• 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

KPLU Intent to sell to KUOW

Radio-X said:
Firstly, the News-Tribune article linked above is a great read...really puts things into perspective. If it was all about the money PLU's president said they'd have sold to a religious broadcaster (I bet EMF and BBN both offered them a bit more than KUOW). The fact that they didn't shows that they are interested in the station and the format succeeding under another owner. It also mentioned that KPLU had considered buying KUOW, though the asking price was almost triple KPLU's price. It made more sense for a smaller school with just one station seeing downward listening patterns in both jazz and NPR to get out of the radio game now before it becomes an expensive subsidy.

Assuming the sale to UW goes through (80% chance of that IMHO), in order for 94.9 to get out of the NPR game anytime in the next few years, there would have to be another decent non-com signal to come up for sale. Unless KMIH and its translator come up for grabs at some point, I doubt any other signals in Seattle will be on the block. And the fact remains, there would be many, many headaches involved to axe one of the public stations to free up 94.9. Not only are there the listeners who will lose a public station, but despite what the crazies in The Stranger may say about its board being a 'backdoor' to big business and right-wing propaganda, UW is a liberal-leaning school in one of the most liberal parts of the country. There would be many board members who would vehemently fight the idea of selling off a long-time historical frequency for public radio in town so we could get another commercial station. So long as huge amounts of cash are not being infused to prop the station up, 94.9 will be non-commercial public radio of some type for awhile.

For now, jazz is safe. I could see it switching with 94.9 at some point, or perhaps KEXP moving to 94.9, KUOW 88.5, and jazz on 90.3. If there is a "hot" public radio format right now, it would be KEXP. Despite not pulling huge numbers, they seem to be doing quite nicely in the $$ department. Always have, too. My guess is it would cost them the 90.3 frequency + $8-10 million to get 94.9 out of UW's hands.

Also, there may be an issue with selling off 94.9 to begin with! Remember, Dorothy Bullitt donated the station as KRSC-FM when she picked up KING-FM/TV. There may be a clause in that contract from the early 50's that prevents its sale or restricts it to an educational entity only...

Radio-X
Click to expand...

First time replying to this thread and using the quote function, so I hope this works. I would actually disagree that the News Tribune (NT) article was an excellent read for a couple of reasons. I do agree that NT tried to be through but only from a one sided perspective.

To be clear, before I begin, I have no connection to Mr Krise, PLU, UOW, KUOW or KPLU. I do have a background in radio as well as educational publishing and now retired.

But education is really what this is about.

In the interview article, NT ignores Mr. Krise's very first statement this is actually about education which I think is correct to some degree. Money is the other part of the equation as he lays it out.

Mr. Krise actually opens this up for a discussion about and this education topic is specifically ignored by the author of article itself and focuses on what I suspect is someone else's prior set agenda and less about balanced journalism. Read the article again and see if you do not disagree with me.

I have found most of the NT articles and columns to be anti sale to KUOW and mostly KPLU listener backlash. And never once considered education as the catalyst behind this sale. And the NT’s coverage tone was designed to excite/incite versus inform. The Seattle Times was much more balanced and even so far.

Journalists have not mentioned or researched how education is changing as a topic anywhere I can find in any article or column.. They all focused on public listener backlash and touched on PLU donations, enrollment, endowments, debt, etc. just a bit. While the name “University” really was the first clue to begin with. Also if any journalist had bothered to look at PLU mission statement, they would see it. It is the fourth word in.

Not one TV or radio station, journalist online/print thought to pursue this this line of questioning. So I hope if there is a journalist, editor or broadcaster reading this that they might consider exploring this education topic.

Now, President Krise, Trustees and his team did show very poor judgment in trying to position this as about saving public radio, etc. The argument was badly made and it was silly of them to put themselves in that position, when it was about education all along. And I do think that Mr. Krise should have apologized to the listeners for a particular comment. I also think the CAC should apologize for things they said to President . It just made matters worse.

Education, like the radio is facing enormous technology and competitive changes that PLU has to face. PLU’s mission statement is about Education. And I like to think that KPLU and public radio listeners would accept it. It would not be easy for them to swallow, but in the end they would accept education as the reason.

But back on point for radio and this NT article. I have actually inquired to NT about this article since the comments are actually disabled. I find it odd that this specific would be locked since other KPLU articles, columns and letters to the editor remain unlocked but might be easily explained away. So I have inquired and await a reply, if any.

And yes, obviously, I support the KPLU sale to KUOW and still love public radio and local journalism. I just think everything has a limited shelf life and everyone has to face change even though it is very difficult to accept.

I do agree if KPLU does not raise enough capital to purchase KPLU and to operate it well in the near term, it is a long shot and all involved parties know it.

Also I feel, that either CAC, KPLU Staff, Trustees, or some past PLU President should have explored this idea of spinning the station off as its own entity and maybe they did.

Just seems to me that if they did or failed to discuss it, they failed to execute on something that was really important and shortsighted. In the process let many people down. It just seems to late to be trying to do this at this stage. But it is what is and we will see what happens next.
 
JackBenny said:
First time replying to this thread and using the quote function, so I hope this works. I would actually disagree that the News Tribune (NT) article was an excellent read for a couple of reasons. I do agree that NT tried to be through but only from a one sided perspective.
Click to expand...

I didn't read any significant slant or agenda on the part of the writer/interviewer. It was Q&A with a primary decision maker in the decision to sell KPLU.


JackBenny said:
But education is really what this is about.
Click to expand...

Nor has it been for many years. PLU is a private university that doesn't include a radio curriculum. There is no longer any motivation for PLU to keep a jazz and NPR station, especially with support and funding gradually drying up. KPLU has become an albatross to the university. I don't think anyone can refute that point.

JackBenny said:
Mr. Krise actually opens this up for a discussion about and this education topic is specifically ignored by the author of article itself and focuses on what I suspect is someone else's prior set agenda and less about balanced journalism. Read the article again and see if you do not disagree with me.
Click to expand...

I read that point as PLU needs to concentrate on being a place of higher education as a university, not keeping a music and (some) news station afloat. KPLU no doubt has very expensive leases associated with two transmitter sites on West Tiger and Cougar Mt., plus the Seattle studios. I imagine it would be increasingly difficult to justify those high and increased costs for the sake of public relations or bragging rights. The UW has already made the commitment by going all news and NPR, ultimately stating very clearly that owning radio and TV is important to them as a major university. PLU made the strategic call to go in a different direction, which doesn't include trying to compete with the UW in radio.

JackBenny said:
I have found most of the NT articles and columns to be anti sale to KUOW and mostly KPLU listener backlash. And never once considered education as the catalyst behind this sale. And the NT’s coverage tone was designed to excite/incite versus inform. The Seattle Times was much more balanced and even so far.
Click to expand...

I think you're trying to read too much into this. Does the News Tribune have motivation to stir the pot on what used to be considered a media competitor in the Tacoma/Southern areas? I suppose, but to what gain? Sure, I imagine that like any traditional newspaper the NT is trying to find a niche with subscribers in a geographic area that's become much more melded in the past 20 years since Tacoma and Seattle operated independently. Trying to divide opinions about the KPLU sale into two camps when one camp is only a few hundred strong, seems to me like a waste of time. I bet that few thinks of this as a KPLU Tacoma vs. KUOW Seattle thing anymore, assuming that's what you think the NT is trying to stir.

JackBenny said:
Also I feel, that either CAC, KPLU Staff, Trustees, or some past PLU President should have explored this idea of spinning the station off as its own entity and maybe they did.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they looked at all the options. Non-comms with a lot of overhead, aren't appealing to anyone else but another non-comm. I doubt name-the-religious-broadcaster, would want to spend asking price then assume the Op-X of all those leases PLU has racked up.

JackBenny said:
Just seems to me that if they did or failed to discuss it, they failed to execute on something that was really important and shortsighted. In the process let many people down. It just seems to late to be trying to do this at this stage. But it is what is and we will see what happens next.
Click to expand...

Many people? Sounds like it isn't that many after all.
 
Not clear what PLU did wrong. Their primary responsibilities are financial and curriculum support. if no curriculum (and that is the case almost everywhere these days), then why keep a radio station that costs something. If community gets upset...then offer them a chance to bail it out (they are doing that). If the community won't come through, find a buyer who will preserve the format and audience service (they have done that). So why are we calling the school's leadership into the hall with a paddle ready to apply some University-level discipline?
 
Kelly A- At some point, I will master the way you did your quoting of my response. I agree with most of what you said and sincerely thank you for your reply because you made some excellent points.

I only disagree on the News-Tribune slant view. I do think they are stirring the pot just a little to draw people the website to read their articles and see their advertisers. Controversy serves NT very well.

As to the people being let down, I was referring to KPLU listeners themselves being let down, not the staff. And change to KPLU was bound to eventually happen.
 
LITTLEBOYBLUE - Thank you for the comments and the discussion.

The only three things wrong were from a message perspective and execution.

First, President Krise insulted the supporters and listeners by saying " “many people’s passions are very strong and may overwhelm their reasoning”. He should have apologized for that remark because I think it just inflamed the situation and showed poor restraint on his part.

Second, the "survival of public radio" and the sudden role of the PLU as an advocate of pubic radio, was poorly considered by the Trustees and President Krise. It put themselves into an indefensible position since they no previous experience in public radio except as the licensee and should have shifted to the message of education, which was the real reason from the beginning but never really mentioned. And now I think the time for that education message is lost.

Lastly, I guess President Krise's oversight in not sending the letter to all the Trustees was rather very unfortunate and again, made a situation look worse.

So I not suggesting they get "paddled" or fired but be much more considered when dealing with public. Because this will not be last time PLU will have to make a change or course correction. It will happen again soon and I just hope they are smarter about it next time.

I totally agree this was the right decision to sell the station. I just think that building peoples hope that it can be saved over the next six months is because it is a daunting task to be achieved. I am skeptical it can happen because of the large operating capital amount and purchase price is so big...but it could happen. It could have been avoided if they had the right message from the beginning (that being education). I think it would have been acceptable to everyone involved and this would have been still rough but a little smoother and more reasonable rather than the angst it generated.
 
JackBenny said:
First, President Krise insulted the supporters and listeners by saying....
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but he has no obligation to them. You may be right that it inflamed the situation, and if it did, that would prove his point that their passion has overwhelmed their reasoning. Informing the trustees could have turned this into a greater spectacle than it actually became, because the deal would have surely been made public prematurely. The sale became an issue when the advisory board made incorrect assumptions on its role in the process.
 
Thanks for the comment TheBigA. I think President Krise has an legal obligation to inform the Trustees but some how went very wonky because some received the CAC letter and others did not.

And your point is spot on the CAC (not a Board, that is a different animal). I do believe they may have over reached their charter and therefore their role. At the end of the day, PLU is the licensee and if it wants to sell the station they can do just that. The PLU is not obligated to inform or even ask for the CAC input..
 
TheBigA said:
Perhaps, but he has no obligation to them. You may be right that it inflamed the situation, and if it did, that would prove his point that their passion has overwhelmed their reasoning. Informing the trustees could have turned this into a greater spectacle than it actually became, because the deal would have surely been made public prematurely. The sale became an issue when the advisory board made incorrect assumptions on its role in the process.[
Click to expand...

WINNER!

The Advisory Board appears to have suffered a bruised ego and they decided to go public with their bitterness. Not all radio stations do everything a consultant recommends and not even POTUS goes with everything his advisers say.
 
The NT article was a good read primarily because it got into the thought process of why PLU is unloading 88.5 and how they came to that conclusion. He also mentioned that the "haters" in this sale are far fewer in number than the local media may want to disclose. Perhaps his nose grew a bit when he said it, but the fact that he mentioned that:

A) PLU had considered buying KUOW years before, but balked at the price of buying a non-com "commercial" signal. This tells me both parties knew awhile back that they were better off long-term combining operations than keeping separate owners and facilities.
B) KPLU had several offers from people who were not interested in maintaining the NPR/Jazz format. Given that two metro FM stations were purchased this year by two of the "heavy hitters" in religious broadcasting, something tells me at least BBN put in an offer for the station and its rebroadcasters. For BBN, it would have not only gotten them into Puget Sound, but also into the Victoria metro. 2 for the price of 1! My guess is BBN offered slightly more than KUOW, but PLU wasn't willing to take the backlash of zeroing out a public radio source in the market.

The President of PLU kind of formally threw down the glove and told those opposed to the sale to put their money where their mouth is and put an offer in. More power to him! If they don't, it clearly shows public radio in Seattle is not this sacred cow so many consider it to be, and it pretty much gives UW a mandate to run the station as they see fit in the most financially prudent manner. They have told us how things will be run initially if they buy the station -- you'll get 100% jazz on 88.5 and 100% NPR on 94.9. It prevents one audience from cannibalizing the other. This is why so many public broadcasters around the country do both a NPR News and a Classical (or jazz) service. It's much easier and cheaper to keep the competition in-house and tailor it so the two stations compliment each other. This isn't corporate takeovers or the UW creating a NPR monopoly, its about preserving non-commercial public broadcasting in a world where a lot of licensees are barely keeping things afloat.

Lastly, for those who think the NT article was biased, I recommend you read the Seattle gutter punk's preferred toilet paper brand, The Stranger, for their version of this mess and determine who's side they're on...not saying bias is a good thing in journalism, but getting both sides of the story is. Notice nobody in the media before the NT really sat down with the folks from PLU to ask "why".

http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/sl...-jazz-station-what-happens-to-their-reporters
http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/sl...anager-of-kuow-talks-about-her-plans-for-kplu

Radio-X
 
Thanks for that link. Interesting interview. What makes this interesting is to put it in a national context, that many of the "mega stations" she talked about are private community stations, not owned by the state. There has been a movement by some politicians to get state governments out of owning broadcasting. The state of New Jersey, governed by presidential candidate Chris Christie, sold New Jersey Public Broadcasting, a state-owned and operated system of four TV stations and several radio stations. Meanwhile, the consolidation the UW GM talks about has mainly happened at non-state stations like WAMU, WNYC, and WGBH. The NJ example I gave was a very weak system, because residents preferred to support the larger systems in neighboring NY and Philadelphia. So NJ's system was almost all taxpayer-funded. But it demonstrates that all you need is a state owned system that takes more than it gives back, and you get a potential political football. Which may explain why everyone is so careful how they talk.
 
Radio-X You point is a good one that nobody sat down with PLU before NT, which is still I think is slanted in their reporting. That's just a matter of opinion. I thought the Stranger's interview with Carlyn Mathes was much better than NT's. And Carlyn did a better job at her answers to the questions put to her.
 
Interesting that the station itself is assisting the outside group. If this was a commercial station being sold, I doubt it would be allowed.
 
And, as mentioned upthread, it's not just going to take just that $7 or $8 million to run a legitimate operation. If they don't get those additional funds, they're going to find out first hand why stations like KUOW cut back on its local product.
 
I wonder how many listeners are hesitant to contribute given the strong possibility that it won't be successful. When I was at a public radio station, we always made the fundraising goals reachable. We never set them so high that they couldn't be met. The thinking was that people won't contribute to a losing cause.
 
TheBigA said:
I wonder how many listeners are hesitant to contribute given the strong possibility that it won't be successful. When I was at a public radio station, we always made the fundraising goals reachable. We never set them so high that they couldn't be met. The thinking was that people won't contribute to a losing cause.
Click to expand...

Some parallels on that with behavior on RD. Here, a lot of keyboard radio experts, but when there's an opportunity to voice their opinion in the real world or even apply for an actual programmer's job, the rhetoric goes silent fast.

Likely the same thing with the proposed KPLU sale -- an extremely vocal minority kicking up a lot of dust, but when the rubber hits the road, so do they.
 
Let's say the 'Save KPLU' group raises two of the nine million by the deadline. Who get's the money, PLU? In that scenario, it may be worth waiting a few months. I can't see them refunding the donations.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom