Eagan and Braude land at WGBH radio

[TSBench]

It's true public radio would have to replace govt funding with advertising

Why?

Regards,
TSB

 

[dyeingeye]

Part of the issue is the "ROI" - in other words, for every dollar of grants or federal funding, that money is leveraged to produce X amount of contributions or underwriting. So the $1.35 or so per person going to public broadcasting becomes $6 or whatever amount when used locally.

It works a lot more effectively than some government programs. Including the forced funding 75 years ahead of the Postal Service health plans, which passed under a Republican congress. The same party that in 2010 was scheduling "emergency" hearings to defund NPR. Maybe they should have looked at the USPS mandate first.

Why is ROI applicable in this instance? The stations are not starting up with federal grant money, they are ongoing enterprises. They don't "invest" the grant money in fundraising, it's just another source of revenue.

 

[stevensonair]

That's not true at all. The grants and federal funds are in part used to further the fundraising and underwriting sales on a local level. Hence the return on investment - putting in $1 and getting back X amount.

Same principle applies with the IRS - a dollar spent on fraud investigation and prevention returns more than the spending. Which suggests to me, public broadcasting does better with the small amount of government funds involved than many other programs do with much larger amounts - yet somehow defunding those wasn't an "emergency" to Congress.

If your priority is deficit reduction and spending control, you're targeting a mouse and missing a few elephants by focusing on public radio & tv.

 

[dyeingeye]

I realize that defunding media isn't going to fix the budget.

You comparison is off. If the government doesn't spend to investigate fraud, their is no money recovered by the government. Public radio stations do not need the federal money to conduct fundraisers. The fact that the stations receive money, either directly or indirectly, doesn't change how effective their fundraising is. It just changes the total amount of revenue. Federal money is some magical fertilizer that increases the return on fundraising.

 

[TSBench]

That's not true at all. The grants and federal funds are in part used to further the fundraising and underwriting sales on a local level. Hence the return on investment - putting in $1 and getting back X amount.

Well, that’s not the way it is supposed to work.

When financial mismanagement cost NPR its direct funding from CPB in the, IIRC, mid-80s, the CPB started giving the money directly to the stations, with the stipulation it would be used to buy programming. Although there are a number of suppliers, it was assumed the majority of the money would be paid for NPR-produced programs. That assumption was correct.

The real return on investment is derived from the NPR programming, because without the very popular NPR program hook to hang a station’s hat on, life is going to be really unpleasant for the fundraising and pledge staff.

There’s an adage that ‘you can’t sell from an empty wagon.’ If a NPR station doesn’t fill its wagon with NPR showcase programming, it really doesn’t matter how much they pile into the fundraising effort. The NPR shows drive everything. The smart move is to pile every nickel you can into programming, because the NPR shows are self-liquidating and then some. The NPR whole is greater than the sum of the NPR parts. If a station can’t fundraise on the backs of Morning Ed and All Things Considered, they need to find a new underwriting staff or prepare to turn the building into a Five Guys.

Regards,
TSB

 

[aaronread]

The fact that the stations receive money, either directly or indirectly, doesn't change how effective their fundraising is. It just changes the total amount of revenue. Federal money is some magical fertilizer that increases the return on fundraising.

Magical fertilizer! I like that one! LOL ;D Seriously, though, it actually kinda is. Fundraising is not about economics, it's about psychology. The whole concept of challenge grants is a very effective fundraising tool of using money to make money.

If a station can’t fundraise on the backs of Morning Ed and All Things Considered, they need to find a new underwriting staff or prepare to turn the building into a Five Guys.

You're not wrong, but this is a bit of an oversimplification. There are several successful CPB-funded Triple-A, Classical music and (to a lesser extent) jazz stations out there.

It's true public radio would have to replace govt funding with advertising

Why?
Regards, TSB

Welllll...what exactly else would you expect it to be replaced by?

For the bulk of the public radio outlets out there (in markets below 50, more or less), CPB funding can be anywhere from 10 to 40% of their annual budget. Those stations literally cannot cut their budgets by that much and survive; they wouldn't have enough money left over to pay programming fees AND maintain the five full-time staff that being an NPR member station contractually requires. While true that many public radio stations could be said to be underperforming on their listener-donation fundraising, it's unrealistic to expect that they could magically increase said fundraising by that many dollars; not without some other game-changer to come in play to offset the game-changer of a loss of federal funding.

 

[aaronread]

Hey TSBench. I work for a public radio station now. I've worked for them in one form or another for over 15 years (check my LinkedIn, it's not hidden). I was GENERAL MANAGER of an NPR affiliate for four years. And my current station (by extension, I do as well) routinely works with the top public radio fundraising consulting firm in the country. We have one of, if not the, highest efficiency ratings of dollars pledges vs. audience size.

I don't claim to be the end-all, be-all of public radio fundraising knowledge. But I know a hell of a lot more than the average Joe, and I've told people where they can find research to back up my claims. I ain't seen you cite ONE SCRAP of evidence to your claims, nor give any indication that you know what you're talking about.

discussing how much money NPR affiliated radio stations get from the public coffers is invariably described by NPR supporters as ‘insignificant and “chump change.” But, when you discuss taking it away, that same money becomes the ‘life-giving mother’s milk of radio integrity and innovation in America, and the world.

Very, very few NPR stations ever describe CPB funding as "insignificant", ever. NPR, as in the mothership, has said that and they dutifully received a lot of flak from the member stations about it. There is, without a doubt, a very nasty war brewing between NPR central and its member stations. But that's a topic for another day.

How so? What exactly is “a non-commercial manner.”

Read up:In the Matter of Commission Policy Concerning the Noncommercial Nature of Educational Broadcasting

Not to put too fine a point on it, but ‘underwriting spots’ and tradition soft-sell image advertising are, by NPR's own definition, close to a distinction without a difference.

A: Cite your evidence.

B: What NPR says is not necessarily what the member stations say. As mentioned, NPR is trying to separate itself from the member stations and connect directly to listeners via the web. It's a nasty and protracted war going on.

And anyone who sets up a radio operation, or any business dependent on public and private largess and INTENTIONALLY cripples its ability to react to changes in the market is insane. Since CPB created NPR, do you think CPB is insane.

How is that different from any entity that receives government funding?

If the HoR ever finds the ‘nads to zero out CPB, NPR better have Plan B in a handy drawer.

One could say the same thing about the FDA, the BIA, and the US Military. What you say is true but it's also entirely specious.

just why would the ending of CPB funding per se change the stations non-commercial designation?

It wouldn't. But unless Congress did BOTH actions: de-fund CPB *and* amend the Telecommunications Act to allow NCE stations to operate as commercial entities, then what you're doing is trying to kill off public radio without giving it a chance to compete in the free market. To remove the CPB funding while still requiring non-commercial operation is to unbalance the playing field in a deliberate attempt to destroy the station...presumably for political reasons because the content is not desirable.

As for why it's inherently unfair for a station to be required to operate as a non-commercial, I simply say: if it were so much more profitable to operate that way, then everyone would be doing it. There's no requirement that any operator in the commercial band has to operate as a commercial entity. Any commercial station can file to change their license to non-commercial (regardless of where it is on the dial) and re-incorporate the entity holding the license into a non-profit. A simple transfer of control application makes it official. But nobody* does that because the earning power is a fraction of what it is as a commercial station.

* There are a handful of exceptions, mostly in "niche" formats where you've got a small but devoted audience; classical music in certain markets, for example. A listener-supported model can be more valuable in that situation.

The status of NPR stations is dictated by the individual stations incorporation as non-profits.

Not sure what you mean here, so I'll clarify (maybe we're saying the same thing) and say that a requirement of being an NPR member station is that you must operate in a non-commercial manner; the position on the dial is irrelevant. However, it is true that any station operating on channels 200 to 220 (87.9 to 91.9MHz) must be a non-commercial, educational institution in order to hold the license. That is an FCC designation. The FCC defines such a thing, in part, by requiring that the institution also be a non-profit (which is an IRS designation).

Why do you think they would replace their current programming with tired, unimaginative and boring programming? I don’t understand the reasoning here.

Because it's standard operating procedure in the commercial world for sponsors to have significant editorial say in the content. Most sponsors won't part with their money unless they get that. You think commercial news stations do negative stories about the businesses writing the checks? Or that commercial music stations aren't told exactly what to play by their indies? In the commercial broadcasting world, money talks. Oh there's a few exceptions, but very few. And when money talks, it shows: the listener inevitably realizes they're not the priority.

In the non-commercial world, such editorial say is verboten and it does not happen. Precisely because editorial independence is (rightly) viewed as so crucial to quality programming. That's a major reason why Morning Edition's audience (over 20 million, last I checked) wipes the floor with every other morning drive content source.

 

[TSBench]

Hey TSBench. I work for a public radio station now

Good for you.

Regards,
TSB

 

[dyeingeye]

Magical fertilizer! I like that one! LOL Grin Seriously, though, it actually kinda is. Fundraising is not about economics, it's about psychology. The whole concept of challenge grants is a very effective fundraising tool of using money to make money.

But the federal money isn't what makes up challenge grants. I have never heard that that Uncle Sam will match my donations if people give $10,000 before the end of the hour. Federal subsidies are just another revenue source. They are not some magical investment that increases other revenue sources. 1 federal dollar doesn't turn into $6.50. There is no return on investment.

 

[stevensonair]

Untrue. How do you think public radio stations hire reps that sell underwriting?

 

[dyeingeye]

Untrue. How do you think public radio stations hire reps that sell underwriting?

With the money they have left over from the last pledge drive. Cash is fungible. If they don't have federal dollars, they get it from someplace else. Or are you saying the reps can be paid only by federal dollars?

Federal money is just another revenue stream. It isn't required to pay a certain expense and it isn't what gets underwriting or makes pledge drives so successful. Because the money is all the same.

 

[stevensonair]

It most certainly isn't "the same" because you can't raise funds or market your stations without the resources to do so. Those efforts attract the donors.

For someone so concerned about public broadcasting's finances, you don't seem to have a lot of experience or knowledge of it.

 

[dyeingeye]

It most certainly isn't "the same" because you can't raise funds or market your stations without the resources to do so. Those efforts attract the donors.

For someone so concerned about public broadcasting's finances, you don't seem to have a lot of experience or knowledge of it.

Whatever. They have the money on hand to do fundraising, with or without federal dollars.

 

[aaronread]

Federal money is just another revenue stream. It isn't required to pay a certain expense and it isn't what gets underwriting or makes pledge drives so successful. Because the money is all the same.

Wrong. CPB money is regulated for specific purposes, including a restriction on requiring purchase of NPR-grade programming.

http://cpb.org/stations/grants/radio/generalprovisions/cpb_13RadioCSG_GeneralProvisions.pdf (page 12)

 

[aaronread]

But the federal money isn't what makes up challenge grants. I have never heard that that Uncle Sam will match my donations if people give $10,000 before the end of the hour. Federal subsidies are just another revenue source. They are not some magical investment that increases other revenue sources. 1 federal dollar doesn't turn into $6.50. There is no return on investment.

Not that kind of challenge grant. And perhaps I could've been more clear: it is about economics, too, but it's about leveraging economics to then take advantage of psychology.

The federal government can, and does for arguably millions of business, give 1 federal dollar with the expectation that the business will use that dollar as part of an overall investment to become more successful financially. That financial success then translates back into increased tax revenue. So yes, in some cases 1 federal dollar does indeed turn into $6.50. Or more likely, something like $1.10 or $1.20...either way, a net positive.

The principle still holds for non-profits like public radio, albeit at a slightly more distant relationship: increased success by a non-profit probably means more employees paying payroll taxes and very likely means more consumer spending which is, of course, the driver of the entire US Economy. I'm not an economist so I can't spell out the exact connections but I think we can agree on the generic principle of the concept.

Now, the psychological aspect is tied to the base issue that nobody likes donating to a loser. Even a non-profit in dire straits, who desperately needs cash to stay afloat, will not fundraise on that platform because nobody will give. Why give to an organization that might go out of business and thus waste your gift? Instead, you fundraise based on a positive note: "we have this money and we can do a lot of good with it if you help support us today..."

That an overt way, and admittedly it's one that most public radio outlets have gotten away from because of the political climate. It's more effective to fundraise on a platform that listeners are chief source of funding, and that federal dollars are nowhere near enough to cover the costs.

That speaks more to the covert method, which is that you use those federal dollars as a way to pay for quality programming and personnel who then can be leveraged to raise more funds from other sources: corporate sponsorship, listener donations, private grants, etc. For example, you could argue that at RIPR, part of our CPB funding is helping pay for our fundraising consultants, who in turn help us execute better fund drives that net us more listener donations. (I'm not sure if the budget setup is actually like that or not at RIPR...I only see the budget for engineering and, to a limited extent, the budget as it pertains to applications for private grants for various engineering projects.)

Either way, public broadcasting, AFAIK, still comes out positive when it comes to leveraging federal funding to ultimately create enough success to provide positive ROI.

 

[aaronread]

Hey TSBench. I work for a public radio station now

Good for you.
Regards,
TSB

Uh-huh. Nut up or shut up, pal.

 

[dyeingeye]

But the federal money isn't what makes up challenge grants. I have never heard that that Uncle Sam will match my donations if people give $10,000 before the end of the hour. Federal subsidies are just another revenue source. They are not some magical investment that increases other revenue sources. 1 federal dollar doesn't turn into $6.50. There is no return on investment.

Not that kind of challenge grant. And perhaps I could've been more clear: it is about economics, too, but it's about leveraging economics to then take advantage of psychology.

The federal government can, and does for arguably millions of business, give 1 federal dollar with the expectation that the business will use that dollar as part of an overall investment to become more successful financially. That financial success then translates back into increased tax revenue. So yes, in some cases 1 federal dollar does indeed turn into $6.50. Or more likely, something like $1.10 or $1.20...either way, a net positive.

The principle still holds for non-profits like public radio, albeit at a slightly more distant relationship: increased success by a non-profit probably means more employees paying payroll taxes and very likely means more consumer spending which is, of course, the driver of the entire US Economy. I'm not an economist so I can't spell out the exact connections but I think we can agree on the generic principle of the concept.

Now, the psychological aspect is tied to the base issue that nobody likes donating to a loser. Even a non-profit in dire straits, who desperately needs cash to stay afloat, will not fundraise on that platform because nobody will give. Why give to an organization that might go out of business and thus waste your gift? Instead, you fundraise based on a positive note: "we have this money and we can do a lot of good with it if you help support us today..."

That an overt way, and admittedly it's one that most public radio outlets have gotten away from because of the political climate. It's more effective to fundraise on a platform that listeners are chief source of funding, and that federal dollars are nowhere near enough to cover the costs.

That speaks more to the covert method, which is that you use those federal dollars as a way to pay for quality programming and personnel who then can be leveraged to raise more funds from other sources: corporate sponsorship, listener donations, private grants, etc. For example, you could argue that at RIPR, part of our CPB funding is helping pay for our fundraising consultants, who in turn help us execute better fund drives that net us more listener donations. (I'm not sure if the budget setup is actually like that or not at RIPR...I only see the budget for engineering and, to a limited extent, the budget as it pertains to applications for private grants for various engineering projects.)

Either way, public broadcasting, AFAIK, still comes out positive when it comes to leveraging federal funding to ultimately create enough success to provide positive ROI.

Ignoring the economic claptrap, you still haven't shown why it is important that the money come from the federal government. Any cash the stations receive can be leveraged into more money. A station does not need federal money to have a return on investment.

 

[aaronread]

Ignoring the economic claptrap, you still haven't shown why it is important that the money come from the federal government. Any cash the stations receive can be leveraged into more money. A station does not need federal money to have a return on investment.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

God, I give up. I'm done feeding you trolls on this thread. You're just determined to not be swayed by any rational argument, aren't you?

 

[dyeingeye]

Ignoring the economic claptrap, you still haven't shown why it is important that the money come from the federal government. Any cash the stations receive can be leveraged into more money. A station does not need federal money to have a return on investment.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

God, I give up. I'm done feeding you trolls on this thread. You're just determined to not be swayed by any rational argument, aren't you?

Just explain why federal cash is different from cash raised from donors?

 

[SixtiesGuy]

But the federal money isn't what makes up challenge grants. I have never heard that that Uncle Sam will match my donations if people give $10,000 before the end of the hour. Federal subsidies are just another revenue source. They are not some magical investment that increases other revenue sources. 1 federal dollar doesn't turn into $6.50. There is no return on investment.

Not that kind of challenge grant. And perhaps I could've been more clear: it is about economics, too, but it's about leveraging economics to then take advantage of psychology.

The federal government can, and does for arguably millions of business, give 1 federal dollar with the expectation that the business will use that dollar as part of an overall investment to become more successful financially. That financial success then translates back into increased tax revenue. So yes, in some cases 1 federal dollar does indeed turn into $6.50. Or more likely, something like $1.10 or $1.20...either way, a net positive.

The principle still holds for non-profits like public radio, albeit at a slightly more distant relationship: increased success by a non-profit probably means more employees paying payroll taxes and very likely means more consumer spending which is, of course, the driver of the entire US Economy. I'm not an economist so I can't spell out the exact connections but I think we can agree on the generic principle of the concept.

Now, the psychological aspect is tied to the base issue that nobody likes donating to a loser. Even a non-profit in dire straits, who desperately needs cash to stay afloat, will not fundraise on that platform because nobody will give. Why give to an organization that might go out of business and thus waste your gift? Instead, you fundraise based on a positive note: "we have this money and we can do a lot of good with it if you help support us today..."

That an overt way, and admittedly it's one that most public radio outlets have gotten away from because of the political climate. It's more effective to fundraise on a platform that listeners are chief source of funding, and that federal dollars are nowhere near enough to cover the costs.

That speaks more to the covert method, which is that you use those federal dollars as a way to pay for quality programming and personnel who then can be leveraged to raise more funds from other sources: corporate sponsorship, listener donations, private grants, etc. For example, you could argue that at RIPR, part of our CPB funding is helping pay for our fundraising consultants, who in turn help us execute better fund drives that net us more listener donations. (I'm not sure if the budget setup is actually like that or not at RIPR...I only see the budget for engineering and, to a limited extent, the budget as it pertains to applications for private grants for various engineering projects.)

Either way, public broadcasting, AFAIK, still comes out positive when it comes to leveraging federal funding to ultimately create enough success to provide positive ROI.

All that you write presumes that the existence of public broadcasting is, like the sunrise, a given. It is not. If the mission of public broadcasting is to provide alternatives in education, information and entertainment that are not available in for-profit electronic media, then public broadcasting today is only somewhat successful. Why? Because it is controlled by people of the same political and social persuasion as the mainstream media, who appear to be genetically incapable of a truly objective, agenda-free perspective. When will we see programs about social conditions in this country and the world that are not frozen in 1960's ideology? Where are the programs that offer anything other than knee-jerk liberal political discourse? On the very rare occasions that conservative points of view are even acknowledged, why can't it be in a way that isn't derisive or dismissive? For what it's worth I do contribute to a local public radio station that broadcasts classical music, because that is the one area where the programming truly provides an alternative to mainstream media. Lately the conventional wisdom, at least as far as the mainstream media is concerned, about "broadening the appeal" of institutions such as the Republican party or even the Catholic church is that these organizations need to reach out to non-traditional groups (gays, ethnic minorities, etc.). That being the case I suggest that if public broadcasting wants to receive broader public support, it needs to follow the advice of its mainstream media soul-mates and be inclusive of differing (non-liberal) points of view. Objectivity would be so... refreshing.