Public Radio -- does it equal subsidized commercial radio?

[allnews]

A comment made by another poster in another thread brought to mind something I've been pondering for a while: is public radio really subsidized radio?

I'm an academic, and a former public radio employee. But I am sickened by the sponsorships running on public radio these days. Let's call them what they are: ads.

I think public radio needs to get over its snooty attidudes, and admit it is down in the trenches with all the other "commercial" radio. Of course, if it did that, it would lose the federal government subsidies (tax-payer funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting), tax-free status (we're non-profit, we can beg for money several times a year), and, in many cases, subsidies from the univerisities who own the licenses (ever hear of a public radio station making budget-related staffing cuts?) Then there's the pass on labor laws (we're non-profit, they're volunteers, we don't have to pay them!)

All of the above have tainted what was supposed to be an alternative to the mainstream or commercial product. And I think that they're being so avoidant about the issue makes it even more suspect.

Anybody want to weigh in? Or is this TOO sacred ground?

 

[XTalker]

No questions that so called "public radio" is in competition with "commercial radio". The employ sale people and they do run commercials. And, yes, get government subsidies from various sources! Does seem to offer an unfair advantage.

 

[wcirvin]

Are you referring specifically to NPR affiliates?

If so, let me start by saying that I'm in California. I'm assuming you're in the Triad. So my local affiliate and yours may do things completely differently.

However, the NPR affiliate that I listen to every weekday, KCRW Los Angeles, does not sound like subsidized commercial radio to me. All local 'ads', or underwriting announcements, follow the same format as NPR itself: "Support for All Things Considered on KCRW comes in part from <company>, makers of <product>, on the web at <address>". I think that's fine. Sometimes a one-line corporate slogan is included, eg: "Volkswagon, the ultimate driving machine."

I lived in Dallas from 1999-2005, and KERA, the Dallas NPR affiliate, was the same.

It is my understanding that <10% of NPR's income is from gov't subsidies. It is my view that NPR is now at the point where they could decline the subsidies and raise the balance privately. For some time I've wished they would do that so this debate could be ended.

 

[wcirvin]

A few years ago my job took me to a non-comm religious station in Gainesville FL. Their 'commercials' sounded just like commercials. They were all thirty seconds in length and and were clustered together. When I asked how they were able to do this (they were in the non-comm band) I was told that the "enhanced underwriting announcements" were okay as long as they didn't contain a 'call to action'. e.g., "visit our Main St showroom today" or "register to win".

 

[MikeSFNM]

No public radio station ever had staff cuts? Don't ask me to name them offhand, but I've read about public and commercial broadcasting for years (as well as worked a short time in both), and public radio stations definitely do lay off people when things get tough. The local public radio station years ago closed local originated program at 10 p.m. and picked up a satelite feed to 5 a.m. They used to have local programs on until 1 in the morning and then again from 5 a.m. on. University public radio stations often use NPR, PRI and APM programming so that they can rely on federal-minimum-wage students to run the control boards.

A number of public television and radio stations have been sold in recent years because the subsidizers could no longer subsidize: KSMQ-TV channel 15 in southern Minnesota; WXEL-FM-TV in Boca Ration; the heritage school board station KSLH FM in St Louis; WYCS FM Yorktown, Virginia, Public Schools; WPKN Bridgeport, Connecticut; WBGO Newark, New Jersey; KOCE-TV Orange County, Calif., is a prolonged legal and public relations battle because the community college owner could no longer foot the bill and advertised the station for bids; a fundamentalist group had the highest bid, but the college did not want to lose the station as a public television outfit and arranged terms with a local group. The fundamentalists sued and won, and the college is now in a dilemma. Some of these stations, such as WBGO and KSMQ, were saved by ad hoc groups of ordinary people who stepped forward.

These are stations that come to mind off the top of my head; believe me, there are many more public radio and TV stations. I am sure readers of this forum can come up with many others. I can think of two public TV stations that were shut down years ago: both in Ogden, Utah; and there was a third, run by the school board in Newark, Ohio; and a fourth, in Richardson, Texas (Dallas area).

If the writer who made those comments visits a number of public radio websites, especially in smaller cities and towns, he will see that a number of them barely struggle along. One public radio consultant estimated (John Sutton) that 50% of public radio stations barely make it year to year. The biggest item in their budgets is NPR membership fees. Those stations that rely mostly on volunteers (see the website of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters) seem to do better on the whole, particularly if their programming targets the whole community and not just some esoteric tastes.

I joined this forum a few weeks ago, and one of the things that strikes me is how many people who write here are very unhappy with the state of commercial radio in this country. Public radio, for all its faults and weaknesses, does offer something on the dial worth listening to. The pioneers in commercial radio in this country, all dead now, were men whose search for profit did not lead them to the lowest common demoninator. They are gone now, and all we have left pretty much (small town stations excepted) are computerized radio stations that sound like computerized radio stations, and programming philosophies constructed to appease Wall Street analysts.

 

[allnews]

I'm referring to public radio stations, specifically, since this is a Raleigh/Greensboro board, the ones in those markets, and let's say, across North Carolina.

What they're doing in California is irrelevant to this discussion. What they are doing in NC is running ads, not the uderwriting announcements in the NPR mold. There is a BIG difference between foundations and the like, and some of the things we're hearing on the air here. WFDD even has a banner ads for a CONSTRUCTION company and a CAR DEALER on their website (in addition to on air). If a car dealer isn't commerical, what is?

As for "a number" of stations coming to mind, almost half the examples you mentioned were TV stations...this discussion was about RADIO. You mentioned the "local" public radio station, how about being specific, where are you and which one are you mentioning?

My experience with non-coms in this state, is that when the beg-a-thons run short, the universities pick up the tab. And the fact that they are non-profit allows them to circumvent labor laws and use volunteers, so they save on labor costs. Commercial radio doesn't have that luxury, it has to to sink or swim, and pay its employees. And if they don't make sales, jobs are cut.

And actually, you bring up a good point about broadcasting these days. What's happened to the people supposed to be guarding the public airwaves, not just public radio, but the whole broadcast spectrum. I find almost no one who agrees that consolidation has been a GOOD thing.

 

[CCX]

Yikes AllNews!!! NPR seems to hit a nerve with you. Now I'm pretty sure I know who you are. "Me thinks thou doth protest too much" . . .

 

[XTalker]

All News has one good point - it it NOT "non-commercial" radio anymore! Public radio was originally designed to serve an audience that was not being served - and to be supported by it's listeners. Sort of like XM! What a novel idea? A broadcast service that actually pays for itself!

Frankly, most public stations (including WFDD) have good products - and could support themselves as commercial stations. So why not? Let do away with government subsidy for public radio and let them live in the same world as commercial radio!

Those that do it right would survive - those that didn't, would go away. Another novel idea!

 

[allnews]

Yikes AllNews!!! NPR seems to hit a nerve with you. Now I'm pretty sure I know who you are. "Me thinks thou doth protest too much" . . .

LOL, Hamlet. Apparently for some people, public radio IS too sacred ground. I was just questioning whether "something is rotten in the state of Denmark," and trying to spur a little discourse about the industry in this little corner of the world!

Talker's right, public radio could stand on its own. The depth and quality of NPR is unquestionable, why not lose the subsidy and eliminate that question altogether?

 

[CCX]

As previously mentioned, less than 10% of revenue comes from Government subsidies. The public radio folks are as anxious to divest themselves of this support as you would like for them to. I think they will in a very short period of time. Also, they are gradually receiving less and less support from Wake Forest. In fact it is being systematically reduced. WFDD will be totally self-supporting within a year or two. They are not "bailed-out" by the University as you said. Public radio is growing in popularity at a very steady rate, where commercial radio listenership is in decline. I am not happy about whats happened to commercial radio, but it's a fact. The big groups are largely responsible for the homogenization of commercial radio and the deregulation has been a curse. Public radio stations around the country are thriving. There are even rock formats. Take a look at Louisville where they have a four-station cluster - all public radio. Typically they do best in college towns where the education level is high. WFAE in Charlotte is a powerhouse, as is WUNC in Raleigh/Durham.

 

[allnews]

As previously mentioned, less than 10% of revenue comes from Government subsidies. The public radio folks are as anxious to divest themselves of this support as you would like for them to. I think they will in a very short period of time. Also, they are gradually receiving less and less support from Wake Forest. In fact it is being systematically reduced. WFDD will be totally self-supporting within a year or two. They are not "bailed-out" by the University as you said.

Now I think "thou doth protest too much."

You're either ignorant of the facts, or deliberately trying to misrepresent them. I also think NPR, CPR and public radio have a vested interest in playing a shell game with the numbers, to maintain image, and also due to the current political climate.

NPR says "on average, public radio stations" funding is "...13% from CPB allocations...6% from local and state governments, 14% from institutional support."

(Don't trust me, check the numbers yourself at: http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html)

So, that breaks down to an average of 19% of funding from government/tax sources, almost TWICE the number you cited. And if you add that "instutional support," the total is 33%, a full ONE-THIRD of the funding. And if you add in the average listener support of 34%, again, I'd argue since it's tax-free donations, it's a form of welfare, the number shoots up to 67%

As for public broadcasting being "self-supporting," as you put it, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting says its 2007 operating budget comes from a 400-MILLION dollar Federal Appropriation (with an addition 12-million in interest).

(Look around on http://www.cpb.org)

CPB provided 6.6-Million dollars in FY2005 for Public Broadcasting in North Carolina. $373,428 of that was for WUNC. The number for WFDD is $175,474

While WUNC says it receives, "no direct subsidy from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, it DOES receive "University's in-kind donations are valued at about $200,000 per year," for accounting, legal, purchasing, human resources, facilities management and other basic services."

WFDD says in 2005 it only received $16,612 in a General Appropriation from Wake Forest, it also says it received $321,612 in "Donated facilites and administrative support from Wake Forest University," for a total of $338,224 of support from University -- over 20% of its budget!

I just don't think the numbers support your contention. Public radio is still receiving LOTs of government support, and public radio stations DO get taken care of by the affilitated educational institutions. Now if you add into the "listener support" (sounds like another form of welfare to me), and the ads it's now running, public radio (and supporters like you) should rethink attitutes.

If public radio is so anxious to divest itself of that funding, there's a simple solution - don't take it! Cut the cord, sink or swim on your own!

 

[chchcharlie]

...I also think NPR, CPR and public radio have a vested interest in playing a shell game with the numbers, to maintain image, and also due to the current political climate.

(Don't trust me, check the numbers yourself at: http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html)

WFDD says in 2005 it only received $16,612 in a General Appropriation from Wake Forest, it also says it received $321,612 in "Donated facilites and administrative support from Wake Forest University," for a total of $338,224 of support from University -- over 20% of its budget!

Now if you add into the "listener support" (sounds like another form of welfare to me), and the ads it's now running, public radio (and supporters like you) should rethink attitutes.

While I don't dispute your main contention that Public Broadcasting gets more than 10% public funding, I have to question 3 of your main points.

First of all, you accuse Public Broadcasting of playing a shell game with the numbers, but yet you got virtually all of your info to bolster your argument from where???? The Public Broadcasting web site!! Sure doesn't sound to me like they are trying to conceal anything to me.

Second of all, last I checked, Wake Forest is a Private Institution, not a Public University. If they choose to make a donation to Public Broadcasting with cash or services, that is their right to do so and that donation should not be considered part of the taxpayer funds.

And finally, third of all, you call tax deductible donations "Public Welfare". So does this mean that you also feel that The Salvation Army, The Red Cross, churches or any other non-profit organization which accepts tax deductible donations is receiving "Public Welfare"?

I work in broadcasting and do not feel that we should end government subsidies for Public Broadcasting. I think they provide a great product and am happy that they exist.

 

[allnews]

Probably I should qualify the first point you mentioned. You're right, the info is there (but they're required by LAW to disclose it), but I only got part of it from NPR. I had to dig it out from a number of sources, do the research and the math, figure percentages, and put it together with some perspective. My gripe is more with public radiophiles who are uninformed or disengenuous about where their funding comes from, and get very defensive when you point out 20% of their funding on average comes from government sources, and in some ways they have an unfair advantage over commercial stations.

Secondly, I don't dispute WFU is a private entity and can do whatever it wants to with its funding. I quoted those numbers when someone questioned an observation that academic institutions in North Carolina will take care of funding shortfalls for their public stations. CCX seemed to think WFDD got little funding from WFU, which is not the case. What they do with their money is their business. But you can't fairly claim that those stations aren't getting that help.

No question that an institution like the Salvation Army, IS supported by donations and gets donations that offer a tax advantage. However, it does NOT get federal funding like public broadcasting does. And it is NOT competing in the commercial market place with other organizations that don't have the benefit of that government funding. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Since you're in broadcasting, let me put it this way. If your Station "A" (country) was competing with my Station "B," (polka music) how would you react if you found Station "B" was getting government funding , in addition to tax incentives for listeners to GIVE us money, and we were also allowed to compete for ad dollars in the commercial marketplace, taking money away from your station? And that we were also allowed to have people work for free and not have to worry about labor law violations? Would you consider that a 'level playing field' or would you think someone had an unfair advantage?

My point is that Public Radio is trying to have it both ways. Public stations are running now what amounts to ads, taking dollars from the commercial marketplace, but also take advantage of being able to solicit tax-free donations from listeners, AND and is subsidized by taxpayer dollars. If commercial radio was doing that, there would be a outcry about taxpayers getting scammed, congressional hearings and grand juries convened.

I don't dispute that they provide a good product. But let's realize who's paying for it. And should we be subsidizing it to the tune of 400 million dollars a year? And if so, should they be allowed to run ads and compete with commercial radio like they have in recent years?

 

[chchcharlie]

My point is that Public Radio is trying to have it both ways. Public stations are running now what amounts to ads, taking dollars from the commercial marketplace, but also take advantage of being able to solicit tax-free donations from listeners, AND and is subsidized by taxpayer dollars. If commercial radio was doing that, there would be a outcry about taxpayers getting scammed, congressional hearings and grand juries convened.

I don't dispute that they provide a good product. But let's realize who's paying for it. And should we be subsidizing it to the tune of 400 million dollars a year? And if so, should they be allowed to run ads and compete with commercial radio like they have in recent years?

I have to disagree with your contention that Public Broadcasting runs ads like commercial radio. If commercial radio were forced to adhere to the same guidelines for advertising as Public Broadcasting has to follow, then commercial radio would be begging for listener contributions and government funding also. From the Public Broadcasting web site http://www.current.org/pbpb/documents/NPRunderwriting.html look at the specs they have to follow.

Specifications for On-Air Credits

Credits are 10 seconds long.

Credits include the organization or company name, the name of a subsidiary, operating division or parent company, and additional language which further clarifies the identity of the underwriter. This language may contain:

A neutral description of products or services
A recognized corporate slogan that identifies the company or products
A statement of business locations, a World Wide Web address, or a toll-free phone number
The organization's mission
A mention of the particular NPR programming being supported (ex: "for coverage of Eastern Europe...")
The duration of the business or service (ex: "providing services to businesses for over 50 years...")

If a business had to depend on Public Broadcasting for their advertising needs, they would soon be out of business.

To paraphrase your statement about tax deductible donations, comparing advertising on public radio and commercial radio is like comparing apples to oranges.

 

[allnews]

To paraphrase your statement about tax deductible donations, comparing advertising on public radio and commercial radio is like comparing apples to oranges.

I think you've just conceded my point, calling the 'sponsorships' on public radio "advertising."

While I'm familiar with the NPR guidelines, some of what I'm hearing on some NC public radio stations doesn't seem to conform with the guidelines you so thoughtfully posted.

Wouldn't you agree that it's one thing hearing "Funding provided by the Carnegie Foundation," but another thing altogether hearing "...by So-and-So Shopping Center.'"

Here's one example:

"Voted #1 for customer satisfaction"'

Then, some of the so-called sponsors just don't seem appropriate to public radio: a garage, a furniture outlet, a shopping center, a shipping company...

I thought that was the whole point to non-commercial radio, proving a commercial-free alternative. Public radio isn't supposed to run ads! And as a former public radio employee, some of the 'sponsorships' we're hearing just don't seem right to me. Listen for a couple of hours and see if you don't concur.

 

[chchcharlie]

To paraphrase your statement about tax deductible donations, comparing advertising on public radio and commercial radio is like comparing apples to oranges.

I think you've just conceded my point, calling the 'sponsorships' on public radio "advertising."

While I'm familiar with the NPR guidelines, some of what I'm hearing on some NC public radio stations doesn't seem to conform with the guidelines you so thoughtfully posted.

Wouldn't you agree that it's one thing hearing "Funding provided by the Carnegie Foundation," but another thing altogether hearing "...by So-and-So Shopping Center.'"

Here's one example:

"Voted #1 for customer satisfaction"'

Then, some of the so-called sponsors just don't seem appropriate to public radio: a garage, a furniture outlet, a shopping center, a shipping company...

I thought that was the whole point to non-commercial radio, proving a commercial-free alternative. Public radio isn't supposed to run ads! And as a former public radio employee, some of the 'sponsorships' we're hearing just don't seem right to me. Listen for a couple of hours and see if you don't concur.

OK, I "concede" that the underwriting "credits" on Public Broadcasting are advertising. The local business owner who pays to support a particular program on the NPR station views his short sponsorship mention as a form of advertising, just as they would an ad they bought in the local Middle School annual. But any business owner who depends on this type of advertising to drive traffic or sell product is a business owner who will soon be running a going out of business sale. And most business owners who purchase this type of advertising do so not for the advertising value they receive, but rather out of a sense of civic mindedness or because they want to help support something they believe in.

The title of your thread is "Public Radio - Does it equal susidized commercial radio"? I think if you look at the real value the business owner receives from each, the answer is a resounding no. That is a point I will not concede.

 

[XTalker]

I say, again, do away with the government subsidies in all forms. Allow public stations to run ads just like commercial stations and let the marketplace sort it out! It would make for an intersting change to broadcasting.

 

[CCX]

I have seen a sizeable survey of NPR Listeners throughout the country comparing the credits on public radio to the commercials on commercial radio and it was obvious that the NPR listeners don't mind hearing the credits and don't think of them as "commercial". They also said that they have a higher opinion of the companies providing the support to public radio than they do companies advertising on commercial radio. They felt that the companies supporting public radio are more civic minded than the businesses they hear on commercial radio. They said that the businesses supporting public radio were more credible than those that advertise on commercial radio. They also said that they would be more likely to do business with the companies they heard on public radio. This study can be found on (you guessed it) the NPR website in the "Underwriting" section.

I have also seen a study that was conducted by Arbitron on commercial radio and I can tell you that the commercial radio listeners HATE the commercials. An enormous percentage of them tune out after the second commercial and by the time the third commercial airs, over 75% of the listeners reported tuning out. That's quite a difference from the public radio! Also, within that survey was information on public radio listening and how people tend to sit through the credits. You can find this survey on the Arbitron site.

It really doesn't matter what YOU (AllNews)think about public radio vs commercial radio. It's what the listeners think. And I would say that these two surveys speak volumes and it's reflected in Arbitron. I work in commercial radio, and I suspect that you (AllNews)work for an AM News/Talk station in the Triad and that you have a very biased opinion because of the nature of your station's programming. I think there's room for both types of stations, but you seem to be upset that some of the local businesses choose to support NPR and public radio. It doesn't matter whether a business is a car dealer or a shipping company or what it is. If they choose to support public radio and the programming on public radio, what's it to you? It's their choice. It's their opinion. It's their money.

 

[allnews]

Interesting research you unearthed there, and VERY enlightening. It seems to disprove earlier discussions about the effectiveness of public radio sponsorships. That seems like a no-brainer, in some respects. "Would you prefer 10 seconds of a low key prentation occasionally, or to be pounded by 4 minutes of non-stop hype every 10 minutes?" LOL! Also, if public radio continues to run sponsorships from less high brow sources, will that change?

The public perception is an interesting question. Since you're in commercial radio, you know the public can be swayed by what you tell them, and your positioning. If you tell them "the best and most country music," they regurgitate it in ratings books. It's radio 101. Do those 2 surveys show real opinion, or what they're being told? And would more facts or information change that?

I think we agree that public radio runs ads (commericals). But the question still remains, if they're running commericals, should we all drop the pretence and eliminate the dividing line. And if we do, should they continue to get government funding (subsidies)?

I'm not upset about it, I just question if it's right, or something we should continue to do. That's why I raised the question. It seems no different than the tobacco price support system, which was elminated a few years back. Or questions about whether any business should get the advantage of government funding or subsidies, if it's also competing in the free marketplace.

Obviously you feel differently. Opinions are like watches: everyone has one, they're all different, and everyone thinks their opinion is right. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Actually, I'm a college instructor but I have worked in radio: public, network, country, news/talk, rock,and alternative. I've also worked in TV news, and do some consulting. The programming's just a product. I prefer to remain anomymous, which I thought was the purpose of such boards, to have a free, public, anonymous exchange of ideas.

 

[XTalker]

Call then commercials, sponsorships, ads - whatever - public radio is being "sold" by "sales people" to businesses as advertisement! The sales people talk about ratings and the advertisers want results. The fact is both public and commercial stations are calling on many of the same clients.

The difference is, public radio gets a government subsidy. Now we can argue about how much - one says 10% one says as much as 20% - main point of the discussion is an unlevel playing field!

The other big difference is that public radio is non-profit so they are required to put any "profit" back into the operation - which explains all the great equipment, and resources.