Fundraisers Getting Paid Well

[listener-in]

Did any of you notice the report in today’s D & C: “Fundraisers Getting Paid Well”. I’m referring in particular to the following sidebar:

Funds raised, lost
Fifteen Monroe County groups listed in the attorney general's "Pennies for Charity" report hired private fundraisers. Among them, the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra kept the largest percentage of funds raised — 66.9 percent of $383,078 — and WXXI Public Broadcasting Council actually had a net loss of 46 percent of $10,257 in one of its fund drives. To read the entire "Pennies for Charity" report, go to
www.oag.state.ny.us/bureaus/charities/about.html.

So, the fund-raiser in question charged about $15,000 to raise the $10,257 and, according to the Attorney General’s original report, failed to collect further pledges to the tune of over $13,000. Even if these pledges had been collected, WXXI’s take would have been a mere 36% or so.

It’s quite an eye-opener to this member of WXXI, and the highly-paid executives on whose watch such a thing can occur owe members an explanation.

It seems to me that members are good for their dollars but not when it comes to being allowed oversight into the stations’ affairs. WXXI should publish an annual financial report in its program guide and run an annual members’ meeting in the same way that publicly owned companies have stockholders’ meetings. Without decrying some of WXXI’s excellent programming that just wouldn’t be seen or heard on commercial stations in the Rochester area, I think it’s time for public broadcasting to indeed become public in more than just name. In other words, how about some accountability to those whom it supposedly serves? Or is it, like commercial broadcasters, now so smitten by its advertisers – excuse me, underwriters – that the audience is becoming an inconvenient afterthought?

 

[scooterodell]

Some pretty strong words there, but... you're right. Something just doesn't smell right with what I've been hearing about WXXI on this board. When you are listener/viewer supported and community-minded to boot, I would think that a higher level of accountability would naturally follow.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

It’s quite an eye-opener to this member of WXXI, and the highly-paid executives on whose watch such a thing can occur owe members an explanation.
It seems to me that members are good for their dollars but not when it comes to being allowed oversight into the stations’ affairs. WXXI should publish an annual financial report in its program guide and run an annual members’ meeting in the same way that publicly owned companies have stockholders’ meetings. Without decrying some of WXXI’s excellent programming that just wouldn’t be seen or heard on commercial stations in the Rochester area, I think it’s time for public broadcasting to indeed become public in more than just name. In other words, how about some accountability to those whom it supposedly serves? Or is it, like commercial broadcasters, now so smitten by its advertisers – excuse me, underwriters – that the audience is becoming an inconvenient afterthought?

Hallelujah!
It took a report from the Attorney General's office to bring to light issues that's I've been trying to make on this board for a very long time.
Listener-in is correct that there is a need for more oversight and disclosure of public monies collected and used by WXXI.
I have a few inquiries of my own under the category WHY?

Why is the WXXI Board of Directors made up of upper middle class and rich individuals?
Why are there no written minutes of the Board's meetings and transcripts made available to the general public for review on WXXI's web site?
Why aren't the board meetings televised on one of WXXI's HD channels?
Why does the station's CEO need a station-paid SUV every two years when he receives a salary, benefits and perks totaling over $400,000 a year?
Why does the station's management use the great programming they (or should I say the PBS/NPR networks) offer the community as a shield to deflect inquiries about the high salaries paid to just a few top executives?
I've been accused numerous times of being anti-public broadcasting. That is the furthest thing from the truth. And it's the truth that I am seeking. I believe the people who donate to the station have a right to know where every dollar they donate is being spent. After all it's their money!
After the 700 billion dollar taxpayer giveaway to banks and lending institutions, and now the auto industry wanting a multi-billion dollar bailout, it wouldn't surprise me if public broadcasting also seeks more public dollars in the guise of more pledge drives and other fund raising tactics.
After being "burned" by these bailouts, a lot of people are starting to demand where their tax money is being spent. The old chestnut of threatening the demise of favorite radio and TV shows if pledge goals are not met isn't going to fly with the public anymore. They are going demand, rightfully so, some accountability on the part of public stations.

 

[listener-in]

Why is the WXXI Board of Directors made up of upper middle class and rich individuals?

VoR's question brings to mind another thing I should have included in my original post. A members' annual meeting should not be just a talking shop to allow members to vent their feelings, only to be ignored for another year. It should have the power to elect WXXI's governing body from among ALL members, not just a selected few, presumably well-heeled, donors. In professional societies that I am familiar with, all members have the right to nominate and vote for any of their peers - no exceptions - to serve as society officers and members of the governing body.

It's a mystery to me how a so-called public broadcasting organization could have evolved with such an undemocratic, top-down system of governance. It may be a symptom of the complacent times we lived through. Well, now the times they are a-changing. Perhaps members could take their cue from a much derided community-organizer who out-organized his opponents all the way to the White House.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

It's a mystery to me how a so-called public broadcasting organization could have evolved with such an undemocratic, top-down system of governance.

The system of governance that you addressed evolved years ago when the station's current CEO took over.
During his "reign" he has created more Vice Presidents and middle-managers than the station had with the previous administration.
While catering to the wealthy, he reportedly ignored long-time volunteers for station fund raising drives when he first arrived that many of these people refused to return.
In the words of a current employee, " if you don't have a lot of money, he doesn't want to be bothered by you."
That is the mindset that operates that organization.

 

[cee]

VOR - I agree with all your comments about WXXI. You might consider addressing the points you make in your 2 below comments to the general, non-broadcast geek public. The D&C has a blog page. You should contribute:
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=Blogs

 

[The Voice of Reason]

VOR - I agree with all your comments about WXXI. You might consider addressing the points you make in your 2 below comments to the general, non-broadcast geek public. The D&C has a blog page. You should contribute:
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=Blogs

Cee- Thank you very much for your suggestion. However I, and a few friends, have written Letters to the Editor of the Democrat & Chronicle only to have them rejected for no reason. My theory is that the D&C does not want anything printed that they might consider negative against WXXI, especially since the newspaper and WXXI collaborate as part of the "Voice of the Voter" project.
Once again I want to emphasize that I am not "gunning" for WXXI or against public broadcasting in general. But there have been some serious questions raised on this board, not only by me, but others, as to issues like accountability and openness with the public.

 

[cee]

Cee- Thank you very much for your suggestion. However I, and a few friends, have written Letters to the Editor of the Democrat & Chronicle only to have them rejected for no reason. My theory is that the D&C does not want anything printed that they might consider negative against WXXI, especially since the newspaper and WXXI collaborate as part of the "Voice of the Voter" project.
Once again I want to emphasize that I am not "gunning" for WXXI or against public broadcasting in general. But there have been some serious questions raised on this board, not only by me, but others, as to issues like accountability and openness with the public.

I once wrote a response to an op ed article their CEO wrote and they wouldn't print it. Someone told me they have some alliance with WXXI and don't allow that. However, the blogs are do it yourself. If you're new, just register yourself and post - much like here at radio-info. They don't appear to censor anything as long as long as you don't violate their terms of use. It's one of those group blogs, where your post is at the top when you post it, then moves down to the bottom and disappears, so your post will disappear after maybe a day. However, continuous posts with similar subjects may very well get some attention.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I once wrote a response to an op ed article their CEO wrote and they wouldn't print it. Someone told me they have some alliance with WXXI and don't allow that. However, the blogs are do it yourself. If you're new, just register yourself and post - much like here at radio-info. They don't appear to censor anything as long as long as you don't violate their terms of use. It's one of those group blogs, where your post is at the top when you post it, then moves down to the bottom and disappears, so your post will disappear after maybe a day. However, continuous posts with similar subjects may very well get some attention.

A blog I would consider, however my employer, if he ever found out, wouldn't be too thrilled with my remarks, therefore I always find this board the best way to pass along my thoughts.
I am not surprised that the D&C would not print your response to the CEO of WXXI. Don't be surprised if you see another editorial from this gentleman in the near future with the topic centering on the need for public support for public broadcasting.

 

[aaronread]

Why is the WXXI Board of Directors made up of upper middle class and rich individuals?

Same reason most colleges' and universities' Board of Trustees tend to be richer/upper-middle-class (or just plain filthy rich). Their main job is fundraising; not running the organization. And when you're fundraising at the "big boy" level, you're not trying to attract the $120 pledge once a year...you're trying to get the guy who'll give you $10 million to put his name on something. You do that by being wealthy enough yourself that it's perfectly normal for you to go over to his mansion on the shore and talk about how much you both love public radio as you sip martinis on your yacht.

As for WXXI specifically, well it's probably not QUITE that cut-n-dried...but the overall concept is the same: you have a Board to attract donors...usually major donors. In that light, why would you put anything but wealthy, well-connected people on your Board?

 

[umtrr-author]

A quote from the actual report:

Finally, donors should keep in mind that amounts raised in a particular telemarketing
campaign may represent only a small part of a charity’s fundraising activity and, therefore, may
not provide them with a complete picture of a charity’s overall fundraising. Donors are urged to
review the entire annual financial report of a charity when considering whether to make a
contribution and should not rely solely on this report when making such decisions.

I certainly hope that the telemarketing campaign of WXXI is only a small fraction of their fundraising activities. It's hard to believe that when I'm calling 454-6300* during a pledge drive, when I think I'm calling a volunteer I'm actually talking to a professional telemarketer.

Although (with no disrepect intended to the WXXI staff here) I was a bit put off when among the first snail mail of the year was a renewal form for my WXXI membership.

*Yes, it is stuck in memory now.

 

[listener-in]

Does anyone know whether WXXI as currently constituted is legally obliged to open any of its business meetings to its membership at large? It may be that there is some legal obligation but in practice this is nullified by simply failing to announce them in a sufficiently timely and public manner.

As a member, I cannot accept that a properly-run organization could even come near to losing money in a fund-raising event (I can imagine a Department-of-Silly-Fund-Raising skit in Monty Python) and then keep it quiet until the AG comes out with a report. I've been making modest but steady contributions to the station for many years, and even if the reported shortfall was only a one-time event, it wiped out every penny I ever contributed and plenty more.

 

[umtrr-author]

Here's perhaps a partial answer now that I've looked at the detail matrix in the report:

One of the two telemarketing campaigns reporting for WXXI was conducted by a professional telemarketer for which it appears that there were only two other campaigns reported in the matrix. (I looked at the matrix in Table 1.)

The other two campaigns conducted by this firm were also net negatives for the charities involved, and also involved a non-trivial amount of uncollected pledges.

Overall, WXXI looks like it could have done worse: aggregating the two campaigns it did, it got 51.69% of the gross receipts, but also wound up with almost $65K in uncollected pledges. My sense (hope?) is that had those uncollected pledges been brought into the house, the percent to them would rise.

The entire report just reinforces my standard answer to telephone solicitations: "Sorry, we don't accept them-- send us a letter."

 

[JimMcGrath]

This appeared in the Taylor-On-Radio newsletter today about a CA commercial station:

Michael Zwerling’s KSCO (1080) is literally asking for contributions – via PayPal – on the station website. They’re suggesting a monthly donation of $10.80 to “help us keep quality programming on the air.

At least they will get 100% of the $.

Also, since I cannot respond to anything about WXXI because of the threat to sue for my severance pay if I did, I think I can say that the fundraiser percentage vs. client percentage (any client, not only WXXI) has been a well known fact. Although not acted upon as aggressively as now, the AG's office has a database on line to check. Most prove that either the client is a total scam ( where is that State Police Olympics I was called about anyway?) or it would just as good to send half the money directly to the client.

 

[audio4tv]

"My sense (hope?) is that had those uncollected pledges been brought into the house, the percent to them would rise."

I have heard this is the case for many of the charities on the list. I have a feeling there will be some corrections to the story.

 

[listener-in]

"My sense (hope?) is that had those uncollected pledges been brought into the house, the percent to them would rise."

I have heard this is the case for many of the charities on the list. I have a feeling there will be some corrections to the story.

As mentioned earlier, for the case being discussed if all the unfulfilled pledges had been collected, WXXI would have gone from -46% to +36%. Positive certainly, but still unsatisfactory. I'm skeptical of the very idea of employing outside fund-raisers, but if it's really necessary, WXXI's people should be smart enough to sign a contract ensuring they can't end up losing on the deal. Don't they have a high-priced in-house attorney? (That question wouldn't need to be asked if there were a culture of openness).

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Don't they have a high-priced in-house attorney? (That question wouldn't need to be asked if there were a culture of openness).

Apparently not. From what I learned WXXI was sued for using the same title for one of their locally produced TV shows. With several episodes of a wine/food show already taped, the station had to reshoot the video and audio for these programs under a new title because someone in management never bothered to find out if the title "A Taste of New York" was already being used, which it was by another station downstate. Of course that bit of information never became public because it would have raised some "red flags" as to how donor dollars are being spent. That is your "culture of openness" for you.

As for Aaronread's comments that "most colleges' and universities' Board of Trustees tend to be richer/upper-middle-class (or just plain filthy rich). Their main job is fundraising; not running the organization. And when you're fundraising at the "big boy" level, you're not trying to attract the $120 pledge once a year...you're trying to get the guy who'll give you $10 million to put his name on something. You do that by being wealthy enough yourself that it's perfectly normal for you to go over to his mansion on the shore and talk about how much you both love public radio as you sip martinis on your yacht."
Then why bother to have on-air pledge drives asking us "regular folk" to donate money if you have a small group of millionaires and wealthy people serving on these boards? Since its obvious that the average person doesn't have a chance to serve as a member of the Board of Directors, nor is their voice apparently heard, (at least according to one poster who is a member), at these annual Associate gatherings, then how can these stations claim to be serving the public?
If these well-to-do board members were doing the job Aaronread suggests, then WXXI and other public broadcasting operations wouldn't be facing a bleak financial future, even with the economy in the tank. After all donations to not-for-profits can be written off as a tax deduction.

 

[Bob1370]

"It's hard to believe that when I'm calling 454-6300* during a pledge drive, when I think I'm calling a volunteer I'm actually talking to a professional telemarketer."

You ARE talking to a volunteer when you make that call during a membership drive, NOT an outside telemarketer.

On the TV drives he or she is sitting at those phones set up for the purpose in television Studio A on the first floor, while during radio drives you're talking to someone sitting at phones set up in the big radio Studio D between the AM talk show studio and FM master control on the second floor. In either case it's someone who gives a little of his or her time to help out--although occasionally during peak times when the call volume's especially heavy, they may be joined by some station staffers who volunteer to set aside their usual tasks or stay late after work to take your call.

 

[aaronread]

As for Aaronread's comments that "most colleges' and universities' Board of Trustees tend to be richer/upper-middle-class (or just plain filthy rich). Their main job is fundraising; not running the organization. And when you're fundraising at the "big boy" level, you're not trying to attract the $120 pledge once a year...you're trying to get the guy who'll give you $10 million to put his name on something. You do that by being wealthy enough yourself that it's perfectly normal for you to go over to his mansion on the shore and talk about how much you both love public radio as you sip martinis on your yacht."

Then why bother to have on-air pledge drives asking us "regular folk" to donate money if you have a small group of millionaires and wealthy people serving on these boards? Since its obvious that the average person doesn't have a chance to serve as a member of the Board of Directors, nor is their voice apparently heard, (at least according to one poster who is a member), at these annual Associate gatherings, then how can these stations claim to be serving the public?
If these well-to-do board members were doing the job Aaronread suggests, then WXXI and other public broadcasting operations wouldn't be facing a bleak financial future, even with the economy in the tank. After all donations to not-for-profits can be written off as a tax deduction.

Major gifts are a complicated psychological exercise. Remember, the filthy rich person giving the money almost certainly does not "think" the same way that "average folks" do. That's how they got to be rich in the first place, after all. I've heard it said that anyone can choose to be rich, it just means giving up on things that most average people would instinctively refuse to give up: family, friends, interpersonal relationships, etc. I think that's why a lot of people go to law school, become high-priced corporate attorneys, and find themselves utterly miserable...their personalities just aren't wired to truly allow "making money" to become the sole priority in their lives. But a lot of really rich people most definitely ARE wired that way. But I digress...

I'm condensing thousands of psychological studies into two paragraphs here, but the upshot is that often a major donor will not give unless they are "convinced" that they are making a "sound investment" into a "worthy product" with their money. A major part of that "convincing" is to demonstrate that you can raise substantial funds from a broad audience; in the eyes of the donor, if a lot of people are giving money (especially a proportionally large sum of money for their budget) for something they can get for free, then that means the radio product must have great value, and thus is a worthy investment.

That's part of the reason why public radio stations don't just emphasize the total dollars raised; they also strive to get more people as donors...even those who give small amounts. There's other reasons, too...but a high donor number looks much better to a major gifter than a low donor number; even if the amounts donated are the same.

This doesn't mean that the "small fry" donations aren't important, mind you. They are absolutely essential to the fiscal health of the station. I'm just explaining how they work in relation to major giving and to the Board of Directors/Trustees.

There are also loss-leader major donor exercises that ultimately cost more money than they generate, but they're designed to entice that one big score. Sometimes the score doesn't happen, though...so you have to make sure you can afford to lose that money. A great example of this was the "Citizens of the World" tours that WBUR used to run under Jane Christo. It was a way for major donors to all go on a fabulous two week vacation in some intelligensia-friendly foreign locale and do it with one or two of their favorite pubradio hosts in tow to chat about it with over wine and cheese. The trips were VERY popular with the high-level donor crowd, but they never got anyone to really pony up the big bucks and the CotW trips ultimately lost several thousands of dollars (possibly up into the six figures). This was one more nail in Christo's coffin when the chickens came home to roost a few years back (so to speak) and she was ousted for accumulating a $12mil deficit, among other things. But while everyone said the CotW program was, in the end, fiscally irresponsible...it was usually deemed so within the context of the station hemorrhaging money in many other places; most everyone acknowledged that the plan itself was not a bad one: reward your VIP's with a unique gift in the hopes that they'll give even more.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Jane Christo was the perfect example why public broadcasting needs to shed its "wine and cheese" image and instead go after, what you referred to as the "small fry" donations.
I'm not suggesting replacing The American Experience or Nova with reruns of the Three Stooges, but instead air more programs like Ken Burn's classics "Baseball" or the "Civil War"
Trust me if PBS had more shows like that, the "Average Joe" would be more than willing to donate money for quality programming.
As for Board of Directors; many of them could care less about the daily operations of the stations they serve. For some it's just padding their resume or, as the Monkees' song goes, "living in status symbol land." They can attend their cocktail parties and while passing the Gray Poupon tell their elite friends how they are sitting members of the Board of Directors of .........station.
Someone in public broadcasting once told me that in all the years of working at one particular station, this person has never once been introduced to a board member; this despite the fact he/she is the local host of one of the more popular and listened too radio programs on the air.