The Dumbing Down of Morning Edition?

[fred flintstone]

NPR announces a 2nd morning show, targeting Gen X'ers (also known as The Money Demos) to be available online, on satellite radio, on current member station HD Radio sub-channels, and on public radio stations that don't carry Morning Edition. Program planned for a September launch.

National Public Radio said Wednesday that it was developing a new news and information program to compete with … "Morning Edition" (read more - Lee Margulies-LA Times) .

Sorry for being skeptical here but we've all seen what happens when somebody announces they want to appeal a younger audience. Maybe Morning Edition is just too demanding for those who went through in 70s, 80s and 90s. And wasn't getting younger listeners the stated purpose when they sacked Bob Edwards? I guess that hasn't done it.

 

[redneckriviera]

Oh, they've got the "money demos" now--A35-64. As we've been discussing below, money ain't the problem. NPR and/or its member stations are rightfully terrified that their audience is so damn old that if they don't begin to develop a younger contingent, they'll find themselves with a dead audience in 15-20 years. But that "younger" programming doesn't necessarily need to be "dumbed down," or turned into "lifestyle" news. To draw a less-than-perfect analogy, think about the subtle differences in commercial music radio between Hot AC, Mainstream AC, and Soft AC. Perhaps a bit closer to the mark, think about how Chicago's WGN has warded-off the Death Syndrome for 40 years now--not through radical surgery, but rather through constant, gentle adjustment.

On the other hand, NPR has shown no signs in its first three decades that it has anyone on-board grasping such nuance. We can hope.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Personally I listen to the BBC World. I find their reports and interviews more informative.

Of course NPR wants a younger audience. Most advertisers want a younger audience. Well guess what? Its people my age are the ones with the cash in the bank and (the smart ones at least) with the IRA’s plus other financial investments. In other words my generation has the money to purchase what ad agencies are trying to sell.

Let the advertisers go after generations X Y and Z, who, by the way are up to their collective eardrums in debt because of mortgage and car payments, educating their children, paying off college loans and credit cards.

And by the way, these same young people, God bless them, are not listening to conventional radio. Unlike us "baby boomers" (their parents and grandparents) they have grown tired of the same repetitious formats and the landslide of commercials each hour and instead are downloading their tunes. And they especially are not tuning in during pledge drives, or as I call them beg-a-thons.

 

[fred flintstone]

Boomers have cash in the bank. Gen X, Y, Z are in debt because they are spending money.
Which is why advertisers want to reach them. Even banks, who make money more money from borrowers than savers.

It's amazing how people who work in an advertising medium don't get the basics of advertising, sales and marketing - or of business, for that matter. Maybe that's why radio is such an ill-managed industry.

And yes, younger people are quicker to adopt new media.
Meanwhile, NPR placates the "member stations" by not making live feeds available online or on satellite. If NPR, as a program producer-distributor, ties itself to terrestrial radio, it will go down with terrestrial radio. Same for PRI/APM.

 

[Stewy]

Motivation can usually be traced to the cash flow. My question is would we have seen NPR try this move in the late 80's/early 90's before their public cash flow was stepped on after the Rep take over of congress?

 

[fred flintstone]

Do you really think public radio has problems with cash flow?
On what do you base that?

Do you know what percent of NPR's revenue comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?
And what percentage comes from corporate sponsors?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Do you really think public radio has problems with cash flow?
On what do you base that?

Do you know what percent of NPR's revenue comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?
And what percentage comes from corporate sponsors?

There are two sides of the coin here. Some public broadcasting stations are flushed with operating capital while others barely survive.
CPB is sitting on over a quarter billion dollars that the late Mrs. Ray Kroc donated years ago. Instead of helping out struggling public broadcasting stations across the country by lowering the costs of such programs as Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and other programs, the top executives at public broadcasting decided it would be best to sit on this windfall and use it for other ventures.
Now that the Democrats have taken control of Congress you can rest assured that CPB will be getting even more taxpayer dollars added to their coffers.
Funding for NPR/CPB can be resolved in two ways. Either have a system like they do in England with the BBC, or have more people who listen to public radio and television get off their wallets and donate to their local stations. With the advent of underwriting, plus an infusion of listener capital, maybe some of these struggling stations could actually survive. Another solution (an old chestnut of mine) is for the Board of Directors of some public stations to stop giving their top executives Carte Blanche when it comes to salaries and other perks.

 

[fred flintstone]

Funding for NPR/CPB can be resolved in two ways. Either have a system like they do in England with the BBC, or have more people who listen to public radio and television get off their wallets and donate to their local stations. With the advent of underwriting, plus an infusion of listener capital, maybe some of these struggling stations could actually survive. Another solution (an old chestnut of mine) is for the Board of Directors of some public stations to stop giving their top executives Carte Blanche when it comes to salaries and other perks.

There is a third way: Stop the pretense of non-commercialism. Stop it in the Olympics, big-time college sports and in public radio. So-called "public radio" can support itself with ad revenue and pay taxes like the rest of the industry. They might have to give up high management salaries and executive perks, expensive real estate, fancy facilities and brand new equipment - not to mention all the subsidiary businesses they in which they invest their surplus cash.

And where are these "struggling" public radio stations I keep hearing about? Anytime somebody comes online to point out the bloat, waste and financial excesses in public radio, somebody comes on here to tell us how some/many/most public radio stations are really struggling to make ends meet. I never seen any. I don't know of any. Maybe these are so-called community stations, or educational stations or even the non-commercial hobby stations which function as the personal jukebox of a small group or club. These stations don't meet the criteria under the law as public radio stations and they don't qualify for CPB funding. They are not public radio and a whole other topic. But I don't know of any bona fide public radio stations that are struggling - and I can think of a few small market public stations that are doing nicely, thank you.

 

[clichemoth]

Funding for NPR/CPB can be resolved in two ways. Either have a system like they do in England with the BBC, or have more people who listen to public radio and television get off their wallets and donate to their local stations. With the advent of underwriting, plus an infusion of listener capital, maybe some of these struggling stations could actually survive. Another solution (an old chestnut of mine) is for the Board of Directors of some public stations to stop giving their top executives Carte Blanche when it comes to salaries and other perks.

There is a third way: Stop the pretense of non-commercialism. Stop it in the Olympics, big-time college sports and in public radio. So-called "public radio" can support itself with ad revenue and pay taxes like the rest of the industry. They might have to give up high management salaries and executive perks, expensive real estate, fancy facilities and brand new equipment - not to mention all the subsidiary businesses they in which they invest their surplus cash.

That would destroy the essential character of public radio. You might as well allow CCU and CBS to start buying up frequencies below 92 mhz...Which begs the question: Why haven't the big companies tried a "public-ish" talk format (and no, progtalk does NOT count, although there are a couple of hosts in the format who would work)? The Sunday news shows on network TV are the closest commercial analogue and they're big prestige buys. I'd think such a format would bill extremely well even without great ratings.

 

[fred flintstone]

That would destroy the essential character of public radio. You might as well allow CCU and CBS to start buying up frequencies below 92 mhz...Which begs the question: Why haven't the big companies tried a "public-ish" talk format (and no, progtalk does NOT count, although there are a couple of hosts in the format who would work)? The Sunday news shows on network TV are the closest commercial analogue and they're big prestige buys. I'd think such a format would bill extremely well even without great ratings.

And what - exactly - is the "essential character" of public radio.
I've got a public radio station in my area that plays AAA (Adult Album Alternative). Used to be a commercial station with that format, but not any more.
Another one does News-Talk with Morning Edition and ATC in morning and afternoon drive. Used to be a commercial station that had blocks of serious and in-depth news coverage (OK not quite as serious as NPR) in those periods but not any more.


Yes the format does do well. Which is why public radio stations are doing it. How many public radio stations have dropped music for news-talk in the last few years?
Why haven't the big companies tried a public radio talk format? Public radio has an established franchise for a serious news-talk format. It's a niche that would be difficult for any newcomer to crack. The public radio news-talk format is expensive to do. It requires time and money to build an organization and to build an audience (it took NPR close to 10 years). And if a commercial broadcaster is offering essentially the same programming as public radio, what is the point? No compelling reason for listeners to change. To the extent some listeners do switch, all that you've succeeded in doing is fragmenting the market.

On top of that, there is not a level playing field. Public radio is out selling some of the same advertisers (oops, I mean corporate underwriters) but public radio doesn't play taxes, gets listener contributions and money from the government.

Again, public radio news-talk is a viable and competitive format. And public radio stations are in it for the money - just as other broadcasters do what they do for the money. Whom is public radio trying to kid? Apparently a great many people.