Does this make any sense?

[The Voice of Reason]

A co-worker mentioned that she read on Scott Fybush's web page www.fybush.com that former Channel 13 news director Steve Dawe has a new job with WXXI as ""director of multi-media engagement."

First: What is a "Director of multi-media engagement?"

Second: Why hire this person just months after several long-time employees at WXXI were offered early retirement incentives because the station feared losing state aid and wanted to cut its budget?

And third: Doesn't anyone at 280 State Street anticipate that there may be more budget cuts from Albany, resulting in more "early retirements" or possible personnel layoffs?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Makes more sense than spending money on HD radio, which has virtually NO audience. One might think that "multi-media engagement" will be heavily focused on their on-line presence - a GROWING audience.

 

[scooterodell]

That position had been posted for quite a while... from the job description I recall reading earlier this year, it sounded like a job-of-many-hats. Focusing on ensuring the quality, consistency, and accuracy of on-line content (which I believe was the main thrust of the position) makes a lot of sense to me, especially for a local news operation.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

The point I am trying to make is why would WXXI, facing possible further cuts in state funding, offer early retirement packages to several long-time employees, then turn around a create this brand new position?

I highly doubt Steve Dawe is working for minimum wage. Couldn't one or two of those workers that was offered early retirement be reinstated instead of the station hiring an "outsider?"

 

[SirRoxalot]

I highly doubt Steve Dawe is working for minimum wage. Couldn't one or two of those workers that was offered early retirement be reinstated instead of the station hiring an "outsider?"

He's probably making less than the long-time employees, and his retirement - if they're in the state system - will absolutely be less than theirs simply because he'll never achieve their longevity.

 

[Mark Giardina]

He's probably making less than the long-time employees, and his retirement - if they're in the state system - will absolutely be less than theirs simply because he'll never achieve their longevity.

WXXI's retirement plan is not affiliated with the New York State Retirement system.

Employees instead participate in TIAA-Cref, which is the same retirement program those employed in educational institutions receive.

When I worked at WXXI the station would contribute a certain percentage and the employee have the option of adding funds (from their own paychecks) to their retirement each year.

A former co-worker told me the station recently dropped its contribution to employees' retirement, which I believe was around 7% a year if I'm not mistaken.

As for Dawe's salary, I don't have a clue what he makes. Fact is I didn't even know the guy left Channel 13 to work at XXI until I happened to read it on here.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

Makes more sense than spending money on HD radio, which has virtually NO audience.

Heh, are you saying that HD radio is failing and going the way of the late great D.A.B. radios on the Canadian side?

 

[TheBigA]

The point I am trying to make is why would WXXI, facing possible further cuts in state funding, offer early retirement packages to several long-time employees, then turn around a create this brand new position?

Jobs are not interchangable. We're not talking about bolt tighteners. The long-time employees had their set of skills, and this new hire has his. I saw the same thing at NPR headquarters, where they canceled a couple of shows last year, let the show staffs go, had a 7% company-wide staff reduction, and then hired a bunch of new media people. Companies are redirecting their resources away from traditional jobs and shifting them to new media. Colleges are changing their communications curricula. I interviewed a college grad last week, and all she talked about was social media. Traditional media needs to grow in this area, and use it in a multi-platform way.

 

[jfc40ts]

TheBigA stated,

Jobs are not interchangable. We're not talking about bolt tighteners. The long-time employees had their set of skills, and this new hire has his.

Variables as they may seem, the one constant in this equation is the mindset of management...

Some years ago at WKBW-TV in Buffalo, there was a guy who worked in promotions who was a tireless, dedicated individual. Unfortunately, management viewed him as outdated and not "with it". They coerced him into taking a buyout and replaced him with four younger more "with it" people who couldn't get out of each other's way. Then, one by one, they were eliminated until none were left and the job of Promotions Director went to John DiSciullo, who also wears the hats of Program Director and News Director...

The station tried to get more bang for their buck and ended up shooting themselves in the foot once again...

 

[TheBigA]

Unfortunately, management viewed him as outdated and not "with it".

The lesson there is to learn new skills and keep up with changes in your field. Don't let things pass you buy. The new media writing has been on the wall now for several years. If you're in a traditional role at a media company, you need to start learning new skills now while you can, so that you can adapt as new opportunities come about. Youth brings energy and an open mind to the work place. Those are admirable qualities that don't have to be exclusive to one's age, unless you allow it to.

Back to the topic, the wife of a friend was recently let go from her job after ten years. She's taking courses in HTML and intends to open her own web design company. There are lots of opportunities out there. Don't wait for the ax to fall before you start preparing.

 

[aaronread]

NPR is moving forward very strongly into a non-broadcast-media mindset, the current NPR president, Vivian Schiller, has repeated said that the future of NPR...and she includes the member stations in this statement...is not in AM and FM - it's on the web. Or to put it another way, NPR & its member stations are in the CONTENT business, not the BROADCAST business. Smart thinking. That's a large reason why NPR is doing a helluva lot better than most radio outlets.

With that in mind, the new position could also be grant-funded, at least in part. I know there's a lot of money coming out of CPB, and other institutions that support public broadcasting, that's specifically going towards three main areas: content production independent of the distribution channel, web-based media, and filling the gaps caused by failing newspapers.

 

[fybush]

Makes more sense than spending money on HD radio, which has virtually NO audience.

Heh, are you saying that HD radio is failing and going the way of the late great D.A.B. radios on the Canadian side?

Not in this context, anyway. As I've mentioned repeatedly, there is indeed an audience for HD at WXXI, thanks to the limitations of the nighttime AM 1370 signal. Using 91.5-HD2 to fill in the 1370 nighttime signal holes has been very well received by our listeners in places such as Fairport and Spencerport, where the AM signal simply doesn't exist after sunset. We offered the Insignia portable HD radio as a pledge premium during our last (record-setting) drive, and it's my understanding that it was the single most popular premium throughout the drive.

Compared to the multi-million-dollar cost of buying a second full-market FM signal to replace the AM, using 91.5-HD2 is a bargain - it required only a new transmitter (paid for, if I'm not mistaken, largely through CPB grant money) and the replacement of a 35-year-old antenna that was overdue for replacement anyway.

Yes, this is an unusual situation, and a niche audience - but in this particular context, at least, it's working.

(And as usual, I speak here only for myself and not for WXXI or any of my other employers.)

 

[Element9]

NPR is moving forward very strongly into a non-broadcast-media mindset, the current NPR president, Vivian Schiller, has repeated said that the future of NPR...and she includes the member stations in this statement...is not in AM and FM - it's on the web. Or to put it another way, NPR & its member stations are in the CONTENT business, not the BROADCAST business. Smart thinking. That's a large reason why NPR is doing a helluva lot better than most radio outlets.

With that in mind, the new position could also be grant-funded, at least in part. I know there's a lot of money coming out of CPB, and other institutions that support public broadcasting, that's specifically going towards three main areas: content production independent of the distribution channel, web-based media, and filling the gaps caused by failing newspapers.

Word is many affiliates don't feel too happy about paying substantial amounts for NPR programming only to have NPR stream said programming to potential on-line listeners free of charge. What sense does it make? Why listen to it on the radio? Why pledge to the local affiliate? Just click on NPR's stream and presto! Ahhh, the localism, you say. So that's the differentiation. Or is it? It isn't just newspaper that's grappling with issues and questions related to "monetizing" web product.

 

[TheBigA]

Word is many affiliates don't feel too happy about paying substantial amounts for NPR programming only to have NPR stream said programming to potential on-line listeners free of charge.

The fact is that less than 10% of the people who listen to the station ever give any money. So most listeners are freeloaders, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

The new NPR president is well aware of the affiliates' concerns, since it cost the previous president his job. The fact is that these stations have to do their share of improving their web presence, or listeners will take the easy way out and go to npr.org. But if the station builds a site that has some unique content, plus access to NPR stuff, then they become a content aggragator, which can be a way to attract local funding.

As Aaron said, there are federal dollars available for these kinds of improvements, so there's no excuse for a public station to have a crappy web site. NPR's site, as far as I can see, isn't overly commercialized, so the local station's exclusivity in this area shouldn't be threatened. The minute they start regionalizing their funding announcements, that could be a problem.

 

[listener-in]

Word is many affiliates don't feel too happy about paying substantial amounts for NPR programming only to have NPR stream said programming to potential on-line listeners free of charge.

My own experience is that when I'm at home almost all my listening – including my local public radio station, of which I am a member – is via WiFi radio. The audio quality is dramatically better than AM, and you don't lose the signal at night. But unlike HD radio, the WiFi doesn't confine one's listening to local stations; on the contrary, there is in effect an infinite choice of stations available. The down side? Embargoes that prevent some programming from being heard outside national and even media-market boundaries (though I'm not aware of this happening among NPR stations).

I doubt that those who already contribute to public stations will stop doing so just because they can get the content for free, even when it’s available on demand. However, I'll admit that the stations may have a problem attracting new members from among people who have come of age as technical media change so fast that it boggles the minds of us old-timers. The internet age will call for original thinking among commercial and non-commercial broadcasters alike. The stations that survive best and even thrive will be the ones that make listeners’ interests No. 1, ahead of other parties like sponsors, underwriters and managements.

 

[Mark Giardina]

I've read, with great interest, the posts here discussing how federal grant funds have assisted some stations in the ability to acquire technology that some NPR executives’ believes will be the next step forward in the evolution of broadcasting.

That philosophy is all well and good except for one thing: What happens when the grant money runs out? What happens to all of these jobs that are designed to help convert public stations from over-the-air media to on-line?

Both the federal and New York State budgets are trillions (federal) and billions (state) of dollars in debt. China owns America's credit. Citizens across the county are demanding that lawmakers stop spending money the government doesn't have. (Note the debacle over the "new" New York License Plates).

Eventually both the federal and state governments are going to have to make budget cuts. So, for example, if lawmakers have to choose between cutting funding to Social Security or Public Broadcasting, who do you think wins out? What about health care, aid to education, or a variety of other programs.

The CPR is going to have to depend more and more on donations from charitable organizations and those with deep pockets.

This is just a warning from someone who saw this scenario coming a few years ago and decided it was time to get out of broadcasting.

There is no money tree growing in DC or Albany. As someone correctly mentioned on here, a large percent of listeners to public radio never contribute. That means future funding will depend on baby boomers, and many of them are tightening their belts in anticipation of getting ready to retire, if they haven’t retired already.

I wouldn’t bet the farm that internet streaming will be the salvation of public radio, or that grant monies will continue to flow into the coffers of public broadcasting operations both here and across the country.

 

[TheBigA]

That philosophy is all well and good except for one thing: What happens when the grant money runs out? What happens to all of these jobs that are designed to help convert public stations from over-the-air media to on-line?

The goal of the grant is to provide investment capital, which is extremely hard to come by, to get something started. People won't sponsor an idea. They want to see it, and know if it's worth sponsoring. So the grant gives the station a chance to hire someone, put a program in place, have it operate for a while, and then hopefully get some local funding or sponsorship.It can take a while to obtain additional funding, and this grant can help. Otherwise, as you said, there's no point. I don't think the goal is for this gov't grant to be for the long term. Working in public broadcasting is a regular process of going from grant to grant. You're always applying for grants, hoping to cover the gaps and keep programs running. Quite often an employee is told that his hire is tied to a limited grant, so that may also be why some former employees didn't want the job.

Also, I don't think anyone expects online to completely replace over-the-air. But they support each other, and online can be a useful tool for communicating with members, and providing recognition for your funders.

 

[Bob1370]

"I wouldn’t bet the farm that internet streaming will be the salvation of public radio, or that grant monies will continue to flow into the coffers of public broadcasting operations both here and across the country. "

No one is making that bet. The long term future of NPR affiliates is going to be the same thing that determines the future of all radio--programming content. It's going to need to be a mix of national and local programming tuned to listeners' needs if it's going to retain what is now a solid and growing following.

One asset that no one discusses much, is the incompetence of a lot of the commercial competition. Few have done more to help pubcasters than major commercial chains (we all know which ones they are) which have so encumbered themselves with debt from insane past overexpansion that they are diliuting their program offerings constantly just to cut costs enough to keep going from quarter to quarter. They drive audiences away--and in the flight to quality some of those listeners turn to the noncomms.

 

[Element9]

Buffalo is fortunate to have three public radio stations, two of which, WBFO-FM and WNED-AM are NPR affiliates. It's a testiment to those in charge of these stations that they survive on a year to year basis. Truth be told (and I hope I'm very wrong) one of these stations is almost destined to go by the wayside, primarily because of the wretched state and federal deficits and the economy.

We can talk alll we want about rustlin' up operating and programming funds by way of grants that in turn generate private sector investment, but unless that money is coming from Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, there isn't a bottomless pool o' cash from the private sector.

NPR stations are typically great content providers, especially for baby boomers and the 35+ crowd, but these stations face the same problems that plague commercial radio stations. The local NPR stations seem to be working feverishly to plan ahead and develope new programming. But for the most part, their content does not appeal to listeners under 35 and for all intents and purposes, it's FREE.

For a generation brought up on free file sharing, free music and free content derived from a hundred thousand websites, the question for NPR and Public Radio remains, "how do we monetize this?"

 

[TheBigA]

One asset that no one discusses much, is the incompetence of a lot of the commercial competition.

Oh I think if you were to assess the majority of the posts on this board, the topic centers around the incompetence of commercial radio. The problem is that few (or none) of these critics would be willing to take the pay cut and go into non-commercial radio. They want to stay at the commercial station with the salary and benefits, stay at the powerful frequency in the middle of the dial, and have those stations change to suit them. That's not the mentality that survives in the non-commercial world. The spending by commercial radio owners actually put those companies now on a level playing field with non-commercial radio. Neither now have the programming budgets that will allow them to buy ratings. They need to think and work and be creative, and that's a challenge for a lot of these people who lack imagination, but are often the first to criticize everyone else. With all the unemployed broadcasters out there, you'd think we'd see a rise in new content companies offering stations creative and inexpensive ways to solve their programming problems. Instead, all I read are endless posts about wanting them to go bankrupt, as though that will solve a problem. It won't. These commercial radio critics need to spend a week in the non-commercial world, and learn what it's like to program with no budget.