Public radio station practices

[notlob]

If these questions seems "uninformed" or "naieve" it is because I am not a radio professional.

In these troubled economic times a certain Boston-area public radio station, funded by the state university system, the Massachusetts Cultural Council, federal grants and other tax-based revenue streams has an organization that does not make sense to me as a taxpayer and occasional listener.

Background:

1. This public station has a full time music director who designates artists and specific music for airplay. He comes from a commerical/AAA background.

2. They also have two "on-air" personalities who are prohibited from producing their own programs; they must play the music that the music director programs.

3. The music the station airs is highly repetitive*. The same dozen artists are in a rotation; just 2-3 songs per album are allowed onto the playlist. One hears these songs at least once per day. These dozen artists represent a good 25% of total music played. After the "overplay" period ends (4-6+ weeks), some new artist goes into the feature rotation. A record of these artists and songs can be viewed at http://tinyurl.com/919darlings (this is a Yahoo group, free registration and group membership are required).

Although a public station, the staffing/reliance on a music director, restricting hosts' production and featured artists/songs in a rotation strikes me as being associated not with a public/college station, but rather that of a commercial station.

Questions:

1. Why would a station having two "on-air personalities" (the station's term) with close to 70 total years of broadcast experience, prohibit them from producing their own shows?

2. Having so much "DJ" experience, what value-added does having a full-time paid music director give to the station and the public?

3. With 25 years' worth of media in its library, why does a station feature a small group of artists and a play a minute fraction of their total catalog?

-------------
* I am not 100% certain, but there is every appearance that only certain "approved" tracks are loaded onto a computer, then the daily play content is programmed. Yesterday one of the "on air personalities" said "I've not heard the whole CD, just the tracks we've been playing."

 

[thetheo]

Because even the bigger public/college stations need to worry about ratings/listeners/etc (which influences fundraising) otherwise they won't survive. It's sad, but true.

That said, some do it much better than others, and some still keep the "free-form" feel even if it's not "true" free-form.

But really, so many of these stations are "programmed" nowadays, even ones smaller than the one you are talking about.

I actually think they've done a decent job there at modernizing the station a bit. They need to have some kind of direction, someone adding in new music, etc if they are going to continue to compete with the other college/public/community/AAA stations.

I'm not saying they have found a perfect formula, or that I like everything they are doing, but there is much much worse out there.

 

[aaronread]

Although a public station, the staffing/reliance on a music director, restricting hosts' production and featured artists/songs in a rotation strikes me as being associated not with a public/college station, but rather that of a commercial station.

Listeners don't distinguish too much between a "public" and "commercial" radio station per se, they just care about whether or not they like what they're hearing.

While commercial radio has REALLY shot themselves in the foot with a lot of their practices, some tactics of commercial radio are based on real research and smart tactics. For example, most listeners only listen X hours at a time, and usually X is pretty low...less than 2 hours. Hence the "two hour rotation" that means if you listen for more than X hours, you'll start hearing the same artists and tracks. Public radio stations are usually better about not playing literally the same track, and also about making sure the playlist doesn't sound repetitive to someone who might listen for X hours at different times of the day (morning and afternoon drives, for example).

1. Why would a station having two "on-air personalities" (the station's term) with close to 70 total years of broadcast experience, prohibit them from producing their own shows?

Do restaurants allow three cooks to each have an equal say in the kitchen? Heck no - there's only one head chef, and he/she decides what the dishes/recipes will be. The other chefs follow those recipes, although in certain cases they might be allowed to add their own little flair to certain parts of the dish, and it's not unheard-of for the other chefs to contribute ideas and effort towards the head chef's recipes. Doesn't mean the food is any less delicious...quite the opposite, helps make sure that the patrons get the food they expect.

Same principle with radio...a listener tunes to a particular radio station precisely because they're expecting a given radio product. If you let the "other chefs" (the two DJ's) run wild, there's a good chance the listeners will get "served" something they didn't expect, and thus didn't want. But those DJ's contribute their own little flairs to the product, and they (may) help the MD craft the overall playlist, too.

2. Having so much "DJ" experience, what value-added does having a full-time paid music director give to the station and the public?

See above. Also, being a *good* DJ means a lot of prep work, and usually a DJ is also doing a lot of non-airshift work like promotions, voicetracking, fundraising, etc...the music director's job description means they can devote themselves more to researching and finding good music to add to the playlists.

3. With 25 years' worth of media in its library, why does a station feature a small group of artists and a play a minute fraction of their total catalog?

Just because there's 25 years' worth of music doesn't mean it's all good. : Or, more accurately, that it's all appropriate and relevant to today's listeners. There's ample evidence that a "freeform" style playlist is off-putting to a majority of listeners and only appealing to a small niche...a niche already being served by many other "college radio" stations like WZBC and WMBR, just to name two, and a niche that probably isn't big enough to financially support an operation like WUMB.


FWIW, stations like WUMB, WXPN, WFMU, KCRW, WRUR, KXT, KEXP, etc are all learning that a lot of the fundamentals of commercial radio actually work pretty well for getting listeners....it's just that commercial radio has, by and large, taken those fundamentals to a ridiculous extreme and alienated listeners as a result. The public radio music stations are all still experimenting with finding just the right balance, but several of them are pretty close and enjoying high ratings, solid underwriting support, and happy (and donating) listeners. I can't speak TOO much for WUMB specifically in that regard...I've heard conflicting reports...but in general there are several "Triple A" formatted pubradio stations that are doing really, really well.

 

[Dick Skinner]

Notlob, you seem to be of the mind that because a station is public, it should not be programmed with any semblance of order, but should be the DJs' playground. I'm not sure where you came to that notion, but, as it's been stated in some astute posts above, the programmers at public radio have the same responsibility as those at commercial: get more listeners and hold them longer. Public simply has a different set of metrics, i.e., listener donations and underwriting as opposed to ratings driven revenue. If you're unhappy with the product or how it's created, speak with your feet, Don't listen and don't support it with donations. If you want to hear DJ's programming their own shows, turn to Internet radio. You'll find plenty there.

 

[radio zombie]

Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but is it possible this
poster thinks there's too much "commercial" in non-commercial? I'm
wondering if he thinks the use of donation or public money should be
used to play/promote the music of lesser known, i.e. less successful,
artists. Otherwise, I can't see where he's going with this. Just a thought...

 

[carmen]

i listen to more JAMN than NO Commercial Potential

about 3 minutes a month vs 2

what is public. like nationalPUBLICradio? PBS?? you can have it (and pay for it)

i'd proably take ira glass out to lunch, thats about the extent of my support

 

[MarcB]

I listen to NPR one hour a week. CAR TALK. Does that mean I should send a check over to Connecticut Public Radio - for One hour/week? And besides sometimes if I'm still sleeping at 10AM I'll listen online at 11AM via WFCR or Sunday Evening at 6PM. Or if I forget about those online at CARTALK.COM

 

[fybush]

I listen to NPR one hour a week. CAR TALK. Does that mean I should send a check over to Connecticut Public Radio - for One hour/week? And besides sometimes if I'm still sleeping at 10AM I'll listen online at 11AM via WFCR or Sunday Evening at 6PM. Or if I forget about those online at CARTALK.COM

If it's a show that you value for that one hour a week, then, yes, sending a few bucks over to WNPR would be a nice gesture. Connecticut Public Radio (or WFCR) send NPR a lot of money every year to pay for that one hour a week of programming. It's probably the most expensive hour on the NPR schedule (though not on the public radio schedule as a whole - Prairie Home Companion, which is not an NPR show, costs even more last I checked), and if its fans don't support it, why should stations keep programming it?

That doesn't mean you should become a dollar-a-day member or anything...but if WNPR is like most public radio stations, even ten bucks tucked in an envelope with a note expressing support for Car Talk would be greatly appreciated.