WBFO wants to be Buffalo's "news leader."

[SirRoxalot]

After essentially dismantling their news department, WBFO is soliciting focus group members to refocus their programming. Here's an excerpt from an email I received recently:

WBFO is committed to providing our listeners with programming that informs, educates, and entertains. As we draw closer to the primary elections and the year's end, we appreciate the importance of trustworthy news in your household.

At the end of the month, we will conduct focus groups via Zoom to bring listeners like you together to get feedback on our programming, news coverage, and the ever-changing landscape of our region. Our goal is to be Buffalo's radio news leader. With your help, we can understand how this station can better serve your needs.

Does this sound like something that interests you? Click here to fill out our short survey and see if you qualify for the group! If you're selected to participate, you'll receive a $50 VISA gift card for your time.

Thank you for your willingness to participate in these focus groups, and thank you for supporting WBFO, your local NPR station.

BTW, the short survey ended my potential participation when I answered the first question honestly:

1. Do you or does anyone in your household or immediate family work in advertising, television, journalism, the music industry, radio, or in market research?

 

[TheBigA]

BTW, the short survey ended my potential participation when I answered the first question honestly:

1. Do you or does anyone in your household or immediate family work in advertising, television, journalism, the music industry, radio, or in market research?

Just curious: Did you respond anyway and allow them to make that determination?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Just curious: Did you respond anyway and allow them to make that determination?

Yes. As stated above, they ended my survey when I answered question 1 in the affirmative.

 

[davideduardo]

The whole recruit system violates the basic principles of research. You never ask by saying "we are WBFO". You do some form of recruit at random where questions identify present and, often, past listeners but without saying who you are. You then determine if they are in the range of people you want, and that you are getting a balance by age, gender and other factors.

Only then and at the time of the session do you say , "we are here to talk about WBFO".

Otherwise, you already have biased the sample.

 

[tbolt909]

The whole recruit system violates the basic principles of research. You never ask by saying "we are WBFO". You do some form of recruit at random where questions identify present and, often, past listeners but without saying who you are. You then determine if they are in the range of people you want, and that you are getting a balance by age, gender and other factors.

Only then and at the time of the session do you say , "we are here to talk about WBFO".

Otherwise, you already have biased the sample.

I disagree. Why waste time on people who don't listen (or more importantly donate) to the station? Recruiting people who have an actual interest in the station will get some honest feedback...

 

[davideduardo]

I disagree. Why waste time on people who don't listen (or more importantly donate) to the station? Recruiting people who have an actual interest in the station will get some honest feedback...

You misread my post. You do blind recruiting to find listeners or past listeners. However, you don't tell them that the project is being paid for by WBFO nor do you insert biasing comments in the recruit language.

Once you find WBFO listeners, you then recruit them for the focus group.

Beyond that, focus groups are a miserable method for finding out what listeners want as they are always influenced by the other participants. This kind of project is best done with one-on-ones.

 

[tbolt909]

You misread my post. You do blind recruiting to find listeners or past listeners. However, you don't tell them that the project is being paid for by WBFO nor do you insert biasing comments in the recruit language.

Once you find WBFO listeners, you then recruit them for the focus group.

Beyond that, focus groups are a miserable method for finding out what listeners want as they are always influenced by the other participants. This kind of project is best done with one-on-ones.

In this case, why not solicit current members (donors).?
Give them an option to fill out a feedback form anonymously. If the station is truly seeking listener input or comments, encourage them to speak freely. The station doesn't have to implement any of their suggestions anyway...

 

[davideduardo]

In this case, why not solicit current members (donors).?

Only a small percentage of listeners are donors, so only sampling them would bring a very distorted result.

Give them an option to fill out a feedback form anonymously.

The problem with a feedback form is that the station will generate the questions. In personal interviews, an unaffiliated moderator will allow listener responses to drive the session, often opening doors that the station did not even know existed.

If the station is truly seeking listener input or comments, encourage them to speak freely.

That is done in a session that is not identified as being conducted by the station. It's "We are here today to talk about the radio station called WBFO and to gather your opinions about it". Often, the moderator will say, "I'm not an employee of WBFO and I am not even a resident of Buffalo, so I'd like you to speak as freely as possible about the subject".

The station doesn't have to implement any of their suggestions anyway...

Obviously..

 

[tbolt909]

The problem with a feedback form is that the station will generate the questions. In personal interviews, an unaffiliated moderator will allow listener responses to drive the session, often opening doors that the station did not even know existed.

That is done in a session that is not identified as being conducted by the station. It's "We are here today to talk about the radio station called WBFO and to gather your opinions about it". Often, the moderator will say, "I'm not an employee of WBFO and I am not even a resident of Buffalo, so I'd like you to speak as freely as possible about the subject".

Sure, an independent moderator is one way to do it.
Another way is to have someone from station management directly involved. Some managers don't mind hearing feedback even if it's criticism. Based on the original post, they are screening participants. The carrot is the $50 Visa Gift Card. The TV folks at PBS give away DVDs and other stuff during pledge drives. It sounds like this email offer only went to WBFO members...

 

[Rusty Bridges]

The whole recruit system violates the basic principles of research. You never ask by saying "we are WBFO". You do some form of recruit at random where questions identify present and, often, past listeners but without saying who you are. You then determine if they are in the range of people you want, and that you are getting a balance by age, gender and other factors. Only then and at the time of the session do you say , "we are here to talk about WBFO". Otherwise, you already have biased the sample.

One of the first thoughts that came to mind: "Skewed," or as you better described it, "biased sample." I can understand how radio stations count on and may want to super-serve P1 listeners, and how radio stations might rely on, if not encourage, these listeners to remain P1s. I've read and heard about this approach being used for Oldies and Classic Rock stations in years past. Still, it would seem that the feedback/response would be biased.

Could it be that WBFO feels that disinterest in radio, and perhaps their radio station in particular, is so great that they have to resort to P1 listeners for input because P2 or P3 listeners have no clue, or worse, no interest in the radio station?

As to "wanting to be Buffalo's radio news leader" ... the multi-layered level of management a few years ago turned the radio station upside down and inside out. Now this? BTW, using a Zoom session to do a focus group seems like it could very easily, and quickly, turn into a babble-fest.

 

[davideduardo]

One of the first thoughts that came to mind: "Skewed," or as you better described it, "biased sample." I can understand how radio stations count on and may want to super-serve P1 listeners, and how radio stations might rely on, if not encourage, these listeners to remain P1s. I've read and heard about this approach being used for Oldies and Classic Rock stations in years past. Still, it would seem that the feedback/response would be biased.

The problem with P1 and P2 and so on is that a person who uses only an hour or two of radio in a week but listens to one station is still a P1. But a person who listens to 40 hours of radio, and their third choice station is used 8 hours a week is a better respondent than the one-hour P1. I always require a certain minimum number of usage hours to a station for that person to be invited to a project. I'd rather have the heavy P3 than a useless P1 with light usage.

Could it be that WBFO feels that disinterest in radio, and perhaps their radio station in particular, is so great that they have to resort to P1 listeners for input because P2 or P3 listeners have no clue, or worse, no interest in the radio station?

Again, put a minimum amount of weekly listening in the recruit specs. And consider "I used to listen more but don't listen as much now" as a subset.

As to "wanting to be Buffalo's radio news leader" ... the multi-layered level of management a few years ago turned the radio station upside down and inside out. Now this? BTW, using a Zoom session to do a focus group seems like it could very easily, and quickly, turn into a babble-fest.

If you have multiple dissimilar groups, then one has to do multiple groups, A station with a big morning show would not research music among morning-only listeners.

 

[Mark1981]

I take no pleasure in criticizing the station where I spent the bulk of my radio career. I still have friends who work there. I value their work ethic. They’re good people. I want them and WBFO to succeed. Maybe this is a real effort to obtain valuable information from listeners. But I can’t help but laugh. This email arrived in my in-box yesterday. I ignored it. But now that this is a thread on this board, I need to weigh in.

You really want to be the radio news leader in Buffalo? You don’t need a focus group here. I’ll tell you. Don’t ignore a blizzard that killed nearly 50 people. WBFO was on the verge of competing with WBEN five to ten years ago. But it’s no where close to doing so in 2023. Heck, I heard a story the other day that a respected Buffalo broadcast veteran who now lives elsewhere actually asked if WBFO still has a local news department. Hearing such a thing really saddens me.

I worked so hard during my years at WBFO to establish a healthy relationship with NPR News. They turned to us when a plane crashed in Clarence. When a massive snowstorm buried Buffalo during Christmas 2001, my team filed two dozens stories for NPR News over the course of that week. Now? NPR sent a reporter from North Country Public Radio to Buffalo to cover the aftermath of the Damar Hamlin story last January. I had two full-time reporters on my staff, in addition to me, plus a few hosts, interns and part-timers who provided breaking news and in-depth features while WBFO was based at UB. We kicked butt! WBFO received more awards than any of our competitors at that time. We showed that you don’t need a huge budget to properly cover stories in our listening area. After the sale of WBFO from UB to Western New York Public Broadcasting, it got even better. Reporters were added. I was lucky enough to win two top grand prize news awards from the AP during my time. Eileen Buckley added a third one. Then, Jim Ranney, Brian Meyer and Dave Debo won seven in a row. But things began to fall apart in 2020. Crucial staffers either left on their own or were dismissed.

Defenders of WBFO point to “Buffalo What’s Next” as an example that perhaps this one-hour a day program is preferred by listeners over the daily news the station once covered. WBFO should be lauded for making this effort. Maybe an argument can be made for this. The program was re-launched this month under the “What’s Next” moniker so that topics of justice and equity can be explored in other communities. Again, a good decision. But the fact that the show was on hiatus for two months this summer was abominable. They aired repeats. Many segments were quite outdated. I heard from someone who shook his head at an interview where there was a reference to quite a bit of snow on the ground when it was 80 degrees and sunny outside. As a programmer, I would argue it would be better to air a show from NPR if you decide you’re going to take a couple of months off.

I could go on. I’ve said this before in other threads about WBFO. I listen to WXXI in Rochester and Michigan Radio. These stations serve their listeners with both long-form and breaking news. WRVO in Oswego, North Country Public Radio and WAMC in Albany all do a better job in serving their communities. Do I need to provide other examples? Perhaps this focus group will convince management the station has dropped the ball. But color me skeptical. I’ll end with this regarding WBFO wanting to be Buffalo’s radio news leader. I can hear them laughing at 500 Corporate Parkway!

 

[tbolt909]

Not many folks left at Corporate Parkway to laugh. It's not like Audacy is going to be adding staff at WBEN. People over 65 may still consider WBEN to be a credible source of news.

Look what has happened to newspapers. They've been decimated. Tune in a local TV news station anywhere and you'll find anchors with virtually no previous experience. It's an unfortunate reality of the industry.

The average listener does not share Mark's outrage over the lack of Blizzard coverage during a Christmas weekend. The complaint about running old shows when they could have plugged in NPR content is valid. Maybe WBFO is sincere about this research project or perhaps it's just something for the Public File.

I wonder if Cumulus ever followed up on their promise of community outreach after they fired the 97 Rock morning show for racist remarks...

 

[Rusty Bridges]

...put a minimum amount of weekly listening in the recruit specs. And consider "I used to listen more but don't listen as much now" as a subset.

After reading Mark1981's assessment, this ↑ would seem to be a prime qualifier, and quite productive one at that.

I always require a certain minimum number of usage hours to a station for that person to be invited to a project. I'd rather have the heavy P3 than a useless P1 with light usage.

Concur. Not only is it likely to yield a better base (sample), the feedback from that base would seem to be more reliable.

Defenders of WBFO point to “Buffalo What’s Next” as an example that perhaps this one-hour a day program is preferred by listeners over the daily news the station once covered.

There's no substitute for thinning the news department, which had been the robust mortar that held the bricks together. "Buffalo, What's Next" is not a consistent 'go to' because its local topicality is not broad based.

The two month hiatus was unfathomable for the reasons cited. An hour long "best of" show about last winter's record snowfall airing in summer when it's 85° will only make a listener think "What the...?!" and rightly so. It leads to a disconnect that often is irreparable.

This noted, Erie County public safety officials have met several times this summer to dissect their efforts last winter. A "snowfall replay" show might ... might ... have relevance if a brief segment of the original program was used with a fitting, timely wrap-around by an news anchor/reporter who covered the original story.

The decision-makers at WBFO need only listen to the replays of Fresh Air Weekend as an example of how this can be properly and effectively presented.

It's not rocket science.

 

[CSMWNY]

I take no pleasure in criticizing the station where I spent the bulk of my radio career. I still have friends who work there. I value their work ethic. They’re good people. I want them and WBFO to succeed. Maybe this is a real effort to obtain valuable information from listeners. But I can’t help but laugh. This email arrived in my in-box yesterday. I ignored it. But now that this is a thread on this board, I need to weigh in.

You really want to be the radio news leader in Buffalo? You don’t need a focus group here. I’ll tell you. Don’t ignore a blizzard that killed nearly 50 people. WBFO was on the verge of competing with WBEN five to ten years ago. But it’s no where close to doing so in 2023. Heck, I heard a story the other day that a respected Buffalo broadcast veteran who now lives elsewhere actually asked if WBFO still has a local news department. Hearing such a thing really saddens me.

I worked so hard during my years at WBFO to establish a healthy relationship with NPR News. They turned to us when a plane crashed in Clarence. When a massive snowstorm buried Buffalo during Christmas 2001, my team filed two dozens stories for NPR News over the course of that week. Now? NPR sent a reporter from North Country Public Radio to Buffalo to cover the aftermath of the Damar Hamlin story last January. I had two full-time reporters on my staff, in addition to me, plus a few hosts, interns and part-timers who provided breaking news and in-depth features while WBFO was based at UB. We kicked butt! WBFO received more awards than any of our competitors at that time. We showed that you don’t need a huge budget to properly cover stories in our listening area. After the sale of WBFO from UB to Western New York Public Broadcasting, it got even better. Reporters were added. I was lucky enough to win two top grand prize news awards from the AP during my time. Eileen Buckley added a third one. Then, Jim Ranney, Brian Meyer and Dave Debo won seven in a row. But things began to fall apart in 2020. Crucial staffers either left on their own or were dismissed.

Defenders of WBFO point to “Buffalo What’s Next” as an example that perhaps this one-hour a day program is preferred by listeners over the daily news the station once covered. WBFO should be lauded for making this effort. Maybe an argument can be made for this. The program was re-launched this month under the “What’s Next” moniker so that topics of justice and equity can be explored in other communities. Again, a good decision. But the fact that the show was on hiatus for two months this summer was abominable. They aired repeats. Many segments were quite outdated. I heard from someone who shook his head at an interview where there was a reference to quite a bit of snow on the ground when it was 80 degrees and sunny outside. As a programmer, I would argue it would be better to air a show from NPR if you decide you’re going to take a couple of months off.

I could go on. I’ve said this before in other threads about WBFO. I listen to WXXI in Rochester and Michigan Radio. These stations serve their listeners with both long-form and breaking news. WRVO in Oswego, North Country Public Radio and WAMC in Albany all do a better job in serving their communities. Do I need to provide other examples? Perhaps this focus group will convince management the station has dropped the ball. But color me skeptical. I’ll end with this regarding WBFO wanting to be Buffalo’s radio news leader. I can hear them laughing at 500 Corporate Parkway!

As a sustaining member, I've noticed the diminshing local news presence and miss it. It's getting harder to find a good solid source of straight up news without a strong political lean. WBFO and NPR in general is leaning a bit too far to the left nowadays. I expect somewhat of a left lean, but in many cases it's become unlistenable due to the repitition of the same topics and viewpoints. Maybe people think that well researched, balanced, straight up news is boring, but I definitely value it and I'm willing to pay for it. I'm a 49 year old male and politically independent.

 

[CSMWNY]

Not many folks left at Corporate Parkway to laugh. It's not like Audacy is going to be adding staff at WBEN. People over 65 may still consider WBEN to be a credible source of news.

WBEN may be lacking in some areas but they have in the last year or two lessened their focus on right wing political talk and added things like an hour long straight-up newscast at 6pm. As someone who likes straight up news, I appeciate this. I also notice that the talk shows are about a variety of topics not just politics now. As a result I'm spending more time there and less time at WBFO. Again I'm a 49 year old male and politically independent. WBEN wants more "younger" listeners like me.
I wish Buffalo was big enough to have an all-news station like 1010 WINS in NYC. I listened to it often when I lived there. Straight up news the way I like it!

 

[fybush]

WBFO and NPR in general is leaning a bit too far to the left nowadays. I expect somewhat of a left lean, but in many cases it's become unlistenable due to the repitition of the same topics and viewpoints.

I'm asking out of genuine curiosity: what are some examples of topics, guests or stories that you see as a "left lean"?

 

[TheBigA]

Any discussion of staffing and coverage is really a discussion about money. A station can't expand its coverage without more money. My sense is that this zoom meeting will have to talk about that. We already know that sponsorships and memberships at public radio nationally are down as much as 10-15%. That's a big loss. It's led to layoffs at numerous public radio stations as well as NPR. We don't know the exact details at WNYPM, but we can expect it's similar.

It's nice to "blue sky" about hiring more staff to do more original reporting, but that can't happen when the budget isn't growing. The station made a strategic decision after the shooting in May 2022 to devote news resources to a daily 1 hour documentary program. That took resources away from what they had been doing. The basic question that they need to ask the membership is if that should continue. Then the second question is would the membership be willing to pay more for the kind of news they want. But you can't ask the first question without the second one.

 

[radiofan2023]

Any discussion of staffing and coverage is really a discussion about money. A station can't expand its coverage without more money. My sense is that this zoom meeting will have to talk about that. We already know that sponsorships and memberships at public radio nationally are down as much as 10-15%. That's a big loss. It's led to layoffs at numerous public radio stations as well as NPR. We don't know the exact details at WNYPM, but we can expect it's similar.

It's nice to "blue sky" about hiring more staff to do more original reporting, but that can't happen when the budget isn't growing. The station made a strategic decision after the shooting in May 2022 to devote news resources to a daily 1 hour documentary program. That took resources away from what they had been doing. The basic question that they need to ask the membership is if that should continue. Then the second question is would the membership be willing to pay more for the kind of news they want. But you can't ask the first question without the second one.

Don’t some of these stations have endowments, or not?

 

[fybush]

Don’t some of these stations have endowments, or not?

It's complicated. Until you've worked in public media, you can't imagine how many different funding sources there are and how many strings are attached to them.

The best kind are the unrestricted donations - "here, take this money and use it for whatever you need most." Those are rare!

What's much more common is grant money that is restricted for specific purposes or uses. Some funds can only be used for operational costs and not for programming. Some (like CPB funding) can only be used to acquire programming and not for operational costs. Some must be used for specific types of programming. And every hour that's on our time cards has to be coded for what project it's being spent on so that all of that funding can be accounted for properly, because some funders require very specific detail on how their money is being used.

And then there's the funding for equipment, which in turn has its own set of accountability demands - we have a basement full of old gear that can't be given away or disposed of because it's still logged through one grant program or another.

Did I mention that every single employee at a station that gets CPB funding also has to go through several mandatory online training sessions annually for sexual harassment and other such matters?

It's a lot to keep track of, compared to the commercial world.