WBFO Comes Up Short

[Element9]

It came as no surprise last Saturday to hear WBFO's morning local news host thank listeners for their contributions during the station's most recent membership drive. But it wasn't all flowers and candy as the host clearly articulated the fact that WBFO did not reach the its projected membership goal.

The apparent shortfall occurred despite a number of announcements and promos which noted that only four per cent of WBFO's weekly audience contributes to the station, while the national average listener membership for NPR affiliates is seven per cent. WBFO aired the promos prior to and during the pledge drive.

So what was the problem?

Did WBFO fall short because of the Western New York economy? Did the sometimes sanctimonious pledge drive monkeys from step-sister station Classical 94.5 who appeared on 88.7, alienate WBFO listeners? Did Western New York Public Broadcasting, now owners of WBFO, cast a negative aura as a corporation, whereas WBFO when owned by the University at Buffalo, had been regarded as an extension and service of the university?

Whatever it was, listeners didn't seem to understand or buy in to the "seven per cent" theme. Many commercial and public radio people with whom I come in contact said they thought the promos were well done and creative. But did the promos turn off the listeners and potential contributors? Did WBFO listeners misinterpret the promos and think the station was asking for 7% of their income, such as a tithe?

Judging by the sound of the membership drive, the legacy WBFO news anchors, reporters and show hosts who've been part of the WBFO during the UB era received the best response.

 

[tbolt909]

I doubt that listeners thought they were being asked to donate
7 percent of their income.
Most people who listen to NPR probably have decent
Comprehension skills.

Sometimes you hit the goals, sometimes not...

 

[dand5780]

Evil corporation, that's it. LOL

Maybe WBFO just put people to sleep. Their audience is shrinking.

Or maybe some of them did give 7% of their income. Seven percent of zero is zero.

 

[TheBigA]

Did Western New York Public Broadcasting, now owners of WBFO, cast a negative aura as a corporation, whereas WBFO when owned by the University at Buffalo, had been regarded as an extension and service of the university?

If the 96% of the audience that didn't contribute is doing so because they don't like the owners, they should also stop listening.

Here's a newsflash: The University won't be buying the station back.

 

[Element9]

Here's a newsflash: The University won't be buying the station back.

Nowhere was it implied that they would. Who knows why WBFO didn't hit their mark. It could very well be that some listeners take a good thing for granted thinking some others will foot the bill. It might even be that the diary generated ratings are not what the numbers say they are, or a few professors and university stalwarts who regularly contributed no longer do so because they've retired or feel there's no reason to support a station that's no longer in the university fold. It may not be any one specific issue, but a combination of factors. Then again, as was noted, sometimes stations just don't make their membership goals. "Sometimes a banana is just a banana."

 

[TheBigA]

I just find it interesting that some people complain about the declining amount of news on WBEN or the lack of alternative outlets for discussion on the radio. Here's a station that's doing some local news, and airing some different points of view. It's attracting an audience, but only a fraction of that audience is willing to contribute money towards maintaining that format. I wonder what would happen if WBEN asked its audience for contributions rather than operated with advertising. How many people would contribute for local news and talk. It goes back to something Lee Abrams talked about when they were starting XM 15 or so years ago. He imagined radio worth paying for. What would qualify as radio worth paying for, and how much would you be willing to pay to get it? Discuss.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Maybe it's that people aren't jazzed by the programming changes that have taken place since WNYPB took over. Apparently the Canadian listeners that they've been courting with their evening reruns of the CBC (which is available on Canadian stations), and the BBC overnights simply haven't generated the income that WBFO's old programming used to. Ditto the weekend programming. Blues certainly isn't bring in the dollars on Saturday and Sunday evenings that it was during the afternoon. You can't tell me that Zorba Pastor or The Splendid Table are bringing in anywhere near the money that the Blues generated.

Hubris on the part of some big egos at WNYPB is a more likely culprit. And chiding listeners that "they're not doing their part" isn't likely to induce more people to fork over cash. They brought out the stick when they needed to offer the carrot.

 

[TheBigA]

Maybe it's that people aren't jazzed by the programming changes that have taken place since WNYPB took over.

If they didn't like the programming changes, then they wouldn't listen. But that's not the issue here. They're listening, but not contributing.

 

[Element9]

If they didn't like the programming changes, then they wouldn't listen. But that's not the issue here. They're listening, but not contributing.

Objectively offered: Unless we have access to the weekend ratings (to get a body count), dayparts, Persons 25-54, we truly don't know if in fact "they're listening." And if in fact "they" are listening but not contributing to support programs such as Zorba and Table, then perhaps... perhaps... the programming isn't working and the decision makers need to recognize that a mistake was made.

The people who listened to the blues programming formerly scheduled in middays on weekends were a loyal lot, known to respond and open their wallets. The blues programming as presently scheduled on Saturday and Sunday nights attracts a fraction of the listeners that listened to the midday blues programs. Do Zorba and Table listeners contribute equally? This is not known and cannot be found on the WBFO-WNED website. Perhaps Zorba and Table listeners do contribute, but preliminary indications to date seem to indicate not as much. There are plenty of "ifs" here.

This being noted, it's not likely the decision makers at WNYPB will reverse their decisions. They're know to be "a stiff necked people," prone to force square pegs into round holes.

 

[tbolt909]

What's worth paying for?
That's a murky question.

Paying for cable TV used to mean getting more content.
Now many channels air several hours of PAID PROGRAMMING
(30 minute commercials)
What kind of rating does an informercial get??
Consumers are paying for more commercials and LESS CONTENT.

NPR could move away from "listener support" and seek more corporate
sponsors and endorsements. They have them anyway.
The programming on NPR is intelligent and listenable for the most part.
That can't be said for the shrill noise on commercial News/Talk.

As for WBEN, the day is coming when they'll have to beg their listeners
to donate some of their Social Security checks to stay in business...

 

[SirRoxalot]

If they didn't like the programming changes, then they wouldn't listen. But that's not the issue here. They're listening, but not contributing.

Not true. Numbers are down for the weekends and evenings since WNYPB took over, and it's apparent that contributions are as well. As E9 says, though, it's unlikely to make a difference - and for the reasons he stated.

 

[Element9]

As for WBEN, the day is coming when they'll have to beg their listeners
to donate some of their Social Security checks to stay in business...

Nah. Right wing 930 will just find more clients like Catholic Cemeteries, Elderwood and Cialis, to which its listeners will respond, "Who's Alice, and why do I want to see her?"

 

[TheBigA]

Objectively offered: Unless we have access to the weekend ratings (to get a body count), dayparts, Persons 25-54, we truly don't know if in fact "they're listening." And if in fact "they" are listening but not contributing to support programs such as Zorba and Table, then perhaps... perhaps... the programming isn't working and the decision makers need to recognize that a mistake was made.

What we're going by is your original post, where you quoted them as saying only 4% of those listening are contributing, and that's lower than the national average 7%. So we're not talking about bad programming. We're talking about a lower percentage of the available audience choosing to contribute. It's not a function of audience size. Four percent is the same regardless of the size of the audience. If the programming isn't working, then they wouldn't be listening in the first place.

And once again going by your OP, this isn't in comparison to their contributions under previous ownership. This is comparing other similar stations around the country.

Not true. Numbers are down for the weekends and evenings since WNYPB took over, and it's apparent that contributions are as well.

As I said above, the 4% figure would be the same if the audience ratings were up. So the ratings don't matter. We're talking about the percentage of that audience, regardless of the size, that chooses to donate. And typically weekends and evenings aren't big moneymakers in public or commercial radio. Most public stations don't even fundraise in evening programming.

NPR could move away from "listener support" and seek more corporate
sponsors and endorsements.

Sure they could. But what's wrong with the PEOPLE supporting the programming they like, rather than big business? Whatever happened to donating to causes they support? How much do you donate to your church or your school? Maybe that's the problem. People today are so focused on their own bank account that they can't conceive of contributing money for something they enjoy. Everything isn't about buying and selling. This isn't like paying your cable TV bill. There is no profit in giving money to charity. That's why they're called non-profits.

 

[tbolt909]

There's nothing wrong with supporting quality progamming, but
NPR still needs other revenue = corporate sponsors.

Wasn't there a time when commercial radio was still required to serve their
Communities? That time has passed.
Corporations swallowed up as many stations as they could eliminating competition.
It's all about profit and stockholders...

 

[TheBigA]

Corporations swallowed up as many stations as they could eliminating competition.
It's all about profit and stockholders...

Exactly. So why make public radio dependent on those same corporations? If you go to the same well for your water, it all tastes the same.

 

[tbolt909]

Are you saying NPR should have no corporate sponsors at all?

 

[TheBigA]

Are you saying NPR should have no corporate sponsors at all?

No, I'm saying people should donate money to charities they support. And this isn't about NPR, but WBFO.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The fallacy in your thinking, "A", is that people will still listen out of habit, or because it's better than alternative programming, but they still may not feel that the programming is worth paying for. I personally have cut my contribution in half simply because their programming changes make their content less valuable to me. According to what's posted on various social media pages, I'm far from alone.

This isn't much different from those news/talk stations who dominated their markets for decades as full-service stations, then started cutting staff after consolidation. WBEN is a great example of a station that has been largely living off its reputation and not its content for a decade or more. They are the only commercial station in town with a news staff, but it's so lean that they're lucky if they have time to rewrite web content from local TV and newspaper sites. As the only source, they get some of those old-line listeners who expect to hear news on the radio, but those numbers are fading. Certainly no new listeners are tuning in.

WBFO was much more vibrant when they were owned by the State Ed department, with some truly innovative programming that brought in new listeners and brought in investment by those who already like NPR. That's not happening anymore, and donations are lagging as a result. The softness in the financial commitment by listeners IS an indication that they find the current programming less valuable than it used to be. WNY is very much a "value" region - and WNYPB would be wise to realize that WNY is its prime radio market, not Canada.

 

[TheBigA]

The fallacy in your thinking, "A", is that people will still listen out of habit, or because it's better than alternative programming, but they still may not feel that the programming is worth paying for.

So they will listen to a station even though they now don't like the programming? Really? Maybe you do, but I don't.

The OP says donations among actual listeners are lower than the national average. That's all we're talking about. So they like the programming enough to listen, but not enough to contribute. That's more a statement about the listeners than the programming. The OP didn't say anything about contributions being lower than before the sale. Just that contributions are lower than the national average.

 

[Element9]

Contributions/memberships to WBFO may be lower than the national average, but the actual dollar amount at 4% may be higher than other stations in comparatively the same size markets that also maintain a 4% membership rate. Statistically speaking, "average" can be a misleading value. Median value offers a figure indicating 50% above and 50% below. Your point regarding 4% vs 7% (as stated in the OP) as it relates to membership is understood. Agreed.

As to the membership rate prior to the sale, the members, listeners and residents of WNY have not so been informed. It could very well be that WBFO had a higher member to listener ratio prior to the sale. Or not.

Rox makes a real world point of WBFO seemingly depending on (and perhaps targeting) contributions of Canadian listeners to fill in the membership gap. His earlier points about the value of Canadian and CBC programming, as well as being chided by membership drive hosts from WNED-FM are especially true. It seems WNYPB applied the results of its Channel 17 membership composition, which includes a significant number of Canadian viewers, to WBFO. WNYPB management should have realized this could be a precarious (and inaccurate) template to apply to WBFO.