T-R-I: Study-- NPR, classical listeners retiring, less likely to contribute?

[raccoonradio]

Though this could fit into the public radio category, of interest to the whole WGBH/WCRB situation:

OK, GBH moves classical to a different station and says Listeners Like You can support it with donations.
But wait: a study says NPR and classical listeners (jazz too?) are aging--higher average age. They're
either headed toward retirement or already there...and perhaps may not be as willing or able to
contribute.

If you get the Taylor-on-radio-info.com newsletter (free, in your email box) you can see more details.
I'm wondering if WGBH figures the real money is in news/talk fans who may be _slightly_ younger. Yes,
there are classical fans but maybe they're getting up there and may not contribute as much. Will this
move backfire? Will there be enough money? With cost-cutting and moving CRB onto Guest St., maybe they can make it cost-effective, but is this survey encouraging news to public radio?

(Subscribe free to the newsletter to see the piece.)
>>“The Aging Audience” of public radio is the newest study from Walrus Research...Garrison Keillor’s observation about seeing more gray heads in the Prairie Home Companion live audience is right-on. That carries some implications... For Life Stage Classical, the median age has gone from 56 to 65. Bailey suggests “the end of employment may have an impact on their willingness to contribute money.”

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

WABE in Atlanta just completed a record-setting fund drive. They run what I think is a 50/50 balance of classical music vs. news and interview.

This new observation may be spot-on, or it may be as worthless as a lot of other survey interpretations. Long time contributors may start making smaller contributions upon retirement. That may be offset by retired people who for a change have time to listen to radio and find the dial non-appetizing except for public radio and they begin contributing for the first time in their life.

Time will tell. All these trends must be digested by the people responsible for managing the funding of public radio stations.

 

[aaronread]

Ghoulish as it sounds, there are a lot of smart pubradio stations that are working with elderly (and well-off) donors to include the station in their last will & testament.

 

[raccoonradio]

Though some of the folks on the Fans of Folk and Blues on WGBH facebook group are saying that this
decision to drop folk & blues means they won't be including bequests to WGBH in their wills. But it is true,
for years they have urged their fans to include them in their bequests.

 

[DanStrassberg]

Yes, there are classical fans but maybe they're getting up there and may not contribute as much. Will this
move backfire? Will there be enough money? With cost-cutting and moving CRB onto Guest St., maybe they can make it cost-effective, but is this survey encouraging news to public radio?

As a member of the age group they're talking about, I am furious over this take on the situation. Frankly, I think the premise is speculative at best. Classical listeners are, on average, affluent. Many have more money to spend as retirees than they did when they were working. Bad enough that we (except for the right-wingers who thrive on Limbaugh, Beck, et al) have been abandoned by commercial radio. Now the great minds behind these stupid "analyses" are trying to get public radio to abandon us as well. I think the "experts" who voice these half-baked theories should just shut up and wait for some facts on how, in this difficult economic climate, donations to public stations from retirees are actually faring compared with those from younger listeners.

 

[MikeSFNM]

Amen to Mr. Strassberg.

I find it curious that the so called "independent of market demands" public radio should be aping the commercial broadcasting industry, in that people who are over 50 are dispensable audience. For years public radio has maintained that it was an alternative medium for small and niche audiences, that it was free from the relentless urgency to attract the most listeners for the most time.

If public radio is to go where the audience size and money are --and CPB is behind all this-- then it has become no different than commercial radio in seeking maximum audience and buck.

It should also be pointed out that classical music is much less expensive than news-talk and NPR "member" (read, affiliate) fees. One does not have to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for "membership" fees if one runs classical music.

To return to the original point of Mr. Strassberg, which I share, where is it carved in granite that people over 50 are not worthy of the attention and targeting by the broadcasting outfits? I thought the law required that all the public be served, and not just incidentally.

 

[Laurence Glavin]

A major expense for me is the unusually large number of live performances of classical music I attend. In the fall, I try to take in as many as I can, in case concerts in mid-winter happen at the same time as snowstorms. Most of them are in the Boston-Cambridge area, so travel can be difficult at that time of year. I notice that many perframance groups use underwriting messages on WBUR and WGBH-FM to promote their events. So even if the outlets themselves don't get moolah from those of us who budget for concerts, they get the payments from the performance groups that draw their listeners.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

If public radio is to go where the audience size and money are --and CPB is behind all this-- then it has become no different than commercial radio in seeking maximum audience and buck.

If this truly amazes you, I'd like to know what cave you've been living in for the past 30 years. Non-com radio and TV needs money just as badly as commercial stations do; they just go about getting it differently...and this is, after all, a business, commercial or otherwise. Pretending that non-coms won't soil their hands with money is just denying reality.

where is it carved in granite that people over 50 are not worthy of the attention and targeting by the broadcasting outfits? I thought the law required that all the public be served, and not just incidentally.

The law says no such thing. Otherwise, I can see that this is going to inevitably devolve into the same discussion that occurs hundreds of times every year on discussion boards like these: Why won't advertisers (and underwriters) target the 55+ demo? It is a strongly held belief at ad agencies and rep firms that older people, while having lots of disposable income and the willingness to spend it, are less likely to change their brand habits than those who are younger. Thus, the ad business sees targeting them as a waste of time, when younger people can be more easily persuaded (i.e., more bang for the buck). Until someone makes a persuasive case otherwise, using reams of unimpeachable data, nothing will change.

 

[CTListener]

If public radio is to go where the audience size and money are --and CPB is behind all this-- then it has become no different than commercial radio in seeking maximum audience and buck.

If this truly amazes you, I'd like to know what cave you've been living in for the past 30 years. Non-com radio and TV needs money just as badly as commercial stations do; they just go about getting it differently...and this is, after all, a business, commercial or otherwise. Pretending that non-coms won't soil their hands with money is just denying reality.

where is it carved in granite that people over 50 are not worthy of the attention and targeting by the broadcasting outfits? I thought the law required that all the public be served, and not just incidentally.

The law says no such thing. Otherwise, I can see that this is going to inevitably devolve into the same discussion that occurs hundreds of times every year on discussion boards like these: Why won't advertisers (and underwriters) target the 55+ demo? It is a strongly held belief at ad agencies and rep firms that older people, while having lots of disposable income and the willingness to spend it, are less likely to change their brand habits than those who are younger. Thus, the ad business sees targeting them as a waste of time, when younger people can be more easily persuaded (i.e., more bang for the buck). Until someone makes a persuasive case otherwise, using reams of unimpeachable data, nothing will change.

Has anyone ever seen the data that supports the attitude of the advertisers and underwriters? If they're polling, is the polling methodology used completely free of bias or are the questions shaded to elicit a desired response? Is there data from retailers and service providers showing that advertising on stations that appeal to younger listeners gets more impressive results in terms of first-time buyers/users than advertising on older-skewing stations does? I'm only a year away from 55+ and I'm with Dan and Laurence and everyone else in feeling that the older listener is being ignored, but if we truly are not spending more and not changing brands and not trying new brands, then why SHOULD advertisers care about us?

 

[WLYNWAZNgm]

It is a trade-off. Some listeners will give more if the station features more news content,
some will give more for more classical music content. It will take a while to see
how it plays out...

Even within the confines of classical music, for example, programming is a trade-off.
Some listeners will be happier to hear composer A, while some feel that composer B
should be the main focus. Everyone has an opinion, a favorite. Time will tell if
contributions will rise or fall, overall...

 

[DanStrassberg]

Even within the confines of classical music, for example, programming is a trade-off.
Some listeners will be happier to hear composer A, while some feel that composer B
should be the main focus. Everyone has an opinion, a favorite. Time will tell if
contributions will rise or fall, overall...

The problem is that the post that started this sub-thread referred to a press release whose writer speculated that classical would not be as effective as news/talk in raising funds for public radio stations because classical's older-skewing demos contain more retirees. No evidence was provided to support the thesis that classical's affluent listeners reduce their contibutions to public radio when they retire. Such unsubstantiated speculation is irresponsible and is, pure and simple (with an emphasisis on simple) ageism. Ageism has already robbed older demos of the programming they prefer on commercial radio. It would be appropriate if public radio programmers weren't exposed to this kind of baseless, irresponsible speculation. Let's hope that programmers at public stations are a little less trigger happy than their counterparts at commercial stations. They (the public radio programmers) should at least cool their heels until a reasonable amount of data has been amassed and analyzed.

 

[aaronread]

As a member of the age group they're talking about, I am furious over this take on the situation. Frankly, I think the premise is speculative at best. Classical listeners are, on average, affluent. Many have more money to spend as retirees than they did when they were working. Bad enough that we (except for the right-wingers who thrive on Limbaugh, Beck, et al) have been abandoned by commercial radio. Now the great minds behind these stupid "analyses" are trying to get public radio to abandon us as well. I think the "experts" who voice these half-baked theories should just shut up and wait for some facts on how, in this difficult economic climate, donations to public stations from retirees are actually faring compared with those from younger listeners.

Careful, Dan...you're one step away from yelling at those darn kids to get off your lawn! ;D

 

[aaronread]

It should also be pointed out that classical music is much less expensive than news-talk and NPR "member" (read, affiliate) fees. One does not have to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for "membership" fees if one runs classical music.

Perhaps, but you DO have to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for DJ salaries if you're going to get DJ's worth a damn. In a city like Boston, with a high cost of living, WGBH would have to pay at least $40k/yr in salary, plus another $5-$10k in benefits costs, to have a decent DJ. Just one. Now I would imagine you'd need at least two...really more like three...fulltime DJ's to have on staff, plus another 3 - 5 part timers for the weekends.

Quality content costs money, and the piper always gets paid.

 

[landtuna]

My personal observation during PBS' pledge drives is there is a whole lot of grey/no hair manning the phones. I would extrapolate that into believing it is the *ahem* older demo that supports both public TV and radio.

 

[WLYNWAZNgm]

The problem with all of these "conspiracy theories"
(on both sides...) is that they are based on assumptions
which may or may not hold true anymore. If you define your audience
strictly by age then I, myself, am in one demographic. If you go by
sensibilities, however, I am in a different one. I'm
no kid, but I was raised on rock and roll, baby! ;D
It is a whole different ballgame now...screw the consultants!

 

[carmen]

there seems to be a lot of people my age ,that are fans of This America Life, listen to NPR, etc

i imagine most of them acess it thru the PRX/iPhone apps tho