Another editorial on federal funding of public broadcasting

[TheBigA]

Again, why billionaires get tax breaks in not the question. We're getting spin

It's not spin, it's an analogy. You want to know why government funds rich public stations? I ask why the same government gives tax breaks to billionaires.

Maybe there are not answers in the mix, just our collective minds trying to figure things out.

You're looking for logic in government, and the answer is there is none. The government does what it does regardless of logic or efficiency. Jimmy Carter ran for President on the promise of making government run more like a business. How'd that work out?

but because things are on way today should we simply sit back and be satisfied with the status quo?

Unless you plan on running for Congress, you have little choice. And once you get there, you will quickly learn how business is done. People have been protesting government funding of public broadcasting since 1982. The government wheels move very slow. How much time do you have?

I can assume MPR was once a lowly struggling entity that really needed the economic help when it began, but much like the unemployed, the government help ends when you get another job and money starts rolling in.

No, not true. MPR, like many larger state systems in Ohio and Wisconsin, have their foundations in the earliest days of broadcasting in the 1920s, and have never struggled.

I suppose the question I have is whether there is abuse in how some of the funding is directed (and by abuse I mean some funds going to entities that could easily survive without it).

Are you just making stuff up? Rather than assuming guilt and abuse, why not do some actual research? You'll be shocked at what you find. It goes back to the billionaire tax breaks.

Some people think democracy is like a reality TV show, where you just spout opinions and vote people off the island. That's not how things work. The cost of participatory democracy is TIME. You need to spend the time to learn how the government works, how they fund non-profits, and how the non-profits use the money and document that use. At the end of the day, you'll discover that these stations are following the rules.

 

[bturner]

Making stuff up? I call it abuse when millions of my tax dollars go to MPR that already has some 60+ million coming in each year before my tax dollars are added. Check their financials on their website. I have.

 

[TheBigA]

Making stuff up? I call it abuse when millions of my tax dollars go to MPR that already has some 60+ million coming in each year before my tax dollars are added. Check their financials on their website. I have.

Take them to court. Or write your Congressman. Either way, I hope you have a lot of time.

But I can promise you that every dollar is properly accounted for.

 

[MattParker]

@BigA: Sorry, guy. I can't buy your premise that because tax money goes to x, then y should also get some. Neither am I cynical enough to accept that because log-rolling takes places, that's how things should be.

Neither should you assume that because I (or anyone else) does not think public radio should continue to get public funding that we do not approve of public radio. I am a long time fan. It's not perfect but it's the best radio product available these days.

I like baseball, too. I don't like government building brand new ballparks for the rich guys who ball teams.

Banks, corporations or any other recipient of tax dollars is irrelevant to this discussion. They should be discussed on the bail-out board.

On the public radio board, the only issue is should public radio continue to get government funding?

Public radio overall doesn't need it and it has often subjected public radio to political pressure. Nobody wants to give up some government benefit, particularly one seen as entitlement. I can understand public radio managers being addicted to those nice checks from CPB. That doesn't change the fact that public radio doesn't need the money and shouldn't get it.

As for that proverbial small station in the Alaskan bush, the state of Alaska is swimming in pipeline money (oil, black gold, Texas tea) and they give money each year to residents. Let the state fund such stations. Or the station on Indian reservations. Let casino money pay for that. Federal money always comes with strings attached and public radio should know that better than anyone.

 

[TheBigA]

@BigA: Sorry, guy. I can't buy your premise that because tax money goes to x, then y should also get some.

It's not my premise. It's how things work. Don't believe me? Go to Congress. Watch how things work.

This is not debate class. You want to argue with the weather man, but you're wasting time. They get government funding because the funding is available. Defund CPB, and there will be other ways to get government funding. You want to play Congressman? Sorry. That job is taken.

One of the realities of using the public airwaves is governmental pressure. It's not just a factor in public radio. I've worked both sides of the fence, and there's more pressure on commercial stations than public. CPB is supposed to be the insulator between politics and programming. Defund it, and the stations will have no defense. So if the goal is to eliminate government pressure, removing CPB won't help.

Meanwhile, there are lots of agencies in the government that would oppose federal defunding because it would hurt them. The FCC loves public broadcasting, and some Commissioners have spoken out on how the government should INCREASE federal funding. The EPA loves public broadcasting, and uses it to promote environmentally friendly workplaces. The Congress did a special appropriation for all public stations to convert to digital. This is above and beyond the basic appropriation. Minority agencies love public broadcasting and use it to promote their agenda. If you want someone to defend public broadcasting, talk to all of them. You want to play debate class? I suspect a few of them have won a tournament or two.

 

[bturner]

Okay, then why not toss out some dollars to LPFMs and struggling AM stations as well? Should the government not consider broadcast service a 'can't fail' essential to the American Public. Speaking of such, struggling internet and small phone companies as well as those poor TV stations that had to convert to HD plus the poor LPTVs without cable coverage. Many are in need and some provide the only service available. I realize this is not just Public Radio but there are a good deal of companies and non-profits that might be able to stay afloat with only a small amount of assistance. I suppose the next question would be how much the entities like Clear Channel get?

 

[TheBigA]

Okay, then why not toss out some dollars to LPFMs and struggling AM stations as well? ]

Regular readers know I'm in favor of both. Unfortunately LPFMs currently don't qualify for CPB funding. But Goat Rodeo Cowboy & I have chatted here often about the need for facilities funding, similar to what CPB stations get, for LPFM. Now that the Community Radio Act has been signed, it's time for the next step. For struggling AMs, my solution is simple: Allow AMs to qualify for SBA loans. Also, there should be a federal campaign for minority broadcast ownership. This subject has been discussed on the Hill already.

But keep in mind that we have Fortune 500 companies like ConAgra get millions in federal funding. And you complain about rich public stations getting federal money? And Bill Gates pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than you. Is that fair? You tell me.

 

[MattParker]

@BigA: Again, you are not arguing about federal funding for public radio on its merits. What Conagra gets is irrelevant to this discussion. Tax policy and what Bill Gates pays is irrelevant. Stick to the issue. Why should public radio continue to get tax money? More specifically, why should local stations continue to get federal tax money? Please stop raising all these red herrings. Why should public broadcasting keep getting money it doesn't need?

Or maybe we could talk about all the better things the government should do with our money.

 

[TheBigA]

@BigA: Again, you are not arguing about federal funding for public radio on its merits.

I've dealt with that subject in numerous other similar threads. Either you only see what you want to see, or you're being deliberately argumentative. My point in this thread has been to deal with the practical aspects of how Congress works, and why editorials, op-eds, and message boards will have no effect on whether or not public broadcasting gets funding. You seem to want to play this imaginative game that has no impact on the real world, because the discussion of the merits of public broadcasting takes place every year when the CPB goes through the appropriations process. For some reason, either critics don't understand that process, or they don't care.

Why should public broadcasting keep getting money it doesn't need?

I disagree with that premise. A handful of stations don't need federal money. We can name them. They're mainly in big cities with large academic populations. Boston, DC, St. Paul, Philly, SF. But the majority of stations are facing serious challenges, mostly because of unfavorable tax laws and the collapse of endowments. These are the same things hurting most other non-profits, including colleges. So while these stations may have healthy membership bases, they're being hurt by increased costs and decreased income.

A few years ago, the government sought to cut down on tax loopholes, so it made contributions to non-profits more difficult and less attractive. That has hurt the ability of many public stations to raise money. Once again, they have strong member bases, so that's not a problem. But the corporate base, where larger sums of money is raised, has been cut. Couple that with the collapse of corporate earnings during the current depression, and you have a lot of blue chip companies, like GE, that simply doesn't have as much money to give as they had 5 years ago.

The other issue is endowments, which have been hurt by the huge drop in interest rates. Once again, that same thing is hurting colleges, pension plans, and retirees. So stations that operate off their endowments have seen those funds drop by about 25%.

Put this in the context that at the same time, commercial broadcasters have been killed by an advertising depression, and you have an environment where people feel there is a lack of programming. A large percentage of them have become regular public broadcasting users, perhaps for the first time. In fact, there are many similarities between the broadcasting environment now and 1964, when public broadcasting was first proposed.

As I've mentioned in this thread, the federal money is usually targeted to very specific things. Minority programming grants, facilities grants, matching funds, challenge grants, and other campaigns. The government has been very careful with the money it spends on public broadcasting, and the stations and producers go through far more scrutiny than lots of other applicants. Even stations that don't need the money use it in approved ways that serve the goals and agendas of the government.

I think if hearings are held on this issue, and I welcome that opportunity, the American people will be surprised and impressed with the amount of detail that stations go through in documenting their use of federal funds.

 

[TheBigA]

Or maybe we could talk about all the better things the government should do with our money.

That would be an exercise in futility.

 

[bturner]

Great ideas about AM stations and I agree LPFMs could certainly use some help.

I know a good bunch of LPFM operators personally although I'm in commercial radio. Many of the LPFM operators I know simply are not that comfortable with sales or they are so inexpensive, it is difficult for them to generate the funds they should be able to generate. Some, however, would never be able to obtain enough money to be self-sufficient. I'm not talking salaries for people but music licensing, insurance and monthly operating expenses.

 

[amfmxm]

This has been very interesting--I've not participated, thus far, because Big A has represented my views pretty well.

FWIW, though, let me toss in one observation. This "defunding" threat is largely a strawman that the right parades out, periodically, to help keep their base riled up, but is not something ever likely to materialize. Threats to public broadcasting draw way too much blowback (witness W's CPB takeover--with all its bluster, but no real change).

I would not be surprised, though, if this latest episode serves to motivate pubcasters to crank up their various development activities one more notch. So don't be too shocked if you see/hear more underwriting and hotter membership drives for awhile.

Real or not, threats like this can be great sales management tools!

 

[bturner]

Certainly if the current 'threat' gets Public Radio to push a little harder for revenue, that is great. I'm sure listener funding must have suffered with the current economic conditions and anything that can put a bit more money in their accounts is just good insurance that will ward off any budget cutbacks, etc. I'd rather Public Radio get to take a sigh of relief here or there while running the never ending funding race. There is a certain creativity and positive, productive environment that demands ones best when the reward of ample funding occurs. To feel like you are helpless and without a solution on an underfunded station tends to make the best rush out the door for greener pastures.

 

[aaronread]

I've noticed something consistently left out of this discussion. Everyone on the right always wants to stop federal funding of public radio stations so that they can "stand on their own". Problem is, for the most part they are at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace because they have the underwriting restrictions inherent to non-commercial FCC licenses, which the bulk of public radio stations transmit on.

These restrictions are considerable. One of the top performing stations in the entire US (regarding corporate sponsorship) is WBUR. In 2004, they booked just under $20mil, IIRC. That year, WEEI booked over $35mil thanks to the Red Sox winning their first WS in 86 years. So even at its best, public radio tends to book far less than the commercial stations at their best.

If you removed those restrictions, it's quite possible you'd see some pubradio stations start cleaning up...although it'd be a delicate balance since pubradio's audience is quite comfortable with the low-impact underwriting has vs. the in-your-face style of most commercial ads.

I certainly don't object to government funding of public radio if those dollars do not go to organizations that already generate enough revenue to exist and flourish without the funding. To me, dollars going to Minnesota Public Radio is wrong, but dollars going to a station like KTNA, the only radio station around Talkeetna, Alaska, makes sense to me.

In essence, that's what happens. The primary means that CPB distributes regular funding is the Community Service Grant. There's four levels of funding, all tied to the size of the station in terms of staff, market and non-federal revenue. It's all quite public, check it out: http://cpb.org/stations/grants/radio/

For smaller stations, as you might imagine, they get a larger stock grant each year. And because they're smaller, that grant tends to be a bigger part of their overall budget. The big guys get a smaller base grant, although because it's also supplemented by their total non-federal revenue times a (reducing) multiplier, then can...and often do...get more actual money. But I view that as eminently fair: if you are more "successful" station, you qualify for more money...but if you can't meet that monetary "success" value, you get more "guaranteed" money...and at a level that should "go further" in your smaller organization.

Bear in mind, the CPB does not assign these grants by transmitter; they do it by OWNER. So Minnesota Public Radio does not get a CSG grant for each of their dozens of stations...they get just one CSG grant. Although as a Level D grantee, they can apply their total revenue (less any other federal support) from allllll those transmitters towards the multiplier, and get a nice supplemental.

This "defunding" threat is largely a strawman that the right parades out, periodically, to help keep their base riled up, but is not something ever likely to materialize.

Indeed. Like most things inside the Beltway, it's all politics and little substance. Much like how the "Fairness Doctrine" keeps getting dragged out despite EVERYONE saying it's not going to...including the Supreme Court which would immediately find it unconstitutional. (esp. the Roberts court, which is big on extending the concept of the First Amendment into many venues where it arguably shouldn't apply, but I digress)

 

[Talk_Dude]

I've noticed something consistently left out of this discussion. Everyone on the right always wants to stop federal funding of public radio stations so that they can "stand on their own". Problem is, for the most part they are at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace because they have the underwriting restrictions inherent to non-commercial FCC licenses, which the bulk of public radio stations transmit on.

That doesn't describe me. I don't advocate public radio stations "standing on their own". I don't care if they stand or fall. The bottom line is that the government has no business funding radio broadcast stations, period. The exception would be weather and emergency stations broadcasting important messages, like the low-power AM stations near highway construction sites with information broadcast when the lights are flashing.

As for all of the other issues you raised, the solution to a system that has turned into an unwieldy kludge isn't to slap more kludge-patches on it. The solution is to totally clean up the system. If some regulations hurt public radio stations, get rid of the regulations. Don't pour more of the peoples' money down the public radio drain.

 

[MattParker]

I've noticed something consistently left out of this discussion. Everyone on the right always wants to stop federal funding of public radio stations so that they can "stand on their own".

Aaron, if you say I'm "on the right," smile!

I appreciate the "inside" information you bring to these discussions.

$20MM (tax free) doesn't sound bad. As you imply, WEEI's revenue numbers may be somewhat atypically high and sports talk does get premium ad rates because it does attract hard-to-reach young males. More likely, WBUR competes for ad/underwriting dollars with WBZ. Of course, WBZ reaches nearly twice as many people so I'd be surprised if their revenue were not higher.

Further, you don't mention the revenue WBUR receives from its programs in national distribution (On Point, Here and Now, Car Talk come immediately to mind). And they are not a stand-alone operation but part of a major university with a public communication program. I can't speak for WBUR specifically but I am familiar with other university owned and operated stations which are housed in campus buildings and don't have the same real estate and utilities costs as normal businesses.

There restrictions on non-commercial broadcasters you speak of don't seem to be much of a problem for the sales - I mean "development" departments of many public radio stations. They have gotten very good at creating 30 second spots that manage to push the envelope on calls to action and comparisons. And in commercial media, ads targeting upscale (high income, high education, high socio-economic status) have traditionally avoided the so-called "in your face" style.

As in commercial broadcasting, some small market public radio stations are outstanding and financially successful. Some deserve to fail. Some communities support public radio (with pledges and business underwriting). Some don't. From what I observe, there is a correlation between good operations and strong local support. I see no reason to use outside tax dollars to prop up a poor operation its own community doesn't back financially. Now if you propose CPB give grants, incentives or rewards for "broadcast excellence" to public radio stations, that might be worth trying. But I don't see giving money for turning on the transmitter and putting on volunteers with want to play radio or activists who want to grind an ax. Tax dollars should not go for "hobby radio" and that is what a lot of these small stations amount to.

 

[bturner]

I'm loving this discussion and I have no issues with anything in the past couple of posts.

Underwriting is more difficult to sell than the 'commercial'. It is true that if Public Radio became commercial they would do what the Beautiful Music and early AOR stations did: restrict number of commercial units in an hour and require content be compatible with the format. I personally see little difference between Underwrting and the Commercial. Writing an Underwriters Acknowledgement just requires a bit more creativity to get the message across without crossing that proverbial line. If a question arises, it boils down to having no control over how someone interprets the English language...sort of a 'define what 'is' is. The station simply says the compaintant's interpretation is not the intended thought the station or Underwriter was trying to convey.

My issue with the funding is not that it exists but that some of the more prosperous Public Radio entities get a piece of the action. To say everyone has to get funding is as bogus as saying everyone regardless of income should receive food stamps. There should be thresholds where funding ends.

 

[TheBigA]

If you removed those restrictions, it's quite possible you'd see some pubradio stations start cleaning up...

Depends on which "restrictions" you're talking about. Some here have advocated eliminating rules regarding commercials on public radio. So a public station can compete with the commercial stations. I imagine the NAB would have something to say about that.

Quite often when amateurs look at government, they say, "Well lets just change everything," not taking into account that it's not that simple. You have a lot of feet to step on. A lot of groups will want to have their say. Sure, eliminating restrictions is good for WBUR in Boston, but would be death for a station like WXEL in West Palm Beach Florida. This is a station that's just getting by. They don't want to be thrown into the shark tank with everyone else. I'd say you have a whole lot more stations like WXEL than WBUR. You have a lot of "public interest" groups, who feel they have to have a say on everything. How would eliminating restrictions be in the "public interest," other than freeing up money so some Senator can build the next bridge to nowhere?

Then it changes the rules under which programming decisions are made. For some, the current rules promote the playing of fringe musical genres, the way WXPN does in Philadelphia. Eliminate the current rules, and that station may drop it's "world music" format and go more mainstream. Everyone assumes commercial stations do what they do because they're either idiots or they love bad music. But most of the time it's because their boring mainstream programming attracts the most audience, which allows them to attract the most advertising. Eliminate underwriting restrictions, and a public station is less likely to air an hour long discussion about some school board race, and instead run another hour of All Things Considered. The current funding structure allows these stations to fund minority training programs, advanced production seminars, and other educational programs put on by CPB. Those would be eliminated. Eliminating CPB would eliminate the buffer between the government and these stations, requiring them to hire lobbyists and lawyers like the commercial stations.

Eliminating certain restrictions might eliminate the tax-exempt status of these stations. That could mean they'd have to leave their studios, located on tax-exempt property. Eliminating restrictions could change their role as a charity, so corporations look at their giving as advertising, not a donation. That means it comes from a different part of the corporation, the part run by advertising agencies and marketing consultants.

So it's not all a panacea. It's not all that simple. And it's simply not likely to happen, because in the general scheme of things, it's not the most costly thing the government shouldn't be involved in. If you're going to start somewhere, shouldn't it be giving billions to governments who hate us, and raise their children to kill us? Shouldn't it be eliminating subsidies to industries that sell products known to cause cancer? Shouldn't it be defunding undeclared wars?

As I pointed out in my previous post, two simple changes would go a long way to improving the situation for public broadcasting: 1) Return charitable contribution laws to where they were; and 2) prevent the Federal Reserve from artificially holding down interest rates, which are hurting endowments and retirement funds. Would those two changes replace the $400 million going to public broadcasting? Maybe not. But it's worth talking about. Then again, it won't be talked about, because this issue won't even come up in Committee, much less make it to the floor.

 

[aaronread]

As you imply, WEEI's revenue numbers may be somewhat atypically high and sports talk does get premium ad rates because it does attract hard-to-reach young males. More likely, WBUR competes for ad/underwriting dollars with WBZ. Of course, WBZ reaches nearly twice as many people so I'd be surprised if their revenue were not higher.

Probably...those were the only two stations I happen to have relatively hard numbers for in terms of stations performing at their peak. I'm sure WEEI's revenue isn't that high every year...although it usually is quite high. And I'd wager WBZ tends to beat them both...especially if you average it over time. Although, IIRC, WMJX and WXKS-FM tend to dominate in the 25-54 ratings and those tend to be the most lucrative.

BTW, NPR doesn't pay all that much for content from independent entities like WBUR. I haven't seen the specifics, but I've heard rumors that satradio paid WBUR better than NPR did...although that was several years ago, and thus before the XM/Sirius merger. I know some shows elect to stay independent rather than be distributed by NPR because the loss of control is steep and the money not so great. At least one show told me they'd lose more in grant eligibility than they'd gain from NPR by signing up.

As for WBUR being university-owned...like most major stations at a college/university, they pay full freight. Small outfits like WEOS get a lot of in-kind benefits, like free rent, free utilities, free telco (for the most part) and free janitorial...stuff like that. I know that WBUR does not; they have to pay studio rent (and tower rent, of course...they're on FM-128) and pay BU for all telco, HVAC, janitorial, etc costs. FWIW, I believe WAMU has a similar situation at American University, too. WBUR, like all college/university-owned stations, does have the benefit of a "safety net," so to speak...in that if things get really bollixed up, the University can step in with its considerable resources to arrange for comfortable financial terms. In fact, that's essentially what happened with Jane Christo being let go and Peter Fielder coming in as interim GM several years back.

BTW, I'm not sure that LPFM's are automatically disqualified from CPB grants. I know at least one LPFM that is a pubradio station (WUOW-LP in Oneonta, NY) and airs some NPR programming (very little, though) and I thought they got an annual CSG from CPB...? Certainly no AM station is disqualified...there's several NPR affiliates with an AM transmitter. I think a few that ONLY have an AM transmitter...?

But I don't see giving money for turning on the transmitter and putting on volunteers with want to play radio or activists who want to grind an ax. Tax dollars should not go for "hobby radio" and that is what a lot of these small stations amount to.

Then you should be happy because they don't. CPB has strict rules about how much your audience totals and/or your incoming non-federal revenue has to be each year, and you don't meet the minimum then you lose your CSG, period. Several stations have felt that pinch lately...even KUOM "RadioK" in Minneapolis, which is a pretty serious station for a student-run outlet, didn't meet the minimums and CPB dropped 'em last year.

Also bear in mind that one exception, all actual NPR affiliate stations have to maintain a staff of five FT or FTE people. That's a substantial financial commitment and no "hobby station" could conceivably raise enough money on a sustainable basis to support five staff members' salaries and benefits. The exception, by the way, is the grandfathered "auxiliary NPR members" which are in very rural areas that can't hope to support that many staff and have no other outlets for NPR programming. NPR stopped allowing new "aux members" almost 20 years ago, and I believe there's only a half-dozen of them left...mostly in middle-of-nowhere small towns in the southwestern and midwestern U.S.

There restrictions on non-commercial broadcasters you speak of don't seem to be much of a problem for the sales - I mean "development" departments of many public radio stations.

Yes and no. The biggest problem is that sales is sales. To get sales, you need salespeople. And the good salespeople are invariably going to go for commission-based jobs because that's where they personally can make the most money. I can't speak for how many development departments are salaried-vs-commission, but I can say that the bottom line is that most commercial stations can demand higher spot rates than an equivalent non-comm can...so the best sales people aren't usually going to stay at a non-comm because their earning potential is (usually) lower.

And yes, they are a problem in terms of getting clients. I personally have tried to explain why you can't say certain things on our (non-comm) station and usually they say "But I can say whatever I want on (the local AM commercial talker)?!?!?" It really cuts you off from a significant portion of "the usual suspects" when it comes to radio advertisers.

Also, since all non-comm's are required to be owned by non-profits, the IRS prohibits us from taking political campaign ads. That REALLY sucked this year after Citizens United case made the entire commercial media world AWASH in campaign dough. Granted, as an NPR station, we would've had to turn such ads down anyways, because they'd be too biased. But man, that was a TON of money we lost out on...

 

[bturner]

The Big A brings up some issues and this leaves me with questions.

It seems there are a number of successful non-comms out there. This indicates the format choices are working. Here's what I don't understand: if a station is making it financially with their unique Public Radio format, why would they drop the format if the NAB's teeth could be knocked out of their lobby and non-comms had the option to run commercials. From my experience, there would be more clients willing to buy spots if the verbage was not so limited by underwriting rules.

I don't understand why a station that has an established niche market and has operated with that format as a non-comm would suddenly opt to change formats or drop programming just because they would have the option to sell advertising. I'd hate to be a stand alone FM trying to compete with the big corporate groups with numerous frequencies and formats, plus a bigger, likely more experienced sales staff that knows everyone at all the agencies by first name.

I understand some stations just function better as a non-comm. KMFA in Austin comes to mind. I doubt they'd opt for a commercial service if it was allowed.

Certainly, just as a commercial frequency, a non-comm would have the option to survive by donations and grants if commercial advertising was allowed on the now non-comm frequencies.

Allowing commercials on non-comms would require some structuring of the corporation. I know some non-profits that operate commercial radio stations through some creative restructuring of how the entity operates. These still have 501c3s in good standing.

You bring up the miniscule amount of tax dollars that go to Public Radio and you are indeed correct. Gazing at the Federal Budget certainly proves that.

You bring up exceptional opportunities to boost Public Radio. Letting interest rates go to where they should be and allowing earlier charitable contribution laws would certainly help. I personally feel Public Radio should be successful and I'm all for making it easier for that to happen.

Aaronread offers good info about audience size minimums and staff minimums. I guess this is why those with fewer employees end up getting most of their funds through State Public Radio instead of directly.

It is insane to have the development department on straight salary and not salary plus commission. I found the best scenario was an acceptable salary with commission above a certain threshold in sales collections. Back in the mid-1980s I got $1,000 a month then 20% of collections once I hit $5,000 in one month. $1,000 a month was enough to pay the bills back then but if you wanted to do more than just pay your living expenses, you needed collections over $5,000 in a calendar month. Before I left I was bringing home $2,000-$2,400 a month. Salespeople (underwriting, grants, commercials) need an incentive or they will just do enough to keep their job.

Yes, underwriting is more difficult to sell. Somebody is giving you money and you restrict what they want to say is certainly a no-win. To the client, it is like a slap in the face. They just don't understand the restrictions and most think you are being a stickler because the client has never seen the FCC. In their mind, they all live in Washington.

Political Advertising has lots of dollars behind it but commercial radio hates it. There are forms that must be filled out and placed in the Public File and by law you must publish your lowest unit rate and offer it to the politician. It ends up about double the work for half the money. Still, when avails are unsold, money is money, so you do it.

Yes, commercial radio commands a higher spot rate than the public station but there are certain positives about underwriting. With Public radio you tend not to be in position 5 or 6 in a stop set. Thus, top of mind is easier to obtain. As I've always said, the best advertising money can buy is advertising that makes the listener think of your business when they need your product or service. Underwriting can do this.

Public Radio sometimes gets too restrictive in what they might offer. When you know what the client wants to see from the dollars, you try to accomplish this within their financial comfort zone. If this means a strategic schedule or an underwriting announcement that is more customized for it's air times and not so restricted in number of words, chances are better at making the client a month after month supporter. I've seen some stations require general underwriting to 'rotate equally 6am to ??pm. I've seen stations limit spots to 30 words when 40 or 45 would relay the message. For example, if I had a restaurant open for lunch and dinner, I'd want my underwriting between 10 and Noon and 4 to 6pm but some stations say, for example, tough, everybody runs at rotating times 6am to 10pm, for example.