The CC Debate

[BurnedOutOnTheBoards]

Previously, several posters, including myself, started on the topic of the current viability and quality of "Imus In The Morning", 2010 version. The conversations have tilted far away from Imus and have headed towards Clear Channel, so I thought I'd save a moderator a few cogent keystrokes, and post my extremely opinionated responses here.....

Of course, there have been several books on Clear Channel, but only one or two have been fairly recent and have explored the recent and current financial problems which eventually led to CC selling off many assets and then selling off over half of itself. The Minot situation, which in my view exemplifies the inherent problems with lack of localism and the trend towards automated radio clusters and no personnel on site, is more of a "serving the public interest" issue - and a damn good one, too.

My negative views on Clear Channel cutbacks started before the current major downtrends in ad revenues began.....as things started to slow in 2005 {in my market, at least}, Clear Channel stations in my market began - slowly, but clearly at first - cutting staff. I was spared, but others were chopped {I was kinda handy to have around because I was willing to work boards on overnights, plus I had over 20 years on mike...}

I saw corners being cut, news stories not fully vetted, questionable editing practices that led to several more frequent complaints from interviewees in news stories accusing the News Department of slanting the stories - all this along with a gradual but inevitable decline in broadcast quality. Every one of the decisions that led to these changes came down from on top - I actually was told this by a visiting VP of some department, who urged us who survived the first cuts to not only pick up the slack, but increase our output.....the veiled threat from the fairly-empty suit was clear. After I quit in 2005, the cuts were more frequent and slashing, and I was told by someone still there morale was somber.

I hate to be argumentative, Big A, but Feder's analogy is almost spot on - if you can forget that Mickey D's sometimes uses outsourced people to take drive-up orders - the point being there are live, local bodies at the home of The Big Mac....and frequently, CC studios are aglow of automation equipment screens with no one looking at them.

Matt Parker's chicken & egg question is also valid - was it the consumer who left radio, or did radio let down the audience? That one has the earmarks of a donnybrook........

My main point of bringing up Clear Channel's fall from exalted profits to selling a majority share after a fire sale was that, even in the weakened state of ad revenues that radio continues to find itself, I wanted to know HOW CC accomplished this feat - was it all out-of-corporate's hands, all market forces beyond CC's control, or did cheapening the product for the sake of the profits lend a hand in this decay?

Of course, technological advancements made a huge difference - corporate radio couldn't shove the iPod or streaming radio onto a disadvantaged shelf like RCA and others did to Armstrong's FM.

I guess the age old argument remains this: would a better product sell itself to a bigger audience and more advertisers? I doubt there are many in current corporate radio who would dare to pick up that gauntlet.....

 

[Talk_Dude]

It strikes me that Clear Channel has a much worse track record of messing things up in terms of music format radio than they have in News/Talk radio. Not that they've been very good at News/Talk, but compared to the things they've done to music format radio, what they've done to News/Talk is small potatoes.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

These conversations about CC are several years later but very parallel to the many conversations I have heard and read through the years about Walmart. Walmart supposedly killed all the retailers in a lot of small towns. Walmart supposedly used their buying power to crush manufacturers who would bend to Walmarts demands.

Strangely enough, similar claims were made about Sears-Roebuck 50 and 60 years ago.

I have finally come to a personal philosophy that what Walmart did to retailing and little towns was going to be done by someone. And in rural America, the beat goes on.... just to a different drummer.

I am no apologist for CC but the more I listen to the conversations and read the forums, I conclude that everything CC has done to markets, to stations, to clusters, to employees was going to happen. We just didn't know who would put on the Jack-and-the-Beanstalk lumber-jack shirt and do what the economy and the society was funneling our way. Change was in the winds. We just did not know who would get their sails set and be the vehicle.

Minot came up here again in this thread. Minot also was a situation that was going to happen somewhere. It takes Two the Tango the old song tells us. Radio stations cannot serve a community that will not reach out and dance with the server. It seems that local government in the Minot area does not get any prizes for their Emergency Preparedness Planning.

Who was the Country Boy Republican State Chairman in Indiana 20 years ago or so? Rex Early? Whatever his name, hardly a week went by that he didn't avoid some tough question with the response: "Its a mighty thin pancake to doesn't have TWO SIDES." And then he would put HIS spin on a political situation where it looked like his opposition was trying to take the high road.

So that leaves us with the question: how thin are the pancakes in Minot?

 

[TheBigA]

These conversations about CC are several years later but very parallel to the many conversations I have heard and read through the years about Walmart.

I agree, and if you travel outside the US, you'll find out it's what a lot of Europeans dislike about us. We're big and we throw our weight around. We act first and think later. And we have a huge debt. Sound familiar?

The problem with the CC debate is that the emotional aspect has overshadowed the facts. People are pissed off with the changes in radio, and are looking for someone to blame. So blame the big dog. It ignores the fact that all the problems that led up to where we are today began long before 1996. In fact a lot of them began by some of the people that have become CC's biggest critics. The buy & sell 80s set the stage for mergermania in the 90s. This all didn't just happen because of the 96 Act.

As for Minot, I've done a lot of research on that story, and I've posted a lot of it here. There is no reason for me to believe if that station was owned by some local guy it would have done anything different. If anything, the station would have signed off at midnight. The Congress and others investigated and no one found the station was at fault except for the print media and some people with an ax to grind. The problem that happened at Minot will continue to happen until someone fixes the EAS system. But the fact that Minot is the only example critics can give after 14 years of consolidation points out just how weak their argument is.

Here's the reality: If all the other companies in the US are outsourcing their work, and every other company is cutting corners, why should broadcasting be forced to operate like it's another era? This is NOT a radio problem. It's an AMERICAN problem. It's endemic to every business in this country. People are getting sick from the food they eat because no one's checking to see if it's safe. Cars are crashing because of defects that were covered up. If this was only a CC problem, why are so many other companies in other industries going bankrupt? The auto industry, the banking industry, the pilars of American business. Why are local governments laying off police and firemen? Colleges are cutting back staffs, and shutting down campus radio stations. I'm just asking radio people to look beyond your own square foot and see what's really happening.

The changes that started to happen in 2005 coincided with an advertising depression that hit the entire media business, including cable, radio, TV, and newspaper. Advertisers were cutting back. That meant less money coming in to pay salaries. That meant station cutbacks. Follow the money. Then a couple years later, stckholders notice ad revenues are down consistently, and it kills radio stocks. Companies that had expanded in the first half of the decade were now living beyond their means. But guess what? The same exact thing was happening in the housing industry, as people bought houses that were bigger and more expensive than they could afford. It happened in the credit industry, as Americans drove up credit card debt, and then defaulted. It's easy to say it's all about radio, but when you look at the big picture, you can see the real source of the problem.

 

[TheBigA]

I guess the age old argument remains this: would a better product sell itself to a bigger audience and more advertisers? I doubt there are many in current corporate radio who would dare to pick up that gauntlet.....

I fight that battle every day. Here's what I've found: No one cares if your product is better. They want to know if your product is cheaper. That's the entire motivation of the public, from McDonalds to Wal Mart to advertisers. The government isn't better. They grant contracts to the lowest bidder. Cheap wins. That's the American way. Go to a better quality restaurant and see if they get a bigger audience than Subway.

As far as advertisers are concerned, they deal with the entire media marketplace, not just radio. I met with a car company that didn't care about the number of awards I've won, the quality of my content, or the number of impressions I could deliver. He said: How can people buy cars they can't see? That's all he cares about. He's selling cars on the internet. He can see the relationship between hits and sales. I can't give him that. So he doesn't buy radio. Now you can say he's an idiot, but the customer is always right.

This isn't the 1960s any more. In the old days, you had a handful of radio stations, a handful of TV stations, and a couple of newspapers. You divided the pie equally and everyone made money. Then the Congress over-licensed the spectrum, the same town had dozens of radio stations, access to hundreds of TV stations via cable, and millions of internet sources. Consumer tastes got narrower and more personalized. Everyone wanted to have it "their way." Mass media was no longer cool. They wanted to hear what they like when they wanted it. The audience became on demand. You can't build a big audience when that audience wants their music on their schedule, regardless of quality, regardless of live & local, regardless of great on air talent. They don't care. And advertisers know it. The ONLY solution is to have multi-platform content that combines on-air and online, and hope that the combined number comes close what what you used to get with just radio. You need to understand that it's not just radio any more. The entire society has undergone a revolution. If your head is still thinking the way it used to be, you're missing the truth. The truth is the better product would not get a bigger audience and more advertisers. We already know it because we tried. Take a look at the TV shows that attract the biggest audience. Are they the best? You tell me.

 

[BurnedOutOnTheBoards]

Perhaps I should clarify......

Nowhere in any of my posts did I state Clear Channel was the only culprit in radio's s ad state of affairs......when you are the largest operator, you're gonna get looked at first as to how they succeed at something, and how they failed at something....my point was simply wishing a talented author would examine those FCC documents and other research arenas to expose exactly what happened between the years where CC was printing money, and how they ended up selling over half of itself. That's all.

The Minot situation - all I'll say now {I ain't bothering to start another thread on THAT can of worms} is that, while it is true that kind of situation could happen regardless of who owned the stations involved, it was Clear Channel that owned those stations, not someone else.

EAS? A very important, frequently vital system that I've personally seen screwed up beyond belief....when I worked at a CC cluster in 2005, EAS problems were constant, including problems that were certainly NOT CC's fault - the legal authorities who originated the alerts would send half of the actual EAS alerts with no audio or such poor quality audio it was unintelligible. Even after meetings were held - mostly fingerpointing,of course - the problems persisted. In fact, just a few weeks ago, I heard the same station utterly screw up an EAS......you'd think they'd have that worked out by now.....

True enough.....many of the very same problems that have hampered CC over the past decade have their roots in some rather insane decisions and rulings by the FCC and other regulatory bodies...combined with some pretty short-sightedness on corporate's part...


One of the reasons I left radio in mid-2005 was I saw the handwriting on the wall - positions like mine were rapidly disappearing.


To reiterate: it isn't all Clear Channel's fault; it's not just an American problem - it's now a worldwide economics problem that could very, very easily grow into a global depression. Clear Channel was so much so many others in this industry - built on a model that could not be sustained with shrinking or even flat revenues.

Minot: it was CC's problem, but it might have happened to anyone - or, maybe not.

A better product? I don't know if that's true or not - but the "cheaper is better" mantra is chirped by most everyone these days, and I don't see anyone on the near horizon daring enough to try superior programming.

Oh...how I do enjoy a friendly jousting match - and my compliments to those posting.....unlike so many other boards in so many fields, we've had several thrusts and counter-thrusts and nary an ugly word or insulting rant has been uttered - BRAVO!

 

[MattParker]

The difference between Wal-Mart and McDonald's and radio....
Wal-Mart and Mickey D are good at cost control but they did not cut the quality of their product (at least not in ways consumers would notice). Radio did.

Radio is one of the latest in a long line of industries that put bean counting ahead of customer satisfaction. Are the airlines in trouble because of the economy or because flying has become a horrible experience? Did people stop taking trains because of other options or because the railroads did not want the passenger business and drove people away with late trains, filthy coaches, terrible food and high prices. A drought in the 50s drove up coffee prices and the big coffee companies started buying cheap coffee. Coffee consumption went down (soda consumption went up) until Starbucks started selling good coffee years later. And the Big 3 car companies started producing shlock and wondered why so many people were buying foreign cars (and called them unpatriotic for doing so).

Radio used to be about personalities plus creating a sense of involvement with the listener and with the hometown. Websites can give news just as quickly. Smartphones and GPS can do traffic immediately and customized for your routes. Music players and streaming services like Pandora give you the music you want and only the music you want. But none of them have personalities and involvement like radio once did. But radio decided personalities cost money and can quit on you (and take their audience with them) so automation and satellites are better. Maybe like the coffee companies, they figured nobody would notice.

Other factors: Advertisers, especially blue chip advertisers, deserted radio. (Lack of demographically desirable listeners? Couldn't trust Arbitron diaries? Clients realized advertising didn't have a good return on investment?) Radio wasn't delivering quality to paying customers either. Group owners, beginning with Clear Channel, over-paid and over-borrowed in their rush to buy more and more stations. Now they are stuck with debts, and like many homeowners, often owe more on stations than those stations are worth in the current market. Classic hubris.
The industry also has a habit of driving away good people and retaining people who screw up every time. Definition of insanity: Repeating the same actions while expecting a different outcome.

 

[gr8oldies]

Quality is in the eye or ear of the beholder. Is "quality" really a 70s style DJ hitting the post (which most listeners hate) or telling lame jokes between songs? Whenever this subject comes up, the "solutions" are doing radio in 1975 and playing obscure songs, as though merging 20 people's iPods will bring people back who don't want anything they didn't download themselves . I'm not at all convinced that DJ chatter between songs is any kind of magic bullet when people tune it out the second a DJ opens his or her mouth.

 

[imhomerjay]

Amen.

Tastes change--not every single person's, but as a culture. Pretending that "radio" is some magical thing that will still work if stuck in a time warp is silly.

The arguments that trains and airlines are in "either/or" scenarios is simply misleading. It's not the economy or the experience; it's both of those factors and probably others. Let's take the transportation analogy back a bit further. Did people stop using the horse and buggy because the industry made inferior buggys...or because cars were simply a step forward in the need to get from point A to point B?

It's no different with music and radio. iPods, streaming and the like simply offered a better experience for a chunk of the audience, and putting DJs on to tell people things they can now find online on their cell phones isn't going to make them give up what they really want--their music, and just their music. Just as people stopped using radio for soap operas or game shows or comedies because, helllllo, TV was a better experience.

Sometimes technologies become obsolete not because of something some allegedly evil company did, but because their time has just run out. Radio may still have a good life as a smaller fish in a bigger pond, but that life requires a basic reality check when it comes to budgets (paying the bills tends to help the bottom line).

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The difference between Wal-Mart and McDonald's and radio....
Wal-Mart and Mickey D are good at cost control but they did not cut the quality of their product (at least not in ways consumers would notice). Radio did.

Matt: I would like to take your post line by line, paragraph by paragraph and decompile it but it would get boring. You have your vision of how the world is put together and how radio is put together and many of us just shake our head and ask: What rock is he living under.

A couple of days ago I poked around at Walmart trying to find a new nozzle to go on the end of my garden hose. I have spent several months playing this little game to occupy my time while my wife does the important hopping. Go see if you can buy a garden hose nozzle at Walmart (or anywhere else for that matter!) that you will still be using 12 to 15 months from now. I would like to, with as much grace and courtesy possible, suggest you are ignoring the crappiness of many other lines of business while crying tears about radio being short-changed by someone else.

And the food industry from McDonalds on up to fine dining is living in la-la land. I will give McDonalds credit for being well managed, very business-like, but restaurant food as a whole today is as pitiful as the programming the radio industry provides us!

If you are going to score points in your campaign to change radio, you need to find new comparisons. The dogs you have selected just won't hunt.

 

[TheBigA]

my point was simply wishing a talented author would examine those FCC documents and other research arenas to expose exactly what happened between the years where CC was printing money, and how they ended up selling over half of itself. That's all.

That's easy: The depression of 2008. Here's the awful truth: A lot of the stations CC bought were losers. They were dogs that some smart broker mixed in with some primo stations. You want the primo stations? You have to buy some dogs. That works if the income from the primo properties makes up for the losses. When the economy died, the mathematics fell apart. Nobody plans for a depression.

The other story is that certain synergies were anticipated when the deals were made. Then they discovered they couldn't actually make those synergies happen. Same with the AOL-Time Warner deal. That's partly why Live Nation was spun off. But also because the concert industry tanked.

A lot of journalists and authors have looked for criminal action. But nothing illegal happened. Everything was done according to the law. Just the economy tanked. That's the story. I suggest that if they weren't already owned by CC, you'd see a whole lot more stations, especially on AM, going dark right now.

A better product? I don't know if that's true or not - but the "cheaper is better" mantra is chirped by most everyone these days, and I don't see anyone on the near horizon daring enough to try superior programming.

There's no law that says someone else has to take chances. In the old days, someone like you would say, "I see an opportunity, so I'll start a company." Now we say, "It's someone else's problem." That's why we're in trouble. No innovation being taken by individuals who have interest and passion. The only ones taking risks are acountants and salesmen. And people wonder why things sound the way they do.

 

[TheBigA]

The difference between Wal-Mart and McDonald's and radio....
Wal-Mart and Mickey D are good at cost control but they did not cut the quality of their product (at least not in ways consumers would notice). Radio did.

Oh come on! Have you opened your Big Mac lately and seen how small the burger is? It's the incredible shrinking burger. As for Wal Mart, there's a great documentary that CNBC has been running about how they forced manufacturers to outsource and cut quality to meet a certain price. They forced companies like Rubbermaid to go out of business, putting Americans out of work. Everyone has cut quality. Including state and local government. You just havent noticed.

All the former radio people are complaining how radio "used to be live and local." Most of it still is. The audience doesn't care. If the audience doesn't care about your product, then it doesn't matter. If you're selling sushi and the public wants pizza, the quality of your sushi isn't going to increase business.

 

[BurnedOutOnTheBoards]

BigA........

I think you're missing my point. Of course, the recession of 2008-present is the major factor in the massive decline of ad revenues - everyone posting here knows that. But that's NOT the entire story.....I desire an objective examination of the chronology of the many factors and decisions that led CC to its present situation.

I never suggested in any way that Clear Channel did anything illegal; I'm looking for the backstory.

There's no law that says someone else has to take chances. In the old days, someone like you would say, "I see an opportunity, so I'll start a company." Now we say, "It's someone else's problem." That's why we're in trouble. No innovation being taken by individuals who have interest and passion. The only ones taking risks are acountants and salesmen. And people wonder why things sound the way they do.

Could not agree more....that's why I am hoping someone with far more business acumen {and financing} than I ever had could put out a quality product and see what happens....

 

[TheBigA]

I never suggested in any way that Clear Channel did anything illegal; I'm looking for the backstory.

Unfortunately, those kinds of things don't sell books. Everyone wants to create enemies and kick someone off the island. It works on reality TV, and it sells books. Just a chronology is probably easily obtained from fcc.gov. Everything's on the web these days. But I think if you examine the finances of each station, including those in the Aloha Trist, you'll see very plainly why things are this way. It's all pretty simple.

Could not agree more....that's why I am hoping someone with far more business acumen {and financing} than I ever had could put out a quality product and see what happens....

That's why radio sounds the way it does. The programmers are bad with money, and the accountants are bad with programming.

 

[gr8oldies]

But what's the definition of quality? Is it really DJs talking between songs and does the audience want it? In the 70s, beautiful music stations sat in a corner, clicked and whirred and were number one every time.

 

[gr8oldies]

I'm involved with an oldies LPFM that is one of the few LPFM success stories. Thanks to a lightning strike the live studio suffered major damage and only automated music aired. Posted on their Facebook that the DJs were back and someone commented they liked not having DJs..this from an audience who grew up with them.

 

[Talk_Dude]

I think that comparing the radio business to retail stores is correct, but the metaphor shouldn't be Wal-Mart, it should be Piggly-Wiggly and K-Mart. Piggly-Wiggly was the first grocery store that had the customer push wheeled carts down merchandise-filled aisles to select what they wanted to buy, instead of giving a list to a clerk who'd fetch their products for them. K-Mart extended that principle to shopping for clothes, housewares, and other products. Wal-Mart merely copied the earlier models.

In radio, the songs are the products. The DJ's and "personalities" were the clerks and salespeople who waited on the customers. Clear Channel realized that just as many shoppers don't want to be bothered by salespeople, they don't want to be bothered by "personality" DJ's. So, they made the personalities less important and voice-tracked them to save money. As long as the DJ's weren't making the difference in who listened and who didn't, why spend any more on them than necessary?

For News/Talk radio, it was a similar breakthrough in thinking. Why waste money on local hosts when you can make even better profit with syndicated programming?

The issue of "quality" in programming compared to the quality of products at Wal-Mart cracks me up. Radio programming, especially music format radio, has never been about "quality". It was always about finding the least objectionable songs to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Wal-Mart carries the products that mass market consumers want to buy. Radio plays the songs that mass market audiences want to listen to. If you want higher quality products than Wal-Mart sells, you can buy them (at a higher price) at other stores or from on-line retailers. If you want better songs than the crap played on the radio (and there are plenty of songs that are better quality than the tight playlist crap all music format stations play), then spring for 99¢ a song and download the ones you like.

Clear Channel has played a major part in turning terrestrial broadcast radio into a sewer, but they only did it because that's what the mass audience of listeners want.

 

[MattParker]

I guess I hit a nerve with some of you. Sorry, I did not intend to upset any one.

Talk_Dude, much as like a lot of your posts, I have to part company with you. In radio at it's peak, personalities were the product. Two or three stations playing the same music in major markets and what made the difference is personalities. Talk radio's premise is entirely based on personalities (not ideology); the appeal of Rush is Rush. Yes, there were bad DJs and DJs who talked too much. But the claim that the audience rejected DJs is a lie used by management to justify getting rid of air talent (and for reigning them in). The I-man became more popular when he stopped playing records.

I used "quality" as it's used in "total quality management." I should have been more clear. Wal-Mart's "target audience" wants cheap products, usually in the giant economy size. If Wal-Mart offers cheap nozzles intended to last a year, and all the nozzles do last at least a year, that's quality. Quality in this context is desired consistency.

Should radio and radio personalities sound the same as thirty years ago? Not necessarily. But the basic principles of personality-driven radio still apply. Radio was at its most successful when personalities were king. Fewer people listen now and they don't listen as long. However you want to define "quality," clearly the audience is not satisfied.

It's human nature to want to blame others, to point to outside factors. Listeners don't leave because they are drawn away; they leave because they are driven away. Satisfied listeners don't seek other options. Did people stop listening to soap operas on the radio because TV was available (and better) or because radio stopped offering soap operas? In Britain, BBC Radio 4 still offers dramas, sitcoms, game shows and soaps and they have a substantial following. More of their population listens to radio, they listen longer and radio still has buzz.

Nor did people did not stop using the horse and buggy . They substituted internal combustion engines for horses. The same companies which made horseless carriages had made the buggies. A big reason the auto industry sprouted in Detroit was because coach works were well established there. Just like radio (and consumers) switched from ETs (or LPs) to reel to reel tape, cassettes and cartridges, to CDs, to audio files. And now the auto industry is moving to alternative forms of power and away from internal combustion. Technology keeps improving; the function remains. One of radio's problem is the industry pays too much attention to technology and too little to function. To paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault lies not in new media but in ourselves.

 

[TheBigA]

Should radio and radio personalities sound the same as thirty years ago? Not necessarily. But the basic principles of personality-driven radio still apply. Radio was at its most successful when personalities were king.

That depends on the format. Personalities weren't king in Beautiful Music. They were only really king in Top 40 and MOR. In some markets, add country and R&B. That still applies now. But in today's Beautiful music, which is AC, personalities don't matter. What has hurt personalities is their own lack of credibility and inability to keep up with their core demo. Murray The K wasn't a teenager, but the teens thought he was. Wolfman Jack wasn't black, but the listeners thought he was. Most DJs today are just going through the motions and it degrades the position. They'd be better off going away than doing what they do.

But the other part is that listeners don't need someone to tell them what's cool, or put them in touch with their favorite stars. The artists have bypassed radio and are going straight to the fans. So what role do the DJs play?

Fewer people listen now and they don't listen as long. However you want to define "quality," clearly the audience is not satisfied.

Maybe. Another way of looking at it is they have more choices, more things to do, so less time available to do any one thing. I believe that's the case with radio. We need to recognize the listeners have changed, and we need to change to fit their schedule, not the other way around.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Did people stop listening to soap operas on the radio because TV was available (and better) or because radio stopped offering soap operas? In Britain, BBC Radio 4 still offers dramas, sitcoms, game shows and soaps and they have a substantial following. More of their population listens to radio, they listen longer and radio still has buzz.

One major difference between England and the USA is most of our radio is commercial based, the BBC is state supported. So the BBC could continue to offer dramas, etc, that drew a smaller, yet substantial following, and meet the needs of those listeners who enjoy the radio experience of hearing a drama, soap opera, etc over watching on TV. In America, ratings and demos matter to advertisers. In the mid 1950's CBS aired two different versions of "Have Gun Will Travel" on separate nights. One version on CBS-TV and the other, with a completely different cast and stories, on CBS Radio. I believe that Have Gun has the distinction of being the one show that started on TV and migrated to radio. There were numerous radio dramas on CBS Radio and NBC Radio at that time. I believe they didn't get the greatest ratings (everyone was in love with TV) and my guess is, skewed to the older demos whom the advertisers don't want. That's my guess as to what killed radio drama in the US and why it survived in Britain.

Today, we in the US have NPR which only gets 10% of its funding from the government and the rest from corporate underwriting and listen donations. This gives NPR the ability to do unusual programming that commercial radio hasn't attempted for many years. Yet NPR stations have good ratings and listeners do support their local station to hear that unique radio experience that can't be found on commercial radio in the US today.