NY Times Article on Challenges Facing NPR

[Mark Roberts]

There was a "prejudice" against news because research with our own listeners showed that there was next-to-zero interest in news outside of morning drive.

Without disclosing how questions on the subject were asked - more specifically, how they were worded - you're just making an assertion that can't be proven. Anyone who's dealt with surveys - "research" - should know that how a question is phrased is at least as important as the question itself. Questions can be worded in such a way as to slant the result. "Research" companies hired by program directors are likely to tailor their services to match the objectives of their clients. Just as in the broader corporate world, where it's widely understood that consulting firms are hired to provide something that looks like confirmatory evidence for conclusions that have already been reached, "research" can be - and, I believe, is tailored to support decisions that have more or less been determined. Just as a survey commissioned by the RTNDA is likely to indicate that news is important to programming, a survey commissioned by a programming department is likely to indicate that it isn't.

How many times did a listener have to tell us, "when you put on the news, I change to another station" for us to get the point?

Ah, so it's not "research" then. It's anecdotes and confirmation bias, combined with "conventional wisdom". The dogma thus becomes firmly established and is not to be questioned.

Not that it matters a whole lot - the programming dogma of the last 40 years - including "news is bad" - is failing spectacularly at giving radio any kind of lifeline to even a partial restoration of economic health.

 

[davideduardo]

Without disclosing how questions on the subject were asked - more specifically, how they were worded - you're just making an assertion that can't be proven. Anyone who's dealt with surveys - "research" - should know that how a question is phrased is at least as important as the question itself.

I founded and ran Univision Radio's in-house research division and go back to creating the first ratings in Ecuador in 1965. I am more than aware of question bias and even interviewer bias.

Questions can be worded in such a way as to slant the result.

Part of the work of a research company is to avoid coloration.

"Research" companies hired by program directors are likely to tailor their services to match the objectives of their clients.

Not in my experience. First, program directors only contract music and perceptual research with considerable management input and review by corporate experts if the station is group owned. And the objective is to find out how to succeed.

Just as in the broader corporate world, where it's widely understood that consulting firms are hired to provide something that looks like confirmatory evidence for conclusions that have already been reached, "research" can be - and, I believe, is tailored to support decisions that have more or less been determined. Just as a survey commissioned by the RTNDA is likely to indicate that news is important to programming, a survey commissioned by a programming department is likely to indicate that it isn't.

On the other hand, I have never seen such instances in my 60-some years in radio.

Two examples:

One: in 2000 we bought a pair of Class A stations in LA. We did an Awarenss-Trial-Usage study trying 8 different formats. We found an overlapping tie with three music genres we had thought to be separate (and which in Mexico were always done separately) so we did a second ATU study and found that we had discovered a new format never done before. We put it on an immediately became a top 10 operation in LA with a limited signal!

Two: in 2000 we did a study with Edison to find a format for a new Emmis station in Buenos Aires, Argentina. That's a market that is a bit bigger than New York City. Based on my LA experience, we tried 28 different format samples, including a number that were amalgamations of seemingly incompatible music genres. The #1 finding was for a format that would only appeal to the lowest income group (ratings in Latin America are usually done by income, not age groups) so we discarded that option. The second best was pure Argentine rock only by Argentine artists. We put it on, and a month later had over a 20 share in a market with nearly 180 stations including full market (we were 200 kw H&V), partial market and neighborhood stations. The next closest station was in the single digits. We kept that share for the 6 years I was involved and it is still Top 5 24 years later.

Ah, so it's not "research" then. It's anecdotes and confirmation bias, combined with "conventional wisdom". The dogma thus becomes firmly established and is not to be questioned.

That is just wrong. Again using Argentina as an example, we spent over U$S 100,000 on research to find the right format. The music test we did was done in-home as a one-on one, and then was backed by an on-air test using a form in the newspaper that then had over a million daily circulation. We got over 60,000 back as well as the AMT. They matched, and the result confirmed the validity of the research.

Not that it matters a whole lot - the programming dogma of the last 40 years - including "news is bad" - is failing spectacularly at giving radio any kind of lifeline to even a partial restoration of economic health.

If you interview a random sample of P1 and P2 listeners and discuss the programming on a music station you will find, over and over, that music listeners want a little news in the morning and none the rest of the day unless there is an incoming atomic weapon.

Back in '64 I started building what would be a 9 station cluster in Quito, Ecuador. On stations one through eight we did no news at all, ever. We took over 50% of the audience in a 45 station market. Station 9 was all news/talk/soap operas and was the only station in the market with actual field reporters. When it went on, it did not take even a fraction of a share from any of my music stations.

 

[Mark Roberts]

I founded and ran Univision Radio's in-house research division and go back to creating the first ratings in Ecuador in 1965. I am more than aware of question bias and even interviewer bias.

All of that and the remainder of the response is well and good but fails to answer my question regarding how questions on the subject were phrased. All I see is "this is what listeners told us" and nothing about what they were responding to in the first place. So I am naturally suspicious.

 

[davideduardo]

All of that and the remainder of the response is well and good but fails to answer my question regarding how questions on the subject were phrased. All I see is "this is what listeners told us" and nothing about what they were responding to in the first place. So I am naturally suspicious.

Extensive review with a group of people of every question was made to make sure it did not introduce bias. At a format search we did for a newly acquired FM at Liberman in LA, we spent two weeks on the questionnaire and even brought in the head of the research company, Harker, to have a conference with the people involved with the project.

In Latin America and Hispanic markets domestically, the greatest issue is not using language that is associated with one "class" or income level. Also critical is that the interviewer speak in a style that is not class-identifiable.

All this is discussed, revised and discussed again and again in each project.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Extensive review with a group of people of every question was made to make sure it did not introduce bias. At a format search we did for a newly acquired FM at Liberman in LA, we spent two weeks on the questionnaire and even brought in the head of the research company, Harker, to have a conference with the people involved with the project.

In Latin America and Hispanic markets domestically, the greatest issue is not using language that is associated with one "class" or income level. Also critical is that the interviewer speak in a style that is not class-identifiable.

All this is discussed, revised and discussed again and again in each project.

But what was the specific wording?

 

[davideduardo]

But what was the specific wording?

Every perceptual project has new, original wording based on the objectives of the project. Many perceptuals have tiered questions, where specific ones are only asked base on the response to a prior one.

Even music test recruiting has very specific wording of the recruiting questions based on the format, type of listener, age range, gender, ethnicity, etc.

I've seen non-radio projects with U.S. Spanish dominant Hispanics where the text is different depending on the origin of the person being recruited or interviewed. Example: the word for "baby" in Ecuador is the word for "bus" in Puerto Rico. So if you are doing a project in New York City, you have to watch the language so you say the same thing to Domincans, Puerto Ricans, Ecuadorians, Colombians, etc.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Every perceptual project has new, original wording based on the objectives of the project. Many perceptuals have tiered questions, where specific ones are only asked base on the response to a prior one.

Even music test recruiting has very specific wording of the recruiting questions based on the format, type of listener, age range, gender, ethnicity, etc.

I've seen non-radio projects with U.S. Spanish dominant Hispanics where the text is different depending on the origin of the person being recruited or interviewed. Example: the word for "baby" in Ecuador is the word for "bus" in Puerto Rico. So if you are doing a project in New York City, you have to watch the language so you say the same thing to Domincans, Puerto Ricans, Ecuadorians, Colombians, etc.

Still avoids the question about actual questions asked.

 

[davideduardo]

Still avoids the question about actual questions asked.

Every project is different. Even the recruit is different. I've done over 500 AMTs, caused to be done over a million phone current music interviews and many one-on-one perceptuals as well as format searches, morning show evaluations, etc., etc.

That is why I say that the questions are tailored to the specific project. No two are exactly alike.

 

[Kelly A]

All of that and the remainder of the response is well and good but fails to answer my question regarding how questions on the subject were phrased. All I see is "this is what listeners told us" and nothing about what they were responding to in the first place. So I am naturally suspicious.

What David is correctly saying is; when you run perceptual or certain types of focus groups, is many times you need to ask the same or similar question several different ways. The reason is the way some people are wired interpret a question differently, and will either give you an inaccurate, or overly complicated response that isn't honest. David can't give you an example, mainly because a lot depends on what sort of answer was being sought for a particular question.

Getting back to the original topic: NPR, and most affiliates or public stations in general, have seen a gradual downturn in donations and underwriting. None of this has anything to do with staff political leanings, but involves overall media funding struggles, commercial or public. In fact, I saw a statistic the other day, that even 'conservative' media outlets have taken huge hits. Just look at Salem. Breitbart Media subscriber base is down 83%.
None of this has to do with politics.

 

[davideduardo]

Every project is different. Even the recruit is different. I've done over 500 AMTs, caused to be done over a million phone current music interviews and many one-on-one perceptuals as well as format searches, morning show evaluations, etc., etc.

That is why I say that the questions are tailored to the specific project. No two are exactly alike.

I just found my personal notes for the Mega 98.3 format search and name change project in Argentina in 2000. I can scan them and attach some examples.

This is my personal set of notes on an Argentine style legal pad done to register the steps we were taking.

The station's results can be seen here: Emmis Argentina Mega 98.3 in 1999

This was done totally based on well done research by Edison Research of New Jersey and their recruited field staff in Buenos Aires.

While this is a different country, radio is radio. I've done format searches even in Pakistan and one of the Emirates, and the process is the same: try to get a pure response from listeners about what they listen to and why and what they might listen to and under what circumstances.

 

[davideduardo]

What David is correctly saying is; when you run perceptual or certain types of focus groups, is many times you need to ask the same or similar question several different ways. The reason is the way some people are wired interpret a question differently, and will either give you an inaccurate, or overly complicated response that isn't honest. David can't give you an example, mainly because a lot depends on what sort of answer was being sought for a particular question.

Language and expression are so important. There is a difference in "interviewer bias" if you ask "Do you think that... " Versus "What do you thing about". One of the two introduces interviewer bias and covertly says "I probably don't think the same as you do, you idiot".

Getting back to the original topic: NPR, and most affiliates or public stations in general, have seen a gradual downturn in donations and underwriting. None of this has anything to do with staff political leanings, but involves overall media funding struggles, commercial or public. In fact, I saw a statistic the other day, that even 'conservative' media outlets have taken huge hits. Just look at Salem. Breitbart Media subscriber base is down 83%.
None of this has to do with politics.

Welcome back.

 

[TheBigA]

I saw a statistic the other day, that even 'conservative' media outlets have taken huge hits. Just look at Salem. Breitbart Media subscriber base is down 83%. None of this has to do with politics.

Very true. Completely ignored by the OP article. It's also affected revenue. The only upside this year will be political advertising.

 

[radiofan2023]

The only upside this year will be political advertising.

Since it’s required to match the lowest rate, it may not make a huge difference for stations that are already struggling.

 

[Kelly A]

Since it’s required to match the lowest rate, it may not make a huge difference for stations that are already struggling.

You make it up with volume.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

None of this has anything to do with staff political leanings, but involves overall media funding struggles, commercial or public.

And radio in general, but that's a sensitive topic around here.

"Uh...everything's under control, situation normal. Uh...had a slight weapons malfunction, but uh, everything's perfectly alright now, we're fine...we're all fine here now, thank you. How are you?"

 

[fybush]

In fact, I saw a statistic the other day, that even 'conservative' media outlets have taken huge hits. Just look at Salem. Breitbart Media subscriber base is down 83%.
None of this has to do with politics.

Or perhaps it all has to do with politics - after everything's been going so intensely domestically and worldwide for so many years, it's natural for listeners to be fatigued. I'm a news junkie and *I'm* exhausted trying to follow the state of the world right now (which factored into my recent decision to step back from newsroom work after three decades).

It doesn't make the news any less important - if anything, it's even more important right now - but you can't force an exhausted, fried-out public to remain engaged at 2020-21 levels.

I don't know how you address that if you're Salem or other conservative talk, where the level of partisanship and extreme opinion seems to ratchet only in the upwards direction. It seems to me that leads to an ever more hyper-partisan approach that winnows the pool of potential listeners down ever narrower.

But because this is a thread about public radio, I do think it suggests that there's a lane for some reimagining of what a full programming day looks like. Is there a way to maintain the level of in-depth coverage current affairs require, while at the same time keeping more of a space open for the things public radio also does well, especially arts and cultural coverage?

A couple of weeks out from my now-former news gig, I don't miss covering politics. I deeply miss having the airtime to talk at length to authors and artists, and to do feature stories that shine some light on the many other parts of the world around us that aren't just politics.

If you want to talk about the public radio mission, that's also a huge part of it. The intense breaking news and politics coverage came about in part because commercial radio left a vacuum starting around the turn of the century. But the arts and cultural coverage has been in NPR's DNA since the service began more than 50 years ago, and there's little or no substitute for that anywhere else on the dial.

 

[TheBigA]

I do think it suggests that there's a lane for some reimagining of what a full programming day looks like.

We were talking about this in another thread that there really is room for a new daily show. That kind of initiative used to come from the stations. They're the ones who get the federal funding. There's no reason for programs to come from Boston or St. Paul. They could also come from Austin or Atlanta if the stations there could come up with a unique concept. There's been a laziness in the system, a willingness to simply accept the status quo, and I think that could also affect ratings and donations.

There used to be something called the Public Radio Seminar, where the stations would come together and share information. Perhaps it would be a good idea to decentralize the system even more, and seek out other sources of content for stations.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Bunch of things here.

Every project is different. Even the recruit is different. I've done over 500 AMTs, caused to be done over a million phone current music interviews and many one-on-one perceptuals as well as format searches, morning show evaluations, etc., etc.

That is why I say that the questions are tailored to the specific project. No two are exactly alike.

My point here is that you're asserting a general principle. An example would do, though it would not be entirely conclusive. (Mega 98.3 isn't that, for reasons I'll get into.) I'm not asking for an inductive proof here. Knowing the process is only a partial answer. And how do you know that your own unconscious bias - or commitment to received dogma - isn't entering the picture?

What David is correctly saying is; when you run perceptual or certain types of focus groups, is many times you need to ask the same or similar question several different ways. The reason is the way some people are wired interpret a question differently, and will either give you an inaccurate, or overly complicated response that isn't honest. David can't give you an example, mainly because a lot depends on what sort of answer was being sought for a particular question.

Likewise, I'm seeing assertions of a general principle but then I'm told that "every case is different". The two concepts are contradictory.

By the way, welcome back.

I just found my personal notes for the Mega 98.3 format search and name change project in Argentina in 2000. I can scan them and attach some examples.

I saw the web page but, to be honest, it appears Mega 98.3 had more problems than just running newscasts. It's a multivariate equation and your client modified multiple variables at the same time. So it's harder, much harder, to tell which one made the difference. Singling out news as being the problem would itself be indicative of a potential bias.

I know I'm being annoying here, but I feel like I'm asking honest questions and being confronted with rhetorical tricks in response. It's frustrating. I will admit to my own opinions here, based on my own experience at a research company (small, local to Houston).

So let's jump off the alternate route and get back to the main road:

If you want to talk about the public radio mission, that's also a huge part of it. The intense breaking news and politics coverage came about in part because commercial radio left a vacuum starting around the turn of the century. But the arts and cultural coverage has been in NPR's DNA since the service began more than 50 years ago, and there's little or no substitute for that anywhere else on the dial.

The linkage here is the vacuum that commercial radio has left for news coverage. The news/public affairs/politics coverage also seems to gain more listener support than arts-intensive coverage. Some public radio outfits are able to do both (Colorado Public Radio, Iowa Public Radio, KCUR, KBIA/KMUC, etc.) Others, when faced with a choice, pick news/public affairs/politics because that's where the greater support seems to be. Or the classical/arts coverage goes on a HD-2 channel. As for the interest in arts coverage, though, the demographic is definitely aging.

At some point, someone has to decide whether a radio station offers a service because it's a public good - even if interest in it is limited - or whether considerations of listener interest trump everything else even if means that certain forms of public service go unaddressed. It's a direct consequence of being in a society that dumped most non-transactional considerations for broadcasting in stages, starting 40-ish years ago, in favor of a purer form of capitalism. That affected public radio, too. I'm just describing it here; I'm not saying one form of the system is better than any other; I don't see the clock turning back, either. But we have to learn how to live with it somehow...or just give up and tell people to open up their streaming app (where the economic model seems to be even shakier).

 

[fybush]

Some of those shows exist! "Think" comes from KERA in Dallas, for example, and is carried on stations far from Texas.

Think, from KERA Dallas/Fort Worth

Hosted by Krys Boyd, Think sparks the most interesting conversations in Texas through intimate, thought-provoking interviews covering an array of subjects.

think.kera.org

But it's tough to launch something nationally without a very solid production team behind it, and the budgets to afford something like that are still more likely to be found at the biggest stations in the system, for obvious reasons.

And of course launching something big and audacious is also exactly the kind of big risk that most stations are understandably loath to take in a climate like the present one.

Sure, those stations get CPB money, but in amounts that help them pay relatively modest fees to get existing programming. They don't get enough for the very much bigger lift of launching national-quality programming on their own.

We were talking about this in another thread that there really is room for a new daily show. That kind of initiative used to come from the stations. They're the ones who get the federal funding. There's no reason for programs to come from Boston or St. Paul. They could also come from Austin or Atlanta if the stations there could come up with a unique concept. There's been a laziness in the system, a willingness to simply accept the status quo, and I think that could also affect ratings and donations.

There used to be something called the Public Radio Seminar, where the stations would come together and share information. Perhaps it would be a good idea to decentralize the system even more, and seek out other sources of content for stations.

 

[gr8oldies]

Since it’s required to match the lowest rate, it may not make a huge difference for stations that are already struggling.

PACs are not held to that. The advertising is going to be placed in the swing states for the most part. Even Congressional spending might be down.