-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
KING FM goes non-com
- Thread starter Ai4i
- Start date
It will be interesting to see what this does to the public radio landscape in the era. I can see the current stations wary that this is going to dilute the potential public radio donor base. (I don't think so, since I think KING appeals to a different demographic.)
I hope that KING will be more creative and not use the tried-and-hated on-air pledge drive as a way to raise money. Asking for contributions from listeners is one thing; the public radio beg-and-babble-athon quite another.
I hope that KING will be more creative and not use the tried-and-hated on-air pledge drive as a way to raise money. Asking for contributions from listeners is one thing; the public radio beg-and-babble-athon quite another.
Bravo!
There are many potential partnerships in the noncommercial world that can benefit KING-FM, and I, for one, am eager to hear how the station evolves in the year ahead. There is a great mix of national programs that I hope they will consider as complimentary to the locally hosted music and symphony broadcasts. And as they decide how their sound will change, I hope that they will listen to Minnesota Public Radio, KUSC, WKSU, and other exemplary trendsetters in the genre for ideas in presentation style and scheduling. Not to mention Radio France and YLE Finand and BBC and other really great European classical services for ideas. (I'm partial to the delicate mostly-impressionist you'll hear late at night in Paris.)
I did note one discrepancy on the KING-FM website, in the timeline in the left column. It says commercials cease at the end of June 2010, and noncommercial operation starts in July 2011. Guessing there will still be commercials to keep things going into next year. Of course, they can still run ads on the website, even when non-comm on the air. Given the number of out of town listeners to their webstream, they should still be able to command some dollars for web advertising to help supplement the transition.
Again, congratulations for taking a courageous step, to the folks at KING-FM.
There are many potential partnerships in the noncommercial world that can benefit KING-FM, and I, for one, am eager to hear how the station evolves in the year ahead. There is a great mix of national programs that I hope they will consider as complimentary to the locally hosted music and symphony broadcasts. And as they decide how their sound will change, I hope that they will listen to Minnesota Public Radio, KUSC, WKSU, and other exemplary trendsetters in the genre for ideas in presentation style and scheduling. Not to mention Radio France and YLE Finand and BBC and other really great European classical services for ideas. (I'm partial to the delicate mostly-impressionist you'll hear late at night in Paris.)
I did note one discrepancy on the KING-FM website, in the timeline in the left column. It says commercials cease at the end of June 2010, and noncommercial operation starts in July 2011. Guessing there will still be commercials to keep things going into next year. Of course, they can still run ads on the website, even when non-comm on the air. Given the number of out of town listeners to their webstream, they should still be able to command some dollars for web advertising to help supplement the transition.
Again, congratulations for taking a courageous step, to the folks at KING-FM.
fmmod said:
That's very true on many levels. Public broadcasting tends to attract those who believe in the benevolent government, one that provides for our needs, on many levels, including cultural. Take the dispute over the NEA, for example.
The good news is that classical music in Seattle will be preserved. The folks in Miami, Philadelphia, and San Francisco aren't as lucky.
ai4i said:
I'm not sure the people of Boston and New York would agree. In Boston, there was a dispute about the inferior power of WCRB vs WGBH, and over the cancelation of the Friday afternoon Boston Symphony broadcast. In New York, there was much handwringing over the firings of many favorite personalities, as well as shifts in the repertoire. The new WQXR also suffered from an inferior signal.
The biggest issue in all three towns has to do with the difference between a corporate donation vs. the use of a commercial signal by a corporate sponsor for support of the arts. Donating money to a charity doesn't provide the same benefits as being a commercial sponsor. Then again, the pressures of meeting audience figures and achieving certain demographics aren't a factor for a donor. Obviously that's a question to ask the major corporate donors, and I imagine they've been asked.
J
jhguthlac
Guest
I read the e-mail from KING-FM this morning and had mixed feelings on the switch.
When Philadelphia lost WFLN, the music library and staff moved enmass to WRTI, the Temple University non-profit station. The only real loss was the signal. I cannot hear WRTI at my house in Delaware, while WFLN was loud and clear. New York classical lovers also suffered when WQXR's frequency was changed. So if the switch helps keep KING-FM intack, this will be a win for Seattle classical music fans as well as those of us who listen on-line.
I suspect revenue has been down, so the change to non-profit may help the bottom line in the long run. But will this have a negative impact on the arts that benefited from KING-FM's ad revenue?
When Philadelphia lost WFLN, the music library and staff moved enmass to WRTI, the Temple University non-profit station. The only real loss was the signal. I cannot hear WRTI at my house in Delaware, while WFLN was loud and clear. New York classical lovers also suffered when WQXR's frequency was changed. So if the switch helps keep KING-FM intack, this will be a win for Seattle classical music fans as well as those of us who listen on-line.
I suspect revenue has been down, so the change to non-profit may help the bottom line in the long run. But will this have a negative impact on the arts that benefited from KING-FM's ad revenue?
The switch for KING-FM to non-com wasn't a surprise to me because other classical stations were doing that.
It's the best thing for them. Classical music today is too far out of the mainstream to be considered commercially desirable. It's a very niche genre, but a very dedicated one as well (with a listener loyalty most mainstream stations would KILL for.)
Going non-com opens more doors for KING-FM. They can play Mahler's Third Symphony in it's entirety (almost two hours) without worrying about losing advertisers, etc.
It's the best thing for them. Classical music today is too far out of the mainstream to be considered commercially desirable. It's a very niche genre, but a very dedicated one as well (with a listener loyalty most mainstream stations would KILL for.)
Going non-com opens more doors for KING-FM. They can play Mahler's Third Symphony in it's entirety (almost two hours) without worrying about losing advertisers, etc.
Beyond BW's example ... I'm curious what a shift to non-comm would mean for programming that couldn't be done in commercial environment? (the question is not posed to say "it should stay commercial" --- it really is meant to ask "How can/should the programming change when such a shift is made?"). Specifically, if you were programming --- what handcuffs are removed by doing this? What new ones are put on -- the latter one directed at people who follow, KNHC, KEXP, KUOW, KPLU -- the stations who have experience with doing pledge drives and hearing feedbck about "I would give if you didn't ____" ?
Just to clarify an earlier point made by another poster:
[/quote]But ideally, and if we can overlook those NEA grants, public radio is libertarian. People are choosing to pay for something we enjoy.
[/quote]
You might choose to look at the public broadcasting business model as "libertarian," but do realize there are no NEA grants involved in station operations. Perhaps you're confusing the National Endowment for the Arts with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is an independent, non-profit agency which filters federal grant monies to stations and producers, based on very specific performance and mission criteria.
The non-commercial model for NPR-type stations (as opposed to high school, low-power, and college rock non-commerical outlets) involves many different layers of funding, which all work together to make things happen. No top-down decision making comes from Washington DC, and each station has its own internal culture and priorities. Which is why there's room, heck, I'd say even a need, for more than just one or two non-comm radio outlets in every market. Especially in larger markets like Seattle.
For a really interesting market scenario, albeit a small one, look at Juneau Alaska. A couple of years ago the major commerical broadcaster in town turned over their two FM licenses to the sole non-comm FM/TV broadcaster in town. Now, KTOO operates three distinct services on three viable FM frequencies: 1) all talk/news, 2) mixed format music and volunteer DJ shows, with a large classical block afternoons, and 3) a AAA-rock/alt/oldies music mix. Not suggesting that the same should happen everywhere, but that radio, as a medium in many markets, would be enhanced with a little more of this type of creativity that encourages new programming ideas. Especially when it tried to reflect something "unique" about its own market and what may work there.
By contast, it seems most commercial broadcasters can only recycle a few "tried and true" ways of running a handful of mass-appeal formats, regardless of how many frequencies they now control in each market. I think it's fine to have a dozen or so stations doing what we get now. But I can't imagine how that's good for the future of radio as a medium to have so little creativity on so many overly-predictable stations, or to keep others who don't need agency ads to survice from gaining access to existing radio licenses that actually cover the full metro market.
[/quote]But ideally, and if we can overlook those NEA grants, public radio is libertarian. People are choosing to pay for something we enjoy.
[/quote]
You might choose to look at the public broadcasting business model as "libertarian," but do realize there are no NEA grants involved in station operations. Perhaps you're confusing the National Endowment for the Arts with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is an independent, non-profit agency which filters federal grant monies to stations and producers, based on very specific performance and mission criteria.
The non-commercial model for NPR-type stations (as opposed to high school, low-power, and college rock non-commerical outlets) involves many different layers of funding, which all work together to make things happen. No top-down decision making comes from Washington DC, and each station has its own internal culture and priorities. Which is why there's room, heck, I'd say even a need, for more than just one or two non-comm radio outlets in every market. Especially in larger markets like Seattle.
For a really interesting market scenario, albeit a small one, look at Juneau Alaska. A couple of years ago the major commerical broadcaster in town turned over their two FM licenses to the sole non-comm FM/TV broadcaster in town. Now, KTOO operates three distinct services on three viable FM frequencies: 1) all talk/news, 2) mixed format music and volunteer DJ shows, with a large classical block afternoons, and 3) a AAA-rock/alt/oldies music mix. Not suggesting that the same should happen everywhere, but that radio, as a medium in many markets, would be enhanced with a little more of this type of creativity that encourages new programming ideas. Especially when it tried to reflect something "unique" about its own market and what may work there.
By contast, it seems most commercial broadcasters can only recycle a few "tried and true" ways of running a handful of mass-appeal formats, regardless of how many frequencies they now control in each market. I think it's fine to have a dozen or so stations doing what we get now. But I can't imagine how that's good for the future of radio as a medium to have so little creativity on so many overly-predictable stations, or to keep others who don't need agency ads to survice from gaining access to existing radio licenses that actually cover the full metro market.
ai4i said:TheBigA said:
We tried doing "stealth pledge drives," where we didn't interrupt, where we didn't creat hourly goals, where we didn't cheerlead, and they didn't work. People need to be made to feel guilty. We raised more money, although we drove away part of the audience, when we did traditional pledge drives. The general view among pubcasters is we'd rather have fewer listeners, with a larger percentage of members.
- Status