Has Public Radio Sold Out?

[Oscar Madison]

Podcasting and the Selling of Public Radio

“Public radio is ready for capitalism.”

A couple of weeks ago, NPR and two of its most influential member stations, WNYC and WBEZ, invited a large group of media and marketing people to Le Poisson Rouge, a nightclub in Greenwich Village, for an event called “Hearing is Believing.” Its purpose was to persuade brands to advertise on public media podcasts. Onstage, some of the most listened-to podcasters—Jad Abumrad, Guy Raz, Glynn Washington, Brooke Gladstone, Lulu Miller—presented public radio’s offerings: an intimately engaged audience, a unique narrative platform, a chance for “Mail Kimp”-level virality. Later, after an indie band performed, Ira Glass, the host of This American Life and producer of Serial, told a reporter for AdAge, “My hope is that we can move away from a model of asking listeners for money and join the free market.” He added, “Public radio is ready for capitalism.” ... READ MORE

http://www.theawl.com/2015/05/podcasting-and-the-selling-of-public-radio

Don't they have enough money already?
They don't pay taxes; they get tax money.
They get "underwriting" revenue from corporate sponsors.
They get gullible listeners to send them money.
With their surplus money they set up for-profit business subsidiaries.
And now as terrestrial radio dies, they start selling spots online.

 

[TheBigA]

According to the linked article, every bit of it is legal.

 

[Oscar Madison]

According to the linked article, every bit of it is legal.

Legal doesn't make it right. Clearly, hypocrisy is legal (although the Gospels suggest hypocrites will not get into heaven).

 

[TheBigA]

There's nothing hypocritical about it. They're very careful about it. That's what the law intended. The non-commercial platform remains non-commercial. As I've said many times, no one in public broadcasting ever took a vow of poverty.

The public broadcasting that Minnow advocated in 1967 was based on full government funding. That world ended in 1983. Since then, public broadcasters have lived with the conflicts imposed on them by the new realities. If they're to continue in their mission, they have to be willing to be open to other sources of funding for survival. As long as it doesn't corrupt the mission. That's what the author is saying, and I agree. It's important to remind content creators of the mission.

 

[b-turner]

If you will, take a look at a number of public radio stations annual reports. Don't just look at the biggest like Minnesota Public Radio and such. Look at Public Radio is middle and smaller size cities. Mostly this is right on station websites.

There are things you don't know. For example, the best way to lose a potential client is to tell them they can't say that in their Underwriting spot because the FCC Underwriting Rules forbid it. The client could care less it it is prohibited. If they don't say "How will they find out all the way out in Washington?" they blast you for thinking they'd give up their marketing dollars and have you tell them what they can say or not say with their money. Look at those Underwriting rates. How many listen and how many send in $60 a year...mostly about 1 in 15. Tax dollars: maybe 1% at the smaller stations if that and likely that's via the funding a program got not your station. Huge salaries that beg for a second job to make ends meet. That is way too typical in public radio. You seem to think they're being greedy. Look at their public records. You certainly haven't seen what I know. Have you looked?

Public radio or commercial, a livable wage is expected and with experience and ability, there is no reason you should have to live in a slum or have a roommate to make rent each month because you work in radio, commercial and public.

There is a misconception that there is a free lunch. There isn't. There are cheap lunches and some really high priced ones but I can pretty much tell you if the person is making a lot of money for that position and you think it's too much for that position, the truth is very likely the person is worth every cent they are paid. Nobody pays above average wages for average work. And if they're hiring for a position, they know the typical wage paid.

Granted there is abuse everywhere but if you only look at the abuse committed by 1% then you miss the good done by the 99%.

What I gather from Ira's comments are simply that he believes the NPR model could be successful competing in the commercial marketplace, that the product has attracted enough listeners to be viable as a commercial format and that said format could support itself without any special help or favors.

What would prevent a branch off of certain programs to a commercial company that is a format offered commercial radio if a local public station does not opt for it. For example, if Morning Edition and All Things Considered plus a stable of shows to air between these two drive time shows, opted to for a separate network not connected to NPR or the others and without Corporation of Public Broadcasting dollars, retaining the same format but allowing for commercial stations to carry it and fill local breaks with commercials, traffic, weather, local news, etc.

I have long contended the average listener couldn't spot an Underwriting Spot from a Commercial with any certainty. Tell me which is the commercial:
Edward Jones, a local face for your investment advice at 505 Main
Edward Jones, locally at 505 Main offering investment advice.

We tend to create this imaginary gulf between the commercial and Underwriting. The screaming car salesman commercial is vastly different than the low key underwriting spot, but verbally there is very little difference. I have to say "The phone number is..." versus "Call them now at ..." I have to say "they located at 505 Main where you can browse their inventory" instead of "drop by 505 Main and check out their inventory". I think many believe if commercials would be allowed they'd be screaming car commercials. Formats have traditionally required advertisers to create commercials that matched the format. Why would this not be the same here? They know you'd hate the screaming spot so they wouldn't destroy their audience to get a few quick dollars. They are not so stupid that they cannot realize why the listener has chosen the format.

 

[TheBigA]

What I gather from Ira's comments are simply that he believes the NPR model could be successful competing in the commercial marketplace, that the product has attracted enough listeners to be viable as a commercial format and that said format could support itself without any special help or favors.

Couple points about Ira: He doesn't work for NPR. He's an independent producer of an extremely successful show. He lives in a different world from most people in public broadcasting. He probably COULD exist without support from anyone else. Not so for lots of other people. The same rules governing commercials at WBEZ or NPR also apply to LPFM stations in small markets. They apply to lots of other NPR stations owned by colleges or universities. Some of those stations have different opinions about public radio's self-sufficiency. This American Life is just part of a larger enterprise for Ira, just as Prairie Home Companion is one part of Garrison Keillor's business. Garrison also does concerts and writes books. Those are commercial enterprises that operate on different platforms. Same with podcasts. A podcast done by a non-commercial personality operates on a different platform than the non-commercial educational FM band, governed by FCC rules. Just because they're the same people doesn't mean they can only sing the same note on different platforms.