Religious Radio Organization Cheers Upcoming Opportunities to Acquire More Signals

[davideduardo]

The people who depend on these types of stations, the ones that specialize in jazz, classical, and AAA, are in the demo that grew up with radio. They're more likely to remain loyal to broadcast radio that programs what they want.

I am very much in that demo, and nearly everyone I know has no radio in their home. They use Alexa or other sources for audio, and are the most outspoken opponents of stations with lots of commercials.

I know of one person who can't set up Netflix or their Amazon device, but they had about 10 family members who volunteered to set them up and after that, they were totally in love with "new media".

 

[TheBigA]

I am very much in that demo, and nearly everyone I know has no radio in their home.

You may not have a station that caters to that particular music taste. People in that demo in Philadelphia listen to WXPN. It is very popular.

As a non-com, it gives the people the music they want for free with no commercials. Same with WRTI, the local classical station. But if Temple University decides to sell the station because it lost federal funding, the listeners can't do anything to stop them.

If nobody listens to radio, why are religious people buying stations? There must be someone listening. Otherwise, they're idiots.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Really? I thought they did away with Class D (are they still little 10 watt things?) One could probably cover a tiny village with that. Though the donations I expect would be mighty slim...

Yup, really.. max is 100 watts but with no height restrictions.

90 watts at 60 feet thanks to line of site makes it almost 15 miles to the edge of another town

 

[AMRadioGuy]

You may not have a station that caters to that particular music taste. People in that demo in Philadelphia listen to WXPN. It is very popular.

As a non-com, it gives the people the music they want for free with no commercials. Same with WRTI, the local classical station. But if Temple University decides to sell the station because it lost federal funding, the listeners can't do anything to stop them.

If nobody listens to radio, why are religious people buying stations? There must be someone listening. Otherwise, they're idiots.

Correct. However, there is money being taken AWAY from other non-coms. Money that was appropriated 4 months ago, and budgeted for by these stations, and has now been taken away. In some cases, it may be enough to cause some colleges to consider selling. That's the topic of this thread. Religious radio is likely to be a beneficiary of government policy.

As I've been saying, this is bad for radio in general because a lot of these stations were playing music that is unprofitable for commercial radio. Their listeners will be forced to use subscription services because their free public radio station was sold to a religious operator. It's something that's already been happening for the past 5 years.

Are non-coms not taking money away from commercial stations because people are tuning into them instead? Especially since, as you point out, those stations are commercial-free? I'm a young guy who loves oldies. I'm fortunate that there are still a few (for profit) oldies stations near me. But throughout most of the country, that format is no longer profitable. Lots of oldies listeners have had to revert to streaming. Tough. That's life. Radio formats die. I'm not sure if unprofitable formats should be propped up by taxpayer funding. I'm not saying they shouldn't exist. But if they're popular enough... listener support & donations?

There is also a big difference between an AAA station in a city and a station like what @SomeRadioGuy is doing in Alaska. In that case, I have absolutely no problem with federal funding and my taxpayer dollars going to help support a station like what he is running where he is running it. It's needed in his geographic area, and there are not enough people with enough $s to support it. Cell service is poor, information is hard to get. Radio still makes sense as a public service there. The people in a city that looses an AAA station because my taxpayer dollars no longer fund it have other avenues to get that music. It is in no way a critical service. People in areas like the one Paul serves literally do not have alternatives to get the information he provides. If the station he runs goes away, people go without crucial information in their community.

I do not understand the hate for religious stations on this forum, either. The consolidation a lot of the operators have gone through is not much different from the big for-profit owners as I understand it. It's not like a lot of big commercial operators are exactly serving their local communities, either. Just sayin'. Even a lot of non-comms are running a lot of nationalized programming these days...

I personally don't think public radio should be funded by government dollars except in certain cases. Public radio is not the entity it was 40+ years ago. Most public stations are running formats such as News/Talk and are cookie cutter formatics (Morning Ediion; All Things Considered among others). The reasoning is this maximizes underwriting and donations and ability to get grants to maximize the operating budget. Ratings show many such stations are major contenders in their market. I would say it is all about maximizing the listener base. That does not diminish content. In other words, if it's a money loser or can't do well, it goes away. My point is public radio has become an entity unlike the station that needed financial help in Reagan's day. With that said, I strongly disagree with the knee-jerk reaction of cutting off everything. I would support a plan of weaning off the fund over, say, a decade to allow stations to make a more comfortable transition.

This, too. I'm not in favor of stations running syndicated shows (some of which are partisan political opinion shows) with my taxpayer dollars. These stations are absolutely competing with commercial stations, too, and pulling listeners away from them. That's not cool. Some of these local stations have gutted their news departments and have relied on more national content. WESA in Pittsburgh (my closest non-com news station) has cut a lot of its local programming over the past few years.

I agree that non-coms are different in a lot of ways from what they were back in the Regan years, and a lot of them should not be getting taxpayer dollars. Pittsburgh's non-com AAA WYEP and NPR affiliate WESA are unionized. In the Regan years, WYEP didn't even pay many of the volunteer DJs from the community, let alone have them on their payroll as union members. Fundamentally different operation.

I also don't think clawing back money in the way the current administration went about it is appropriate. A phase-out over a few years would have been more appropriate.

Yes, stations will die as a result of this. But AM stations are also dying. I'm not going to argue that the government should prop them up. Time marches on.

I'll close by saying that I love radio. I love listening to Pittsburgh's non-com WQED-FM and its classical format. I don't want it to go away. I also love 770-AM WKFB's oldies. I don't want it to go away, either. I also don't think people's tax dollars should be forced to go to either station. The only time I think taxpayer funding makes sense for radio is when it is an essential public service, like what @SomeRadioGuy is running. Otherwise...

 

[TheBigA]

I'm not sure if unprofitable formats should be propped up by taxpayer funding. I'm not saying they shouldn't exist. But if they're popular enough... listener support & donations?

The federal funding isn't based on the format or need. It's based on meeting qualifications set out in statute and applied by the CRB. By law the majority of the money has to be raised locally. The CPB grant is percentage of that local money. The station has to prove that it is locally viable, can attract an audience, and raise money independent of the government.

The problem in this case is that the money was appropriated four months ago, budgeted for, and then was taken away.

I'm not in favor of stations running syndicated shows (some of which are partisan political opinion shows) with my taxpayer dollars.

That's an assumption. There was no investigation into if federal money was used for programming. There are many other expenses stations have. The congress could have put a qualification into the law saying federal funding can't be used for NPR. In fact an amendment stating that was proposed and defeated. But there was no inquiry about that, no one ever asked CPB or any of the stations. The money was just taken away with no hearing.

 

[b-turner]

I think we adopt more of a commercial radio mentality as the way CPB distributes funds. I am told by many, like TheBigA above, that is not the case.

I think if I were to manage a non-comm, my first goal would be to fund the station without the need of a grant or CPB funds, but rather placing any excess, if the grant or CPB dollars roll in, into savings for future projects. I would have had this attitude a decade ago or more.

 

[CTListener]

What was the dollars-and-cents impact on an average American taxpayer of the annual subsidy to the CPB? A buck or two? Even less?

 

[TheBigA]

I think we adopt more of a commercial radio mentality as the way CPB distributes funds. I am told by many, like TheBigA above, that is not the case.

What do you mean by "commercial radio mentality?" You mean only offer programming for 25-54, and ignore over 55? That's what most commercial stations do. Non-coms don't need to meet those demographics because they want to attract members not advertisers. The amount of CPB funding is based on how much money the station raises locally.

I think if I were to manage a non-comm, my first goal would be to fund the station without the need of a grant or CPB funds, but rather placing any excess, if the grant or CPB dollars roll in, into savings for future projects. I would have had this attitude a decade ago or more.

Some stations create endowments. I don't think the federal money can be used for that. It has to be raised separately. I'm not an accountant. Once again, the reason why this particular rescission is such a problem is that the money was appropriated in March, budgeted for, and then taken away four months later. That's unfair.

In order to qualify for any CPB funding, a station has to prove viability. That's in the CPB rules. What more would you like them to do?

 

[AMRadioGuy]

The federal funding isn't based on the format or need. It's based on meeting qualifications set out in statute and applied by the CRB. By law the majority of the money has to be raised locally. The CPB grant is percentage of that local money. The station has to prove that it is locally viable, can attract an audience, and raise money independent of the government.

The problem in this case is that the money was appropriated four months ago, budgeted for, and then was taken away.



That's an assumption. There was no investigation into if federal money was used for programming. There are many other expenses stations have. The congress could have put a qualification into the law saying federal funding can't be used for NPR. In fact an amendment stating that was proposed and defeated. But there was no inquiry about that, no one ever asked CPB or any of the stations. The money was just taken away with no hearing.

Totally get what you're saying, @TheBigA. And yes, I'm aware that the funding from CPB is a percentage of what is raised locally. I also realize that the law was/is what it was/is. But I think perhaps the funding ought to be need based. That would make more sense. I realize it hasn't been that way. And it isn't going to be that way because it's just gone now altogether.

And for the record, I am absolutely not in favor of the clawing back of funding. That's creating a nightmare for stations that now need to re-work budgets because they aren't getting money allocated and promised to them. This clawback was not cool, to put it mildly. Though I don't think a lot of non-com stations should be funded federally, chainsawing away all funding including future promised funding is not the way to go about achieving that at all.

 

[b-turner]

By commercial radio mentality, it's only counting money you have in your hands. Even if promised, until you have it deposited, it doesn't exist.

 

[TheBigA]

But I think perhaps the funding ought to be need based. That would make more sense.

When the congress discussed this in 1983 during Reagan, they didn't want it based on need, because that would make it welfare. They wanted it to be RESULTS based. The funding achieves results. They don't want to fund things that can't support themselves. They want stations to WORK for their money. In order to change that, congress would need to amend the public broadcasting act. It appears they don't have enough votes to do that.

Congress just passed a bill that dropped millions of people from Medicaid because they want those people to work for their benefits. That's the same view that was applied to CPB funding. Stations have to work for their funding. Now, even though these stations followed the rules, they have been defunded.

 

[TheBigA]

By commercial radio mentality, it's only counting money you have in your hands. Even if promised, until you have it deposited, it doesn't exist.

I think we all have received paychecks from employers that we've been told not to cash until a certain time. I certainly have. From commercial radio.

I think it's fair to make some assumptions after 60 years of consistent funding. They didn't spend it, but it was budgeted. So now the budget has to be redone, and people get fired. It happens at iHeart and Audacy all the time.

 

[b-turner]

I've been lucky. I've never been told to wait before cashing my paycheck. In doing sales I have been told to collect all I can that week since the stations has payroll at the end of the week. I always hated the stress I felt from those words because in many instances it was all on me to do.

 

[TheBigA]

I've been lucky. I've never been told to wait before cashing my paycheck. In doing sales I have been told to collect all I can that week since the stations has payroll at the end of the week. I always hated the stress I felt from those words because in many instances it was all on me to do.

Once again, commercial radio stations have been consistently laying off staff for 20 years. They are not a great model to follow.

 

[b-turner]

My point is they live within their means (not that NCE stations don't). The commercial side looks at what they have in their hands a bit more than what they are earmarked to receive.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I do not understand the hate for religious stations on this forum, either. The consolidation a lot of the operators have gone through is not much different from the big for-profit owners as I understand it.

Somewhere back there, I noted that RadioWorld had published statistics on broadcast radio in the U.S.

EMF is now the largest station owner/operator in the country ... bigger than even Clear Channel/iHeart, who we were pointing fingers at as "the enemy" when they were growing via consolidation. Are you saying we should be nicer to EMF than we were to CC back then?

Because if you are, my answer is no. And I will be saying that a lot ... every time a public station dies and is replaced by yet another religious station. I do not want it to come to that, but if it starts happening then the religious broadcasters will, in my eyes, be "the enemy" just as CC was.

Besides, why does God need transmitters at all? He is omnipotent and can communicate with the faithful in any way that He wishes to.

 

[TheBigA]

By commercial radio mentality, it's only counting money you have in your hands. Even if promised, until you have it deposited, it doesn't exist.

Here is a proposal from a public radio GM in Commerce TX (you may know him) suggesting a barter system in public radio:

Why the public radio system needs a barter tier for programming

A model for stations that can no longer sustain full-fee membership would hold onto affiliates that want to remain in the family.

current.org

It's a great idea, but it's very likely that his station wouldn't qualify for barter if it was available. He says 80% his funding came from the feds, which is crazy to me. At most stations, it's less than 10%. He wants free programming in exchange for what? How big is his audience? If it isn't big enough to support his station, then what good is it to any program supplier. I know a lot of the commercial syndicators won't do a barter deal if you don't have audience. That seems to be the case for this station.

 

[ted chittenden]

Here is a proposal from a public radio GM in Commerce TX (you may know him) suggesting a barter system in public radio:

Why the public radio system needs a barter tier for programming

A model for stations that can no longer sustain full-fee membership would hold onto affiliates that want to remain in the family.

current.org

It's a great idea, but it's very likely that his station wouldn't qualify for barter if it was available. He says 80% his funding came from the feds, which is crazy to me. At most stations, it's less than 10%. He wants free programming in exchange for what? How big is his audience? If it isn't big enough to support his station, then what good is it to any program supplier. I know a lot of the commercial syndicators won't do a barter deal if you don't have audience. That seems to be the case for this station.

Commerce is (roughly) 90 miles northeast of Dallas. The station basically serves the cities of Sherman and Paris, TX. I suspect that the problem here is the same one discussed in the Texas thread about Tyler; namely, a very large support for President Trump among the local population that really limits the station's growth potential. My advice to the station manager would be either 1) return to being an independent college station playing oldies and classic hits (what it did before becoming a public radio affiliate) or 2) becoming a full-time satellite of Dallas' KERA-FM which runs an all news/talk format.

 

[davideduardo]

What was the dollars-and-cents impact on an average American taxpayer of the annual subsidy to the CPB? A buck or two? Even less?

The expressed intent of the current administration is to cut "everywhere possible" to create an impact on "the average taxpayer" of thousands of dollars.

 

[davideduardo]

Somewhere back there, I noted that RadioWorld had published statistics on broadcast radio in the U.S.

EMF is now the largest station owner/operator in the country ... bigger than even Clear Channel/iHeart, who we were pointing fingers at as "the enemy" when they were growing via consolidation. Are you saying we should be nicer to EMF than we were to CC back then?

Keep in mind that a significant portion of the EMF stations are translators, not full A, B or C class FMs.

Because if you are, my answer is no. And I will be saying that a lot ... every time a public station dies and is replaced by yet another religious station. I do not want it to come to that, but if it starts happening then the religious broadcasters will, in my eyes, be "the enemy" just as CC was.

Yet Clear Channel realized that its business model did not work for smaller markets or even for what some local stations in bigger ones do successfully. So they sold, over the years, several hundred stations.

Randy had the idea of being in every market in Ohio as a model, but they soon realized that there was no synergy at the agency and advertiser level. So they retracted.

RadioDiscussion's own Buddy Shula shows us that a niche station in a top 100 market can work, but not with the iHeart/Cumulus/Audacy/Hubbard/Beasley models.

I think that your own Don Davis is another model for working outside the standard business models.

Besides, why does God need transmitters at all? He is omnipotent and can communicate with the faithful in any way that He wishes to.

But humans are His instrument. We don't have telepathy except in Hollywood sci-fi movies.