IS THERE A NATIONAL STANDARD TO DETERMINE REVENUE POTENTIAL FOR A NON-COMM FM

[bturner]

First, let me clarify that I realize any figure would be an average that may or may not apply in a specific community and it would certainly be affected by the services available within a community. I realize any ifigure, if there is one, might simply be a best guess or average of the whole.

Here's what I'm looking at:
Is there an average 'ratio' of listeners per actual donor (ie: 1 in 50 listeners donate...a figure out of mid air), or
An average amount in underwriting based on a certain amount of retail sales? (ie: $1 in underwriting per $1,000 in retail sales???)

In commercial radio, the national average was $4 spent in radio for every $1,000 in retail sales. In other words, if you are the only radio service in a community with $50,000,000 in retail sales, that would be about $200,000 in revenue if you're doing everything right. In major cities that might be $8.90 and I have seen it as low as 50 cents per $1,000 in retail sales. It all depends on the community, programming,wealth of the community, number of local businesses and if you have a good sales staff.

I've been told there has never been any average 'gauge' to determine if a market/community could fund a non-comm station but I find it hard to swallow such funds would be allocated with no reasonable idea of whether a station might be able to be financially viable.

Hopefully I'll get some ideas of how to assess a community and learn something new. Thank you in advance.

 

[MattParker]

The figure I have seen is eight per cent (one in 12.5) of listeners donate.

However, commercial underwriting may be a more important factor than pledges for the most financially successful stations.

Of course, there is likely some correlation between pledges and sponsor revenue.

The best predictor is likely demographics and even psychographics. Income. Education. Lifestyle factors. Concert attendance. Bookstores and libraries. Heck, even sales of white wine and soft cheese.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't see any value in "national standards." What matters to a station is how it does locally, same as with commercial stations. I see all these national figures about national audience figures down, or national revenue figures up, and they don't matter. What interests me is when I see two stations in the same market with the same programming, like WBUR and WGBH in Boston, and how WBUR is radio-only, while WGBH is a radio-tv combo.

Like other industries, there are consultants who will attempt to help stations improve their membership rates. At the end of the day, it's like any other charity. If people can get the content for free (and they can), it takes a lot to get them to donate. I read all kinds of criticisms of fundraising techniques, that the begathons are counterproductive, but the reality is that the vast majority of listeners to public stations are freeloaders. The only way to convert freeloaders to members is to embarrass them and badger them while they listen for free. The regular donors are on the side of the stations in that battle. We find that increased begging makes the current members even more passionate.

 

[bturner]

Thank you Matt Parker. The insight is very much appreciated.

I can agree national averages are just that and there are so many variables that such stereotyping is not anywhere close to an accurate picture of reality but if you were going to start any business (your choice), would you ignore national guidelines and trends in helping you determine if that business might be able to make it? I would look at such trends and then the region and local market to see what the potential is. For example, when I was helping a group find new communities for putting up commercial stations, I'd get retail sales figures, look at other media, such as newspapers, and the national average spent on retail sales to help make the determination.

For example, if I was looking at a city of 50,000 with no public radio and 3 local commercial stations and a couple of religious translators, I'd look at the national figure for Public Radio and compare it to Public Radio in the region. Next I'd look at retail sales and see how the other media was doing, again using a measuring stick of a national average. I'd look at the mindset of the town and then how successful local non-profits seem to be. I'd be looking to see how other Public Radio stations in the region perform, how aggressive the local buusiness community is in asking for the business from their customer base, if the community is unified or divided so much of the time, a couple of factions choose to fight instead of work together for a better quality of life and just how solvent local non-profits are as far as local support goes. Certainly 'cultural' and 'educational' facilities would factor in as would the general attitude of local government.

I have seen communities where the local businesses refuse to advertise because 'where else are they gonna shop', where the community is so divided or government is so divided that trying to give both sides equal attention only ticks off everybody and I've seen towns where anythng good comes from the same 10 people while the remaining 50,000 work at lowering the standard. On the other hand, I've seen very organized, goal oriented, positive thinking communities that are so far above their neighboring towns you are amazed. In Kerrville, Texas, for example, if you're a new resident, you're embraced, welcomed and invited to become involved. 20 miles down the road, your grandchildren might be considered local and accepted to be a part of the community. But, I contend, to gauge this, one needs a reference, a national average. The national average gives one an estimated guess of how the unknown factors may pan out and a gauge to determine where on the ladder the community sits.

 

[aaronread]

If you want the full skinny, I suggest you talk to John Sutton and/or Jim Russell. They're two of the "Fundraising Gods" in public radio and probably can give you everything you ever wanted to know about such metrics. Undoubtedly you'd have to pay for access to such information, but if you're wanting to start a new public radio station, that might be a good idea anyways.

You can also check out their websites - they share a fair amount of useful info across various blog posts and whatnot.

http://www.radiosutton.com/onairdrives/downloads.html
http://www.radiosutton.blogspot.com/
http://www.programdoctor.com/ (Jim Russell)

FWIW, "Audience 98" indicated that nearly one in three listeners was a donor, on average. The conventional wisdom at the time that 1:10 or 1:12 was the norm. Granted that was in 1998, which one could argue means it's outdated by now. Before the Great Recession of 2007, I think it was still pretty valid...and Sutton himself argued that the 1:10 rule was a fallacy as recently as 2008. Here in 2011 I'm not as sure...things have changed so much in the fiscal landscape that the donor ration might be the same, it might be better (since public radio donors tend to skew into higher income brackets that can still afford to donate?) or it might be worse (since maybe they can donate, but can't donate as much?). There's also new info about just how many public radio/TV consumers there really are out there (the 170 Million Americans project)and it's far higher than most people thought...which is not a bad thing but could potentially skew the listener:donor ratio.

One thing I'll point out: most of the hyper-successful NPR affiliates...like WBUR, WAMU, KERA, KQED, etc etc etc...have successfully leveraged the concept of "challenge grants". These are not quite underwriting, and not quite fundraising...but have parts of both. Basically, it plays on the "investor mindset" that you are proving to a wealthy source of funds (sometimes a business, sometimes a person, sometimes a foundation/grantgiver) that you are "worthy" of a major donation because you can get matching funds from your listeners. If you have to capacity to pull it off, it works well because the seriously rich always love "proof" that you're "worthy" of "investing" in. I would imagine there's probably a system of metrics that helps dictate success/failure in the challenge grant world. But I have little idea what it is beyond what I just described. Be interesting to see if anyone's really broken it down.

As a quick side note: challenge grants can be a real trap...more than one station has accidentally "trained" their listeners to only donate during the times when there's a challenge going on. Oops.

 

[TheBigA]

As a quick side note: challenge grants can be a real trap...more than one station has accidentally "trained" their listeners to only donate during the times when there's a challenge going on. Oops.

Easy solution: Always have a challenge happening. Set them up before the pledge drive. As one challenge ends, have another one ready to start the next hour. Set the goals so they can be met. And make sure the audience knows they helped meet the goal. But if they didn't get in in time, their pledge would apply to the next challenge. People love a horse race, especially one where they can participate.

 

[aaronread]

Easy solution: Always have a challenge happening. Set them up before the pledge drive.

Easy in theory, not so much in execution. If you're fundraising for eight or nine days, from 7am to 6pm, that's almost 100 hours of challenge grants! Most challenge grants fall into the dollar-for-dollar match so that's a substantial dollar value you need to secure...well into six figures for most respectable stations, and well into seven for the big-market performers. Odds are good you won't get that from one source, so it means cajoling multiple donors...and coordinating them all so they're all happy with where they're placed, too. (remember, there's some serious egos involved at those dollar levels)

It helps if you can vary the style of the challenge somewhat: get X extra thousand dollars if you sign up Y new donors this hour, get A extra thousand dollars if you raise B dollars this hour, etc etc etc. But even then, it's tricky...generally most of your money is going to come during your highest listening times: morning and afternoon drive (7-9am and 4-6pm) so you want to put your biggest money-getting challenges then, because there's a bigger risk of not meeting the challenge at other times. But that's what induces the "bad training" of making listeners wait until there's a challenge grant in place.

I suppose us stations could learn from this: only fundraise during drive times but have bigger challenge grant programs in place during those times. Make it clear that you're expressly NOT fundraising the rest of the day because of that, and if they don't cough up during those times, bad things will happen. Except there's just one problem with this: it doesn't fit the "on demand" life most people live these days. You'll get more call-in donors that way, probably, but there's a big risk that it'll maul your online giving...which is typically during at-work hours (10am to 3pm) or after-work (6-9pm). And as a station, you ignore online giving at your peril.

 

[MattParker]

Public radio types often talk about "greed" in commercial broadcasting but they seem absolutely addicted to (1) government money and (2) Jerry Lewis-esque pledge drives. I wonder if any data are available on listeners offended by these incessant begathons, listeners who refuse to pledge because of them and listeners who stop listening - at least during pledge campaigns. Pledge drives are tasteless, insulting to the listener's intelligence and personally I am annoyed to have some announcer telling me about all the "great programming" I am not being allowed to hear while he is ranting.

I have stopped listening to terrestrial public radio. I download the stories I'm interested in (individually or through podcast subscriptions) and listen to them on the music player app in my media phone, or if I listen live, I listen to KCRW World News online. Years ago, I'd listen to Howard Stern during pledge weeks but that is no longer an option. Then I heard about a story coming up I wanted to hear which was "blacked out" for a pledge pitch and that's when I started "Tivoing" public radio and by-passing my local station. Public broadcasters know how distasteful these pledge campaigns are to listeners but they arrogantly refuse to pay attention. Maybe they even get some sort of rush out of doing them.

The least public radio stations could do is get together and everybody hold pledge drives at the same time - and adjust the timing of Morning Edition and All Things Considered to allow expanded local cut-aways (and so listeners won't miss part of the programs). But these local yokels in public radio all have to do it their own way and listeners be damned. When public radio was set up, it was set up so the tail (stations) wags the dog (NPR).

 

[TheBigA]

Public broadcasters know how distasteful these pledge campaigns are to listeners but they arrogantly refuse to pay attention. Maybe they even get some sort of rush out of doing them.

Have you ever at least volunteered to answer phones during a pledge drive? If not, you really should. There is nothing fun about begging freeloaders for money. The people you should aim your distaste at are the freeloaders, not the ones whose job it is to come up with methods to change their behavior. Imagine running a business where you know more than 90% of the people who use your service actually steal it rather than pay their fair share. If there is ANY justification for government funding of public broadcasting, this is it. And sure, those who don't use it shouldn't subsidize those who do, but what else do you suggest? All it means is that those who do are taxed $5 a year. Which isn't enough to cover a membership.

I have worked on both sides of the industry: public and commercial, and if there was anything that bothered me about public broadcasting it's the difficulty in getting people who use the pervice to simply pay their fair share. It absolutely infuriates me. And to say public broadcasters "arrogantly refuse to pay attention" is absolute stupidity. Of course public broadcasters pay attention. If there was a technique that could improve fundraising without interfering with programming, they would do it. But freeloaders are like children, and you have to treat them that way. You have to withhold what they want. We tried "quiet campaigns," which was a direct mail campaign, and it wasn't much more effective. The only real solution is to encode the programming so that only members can hear it, and put online programming behind a pay wall. It's against the law to do the first, and it's distasteful to do the second. Both public and commercial broadcasters feel that programming shouldn't be put behind pay walls.

To call fundraisers "greedy" is the ultimate in insensitivity. There's nothing greedy about pouring guilt on the head of a freeloader. If you care about the goals of public broadcasting, and if you appreciate the service they provide, the people you should aim your distaste at are the other freeloaders. If the money went into the fundraiser's pockets, sure. But they're raising money for charity. You bring up Jerry Lewis, but for all the criticism of Jerry and his techniques, it is very successful. He gets a higher rate of return than an average public broadcaster. So once again, here's my challenge: Come up with a better way to get users to pay their fair share. And don't tell me to cut back on begathons, because that doesn't work. We have tried.

 

[MattParker]

@BigA: There's something in what you say. I did volunteer to answer phones during pledge drives (two stations in two different markets). I figured it would be better than listening to the pledge drive - and it was.

The problem is they withhold programming from the non-freeloaders, too. It seems like there must be a cost to pledge drives that public radio doesn't want to look at; how many non-freeloaders are turned into freeloaders.

And given the current spot load on my local station - and the fact that they seem flushed with cash - I have a hard time with the idea that I have an obligation to "support" that station. The boss makes big bucks. They have a big fancy building, expanded twice, at a prime location. The newest and best equipment. A large support staff. Some of this spending can be heard on the radio; most can not. A lot of broadcasters make do with a lot less.

If public broadcasters really feel listeners have an obligation to pay, maybe they should scramble the signal. Just joking. But I do think that instead of haranguing people and trying to guilt them into paying, they'd be better off coming up with some sort of "value-added" beyond coffee mugs and tote bags. Say live access to NPR program feeds for "members." Immediate access to program audio files online. Members only podcasts and on-demand content. Put cameras in the studio and make online video feeds available to members. But these folks don't seem to think that way. A personal example: Several years ago I contacted this station (which also operates a TV channel) and asked them to give me a waiver so I could receive the PBS national channel from DirecTV. The station ran TV college courses overnight. I often could not see a show during prime time and I wanted to be able to catch it when it was repeated during the overnight period. I told them I was a member and would be willing to pay more to do this but basically they just blew me off. I haven't given them money since.

Now, given all the interruptions for begathons and apparently pay to play news coverage (really infomercials presented as news), I have even stopped listening to terrestrial public radio. Greed seems to have won over journalistic ethics. They do long features on some topic and then we get an expanded underwriting announcement from some sponsor who just happens to be in the line of business on which they were just "reporting."

Sure maybe some people who don't give a free-loaders. Maybe more are not happy listeners (or former listeners). Right now, I don't feel all that much loyalty to public radio. It's not what it was but there's nothing better out there.

 

[TheBigA]

And given the current spot load on my local station - and the fact that they seem flushed with cash - I have a hard time with the idea that I have an obligation to "support" that station.

The fact is that they are a non-profit, so all the "cash" is ground back into the station, either in terms of facilities or hiring staff. That's how non-profits work. Some choose to focus on the amount of money a non-profit takes in as one would view profit. It's not. It's different. It should be viewed as money that benefits the listeners. They get it back in programming and services that poorer stations don't have.

Say live access to NPR program feeds for "members." Immediate access to program audio files online. Members only podcasts and on-demand content.

All good ideas, but that falls between the station and NPR. NPR owns that content, and thus decides access. That may change as the relationship between NPR and the stations change. But clearly the future of OTA radio is some form of time-shifting of content. Everyone knows that, and providing that service is part of what radio does or should do. Putting it behind a paywall limits access to the public's airwaves. Especially taxpayer supported airwaves.

But once again, I resent the use of the term "greed," when the only beneficiary is the audience. The other side of greed is selfishness. The selfishness of listeners who feel they don't have to pay for someone else's work. That goes for people who steal music, TV shows, and other content. We live in a world where the public wants content, but feels a certain entitlement towards getting it for free. If there is perceived value in content, and obviously you feel there is, then the consumer should feel an obligation to pay for it. Otherwise that person is stealing content, and selfishly passing on the real cost to others.

 

[Talk_Dude]

And given the current spot load on my local station - and the fact that they seem flushed with cash - I have a hard time with the idea that I have an obligation to "support" that station.

The fact is that they are a non-profit, so all the "cash" is ground back into the station, either in terms of facilities or hiring staff. That's how non-profits work.

Don't forget giving raises and bonuses to top management.

 

[TheBigA]

I find a lot of this resentment about the salaries of non-profit executives to be a smokescreen. They get paid that money because they earn it. This isn't like the CEO of a bankrupt company that is also getting a multi-million dollar bonus. These executives are running successful stations with big ratings that attract huge corporate grants and donations. They often get those donations because of the knowledge and connections the executives bring. No one in public broadcasting takes a vow of celibacy. The executives of the top stations could easily work in the for-profit world, where they'd make even more money. The fact that public broadcasting benefits from their knowledge and connections translates to better programming and services for the listeners, and those listeners should be smart enough to recognize that. On the other end of the spectrum, there are lots of public radio stations where the executives make $25K a year with no bonuses, but those radio stations don't have the kinds of local programming, membership features, and consequently the audience that the larger stations have. I don't see anyone jumping up and defending the guys making $25K, whose job is a lot harder than those making ten times as much. All I ever see is the resentment to the guys who make the bigger salaries. The low salaries of the weaker stations don't attract greater passion from their members. Matt Parker doesn't have to listen to KCRW. He could just as easily listen to some smaller station in rural Colorado where the GM makes next to nothing. But he chooses the bigger station, and then resents the fact that the GM makes a lot of money. You can't have it both ways.

In the music world, recording artists make tens of millions of dollars a year. Yet their fans don't resent that they make that kind of money. That is often used as a badge of pride, to say look how rich and successful my favorite star is. True fans of public broadcasting are the same way. They don't focus on unimportant details like the salaries of the executives. They focus on the enjoyment they receive from listening to the programming on the station. Put your focus on what's important, on things that directly affect you, and don't look with jealousy at the size of someone else's paycheck. That is destructive and selfish behavior.

 

[MattParker]

@Talk_Dude: Management at this station is very well taken care of.

@TheBigA: All terrestrial radio is, and always has been, "free" to the listener. By your logic, if one listens to commercial radio, does he have an obligation to buy advertised products? Are DVR users "free-loading" if they fast forward through the commercials? Or are commercial radio listeners "free-loading" if they switch stations when a commercial block comes on?

Donating to public radio is voluntary. They keep saying so. It's not like paying the check. It's not even like leaving the standard tip. It's like giving the waiter an especially generous tip (20-25%) for great service and maybe some penache.

And yes, I know how non-profits work. The point is they don't need the money - despite all the poor-mouthing in pledge drives. Management pays itself very well and the staff gets first rate toys to play with. If they had to account to stock holders, they'd be getting the job done a lot cheaper. So when they talk like if I don't give, the station disappears, I just don't buy it.

 

[TheBigA]

@TheBigA: All terrestrial radio is, and always has been, "free" to the listener. By your logic, if one listens to commercial radio, does he have an obligation to buy advertised products? Are DVR users "free-loading" if they fast forward through the commercials?

I believe they are, and a day will come when that content will be put behind a pay wall. The freeloading has gone beyond casual, and it's costing these stations real dollars. There is a cost for everything, regardless of what technology allows. Just because you can download things for free now doesn't mean it will stay that way forever. OTA stations are trying to retain the freedom of the airwaves that have been their best asset. But a day will come when that will have to change, and other program suppliers will follow Howard Stern in putting their content behind pay walls. Your behavior is simply hastening that day.

The point is they don't need the money - despite all the poor-mouthing in pledge drives. Management pays itself very well and the staff gets first rate toys to play with. If they had to account to stock holders, they'd be getting the job done a lot cheaper. So when they talk like if I don't give, the station disappears, I just don't buy it.

The fact is that if more people act selfishly like you, the station WILL disappear. Couple your attitude with the call to defund public broadcasting and the collapse of companies that donate to non-profits, and you are simply contributing to the destruction of something you enjoy. You need to decide if you gain any benefit from what they do. If you do, then it's only fair that you pay. If you don't, then don't worry about it. But there is no defense to being a freeloader. It's cheap, selfish, and wrong.

The stations that DO account to stockholders are cutting programming, services, air talent, and lots of other things that listeners want, while adding more commercials. Is that really what you want?

 

[bturner]

I haven't a problem with a good salary and bonus for Public Radio employees. I make a nice salary related to the work I do. I don't understand the double standard. If a commercial radio morning show earns 7 figures, it is fine but pay a Public Radio manager 100K or 200K and all hell breaks loose. Anyway, I spent years living on mac and cheese bliving in things like camper trailers to get to where I am.

Back to the subject, I want to run an idea past you guys as alternatives to underwriting and listener donations. Has any had experience with discount cards or coupon books? My thinking is when a listener becomes a member they get a discount card that can be utilized to earn a discount with merchants that support the station. The other idea is discounted or buy one get one free coupon books that are offered for a 'minimum donation'. All details would be in the monthly listening guide or on line.

Another idea is a radio auction (also on the website) where businesses donate product that is sold to the listener with the highest bid or first to meet the price. I talked to a guy in Maine that was running a format like this on an AM station. When salespeople couldn't get cash, they'd get product and sell a schedule that way. The product is sold on this AM station (ie: radio flea market). They ended up getting lots of 'believers' in radio as the client got tangible results by seeing those product and gift certificates come through their doors.

Wording on anything like this is tricky due to underwriting guidelines and may or may not be considered shaky in the eyes of the IRS or FCC.

I would worry too many clients would want to give away products and services at retail prices only to require the station to do extra work to get a fraction of retail in their pockets...in essence lowering your underwriting rate substantially in real dollars. I knew one commercial station that accepted merchandise from some clients behind on their bills and they sold the items on the air. It didn't take long before several more clients tried to hand the station merchandise rather than a check for the amount due.

I would think if you have too many discount cards showing up in one merchant's store, the merchant might not be so keen on the idea. Still, I think this is a great idea to demonstrate the value of your audience and a good way to offer a additional value to the listener.

Your thoughts...

 

[MattParker]

@BigA: It is my observation that station managers who make big bucks (usually courtesy of a close-knit board of well-connected individuals) do so by virtue of the station's ability to bring in money - not because of anything the listener hears or from which the listener benefits. The manager of that hypothetical small station in Colorado is probably a lot more involved in what goes on the air than the politically connected career municipal bureaucrat who manages the station in my area for $.85 million plus perks, bonuses and benefits (the same guy who laid off a bunch of programming people last year).

When I listen "live" I listen to the KCRW World News audio stream because they carry the full network feed of Morning Edition and All Things Considered - without cut-aways. And because I emailed them about something and they not only sent me a nice reply - they actually did something about the issue (public radio people often seem to forget the people who call or email with a problem or complaint are the same ones from whom they hope to get money). The only thing I know about the station manager is she got her job originally because she used an Apple lap-top - which says a lot about public radio's infatuation with Apple.

The station in my area could have stayed in their old building (not fancy but functional) and hired that guy from Colorado and paid him $50thousand, done away with pledge drives and still had money left over.

 

[TheBigA]

@BigA: It is my observation that station managers who make big bucks (usually courtesy of a close-knit board of well-connected individuals) do so by virtue of the station's ability to bring in money - not because of anything the listener hears or from which the listener benefits.

As one who was on the inside at several public stations, I can tell you there's a direct relationship between the money a station receives and the programming that airs. The richer the station, the more local programming you get, and the more sophisticated local programming. Stations like WGUC in Cincinnati and Minnesota Public Radio have huge concert halls where orchestras perform for member concerts, broadcast live on the radio. Once again, that's the economy of a non-profit, where all the money must be used for services. There is a reason you choose to listen to one of the richest, most independent stations in the system, and not WLRN in Miami or WABE in Atlanta. Those last two may be in big cities, but they simply don't have the resources. Even in LA, where you have lots of public radio stations, including KLON in Long Beach, KPCC in Pasadena, and a Pacifica station, there are very obvious differences in how the stations sound, and it's all a function of the money. Quality employees are attracted to jobs that pay well, have good facilities, positive work environment, and strong listener support. Don't you believe the listeners benefits from a station that has quality employees?

 

[MattParker]

@BigA: It is my observation that station managers who make big bucks (usually courtesy of a close-knit board of well-connected individuals) do so by virtue of the station's ability to bring in money - not because of anything the listener hears or from which the listener benefits.

As one who was on the inside at several public stations, I can tell you there's a direct relationship between the money a station receives and the programming that airs. The richer the station, the more local programming you get, and the more sophisticated local programming. Stations like WGUC in Cincinnati and Minnesota Public Radio have huge concert halls where orchestras perform for member concerts, broadcast live on the radio. Once again, that's the economy of a non-profit, where all the money must be used for services. There is a reason you choose to listen to one of the richest, most independent stations in the system, and not WLRN in Miami or WABE in Atlanta. Those last two may be in big cities, but they simply don't have the resources. Even in LA, where you have lots of public radio stations, including KLON in Long Beach, KPCC in Pasadena, and a Pacifica station, there are very obvious differences in how the stations sound, and it's all a function of the money. Quality employees are attracted to jobs that pay well, have good facilities, positive work environment, and strong listener support. Don't you believe the listeners benefits from a station that has quality employees?

No, not really. When regular people talk about listening to public radio, they say they listen to NPR. Much as local station people hate to admit it, any listener loyalty is to NPR. The station's public identity is NPR. But you hire some suit to run the station and he's just got to build an empire. Bigger building. Better equipment. More people working for him. And to justify all that, he (and the people he's hired) just got to run local shows - preempting NPR - whether anybody wants them or not. The station in my area keeps increasing the amount of time it takes from Morning Edition and All Things Considered for a decidedly inferior local product (inferior to NPR and to the local commercial all news station). That's why I listen to KCRW World News online (not KCRW Simulcast stream itself). Do classical music fans care about live concerts (unless they attend in person)? Who cares about some local orchestra when the music library has the greatest orchestras since the invention of modern high-fidelity recording. People care about content - not about whether it's live. Most of this local stuff is just stunting. If the stations you mention really let their egos run away and pulled out of NPR (like KCET in LA pulled out of PBS) and some other public radio station picked up those programs, where would the listeners go?

 

[aaronread]

Has any had experience with discount cards or coupon books? My thinking is when a listener becomes a member they get a discount card that can be utilized to earn a discount with merchants that support the station.

Lots of medium and major market pubradio stations do this. It's usually called a "(call letters) member card" and it looks sort of like a credit card. Some even have magnetic strips for more precise tracking, but the upshot is that you flash the card at a participating merchant and get a discount on whatever the merchant agreed (with the station) to discount. Often it's restaurants, but not always. By definition it's almost always local businesses or local chains...more rarely a national chain since they don't usually give that much discretion to the local outlets.

Usually these sorts of things work well because it helps get higher-income/more-highly-educated (as more pubradio listeners are, on average) consumers into businesses that want to attract that kind of customer. And it's a nice perk of "being a member" of the station in question.

I know WXXI does this, for example. I believe WBUR does as well, and from what I've heard, many other pubradio stations do, too.

No, not really. When regular people talk about listening to public radio, they say they listen to NPR. Much as local station people hate to admit it, any listener loyalty is to NPR.

Demonstrably false. If that were true, then WGBH would have twice as many listeners during drive-time as WBUR, since they air primarily the national feeds of ME and ATC, whereas WBUR frequently overrides a nat'l segment to air a locally-produced segment or story. Yet the reverse is true - WBUR has nearly twice as many listeners. Why is that? A host of reasons, but a major one is: providing a product that's not just local, but has successfully ingrained the idea that "it's local and LOCAL IS BETTER."

I agree 100% that it's better to just stick with the national feed than to attempt to do something that's local but half-assed; that'll engender loyalty to the national brand of NPR only. But if you do quality local programming AND you successfully "sell" it to your listeners as being better than the national feed in no small part because it's local? That gets you loyalty at the local level.