LA Radio Stations Lose Money

[TheBigA]

Some things are more important than the station I like.

It's kind of like that Joni Mitchell song: You don't know what you've got til it's gone. That's what's happening here. People have come to expect certain services and they're going away. Out government is operating kind of like iHeart. We who know radio understand what that's like.

These risks and requirements must always be considered before accepting the "free" money.

You're right, except as I said, it's not free money. That's what the Reagan changes to the law eliminated. This battle over government funding was already fought by Reagan. He made substantial changes. The difference is he wanted to see the framework retained. This new group doesn't care. They just don't want to pay for it. So now it's up to the stations and the system to fix what the government blew up.

 

[TheBigA]

Public radio is a tiny part of a larger sector, and its fate will not affect the economy signficantly.

Tell that to the NAB. The government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand, they say public broadcasting is unimportant and has been replaced by the internet. On the other hand, many of these same people are promoting AM In Every Car, and saying broadcasting is vital to public safety. Which is it, because it can't be both.

Or, like any other closing of a small business, the staff will seek employment elsewhere.

Maybe. Tell that to all the people fired by iHeart, Audacy, Cumulus, and other radio companies in the last few years.

That's why I keep saying this doesn't just affect public broadcasting. It affects all broadcasting.

 

[david]

As to "large salaries" we can see the same at almost any non-profit that demands constant fund-raising. Executives that generate revenue are in high demand, whether in non-profit hospitals, the Visiting Nurse Association, the Red Cross or thousands of other entities all looking for donations.

David... that is the classic "what about" argument. Mediafrog+ is focusing on religious broadcasters. You are trying to pivot the focus to non-profits in general. Their living large is certainly an issue; but is not the issue of this thread or what Mediafrog+ is addressing. What about'ism is a way to escape dealing straight on with a topic - and the topic here is religious broadcasters who enjoy a nonprofit status and (as such unethically) many of their leaders appear to be living quite large. And the format tends to cultivate programming that urges toward far-right leaning politics... but there is no push back against them from the GOP led House or Senate.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

It's kind of like that Joni Mitchell song: You don't know what you've got til it's gone. That's what's happening here.

As someone who has had his heart broken on numerous occasions when my favorite radio station changed format (always for financial reasons) especially the station where I first heard that Joni Mitchell song, KMET, I DO know what I've got before it is gone.

I love radio so much I am willing, and do, PAY for nearly all of my radio listening, either through XM fees, or through a few donations to stations I like (shout out to KHUG here).

And since you have gone there, one of the best radio songs ever is Joni Mitchell's "You Turn Me On, I'm a Radio", also prominently played on KMET. Remembering the Mighty Met today. Whoo-ya!

 

[K.M. Richards]

The question is: If public radio is decimated by this, and commercial radio is affected as well, will there be enough listeners like Flipper who will have a sense of nostalgia? Or will we just eventually fade into oblivion with no one left to care?

 

[TheBigA]

The question is: If public radio is decimated by this, and commercial radio is affected as well, will there be enough listeners like Flipper who will have a sense of nostalgia? Or will we just eventually fade into oblivion with no one left to care?

It depends on the station. This follows what I've been saying that people want what they want for free. As advertisers decline and government funding disappears, the options for providing free media become fewer and fewer. Music royalties are increasing every year. Other costs are increasing. What's not increasing is a way to pay for it. My expectation is there will be more paywalls.

 

[davideduardo]

That's why I keep saying this doesn't just affect public broadcasting. It affects all broadcasting.

With radio revenue, inflation adjusted, off by two thirds in the last 20 years, how can you expect radio stations to continue at the same expense levels?

 

[ILOVERADIO]

I worked most of my career in the nonprofit sector. Most nonprofits are dedicated to a cause with mostly sincere staff and volunteers. Like any sector, some nonprofits are corrupt or incompetent.

While nonprofits technically don’t have profits, smart CFOs, CEOs, and Boards sometimes legally work around this through;

1) Some very high executive salaries, often several hundred thousand or millions in the largest nonprofits. The president of Mayo earns about $3 million a year and arguably deserves it for the organization’s complexity and growth. But clearly they could afford some taxes. See

2) Building a large reserve of hundreds of thousand or many millions of dollars. Large, elite universities often have billions of dollars in their endowments as do large hospitals. Some of these reserves are necessary for survival, but many organizations coukd afford to
Pay taxes on their income or reserves. It would probably take some new laws and accounting rules, but it’s definitely doable for some large nonprofits, especially universities, hospitals, and some large affordable housing providers to pay taxes like businesses do.

 

[davideduardo]

1) Some very high executive salaries, often several hundred thousand or millions in the largest nonprofits. The president of Mayo earns about $3 million a year and arguably deserves it for the organization’s complexity and growth. But clearly they could afford some taxes. See

Those big non-profits stimulate the economy where they are located and where they operate. Public radio stations provide jobs and those job holders buy stuff, need housing, etc. Taxing a non-profit simply reduces its ability to fulfill its objectives. In any case, how can you collect income tax on a non-profit if it has no profit to tax?

2) Building a large reserve of hundreds of thousand or many millions of dollars. Large, elite universities often have billions of dollars in their endowments as do large hospitals. Some of these reserves are necessary for survival, but many organizations coukd afford to
Pay taxes on their income or reserves.

Endowments are not generally the property of the institution they benefit. They are like "trust funds" that parents set up for kids and which are independently administered.

In the case of most university trust funds, they provide income and generally the principal endures in perpetuity.

It would probably take some new laws and accounting rules, but it’s definitely doable for some large nonprofits, especially universities, hospitals, and some large affordable housing providers to pay taxes like businesses do.

Non-profits have nothing to tax. Essentially in every free country of the world, they have no owners and all income is used currently or as a reserve for future needs. Taxing them would just reduce their ability to do whatever their goal is. Would you like the Red Cross to be taxed, instead of all its contributions going to help people in need? Getting back to broadcasting, how would taxing non-profit stations like PBS or NPR affiliates help them now when they are going to have a revenue shortage.

 

[TheBigA]

Getting back to broadcasting, how would taxing non-profit stations like PBS or NPR affiliates help them now when they are going to have a revenue shortage.

The way Brendan Carr explained it, if stations are airing commercials, they should be taxed like commercial stations, regardless of whether or not the stations turn a profit. Using that basis, the stations would also be banned from the NCE part of the FM dial. It makes no sense to me. If they don't make a profit, what's there to tax?

 

[ILOVERADIO]

Those big non-profits stimulate the economy where they are located and where they operate. Public radio stations provide jobs and those job holders buy stuff, need housing, etc. Taxing a non-profit simply reduces its ability to fulfill its objectives. In any case, how can you collect income tax on a non-profit if it has no profit to tax?

Endowments are not generally the property of the institution they benefit. They are like "trust funds" that parents set up for kids and which are independently administered.

In the case of most university trust funds, they provide income and generally the principal endures in perpetuity.

Non-profits have nothing to tax. Essentially in every free country of the world, they have no owners and all income is used currently or as a reserve for future needs. Taxing them would just reduce their ability to do whatever their goal is. Would you like the Red Cross to be taxed, instead of all its contributions going to help people in need? Getting back to broadcasting, how would taxing non-profit stations like PBS or NPR affiliates help them now when they are going to have a revenue shortage.

It would take some legal changes to tax nonprofits. You’re right that they currently operate under different rules. For years the Nonprofit Mormon Church owned commercial radio stations. Some cities like Pittsburgh (where my brother lived for about 45 years) used to have so many churches, hospitals, and universities, it was hard for private businesses to pay the needed taxes.

Perhaps savy nonprofits like The Red Cross can develop more businesses to support their great work. In Rochester, MN Mayo develops all kinds of private properties much like a private developer.

You raise excellent questions suggesting taxing nonprofits would cut into services, which would be unfortunate. But I also have seen many nonprofits serving good causes wasting lots of staff time at dumb meetings and employing too many staff. I think business models with the right incentives would help most US nonprofits serve more clients and improve services with more creative marketing and fundraising instead of their frequent focus on government and foundation grants. The difference between private profits and nonprofit reserves is somewhat arbitrary IMO. It’s a complex subject with good arguments for both approaches. I agree accounting rules would need to change, but disagree that some taxes would automatically reduce services. As Ross Perot used to say, “The devil is in the details.”

 

[davideduardo]

It would take some legal changes to tax nonprofits. You’re right that they currently operate under different rules. For years the Nonprofit Mormon Church owned commercial radio stations.

Yes, and a radio syndication and TV stations. All were a for-profit company, and it paid taxes on its earnings.

You raise excellent questions suggesting taxing nonprofits would cut into services, which would be unfortunate. But I also have seen many nonprofits serving good causes wasting lots of staff time at dumb meetings and employing too many staff. I think business models with the right incentives would help most US nonprofits serve more clients and improve services with more creative marketing and fundraising instead of their frequent focus on government and foundation grants.

Not every company nor every non-profit is beautifully managed. There is a shortage of top management people, which is why, like baseball players and singers, the highly talented make millions a year.

The difference between private profits and nonprofit reserves is somewhat arbitrary IMO. It’s a complex subject with good arguments for both approaches. I agree accounting rules would need to change, but disagree that some taxes would automatically reduce services. As Ross Perot used to say, “The devil is in the details.”

If the donations are the same, but taxed, that is less money for a non-profit to do its work. And, again, non-profits have no profit to tax.

 

[K.M. Richards]

For years the Nonprofit Mormon Church owned commercial radio stations.

The danger in that, regulatory-wise, would be if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (their official name, not "the Nonprofit Mormon Church") had a single accounting system which commingled revenue and expenses for the church and its broadcast operations.

Although I am providing an example where a church's broadcast operation was non-commercial, they did lump everything together ... and then stubbornly refused to provide the FCC with the stations' financial records.

Cue the late, colorful Dr. Gene Scott:

History of UHF Television

uhfhistory.com

 

[Rusty Muck]

So a station you like doesn't deserve to exist. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I do not like conservative talk radio at all (having been a former listener until 2015) but even then I wouldn't say stations like WABC don't deserve to exist. They are free to do whatever they want and I have every right not to listen.

And that's the difference here.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

I do not like conservative talk radio at all (having been a former listener until 2015) but even then I wouldn't say stations like WABC don't deserve to exist. They are free to do whatever they want and I have every right not to listen.

And that's the difference here.

Nobody is wishing anyone off the dial.

Just pay for your own expenses, don't take free rides from the American taxpayer who may or may not support your programming. That's not asking too much. Nobody subsidizes my workplace.

 

[TheBigA]

Just pay for your own expenses, don't take free rides from the American taxpayer who may or may not support your programming. That's not asking too much. Nobody subsidizes my workplace.

Do you know how much taxpayer money goes to NPR programming? If you do, you know more than congress.

There's an assumption that the $8 million (or whatever it is) was spent on news. Nobody ever asked that question. For all we know, every cent went to various non-programming expenses, including the distribution system. The rest of the money was raised from other places.

 

[Delete My Account]

Nobody is wishing anyone off the dial.

Just pay for your own expenses, don't take free rides from the American taxpayer who may or may not support your programming. That's not asking too much. Nobody subsidizes my workplace.

I'd take this argument way more seriously if the side that blamed NPR for a million things wasn't also overlooking a ton of subsidies, breaks and insider deals for other things far less useful or far more bloated. But they so often want to cut things that poorer people might benefit from and give deep advantage to people like Elon Musk. And that, to me, is as biased and hypocritical as anything that might have aired on NPR.