, Mdn = 800). The Southern Gospel station had 2000 songs in its playlist and the Urban Gospel stations had 550. The “other” stations classifying their format as “other” ranged from 100-2400 songs in their playlists (M = 879.2, SD = 909.7, Mdn = 537.5).
Music selection procedures. Stations were asked whether or not they reported their current playlists to a national music chart, had a written policy governing song selection, or employed an outside consultant. The majority (69%, n = 61) did report their playlists to a music chart, but only 23% (n = 20) had a written policy for selecting music and just 28% (n = 25) had a consultant. Stations were also asked how many people participated in the music selection process. Responses ranged from one person to five people, with an average of 2 (SD = .95, Mdn = 2). A 7-point Likert-type scale was used to measure agreement with the following statement: “The programming department at our station is free to choose which songs we play without outside pressure.” Overall, there was strong agreement (M = 6.36, SD = 1.13, Mdn = 7).
Stations reported what kind of research they used in the music selection process. The most common methods were Internet or email surveys (52.3%, n = 46), auditorium testing (21.6%, n = 19), focus groups (13.6%, n = 12), and telephone call-outs (4.5%, n = 4). Several stations wrote that they used other research methods, such as looking at music charts or playing songs on air and inviting listeners to call and vote. When asked what percentage of the decision to play a song was based on research, responses ranged from 0% to 98% (M = 54.3%, SD = 31.3, Mdn = 60%).
Nearly a third of stations (32%, n = 28) reported that they did not use any research. Out of this group, 93% (n = 26) said research was too expensive, 32% (n = 9) said it required too much work for the staff, 25% (n = 7) said it took too much time, and 21% (n = 6) said research was unreliable. There was also a sizeable percentage (46%, n = 13) that said their stations get results that are just as good without research. In response to an open-ended question about why stations did not use research, one respondent wrote, “Our sound is not traditional, research does not always apply.” Another said, “We don’t choose music based on popularity of artist or preferences of listeners.”
Requests. Most stations reported that they did play listener requests, either occasionally (47%, n = 41) or often (26%, n = 23), but limited them to songs that were already in regular rotation. Only 19% (n = 17) of stations said they would play a song that was not in rotation based on a listener request. Another 24% (n = 21) said they would never change their playlist for listener requests, but 16% (n = 14) would save the request and perhaps use it later when the song was scheduled to play. Special request hours were offered by 16% (n = 14) of stations, and 19% (n = 17) said they might add a song to their regular rotation if they received enough requests.
RQ1: What programming philosophies are most prevalent at Christian radio stations?
Twelve items based on Ahlkvist’s (2001) qualitative research were designed to measure the four programming philosophies of the musicologist, the surrogate consumer, the programming professional, and the conduit. Three items were created for each philosophy and measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). These items and their average responses are listed in Table 1.
Because only 88 stations responded to the survey, the data were unsuitable for factor analysis. However, Cronbach’s Alpha was computed for each 3-item scale with the following results: musicologist (α = .55), surrogate consumer (α = .12), programming professional (α = .42), and conduit (α = .46).
Based on the weak alphas, it is clear that none of the four scales are reliable. This finding may suggest major differences between the philosophies guiding Christian and secular programming. On the other hand, it may simply indicate that the survey items lacked validity for measuring Ahlkvist’s (2001) concepts.
Table 1
Programming Philosophy Means and Standard Deviations
| Musicologist | M | SD |
| Programmers must have a strong passion for the music. | 5.98 | 1.22 |
| Programmers should trust their own musical expertise when adding new songs. |
5.07 | 1.27 |
| Programmers should help educate the audience about great music. |
5.34 | 1.31 |
| Surrogate Consumer | M | SD |
| A successful programmer must be good at relating to listeners’ lifestyles. |
6.02 | 1.00 |
| Programmers should select a song based on its emotional impact. |
4.92 | 1.34 |
| Feedback from individual listeners is a good way to tell which songs are working and which are not. |
5.15 | 1.48 |
| Programming Professional | M | SD |
| Programmers should make their decisions based primarily on research data. |
4.68 | 1.53 |
| When in doubt, it is better to err on the side of NOT playing a song, rather than playing it. |
5.80 | 1.27 |
| Listeners would rather hear familiar songs than new songs. | 4.98 | 1.48 |
| Conduit | M | SD |
| Radio stations should be partners with record companies to help spread Christian music . |
5.64 | 1.38 |
| There is no reason to play a song if the record company doesn’t support the song promotionally. |
2.17 | 1.42 |
| Programmers should not pay too much attention to record companies because radio stations and record companies have different goals.* |
4.09 | 1.68 |
*reverse coded
RQ2: What factors determine whether or not a song is played on a Christian radio station?
Respondents were given a list of 25 statements and asked to rate their importance on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = not important at all, 7 = very important). These statements were designed to measure factors that might influence whether or not a song was added to a station’s playlist. Of the 25 items, nine were related directly to the song (see Table 2), eight were related to the artist (see Table 3), and eight were related to outside influences (see Table 4).
| Song Factors Ranked by Mean | M | SD |
| Production quality of the song | 6.47 | .88 |
| Content of the lyrics | 6.36 | .99 |
| How well the song fits with your station’s ‘sound’ | 6.33 | .84 |
| How the song compares to other songs you are considering | 5.36 | 1.51 |
| Your own ‘gut instinct’ about how popular the song will be | 5.15 | 1.32 |
| How recognizable the song will be to your listeners | 4.93 | 1.36 |
| How much room you have in your playlist | 4.86 | 1.87 |
| How much you personally like the song | 3.62 | 1.59 |
| Whether or not the song came from an established record label |
3.11 | 1.59 |
Table 3
| Artist Factors Ranked By Mean | M | SD |
| Whether or not the artist is a Christian /TD> | 6.72 | .83 |
| Public reputation of the artist | 5.78 | 1.27 |
| How well known the artist is nationally | 3.89 | 1.79 |
| Number of other songs your station plays by the artist | 3.66 | 1.67 |
| How well know the artist is locally | 3.57 | 1.83 |
| Whether or not the artist is coming to your area for a concert |
3.09 | 1.76 |
| How many albums or songs the artist sells locally | 2.75 | 1.76 |
| How many albums or songs the artist sells nationally | 2.67 | 1.64 |
The data suggest that factors related to individual songs are more important than factors related to the artists or outside influences. However, it is worth noting that the factor with the highest mean score was whether or not the artist is a Christian. Also, the third highest ranked factor, overall, was the content of the lyrics. This finding makes sense in light of the specifically religious nature of Christian music radio.
Table 4
| Outside Influence Factors Ranked by Mean |
M | SD |
| Your station’s own research | 5.61 | 1.58 |
| Requests from listeners /TD> | 4.51 | 1.66 |
| National music research | 4.11 | 1.85 |
| A song’s position on music charts | 4.01 | 1.78 |
| Consultant’s advice | 3.07 | 1.94 |
| Requests from record companies | 2.95 | 1.55 |
| A song’s position on countdown show | 2.73 | 1.74 |
| Requests from advertisers or sponsors | 2.24 | 1.54 |
RQ3: Do commercial and noncommercial stations differ in their approach to programming?
Non-parametric tests were used to analyze the data because most data were not normally distributed (Sprinthall, 2007). Mann-Whitney U tests revealed no significant differences between commercial and noncommercial CCM stations in terms of programming philosophy items, or song selection factors.
Discussion
This study explored some of the routines that influence gatekeeping at Christian music radio stations. Although the small sample size made it impossible to use certain statistical tests, the descriptive statistics offer a good place to start. RQ1 asked what programming philosophies were most prevalent at Christian radio stations. It appears CCM programming philosophies may not fit neatly into Ahlkvist’s (2001) categories. On the other hand, a larger sample or a more refined scale might have produce different results.
RQ2 asked what factors determine whether or not a song is played on a Christian radio station. The descriptive statistics indicate that song-related factors are more important overall than artist factors or outside influences. However, it should be noted that two respondents emailed the study author to explain that their stations chose songs based on their “spiritual impact.” These respondents did not feel the survey instrument allowed them to fully express the most important criteria in their gatekeeping process. Future research using qualitative methods might produce more meaningful results.
RQ3 asked what differences there were between commercial and noncommercial stations. It was surprising to find that none of the programming philosophy items or song selection items differed significantly between commercial and noncommercial respondents. It may be that other factors, such as the religious nature of the programming, make noncommercial and commercial stations more similar than they are different. It could also be that the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test produced a Type 2 error.
This study represents a first step in describing and understanding CCM radio gatekeeping practices. Future research should examine how CCM programmers learned their programming philosophies, and how other media routines have developed at these stations. Certainly, scholars should be cautious about assuming how similar or dissimilar CCM radio is to mainstream radio. It would be interesting to extend the current study to mainstream secular radio stations in order to compare those responses with the present sample. Of course, larger samples, overall, would allow for the use of more statistical test. Additionally, more qualitative work in this area might help refine the theoretical concepts.
Who Participated in the Survey?
The data reported here come from a survey of Christian music radio stations conducted between December 2010 and February 2011. A total of 322 different music stations were identified from the station directory at HisAir.Net. These were contacted by email or web form, and 88 valid responses were received.
Average Years of Radio Experience: 17.4
Note: Mean playlist size is skewed by a relatively small number of stations with very large playlists. Media playlist size represents the middle point at which half of stations have more songs in their playlists, and half of stations have fewer.
Stations in this survey reported that, on average, 77% of their programming was locally programed music.
References
Ahlkvist, J. A. (2001). Programming philosophies and the rationalization of music radio. Media, Culture & Society, 23(3), 339-358.
Ahlkvist, J. A., & Faulkner, R. (2002). “Will this record work for us?” Managing music formats in commercial radio. Qualitative Sociology, 25(2), 189-215.
Abbott, E. A., & Brasfield, L. T. (1989). Comparing decisions on releases by TV and newspaper gatekeepers. Journalism Quarterly, 66(4), 853-856.
An, S., & Bergen, L. (2007). Advertiser pressure on daily newspapers. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 111-121.
Applegate, E. (2008). Factors that impact news. Public Relations Quarterly, 52(3), 7-14.
Arbitron (2009). Radio Today 2009. Retrieved from http://arbitron.com/downloads/RadioToday_ 2009.pdf
Arbitron (2010). Radio Today 2010. Retrieved from http://www.arbitron.com/ study/grt.asp.
Attaway-Fink, B. (2004). Market-driven journalism: Creating special sections to meet reader interests. Journal of Communication Management, 9(2), 145-154.
Barber, S. (2010). Smooth jazz: A case study in the relationship between commercial radio formats, audience research and music production. The Radio Journal – International Studies in Broadcast and Audio Media, 8(1), 51-70.
Beam, R. A. (2003). Content differences between daily newspapers with strong and weak market orientations. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(2), 368-390.
Berland, J. (1990). Radio space and industrial time: music formats, local narratives and technological mediation. Popular Music, 9(2), 179-192.
Brown, R. M. (1979). The gatekeeper reassessed: A return to Lewin. Journalism Quarterly, 56(3), 595-601.
Buckalew, J. K. (1969 ). A Q-analysis of television news editors’ decisions. Journalism Quarterly, 46(1), 135-137.
Bui, C. (2010). How online gatekeepers guard our view – News portals’ inclusion and ranking of media and events. Global Media Journal, 9(16), 1-41.
Creasman, P. A. (1996, April). Sanctified entertainment: Contemporary Christian music radio. Religious Broadcasting, 28(4), 26-30.
Desztch, R., & McClung, S. (2007). Indie to an extent? Why music gets added to college radio playlists. Journal of Radio Studies, 14(2), 196-211.
Donovan, K. P. (2009, January 2). Christian contemporary radio stations continue steady growth. The Christian Post. Retrieved from http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090102/ christian-contemporary-radio-stations-continue-steady-growth/index.html
Gade, P. (2002). Managing change: Editors’ attitudes toward integrating marketing, journalism. Newspaper Research Journal, 23(2), 148-152.
Gieber, W. (1956). Across the desk: A study of 16 telegraph editors. Journalism Quarterly, 33(4), 423-432.
Greve, H. R. (1996). Patterns of competition: The diffusion of a market position in radio broadcasting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 29-60.
Hardin, M. (2005). Stopped at the gate: Women’s sports, “reader interest,” and decision making by editors. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(1), 62-77.
Inside Radio Format Counts. (2009). Monthly chart of format counts reported by m street corp and inside radio September 2008 – September 2009. Retrieved from http://www.insideradio.com/goout.asp?u=http://ftp.media.radcity.net/ZMST/insideradio
Kelly, B. (2003). Christian radio: not just a “niche format” anymore. Retrieved from http://arbitron.com/downloads/christianradio.pdf
Levin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper.
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Hardcourt Brace and Company.
Livingston, S. L., & Bennett, W. L. (2003). Gatekeeping, indexing, and live-event news: Is technology altering the construction of news? Political Communication, 20, 363-380.
Lochte, R. (2007). Contemporary Christian radio in the united states. The Radio Journal – International Studies in Broadcast and Audio Media, 5(2/3), 113-128.
Loomis, K. D. (2008). Local television’s ethical dilemma: Controversial network programming. Communication Research Reports, 25(4), 323-330.
McConnell, B. (2002, January 14). ‘Slim shady’ slips by. Broadcasting & Cable, 132(2), 42-43.
McNelly, J. T. (1959). Intermediary communicators in the international flow of news. Journalism Quarterly, 36(1), 23-26.
Morris, P. (2009). How to make radio work for you. Canadian Musician, 31(1), 42-46.
Negus, K. (1993). Plugging and programming: pop radio and record promotion in Britain and the United States. Popular Music, 12(1), 57-68.
Pareles, J. (2007, December 17). For pop stars, a day to pledge fidelity to radio. New York Times, p. 5.
Peacock, C. (1999). At the crossroads. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman.
Price, D. E. (2009, April 25). The Billboard Q&A: John Styll. Billboard, 121(16), 17.
Rogers, E. M. (1997). A history of communication study: A biographical approach (paperback ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Rothenbuhler, E. W. (1985). Programming decision making in popular music radio. Communication Research, 12(2), 209-232.
Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T. P. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. New York: Routledge.
Sinclair, K. (2010). Radio friendly: A guide to radio tracking part 2. Canadian Musician, 32(4), 62.
Sprinthall, R. C. (2007). Basic statistical analysis (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Snider, P. B. (1967). ‘Mr. Gates’ revisited: A 1966 version of the 1949 case study. Journalism Quarterly, 44(3), 419-427.
Soloski, J. (1989). Sources and channels of local news. Journalism Quarterly, 66(4), 864-870.
Stempel, G. H., III. (1985). Gatekeeping: The mix of topics and the selection of stories. Journalism Quarterly, 62(4), 791-796, 815.
Wall, T. (2007). Finding an alternative: Music programming in US college radio. The Radio Journal – International Studies in Broadcast and Audio Media, 5(1), 35-54.
Westley, B. H., & MacLean, M. S., Jr. (1957). A conceptual model for communications research. Journalism Quarterly, 34, 31-38.
Williams, F., & Monge, P. (2001). Reasoning with statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
White, D. M. (1950). The ‘gate keeper’: A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27, 383-390.
Zwaan, K., & ter Bogt, T. F. M. (2009). Research note: Breaking into the popular record industry. European Journal of Communication, 24(1), 89-101.
