The Foreign Service Journal, October 2010

24 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 a memo, a briefing or both; but it needs to be taken care of before production starts. In a busy embassy, it may be hard to get anyone to focus on an abstract concept. In Afghani- stan, we obtained full engage- ment once a pilot episode was available to show people, who could then make insightful, spe- cific suggestions on messages and protocols. We immediately inte- grated that feedback into production so that future episodes reflected it. Invest in high-quality monitoring and evaluation. We spent approximately 25 percent of our Season 1 budget on a viewership survey — a relatively high percentage. However, without that data we had no way to know, other than by means of anecdotes, whether the program was reaching anyone. The money was well spent because the survey revealed the exact value of the program in terms of how many Afghans were tuning in, as well as what they were seeing. The survey also informs a potential second season for the series — a major investment that will be much more effective because we spent money on this eval- uation. This point relates back to knowing the objectives: unless you know exactly what you aim to achieve, it is impossible to measure progress toward it. If you can afford it, conduct a high-quality evaluation before the show airs to establish a baseline regarding the attitudes you intend to influence. A popular host takes his audience with him or her. We made an extremely lucky choice early on: through au- ditions for the show’s host, a young, well-known Afghan television personality was hired. The host was already pop- ular with the Afghan public, and his credibility and name recognition transferred to “On the Road.” We were lucky to be able to hire such a personality; this is a factor that will obviously vary a great deal depending on the country context. Contract versus grant. “On the Road” is produced using a subcontract, a choice that has allowed us signifi- cant control over the final product, a great advantage given the number of risks for the program in Afghanistan. In fact, the embassy approved each and every episode before it aired and could request edits as needed, most often on politically sensitive topics or controversial figures. A grant, by contrast, permits more of an “arms length” relation- ship with the media organization, allowing both the embassy and media outlet to largely avoid the accusation that it is producing “propaganda” for the U.S. govern- ment. The choice between these two approaches is an important one and will probably depend on the partic- ular risks and capabilities in the country in question, as well as the format of the program. Take credit. We took a controversial decision early on: to display a visible USAID tag line at the end of each episode to credit the U.S. government with bringing the show to viewers. The media outlet we worked with was somewhat unsure about this addition, wondering if there might be a backlash against the entire channel. And we all wondered whether this would not automatically un- dermine the show’s credibility with viewers. However, we ultimately realized that the best way to promote our public diplomacy objectives is to be forth- right about our role. As Americans, we expect sponsor- ship to be explicitly stated in the programs we view in the U.S. — why should it be different for Afghans? The survey results underlined the success of this deci- sion. Nearly half of the respondents knew that the pro- gram was funded by the United States. Yet when asked about what they liked about the program, viewers’ top re- sponse was that it was “credible/trustworthy.” It appears that the upfront approach actually enhanced the show’s credibility with viewers. Partner with the local media outlet. Especially if the show is produced under a subcontract, it is natural for differences to arise with the media outlet(s) involved, since they are used to having creative license to produce pro- grams as they please. The best way through these issues is to come to general agreement on the basic concept for the program and then to defer to the media outlet on creative issues. Reserve the right to make changes for when it mat- ters: i.e., for issues of politically sensitive material that must be edited out for the U.S. government to be able to spon- sor. Our relationship with our implementer remained strong as we focused on the big picture: a hit show that we all loved and believed in. We tried to emphasize the value F O C U S The program helps “stitch together” the country, which has been rife with ethnic tensions among Hazara, Pashtun, Tajik and Uzbek groups for much of its recent history.