Not a surprise. It was clear from the way the deal was announced that there had been quite a bit of backroom dealing beforehand. Still, it's interesting to read the details of those dealings.
-
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
- Thread starter CarAgencyGuy
- Start date
Not a surprise. It was clear from the way the deal was announced that there had been quite a bit of backroom dealing beforehand. Still, it's interesting to read the details of those dealings.
Having read the article, and as a person without a dog in this fight, I am left with some questions.
KPLU is owned, as I understand it, by Pacific Lutheran University. Is this institution a private college or run by the state? That makes a difference in how they conduct themselves in meetings. Naturally non-profit means a bit more clarity in how they conduct their meetings. Even with that said, the typical standard in any entity is not to let the cat out of the bag until a decision among the board is met. Until then it is a private issue.
To expect an entity to express interest prior to a decision being made just isn't a very wise choice. It's not lack of candor but rather reserving comment until a decision is reached because there is not action until a decision is made. Even local governments can go in to executive session to discuss a topic before determining their decision. A school board in a public meeting does not say we are thinking of firing a teacher so lets discuss it. Instead they go in to executive session, talk about it and make a determination, then they bring that decision back to the public meeting for a vote or 'no action'. Certainly if Pacific Lutheran University is a private institution, they have more rights to act without general public input than a state owned facility would. In other words, if they are indeed private, they can say it's none of your business until we reach a decision, we're private. And they could say the general public deserves no input, advisory boards included. Could some be trying to apply 'Public Radio' to mean they must conduct themselves as a government entity would?
I'm curious about the so called 'monopoly'. As I understand things there are many choices for radio listening on the over the air dial. No monopoly if other choices are there. If the 'monopoly' refers to KUOW potentially controlling more than one station, I don't see it. No matter who owns KPLU, the station must generate revenue via listeners, grants and underwriting. Simply put, if you don't do what many people want, you won't have the income and the station will go dark. They cannot force a listener to listen and contribute even if there is a monopoly. Ultimately the listeners are in control no matter what.
The big question I have is how is it one group would serve the public interest but the other group would not? It seems KUOW has been successful in maintaining their station by ultimately serving their public. From my scant information it might be similar to what happened with a LPFM where a group opposed a Catholic programmed station saying it did not serve the public. In reality, the mostly satellite fed station served the Catholic community and those listeners seemed to think the LPFM was doing a good job serving them although their opposition yelled and screamed much of the community was left out in the cold by this station. My feeling is no matter who gets KPLU they will serve the public. To remain financially viable they must...simply a reality every station lives by.
Will KPLU's programming change if it goes to KUOW? Probably so. If KLPU was perfect as it is now, it wouldn't be up for sale. Generally speaking, you sell when things go south on you or you do not see a viable future with your given path of operation. Either group will have to change things to make KPLU work, plain and simple. Maybe a better word is evolve as the changes might seem more minor.
As for the opposing group trying to raise the money to counter the offer, good for them. The fact they went beyond yelling and screaming foul and are trying to put their money where their mouth is certainly quite respectable.
Don't look for the FCC to nix the deal if KUOW is on the paperwork. KUOW already has standing with the FCC as a licensee with a track record. If the deal is the group wanting KPLU for themselves, as long as they can pass muster with the FCC, KUOW has little to stand on in opposing the transfer and I am sure they know that.
If KUOW gets the station I doubt they will have any problems making the station viable even in the face of opposition. Funny thing, after the bell rings and the fight is over, the winner moves on, usually to other challenges. The loser can cry foul but mostly they have little sway on the level of success the winner has. It might even be that KUOW, should they win, might extend an olive branch. So the Save KPLU group should set themselves in a position that does not burn the bridge in case KPLU goes to KUOW.
And no, I am not extremely familiar with the two groups and the details, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night, so consider my comments as a mere broadcaster peering in from the outside, asking questions.
All of this will play out in the coming weeks.
KPLU is owned, as I understand it, by Pacific Lutheran University. Is this institution a private college or run by the state? That makes a difference in how they conduct themselves in meetings. Naturally non-profit means a bit more clarity in how they conduct their meetings. Even with that said, the typical standard in any entity is not to let the cat out of the bag until a decision among the board is met. Until then it is a private issue.
To expect an entity to express interest prior to a decision being made just isn't a very wise choice. It's not lack of candor but rather reserving comment until a decision is reached because there is not action until a decision is made. Even local governments can go in to executive session to discuss a topic before determining their decision. A school board in a public meeting does not say we are thinking of firing a teacher so lets discuss it. Instead they go in to executive session, talk about it and make a determination, then they bring that decision back to the public meeting for a vote or 'no action'. Certainly if Pacific Lutheran University is a private institution, they have more rights to act without general public input than a state owned facility would. In other words, if they are indeed private, they can say it's none of your business until we reach a decision, we're private. And they could say the general public deserves no input, advisory boards included. Could some be trying to apply 'Public Radio' to mean they must conduct themselves as a government entity would?
I'm curious about the so called 'monopoly'. As I understand things there are many choices for radio listening on the over the air dial. No monopoly if other choices are there. If the 'monopoly' refers to KUOW potentially controlling more than one station, I don't see it. No matter who owns KPLU, the station must generate revenue via listeners, grants and underwriting. Simply put, if you don't do what many people want, you won't have the income and the station will go dark. They cannot force a listener to listen and contribute even if there is a monopoly. Ultimately the listeners are in control no matter what.
The big question I have is how is it one group would serve the public interest but the other group would not? It seems KUOW has been successful in maintaining their station by ultimately serving their public. From my scant information it might be similar to what happened with a LPFM where a group opposed a Catholic programmed station saying it did not serve the public. In reality, the mostly satellite fed station served the Catholic community and those listeners seemed to think the LPFM was doing a good job serving them although their opposition yelled and screamed much of the community was left out in the cold by this station. My feeling is no matter who gets KPLU they will serve the public. To remain financially viable they must...simply a reality every station lives by.
Will KPLU's programming change if it goes to KUOW? Probably so. If KLPU was perfect as it is now, it wouldn't be up for sale. Generally speaking, you sell when things go south on you or you do not see a viable future with your given path of operation. Either group will have to change things to make KPLU work, plain and simple. Maybe a better word is evolve as the changes might seem more minor.
As for the opposing group trying to raise the money to counter the offer, good for them. The fact they went beyond yelling and screaming foul and are trying to put their money where their mouth is certainly quite respectable.
Don't look for the FCC to nix the deal if KUOW is on the paperwork. KUOW already has standing with the FCC as a licensee with a track record. If the deal is the group wanting KPLU for themselves, as long as they can pass muster with the FCC, KUOW has little to stand on in opposing the transfer and I am sure they know that.
If KUOW gets the station I doubt they will have any problems making the station viable even in the face of opposition. Funny thing, after the bell rings and the fight is over, the winner moves on, usually to other challenges. The loser can cry foul but mostly they have little sway on the level of success the winner has. It might even be that KUOW, should they win, might extend an olive branch. So the Save KPLU group should set themselves in a position that does not burn the bridge in case KPLU goes to KUOW.
And no, I am not extremely familiar with the two groups and the details, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night, so consider my comments as a mere broadcaster peering in from the outside, asking questions.
All of this will play out in the coming weeks.
Pacific Lutheran is a private university, and I don't think anyone questions that they acted within their rights to make a sale to UofW. The "KPLU advisory board", who had no actual authority over the license made something of a stink that they weren't consulted, but I don't think any independent observers think that claim holds any legal water.
It is the University of Washington's board of regents whose behavior is being questioned, with respect to whether the agenda item was clear enough and whether there should have been a comment period during the regents' meeting for the KUOW/KPLU agenda item.
With the expressed desire of KUOW to move 24-hour jazz on to KPLU, it seems likely the new ownership would make listenership lower on KPLU, but increase listenership on KUOW.
UW's already filed for KPLU's new calls: KPJZ. http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0513/DOC-339360A1.pdf
Somebody guessed they would be KPJZ up here, didn't they?
A monopoly with NPR? I figured NPR would follow everyone else that does syndicated programming/network programming: one station per market. The usual exception is when the affiliate opts to not take a certain program, then another station can get that program (ie: you take Morning Edition but not All Things Considered). I've never been in a market with two NPRs or any other network for that matter. Usually the price you pay for the programming comes with the guarantee you are the only affiliate in the market.
What monopoly? NPR does not give stations exclusive rights to any program in a given market. In Seattle, Morning Edition and All Things Considered are also carried on Northwest Public Radio, which is not part of this deal.
Why does it matter if one station is carrying the NPR newsmagazines instead of two (with virtually congruent coverage patterns)? More variety and more selection is better than redundancy.
Why does it matter if one station is carrying the NPR newsmagazines instead of two (with virtually congruent coverage patterns)? More variety and more selection is better than redundancy.
I would think there needs to be some protection for stations even with NPR. Every station pays for programming based on market. That station must recoup the money spent and more from listeners and Underwriters. If you have 2 stations splitting the audience by airing the very same program, it makes it much tougher to make it financially. Sure, you might have a station from a nearby market that can be heard in at least some of your market with the same affiliation and programs, but usually there is some market protection so affiliates can recoup the expense of the programming from listeners and Underwriters. I'm not saying NPR does or does not allow multiple affiliates but rather why they would, if they do.
Bongwater, thanks for the update. I don't think the KPLU logo not being allowed on the Save KPLU site is a deal. In fact I'm rather surprised KPLU allowed it in the beginning. I guess their thinking was to not act unless they had to but I would have thought having the KPLU logo on the Save KPLU page might be something an attorney for KPLU would advise against to demonstrate an 'arms length' association.
Bongwater, thanks for the update. I don't think the KPLU logo not being allowed on the Save KPLU site is a deal. In fact I'm rather surprised KPLU allowed it in the beginning. I guess their thinking was to not act unless they had to but I would have thought having the KPLU logo on the Save KPLU page might be something an attorney for KPLU would advise against to demonstrate an 'arms length' association.
It appears as both KUOW & Friends of KPLU seem confident that things will work on, in the end. I understand Friends of KPLU will have a contest to suggest call letters.
NPR is not a commercial network with affiliates. It is set up as a membership organization. In several markets, Morning Edition and All Things Considered are heard on multiple stations (Los Angeles: KPCC and KCRW; Boston: WGBH and WBUR..... and, so far, Seattle: KUOW and KPLU. There have been other markets with multiple stations running NPR's news magazines along with music but those stations voluntarily dropped the old "tent-pole" format with one station doing news and information (with NPR News) and others adopting an all music format.
Splitting audience is more of a station issue than an NPR issue. The stations are the losers, not NPR. NPR benefits by having as many stations as possible carry a show and paying program fees. NPR isn't allowed to fundraise locally, so it doesn't matter. Typically stations work something out so they don't conflict. In this case, KUOW was hoping it could buy the competition, thus getting an exclusive. The listeners don't want that. This this situation.
I
IndigoCoyote
Guest
A little background for those out of market.
Coverage maps really don't tell the whole story. KUOW has the strongest signal of any station in the city of Seattle. The tradeoff is that the 94.9 signal degrades rapidly outside the city, in pretty much every direction- there is plenty of signal generally, just also plenty of multipath. KPLU 88.5 has one of the strongest signals in Western Washington. There is a tradeoff in signal strength in downtown Seattle and West Seattle points on Puget Sound. Both stations have a pretty substantial herd of translators and secondary feeding stations around the rest of Western Washington (we have hills, lots of hills.)
Also, while there is a duplication of some NPR programming, there are two large news staffs with seemingly a very different approach. What a lot of folks figure will happen is that the KPLU news staff will be liquidated, ultimately KUOW programming will move to the better 88.5 signal and the pick of the best translators, and the All-Jazz automated programming will end up on the Seattle tower. And the rest of the translators get sold off/rented to Jesus.
The other thing as well- Seattle proper is growing, of course. But not nearly so much as the areas better covered by the 88.5 signal. The city of Seattle figures to gain 125,000 people in the next 15 years- Western WA something like 800,000/
I have no particular dog in the hunt. I am not really a jazz fan. But I very much like the news programming and choices KPLU makes. In my personal opinion, KUOW news programming personifies all of the cliches that public radio programming deserves, and then some.
Coverage maps really don't tell the whole story. KUOW has the strongest signal of any station in the city of Seattle. The tradeoff is that the 94.9 signal degrades rapidly outside the city, in pretty much every direction- there is plenty of signal generally, just also plenty of multipath. KPLU 88.5 has one of the strongest signals in Western Washington. There is a tradeoff in signal strength in downtown Seattle and West Seattle points on Puget Sound. Both stations have a pretty substantial herd of translators and secondary feeding stations around the rest of Western Washington (we have hills, lots of hills.)
Also, while there is a duplication of some NPR programming, there are two large news staffs with seemingly a very different approach. What a lot of folks figure will happen is that the KPLU news staff will be liquidated, ultimately KUOW programming will move to the better 88.5 signal and the pick of the best translators, and the All-Jazz automated programming will end up on the Seattle tower. And the rest of the translators get sold off/rented to Jesus.
The other thing as well- Seattle proper is growing, of course. But not nearly so much as the areas better covered by the 88.5 signal. The city of Seattle figures to gain 125,000 people in the next 15 years- Western WA something like 800,000/
I have no particular dog in the hunt. I am not really a jazz fan. But I very much like the news programming and choices KPLU makes. In my personal opinion, KUOW news programming personifies all of the cliches that public radio programming deserves, and then some.
Last edited:
Interesting comments. Personally I think listeners benefit from having alternatives, even if the alternative runs the same programming. Because there are many ways to do the same thing. That's what you see with these two stations. Two ways to approach public radio news. From what I've read, a lot of it comes from the differing cultures at the two stations. So to put both of them under the same culture eliminates that choice.
There are several markets I'm familiar with that have two stations with two cultures that run NPR news, often at the same time, and both stations get great ratings. The famous one is Boston, where you have WGBH and WBUR. One is college owned (WBUR) and the other is owned by a community group that also owns the PBS TV station and another FM classical station. The people of Boston love having the choice, and both stations are successful. No reason why that couldn't happen in Seattle.
A
AQH
Guest
It's in NPR's best interests to have two stations in a market. NPR would gladly give exclusivity in a market to anyone, but at a price. The annual fee for NPR is in the seven figures, and UW likely figures it would be cheaper in the long run to buy the other NPR station, terminate the NPR deal and put on a product that doesn't cost much and won't attract many listeners in jazz. Takes two to tango, and PLU selling KPLU makes business sense for them and for KUOW it makes sense to get rid of the competition.
- Status