Could a Commercialized NPR format work as a successful News/Talk format?

[MikefromDelaware]

On the posting for N/T predictions for 2007, someone suggested moving a news/talk format from an AM station to an underperforming FM station. This got me to thinking, would a commercialized version of NPR news/talk style programming (doesn't have to be left leaning), but think of commericalized versions of: Morning Edition, All Things Considered, Talk of the Nation, Car Talk, Pairie Home Companion, What Do You Know, etc. Could a commerical network or syndicator be successful with such a format. If so, would this commericalized format work better on AM or FM, or doesn't it matter?

 

[fred flintstone]

Coming closest is WTWP in Washington, DC.

The station launched during '06 as a joint venture of WTOP Newsradio and the station's former owner, The Washington Post. WTOP Newsradio moved to FM from 1500 AM and continues with the standard CBS news cycle format.

The AM station now features extended interviews with Washington Post editors and reporters discussing the stories on which they are working, as well as interviews with news makers and experts on subjects in the news.

The AM station (with a good radio) can be received from North of Richmond to South of Philadelphia (and across most of the Northeast at night). The audio stream is available online with audio links provided at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/wtwpradio/listen.html#.

 

[FightingIrish]

On the posting for N/T predictions for 2007, someone suggested moving a news/talk format from an AM station to an underperforming FM station. This got me to thinking, would a commercialized version of NPR news/talk style programming (doesn't have to be left leaning), but think of commericalized versions of: Morning Edition, All Things Considered, Talk of the Nation, Car Talk, Pairie Home Companion, What Do You Know, etc. Could a commerical network or syndicator be successful with such a format. If so, would this commericalized format work better on AM or FM, or doesn't it matter?

It's not a far-fetched idea. NPR stations, while not listed in the Arbitron ratings released to the public, tend to do surprisingly well in the ratings. They also draw very desirable demographics.

Unfortunately, if a large commercial radio company tried to do this, they would micromanage it to death, dumb it down, add elements that they think would attract the largest amount of people, gear the programming to accomodate certain types of advertisers and try and copy what the competitors are doing. In short, it would turn into the type of talk radio crap found on the AM dial already. The closest thing to NPR that I've heard on commercial news talk stations is probably the radio simulcast of "60 Minutes" on CBS-owned news/talk stations.

Most commercial radio owners lack the confidence to pull off this type of format. They prefer more simple-minded fare that isn't too mentally taxing and can be sold with the least amount of effort by adccount execs.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Could it work? Of course it could. Any format can work if done really well and promoted properly and adequately.

Would it work? Probably not. To work, it would have to be done really well. Those people with the talent to do such programs really well seldom stay in radio. They leave the radio segment of the industry to work in other areas where their chances of being given the opportunity to use their talents are better. The willingness of those who run stations, syndication companies, and networks to adequately fund the kind of promotion needed to get such programming up and running doesn't exist.

Perhaps satelite radio will bring such programming. No one ever thought that the kind of television found on PBS would ever work on a commercial basis, then along came cable television networks and A&E, Discovery, The History Channel, and all the rest came along and very successfully took over the kind of programming that PBS used to have a lock on. If the satelite companies ever reach a critical mass of subscribers, then we'll start seeing commercial-supported niche programming on XM and Sirius.

Or, perhaps the new stations (channels) that HD promises to bring to radio will create opportunities for commercial-funded niche programming similar to what's on NPR.

 

[fred flintstone]

Public radio stations are already successful doing a news-talk format. In some markets, two public radio stations are doing news-talk. Other public radio stations are flipping to news-talk from hybrid or music formats because (1) listeners to those formats are moving to satellite radio and mp3 players and (2) music listeners tends to be tight-fisted during pledge week compared to news-talk listeners.

Surveys indicated public radio listeners are generally satisfied with public radio news-talk. What reason would listeners have to switch to a commercial competitor? How many markets can support (or would support) are second or third station doing the same kind of news-talk as public radio has offered for close to 40 years? Public radio's has a high degree of listener loyalty and public radio is king of this particular hill with no obvious vulnerabilities.

Even if - BIG IF - a commercial broadcaster could do the same format was well as public radio has been doing it and promote it successfully, is there any kind of need to for a duplication of an existing format? No, not really! Add to that, to be financially successful, a commercial public radio-type news-talk station would need - ahem - commercials, lots of commercials. Twelve minutes an hour (at least). The product public radio produces does not come cheap. Public radio listeners are used to hearing the programming they like with only limited and low-key "enhanced underwriting announcements." There is considerable evidence fans of public radio news-talk would not tolerate commercials - certainly not the commercial load needed to produce a competitive news-talk product. (Intolerance of commercial interruptions was a major reason why public radio classical stations killed off commercial classical stations in many markets.)

Further, a commercial station is at an inherent disadvantage even if everything else is equal: Commercial stations have to pay taxes (I know of one commercial talk station reportedly almost silenced on several occasions for not paying local property taxes on the transmitter site and downtown office location). Add to that: Listeners don't send them moneyand the government doesn't give them money. Any one of those factors can make the difference between profit and loss in a radio station.

One local commercial station once tried to present itself as a commercial version of NPR News. Of course, this station is in the only state without its own public radio station. Even so, it was in no way be considered competitive. The commercial station did 40 second news stories and NPR News does in-depth pieces running as long as eight minutes. The commercial station did two minute hit-and-run phone interviews (with a bad interviewer) and public radio does Fresh Air. Really, no comparison. The track record of commercial broadcasters shows that even if they tried to duplicate public radio news-talk, they'd botch it.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

So basically all of you are saying that it COULD be done, but that the commerical networks lack the will to do it properly so that it could succeed. So other than that one exception of the Washington Post Radio station in DC that is doing a more NPR style newsformat, NPR probably will continue to be the only game in town for that sort of extended news/interview/issue driven discussion talk fromat. Unless as one suggested XM or Sirius one day decide to create a format like that. I don't have either satellite service, but I seem to remember hearing that one of them airs NPR programming, which may be their way of providing such programming.

We do see the same thing for TV news too. Jim Leher's News Hour on PBS is sort of an All Things Considered of TV with the extended interviews, discussions and perspectives. The closest thing the commerical networks have to that would be the newsmagazines that do tend to be less news of the day oriented, than the News Hour that is dealing with today's news and issues as they are happening. Also depending on the issue being covered on a newsmagazine the story could actually simply be a fluff piece.

So I guess NPR and PBS have a unique news niche that won't easily be filled by the commerical networks.

 

[Radio_Realist]

So I guess NPR and PBS have a unique news niche that won't easily be filled by the commerical networks.

You totally ignored an important part of your launch post. "think of commericalized versions of: Morning Edition, All Things Considered, Talk of the Nation, Car Talk, Pairie Home Companion, What Do You Know, etc."

I submit that syndicated programs like "The King Biscuit Flower Hour" are the commercialized version of the "Prairie Home Companion". I believe that if done well, commercial versions of infotainment shows like Car Talk or quiz/chat shows like "What Do You Know" could be made to work successfully. They won't, because no one with the resources to make them work will ever make the attempt. But the fact that no one will try it doesn't prove that they won't work. It only proves that no one will try.

 

[fred flintstone]

So basically all of you are saying that it COULD be done, but that the commerical networks lack the will to do it properly so that it could succeed. So other than that one exception of the Washington Post Radio station in DC that is doing a more NPR style newsformat, NPR probably will continue to be the only game in town for that sort of extended news/interview/issue driven discussion talk fromat. Unless as one suggested XM or Sirius one day decide to create a format like that. I don't have either satellite service, but I seem to remember hearing that one of them airs NPR programming, which may be their way of providing such programming.

We do see the same thing for TV news too. Jim Leher's News Hour on PBS is sort of an All Things Considered of TV with the extended interviews, discussions and perspectives. The closest thing the commerical networks have to that would be the newsmagazines that do tend to be less news of the day oriented, than the News Hour that is dealing with today's news and issues as they are happening. Also depending on the issue being covered on a newsmagazine the story could actually simply be a fluff piece.

So I guess NPR and PBS have a unique news niche that won't easily be filled by the commerical networks.

You have said repeatedly that you don't care about the economic or business aspects of broadcasting. If you take that out of the equation, anything could be done.

Sirius takes programming from NPR (delayed to avoid competition with terrestrial stations). The used to take programming from APM/PRI, too, but dropped that after making an exclusive deal with NPR. XM Radio takes programming from the BBC, C-Span, PBS (Lehrer audio) and some independent producers and local public radio stations - in addition to the daily interview show XM Radio produces with Bob Edwards.

What makes you think there is any need for something like like public radio news and public affairs as a commercial radio format? Do you see something wrong with or missing from what public radio currently offers? Is there any evidence of potential audience interest (let alone advertiser interest, although I know you don't care about that)?

You also seem to think that an operation like NPR could just start from scratch. NPR did not. It took them about 10 years to build a staff and to approach respectability and credibility as a news organization. A start up commercial organization would also have to build their staff and develop their product, plus build an audience they can sell and develop an advertiser base - while losing money until it all comes together (again, I know you don't care about that part).

And where is this new enterprise going to get its audience? Will they cut into public radio's (and cripple public radio in the process)?

This whole idea sounds like more wishful thinking. You don't like the nasty tone of most news-talk radio. (Neither do I.) So you want a kinder, gentler news-talk radio - like public radio. But with 12 (more likely 18 minutes) of spots per hour, if they can sell the time.

Public radio does do talk shows (Fresh Air, Talk of the Nation) but you seem to taking their drive time news magazines as your model. Commercial radio does have all news in a few major markets but the format has been going nowhere for 30 years beyond 20 or so already established all news stations. News-talk stations used to do news blocks in AM and PM drive but few do so any more. "News-talk" has come to mean talk about news rather than news and talk. Why? Talk is cheaper and gets better numbers. (Again, these are issues you don't care about. I know.)

You seem to think that because you might like it, it should succeed. A lot of people on this board think that way ("We need a danz station. I like danz music. All my friends like danz music."). But building a radio format based on one's personal tastes is a very expensive hobby and no way to run a business.

The only sliver of opportunity I see for a commercial long-form news and public affairs format is for one positioned as a conservative alternative to public radio. Such an approach has two chances: Slim and none. But public radio's perceived liberal and politically correct bias is the one area where they are vulnerable. The question is: Is there a substantial body of potential conservative listeners who want something other than the strident, argumentative rants which form the basis of conservative talk radio? Such a format would need a listener base larger than country club members, people on Wall Street and readers of the National Review to succeed. And I doubt there are enough of them out there.

PS: Since adopting the long form news interview format, 1500 AM has disappeared from the DC Arbitrons (to become an asterisk). Costs are low. The station is well promoted in the Post. They have the Nationals baseball games during the summer. But still zip in the ratings. When I've listened, not many spots and it seems what they had were sold as part of a cluster-package with WTOP. Maybe the Post is willing to subsidize this format. Otherwise I don't see how it can last long the way it's going. I've listened online (and sometimes I can get it in the car). I enjoy it. I'd like to see them make it but I don't think they will.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Fred Flintstone said, >>The only sliver of opportunity I see for a commercial long-form news and public affairs format is for one positioned as a conservative alternative to public radio. Such an approach has two chances: Slim and none. But public radio's perceived liberal and politically correct bias is the one area where they are vulnerable. The question is: Is there a substantial body of potential conservative listeners who want something other than the strident, argumentative rants which form the basis of conservative talk radio? Such a format would need a listener base larger than country club members, people on Wall Street and readers of the National Review to succeed. And I doubt there are enough of them out there. >>

That was what I was getting at originally. Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough, but yes, NPR has a preceived liberal and politically correct bias, so yes would a more conservative version make it commercially feasible(meaning making the stations money, so yes even if it isn't personally important to me I understand that it is important to the stations owners). So bottom line, is you don't think there are enough conservatives that would tune in to a more intellectual news/talk format than the current conservative breed of ranters that are on the air thus making that conservative commercial version of NPR not do able from a money point of view.

 

[fred flintstone]

That was what I was getting at originally. Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough, but yes, NPR has a preceived liberal and politically correct bias, so yes would a more conservative version make it commercially feasible(meaning making the stations money, so yes even if it isn't personally important to me I understand that it is important to the stations owners). So bottom line, is you don't think there are enough conservatives that would tune in to a more intellectual news/talk format than the current conservative breed of ranters that are on the air thus making that conservative commercial version of NPR not do able from a money point of view.

You said "doesn't have to be left leaning?" Are you saying you consider public radio, specifically NPR News, to be "left leaning?" And not having to be "left leaning" is not the same as suggesting a "right leaning" alternative. If the only difference between public radio and this hypothetical operation is non-commercial versus commercial, then there's no point to it.

Are you saying the only two alternatives are "left leaning" and "right leaning?" No other options? Must there be a point of view or bias?

Sorry, the bottom line is: Would it be profitable? It would be expensive to produce (at anywhere near the level of quality of NPR's news broadcasts). Would whoever did this be able to sell it? Would they be able to make enough to pay the bills and have some money left over (i.e., profit)? Otherwise you have a hobby station (which some rich people would have to bankroll) or an operation the state purpose of which is to have political influence (like Air America Radio - and we know how well that's working).

Interestingly enough, NPR's competitors - notably, American Public Media and Public Radio International - do not differ substantially from NPR in program style, substance or editorial outlook. Other than William F. Buckley's "Firing Line," I can't think of a single attempt to do intelligent conservative talk that was at all successful. Actually no attempt at intelligent political talk has ever been successful. AAR's approach has been to dumb down and adopt the same angry rant style of Rush and his ilk (mostly without doing it as well). Maybe only dumb, angry talk works because Mencken was right: Nobody ever has gone broke under-estimating the intelligence of the American people.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Must there be a point of view or bias?

Only if you hire human beings to report the news on the air. Otherwise, it is easy to be bias-free.

 

[fred flintstone]

Must there be a point of view or bias?

Only if you hire human beings to report the news on the air. Otherwise, it is easy to be bias-free.

It may seem so. What you describe is the paradigm of contemporary journalism and there is a good deal of evidence that this is often the way it is.

It does not have to be that way.

Human beings are addicted to thoughts and opinions the same way alcoholics and other addicts are addicted to booze and drugs. And human beings are as powerless about their opinions as addicts are about their addictions. As the saying goes, "You don't have thoughts. Thoughts have you." When looked at this way, what is required is for one to acknowledge his opinions as opinions - things that are made up and not real. A disciplined journalist, who would more likely have been a philosophy major than a journalism major, can separate opinions (his own and others') from the essential facts of a matter. It's not easy. It can be done.

Now, a lot of people say they want objectivity in news (fair and balanced). But really they don't. There's an audience of human beings out there each addicted to their opinions and interested only in being told they are right (and others are wrong, which may be the more important part). So just as a commercial public radio-style news-talk format could work - objectivity is possible. But it's probably not practical nor worth the effort.

And lest we forget, the only reason public radio is allowed to exist is to take the heat off commercial broadcasting and do things commercial broadcasters don't want to do (for various reasons). Public radio does news and public affairs programming to keep the intellectual elite from pushing for that kind of programming on commercial radio. Because public radio is around, commercial stations no longer have the news and public service requirements they used to. Most news-talk stations have done away with drive-time news blocks and gone with political talk or shock talk (or some combination like Imus) because public radio has taken over the chore of doing drive time news block programming. Alternative (AAA) has mostly disappeared from commercial radio but some public stations have picked it up (as also happened with jazz and classical). I'm surprised public stations haven't tried Real Oldies or Adult Standards (especially given the way Lawrence Welk and other music nostalgia programming gets the geezers to call public television during pledge week).

 

[Radio_Realist]

It does not have to be that way.

No it doesn't have to. But it is. The thing is, "unbiased" journalism is nothing but a circulation gimmick Joe Pulitzer used against Willima Randolph Hearst back at the turn of the last century in the New York City newspaper circulation wars. It was a temporary glitch in the otherwise continuous history of news reporting being slanted towards a specific political faction's interests.

 

[AKLes]

More to the point of the thread header:

When did NPR cease to be commercial?

Reflecting, of course, on the quantity of "underwriting" and how hard most NPR stations push the envelope in staying barely within the letter of the rules in their wording of program-length (or so it seems) underwriting "announcements" (aka "Spots").

 

[chuckydoll]

It would be just like WABC, only less obviously right-wing

NPR has baggage of its own:

Taking money for corporate sponsors for programs.

Hiring elites to do commentary (example: Ted Koppel).

Relying on the same government and official sources as Big Media.

Google NPR corporate sponsors or NPR sources -- you'll come up with plenty of evidence.

 

[bigtalkradiofan]

You also seem to think that an operation like NPR could just start from scratch. NPR did not. It took them about 10 years to build a staff and to approach respectability and credibility as a news organization. A start up commercial organization would also have to build their staff and develop their product, plus build an audience they can sell and develop an advertiser base - while losing money until it all comes together (again, I know you don't care about that part).

Two interesting books on the subject of NPR's founding (for anyone interested, both sets of information copied from the Amazon.com website):

* Listener Supported: The Culture and History of Public Radio (Hardcover)
by Jack W. Mitchell
Product Details
* Hardcover: 232 pages
* Publisher: Praeger Publishers (March 30, 2005)
* Language: English
* ISBN-10: 0275983528
* ISBN-13: 978-0275983529

* NPR: The Trials And Triumphs Of National Public Radio (Hardcover)
by Michael P. McCauley
Product Details
* Hardcover: 186 pages
* Publisher: Columbia University Press (May 18, 2005)
* Language: English
* ISBN-10: 0231121601
* ISBN-13: 978-0231121606