KQED Offers Voluntary Buyouts and prepare for layoffs

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

KQED offers voluntary buyouts, prepares for layoffs - Current

The station faces a budget shortfall due to uncertainties surrounding federal funding and declines in underwriting and foundation support.

current.org

Yes this comes into play as KQED has to respond to the CPB cuts affecting public media outlets around the country and the organization needs to respond to the changes in the budget for their local operations.

KQED in San Francisco offered buyouts to staff earlier this month, according to an email obtained by Current, and aims to stabilize its financial position and seek a path towards sustainability.


“While individual contributions are up, we are faced with downward industry trends in corporate sponsorship and underwriting as well as in foundations and grants,” said CEO Michael Isip in a June 4 email to staff. “This is exacerbated by threats to federal funding. With our expenses projected to outpace our revenue growth and given our budget deficit, we are in the process of making budget reductions which will include layoffs. We are aiming to complete this process by mid-summer.”


A spokesperson for KQED declined further comment.


The deadline to request a buyout was Friday. Any employee could request a package, though Isip said each request “will be reviewed individually, balancing operational needs with the savings we must achieve.” Employees who are laid off will receive the same package.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

KQED to Slash Workforce by 15%, Cutting Dozens of Jobs in Latest Round of Layoffs | KQED

The Bay Area media nonprofit is laying off staff for the third time in five years. It comes as the Trump administration aims to cut off federal funding for public media.

www.kqed.org

An Update KQED is to cut 15% of staff.

 

[radiofan2023]

This is a shame and will leave the Bay Area less well informed.

 

[Mediafrog+]

Having a staff currently that size is kind of surprising these days. I recall that many years ago only the very largest commercial TV stations had that many people, and those numbers have been gutted in recent years.

 

[radiofan2023]

Having a staff currently that size is kind of surprising these days. I recall that many years ago only the very largest commercial TV stations had that many people, and those numbers have been gutted in recent years.

KQED also has a TV side, but a lot of these cuts are from the digital video section.

 

[Mediafrog+]

KQED also has a TV side, but a lot of these cuts are from the digital video section.

I don’t think you can really compartmentalize that way any more. In the big picture everybody, whether working with audio or video, is producing content that can wind up on many different platforms. Most of the old walls are gone now.

 

[Weiserguy]

IMO, there are two problems. One is that successful not-for-profits take in increasing amounts of money, and they can't issue dividends the way for-profit companies can. So they hire additional staff to "use up" the excess money. When the bad times hit (as they inevitably do, since trees never grew to the sky), it becomes like a Ponzi scheme collapse, in that you can't keep paying all those "investors" (i.e., employees) from the ever-increasing new cash, because it's now decreasing.

The other problem is a function of KQED's (and its various NPR "cousins" around the country) success. IMO, they lost sight of why listeners keep sending money. It's not so much all the podcasts that some of the new staff gets channeled into. It's not because the members are enchanted by the $140 Million facelift they've done to their headquarters building. It's not even the superficial local news updates, where information from Wednesday's "Dykes on bikes" story is recycled on air on the following Saturday. It IS because they carry NPR's flagship programming. (And APM's, and PRI's, and the Beeb's etc.) Cap Radio and KALW have shown you can carry that same programming with a whole lot less headcount. Financial reality is just catching up to the mighty 'QED.

Edit: And BTW, the multiple layers of highly-paid management doesn't help the financial situation, or motivate donors to keep the wallets open, especially when the economic handwriting on the wall is becoming clearer. A Chief Content Officer? Give me a break.

 

[TheBigA]

Having a staff currently that size is kind of surprising these days. I recall that many years ago only the very largest commercial TV stations had that many people, and those numbers have been gutted in recent years.

Keep in mind that KQED isn't owned by a multi-station group, so it can't outsource its services to corporate or some home office. A lot of commercial stations have backoffice stuff done in a central place. That's how they cut local staff.

 

[radiofan2023]

I don’t think you can really compartmentalize that way any more. In the big picture everybody, whether working with audio or video, is producing content that can wind up on many different platforms. Most of the old walls are gone now.

Yes that's true but they don't necessarily make a lot of money from that online content unless a ton of people watch it on YouTube and they get a share of that revenue, or people donate to KQED as a result of watching or listening to it. SiriusXM didn't give KQED any money for rebroadcasting Forum on their NPR channel.

IMO, there are two problems. One is that successful not-for-profits take in increasing amounts of money, and they can't issue dividends the way for-profit companies can. So they hire additional staff to "use up" the excess money. When the bad times hit (as they inevitably do, since trees never grew to the sky), it becomes like a Ponzi scheme collapse, in that you can't keep paying all those "investors" (i.e., employees) from the ever-increasing new cash, because it's now decreasing.

The other problem is a function of KQED's (and its various NPR "cousins" around the country) success. IMO, they lost sight of why listeners keep sending money. It's not so much all the podcasts that some of the new staff gets channeled into. It's not because the members are enchanted by the $140 Million facelift they've done to their headquarters building. It's not even the superficial local news updates, where information from Wednesday's "Dykes on bikes" story is recycled on air on the following Saturday. It IS because they carry NPR's flagship programming. (And APM's, and PRI's, and the Beeb's etc.) Cap Radio and KALW have shown you can carry that same programming with a whole lot less headcount.

But KALW is owned by the SF school district. Everyone in the district pays for it and the other things the school district does/owns via property taxes, unlike KQED. KALW also partnered with a group called Community Arts Stabilization Trust to buy the building next to the Warfield Theater earlier this year for $7.3 million.

Also KQED has a permanent endowment which is spent and invested according to the rules their Board of Directors vote on and set. They also have other endowments and legacy gifts, some of which have strings attached. They don't just have one big pot of money that gets pulled from.

 

[Gregg.]

Here's the key quote from that article...

>>>The cuts whittle KQED’s workforce to 312, down from 369 full-time employees. An additional 10 vacant positions will go unfilled.<<<​

Wow, a work force of 369 full time employees. As Weiserguy says above, when times were good and the contributions were flowing in, KQED-FM-TV kept adding more staff and more departments. I hate to hear of anyone losing their gig. And their union is my union, SAG-AFTRA. But they really don't need a staff of 369 full time workers for one PBS station and an NPR station.

Case in point. The article laments that the KQED Education Department is being cut from 13 to 5 people. It's an outreach to schools and youth groups to come to the station and learn about broadcasting. Each year for a week, young people get to "take over' KQED and make their own videos. The remaining five people will still do some of this work but not as much. OK. I'm sure it's a lot of fun for the kids to have this access. But really, should 13 full time staffers be paid to do this? Now only 5 will?

 

[TheBigA]

But they really don't need a staff of 369 full time workers for one PBS station and an NPR station.

They need what they need. Don't try to compare a non-profit with a for-profit. Two very different things.

If a for-profit station could hire more people, they would. But they have stockholders to satisfy. KQED doesn't.

If everybody hired only what they needed, there would be a lot more people out of work. My cleaning guy told me, "I usually have two people helping me, but I decided to do it myself, and keep all the money."

 

[radiofan2023]

Case in point. The article laments that the KQED Education Department is being cut from 13 to 5 people. It's an outreach to schools and youth groups to come to the station and learn about broadcasting. Each year for a week, young people get to "take over' KQED and make their own videos. The remaining five people will still do some of this work but not as much. OK. I'm sure it's a lot of fun for the kids to have this access. But really, should 13 full time staffers be paid to do this? Now only 5 will?

There's also a benefit to the station in that those kids might become listeners to the station and readers and viewers of the station's content online. Those who lament that Spotify and Youtube are taking away younger listeners from broadcast (not just KQED but in general) should be donating to KQED and earmarking their donations for the Education Department to hopefully ensure that the remaining 5 staffers still have jobs this time next year.

 

[TheBigA]

There's also a benefit to the station in that those kids might become listeners to the station and readers and viewers of the station's content online.

They also received a grant specifically for that purpose of working with local kids. So there's a direct connection between the project, the staff, and the revenue. Unfortunately, it was a federal DOE grant, and I believe they got cut in the DOGE cuts. So that's why the staffing is being cut.

That's why I say non-profits are different. They apply for grants, and then staff for those grants because the money comes with certain requirements that sometimes needs specialized staff, such as teachers to work with the kids. Then the staff has to complete a report to the funder on how they achieved the goals in the grant. So these aren't all general employees, but some are specialized staff who work on specific projects.

 

[radiofan2023]

They also received a grant specifically for that purpose of working with local kids. So there's a direct connection between the project, the staff, and the revenue. Unfortunately, it was a federal DOE grant, and I believe they got cut in the DOGE cuts. So that's why the staffing is being cut.

That's why I say non-profits are different. They apply for grants, and then staff for those grants because the money comes with certain requirements that sometimes needs specialized staff, such as teachers to work with the kids. Then the staff has to complete a report to the funder on how they achieved the goals in the grant. So these aren't all general employees, but some are specialized staff who work on specific projects.

Where are you getting that a DOE grant was what funded the project? The Youth Takeover project is eight years old according to the article.

 

[TheBigA]

Where are you getting that a DOE grant was what funded the project? The Youth Takeover project is eight years old according to the article.

I thought it was DOE, but it was actually CPB:

https://cpb.org/sites/default/files/FY24-26%20CPB%20Budget%20Justification%20Public_0.pdf

It was a $5 million grant.

KQED also hosts a series of Youth Media Challenges, in which students across more than 40 states have created thousands of short media pieces for an online showcase. KQED also works with students in the Bay Area to produce the station’s annual Youth Takeover, in which content produced by and with students are heard by more than 1.6 million listeners on broadcast and digital platforms.

In any case, the money will end if this rescission happens.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

IMO, there are two problems. One is that successful not-for-profits take in increasing amounts of money, and they can't issue dividends the way for-profit companies can. So they hire additional staff to "use up" the excess money. When the bad times hit (as they inevitably do, since trees never grew to the sky), it becomes like a Ponzi scheme collapse, in that you can't keep paying all those "investors" (i.e., employees) from the ever-increasing new cash, because it's now decreasing.

The other problem is a function of KQED's (and its various NPR "cousins" around the country) success. IMO, they lost sight of why listeners keep sending money. It's not so much all the podcasts that some of the new staff gets channeled into. It's not because the members are enchanted by the $140 Million facelift they've done to their headquarters building. It's not even the superficial local news updates, where information from Wednesday's "Dykes on bikes" story is recycled on air on the following Saturday. It IS because they carry NPR's flagship programming. (And APM's, and PRI's, and the Beeb's etc.) Cap Radio and KALW have shown you can carry that same programming with a whole lot less headcount. Financial reality is just catching up to the mighty 'QED.

Edit: And BTW, the multiple layers of highly-paid management doesn't help the financial situation, or motivate donors to keep the wallets open, especially when the economic handwriting on the wall is becoming clearer. A Chief Content Officer? Give me a break.

The CapRadio one is when there were reports of mismanagement and their former GM misused funds until Sacramento State University (The Licence holder for KXJZ) and Corporation for Public Broadcasting issued audits to CapRadio. They had less headcount for some time. For KQED specifically the high headcount prior to the current layoffs took place is because they are also mentioned as co-producing some segments for PBS Newshour and PBS Frontline whenever those shows need a West Coast correspondent for some episodes.